Shoe0nhead - The badass feminist coloring book - General

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50112461]How the fuck has "woman against feminism" become an actual phrase that people say in good faith It's so absurd I can hardly stand it[/QUOTE] Third wave "feminism" isn't remotely feminist at all.

People don't really know it goes that deep though. When they hear Feminism, they think about all the good that the actual equal rights movement has done in the past, not the onslaught of misandrist millennials who use (and corrupt) the banner of feminism to make everything unequal once again, but in their favor.

[QUOTE=xalener;50113836]People don't really know it goes that deep though. When they hear Feminism, they think about all the good that the actual equal rights movement has done in the past, not the onslaught of misandrist millennials who use (and corrupt) the banner of feminism to make everything unequal once again, but in their favor.[/QUOTE] Why associate misandrists with feminism as a concept then If you're saying that people are trying to corrupt feminism as a whole then why give them that opportunity by making that association

I'm not the one making the association. They call themselves feminists, which is why 27X and myself uses the distinction "third wave feminism" or "straw feminism"

Yeah but Darkly didnt The issue is when people use blanket terms and associate an ideology with a movement

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50113944]Why associate misandrists with feminism as a concept then If you're saying that people are trying to corrupt feminism as a whole then why give them that opportunity by making that association[/QUOTE] Because they identify themselves as feminists and if you call them "bad feminists" or "not really a feminist" they will drag you into a long semantics argument and call you a sexist fucking pig, mansplaining white cismale who should check their privilege. That's why people say they are egalitarians or humanists and don't call themselves feminists. The goal is the same but it doesn't have the darker side of "social justice".

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114085]Yeah but Darkly didnt The issue is when people use blanket terms and associate an ideology with a movement[/QUOTE] If you're familiar with the many segments of the feminist ideology, or the fact that there's no real unsegmented ideology, the fact that he wasn't talking about the egalitarian/humanist feminists should be self explanatory. The unfortunate fact is, for anyone who's paying attention, the feminist name is fucking ruined.

[QUOTE=xalener;50114074]I'm not the one making the association. They call themselves feminists, which is why 27X and myself uses the distinction "third wave feminism" or "straw feminism"[/QUOTE] Every group has radicals, these assholes are no different from the rest.

[QUOTE=xalener;50114109]If you're familiar with the many segments of the feminist ideology, the fact that he wasn't talking about the egalitarian/humanist feminists should be self explanatory. The unfortunate fact is, for anyone who's paying attention, the feminist name is fucking ruined.[/QUOTE] Well I suppose then the issue is that I see feminism as an ideology of gender equality that's mutually beneficial to both males and females, which make the phrase "women against feminism" almost oxymoronic and sufficiently absurd. Nobody, especially not women, should be against gender equality. We need to stop making this arbitrary association of TERFs and other radical and reactionary "feminists" with feminism as an ideology, it taints it and entrenches people in an us vs. them mindset where their beliefs become increasingly nonsensical and extreme.

Third-wave feminism isn't a surge of misandry like some people seem to think. It's just the general ideal that women come from diverse backgrounds and can't all unite under the "sisterhood" of second-wave feminism. If you're going to claim all third-wave feminists are radicals then yeah, you're ruining the name. It's silly to do so though because there are plenty of reasonable third-wave feminists, just like there are/were plenty of radical second-wave feminists.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50114090]Because they identify themselves as feminists and if you call them "bad feminists" or "not really a feminist" they will drag you into a long semantics argument and call you a sexist fucking pig, mansplaining white cismale who should check their privilege.[/QUOTE] You cant take the words and ideologies of self-labeled members of any unorganized and leaderless movement as the general mindset of it's supporters. That's pointless and nonsensical. [QUOTE]That's why people say they are egalitarians or humanists and don't call themselves feminists. The goal is the same but it doesn't have the darker side of "social justice".[/QUOTE] These are terms we dont need because "feminist" already sufficiently embodies what they try to accomplish. If you're an "egalitarian" or a "humanist" you're a feminist as well.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114203]You cant take the words and ideologies of self-labeled members of any unorganized and leaderless movement as the general mindset of it's supporters. That's pointless and nonsensical. These are terms we dont need because "feminist" already sufficiently embodies what they try to accomplish. If you're an "egalitarian" or a "humanist" you're a feminist as well.[/QUOTE] People do that to gamergate literally all the fucking time yourself included IIRC

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50114238]People do that to gamergate literally all the fucking time yourself included IIRC[/QUOTE] They're not comparable, Gamergate is a much more recent phenomenon and is FAR more complex and multi-faceted than feminism is.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114255]They're not comparable, Gamergate is a much more recent phenomenon and is FAR more complex and multi-faceted than feminism is.[/QUOTE] So it's fine to throw all people who use the GG hashtag in a group because it's expedient for you? No, i'm sorry, that's not how that works. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] that's just straight up hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50114261]So it's fine to throw all people who use the GG hashtag in a group because it's expedient for you? No, i'm sorry, that's not how that works. [editline]11th April 2016[/editline] that's just straight up hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] Again its a false equivalance so your point is moot And I have no problems with people genuinely interested in improving gaming journalism, the only thing I could see that would make you think that I think otherwise would be me decrying KiA and TiA which is a separate issue entirely

How is it a false equivelance? Spell it out for me because it's not as obvious as you think it is. Feminism in the modern connotation of it is a horrifically useless term. It refers to everyone from those who want equal rights to those who want unequal rights in the opposite direction of old hat sexism. It has no meaning. It applies to me, a person who genuinely wants gender equality as much as it's possible. It applies to Anita Sarkesian who uses Feminism like a weapon. So, explain how GG is so much more massively complicated that there's no comparison to be made at all

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114203]You cant take the words and ideologies of self-labeled members of any unorganized and leaderless movement as the general mindset of it's supporters. That's pointless and nonsensical.[/QUOTE] Well then how the hell do I know what the movement is about other than listening to MANY members of said group. This isn't some fringe group of radicals that has asinine ideas. How many of the people who call themselves feminists subscribe into the "new" definition of sexism? That only men can be sexist? [QUOTE=Duck M.;50114203]These are terms we dont need because "feminist" already sufficiently embodies what they try to accomplish. If you're an "egalitarian" or a "humanist" you're a feminist as well.[/QUOTE] Egalitarian and humanist [B]include[/B] the principle of feminist, yes. Second wave feminist. Not the bullshit you see today. Hence people call themselves someone who believes in equality WITHOUT the negative connotations that today's feminism has. What the hell do you mean we don't need those terms? I didn't know feminism is also about equality of races among other things.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114203]If you're an "egalitarian" or a "humanist" you're a feminist as well.[/QUOTE] How dare you say that. You can pretend all you want that it's only a loud minority in the feminist movement that are radical, but it really isn't a minority. One of the core pillars of feminism is that it restricts women's choices and their autonomy. There are countless examples of this. If a woman wants to be a housewife, she's shamed because she's enforcing patriarchal gender norms etc Some of the key feminist academics in the 70s were absolutely crazy. A recurring point was that all males gain from the oppression of women, and this was used by some feminists to argue AGAINST gay rights. [URL="http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM"]Source[/URL]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50114347]How is it a false equivelance? Spell it out for me because it's not as obvious as you think it is. Feminism in the modern connotation of it is a horrifically useless term. It refers to everyone from those who want equal rights to those who want unequal rights in the opposite direction of old hat sexism. It has no meaning. It applies to me, a person who genuinely wants gender equality as much as it's possible. It applies to Anita Sarkesian who uses Feminism like a weapon. So, either explain how GG is so much more massively complicated that there's no comparison to be made at all[/QUOTE] The issues of ethics in games journalism are reasonably complex and all stem from various issues, there's no singular root cause for the issues that the industry faces. Just look at the GG thread on facepunch, there's something new every day to debate over and they're often not entirely related. Feminism is merely wanting equal rights for males and females, and that's it. It's not nearly as multi-faceted as GG is. GG comprises of so many ideological issues that the makeup of its supporters can hardly be quantified. Again, this is an issue of you associating a single-issue ideology with everyone under the sun that even slightly exemplifies it. You shouldn't let an idea be tarnished by people that might support it for malicious reasons.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114443]The issues of ethics in games journalism are reasonably complex and all stem from various issues, there's no singular root cause for the issues that the industry faces. Just look at the GG thread on facepunch, there's something new every day to debate over and they're often not entirely related. Feminism is merely wanting equal rights for males and females, and that's it. It's not nearly as multi-faceted as GG is. GG comprises of so many ideological issues that the makeup of its supporters can hardly be quantified.[/QUOTE] But that's unfair to say of feminism. Feminism is an issue which deals with more than just the basic concept of "Gender equality". I studied feminism in college, I'm fairly well versed on the subject, and it's not that basic otherwise, I wasted 2 years in two different courses listening to professors who you can out explain with just a handful of words, so I doubt that pretty strongly. Feminism IS a multifaceted issue.

[QUOTE=SpartanApples;50114380]How dare you say that. You can pretend all you want that it's only a loud minority in the feminist movement that are radical, but it really isn't a minority. One of the core pillars of feminism is that it restricts women's choices and their autonomy. There are countless examples of this. If a woman wants to be a housewife, she's shamed because she's enforcing patriarchal gender norms etc Some of the key feminist academics in the 70s were absolutely crazy. A recurring point was that all males gain from the oppression of women, and this was used by some feminists to argue AGAINST gay rights. [URL="http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] Give me a break, what the fuck are the "core pillars of feminism", and how on gods green earth did you manage to figure that "restricting women's choices" was one of them?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114443] Again, this is an issue of you associating a single-issue ideology with everyone under the sun that even slightly exemplifies it. You shouldn't let an idea be tarnished by people that might support it for malicious reasons.[/QUOTE] Well that's kind of important in the overall context of this discussion because the mainstream media has used feminism like a weapon to make all GGer's this fucking non existent joke of a boogey man, and it's not feminisms fault but it does tarnish two different sets of reputations when it's used as such!

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50114458]But that's unfair to say of feminism. Feminism is an issue which deals with more than just the basic concept of "Gender equality". I studied feminism in college, I'm fairly well versed on the subject, and it's not that basic otherwise, I wasted 2 years in two different courses listening to professors who you can out explain with just a handful of words, so I doubt that pretty strongly. Feminism IS a multifaceted issue.[/QUOTE] Not in the same way that GG is imo. Feminism is a single-issue ideology that's applicable to a large number of issues, while GG is more of a multi-issue movement that has numerous ideological issues that stem into it's core concept.

There's women, feminsts who self proclaim themselves as feminists, who call other women who reject modern feminism "Gender Traitors" You can sweep it under the rug or refuse to acknowledge it, but these are things that reflect on the real world state of feminism. And that's an age old element of feminism coming right out of the early 60's.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50114443]The issues of ethics in games journalism are reasonably complex and all stem from various issues, there's no singular root cause for the issues that the industry faces. Just look at the GG thread on facepunch, there's something new every day to debate over and they're often not entirely related. Feminism is merely wanting equal rights for males and females, and that's it. It's not nearly as multi-faceted as GG is. GG comprises of so many ideological issues that the makeup of its supporters can hardly be quantified.[/QUOTE] "Feminism is as simple as wanting equal rights for males and females". Do you really think this is so simple? There are no differences of opinions and means to how to achieve "equality" between feminists? How about stance on: patriarchy, affirmative action, wage gap, protesting against men speaking at universities against third wave feminism, safe spaces, microaggressions, bullying women who oppose today's feminism or want to be a housewife, etc. Feminism is not unified. Sorry. It ranges from "we want equal pay and to get rid of unfair gender roles" to "all men are fucking pigs and have to be taught not to rape".

You cannot keep hiding behind the dictionary definition of feminism. I implore you to just read any feminist literature by an academic like Germaine Greer.

[QUOTE=SpartanApples;50114380]How dare you say that. You can pretend all you want that it's only a loud minority in the feminist movement that are radical, but it really isn't a minority. One of the core pillars of feminism is that it restricts women's choices and their autonomy. There are countless examples of this. If a woman wants to be a housewife, she's shamed because she's enforcing patriarchal gender norms etc Some of the key feminist academics in the 70s were absolutely crazy. A recurring point was that all males gain from the oppression of women, and this was used by some feminists to argue AGAINST gay rights. [URL="http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] The radicals must be adressed when talking about these issues, but don't act like just because they're the majority that they redefine feminism. There are still reasonable people in the group and the general philosophies and ideas of feminism are reasonably egalitarian.

[QUOTE=Blazedol;50114595]The radicals must be adressed when talking about these issues, but don't act like just because they're the majority that they redefine feminism. [/QUOTE] How is that not exactly how a movement is redefined?

[QUOTE=xalener;50114612]How is that not exactly how a movement is redefined?[/QUOTE] The image of the group may change but all in all the philosophy would still be there to follow.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50103319]She just goes on 4chan and regurgitates what she reads there and because she's not unattractive she'll get all the views in the world from lonely neckbeards and 12 year olds. She wanted to be the new boxxy/Queen of 4chan but it didn't work out. I mean her name literally comes from an outdated 4chan meme.[/QUOTE] why is this rated funny it's an exact description of her