• Feminists Everywhere React To Beyonce's Latest
    280 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43255927]i didn't read any of this but i need to ask why does feminism strike such a chord with facepunch? there's a couple of things that cause "shitstorms" on fp and that's guns and feminism i remember the good old days when it was just dumb country and join date elitism[/QUOTE] feminism threatens the comfort of gender conformity(for those who conform). people are understandably resistant and hostile to ideas that challenge the identity and culture that they have grown accustomed to.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43255992]Facepunch was much more oriented on gaming and GD in the olden days, I stalked around long before I joined and I remembered seeing not one shitstorm relating to some controversial thing. It was all internal "politics", or babby infighting. SH had a fuckton less regulars and viewers than it does now, too, so there's that.[/QUOTE] yeah i know this but it would appear that as the years have gone by the forum has gotten substantially more conservative
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43256055]yeah i know this but it would appear that as the years have gone by the forum has gotten substantially more conservative[/QUOTE] to me it feels like a much more liberal part of the community has almost 'challenged' the conservative population in a way, and made it much much more prominent
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43256055]yeah i know this but it would appear that as the years have gone by the forum has gotten substantially more conservative[/QUOTE] it's still mostly "progressive" or "social democrat", but even relatively left individuals can be rather conservative regarding things like gender, race, etc. there are still tons of anarchists who hate feminism, and anarchism is about as far left as you can get.
well, not really as a whole. just FT/SH.
Glad to see Frank Ocean getting more collabs with big names, got kanye, jay z, John mayer, and beyonce in the same year (great feature on earl too)! Also beyonce is tight all the single ladies is my jam
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43256055]yeah i know this but it would appear that as the years have gone by the forum has gotten substantially more conservative[/QUOTE] I don't see that as a problem, personally, I'd say the forum was more apathetic to politics in general before, say, around 2009. Over the years the forum has gotten more politicized users on both sides as it got more popular, and then SH came around, and grew in popularity, and then pop pop pop, came in the controversial threads. And then it all started. [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=.Lain;43256092]well, not really as a whole. just FT/SH.[/QUOTE] Fast Threads is tame compared to SH outside of the stupid picture thread and is overall a million times nicer and less abrasive. Even Mass Debate goes by smoother and with less vitriol than this sub-forum.
[QUOTE=.Lain;43256081]to me it feels like a much more liberal part of the community has almost 'challenged' the conservative population in a way, and made it much much more prominent[/QUOTE] i think it has to do more with the fact that individuals are complex and capable of simultaneously holding conservative, liberal, libertarian, and socialist views. threads about homophobia tend to be unanimous in condemnation. threads about anti-capitalism tend to get a sympathetic ear from most users. threads about feminism end up really divided.
Feminism is just encouraging equality between sexes, it shouldn't be a big deal if someone is a feminist because by this day and age we all should be. The problem with feminism is those who believe it means to empower women over men, which is quite ironic, and not true at all.
[QUOTE=Badballer;43256127]Feminism is just encouraging equality between sexes, it shouldn't be a big deal if someone is a feminist because by this day and age we all should be. The problem with feminism is those who believe it means to empower women over men, which is quite ironic, and not true at all.[/QUOTE] the problem is that feminism is a broad term. there is a lot of differing theory and academia relating to feminism. anyone who believes in equality between sexes is feminist, but some feminists have a different analysis and methodology. radical feminists are usually painted as the people who want to empower women over men, which is quite ironic considering the most radical feminists want a complete disassembly of gender roles in society.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43256125]i think it has to do more with the fact that individuals are complex and capable of simultaneously holding conservative, liberal, libertarian, and socialist views. threads about homophobia tend to be unanimous in condemnation. threads about anti-capitalism tend to get a sympathetic ear from most users. threads about feminism end up really divided.[/QUOTE] i mean in relation to the topics facepunch likes to talk about. feminism, war, weapons, abuse and sexual issues. it's nice that you think SH is unanimous when it comes to homophobia, but they're really not. a surprising amount of people come out of the woodworks and do their best to let people know they're homophobic. same can be said almost every other topic posted about in sensationalist headlines [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43256155]the problem is that feminism is a broad term. there is a lot of differing theory and academia relating to feminism. anyone who believes in equality between sexes is feminist, but some feminists have a different analysis and methodology. radical feminists are usually painted as the people who want to empower women over men, which is quite ironic considering the most radical feminists want a complete disassembly of gender roles in society.[/QUOTE] those people see wanting to get rid of gender roles as wanting to empower women over men, that's the problem.
The way I see it is that it's just two sides misinterpreting each other, most of the time it's on purpose or a sub-conscious thing.
[QUOTE=.Lain;43256166]those people see wanting to get rid of gender roles as wanting to empower women over men, that's the problem.[/QUOTE] that's contradictory and obviously not logical to almost anyone. once you explain that it isn't just about empowering women, but getting rid of gender roles, [i]then[/i] you can have a more productive conversation about whether getting rid of gender roles is beneficial or even possible. however, that has to be established in the consciousness of our culture. that's hard when media likes to paint feminism(esp. radical feminism) as a movement of women trying to dominate men. [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=.Lain;43256166]i mean in relation to the topics facepunch likes to talk about. feminism, war, weapons, abuse and sexual issues. it's nice that you think SH is unanimous when it comes to homophobia, but they're really not. a surprising amount of people come out of the woodworks and do their best to let people know they're homophobic. same can be said almost every other topic posted about in sensationalist headlines [/QUOTE] there's always that one person in ever thread regarding lgbt but for the most part that person is shunned. it's a near unanimous position to condemn homophobia, at least among posters.
more than that 'one person'. there are also varying degrees of homophobia in those kinds of threads, and people that aren't as public about it
[QUOTE=.Lain;43256264]more than that 'one person'. there are also varying degrees of homophobia in those kinds of threads, and people that aren't as public about it[/QUOTE] very little. little enough that i feel comfortable saying that there is a general consensus among sh posters.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43250770]Maybe I'm wrong but; I feel in this generation we should be coming closer together, uniting, disregarding differences and learning to function as one humanity. I feel as though these recently arising groups with 'boxed ideals' don't really have much point to them other than giving people a "Oh yeah, well I'm X and Y" to associate with - which creates more division for the purpose of dividing, irrespective of whether what actually happens is related to the groups ideals or just perceived to be. It's like, if you want to acknowledge independence or whatever, fall back on real independence - that you were born, and will die, completely alone in the world. And so does everyone else. So that should be a uniting factor. Anything added to that just creates more division. And then spend your time doing something that contributes to humanity as a whole.[/QUOTE] Feminism is about that, they aren't fighting against men, they are fighting for the removal of attitudes that put them at a lower place in society. When you actually read proper feminist works, a lot of the things they say makes a decent amount of sense, there's a lot of things in society that negatively impact women that are OK, but doing that to men is seen as a bad thing to do. "I feel in this generation we should be coming closer together, uniting, disregarding differences and learning to function as one humanity." That is what real world feminism is about, fuck that tumblr bullshit. For the record I'm a dude. [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] Anyone who says that they want women to be greater than men is a shithead, that's not what it's about. Patriarchy hurts men too, and there are numerous times where feminists will actually help men out, for instance custody cases, the fact that women win more is because they are traditionally viewed as housewives and the ones who stay at home with the kids, thats something that feminism tackles because it hurts mens access to their kids and womens access to the workforce.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43256155]the problem is that feminism is a broad term. there is a lot of differing theory and academia relating to feminism. anyone who believes in equality between sexes is feminist, but some feminists have a different analysis and methodology. radical feminists are usually painted as the people who want to empower women over men, which is quite ironic considering the most radical feminists want a complete disassembly of gender roles in society.[/QUOTE] Well personally, I was never really worried about Amazonian feminists sending me to the breeding plant and creating a matriarchy. But I get the impression that some feminists want to try to pin every social problem they can on misogyny because it makes them feel like they're part of a more important movement.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43256278]very little. little enough that i feel comfortable saying that there is a general consensus among sh posters.[/QUOTE] i don't really know what threads you're reading, because i still see it as a worrying amount but whatever idc
[QUOTE=.Lain;43256264]more than that 'one person'. there are also varying degrees of homophobia in those kinds of threads, and people that aren't as public about it[/QUOTE] i think the thing is that some of them support homophobic policies or thoughts but they're not all homophobic, or at least not as much as you would expect. like, a lot of people who are very openly gay still hate Pride because they think it draws unnecessary attention to the issue or whatever, even though, if the parades were banned (like a fair few such people suggest), then that would be bad for gays as a whole. so it's pretty much don't be [I]openly[/I] homophobic because that's too obvious, but if you can hide it or internalize it then you're more or less good 2 go
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43256362]Well personally, I was never really worried about Amazonian feminists sending me to the breeding plant and creating a matriarchy. But I get the impression that some feminists want to try to pin every social problem they can on misogyny because it makes them feel like they're part of a more important movement.[/QUOTE] What is more important than the oppression of half the world by the other half I guess in plain numbers you could say Europe+The USA is oppressing the rest of the world resulting in more people oppressed than there are women in the world
oh hey the shitstorm started without me. Just because you're racist and sexist against a different group than the others doesn't mean you're not racist and sexist
[QUOTE=person11;43256697]What is more important than the oppression of half the world by the other half I guess in plain numbers you could say Europe+The USA is oppressing the rest of the world resulting in more people oppressed than there are women in the world[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, forgot to complain about the ridiculous hyperbolic language.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43256748]Oh yeah, forgot to complain about the ridiculous hyperbolic language.[/QUOTE] Where is the hyperbole in the statement. In almost every society in the world, men oppress women. Women are half the population of the world, and men are the other half. Therefore one half the of world oppresses the other half. Depending on how you want to define what the most important human rights issue, one could say it is the most important one. I based my assertion based off the fact that 3 billion people and 50% of the population of the world (actually more since there are more women than men, meaning literally most people who exist) may be the largest oppressed group in the world. I then posited that someone could make the argument that rich western countries are oppressing poor countries (Gramscian theory?), which would result in an oppressed group larger than 3 billion people. Of course, all of this depends on if you consider the most important issue the one that concerns the well bring of the most people.
[QUOTE=person11;43256768]Where is the hyperbole in the statement. In almost every society in the world, men oppress women. Women are half the population of the world, and men are the other half. Therefore one half the of world oppresses the other half. Depending on how you want to define what the most important human rights issue, one could say it is the most important one. I based my assertion based off the fact that 3 billion people and 50% of the population of the world (actually more since there are more women than men, meaning literally most people who exist) may be the largest oppressed group in the world. I then posited that someone could make the argument that rich western countries are oppressing poor countries (Gramscian theory?), which would result in an oppressed group larger than 3 billion people. Of course, all of this depends on if you consider the most important issue the one that concerns the well bring of the most people.[/QUOTE] "Oppression" kind of loses it's effect when it can mean anything from being stoned for adultery to the female Angry Bird being pink.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43256800]"Oppression" kind of loses it's effect when it can mean anything from being stoned for adultery to the female Angry Bird being pink.[/QUOTE] It is foolish to think that pink angry bird is the only thing women face in western countries It's only an infinitely small part of it. Oppression against women is very much common in nearly every country in the world, even if in wildly different forms. I don't have much time, but there is also the fact that seemingly innocuous representations of women in the media, including iphone games, directly lead to behavior towards women, meaning the representation of women as other actually does have an effect on women's safety. Have you even look at any statistics about how women are treated in the United States? It is better in Europe but not by much. Only Scandinavian countries seem to get it somewhat right. Please learn something for once.
[QUOTE=person11;43256820]You are a fool if you think the pink angry bird is the only thing women face in western countries It's only an infinitely small part of it Have you even look at any statistics about how women are treated in the United States? It is better in Europe but not by much. Only Scandinavian countries seem to get it somewhat right. Please learn something for once. so much for not insulting people[/QUOTE] I'm not denying men are still better off on average. But compared to the suffering caused by being poor, gay, or even a racial minority? I'd much rather concentrate on the worst "oppression" even if it's felt by the fewest.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43256954]I'm not denying men are still better off on average. But compared to the suffering caused by being poor, gay, or even a racial minority? I'd much rather concentrate on the worst "oppression" even if it's felt by the fewest.[/QUOTE] That's a much better point. Trans* people face much worse oppression than women do pretty much everywhere. Besides that, issues of race, sexual orientation, and wealth also figure into feminist issues. A poor black woman is much more likely to be murdered than a rich white woman, etc. Black women between 15-24 have homocide as the second most common way to die. For white women it's the 4th most common. The comparison matters but it is also scary that it is so high on the list for both groups... But yeah, the ideal feminism is one that recognizes race, wealth, and sexual orientation. There are lots of examples of feminists that do not actually care for those other issues (the Lena Dunham/Lily Allen effect), which is why many non-white women are moving to radical feminism now. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Actually there is a huge intersect between anarchy and radical feminism, though radfems rarely want to deal with manarchists. Both want to overthrow parts of our society that most people consider natural. Liberals want to fix capitalism while anarchists see it as fundamentally wrong and want to end it, and liberals want to fix gender roles, while radical feminists want to abolish gender entirely because they see it as fundamentally wrong.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43253828]why would i come in and shit up a thread that is [I]positive[/I] about feminism? i only argue in feminism threads when the other side is making hilariously awful and insulting generalizations, is flat out wrong (feminism isn't equal rights!), threads where people are laughing their asses off making fun of somebody for no good reason, or something else like that. this thread is great. i love beyonce.[/QUOTE] I don't wanna start with this again, especially considering there already a shitstorm going on, but I remember 2 threads about "feminism IS equal rights!", you started a shitstorm on both and then you got on your high horse, telling everyone to get themselves checked and talking about how well adequated you were, and generally acting pretentious. That's why everyone puts you on those kind of lists.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;43256954]I'm not denying men are still better off on average. But compared to the suffering caused by being poor, gay, or even a racial minority? I'd much rather concentrate on the worst "oppression" even if it's felt by the fewest.[/QUOTE] on an internet forum theres absolutely no need nor reason to play the "whos worse off" game. oppression is felt in one way somewhere, and is felt another way somewhere else. the entire basis of being progressive or being left in any way is ending that oppression.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43255417]domestic violence, violent crime, rape, sports, politics, and all the statistics that pertain to these things, show that men are expected to act violently and competitively. there is a superficial idea of "respecting women" or that "men aren't supposed to hit women", but if that were truly a core part of our culture then rape and domestic violence wouldn't be primarily things committed by men against women. to say that we are not expected to be in constant physical struggle with everything and everyone around them is simply ignoring what is there.[/QUOTE] You are basing your arguments on unfounded stereotypes. [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/]In non-reciprocal heterosexual domestic violence, women are two and a half times more likely to be the abuser[/url]. [url=http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf#page=30]Men are "forced to penetrate"* at almost the same rate as women are "raped"*[/url]. *As defined [url=http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf#page=27]here[/url].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.