|
On May 03 2013 16:58 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 16:35 Ghostcom wrote:On May 03 2013 16:10 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 15:45 Ghostcom wrote:On May 03 2013 15:27 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 15:20 Ghostcom wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable. "Unfounded", however, is the same term applied to all of the FBI's definitions. They simply use that term instead of "false" because they do not want to dig into whether the accusation was deliberately malicious or not. But regardless, there are far more accusations of rape that are not factually correct, even if they weren't done on purpose. From the Uniform Crime Report, they state specifically that "The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent." Actually "unfounded" is a bit broader than malicious or not and I almost find it intellectually dishonest that you are linking just the index of the Uniform Crime Report as a means of backing up your claim. Here is an article written specifically discussing what "unfounded" means when it is used in connection with forcible rape: http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/ You can use the index's sidebar to actually navigate to individual chapters. Chapter 2 has the relevant quote I pulled, which you can use Ctrl-F to find. I assume most TLers have basic computer skills. The article you quoted corroborates my point. Not all unfounded cases are proven to be false, no. However, that doesn't change the fact that law enforcement cannot find any evidence for them, or that the rape accusation turned out not to actually be forcible rape as defined by law. The same, however, applies to unfounded accusations of any crime. So when we find that the unfounded rape accusation rate is 8%, and the unfounded crime accusation rate is 2%, we're still comparing apples to apples, which is a pretty good indicator that false rape accusation rates are higher. Instead of the petty attempt at questioning my computer skills you should probably have spent 30 seconds more reading the article I linked and thinking about it. This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false. He explicitly gives you examples of how just within rape there are different criteria for "unfounded" depending on which jurisdiction you collect data from. It is thus not the same criteria used for all crimes (it is in fact not even the same criteria for a single crime) that will get a case labeled as "unfounded". You are trying to compare two round fruits, but one of them is orange and with a non-edible shell whereas the other is green and with an edible shell. There are different criteria for "unfounded" for all crimes between jurisdictions. In reality, the differences aren't that great for major crimes between US jurisdictions, and this applies for all the crimes. "Unfounded" rape accusations is to "unfounded" crimes, period. All of those are oranges.
Citation needed.
Furthermore you are missing the point, perhaps because I did not explain it well enough so here goes:
The term "unfounded" in connection with forcible rape means one thing and covers a lot of different instances in which a lot of these are not false accusations (and the term is extremely heterogenous). The term "unfounded" in connection to another index crime also covers a lot of different instances, but different "different instances" when compared to in connection with forcible rape. This makes the variable "unfounded" essentially useless as means of comparison between two different crimes. It is considered bad scientific practice to compare two different variables.
While it is true that it is difficult to truly identify the total number of false rape accusations (these "unfounded" cases also leave out falsely convicted men, which the Innocence Project has revealed appalling numbers of for rape cases), what we do know is that it is that false rape accusations are probably a few times more common than false accusations of all crimes. We can also use the fact that women can easily get away with it to logically infer that there is less of a disincentive to make a false rape accusation, and economics will tell you what this causes.
The part about innocents could really be said for any other crime and is also partly why I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty. Getting away with false accusations is also fairly easy in some of the other index crimes - I think the explanations given in the article I linked are all somewhat more reasonable, but effectively it is most likely a mix, so I won't discredit your explanation entirely.
EDIT: I think it is ridiculous to state that we should support feminism as that completely closes the eye towards the issues men face. Gender equality is what should be supported, and by that I do not mean equal distribution, but equal oppertunity. I recognize that women are in many important areas behind men, but that does not justify neglecting the areas where men are behind women. Society after all consists of many people and I would think it should be possibly to rectify multiple wrongdoings at once.
|
Interesting how so many people condemn her for writing this article. I guess those people probably are the same that makes derogatory comments but who knows? I think it's important to highlight these issues, because lets be honest. When a girl represents E-Sports there are waaaaay more comments about her body than when a male does. And it's not just trolls. These "boob" comments come from people that don't always act sexist. And I agree that "this is the internet" is not a good reason to say she is stupid. If this is her way to cope with all attacks on her, let her do it.
|
We've all been young and I'll be the first to admit that I would have thrown "tits or gtfo" around on Youtube 10 years ago. That doesn't mean I turned out to be a sexual predator or sexist in any way, I was a confused teenager.
It may be bad for her, but regardless of gender you just need to develop a thick skin on the internet and learn to not care or to simply ignore negativity. Maybe she should have a talk with TotalBiscuit as he was heavily criticised in the past (and did the same on reddit) and has since learned that lesson.
I might send her that as a PM on Youtube in a couple of days when there's much less heat involved.
|
On May 03 2013 16:23 sunprince wrote:
The majority of Muslims condemn terrorists. The majority of feminists do not condemn their "vocal minority"
I'm a feminist, and I condemn extremists. Have you ever talked to a feminist? Have you ever read an article by a normal feminist? Or have you only read about the crazy people?
Maybe I'm a "broken man".
|
@sunprince:
I still find it strange that you blame everything you don't like on feminists. They can only talk, they never actually created the policies and laws you disagree with. Look at this about the current 112th Congress: "In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men." This was probably even more skewed towards men in the past. Everything you don't like was done by men.
My hunch is that it would turn out better with more feminist women having actual power. The men sitting in Congress all may have a skewed picture of the real world. In their life, they always had more power than women all their lives, perhaps naturally can't imagine a fair world. Policy would perhaps turn out more equal if there would also be women with power voting on it, not purely men.
|
1: No you can't censor the internet, it will always bring out the deepest and shittiest parts of people and that is a Good Thing (tm).
2. These derogatory comments are not just any form of internet meanness but is proof, clear as day, what the problem with our civilisation's attitude to women is.
Thus,
we do not wish to change the internet or censor anything, we wish to change our entire civilisation. + cut the balls of all the dickheads in question
/radical swedish anarchofeminist
|
I was surprised that this article got posted on TL, where despite the hard work of the mods, there is still the highest population of immature and MRA-esque forumites of any of the SC2 communities I visit. I was less surprised when I read on and saw the follow up posts to the article.
I watched a video with tasteless in the other day where he mentioned how he doesn't come onto sites like this anymore because of the sexism/misogyny/thiny veiled racism. And I can't blame him. It's embarrassing to open up a thread on this forum that includes a woman or women as the subject and watch how people here behave.
"Oh but NikonTC it's just the internet are you new?". No, I'm not. And there are plenty of places on the internet that manage to keep a much tighter lid on this kind of behaviour. Which is why I browse them much more frequently, and TL.net less and less despite loving the content the site delivers.
|
On May 03 2013 17:23 zdfgucker wrote:
We've all been young and I'll be the first to admit that I would have thrown "tits or gtfo" around on Youtube 10 years ago. That doesn't mean I turned out to be a sexual predator or sexist in any way, I was a confused teenager.
It may be bad for her, but regardless of gender you just need to develop a thick skin on the internet and learn to not care or to simply ignore negativity. Maybe she should have a talk with TotalBiscuit as he was heavily criticised in the past (and did the same on reddit) and has since learned that lesson.
I might send her that as a PM on Youtube in a couple of days when there's much less heat involved.
Hm, but from what I see on Twitter, TB attacks the haters right back all the time. She tries it with reason/education and he mocks them, but neither of them made their peace with it as so many here say she should.
|
I would just like to throw out there that being aware of certain realities is different from accepting them. "It's the internet, haters gonna hate, trolls gonna troll". Yes, so? To use a more drastic example in hopes to get the point across, you can also say "it's the world, there's always gonna be murder". So, are we supposed to not punish murder or not to be appalled by it? When I go to a place where there's a lot of violent crime and I get shot, am I responsible for that and not the shooter, because I knew that these things happen there? Sure, one can say that I was dumb to go there, but is that really the main problem? Should the debate really be about my stupidity rather than about crime and violence?
Anti-social behavior is not an internet phenomenon, the internet merely breeds its own special kinds of it. Usually people fight against bad things even if they know they can't abolish them in any foreseeable future. Why whould this be different online? Punishment, by the way, among other things serves the function of re-establishing the rule that was broken, to assure everyone that the rule, although it was broken, is still there. When we stop protesting against harassment, the rules change.
|
The difference between being flamed on after a game you won, and getting harassed on the internet (for you who don't get the difference)
When you won an anonymous game of starcraft, and get negative comments, the only thing you and your opponent knows about each other is that both of you play starcraft, and you just beat him/her at it. You are the better individual in all categories you know. Consider how much more irritating it is to get an offensive gg than a rant about imbalance when you won, that is the difference with someone taking potshots at insubstantial things vs substantial ones.
When you try to give back to the community as a female gamer in youtube channels and whatnot, and get hate and crude comments, you are not facing one misinformed person that makes baseless accusations. He (and Im sure it is almost always a he) is instead ranting about something real that you made and put a lot of effort in. If you dont get it, maybe post a picture of yourself, or your apartment or something else that defines part of you and let the entire TL community tell you how much of a little shit you are, how ugly you look and how we hope you die. Then read all the comments looking for the constructive feedback, and see if you are happy afterwards.
The sexism is so prevalent that it is seriously hurting gaming. Can you find any female gamer who blogs or vlogs without the hateful comments. Maybe make a comparison to day9 or husky videos. What if female gamers, reading female bloggers about gaming would be encouraged. What if the gaming industry had twice the market, twice the budget for making good games. Sadly it wont happen because this debate is about whether Alanah Pearce have a right to air her grievances or not, not about how we should try to police ourselves to include the the other sex in our hobby.
|
Ghostcom:
I think it is ridiculous to state that we should support feminism as that completely closes the eye towards the issues men face. Gender equality is what should be supported, and by that I do not mean equal distribution, but equal oppertunity. I recognize that women are in many important areas behind men, but that does not justify neglecting the areas where men are behind women. Society after all consists of many people and I would think it should be possibly to rectify multiple wrongdoings at once. (emph. mine)
I agree and I think feminists are the group of people who want to right the wrongs done to the female half of the population. In the knowledge that they can't fix everything that is wrong in the world, they try to adress this small small subset of problems. Unfortunately, feminism is almost unique in the sense that no other (that I can think of at least) social equality movement gets flak for not trying to solve all inequality problem.
|
On May 03 2013 17:33 Ropid wrote:
@sunprince:
I still find it strange that you blame everything you don't like on feminists. They can only talk, they never actually created the policies and laws you disagree with. Look at this about the current 112th Congress: "In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men." This was probably even more skewed towards men in the past. Everything you don't like was done by men.
That's ridiculous. First of all, women ≠ feminists.
More importantly, political power is exerted not by politicians, but the voters and lobbying interests they answer to. And in the case of feminists, that is a lot of power.
Seriously, are you arguing that when feminists can write legislation that gets passed into law by Congress, when politicians (including the President) openly support feminism, that they have no power?
On May 03 2013 17:33 Ropid wrote:
My hunch is that it would turn out better with more feminist women having actual power. The men sitting in Congress all may have a skewed picture of the real world. In their life, they always had more power than women all their lives, perhaps naturally can't imagine a fair world. Policy would perhaps turn out more equal if there would also be women with power voting on it, not purely men.
Once again, you know nothing about American politics. Go take a basic American political science course, learn about how lobbying works, and come back when you actually know what you're talking about.
|
On May 03 2013 17:40 CYFAWS wrote:
1: No you can't censor the internet, it will always bring out the deepest and shittiest parts of people and that is a Good Thing (tm).
2. These derogatory comments are not just any form of internet meanness but is proof, clear as day, what the problem with our civilisation's attitude to women is.
Thus,
we do not wish to change the internet or censor anything, we wish to change our entire civilisation. + cut the balls of all the dickheads in question
/radical swedish anarchofeminist
A bit of an overreaction considering the majority of her test sample is 12 years old. And cut the 'our' civilisation crap, the civilisation your are living in is very fair to the female gender.
So how does she account for the general amount of negativity present in online gaming interactions? I'm pretty sure most people that were mean to her are mean to everyone else, they just use her gender as a trolling mechanism.
|
On May 03 2013 17:26 Mefano wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 16:23 sunprince wrote:
The majority of Muslims condemn terrorists. The majority of feminists do not condemn their "vocal minority"
I'm a feminist, and I condemn extremists. Have you ever talked to a feminist? Have you ever read an article by a normal feminist? Or have you only read about the crazy people? Maybe I'm a "broken man".
See this list? Those were all things done by mainstream feminist groups. Are those groups publicly condemned by other feminists?
Name some feminists that oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Name some feminists that oppose the Duluth Model. Name some feminists that oppose default mother custody. Name some feminists that support prosecuting false rape allegations. Name one feminist group with actual political power that actually oppose feminist "extremism" like those.
Oh right, you can't. The mainstream feminist organizations, the ones that actually carry out actions like political advocacy and lobbying, the ones who write legislation, the ones who write women's studies books and papers, those are the so-called "extremists".
If you actually condemned them, then you would be condemning most of feminist advocacy. You're not a feminist with power. You're just one of the "good feminists" that feminists with power hide behind. The attempts to label things done by powerful mainstream feminist advocacy groups as "extremism" is just another way to use a No True Scotsman fallacy. Or maybe you just don't consider the female supremacist shit they do to be extremism.
|
On May 03 2013 19:00 Flyingdutchman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 17:40 CYFAWS wrote:
1: No you can't censor the internet, it will always bring out the deepest and shittiest parts of people and that is a Good Thing (tm).
2. These derogatory comments are not just any form of internet meanness but is proof, clear as day, what the problem with our civilisation's attitude to women is.
Thus,
we do not wish to change the internet or censor anything, we wish to change our entire civilisation. + cut the balls of all the dickheads in question
/radical swedish anarchofeminist A bit of an overreaction considering the majority of her test sample is 12 years old. And cut the 'our' civilisation crap, the civilisation your are living in is very fair to the female gender. So how does she account for the general amount of negativity present in online gaming interactions? I'm pretty sure most people that were mean to her are mean to everyone else, they just use her gender as a trolling mechanism.
are you particularly convinced that the essential meaninglessness of the words used - sexism, racism, whatever it may be - would make people feel better about the real discrimination that does exist, where those trolls can just pull it up context-free for quick and easy emotional battery?
you can say "man up (heh, topical), it's the internet" all you like, doesn't change that it's still offensive.
|
On May 03 2013 17:19 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 16:58 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 16:35 Ghostcom wrote:On May 03 2013 16:10 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 15:45 Ghostcom wrote:On May 03 2013 15:27 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 15:20 Ghostcom wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable. "Unfounded", however, is the same term applied to all of the FBI's definitions. They simply use that term instead of "false" because they do not want to dig into whether the accusation was deliberately malicious or not. But regardless, there are far more accusations of rape that are not factually correct, even if they weren't done on purpose. From the Uniform Crime Report, they state specifically that "The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent." Actually "unfounded" is a bit broader than malicious or not and I almost find it intellectually dishonest that you are linking just the index of the Uniform Crime Report as a means of backing up your claim. Here is an article written specifically discussing what "unfounded" means when it is used in connection with forcible rape: http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/ You can use the index's sidebar to actually navigate to individual chapters. Chapter 2 has the relevant quote I pulled, which you can use Ctrl-F to find. I assume most TLers have basic computer skills. The article you quoted corroborates my point. Not all unfounded cases are proven to be false, no. However, that doesn't change the fact that law enforcement cannot find any evidence for them, or that the rape accusation turned out not to actually be forcible rape as defined by law. The same, however, applies to unfounded accusations of any crime. So when we find that the unfounded rape accusation rate is 8%, and the unfounded crime accusation rate is 2%, we're still comparing apples to apples, which is a pretty good indicator that false rape accusation rates are higher. Instead of the petty attempt at questioning my computer skills you should probably have spent 30 seconds more reading the article I linked and thinking about it. This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false. He explicitly gives you examples of how just within rape there are different criteria for "unfounded" depending on which jurisdiction you collect data from. It is thus not the same criteria used for all crimes (it is in fact not even the same criteria for a single crime) that will get a case labeled as "unfounded". You are trying to compare two round fruits, but one of them is orange and with a non-edible shell whereas the other is green and with an edible shell. There are different criteria for "unfounded" for all crimes between jurisdictions. In reality, the differences aren't that great for major crimes between US jurisdictions, and this applies for all the crimes. "Unfounded" rape accusations is to "unfounded" crimes, period. All of those are oranges. Citation needed.
If the differences were sufficient, the FBI would not be able to gather the statistics to group them together as rape.
An actual citation would be time wasting. Feel free to look up "sexual assault", "criminal sexual conduct", "sexual abuse", and "sexual battery" in each state's criminal code to find the differences. I'm not going to post 50 different links.
On May 03 2013 17:19 Ghostcom wrote:
Furthermore you are missing the point, perhaps because I did not explain it well enough so here goes:
The term "unfounded" in connection with forcible rape means one thing and covers a lot of different instances in which a lot of these are not false accusations (and the term is extremely heterogenous). The term "unfounded" in connection to another index crime also covers a lot of different instances, but different "different instances" when compared to in connection with forcible rape. This makes the variable "unfounded" essentially useless as means of comparison between two different crimes. It is considered bad scientific practice to compare two different variables.
The "different instances" are the same, because the FBI uses the same criteria. Unfounded means that there was no evidence to support the allegation that a crime was committed, either because there was no evidence, or the allegation was based on a misunderstanding of what the crime was.
|
I will masturbate to the thought of any girl I meet in real life but I do my very best not to stare at her chest while talking to her.
|
On May 03 2013 19:05 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 19:00 Flyingdutchman wrote:On May 03 2013 17:40 CYFAWS wrote:
1: No you can't censor the internet, it will always bring out the deepest and shittiest parts of people and that is a Good Thing (tm).
2. These derogatory comments are not just any form of internet meanness but is proof, clear as day, what the problem with our civilisation's attitude to women is.
Thus,
we do not wish to change the internet or censor anything, we wish to change our entire civilisation. + cut the balls of all the dickheads in question
/radical swedish anarchofeminist A bit of an overreaction considering the majority of her test sample is 12 years old. And cut the 'our' civilisation crap, the civilisation your are living in is very fair to the female gender. So how does she account for the general amount of negativity present in online gaming interactions? I'm pretty sure most people that were mean to her are mean to everyone else, they just use her gender as a trolling mechanism. are you particularly convinced that the essential meaninglessness of the words used - sexism, racism, whatever it may be - would make people feel better about the real discrimination that does exist, where those trolls can just pull it up context-free for quick and easy emotional battery? you can say "man up (heh, topical), it's the internet" all you like, doesn't change that it's still offensive.
Sure, but focusing on the sexism would leave out the underlying cause of the negative interaction. She could have been from outer space and still get negative reactions. I do think that the gender trigger for negativity is very powerful though, so she probably gets more negative reactions purely because she is female. But, in the end she has to deal with the same shit as gays and blacks, they all have the same underlying cause.
And since when is being offensive a crime? It is not nice, but there are worse things that can happen to a person. If you can't deal with offensive behaviour then you might as well stop living because she is going to be offended a lot in her lifetime, and not always because she is female. You cannot change the information someone gives you, but you can change the way you interpret that information. So why waste effort in battling something you cannot change? Gay marriage is offensive to hardcore christians and muslims. Is this a case where the problem lies with the sender (homosexuals getting married) or the receiver of the offensive information? Your answer will primarily be driven by the group you share views with.
|
On May 03 2013 19:33 Flyingdutchman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 19:05 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 19:00 Flyingdutchman wrote:On May 03 2013 17:40 CYFAWS wrote:
1: No you can't censor the internet, it will always bring out the deepest and shittiest parts of people and that is a Good Thing (tm).
2. These derogatory comments are not just any form of internet meanness but is proof, clear as day, what the problem with our civilisation's attitude to women is.
Thus,
we do not wish to change the internet or censor anything, we wish to change our entire civilisation. + cut the balls of all the dickheads in question
/radical swedish anarchofeminist A bit of an overreaction considering the majority of her test sample is 12 years old. And cut the 'our' civilisation crap, the civilisation your are living in is very fair to the female gender. So how does she account for the general amount of negativity present in online gaming interactions? I'm pretty sure most people that were mean to her are mean to everyone else, they just use her gender as a trolling mechanism. are you particularly convinced that the essential meaninglessness of the words used - sexism, racism, whatever it may be - would make people feel better about the real discrimination that does exist, where those trolls can just pull it up context-free for quick and easy emotional battery? you can say "man up (heh, topical), it's the internet" all you like, doesn't change that it's still offensive. Sure, but focusing on the sexism would leave out the underlying cause of the negative interaction. She could have been from outer space and still get negative reactions. I do think that the gender trigger for negativity is very powerful though, so she probably gets more negative reactions purely because she is female. But, in the end she has to deal with the same shit as gays and blacks, they all have the same underlying cause. And since when is being offensive a crime? It is not nice, but there are worse things that can happen to a person. If you can't deal with offensive behaviour then you might as well stop living because she is going to be offended a lot in her lifetime, and not always because she is female. You cannot change the information someone gives you, but you can change the way you interpret that information. So why waste effort in battling something you cannot change? Gay marriage is offensive to hardcore christians and muslims. Is this a case where the problem lies with the sender (homosexuals getting married) or the receiver of the offensive information? Your answer will primarily be driven by the group you share views with.
what underlying cause, that people are willfully ignorant? that's a painfully relativist and reductive way to sum up persistent cultural problems that each have their own context and field of criticism/study.
is consistency of negative behavior something you'd consider? I assure you the concept of overt racism towards black people at the very least has been forced into more latent forms if you're a total pessimist and assume the american civil rights movement didn't do much to change people's minds. it's the same thing with sexism and other instances of racism or discrimination; if people keep hammering away at it, you can get things done. I find it hard to look at any sort of history of the 20th century and conclude otherwise.
to your actual question, it doesn't have to be a problem that personally affects the receiver to negatively inform and demoralize them about the society they live in. I can assure you, as a reasonably privileged white dude reading this thread that in essentially no way affects me, it's been plenty depressing.
edit: "you might as well stop living"? that's pretty fucked...
|
On May 03 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 17:26 Mefano wrote:On May 03 2013 16:23 sunprince wrote:
The majority of Muslims condemn terrorists. The majority of feminists do not condemn their "vocal minority"
I'm a feminist, and I condemn extremists. Have you ever talked to a feminist? Have you ever read an article by a normal feminist? Or have you only read about the crazy people? Maybe I'm a "broken man". See this list? Those were all things done by mainstream feminist groups. Are those groups publicly condemned by other feminists? Name some feminists that oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Name some feminists that oppose the Duluth Model. Name some feminists that oppose default mother custody. Name some feminists that support prosecuting false rape allegations. Name one feminist group with actual political power that actually oppose feminist "extremism" like those. Oh right, you can't. The mainstream feminist organizations, the ones that actually carry out actions like political advocacy and lobbying, the ones who write legislation, the ones who write women's studies books and papers, those are the so-called "extremists". If you actually condemned them, then you would be condemning most of feminist advocacy. You're not a feminist with power. You're just one of the "good feminists" that feminists with power hide behind. The attempts to label things done by powerful mainstream feminist advocacy groups as "extremism" is just another way to use a No True Scotsman fallacy. Or maybe you just don't consider the female supremacist shit they do to be extremism.
The thing is that when the zealotry you refer to is "feminism", we don't have a term for the legitimate cause of equal rights and freedom for women. The women I talk to are usually serious about being entitled to equal rights and freedom, but want nothing to do with that kind of "feminism". That these women are in no position to issue public statements is simply due to the fact that those who are more or less relaxed tend not to become ardent activists. And especially in the past (sixties, seventies) the more radical feminists did advance the cause of women's equality which makes it hard for today's women who benefit greatly from that to generally condemn "feminism".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
