|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 27 2014 03:42 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:41 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:39 Xiphos wrote:
Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive. We're talking about the presumption of child custody and which side the law favoured. You need to read the whole post, not just skim through until you think someone is being mean to men and then leap to their defence. And I wasn't quoting anyone. That's the difference.
I think he is pointing out that its better to stay on topic, rather than make broad, overly generalized statements about the life of an entire demographic in a specific period of time. If the topic is focused down to child custody, it doesn't help the discussion to then move it to discussing men's lives through the entire pre-1900.
|
On May 27 2014 03:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:41 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:15 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless? YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman". This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with you guys.
But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being ever discriminated against and face similar problems as women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination.
Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebag saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that.
How am I to self-identify as a member of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:50 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:41 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women. Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of. Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless? YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman". This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles. Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here. But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination. Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that. How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
|
Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination:
The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29]
Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group.
|
On May 27 2014 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:41 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless? YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman". This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles. Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here. But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination. Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that. How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum. How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
I would argue "identification" as voicing support for a certain agenda. Which does make a marginal difference for each person that identifies or does not.
|
On May 27 2014 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination: Show nested quote +The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29] Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group.
You can still be a libertarian/conservative without being part of /pol/
|
I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive.
|
On May 27 2014 03:58 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination: The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29] Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group. You can still be a libertarian/conservative without being part of /pol/
Right. But I wouldn't identify as a Republican because of the Tea Party/RINO nonsense.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 27 2014 03:56 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:54 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:41 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless? YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman". This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles. Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here. But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination. Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that. How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum. How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference. I would argue "identification" as voicing support for a certain agenda. Which does make a marginal difference for each person that identifies or does not.
Feminists are the people talking about the role of gender in society and the issues it causes. If I give a shit that male victims can't talk about domestic abuse because it doesn't fit the traditional narrative and they're afraid of the stigma and I want a group that also gives a shit then that's like minded feminists. I don't agree with all of them, probably not even a majority of them, but they're the ones having the debate about gender.
|
On May 27 2014 03:59 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive.
Alright I'll concede. This second paragraph is probably what I would like to argue.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:59 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive. Alright I'll concede. This second paragraph is probably what I would like to argue.
While I was still at university myself and the feminist society had a colossal facepalm at this tumblr which explains, in depth, how men are oppressing women with their legs and why it's necessary to take secret photos of them and post them online. One part funny, the other creepy.
http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/
|
On May 27 2014 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:50 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:41 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:34 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:30 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 03:25 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote:On May 27 2014 03:19 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids. It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man. Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards. Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.And now you know! Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T. No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out. <1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG) Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless? YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman". This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles. Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here. But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination. Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that. How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum. How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
You are right, but see the problem is that the moment I say "I'm not a feminist." even though my personal beliefs are identical to most of what Feminism stands for (with very relevant and important exceptions at least to me personally) radical feminists will immediately call me a mysognist.
I always had some sympathy for feminism, because I saw it's good intentions and see a purpose in that, but radical feminists actually make feminism look more like a "hategroup" and that's not something I want to be associated with.
I mean you are right, it's not a club with badges or a clubhouse so it shouldn't matter, but in a way it does because the moment you say "I'm not a feminist" you are almost immediately met with vitriolic and generally hateful comments and in the minds of so many people (not just women) assumed to be a mysoginist.
It's not fair.
|
On May 27 2014 04:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On May 27 2014 03:59 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive. Alright I'll concede. This second paragraph is probably what I would like to argue. While I was still at university myself and the feminist society had a colossal facepalm at this tumblr which explains, in depth, how men are oppressing women with their legs and why it's necessary to take secret photos of them and post them online. One part funny, the other creepy. http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/
Holy shit, that thing is next level trash. Its to real to be a joke.
|
Problem is that todays feminism is highly subject to group dynamics where people in the middle of the group try to be a bit more "feminist"than the others to show they are slightly more progressive and "better" than the rest. So the whole group slowly moves to an more extreme end, and if you look today a lot of feminists (that is my impression) are batshit insane and far away from wanting "equality". There is no dynamic that calls them out on their bullshit, they even invented terms like "mansplaining" and "privilege checking" to prevent themselves from criticism that comes from the outside or inside.
People pointed out that the craziest are usually the loudest but that means that they move the goalposts and guide the general direction the movement walkts towards too. Feminists are really bad on "counteracting" these people, if they counteract them at all.
On May 27 2014 03:58 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination: The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29] Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group. You can still be a libertarian/conservative without being part of /pol/
/pol/ is an amazing board because everyone is allowed to talk on a 0 ground policy, also a lot of diverse people here with differrent opinions. If you talk shit you get called out.
But even here it is apparent that people buy into the group dynamics i mentioned above it works the same way just the other directon and most people arent aware of that.
|
Why am I not surprised Sokrates would say something like that?
|
What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about?
I thought there was a serial killing?
|
On May 27 2014 04:18 Shiragaku wrote:
Why am I not surprised Sokrates would say something like that?
Not true? Tumblr feminism and pol are so similar in so many ways. It is really interesting to watch, same principles apply to both extreme groups. If you want to learn about people you have to go there. And out of the 90% trashposting you ll find some good ones.
|
|
|
On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote:
What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about?
I thought there was a serial killing?
Agreed. Crazy dude blames women for killing people = people talk about feminism. Crazy dude blames taco bell for killing people = People say "seems legit".
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote:
What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about?
I thought there was a serial killing?
I'm not sure if this is a troll question or you're genuinely ignorant but the serial killer was a misogynist whose self described problems stemmed from his inability to reconcile his own existence with his concept of masculinity and blamed women for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
