• Why are feminists fat and ugly?
    249 replies, posted
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;48383774]I was a big fan of Dawkins when I was a teenager, but then I grew up.[/QUOTE] And became a white knight? Not much of a progress made there pal.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48383793]And became a white knight? Not much of a progress made there pal.[/QUOTE] it's better than being a piece of shit imo
[QUOTE=Limed00d;48383825]it's better than being a piece of shit imo[/QUOTE] Same thing, just on the other side.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48382784]People calling Dawkins an idiot? What's going on?[/QUOTE] He's an asshole who personally attacks people who have nothing to do with anything.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;48383845]He's an asshole who personally attacks people who have nothing to do with anything.[/QUOTE]Ok and? That doesn't make what he says wrong though.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48382784]People calling Dawkins an idiot? What's going on?[/QUOTE] the only time fp ever praised dawkins was during its 2010-2012 rabid neckbeard phase
dawkins has done some good work and brings up valid points when he talks about things he has expertise in, like debunking stupid anti-science garbage from creationists and so on, but unfortunately these days he doesn't do that very often anymore, preferring to spew dumb ignorant shit about religion that you'd expect from a facepuncher in SH he also hasn't done any original work in years and is little more than pop science pundit at this point [editline]a[/editline] he's written some pretty dumb stuff about rape and paedophilia as well, go figure
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48384946] he's written some pretty dumb stuff about rape and paedophilia as well, go figure[/QUOTE] Didn't he say stuff like "Some rape is worse than others so you should just get over it"?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48383793]And became a white knight? Not much of a progress made there pal.[/QUOTE] how old are you lmao you're reminding of me when I "came out as an atheist" when I was 13 and thought I was the coolest shit in the world and all those dumb feminazis were overreacting to bullshit and making up issues and that men were the actually oppressed group and that nobody could explain what privilege was and that black people deserved the shit that happened to them because they're criminals and all sorts of shit it's a neoconservative point of view that is laughably provably incorrect in almost every respect it's not that we "grew up to be white knights," it's that we read into these issues and had life experiences and researched them enough to make our own opinions instead of parroting whatever we heard on reddit as fact without critical thinking or analysis of our own opinions
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48383793]And became a white knight? Not much of a progress made there pal.[/QUOTE] Still several steps above someone who'd unironically use that term.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48385290]I prefer the term Egalitarian, its not as loaded. Aaand it completely sidesteps the Tumblr bullshit.[/QUOTE] If only any "egalitarians" actually did shit except feel superior to teenagers on Tumblr
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48385290]I prefer the term Egalitarian, its not as loaded. Aaand it completely sidesteps the Tumblr bullshit.[/QUOTE] you know, instead of using a different term to avoid negative connotations, you could just use the actual term that actually defines the thing you're talking about and then act in a nice way to help get rid of those connotations for example I'm an atheist living in Texas and if someone acts differently towards me when they learn that I just keep being nice and don't talk to them about god or if I do I just go with a live-and-let-live reaction and suddenly nobody cares (no matter how religious they are) that i'm nonreligious. end result: someone else loses a prejudice against a group because they met someone who isn't like that i consider myself a feminist and if someone comes up to me ranting about how awful feminism is, i'll just explain my views. they're pretty rational and simplistic and i can explain privilege incredibly easily, i don't act aggressively, i don't yell at people for not agreeing, if they don't agree i just go on with my life and we're all the better for it. if people on tumblr started calling themselves egalitarian and being rude, whoa, you need a new term! how about egalifeminitarianism? oh no, that term is being taken over by opinions you disagree with, we need a new term! feminimasculinequalismitarianism! just suck it up that there are feminists you disagree with. there are atheists I disagree with. there are christians that christians disagree with. if you call yourself a christian and someone assumes you're with the WBC, you're not the idiot, they are.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48385354]If only any "SJW's" actually did any shit except troll on Tumblr[/QUOTE] You realise you just admitted that the "SJWs" on Tumblr are trolls right? Why would trolls have to actually go and do things for the cause they are using to troll people through? Think about what you just posted. It's senseless garbage. On the topic of Dawkins, the guy is a total hack today. He made a name for himself with some quite strong stuff in his early career, and for a while was using that to bring atrocities performed in the name of religion forward. I used to actually follow him on Twitter to keep up with the various causes he was raising awareness for. Until about three months ago when I unfollowed him because he was near constantly tweeting dumb shit attacking groups and actually harmless followers of religions. When he used to actually argue shit, he was alright, abrasive but alright. He's been nothing but king dick for a while now though as that's all he needs to keep his following of edgelords.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48385354]If only any "SJW's" actually did any shit except troll on Tumblr[/QUOTE] You know, while I definitely agree "SJWs" are a minority, they definitely exist outside of the internet, still a minority and are only a branch of a larger set of ideals, but they exist none the less and to try to act as if they don't is sorta absurd. Probably the biggest example of SJW's on college campuses is this from earlier this year: There was a professor named Laura Kipnis who earlier this year that wrote an essay titled "[URL="http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia/190351/"]Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe[/URL]"; two graduate students filed a Title IX complaint against her because they said it would have a "chilling effect" on students who want to report sexual assaults against them. A couple interesting excerpts from the essay [quote]These are anxious times for officialdom, and students, too, are increasingly afflicted with the condition—after all, anxiety is contagious. Around the time the "survivor" email arrived, something happened that I’d never experienced in many decades of teaching, which was that two students—one male, one female—in two classes informed me, separately, that they were unable to watch assigned films because they "triggered" something for them. I was baffled by the congruence until the following week, when the Times ran a story titled "Trauma Warnings Move From the Internet to the Ivory Tower," and the word "trigger" was suddenly all over the news. I didn’t press the two students on the nature of these triggers. I knew them both pretty well from previous classes, and they’d always seemed well-adjusted enough, so I couldn’t help wondering. One of the films dealt with fascism and bigotry: The triggeree was a minority student, though not the minority targeted in the film. Still, I could see what might be upsetting. In the other case, the connection between the student and the film was obscure: no overlapping identity categories, and though there was some sexual content in the film, it wasn’t particularly explicit. We exchanged emails about whether she should sit out the discussion, too; I proposed that she attend and leave if it got uncomfortable. I was trying to be empathetic, though I was also convinced that I was impeding her education rather than contributing to it. I teach in a film program. We’re supposed to be instilling critical skills in our students (at least that’s how I see it), even those who aspire to churn out formulaic dreck for Hollywood. Which is how I framed it to my student: If she hoped for a career in the industry, getting more critical distance on material she found upsetting would seem advisable, given the nature of even mainstream media. I had an image of her in a meeting with a bunch of execs, telling them that she couldn’t watch one of the company’s films because it was a trigger for her. She agreed this could be a problem, and sat in on the discussion with no discernable ill effects.[/quote] [quote]Among the problems with treating students like children is that they become increasingly childlike in response. The New York Times Magazine recently reported on the tangled story of a 21-year-old former Stanford undergraduate suing a 29-year-old tech entrepreneur she’d dated for a year. He’d been a mentor in a business class she was enrolled in, though they’d met long before. They traveled together and spent time with each other’s families. Marriage was discussed. After they broke up, she charged that their consensual relationship had actually been psychological kidnapping, and that she’d been raped every time they’d had sex. She seems to regard herself as a helpless child in a woman’s body. She demanded that Stanford investigate and is bringing a civil suit against the guy—this despite the fact that her own mother had introduced the couple, approved the relationship every step of the way, and been in more or less constant contact with the suitor. No doubt some 21-year-olds are fragile and emotionally immature (helicopter parenting probably plays a role), but is this now to be our normative conception of personhood? A 21-year-old incapable of consent? A certain brand of radical feminist—the late Andrea Dworkin, for one—held that women’s consent was meaningless in the context of patriarchy, but Dworkin was generally considered an extremist. She’d have been gratified to hear that her convictions had finally gone mainstream, not merely driving campus policy but also shaping the basic social narratives of love and romance in our time.[/quote] An interview she did with NPR about the title IX debacle: [url]http://www.npr.org/2015/06/07/412633543/laura-kipnis-the-boundaries-of-assault-have-stretched[/url] Her follow up essay on the Title IX debacle: [url]http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/My-Title-IX-Inquisition-The-Chronicle-Review-.pdf[/url]
Everything he said does apply if you talk about radical, extremist modern day feminists, not regular human being feminists. He doesn't make the distinction because he has a very TumblrInAction/internet centered perspective, where the feminists that stand out are most often radical and generally awful. By the way, if everyone's so hurt about him attacking the appearances of others and saying it means he doesn't have an argument, why are you doing it? Be the bigger man lol
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48385779]Everything he said does apply if you talk about radical, extremist modern day feminists, not regular human being feminists. He doesn't make the distinction because he has a very TumblrInAction/internet centered perspective, where the feminists that stand out are most often radical and generally awful. By the way, if everyone's so hurt about him attacking the appearances of others and saying it means he doesn't have an argument, why are you doing it? Be the bigger man lol[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but I do not think any of the counter arguments to this video have been about the man's appearance. Bringing up that his only argument is "lol feminists are all fat and ugly amirighguys?" is valid because its not bringing any substance to the debate. In fact, he is flat out wrong on his main point due to things already discussed in this thread. Also even modern day extremist feminists fall under the same thing as looking like normal human beings. The hardest of hard core feminists I'm friends with are actually very physically attractive, in shape, bordering being underweight due to bulimia issues, shave daily, have a good sense of fashion, and wear light make-up. Just because someone holds a certain viewpoint does not mean they are ugly abominations. For example, if I said all people who play video games are fat, short, suffer from bad acne, and are generally unkempt and unattractive, I would be attacked by the community who is attacking these women for my skewed ideas of what a person in that group is like.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48384946] he's written some pretty dumb stuff about rape and paedophilia as well, go figure[/QUOTE] Some out of context tweets and bad wording and you suddenly support pedophilia. What an awful world. [editline]5th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;48385779]Everything he said does apply if you talk about radical, extremist modern day feminists, not regular human being feminists. He doesn't make the distinction because he has a very [B]TumblrInAction/internet centered perspective, where the feminists that stand out are most often radical and generally awful.[/B] [/QUOTE] These are the most vocal ones. The ones that appear on his twitter feed and speak at universities.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48386457]Some out of context tweets and bad wording and you suddenly support pedophilia. What an awful world. [editline]5th August 2015[/editline] These are the most vocal ones. The ones that appear on his twitter feed and speak at universities.[/QUOTE] He said that some rape is more serious then other rape, as if that means some rapes are less traumatizing by nature.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48386457]Some out of context tweets and bad wording and you suddenly support pedophilia. What an awful world. [editline]5th August 2015[/editline] These are the most vocal ones. The ones that appear on his twitter feed and speak at universities.[/QUOTE] They're the most "Vocal ones" because you get to see these epic reddit posts of some guy screenshotting what's probably a troll and they circlejerk all over it, eventually spilling off to the rest of the internet and become the only ones they pay attention to, not looking at actual feminists. I doubt most politicians and professors care what some troll on tumblr has to say.
are these radical feminists really the most vocal ones or do they appear that way because people like rangergxi keep looking for them to validate their opinions
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48386457]Some out of context tweets and bad wording and you suddenly support pedophilia. What an awful world. [editline]5th August 2015[/editline] These are the most vocal ones. The ones that appear on his twitter feed and speak at universities.[/QUOTE] wow you're still at this. god damn dude. cripes. yowza! dawkins didn't say he supported pedophilia and i didn't say he did. i said he wrote really ignorant shit about it, such as saying there's "mildly pedophilic" behaviour and how it isn't as bad as "fully pedophilic" (fuck knows what this means), and made a similar statement about rape. does this mean he supports rape and pedophilia? no, but it's still fucking dumb. he does the skeptic community no favours by blabbering about things he frankly has no expertise in, which will be taken as gospel by thousands of impressionable teenagers (i.e. his main demographic). [editline]dl[/editline] keep moving the goalposts of the discussion though, maybe people will forget we're talking about a shitty clickbait video posted by rabid edgelord antifeminist :^)
You know, it makes me happy to see a thread on Facepunch where the majority of people are defending feminism and not ostracising it.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48386776]are these radical feminists really the most vocal ones or do they appear that way because people like rangergxi keep looking for them to validate their opinions[/QUOTE] I think you're actually onto something, and I think it's part of something I've thought about for the past couple years. It's like a two party system: in order for someone's voice to become loud and powerful, people have to listen. And there's a lot of people who are listening specifically to trash them, creating more controversy and splitting people apart. In doing so, it also helps remove the voice and power of the more reasonable. [I]Everyone[/I] is responsible, especially the opposing side. I personally think this is what contributes to the problems with our politics and stuff and more than likely why Donald Trump has come so far in his presidential race.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;48386907]I think you're actually onto something, and I think it's part of something I've thought about for the past couple years. It's like a two party system: in order for someone's voice to become loud and powerful, people have to listen. And there's a lot of people who are listening specifically to trash them, creating more controversy and splitting people apart. In doing so, it also helps remove the voice and power of the more reasonable. [I]Everyone[/I] is responsible, especially the opposing side. I personally think this is what contributes to the problems with our politics and stuff and more than likely why Donald Trump has come so far in his presidential race.[/QUOTE] this is pretty much exactly what happens. most of the rabidly anti-feminist people just find the most wack examples of "feminism" and make it representative of all feminists, share their findings with their buddies and pat eachother in the back for being so flippin' smart. hell, i bet most of those jokers have never even talked to a feminist outside the internet. just look at wack sites like breitbart, stormfront, the nice guy forums, a voice for men, r/mensrights, the gamergate thread in facepunch, etc. it's all the same, just an endless echochamber.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;48378085]What I think most people forget is that most normal people are feminist at heart, even without really taking note of it. The only tenant is equality between genders, and most people I know full-heartedly support that basic idea. The problem is how far we push for the recognition of females. If it's too little, it's being oblivious and ignorant. If it's too much, it's no longer feminism (inequality), and it misrepresents feminism and sometimes even women. It's sincerely a language issue: people have misappropriated the word for their own agenda that doesn't align with equality, and as a result people have tried their hardest to distance themselves from [I]those[/I] people. Feminism has become associated with the stigma of social justice warriors. It's quite sad. People need to take back the word feminism and show others that feminism can be sane and temperate, because most people are feminist, sane, and temperate.[/QUOTE] I think it is a language issue, and it's a completely ridiculous one. Like feminism somehow isn't about gender equality because of the name and focus on women's rights. It's dumb. I don't recall us ever dialing up the NAACP because it doesn't include white people in the name and doesn't focus on whites too. We don't criticize MLK because he didn't talk so much about Asian guys. It, and he, doesn't and didn't [I]need[/I] to. The fact is, if you support gender equality, you're a feminist. Does this mean you have to have X view of women's rights? No. That's stupid. I'm a feminist and I think Anita Sarkeesian is pants on head retarded. There are all forms of thought that fall under feminism, none of which you're required to agree with. The sheer belief that women and men are equal is all that is required, and, if you believe in that, then yes, you [I]are[/I] a feminist. But you believe in men's rights too? Nobody said you didn't, or had to give that up. Feminism is not about women being better than men, it's not about men being inferior, it's not about women need all the rights and men are all horrible monsters. It's about the simple concept that men and women should be on equal ground. Find me the problem with that
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48385221]how old are you lmao you're reminding of me when I "came out as an atheist" when I was 13 and thought I was the coolest shit in the world and all those dumb feminazis were overreacting to bullshit and making up issues and that men were the actually oppressed group and that nobody could explain what privilege was and that black people deserved the shit that happened to them because they're criminals and all sorts of shit it's a neoconservative point of view that is laughably provably incorrect in almost every respect it's not that we "grew up to be white knights," it's that we read into these issues and had life experiences and researched them enough to make our own opinions instead of parroting whatever we heard on reddit as fact without critical thinking or analysis of our own opinions[/QUOTE] everyone goes through the "I'M AN ATHEIST THEREFORE IM BETTER THAN YOU" phase and then crosses over into the "idc man lol"
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48387027]everyone goes through the "I'M AN ATHEIST THEREFORE IM BETTER THAN YOU" phase and then crosses over into the "idc man lol"[/QUOTE] I never went through that phase. therefore i'm better than you
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48386958]this is pretty much exactly what happens. most of the rabidly anti-feminist people just find the most wack examples of "feminism" and make it representative of all feminists.[/QUOTE] The "teach men not to rape" [URL="http://i.imgur.com/2f5lqsG.png"]bogeyman[/URL] feminists are quite real and quite common. Obviously [I]not all feminists[/I] but enough crazy people that identify as that to make them synonymous with it. [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48386989] The fact is, if you support gender equality, you're a feminist. Does this mean you have to have X view of women's rights? No. That's stupid. I'm a feminist and I think Anita Sarkeesian is pants on head retarded. [B]There are all forms of thought that fall under feminism[/B], none of which you're required to agree with. [/QUOTE] Yeah. These always seem to come down to semantics. Obviously there are people that identify as feminists that disagree with the vocal mob that get tons of media attention and always seem to be experts in certain fields but how are people who disagree with these people supposed to identify the crazees? They identify as feminists and there are quite a few of them so it makes sense to call them feminists. Somebody brought up Atheism and being against radical feminists is like being against radical Christians Christianity is umbrella term that fits both pacifist liberal Quakers and the Westboro Baptists. [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48386989]But you believe in men's rights too? Nobody said you didn't, or had to give that up.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jjJtjU3.png[/IMG] gave me a nice laugh.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48387182]The "teach men not to rape" [URL="http://i.imgur.com/2f5lqsG.png"]bogeyman[/URL] feminists are quite real and quite common. Obviously [I]not all feminists[/I] but enough crazy people that identify as that to make them synonymous with it. Yeah. These always seem to come down to semantics. Obviously there are people that identify as feminists that disagree with the vocal mob that get tons of media attention and always seem to be experts in certain fields but how are people who disagree with these people supposed to identify the crazees? They identify as feminists and there are quite a few of them so it makes sense to call them feminists. Somebody brought up Atheism and being against radical feminists is like being against radical Christians Christianity is umbrella term that fits both pacifist liberal Quakers and the Westboro Baptists. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jjJtjU3.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] But that post isn't saying you can't be pro-men's rights at the same time as being pro-women's rights, it's being rated disagree because the only people who identify as MRAs are contrarian teenagers who think they're cool for going against the [I]evul FEMMINISTS[/I] tryin to take their video games Being an MRA isn't actually about men's rights, it's about feeling special. Feminists are already pro-men's rights. Mr. Gestapo is entirely correct, we don't talk about rape at all but we tell kids growing up that everything else is awful. There are teens who think having sex with a drunken, passed-out woman isn't rape. That's what people mean when they say "teach men not to rape". It's not "guilty before innocent" accusing men of being rapists by default until they prove otherwise. It's just saying that the public idea of what rape is is fucked up and needs to be changed, primarily by teaching young men that rape is horrifying, traumatizing, and entirely wrong, and that rape isn't only holding a knife to someone's throat in an alleyway. It isn't targeting men because they're men. It's targeting men because young men are the main people who commit rape.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48387182]wall of wack[/QUOTE] i stand by that post. there's nothing wrong or sexist about teaching boys about consent and what constitutes rape and what doesn't. all little the thunderf00t followers obviously thought that was a terrible injustice against men because...something, misandry! false accusations! professional victims yadda yadda. thanks for the [I]subtle[/I] jab at me, though? classy as ever. and please, MRAs aren't simply "male focused" feminists, they're anti-feminist and verbally so, they don't hide and in fact wear the label proudly. they spend their time lamenting how the status quo is changing and how "western women" are getting uppity and denying them the sex they deserve or whatever.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.