|
Northern Ireland23732 Posts
On May 03 2013 08:59 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:51 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 nunez wrote:On May 03 2013 08:40 zbedlam wrote:
On the topic of feminism and the internet though - reality is feminism has strong negative connotations currently because there are quite a lot of vocal feminists and feminist groups that care nothing for equality, they want women to be in all ways more benefited than men. Now given the gaming community is primarily males it stands to reason feminism is going to viewed as even worse than in other communities. says who? in whose reality? it really depends on the person. yes, so proclaiming qualitative analysis of 'reality' will only be a reflection of yourself (which parts of the internet you frequent and absorb), not the actual reality. in the context we are speaking in, tl.net, i am aware of no such strong negative connotations (at least not as a general theme). maybe i don't follow the blogs section meticulously enough.
Last feminism thread I recall showing up
Plenty of reasoned arguments as to why the perception of feminism is as it is nowadays, regardless of that being the reality or not.
|
On May 03 2013 08:31 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:25 Falling wrote:
I don't understand why these sorts of articles generate so much push back and so many troll defenders. Ok, so maybe they aren't intentionally defending the trolls, but they are vehemently arguing that defeat is inevitable and to just 'deal with it.' Perhaps defeat is inevitable, but defeatism is hardly a point that needs further endorsement.
And yet these threads invariably have very strenously argued against these sorts of articles therein creating part of the unintentional bulwark behind which the 'trolls' continue to operate. "Trolls" I feel has largely been over-applied to the general internet population. What if many of these 'trolls' are not trolling at all, but simply hold very repugnant ideas about women. Do they require our implicit passionate endorsement by strenously arguing that others need to simply 'deal with it.'
While personal defeatism is certainly acceptable in the face of such rampant bad behaviour on the internet, why attack or get in the way of those who would inform in the hopes reform. If defeat is inevitable, let it be defeated inevitably. It certainly will not require your help. I suppose that if you believe that defeat is inevitable, then the tension caused by opposing the inevitable is therefore unnecessary. To put into perspective, if we all accepted that people are just going to be bad on the internet no matter what, then writing articles and creating social movement groups only causes unnecessary tension wherein nobody benefits because (again) defeat is inevitable.
It's not about "defeat is inescapable" every where on the internet it's that some regions of the internet are just always going to be shit holes. Youtube comments and /b/ are examples of this. Both let you post like a complete douche bag with 0 consequences and there is no real moderation. It's inherent in the structure of the sites. No real moderation and infinite free accounts so of course the most dick headed people are going to be posting there. How is this surprising to people. Look at any video on youtube and look at how retarded the comments are. If your a fat guy you get shitty comments, if your asain, if your black, if your a girl, if your a purple man with pink spots you do too.
Girls crying about sexism with shit like this takes the strength away from real cases of sexism and weakens feminism.
The people who are going to be discussing this on TL are not the people who are sitting on youtube spewing feces out of their mouths.
Sometimes you just have to ignore the bottom dregs of the internet. You don't really worry too much about what the WCB says do you?
|
On May 03 2013 08:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:31 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 08:25 Falling wrote:
I don't understand why these sorts of articles generate so much push back and so many troll defenders. Ok, so maybe they aren't intentionally defending the trolls, but they are vehemently arguing that defeat is inevitable and to just 'deal with it.' Perhaps defeat is inevitable, but defeatism is hardly a point that needs further endorsement.
And yet these threads invariably have very strenously argued against these sorts of articles therein creating part of the unintentional bulwark behind which the 'trolls' continue to operate. "Trolls" I feel has largely been over-applied to the general internet population. What if many of these 'trolls' are not trolling at all, but simply hold very repugnant ideas about women. Do they require our implicit passionate endorsement by strenously arguing that others need to simply 'deal with it.'
While personal defeatism is certainly acceptable in the face of such rampant bad behaviour on the internet, why attack or get in the way of those who would inform in the hopes reform. If defeat is inevitable, let it be defeated inevitably. It certainly will not require your help. I suppose that if you believe that defeat is inevitable, then the tension caused by opposing the inevitable is therefore unnecessary. To put into perspective, if we all accepted that people are just going to be bad on the internet no matter what, then writing articles and creating social movement groups only causes unnecessary tension wherein nobody benefits because (again) defeat is inevitable. The trouble is that it is incredibly difficult to determine whether it is inevitable. Is there no hope because it is truly hopeless or is there no hope because everyone thinks it is hopeless and therefore either does nothing or else impede those that would try. Are we riled up because this is an issue that will never change and this is unnecessary tension that benefits no-one or are we riled up because women are demanding a change to status quo and we being in the position of privilege dislike this new tension created from a situation that largely did not affect us? That is the tension only seems unnecessary and to us. "We've heard this a hundred times, deal with it" Maybe we have heard it a hundred times because the problem is one that actually exists, the problem has not gone away, and perhaps this is one method to 'deal with it' though not the 'sit down, shut up, and take some more' method that many were hoping/ arguing. @ AnachronisticAnarchy I can understand that. But if you can dismiss the trolls as easily as that, can you not also dismiss the 'internet is full of sexists' just as easily? I am quite confident I am not one and those sorts of quotes never personally bothered me. As far as I can tell they are not personally directed at me. Furthermore, is that not going after the wrong people, the whistleblowers as it were? I also dislike when negative light is cast on our community, but if there is nothing wrong, then we have nothing to be concerned about. If there are problems even if in the minority, then there still is something wrong. The whistleblowers will naturally turn negative attention towards us and it will be unsettling. But this source of the problem does not reside with them, the problem still existed, there just weren't many females willing to publicily defend themselves so it largely went unnoticed. Maybe there is something that could be corrected and perhaps there is a little housecleaning to do.
What exactly are you expecting/hoping to change, and what incentive would drive that change? At the moment the feminist movement comes off as an aggressive appeal for change that, in my college/work experience, focuses on telling men that they're shit as a tool for empowering women. Solidarity in a society, does not the feminist movement make.
|
On May 03 2013 09:03 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:46 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:43 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. For every rational vocal feminist you will find at least 1 irrational vocal feminist that believes all men are rapists and women are the supreme gender. And for every tolerant, egalitarian minded man you will find at least 1 misogynist pig. This is true. The difference being he's listed two groups of vocal feminists, whereas you've listed men as an entire group. So it's a comparison of "Half of feminists are fighting for something that can no longer be considered gender equality" to "Half of men are assholes." In that comparison, the men aren't voluntarily representing (machism?), whereas the feminists would be voluntarily representing feminism. The complaint, then, is that feminism has taken on or is taking on a meaning beyond what was originally intended but is still falling under the blanket of its original intent when convenient. For feminism (Modern feminism - NOT "gender equality") as a thing to retain its credibility to the (non-modern-feminist) masses it needs to segregate itself from one or the other understanding of feminism, because they are not the same thing.
The point is not that I'm putting forward some sort of equitable comparison, the point is that making generalizations in any regard based off of summarily incomplete and anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, treating the movement as this conscious creature that can be directed to divorce itself from unsavory components is not very realistic nor does it speak to the issue in a meaningful way.
|
On May 03 2013 09:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 09:03 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:43 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc.
Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc.
Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. For every rational vocal feminist you will find at least 1 irrational vocal feminist that believes all men are rapists and women are the supreme gender. And for every tolerant, egalitarian minded man you will find at least 1 misogynist pig. This is true. The difference being he's listed two groups of vocal feminists, whereas you've listed men as an entire group. So it's a comparison of "Half of feminists are fighting for something that can no longer be considered gender equality" to "Half of men are assholes." In that comparison, the men aren't voluntarily representing (machism?), whereas the feminists would be voluntarily representing feminism. The complaint, then, is that feminism has taken on or is taking on a meaning beyond what was originally intended but is still falling under the blanket of its original intent when convenient. For feminism (Modern feminism - NOT "gender equality") as a thing to retain its credibility to the (non-modern-feminist) masses it needs to segregate itself from one or the other understanding of feminism, because they are not the same thing. The point is not that I'm putting forward some sort of equitable comparison, the point is that making generalizations in any regard based off of summarily incomplete and anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, treating the movement as this conscious creature that can be directed to divorce itself from unsavory components is not very realistic nor does it speak to the issue in a meaningful way.
Then why the hell did you punctuate it with "This is true"? While he's shown a tendency towards hyperbole, it doesn't suit you as well and confuses the discussion. I as a reader have no reason to believe you don't intend to stand by your statement.
Furthermore, I have heard more from extremist modern feminists than I have traditional feminists decrying the extremists, and not because I pursue either. If egalitarian feminism truly is the majority then why is there not an uprising decrying the extremists?
|
On May 03 2013 09:04 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:59 nunez wrote:On May 03 2013 08:51 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 nunez wrote:On May 03 2013 08:40 zbedlam wrote:
On the topic of feminism and the internet though - reality is feminism has strong negative connotations currently because there are quite a lot of vocal feminists and feminist groups that care nothing for equality, they want women to be in all ways more benefited than men. Now given the gaming community is primarily males it stands to reason feminism is going to viewed as even worse than in other communities. says who? in whose reality? it really depends on the person. yes, so proclaiming qualitative analysis of 'reality' will only be a reflection of yourself (which parts of the internet you frequent and absorb), not the actual reality. in the context we are speaking in, tl.net, i am aware of no such strong negative connotations (at least not as a general theme). maybe i don't follow the blogs section meticulously enough. Last feminism thread I recall showing upPlenty of reasoned arguments as to why the perception of feminism is as it is nowadays, regardless of that being the reality or not.
thanks, will browse. at least it will reflect the tl (my) reality.
@stab it was obvious ridicule from farv, don't be such a sourpuss.
|
On May 03 2013 09:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 09:03 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:43 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc.
Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc.
Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. For every rational vocal feminist you will find at least 1 irrational vocal feminist that believes all men are rapists and women are the supreme gender. And for every tolerant, egalitarian minded man you will find at least 1 misogynist pig. This is true. The difference being he's listed two groups of vocal feminists, whereas you've listed men as an entire group. So it's a comparison of "Half of feminists are fighting for something that can no longer be considered gender equality" to "Half of men are assholes." In that comparison, the men aren't voluntarily representing (machism?), whereas the feminists would be voluntarily representing feminism. The complaint, then, is that feminism has taken on or is taking on a meaning beyond what was originally intended but is still falling under the blanket of its original intent when convenient. For feminism (Modern feminism - NOT "gender equality") as a thing to retain its credibility to the (non-modern-feminist) masses it needs to segregate itself from one or the other understanding of feminism, because they are not the same thing. The point is not that I'm putting forward some sort of equitable comparison, the point is that making generalizations in any regard based off of summarily incomplete and anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, treating the movement as this conscious creature that can be directed to divorce itself from unsavory components is not very realistic nor does it speak to the issue in a meaningful way.
Is it unrealistic? I imagine it would play out similarly to how Christianity is divided into sects that choose/neglect certain components.
|
On May 03 2013 09:15 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 09:10 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 09:03 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:43 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:
[quote]
Alright this is simply completely wrong.
Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed.
You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. For every rational vocal feminist you will find at least 1 irrational vocal feminist that believes all men are rapists and women are the supreme gender. And for every tolerant, egalitarian minded man you will find at least 1 misogynist pig. This is true. The difference being he's listed two groups of vocal feminists, whereas you've listed men as an entire group. So it's a comparison of "Half of feminists are fighting for something that can no longer be considered gender equality" to "Half of men are assholes." In that comparison, the men aren't voluntarily representing (machism?), whereas the feminists would be voluntarily representing feminism. The complaint, then, is that feminism has taken on or is taking on a meaning beyond what was originally intended but is still falling under the blanket of its original intent when convenient. For feminism (Modern feminism - NOT "gender equality") as a thing to retain its credibility to the (non-modern-feminist) masses it needs to segregate itself from one or the other understanding of feminism, because they are not the same thing. The point is not that I'm putting forward some sort of equitable comparison, the point is that making generalizations in any regard based off of summarily incomplete and anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest. Then why the hell did you punctuate it with "This is true"? While he's shown a tendency towards hyperbole, it doesn't suit you as well and confuses the discussion. I as a reader have no reason to believe you don't intend to stand by your statement.
Your disapproval of my rhetorical decisions is of relatively little concern, particularly when you are willing to give credence to the notion that one can judge an entire movement based on cherry picking and a pedantic focus on the use of the term "feminism".
@jojo, the structural tensions and schismatic differences amongst sects of Christianity and the rigor involved in labeling ones' self a "feminist" are very, very different.
|
On May 03 2013 08:53 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:28 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:12 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
... Did you even read what I wrote previously? There, let me help you.
Wrong. Entirely wrong. Feminism is all about making people conscious of the prejudice associated with each gender (and men are also subjected to it, the proof being the existence of words such as "man up" or "get some balls" : men are always expected to act strong, tough...) in order for individuals to be more free of doing what they really want to do and being what they really want to be, independently of what the society would like them to be given their gender.
What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist.
That's actually historically untrue. Women were going to be given suffrage in the United States for example well before the 1900s, but they absolutely refused to even contemplate the possibility of having to participate in things such as the military draft and other historically 'male' obligations. Not only that, the feminists of the early 1900s didn't give a flying fuck that men below the age of 21 were dying in World War I in the hundreds of thousands, they just wanted their own right to vote and didn't care. Any notion that feminism ever was about equality is just an illusion that most feminists like to utilize in their arguments, when in reality it isn't at all. Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. The vast majority of 'feminists' today do not care about equality. Those who do/did aren't even involved in the current 'feminist' movement because they are busy living their lives in a relatively equal society (and yes, society today is relatively equal, in fact, it's almost favoring women at this point in quite a few areas). Those who claim themselves to be feminists today are busy proclaiming dumb shit like rape culture, the privileged male (mostly due to higher income), etc. etc. and yet totally ignore things like alimony, child custody, divorce, sexual and domestic violence against men, etc. etc. They proclaim that men have historically have had all the power, and continue to have all the power in society. It's a load of bullshit, and it gets annoying listening to it over and over again (especially in humanities classes, dear fucking god). In short, I don't have a problem with the origins of the feminism movement. They were really never about true equality (look at their historical records; they wanted privileges without obligations), but they didn't overextend their reach like modern feminism does.
I wouldn't say "the vast majority" don't care about equality, but a good number of them don't, really. When you mentioned "rape culture" I really had this terrible feeling in my gut because I'm so tired of hearing about it. It's a terrible buzzword which serves no purpose other than getting women riled up over living in a society which, as we know, is full of bad people, and rape is one of the things that unfortunately happens.
I don't know how many pictures (which probably originated on Tumblr) tried to justify the usage of the buzzword "rape culture" by citing examples of rape in society and statistics. Shit, a bunch of the concepts they bring up are true, so why do they insist on tying it to this buzzword which is just meant to make it even more scary and and widespread.
How are sexy pictures of women in magazines part of rape culture anyway, why do they make that point at all? There are pictures of men with their super cut 6packs on other magazines and that's got nothing to do with rape though. Sigh.
Anywho, I would call myself a feminist, sometimes I do, despite the fact that I'm a sucker for semantics and I would like for them to make some attempt to use neutral terms instead of buzzwords. Sadly, many women apparently think that men cannot be feminists, and the idea is that we've been meddling in their affairs forever, and now they want to lead their own movements, or whatever.
Regardless, I think that we still have some work to do, and if we're gonna do it, hopefully we'll be able to ignore their crazies. It's a shame that so many people choose to have a fully black or white view of the issues that women face.
|
Northern Ireland23732 Posts
That's a problem with Tumblr and the likes Djzapz, more than anything. Same with 'slut-shaming' as well. It's gone from a reasonable argument and succinct way of describing certain insidious cultural phenomena, to a term that is now akin to some kind of get out of jail card for any kind of behaviour.
Buzzword in a fancy font over some sepia images, spammed incessantly. Pisses me off to no ends.
I'm fed up of internet activists, so fucking annoyed with it. It's a nonsense, if anything counter-intuitive because it pisses people off so much that they end up angered into complete apathy.
|
On May 03 2013 09:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 09:15 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 09:10 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 09:03 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:43 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:[quote] No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. For every rational vocal feminist you will find at least 1 irrational vocal feminist that believes all men are rapists and women are the supreme gender. And for every tolerant, egalitarian minded man you will find at least 1 misogynist pig. This is true. The difference being he's listed two groups of vocal feminists, whereas you've listed men as an entire group. So it's a comparison of "Half of feminists are fighting for something that can no longer be considered gender equality" to "Half of men are assholes." In that comparison, the men aren't voluntarily representing (machism?), whereas the feminists would be voluntarily representing feminism. The complaint, then, is that feminism has taken on or is taking on a meaning beyond what was originally intended but is still falling under the blanket of its original intent when convenient. For feminism (Modern feminism - NOT "gender equality") as a thing to retain its credibility to the (non-modern-feminist) masses it needs to segregate itself from one or the other understanding of feminism, because they are not the same thing. The point is not that I'm putting forward some sort of equitable comparison, the point is that making generalizations in any regard based off of summarily incomplete and anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest. Then why the hell did you punctuate it with "This is true"? While he's shown a tendency towards hyperbole, it doesn't suit you as well and confuses the discussion. I as a reader have no reason to believe you don't intend to stand by your statement. Your disapproval of my rhetorical decisions is of relatively little concern, particularly when you are willing to give credence to the notion that one can judge an entire movement based on cherry picking and a pedantic focus on the use of the term "feminism". @jojo, the structural tensions and schismatic differences amongst sects of Christianity and the rigor involved in labeling ones' self a "feminist" are very, very different.
In a debate, I am primarily interested in clear communication. If you have a functional argument as to how that is unjust, feel free to present it. All I'm trying to do is understand, and you're clearly showing no interest in helping anyone with that.
|
On May 03 2013 09:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
That's a problem with Tumblr and the likes Djzapz, more than anything. Same with 'slut-shaming' as well. It's gone from a reasonable argument and succinct way of describing certain insidious cultural phenomena, to a term that is now akin to some kind of get out of jail card for any kind of behaviour.
Buzzword in a fancy font over some sepia images, spammed incessantly. Pisses me off to no ends.
I'm fed up of internet activists, so fucking annoyed with it. It's a nonsense, if anything counter-intuitive because it pisses people off so much that they end up angered into complete apathy.
I'd just ignore it, but for reasons I won't get into (a person), I hear about it all the time and I think it's unfortunate. I't's the extremists which ruin everything for everybody once again,
It's a vicious circle of sorts because some of those girls are wholly convinced that essentially all men are complicit in this big ole' thing where we all think lowly of women, and hearing that makes some dudes angry and they go spew hatred (sigh), and to the feminists it sounds like sexism once again.
Angry feminists -> Angry dudes -> Angry feminists -> Angry dudes....etc.
No progress is made.
|
Canada11261 Posts
On May 03 2013 08:53 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:47 Falling wrote:On May 03 2013 08:31 Jojo131 wrote:On May 03 2013 08:25 Falling wrote:
I don't understand why these sorts of articles generate so much push back and so many troll defenders. Ok, so maybe they aren't intentionally defending the trolls, but they are vehemently arguing that defeat is inevitable and to just 'deal with it.' Perhaps defeat is inevitable, but defeatism is hardly a point that needs further endorsement.
And yet these threads invariably have very strenously argued against these sorts of articles therein creating part of the unintentional bulwark behind which the 'trolls' continue to operate. "Trolls" I feel has largely been over-applied to the general internet population. What if many of these 'trolls' are not trolling at all, but simply hold very repugnant ideas about women. Do they require our implicit passionate endorsement by strenously arguing that others need to simply 'deal with it.'
While personal defeatism is certainly acceptable in the face of such rampant bad behaviour on the internet, why attack or get in the way of those who would inform in the hopes reform. If defeat is inevitable, let it be defeated inevitably. It certainly will not require your help. I suppose that if you believe that defeat is inevitable, then the tension caused by opposing the inevitable is therefore unnecessary. To put into perspective, if we all accepted that people are just going to be bad on the internet no matter what, then writing articles and creating social movement groups only causes unnecessary tension wherein nobody benefits because (again) defeat is inevitable. The trouble is that it is incredibly difficult to determine whether it is inevitable. Is there no hope because it is truly hopeless or is there no hope because everyone thinks it is hopeless im curious, do you think that women are the only minority group that has a tough time in the modern world and secondly if you can point to an example of a minority group becoming fully accepted while still maintaining their identity. maybe im infering too much from what you say but you seem to pro feminism, pro 'gurl gamers' whatever that means, and pro people checking their privilege. the current course of action being followed by most feminists, at least in the gaming world, has it ever worked?
I don't really know what you mean by your inferences. If you go a few years back on a different forum, you'll find I was arguing that 'feminist' as a term should be abandoned as it has lost any positive meaning. I have since become more sympathetic to feminist critiques.
I don't know what you mean by "pro 'gurl gamers'" except that I think it's good that more girls are playing. But is anyone against that really?
As for minority groups... I think like pretty much any group that was in the minority, we simply did not hear from their perspective because they were too small in number and their perspective was not considered important enough. (There was that recent article where game developers had to arm twist their research groups to actually include women in their focus groups.)
Now that they are growing in number and in importance we are starting to hear from their perspective and that necessarily means upsets to the status quo, tension, and complaints that were not considered important in the past because it did not affect 'us.' But I wonder if females will remain just another minority group rather than grow to parity. Perhaps not equally in all videogames, but on the whole. The greater their numbers, the more 'we' will be forced to account for new perspectives on what is and is not acceptable behaviour.
|
On May 03 2013 09:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 09:15 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 09:10 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 09:03 Staboteur wrote:On May 03 2013 08:46 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:43 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:[quote] No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. For every rational vocal feminist you will find at least 1 irrational vocal feminist that believes all men are rapists and women are the supreme gender. And for every tolerant, egalitarian minded man you will find at least 1 misogynist pig. This is true. The difference being he's listed two groups of vocal feminists, whereas you've listed men as an entire group. So it's a comparison of "Half of feminists are fighting for something that can no longer be considered gender equality" to "Half of men are assholes." In that comparison, the men aren't voluntarily representing (machism?), whereas the feminists would be voluntarily representing feminism. The complaint, then, is that feminism has taken on or is taking on a meaning beyond what was originally intended but is still falling under the blanket of its original intent when convenient. For feminism (Modern feminism - NOT "gender equality") as a thing to retain its credibility to the (non-modern-feminist) masses it needs to segregate itself from one or the other understanding of feminism, because they are not the same thing. The point is not that I'm putting forward some sort of equitable comparison, the point is that making generalizations in any regard based off of summarily incomplete and anecdotal evidence is intellectually dishonest. Then why the hell did you punctuate it with "This is true"? While he's shown a tendency towards hyperbole, it doesn't suit you as well and confuses the discussion. I as a reader have no reason to believe you don't intend to stand by your statement. @jojo, the structural tensions and schismatic differences amongst sects of Christianity and the rigor involved in labeling ones' self a "feminist" are very, very different.
Not too different than you think. If you look at genderstudies (called women studies before), where a lot of feminists are involved trying to give their belives a sientific foundation, they belive the gender is ONLY constructed by our society and has no biological factors at all. Which is really unrealstic and sientifically plain wrong. So in that way it is like a "religion" aswell, they just belive it disregarding all the facts that prove this theory wrong. I wouldnt say every "feminist" is beliving in this kind of "religion" but a lot of them are.
|
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective.
|
On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective.
I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science. Also all these kind of academics tend to be feminists aswell or share feminist belives. If you say man and woman arent any different (just a social construction), well then every difference in reality must be an evidence of sexism or patriarchy or whatever you want to call it.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 03 2013 10:43 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 10:34 Slaughter wrote:
Gender is considered to be separate from biological sex, and its not a really extreme point of view or anything. Many academics in the social sciences ascribe to this view and many of them don't have anything to do with feminism or the feminist intellectual perspective. I know that, doesnt make it better either. It just plain wrong, it isnt backed up by any facts just a "constructed" theory applied to humans. For me that is a really extreme point of view because it is ideology not science.
You are aware that transgender people exist, right?
|
It's already been said in the thread, but I'll reiterate. Content creators will get shit from trolls regardless of any personal qualities. Trolls will generally hit where it hurts, be that sexuality, gender, physical appearance, voice, or personality. In twitch chat, a fat person will be called land whale, fatass, and generally judged for their weight (see desrow, incontrol, etc.) A player who hasn't put up results in a while will be called awful, told to retire (see idra, nony). A gay player would probably be called faggot (Some straight guys already are, and it's a good thing I don't have an actual example for this one). People throw around the N word near blacks, and make fun of midgets. People will be called retards simply for disagreeing with someone else's point of view, and people will be told to kill themselves for reasons just as trivial.
Do I condone this? By no means. But I do recognize that it is in fact a part of the internet as it stands today, and believe that people should not feel personally attacked by it. If you ask anybody who streams, makes videos, or does anything publicly over the internet they will tell you that trolls come with the territory.
This is where I believe that this woman makes her error. She takes all of the derogatory comments aimed at her, mostly about her gender, of course (because it is quite clearly what makes her tic) far too personally. Anonymity certainly allows for harassment, but a username on a screen also has zero power over you if you don't let it. A few mistakes are made in the article. Her chronicling these sexist comments for a whole month irrevocably shows these trolls that she does care, and that they are getting to her. Writing about various isolated people as if they were a cultural problem empowers the trolls, making them think that they are actually powerful. And finally, making statements like "sometimes comments like these drive me close to quitting" shows these people who would like nothing more than to laugh at making some internet celebrity retire that they have a realistic shot at achieving their lulz. So sadly, this girl has now set herself up for far worse than she has already received. Writing this article was probably a poor decision on her part, though I certainly respect her right to do it.
I'm not going to propose any solution to the toxic, harassment-filled internet culture in which gamers spend a great deal of time. Quite honestly, short of South Korea style internet monitoring and the forfeiture of anonymity, I don't think that people will stop harassing those who are visible on the internet. What one must decide when taking their stance on the issue is what they value more, anonymity or safety from trolls. And because trolls can rarely do any real damage, the answer is fairly obvious to me, though it is possible to take a varying viewpoint.
So I guess that my point is that anybody who makes his or herself "someone" on the internet will invariably have to deal with a load of shit thrown from all sides, and this woman is no different. She is female, a minority in gaming, and will therefore be shot at from that angle as it is seen as likely to offend her, especially after her showing that it hurts her so much. This is no different in principle than harrassment of people who are different in any way, be they fat, gay, retarded, or otherwise, and is therefore not indicative of an overall hatred for woman or any problem along this line; rather it demonstrates that those who are popular will always be harassed. They will need to grow a thick skin if they wish to continue, and considering the enormous positive reception that she garners (but largely ignores, or even demonizes) it should theoretically not be too difficult (though I can only speak from my own experience).
|
I have three sisters who are all avid gamers (not so much anymore due to school) and they would all disagree with you. Yes, harassment is everywhere on the internet and it is awful, but even as a gay guy, I did not receive as much bullshit as they have.
People who would tell them just to grow a backbone are over-privileged.
|
Writing about various isolated people as if they were a cultural problem empowers the trolls, making them think that they are actually powerful.
the entire point of feminism, feminist criticism and its advocates is that various isolated people/tendencies are cultural problems, but that they're more emblematic of those systemic issues than anything else - basically, the patriarchy consciously or unconsciously defending itself. it's not about individual content creator vs. individual troll, it's about an oppressed minority versus a privileged, emotionally apathetic, typically white male.
it's not exactly surprising that someone who takes up that identity is easy to troll, because it involves defining yourself by what you don't have. regardless, it's still kind of victim blaming bullshit to just say that caring is a liability.
edit: in case I get some pushback to the "what you don't have" line, I don't really have much experience not having things of this sort. it's not a value judgment, it's an honest, if somewhat ignorant admission that I've never been forced to define myself in that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
