|
On March 20 2015 11:02 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 10:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 10:20 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 10:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 09:55 Shiragaku wrote:On March 20 2015 09:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote:
Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks. What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from? Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging. Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World) On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote:
What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton. On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order. I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought. No one cares if she calls herself a feminist. She can do that. Kwark and others are more pointing out that the words coming out of her mouth are pretty dumb. I thought that was evident when he called it both "rot" and "stupid". Yes, but our friend Kwark is/was the ultimate incarnation of the feminist White Knight. Channeling his authority merely unfolds another level of humour in this. I wonder whether he was speaking ex cathedra. It is merely a clever little ploy I have witnessed with the feminist authorities on this forum though. The defense against anti-feminists is always an obfuscation of what feminism supposedly is, whereas the defense against feminists is to fold up the drawbridge and define them out of it. What is important is the integrity of the brand. I am more concerned about her intellectual dishonesty while playing the maverick card while saying unbelievably idiotic statements that simply make you wonder if she is for real. What is intellectually dishonest about her? I don't know her, but she seems rather sincere to me. If she is sincere, then that is rather unfortunate. In regards to her criticisms of French philosophy, I can respect her. However, to state that feminism is trying to somehow denigrate masculinity by making them boys, demonizing men, and that men's invention of capitalism liberated women, men are dispensable, and that women are not giving men credit for hard work. Such statements are very similar to feminist strawmens that are built up to be argued and debunked on internet forums.
It seems that in accusing Paglia of making strawmen, you have yourself made strawmen of her arguments. Here is what she writes:
When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
The argument is simple enough. Assimilation into gender identities is a part of human maturity. Our ability to have gender identities is heavily dependent on the complementary development of the other sex. Denigration of one gender's virtues therefore inhibits the development of our own. Her argument actually has nothing to do with the necessity of "having men" in women's lives.
|
Those two statements come from two different parts of the article. The argument of "having men" (I assume you are referring to feminists not giving men credit) was towards the end of the article, specifically this. I mean, unless you are referring to Kwark or something else regarding what I said, I am a little confused.
Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
|
On March 20 2015 11:31 Shiragaku wrote:Those two statements come from two different parts of the article. The argument of "having men" (I assume you are referring to feminists not giving men credit) was towards the end of the article, specifically this. Show nested quote +Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
So instead focusing on her thesis, you are going to quote another part of her article completely out of context? It should be pretty obvious why the passage that you quoted is there.
|
On March 20 2015 11:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 11:02 Shiragaku wrote:On March 20 2015 10:37 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 10:20 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 10:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 09:55 Shiragaku wrote:On March 20 2015 09:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote:
Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks. What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from? Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging. Vladimir Zhironovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party can call itself liberal democrat all they want, but I am pretty damn sure that liberal democrats around the world, both left and right, would unite and call bullshit. The same can be said about Camille Paglia, but hey, even as a feminist and cultural critic, she is still full of shit which is what it comes down to. I think these two posts by Kwark sums her up rather well (In response to her TIME Article It's a Man's World) On December 17 2013 10:07 KwarK wrote:
What utter rot. Of course men do a lot, we make up half the world's population. I don't think many feminists are suggesting that men are dispensable. Claiming that women should give men credit for the world they've created is a very silly idea, it was created by men because women were systematically excluded from participation. Men didn't go out of their way to create a wonderful world so women didn't have to. People created the current world and the reason men are the lions share of key historical figures is because those men marginalised women who could otherwise have also been influential. It's like saying black people should be grateful that white men voted to abolish slavery on their behalf while overlooking the fact that the reason no black senators fought against slavery was that they were too busy picking cotton. On December 19 2013 07:05 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt that Paglia quote would be frankly insulting if it wasn't so incredibly stupid. "Lesbians need strong manly men in their private lives to define themselves by resisting". "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives". "Men cannot honour their commitments because lecturers indoctrinated some students".
Who are these professors going "The thing that defines male oppression, the thing men absolutely must stop doing, the thing that makes a man a man, is honouring commitments. You must stop honouring commitments."? I mean seriously, who genuinely believes this stuff?
It's utter nonsense. I can't believe you, or indeed anyone, can read that with a straight face. Paglia is clearly a moron of the highest order. I could care less about Paglia, and even less about what Kwark thinks of her. The funny thing here was your defense of a word; who can use it and who can't. It feeds into the nullity of most modern ideas where words and clichés begin to substitute for thought. No one cares if she calls herself a feminist. She can do that. Kwark and others are more pointing out that the words coming out of her mouth are pretty dumb. I thought that was evident when he called it both "rot" and "stupid". Yes, but our friend Kwark is/was the ultimate incarnation of the feminist White Knight. Channeling his authority merely unfolds another level of humour in this. I wonder whether he was speaking ex cathedra. It is merely a clever little ploy I have witnessed with the feminist authorities on this forum though. The defense against anti-feminists is always an obfuscation of what feminism supposedly is, whereas the defense against feminists is to fold up the drawbridge and define them out of it. What is important is the integrity of the brand. I am more concerned about her intellectual dishonesty while playing the maverick card while saying unbelievably idiotic statements that simply make you wonder if she is for real. What is intellectually dishonest about her? I don't know her, but she seems rather sincere to me. If she is sincere, then that is rather unfortunate. In regards to her criticisms of French philosophy, I can respect her. However, to state that feminism is trying to somehow denigrate masculinity by making them boys, demonizing men, and that men's invention of capitalism liberated women, men are dispensable, and that women are not giving men credit for hard work. Such statements are very similar to feminist strawmens that are built up to be argued and debunked on internet forums. It seems that in accusing Paglia of making strawmen, you have yourself made strawmen of her arguments. Here is what she writes: Show nested quote +When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women. The argument is simple enough. Assimilation into gender identities is a part of human maturity. Our ability to have gender identities is heavily dependent on the complementary development of the other sex. Denigration of one gender's virtues therefore inhibits the development of our own. Her argument actually has nothing to do with the necessity of "having men" in women's lives.
On one hand being obsessed with your own sexuality is in her opinion a sign of narcissism, and you should really move on to care about more important things in your life, but suddenly a big problem of our society is that gender roles aren't enforced? Or is the former only true for transgender people and lesbians, which from her point of view is apparently just some kind of political statement, which borders on homophobia.
Not to mention that I have yet to meet a single radical feminist who wants to destroy manhood in real-life, I must be really lucky not to encounter these people. Where exactly are 'manly values' under attack?
|
On March 20 2015 11:31 Shiragaku wrote:Those two statements come from two different parts of the article. The argument of "having men" (I assume you are referring to feminists not giving men credit) was towards the end of the article, specifically this. I mean, unless you are referring to Kwark or something else regarding what I said, I am a little confused. Show nested quote +Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
It looks like a game of telephone, because your argument (or rather, statement, since the polemic effect is achieved by ad absurdum) was based on a misinterpretation of Kwark, whose argument was in turn a misinterpretation of Paglia.
Kwark's "Women turn men into boys by denigrating masculinity only to find that they're hopelessly empty without the men in their lives" was mistaken because Paglia's emptiness referred to a conceptual emptiness in the sense of what it means to be a woman, not an emotional emptiness where a woman feels on lonely Friday evenings without the clutch of burly arms.
Your "feminism is trying to somehow denigrate masculinity by making them boys" is flipping the cause and effect.
To paraphrase, Paglia says: don't denigrate masculinity, because you'll harm yourself.
On one hand being obsessed with your own sexuality is in her opinion a sign of narcissism, and you should really move on to care about more important things in your life, but suddenly a big problem of our society is that gender roles aren't enforced? Or is the former only true for transgender people and lesbians, which from her point of view is apparently just some kind of political statement, which borders on homophobia.
Not to mention that I have yet to meet a single radical feminist who wants to destroy manhood in real-life, I must be really lucky not to encounter these people. Where exactly are 'manly values' under attack?
I do not claim to know her line of thought, but it seems to go something like this: feminist critics who base their arguments purely on structural principles deny the objective bases of gender in biology. Therefore her argument is not for gender roles to be enforced, because in her mind, gender roles spring naturally out of an "intersection between biology and culture." She probably derives from this belief that it is the feminists who are enforcing a deconstruction of gender which is contrary to the organisation of nature.
|
On March 20 2015 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 11:31 Shiragaku wrote:Those two statements come from two different parts of the article. The argument of "having men" (I assume you are referring to feminists not giving men credit) was towards the end of the article, specifically this. Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! So instead focusing on her thesis, you are going to quote another part of her article completely out of context? It should be pretty obvious why the passage that you quoted is there.
In the post on the last page where I listed many things I found to be dishonest/lazy by Paglia, but since you asked, I will focus on her thesis.
When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments.
So basically, men are being disparaged and we get males whose emotional growth is underdeveloped. I have no idea to respond to this. I have yet to even meet a feminist who has been doing what they can to destroy manhood, unless this statement is another attack on the movement to reshape how we view gender roles to which I also have to wonder how this is denigrating masculinity and commitments given that much modern feminism has been about making men responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to sexual ethics.
And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
Okay, the part about lesbians is absurd, if not homophobic. Lesbians are lesbians because the are attracted to the same sex, it has nothing to do with resisting men. But I will just give her the benefit of the doubt and assume this is some deep weird shit that can be understood if you have delved into French philosophy enough. But to the more important point about women as a whole embracing or resisting strong men, if she is utilizing what de Beavoir said "Woman is not born a woman, but becomes one" I guess I can see the merit, but this statement assumes a male-centric perspective because men had control of history for quite some time. I guess this relates to her ending where she more or less said that women should be grateful towards men for creating all these wonderful things we have today.
|
Not to mention that I have yet to meet a single radical feminist who wants to destroy manhood in real-life, I must be really lucky not to encounter these people. Where exactly are 'manly values' under attack?
That's because such critiques are dependent upon the intrusion of underclass people into middle-class life. The feminist victim is a woman with bourgeois values flung into a brutal proletarian world.
|
On March 20 2015 11:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I do not claim to know her line of thought, but it seems to go something like this: feminist critics who base their arguments purely on structural principles deny the objective bases of gender in biology. Therefore her argument is not for gender roles to be enforced, because in her mind, gender roles spring naturally out of an "intersection between biology and culture." She probably derives from this belief that it is the feminists who are enforcing a deconstruction of gender which is contrary to the organisation of nature.
But there is some big dissonance in there. On general terms she seems to be all about empowering individuals and she goes on about how modern feminists victimize women and such, but then in the next sentence she points at nature to draw some very strict borders about what's okay or not. So apparently it's okay to be a self-confident women, but please only the type of women she likes, which apparently doesn't include homosexuals for some reason. The confidence on the nature part is weird anyway, because it's far from clear what the influence or importance of "nature" actually is and why we should attribute some kind of normative value to it.
She then goes on in the video calling rape victims idiots, which is just stupid and also degrading for both sexes, as if men are animals who just can't help themselves if they see a drunk girl.
Her self-proclaimed libertarianism looks more like thinly veiled traditionalism with some armchair psychology thrown in.
|
On March 20 2015 10:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 09:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 20 2015 09:13 Shiragaku wrote:
Let's be real, you only love her because you know her as someone who attacks other feminists, oh btw, did you know she is a "feminist?" It's like those black "anti-racists" who try to make themselves appear intellectual honest by pandering to the white conservative crowd and then attach anti-racist to themselves to appear like mavericks. What happened to feminism as a heterogeneous field of cultural criticism? Where did the stingy sentiment of clannish defensiveness come from? Ultimately, the trendies of this fad fall victim to the same malaise which sterilises all other -isms. They stop thinking half-way to squat on a label so they can flaunt their feathers, and in doing so the thinking world passes them by. What is sought is not understanding, but a sense of ideological belonging. There is little that I find more amusing than the intellectual intolerance of the pseudo-intellectuals on the left. Hypocrisy at its finest. Jeez what a terrible sense of humor
|
On March 20 2015 12:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 11:58 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I do not claim to know her line of thought, but it seems to go something like this: feminist critics who base their arguments purely on structural principles deny the objective bases of gender in biology. Therefore her argument is not for gender roles to be enforced, because in her mind, gender roles spring naturally out of an "intersection between biology and culture." She probably derives from this belief that it is the feminists who are enforcing a deconstruction of gender which is contrary to the organisation of nature. But there is some big dissonance in there. On general terms she seems to be all about empowering individuals and she goes on about how modern feminists victimize women and such, but then in the next sentence she points at nature to draw some very strict borders about what's okay or not. So apparently it's okay to be a self-confident women, but please only the type of women she likes, which apparently doesn't include homosexuals for some reason. The confidence on the nature part is weird anyway, because it's far from clear what the influence or importance of "nature" actually is and why we should attribute some kind of normative value to it. She then goes on in the video calling rape victims idiots, which is just stupid and also degrading, as if men are animals who just can't help themselves if they see a drunk girl. Her self-proclaimed libertarianism looks more like thinly veiled traditionalism with some armchair psychology thrown in.
I did not hear anything about empowerment, only emancipation. I didn't hear anything about blaming rape victims either, but you did, which is an interesting mini-phenomenon in itself.
As for her argument from nature, her argument is not normative, but descriptive. She is telling us why things happen, not why they should have happened. Argument from necessity.
|
On March 20 2015 07:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 07:42 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On March 20 2015 04:26 kwizach wrote:On March 20 2015 04:19 xM(Z wrote:On March 20 2015 03:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 20 2015 03:01 Hryul wrote:On March 20 2015 02:01 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 01:56 Hryul wrote:On March 20 2015 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 01:36 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
yes.
btw in agame now, sry That is a super common joke in the states and people make it all the time. It made ironically and clearly no one who makes the joke thinks women belong in the kitchen. If they did, it wouldn't be a joke. it's strange. I would never make such a comment towards women and @ quantichawk I wasn't aware that there is a whole hashtag behind this, but I perceive this as offensive. comparing men to garbage and not even allowing them inside the house. the joke is totally lost on me. but hey, that's just like my opinion. i'm sure she intended it to be totally funny and not chauvinistic. You well within your right to find it offensive. But I would also point out that no one is making the joke directly at you. The person is making it to their followers on social media and we can assume that they followed the person for that reason. Off color jokes are fine as long as they are only going to an intended audience and not being directed at someone who does not want to hear them. Of course when the person is super famous(like Robert Downey Jr. level), that applies less and less because they are not really in control of who their incidence is on the internet. But if you follow a comedian you can expect an off color joke every once and a while. I'm not "offended" by it like "ehrmagod fire her!!", but I do think it is problematic. Furthermore this is also not how it works: a PR worker got fired because she made a racial joke on twitter which magnified into a shitstorm while she was flying to south africa. so no, you don't have some "public privacy" where jokes are ok, as long as you're not super famous. if you post something on twitter it is public period. and you are responsible for it. and the point i was trying to make was an entire other: stratos spear was attacking "the media" for portraying "feminism" the wrong way. Now I dug up an example of a woman who should be an example of equality feminism. she is in a position of power through her writing for the guardian and she should make a prime example for her kind. yet she is making chauvinistic jokes about men. So it isn't the media portraying feminism wrong but feminists themselves (even those who should know better) make it easy to attack them. and as ninazerg showed, there are problematic tendencies within feminism since at least 2nd wave. but hey, better blame it on the system media instead of taking care of them yourself. edit: stratos: are you arguing that i should find this joke ok, because you assume i was never oppressed by a woman? No, I'm arguing that it's OK for there to be different standards for insensitive jokes about certain groups because the context surrounding those groups and jokes are different.Oh, and as I pointed out, plenty of feminists DO criticize overly radical feminists and call them out on their craziness. This discussion reminds me of Fox News saying, "Where are all the Muslims denouncing radical Islamists?!" and then the rest of the world points to the dozens of instances where plenty of Muslims DO condemn radical Islam and yet they're ignored because they don't fit Fox's narrative. (about the feminism and its radical aspects: every time you use in your phrase wording solely feminism , just take it; be prepared to take the whole radicalization of it. it's on you to first differentiate your meaning of it.) There is no need to "differentiate your meaning of it" because, like you've been told repeatedly, feminism is about achieving equality between the sexes. If you are failing to understand that, it's on you. there is, however, a need to define terms. equality has by no means been strictly and precisely defined by any feminist i have heard speak on the issue. the phrase 'equality between the sexes' is rather broad and unspecific. does it refer to equality of opportunity, or parity in outcomes? it is logical to assume that modern feminists are after equal outcomes, as equal opportunity has existed for decades. the problem is that these two definitions are mutually exclusive. in order to force equal outcomes, there must be unequal opportunity to compensate for real or perceived deficiencies in the abilities or circumstances of a given group or individual. in either case any achievable equality is necessarily limited and conditional. modern feminist tend to ignore this fact and assert that there is some achievable state of 'total equality'. The bold part is a serious misconception. Just because equal opportunity exists legally does not mean it exists functionally. Work in fixing injustices doesn't end when the law says two groups are equal. Society has to actually do so as well.
No, it's actually true. Unless you mean in Saudi Arabia.
|
On March 20 2015 03:24 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 03:16 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 03:01 Hryul wrote:On March 20 2015 02:01 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 01:56 Hryul wrote:On March 20 2015 01:48 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 01:36 Hryul wrote:On March 20 2015 01:33 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 01:28 Hryul wrote:On March 20 2015 01:07 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
huh? that's a really popular joke that people make all the time. i don't make such jokes and I thought the homeland of these chokes is 4chan. outside of it i never heard anybody make a joke like that. cultural differences much? Which joke? The "get back in the kitchen" joke? yes. btw in agame now, sry That is a super common joke in the states and people make it all the time. It made ironically and clearly no one who makes the joke thinks women belong in the kitchen. If they did, it wouldn't be a joke. it's strange. I would never make such a comment towards women and @ quantichawk I wasn't aware that there is a whole hashtag behind this, but I perceive this as offensive. comparing men to garbage and not even allowing them inside the house. the joke is totally lost on me. but hey, that's just like my opinion. i'm sure she intended it to be totally funny and not chauvinistic. You well within your right to find it offensive. But I would also point out that no one is making the joke directly at you. The person is making it to their followers on social media and we can assume that they followed the person for that reason. Off color jokes are fine as long as they are only going to an intended audience and not being directed at someone who does not want to hear them. Of course when the person is super famous(like Robert Downey Jr. level), that applies less and less because they are not really in control of who their incidence is on the internet. But if you follow a comedian you can expect an off color joke every once and a while. I'm not "offended" by it like "ehrmagod fire her!!", but I do think it is problematic. Furthermore this is also not how it works: a PR worker got fired because she made a racial joke on twitter which magnified into a shitstorm while she was flying to south africa. so no, you don't have some "public privacy" where jokes are ok, as long as you're not super famous. if you post something on twitter it is public period. and you are responsible for it. and the point i was trying to make was an entire other: stratos spear was attacking "the media" for portraying "feminism" the wrong way. Now I dug up an example of a woman who should be an example of equality feminism. she is in a position of power through her writing for the guardian and she should make a prime example for her kind. yet she is making chauvinistic jokes about men. So it isn't the media portraying feminism wrong but feminists themselves (even those who should know better) make it easy to attack them. and as ninazerg showed, there are problematic tendencies within feminism since at least 2nd wave. but hey, better blame it on the system media instead of taking care of them yourself. edit: stratos: are you arguing that i should find this joke ok, because you assume i was never oppressed by a woman? The ideal world would be where everyone can make jokes about one another and everyone can understand they are joking. I am sure if pressed she would say "No, I don't want to tie anyone up outside my house, man or woman." It is completely ridiculous to put anyone who identifies as a feminist up on some divine pedestal and demand they act as this shining example at all time. If you want to take stuff like that deadly seriously, that your choice. I am a man and I am not offended in the least. I often make jokes about my "feminist overlords" on both twitter and in person. It does not mean I want to oppress men or I am advocating for it. And I am sure if I spent a few minutes on twitter I could find some amazing things by folks who prominent advocate for mens rights that is equally as offensive, if not more so. is it really too much to ask from a person who wrote four books on feminism not to make such mindless jokes? is this "putting them on a pedestal"? or is it holding them to their own standards? this is not some tumblr feminist this is a journalist working for the guardian.
In my opinion The Guardian is a joke newspaper and is essentially the journalistic equivalent of Fox News in the UK. I really just can't take any of their editorials seriously at this point.
|
On March 20 2015 09:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 07:42 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:
there is, however, a need to define terms. equality has by no means been strictly and precisely defined by any feminist i have heard speak on the issue.
the phrase 'equality between the sexes' is rather broad and unspecific. does it refer to equality of opportunity, or parity in outcomes?
it is logical to assume that modern feminists are after equal outcomes, as equal opportunity has existed for decades. the problem is that these two definitions are mutually exclusive. there must be unequal opportunity to compensate for real or perceived deficiencies in the abilities or circumstances of a given group or individual. First, like Stratos_speAr said, legal equal opportunity is not the same as functional equal opportunity. Second, the two definitions are not mutually exclusive at all. Like I wrote earlier in the thread: Show nested quote +This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter. And that's not even taking into account the reticence still present at the structural and individual levels to hire women in several professions and situations. Fighting against gender discrimination and restrictive gender norms therefore contributes to achieving both true equal opportunities and more parity in outcomes.
What you are saying, in not so many words, just sounds like equality of outcomes, dressed up in obfuscating language to make it sound like you're talking about equality of opportunity .I mean this quote is throwing out the distinction anyone makes between the two (equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes) so I'm glad you brought it up again. Maybe you believe one necessitates the other, which is a fair enough thought, but really you seem to go too far in blurring these ideas together.
|
Christina Hoff Sommers is another "feminist" beloved by anti-feminists.
Also, has anyone here actually watched the documentary?  (I haven't, but wondering if I should)
|
On March 20 2015 22:21 Grumbels wrote:Christina Hoff Sommers is another "feminist" beloved by anti-feminists. Also, has anyone here actually watched the documentary? (I haven't, but wondering if I should)
Sadly no, its still in kickstarter pre-release. I will be nice to see it. And your right that Sommers is making a very good living as an "anti-feminist".
JP did a good show yesterday with a bunch of lady gamers with them talking about the issues they face. I don't know if its up on his youtube yet, but I caught part of it and it was good. To be clear, its not a debate(apparently some people wanted it) its a discussion between women and their shared experience. Apparently one of their shared experiences was men talking over them about women's issues, which is oddly fitting. I can't find the link at work, but it would be cool if someone linked it.
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2jVtkHOl6MQ
Part 1
Some interesting points:
1. Women tend to have it easier in the early stage (getting out of the 0-3 viewer hell)
2. Women tend to have a difficult time growing past mid range (500-2000)
|
I think its worth talking about how twitch/twitter are huge platforms for developing parasocial relationships and how the (I assume) largely male twitch viewership treats these relationships with female streamers. How much of it is sexual/romantic? How much is platonic?
And lastly, are the unreasonable expectations of female streamers affected by the fact that historically women were streaming professionally long before men (camshows)?
|
On March 20 2015 23:32 Jormundr wrote:
I think its worth talking about how twitch/twitter are huge platforms for developing parasocial relationships and how the (I assume) largely male twitch viewership treats these relationships with female streamers. How much of it is sexual/romantic? How much is platonic?
And lastly, are the unreasonable expectations of female streamers affected by the fact that historically women were streaming professionally long before men (camshows)?
You don't really have to assume.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HAEC5JU.png)
Source
|
On March 20 2015 22:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 22:21 Grumbels wrote:Christina Hoff Sommers is another "feminist" beloved by anti-feminists. Also, has anyone here actually watched the documentary? (I haven't, but wondering if I should) Sadly no, its still in kickstarter pre-release. I will be nice to see it. And your right that Sommers is making a very good living as an "anti-feminist". JP did a good show yesterday with a bunch of lady gamers with them talking about the issues they face. I don't know if its up on his youtube yet, but I caught part of it and it was good. To be clear, its not a debate(apparently some people wanted it) its a discussion between women and their shared experience. Apparently one of their shared experiences was men talking over them about women's issues, which is oddly fitting. I can't find the link at work, but it would be cool if someone linked it.
Oooh, how embarrassing for me to not have noticed that. In my defense, I thought that surely with this thread having like 70 pages there had to have been some discussion on the documentary, but I haven't read anything other than the last few pages though.
|
On March 21 2015 04:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 22:43 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2015 22:21 Grumbels wrote:Christina Hoff Sommers is another "feminist" beloved by anti-feminists. Also, has anyone here actually watched the documentary? (I haven't, but wondering if I should) Sadly no, its still in kickstarter pre-release. I will be nice to see it. And your right that Sommers is making a very good living as an "anti-feminist". JP did a good show yesterday with a bunch of lady gamers with them talking about the issues they face. I don't know if its up on his youtube yet, but I caught part of it and it was good. To be clear, its not a debate(apparently some people wanted it) its a discussion between women and their shared experience. Apparently one of their shared experiences was men talking over them about women's issues, which is oddly fitting. I can't find the link at work, but it would be cool if someone linked it. Oooh, how embarrassing for me to not have noticed that. In my defense, I thought that surely with this thread having like 70 pages there had to have been some discussion on the documentary, but I haven't read anything other than the last few pages though.
Nah, people just derailed the thread with their own pet issues regarding women and if they are or are not harassed. You know, totally standard for any discussion of women on a site slightly related to gaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
