If someone does something you consider racist/misogynist/hylophobic, don't support them.

Tell others not to and why.

Easy game.

Are you saying we should eat the feminists?

Spoken like someone that didn't grow up in Pennsylvania. Everywhere else in the country people think they're cute and cuddly; in PA, we know that they're 300 pound pigeons that eat your plants, **** all over your lawn, occasionally jump into your house and **** up your ****, and essentially never stop ****ing and reproducing to the point where their population can over-run an area if they're not checked.

They are, however, a fair bit more delicious than pigeons, so I will give them that.

We should start with the HAES advocates; I'm pretty sure they'd have the most marbling.

fourth wave feminists likely would aggravate the circumstances already dire enough to require cannibalism, so they can probably go first on Feminist Island.

this post is juicy

ahoy-hoy, all aboard!

I like the HAES movement. Hadn't heard of it 'til just now.

thanks

Why?

I'm using "anti-feminist" to describe a position or attitude which stands in opposition to feminist movements, and mainly in the present. Perhaps it would be useful to clarify that I do not take "anti-feminist" to mean "male-supremacist", any more than you would take "feminist" to refer to belief in equality such that non-feminists disbelieved in equality.

I'm less familiar with Paglia's work than (say) Christina Hoff Sommers, but all the pieces I've seen were polemics against feminist ideas, and it seems perfectly fair to me to call them anti-feminist.

A few things

1) You are making an argument about usage of a particular word. PS was making (apparently; there is some ambiguity as to why he chose to say "third wave" instead of just feminism) an argument about particular beliefs. You can't demonstrate that the beliefs arise later by making an argument about the usage of terms.

2) The concept of male domination of society (whether called patriarchy or otherwise; and conceived of in various ways) is a fundamental premise to all feminist movements going back to the 19th century. All you have to do to see this is actually read feminist works.

To put it glibly, what exactly do you think the women's liberation movement was trying to liberate itself from? Or, I already referenced Simone de Beauvoir. Male domination of society is a central theme of The Second Sex. Or consider the works of Lydia Maria Child from the 1830s, which embrace both the abolitionist movement and women's rights because she perceived both to be oppressed. It is categorically false to assert that belief in the existence of male domination didn't gain traction within feminist movements until the 90s. There are many other examples.

thisisthinprivilege.org

You're welcome

I don't really read any feminist websites so I can't be of much use. I peruse the Gender and Society blog from time to time.

I also think the SEP has some decent content on feminism, but they might be too dry :P

You'll be pleased to know that my opinion of you has not been altered by this post.

Heavier people as a group have issues to which the group is sensitive.

Various members of the group, and others sympathetic to those issues, will speak out in their own way, if at all.


Some peoples' ways are bad.

But that's not a critique particular to the notion that Heavy People are not doing anything Wrong by being Heavy.

"anti-feminist" can mean a wide range of things. probably better to identify "anti-1st-wave", "anti-2nd-wave", etc.

for example

wrt 1st wave: male supremacy is both necessary and sufficient
wrt 2nd wave: it is sufficient but not necessary


in fact, in some ways, male supremacy is congruent with some currents within the second wave, which the third waved uses to criticize the second wave

Here again, the wave labels do not refer to adequately separable ideologies. Every time I've seen someone on the internet complain about "third wave feminism" while supposedly embracing "second wave feminism" their list of complaints with the former apply just as much to the latter, but they don't realize that because their knowledge of feminism apparently derives exclusively from anti-feminist websites.

I think I separated the ideologies fairly succinctly, and I definitely have exposed myself (trigger warning) to pro-feminist websites.

first wave - women should be educated like men and vote with them because women are people, damnit, and people have those rights

second wave - women are not the same as men. women should celebrate womanity.

third wave - womanity is a repressive structure. individuals seek out what it means to be a woman

i think if you represent what they did well - not a problem. although i have my doubts about people's ability to not resort to pressuring or manipulating others if they believe strongly enough to boycott.

I didn't understand your first version, and I think your second version is both substantially wrong and also very incomplete.

edit: "first wave" is OK enough. Although in the context of the argument that domer made I will point out that the oppression of women (in the sense of being unjustly deprived of rights) is very much a premise of the 1st wave movement. I think your characterization of 2nd and 3rd wave are pretty hopeless.

To give a specific example. Consider your characterizations that "women should celebrate womanity" and "womanity is a repressive structure" and The Feminine Mystique. The arguments that the book makes are much more in line with your characterization of third wave feminism. The book was published in 1963.

Why is it that every or nearly every fast food joint in the US doesn't serve people walking through the drive thru? Why do they all decide to turn away business?

a bit of feminism is really twisted. deciding for groups because they believe what is best for them, or taking away from another group for equality. i get the impression it's usually the latter, but anyway i don't consider every demographic the same so i don't think inequality necessitates corrective action.

I guess i only consider correcting inequality when it makes the overall picture better in some way, but there's no point in fixing one issue to mess up something else.

What do feminists want to take take away from another group in order to facilitate equality?