|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
posted July 22, 2014 06:17 PM |
|
|
oh wow. I've been on leave from this thread for several days and my words has been taken out of context.
First of all, the part where I said "the boys happen to be smarter" was in reference to meroe saying she's oppressed because the boys were chosen to continue their studies in the field.
I didn't say boys are smarter as a gender. I said, these specific boys could be smarter than meroe. That is to analyze why these specific boys were chosen to continue their studies and not meroe.
sorry if I wasn't careful enough with my words. I don't care about political correctness. But I guess that's on me now is it.. 
With that being said, let's continue forward. I think that deserves a separate post since it's what the opposite side is targeting on.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 07:14 PM |
|
|
Lexxan said:
JJ, you're a smart man, but you're wasting your breath here. Emo has a track record of trolling that literally goes beyond counting. As an addendum to this statement, here's this:
http://i.imgur.com/i2rH32k.png
(ed: couldn't resist  )
This is ONE of his... what's it... 20-25 accounts? All on ONE subboard, all roughly talking about the same subject (Feminism Is Evil, Men Are Better Than Women, etc) flooding and spamming and yanking the gaslight up to eleven when he isn't fed attention or when outright flamed. Minsc's [minature giant space] hamster walks in circles, emo talks in them. It's not *WORTH IT* -- Jerri Manthey.
and now On-Topic (warning: presumably utopean rant incoming)
Feminism, meh. I don't really care about it or its male counterpart (Masculinism), mostly because I approve of the present-day gender values in Belgian Society. The men and women are equal to the law, women are generally treated with respect and given the opportunities to pursue whatever carreer paths they want to follow.
Discrimination and bigotry have always existed and, as much as I hate to admit that, it shall always exist. There's little we can do to change that. Feminism, much like anti-racism and anti-homophobia, is in itself a whip to raise conscieousness about the newest social evolutions. A society, much like every ecosystem in nature, is in a constant state of change and certain action groups (informally refered to as "Social Justice Warriors") keep us aware of these changes. (Whether you accept/follow them is entirely up to you)
Do feminists exaggerate? I suppose some do, what of it? Hard-core feminism can be described as anti-male fundamentalism, but in a democratic society such as ours, such opinions ought to be allowed as long as they aren't used to cause harm to those of contrasting views. Fundamentalism in any form can be dangerous but again, there's little you can do against it before it is too late. If you disagree with this, you can always keep your fingers crossed your country morphs into an Orwellian autocracy that is willing to outlaw all forms of crimethink. In the mean time, my advice would be to "deal with it".
No, I feel it's inherently wrong to try and force people into an opinion (though you can always try to convince others of your viewpoints). The way we can get all forms of bigotry (sexism being one of them) is by starting with ourselves.
Imo, the best way to truly counter sexism requires a few steps.
The first is to accept that men and women ARE different. Biologically, but also personality-wise.
The second is to accept that there's nothing wrong with these differences.
The third is to accept that there's nothing wrong with anything that deviates from the social norm - ie: it's okay to be gay, it's okay to be transgendered, it's okay to pursue a carreer in a job socially linked to the opposite sex, etc.
Finally, there is a Step Zero that everyone imo should take regardless: open your mind and try to understand anything you're either unfamiliar or misunderstanding about. Narrowmindedness is perhaps the biggest of all evils and it would not be bad if we all just worked on trying to find out what makes other people tick. Empathic thinking isn't a given for everyone (including myself) but if well all make the attempt, then we'll be able to minimize the impact of discrimination and bigotry on anyone that dares to not behave to society's norms and make the world a better place.
I have two reactions:
1. Wait, you're the Lexxan I knew from Sucks?! 
and
2. You're not a feminist?
Those are actually very good points. I feel intellectually inferior right now seeing you make a very intellectual post.
I know you'll just ignore me but it's worth a shot.
What do you think about New Zealand's newly imposed law: a person accused of rape (not rapist, just accused) has to prove himself innocent if proven that he's had sexual contact with a woman.
This means that if they had sex, with consent and the woman regretted it, she can send him to jail right away.
I don't know in New Zealand but with almost no evidence, if a man is accused of rape, he's already guilty. One of my friends was accused of rape and he needed a snowload of evidence to prove himself innocent.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 07:37 PM |
|
|
I tend to like women more than men. That does not make me a feminist.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 07:41 PM |
|
|
Lexxan said:
I tend to like women more than men. That does not make me a feminist.
I guess not. I assumed most of Sucks were feminists because they called me sexist for liking men more than women.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 23, 2014 12:57 AM |
|
|
Please don't bring your apparent baggage from another forum here and use it to drag threads off topic. Thanks.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 04:39 AM |
|
|
^ sorry about that.
Anyway, I was looking at some comments about feminism in youtube and I found this.
It's very beautifully said.
Karen Straughan said:
"What about the men?" is a pertinent question to ask whenever someone is positing that women are particular targets of [violence, sexist expectations, contempt, insert phenomenon here]. One cannot claim that, say, people of color are particularly targeted by "stop and frisk" policies without comparing them to another demographic (say, whites). When we do take an honest look at the data--that is, how many POC vs whites are stopped and frisked, and measure that against the proportions of POC and whites in the general population, we come to the inevitable conclusion that POC are WAY more at risk of being stopped and frisked just walking down the street. (Incidentally, breaking down the data in the exact same way, we'll find that men are WAY more at risk of SAF than women. Just FYI.)
Feminism's refusal to address the question "what about the men?" led to the Duluth model of domestic violence--the most widely used model in the world regarding enforcement, prevention and treatment, even though it is the least common form of DV. It led them to conclude that DV is a male-on-female crime caused by "patriarchy" when in reality men are about as likely to be victims of nearly all aspects of DV: partner assault, emotional abuse, coercion, reproductive coercion, and controlling behaviors; and when in reality abuse in childhood (suffered or witnessed), drug/alcohol problems, poverty and mental illness are the primary causes.
It led feminists to perpetuate this model and solidify it in the public consciousness to the point where people aren't shocked when they see a poster with a 12 year old boy with the caption "When I grow up, I'll beat my wife" or an even younger girl with the caption "When I grow up, my husband will kill me." It led feminists to somehow create a cultural understanding that domestic violence is synonymous with violence against women.
An amazing thing happens when one asks "what about the men?" One finds that domestic violence is not a gendered problem where women suffer most. One finds that sexual violence and coercion is not a gendered problem where women suffer most. One finds that the pay gap exists because women feel free to prioritize as they like regarding their careers, perhaps even more than men do. One finds that for every one woman who is a victim of violence, 2-4 men are. One finds that both men and women are more likely to assault a man than a woman. One finds that women, in fact, are the least likely demographic to be assaulted--even when we include children.
And then once one internalizes all these things, as a woman, one discovers that life is pretty good for women, comparatively. Sure, there are fewer women than men in congress, but there are also fewer women than men who are homeless and sleeping rough, or wrongfully convicted for a crime, or forced to support a child they never wanted, or prevented from seeing the children they did want. One discovers that for every woman who angsts about her weight, there's a man who angsts about not earning enough money to be attractive to women, or not having a six-pack, or going bald, or being too nerdy. One discovers that women have less need to be fearful walking to their car than men do, and that society telling her she has more need in spite of that is a measure of how much society cares about her, not how much it hates her.
And at that point, if a woman has really internalized these facts, a miracle happens. She ceases to consider herself a helpless victim of an oppressive system designed to disadvantage her and privilege others, and she starts to actually enjoy life. A sense of contentment comes over her to replace the anger, resentment and fear that previously consumed her. She begins to see the men around her not as potential rapists, or the enemy, or privileged snows who unfairly benefit from a system designed to keep her down, but her fellow travellers through a life that's always, always too short, and especially too short to waste making herself miserable complaining about things that were never true in the first place.
The veil drops from her eyes, the chip falls off her shoulder, and all of a sudden she's free.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 06:06 AM |
|
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 07:37 AM |
|
|
typical feminist behavior. Not only did Naomi get most of the talk time, everytime Karen talks, the moderator tries to stop her or something.
what's your opinion on that video artu?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 08:19 AM |
|
|
1- Nobody, including Karen Straughan objects to the notion of equality for women under law, norms, opportunity. And that is what the basic struggle of feminism is.
2- As I also pointed out, there are many sects of feminism and this becomes an issue many times, people get lost in the details of one lobby or one Era, so the question of "which feminism" dominates the debate a lot.
3- It's not a debate where one participant crushes the other into pieces. They all come with interesting points from time to time, although they can ALL become quite shallow too, sometimes, especially when it comes to matters of social class. I guess, that's partly from the inherited fear of leftism of US, from the Cold War Era or maybe it's because the hosts are libertarians. For example, while equality in wages is on the table, someone from the audience suggests all workers should negotiate their wages individually. That is not only impossible on a practical level for reasons of population, someone from the working class will never have that kind of negotiating power anyway. They can change that a little by organizing and with unions but then, noooo, they'll be authoritarian commies, wont they!
4- The BIGGER PICTURE is when Naomi Wolf describes how things were so different even in her time and how her daughter has so many more options now. That's why I respect and support feminism.
5- Karen Straughan sometimes hit interesting points but there are times her logic is simply flawed and twisted, to be more precise, socially shallow. She gives an example from the pre-industrial/early industrial era, saying man were punished by law if they beat their wives but if the wife did the same, folks got together and humiliated the husband on top of that, so men had it worse. Actually, it doesn't mean that. Put aside the fact that such laws mostly remained on paper, it simply means that a wife beating her husband was something seen so seldom, the husband was treated like a circus freak and alienated from society. If you step on the grass, you'll pay a fine, if you get down on your knees and start to french-kiss the grass, there's no fine for it cause you're a freak, you will be humiliated.
6- Overall, it was interesting to watch. Of course, some of the issues felt too local to me not being an American.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 08:47 AM |
|
|
I think, I'm going to be radical and say - again, mind you, and that's somewhat the gist of the debate as well, if you leave out Karen - that a lot, if most or even all problems we have at this time are residues from the fact that state and constitution, laws, justice, politics, the whole legal foundation of our society is based on male ideas.
The RULES OF PLAY are still male - which doesn't mean, they are in favor of males at this point. It means that the SPIRIT of the foundation of our society is male or based on male ideas, respectively.
The thing to keep in mind here is, that women - who NOW have the means to bring in theirs and also are allowed to - would have DIFFERENT focal points and issues than men in that regard. If you'd strip men of their voting rights and confine them to kitchen and children, letting only women make laws and politics and redefine the foundations, things would very probably look quite different.
So while feminism in the past would seem to have been about leveling the playfield and getting even, NOW the focus is on changing the rulework, obviously. Letting female spirit flow into the foundations of society.
Which is, what this world needs, frankly. For our own good.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 09:10 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 09:17, 25 Jul 2014.
|
I've been reading all that feminist crap about ephemeral ”equality” explained as raising solely women’s rights without rebalancing the men’s rights and/or raising responsibilities for women (because they cannot go without rights), and decided to put my 2 cents to the arguments why it is not so easy. No, it’s not another trolling or twisting the facts, neither it is a close-minded sexist arguments. It is reality in Russia, the strongly patriarchal country. Again I note, that Russia is a patriarchal country to the core.
- Men who have long hair are prejudiced by the society, they cannot attend serious jobs like business companies. They have to cut the hair or seek for another job. Women are allowed to have either long or short hair, excluding the shaved head/bald head (but men’s shaved head is also inacceptable on serious jobs, and bald head mostly too). Yes, men are more tolerated to have bald head because they just suffer from alopecia (baldness), it is testosterone and nature itself. As well as women’s lower physical strength. The prejudice about women’s bald head exists, it is true, but not so many women need it since they don’t suffer from the alopecia. Women who shave the head for some reason don’t give a snow about prejudices anyway. Moreover, if it is related to cancer treatment, there is no prejudice.
In addition, the bullies often like oppressing long-haired men, as well as the big piece of society which is not educated enough. The prejudices against such men (I have long hair too btw) is really strong, and this comes from the Soviet times when long hair for men was considered as rebel sentiment against the existing rules or dress code. Or the rock music/hippie culture.
- Men are obliged to remove headgear indoors. Having headgear worn up indoors is considered vulgar for men. Women are allowed to wear it.
- Crying of pain or emotional shock is considered shame for men of all ages, while we experience the same pain.
- Boys who are not able to get a girl or attract her attention are considered as losers by another boys and girls nonetheless. Thus, the girls are the key factor for society’s opinion on young men. You cannot deny that the reverse situation is more rare.
- After the divorce, the chance for men to get the children are practically null. If the man gets the children, there should be a way serious reason for that, like the mother’s death or proven incompetence (alcohol, violence). Should I note that things like violence and alcohol are not so easy to prove in Russian society?
- Judging the husband of his mistakes and fails is normal for wives. While the reverse situation is not tolerated – if the wife will complain about it, she will be always believed more than the husband. This comes from an ancient rule “don’t hurt the girls” and “be gentle to the girls”, which is blindly put into boys’ heads since their very childhood. Thus we see that a new generation of feminine boys is grown, the boys who cannot argue with their girls because they must be gentle and “manly”, as the girls describe. Unfortunately, we in Russia have two common scenarios – “the henpecked husband” and “the uneducated piece of snow instead of a husband who beats his wife”. Scenarios of a normal family when a man has rights and a woman has rights and they esteem each other’s rights is kinda rare, that is why so many divorces and children not having fathers.
- If a man is beaten by a woman, he must keep his mouth shut and tolerate this. Otherwise he will be considered as a wimp and a low-character snowhead, who is complaining on women. But actually this case doesn’t always work.
I could write more arguments, but I’m currently at work. I won’t write women’s affected rights because you all already know them (and their list would be bigger of course), I just want to enlighten you on the true balance between man’s rights and women’s rights.
So to sum up, what I wanted to say: there is no situation when only women’s rights are affected. The true balance between rights is lying somewhere between. That is why all mantras about “we struggle for equality, but we care only about women’s rights because women are more oppressed than men” sound like a childish statement about “You are fool!” – “No, you are a bigger fool, and thus you’re the only fool here!”
Have a nice day HC.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 09:35 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:39, 25 Jul 2014.
|
Orzie, some of those things you list are so flimsy they actually harm your argument as a whole: Not being able to wear headgear indoors! I mean, come on... That's like a woman saying "we cant show our breasts but you can" or something.
Quote:
Boys who are not able to get a girl or attract her attention are considered as losers by another boys and girls nonetheless. Thus, the girls are the key factor for society’s opinion on young men. You cannot deny that the reverse situation is more rare.
This is plain wrong. You are thinking of HOT GIRLS. If a girl is ugly or fat, it's a much bigger stigma than being an ugly man.
Orzie said:
That is why all mantras about “we struggle for equality, but we feminists care only more about women’s rights because women are more oppressed than men” sound like a childish statement
Orzie said:
I won’t write women’s affected rights because you all already know them (and their list would be bigger of course)
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 09:39 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 09:50, 25 Jul 2014.
|
Men who walk among the streets with a naked torso must also be judged for that. It annoys even in case when the man is muscular - one way or another.
And yeah, your fixes while quoting me are wrong. Please show me the evidence when feminists care more about women's right instead of caring only about women's rights. I see the opposite around me.
Quote:
Not being able to wear headgear indoors! I mean, come on... That's like a woman saying "we cant show our breasts but you can" or something.
I am deeply sorry, but it is bullsnow. Sometimes I just don't feel necessary to wear off the headgear, either I'm lazy or don't need people to see what do I have on my head. And I am oppressed for that.
Stop thinking that I don't realize that women's rights are oppressed. You must have been really inattentive to my messages if you formed such opinion. My message is that the definition of equality given by feminists is lame. Or their way to the desired equality is lame and one-sided. I start suspecting that Fred was right about you.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 09:52 AM |
|
|
|
Even without the fix, the contradiction is there. The headgear thing would be called a discomfort at best, not oppression. I mean, if you wont take my word for it, fine. Just go and tell your friends around that you feel oppressed because of having to take off your headgear indoors and then examine the look on their faces.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 09:56 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 09:58, 25 Jul 2014.
|
It might be the language barrier. Of course the headgear is not so hurting as banning women from elections. But it is one small fact, which is included to a ton of other small facts which form the general disbalance. You underestimate the power of small facts. They form the public opinion on many, many topics, which can seem unrelated to each other by the first look. Or do you consider oppression only the facts which are obvious as snow and can be easily named by single word?
And yeah, you decided to ignore the more important arguments about female domination in families, which is a real problem in Russia (and I guess many other countries), telling that the questionable headgear argument ruins my whole post. Nice job artu. You have proven my expectations.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 10:00 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:05, 25 Jul 2014.
|
The difference between oppression and discomfort is the magnitude, of course.
I didnt ignore them, I just didnt object to them and said the flimsy ones harm your argument as a whole. Double standards during divorce regarding child custody can be an actual problem, although it might also be that usually the father prefers the kids to stay with the mother, too.
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 10:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Men are obliged to remove headgear indoors. Having headgear worn up indoors is considered vulgar for men. Women are allowed to wear it.
you'd be dissed for being a jew if you wear a cap indoors. There are also high antisemitism present
most dissing of long haired dudes comes from the prison culture, where fake adidas/nike wearing losers try and live by the prison code, even though they've never been in the slammer.
most of things Orzie said, applies here as well. because you know, former USSR.
one douche politician went as far as trying to outlaw heavy metal. which to say, hadn't worked at all.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 10:07 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 10:08, 25 Jul 2014.
|
|
By the way I would like to state some interesting things about heavy metal oppression in Russia in the recent time, but I guess, in another topic. We have got a load of serious crap related to radical religious activists lately. Some scandals with Behemoth, Marilyn Manson included.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 10:31 AM |
|
|
Orzie, don't you see that virtually all "problems" you describe, are basically a residual consequence of the fact that everything considered typically FEMALE has been also considered INFERIOR, with MALES showing that behavior being considered not only being inferior, but also being an inferior role model, hurting the males as a whole?
Of course, in reverse it's different: if a female is showing MALE behavior, she's straining to play in a better league. This is tolerated - even rewarded-, because everyone knows, if push comes to shove the REAL males cannot be beaten by females in their own game. While every woman playing the male game solidifies the game rules.
The specific problem of Russia is, that communism gave women equal rights, equal wages and equal chances, but kept the basic patriarchal structures due to the theory, that all gender-related inequalities would disappear automatically when capitalism would disappear.
That makes Russia a country where "double-think" is the rule, when it comes to gender questions.
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 10:35 AM |
|
|
JJ is actually right. there was no such thing as feminism in the USSR. both men and women equally slaved away in the communal farms. amongst other things.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
| |
|
|
