@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

@choggie

"I do hate when folks take an opportunity with some ancillary issue, attached to a subject of discussion, in order to turn the mob."

You're imparting a motivation to me that I don't have. You can't read my mind or guess my intentions or actions. So I'll tell you what they are: when you say "killary Clitless is a public figure, whose wick drips with the blood, sweat, and tears, of real people. She is not a real person." I am objecting to your use of sexist and degrading language, which is completely irrelevant to Hillary Clinton's politics. When you use that sort of language it is degrading to all women.

Choggie wrote: "just as her sex-addicted, "kept" husband is, whose past impeachable debacles, you would have no problem, joking or musing about, with your pals."

You're trying to read my mind again.

Choggie wrote: "Believe this: If the seven deadly words, were allowed by the FCC in the U.S. on TV, you would soon have Jon Stewart's, and Bill Maher's writers, cranking out expletives, for their sophomore fans..."

No I wouldn't. And I don't like Jon Stewart at all. And Bill Maher is regularly sexist and seldom funny. And you're trying to read my mind again.

"I think Choggie needs to understand that it's not right to use such sexist and degrading language. One wonders if he hates women that much, or if he merely loathes Hillary Clinton, (as do I), and unconsciously assumes that that makes everything fair game."

No qualm, far from hating women, but I do hate when folks take an opportunity with some ancillary issue, attached to a subject of discussion, in order to turn the mob. I suggest I am not as you portray. Skillary Clitless is a public figure, whose wick drips with the blood, sweat, and tears, of real people. She is not a real person. She has mutated into a beast, and is fair fucking game- just as her sex-addicted, "kept" husband is, whose past impeachable debacles, you would have no problem, joking or musing about, with your pals.
Believe this: If the seven deadly words, were allowed by the FCC in the U.S. on TV, you would soon have Jon Stewart's, and Bill Maher's writers, cranking out expletives, for their sophomore fans.....

Accurate is MINK, with the analogous "feedback loop", advertisers are well-versed in the phenom, and monkeys will see and do-meatbots