Feminism: A repetitive broken ideological record - That Guy T - General

youd agree with the politics, the only thing these idiots have a problem with is the title. grow up

[QUOTE=Korova;45512757]It's difficult to see that this is only a vocal minority when you look at thousands of tweets and retweets, tens of thousand of reblogs on tumblr by people who completely agree to *insert insane/nonsensical bullshit here*. These aren't exactly isolated incidents and there needs to be a movement to separate these sorts of people who honestly believe in gender equality from the crazies. Unless you're some huge fucking sexist asshole, I think everyone believes in equality but my problem is, feminism is ambiguous. The crazies are trying to twist and turn the definition into something it isn't and because they're labeled feminists, no one wants to associate with the title because there's so many and they're voicing their opinions louder and faster than anyone else. Even you have to admit that the feminist movement's image has been tarnished in the past three or four years.[/QUOTE] I don't have to admit shit, dude, because that's not how it is at all. Don't put words in my mouth. Say this to somebody who doesn't use the internet that much. Like, go up to your mom or talk to your aunt or some random person on the street and ask them what they think about [I]twitter[/I] and [I]tumblr's[/I] poisoning of feminism. A misleading or factually wrong tumblr post with a hundred thousand notes on it isn't going to significantly harm equal rights, neither are a video series about women in videogames or a misinformed feminist on twitter or youtube, either. Like, I'd honestly argue that MRA bullshit has had [I]more[/I] of a negative impact on feminism, because it encourages this contrarian and totally counter-intuitive cynical bullshit, with this whole "yeah, what about US?????" mentality. We're all on the internet here and I'm assuming that's all that most of us do, but try your hardest to look outside of your own little web bubble and take a look at the grand scheme of things. Social justice* is on the rise, regardless of the tumblr users you're so utterly obsessed with for some asinine reason. Like, apparently this SJW bullshit's been going on for years but the only time I've ever seen it is when crybabies go out of their way to find it and post it here. *Contemplated using a different phrase here, but then I realized that the only people who would criticize me for using it probably don't have anything insightful to say.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45513213]I don't have to admit shit, dude, because that's not how it is at all. Don't put words in my mouth. Say this to somebody who doesn't use the internet that much. Like, go up to your mom or talk to your aunt or some random person on the street and ask them what they think about [I]twitter[/I] and [I]tumblr's[/I] poisoning of feminism. A misleading or factually wrong tumblr post with a hundred thousand notes on it isn't going to significantly harm equal rights, neither are a video series about women in videogames or a misinformed feminist on twitter or youtube, either. Like, I'd honestly argue that MRA bullshit has had [I]more[/I] of a negative impact on feminism, because it encourages this contrarian and totally counter-intuitive cynical bullshit, with this whole "yeah, what about US?????" mentality. We're all on the internet here and I'm assuming that's all that most of us do, but try your hardest to look outside of your own little web bubble and take a look at the grand scheme of things. Social justice* is on the rise, regardless of the tumblr users you're so utterly obsessed with for some asinine reason. Like, apparently this SJW bullshit's been going on for years but the only time I've ever seen it is when crybabies go out of their way to find it and post it here. *Contemplated using a different phrase here, but then I realized that the only people who would criticize me for using it probably don't have anything insightful to say.[/QUOTE] So you mean to say that the thousands of #YesAllMen tweets and thousands of posts on Tumblr and literally every single feminist website I can find are just the "bad apples"? I find it difficult to take a movement seriously when the facts are being skewered, when non-issues are being created rather than fighting the good fight where and when it is needed, when the entire movement towards equality is based on one gender's experiences and problems.

[QUOTE=Korova;45513252]So you mean to say that the thousands of #YesAllMen tweets and thousands of posts on Tumblr and literally every single feminist website I can find are just the "bad apples"? I find it difficult to take a movement seriously when the facts are being skewered, when non-issues are being created rather than fighting the good fight where and when it is needed, when the entire movement towards equality is based on one gender's experiences and problems.[/QUOTE] Social media destills lots of things. Id say 2 things 1.) Some of the yesallmen posts were true 2.) A lot of them were obnoxious Not all feminists are fucking softies [url]http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/2014/06/about-political-correctness-inclusion.html[/url] [url]http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/[/url] [editline]27th July 2014[/editline] Also feminism does concern itself primarily with the problems faced by women as opposed to men in terms of the amount of time and efort they spend, but thats because its a larger source of oppression. Think about it this way: if you wanted to fight economic exploitation, would you focus most of your effort trying to help the rich or the poor? Ya there are instances where the rich are being exploited that you may tend to, but the overall focus and strategy you'd have is on the down-trodden... its easier to be a man in our world, dat shit is just true

I'd say this only applies to feminists and feminisms on the internet. Because feminism on the internet is bullshit and you and everyone else knows it. Want to do right? Go outside and join an actual group. Don't make stupid videos about it just to show that you're doing right.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45512696]because feminist = gender equalist. there's no need to migrate, at all, you're both. ...[/QUOTE] Feminism is generally an awful name to classify gender equality movement. Feminism, like it originally was, is targeting women's rights because back in the day men had more privilege. It is still doing the same, it does not fight for men's rights though. Nonexistent pay gap is a problem for feminism, while real problem of men getting fucked over in divorce and custody court is not a problem for them at all. Feminists 100 years ago fought for women's rights, feminists now fight for women's rights. Feminists who actually fight for equality and not rights are small minority in the movement, therefor I think labeling yourself a feminist if you actually fight for equality is wrong and misleading to both your cause and feminist cause. I am cool with gender equality and I support the notion that both genders should have equal opportunity socially, when it comes to law, education and all other treatment. What I will never do though is brand myself a feminist or associate myself with other feminists because that title is distasteful for my views. But don't misunderstand, neither do I want to be labelled MRA since these bunch are the opposite of feminism. Both sides are extreme even in their non-extreme views. I feel we need a proper middle ground movement that does not bias against one side or another. After all that IS equality.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;45513738]Feminism is generally an awful name to classify gender equality movement. Feminism, like it originally was, is targeting women's rights [B]because back in the day men had more privilege[/B]. It is still doing the same, it does not fight for men's rights though. Nonexistent pay gap is a problem for feminism, while real problem of men getting fucked over in divorce and custody court is not a problem for them at all. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=itisjuly;45513738]Feminism is generally an awful name to classify gender equality movement. Feminism, like it originally was, is targeting women's rights [B]because back in the day men had more privilege[/B]. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=itisjuly;45513738] is targeting women's rights [B]because back in the day men had more privilege[/B]. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=itisjuly;45513738][B]because back in the day men had more privilege[/B]. [/QUOTE] what the fuck has changed lmfao [editline]27th July 2014[/editline] also dude you are being goofy as hell, how is fighting for rights in the liberal sense not synonymous with a commitment to equality?

[QUOTE=Flameon;45513840]what the fuck has changed lmfao [/QUOTE]Everything has. Women are free to take any job they want as long as they're qualified. Politics, business, etc, even construction, are all open to women as long as they match the requirements needed for those jobs. Women also can vote and do everything else men can. I don't see what hasn't changed. [QUOTE=Flameon;45513840] also dude you are being goofy as hell, how is fighting for rights in the liberal sense not synonymous with a commitment to equality?[/QUOTE] As I see it, feminism rarely fights for equality, only for rights for one side. Buuut I am a white cis male so disregard me because my views do not matter.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;45513915] As I see it, feminism rarely fights for equality, only for rights for one side. Buuut I am a white cis male so disregard me because my views do not matter.[/QUOTE] I'm also a white cis male. you are wrong because you are wrong, not because of your identity. [quote] Everything has. Women are free to take any job they want as long as they're qualified. Politics, business, etc, even construction, are all open to women as long as they match the requirements needed for those jobs. Women also can vote and do everything else men can. I don't see what hasn't changed.[/quote] There has not been a [I]de jure[/I] restriction on women working in a field or being barred from doing something... for what? Sixty years? Maybe more? Unfortunately as feminism wants to show, a lot of discrimination goes on [I]de facto[/I] - it is cultural, not legal. The fact that women, to this day, remain the number one victim of sexual harassment in work place environments clearly flys in the face of your arguement that its merely a 'skills' competition. Then there is that whole: [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?_r=0"]glass cieling wage gap,[/URL] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQFyw9WqTiw"]the total dismissal of of women being in positions of power[/URL], the culture of violence propogated against them daily [no link unless you want one! Rape culture is real!].

[QUOTE=Flameon;45514107]The fact that women, to this day, remain the number one victim of sexual harassment in work place environments clearly flys in the face of your arguement that its merely a 'skills' competition. [/QUOTE]Is that even an argument? There are only two genders. One of them will be #1. All you say only proves that feminism is about women's rights which sounds cool and all but it completely shrugs male problems and goes "meeh we'll fix it later... maybe" just to not seem completely sexist. About your first link, the chart says "Source: Claudia Goldin, Harvard University" where can I look up more detailed info? This is actually interesting. Second link is about US and I have no idea how stuff works there so no comment.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;45514222]Is that even an argument? There are only two genders. One of them will be #1.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it isnt even fucking close. Also that logic can pretty much dismiss any and all examples of inequality. RE sources: Claudia: [url]http://t.co/eYKpcdfZcN[/url], I imagine this is the one. US: a large percentage of the tumblr feminists live in the US id wage too. They are focusing on womens issues bc women get it worse. Theres a power dynamic going on behind the scenes of our lives

O lorde, what hath I done Maybe the reason there's such a divide in genders in powerful/well-paying positions in society is because I don't know, each one is happier or more inclined participating in anything closer to their "traditional" roles. Before commerce, agriculture, industry and civilisation as we know it, there were ~7 million years of evolution. A whole lot of arguments from both sides overlook our biology which yes, means men "objectify" women, yes, men are more likely to have aspirations towards power, yes, you'll more often find women in "nurturing roles" such as nurses, teachers etc. Before "patriarchy" there were hunter-gatherers and in a way the problems feminists see are a manifestation of that in modern culture. To think that these two genders could ever be truly equal is an exercise in futility unless we were bio-engineered to be so. As the guy in the video said, there's equal opportunity (though not as close as he makes it sound) for men and women, but that doesn't mean there's going to be equal results.

Shut your biotruths and mansplaining. We don't need none of that crap here.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;45514437]O lorde, what hath I done Maybe the reason there's such a divide in genders in powerful/well-paying positions in society is because I don't know, each one is happier or more inclined participating in anything closer to their "traditional" roles. Before commerce, agriculture, industry and civilisation as we know it, there were ~7 million years of evolution. A whole lot of arguments from both sides overlook our biology which yes, means men "objectify" women, yes, men are more likely to have aspirations towards power, yes, you'll more often find women in "nurturing roles" such as nurses, teachers etc. Before "patriarchy" there were hunter-gatherers and in a way the problems feminists see are a manifestation of that in modern culture. To think that these two genders could ever be truly equal is an exercise in futility unless we were bio-engineered to be so. As the guy in the video said, there's equal opportunity (though not as close as he makes it sound) for men and women, but that doesn't mean there's going to be equal results.[/QUOTE] your a fucking idiot. what kind of woman doesn't want to have power? What kind of dude doesnt want to be respected, to teach his skills to another? Yes, if you deconstruct society you might find that in the state of nature men are 'in charge', but thats primarily because (if I had to guess), that extra-strength means you are a literal bread winner. We have these things now called guns... and the economy though... and culture means we don't have to be slaves to that residual programming. Attraction to breasts and asses without being able to control yourself, aka: objectifying women, is not fucking natural, its cultural. Diff cultures have vastly different standards of beauty and eroticism. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Flameon;45514667]your a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE] So much for keeping it civil eh? [quote] what kind of woman doesn't want to have power?[/quote] Most, on a national/international/economic scale. That goes for men too but less so. That's what I'm talking about here, not personal power ie control over themselves which is less of an issue now than it ever was. [quote] What kind of dude doesnt want to be respected,[/quote] Few. [quote]to teach his skills to another?[/quote] Teaching is not a prerequisite of respect [quote] Yes, if you deconstruct society you might find that in the state of nature men are 'in charge', but thats primarily because (if I had to guess), that extra-strength means you are a literal bread winner. [/quote] That's a complete over-simplification. [quote] We have these things now called guns...[/quote] And what difference does this make? Are you saying there should be an armed uprising by women? Also, who are the primary users of guns? [quote] and the economy though... and culture means we don't have to be slaves to that residual programming. [/quote] You still are whether you like it or not. It's a nice thought that our self-awareness allows us to transcend our "hard-wiring", you can delude yourself into that belief but it's simply not true. [quote] Attraction to breasts and asses without being able to control yourself, aka: objectifying women, [B]is not fucking natural[/B], its cultural. Diff cultures have vastly different standards of beauty and eroticism.[/quote] Hahahahahahah. It's not just breasts and asses that I'm attracted to. There are differing standards of beauty across the world yeah, but it is physical beauty its self that is attractive to men. You practically admitted it yourself, it's visual stimulation that turns men on and it'd be hilarious to see you try to rationalise any counter-argument to that. The universal reality is you will rarely see self-respecting men hitting on ham-beasts, excessively old or entirely fuck-ugly women unless they have no other option available by either circumstance or self-limitation. Yes, it's harsh and unfortunate but that's simply how it is now and how it has been for millennia. So, what's your take on the natural laws of attraction? That we should value personality over looks? Again a nice thought but for the vast majority of men that won't fly.

[QUOTE=Flameon;45514667]your a fucking idiot[/QUOTE] Why are you attacking him? This is no way to prove your point. That's what happens when you argue with hardcore feminists, they start to attack you. [QUOTE=Flameon;45514667]what kind of woman doesn't want to have power?[/QUOTE] I'd imagine quite a lot of [b]people[/b] don't since with great power comes... you get it. Having a lot of power is very taxing and I imagine not everyone wants that.

You know, my hostility is totally not nececssary you are right. I apologize. [quote]Most, on a national/international/economic scale. That goes for men too but less so. That's what I'm talking about here, not personal power ie control over themselves which is less of an issue now than it ever was.[/quote] Id love to see what gene or instincts you think groom men to be leaders and women to desire to be submissive and listen to what men have to say. This is the logical follow up to what you are saying. [quote]And what difference does this make? Are you saying there should be an armed uprising by women? Also, who are the primary users of guns?[/quote] The point is that whatever benefits the physical/raw strength men had over women in determining leadership is totally irrlevent when we have reached a point where cities can be destroyed with the push of a button. [quote]You still are whether you like it or not. It's a nice thought that our self-awareness allows us to transcend our "hard-wiring", you can delude yourself into that belief but it's simply not true. [/quote] Show me the kernel of this insurmountable hard wining that we are literally speculating about. [quote]Hahahahahahah. It's not just breasts and asses that I'm attracted to. There are differing standards of beauty across the world yeah, but it is physical beauty its self that is attractive to men. You practically admitted it yourself, it's visual stimulation that turns men on and it'd be hilarious to see you try to rationalise any counter-argument to that. The universal reality is you will rarely see self-respecting men hitting on ham-beasts, excessively old or entirely fuck-ugly women unless they have no other option available by either circumstance or self-limitation. Yes, it's harsh and unfortunate but that's simply how it is now and how it has been for millennia.[/quote] Yeah everyone wants what they believe is best for themselves/others, that is hardly objectifying. The current zeitgeist that we live in is one of objectification of women's bodies, and that is no way a natural development. Also I dont understand why you think there is this overarching domain of beauty and visuality which governs who we want to hvae sex with, that is 100% socially constructed. if you wanna talk about old-school evolution, you should prob expect a lot more men hitting on 'ham beasts' as you call them since being fat is a sign that you have access to food and shelter, aka: you'd be a great person to have kids with. [quote] So, what's your take on the natural laws of attraction? That we should value personality over looks? Again a nice thought but for the vast majority of men that won't fly.[/quote] Yeah you shouldn't value a person only because of their looks. That creates the kind of internal policing that goes on where women are valued that way and become 1 dimmensional whereas men are able to explore the spectrum of human expression. [quote]I'd imagine quite a lot of people don't since with great power comes... you get it. Having a lot of power is very taxing and I imagine not everyone wants that. [/quote] Theres tons of reasons to consider why someone would or want power, the point of my post was merely to dislodge his claim that there is some innate biological drive in men to want power that women are lacking.

[QUOTE=Flameon;45515059]You know, my hostility is totally not nececssary you are right. I apologize. Id love to see what gene or instincts you think groom men to be leaders and women to desire to be submissive and listen to what men have to say. This is the logical follow up to what you are saying.[/QUOTE] To go on a bit of tangent, wouldn't this also be a decent question for homosexuality and other LGBTQA issues? Everyone keeps talking about the gay gene but because you have the gene for cancer doesn't mean you get it. Never got a satisfactory answer for that.

There is a HUGE difference between the keyboard warriors on the internet and feminists who are active in the community. Just like every other group.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45511579]These loose definitions are bullshit. If the western society was a real patriarchy, women wouldn't be able to hold any power. But if you look at [url]http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm[/url] you would see that countries with western countries have a high percentage of females in the government: Sweden 45.0%, Finland 42.5%, South Africa 40.8%, Iceland 39.7%, Spain 39.7%, Norway 39.6%, Belgium 39.3%, Denmark 39.1%, Netherlands 38.7%, Argentina 36.6%, Germany 36.5%, New Zealand 33.9%, Costa Rica 33.3%, Slovenia 33.3%, Austria 32.2%, Italy 31.4%, etc,etc,etc... Just look at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_government[/url] No one is holding women back to go into politics. No one is telling women that they can't go into politics. A patriarchy would never allow a female presidential candidate or even a female leader. A patriarchy would never allow women to become a CEO of a company. Where are all these invisible barriers that hold women down?[/QUOTE] if no one was holding women back or if there wasn't a stigma against them in politics don't you think we'd see, you know, more women in politics? we'd see plenty cases where there are more women than men. we'd see plenty of cases where there are more men than women. we'd see cases where the difference is negligible. and yet... we're not seeing that

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45515192]if no one was holding women back or if there wasn't a stigma against them in politics don't you think we'd see, you know, more women in politics? we'd see plenty cases where there are more women than men. we'd see plenty of cases where there are more men than women. we'd see cases where the difference is negligible. and yet... we're not seeing that[/QUOTE] Then give me some examples who is holding women back, and how. It's like blind faith, like thinking that the sun is orbiting earth because it looks like it for people standing on earth.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45515234]Then give me some examples who is holding women back, and how. It's like blind faith, like thinking that the sun is orbiting earth because it looks like it for people standing on earth.[/QUOTE] you gave the example yourself, just look at the percentages. there's literally one government with a higher percentage of women than men [url]http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45515346]you gave the example yourself, just look at the percentages. there's literally one government with a higher percentage of women than men [url]http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm[/url][/QUOTE] That is not an example on who is holding women back and how.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45515454]That is not an example on who is holding women back and how.[/QUOTE] Whats your explanation? [editline]27th July 2014[/editline] We are presented with the facts of social reality and need to account for them, whats your account?

[QUOTE=Impact1986;45515454]That is not an example on who is holding women back and how.[/QUOTE] why do i need to say who's at fault? if you see your car burning, are you going to stop and wonder who did it or are you going to try to extinguish the fire? you're not gonna solve anything by pointing fingers

I'm not exactly sure where the real feminists are, as I've never in my life seen anybody call himself a feminist when not being on the internet.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45515346]you gave the example yourself, just look at the percentages. there's literally one government with a higher percentage of women than men [url]http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Equal opportunity =/= equal results. Just because there's less women in government doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything stopping them other than factors that would apply to men too. [QUOTE=Flameon;45515059]You know, my hostility is totally not nececssary you are right. I apologize. [/quote] Appreciated. [quote] Id love to see what gene or instincts you think groom men to be leaders and women to desire to be submissive and listen to what men have to say. This is the logical follow up to what you are saying. [/quote] I'm no biologist and I don't pretend to be. The sources are there if you look for them, I'll post them when I have the time to find them. [quote] The point is that whatever benefits the physical/raw strength men had over women in determining leadership is totally irrlevent when we have reached a point where cities can be destroyed with the push of a button.[/quote] This isn't untrue in the slightest, but it's not just from a physical standpoint, the psychological plays into it too if anything more than physical attributes. It is pretty much a given that men think more logically whereas women think more emotionally - which is better for decision-making? [quote] Show me the kernel of this insurmountable hard wining that we are literally speculating about. [/quote] Links pending [quote] Yeah everyone wants what they believe is best for themselves/others, that is hardly objectifying. The current zeitgeist that we live in is one of objectification of women's bodies, and that is no way a natural development. Also I dont understand why you think there is this overarching domain of beauty and visuality which governs who we want to hvae sex with, that is 100% socially constructed.[/quote] So why is it most men believe what is best for them is a young attractive mate? Modern society & media have only been around for a couple of centuries so to say that the current ideal of beauty is an artificial construct is baseless. If it was, you'd see more powerful/wealthy/self-sufficient men with women who would be generally seen as unattractive. Again, citation pending [quote] if you wanna talk about old-school evolution, you should prob expect a lot more men hitting on 'ham beasts' as you call them since being fat is a sign that you have access to food and shelter, aka: you'd be a great person to have kids with.[/quote] Being fat is a sign that you're probably unhealthy. I'm not saying that anorexic skeletons are the ideal here, of course what you say is true but only to the extent of a healthy amount of meat. Have you ever seen a 400lb land-whale and gone "Wow, she's fucking SEXY"? If you have I feel sorry for you. [quote] Yeah you shouldn't value a person only because of their looks. [/quote] I never said that looks were the [I]only[/I] value attributed to women, but it's a big part of choosing a mate. [quote] Theres tons of reasons to consider why someone would or want power, the point of my post was merely to dislodge his claim that there is some innate biological drive in men to want power that women are lacking.[/QUOTE] Well, it was barely dislodged. Once more, source pending.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;45515571]Equal opportunity =/= equal results. Just because there's less women in government doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything stopping them other than factors that would apply to men too.[/QUOTE] And the fact that the same trend of unequal results seems to be the case in almost every single country in the world does not tell you anything?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45515616]And the fact that the same trend of unequal results seems to be the case in almost every single country in the world does not tell you anything?[/QUOTE] Maybe that globally, women aren't as interested in politics as men?

Women are cool they have titties