Deified Data
Banned
Yep, I use these threads as a handy barometer telling me who I should ignore in the future.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Feminists hijack #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag. Misandry is real.
- Status
Yep, I use these threads as a handy barometer telling me who I should ignore in the future.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I wanna see your OKC profile.
But this Forum is called NEOGAF and we don't talk about any gaffers or stuffs called neo ... why not call this forum GamingOfftopic ?
We do talk about things we believe ... so should not be better to call it "Believe : GamingOfftopic" ?
It is extremaly easy to troll FEMEN and the Scumn Manisesto .... but they are like the PETA of feminism =P
We do talk about things we believe ... so should not be better to call it "Believe : GamingOfftopic" ?
It is extremaly easy to troll FEMEN and the Scumn Manisesto .... but they are like the PETA of feminism =P
Feminism is in the same boat the as Republican party. It's essentially been hijacked by the extreme fringe minority. The internet acts as an echo chamber to facilitate that.
I'm not sure that blame is a terribly useful concept in this area. Contemporary woman and men perpetuate gender prejudice through congruent and complementary behaviors learned as part of the very gender roles that these habits seek to reinforce.
Granted, these dies were cast in a time when men had successfully reduced women to the status of permanent children and property, and also reduced the population of women by sex-selective exposure of infants, such that women were removed from society entirely.
I think it is reasonable to attribute responsibility for society's nasty habits to the constituent groups forming that society in proportion to their status and ability to participate in that society.
I personally don't even know what people actually want. Is it about making up for centuries of mis-treatement or is is about equality?
I was listening to a feminist speaking at my University and she was having an opposite opinion of yours. She wasn't about making up for anything at all. It really was all about equality and she also talked about a lot of issues the guys in the audience brought up (even though the number of males was surprisingly low). Was a nice talk and brought attention to some things that I didn't even consider to be an issue.
I wish all the people who label themselves as people who want equality would sit down at one table and work together. The whole hijaking twitter thing makes people look bad in my opinion. They're doing absolutely nothing to help their cause and are only trying to make fun of people who might have a real issue that need to be talked about. Give both sides a platform to complain, to get their voice out there, listen to both sides of complaints and take them seriously, and then filter out the crap from both sides.
I do find it hard to compare them to Republicans.
The vocal feminists might be getting more screentime, but there are lots of feminists, I'd guess the majority, who support equality for everyone. In America anyway. This might not be the case worldwide...
And they're on the internet. It depends on where you're looking. If you're in an echo chamber, expect echos?
Interviews with feminists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oftOCN1jkNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyLSstqMvH8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oftOCN1jkNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyLSstqMvH8
EmCeeGramr
Member
lawlohwhat
Banned
holy shit that straw feminists comic is hilarious
10/10
i can feel his sexual frustration through the computer
it's sticky
10/10
i can feel his sexual frustration through the computer
it's sticky
EmCeeGramr
Member
One side wants equality for women. The other side wants to revert decades of social progress and accuse rape victims of being lying sluts. Mayhaps BOTH sides are stupid, and the answer is... somewhere in the middle? Like, women can have equal rights on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and in exchange all examples of a stupid husband on TV will be made illegal.
*Wishy Washy Moderate Man indecisively jogs into sunset*
*Wishy Washy Moderate Man indecisively jogs into sunset*
This after posting the comic; the irony here could build a battleship.
GhostWriter24
Member
Holy SHIT at that comic.
Well, there are ways where men are disadvantaged in society due to social norms. The idea is still for many men to subsidize women financially, by taking them out, buying them things, etc. not true at the individual level but true at the collective level.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
MISANDRY.
MISANDRY.
In all seriousness, that lion's mane is very impressive.
This is fair enough; you're welcome to give yourself whatever label (or none at all) that you think accurately describes your views. Of course, feminists will consider you a feminist even if you don't accept that label for yourself, but there's not much you can do about that.
I think that the term - divorced from preconceptions - communicates exactly what it is about. It is about achieving equality for women - equality with men. This is so straightforward that I have difficulty understanding how anyone fails to comprehend this.
I think feminists have good reason to be hostile to the father's rights movements considering their actions, their websites, and their deep hostility to - not to mention convictions in association with - issues regarding domestic abuse. The men's rights movement really got its start with the publication of Herb Goldberg's The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege in 1976, which argued that the women's movement, while good for women, did a disservice to men by insisting that their lives were privileged while women were second-class citizens. This is the essential claim of the men's rights movement today - men today are actually more oppressed by their traditional gender role than women are. In support of this notion, men's rights advocates point to evidence such as shorter life span, a higher successful suicide rate, and a higher incidence of stress-related diseases vis-a-vis women. Several organizations grew out of these original ideological foundations, and it was in 1989 that the father's rights wing of the men's rights movement took over at the National Congress of Men and Children. Unfortunately, the father's rights movement made the decision to ignore the broader analysis of the early men's rights movement which identified the traditional male gender role as the source of the problems identified and instead embraced a conservative defense of that traditional male gender role.
Instead of this more nuanced analysis, feminism was identified as the enemy which supposedly had created an anti-father bias in the courts, rather than the more simple explanation that the family arrangements of most families tends to create a bias which will result in mother's having custody if the issue goes to court; the child's relationship with each parent, child-rearing skills, stronger emotional ties, who the child spends more time with, and so forth. Women tend to do twice the child-rearing work that men do, so it ought to be no surprise that women are more likely to have custody. This should change as social mores change, and as luck would have it we can see that there are changes occurring. I think one of the more notable statistics comes from the second link; it notes that men went from spending 2.5 hours a week to 6.5 hours a week with their children. This is still a far cry from women's 12.9 hours a week, but an improvement is still an improvement. Hopefully we are getting closer to parity.
I think it is also important to remember that most cases aren't decided in Family Court; only about 4 to 5 percent go to family court, and whatever bias that exists tends to be the result of the above factors and not any sort of presumption that women are naturally better parents than men. And even non-custodial fathers tend to be more involved in their children's lives post-divorce than they once were; in 1976 only 18 percent of non-resident fathers saw their children at least once a week, but by 2002 that number had risen to 31 percent.
scar tissue
Banned
Apparently a huge portion of rape accusations are made up.
http://arachnoid.com/opinion/new_sex_crime.html
Now the source of this is fox news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html, but the writer is a prominent feminist who did actual research and wrote the article herself, so I don't see how the platform the article is published on makes a difference.
tl;dr: 20% of all rape accusations are outright proven wrong, and another 20% are dubious. Any accusation that is proven wrong should lead to the woman getting the same sentence the man would've gotten if he was convicted.
Andrea Dworkin was not a feminist?
This is the same "no true scotsman" bullshit we see with radical islam. "Anyone who kills innocent people in the name of allah is not a true muslim".
Some women want equality, others want to dominate men. Both have equal claim to the term "feminism".
I found this interesting, so I thought I'd do a little digging, but none of the sources she cites appear to be up any longer. With the exception of this one, which only states that 25% of rape convictions that later had DNA evidence looked at again by the FBI (a little self-selection bias there) were overturned.
Well, I'm not sure those things really establish her feminist bonafides. ifeminists is a libertarian feminist group (there is no patriarchy, political correctness and women's studies are evil, free market will solve everything; in short, totally outside of mainstream feminism) and her book is a collection of libertarian feminist essays.
I wanna see the receipts.
Edit:
Googled around for the study, and this turned up on wiki:
Interestingly, Kanin had an earlier study (1985), which concluded that the rate of false rape reports was 100%.
Lionheart1337
Member
"Today, violence against women is rightly abhorred. But we call violence against men entertainment. Think of football, boxing, wrestling... All are games used to sugarcoat violence against men, originally in need of sugarcoating so "our team"--or "our society"--could bribe its best protectors to sacrifice themselves."
What is being trivialized? This is what I`m talking about. It is pointed out that violence against women is rightly abhorred. But just highlighting the difference in treatment of violence between genders is seen as "trivializing". You turn it into a pissing contest. As if the valid concerns about the particular kinds of violence that women deal with is threatened by just the acknowledgement of the specifics of male violence. This kind of stuff is why I will never call myself a feminist. Yeah I want equality but I won't cosign feminism and it's ideals in their entirety.
I'd say it's trivializing violence when a feminist leaning talk show laughs at a man who got his penis cut off, referring to it as "fabulous" and implying things like "he must've deserved it, he probably cheated on her". This is the result of a society that prioritizes one kind of violence and accepts the other as just a normal part of the male experience, perpetuated by other males so that makes it a-ok. They deserve it. Remember that thread where people didnt want women in the MMA because they didnt want to see the pretty witty girls get hurted? Its all part of the dichotomy that feminists claim to despise so much.
Try being a male victim of domestic violence or rape, or try being a homeless male and see how many people rush to help you and how many resources are available to you specifically. Feminists will feign concern but their attitudes, level of enthusiasm and actions give them away like a Victorian daughter.
Let me save some of you some time : Feminism has got it covered. This is part of the patriarchy. Feminism is for men too. Patriarchy hurts men too. These are all things that are being addressed already and if not they can be addressed, just make sure you do it as a feminist. It just means equality. yadayadayadayadayada
Maybe I should add a late disclaimer that I`m not ok with rape. Thats bad. So I guess I`m like most people (non-rapists). I`ll get a bumper sticker anyways so the more challenged folks can know.
Devolution
Member
The View, feminist leaning talk show, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Lionheart1337
Member
Maybe not to you but of the times I've seen it (I think it's called "The Talk" now) many of the things they were saying resemble feminism to me. Whether they identify as that I don't know. But I`m sure they believe in equality so......lol
Devolution
Member
And so: EmCeeGramr was right.
There is a reason why lopaz was accusing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of being a "shit law" that is "criminalising men on trumped up charges": One of the primary things that the men's rights movement tries to do is to discredit and cast doubt on victims of domestic abuse and rape. One way they do this by claiming a false equivalency between male and female victims of domestic abuse; this is done by not including abuse that takes place after the termination of relationship, and equating physical actions without taking into account the outcome or motivations (e.g. defensive vs aggressive). In a related move, they also oppose the creation of sex-specific domestic violence shelters; this is related because if we follow the logic of men's rights advocates, abusive husbands would have the option of being sheltered in the same building as their abused wives. They also try to spread the lie that false rape allegations are exceedingly common - most men's rights sources will eventually mention the Kanin study despite its appalling methodological flaws - and advocate jury nullification in rape cases regardless of the evidence or individual circumstances. It is partially because of their efforts (and partially because people are more likely to believe their friend who says she's a lying slut than they are to believe the woman accusing their friend of rape and that story fits what they've heard happens - even if it is more common as a defense than as a reality) that these lies - lies about false claims of domestic abuse being used manipulatively in family court, lies about women easily being able to get men imprisoned without evidence simply on her say-so - are given as much credence as they are.
And in relation to the VAWA, "The abuser lobby goes mainstream" about covers it. Oh, and this is good for the mail order brides part:
There are reasons to be strongly skeptical that the activists of SAVE and other groups lobbying against protections for immigrant women are disingenuous in their claims to be opposed to fraud, instead of simply supportive of legal loopholes that allow abusive men to obtain hapless victims through mail-order bride services. If these activists believed foreign women were running a scam on American men, they would denounce the mail-order bride industry for exploiting men and seek to shut it down. But despite their claims that the women who turn to mail-order bride services are gold diggers and frauds, SAVE is very supportive of the industry. SAVE's treasurer founded a mail-order bride company called Encounters International, which matches up Russian women with American men. If they sincerely believe men are being defrauded, why are they making money feeding supposed victims to these defrauders?
The reality is that the mail-order bride industry markets itself by feeding into a racist, misogynist narrative that holds that "Western women" have been rendered unmarriageable by feminist teachings about egalitarian marriages. (Lots of fun examples of this theory available for perusing here.) The pitch is that men who want an old-fashioned (read: submissive) wife need to look outside of the country, preferably toward countries where economic distress is pushing women into desperate situations. I don't think it's much of a leap to suggest that men with abusive tendencies might just find such a pitch enticing on its surface, and even more so if they discover that the industry has a political arm aimed at making sure that should you feel the need for some physical discipline of your newly obtained old-fashioned wife, she can't leave you without facing deportation.
There is a reason why lopaz was accusing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of being a "shit law" that is "criminalising men on trumped up charges": One of the primary things that the men's rights movement tries to do is to discredit and cast doubt on victims of domestic abuse and rape. One way they do this by claiming a false equivalency between male and female victims of domestic abuse; this is done by not including abuse that takes place after the termination of relationship, and equating physical actions without taking into account the outcome or motivations (e.g. defensive vs aggressive). In a related move, they also oppose the creation of sex-specific domestic violence shelters; this is related because if we follow the logic of men's rights advocates, abusive husbands would have the option of being sheltered in the same building as their abused wives. They also try to spread the lie that false rape allegations are exceedingly common - most men's rights sources will eventually mention the Kanin study despite its appalling methodological flaws - and advocate jury nullification in rape cases regardless of the evidence or individual circumstances. It is partially because of their efforts (and partially because people are more likely to believe their friend who says she's a lying slut than they are to believe the woman accusing their friend of rape and that story fits what they've heard happens - even if it is more common as a defense than as a reality) that these lies - lies about false claims of domestic abuse being used manipulatively in family court, lies about women easily being able to get men imprisoned without evidence simply on her say-so - are given as much credence as they are.
And in relation to the VAWA, "The abuser lobby goes mainstream" about covers it. Oh, and this is good for the mail order brides part:
There are reasons to be strongly skeptical that the activists of SAVE and other groups lobbying against protections for immigrant women are disingenuous in their claims to be opposed to fraud, instead of simply supportive of legal loopholes that allow abusive men to obtain hapless victims through mail-order bride services. If these activists believed foreign women were running a scam on American men, they would denounce the mail-order bride industry for exploiting men and seek to shut it down. But despite their claims that the women who turn to mail-order bride services are gold diggers and frauds, SAVE is very supportive of the industry. SAVE's treasurer founded a mail-order bride company called Encounters International, which matches up Russian women with American men. If they sincerely believe men are being defrauded, why are they making money feeding supposed victims to these defrauders?
The reality is that the mail-order bride industry markets itself by feeding into a racist, misogynist narrative that holds that "Western women" have been rendered unmarriageable by feminist teachings about egalitarian marriages. (Lots of fun examples of this theory available for perusing here.) The pitch is that men who want an old-fashioned (read: submissive) wife need to look outside of the country, preferably toward countries where economic distress is pushing women into desperate situations. I don't think it's much of a leap to suggest that men with abusive tendencies might just find such a pitch enticing on its surface, and even more so if they discover that the industry has a political arm aimed at making sure that should you feel the need for some physical discipline of your newly obtained old-fashioned wife, she can't leave you without facing deportation.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
"The Talk" and "The View" are two different programs.
I suppose, and then I'll correct them and the cycle repeats, but nothing I can do about that.
I comprehend the idea, but I view it as equality for all, which goes beyond even gender. We're all on the same team, working for the same goal. I guess I'm just uncomfortable with that idea that its a one way street. I mean, yes, there more work to do one side than the other, but there is still things to be done for both.
Devolution
Member
The Talk has Sharon Osbourne who is another awful human being. But see this is what we get, awful shows touted as pulpits for feminism, they're not. They're gossipy shit ass shows.
And that's why a lot of people are moving to the stupid MRA groups. There is no room for male issues in feminism even though it's adopted under it's umbrella. It only seems to be there to combat a weakness in feminism being applied universally. Men's issues under the "patriarchy" are only acknowledged to bring in a few members, but nothing that would make it a priority within the movement. There is no room for all of these issues when women's issues are in need of fixing, and that is truly the main mission of feminism. The rest is on the back-burner. I can understand why males would not feel welcome in that system.
Lionheart1337
Member
I know that. A mistake. Many people consider The Talk to be a successor of sorts but yes, not the same show.
That's basically what you see out of a lot of the Men's Rights crazies, but again, there aren't many mature Men's Rights advocates out there right now.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
I'm not saying they are. I was correcting what I thought to be a mistake on his part of one show succeeding the other.
Well they're more competitors if anything.
Devolution
Member
Lionheart was. Let's not pretend that these shows are anything more than paid hacks going "rah rah woman" sometimes.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
I know. When did I agree with him? I was only correcting that little bit.
Devolution
Member
You didn't, I was just saying the Talk also has Sharon Osborne and went from there. You're fine =p.
This is what happens when uninformed people go "a bunch of women talking and aiming at a female demographic. Must be feminists!"
Seems to happen a lot.
MISANDRY.
she just wants to peg him.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I don't think Whoopi "it's not rape rape" Goldberg and Sharon "genital mutilation is quite fabulous" Osbourne are really what feminists want to see on their TV.
FO-totality
Poet Centuriate
MISANDRY.
If that lion's name isn't Scar, there has been an injustice done.
Lionheart1337
Member
All I know is that what I've seen reminds me of many feminists I have seen and dealt with. If you disagree that's your prerogative. At this point it's just going to result in another discussion about real feminism and fake. There are moderate feminists and I wouldn't lump them in with the Sharon Osbournes.
Devolution
Member
"You have seen and dealt with" is always a running gag in these threads. Whatever you say bro.
You're a good person, Cyan.
MRA's deserve the ridicule they get,
MRA's may have a few legitimate points, but most of the time it is negated by their disgusting backwards attitude towards feminism and women in general
I cannot support a movement that goes against the victories for women's equality feminism has acquired
As a gender non-conformist, Feminism does way more for me than the MRA movement does ( In fact they'd be against my very existence), which is why I call myself a feminist.
MRA's may have a few legitimate points, but most of the time it is negated by their disgusting backwards attitude towards feminism and women in general
I cannot support a movement that goes against the victories for women's equality feminism has acquired
As a gender non-conformist, Feminism does way more for me than the MRA movement does ( In fact they'd be against my very existence), which is why I call myself a feminist.
- Status