• UN talk about how Pokemon is full of killing, D&D is Santanic, reddit and harddrives used as sources
    193 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48790153]Or is Aneeta even about anything more than video games etc.? What's she done for the good of truly underprivileged women anywhere? Even spoke for them?[/QUOTE] She really has nothing new or intelligent to offer. She really only took off because of that kickstarter (which honestly, was solely due to jealousy and spite, as people had no real legit reason to be angry with her at that point). Once she started releasing inaccurate videos attacking people's favorite games, people started attacking her much more (as gamers tend to be very passionate and already feel persecuted) and that led to white knighting, and a vast increase in popularity as even more people were talking about her. Gamergate led to even MORE people talking about her. A great way to get attention is controversy. Look at that woman who posted the unfunny "comedy" video about fat people. Just like that woman has a terrible sense of humor and is awful at making jokes, Anita is awful at research, intelligent discourse, and critical thought. She has nothing to offer except to be controversial. She doesn't have the brains to be taken seriously talking about anything else, and she doesn't have the balls to actually tackle problems actual underprivileged people face.
- sNip -
Like I said on the previous page, Anita and the others like her are not intellectuals or academics, they are celebrities. Celebrities don't come up with their own content, they are used by corporate backers to push ideas into the public discourse, like a famous actor selling you a car in a car advertisement. The whole purpose of the celebrity is to obfuscate what the corporate body is actually doing by confusing the identity of the celebrity with the identity of the brand. Especially in this case, there are people who defend the celebrities who would not defend the ideas they presented if they were presented by someone who wasn't a celebrity (I've distinctly read posts by people on Ghazi where they've said they think Macintosh is insane but Anita is great even though he writes everything she says and they're the same talking points), and those people are mixed in with people who defend the ideas but not the celebrities, people who are against the ideas but not the celebrities, people who are against the celebrities personally and not the ideas, and people who are against both the celebrities and the ideas. It's a purely cynical effort to push something into the mainstream by using controversy that wouldn't otherwise get any traction because it's too insane to even consider. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;48787768]they wouldnt support her if people didn't get so outraged when the kickstarter hit anything above the goal[/QUOTE] "Jeeze, if nobody gave the WBC attention, they wouldn't be picketing outside dead soldier's funerals." "Jeeze, if the media didn't get so outraged when Trump did stupid shit, nobody would be supporting him." "Jeeze, if nobody complained about UKIP, they wouldn't have any supporters." "Jeeze, if people stopped criticizing The Amazing Atheist/Sargon of Akkad/Thunderfoot, nobody would be supporting them right now." "Jeeze, if people didn't get so pissed off about 9/11 we wouldn't be having this terrible situation in the middle east right now." "Jeeze, if people didn't put Mugabe in power there wouldn't have been a horrible dictatorial government in South Africa." etc, etc, etc. Frankly, I've never seen you as the most calm and, er, non-shitpostey user on this forum. If the situation had been reversed and it was some annoying militant MRA or person you don't enjoy like the Amazing Atheist who got a massive kickstarter and public attention in the Mainstream Media, would you really be saying: "Okay, guys, I know I usually spend an entire thread shitposting about people I think are idiots because they disagree with me, but this time I think we shouldn't talk about the Amazing Atheist ever because that will just giving him attention." Basically, It's not like you practice what you preach or anything smh. If the roles were reversed you'd be ranting and shitposting with like-minded people in every thread that they get brought up in, just like people do here. I don't even have to prove that, you've done the same thing already in other threads. It's one thing to try to be the calm, neutral voice of reason amongst the archaic choir of internet discussion, but you're not it, you're a hypocrite. You malaise others for disagreeing with you based on things you do nothing but yourself. My belief is that you should criticize everything all the time, no matter what. That's how you create dialogue and discussion about issues instead of sweeping them under the rug, if you want to prove me wrong then go 2 weeks browsing facepunch without criticizing anyone or anything, including the users here. Think you can manage that?
it's funny because at least a year or two before her kickstarter we watched one of her videos in a philosophy class because a girl in that class brought it up. people knew about her, and were supporting Feminist Frequency before any of the gaming shit.
Are people seriously saying that Anita has no affect on gaming or the internet in a thread where she is talking to the fucking United Nations!?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48788365]tbh that wouldn't have happened if dumb fuckers on Reddit and 4Chan didn't blow the whole thing the fuck up.[/QUOTE] Can we drop this? Both sides were entirely fucking reactionary but the fact that she was getting press releases before people even knew who she was didn't help. The gaming media hooked onto her and began shoving her into everyone's face as some ascended critic and the gaming public get fed up with it. She rides on controversy, in the same way that Westboro does but we don't blame the people responding to the controversy generators, we blame the fuckers causing it.
[QUOTE=bdd458;48791215]it's funny because at least a year or two before her kickstarter we watched one of her videos in a philosophy class because a girl in that class brought it up. people knew about her, and were supporting Feminist Frequency before any of the gaming shit.[/QUOTE] The first half of Anita's earlier videos tended to be ok, I agreed with a lot of what she said about an issue before she started blaming this issue on misogynist culture, patriarchy and "boy's clubs".
[QUOTE=Swilly;48792885]Can we drop this? Both sides were entirely fucking reactionary but the fact that she was getting press releases before people even knew who she was didn't help. The gaming media hooked onto her and began shoving her into everyone's face as some ascended critic and the gaming public get fed up with it. She rides on controversy, in the same way that Westboro does but we don't blame the people responding to the controversy generators, we blame the fuckers causing it.[/QUOTE] Yes, I think this is where the whole "You shouldn't have reacted" argument goes out the window. Both sides have been equally reactionary. Whether it's been through shitposting, personal attacks or blame shifting, the pot is really calling the kettle black here. It's akin to somebody reaching to punch you in the face, stopping their fist right before it hits your face and then laughing at you for flinching. Remember, next time someone personally attacks you and threatens to beat you up, just ignore it and I'm sure everything will be fine :).
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48792881]Are people seriously saying that Anita has no affect on gaming or the internet in a thread where she is talking to the fucking United Nations!?[/QUOTE] The UN is full of retards so i'd assume nothing will happen
[QUOTE=Jon MadN;48793263]The UN is full of retards so i'd assume nothing will happen[/QUOTE] Isn't it kinda strange how United Nations is full of idiots? I thought this group was supposed to represent something.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48793696]Isn't it kinda strange how United Nations is full of idiots? I thought this group was supposed to represent something.[/QUOTE] It did, until the Cold War ended. Now Russia is just Putin putting on a big mustache and pretending he's Stalin and America just shrugging it's shoulders and being chill while terrorists hop around for attention.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48790369]She really has nothing new or intelligent to offer. She really only took off because of that kickstarter (which honestly, was solely due to jealousy and spite, as people had no real legit reason to be angry with her at that point). Once she started releasing inaccurate videos attacking people's favorite games, people started attacking her much more (as gamers tend to be very passionate and already feel persecuted) and that led to white knighting, and a vast increase in popularity as even more people were talking about her. Gamergate led to even MORE people talking about her. A great way to get attention is controversy. Look at that woman who posted the unfunny "comedy" video about fat people. Just like that woman has a terrible sense of humor and is awful at making jokes, Anita is awful at research, intelligent discourse, and critical thought. She has nothing to offer except to be controversial. She doesn't have the brains to be taken seriously talking about anything else, and she doesn't have the balls to actually tackle problems actual underprivileged people face.[/QUOTE] So, she has done little-to-nothing for feminism? But alright, that would appear to be a pretty accurate run-down on her recent business endeavors.. Arguably she has done something about it, like being loud about it on diff. forms of social media, but.. considering women in middle east, or india, or china.. I see no mention of them anywhere. Only mentions of daisy and princess.. leya, and the other Mario characters. Which makes absolutely no sense to me.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;48793711]It did, until the Cold War ended. Now Russia is just Putin putting on a big mustache and pretending he's Stalin and America just shrugging it's shoulders and being chill while terrorists hop around for attention.[/QUOTE] Don't forget Saudi Arabia recently getting a Human rights council seat
Can we quit shitting on the UN, we can argue against their effectiveness or how informed they are on nuanced topics like this but on average they are a force for good. Just look at this: [url]http://www.globalgoals.org/[/url] What they want is commendable, any sane human wants all their global goals to become reality, but their rational, their reasoning and sometimes even their smaller scale targets in one section is completely off. The UN is a force for good, just maybe not the most competent force for good.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48794312]Can we quit shitting on the UN, we can argue against their effectiveness or how informed they are on nuanced topics like this but on average they are a force for good. Just look at this: [url]http://www.globalgoals.org/[/url] What they want is commendable, any sane human wants all their global goals to become reality, but their rational, their reasoning and sometimes even their smaller scale targets in one section is completely off. The UN is a force for good, just maybe not the most competent force for good.[/QUOTE] How can one be a force for good if they don't even understand what good actually means? It's like giving a bunch of illiterates teacher status to teach writing. Sure, they have a good cause but can they achieve it? Many people think that banning Pokemon is good, but is it really? Good is subjective and UN is too dumb to have an understanding of what is actually good.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48795446]How can one be a force for good if they don't even understand what good actually means? It's like giving a bunch of illiterates teacher status to teach writing. Sure, they have a good cause but can they achieve it? Many people think that banning Pokemon is good, but is it really? Good is subjective and UN is too dumb to have an understanding of what is actually good.[/QUOTE] If this is really what you think then I don't think you understand the UN at all. Seeing as there is no objective "good" in the world, just a common consensus, the UN can't just do "good" things. It has to act as a platform for various groups and ideologies to come forward and present a case as to why we should act on their idea of "good". The UN will either totally ignore it (in this case they will likely do this as it's meaningless at their scale, and badly constructed) or attempt to integrate it into any plans they might have. It's a big open platform for anyone with the ability to do so to discuss their shit and possibly get a multinational response.
I am going to go off-topic here but the topic kept coming up so I think its not entirely irrelevant. I like to give communities and idealogies that I don't take seriously/disagree with a fair shake. It's a habit I have started building lately now that I have seen how blatant the media can be in completely misrepresenting a community. My first choice was coontown to see if reddit would have any grounds to ban it on (free speech issue). To which I thought while they are most definitely racist and I did see some fucking delusional shit get upvoted to all hell they had no right to ban it from a free speech perspective. More recently I decided to give the MRA subreddit a shake. I am surprised as you are when I say that I have been effectively converted. I wouldn't call myself an activist but most of their talking points have convinced me. I went in read their talking points (especially the FAQ goddamn) which was actually well sourced and reasoned. I went in to read how the community as a whole behaved and commented a bit to see how they reacted. I decided to see if I could criticize something without immediately being discredited as a feminazi. Which didn't happen at all so score on that count. I also quite often heard the claim "MRA IS A RIGHT WING MOVEMENT REEEEEEE". So I decided to ask if they had one of those political spectrum tests. However that turned out to be across the board with no real consistent pattern. That being said the front page/ commenters can be quite stupid. Multiple times do I see stuff on the front page which was basically (Woman only got X punishment. Injustice: YES). Followed by me doing some basic research and saying yeah this not everything is a femspiracy. Just like KIA its sometimes far too focused on perceived slights and petty bullshit. However also just like KIA when something serious comes up I find that there are plenty of intelligent posters there. I was also not the only one pointing out when other people made stupid comments or trivial threads. But I think this is primarily a problem with reddit rather then either of those communities specifically. Example of a decent portion of commenters being stupid: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3mu460/30_year_old_female_teacher_had_sex_around_50/[/url] As for what convinced me? The FAQ played a large role. It's fucking massive it has a shit ton of sources and if you have any specific question about just about anything MRA related you can find it in there. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq[/url] A bunch of of feminists come in and ask a couple of questions and they talk about what they believe and why. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3m6auf/questions_about_feminismmra/[/url] Disclaimer: I am not and never was a feminist and for some the fact that I am a straight white male in europe which makes my conversion for lack of a better word rather unimpressive for some. As a side effect of being there I have lost a whole lot of respect for feminism as a whole. I just don't believe the patriarchy is something that has sufficient evidence to be believed in and a while I already had a low opinion of the social sciences it has somehow been lowered even further. Too many studies that simply ignore biology entirely. Take my opinion and my results for what they may. Go judge for yourselves and don't rely on others to relay stuff for you. You don't have to of course but in that case you should withhold your judgement as anyone that has been keeping up with current events knows just how "reliable" the media is. EDIT: Oh yeah this article was also quite interesting: [url]http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm[/url] It basically talks about a whole bunch of gender issues and examines them from a evolutionary psychology angle (which I found far more credible then patriarchy theory). It's also a good quick showcase of the follies of equal representation which is probably one of the worst ideas that is commonly associated with modern feminism.
[QUOTE=Murky42;48801059]I am going to go off-topic here but the topic kept coming up so I think its not entirely irrelevant. I like to give communities and idealogies that I don't take seriously/disagree with a fair shake. It's a habit I have started building lately now that I have seen how blatant the media can be in completely misrepresenting a community. My first choice was coontown to see if reddit would have any grounds to ban it on (free speech issue). To which I thought while they are most definitely racist and I did see some fucking delusional shit get upvoted to all hell they had no right to ban it from a free speech perspective. More recently I decided to give the MRA subreddit a shake. I am surprised as you are when I say that I have been effectively converted. I wouldn't call myself an activist but most of their talking points have convinced me. I went in read their talking points (especially the FAQ goddamn) which was actually well sourced and reasoned. I went in to read how the community as a whole behaved and commented a bit to see how they reacted. I decided to see if I could criticize something without immediately being discredited as a feminazi. Which didn't happen at all so score on that count. I also quite often heard the claim "MRA IS A RIGHT WING MOVEMENT REEEEEEE". So I decided to ask if they had one of those political spectrum tests. However that turned out to be across the board with no real consistent pattern. That being said the front page/ commenters can be quite stupid. Multiple times do I see stuff on the front page which was basically (Woman only got X punishment. Injustice: YES). Followed by me doing some basic research and saying yeah this not everything is a femspiracy. Just like KIA its sometimes far too focused on perceived slights and petty bullshit. However also just like KIA when something serious comes up I find that there are plenty of intelligent posters there. I was also not the only one pointing out when other people made stupid comments or trivial threads. But I think this is primarily a problem with reddit rather then either of those communities specifically. Example of a decent portion of commenters being stupid: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3mu460/30_year_old_female_teacher_had_sex_around_50/[/url] As for what convinced me? The FAQ played a large role. It's fucking massive it has a shit ton of sources and if you have any specific question about just about anything MRA related you can find it in there. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq[/url] A bunch of of feminists come in and ask a couple of questions and they talk about what they believe and why. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3m6auf/questions_about_feminismmra/[/url] Disclaimer: I am not and never was a feminist and for some the fact that I am a straight white male in europe which makes my conversion for lack of a better word rather unimpressive for some. As a side effect of being there I have lost a whole lot of respect for feminism as a whole. I just don't believe the patriarchy is something that has sufficient evidence to be believed in and a while I already had a low opinion of the social sciences it has somehow been lowered even further. Too many studies that simply ignore biology entirely. Take my opinion and my results for what they may. Go judge for yourselves and don't rely on others to relay stuff for you. You don't have to of course but in that case you should withhold your judgement as anyone that has been keeping up with current events knows just how "reliable" the media is. EDIT: Oh yeah this article was also quite interesting: [url]http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm[/url] It basically talks about a whole bunch of gender issues and examines them from a evolutionary psychology angle (which I found far more credible then patriarchy theory). It's also a good quick showcase of the follies of equal representation which is probably one of the worst ideas that is commonly associated with modern feminism.[/QUOTE] MRA's definition of the patriarchy is laughably overblown as some sort of anti-male conspiracy. All "patriarchy" is is male-centered society. That's it. Nothing else. It means you take your father's last name. It means that the father provides for the household. It means that the men are the workers. That's it. Feminism absolutely does want to break down patriarchal norms in our society, no doubt, but that is a [i]good thing for both men and women[/i]. Men no longer are expected to be the breadwinners in every situation, men are able to express feminine behaviors instead of hypermasculism of the early-mid-1900s and most of Western history before that. It's not about replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy or anything like that - it's wanting to remove the patriarchal system of family and work from our society so that men and women are on equal ground. Women can work now! Men can work too. Women can fight in wars! That saves the lives of men. Evolutionary psych is largely discredited in academic fields and almost wholly dismissed. Research it more. It's coated in controversy - the "modularity of mind" theory has been mostly thrown out in favor of brain plasticity, providing plenty of evidence that our brains are not necessarily fully modular and can (and actively will) change in response to external stimuli. It's very, very, very controversial and is more of a fringe theory than a well-accepted mainstream one. EP has zero explanation for homosexuality or any unusual psychological problems other than "maladaptive," while other psychological theories provide much more solid explanations. Read into it more, from both the perspective of EP and from the detractors, and see which side you fall on. Most people fall outside if they dig deep enough. Patriarchy is not a "theory," it's a word that means "male-centric families." There's no theory. A matriarchy would be a family with a matriarch, a woman, as the center of the household, providing the value to the family, etc. That is not what we have in our society. I agree with MRAs on a lot of issues - I think that women do have an unfair advantage in the legal system, particularly with custody rights. I am a feminist and I want to fix that. I think that men need more sources to deal with suicide and mental health issues. I want women working in construction, transportation, and the military. I want women and men to be able to work in whatever field they want to work without any sort of stigma or judgment, at all. Want to be a stay-at-home dad? Go for it. Want to be a housewife? Fantastic, do it.
Can't wait 'til the day we can move to other planets which will have their own views. One planet per religion, political views, human rights. A planet where the conservative doesn't exist, A planet where republicans doesn't exist. This would at least cause a little more peace than what we have today. Planets for everyone! Cause we sure a fuck can't get along here on earth.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48803969]MRA's definition of the patriarchy is laughably overblown as some sort of anti-male conspiracy. All "patriarchy" is is male-centered society. That's it. Nothing else. It means you take your father's last name. It means that the father provides for the household. It means that the men are the workers. That's it. Feminism absolutely does want to break down patriarchal norms in our society, no doubt, but that is a [i]good thing for both men and women[/i]. Men no longer are expected to be the breadwinners in every situation, men are able to express feminine behaviors instead of hypermasculism of the early-mid-1900s and most of Western history before that. It's not about replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy or anything like that - it's wanting to remove the patriarchal system of family and work from our society so that men and women are on equal ground. Women can work now! Men can work too. Women can fight in wars! That saves the lives of men. Evolutionary psych is largely discredited in academic fields and almost wholly dismissed. Research it more. It's coated in controversy - the "modularity of mind" theory has been mostly thrown out in favor of brain plasticity, providing plenty of evidence that our brains are not necessarily fully modular and can (and actively will) change in response to external stimuli. It's very, very, very controversial and is more of a fringe theory than a well-accepted mainstream one. EP has zero explanation for homosexuality or any unusual psychological problems other than "maladaptive," while other psychological theories provide much more solid explanations. Read into it more, from both the perspective of EP and from the detractors, and see which side you fall on. Most people fall outside if they dig deep enough. Patriarchy is not a "theory," it's a word that means "male-centric families." There's no theory. A matriarchy would be a family with a matriarch, a woman, as the center of the household, providing the value to the family, etc. That is not what we have in our society. I agree with MRAs on a lot of issues - I think that women do have an unfair advantage in the legal system, particularly with custody rights. I am a feminist and I want to fix that. I think that men need more sources to deal with suicide and mental health issues. I want women working in construction, transportation, and the military. I want women and men to be able to work in whatever field they want to work without any sort of stigma or judgment, at all. Want to be a stay-at-home dad? Go for it. Want to be a housewife? Fantastic, do it.[/QUOTE] > All "patriarchy" is is male-centered society. Problem is I don't get the impression that everybody else seems to think that is the case. Its a term that has been subject to gross misuse from both sides at the very least. Dictionary definitions are nice but real life usage may vary and some people overuse the word to such an extent that that it pretty much becomes an overarching theory of why everything is wrong. Considering the increase of people that are actually taking crap like that seriously making some efforts to debunk such theories isn't something I mind. The modularity of mind theory indeed doesn't seem too strong at a glance however it isn't my field so I am not a strong judge in this matter. From what little I understood it didn't seem like the entirety of evo psych has reliant on it. I think every field in existence has had science that's been proven wrong/full of shit at one point so I am willing to forgive evo psych for that. I watched some interviews from some evo psych professor and he certainly didn't seem like a quack. I'm not a scientist but my quack sensors are usually pretty good so I doubt the entire field is full of shit. From the sources I have read over the years I do think its rather unlikely that humans are born as a blank sheet. The human species is sexually dimorphic and I think the idea that it effects every single aspect in our bodies except for our brains is silly. I think men and women on average will always be different but I don't see that as an issue as long as everyone gets equality of opportunity. I think any measures centered around equality should definitely keep the above in mind or otherwise we will end up with a soviet style misappropriation of resources that makes nobody happy. That sort of semi sums up my opinion on those matters. I kinda need to keep it short due to an arm injury of mine ( I always fail miserably). While I dislike the label feminism these days you seem like a cool person that just wants equality so no complaints here. [QUOTE=dannass;48804189]Can't wait 'til the day we can move to other planets which will have their own views. One planet per religion, political views, human rights. A planet where the conservative doesn't exist, A planet where republicans doesn't exist. This would at least cause a little more peace than what we have today. Planets for everyone! Cause we sure a fuck can't get along here on earth.[/QUOTE] Dude this is the worst idea. Can you imagine if we achieved first contact and the aliens found humanity and thought: "Holy shit intergalactic tumblr how the hell did this species achieve space flight?!."
[QUOTE=Murky42;48804372]> All "patriarchy" is is male-centered society. Problem is I don't get the impression that everybody else seems to think that is the case. Its a term that has been subject to gross misuse from both sides at the very least. Dictionary definitions are nice but real life usage may vary and some people overuse the word to such an extent that that it pretty much becomes an overarching theory of why everything is wrong. Considering the increase of people that are actually taking crap like that seriously making some efforts to debunk such theories isn't something I mind. The modularity of mind theory indeed doesn't seem too strong at a glance however it isn't my field so I am not a strong judge in this matter. From what little I understood it didn't seem like the entirety of evo psych has reliant on it. I think every field in existence has had science that's been proven wrong/full of shit at one point so I am willing to forgive evo psych for that. I watched some interviews from some evo psych professor and he certainly didn't seem like a quack. I'm not a scientist but my quack sensors are usually pretty good so I doubt the entire field is full of shit. From the sources I have read over the years I do think its rather unlikely that humans are born as a blank sheet. The human species is sexually dimorphic and I think the idea that it effects every single aspect in our bodies except for our brains is silly. I think men and women on average will always be different but I don't see that as an issue as long as everyone gets equality of opportunity. I think any measures centered around equality should definitely keep the above in mind or otherwise we will end up with a soviet style misappropriation of resources that makes nobody happy. That sort of semi sums up my opinion on those matters. I kinda need to keep it short due to an arm injury of mine ( I always fail miserably). While I dislike the label feminism these days you seem like a cool person that just wants equality so no complaints here.[/QUOTE] I've never met a single person in real life who thinks of the term "patriarchy" as anything but "male-centric society." That's all it is. I used to follow MRA stuff a lot, I didn't get "privilege," I didn't get "patriarchy," I felt oppressed and angry at women for a lot of different reasons. Now I get the concepts - I might disagree with how they're used in plenty of ways. Privilege implies negativity towards more privileged individuals - and some people use it as a negative dismissal of privileged individuals - but it's more useful as a type of mindfulness. The idea of checking privilege is more like "hey, don't assume that everyone has had the same experiences in life as you and don't be dismissive towards people who have had struggles that you can't understand due to your advantages in life." There is absolutely a lot of toxicity in feminism, especially among younger people and people using it as a label just to "fit in" with their social groups. I'm guilty of that, most people are guilty of that in any movement, because it gets frustrating sometimes. But the [i]concepts[/i] of feminism, diverged from their usage, are generally incredibly solid and stand up to scrutiny. Feminist literature and academic feminism are actually very, very solid and fascinating - it's not a discussion of how evil men are, it's a discussion of social behaviors and gender roles and deconstructing the concept of gender and femininity and masculinity and other social things that we simply take for granted. MRA is reactionary against perceived (and real) toxicity in feminism. That's it. There are genuine complaints about how masculinity is portrayed negatively (which makes sense - feminism is rooted in femininity, not masculinity), and there are genuine complaints about how men are disadvantaged in many sections of society, but feminism tends to be the movement that makes those changes most readily. There's as much toxicity in MRA as there is in feminism - but the pool of self-identified "MRAs" is so much smaller than the pool of self-identified "feminists," so it ends up making MRA look like a cesspool of sexism and anti-women rhetoric. Which it sometimes is, in the same way that feminism can lead to anti-male rhetoric. There are genuine grievances that MRA brings up that most feminists don't pay much attention to. But, personally, I think that them splitting from feminism, rather than bringing up these issues in the context of feminism, is a huge mistake. There's an enormous amount of room for discussion of male difficulties in feminism, and almost every feminist I've had a discussion with about the lack of resources for depressed men or homeless men has put more thought into the issue. Feminism is heavily tied to people de-stigmatizing mental illness, which is an egalitarian advantage to women and men - the perception that men "can't cry" seems to be supported by MRA and neomasculinity, but considered a sign of the harmfulness of our excessive social masculinity by feminism. Which one ends up being advantageous to men in the long run? I'm just gonna encourage you to read into it more and more. Read both perspectives, have discussions. There's decades of theory behind this stuff - it's not just "men suck!" like it's often portrayed.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48804509]I've never met a single person in real life who thinks of the term "patriarchy" as anything but "male-centric society." That's all it is. I used to follow MRA stuff a lot, I didn't get "privilege," I didn't get "patriarchy," I felt oppressed and angry at women for a lot of different reasons. Now I get the concepts - I might disagree with how they're used in plenty of ways. Privilege implies negativity towards more privileged individuals - and some people use it as a negative dismissal of privileged individuals - but it's more useful as a type of mindfulness. The idea of checking privilege is more like "hey, don't assume that everyone has had the same experiences in life as you and don't be dismissive towards people who have had struggles that you can't understand due to your advantages in life." There is absolutely a lot of toxicity in feminism, especially among younger people and people using it as a label just to "fit in" with their social groups. I'm guilty of that, most people are guilty of that in any movement, because it gets frustrating sometimes. But the [i]concepts[/i] of feminism, diverged from their usage, are generally incredibly solid and stand up to scrutiny. Feminist literature and academic feminism are actually very, very solid and fascinating - it's not a discussion of how evil men are, it's a discussion of social behaviors and gender roles and deconstructing the concept of gender and femininity and masculinity and other social things that we simply take for granted. MRA is reactionary against perceived (and real) toxicity in feminism. That's it. There are genuine complaints about how masculinity is portrayed negatively (which makes sense - feminism is rooted in femininity, not masculinity), and there are genuine complaints about how men are disadvantaged in many sections of society, but feminism tends to be the movement that makes those changes most readily. There's as much toxicity in MRA as there is in feminism - but the pool of self-identified "MRAs" is so much smaller than the pool of self-identified "feminists," so it ends up making MRA look like a cesspool of sexism and anti-women rhetoric. Which it sometimes is, in the same way that feminism can lead to anti-male rhetoric. There are genuine grievances that MRA brings up that most feminists don't pay much attention to. But, personally, I think that them splitting from feminism, rather than bringing up these issues in the context of feminism, is a huge mistake. There's an enormous amount of room for discussion of male difficulties in feminism, and almost every feminist I've had a discussion with about the lack of resources for depressed men or homeless men has put more thought into the issue. Feminism is heavily tied to people de-stigmatizing mental illness, which is an egalitarian advantage to women and men - the perception that men "can't cry" seems to be supported by MRA and neomasculinity, but considered a sign of the harmfulness of our excessive social masculinity by feminism. Which one ends up being advantageous to men in the long run? I'm just gonna encourage you to read into it more and more. Read both perspectives, have discussions. There's decades of theory behind this stuff - it's not just "men suck!" like it's often portrayed.[/QUOTE] As for them splitting up from feminism I think a decent portion of them did try that but then they got shouted away for bringing the topic up. Typically if you get shouted at for doing nothing wrong you lose interest in associating with a group rather then trying to find a different sub group of the same overarching group. Honestly I don't have the time to research both sides incredibly thoroughly. Considering the fact that I have to judge on a case by case basis either way I think I will just do that. Consuming info with a tablespoon of salt is never a bad idea (although my doc says at this rate my sodium intake is too high). Although if you happen to have specific topics of research in mind I wouldn't mind.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48793077]except a lot of what popularized anita was people overreacting to her shit lets not forget the thousands of hilarious video replies she got on youtube of dudes actually donning traditional neckbeard appearances getting super pissed at her[/QUOTE] Anitas popularity came from the games media pushing her product. People responded to it because it was getting popular and was quite misleading. This made it even more popular.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48793077]except a lot of what popularized anita was people overreacting to her shit lets not forget the thousands of hilarious video replies she got on youtube of dudes actually donning traditional neckbeard appearances getting super pissed at her [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] sure its a bit of victim blaming but gamers are kind of the easiest consumerbase to exploit emotionally, just see any preorder thread here its been said before but not enough, gaming is the only place where preorders can actually determine a product's fate, and where an actual culture of buying products before they even exist well, exists i guess my point is that you can't really stop this shit from happening once it spreads, only warn people to not give them attention before it happens[/QUOTE] But they're going to get attention anyway. Motherfucking Minions anyone? Kanye West? You don't need to be a part of the outrage to fucking get caught in it. The whole notion that ideas die because no one talks about them is a false premise because if they die when no one talks about them did they ever exist? Also fuck off with the neckbeard shit; most guys end up growing hair on their chins; which just so happen to be fucking attached to their necks. What's even better is you didn't go after what their point of view(if you could even do that as a collective) but instead just attack physical apperance. 10 outta 10. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48807414]Anitas popularity came from the games media pushing her product. People responded to it because it was getting popular and was quite misleading. This made it even more popular.[/QUOTE] They're gonna keep saying, "Well you shouldn't have reacted to it" meanwhile you have this person in the corner basically yelling at you that your biggest hobby is not only sexist, but horrible and perpetuates stereotypes you thought had been dropped since the early 2000s and now they're coming back. So yes, ignore them. That's what totally stopped Jack Thompson last time. [I]Oh wait no it didn't, a concerted backlash from Gaming Media and the Gaming Public alongside his illegal methods that got him disbarred shut him up form public eye.[/I]
[QUOTE=Swilly;48807811] They're gonna keep saying, "Well you shouldn't have reacted to it" meanwhile you have this person in the corner basically yelling at you that your biggest hobby is not only sexist, but horrible and perpetuates stereotypes you thought had been dropped since the early 2000s and now they're coming back. So yes, ignore them. That's what totally stopped Jack Thompson last time. [I]Oh wait no it didn't, a concerted backlash from Gaming Media and the Gaming Public alongside his illegal methods that got him disbarred shut him up form public eye.[/I][/QUOTE] What people don't seem to understand is that she isn't just popular, she's famous and has thousands upon thousands of supporters, including people within the games industry and games media. That almost certainly does translate into influence. [QUOTE=Swilly;48807811] Also fuck off with the neckbeard shit; most guys end up growing hair on their chins; which just so happen to be fucking attached to their necks. What's even better is you didn't go after what their point of view(if you could even do that as a collective) but instead just attack physical apperance. 10 outta 10.[/QUOTE] Oddly enough he's the first person to voice his outrage at the fat colored hair feminist stereotype. Dunno, I think both stereotypes are based on some truth. [QUOTE=RichyZ;48807839]minions and kanye are marketed with millions upon millions of dollars of corporate might anita was just some chick that had a 6000 dollar kickstarter[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=New Cidem;48791886]nothing makes me disregard another poster's opinion more than smugly posting in all lowercase and without punctuation in order to appear disinterested[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48807842]ya the fat technicolor feminist look is also dumb idk where you saw me defending that aside from freedom of expression [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] wow judging by post appearance 10/10 you know i could make a post about how ur avatar is borderline porn of an underaged character in a videogame but i refrain cuz im not a big baby[/QUOTE] You did just post about it, though. That makes you a big baby, i guess? Why are you so bad at posting?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48807842]ya the fat technicolor feminist look is also dumb idk where you saw me defending that aside from freedom of expression [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] wow judging by post appearance 10/10 you know i could make a post about how ur avatar is borderline porn of an underaged character in a videogame but i refrain cuz im not a big baby [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitposting" - Orkel))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Ugh! Those human filth! Criticizing my point of view... I better tell them that they have an anime avatar...
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48807839]minions and kanye are marketed with millions upon millions of dollars of corporate might anita was just some chick that had a 6000 dollar kickstarter BADLY[/QUOTE] You realize that the kickstarter made like $200,000 or something right? [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48773447] This is kinda ironic. Express any criticisms of modern feminism and you're branded a neckbeard or MRA. Apparently caring about mens rights is bad and apparently you can't be an MRA and feminist at the same time? Dunno, I just care about equal opportunities and getting rid of sexism.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm talking about. People just throw around these words to dismiss peoples opinions, neckbeard, mra, sjw, racist, etc. "People that shares this view you have also believe this crazy shit, so of course [I]you[/I] believe this crazy shit as well"
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48773447]This is kinda ironic. Express any criticisms of modern feminism and you're branded a neckbeard or MRA. Apparently caring about mens rights is bad and apparently you can't be an MRA and feminist at the same time? Dunno, I just care about equal opportunities and getting rid of sexism.[/QUOTE] One of the main problems with this whole debate is how people choose to portray themselves, and when these portrayals align well with negative stereotypes, people stop listening. For the longest time I thought you were probably against feminism for whatever dumb reason just to spite people or promote some sexist agenda. Yet here I am right now, browsing this thread and seeing you post somewhat sensible things. I mean, if you would portray yourself differently, I'm sure more people would listen to you. I'm glad I had the open mind to read your posts and realize that feminism may become bastardized by a few radicals. I hear your message loud and clear. All I want is for men and women to be equal myself. I actively pursue this goal in my day-to-day interactions with people and give women as much of a chance as men to provide feedback or work on things.
[QUOTE=Murky42;48801059]I am going to go off-topic here but the topic kept coming up so I think its not entirely irrelevant. I like to give communities and idealogies that I don't take seriously/disagree with a fair shake. It's a habit I have started building lately now that I have seen how blatant the media can be in completely misrepresenting a community. My first choice was coontown to see if reddit would have any grounds to ban it on (free speech issue). To which I thought while they are most definitely racist and I did see some fucking delusional shit get upvoted to all hell they had no right to ban it from a free speech perspective. More recently I decided to give the MRA subreddit a shake. I am surprised as you are when I say that I have been effectively converted. I wouldn't call myself an activist but most of their talking points have convinced me. I went in read their talking points (especially the FAQ goddamn) which was actually well sourced and reasoned. I went in to read how the community as a whole behaved and commented a bit to see how they reacted. I decided to see if I could criticize something without immediately being discredited as a feminazi. Which didn't happen at all so score on that count. I also quite often heard the claim "MRA IS A RIGHT WING MOVEMENT REEEEEEE". So I decided to ask if they had one of those political spectrum tests. However that turned out to be across the board with no real consistent pattern. That being said the front page/ commenters can be quite stupid. Multiple times do I see stuff on the front page which was basically (Woman only got X punishment. Injustice: YES). Followed by me doing some basic research and saying yeah this not everything is a femspiracy. Just like KIA its sometimes far too focused on perceived slights and petty bullshit. However also just like KIA when something serious comes up I find that there are plenty of intelligent posters there. I was also not the only one pointing out when other people made stupid comments or trivial threads. But I think this is primarily a problem with reddit rather then either of those communities specifically. Example of a decent portion of commenters being stupid: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3mu460/30_year_old_female_teacher_had_sex_around_50/[/url] As for what convinced me? The FAQ played a large role. It's fucking massive it has a shit ton of sources and if you have any specific question about just about anything MRA related you can find it in there. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq[/url] A bunch of of feminists come in and ask a couple of questions and they talk about what they believe and why. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3m6auf/questions_about_feminismmra/[/url] Disclaimer: I am not and never was a feminist and for some the fact that I am a straight white male in europe which makes my conversion for lack of a better word rather unimpressive for some. As a side effect of being there I have lost a whole lot of respect for feminism as a whole. I just don't believe the patriarchy is something that has sufficient evidence to be believed in and a while I already had a low opinion of the social sciences it has somehow been lowered even further. Too many studies that simply ignore biology entirely. Take my opinion and my results for what they may. Go judge for yourselves and don't rely on others to relay stuff for you. You don't have to of course but in that case you should withhold your judgement as anyone that has been keeping up with current events knows just how "reliable" the media is. EDIT: Oh yeah this article was also quite interesting: [url]http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm[/url] It basically talks about a whole bunch of gender issues and examines them from a evolutionary psychology angle (which I found far more credible then patriarchy theory). It's also a good quick showcase of the follies of equal representation which is probably one of the worst ideas that is commonly associated with modern feminism.[/QUOTE] I've been itching for a chance to get into this, so here it is: my criticism of the Men's Rights Movement. First of all it's important to realize that, in a sense, both the MRM and Feminism are two sides to the same coin. They both deal with the issues of identity politics, they both use a single branch of scientific theory (evolutionary psychology and sociology respectively) and they both contain a combination of moderates, who prescribe to the theories as a modest attempt to understand others, and radicals, who use the theories has the be-all-end-all justification of everything wrong with the world and their own lives (and yes they do exist, whether or not you've personally met them, there are radicals and extremists in every political group). In my experience, If you ask a radical feminist why they don't want to listen to MRAs, they'll say something on the lines of "They are MRAs, they perpetrate negative/problematic notions and they wish negative/problematic things upon women". I'll then ask something along the lines of "What if not all MRAs do that?" and then they'll say "Well if they didn't want to perpetrate harm towards women, why would they call themselves Men's Rights Activists?". Then I'd ask "Why is it bad for someone to call themselves a Men's Rights Activist?", which of course would prompt them to say "Because MRAs perpetrate negative/problematic notions and they wish negative/problematic things upon women". Basically, it's completely circular logic here, "MRA means bad because MRAs are bad because MRA means bad because MRAs are bad because MRA means bad...". MRAs could call themselves the Sunshine, Happiness and Puppies brigade and the same thing would happen. On the other hand, if you ask a radical MRA (or even many moderate ones): "Why is it bad to be a feminist?", they'll say something along the lines of "It's bad to be a feminist because they use notions of sociology, misuse of critical theory and socialization theory to bully people into not being able to do things purely because they personally don't like it." I'd then ask them "What if not all feminists do that?", which they would generally respond with "If they didn't want to bully people, why would they call themselves feminists?". Again the same circular logic, "feminists means bad because feminists are bad because feminism means bad because feminists are bad...", etc. My point here is essentially that you cannot judge people by labels, you have to consider every person individually and ascertain what the label means specifically to them. No matter what it is you think a group of people means or wants, there will always be exceptions to that rule. The world doesn't exist the way it does because you say so, no matter what snap judgement you make there will always be a single person who will put their hand up and say "Hang on, what you described does not represent me." I'm left shaking my head at people who put so much faith towards a single ideology that they believe it can do no wrong, nay, that everybody who prescribes to the single ideology can do no wrong. Personal anecdotes about individual people, good or bad, do not describe an entire ideology. Good people can have bad ideas and still do the right thing, bad people can have good ideas and still do the wrong thing. Ideas, at least as far as they have to do with people, are meaningless. That's even ignoring the fact that a lot of people are just plain stupid and don't understand the ideology they supposedly believe in, or else twist it so far from its original interpretation that it means whatever they (or their collective hugbox) want it to mean. If the MRM was as popular, widespread and mainstream as feminism is, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be just as widely misused and misinterpreted, most likely by the same people who now use their own twisted interpretation of feminism as their personal whipping boy. These people don't care about the ideas or the ideology, they most likely either don't care about helping people either, they just want to be right and better than everybody else because they're sociopathic narcissists or people with borderline personality disorder. Critical theory provides a tool that allows you to keep digging until you inevitably find something wrong with something you dislike for otherwise entirely personal, silly and obnoxious reasons. But criticial theory itself is not to blame for this, it's simply a tool used to analyze a work of fiction and it's up to a reasonable person to decide how to use it and to what extent to apply it. The internet allows everybody to provide their opinion, and that includes people who you wouldn't normally see out in public, such as people with severe mental disorders and I honestly believe that a lot of the people harped on about as examples of "bad feminism" or "bad MRM" are people with mental issues that extend far outside of the internet or identity politics. All of the above wasn't a criticism against the MRM specifically, it's just laying down the ground work for my argument so that we're all on the same page. My main argument is thus: like I said earlier, both the MRM and Feminism single scientific theories as justification, Feminism is based off sociology (and sometimes anthropology) while the MRM is based on evolutionary psychology, but just like how critical theory (which is technically an aspect of literary criticism, but in the context of feminism is used as a part of sociology in terms of how it affects target demographics) is easily abused and is not the be-all-end-all approach to understanding culture, evolutionary psychology is not the be-all-end-all approach to understanding human beings. Here's a related video with some criticisms towards the use of evolutionary psychology in Identity Politics: [video=youtube;hBYG26diibQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBYG26diibQ[/video] The premise of evolutionary psychology is that actions by people today are predicated upon the deprecated evolved behaviors of our ancestors, for example: we find insects like beetles and cockroaches to be creepy because in our past they were the bringers of plague and disease and the human beings who weren't afraid of beetles and cockroachs died out from said plague and disease, leaving the reminder (our direct ancestors) who were 'wise' enough to be afraid of the insects and stay away (in reality, they had no idea how diseases or plagues worked, they just happened to have an irrational fear of cockroaches and beetles which caused them to survive when others didn't, and now we're stuck with it). This response is so ingrained into our neurology, that even when we know a cockroach has been scientifically sterilized and is safer to touch then our kitchen tabletop, we still don't want to be anywhere near it. [url]http://holleyshouse.blogspot.com.au/2007/06/sterilized-cockroaches-vs-orange-juice.html[/url] [QUOTE]There is a scientist, Paul Rozin, studying the psychology of disgust. This little experiment, involving dipping a sterilized cockroach into a glass of orange juice then soliciting someone to take a drink from the glass (no one would take him up on it), was intended to demonstrate the universal concept of touch transference: "It's a fancy term for cooties. If something repulsive touches something benign, the latter, even if it's physically unchanged, becomes "infected." Taking this concept further are two researchers who teach marketing at Duke and Arizona State University, Andrea Morales and Gavan Fitzsimons. In a series of studies resulting in an article in this month's Journal of marketing research, "the researchers found not only that some products--trash bags, diapers, kitty litter, tampons--evoke a subconscious feeling of disgust even before they're used for their ultimate messy purposes, but they can also transfer their general ickiness to anything they come in contact with."[/QUOTE] So, like critical theory, evolutionary psychology is a perfectly affable part of our scientific reasoning, but it is nothing more and nothing less than a tool, and it can be misused by people who think it is the be-all-end-all approach to viewing the world. I suppose the classic example of this misuse is a case where someone is rejected by another person whom they have feelings for and their response is "Well, the reason they rejected me is that they have a little ape brain and they biologically want a partner that fits their evolved base instincts and not someone who's actually good for them (like me), I of course am a more evolved primate who is aware of such base instincts and can see past such things, and are therefore the better person as a result" which isn't much different from "Well, the reason they rejected me is that they have a little prole brain and they, as per society constructed norms, want a partner that fits their view of societal norms and not someone who's actually good for them (like me), I am of course a more educated person who is aware of such base social norms and can see past such things, and are therefore the better person as a result." Here's a post by Allison Tieman of the HoneyBadgerBrigade that explains the basis of her beliefs in terms of evolutionary psychology, a manifesto if you will. I'll let her explain and then I'll deconstruct it to make a few points. [url]http://www.genderratic.net/?p=4135[/url] [QUOTE]Author’s Note: This is a summary of my entire theory of how our society’s gender system operates and how it originated. It is intended to be a ‘road map’ of society’s norms about masculinity and femininity. I believe that it can explain all gender norms in our society. The MHRM requires an integrated, consistent theory about gender in order to successfully compete with Radical Second Wave and Third Wave Feminism – this theory is an attempt at providing one. The following does not mention every single aspect of our society’s gender system, but I believe that any unmentioned aspects of the gender norms can be successfully explained by this theory (feel free to propose “Explain This Norm As A Product Of The Gender System” challenges in the comments). Note that whilst I called this post “Summa Genderratica” I do not wish to imply that the theory below is accepted (in its entirety) by anyone other than myself. I am only illustrating my theory here, and it isn’t meant to be taken as the “official philosophy” of GendErratic as a whole. The reason for the title is because I am a pretentious douche and as such I enjoy the self-important connotation/reference towards the works of Aquinas.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]PART 1 The First Premise: The Purpose of Social Norms Why do social norms arise? This theory will take it as axiomatic that social norms arise for survivability and practicality reasons. Social norms arise as responses to the challenges of physical existence. The Challenge The gender system arose in the early days of our species. During these days, food and resources were scarce, accumulating them was a difficult and failure-prone task, and it was manual labor which performed these tasks; physical labor was the primary source of improvements to survivability and the standard of living (unlike today, where technological capital and knowledge work provide this (it is telling that the first challenges to the gender system only arose with the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution… periods during which the economy became less labor-dependent and more capital-dependent owing to technological advances. It is also telling that challenges to the gender system arose first amongst materially well-off groups in society)). Because physical labor was the primary means of production, importance was placed on the means of producing physical labor, i.e. reproducing and growing the population. However, only a minority of children survived to reach adulthood, and as such much higher birth rates were required to grow the overall population size. But only one half of the population could bear children. The Response Biology combined with the necessity of aggressive breeding essentially forced women to “specialize” and devote large amounts of their time to being knocked up and producing children (and when pregnant they are less mobile and thus more vulnerable). Since males could not perform this important task, they provided protection and resource-provision (in essence, all the ‘rest’). Social norms arose to push people towards their sex-mandated tasks. The “good female” and the “good male” were the female and male who contributed to their society by fulfilling their assigned role; the “good female” was the fertile mother, the “good male” was the strong warrior and productive hunter. These social norms were reflected in all of society’s institutions, including religion (see the warrior gods and the mother goddesses for more).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Summary 1 1. Social Norms arise as responses to the challenges of living and thriving 2. Low technology societies are dependent on physical labor to survive 3. Very high birth rates were required to increase the supply of labor 4. Only one half of the human population could give birth 5. Gender Roles emerged to encourage specialization on the basis of sex[/QUOTE] The above quote essentially explains the evolutionary psychology basis for gender norms within our society, and it sounds pretty reasonable so far, let's keep going. [QUOTE]PART 2 Maturity and Gender As stated before, the “good female” and the “good male” were understood in terms of those who contributed to society by fulfilling their sex-assigned tasks. However, children of either sex are physically unable to do this. A woman needs to be post-pubertal in order to bear a child. Young males are on average significantly less physically developed and thus generally lack the necessary strength to even have a chance at successfully performing their sex-assigned task. As such, there is an association between maturity and gender-compliance. A female needs to undergo a process of biological maturation in order to perform the feminine contribution to society, however this process is essentially automatic and is basically assumed to occur over time, with mensturation serving as a clear biological indicator of fitness to perform the task. With males, things are more tenuous. Proficiency or even ability to perform the male function, let alone perform it well, is not biologically guaranteed. Additionally, there is no single clear “he’s ready” indicator delivered by male biology. Whilst females “grow into” being women, males do not automatically grow into being “real men.”[/QUOTE] Again, this sounds fairly reasonable and coincides with our understanding of gender norms and how men are expected to be "real men" while women are expected to sit around at home doing nothing but look after kids. [QUOTE]Aristotelian Femininity, Platonic Masculinity, and the Subject-Object Dichotomy A young female just becomes a woman automatically, due to the innate properties of her biology. Her mensturation evidences her maturation. Her womanhood simply is. She is assumed to be gender-compliant and thus socially contributive by default. A young male has to demonstrate, through action, the ability to perform masculine tasks successfully. A young male must prove he has “grown up” and become a “real man.” Males are not assumed to be gender-compliant (and thus socially contributive) by default; by himself he is just another mouth to be fed by the work of “real men.” A man must validate his manhood by action, otherwise he is not a real man but rather a “boy” (i.e. immature, not-an-adult male). As such, one can correctly understand traditional gender roles as premised on epistemological essentialism, however different kinds of epistemological essentialism underpin each role. Femininity is mostly understood as innate to female biology, as an immanent essence, whilst masculinity is mostly understood as an ideal to aspire to, a “form” which one “participates in” in order to gain an identity. It is a particular quirk of human psychology that we tend to perceive moral agency (the capacity to do things) and moral patiency (the capacity to have stuff done to you) dichotomously, even though human beings are in fact both. As such, the association of agency with manhood combined with the innatist understanding of womanhood (as well as, perhaps, the fact that pregnancy does render a woman less mobile and more resource-dependent) led to the association of womanhood with moral patiency. Men are seen as actors, and women are seen as acted upon. This is the traditional subject-object dichotomy.[/QUOTE] Once again, "A man is an actor, a woman is acted upon" is very much the basis of many feminist social theories. Continue. [QUOTE]The Disposable-Cherishable Dichotomy A gender-compliant person of either sex is seen as valuable to society (since they are acting in ways which conform to survivability-oriented norms). However, females are assumed to either be (or will be) gender-compliant; naturally infertile women are the exception rather than the rule and thus the assumption is that any given female is (or will be) capable of bearing children due to their biology. As such, females are ascribed an innate value simply for being female. Females are seen as inherently cherishable because they are the incubators of the future. Males lack this. Their gender-compliance is not seen as an inevitable feature of their biological maturation but rather an ideal to live up to. Males neither are nor will become “real men” by default. As such, they have no innate value. The value of a man is exclusively contingent on the consequences of his agency and by himself, he is ultimately disposable. Because men are valued not for properties of their biology but the outcomes of their actions, the death of one man is ceteris paribus a smaller tragedy to society than the death of one woman. After all, when tragedies happen, the death counts typically specify the toll taken by women and children (i.e. the future). Our society may lionize its male heroes who go and die so that others may live, but as stated before, social norms arise to push individuals to perform socially beneficial tasks; the worship of heroic male self-sacrifice is a way to encourage men to see their deaths for noble causes as a worthy contribution to society, and thus to make men more willing to die for others. The Gender Norms In A Nutshell As a consequence of all of the above, males are innately disposable subjects, females are innately cherishable objects. All gender norms ultimately are reducible to this. Summary 2 1. Maturity, for each sex, is conceptualized as gender-compliance 2. Female maturity is seen as a natural result of biological development 3. Male maturity is not seen as guaranteed, but rather something proven/earned 4. Men do, women are, because manhood is about doing and womanhood just “is” 5. Because gender-compliance is seen as valuable and women are seen as innately gender-compliant, women are seen as innately valuable 6. Because men are NOT seen as innately gender-compliant, men are seen as innately expendable 7. Ergo, the subject-object dichotomy is overlaid by the disposable-cherishable dichotomy, casting males as innately disposable subjects and females as innately cherishable objects[/QUOTE] You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with even a cursory understanding of the subject-matter who would disagree with this, except the most radical or extreme practitioner of any particular mindset about gender. [QUOTE]PART 3 – Some Advanced Implications Agency and Feminine Power Everyone derives a sense of power – used here to mean efficacy or competence – when they successfully perform a task which has the end result of providing for their needs. This makes evolutionary sense – if survival-enhancing things did not give pleasure and survival-diminishing things did not cause pain, an organism would be significantly less likely to survive. But the performance of tasks was typically assigned to males; femininity was not associated with agency and due to the innate reproductive utility of women, women were kept safe and away from potential danger where possible (which in turn generated a self-reinforcing (and perhaps somewhat self-fulfilling) presumption of diminished female competence – a presumption which was somewhat true during pregnancy (and may be somewhat true on average with tasks that require very high upper body strength) but clearly got exaggerated and overgeneralized). However, every human being has material needs for survival, and these material needs must be satisfied through action (food must be acquired, shelter must be found). So how would a woman, someone culturally perceived as and encouraged towards remaining deficient in agency, acquire these needs? The answer is that women are encouraged to rely upon men, and not merely in the passive sense, but to actively enlist the agency of males to provide for their survival. Masculine power is thus equated with anything which enhances successful/competent agency (e.g. big muscles), and feminine power is equated with anything that enhances enlisting successful/competent agents. Masculine power is that which augments agency, feminine power is that which augments the acquisition and preservation of agency by proxy. The gender system, therefore, always contained a form of feminine power – i.e. ways in which women could act to service their material needs. Whilst it reserved direct acquisition through agency to men, the system also reserved agency by proxy for women.[/QUOTE] This is essentially an explanation of the relationship between the feminine mystique and the masculine mystique, the otherwise ineffable definitions of womanliness and masculiness that permeates the development of our species despite not being directly tied to biological function. Everything's good so far. [QUOTE]Male Hierarchy Society’s understanding of manhood as a Platonic ideal to aspire towards explains the fact how there can be “better men” and “worse men” (as men), as well as how biological males can be “not real men” – the use of “real” to mean “ideal” is telling. Because manhood is demonstrated by performing certain tasks, men are ranked in accordance with how well they perform these tasks. Men are ranked by other men and by women – their gender identity is heavily subject to social validation and revocation. This means “real manhood” is an earned social status which is collective-dependent, hierarchical and competitive, and men can be socially emasculated at any time. Male identity is made contingent on competing with each other to prove oneself a “better man.” As stated above, maturity is linked with “real manhood” but male maturity is again socially validated due to the fact that masculine task-performance isn’t biologically guaranteed – this means male elders (particularly fathers) are placed in a position of evaluator where they judge prospective males to separate the “boys” from the “men.” The male hierarchy can be effectively divided into three basic categories (from lowest social status to highest social status) 1) Males who are “not real men.” The socially emasculated. “Boys.” Omega males. 2) Males who are “real men” but who aren’t able to revoke another male’s “real man” status. Beta males. 3) Males who are “real men” with the ability to revoke another male’s “real man” status. Alpha males. The division between statuses 2 and 3 is contextual and often dependent on other institutional arrangements as well as the surrounding males – someone can in fact be Alpha in one hierarchy and Omega relative to another. This setup ironically enough compels that a Beta be submissive to his Alpha so as to avoid being rendered an Omega. In other words the male gender role isn’t entirely about dominance but rather demands submission to “better” men.[/QUOTE] Now we're talking about tribal behavior, the kind of stuff we see in colonies of chimpanzees. Is this situation comparable to that of the situation today or have we skipped a few steps? The first part of this section talking about how low status men are called "not real men" and that shows that there is this ideal of the "real man" to begin with is spot on, but then the rest of it's a bit murky. How is it that men are assigned into all of these specific categories, is it an innate thing like the beetles and the orange juice, is it something that people learn to do without realizing it or is it something that somebody at some level decides consciously to perpetrate, like some sort of [b][i]patriarchial[/i][/b] (hurr hurr) influence? [QUOTE]Social Genders Typically, “gender” is taken as a binary – as a reference to masculinity or femininity. However, this is hard to reconcile with the above situation – males who aren’t “real men” aren’t regarded as possessing manhood (i.e. they do not contribute masculine value). They are “boys” rather than men, according to the gender system. They do not receive many aspects of ‘male privilege’ because much ‘male privilege’ is in fact ‘real-man’ privilege. And whilst they are socially emasculated they receive no female privilege either, because due to their biology they cannot perform the essential feminine task of bearing children. In short, socially emasculated men are not seen as masculine or feminine but rather they are perceived, treated and categorized as a third gender. They are neither a man nor a woman (socially speaking rather than biologically speaking).[/QUOTE] I don't have much to say on this point because it's fundamentally based on the previous point. Depending on the previous point is interpreted, the definition of this one changes too. [QUOTE]PART 4: Challenges There are several classic problems in gender studies which any prospective examination of the gender system needs to explain. Below, I take several of these phenomena and reconcile them with the theory proposed above.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Promiscuity Double Standard The Promiscuity Double Standard (henceforth PDS) of our culture is well-known; a man is seen as a worthy and virile stud for sleeping around, but a woman is seen as a degraded and self-cheapening slut for doing the same thing. Typically, the PDS is treated as a unitary construct – as if the PDS’s gendered imperatives arose from the same source. This is counter-intuitive because the imperatives of the PDS are in conflict – men are encouraged to sleep around and women are discouraged from doing so, thus meaning men cannot comply with the system without women failing to comply with it (and vice-versa). The PDS certainly isn’t in the interests of men, since it encourages women to prevent men from being studs (through the withholding of sexual access). Typical feminist analysis sees the PDS as a male construct invented to control female sexuality. The fact that men’s interests are not served by encouraging female chastity complicates this explanation, but it is further complicated by the empirical fact that most slut-shaming is perpetrated by women against each other. If men created and enforced the PDS, one would expect men to be the primary shamers of sluts. As such, it may be more accurate to see the Promiscuity Double Standard not as a single construct, but two different constructs, proposed and enforced by different parties for different purposes. An interesting thing about the concept of “slut” is that women who are sluts are seen as “cheapening themselves” or “debasing themselves” – they are seen as giving sexual access far too easily (i.e. giving away a good without getting enough in return). Let’s look at the transactional framing here: a market exists, women are the suppliers of sexual access and men are the demand side of the equation. Women are encouraged to not give away sex “too easily,” i.e. they are encouraged to receive something in return for sex. It is mostly women who shame other women for giving sex away. From an economic perspective, we are seeing cartel behavior; sellers colluding amongst themselves to raise the price of sex by restricting the quantity of sexual access that is immediately avaliable. So what is the ‘price’ of sex? As explained above, women are encouraged to enlist male agency in their service, since the gender system discourages them from developing their own. Thus, the ‘price’ of sex is male agency, typically framed as a committed relationship. When women are sluts and thus ‘put out too easy,’ competitive pressure lowers the price of sex and thus damages (traditionally-understood) female interests. The implications here are quite depressing; because women are encouraged to experience power through enlisting male agency, “sluthood” is opposed to traditional feminine power by eroding women’s bargaining position. Women are encouraged by the traditional gender system to experience their sexuality as being defeated and being conquered, rather than getting something they desire (i.e. sexual satisfaction). Women are also encouraged to see men as adversaries, and to see male advocacy of female sexual liberation as threats to their material security (i.e. “they just want cheaper sex, the cads!”). In conclusion, the PDS wasn’t invented “by men” – at least half of the PDS is a mostly female-maintained standard intended to sustain traditional feminine power through preserving the value of sex and thus maximizing the agency women can enlist in return for granting sexual access. The imperatives of the PDS conflict with each other, and the PDS’s implicit sexual transactionalism sets up an adversarial situation that sabotages sexual fulfillment for both sexes.[/QUOTE] The writer of the manifesto has fallen into the same trap as the radical feminists whom they are poised to criticize. They have attempted to provide a Point A to Point B to Point C answer but have fundamentally just dug into a complex social situation until it met with the standards of their pet scientific theory (evolutionary psychology in this case, sociology in the case of feminist criticism) without providing the who, what, when, where and why that would make this a complete argument from beginning to end. The rest of the logic can be perfectly sound, but if there's even a single bit that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it puts the whole argument in question. Just like critical theory, evolutionary psychology is a tool, but (just like critical theory) it can be misused when people take it to be the be-all-end-all approach to understanding any particular topic, the people who do this tend to dig into something until they find the answer they're looking for.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.