Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

Are you guys really going through with this "men and women have different dna" crap? :/

The male and female part of a species have slight differences due to the different tasks that come with each of the two genders. But they're still the same species!

You make it sound as if there's a vast difference in dna to the point of where men and women are no longer comparable as one species. Come the fuck on.

:/

But this is why we have genders. No one is saying women and men are not Homo Sapiens.
But observational and biological differences exist that necessitates putting the two in groups.

I wouldn't even let these differences bother you too much. Like I mentioned in the previous post, my main concern is protecting the freedoms of both men and women. Biological differences is just one example of that.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

That's not how DNA works. We all have the same DNA.

Well the molecules are the same, the coding they spell out isn't.

 

[ickythingz]

Current feminism is poison. It is doing nothing positive for women on the grand scope of things. The most powerful woman to ever live said it best:

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."
~ Queen Victoria, March, 1870.

A lot of women, certainly not all btw, are setting themselves up failure by going down this new stage of feminism. They are making enemies everywhere (even with in their own ranks, I see this daily at work) and it will reverberate across generations if sanity is not found.
I would like to see a new age feminist argue with Queen Victoria though.

 

[JordanN]

Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."
~ Queen Victoria, March, 1870.

Ha, a straight up savage.

I can sympathize with women that a life of just rearing children is boring and I would help them do whatever they can to try and fulfill other roles in life that would give them meaning.
But I'm also reminded that we're all animals and ultimately, we have certain behaviors that are hardwired.

So if you want to work a factory job and demand equal pay, then sure, go ahead and prove you're a skilled worker. But if feminism wants to remove every man from power in the name of "equality" then sorry, I can't support that.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

The whole conversation is very powerful. Then again; I am a second wave feminist.

 

[Gun Animal]

When an Institution achieves it's stated goal, it must set ever new and more unreachable goals in order to justify it's continued existence. When a cell divides relentlessly and refuses to self-terminate, it is considered cancerous.

 

[HarryKS]

In life, sometimes, you deserve what you get.

 

[TrainedRage]

I give you.... The Hoff!

 

[Punished Miku]

It's not "legit" at all. If you want to focus on women's rights, focus on the middle east, Africa, and other places where women genuinely need powerful movements to promote women's rights. It's turned into a toxic disaster that is destroying anything it touches. No aspect of culture is safe, and now it's even threatening the objectivity of science itself, and people's ability to even speak freely about genuine ideas.

Feminism was only barely still alive in universities. Most of the west had moved on past it by the end of the 90s. It wasn't until the internet fully blew open that this fringe group of radical feminists began to weaponize their ideology and start bullying and hurting people to gain power.

At the end of the day, that's really what it is now. Bullies after power. Disagree with this new religion and you face stiff consequences, banning from websites and forums, potential loss of your friends and job. Exercising any kind of nuance and critical thinking is not tolerated. There are now dogmatic beliefs with no proof whatsoever that are enforced, or else. These beliefs fall apart pretty quickly if people are allowed to speak freely and debate, but that rarely happens. Anyone challenging the core dogmatic assertions of modern feminism gets banned, insulted and shunned.

Just look at how few genuine debates there are online between radical feminists and ... anyone else.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

The facinating thing about Paglia is that she has the self awareness to understand that social movements are bureaucratic and once their goal is achieved they need to dig deeper to justify their existence. Like government or corporate divisions.

No social movement will ever think they have achieved their goals, because they will always move the goal posts to justify their own existence.

Corporations tho can cut an unprofitable division because there are metrics that are tangible for their usefulness.

The thing is you can't apply corporate style cuts to a no longer useful social movement (or governmental bureau) they will just get louder and more antagonistic to prove how useful they are.

Edit - and that is why modern feminists hate Paglia. She fights for actual equality, while knowing that men and women are very different.

 

[Dunki]

The facinating thing about Paglia is that she has the self awareness to understand that social movements are bureaucratic and once their goal is achieved they need to dig deeper to justify their existence. Like government or corporate divisions.

No social movement will ever think they have achieved their goals, because they will always move the goal posts to justify their own existence.

Corporations tho can cut an unprofitable division because there are metrics that are tangible for their usefulness.

The thing is you can't apply corporate style cuts to a no longer useful social movement (or governmental bureau) they will just get louder and more antagonistic to prove how useful they are.

Edit - and that is why modern feminists hate Paglia. She fights for actual equality, while knowing that men and women are very different.

She is also the one comparing modern feminism with a religious cult. Not thinking for themselves but rather repeat phrases filled with loaded and buzzwords over and over again. Laci green also described it with the Mormonen group she grew up in as a kid. Which in the end made her distance herself with modern feminism

 

[llien]

I think it's misleading to talk about "waves" of feminisms.
The problem is, that the groups who got the upper hand within the feminist movement, got there not because they had the best arguments, but because they were aggressive bullies.
Look at this, for instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sex_wars

And note how nowadays only one, the most negative one, is the only "feminist" POVs on sex.

.

I think I've seen Valenti's article (the first one) with a more chuckle-worthy title, it was edited later on. Can't find the link unfortunately...

For the patriarchy, yeah men rule or have more power in certain fields. I don't regard this as necessarily being evil though.

I think the catch here is that men don't do it as a gender group. I.e. ruling men are in no way somehow more loyal to people with penises.
That's not always the case with women and is certainly not the case with the women with "gender studies" et al background.

I told myself I was going to stay out of this thread after my first post because lol men talking amongst themselves about the merits of feminism as though y'all have any real perspective at all, but...

"You need to have certain genitalia to dare have a perspective" when talking about the movement that basically is shaping modern world is an appaling stance.
You are basically trying to shut people up because of their gender.

 

[Joyful]

edit--

 

[haimon]

Everyone deserves equal opportunity. However due to the past you have certain specific people in enough positions of power that if you do not force changes they will never happen.

The white male manager will usually hire a white male unless there is overwhelming reason not to (and even then might choose to do so).

So to level the playing field you need to make sure hires are not only about resume but also about making your workplace diverse.

 

[i_am_ben]

Man, some of you guys need to get a grip.

 

[JordanN]

Everyone deserves equal opportunity. However due to the past you have certain specific people in enough positions of power that if you do not force changes they will never happen.

The white male manager will usually hire a white male unless there is overwhelming reason not to (and even then might choose to do so).

Why are [private] businesses obligated to accommodate everyone and not decide for themselves who they can hire?
If someone is qualified for the job, then it's up to the employer to decide if they're passing on potential talent (in which case, another company can just as easily snatch them up, creating competition).

Forcing diversity hires also introduces tension. If you know "x" company is known to be conservative, then why make it a point to single out that business as opposed to (my previous suggestion) of creating your own? Again, all complaints about a "male run company" goes out the window if you found a company that is clearly headed by a female to the start.

 

[Dunki]

Everyone deserves equal opportunity. However due to the past you have certain specific people in enough positions of power that if you do not force changes they will never happen.

The white male manager will usually hire a white male unless there is overwhelming reason not to (and even then might choose to do so).

So to level the playing field you need to make sure hires are not only about resume but also about making your workplace diverse.

This has already happen. RIght now if you compare the wages, the positions etc between 20-30 year olds women outclass men in almost everything. The argument about wage gap, about Position etc are a reflection of the past. The future looks rather grim for young males to be honest. And modern feminism does not care much about this at all. But like people said it has become more of a corporation that tries to survive.

 

[The Sane Psycho]

It's too legit to quit.

 

[Super Mario]

Feminism is a divisive cancer created by the militant left to show victimhood by (white) men. You'll notice a consistent theme amongst most of the top liberal issues. It sounds like a noble cause. I mean who would be against women bettering themselves? The result is nearly always less than desired. Successful women are not so because of feminism.

The left loves their "science" on climate issues, but goes quiet when it comes to the differences between people. Men and women are inherently different in many areas. The data out there is overwhelming. There's a lot more to learn about the world than what Huffpost throws at you.

I see a lot of "old school" opinions here where people just question these sciences like it is completely asinine and couple it with a swear word. That doesn't work here anymore.

 

[King of FeatherCoin]

It's not good, I'll tell you that.

 

[zumphry]

Feminism is a divisive cancer created by the militant left to show victimhood by (white) men. You'll notice a consistent theme amongst most of the top liberal issues. It sounds like a noble cause. I mean who would be against women bettering themselves? The result is nearly always less than desired. Successful women are not so because of feminism.

The left loves their "science" on climate issues, but goes quiet when it comes to the differences between people. Men and women are inherently different in many areas. The data out there is overwhelming. There's a lot more to learn about the world than what Huffpost throws at you.

I see a lot of "old school" opinions here where people just question these sciences like it is completely asinine and couple it with a swear word. That doesn't work here anymore.

You know women weren't allowed to vote in the US at first, right?

 

[Dr. Claus]

You know women weren't allowed to vote in the US at first, right?

And?

Neither were disenfranchised white men, native americans, black people, certain religions, mentally ill, etc. Voting laws in America have been stupid for centuries and took way longer than it should have to improve - but this can be seen in many countries' histories. It is by no means unique to America.

 

[zumphry]

And?

Neither were disenfranchised white men, native americans, black people, certain religions, mentally ill, etc. Voting laws in America have been stupid for centuries and took way longer than it should have to improve - but this can be seen in many countries' histories. It is by no means unique to America.

I should have cut the quote down but the main part I was responding to was "Who would be against women bettering themselves?" and the answer is that considering the history of women's rights in the US, there's precedent for worrying about equality.

 

[Dunki]

You know women weren't allowed to vote in the US at first, right?

No one is really talking about it. For example I adore and totally respect what feminism di in the past but I also beleive that it has radicalized by a very loud prob even minority who has stigmatized this defintion of feminism. I also believe that we reached equality but we are still different. To me feminism is outdated and it needs to be replaced by something new.

 

[BANGS]

These days everything is a battle of who is more oppressed. Your failings in life can't be your own, it must be because someone else ruined your life. This is why we have all these ridiculous people creating villains for no reason...

 

[Super Mario]

You know women weren't allowed to vote in the US at first, right?

And let me ask you, when does that go away? When do we stop talking about Jim Crow when we talk about African Americans? Do we ride these waves forever?

 

[Dr. Claus]

And let me ask you, when does that go away? When do we stop talking about Jim Crow when we talk about African Americans? Do we ride these waves forever?

I would argue that most people don't. Most have moved on and talk about current issues, or *rarely* compare changes in law to that of an echo of the Jim Crow days, but hardly are those serious accusations. The few that do tend to be of the same ilk - the "forever victims". At least from personal experience.

 

[Zog]

And let me ask you, when does that go away? When do we stop talking about Jim Crow when we talk about African Americans? Do we ride these waves forever?

Oh stop it! You are guilty by association and so will your children and grandchildren be. Suck it up and drive on. /s

Seriously though, you're right.

 

[zumphry]

And let me ask you, when does that go away? When do we stop talking about Jim Crow when we talk about African Americans? Do we ride these waves forever?

Well, you're the one that asked who would be against women bettering themselves. I just answered your question with a pretty logical statement.

When someone fucks you over, you can forgive them, but do you ever forget it?

 

[Super Mario]

Well, you're the one that asked who would be against women bettering themselves. I just answered your question with a pretty logical statement.

When someone fucks you over, you can forgive them, but do you ever forget it?

But what is the factual connection to feminism and women not being able to vote? Women have equal rights to men, and I would argue that their rights supercede men's more often than not.

 

[BANGS]

My wife can't even decide what she wants for dinner...

 

[zumphry]

But what is the factual connection to feminism and women not being able to vote? Women have equal rights to men, and I would argue that their rights supercede men's more often than not.

Why is this hard for you to parse?

 

[ruvikx]

And?

Neither were disenfranchised white men, native americans, black people, certain religions, mentally ill, etc. Voting laws in America have been stupid for centuries and took way longer than it should have to improve - but this can be seen in many countries' histories. It is by no means unique to America.

The real ugly truth here is there's very little difference (beyond rhetoric) between the mainstream political parties nowadays, ergo a vote has rarely meant less than it does right now - irrespective of 'where' we are in the western world. When Bush was elected in 2004, the left went full-crazy & predicted doom, when Obama was elected in 2008, it was the right which went full-crazy (ala Glenn Beck) & predicted doom, then in 2016 it was once again the left who went crazy when Trump was elected. What did we see in all 3 presidencies? Pro-Wall Street policies, pro banks policies, interference in the middle-east & essentially the same building with a different coat of paint. Republican = Democrat = Republican. All the 'battles' are merely superficial showmanship because once they're in the White House, both sides tow the same line. This applies all over the western world.

Ergo vis-à-vis this 'who gets to vote' point, 'voting' has become entirely futile because a new sort of dictatorship emerged (special interest groups with billions of dollars who fund & 'own' politicians) who now run the west. People need to wakey-wakey & understand a dictator isn't just a Napoleon/Stalin figure, but can actually be a conglomeration of businessmen/woman in suits who bankroll politicians in order for them to enact policymaking which benefits their interests first. This problem is self-evident nowadays.

Democracy will continue to be a joke & only further descend into farce until campaign funding for politicians from xyz darkest corners of the richest 2% in society (literally bribes) ends.

 

[Hotspurr]

Feminism is fine as long as it serves to bring women's issues to light in that there may be additional challenges associated with being a woman vs. a man. Certainly getting the right to vote and being able to work alongside men were pretty darn important.

Seems these days a lot of feminism is about asking for handouts and playing the victim class. It's making women weak and complacent, but prone to jump on every opportunity where their "class oppression" can be used for an explanation for their real shortcomings as individuals.

Now days we routinely hand out faculty positions to women for the sake of gender. I have personal connections with faculty that is on hiring committees who have told me "don't apply for this job, it's for a woman but we don't advertise it as such". I have since left academia and went into the private sector (best decision in my life, for a variety of reasons). At work I had a colleague say she went to school free because she got a "woman scholarship" - she wasn't particularly proud of earning something purely based on gender.

I get that we need to let women "catch up" to men in society and eliminate bias such that everyone is treated as an individual, but we are doing it in the most ass-backwards way possible. People seem to have this idea that there is an oppressor class and that we must wage war and seek revenge to even the score by any forceful means possible. This is counterproductive because it creates a lot of resentment and frustration, exactly why this thread exists. Modern feminism has become a toxic ideology that if anything sets women back more rather than building up their self esteem and making them feel as equally valuable individuals (which of course they are).

 

[Astral Dog]

Ask prof. Jordan Peterson.

Or better yet, don't

 

[Catphish]

It's clear that men and women are not on equal footing, not only in the US, but in many parts of the world.

The core desire for equality and mutual respect is absolutely legitimate.

However, as is the case with any cause for social change, you have those who are not in it for legitimate reasons; i.e., those who make a career out of the conflict, those who tolerate, or even promote, reverse inequality, and those who just like to watch the world burn.

The key is to identify the root sentiment, process it, find your place in it, and not let the superfluous bullshit get in the way of the truth.

 

[TheShadowLord]

Ask prof. Jordan Peterson.

Or better yet, don't

Was it because he said that feminism was chaos and masculinity is order?

 

[mr2xxx]

Cochrane describes the fourth wave as focusing on sexual harassment (including street harassment), workplace discrimination, body shaming, sexist imagery in the media, online misogyny, assault on public transport, and intersectionality, relying on social media for communication and online petitioning for organizing.

Since no one really tried to describe what modern feminism was I looked at wiki. All that stuff I quoted seems like legit complaints that women have. The way some people here talk about current feminism seems completely off the mark and their venom seems focused on something else.

 

[mr2xxx]

Ask prof. Jordan Peterson.

Or better yet, don't

You gotta trust a man that believes in witches and dragons

 

[5secondrulesucks]

one thing that was always weird to me is if white dudes are on the top of the totem pole white chicks 100 percent are number 2. it was always odd to see them talking about oppression and such

 

[Punished Miku]

Since no one really tried to describe what modern feminism was I looked at wiki. All that stuff I quoted seems like legit complaints that women have. The way some people here talk about current feminism seems completely off the mark and their venom seems focused on something else.

The basic problem is this. What happens to a movement like this when they actually solve almost all their problems? If you don't think they are solved today, they theoretically will be solved one day. There are college professors, politicians, tons of journalists, tons of students with degrees in this field, tons of companies and organizations that get donations, women's scholarships, and on and on. It's a giant bureaucracy with money and power as core interests. If all those problems were suddenly gone, would all this money and all these people ever admit that? Would they suddenly admit that they have no reason to exist or to keep getting money, status, jobs, and degrees in this field?

No. There will never, ever come a time where any of these people admit that any of these problems are solved. It's literally impossible for them to admit that. The bureaucracy will always advocate for its own survival. It's a huge problem, and they will never, ever solve it. It's up to people that aren't feminists to rip that influence away from them, because they can never give it up; even if they no longer serve a purpose.

 

[TheShadowLord]

The basic problem is this. What happens to a movement like this when they actually solve almost all their problems? .

Perhaps in the USas as almost all the problems are solved, but they could spread their movement across the globe like in asia, middle east, and such.

 

[Punished Miku]

Perhaps in the USas as almost all the problems are solved, but they could spread their movement across the globe like in asia, middle east, and such.

And they'd have the support of everyone if they did that. But instead they decide to focus on trivial issues online and bullying people. It's actually counterproductive at this point to all their stated goals. The way some of the most aggressive feminists act online now pushes many people to the right as a counter reaction.

 

[mr2xxx]

The basic problem is this. What happens to a movement like this when they actually solve almost all their problems? If you don't think they are solved today, they theoretically will be solved one day. There are college professors, politicians, tons of journalists, tons of students with degrees in this field, tons of companies and organizations that get donations, women's scholarships, and on and on. It's a giant bureaucracy with money and power as core interests. If all those problems were suddenly gone, would all this money and all these people ever admit that? Would they suddenly admit that they have no reason to exist or to keep getting money, status, jobs, and degrees in this field?

No. There will never, ever come a time where any of these people admit that any of these problems are solved. It's literally impossible for them to admit that. The bureaucracy will always advocate for its own survival. It's a huge problem, and they will never, ever solve it. It's up to people that aren't feminists to rip that influence away from them, because they can never give it up; even if they no longer serve a purpose.

Can't you say that about any group then? White people in general are the most powerful group in America, yet over 50% feel oppressed. Wouldn't your criticism apply to them or Am I mistaken by your rebuttal? In general everyone complains, It's up to society as a whole to determine if one groups complaints are valid and worth addressing. Unless you have some evidence that suggest men would stop when their issues are addressed compared to women.

 

[JordanN]

Since no one really tried to describe what modern feminism was I looked at wiki. All that stuff I quoted seems like legit complaints that women have. The way some people here talk about current feminism seems completely off the mark and their venom seems focused on something else.

I feel confident my original post addressed all those issues. Harassment, body shaming, misogyny etc are intertwined with people's inability to leave others alone. I'm absolutely in favor of total respect for personal space (both men and women).

I don't really care about Intersectionality. I pointed out you can't force people to like each other, and forcing two hostile groups to mix will only generate future tension.
It's better to compete in the free market and let women who want to be in power work towards it (and thus bypass claims of a patriarchy since the company in question has women as its founding members and it lives or dies by the company's market performance).

 

[Ke0]

Equality often looks like oppression to those in power

 

[JordanN]

Equality often looks like oppression to those in power

Imagine if instead of waiting for equality to come, people just tried to live their lives and outcompete the very same people they want power from?

Assuming you live in a first world country, there is no law that says you can only make a certain amount of money. Anyone who wants to be powerful today can do so through hard work.

 

[Ke0]

Imagine if instead of waiting for equality to come, people just tried to live their lives and outcompete the very same people they want power from?

Assuming you live in a first world country, there is no law that says you can only make a certain amount of money. Anyone who wants to be powerful today can do so through hard work.

I can't speak for these groups but I imagine they're not simply waiting, they're actively working towards it. If history is any indication waiting passively does nothing because the major group in power has no reason to relinquish their power over a group unless demanded and pressured into it. Assuming you're American so I'll use an example you'll be familiar with, Women's Suffrage. I somehow doubt the men of America just all collectively decided one day to just give women a few rights just because, but rather felt societal pressure because women were demanding it via causing disruption. Your predecessors relinquished that control because it was better than the continued societal disruption (at the time I imagine most called it "whining" and "unnecessary" because men are men and women are women...time is a flat circle because we're here again)

 

[JordanN]

I can't speak for these groups but I imagine they're not simply waiting, they're actively working towards it. If history is any indication waiting passively does nothing because the major group in power has no reason to relinquish their power over a group unless demanded and pressured into it. Assuming you're American so I'll use an example you'll be familiar with, Women's Suffrage. I somehow doubt the men of America just all collectively decided one day to just give women a few rights just because, but rather felt societal pressure because women were demanding it via causing disruption. Your predecessors relinquished that control because it was better than the continued societal disruption (at the time I imagine most called it "whining" and "unnecessary" because men are men and women are women...time is a flat circle because we're here again)

I see a huge difference between women's suffrage and the modern day idea that women MUST be made equal to Men in all ways.

For example, I don't believe whining/disruption is what stopped Men from wanting to rule over women. Proof of that, look at the 3rd world countries that survived today that still place harsh restrictions on women (*cough* Saudi Arabia).
It's from a logical point of view why Women should have suffrage. Voting & running for office don't require specific genitals. It only becomes a point of tradition why governments would ban women from voting (using Saudi Arabia again, they're religious diehards).

But that was voting and basic human decency. It's a leap of logic to now say "look at all these companies run by men! Every single one of them must be made equal for the good of society!". Sorry, but feelings are not a good argument for why someone who built up their own success story must now be forced to share it with others. Ironically, this becomes reverse sexism. No one should be instantly hired because they're a woman. And no one should be instantly hired because they're a man. Hire people who are best for the job. Or look towards starting your own business that chooses to discriminate on sex.

 

[Blood Borne]

Feminism has been garbage since its inception. It has always been an opportunist attention-whoring victimology power-grabbing ideology.

Just like with every victim groups, feminism will forever look for more problems to bitch and whine about in order to maintain relevancy. No victim group will ever reach their goal and voluntarily dismantle because it's too lucrative, hence the perpetual bitching about trivial matters.