Web sites that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[Crissa]

That's not feminism. Of any definition. Certainly not the movement's definition.

-Crissa

[Maj]

That's not feminism. Of any definition. Certainly not the movement's definition.

What?

[Kaelik]

That's not feminism. Of any definition. Certainly not the movement's definition.

What?

Crissa is unaware that things can mean anything besides what she means when she says them.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

That's not feminism. Of any definition. Certainly not the movement's definition.

-Crissa

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/

Crissa is especially prone to this one.

[CatharzGodfoot]

That's not feminism. Of any definition. Certainly not the movement's definition.

What?

From your source:

Feminist theorist and author bell hooks believes that the beliefs of separatist feminists run counter to many of the original goals of feminism, and instead of seeking to create equality, attempt to establish a female-centric and female-dominated society in which men are subjugated and misandry is brought into the mainstream.

Perhaps, as Crissa says, it is better to consider "Separatist Feminism" separate from "Feminism", just as I would keep "Christian Science" separate from "Science" (or "Separatist Lesbianism" separate from "Lesbianism"). I'm just going on the Wikipedia article, though. Take anything I say with a grain of salt.

[Neeeek]

From your source:

Feminist theorist and author bell hooks believes that the beliefs of separatist feminists run counter to many of the original goals of feminism, and instead of seeking to create equality, attempt to establish a female-centric and female-dominated society in which men are subjugated and misandry is brought into the mainstream.

Perhaps, as Crissa says, it is better to consider "Separatist Feminism" separate from "Feminism", just as I would keep "Christian Science" separate from "Science" (or "Separatist Lesbianism" separate from "Lesbianism"). I'm just going on the Wikipedia article, though. Take anything I say with a grain of salt.

Traditionally, there were 3 branches of feminism: 1) Equality (which basically wanted men and women to be treated the same), 2) Difference or Role (which felt that women should have special rights due to how they are different than men), and 3) Dominance (which is the actively anti-male group that gets parodied all the time).

This is traditional, not modern, mind. Third-wave feminism (the current main feminism) is probably best described as "I'll do what I want to, thanks. I want my way. Your (and old-school feminists are arguably the most notable "you" here) roles aren't me."

[Starmaker]

This on Wikipedia:

Hi Adrian!

About your post-deletion comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pompidou centre paris arp,jpg.jpg:

Utterly ludicrous ruling (I took the picture). But sadly there is nothing I can do about it.

I certainly do not doubt, and nor did anyone else, that you took this photo. Unfortunately, there are laws in place in many countries which say that taking a photograph of original architecture creates a derivative work of that copyrighted architecture, and so any photo of it would be a copyright violation. France is among many countries with such (in my view, very absurd) rules, and we're bound to respect the laws of the country in which the photo is taken.

Long story short: a photographer took a pic of a freaking public building in France. And it is illegal, since the building is (c) by the architects and they are still alive and the photo is a derivative work.

I guess Fair Use stopped mattering?

Rule of thumb: it is never a good idea to set laws and rules in place that make people's deaths be a primarily positive thing.

The building of the European Parliament is subject to a similar ban. Effectively, people are banned from having strong positive associations with their supernational symbols (like making a pilgrimage to the center of a supernation and taking a pic there).

The EU (and Wikipedia, fair use / US servers anyone?) can burn in a fire for all I care. Even if it would mean insane exchange rates for the USD.

Note: I do not wish ill to specific countries; the union itself is shit. Also, Russia has similarly retarded legislation, but it is never ever enforced outside of fucking Wikipedia.

[Crissa]

Fair use isn't 'fair use' if it's against the law. If the building or wikipedia were only in the US, it would be fair use. As they're not, it's not.

Alas.

-Crissa

[Maj]

Perhaps, as Crissa says, it is better to consider "Separatist Feminism" separate from "Feminism", just as I would keep "Christian Science" separate from "Science" (or "Separatist Lesbianism" separate from "Lesbianism"). I'm just going on the Wikipedia article, though. Take anything I say with a grain of salt.

When I look up "science" on Wikipedia, I don't get linked to Christian Science. Not even on the disambiguation page. I found that article on separatist feminism a few months ago, though, while looking up "feminism."

[Kaelik]

Yeah, Feminism, as a movement, has always had different branches of the movement.

I mean, is anyone really going to claim that Lenin and Mao weren't communists because they didn't directly follow Marx?

Communism is a movement, amongst other things, and so lots of different things are communism, from Lenin to Voluntary Communal Farms in rural areas of Brazil.

Likewise, Feminism is a movement, and so lots of people have lots of ideas what feminism is supposed to be, and when I say I disagree with some of them, I'm a filthy sexist, but apparently if I had just said "90% of feminists aren't true feminists like me!" that would have been totally okay in Crissa's book.

(Okay, not really, because I would define her as one of the not true ones, ie disagrees with me, in this hypothetical example.)

[Crissa]

Seperatist feminism literally has nothing to do with feminism. It doesn't build ethical models, it doesn't have to do with equality, or even gender. Just biological sex.

If you want, we can link Creationism and Christian Scientists on the wikipedia disambiguation page, if you think they're being left out.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

Seperatist feminism literally has nothing to do with feminism. It doesn't build ethical models, it doesn't have to do with equality, or even gender. Just biological sex.

Once again, we've established that you don't count anything you disagree with as feminism.

You already said that. But you know what, you are still wrong.

Some forms of feminism build ethical models, other's don't. And in fact separatist feminism does build one, it's just a really shitty one.

Some forms of feminism care more about sex than gender. In fact, lots do.

Some forms of feminism aren't about equality, because there is no other possible name for a belief that females are superior to males.

You just pick all the things that you care about, and declare that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is automatically not feminist, because feminists can only agree with you about everything.

This is the most perfect example of a no True Scotsman fallacy that I have ever seen someone make with a straight face.

Seriously, these are the things absolutely required to be feminism in your view:

1) Equality
2) Ethical modelling
3) Not putting biological sex (you know, the thing that caused us to invent the word female, and also, the word feminism, because in the 60s, like 12 people in the entire universe even considered gender different from sex) above gender.

Here's something that you find automatic disqualification for feminism:

1) Focusing exclusively on females, to the exclusion of any consideration of males.

[NineInchNall]

I like how that Psycho Mantis poster on the first comments section I linked said something almost entirely orthogonal to the rape issue and got an angry, Glenn Beck-like response about "detractors obscuring the issue" or something.

So funny. It's like they're incapable of reading what's on the page.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Louisiana is pretty well-fucked.

[Crissa]

Unfortunately, so is Glen Beck.

At least, his mary-sue is.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

In fact, it is because of patriarchy that women were assigned the supposedly unique and mystical power of hunchiness the first place.

-Crissa

PS, there aren't actually that many purple mushrooms. The only purple mushroom that grows on my coastline is edible. And my favorite ^-^

[Maj]

I think might be interested in understanding what that blog article says, but I don't.

But I do recall reading in one of my comparative religions classes about the separation of intuition and reason in Christianity, and I'm reading a book that currently advocates putting them back together.

Also: Bloviate is a totally kick-ass word.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In fact, it is because of patriarchy that women were assigned the supposedly unique and mystical power of hunchiness the first place.

My wife and I were just talking about how there's still a massive gender gap in the 'harder' sciences like mathematics and physics, and why the heck that should be. At the upper echelons, there is often still an honest-to-god male hegemony trying to keep women faculty out. This might come as a surprise to some people (particularly in chemistry and the biological sciences), but there is still often a cabal of 'good 'ol boy' tenured faculty running the search committees of math departments and actively rejecting female applicants. And they still claim that it's just 'natural', because 'at the extremes of ability, there just aren't as many women skilled in math'.

It's a vicious circle: The grognards avoid hiring female faculty, the younger professors don't have any female coworkers (and are free to develop their own unconscious biases), and the students don't have good female role models (and are less likely to progress with the discipline). For whatever reason, the old bastards are taking too long to die off, and are given too much power in the hiring process.

Of course, we can also blame it on not having enough male elementary school teachers (who claim to be bad at math).

[Edit] How do we know that the idea of "female intuition" is a weapon of the Patriarchy? Should it just be intuitively obvious? [/Edit]

[Kaelik]

In fact, it is because of patriarchy that women were assigned the supposedly unique and mystical power of hunchiness the first place.

I remember reading an article almost identical, but with differening word choices in some places, can't be sure if it was Greta, PZ, or 1585 or something linked from one of those three.

For example, the article I read didn't complain that the people in charge are penis Americas, because apparently whoever wrote it was way smarter, and so complained that the people in charge are wealthy.

[Username17]

PZ Myers does a pretty good pastiche on Exactly That.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Well, that answers that question. It was PZ, doing some quoting in his own discussion.

[Draco_Argentum]

If you want to be a famous scientist you need the intuition to go after areas where hard science will discover something Nobel Prizeworthy. Noone has time to conduct every experiment possible, guesses have to be made and thats intuition.

[Maxus]

Y'know, I don't think I've ever seen life-like watercolors before.

[Josh_Kablack]

Did I mention that TVtropes will ruin your life

[Maxus]

http://www.thedrunkenmoogle.com/

Somehow, I'm betting Frank will be willing to try these.