For strong womyn everywhere: "Internet Plus Equality"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gahars
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 178,487
  • Replies Replies 1,749
  • Likes Likes 13
Status
Not open for further replies.
If these radical activists really wanted to tackle a patriarchy, they'd focus on Saudi Arabia, where women aren't even allowed to drive. If they wanted to stop a rape culture, they'd be working with Indian women to end the disturbingly high prevalence of rapes there. Unfortunately, these activists seem too obsessed with their cozy, upper-middle class lifestyles to look beyond their own "oppression."


Aye I agree, a lot of modern feminists act like women in the West can't leave the house without a gun held to their heads, and riot against very petty issues like *gasp* catcalling. These are mildly problematic but extremely trivial in comparison to some of the things women experience in the far east, for example.

Besides, it's not like men don't also face unique pressures. Men have higher suicide rates, higher on-the-job death rates, are subject to the draft, etc. We have shorter lines for the bathroom, sure, but it's not all sunshine and lollipops.


All right I'm gonna have to draw the line here and say that yeah okay, men do face problems for being men, but believe me when I say it is NOTHING compared to being a woman.

Furthermore the problems that men face are a RESULT of the woman-hating (dare I say the word-) patriarchy. E.g. men aren't allowed to show emotion and have to behave in a tough/strong manner so as to not look like a "weak woman". The pressure on them to hide emotion out of fear of not looking like a woman is the cause of the heightened suicide rate. Men cannot behave in a feminine manner as per society's standards without getting thrown at with words like "gay", "faggot", etc. Femininity, or the likeness of being a woman is so looked down upon amongst men.

The idea that mass shooters are shooters by virtue of them being men is a bigoted, sexist statement. That's what people take offense at. To try and turn a very real mental health issue into another one of her talking points, especially on the eve of a horrific tragedy, is what people are so offended by. This is especially true when only a percent of a percent of a percent of a percent of men commit these exceedingly rare crimes (out of around 160 million in the US alone).


It's not that X% of men commit mass shootings, it's that every time there has been a shooting, it's been done by a dude. In other words it's way too statistically significant to just shrug it off and say that it's only been done by men all these times by complete coincidence. Though I wouldn't say it's "by virtue of them being men" in and of themselves, but rather by virtue of how men are brought up as these macho, butch, tough-guy figures in modern society. And so when they lash out or react to an urge or a mental ailment, they do so more violently. (See: percentage of rapes committed by men vs. women, percentage of murders committed by men vs. women, etc.)

The most common misconception is that modern feminism is inherently about throwing men under the bus. It's not (though I agree so many ill-advised Tumblrites make it seem so), it's about throwing the gender-based hierarchal system under the bus, getting rid of "men>women", so that both sides benefit.
 
All right I'm gonna have to draw the line here and say that yeah okay, men do face problems for being men, but believe me when I say it is NOTHING compared to being a woman.

"You may think you've come a long way, baby, but let me tell you how oppressed you really are."

I don't know, men having higher suicide rates by a 4:1 ratio, men making up 77% of homicide victims, men serving longer prison sentences for the same crime, men being forced to sign up for the draft and potentially die for their country (at least in the US), etc. all sound like very legitimate issues.

This isn't a genitalia-measuring contest, and I'm not saying one group has it better or worse than another. Sure, women have a unique set of challenges, but it's ridiculous to claim that men have automatically got it easy in life. Both genders face their own sets of problems and issues, and the sooner we put aside the pointless oppression olympics, the more progress can be made on resolving those issues.

Furthermore the problems that men face are a RESULT of the woman-hating (dare I say the word-) patriarchy. E.g. men aren't allowed to show emotion and have to behave in a tough/strong manner so as to not look like a "weak woman". The pressure on them to hide emotion out of fear of not looking like a woman is the cause of the heightened suicide rate. Men cannot behave in a feminine manner as per society's standards without getting thrown at with words like "gay", "faggot", etc. Femininity, or the likeness of being a woman is so looked down upon amongst men.

Amazing how men's problems and homophobia were really just women's problems all along, isn't it? What an interesting way to reframe the issue. (Also, isn't it homophobic to say that gays are just feminine? Just because you like a firm dicking doesn't mean you're a mincing Queer Eye host. Plus, this is ignoring the fact that plenty of women are homophobic. Have they just "internalized" misogyny now?)

This is such an exaggerated mischaracterization of masculinity and manhood that it borders on caricature. Generally speaking, men don't express their emotions in the same ways that women do, but that doesn't mean we've been trained to "suppress" our emotions. Men express themselves through different, but just as valid means; we tend to process it through activity and action, along with healthy amounts of introspection. Your viewpoint holds the female standard as the be-all, end-all and deems the male equivalent as inferior and defective because it's different; that's pretty sexist, man.

And what, are women who are criticized for being masculine or mannish actually suffering the effects of man-hating? Or is it the dastardly patriarchy at work again?

On that note, the idea that society is patriarchal in nature, devised to advance men at all times, while at the same time damaging men is on the same level of conspiracy delusion that leads people to believe that Jews are both secretly controlling the world and stupid, pathetic vermin. It's working backwards from a presupposition to justify itself when the obvious flaws in the logic pop up.

It's not that X% of men commit mass shootings, it's that every time there has been a shooting, it's been done by a dude. In other words it's way too statistically significant to just shrug it off and say that it's only been done by men all these times by complete coincidence. Though I wouldn't say it's "by virtue of them being men" in and of themselves, but rather by virtue of how men are brought up as these macho, butch, tough-guy figures in modern society. And so when they lash out or react to an urge or a mental ailment, they do so more violently. (See: percentage of rapes committed by men vs. women, percentage of murders committed by men vs. women, etc.)

And? Let's say there's been 100 shooters over the past decade or two, and let's be generous and assume they were all men. 100/160,000,000 does not a trend make. You might as well tie the shootings to what shoes they wore, whether or not they sliced the crusts off of their PB&Js, or which violent video games they played for all the difference it makes. You know what all these shooters also have in common? Including those women that commit shootings? Mental health and instability problems. Maybe we should pursue that actual problem instead of using the victims of horrific tragedies as a podium for pointless identity politics.

Also... If this "macho culture" is so critical to this, why aren't more men involved in these sorts of crimes? I mean, like the crime rate in general? I mean, you'd think so, but crime rates have been falling since the 90's, and the vast majority of men are not committing violent crimes, let alone crimes in general. Also, are you really arguing that our modern society now, of all times, in the epoch of the hipsters, is when we suffer from masculinity overdose? Forgive me for being skeptical.

The most common misconception is that modern feminism is inherently about throwing men under the bus. It's not (though I agree so many ill-advised Tumblrites make it seem so), it's about throwing the gender-based hierarchal system under the bus, getting rid of "men>women", so that both sides benefit.

When masculinity, and the mere act of being a man, is labeled as toxic, and when men's problems are marginalized and dismissed as really being about women, is it so hard to see why people see the movement as negative towards men?

The overwhelming majority of people agree that women and men are equal, and our institutions reflect that. Any woman can make it just as far as any man through the same hard work, ingenuity, and fortune. Not only can women vote, women can serve in all branches and facets of the government, from Congress to the courts to Presidency itself. That's not to say that there aren't individual cases of discrimination against women, or that all issues have been resolved (abortion rights will likely always remain a contested matter), but to try and convince women that they're helpless victims or chattel is to spit in the face of all that's been achieved. That is where the heart of the matter lies.

If a movement truly is to help both men and women, than it shouldn't solely be focused on one side of the equation.

And don't think that this means I hate all feminists or anything like that. I take umbrage with modern sect of hipsters with gender studies degrees and mental gymnasts, but there's plenty of rational ones, even within the third wave (the sex-positive feminists that are often drowned out in all the hysteria of "muh soggy knees"), and while I don't agree with all of her conclusions, I can respect the rigor of Christina Sommers' work and her adherence to backing her claims with actual data and science. If you want rationality, that's a good place to start.
 
All right I'm gonna have to draw the line here and say that yeah okay, men do face problems for being men, but believe me when I say it is NOTHING compared to being a woman.

Furthermore the problems that men face are a RESULT of the woman-hating (dare I say the word-) patriarchy. E.g. men aren't allowed to show emotion and have to behave in a tough/strong manner so as to not look like a "weak woman". The pressure on them to hide emotion out of fear of not looking like a woman is the cause of the heightened suicide rate. Men cannot behave in a feminine manner as per society's standards without getting thrown at with words like "gay", "faggot", etc. Femininity, or the likeness of being a woman is so looked down upon amongst men.




It's not that X% of men commit mass shootings, it's that every time there has been a shooting, it's been done by a dude. In other words it's way too statistically significant to just shrug it off and say that it's only been done by men all these times by complete coincidence. Though I wouldn't say it's "by virtue of them being men" in and of themselves, but rather by virtue of how men are brought up as these macho, butch, tough-guy figures in modern society. And so when they lash out or react to an urge or a mental ailment, they do so more violently. (See: percentage of rapes committed by men vs. women, percentage of murders committed by men vs. women, etc.)

The most common misconception is that modern feminism is inherently about throwing men under the bus. It's not (though I agree so many ill-advised Tumblrites make it seem so), it's about throwing the gender-based hierarchal system under the bus, getting rid of "men>women", so that both sides benefit.
da28db181c9657f12088830c0835b99cf52c811e68839fdad9a63056206f2ac5.jpg
 
If you think the police are there to protect you then you surely have not heard of the 2005 supreme court ruling saying they don't have to -- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html


That gets misinterpreted a lot. It's basically so that people can't sue or attack the police if they aren't able to arrive on time to a scene or are otherwise unable to save someone. This is especially needed in the middle of the country where towns are much more rural and people are much more isolated; the nearest station might be very far away, and the police could otherwise be held as liable for inconvenient geography, roadblocks, etc..

It sounds dumb, but I'd argue that something like this is an administrative necessity. Negligent officers can be and are still punished, it just has to be through the police department/local government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted-236924
It's not that X% of men commit mass shootings, it's that every time there has been a shooting, it's been done by a dude. In other words it's way too statistically significant to just shrug it off and say that it's only been done by men all these times by complete coincidence. Though I wouldn't say it's "by virtue of them being men" in and of themselves, but rather by virtue of how men are brought up as these macho, butch, tough-guy figures in modern society. And so when they lash out or react to an urge or a mental ailment, they do so more violently. (See: percentage of rapes committed by men vs. women, percentage of murders committed by men vs. women, etc.)
I'm just going to reply to this part of the post because I find some issues with it. First of all, not all school shootings were commited by men, so that argument flies out the window already.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/keeping-kids-safe/201212/school-shooters-who-are-not-white-males

Among other links posted earlier. The problem with making such a claim is that we're not experiencing school shootings on a daily basis - they're relatively rare occurrences. When you have a pool of 10-20 instances in the last few decades, you have a pretty large margin of error on your hands.

As for the percentage of rapes committed by men versus women, I have three questions. My first question is, do you know that the CDC does not classify being forced to penetrate someone as rape and instead treats it as "[an]other sexual offence"? That's a pretty big loophole considering that number is virtually equal to that of raped women.

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

According to the CDC, "rape" only occurs through penetration. To put it bluntly, if a woman tied you to a bed and pounced on you against your will, it would not count as rape as long as she does not shove anything up your butt. If she drugged you and sucked you off against your will, you were not raped - merely sexually assaulted. Do you think this is a fair representation of what rapes is? According to just about any dictionary, rape means forcing another person to engage in intercourse without that person's consent - the CDC has a different definition though and that skewers the survey results.

My second question is, do you believe that the amount of under-educated and unemployed men has something to do with this statistic? How about the homelessness rate? As of today, thanks to Affirmative Action, a woman is more likely to receive a higher education, more likely to find employment and less likely to become homeless without support.

http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001HealingHands.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States

"Affirmative Action, also known as positive discrimination (...)" - see, this is dumb from the start. There's no such thing as positive discrimination, there's only discrimination.

My third question is, do you think that the myth that "men can't be raped by women", that "they should feel lucky when they do" or that "a man weaker than a woman or taken advantage of by a woman is a wuss" contributes to men not reporting rape cases at the same frequency as women do? Because I think it does - I think men are shamed into not talking about when they were taken advantage of.
 
That gets misinterpreted a lot. It's basically so that people can't sue or attack the police if they aren't able to arrive on time to a scene or are otherwise unable to save someone. This is especially needed in the middle of the country where towns are much more rural and people are much more isolated; the nearest station might be very far away, and the police could otherwise be held as liable for inconvenient geography, roadblocks, etc..

It sounds dumb, but I'd argue that something like this is an administrative necessity. Negligent officers can be and are still punished, it just has to be through the police department/local government.

I agree with the need for that, at least if you are going to have a suing culture not unlike the US presently finds itself with, but most times I saw it trotted out in recent years the examples were somewhat less clear cut, of course that then goes into the rather more murky area of how much in harms way a police officer can be expected to put themselves. Not really examples but http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...on=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004 has a few more aspects of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gahars
Thank you, Twitter, for standing guard against the grave menace that is... disagreement.

bDfZRLf.jpg

Now, comrades, let us give pity to those who truly know suffering.

TSHLMoh.jpg

pyvDDuc.jpg
 
Thank you, Twitter, for standing guard against the grave menace that is... disagreement.

bDfZRLf.jpg

I might have thought it was one of those "auto sort to junk bin" options that sensible people/those that have dealt with the general public put in such selection boxes. (2:16)

[parsehtml]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZM9Z9us-urI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/parsehtml]
 
Wait, I get biological gender and gender identity. But what's gender expression? Why would that be different from your gender identity?
Biological = Your junk or, in rare events of malformation XY/XX chromosomes
Identity = What you feel like
Expression = What you express by your clothing, your style, your mannerisms etc.

The distinction between identity and expression exists for femboys and drag queens, among others. Some dudes just like walking around in dresses, but they very much feel like men.

...of course we all know that's bollocks and up to individual interpretation. :P
 
Serves gamers right for doxxing, trolling and flaming folks instead of focusing on the real issues at hand. Say what you want about Anita, but at least she's organized.
 




It's a puff piece. The bias against GamerGate was obvious, but Colbert got some good zingers in, and to be honest, it's not like people weren't expecting that the show would go for that site. The highlight, though, was Sarkeesian's Palin moment. At around 7:00 or so in the video above, Colbert asks her to list three specific games she objects to... and she can't.

It's a little moment, and one I'm not sure many people picked up on, but it is rather telling.

Serves gamers right for doxxing, trolling and flaming folks instead of focusing on the real issues at hand. Say what you want about Anita, but at least she's organized.


Hey, those Teleseminars really do work!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

God