As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

Not true if I was part of starting it. I suppose '75 doesn't really count as the 'start', but certainly was in it's early stages, and I was at many rallies and functions for 'feminism' as far back as then. ;-) It turns out that it's not a group I belong in, as I don't want to intentionally discriminate on the basis of gender....I think that's the problem, not the solution.

Individualism and humanism, as was pointed out above, are already different schools of thought, but are the types of words that are more descriptive of an equality movement was my point, but egalitarian is much closer to the school of thought I subscribe to and what I meant (thanks again Babymech). I was only a "feminist" because I believe in equality for all and see that women are not on equal footing to fight for their own equal rights and needed all the help they could get in securing them, not because I think women have a monopoly on getting unequal treatment or in needing help. So I have been out of place standing with the 'feminist' movement, I suppose. My mistake.

To call feminism by another name - to rebrand it "equalism", "individualism" or "humanism" - is an attempt to remove women from the name of the movement that they created because you don't like how it sounds.

OK, I can agree.
All houses DO matter, but the one's on fire are the one's that need action now.
Stating you are "equal" is not more important that prioritizing the needy IMO, I do see that people do it though.
It just seems to me that "feminism" ignores the needy men that also need protection, even if we need help to get to equality on far fewer issues, and I don't want to do that.

"We" is those like me, that have always supported equality( for over 40 years in my case), but never liked calling that "feminism", as that word implies both separation and a bias, both of which EXCLUDE equality. There are many who think that. My mother is one, it's not just men.

You do not have to fight at all, I don't know why you seem to want to. Because someone suggests that it might be something to think about is not the same as saying 'YOU MAY NOT USE THAT TERM'! You may chose to not think about it if that is your choice, you may chose to think differently. No one is telling you how to think, I'm telling you how I think.

No one said "your wrong to use that term". I said there are reasons it's not a good name for a movement that is NOT based on a female centric, female dominant mindset. No scolding. My choice is my choice, my thoughts and reasons are mine, yours are yours, why are you so looking for me to be scolding you or telling you you're wrong? I'm not doing either.

It is only descriptive if the goals are promotion of purely female causes and rights, but not if the goals are equality....but that means they lose a LOT of people that have called themselves 'feminists' in the past, and not just men.

Um....OK....so forget equality for men then? Any time the equation is in the woman's favor, that's fine, huh? No thanks, THAT'S why we need another name. You can keep "feminism", as I think that's exactly what it describes, "equality for WOMEN, period". 'Humanist' as a concept (as I understand it) excludes that mindset of separate and pit against, it does not embrace and reinforce it.
Equality for people. Period.

Why is it that my stating my thoughts, to you, means I'm instructing you how to think, and stating you must "hew" to my definition? I certainly made no such conscious implication. May I, a man, not have an opinion without being labeled an oppressor of women?

No, clearly you don't understand my reason or goal in stating my thoughts and I feel that you have over-reacted based on that total misunderstanding.

Fine. Then I'm an equalitist. I care about equality and fairness for all people. You may separate and then choose sides, that's your right, your option, and your choice to make for yourself.
EDIT: Make that egalitarian...thank you @Babymech for pointing me to the correct term.

Seconded. You can subscribe to feminism and individualism, or feminism and collectivism, or any other combination of these different schools of thought - one is not 'better' than the others in the sense that a hammer isn't 'better' than a saw or a drill.

The way that the internet is turning actual schools of thought and study into 'teams' to be on is the same mechanism that drives a lot of amateur identity politics. "I don't want to be on team feminist because that team is rude on twitter, so I'll be on team humanist" is a sentiment that works great in vlogs, but which kicks all the actual thought and theory behind humanism and feminism, respectively, to the curb in favor of team politics. This is not to say that we shouldn't have 'teams,' just that we can make up those teams without discarding years of high quality thinking and actual crisp definitions.

@newtboy Uh..dude, "humanist" and "individualist" are already philosophical schools of thought that have determined meanings that aren't anywhere near the realm of feminism (eg, an activist movement for equal rights).

I mean, unless you're trying to stretch humanist to not mean, essentially, secular thought distancing from the dogma of the church and individualist as not the idea of the individual has more weight than collective good or the state. But.. you might have to contend with the fact those aren't the definitions of things you believe you came up with.

Because radical feminists feel that finding a woman attractive reduces her to merely being a sexual object. They feel that you should ignore a woman's appearance or you demean her. Telling a women she is attractive or beautiful is right out, you might as well have raped them on the sidewalk.

Now, please note I said radical feminists, not your normal woman who believes in feminism for equality and rights. Many feminists just want to be treated with respect and equality. Very few, I feel, are rabidly anti-male but they are the loudest voice in most cases.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

What the fuck is this? The people in the crowd are goddamn children (and that's the least effective 'fuck you' I've ever seen) and the people on stage are saying "campus 3rd wave feminism is not a cancer... it's madness!" All these assholes should get real jobs.

So they decided to remake a great move with all woman.

Feminism for feminism sake is not always a good idea.

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

@Jinx

you used a great word:"nuance" and i would add "context".

i know you identify as a social justice warrior,and many here on the sift do as well.i would even include myself on that list in certain instances.

but this video is not addressing the rational and reasonable people who have valid grievances and wish to stand up for:human rights,fairness,justice and equality.

this video is addressing those who abuse political correctness to further their own,personal agenda,dressed up as social justice.these people,who have co-opted,infiltrated and hijacked LEGITIMATE and VALID causes and corrupted them with an irrationality that should,and IS,being ridiculed.

why?
because in the free market of ideas,where there is a free flow of information and dialogue,is the place where bad ideas go to die.

but how do these extremist deal with criticism?
with scrutiny and examination of their call for justice?

well,they simply ACCUSE you of being a:racist,bigot,homophobe etc etc and that is where the conversation ends.the very act of accusing shuts down any dissenting voice by demonizing that person for having the audacity to even question their righteous crusade.

change takes time in a free society.this is a slow process.
so archaic,societal and cultural belief systems take time to shift,but what has ALWAYS been the successful trait in every single victory for social justice is:conversation and discussion.making people aware of the situation and then addressing the problem.

basically it takes people talking about it.

but that is not the tactic we see used by these perpetually offended and faux outraged.THEIR tactic is to shut the conversation down as viciously and violently as they can.they are allergic to dissent or disagreement,and to even attempt to point out the logical fallacies,or incongruities will get you labeled a racist,bigot or homophobe.

that is not justice.that is censorship with a large dose of fascist.

this video makes a solid case for pointing out how a small cadre of narcissistic cry-babies have hijacked groups who had actual grievances and created an atmosphere of fear,anxiety and paranoia simply to promote their own brand of social justice by latching onto real movements...and in the process..destroyed them.

did you SEE what they did to occupy?
or their current slow motion destruction of feminism?
or how about that semi-retarded atheism plus?
good lord..just go watch PZ meyers slowly become a former shadow of himself to pander to these fuckwits.

look man.
even YOU acknowledge that their are some who abuse political correctness for their own self-aggrandizement,and i suspect that even YOU do not identify with this small group of extremists.

well,that is who this video is addressing.

i mean.what fair and reasonable person is AGAINST women having equality or being treated fairly?
who would be AGAINST fighting corruption in our political and economic systems?

but this new batch of social justice warriors are all about THEIR rights.THEIR feelings.THEIR safe spaces and THEIR fascist ideologies on how a society should behave and act.

and if you happen to disagree they will unleash the most vile and vicious tactics to not only shut you up,but lose your job AND,in some cases,abuse a court system to make you criminally libel.all because of THEIR agenda.

free speech is only something THEY are entitled to,YOU get to shut the fuck up.

this ultra-authoritarian,cultural marxism is so anti-democratic and anti-free society,that it must be called out and ridiculed for it's own absurd lack of self-awareness.

they should be laughed at,ridiculed and chastised for the idiocy it proposes.

now maybe we disagree on this,and that is fine.disagreements will happen and they are healthy.

but just know i am not addressing those actual social justice warriors,but rather their more radical and fascist minority that appear to have hijacked the conversation.

and i truly highly doubt you are part of that minority,and if you are?
sorry man.we disagree.

What exactly is valid about gamergate...?

Anyway. These people who can see all privilege except their own, who make mountains out of every molehill, who can't seem to understand nuance, martyrs without a cause... wait - I've forgotten which side of this retarded bullshit I am I talking about. The only people I can think of who whine more about nothing of real consequence than those misguided campaigner types...are those misguided campaigner types. Could you get any more #1stworldproblem than white guys complaining about integrity in games journalism? (please do enlighten me if there is something more to that besides that charade)

Honestly enoch. I don't know you, but you still mystify me completely. I can't reconcile the person who watches and posts these videos with the one who has responded to comments with respect, and even sometimes concession. How do you watch these things without your brain cells forming a puddle around your feet? Are there people who abuse political correctness? Yes, of course - people will and do abuse the best things in life. Like trust or love or welfare or selfies or god knows what else. Is the answer to brand all of these are evil tools of oppression? or, you know, to take a more, err, nuanced position and accept that a few entitled fucks doesn't invalidate occupy, or feminism, or black lives matter etc etc.

gamergate is still retarded though. That shit invalidates itself

I'm rambling. I wish I was a better at this.