shirin نوشته: مثل اینکه شما برداشت اشتباهی دارید از فمنیستم. فمنیستم ادعا نمیکنه مردان در طول تاریخ به عمد و در طی یک توطئه دسته جمعی زنان رو سطح پایین نگه داشتن . روند تاریخی نقش زنان و مردان به سمت مردسالاری پیش رفته حالا روند طبیعی تکامل بشر یا ناتوانی انسانها در تقسیم وظایف برابر زن و مرد و یا هر چیز دیگه دلیلش بوده چیزی که مبرهن هست انسان به مرحله ای از تکامل رسیده که دیگه نیازی به نقش حمایتی مردان و زندگی برده وار زنان در قبال این حمایت مردان نیست. و هر چند امروزه شرایط زندگی عوض شده و زنان هم به مرحله ای رسیدن که توان انجام کارها مثل مردان رو دارن و میتونن خیلی خوب از پس کارهایی که تا امروز مردانه بودن هم بربیان و دیگه نمیخوان مثل قبل برده وار زندگی کنن ولی این مردان هستن که هنوز اینبار آگاهانه سعی میکنن که مانعشون بشن و هنوز خواهان این هستن که زنان رو در کنترل خودشون نگه دارن. شاید در غرب مردان پذیرفته باشن و زنان رو به عنوان جنسیتی برابر با خودشون بپذیرن ولی در بسیاری جوامع از جمله کشور ما هنوز این امر برآورده نشده و زن همچنان طفیلی محسوب میشه هر چند بسیاری از زنان معترض هستن و خواهان تغییر و حقوق برابر. و این مردان هستن که آگاهانه هنوز میخوان زنان رو در گوشه خانه نگه دارند.

کل این پاراگراف پر است از ادعاهای فمینیستی که در جمله اول منکر ادعاشان هستید.منتهی سخنان منبری اجازه دیدنشان را بخودتان نمیدهد.

shirin نوشته: امیدوارم درک کرده باشید مفهوم حرفام رو. در ضمن من گریه و جیغ و داد راه ننداختم. نظرمو گفتم. چظور حمله های شخصی خودتون به چشمتون نمیاد یکی که واقعیت رو در موردتون میگه خیلی بهتون برمیخوره؟ در ضمن کلا من کجا اسم تو رو آوردم. من اگه حمله شخصی کردم به امیر کردم شما وکیل وصی امیر هستی؟

شما شروع گزافه گویی درباره کسانی که از پست امیر سپاسگذاری کرده بودند کردید (که یکیشان من بودم) و در یک پست هم که اساسا مرا با اسم مورد حمله قرار دادیم که از سال 2010 دارم زنستیزی میکنم و چنین مهملاتی.حمله شخصی هم یعنی پرداختن به سخنگو (مهم نیست در توهمات خود آنها را درست بدانید یا ندانید)،پس بهتر است پیش از آغاز یادگیری معنی فمینیسم معنی مغالطه (ad hominem) حمله شخصی را بیاموزید !!

نقل قول:

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
   
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
   

Argumentum Ad Hominem

shirin نوشته: مفهوم فمنیست هم برو از تو ویکی پدیای فارسی به زبان شیرین فارسی بخون شاید یه چیزی دستگیرت شد.
فمینیسم - WiKi

من به آندد هم گفتم معنای جنبش سیاسی را نمیشود از دانشنامه در آورد بلکه معنی جنبشهای سیاسی اینچنینی در جامعه تعریف میشوند،حالا آنهم از کجا !! از ویکیپدیای فارسی که مخصوصا این متنش بیشتر شبیه سخنرانی یک فمینیسم است پشت بلندگو تا تعریف جنبش.
همچنین وقتی بجای برابری قانونی و حقوقی صحبت از عدالت میشود آنوقت است که سعی میشود سخنان شکمی فمینیستی زیر نام آن قاچاق شوند اینست که اگر کسی همیجوری بگوید هوادار عدالت است و رفع ناعدالتی و... بخودی خود چیزی نگفته چرا که نازیها هم هنگام قتل عام یهودیان شدیدا باورمند بودند که کار درست و اخلاقیست و میکروبهای جامعه را پاکسازی میکنند، بنابراین تمام داستان در همان تعریف عدالت نهفته است.

پس تعریف فمینیسم آن جوکی که لینکش را دادید نمیشود بلکه چیزی میشود شبیه این:

نقل قول:

The term ‘feminism’ has many different uses and its meanings are often contested. For example, some writers use the term ‘feminism’ to refer to a historically specific political movement in the US and Europe; other writers use it to refer to the belief that there are injustices against women, though there is no consensus on the exact list of these injustices. Although the term “feminism” has a history in English linked with women's activism from the late 19th century to the present, it is useful to distinguish feminist ideas or beliefs from feminist political movements, for even in periods where there has been no significant political activism around women's subordination, individuals have been concerned with and theorized about justice for women. So, for example, it makes sense to ask whether Plato was a feminist, given his view that women should be trained to rule (Republic, Book V), even though he was an exception in his historical context. (See e.g., Tuana 1994.)

Our goal here is not to survey the history of feminism — as a set of ideas or as a series of political movements — but rather is to sketch some of the central uses of the term that are most relevant to those interested in contemporary feminist philosophy. The references we provide below are only a small sample of the work available on the topics in question; more complete bibliographies are available at the specific topical entries and also at the end of this entry.
In the mid-1800s the term ‘feminism’ was used to refer to “the qualities of females”, and it was not until after the First International Women's Conference in Paris in 1892 that the term, following the French term féministe, was used regularly in English for a belief in and advocacy of equal rights for women based on the idea of the equality of the sexes. Although the term “feminism” in English is rooted in the mobilization for woman suffrage in Europe and the US during the late 19th and early 20th century, of course efforts to obtain justice for women did not begin or end with this period of activism.[SUP][1][/SUP] So some have found it useful to think of the women's movement in the US as occurring in “waves”. On the wave model, the struggle to achieve basic political rights during the period from the mid-19th century until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 counts as “First Wave” feminism. Feminism waned between the two world wars, to be “revived” in the late 1960's and early 1970's as “Second Wave” feminism. In this second wave, feminists pushed beyond the early quest for political rights to fight for greater equality across the board, e.g., in education, the workplace, and at home. More recent transformations of feminism have resulted in a “Third Wave”. Third Wave feminists often critique Second Wave feminism for its lack of attention to the differences among women due to race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion (see Section 2.3 below; also Breines 2002; Spring 2002), and emphasize “identity” as a site of gender struggle. (For more information on the “wave” model and each of the “waves”, see Other Internet Resources.)
However, some feminist scholars object to identifying feminism with these particular moments of political activism, on the grounds that doing so eclipses the fact that there has been resistance to male domination that should be considered “feminist” throughout history and across cultures: i.e., feminism is not confined to a few (White) women in the West over the past century or so. Moreover, even considering only relatively recent efforts to resist male domination in Europe and the US, the emphasis on “First” and “Second” Wave feminism ignores the ongoing resistance to male domination between the 1920's and 1960's and the resistance outside mainstream politics, particularly by women of color and working class women (Cott 1987).
One strategy for solving these problems would be to identify feminism in terms of a set of ideas or beliefs rather than participation in any particular political movement. As we saw above, this also has the advantage of allowing us to locate isolated feminists whose work was not understood or appreciated during their time. But how should we go about identifying a core set of feminist beliefs? Some would suggest that we should focus on the political ideas that the term was apparently coined to capture, viz., the commitment to women's equal rights. This acknowledges that commitment to and advocacy for women's rights has not been confined to the Women's Liberation Movement in the West. But this too raises controversy, for it frames feminism within a broadly Liberal approach to political and economic life. Although most feminists would probably agree that there is some sense of “rights” on which achieving equal rights for women is a necessary condition for feminism to succeed, most would also argue that this would not be sufficient. This is because women's oppression under male domination rarely if ever consists solely in depriving women of political and legal “rights”, but also extends into the structure of our society and the content of our culture, and permeates our consciousness (e.g., Bartky 1990).
Is there any point, then, to asking what feminism is? Given the controversies over the term and the politics of circumscribing the boundaries of a social movement, it is sometimes tempting to think that the best we can do is to articulate a set of disjuncts that capture a range of feminist beliefs. However, at the same time it can be both intellectually and politically valuable to have a schematic framework that enables us to map at least some of our points of agreement and disagreement. We'll begin here by considering some of the basic elements of feminism as a political position or set of beliefs. For a survey of different philosophical approaches to feminism, see “Feminism, approaches to”.

Topics in Feminism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)