|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted August 15, 2014 02:13 AM |
|
|
For the sake of clearing this "pack mentality" non-sense backed up by some claims of open-mindedness, being unbiased and objectivity, it would be really time saving to remember some simple facts here:
1- There is no two fair and square sides to every topic, sometimes there is only one and sometimes there are more than a dozen. However, that doesn't necessarily mean non-sense is not among the stances. If there was a member of the flat-earth society here, all of us would disagree with his views for certain. That does not mean we are a pack, that means we don't lack common sense. Jemo had been given the opportunity to explain and justify his opinions and failed miserably to do so. We didn't lynch him or shut him up, on the contrary, people wasted quite a time replying his out of proportion comments not just one by one but over and over again. If some people can't realize the difference between logical fallacies and a valid counter-argument, that's nobody else's fault.
2- Overgeneralizing every opinion into "humanity is flawed" is not having a broader perspective or maintaining objectivity. It is only and only overgeneralizing. If I replied to every question by saying "it was able to happen because of the Big Bang" I'd be right all the time but I wouldn't be saying much in terms of relevance.It may be helpful to remember the very meaning of the word analysis here:
Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. The technique has been applied in the study of mathematics and logic since before Aristotle (384–322 B.C.).
People who are overwhelmingly disorganized in their own thinking process and who are in the habit of constantly mixing up apples and oranges should not spend their entire time blaming the rest of us for not being able to understand or having a close-mind or having a pack mentality, living in a bubble...etc, filling every thread with empty rhetoric. They are only embarrassing themselves and they are only digging into a deeper hole of misapprehension that the problem isn't the mess they produce but everybody else. Teenagers do that.
@Zenofex
The easiest way to test (at least up to a degree) if the difference is cultural/philosophical or biological is to compare many cultures through out time and see if similar perceptions exist. Doing that, I'd say, examples will reflect quite a universal basis to consider it biologically rooted, looking at how in almost all cultures women's body are more directly objectified as a sex object rather than glorified for its perfection in a more idealistic sense (as the Greeks did with male body and later the Renaissance painters and from there it goes on). Sometimes this even produces an opposite result and causes the female body to become an absolute taboo. However, this may not say much since almost all of the societies we look into will be patriarchal and the roles and norms will be determined mostly by men. Maybe a study among other higher mammals and primates, researching is there a difference between the males and females in terms of relating to their own body will give us an idea, though.
The biggest biological differences would, of course, be caused by the fact that in our group of mammals, female sexiness operates by attracting, while males fight among each other to be able to mate. But this may have many cultural consequences and in many degrees, not just one.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 03:02 AM |
|
|
artu said:
For the sake of clearing this "pack mentality" non-sense backed up by some claims of open-mindedness, being unbiased and objectivity, it would be really time saving to remember some simple facts here:
1- There is no two fair and square sides to every topic, sometimes there is only one and sometimes there are more than a dozen. However, that doesn't necessarily mean non-sense is not among the stances. If there was a member of the flat-earth society here, all of us would disagree with his views for certain. That does not mean we are a pack, that means we don't lack common sense. Jemo had been given the opportunity to explain and justify his opinions and failed miserably to do so. We didn't lynch him or shut him up, on the contrary, people wasted quite a time replying his out of proportion comments not just one by one but over and over again. If some people can't realize the difference between logical fallacies and a valid counter-argument, that's nobody else's fault.
2- Overgeneralizing every opinion into "humanity is flawed" is not having a broader perspective or maintaining objectivity. It is only and only overgeneralizing. If I replied to every question by saying "it was able to happen because of the Big Bang" I'd be right all the time but I wouldn't be saying much in terms of relevance.It may be helpful to remember the very meaning of the word analysis here:
Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. The technique has been applied in the study of mathematics and logic since before Aristotle (384–322 B.C.).
People who are overwhelmingly disorganized in their own thinking process and who are in the habit of constantly mixing up apples and oranges should not spend their entire time blaming the rest of us for not being able to understand or having a close-mind or having a pack mentality, living in a bubble...etc, filling every thread with empty rhetoric. They are only embarrassing themselves and they are only digging into a deeper hole of misapprehension that the problem isn't the mess they produce but everybody else. Teenagers do that.
you're so good at figuring me out, it's astounding, artu. you should find a way to make money from it, you're THAT good. 
on a serious note, i don't play around with complications. what i do, when i see a problem, is keep peeling away at all the layers of something until i find the root cause of the issue, and then address that. the root cause of every issue i see is always humans. but thanks for telling me that i'm right; i obviously know that, or i wouldn't be so confident.  why do you think i CONTINUE to repeat myself? trying to get it to sink in, for people who are too dense to get it the first 100 times. you can mire yourself in intricacies all you want, and indeed fight over them like all of the other people of the world who are constantly warring over this and that. people like that define what is it to be human. a bunch of toddlers at the wheel, not knowing what the hell they're doing driving that big ol' machine that is the human race. driving it straight into the ocean.
now, to get back to the subject at hand. like i said before, j-mo has made some good points. that you and many others don't see them, shows me how mired you are in your own intricacies. you let your distaste for his complete message cloud your comprehension skills. which isn't surprising, because you have done the same with me; over, and over, and over, and over...
it's sad, that you call what i post about humanity "empty rhetoric". it is only empty, because you do not have the capabilities to understand that it needs to be APPLIED to everything having to do with the human race. once you understand what i am saying, you will realize your arguments have been, are, and will always be, moot.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 03:15 AM |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, you do try to play with complications. The overgeneralization always begins when they turn out too complicated FOR YOU. Jemo's points, including the ones you agree with has all been discussed, not just by me, even Orzie whose stance can be considered relatively closest to him, could not deny the fact he was living in his own reality. What you say is empty rhetoric because you can not directly manage to justify or validate any of these points and throw around vague statements like "well, everyone has a point" "you people will never understand" etc etc. When you talked about specific details, I practically listed the inconsistency within your own arguments. You said it upsets you.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 03:31 AM |
|
|
artu, man, what is the point of bringing up anything specific with you? you'll refute it all until we all die of old age. some of you guys have become addicted to arguing. you'll do anything and everything you can to poke holes in someone's argument, but you WON'T exert the same energy to try and understand them.
sure, there was a hell of a lot of questionable and outright ludicrous material posted by jmo; but there have been a good number here who have posted stuff JUST as ludicrous regarding other topics. look at how i was attacked by you, jj, and others in the earth day thread, when every point i made had validity to it.
the point i am making HERE, is that jmo DID have valid points. because i don't RESURRECT them, which were already passed over or argued with(and quite unreasonably, i might add), my say automatically becomes invalid in the ARGUERS eyes. sure, why not.
whatever, man. this isn't even my fight. i'll let you guys hash it out.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 04:10 AM |
|
|
Not really, fred, I agreed or semi-agreed to many arguments made by reasonable posters, here and in other threads. And there were many I didn't agree to, but didn't label as utter non-sense. Also keep in mind it was not just Jemo, who was critical of feminism in this thread and I did agree to some of the criticism, especially the ones about the notion of being seen as a sex object.
I don't want to re-discuss the Earth Day thread here either but to sum it up... Nevermind, what I objected to, why I objected to... it is all there on the relevant thread itself.
And the point I am making to your point about Jemo having valid points is, do show the arguments themselves if you think they are so valid. But pick one that had not been crucially refuted by almost anybody. Draft gone, pay gap gone, prison rape gone, chivalric gestures seen as female oppression gone, historical inequality being exaggerated gone... And what's more important here is, even if you find some tiny detail where he is not completely off-track, what I kept telling him priorly was that he was cherry-picking and completely missing the bigger picture. That is not something one can "try to understand." Not to mention, even his cherry-picking was out of proportion.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 04:31 AM |
|
|
i'm not wasting my time. i saw valid points, they were argued with, others had valid points as well, and THEY were argued with.
both sides(and there WERE sides. it was jmo vs most of HC's current regulars) had valid points, period. jmo had less, but he still had valid points. i won't waste my time trying to argue a point that isn't mine. i'm doing my best to not repeat my own points. because you want to argue with me, i'm failing at that.
if anyone(including yourself) besides a choice few agreed with the valid points jmo made, i couldn't see it, through all the attacks.
the attack reminded me of this stomp scene from the movie "kids". lol, i'm not saying that jmo was either of the two that initially caused it. i'm talking about how one attacked, and then all attacked. so yeah, pack mentality. deny it all you want, i know it when i see it. just like with dd, herry(yes, i joined in, bite me), elodin, myself, etc.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 04:40 AM |
|
|
tsk tsk.. artu, I wasn't planning to reply to this thread because I'm saving up all my 20 posts to the Heroes 7 subforum but you're coming out as very bias.
I've already stated my case about the pay gap, glass ceiling and the draft. I'm only gonna list these 3 because I believe I made a very strong case for these 3. I've made a reply to smithey. After I made that reply, no one talked about it since and this thread has gone to personal attacks against me and the MRA. Then, you come here saying the draft and pay gap were successfully refuted when the truth is, you just avoided my very strong arguments.
As for prison rape, the only explanation you gave me was that they weren't counted because they are criminals, not citizens. It is your opinion, it's not a fact but I accepted that. It doesn't mean you've proven me wrong in that regard. My stand on that is that they should be counted because they are still humans but hey, that's just my opinion too.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 04:40 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:42, 15 Aug 2014.
|
@fred
DD, Elodin, herry... A convoy of stars when it comes to reasoning and validity....
I didnt say Jemo had valid points, btw. I said other people who were critical of feminism did.
@jemo
Keep on thinking they are valid Jemo, I cant explain once again if you don't understand why they are not.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 04:55 AM |
|
|
artu said:
DD, Elodin, herry... A convoy of stars when it comes to reasoning and validity....
dd was trying to find himself, just like xerox is now. only difference is, everyone jokes about xerox's political affiliations and whatnot. because dd mentioned nazi's, he was attacked for it.
elodin had many, many points that i didn't agree with, and some that i did. he was also endlessly attacked for what he believed.
herry was an easy target, because he made himself one. not his fault; he's too young to really know any better.
like i said, you and many others miss someone's essence, when you are endlessly arguing with them. their points really are moot, as well as your own, because that's not the reason i brought up the others who have been attacked by the group.
i was pointing out the pack mentality, that assaults an individual as a group.
and granted, i saw a lot of people trying to understand, but once they got locked into the argument, it was all or nothing, and there was no tag-teaming. it was a flurry of assault, from then on. there were plenty of personal attacks in every single instance of pack mentality exhibited on an individual.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 05:11 AM |
|
|
I already explained why it is not a pack mentality. And...
DD was obviously trolling in a very irritating and flooding way, Xerox is not analogous to him; he can come up with arguments although sometimes they are unrealistic, they are not trollish. Elodin was not attacked because of his beliefs but because of his persistence to ignore counter-arguments, his inconsistencies and his habit of puritanically by-passing any reasoning under the shadow of his God's "omniscience". Have you ever seen baklava or markkur getting attacked because they are Christians, they are only disagreed with. I agree that herry is just a kid but I dont think anybody seriously attacked him anyway, they were just messing around with him in the VW, as was he.
However, this is getting way off topic and I am not very comfortable talking about people who are not here anymore to defend themselves, so let's drop it, please.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 05:14 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Keep on thinking they are valid Jemo, I cant explain once again if you don't understand why they are not.
And yet, you avoid my last post about the subject matter like a plague. You're saying it's not valid without giving any explanation.
Anyway, this my last post in this thread today.
Have a nice day. ^_^
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 05:18 AM |
|
|
|
I ALREADY did that, more than once. It does not compute, I guess.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 07:05 AM |
|
|
artu said:
I ALREADY did that, more than once. It does not compute, I guess.
I am over my limit of posting in this thread for the day but I never thought you would lie directly to my face artu.
Can you give me the quote wherein you addressed the issue I replied to smithey concerning the pay gap, glass ceiling and the draft?
I wonder what excuse or blatant lie you'll post this time.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 07:34 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:42, 15 Aug 2014.
|
I can not go through 25 pages now, the draft argument had been refuted in so many aspects by mvass, dg, me, jj... I can not sincerely figure out which one of those you want me to link, it's basically so off track and so absurd at all levels, you still thinking it has some valid stance only shows the magnitude of your incapability to realize when your arguments had been already crushed. All we wrote is right in this thread, if even one more person who read this thread through, thinks I am lying, I welcome them to say so. I don't think you are aware, this is exactly what people are referring to when they mention how clueless and delusional you are.
The pay gap and glass ceiling argument had been refuted by the statistical fact (from US as you wish) that even if all conditions are the same (choice of job, education, length of work time etc) women make a 7 percent less, still. And this is a statistic that had been discussed in the Senate, it's not some internet site with a suspicious agenda.
What you presume lying is your own lack of capability to comprehend what you perceive as valid is not considered valid by a person with minimum logical standards. And what is blatant is your obsession and dislike of female presence and your inability to resist the urge making thread after thread about this. Even today, the first thing you mentioned in your new H7 thread was to get rid of the female priestess, and even your choice of words, to emphasize it as female priestess instead of just saying priestess shows how desperately fixated and mentally disordered you are about this. If you think any of your arguments are motivated by something remotely close to rationality and makes the slightest sense, I pity you.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 10:15 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:40, 15 Aug 2014.
|
DagothGares said:
I mean to say it's not a very lofty aspiration to be a victoria's secret model. And both men and women have the "oh, boy, I'd sure like to look really hot for the opposite gender," but men portrayed that way are "cool" and women portrayed that way are ... Not, if you know what I mean (yeah, they're hot!).
I don't mean to be sex-negative, in this thread. I recognise both guys and gals wanna look very pretty and sexy. It's just that I know girls that get somewhat uncomfortable when they try to get into certain games in the way that women are presented in them and I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that often guys are presented as cool aspirational characters (or interesting or funny characters) while women are objects of... cheesecake/ desire/ waifu-material.
I've never heard of a guy getting uncomfortable from seeing the portrayal of their gender in a game is my point and I've provided a pretty grounded argument for it.
I once read a review of an old game where the author was making a comparison between the male and female characters and emphasized that the female ones are 4-5 times more detailed graphically (much more polygons... yes, it was that old). As you can imagine, the game was made by men. The reason is the same as the one which makes all sorts of graphic artists depict women with perfect or nearly perfect bodies and quite often - in fairly limited and revealing clothing. When it comes to women, men think first with their dicks and then MAYBE with their brains if there is some energy left for the upper head. This is where the story begins and ends. Everything else is a byproduct.
I'll elaborate because there is a fairly high chance that the above statement will bounce off some prejudice with scripted trigger. There is no way to get rid of the sex urge, as that fella Freud will tell you. It is built in the very foundations of your being, as an animal and every attempt to deny it or forcefully suppress it based on some artificial auto-suggestion, be it religion, moral system in general or whatever, normally backfires in one direction or another. This hardly means that the human life is governed solely by the sexual urge but it certainly means that it plays a key role in it. Men treat women as sexual objects and women treat men as sexual objects - this is just nature, nothing "improper" about it.
Now, the social layer. It is on top of the biological one and is very dependent on it (and it certainly can't exist without it, imagine that). The vast majority, if not all of the social interactions between the genders have their foundations somewhere in the simple biological need to reproduce. These relationships are twisted by all sorts of historical variables, local and global, but their core remains one and the same from the times when our specie was still hanging from the trees and when the political correctness was still a crap from the far future. The fact that humans evolved into complex social animals doesn't change anything about their nature, only about the way it manifests itself. This thread (95% of which I haven't read, nor plan to) is a result of a particular type of manifestation which seems to bother certain people, for different reasons and you really seem to put too much emphasis on that manifestation and fail to see what it represents. It represents something basic and unavoidable in every human being.
In regard to the drawings of perfect-looking women in scarce clothing, the above translates like that: the men who draw them give an expression to their sexual urge. Yes, they treat women as sexual objects, which they are. The problem is not with the treatment but with how it is perceived. For most women the issue seems to consist of two parts - that they assume that they are treated only as sexual objects and that the depiction of a perfect woman often is very far from how a real, "normal" woman looks like.
For the first part - no, ladies, we don't treat you only as sexual objects but we you firstly as sexual objects. Sorry, this is how we are built. Don't be too harsh on us though, the same applies to you. The women I know pay a big attention to a man's physical attributes when they first meet him, no matter what they may pretend in public. Men are just more direct and sometimes more shameless. Under the cover of "proper" social behaviour, both men and women give a fairly extensive evaluation of the opposite individual's potential reproductive capabilities. When a man draws a woman, what do you think motivates him? Her possible brain capacity? Or how nice a person she can be? Or maybe her professional qualities as a soldier or whatever? Neither of these comes to mind, trust me. What a normal man will think of firstly will be nice tits, nice ass, beautiful face and as little of the socially-imposed obstacles (like clothes) which prevent him from having a good look at all of these adorable features as possible. Hence the result.
For the second part - the idealised woman is actually not exactly ideal because women which look as good as some of these drawings do exist in the real world. And that's a problem, because they are a minority and because they draw the male attention much more efficiently than a "normal" woman. In other words, this is another overly-twisted expression of the biologically-coded competition between the individuals for reproduction with the best possible mate. Under equal conditions men would choose the better-looking woman over the worse-looking one in almost any scenario. Of course in real life it is much more complicated but that doesn't really change the basic facts. That sucks, doesn't it? Well, ladies, you do the same. Maybe not exactly the same because of some different priorities but if you claim that you would pick a short, baldy guy with a pronounced belly over a fitness model if both of them are otherwise similar, you are just deluding yourself.
Anyway, this is getting too long already. You dig the general idea I suppose.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 11:21 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
For the first part - no, ladies, we don't treat you only as sexual objects but we you firstly as sexual objects. Sorry, this is how we are built.
This is actually not true. Maybe it's true of you, but it's definitely not true of all men. A good number of men see women as people - same as they see other men. It's understandable that you may have not met them, because they (rightly) consider the other kind of man to be barbaric and uncouth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 11:27 AM |
|
|
|
I think you fail at comprehension again. Read my post one more time and maybe you'll find find why your comment doesn't address what I said in the slightest.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 12:34 PM |
|
|
I did read your post. It was full of sexist over-generalizations about men.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 12:35 PM |
|
|
Then you didn't understand anything. Which can be expected from ideological fundamentalists like yourself actually. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 02:50 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:07, 15 Aug 2014.
|
Zenofex said:
In regard to the drawings of perfect-looking women in scarce clothing, the above translates like that: the men who draw them give an expression to their sexual urge. Yes, they treat women as sexual objects, which they are. The problem is not with the treatment but with how it is perceived. For most women the issue seems to consist of two parts - that they assume that they are treated only as sexual objects and that the depiction of a perfect woman often is very far from how a real, "normal" woman looks like.
For the first part - no, ladies, we don't treat you only as sexual objects but we you firstly as sexual objects. Sorry, this is how we are built. Don't be too harsh on us though, the same applies to you. The women I know pay a big attention to a man's physical attributes when they first meet him, no matter what they may pretend in public. Men are just more direct and sometimes more shameless. Under the cover of "proper" social behaviour, both men and women give a fairly extensive evaluation of the opposite individual's potential reproductive capabilities. When a man draws a woman, what do you think motivates him? Her possible brain capacity? Or how nice a person she can be? Or maybe her professional qualities as a soldier or whatever? Neither of these comes to mind, trust me. What a normal man will think of firstly will be nice tits, nice ass, beautiful face and as little of the socially-imposed obstacles (like clothes) which prevent him from having a good look at all of these adorable features as possible. Hence the result.
Zenofex, your choice of the word "firstly" can translate as "at first, instantly, instinctively" or it can translate as "priorly, overall, basically." Now, imagine a smoking hot woman, perfect body, gorgeous face, attractive smell... the whole nine yards. Now, imagine she started to talk about a subject you are very interested in, she's very insightful and knowledgeable or imagine she knows how to play an instrument and she started to play incredibly beautiful music to you. Your instant focus at first will most probably be to her sexuality and you will be distracted at least for a little while. As some time passes your focus will shift on her other traits. Of course, if we go to extremes and ask a question like "but what if she had looked like the monster of doctor Frankenstein, will those other traits mean anything" the answer will be that it will mean I wont be attracted to her, unless she turns out my soul mate in a fairy tail-esque way. However, this all quite beside the point, since a comic book is not something you create instinctively, it's not necessarily pornographic material or erotic work, and if you want me to elaborate in Freudian terminology (btw, his discovery is enormous but I think you'll agree he overdid it a little), it is a product of the superego, not the id. (Although, surely, the id is still there.) Now, since these comics are quite shallow works of fiction, at all aspects anyway, (the kind that consists of all body-builder men and all 90-60-90 women, at least), let's choose our example with something a little more potential content wise. Let's think of a novel, you can be a novelist who brings forth all his female characters with their sexuality, telling us about their physical beauty, page after page or you can be like Tolstoy whom women personally kept saying "how do you understand us so well, dear?" Well, that would actually require a little genius but you get my point.
The complaint about the comic books is a complaint about how overwhelmingly women are reduced into a sex object and how that reduction is strictly and purely based on a very limited body type. Another example has been mentioned before, there are many male lead actors who are not so perfect in terms of physical appearance but not as many female leads in the cinema.
|
| |
|
|
