Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scoops Novel]

That would explain the (i hope) now dipping standards of the bbc.

[Sheb]

While that answer is shocking and transphobic, can someone help me with pointing what's wrong with the original article? Implying that transsexual Brazilian look good? I'm just really not sure what the problem is.

[GlyphGryph]

Well I think it started by questioning what the reference was for all at all, I guess. It was the response to the response that actually upset people?

But I'll be honest, I have trouble understanding these sorts of people.

[Leafsnail]

It's a weird generalization and seems to imply she has scorn for them.  It's a really minor thing and no-one was particularly annoyed about it until the really terrible Twitter response.

e: Also Brazil is the world capital of transphobic murders so it's in kindof poor taste

[Sheb]

Actually, reading on some FB page, it seems like it's mostly that other article that made it worse.

[Owlbread]

Basically every newspaper in the UK is pretty heavily biased nowadays, probably as a result of the increased competition with websites as you guys have suggested. I've noticed it mostly since the independence debate started in Scotland two years ago - the Scotsman, a fairly decent newspaper that was about as unbiased as "The Independent" is today, shifted radically towards being one of the most biased broadsheet newspapers in the country (specifically a Unionist-centre-right bias, perhaps because of its ties to the powerful Edinburgh establishment). It's basically the Daily Telegraph now but slightly less up-front with its agendas. I think it's their new editor, who mysteriously won "editor of the year 2012" despite ruining the paper's credibility for people like myself and shifting the newspaper towards reporting with an agenda rather than just reporting. If I want full coverage on a story, I just compare the versions among several newspapers. I can wax lyrically on that subject but it would lead on and on, and probably draw us away from the Guardian controversy.

The Guardian is still a reasonably good newspaper, despite some pretty bad columnists. I wouldn't stop reading it if I were you, Leafsnail.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, and I guess it's actually the Observer editor who made the call on that one (I never read the Observer anyway).

[Pnx]

That would explain the (i hope) now dipping standards of the bbc.

This one might be more a part of the change in the style of leadership, sometime around when the board of trust took over for the board of governors there was a change in the style of leadership away from being something of a not for profit towards trying to make larger profits. At least that's the rumour I heard, not sure how true it is.

[Truean]

More of the same I guess....

It seems no matter what, never good enough/as good as....

I've often found "ists" and "isms" don't get it. Seems feminism is no exception.

[kaijyuu]

In everything there are extremist nutcases with fringe views. I myself have several views that people here have vigorously disagreed with me.

"Feminism" as a whole is pretty much an awesome thing (my only complaint is the name; should be "gender egalitarianism" or somesuch), but that doesn't mean any particular feminist is. And on top of that, someone can have great ideas/views in one category and horrible ideas/views in another. The latter does not discredit the former, so in this case, the original article is a-ok minus that little bit of transphobia.

[penguinofhonor]

I think feminism should be egalitarianism just as much as black rights or gay rights should. Not at all. Why has it become acceptable to criticize feminism for not including men when it's still considered ridiculous to try and say the same thing about white people or straight people?

I guess people attempt to undermine every movement in different ways.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd say that feminism is a subset of egalitarianism, which is in turn a subset of equality.

[penguinofhonor]

I understand that goal. But there's saying feminism is part of egalitarianism, which sounds like it's working towards the ultimate goal of equality, which I believe is true. And then there's saying feminism should call itself egalitarianism, which sounds like feminism is flawed and should change its focus if it wants to achieve real equality.

[GlyphGryph]

I think feminism should be egalitarianism just as much as black rights or gay rights should. Not at all. Why has it become acceptable to criticize feminism for not including men when it's still considered ridiculous to try and say the same thing about white people or straight people?

The homosexual movement was strongly criticized (and rightly so, in my opinion) for quite a while for not extending their fight to cover bisexuals, and often trivializing their issues. Over time, as the movement has gained success, it has grown, and has become the LGBT movement.

This is a good thing, a normal thing. Without this, the incentives for those within the movement are only aligned with failures (successful movements persevere, this is their core attribute, and true success is destructive for it's participants unless the movement is able to evolve).

For feminism... one, women aren't a minority. Two, there is another group with very similar problems, i.e. serious fucking gender discrimination, that is a potential ally. Three, they are having lots and lots of success (though, as always, things take time, but their progress is steady). Finally, they can't actually succeed at their own goal until they DO join with this other group for a more general purpose, and building up resentment by maintaining a narrow focus is detrimental to their own cause.

Gay rights is the perfect example here, I think. It started out as just that, but criticism and success have led them to expand to "sexuality egalitarianism" in the form of the LGBT movement.

I don't think it's too much to ask that feminism grow up a little bit and become part of a larger, more inclusive gender egalitarianism movement.

And as these different groups succeed, and gain power, I think it should be expected they would merge again, until there is no more movement, there is only "the way things are".

To cling to a narrow definition of "feminism", to let feminism be the end, instead of just the beginning, is to doom it to failure right out the gate, in my opinion. If that's the case, it IS flawed, because you've created a movement and organization that in serving it's own best interest will insure that feminism's goals will never actually succeed.

[penguinofhonor]

Gay rights isn't a perfect example. They've taken other minorities and oppressed groups under their umbrella, whether it's bisexuals or transgendered people or anything else in the general queer category. But they haven't focused on straight people, and with good reason: that'd be absurd.

Gays accepting bisexuals is like blacks accepting latino/as. They're another oppressed group. You'd never expect blacks to fight for white rights, you'd never expect gays to fight for straight rights, yet everyone expects women to fight for men's rights. I understand they're not necessarily a minority, but being a privileged group consists of far more than having a greater population.

There's a difference between accepting men as allies to feminism and fighting for men's rights. Feminism has gladly accepted the former, just as many other movements have accepted their allies. But to ask them to fight for men's rights is asking them to do something other movements haven't done. It's asking them to do something other movements haven't needed to do and haven't wanted to do. But the popular "feminists hate men" rhetoric will only be satisfied when they have done this. And when they have, they'll have diluted their movement in a way no other movement has.