[QUOTE=mushroompizza;48489579]Im done with this thread. This is some bullshit Feminism, now dont get me wrong I love feminism but some people get way to into it like anime, its okay but weeaboos need to calm the fuck down.
Regular Feminists: Women deserve equality and men should support us.
Bullshit Feminists: What is a vagina? Is the name vagina sexist? After extensively reading tumblr I know everything. Is hair genitalia? Let me make this more complicated than it needs to be. What about a penis could it be socially a vagina as a woman?[/QUOTE]
That's quite a good comparison actually. You've got regular coffee-shop-style feminists who don't think about it too much, similar to people who might casually watch some anime like Pokemon or DragonBall and perhaps not even realize it's anime. On the other end, you've also got the people who get way too far into it, who have Waifus and shit, similiar to radical and academic feminists who debate all sorts of complex and overly-convoluted critical theory about the sexually symbolic signification of various forms of fruit shown in hollywood action movies.
Also:
I like how literally all I changed from the previous thread was the title and a few pictures that I added in and none of the content changed, and that made enough of a difference to cause a torrent of abuse to be hurled at me.
Thats what this thread reminds me of. Its over the top. The obsession on womens suffering (not saying that there isnt oppression) but there is much greater suffering in america and the world.
Im personally a sex positive socialist feminist. Also some of the theory becomes so ridiculous that it helps no one and is actually oppressing others like the idea to not recognize trans women as women.
(Sorry I yelled earlier)
[QUOTE=mushroompizza;48489669]Thats what this thread reminds me of. Its over the top. The obsession on womens suffering (not saying that there isnt oppression) but there is much greater suffering in america and the world.
Im personally a sex positive socialist feminist. Also some of the theory becomes so ridiculous that it helps no one and is actually oppressing others like the idea to not recognize trans women as women.
(Sorry I yelled earlier)[/QUOTE]
No problem mate, yea I agree with you. It's a bit intense, but I still think it's worth discussing because, as you say, it really does affect people's lives.
Edit: I updated the OP and broke things down a little further. Second-wave has a sex-positive and sex-negative category and Intersectional feminism was broken down more into the theory itself and the criticism against it like I did with some of the other labels.
this is a pathetic attempt at trying to look like the bigger man
you can't act like you're making a thread for unhindered discussion where everyone is free to join in and at the same time shit on everyone you disagree with. your descriptions might as well be labeled "good movements" and "bad movements"
also it's funny how you mention strawmen and the weak man argument while your post is filled to the brim with them. get rid of the pointlessly biased descriptions and the meme shit and maybe it won't look like you've made a "discussion" thread meant only for people that will agree with you
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48490001]this is a pathetic attempt at trying to look like the bigger man
you can't act like you're making a thread for unhindered discussion where everyone is free to join in and at the same time shit on everyone you disagree with. your descriptions might as well be labeled "good movements" and "bad movements"
also it's funny how you mention strawmen and the weak man argument while your post is filled to the brim with them. get rid of the pointlessly biased descriptions and the meme shit and maybe it won't look like you've made a "discussion" thread meant only for people that will agree with you[/QUOTE]
I'm not shitting on people who disagree with me, I'm shitting on people who come into the thread and insult me for no reason when I'm open to discussing everything. Have I, at any point, written anything that is dismissive of other people being allowed to post here? Have I done anything to discourage discussion, argument or disagreement? I've addressed all of I.zaks points, except the ones where he calls me an idiot for disagreeing with him. I also updated the sections of the OP that he said were too one-sided and added the sex-negative definition of second-wave feminism as he requested.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48490001]this is a pathetic attempt at trying to look like the bigger man
you can't act like you're making a thread for unhindered discussion where everyone is free to join in and at the same time shit on everyone you disagree with. your descriptions might as well be labeled "good movements" and "bad movements"
also it's funny how you mention strawmen and the weak man argument while your post is filled to the brim with them. get rid of the pointlessly biased descriptions and the meme shit and maybe it won't look like you've made a "discussion" thread meant only for people that will agree with you[/QUOTE]
Okay, which labels are specifically biased and which are too positive? I never claimed to have perfect omniscient knowledge of all things. The only way we come to a reasonable conclusion to this is if we actually debate over what points need to changed, what needs to be removed, apended, etc. This is only the first draft of my proposal and the whole idea of this thread is to reflect on it and change it in order to make it as reasonably neutral as possible. I know you guys aren't used to this kind of discussion, but you have to realize that the point of the whole thing is that we need agreed on definitions for various terms in order to have a fair and balanced debate (not just definitions you agree on, but everybody). I can't do that with you just saying 'fix it' or 'do this'. We need to debate and discuss what should/could/would change based on a presentation of arguments, evidence and ideas (not just 'you're wrong, shut up'). People in the last thread, including Feminists and Social Justice Advocates who came in to debate the points, seemed to agree that the OP was fairly neutral. This is the first time I've heard from you guys saying that its apparently shamefully biased, and I'm willing to deliberate with you on why that is (as long as the answer isn't 'because it's wrong' or 'because I disagree with it'). Does that make sense?
So first of all, let's discuss the tone of the definitions. The reason I use a very sarcastic and sardonic tone across ALL of the definitions of the labels is that it A) makes the posts easier to read (It's more humorous, with less dry definitions; A lot of people struggled to read the long paragraphs of text in the first thread, so that's why I added pictures) and B) It takes up less space (in order to be purely matter-of-fact about everything and spell everything out without using similes or humorous remarks, it take up to a whole page for each definition) and C) It makes fun of EVERYONE. You notice how I wrote that third-wavers are crazy tumblr people, well I also said that MRAs are crazy reddit people. If you take your hard-arse glasses off for a minute you might be able to read the definitions of the things you think I said were 'good' and see that they were dripping with sarcastic remarks and smart-assery. I'm sorry if I stepped on one or more of your pet issues, but I also made a significant effort to stomp over the entire menagerie with my size 11s. If, like I.zak, you read the post and thought I support neo-masculinism, then either you need to check your basic reading comprehension or I need to make it extra clear that I'm being super duper sarcastic.
So, in conclusion I will once again reiterate:
-I'm open to any argument for why specific definitions in the OP should be changed. We'll argue it out and come to a conclusion.
-I don't support Neo-Masculinism, I'm not a rapist, I don't associate with rapists, why oh god why do you assume people are rapists from a single forum post?
Yours smart-arsely,
Zyler, facepunch user.
Edit:
The next post one of you guys makes, if you want to address something in the OP, quote an actual line of text from it and either pick it apart or re-write it. If it sounds reasonable I'll append it to the OP or more likely combine it with the stuff that's already there. Does that sound reasonable? It's just that you need to tell me WHAT needs to be fixed, not just that something DOES need to be fixed.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48490104]I'm not shitting on people who disagree with me, I'm shitting on people who come into the thread and insult me for no reason when I'm open to discussing everything. Have I, at any point, written anything that is dismissive of other people being allowed to post here? Have I done anything to discourage discussion, argument or disagreement? I've addressed all of I.zaks points, except the ones where he calls me an idiot for disagreeing with him. I also updated the sections of the OP that he said were too one-sided and added the sex-negative definition of second-wave feminism as he requested.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
Okay, which labels are specifically biased and which are too positive? I never claimed to have perfect omniscient knowledge of all things. The only way we come to a reasonable conclusion to this is if we actually debate over what points need to changed, what needs to be removed, apended, etc. This is only the first draft of my proposal and the whole idea of this thread is to reflect on it and change it in order to make it as reasonably neutral as possible. I know you guys aren't used to this kind of discussion, but you have to realize that the point of the whole thing is that we need agreed on definitions for various terms in order to have a fair and balanced debate (not just definitions you agree on, but everybody). I can't do that with you just saying 'fix it' or 'do this'. We need to debate and discuss what should/could/would change based on a presentation of arguments, evidence and ideas (not just 'you're wrong, shut up'). People in the last thread, including Feminists and Social Justice Advocates who came in to debate the points, seemed to agree that the OP was fairly neutral. This is the first time I've heard from you guys saying that its apparently shamefully biased, and I'm willing to deliberate with you on why that is (as long as the answer isn't 'because it's wrong' or 'because I disagree with it'). Does that make sense?
So first of all, let's discuss the tone of the definitions. The reason I use a very sarcastic and sardonic tone across ALL of the definitions of the labels is that it A) makes the posts easier to read (It's more humorous, with less dry definitions; A lot of people struggled to read the long paragraphs of text in the first thread, so that's why I added pictures) and B) It takes up less space (in order to be purely matter-of-fact about everything and spell everything out without using similes or humorous remarks, it take up to a whole page for each definition) and C) It makes fun of EVERYONE. You notice how I wrote that third-wavers are crazy tumblr people, well I also said that MRAs are crazy reddit people. If you take your hard-arse glasses off for a minute you might be able to read the definitions of the things you think I said were 'good' and see that they were dripping with sarcastic remarks and smart-assery. I'm sorry if I stepped on one or more of your pet issues, but I also made a significant effort to stomp over the entire menagerie with my size 11s. If, like I.zak, you read the post and thought I support neo-masculinism, then either you need to check your basic reading comprehension or I need to make it extra clear that I'm being super duper sarcastic.
So, in conclusion I will once again reiterate:
-I'm open to any argument for why specific definitions in the OP should be changed. We'll argue it out and come to a conclusion.
-I don't support Neo-Masculinism, I'm not a rapist, I don't associate with rapist, why oh god why do you assume people are rapists from a single forum post?
Yours smart-arsely,
Zyler, facepunch user.[/QUOTE]
constructive advice, then:
remove every single picture, they're 95% of why people are saying you're biased because the images are retarded memes
remove the section on neo-masculinity, it's not a real movement with any genuine backing, it's a rapist's view on what men "should be"
fix "the patriarchy" to be less condescending, make it talk about how the patriarchy is basically a male-dominant society, leave out the "it's basically all men" because it just shows you don't understand the concept of a patriarchy at all
remove the TERF section, it's mostly you soapboxing about SRS and complaining about a small subset of trans-exclusionary second-wave feminists. i don't support trans-exclusivity at all but starting out with it saying "THE WORST OF THE WORST" and then saying you're "neutral" is laughable
make the third-wave feminism bit less condescending as well, "OH... UH... RAPE CULTURE!" is absurd, third-wave feminism has far more concrete goals than the sex wars of the second wave - it's about exposing gender as a social construct, promoting gender fluidity and LGBT rights, fighting against social behaviors that normalize rape (fraternities are a prime target), and numerous other things. get rid of the "call-out culture" bit because that's your opinion and not a fact about third-wave feminism
merge "third-wave feminism" and "intersectional feminism" because they're the same thing, cut out the "tumblr point scale" nonsense that doesn't even really exist.
but you won't do any of this because you like painting third-wave feminism as some negative tumblr reactionary bullshit and you like painting neo-masculinity as something that is a positive for strong tough men
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48490351]constructive advice, then: remove every single picture, they're 95% of why people are saying you're biased because the images are retarded memes[/QUOTE]
They're supposed to make the long-form list a bit easier to read. People struggled to get through it in the previous thread. I've removed some of the images already and I'll thumbnail the remaining ones that you can still read in a smaller print to make it less obnoxious.
[QUOTE]remove the section on neo-masculinity, it's not a real movement with any genuine backing, it's a rapist's view on what men "should be"[/QUOTE]
For the sake of inclusivity, it's necessary to include all of the possible different ideas people can have. It is also worthwhile for discussing why people have those ideas in the first place.
[QUOTE]fix "the patriarchy" to be less condescending, make it talk about how the patriarchy is basically a male-dominant society, leave out the "it's basically all men" because it just shows you don't understand the concept of a patriarchy at all[/QUOTE]
Alrighty, I'll change the OP.
[QUOTE]remove the TERF section, it's mostly you soapboxing about SRS and complaining about a small subset of trans-exclusionary second-wave feminists. i don't support trans-exclusivity at all but starting out with it saying "THE WORST OF THE WORST" and then saying you're "neutral" is laughable[/QUOTE]
I'll remove the worst-of-the-worst bit and the SRS bit because it probably isn't relevant. But again, I want to keep the TERF section because it represents the beliefs of a decent subset of people.
[QUOTE]make the third-wave feminism bit less condescending as well, "OH... UH... RAPE CULTURE!" is absurd, third-wave feminism has far more concrete goals than the sex wars of the second wave - [b]it's about exposing gender as a social construct, promoting gender fluidity and LGBT rights, fighting against social behaviors that normalize rape (fraternities are a prime target)[/b], and numerous other things. get rid of the "call-out culture" bit because that's your opinion and not a fact about third-wave feminism.[/QUOTE]
I need to include both the beliefs and criticisms of each movement in order to create a balanced definition. The 'call-out culture' is a oft-discussed criticism of third-wave.
See here for example:
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/feminism-rosetta-scientist-shirt-dapper-laughs-julien-blanc-inequality[/url]
I'll put the bolded bit in the OP
[QUOTE]merge "third-wave feminism" and "intersectional feminism" because they're the same thing, cut out the "tumblr point scale" nonsense that doesn't even really exist.[/QUOTE]
No it's not the same thing, third-wave was proposed by Rebeca Walker and subsequent activist leaders in the 90s, intersectional feminism was only proposed in the late 2000s by sites such as everydayfeminism.
[QUOTE]but you won't do any of this because you like painting third-wave feminism as some negative tumblr reactionary bullshit and you like painting neo-masculinity as something that is a positive for strong tough men[/QUOTE]
And you keep saying this. I don't support neo-masculinism, I don't think it's a good thing. Do you only hear the things I post that you want to hear or something? I've also said repeatedly that I'm willing to change stuff, and I have. I've changed the OP in response to every request you've ever made. In return you've given me nothing but snark and insults.
Third-wave feminism, and intersectionality especially is tied to tumblr in the same way MRAs are tied to Reddit. If you believe one is tied to their respective site and not the other, then you are being perhaps a little bit hypocritical, don't you think? Technically no ideology is tied to a single website, I could spend an entire page talking about the history of each separate movement, where they came from and who said what, but for the sake of ease of accessibility I've tried to simplify the definitions so that everybody can/will read them. Obviously this means neither tumblr nor reddit are entirely made up of angry third-wavers or MRAs. And adding all the pictures worked it seems, because none of you guys read any of this until I changed the title and added pictures.
Zyler, your OP highlights the one-sidedness of this debate (as it happens on the internet) perfectly.
According to you, there are no modern "good" feminists. First wave feminism won equality for women, then it was done. Everyone afterward are either extremists or just making up fake oppression.
On the other hand, you call A Voice for Men a site for "good" men's rights activists. A site that used to host a manifesto calling for men to firebomb family court judges, run by a guy whose motto is to "fuck [feminist's] shit up". Your thread is nothing but an advertisement for AVFM and the men's rights subreddit (which is in no way a place to avoid bitching about women, as you call it)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;48490465]Zyler, your OP highlights the one-sidedness of this debate (as it happens on the internet) perfectly.
According to you, there are no modern "good" feminists. First wave feminism won equality for women, then it was done. Everyone afterward are either extremists or just making up fake oppression.
On the other hand, you call A Voice for Men a site for "good" men's rights activists. A site that used to host a manifesto calling for men to firebomb family court judges, run by a guy whose motto is to "fuck [feminist's] shit up". Your thread is nothing but an advertisement for AVFM and the men's rights subreddit (which is in no way a place to avoid bitching about women, as you call it)[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite actually, Second-wave feminists were instrumental in bringing about equity and fairness in employment and sexual freedoms as well as birth control and abortion. Third-wavers, despite the criticisms levied against them, have also brought a huge amount of awareness to LGBT issues and discussion about how best to compare ineffable inequalities that threaten people's personal freedoms. This kind of discussion wouldn't be happening right now if it weren't for those two groups. I also never said that A Voice For Men was good or bad, I just stated they were a part of the MHRM which is separate from the MRM and is more moderate (which they are). Can you quote anywhere in the OP where I said any of these things?
Edit: I edited the OP and added all the stuff I.zak suggested. I wasn't sure about the whole third-wavers "showing gender to be socially constructed" thing, so I just said that the third-wave concept of gender was more developed than the TERFs (including things such as acknowledgment of gender expression or what not).
black lives matter is kinda annoying me with these hopeless assaults on bernie sanders
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/17/1412728/-Why-Bernie-s-fake-apology-to-black-folk-really-bothers-me[/url]
[QUOTE]A few days ago, several black activists received this email, with an apology, from a senior staffer with Bernie's campaign. You should read it. It's a great email. Here's the intro with the apology.
Hello all!
My name is Marcus Ferrell, I am a senior staffer for Senator Bernie Sanders presidential bid in 2016.
I am reaching out to you on behalf of our campaign because you are the folks doing the work for Black Lives Matter. I apologize it took our campaign so long to officially reach out. We are hoping to establish a REAL space for REAL dialog between the folks on this email and our campaign. If you guys know of anyone that should be on this email chain and is not, please feel free to forward them this message and my contact information.
When asked about it on Meet the Press by Chuck Todd on Sunday morning, Bernie flat out denied apologizing, said it was done without his knowledge, and that he didn't think an apology was remotely necessary.
“Well, that was sent out by a staffer, not by me,” Sanders said. “Look, we are reaching out to all kinds of groups. Absolutely I met with folks at Black Lives Matter.”
“I understand that you said a staffer put it out, but you felt an apology was necessary?” Todd asked.
“No, I don’t. I think we’re going to be working with all groups. This was sent out without my knowledge,” Sanders said.
Last week I praised Bernie's plan addressing systemic racism and police brutality. Now, though, I'm starting to wonder if he had anything to do with it. It seems like he has hired some black staffers who are doing a great job saying all of the right things, but that he may not actually be connected, personally, to what they are thinking and saying.
When Bernie so flippantly dismissed this apology, he not only disrespected his senior staffer, but he showed that he's not really in tune with how his staffers think and feel about how things are going for him. For me, I was just starting to open up to the idea that Bernie sincerely cared about police brutality and racial injustice, but this current mess sets me back.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/17/1412948/-Perhaps-Black-Lives-Matter-owes-Bernie-An-Apology[/url]
[QUOTE]Sorry, but I agree with Bernie.
If anything, it is the FAKE Black Lives Matter people who interrupted him who owe Bernie Sanders an Apology.
They have been exposed as a group of Opportunists trying to Cash In on Black Lives Matter for their Own agenda.
They are Not a Legitimate part of the group.
True supporters of Black Lives Matter would Begin by approaching the campaign Politely and Asking for Bernie's Support.
Instead, they went in and Demanded an Apology before the first word was spoken.
Ironically, Bernie is the one Candidate in this election who has spent his Entire Career demanding Social Justice for Everyone.[/QUOTE]
There is some pretty clear bias coming from both sides of this "debate" tbh and calling each other idiots is hardly constructive. I'm also really not clear on how anything in the OP is slanted in any direction considering how condensed (and outright silly) it is. I did not get the impression that Zyler was saying Neomasculinism is in any way a good thing. I won't comment on the accuracy of Zyler's information as I frankly do not know enough about any of the topics.
Regardless, can we just keep it constructive please. I think it's safe to say none of us are misogynist/misandrist and that rape is bad yadda yadda. We all have our biases and our interpretations of particular events/history, so let's use the thread to discuss those views and biases instead of shitting all over each other for the conclusions jumped to. Save it for the SH threads.
To hopefully foster some discussion, what are some good resources to learn the history behind social movements?It's a very convoluted topic and I'd like a solid historical foundation in order to better understand some of this stuff.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48490521]I also never said that A Voice For Men was good or bad, I just stated they were a part of the MHRM which is separate from the MRM and is more moderate (which they are). [b]Can you quote anywhere in the OP where I said any of these things?[/b][/quote]
Yeah, easily. You specifically called AVfM "unbiased" and "reasonable". Right now on their front page they have headlines such as [i]"Canada is a feminist theocracy"[/i] and [i]"Time for a National Whore’s Day or something"[/i]. (The latter of which is filled with references to Red Pill terminology, striking a blow to your suggestion that the MRHM is divorced completely from the Red Pill and MRAs)
This isn't to mention how they have an anti-suffrage essay as "essential reading". It's a far more vitriolic and dangerous website than anything some stupid 15 year old-operated feminism tumblr can shit out because it has a ton of funding and a ton of support from men who don't realize there's anything better out there for them. The men's rights subreddit is no better either, there are only a couple threads there right now that aren't about feminism or women committing crimes that have nothing to do with men.
There are [i]tons[/i] of good resources for men in need out there that don't resort to encouraging violence towards and contempt for women. Your thread fails to acknowledge the [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/]Men's Liberation[/url] movement that looks to bridge the gap between feminism and men without resorting to reactionary hyperbole.
As you said, feminism has been effective at achieving what it set out to do. By pushing back against feminist ideals men are just shooting themselves in the foot - the same ideals can be used to help men (and society) move away from the gender roles that still exist and harm us.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
And aside from all that I have to nitpick something else - feminists didn't kill Free Love, STDs did.
There's no way to have a neutral discussion about this when it's clear that the OP (who should be the moderator of any debate thread) has a clear, evident viewpoint + agenda
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
I could have a debate with you about this and I bet a second in you'll brand me with SJW or something other because I agree a lot wit third wave feminism
Also calling out has been framed upon by third wavers + tumblr for a while now simply because innocent lives have been ruined as people forgot to do basic investigation. There are radicals to every side, so don't make it out to be that tumblr is the ultimate hivemind and evil part of the Internet who wants to gloss the world in hard left socialism political correctness
[QUOTE=Zeke129;48491437]Yeah, easily. You specifically called AVfM "unbiased" and "reasonable". [/Quote]
I said that it's MORE unbiased and reasonable than the reddit MRM, as in more moderate. I'll remove that bit and just say moderate. I'll also add the Men's Liberation group to the OP. I'll change "free love" to "wave of sex-positivity" because it's less confusing.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48491725]There's no way to have a neutral discussion about this when it's clear that the OP (who should be the moderator of any debate thread) has a clear, evident viewpoint + agenda
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
I could have a debate with you about this and I bet a second in you'll brand me with SJW or something other because I agree a lot wit third wave feminism
Also calling out has been framed upon by third wavers + tumblr for a while now simply because innocent lives have been ruined as people forgot to do basic investigation. There are radicals to every side, so don't make it out to be that tumblr is the ultimate hivemind and evil part of the Internet who wants to gloss the world in hard left socialism political correctness[/QUOTE]
Where have I called anyone a SJW in this thread? I open to debating anything you like insofar as it relates to Identity Politics :).
The callout culture criticism is a common one leveled against third-wave in particular, Here's an article about it, [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/feminism-rosetta-scientist-shirt-dapper-laughs-julien-blanc-inequality[/url]:
[QUOTE]The scientist of Rosetta mission fame, Matt Taylor, is arguably better known at the moment for a shirt he wore, depicting scantily clad women than his extraordinary scientific breakthrough. After a massive kerfuffle, led by feminists, Taylor broke down in tears at a briefing recently and said: “I made a big mistake and I offended many people, and I am very sorry about this.”
Many would hail this as a feminist victory: a big-name scientist apologising on TV and being reduced to tears for his apparent sexism. We must have come a long way to wield so much influence. But there’s another way of seeing it. As less of a victory, more of a sign of a shift in feminist tactics. Instead of attacking the root cause of women’s inequality, we’ve moved towards the vilification of individuals.
Daniel O’Reilly, a comedian who created the misogynistic Dapper Laughs, has had his TV programme axed, and there is pressure on those who do not publicly condemn him to do so. The Canadian broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi has been convicted by the kangaroo court of social media. CBC, the radio station where Ghomeshi worked, terminated his employment in October 2014 after several sexual abuse allegations were made against him, despite his denials.
The US “pick-up artist” Julien Blanc has been forced to leave Australia, after receiving a barrage of criticism over his “dating seminars”; these suggested that men deploy tactics of harassment and abuse to attract women. Britain and Canada are also considering a ban. He is described as “the most hated man in the world”, but rather than using racist and sexist immigration laws to keep Blanc out of the country we should be looking at using the criminal law against him. The petition to deny him a UK visa so far has more than 156,000 signatures. Would we get anything like so many signatures on a petition pressuring David Cameron to fund rape crisis centres, or to close down Yarl’s Wood – the immigration detention centre for women that has been widely criticised for its treatment of vulnerable inmates? I bet not. In fact, a petition to close Yarl’s Wood was set up earlier this year, and has attracted fewer than 50,000 signatures.
Feminism, a great social movement, is in danger of becoming toxic and repressive. The focus on individuals, however vile they may be, signifies a shift away from the more difficult, long-term work of making institutions such as the Crown Prosecution Service and other governmental departments accountable. Justice for Women, a feminist campaigning group I co-founded, managed to change the law to prevent men claiming that “nagging” was a justifiable reason to kill female partners; Southall Black Sisters successfully challenged Ealing council when it proposed cutting women’s services. The CPS, badgered for decades by anti-FGM campaigners, ended up changing its policy and began to proactively seek prosecutions. Feminists campaigned all through the 1970s and 1980s to make rape in marriage a crime – and in 1992 the goal was achieved.
Rather than spending so much energy piling on a man for wearing a sexist shirt, is it not better to focus on the manufacturer? Is Taylor’s shirt really as problematic as an entire clothing label named Porn Star?
The current climate of McCarthyism within some segments of feminism and the left is so ingrained and toxic that there are active attempts to outlaw some views because they cause offence. Petitions against individuals appear to be a recent substitute for political action towards the root causes of misogyny and other social ills. Petitions have taken over politics.[/QUOTE]
I can add an addendum to the radical third-wave section that says they're more likely to get involved in call outs.
August 2014 is a month that rocked the gaming world into a permanent deadlock and lead to a massive distrust between the gaming press and the gaming audience. Eron Gjoni dropped a series of blogposts detailing (with evidence) how his girlfriend, Zoe Quinn, cheated on him with at least five people, one of whom is a journalist and two of whom have connections with the International Game Developers Association.
Both Gjoni and Quinn were active in the social justice community at the time and Gjoni wrote about how he felt as though he was the victim emotionally abusive relationship. Not long after the Zoe Post dropped, Quinn claimed she was the victim of a harassment campaign led by Gjoni, which was quickly picked up by several journalists in the gaming press (and later the mainstream media). While both claimed to have been victims, the vast majority of the social justice community sided exclusively with Quinn and claimed that Gjoni talking about his alleged emotional abuse was "creepy" and "harassment."
What if the roles were reversed though? What if Quinn wrote the Zoe Post about how Gjoni emotionally abused her and cheated on her with five or more people, including a journalist who wrote three articles about him and/or his game?
[b]Discussion Questions[/b]
* Would the social justice community have sided almost exclusively with Gjoni if the roles were reversed?
* Would most feminists view Quinn's piece as an act of empowerment, rather than as "creepy" or harassment?
* Would the gaming and mainstream media have portrayed Gjoni as the victim of Quinn's alleged harassment campaign?
* Would men's rights activists get involved to 'defend' Gjoni, as many feminists did for Quinn?
* Would GamerGate and feminists find themselves fighting on the same side?
* Would the alliance between GamerGate and feminists endure?
* Would the alliance fall apart due to disagreements like ChangeTheCover, the Obsidian incident and others where many feminists and GamerGate people found themselves at odds?
can i just ask, what do people think a "neutral" discussion means? how can we "objectively" debate beliefs that are deeply ingrained? debates are never neutral nor objective, there's no such thing as objectivity in politics. neutrality is not possible.
honestly, whenever someone says "look at this objectively" in a debate like this, it always means "i disagree with what you're saying, stop disagreeing with me". people who get involved in this shit already have their minds made up, just look at the op, he obviously tried very hard to be "objective" but the bias is crystal clear
what i'm trying to say here basically is that this thread sucks hard because as much as we love to think we're being objective, we're all biased, and any debate will be useless and no opinions will be swayed because people here have this weird concept of a debate as a place to make others listen to your opinion and where opposing arguments are either a personal attack that needs to be rebuffed or an attempt to "silence" you, which makes no sense at all
if you really want to learn about gender politics, egalitarian movements and the like, [I]get off the internet[/I]. read books on the subject, watch movies about it, or better yet, just talk to people who have these ideas and have a conversation. only you will know what you believe in, and it will be up to you decide where you stand. because on the internet, all you're gonna get is the same shitty, regurgitated arguments over and over. don't fall into the "opposing sides" mentality, make up your own mind, dudes.
peace out and good luck
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48501786]can i just ask, what do people think a "neutral" discussion means? how can we "objectively" debate beliefs that are deeply ingrained? debates are never neutral nor objective, there's no such thing as objectivity in politics. neutrality is not possible.
honestly, whenever someone says "look at this objectively" in a debate like this, it always means "i disagree with what you're saying, stop disagreeing with me". people who get involved in this shit already have their minds made up, just look at the op, he obviously tried very hard to be "objective" but the bias is crystal clear
what i'm trying to say here basically is that this thread sucks hard because as much as we love to think we're being objective, we're all biased, and any debate will be useless and no opinions will be swayed because people here have this weird concept of a debate as a place to make others listen to your opinion and where opposing arguments are either a personal attack that needs to be rebuffed or an attempt to "silence" you, which makes no sense at all
if you really want to learn about gender politics, egalitarian movements and the like, [I]get off the internet[/I]. read books on the subject, watch movies about it, or better yet, just talk to people who have these ideas and have a conversation. only you will know what you believe in, and it will be up to you decide where you stand. because on the internet, all you're gonna get is the same shitty, regurgitated arguments over and over. don't fall into the "opposing sides" mentality, make up your own mind, dudes.
peace out and good luck[/QUOTE]
You're free to feel whatever you want about me or my intentions in creating this thread, but I'd like to provide my piece on why I think it's a good idea to do this sort of thing.
My hope I that by considering as many people's viewpoints as calmly and rationally as possible we can come to the point of being on the same page when it comes to definitions and labels, it was never possible for the OP to be completely neutral from the start no matter how hard I tried to make it so (I explained my reasoning for writing the OP in a sarcastic tone on the previous page: I tried as hard as I could to write criticisms for everybody as opposed to the alternative of writing a page of information under each sub-heading which nobody would read, as nobody DID read the previous thread). The first step in finding solutions to these problems is for everybody to come to the table and to explain what it is we believe and meld it together into some form of functional list of definitions. Without doing that, it's impossible to have real conversations when we're all talking about different things.
I've actually done research on all of these different movements, which I would think might be apparent in how I go into the history and varying viewpoints of different sub-movements. At what point do we stop saying that I, or anyone else, needs to do research and educate themselves and actually come to the table and debate points?
When I say 'debate' and not 'argument' because I'm not asking for people to come in and insult anyone, or call them a meaningless pejorative term like SJW, I'm asking that people come to the table, plonk their ideas down and debate with everybody else, telling us what they think and why they think it and what evidence they have for thinking it. When I say 'neutral', I don't mean without bias or without being wrong about anything, I mean being open to varying ideas and not insulting, cussing at nor shaming anyone for believing something they personally disagree with.
Thus far, I have seen very few places on the internet where people have given each other benefit of the doubt instead of making assumptions about their beliefs, character and moral or ethical standing based on them having an opposing viewpoint from their own. I'd like to think that if the topic is presented in a certain way, that everybody will see it as a discussion rather than an argument, and won't feel the need to be callous and offensive, which, while understandable due to the normally vitriolic nature of these discussions, does not contribute to any greater understanding of the issues themselves. It's finding that way of presenting the discussion that's the hard part.
So please, even if you've already made up your mind about me as a terrible human being, I implore you to take the first step in reaching out and debating these points fairly, rationally and neutrally; without insults, shaming or hyperbole. I assure you I am wiling to deliberate as much as I can and am willing to be convinced by individuals who don't go out of their way to make crass assumptions about me, or insult me or my reasons for being here. You must understand how I feel, I'm willing to listen and to discuss things but every time I reach my hand in the cookie jar I am attacked and derided and insulted for daring to believe that there is more than 2-sides to this discourse. Any time anyone in this thread has posed an argument that something in the OP was incorrect or misleading I have changed it, does that not show that I am willing to see eye-to-eye with anyone who proposes an idea, whether or whether not I personally agree with it? That's the purpose of neutrality here, not to have non-existent biases but to question those biases and eventually come up with a neutral-ish and inclusive as possible definition of various terms that everybody can both agree with a little and disagree with a little and so more easily reach across the table in future debates and discussions. The reason I list every view-point here is that I want to have everybody represented, not because I'm stating I agree with them because I want to mention they exist. Does that make sense? Does that sound reasonable to you, does the mere idea of not instantly lambasting a viewpoint you disagree with seem too biased? Or is there some other problem that needs to be corrected? Let me know and I'll modify the OP accordingly or we can discuss it.
Please tell me, I would like to know what you think.
[editline]21st August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Netscape;48497978]August 2014 is a month that rocked the gaming world into a permanent deadlock and lead to a massive distrust between the gaming press and the gaming audience. Eron Gjoni dropped a series of blogposts detailing (with evidence) how his girlfriend, Zoe Quinn, cheated on him with at least five people, one of whom is a journalist and two of whom have connections with the International Game Developers Association.
Both Gjoni and Quinn were active in the social justice community at the time and Gjoni wrote about how he felt as though he was the victim emotionally abusive relationship. Not long after the Zoe Post dropped, Quinn claimed she was the victim of a harassment campaign led by Gjoni, which was quickly picked up by several journalists in the gaming press (and later the mainstream media). While both claimed to have been victims, the vast majority of the social justice community sided exclusively with Quinn and claimed that Gjoni talking about his alleged emotional abuse was "creepy" and "harassment."
What if the roles were reversed though? What if Quinn wrote the Zoe Post about how Gjoni emotionally abused her and cheated on her with five or more people, including a journalist who wrote three articles about him and/or his game?
[b]Discussion Questions[/b]
* Would the social justice community have sided almost exclusively with Gjoni if the roles were reversed?
* Would most feminists view Quinn's piece as an act of empowerment, rather than as "creepy" or harassment?
* Would the gaming and mainstream media have portrayed Gjoni as the victim of Quinn's alleged harassment campaign?
* Would men's rights activists get involved to 'defend' Gjoni, as many feminists did for Quinn?
* Would GamerGate and feminists find themselves fighting on the same side?
* Would the alliance between GamerGate and feminists endure?
* Would the alliance fall apart due to disagreements like ChangeTheCover, the Obsidian incident and others where many feminists and GamerGate people found themselves at odds?[/QUOTE]
I would like to know, for example, why the people who rated this post dumb did so. I can see a lot of reasons to rate the post dumb, but specifically was it because you disagree with the premise of the post, because it is wrong about something, because it is off-topic or because it makes assumptions about you and/or your beliefs that you find discriminatory and/or offensive?
thing is, you wrote some fairly neutral descriptions like this
[quote]
People who represent a desire for a gender neutral identity activism campaign. Egalitarian's argue that parity between men and women has been achieved but there are still identity issues that face both sexes as well as other people of various sexualities, genders, ethnicities, races, identities and behaviours. [/quote]
some that very obviously put the movement in a positive light
[quote]The slightly more moderate brother of the MRM. Having not been based on Reddit, The Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM) is much more organized and well presented. Their homepage is A Voice For Men ([url]http://www.avoiceformen.com/[/url]) and their probably most well known advocates are a group of women known as the Honey Badger Brigade, who run a YouTube show called Honey Badger Radio.[/quote]
and some that are just tip-toeing around saying "this movement sucks"
[quote]Third-Wave feminism [B]is a large and very nebulous concept[/B]. It is generally considered to have been started in the early to mid-90s, just as universities across the world were struggling with an influx of Post-modern theorists attempting to invade STEM fields and change the Scientific Process itself to be more considerate and progressive, an event colloquially known as The Science Wars ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars[/url])
Around this time, elements of Second-Wave Feminism started to criticize the idea of Feminism as not being considerate enough of "many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds" and [B]attempted to include race, sexuality and gender issues into the already confusing hodge-podge of Feminist issues.[/B] Rebecca Walker is considered to be the main mother of Third-Wave feminism as she declared in her 1992 essay "I am not a post-feminism feminist. I am the third-wave." As usage of the internet exploded, the various strands of Third-Wave [B]became even more and more tangled and confusing[/B], ultimately ending up with the currently infamous [B]"Tumblr culture"[/B]. Third-wavers fight to expose gender as a social construct (their concept of gender is more complicated than TERFS with a distinction between biological gender which is what you identify as from birth and gender expression in the form of, for example, what toys you play with, so you're allowed to be trans), promoting gender fluidity ( in the form of gender expression) and LGBT rights and fighting against social behaviors that normalize rape (fraternities are a prime target). Third-wavers have been criticized for, among many other things, [B]not having a clear goal in mind when it comes to their activism[/B]. The First-Wave was about getting women the vote, the Second-Wave was based around getting women equal opportunity in the work force. The Third-Wave has also been criticized for it's Call-Out Culture when it comes to activism. [B]Third-Wavers are seen to be seeking to 'punish' individuals rather than do anything to solve the institutional issues that cause problems to exist in the first place.[/B][/quote]
now, maybe you had no idea you were doing this. maybe you subconsciously wrote slightly worse descriptions for movements you don't agree with while trying to come off as equally sarcastic and critical in all your descriptions. i think that's an unbelievably stupid notion though, and you probably knew exactly what you were doing. i mean come on, you're smarter than that, you couldn't have possibly looked at these descriptions and thought they were on the same level.
pretending for a moment that you didn't realize this and, for some absurd reason still hasn't, let me explain:
-the first one is talking about what the movement aims to achieve. it doesn't make sarcastic remarks about its members, it doesn't criticize it whatsoever (which by the way should be the poster/thread regular's duty, not the OP's, at least not in a thread like this), and yeah sure, it has a funny little pic to go along with it but it doesn't come off as malicious paired with that description.
-the second one doesn't even have an image to poke fun at it. it has you praising it for being moderate, organized and well-presented. where's the fun little jabs at AVFM having stormfront level nutters (seriously you barely have to look for them)? maybe mocking the honey badger brigade's page for the fact that half its articles are directly attacking feminists?
-the last one has you completely shitting all over the movement. sure, you mention some good stuff, but it comes after you called it confusing 3 times, and right before you criticize it two more times, ending on what is basically saying "it doesn't solve anything". barely any sarcasm or comical terminology in there either.
i agree with Gestapo. this thread won't help people who want to learn about these movements and it won't be a place for everyone to discuss these topics when the OP is clearly appealing to one side. if anyone wants to get to know all about these social movements, i suggest you go somewhere else. a library, a rally, a high school or college group, anywhere but this horribly biased mess of a thread.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48506460]
now, maybe you had no idea you were doing this. maybe you subconsciously wrote slightly worse descriptions for movements you don't agree with while trying to come off as equally sarcastic and critical in all your descriptions. i think that's an unbelievably stupid notion though, and you probably knew exactly what you were doing. i mean come on, you're smarter than that, you couldn't have possibly looked at these descriptions and thought they were on the same level.[/QUOTE]
I'm probably not as smart as you think I am, but thank you. Also, you ever heard the phrase "Don't attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity"? You also shouldn't necessarily see as intentional what is adequately explained by bad writing
[QUOTE]-the first one is talking about what the movement aims to achieve. it doesn't make sarcastic remarks about its members, it doesn't criticize it whatsoever (which by the way should be the poster/thread regular's duty, not the OP's, at least not in a thread like this), and yeah sure, it has a funny little pic to go along with it but it doesn't come off as malicious paired with that description.
-the second one doesn't even have an image to poke fun at it. it has you praising it for being moderate, organized and well-presented. where's the fun little jabs at AVFM having stormfront level nutters (seriously you barely have to look for them)? maybe mocking the honey badger brigade's page for the fact that half its articles are directly attacking feminists?
-the last one has you completely shitting all over the movement. sure, you mention some good stuff, but it comes after you called it confusing 3 times, and right before you criticize it two more times, ending on what is basically saying "it doesn't solve anything". barely any sarcasm or comical terminology in there either.[/QUOTE]
I understand your point and I'll see what I can do insofar as remedying this. Is it mainly those three sections that need to be fixed? If i understand correctly, I could try writing criticisms of all of the entries and remove parts of that one entry that I thought were supposed to be sarcastic and/or comical that clearly didn't get the message across. Most of those bolded parts were actual criticisms from other people rather than my own commentary that I wanted to include in order to give a rounded view of the topic, but I'll try to shorten them down a bit and remove unnecessary words so they don't take over the entire entry so much.
[QUOTE]i agree with Gestapo. this thread won't help people who want to learn about these movements and it won't be a place for everyone to discuss these topics when the OP is clearly appealing to one side. if anyone wants to get to know all about these social movements, i suggest you go somewhere else. a library, a rally, a high school or college group, anywhere but this horribly biased mess of a thread.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I'm trying to make the page more neutral as I do think we need an all-encompassing layman's definition somewhere on the internet. Like I said before, my hope is that through this back-and-forth discussion we can work out a list of definitions and talking points that anyone on the internet can relate to and so use it in other places on the web.
Also, thank you very much for engaging with me without so much snark or insults I really appreciate you helping me understand stuff, even if you don't think that I do.
oh, the egalitarian description was fine, it was an example of a good one. it's not exactly funny or something that really draws your attention but i'd rather have that than the other stuff
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48506848]oh, the egalitarian description was fine, it was an example of a good one. it's not exactly funny or something that really draws your attention but i'd rather have that than the other stuff[/QUOTE]
Alright I updated the OP, any better?
[QUOTE=Netscape;48497978]August 2014 is a month that rocked the gaming world into a permanent deadlock and lead to a massive distrust between the gaming press and the gaming audience. Eron Gjoni dropped a series of blogposts detailing (with evidence) how his girlfriend, Zoe Quinn, cheated on him with at least five people, one of whom is a journalist and two of whom have connections with the International Game Developers Association.
Both Gjoni and Quinn were active in the social justice community at the time and Gjoni wrote about how he felt as though he was the victim emotionally abusive relationship. Not long after the Zoe Post dropped, Quinn claimed she was the victim of a harassment campaign led by Gjoni, which was quickly picked up by several journalists in the gaming press (and later the mainstream media). While both claimed to have been victims, the vast majority of the social justice community sided exclusively with Quinn and claimed that Gjoni talking about his alleged emotional abuse was "creepy" and "harassment."
What if the roles were reversed though? What if Quinn wrote the Zoe Post about how Gjoni emotionally abused her and cheated on her with five or more people, including a journalist who wrote three articles about him and/or his game?
[b]Discussion Questions[/b]
* Would the social justice community have sided almost exclusively with Gjoni if the roles were reversed?
* Would most feminists view Quinn's piece as an act of empowerment, rather than as "creepy" or harassment?
* Would the gaming and mainstream media have portrayed Gjoni as the victim of Quinn's alleged harassment campaign?
* Would men's rights activists get involved to 'defend' Gjoni, as many feminists did for Quinn?
* Would GamerGate and feminists find themselves fighting on the same side?
* Would the alliance between GamerGate and feminists endure?
* Would the alliance fall apart due to disagreements like ChangeTheCover, the Obsidian incident and others where many feminists and GamerGate people found themselves at odds?[/QUOTE]
GamerGate wasn't so much caused by the Zoepost so much as the latter was the catalyst for the former to fully kickstart. The events of the last few years had been leading up to this, and if the roles had been reversed then I imagine the same controversy would have happened, but with less opposition to it from the social justice groups; in fact, there had been a similar controversy regarding Conflicts of Interest a little while prior where the person who'd done wrong was a man, which received far less coverage from the media as a whole.
However, I'd probably say this post would be better off in the Corruption in Gaming Journalism thread.
[url]http://littleatoms.com/society/dangerous-allure-victim-politics[/url] Semi offtopic-ish? A very good article about victim politics.
[QUOTE]At the very edges of this problem, the constant vigilance – the countless declarations of our society or our institutions being riddled with racism, sexism, Islamophobia etc – can become a counsel of despair. It can convince victims their cause is helpless, that society is inexorably set against them; thereby pushing them further away. That surely leads to a society which is even less fair, since marginalised groups stay on the margins. You will find this sense of victimhood sitting squarely behind many of today’s extreme political movements. British Muslims who join or are inspired by al-Qaeda or ISIS are often not themselves particularly poor or in any sense oppressed – seek to personally identify with the (genuine) oppression of other Muslims around the world. Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who murdered 77 people in Oslo in 2011 was fairly well off and educated, and yet claimed he (by which he meant White Europeans) were victims of cultural Marxism trying to destroy his culture and religion. The mother of the Tunisian gunman Seifeddine Rezgui, who killed dozens of holidaymakers, said her son was a victim. All in some sense, believing they are victims, and as such their cause was just.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]There are lots of reasons for progressive to guard against feeling based victimhood politics. First, it’s inherently anti-political. Politics is about disagreement, argument and debate. Feelings, especially those relating to victimhood, cannot really be argued with, debated or questioned – ‘only meekly accepted’, as Buruma put it. Arguing over degrees of victimhood replaces moral reasoning, since victims aren’t always right. This can be used as justification for bad behaviour. Consider the recent case of the Goldsmiths Equalities Officer, Bahar Mustafa. She asked white people not to attend an event for black and ethnic minority students. I understand the thinking – although disagree – which was to create space for minority groups where social inequality is temporarily suspended, thereby enabling them to speak out on issues which might be difficult to do in other settings. When defending this decision, she argued that she could not be racist or sexist to white men, as she is a BAME woman. Bahar identified herself as a victim. Not personally, but by virtue of her historic status as a member of a victim group. As a victim, eternally and forever a victim, she couldn’t victimise others, especially people who are not victims, like white men. But if only those who claim to feel victimised that can truly speak about it, politics stops being a world of equals people and ideas. That leads toward a world of self-censorship and hecklers’ vetoes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]So what to do? Progressives want a society which, generally speaking, recognises there are victims in society (both individuals and groups); that things aren’t fair; that some groups – on the basis of historical circumstance, current economic status, deep rooted prejudice or whatever – have a life that’s harder and opportunities fewer than we would like. I recognise, too, that it’s exceptionally difficult to determine who is and is not a legitimate victim in any kind of objective way. I've changed my mind several times about publishing this article for this very reason, since many groups are routinely victimised and I want them to shout about it, because the first step in creating a society which is fairer requires injustice being exposed. What's more, victimhood politics is most powerful when there is some truth to it. When an independent jury (who saw all the available evidence) decided that Mark Duggan’s killing by the Met police was lawful, it sparked yet more demonstrations about Met police racism. This wouldn’t have provoked a response had there been absolutely no evidence whatsoever of institutional racism inside the police. If the risk of constant vigilance of oppression is a bit of victimhood politics, then it’s surely a price worth paying.
Nevertheless its negative side effects should be minimised. The progressive must be on guard that victimhood is never fetishized, is never equated with some mystical superior virtue or assumed moral authority, and that feelings don't become the arbiter of what is right. Above all, the progressive should not seek out a victimhood identity for themselves for the purposes of moral rectitude and righteous indignation. Because in the end, this obscures sight of genuine injustices and fuels a victimhood mentality that does nothing to help genuine victims, and most likely harms their cause.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48525473][url]http://littleatoms.com/society/dangerous-allure-victim-politics[/url] Semi offtopic-ish? A very good article about victim politics.[/QUOTE]
This is a very important article I think. It lets us know about a conversation we should be having, but aren't. It's easier to say 'well, things aren't fair, life's not fair' when someone tells you they're having problems or to attack some other person that they feel is causing them problems, but it's a lot harder to actually emphasize with somebody and figure out why the feel the way they do and why they might feel like the world is against them as opposed to just being outraged and venting and screaming.
[QUOTE]Nevertheless its negative side effects should be minimised. The progressive must be on guard that victimhood is never fetishized, is never equated with some mystical superior virtue or assumed moral authority, and that feelings don't become the arbiter of what is right. Above all, the progressive should not seek out a victimhood identity for themselves for the purposes of moral rectitude and righteous indignation. Because in the end, this obscures sight of genuine injustices and fuels a victimhood mentality that does nothing to help genuine victims, and most likely harms their cause.[/QUOTE]
This is a really eloquent explanation of the whole 'Check Your Privilege' mentality and what some people call the 'Oppression Olympics'.
if youre a mens rights activist ur stupid
[QUOTE=Wayword;48528085]if youre a mens rights activist ur stupid[/QUOTE]
you're* men's* your*
I like how this is the youtube comment section.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48528098]you're* men's* your*
I like how this is the youtube comment section.[/QUOTE]
u sounds like a mens right acitivsts
[QUOTE=Wayword;48528758]u sounds like a mens right acitivsts[/QUOTE]
I can't tell if you're trolling or not because people are agreeing with you. What does a 'mens right acitivsts' sound like?
[QUOTE=Zyler;48534478]I can't tell if you're trolling or not because people are agreeing with you. What does a 'mens right acitivsts' sound like?[/QUOTE]
stupid
[QUOTE=Wayword;48547516]stupid[/QUOTE]
You're looking an awful lot like one too then, buddy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
