[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;46380341]Both parties use the emotional argument, remember Benghazi? Unlike lawmakers she's not coming up with solutions on how to stop it, she's doing it for her own benefit and that is to spread hatred. Sarkeesian is a misandrist like all raging tumblr feminists.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna replace that last bit with what you originally posted because your alternative was dumb as fuck. Misandry may well exist, but it's not a institutional problem, and Sarkeesian sure as fuck isn't misanrist, just dumb.
[quote]However the issue that Sarkeesian is bringing up isn't a law issue. It's more like "look how evil men are" and other things that tumblr feminists are known for.[/quote]
If you take the whole "toxic masculinity = shootings" as "all men are evil pigs purge them", then you're not really thinking about it at all. Twitter is a terrible platform to get ideas across when they are as expansive and complicated as feminism can get. Sarkeesian is feminism-lite at best, simple sounbites of basic feminist thought brought to the public. It's why her Tropes vs. Women series isn't exactly incorrect, but isn't right in basically any way. Correct ideas, horrible explanation to get the gist of it across.
There are issues with the idea of patriarchy that could be considered contributing factors to the overwhelming majority of mass shooters being male. The lack of ability to express your emotions without being called a massive faggot is likely one of the biggest, followed by the stupid as fuck "alpha/ beta" shit that causes people like Elliot Rodgers to even exist. These are all problems with the idea of "masculinity", it doesn't bring any benefits to the table, but it's pretty much a societal expectation for a male to exhibit the ideals of masculinity. So she isn't wrong again, but her presentation is lacking, largely due to the platform she's using.
(also I wouldn't even think about saying the US lawmakers are looking for solutions to the problem. you've got the republicans trying to shut down discussion on it constantly because "muh freedoms" or whatever, the democrats don't want to discuss it because I expect the NRA and manufacturer money is pretty fucking sweet, and the other parties might as well not exist in your current system)
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379090]So why are 98% of school shooters male?
[/QUOTE]
because males statistically have more mental health problems, also guys generally are under-serviced by the already poorly put togather mental health system since guys can't be "emotional"
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379090]So why are 98% of school shooters male?[/QUOTE]
Because men are more likely to take out their anger on strangers and therefore more likely to commit mass murders. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to take out their anger on people they know. That's why a lot more crimes involving the murder of their own family, most commonly children, are committed by women.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;46379090]So why are 98% of school shooters male?[/QUOTE]
Males tend to carry more emotional and physical burden through out their lives as they are expected to be breadwinners, required to look somewhat decent to attract females, and expected to carry on their bloodline. All of that tied into the fact that the United State's has more mental illness per capita then any place in the world, and is lacking greatly in medical processes for going about and getting help. Take it as what you will, but for me, I only stated getting help for my mental trauma when it started to effect me so terribly that I would break into tears when I fucked up on a DMV test. I didn't want to burden my family unless it came to the point where I was physically and mentally unable to cope with life.
That's another problem you must take into account, most males are expected to toughen up. Got a scratch? Wrap it with some electric tape. Got a sore tooth? Toughen up. Got mental issues such as schizophrenia? You are broken product and probably should end your life.
It's a fucked up cycle that really screws with people's heads, and for the most part it is not required to look for mental help or to diagnose mental problems before they become a problem, and as such, most people do not even know that something is wrong with them until they get pissed off one day, and go about slitting peoples throats who hurt them physically and/or mentally.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46380541]I'm gonna replace that last bit with what you originally posted because your alternative was dumb as fuck. Misandry may well exist, but it's not a institutional problem, and Sarkeesian sure as fuck isn't misanrist, just dumb.[/quote]
yeah sure. :v:
[quote]If you take the whole "toxic masculinity = shootings" as "all men are evil pigs purge them", then you're not really thinking about it at all. Twitter is a terrible platform to get ideas across when they are as expansive and complicated as feminism can get. Sarkeesian is feminism-lite at best, simple sounbites of basic feminist thought brought to the public. It's why her Tropes vs. Women series isn't exactly incorrect, but isn't right in basically any way. Correct ideas, horrible explanation to get the gist of it across.[/quote]
have you ever watched the thunderf00t videos? Anita and her pals are more crazy absolutists spouting shit like muh soggy knees. Meanwhile more reasonable feminists from Academia like Christina Hoff Summers and Jennie Bharaj, are far more level head and less marxist.
[quote]There are issues with the idea of patriarchy that could be considered contributing factors to the overwhelming majority of mass shooters being male. The lack of ability to express your emotions without being called a massive faggot is likely one of the biggest, followed by the stupid as fuck "alpha/ beta" shit that causes people like Elliot Rodgers to even exist. These are all problems with the idea of "masculinity", it doesn't bring any benefits to the table, but it's pretty much a societal expectation for a male to exhibit the ideals of masculinity. So she isn't wrong again, but her presentation is lacking, largely due to the platform she's using.[/quote]
Anita has talked about it a few times on stage and on tv, she is using it push the usual man hating agenda.
[quote](also I wouldn't even think about saying the US lawmakers are looking for solutions to the problem. you've got the republicans trying to shut down discussion on it constantly because "muh freedoms" or whatever, the democrats don't want to discuss it because I expect the NRA and manufacturer money is pretty fucking sweet, and the other parties might as well not exist in your current system)[/QUOTE]
not relevant to the topic.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;46380819]yeah sure. :v:
have you ever watched the thunderf00t videos? Anita and her pals are more crazy absolutists spouting shit like muh soggy knees. Meanwhile more reasonable feminists from Academia like Christina Hoff Summers and Jennie Bharaj, are far more level head and less marxist.
Anita has talked about it a few times on stage and on tv, she is using it push the usual man hating agenda.
[B]not relevant to the topic.[/B][/QUOTE]
Totally relevant to the topic seeing as you brought it up. But whatever, that's not the important part.
I wouldn't cite Thunderf00t on anything but science really, he's not really got much of a history in the field, so don't take his word as gospel just because he can articulate his points well. Most of his videos pointing out Anita is dumb as bricks aren't incorrect, she is, but he seems to have a huge fucking hate-boner for the topic in general.
What "man hating" agenda have you been seeing? I've never seen her say anything along the lines as "all men are fucking terrible and inferior to women", she's not a radical feminist by any stretch. I've seen her use hyperbole to get a point across, but never outright hate men.
I don't particularly care for her or her views, but I do care about people totally misinterpreting feminist thought because Anita is the only person they seem to pay attention to. It's a very academic topic, and considering Anita can't even write a coherent thesis, she's not really an academic type, just avoid taking shit posted on her Twitter literally and you'll probably have fewer stupidity induced migraines per day.
[QUOTE=Crimor;46380168]We're all gonna have fuckin' PhD's in social engineering and psychology after this.[/QUOTE]
And that's fucking sad.
[quote]Women series isn't exactly incorrect, but isn't right in basically any way.[/quote]
I'm hexpunk, and I approved this marketese [hexpunk 2014*]
[QUOTE=27X;46381381]I'm hexpunk, and I approved this marketese [hexpunk 2014*][/QUOTE]
fite me, 2pm, schoolyard. bring ur m8s m8
Seriously? That's the bit you decided to pick out? Fine, I'll expand on it. She isn't incorrect in that video games could totally do better, all media could really but games are like, the #1 media right now so might as well focus on them. But the way she goes about it and her examples are all pretty shit.
The series is about as feel-good as it can get, it's done pretty much nothing outside of pointing out "hey this is a feminism".
I found someone claiming that they were at this recording, and that Colbert was actually very tough on Anita, however they cut all of that out
[IMG]http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/857/328/329.png[/IMG]
Link in comment:
[url]http://i.imgur.com/hqR08Kh.jpg[/url]
not sure if i can believe it though? more proof may be needed
[QUOTE=da space core;46381735][i]"Then how do they cause mysogeny?"[/i][/QUOTE]
If this is true, then it's likely that Anita got BTFO harder than anyone in all of human history.
Like, holy [i]shit, fucking destroyed[/i].
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46379523]I for one think people interpret malice on Anita's part when it's not really the case. Her problem isn't malice, it's incompetence. Her introspection isn't intelligent and she doesn't do enough research.[/QUOTE]
She asked for quite a lot money (and got considerably more than she asked for) to develop a retrospective on video games despite not knowing one bit about video games.
So she either had a very bad preconception of video games as sort of a closed, easy to grasp medium with little to no ramifications, or she knew she wasn't going to be up to the task and simply wanted to make a quick buck on a hot topic.
Either way it's a blatant sign of incompetence.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;46382023]If this is true, then it's likely that Anita got BTFO harder than anyone in all of human history.
Like, holy [i]shit, fucking destroyed[/i].[/QUOTE]
i wonder why they removed that, and left only the nerd/gamer bashing.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;46382265]i wonder why they removed that, and left only the nerd/gamer bashing.[/QUOTE]
Because someone, somewhere has an agenda, and what [I]supposedly[/I] happened obviously didn't support that agenda.
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
I want to believe it, if only because he seemed to completely break character and agree with her wholeheartedly the entire time, which is not what normally happens when he meets with a guest.
[img]http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140501172737/jjba/images/4/4d/Jotaro_article_crop_stone_ocean_color_v02_032.png[/img][img]http://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters2/jotaro-portait.gif[/img][img]http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/square_small/0/4737/1211242-jotaro.png[/img][img]http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120517023315/jjba/images/thumb/5/5f/Jotaro_Kujo_(OVA_3).jpg/776px-Jotaro_Kujo_(OVA_3).jpg[/img][img]http://www.pixmanga.com/images/fcvdu.jpg[/img][img]https://31.media.tumblr.com/b6356a4bbd22cbdd526e0a3fd7d1753c/tumblr_my4uobY2Of1sl56foo6_1280.jpg[/img][img]http://www.moetron.com/uploads/20140322_jojo01.jpg[/img][img]http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/268/3/e/jotaro_kujo_arcade_stick_design_by_cptmunta-d5fu61z.jpg[/img][img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m08o76QiDH1qfydlfo1_500.gif[/img]
I'm attempting to get banned to begin with but I'd also like to say that if you're questioning why Colbert broke character to agree with her maybe instead you should stop being a bunch of facist pigs and drop your fucking support of a group that harasses women?
Also: eat my ass
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Requested." - AshMan))[/highlight]
Well you sure seem like the you have no interest in the topic but to be a ignorant flame baiter
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46380541]I'm gonna replace that last bit with what you originally posted because your alternative was dumb as fuck. Misandry may well exist, but it's not a institutional problem, and Sarkeesian sure as fuck isn't misanrist, just dumb.
[/QUOTE]
Saying that masculinity is bad and toxic is misandry. Just like saying that feminity is being weak is misoginy.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46382808]Well you sure seem like the you have no interest in the topic but to be a ignorant flame baiter[/QUOTE]
at least he has good taste in chinese cartoons
[QUOTE=EmperorKabuto;46382767][a spam of giant images which makes it really hard to be a jojo fan because people like this keep doing shit like this]
I'm attempting to get banned to begin with but I'd also like to say that if you're questioning why Colbert broke character to agree with her maybe instead you should stop being a bunch of facist pigs and drop your fucking support of a group that harasses women?
Also: eat my ass[/QUOTE]
can you please take your bullshit back to minus world
[QUOTE=joshuadim;46363969]Anita Sarkeesian is the worst fucking choice to have a live interview/any interview with. All she spits out is bullshit, not only in real life but on twitter as well.
Take a look at some gems.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/cvGhQ/ebca8f67dd.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/cvGjr/c5646c7bb4.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/cvGkF/0ae3a55ccf.png[/IMG]
Holy shit, she actually relates school shooting to the "muh patriarchy". She is the biggest, most deluded idiot I have ever seen in my entire life.
She doesn't deserve her "fame", but certainly deserves the shit she gets.[/QUOTE]
Those tweets seem to be in support of men to me.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;46379187]The whole feminism thing is stupid. It's all so vague. Men and women are not equal, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other either. It's not that simple.
In order to meet the expectations Anita wants, men basically have to completely suppress their natural tendencies and impulses. It's such an unrealistic requirement and it does not promote equality.[/QUOTE]
Please don't think of Feminism from anita's perspective
Actual feminism from a balanced individual is to bring awareness of gender inequalities that occur, or in-general any inequalities in perception that occur in the real world that deviate from the heteronormative white male space.
Its about destroying stereotypes that women are supposed to have a specific role in the household, that women are in service of a man or their husbands, that women are less equal than men in professional life, that women are less equal to men in personal life, etc. The end goal of actual feminism is to basically destroy stereotypes and inequality women face throughout all society, so when you work or become friends with a woman you see, you think of them and treat them as if they were anybody else (it doesn't matter if they are male or female). Its about tipping the balance of power in the world so we stop thinking of world leaders as "strong male dominant figures" and could imagine anyone (male or female) to take that role just as equally as anyone else.
It really IS NOT about preventing men from being attracted to women and vice versa, or about saying no to being sexy, or anything like that. People who are anti-male feminists tend to go down this path. A balanced feminist does not want this - they might even embrace their own sexuality or female identity (though a lot of feminists would downplay that), because the real goals of feminism ultimately has to do with a matter of how the world perceives women as a whole than it has to do with anything else.
[QUOTE=KorJax;46384606] or in-general any inequalities in perception that occur in the real world that deviate from the heteronormative white male space. [/QUOTE]
So you admit feminism assumes white male as the sexist one and is in no way there for equality but only cares about women.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46382813]Saying that masculinity is bad and toxic is misandry. Just like saying that feminity is being weak is misoginy.[/QUOTE]
I...I don't think you actually understand the words you're using.
Misandry and misogyny are the hatred of men and women respectively. The ideas of masculinity and femininity are societal constructs, so disliking them in no way can be equated to actually hating men or women.
And the counter-example you just posted? That's exactly why femininity is also a toxic idea in places. These two ideas don't really do anything positive but stipulate that if you want to be a "normal" man or woman you must be strong, stoic or weak and submissive. Please, do tell me how these ideas don't have toxic components? How do they actually help us as a people?
(interestingly my spell-checker doesn't recognise misandry as a word, none do now that I think about it, huh)
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46379892]Masculinity isn't the issue. Mental illness is.[/QUOTE]
This is not a black and white issue and people are rarely so simple as to be driven by a single problem.
There's no question that he was mentally unstable and likely would have snapped in some form or another, but his particular condition and attitude did project an incredible degree of insecurity in his masculinity, this is less a podium for feminism I think and more an issue with the problem of gender roles in general (as well as the mental illness component which also shouldn't be discounted, as that was clearly ignored by his parents and may have been treatable)
Sarkessians problem is definitely that she is a single-minded feminist and she probably should have taken the opportunity to address the concepts of gender roles as a whole rather than specifically targeting masculinity. With that said however, to reiterate, arbitrary, culturally-enforced gender roles are are in practice, a poisonous concept and I think it's entirely reasonable to say that they had a significant impact and driving force on that particular mass outburst of targeted violence.
With this said as well, from 1900 - 2010 there have been disproportionately more and more male serial killers. As late as 2010, [I]94%[/I] of serial killers/mass murders are male, compared to 59% in 1900. That is deeply alarming at best. Culture shouldn't be discounted just because people [I]want[/I] to pin it on mental illness alone, if such is the case there's clearly something making men fucking insane at disproportionate levels and the cause for that is likely just as bad, because the number of male serial killers specifically has exploded disproportionate to the rise in human population level.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/6azbIq.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Sableye;46380547]because males statistically have more mental health problems, also guys generally are under-serviced by the already poorly put togather mental health system since guys can't be "emotional"[/QUOTE]
This would seem like a reasonable explanation, by why have rates in male illness been ramping up to extreme levels in the last century? It's implausible that male genetics have been getting more violent in the last century, we don't evolve that quickly, so what aspects of human culture and conditioning are causing men to be driven insane? Isn't it even slightly possible those aspects of human culture are closely intertwined with unreasonable expectations and peer pressure for masculinity in society?
You have to keep in mind that statistics regarding stuff like rape, abuse, mental illnesses or even cancer are easily flawed by the fact that a century back we didn't necessarily have the social standards or the necessary tech to track these things.
ie rates in male illness have ramped up in the past century because we actually started diagnosing it properly instead of shrugging it off.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46384818]
ie rates in male illness have ramped up in the past century because we actually started diagnosing it properly instead of shrugging it off.[/QUOTE]
Properly is arguable. Everything is a mental illness now.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46384853]Properly is arguable. Everything is a mental illness now.[/QUOTE]
You don't get institutionalized, treated and added to statistics for made up mental illnesses though. At least not in any significant numbers.
[QUOTE=Valnar;46376895]Why? Patriarchy doesn't refer to some clandestine group of men controlling the world. It refers to the idea of the current gender roles and social power structure we have, like how men are generally expected to be dominant. I know someone explains this in every thread about feminism on FP.[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with the concept of patriarchy.
I'm not fine with its current use as a boogieman/illuminati incarnet. You could easily switch patriarchy with illuminati and it still works.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46384909]You don't get institutionalized, treated and added to statistics for made up mental illnesses though. At least not in any significant numbers.[/QUOTE]
Plenty of kids get diagnosed with autism or similar and put on meds for being kids. Then there are people who suffer from stress and instead get diagnosed with depression and get prescribed anti-depressants.
Numbers are numbers, they stack up.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46384981]I'm fine with the concept of patriarchy.
I'm not fine with its current use as a boogieman/illuminati incarnet. You could easily switch patriarchy with illuminati and it still works.[/QUOTE]
But, it's practically only used as an "illuminati" by non-feminists. That was the point I was making.
I don't really understand what you're trying to get across.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46385126]Plenty of kids get diagnosed with autism or similar and put on meds for being kids. Then there are people who suffer from stress and instead get diagnosed with depression and get prescribed anti-depressants.
Numbers are numbers, they stack up.[/QUOTE]
Kids don't get diagnosed with autism for "being kids". There is a indepth series of tests done by doctors and a speech therapist that is used to diagnose autism.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;46384765]This would seem like a reasonable explanation, by why have rates in male illness been ramping up to extreme levels in the last century? It's implausible that male genetics have been getting more violent in the last century, we don't evolve that quickly, so what aspects of human culture and conditioning are causing men to be driven insane? Isn't it even slightly possible those aspects of human culture are closely intertwined with unreasonable expectations and peer pressure for masculinity in society?[/QUOTE]
Those are baseless and useless questions. There are tons of things that have fundamentally changed in our society over the years since 1900, here's a small list:
1) Secularization both of daily life and education
2) Throwing away ideas like inherent human worth (Peter Singer, the eugenics movement as represented by people like Margaret Sanger, etc.)
3) The "self-esteem" craze of the 80's and 90's
etc. etc. etc.
Are you honestly telling me that a society that idolized Theodore Roosevelt (probably one of the most "masculine" of men ever to live in public life) was less masculinized than today's culture? You can't point to one single vague change and say that it probably caused a very specific statistic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
