[QUOTE=sgman91;46385727]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.[/QUOTE]
while I agree with your point, I would disagree that life is considered to have less value nowadays than it did in the past
I think the anti-war movement is a perfect example of the value of life increasing over time. The fact that eugenics was practiced and then almost universally abolished is another.
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
I think a more interesting point is the emergence of mass shootings as a tool to gain an international stage.
If you see yourself as an anti-hero fighting against the world and the news has made it clear that they'll give you 24/7 news coverage and an international stage if you kill enough people in an interesting enough way, what more incentive would you need?
Maybe more men commit mass shootings not because men are particularly predisposed to doing so, but because that particular kind of person is continually popularized for that particular kind of action by the news. Like a feedback loop sort of thing. "If anyone else out there thinks the way Elliot Roger did, you better not go on a violent rampage or we'll make sure to give you a nickname and plaster your face on every television in the country too!"
Another point to consider is whether or not those statistics take into account gang related violence. I don't think anyone would argue that the Crips don't have different expectations for men and women.
[QUOTE=Valnar;46385196]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]
What I'm trying to get across is no, people who call themselves feminists actually use it the same way as conspiracy theoriests use illuminati.
I'm a former conspiracy theorist, I've seen how wording and everything is key and the way patriarchy is used now is very very reminiscent of the conspiracy theories and how they're written. Its used in this form by both anti-feminists and feminists.
Combine this with the fact that the word is used to hell and back and no one seems to want to explain it, you're left with a word being used for trite reasons.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46384701]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]
If you put misoginy simply under hatred of women, then objectification and sexualisation of women isn't misoginy. All these topics like damsel in distress which show women in an inferior light aren't hating them either, so they are also not misoginy under your definition. Which would lead to several things not being misoginy like catcalling or bad pickup lines. Trying to get into the pants of a woman isn't about hating women. Even rape might not fall under misoginy if it wasn't about displaying power over someone, but simply getting off.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46385912]What I'm trying to get across is no, people who call themselves feminists actually use it the same way as conspiracy theoriests use illuminati.
I'm a former conspiracy theorist, I've seen how wording and everything is key and the way patriarchy is used now is very very reminiscent of the conspiracy theories and how they're written. Its used in this form by both anti-feminists and feminists.
Combine this with the fact that the word is used to hell and back and no one seems to want to explain it, you're left with a word being used for trite reasons.[/QUOTE]
But Sarkeesian wasn't using like that, I wasn't using it like that. Who are the people that are actually using it like that aside from people who aren't feminists, and why exactly are they relevant to the conversation we are having right now about this subject? I don't doubt that some exist, but I doubt their relevancy.
And nobody wants to explain it?
I had just explained it, and I know that just about every time it gets mentioned here on Facepunch somebody explains it.
[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]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46380699]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]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46380787]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]
By the way for all the people who rated disagree but agreed with these, this was basically what I meant by "toxic masculinity". At the very least it's nice to see that we all agree on the same thing regardless of how difficult it is to get across sometimes.
[QUOTE=Valnar;46386098]But Sarkeesian wasn't using like that, I wasn't using it like that. Who are the people that are actually using it like that aside from people who aren't feminists, and why exactly are they relevant to the conversation we are having right now about this subject? I don't doubt that some exist, but I doubt their relevancy.
And nobody wants to explain it?
I had just explained it, and I know that just about every time it gets mentioned here on Facepunch somebody explains it.[/QUOTE]
It gets explained in 5 different definitions which conflict with eachother and than change depending on which form of feminism you're asking.
I'm not even saying Sarkesian was using it like that.
I wish people would stop playing right into the hands of these people- its really obvious she, and people like her are using feminism to deflect criticism, and everyone is making it so easy for her.
All she has to do is mention feminism and all discussion suddenly switches from whatever incorrect information shes managed to slip into an interview/post/article to a mess of posters who don't understand feminism talking about how dumb feminism is.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46385912]What I'm trying to get across is no, people who call themselves feminists actually use it the same way as conspiracy theoriests use illuminati.
I'm a former conspiracy theorist, I've seen how wording and everything is key and the way patriarchy is used now is very very reminiscent of the conspiracy theories and how they're written. Its used in this form by both anti-feminists and feminists.
Combine this with the fact that the word is used to hell and back and no one seems to want to explain it, you're left with a word being used for trite reasons.[/QUOTE]
Patriarchy has been explained in literally [I]every[/I] single thread that's related to feminism posted here. You could read a wiki page in like 15 minutes and understand it. It's not feminists or anybody else's fault that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;46386325]I wish people would stop playing right into the hands of these people- its really obvious she, and people like her are using feminism to deflect criticism, and everyone is making it so easy for her.
All she has to do is mention feminism and all discussion suddenly switches from whatever incorrect information shes managed to slip into an interview/post/article to a mess of posters who don't understand feminism talking about how dumb feminism is.[/QUOTE]
You say that, but there seem to be quite a few feminists going right along with her. Maybe not on FP where gaming is the entire reason most people are here, but throughout the university and media scene she's quite popular from I can tell.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46385912]What I'm trying to get across is no, people who call themselves feminists actually use it the same way as conspiracy theoriests use illuminati.
I'm a former conspiracy theorist, I've seen how wording and everything is key and the way patriarchy is used now is very very reminiscent of the conspiracy theories and how they're written. Its used in this form by both anti-feminists and feminists.
Combine this with the fact that the word is used to hell and back and no one seems to want to explain it, you're left with a word being used for trite reasons.[/QUOTE]
How can you honestly have issues grasping the concept of patriarchy?
It's an obvious, simple to understand thing that's explained in almost every thread about feminism yet you guys still go "why does noone explain it to me, surely it must be like the illuminati am i right".
[QUOTE=Manibogi;46388882]How can you honestly have issues grasping the concept of patriarchy?
It's an obvious, simple to understand thing that's explained in almost every thread about feminism yet you guys still go "why does noone explain it to me, surely it must be like the illuminati am i right".[/QUOTE]
It's almost like choosing a word with a connotation far exceeding it's meaning was a bad idea.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46385912]What I'm trying to get across is no, people who call themselves feminists actually use it the same way as conspiracy theoriests use illuminati.
I'm a former conspiracy theorist, I've seen how wording and everything is key and the way patriarchy is used now is very very reminiscent of the conspiracy theories and how they're written. Its used in this form by both anti-feminists and feminists.
Combine this with the fact that the word is used to hell and back and no one seems to want to explain it, you're left with a word being used for trite reasons.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm not the only one that was making this connection. "Because Patriarchy" is showing up as often as "Become Illuminati" does on conspiracy forums.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;46387250]Patriarchy has been explained in literally [I]every[/I] single thread that's related to feminism posted here. You could read a wiki page in like 15 minutes and understand it. It's not feminists or anybody else's fault that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Really? Haven't ever seen that happen, people are usually busy flaming each other to hell and back in feminism threads.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;46390187]she looks annoying[/QUOTE]
She just looks like someone with inflated ego and for a good reason too, her following rather huge.
We all hate men and women because we are taught to from a young age. The never ending fight between boys and girls goes on for ages in those who refuse to develop enough mentally to survive in the real world.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
