|
On March 11 2015 14:26 oBlade wrote:
Okay, the fact that a German shepherd is not a poodle doesn't mean they aren't both dogs.
I think you got it? A rottweiler and a toy poodle are both 'dogs' (sexist) but it's important to have words to distinguish the two.
Trying to torture this example a bit more: If someone says they were "attacked by a dog" it makes a pretty big difference what kind of dog it was. Hence the language.
The rottweiler is sexist and the toy poodle discriminates.
Or using the other terminology, the rottweiler is the 'patriarchal sexist' and the toy poodle the 'sexist'
EDIT: Again I'm not an expert or anything so I could sloppily say something in a way I didn't mean.
EDIT2: There is also something to be said about internalised oppression but that's another ball of wax as Rui indicated.
|
So "sexism" describes a static global phenomenon and "gender-based discrimination" describes a dynamic local one?
Like, "sexism" gives me an instant advantage at my birth over baby girls, but "gender-based discrimination" is what I may be the target of in the future anyway, is that it?
Regardless, I can't understand why you would make blanket statements like "sexism against men doesn't exist", even if that's true, if the understanding of that statement requires reading 2-3 books on gender studies, and if you know that most people definitely won't understand it. Well, wait, I lied, I do understand! It brings the spotlight on you fast enough and create social conflict from simple semantics. I can see the appeal of that, Miss Sarkeesian.
|
This point might be lost on some, but just because there might be flawed public personalities to a movement, does not mean that the underlying problems are non existent.
|
This is not about a single, flawed public personality.
![[image loading]](https://41.media.tumblr.com/eec27cb86a856d837fe65ac6bc87b0a8/tumblr_n1gjreCZqo1qkvwy3o1_500.jpg)
|
On March 11 2015 16:46 ZenithM wrote:
So "sexism" describes a static global phenomenon and "gender-based discrimination" describes a dynamic local one?
Like, "sexism" gives me an instant advantage at my birth over baby girls, but "gender-based discrimination" is what I may be the target of in the future anyway, is that it?
That's pretty much it. Of course specific people mean specific things when they use it themselves but you've got the core concept basically.
Regardless, I can't understand why you would make blanket statements like "sexism against men doesn't exist", even if that's true, if the understanding of that statement requires reading 2-3 books on gender studies, and if you know that most people definitely won't understand it. Well, wait, I lied, I do understand! It brings the spotlight on you fast enough and create social conflict from simple semantics. I can see the appeal of that, Miss Sarkeesian.
Yeah it wasn't really the focus of any of my classes so I only picked up the more general stuff but I had the same issue. You also arrived at the conclusion I did. I never really got a chance to talk about it with someone who knew a lot about it though so there could be more to it. Also some people just say it because they were taught it like a fact and some people just like to stir shit by parading controversial 'facts'.
I've found in my personal experience it's often an exasperated huff from someone who has just got done reading/listening to a bunch of privileged people (men in this case) complain about how no one understands the stress they are under or dismiss issues with something like "well that happens to everybody"
So it's really them saying, "your discrimination =/= my oppression" some people will make a big deal about oppression being worse, but most will just settle for recognizing they are different.
On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. + Show Spoiler +
First off, that's true. Secondly, reverse racism/sexism is certainly a more dumb concept than what we are talking about.
Even with the outdated definition of an ism, it still wouldn't make ANY sense to put the word reverse in front of it.
|
On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is not about a single, flawed public personality.
If that book wasn't written in the last 5 years I'd be more inclined to believe it's not just some recent redefinition of old, well-established terms.
Oh and if it was you know, from a neutral source (which it won't be). The fact that it's from the sjw cesspool of tumblr explains a lot too.
|
On March 11 2015 17:46 Rollin wrote:If that book wasn't written in the last 5 years I'd be more inclined to believe it's not just some recent redefinition of old, well-established terms. Oh and if it was you know, from a neutral source (which it won't be). The fact that it's from the sjw cesspool of tumblr explains a lot too.
I'm not endorsing it.
|
On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality.
Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power?
I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women.
Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies.
|
On March 11 2015 18:14 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power? I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women. Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies.
It's not about holding any, no one thinks women have none. But there is a clear imbalance. Just when I thought we were making some progress here.
No one ever said "somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way" just saying that shows you haven't understood any of the last couple pages.
|
On March 11 2015 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 18:14 maartendq wrote:On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power? I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women. Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies. It's not about holding any, no one thinks women have none. But there is a clear imbalance. Just when I thought we were making some progress here. No one ever said "somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way" just saying that shows you haven't understood any of the last couple pages.
Honestly, I didn't even bother reading them. Every time one of these documentaries gets released it is incredibly predictable what they are going to be about. There is a certain group of annoyingly politically correct people, mainly in the US, that have a tendency to be offended at the slightest thing and always portray themselves as victims. These new-wave feminists take it one step further and continuously attempt to redifine the word rape in ways that are insulting to actual rape victims. Men looking at you because you look pretty or are wearing close that show off your body are not raping you. Men who compliment you on how you look are not raping you. Even people who kitty-call you are not raping you, they're just being rude. At most the above could be interpreted as harassment, but even that is pushing the definition of that word.
The irony is that this new breed of feminists portrays women as being weak and needing protection against "male chauvinist pigs", while the original goal of feminism was quite the opposite: showing that women actually can handle themselves.
The internet is a cesspool, regardless of your gender, skin colour or whatever. Don't touch online gaming with a 10-foot pole if you can't handle the fact that you will get verbally abused on an incredibly regular basis regardless of your gender, skin colour or political or religious beliefs. The good thing is, however, that the internet allows you to hide behind an anonymous nickname, which means that no-one has to know your gender, skin colour or religious beliefs unless you choose to make it public.
Meanwhile, all the women I know who did make it rather far all had one thing in common: they portrayed themselves as leaders, not as victims, and brushed aside the obstacles in front of them. Just like their male counterparts they are highly competitive, believe in what they do - and vice versa - and do not blame others for their own mistakes.
Sorry for the rant. I am just getting tired of this politically correct victim society we are living in.
|
You could have spent that time you used to type that rant to read the last few pages and realise that you're just repeating the same tired stuff that was dealt with many pages ago. But you seem to have made up your mind already given your attitude, so colour me unsurprised.
|
On March 11 2015 18:14 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power? I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women. Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies.
Your argument here is self-refuting. As long as there is not at least a roughly 50/50 balance between men and women in positions of authority, then women, as a group, don't hold power. The ratio is FAR from 50/50 in the vast majority of fields. You can't look at a group of 50 people, point out that 4 or 5 of them are women, and act like that's equality.
Secondly, you're admitting straight out that there's an unwritten rule that men are breadwinners while women concern themselves more with domestic stuff. That is sexism. That's expecting different things from people based on their gender for no reason. It's sexist by definition. Men are not inherently less capable at housework, nor are women more capable. Women are not inherently less capable leaders, nor are men more capable. We've just decided as a culture to funnel people in different directions based on superficial characteristics. There's no reason to keep doing it and any resistance to stopping it can't be called anything other than sexist.
|
On March 11 2015 18:43 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 18:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 18:14 maartendq wrote:On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power? I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women. Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies. It's not about holding any, no one thinks women have none. But there is a clear imbalance. Just when I thought we were making some progress here. No one ever said "somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way" just saying that shows you haven't understood any of the last couple pages. Honestly, I didn't even bother reading them. Every time one of these documentaries gets released it is incredibly predictable what they are going to be about. There is a certain group of annoyingly politically correct people, mainly in the US, that have a tendency to be offended at the slightest thing and always portray themselves as victims. These new-wave feminists take it one step further and continuously attempt to redifine the word rape in ways that are insulting to actual rape victims. Men looking at you because you look pretty or are wearing close that show off your body are not raping you. Men who compliment you on how you look are not raping you. Even people who kitty-call you are not raping you, they're just being rude. At most the above could be interpreted as harassment, but even that is pushing the definition of that word. The irony is that this new breed of feminists portrays women as being weak and needing protection against "male chauvinist pigs", while the original goal of feminism was quite the opposite: showing that women actually can handle themselves. The internet is a cesspool, regardless of your gender, skin colour or whatever. Don't touch online gaming with a 10-foot pole if you can't handle the fact that you will get verbally abused on an incredibly regular basis regardless of your gender, skin colour or political or religious beliefs. The good thing is, however, that the internet allows you to hide behind an anonymous nickname, which means that no-one has to know your gender, skin colour or religious beliefs unless you choose to make it public. Meanwhile, all the women I know who did make it rather far all had one thing in common: they portrayed themselves as leaders, not as victims, and brushed aside the obstacles in front of them. Just like their male counterparts they are highly competitive, believe in what they do - and vice versa - and do not blame others for their own mistakes. Sorry for the rant. I am just getting tired of this politically correct victim society we are living in.
lol. You're not saying much new. That has been the common message through the thread. You were coming in on the tail end of some people starting to get past that common take. If you don't want to read/follow that I don't really see a point in rehashing it.
I don't know if redefining rape has come up but just getting sexism under a common understanding is hard enough.
Although I'd say feminists aren't trying to protect fragile females, whether they be old or new. Without beating a dead horse's blood pool, everyone knows people are jerks to everyone but it doesn't mean it's the same thing. The sooner people realize that the better for everyone.
|
On March 11 2015 18:43 maartendq wrote:
Men looking at you because you look pretty or are wearing close that show off your body are not raping you. Men who compliment you on how you look are not raping you. Even people who kitty-call you are not raping you, they're just being rude.
I'm going to have to ask you to provide some evidence that this is a position held by mainstream feminists. And by "mainstream" I don't mean some random idiotic quote ripped off some Tumblr blog. I don't mean one thing someone said once a long time ago. I don't mean examples of anti-feminists claiming feminists think this. I mean quotes showing that this is the mainstream academic consensus now. I won't hold my breath.
|
On March 11 2015 18:56 piegasm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 18:14 maartendq wrote:On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power? I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women. Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies. Your argument here is self-refuting. As long as there is not at least a roughly 50/50 balance between men and women in positions of authority, then women, as a group, don't hold power. The ratio is FAR from 50/50 in the vast majority of fields. You can't look at a group of 50 people, point out that 4 or 5 of them are women, and act like that's equality. Secondly, you're admitting straight out that there's an unwritten rule that men are breadwinners while women concern themselves more with domestic stuff. That is sexism. That's expecting different things from people based on their gender for no reason. It's sexist by definition. Men are not inherently less capable at housework, nor are women more capable. Women are not inherently less capable leaders, nor are men more capable. We've just decided as a culture to funnel people in different directions based on superficial characteristics. There's no reason to keep doing it and any resistance to stopping it can't be called anything other than sexist.
But men are inherently better and doing physically straining work, which is why, throughout human history except the past 75 years (or less even), women generally took care of the house and kids while men were out hunting, tilling the fields or working in factories. I do not see why this historical reality, which is something that is probably hardwired into our brain - considering it is a common phenomenon among practically all cultures around the world - is sexist. What is sexist, however, is denying women from leaving their homes and pursuing careers for themselves just because they are women.
|
On March 11 2015 19:07 piegasm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 18:43 maartendq wrote:
Men looking at you because you look pretty or are wearing close that show off your body are not raping you. Men who compliment you on how you look are not raping you. Even people who kitty-call you are not raping you, they're just being rude. I'm going to have to ask you to provide some evidence that this is a position held by mainstream feminists. And by "mainstream" I don't mean some random idiotic quote ripped off some Tumblr blog. I don't mean one thing someone said once a long time ago. I don't mean examples of anti-feminists claiming feminists think this. I mean quotes showing that this is the mainstream academic consensus now. I won't hold my breath.
Since I did not mention that this was a position held by mainstream feminists, I do not really see why I need to post evidence about an academic consensus. I merely mentioned a "new breed of feminists". I did not state that those feminists were academics whose persuit is to write scientific papers on the subject. As far as I know, one does not need to have a master's degree or PHD in women studies in order to be a feminist.
However, if you google for "male gaze" or "rape culture" you will find plenty of information to suit your liking.
|
I really don't think you know what "male gaze" or "rape culture" means. Neither mean that looking at a woman is raping her. I'd suggest more reading and less ranting.
But sure continue to make these strawman feminists since I guess it's easier than applying your mind.
|
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible
|
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
|
On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible
What about Farmville, Angry birds and Candy Crush? :D
Nowadays, any video game that is console or PC-based first is hardcore.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
That's interesting, and it's not that obvious that those 2 don't end up being exactly the same. The most ardent feminists will tell you that as there is no difference between men and women (no difference at all, yes), you would expect that "equal opportunities + 50:50 male/female birth ratio = 50:50 representation of genders in all things".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
