*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 12:10pm PST - promote requested by enoch.

You're right, without feminism nobody would have a problem with what he said. Feminists are the only people who pay attention to reality or indeed have ever met any actual women.

Without feminism, people DIDN'T have a problem with what he said for thousands of years.

If you have a problem with what he said, you are, by definition, at least a little bit feminist.

History just wasn't as universally sexist as it's made out to be. There were always smart people who saw through it.

Even in the modern era women were voting, working and ruling entire empires before feminism as we know it even existed.

Would you accept the argument that if you believe we should help the poor, say, or generally treat one another with understanding, then you're a little bit Catholic?

There may have been smart people, but they didn't have any noticeable effect.

Seriously, do you know when raping your wife became a crime in the UK (a relatively progressive country)? 1991. I was 14. I remember seeing it on the news and being shocked.

It is still legal to rape your wife in large parts of the world. (yes, some of that is disputed, point still stands).

Not sure what you mean by "the modern era"? Women were certainly working, and have been since the dawn of man. Ruling empires? Occasionally, but only ever because their fathers were kings/emperors. Victoria might have ruled over the British empire, but if she was a commoner, she couldn't even have voted. NZ was the first country to extend the vote to women in 1893. Suffragettes are still considered to be "first wave feminists" (although I dislike the whole "xth wave" terminology).

And no, I wouldn't accept that argument, because helping the poor, treating each other with understanding, etc are not uniquely Catholic concepts; they're not even the core concepts of Catholicism. In fact, Catholics have been historically pretty goddamn awful on the whole " treating each other with understanding" front.

OTOH, feminism is, again by definition, the concept of equality for women.

@ChaosEngine

Do you honestly believe that we can't oppose things like institutional rape without reference to this single recent ideology? This is equivalent with the idea that humanity only learned theft and murder were wrong when Moses turned up waving the ten commandments at the israelites. It's lucky God clued us in when he did or we'd all still be unabashedly robbing and killing each other today.

Feminists might use the definition you mentioned, when it suits them. Of course they do; they're the popular faction: ideologues always want to fold all notions of moral goodness into their particular cult. Catholicism was the same way when they were the only game in town.

You yourself don't even use that definition, you can't because no one can. Look at the first couple of comments you made on this video. It's impossible to read them as dealing with a basic concept rather than what feminism actually is, which is a complex modern movement that certainly postdates the suffragettes.

If feminism is strictly the concept of equality for women, then feminism has been around FOREVER and until in historical terms about five minutes ago, according to you, 'didn't have any noticeable effect'.

I never said you can't oppose institutional rape. That was a counter-example to your "history wasn't universally sexist" point. I thought that was pretty clear.

I'll concede that sexism wasn't universal, but nothing is, so that's a completely meaningless point. I was illustrating that history in general has been pretty fucking awful to women.

As for that definition, it's not mine. I actually looked it up before I used it to make sure I wasn't using it incorrectly.

"the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities"
- Merriam Webster
"The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
- Oxford
"Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women"
- Wikipedia
Do I need to go on?

And yes, the concept has been around for ages. Support for the concept is relatively recent and has brought great change.

That said, I will concede that feminism is both a concept and a movement in support of that concept.

And we still desperately need both, and not just for women.
Even Hitchens said:

"We already know the cure to poverty...it's quite simply, the empowerment of women."

@ChaosEngine

So yeah, there's a lot of common ground. Of course there is: values can overlap ideologies; something that, let's say, 'the kind of feminism I dislike' refuses to allow. Everything that says women should be treated reasonably is feminism, which gives us the credibility to declare that anyone who opposes any aspect of feminist doctrine hates women.

I think the concept you're talking about is a part of the makeup of any rational person's mind, and indeed advocacy on its behalf is still necessary. I don't think the particular movement that grew around that advocacy in the latter half of the 20th century is still useful, and I say that it was flawed from the first, even as those flaws were mitigated in the short term by what it accomplished.

It's important to maintain that distinction, and I would strongly prefer that this basic concept wasn't referred to as 'feminism'. Dictionaries describe usage rather than determining reality, and in this case as in so many others I think the majority have got it horribly wrong.

edit: Something of an academic and unnecessary addendum, but I've heard Hitchens say that a few times and I always winced when he did. It's a little trite. The kind of cure he's talking about, birth control, could just as easily be effected by forcibly sterilising women after their first or second child. What he might have said, somewhat less snappily, was, "The empowerment of women, an excellent goal in itself, also handily has the effect of countering explosive population growth and adding more skilled workers to the economy."

@gorillaman, I admit I'm veering close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but equally, I never claimed that all feminists were sane and moral people.

The difference is, I think most people these days are reasonably feminist and I think the vast majority of them are not man-hating nutjobs. There's undoubtedly a lunatic fringe, but that's the case for every group/ideology.

I also agree that meanings change over time. "national socialism", shorn of its historic baggage, doesn't sound that terrible. But we know that what it actually signifies is actually national fascism, racism and other abhorrent concepts.

The question is at what point the lunatic fringe comes to represent the whole. For example, at one point the Republicans were once the party of small government and fiscal conservatism, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to describe them as anything other than the party of religious nutjobs and idiots.

I don't feel feminism has been hijacked to the same extent. I believe there are still a lot of normal rational people who describe themselves as feminists (I'd like to think I'm one, for a start).

Finally, I'm with Joss Whedon.... "feminism" is a terrible word, but ultimately, "You either believe women are people or you don't. It's that simple."

just so everyone knows, gavin mcinnes is essentially a professional asshole. he was one of the 3 people who started vice mag (to get money for more drugs) then got booted out 'cause he's, well, just an asshole. i'm not totally sure what he believes but i'm pretty sure he thinks this is all hilarious.

@ChaosEngine

Certainly most people who call themselves feminists are basically alright. We might say the same of those catholics from a few comments ago, without owning that the full structure of their faith is a good one. There may even be decent republicans somewhere.

I'm glad that, in the end, we're in complete agreement that 'feminism' is a terrible word.

Holy shit, did we just have an internet discussion about feminism that ended in civil discourse?

Fucking hell, that's gotta be a first.

I feel an overpowering urge to descend into hyperbole and vitriol!

Does noone realise that Gavin McGuinness is a comedian..?
I'm pretty sure hes just doing this to get a rise.

Hes the co-founder of Vice....that fairly left leaning media organisation. Who here HONESTLY thinks this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL61JreooRk

..actually believes the shit he was saying here...?

I think it's pretty apparent by the articles below, he's a professional troll. I'm sure fox knows what he is and has him around cus hes good for ratings. Kinda surprised TYT got sucked in. Hmmm maybe they are just as bad as the rest of the media when it comes to checking out who and what they are reporting on OR maybe they know and are doing it for the clicks. That would be disappointing but not surprising.

"It became irresistible to goad people and corner them into conversations about controversial politics because they were so hysterical and easy to anger," McInnes wrote, trying to explain how he had been misquoted as a white supremacist in a news article because of a prank he'd pulled. "Plus, incendiary political statements garnered endless publicity for us, and playing with mainstream media became a fun game."

The full article tells the story i think
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gavin-mcinnes-interview-im-not-796177

A letter he wrote to gawker long ago on his antics
http://gawker.com/013468/letter-to-gawker-from-gavin-mcinnes

@ChaosEngine
I would say you were onto a more useful definition of feminism in the beginning of the thread... all decent human beings in modern times must believe women are people; but they would only be feminists, if they are trying to reshape society's institutions to reflect that. Feminism, as you point out, would then be the civil movement with actual goals to achieve, whereas treating women with decency is a personality trait or a matter of good upbringing, without any specific goals. You can be either decent or a feminist, both, or neither.

A lot of people - conservatives, progressives, religious folk, etc. - believe women are people,* and treat women with respect in individual interactions, because they're decent folk - but they aren't actively trying (except by non-participation) to change the laws, cultures, or conditions that put women at a disadvantage. The ones who are feminists, OTOH, are the ones who, in accordance with their strategy and in their context, are trying to enact change.

In this way, being a decent person doesn't qualify or disqualify you as a feminist, just as being a screechy asshole doesn't qualify or disqualify you as a feminist - it's all about whether or not you are participating in the movement. I'll admit - my definition excludes a lot of people who call themselves feminist, and it includes a few people who wouldn't call themselves feminist - but still there's something about this definition that seems so much more, I don't know, useful, than saying 'you either believe women are people or you don't.'


*To take a slightly extreme example, I'm sure many Saudis would be adamant in saying that they believe women are people, it's just that they don't believe all people should drive cars. Such as, for example, women and children.

binary worldviews attached to identity politics or nationalism or religion is a dangerous policy to adhere to,because it leaves us all vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

it limits discussion and discourse and creates an atmosphere of self-righteous delusion and breaks complex dynamics down to an overly-simplified worldview:

"if you are not with us..you are against us".

This is EXACTLY the clip & point I wanted to make.

There's no way he actually believes this.

I hope.

I know right! I actually felt like there was an appreciation of nuance! Well done to both of you. I'm going to finish this comment and go play videogames before I ruin it.

They pretend to hate him so they can say how neutral they are? Not sure since I didn't watch the video.

wow. Heated discussion. Who really cares about this shit. Equality is happening daily in all types of jobs. Haters gonna hate!!!!!!

Well played, well played.

I completely agree that the guy is just playing a role. It's fox news after all. He may not actually believe the shit he spouts.

but a non-insignificant amount of the geriatric fox viewership undoubtedly believe what he says.

This entire discussion is why I love the 'Sift. It is one of the last places on the internet where we seem to be able to discuss topics with passion and without hate.

If you watch some of the other pieces of media this bearded douche has appeared in, you would know he is just as bigoted as he appears.

I find new wave feminists to be rather hypocritical. All feminists should really just be humanists. Equal rights for all, not special treatment just for women.

assuming one defines feminism as "the sexes should be equal"

...then the word is redundant. we already have words that describe one that supports equality.

It's become a completely meaningless word because everyone views the word differently.

some people view feminists as "man haters" Im sure there are some out there. That's the problem with any 'ism. There's always a group that takes it way too far. but I'm pretty sure they are a small small minority.

But we see this in other themes as well. Try to give women equality, and somehow that gets interpreted as being a man-hater.
-Try to promote equality for african americans, and that gets interpreted as hating whites.
-Try to promote LGBT rights and that gets interpreted into the idea that LGBT is something that can be "caught" like a cold.

It's rampant insecurity. promoting rights for others isn't going to take your rights away.

I didn't know Hannity could cringe...that was awesome.

Good retitling.

Which brings up the question or which is worse? Spouting abhorrent shit he actually believes, or spouting abhorrent shit he doesn't believe to make a buck?

Personally, I just can't decide...they're both pretty fucking bad.