I agree those are never prefereable...

but don't understand the "especially" part. That sort of dismissiveness is never preferrable, whether one is or isn't effected by the social injustice being discussed. And being effected by that social injustice shouldn't be an excuse for being dismissive of others, as I often see it being. If a woman is dismissive to another woman that way, is it preferable to a man being dismissive to a woman that way? I think they're equally not preferable. The reasons behind the dismissiveness may be different, but neither are more or less preferable.

I just saw a thread where the viewpoint that MacFarlane's skit was a parody was given, and responses that did not address this viewpoint at all, but rather dismissed the opinion as merely the product of a "good ol boy" system, for example. That's just talking over and not listening, and exacerbates the problem, regardless of who has what privilege.

Dismissiveness all around needs to stop, they just feed each other otherwise.

I think everyone should listen....

to each other, whatever people percieve of each other's privilege.

I see women who disagree with what is defined as "sexism" by some other women get talked over and shut down as much as men. I see men get shut down on account of their gender, even if they are listening. Shutting down and talking over people because of assumed experiences or percieved privilege is just as bad. Many times, their reasoning/logic isn't even addressed, they are just attacked personally in ad hom fashion, which is "talking over" and "shutting down" instead of listening.

That's what happens when you tell a person what they think...

you take away their own experiences/voice, then call it whiny BS? Good luck with that strategy.

For the same reason good women are passive nt

It's not what I'm doing here...

I'm not defining it. I don't know why you are accusing me of things I'm not doing. It's like you want to be intentionally combative.

I'm not saying gender neutral...

or equity per se, just gender equality, which would look at issues of both genders. Equal pay may overwhelmingly be something that effects women negatively directly at this time (though men are effected negatively secondarily in many ways), but the concept itself is not about just one gender. It's a concept that should apply in all circumstances now and forever in all industries. Equal pay is not just a women's issue in other words, and in the future who it effects can and will change as the economy and society changes.

Feminism has a lot of definitions...

and if that's what you think it is about, then you are right it's not about gender equality and shouldn't include men if advocating only for women is their goal.

There are quite a few others that disagree with you on that definition though, including women, if that adds legitimacy, so I guess it's not surprising that people will claim to be feminists with the understanding it's about gender equality.

I suppose a new word for gender equality is needed, but I think feminism was thought to align with that general principle in so many ways already that few thought it was needed, or even that feminism has evolved to include both genders (despite the "fem" part). Maybe a new word is needed though to avoid confusion.

No, that's not my stance...

My stance is that movements for racial equality are not just about blacks, movements for gender equality are not just about women, etc. etc.

If your advocacy group is just about blacks, then you may indeed align your group with a wider social movement that is for racial equality, just like if your advocacy group is just about whites, you may back in the day unfortunately align your group against that social movement for racial equality.

In other words, social movements are seperate from advocacy groups based on identity, and while they often overlap, they are not the same.

The women's movement is about women, the black movement is about blacks, etc. etc., they aren't about specific ideas or ideologies like social movements. So yes, these groups will only have members and leaders that, for the most part, fit their group identity. But for a larger idea, like racial equality, that requires a movement, racial equality doesn't apply to just blacks, or gender equality to just women. It applies to everyone. The movement is based on an idea, not advocacy for only one group.

There's a reason the women's movement and the black movement, as just one example, clashed at times (as all identity politics groups can and do). It's because their advocacy for their own group came at the expense of another group at times, because the well-being of their group was the primary goal, not a broader idea.

There definitely is tension created when one advocacy group becomes part of a larger social movement and then works against other advocacy groups who are also in that social movement on other issues.

Nope

If a social movement is about gender equality, then it is not a women's movement. Simple as that.

I'm not defining the women's movement, because a women's movement is about women's equality or women alone, not about men too.

I'm all for women controlling their own advocacy groups. The movement for gender equality is not a women's advocacy group though.

It seems you want to define "gender" to mean "women only". Funny how you project that onto me.

I didn't define feminism here, there is no one definition is why. So I just laid out what the goals of a social movement are. If the goal is only women's equality, then it's a women's advocacy group, plan and simply. If it's gender equality, then it's a society-wide movement, not limited to one group.

If men don't have any leadership or members, then yes, the movement will be all about women, and end up being just another advocacy group based on identity rather than a social movement. If that's what you want, go for it. There are already men who want similar groups of all men. I guess we'll see how effective these groups are at advocating for their respective genders rather than society as a whole.

Gees smirky...

If it's simply about human rights for only half of the world, then it's not about parity or equality as a whole, it's about parity and equality only for women.

You can't have your cake and eat it too in other words.

If you concern yourself with advocating for only one group, then it's impossible in many instances NOT to advocate for your group at the expense of others. If you ARE looking out for others, then you really aren't advocating for just one group.