“This is What a ‘Glod’ Looks Like,” Says The Glod Majority Foundation April 23, 2010Posted by FCM in authors picks, entertainment, feminisms, gender roles, logic, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans.
Tags: logic, radical feminism, the feminist majority, venn diagrams
for anyone who doesnt know, theres no such fucking thing as a glod. so, logicians use it as a placeholder in their own logic-based proofs, to make sure they dont accidentally add any meaning to one of the words, when they dont intend to. for example: all glods are hooswits; all hooswits are whatchamacallits; therefore, all glods are whatchamacallits. that is a logical proof thats TRUE.
but heres one thats NOT true: all glods are hoosewhits; some hoosewhits are whatchamacallits; therefore, some glods are whatchamacallits.
and the above could be drawn either way, with the glods overlapping, or not overlapping, with the whatchamacallits, so technically it may be “neither true nor false.” (does anyone know?? seriously. i cant remember). but…if you are trying to prove something is true, you have just failed, if this is your “proof.” thats my point, really.
confusing, right? i screwed these up at first, and had to literally draw diagrams to show myself where i went wrong (thanks miska and your bad diagramming self).
start adding in words that actually mean stuff, and it gets even harder to see where you have fucked up, and why. for example: all blue things are bright; some bright things are shiny; therefore, some blue things are shiny…its definitely not true…but it looks like it is, to anyone who has ever seen a blue shiny thing before. thats where we, as fallible humans, with a tendency to make everything about “us,” and our own “lived expewience” simply need some help, to see whats what. thus, we have “glod.”
i love glods, and i love hooswits, precisely because they have no meaning.
but you know what does have meaning? ACTUAL WORDS, THAT MEAN STUFF. and the word “feminist” is a word, that means something. dammit, it does. you cant just take a bunch of people that have nothing in common, and call them all “feminist” without defining what the fuck you are even talking about. for example, heres how i, as a radical feminist, see “feminists.” they are, by definition, female assigned at birth; NOT ALL FAABs are feminists; and there isnt any other kind of feminist, besides the radical kind:
but apparently, heres what the “feminist majority” thinks constitutes a feminist: (note the lack of any other circles…that means theres no criteria for “what makes a feminist”. plus the rainy-day gray illustrates how muddled, and boring this all is)
and its pretty much what the fun-fems think constitutes a feminist too…with one notable exception:
fucking shit, people. now, just so no one starts to wonder if i have a point…heres another example of a logical fallacy: all transwomen are women; some women are feminists; therefore, some transwomen are feminists. AND THATS BEING GENEROUS. since they seem to believe, against the great weight of the evidence showing otherwise, that *all* transwomen are feminists. NOT. their conclusions dont even follow from their own premises. not that they have ever bothered to show that their premises are true, to begin with. fail, fail, fail, fail.
and dont even get me started on “feminist” men, who, as men, by definition individually and collectively benefit from rape culture. i wanted to punch youtube in the face, when i saw that.
words have meaning. “feminist” means something, and it definitely does NOT mean “whatever the fuck the feminist majority, a ‘feminist man’, an MRA or a fucking transwoman says it means.” that is all.
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to email (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)