Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

Yops, I think you are a FWR regular. Badge is in the post.

Which goes to show - not all FWR regulars agree all of the time. (And at least half of the responses to you on that thread were because you'd deemed it to be potential trolling rather than about your issue with the title phrase!)

"I think, for posters on FWR threads using links to other sources on the Web, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"."

I would agree vesuvia and the thread can get derailed into potential bias of the summary before you get anywhere close to discussing any bias etc of the source.

ClashCityRocker wrote - "... provide an ever so helpful link to an 88-page study full of terminology that I may never have come across - the sole purpose of which is to make me feel like I am obviously too uneducated to take part in the debate - Ie your opinion is not valid.
then
it isn't the use of studies to support arguments that bothers me - if a poster said 'in Brown's 2009 study of XYZ, he showed that blah blah blah' as well as providing the link, that's fair enough."

I think the intention of most posters is to give links to support their own viewpoint or argument, and not for the "sole purpose" of making other posters feel "obviously too uneducated".

Are you saying that if a poster summarises a report, then this would remove the implication you take from unsummarised reports, namely that you feel too uneducated and your opinion is ignored? Suddenly, you would feel educated and feel that your opinion was valid?

My reaction to someone summarising a report, rather than just linking to some web page for me to read the whole report, is that the summary version just saves me time (assuming it has been summarised accurately). It doesn't affect how educated I feel or how valid my opinions feel to me.

If links were summarised more often, rather than just giving a web page link, I expect people would complain that the summaries are biased and inaccurate. Of course, the only way we could know if the claim of bias were true is to read the report in full, anyway.

I think, for posters on FWR threads using links to other sources on the Web, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Indeed Yops. This is a constant problem - the analysing of issues on a broader level as opposed to addressing individual problems.

There is a thing I have noticed about the differences between feminist and non-feminist discussions, and it's to do with assumptions.

There has been a discussion on here started by someone uncomfortable with an aspect of their sexual desires. Now that person titled their OP as 'Why do women do x, and how can we stop it?' There then followed a discourse about what business it was of anyone else, what we get up to behind closed doors. The OP was at pains to point out that really she meant herself, not women as a whole, etc etc.

The FwR regulars were keen to defend the OP - they could see how she really was worried about herself. Some non-regulars had a problem with her language. The title wasn't really ambiguous. It did seem to suggest that this (a.) was a problem for women, and (b.) need fixing.

My long-winded point is not about a clumsy OP title. It's about the use of language, and perception of meaning. Stumbling across that thread title, to a non-FwR regular, it reads as though feminism has found a problem with women, and it needs fixing. To a regular, it was clear what she meant. But most of the world are not feminists, and so it (feminism, or at least the MN FwR brand) can sometimes appear to be more strident and prescriptive than it means to be.

Clash, on your first point about "doing it right" - I have been a SAHM, I'm married and took my husband's name and I go by "Mrs." I am a feminist and I have no worries that I am not "doing it right," nor has anyone, feminist or otherwise, ever said that there's any problem with my choices. Pointing out that there are feminist issues with SAHMing, marriage and taking a married name is not the same as telling women that they shouldn't do these things.
Take changing your name for example.There is nothing inherently wrong with changing your name. The issue is that women are expected to change their name, and criticised for not doing so. There is the idea that men need to "carry on the family name" as though women are somehow not worthy of doing the same thing. Women get erased and lost in public records through the change of name in the way that men don't. And many men simply won't change their names, which gives the sense that names are actually quite important, but only for men because men are important and women are not. The question to ask is: why do women change their names, and why are they expected to change their names, when men are not? What is going on there?
So there is a societal issue with namechanging and understanding that is important for understanding the wider social context around women, marriage and changes of name. That in no way means that women should never change their name or be criticised if they do so. That is entirely their choice and anyone who says a woman who changes her name is not a "real feminist" is an idiot, in my book. Same goes for other things. Why are women the parents who usually stay at home? Why are they expected to stay at home when men are not? What does staying at home mean for women's financial freedom, their sense of identity etc? It's about understanding the implications of society's expectations and examining why women are pushed into certain choices when men are not.

On the second point you make about studies etc. - that's a tougher one to deal with I think. If someone wants to use a study to back up their point then that's their choice IMO. I don't reference studies much but I do point to statistics. So, for example, if someone says "Men and women are equally violent" I will quote statistics to say that simply isn't true, basically because it isn't. Some things simply aren't a matter of opinion. It is true that men commit more violent crime than women and arguing about that just doesn't make sense. Why men commit more violent crime however is entirely up for debate. Part of feminism, IMO is understanding the intricacies of what's going on and some of that requires pretty deep analysis. It can all seem a bit intellectual but I think if you are interested it's worth engaging in it as it explains a lot.

Thanks, clash, that's constructive feedback.

This is probably going to sound a bit stupid, and I hope you take this in the spirit it's meant. - genuine discussion and interest, rather than being goady or arguing for the sake of it, but I would be interested to hear your views.

I feel that feminism can be a bit unintentionally(?) exclusionary towards women.

From the other thread, there were people who's ideological viewpoints were broadly in line with feminism but wno didn't identify as a feminist because they felt that they 'weren't doing it right' and having been previously told on here (MN in general, not the FWR boards) that I can't be a feminist because of XYZ I can see where the feeling comes from.

I suppose it's like a poster upthread said, having the courage of your convictions and saying yes, I agree with this, that and this, I don't agree with that, but I'm still a feminist.

I also feel that some feminists wield outdated, overblown and problematic studies as a weapon towards anyone who challenges their stance. Eg you make a point, someone will simply say 'you're wrong' and provide an ever so helpful link to an 88-page study full of terminology that I may never have come across - the sole purpose of which is to make me feel like I am obviously too uneducated to take part in the debate - Ie your opinion is not valid.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't the use of studies to support arguments that bothers me - if a poster said 'in Brown's 2009 study of XYZ, he showed that blah blah blah' as well as providing the link, that's fair enough.

indeed raspberry.

Believe me, we think more about tone than any other group on MN because we are always hearing about it.

Ah well. Maybe time I moved on, caught up on some reading.

I'm not so fussed about the title :)

I don't think it is ludicrous to suggest that a large group of people who all agree with each other may find they become a little self-congratulatory. Perhaps it is something you should be aware of. Truth and popular opinion are not always one and the same, after all.

MsJam, sorry!

MrsJam, Do you consider the post from Bigbuttons to have been fair? Kind? Necessary? Advanced the thread?

Or just a little negativity to pop on without any associated discussion point?

If you cut us, do we not bleed and all that - this stuff is hurtful.

Nobody is slating you all for being intelligent. And that sounds a bit like the only flaw you will admit to is one with a dual use as a boast.

It's the pettiness, not the complexity. You musn't think that no one has ever argued a point that has caused more creases in the ironing out?

FWR is the only place where posters are slated for having intelligence and for having the audacity to post in a style suited to the participants and subject matter.

There's been plenty of times when posters have asked for an explanation of terms used or for the discussion to be dialled down a bit and those requests are always honoured but why should the posters on here adapt their posting style each and every time simply to suit those who don't wish to engage or want to be able to attack ?

It's okay to shame posters on here and create an atmosphere where they are reluctant to post or to contribute to them leaving. Sorry but I'm not going to take part or pander to those who don't post on here with good intentions.

There is more unpleasantness posted about FWR than there is within FWR, yet FWR posters seem to be expected to ignore that and take it over and over again about how smug they are, how exclusionary they are, how self-congratulatory they are.

I'm done with tugging my forelock.

It wasn't meant to be anything other than they way I see it. It is self congratulatory.

That wasn't very pleasant, Bigbuttons.

I often find myself at odds with aspects of feminism that this board seems to endorse, certainly comments in the past might have been seen as Judgey at best. I have my opinions and I will vocalise them when I find people with a different view point. I have sort of stopped replying when people rather than discuss the point refuse to accept that the facts might be a bit different to what they believe.

In terms of men being moire prone to violence I wonder if it is because the state often demands it of them? Lithuania has reintroduce the military draft but only men will be drafted although women can volunteer. I wonder if that sort of sexism will disappear and both sexes will be drafted?

I can see were you are coming there shackle

I agree twart on equality for everyone I guess it's how you achieve this. I don't feel it's my job to fight for or be vocal about men's rights however I full support them. It's like when the fund raiser for (insert horrible disease) goes round I throw my money in like everyone else but this issue hasn't effected me so I'm not the fund raiser going round if that makes sense. I think rightly or wrongly people campaign for things that affect them directly.

shackle
All those are also my opinion, I just don't identify as or were the badge of feminism.
I also want equality for everyone, regardless of gender.

This is my first post in FWR so handle me carefully! I will start by saying thanks for starting this thread I feel like I am just seeing thing that were right in front of my face for the first time however some of the chat on FWR can get very in depth and my basic knowledge is lacking.

I used to hold some of the same opinions being shared on the other thread but when I asked myself the question I feel is really the relevant "Do women have complete equality?" I would answer is no. Women have come along way thanks to our feminist mothers and grandmothers but there is still work to be done. When there are equal women in parliament to men, same with STEM subjects and boardrooms, when so called women's work (childcare, cleaning etc) is valued and equally done by both sexes, when pay is equal, when the conviction rate for rape increases and I'm sure many more injustices that affect women are combated will there no longer be a need for feminism. This is why I think it's important.

I maybe wanted to post this in the other thread but didn't want to come across as telling people why they should be feminists. Just thought I would share the opposing view of why I think I am a feminist.

Sorry my thoughts are rather garbled and may not pertain to the topic in hand so as you were.

Also before i go I'm a little confused how people who don't think they are feminists are saying this is because men and women have obvious large biological differences but then in the same post say they don't like the anti trans debate (which in my opinion isn't actually anti any trans person) in FWR at the moment. Isn't this a little contradictory?