Should we ban the word Feminism?

[Tiffanytrans]

Fact: Feminism was invented by men. The word feminism itself was first coined in 1837 by French philosopher, Charles Fourier. Feminist and gender scholars agree that it was created among heterosexual middle-class men to respond to the cultural changes occurring at the time. It was created under the system of the patriarchy. And as every feminist will tell you, anything under the patriarchy must be bad. A woman's right to vote was Passed by Congress June 4, 1919 by a majority of WHITE MEN.

Feminism was invented by men, and anything invented by men must be destroyed.

Feminism was created under the patriarchy and therefore must be bad. Get rid of it.

You can't say the word feminism without uttering the word "men" Ewww. Gross. Get rid of it.

No. I DEMAND to keep a gender specific word, even though i could easily call myself an egalitarian, im a hypocrite.

Who cares, this is all semantics, thats why i demand to keep the word. (Makes sense.. right?)

[inhua]

no because banning words violates freedom of speech however the definition needs to be put into proper context

feminists do not actually practice equality despite claiming to support equality. they want women to be equal to men in some ways but completely unequal to men in other ways

you won't hear feminists speak up on this below

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XNrWuZV3jjw

[Stoner710]

You should not be in the word feminism, because feminism is free-speech. Just like the N-word is free-speech I would not say the N-word, but the N-word is free speech for me or you to say. So no, we should not ban free speech.

[Anonymous]

I’m indifferent, but if we’re going to ban a word, let’s ban the word woke first.

[Anonymous]

I've never heard the term outside of this dysfunctional site.

[Soteris]

Sorry, but this is stupid. Feminism is all about getting over the issue of gender so it literally does not matter if a man or a woman invented the word for it.

[Tiffanytrans]

LOL. "Feminism is all about getting over the issue of gender" Lets get over the issue of gender by using a gendered word.
HA!

[Soteris]

Yes, I see no problem with that. Only a child would reason in such a simplistic and intentionally moronic way.

[Tiffanytrans]

Only a child would disregard logic in such a simplistic and moronic way as to not see how its logically contradictory to attempt to get over gender while using a gendered word. Thats like trying to get over racism by calling your movement the N word.

[Soteris]

Oh really? Does that mean we should stop calling the Big Bang the "Big Bang" since that implies that there was something that exploded or whatever? You are getting hung up on semantics when that has no power over us and even worse, you are trying to make an argument that people who dont particularly care about he significance of gender should abandon a word because it is associated with a gender.

I dont even understand how you can come up with this nonsense quite frankly, it makes no sense to me.

[Tiffanytrans]

Yawn. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. The big bang was an expansion. Nice failure tho.
Semantics deals with labels and word relations, not logical validity or cogency. Huge difference.
Nice moving of the goalpost and nice strawman. I never said anything about people who dont care about the signficance of gender. You're the one who said feminism was about people who DO care about gender. You wouldn't say someone was "trying to get over" that which they were indifferent about.

Frankly I'm not surprised someone with your lack of logic doesn't understand simple logic. Persons like that often don't understand things.

[Soteris]

Yes, The big bang is an expansion which is VASTLY different from an explosion and this has made countless people to develop a complete misunderstanding of the science. This problem is actually quite a big deal and many scientists regrets letting the expansion of the universe initially become associated with the word "big bang" for the harm that has caused. Granted, it is mostly something that the media created to talk about the phenomena, but I digress.

It is an example where the words we use to talk about something is causing real actual harm to people, something that I dont think the word "feminism" does. If you argue that we must address the logical contradiction of the word feminism (which I argue is not logically contradicted anyway) then we must also address words like the big bang which is actually a fucking problem.

[Soteris]

As for people who dont care about the significance of gender, those are feminism. That is what feminism is. The belief of equality among the sexes both in law but also to an extent more broadly. People are people and not strictly defined by their gender. What feminists are fighting for is to take things in society that are gender specific and strip the concept of gender away from it to make it fair and equal for everyone.

This is why I think this is particularly stupid. Why would a group of people who tries to destroy the concept of gender in most things care if one gender or another were the ones who created something? It literally goes against the philosophy of feminism to be upset if the word "feminism" was coined by a man or not.

But honestly, this whole conversation is stupid. Language is a fucking mess, the only criteria for if something is good or bad in a language is if it conveys the ideas and intent from one person to another. If I say "feminism" to you, do you think of the philosophy or movement associated with feminism? If so, then great. Words work as they should and dont need to be changed. If you think of Pizza then we might have a problem. This is why "Big Bang" is a problem by the way.

[Tiffanytrans]

LOL. Keep moving the goalposts. This is funny. You keep incorrectly making an association between semantics and logic. They are VASTLY different. You seem to think we can simply make up definitions and words as if human beings can randomly associate a series of axioms however we like. This is comedy.

A ton of people also misunderstand science as a whole, this does not mean that the people who came up with the ideas were wrong on the grounds that some people misunderstand.

there's a difference between making a claim, misunderstanding a claim and that claim being wrong.

An explosions is NOT "vastly" different from an expansion. Wrong again. I could keep refuting you on this point, and you'll igonrantly come back with "DERP" you're not doing it because YOU can't. Like a child. The difference is i dont have to, on the grounds its... 1. Moving the goalposts, and 2 an obvious red herring.
All i have to do is demonstrate that this obvious distraction is a non sequitur and I've done that.

[Tiffanytrans]

The difference between semantics of language and logic is ACTUALLY vast, vs the problem of misunderstanding a claim.
For example, regarding the big bang Einstein’s relativity puts no constraints on how fast the distance between the objects can grow — i. e., no constraints on how rapidly space between the objects can appear. It is possible for the distance between two objects to grow much, much faster than the speed of light. This is no contradiction with relativity.

This idea that misunderstanding of words, changes the science or has any real significance with actual theory is comedy.
Language is a 2 way street, i can explain something to you but i can't also understand it for you too.
The fact that people misunderstand what was said about an idea is NOT 100% the fault of the person delivering the message.

I can tell someone like you how wrong you are all day, but you will NEVER see that you are.
Just like i can show 2 things to a brain damaged person and say.. "see? This thing and this other thing means there's 2 things, its called math!"
And he's going to reply "Derp! Thats just semantics!"

Furthermore, you have made another claim which was "You are getting hung up on semantics when that has no power over us "
And then you said repeatedly "we must also address words like the big bang which is actually a fucking problem."

If something is "actually" a fucking problem then its not "subjectively" a fucking problem.
Which means, you, once again are contradicting yourself.

Just like your first claim where you said feminism meant x and now it means Y.
Semantics is also not language, and its also not logic. They are not equivalent.
You keep arguing like they are.
Once you convey an idea and you admit this idea means a particular thing, and you also convey another idea that it also means a particular thing, you dont get to say those things are the same if they are not.

Thats the difference where your brain seems to be lacking the power to understand.

[Soteris]

No, I have not moved the goal post. If you go back to literally my original message then you will see that I very specifically said "Feminism is all about getting over the issue of gender" and I said that because feminists are trying to remove gender concepts from society. As such, they would be the last people to care about the gender of whoever coined the word we use for their title.

This was my original statement and I have not moved an inch from this spot. Everything surrounding this has just been trying to educate you on things you should already have known before you even spoke to me on the topic. You see, usually you educate yourself first before you form an opinion on the subject, you should try it once.

As for people making up meanings and words on the spot? Yepp. That is literally how it works. Words are just words, they have no influence on the real world and more often than not they are completely arbitrary without a connection to what they actually describe. Only an idiot would try dissect an English word to try understand what it means, that is not how things works. You have to look it up in a dictionary which actually makes the connection between the word and its meaning..

[Soteris]

That is because languages are the medium for transmitting thoughts and emotions. If I can make myself understood then it does not matter what the medium itself is. As long as we agree on a word to mean something it can be literally anything and even according to yourself, we have already agreed on the word "feminism". Case closed.

Also yes, an expansion is incredibly different from an explosion, especially in the subject of physics. For example, in an explosion there is a release of energy where as in an expansion there is no release of energy. They function vastly differently.

Lastly, I am not actually trying to change the word for "Big Bang" but pointing out that if we were to go down your route of attempting to moderate language then we would have to because there are countless examples like with "Big Bang" which has been chosen poorly and causes problems

[Tiffanytrans]

Actually you have repeatedly moved the goalposts. Moving the goalposts means "Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied"

Bringing up the big bang after i have shown an obvious contradiction in your logic is not addressing the fact that i have demonstrated your logic contradicts.
Demanding i refute a semantics argument regarding the issue with the big bang is by definition demanding that i address another point after i showed the logic of your initial point is false.

"As such, they would be the last people to care about the gender of whoever coined the word we use for their title."
This is whats called an ad hoc rescue, which occurs when someone comes up with a rationale or explanation to dismiss the counter-evidence to their claim in a bid to protect it
Nice failure. This does not refute the claim that you have been moving the goalposts, nor does it address the fact that your initial claim contradicts.

Again, making a gendered word for your movement when you're trying to "get over" gender is a logical contradiction.

That was your initial claim and you have moved it to semantics and the big bang and you have moved the goalpost off the field. The goalpost is in the highway getting struck by cars. You just dont have the brainpower to see it.

[Tiffanytrans]

"As for people making up meanings and words on the spot? Yepp. That is literally how it works. "
I knew you were this ignorant. I called it.
HA. No its not. You couldn't be more wrong.
Definitions of words were made to define something to say this idea points to something.
Once you say this idea has these particular properties and you explain these properties objectively mean this particular phenomena and its understood by both parties, you do not get to say those properties are identical when you just agreed they were not.
HA!
Wrong.
"Words are just words, they have no influence on the real world "
HA. Thats wrong too.
Awesome. How old are you? 4?

" If I can make myself understood then it does not matter what the medium itself is."
Incorrect. The medium matters if the person does not understand the medium.
The logic of that statement is horrendous.
That statement suggests "understanding" is the most important or only criterion for transmitting a thought. But if the medium itself presents a problem with "understanding" then it matters.
Thus the medium matters.

" As long as we agree on a word to mean something it can be literally anything "
WRONG.
Once we agree to what a word means, that's precisely ONE reason why it can't be "literally anything."
You can't then say, well it means men are superior now.. because reasons.
I mean you can, but then everyone will see your dishonesty, among other issues with doing that.

This is one reason of many why this is not "semantics". Case closed.
"They function vastly differently."
Nope.
They're different. Not vastly different. Fail.
You know what are vastly different though? Language, cogency, semantics and logic.

"but pointing out that if we were to go down your route of attempting to moderate language "
Strawman.

[Soteris]

Thats not what moving the goalpost is. Moving the goalpost would mean that I have dismissed your argument and demanded a different one or greater one. I have not. The conversation has progressed towards other topics as you flail about in your ignorance and I have to explain all these things to you but the fundamental subject has not changed nor been addressed by you.

In fact, by all accounts it has been you who moved the goalpost. You first asked about if we should ban the word "feminism" at which point I responded that we should not and your argument for why it should even be considered is stupid when considering the subject. INSTEAD of addressing me you however responded with "Lets get over the issue of gender by using a gendered word." which had nothing to do with the current conversation and at that point you moved the goalpost to include gendered words and all that semantic nonsense.

Bringing up the Big Bang had two purposes. First to show that moderating language is a pointless and endless endevour because there are countless words that needs to be fixed in English to "make sense" ans secondly, to point out that the literal meaning of a word is not relevant to the real definition. If Feminism is gendered or not has no effect on what it actually means.

Furthermore, claiming that a gendered word changes anything for a group of people that dont care is about as weak of an argument as you can make. What you said is literally refuted by the first thing I responded to you with. Try to keep up.

There is however something I have kept in my back pocket. A trap card if you so wish. You see, the reason the feminist movement is called "feminist" today has nothing to do with it being a gendered term. It is a historic reference to where the movement began, that is its true and actual meaning in regards to modern feminism. Something which it is perfectly suited for and does not require to be changed.

[Tiffanytrans]

The goal posts moving is literally copied and pasted.
Funny enough, under YOUR definition you have also done precisely that.
By bringing up a non sequitur of the big bang involving semantics that has nothing to do with logical cogency is by your own definition moving the goalposts.
Because it either intentionally ignores the argument or unintentionally does.
To address the topic of semantics would be tacitly admitting that semantics and logic are functionally the same. They aren't.
The conversation has moved towards other topics because you have moved them there.
I have simply been refuting those points too not because its relevant to the point.

[Tiffanytrans]

there's a difference between refuting a rebuttal and moving the goalposts.
Of course its going to look like moving of the goalposts to a child when you strongman your opposition and do so in such a false way.
This is not "moderating language" Or semantics. Second, to show that even in semantics and definitions of words it is NOT pointless and endless en-devour because even if we were to fix words in the English language that would not "fix" semantics, according to your own flawed view of how words work.

Third, to point out that it simply does not need to be a "literal meaning of a word" or even relevant to the real definition in order for an idea to contradict itself.

Furthermore, your initial argument was that feminists care, not that they don't.
"Feminism is all about getting over the issue of gender"

First claiming that feminism means they want to "get over" gender and then changing it to they don't care, is actually WORSE than the weakest possible argument. Its a contradiction. At least with a bad argument it might possibly be true.
What you said, is literally refuted by the first thing i responded to you with.
Try and keep up.
Pro tip. Your trap card is trash. Throw it away. It makes you look more ignorant than you already do. It does not matter if something isn't intended to be something, if it in fact is that thing anyway.

[Tiffanytrans]

1. Feminists are so indifferent to gendered language that, the term Womxn, along with the term womyn, has been found in writing since the 1970s to avoid perceived sexism in the standard spelling, which contains the word man.

2. Feminist linguists have been in dialogue with feminists in other disciplines since
the field’s formation.

3. Feminists (and other progressive types) talk a lot about ‘inclusive language’,
So, what is the current analysis? What do feminists mean when they say a word or expression is ‘not inclusive’? Typically, their objection is based on one or more of the following observations:

1. That the word is formally masculine rather than gender-neutral/unmarked;
2. That the word originated as a sex-specific term denoting or describing men;
3. That standard dictionaries describe the word as referring exclusively or primarily to men.

Feminism isn't gender neutral and the standard dictionaries describe the word feminism as the advocacy of WOMENS rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Now go ahead and argue the word women isn't viewed as gendered language.
Lol.

Fail.
But even if that all wasn't true, your initial rebuttal contradicts itself which again, has nothing to do with semantics.

[ImHere22]

Feminism is about bringing about equality to the genders

[DarkLegacy]

It is funny how you get away with all the trolling you do on this site

[Anonymous]

Are you referring specifically to the word, or also the fucked up group it represents?

[BootsLover94]

Lol wtf I just read

[MementoMori777]

Wouldn't effect me at all lol

[WhitneySnow]

No. Feminism is cool.

[OddBeMe]

Your logic needs work.

[Tiffanytrans]

Nope. Your logic does. See how easy that was?

[OddBeMe]

Sure, for the schoolyard. Not in philosophical circles, darling.

See, whoever coined the term doesn't “own” it or have really anything to do with it. In fact, Hegelian logic would have us ignore most of feminisms history when discussing if it should be banned. And just focus on the now.

[Tiffanytrans]

You started with a schoolyard argument so i responded in kind, bro.
A person who coins something has, by definition something to do with it. To say someone has nothing to do with something would mean he didn't even coin it. Many people argue against Hegel and do so very effectively. You haven't proven Hegel correct, so therefore your attempt at a rebuttal fails.

Your logic is terrible.
Read a book.

[OddBeMe]

I’m supposed to respond now with I’m rubber and your glue? Here I thought girls were supposed to be more mature….

Just in leaving, try only judging feminism based on today’s average feminist.

[Tiffanytrans]

Nobody made that claim. Here I thought men were supposed to be logical.
Just in leaving, try actually reading my post instead of assuming the average feminist doesn't agree with the premises, because they do.

[OddBeMe]

Nobody made that claim? You’re on a. question asking to ban the fckin word.

[Tiffanytrans]

That was me responding to your last comment. Genius. You said "I’m supposed to respond now with I’m rubber and your glue?"
Nobody made 'that' claim. Learn to read.

[OddBeMe]

Wow, care to respond to the actual issue? Banning feminism? So much of your hatred of it is ancient shit or stereotypes.

[Tiffanytrans]

Wow, care to respond to what I actually said by learning to read? None of my hatred of it is ancient shit or stereotypes. I'm not surprised you think so, given your comprehension issues.

[OddBeMe]

Ah I’m good.

[Snakeyes7]

No, it is a violation of freedom of speech.