(no subject)

I was going to post this comment on the entry itself, but it's too goddamned long. Five comments-worth of response. I... wouldn't feel right cluttering up someone else's journal with THAT MUCH me.

The entry in question. Be warned, it's a doozy.
( A Response to Dia )

(no subject)

I was going to post this comment on the entry itself, but it's too goddamned long. Five comments-worth of response. I... wouldn't feel right cluttering up someone else's journal with THAT MUCH me.

The entry in question. Be warned, it's a doozy.
( A Response to Dia )

(no subject)

I was going to post this comment on the entry itself, but it's too goddamned long. Five comments-worth of response. I... wouldn't feel right cluttering up someone else's journal with THAT MUCH me.

The entry in question. Be warned, it's a doozy.
( A Response to Dia )

(no subject)

I have to thank Dia for getting me to re-evaluate many of my views about gender. I've seen descriptions of "liberal feminism" that don't horrify me, but I think that's because they're closer to my view and further from the extreme and occasionally separatist views of what we're calling, for today, feminism.

First: Feminism ignores lots of stuff I think is important.
*The potential for more than two genders.
*The consequences of culture for all genders except women.

Second: Equalism doesn't seem sexist.
*Egalitarianism is good.
*Unless I'm grossly misreading the aims of feminism (which I've done once already in the past 12 hours) this is the end goal of feminism anyway.

Third: If we accept that Ashley thinks sexism is bad, and ignoring things is bad... Ashley makes a poor feminist and a better equalist.
*Ashley believes there can be more genders than male and female.
*Ashley believes that the relationship between these genders is more complex than one oppressing the other.
*Ashley believes that if the end goal is equality, we should start with equality.
*As a result, Ashley only likes the forms of feminism that are closer to equalism. This probably means Ashley is an equalist. If that's a word.

As I told Dia... quite often I want feminists to succeed. But just because feminists and I are not always at cross-purposes doesn't mean I like the worldview. It doesn't mean I'm a feminist, and it doesn't mean I have to like them.

Most importantly, it doesn't mean I'm part of the problem.

I don't like feminism. There. I said it.

(no subject)

I have to thank Dia for getting me to re-evaluate many of my views about gender. I've seen descriptions of "liberal feminism" that don't horrify me, but I think that's because they're closer to my view and further from the extreme and occasionally separatist views of what we're calling, for today, feminism.

First: Feminism ignores lots of stuff I think is important.
*The potential for more than two genders.
*The consequences of culture for all genders except women.

Second: Equalism doesn't seem sexist.
*Egalitarianism is good.
*Unless I'm grossly misreading the aims of feminism (which I've done once already in the past 12 hours) this is the end goal of feminism anyway.

Third: If we accept that Ashley thinks sexism is bad, and ignoring things is bad... Ashley makes a poor feminist and a better equalist.
*Ashley believes there can be more genders than male and female.
*Ashley believes that the relationship between these genders is more complex than one oppressing the other.
*Ashley believes that if the end goal is equality, we should start with equality.
*As a result, Ashley only likes the forms of feminism that are closer to equalism. This probably means Ashley is an equalist. If that's a word.

As I told Dia... quite often I want feminists to succeed. But just because feminists and I are not always at cross-purposes doesn't mean I like the worldview. It doesn't mean I'm a feminist, and it doesn't mean I have to like them.

Most importantly, it doesn't mean I'm part of the problem.

I don't like feminism. There. I said it.

(no subject)

I have to thank Dia for getting me to re-evaluate many of my views about gender. I've seen descriptions of "liberal feminism" that don't horrify me, but I think that's because they're closer to my view and further from the extreme and occasionally separatist views of what we're calling, for today, feminism.

First: Feminism ignores lots of stuff I think is important.
*The potential for more than two genders.
*The consequences of culture for all genders except women.

Second: Equalism doesn't seem sexist.
*Egalitarianism is good.
*Unless I'm grossly misreading the aims of feminism (which I've done once already in the past 12 hours) this is the end goal of feminism anyway.

Third: If we accept that Ashley thinks sexism is bad, and ignoring things is bad... Ashley makes a poor feminist and a better equalist.
*Ashley believes there can be more genders than male and female.
*Ashley believes that the relationship between these genders is more complex than one oppressing the other.
*Ashley believes that if the end goal is equality, we should start with equality.
*As a result, Ashley only likes the forms of feminism that are closer to equalism. This probably means Ashley is an equalist. If that's a word.

As I told Dia... quite often I want feminists to succeed. But just because feminists and I are not always at cross-purposes doesn't mean I like the worldview. It doesn't mean I'm a feminist, and it doesn't mean I have to like them.

Most importantly, it doesn't mean I'm part of the problem.

I don't like feminism. There. I said it.