News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

An overview of Feminism and it's terrible representation

Started by Steampunkette, November 04, 2014, 09:53:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Steampunkette

Okayso.

I've seen a LOT of people who have no actual understanding of what feminism is beyond "Fat, Ugly, Manhating, Dykes who want to DESTROY EVERYTHING" and it's just a ridiculous situation. So. Here's a little bit of education on Feminism.

Feminism started in the 1700s. Specifically, it was put together by Men who realized that how women were treated was terrible and how much things needed to change. They used their Political Voice to elevate the voices of women who had been silenced for God Only Knows how long. Prior to the 1700s any feminist agenda was either unrecorded or pushed aside and allowed to fall out of the history books. If you have to ask why I don't really know what to tell ya. ;)

In the 1700s, Abigail Adams, writing letters to her husband, did her best to influence both the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and famously stated "Remember the Ladies" which became a slogan of early feminists, as women were constantly erased from important events in history and avoided in fiction, disenfranchised, and still barely moving away from the impression of being chattel to be bargained off (which all applied equally to black women with the exception that it would be almost 100 years before they moved forward from chattlery, regardless of their opinions on feminism which were, also, largely erased). It was also one of the first surviving feminist statements.

Beyond a few early feminist voices, most of their activities were erased until almost the 1900s. Even the opposition to them has faded for the most part. However, Suffrage became a big issue.

After the passing of the 15th Amendment allowing men of any race to vote there was a hard push for women's suffrage. This lead to a massive outpouring of outrage against women getting the right to vote. Men often claimed it was about education or some other matter, but for the most part it remained an issue of controlling women's actions and political power for fear of a loss of male political power. The resulting arguments resonate well, today.

http://thesymzonian.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/suffragette4.jpg


Ugly, mean-spirited, unloved, etc etc etc. The same sort of negativity and ad-hominem we see in modern day discussions of feminism. Further, if you look at the "Statue" image, you'll see what quickly became known as "Black Sashes" or "Black Ribbons". The Anti-feminist. Often bullied or coerced with social pressure into speaking out against the right to vote. We see Black Sashes in modern Anti-Feminist movements as well. Almost invariably they are people who live in an environment where either sexism harms them only in ways they cannot perceive (having been raised in that environment from birth) or is seen as a "Small Enough" problem as to be irrelevant to their life. Thus all women are doing fine and sexism does not exist because of their anecdotal evidence. Often enough Black Sashes are women who have been bombarded with imagery of the "Ugly bull dyke man hating feminist" to the point that they espouse "Equality, but not Feminism"

You get the idea.

Early feminism pushed boundaries much farther than previous social justice movements. They were considered incredibly uncivil and did things that lead to wide-spread arrests for "Crimes" that had never existed (and were never implemented after the arrest). A wonderful example was protesting in front of the White House in full view of the President himself. To avoid being picked up on Noise Ordinances the Suffragettes marched and protested in silence, holding signs to have their opinions heard.

The result was sending out the Paddy Wagons to pick up as many as possible. Including Alice Paul, one of the most important early 1900s feminists.

For the most part all of this, between 1700 and 1960, is considered "First Wave" feminism. It tackled issues of political empowerment, for the most part, and work ethic later during the wave. However at the time, of course, it was just "Feminism"

Second Wave Feminism came out of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. It involved trying to throw off binaristic gender ideals of men holding sexual and interpersonal power while women were the "Housewife" or "Daughter" with very little alternative. It also introduced the idea of Political Lesbianism, which is exactly what it sounds like. It also fomented the birth of the Radical Feminist. Radfems are a fringe element of the feminist movement, but they are the feminist that society grabbed ahold of and held up as "True" feminism as a method to discredit the movement for much of the same reasons as men attempted to keep women from being able to vote: Limiting female political, and now economic and interpersonal, power.

Both First and Second Wave Feminism have a singular conceit: They were specifically movements interested only in offering assistance to Straight, White, Cisgender, Abled, Upper and Middle Class Women. This lead to a strong racist vibe, mostly through Dog Whistle discourse, and while the anti-lesbian hatred became more muted in Second Wave Feminism it still lead to heavy anti-trans sentiments. Both hating "Gender Traitors" in Trans Men and "Gender Infiltrators" in Trans Women. This has caused the advent of the TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, though some are Exterminationist).

Third Wave Feminism is specifically a form of Intersectional Feminism. It recognizes that systemic oppression applies in different ways to different women and the only way to elevate all women to equality with men (specifically interpersonal, political, and economic equality with white middle class men) will require combating racism (and particularly anti-black racism), transphobia, homophobia, ableism, and classism.

Now if you read the above paragraph there can be little wrong with Third Wave Feminism as an idea. It pushes for the elevation of all women, regardless of class, race, gender, or sexuality. It's not looking to elevate women above men. It's not violent or degrading and it's not hateful by doctrine. So why is there so much animosity towards Feminism?

There are three parts to this problem.

Modern Presentation of Feminism: Even in the modern day feminism is presented as horrible, ugly, and violent. Feminists themselves are portrayed as horrible, ugly, and violent. This is especially true of political cartoons which twist images of feminists using socially unacceptable traits, such as ugliness, weight, or sexual promiscuity. Entertainment media, on the other hand, still follows the second wave Radfem as dominant and exclusive. Even the Powerpuff Girls, a cartoon meant to target young girls and provide messages of female empowerment, kindness, and equality used radical feminism presented -as- feminism the antagonist. And even her accurate and insightful examples of sexism in society were undermined by her activities and use of a positive message to cloak or misdirect (which are, themselves, negative traits attributed to women and feminists in particular). This creates an antagonistic relationship with feminism from a young age and shapes perception even in women.


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fem.gif

Second Wave Feminism is not dead: The last Suffragette to die in the United States lived long enough to watch Jurassic Park in the Theatres. Clara Elizabeth Chan Lee was the first Chinese-American Woman to cast a ballot. The last primary Suffragette in the UK lived long enough to survive Matrix Revolutions on DVD and could have watched X-Men 3: Last Stand in the movie theatre. Clara died on October 5th 1993. People who were born on the day she died have been legally allowed to drink for 30 days. That is how -recent- Suffrage happened. Second Wave Feminists, by contrast, are in their 50s and 60s. Guess what the median age of Congress is. Did you guess 60? You're off by 3 it's 57. First Wave Feminists are in their 70s and 80s, still alive and hanging out in Congress. So while feminism is changing to be more intersectional there are deep-seated racists and transphobes who still hold a lot of political power, not just in Congress but within the movement itself.

Starting to get the idea of why Radfems are still used by mainstream media as the "Face" of feminism? All white, too. And Cis. Though they tend to hold up Lesbians because "They don't have sex with men! That's so strange!"

The third major reason is: Black Sashes.

Look. I get it. Some lucky people live sheltered lives. They exist all over the place. Look at Congress, for example. Or Straight White Cisgender Upper Middle Class Men who think racism is dead because the Civil Rights movement happened and now we've got a black president. Some women don't face sexism. Some trans individuals live comfortable lives sheltered from the worst abuses that occur to other members of the same minority. Almost all of these people want to throw off labels because they see no use for them and don't want to be associated with the "Bad" part of a group. So Feminism is cast aside, even though they recognize that inequality exists and is bad and should be fixed.

This is where we get into the issue of Privilege. Now a lot of you may want to tune out (many of you probably already have) but I hope you'll stick with me.

Privilege is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. Having Privilege doesn't make you a bad person. And when someone tells you to Check your Privilege they're telling you to take stock and recognize what you have that others -don't-. That's how systemic oppression works. That's why I have to specify Straight White Cisgender Abled Middle Class Man. Because I'm touching on all the privileges that he has that a Gay White Cisgender Albed Middle Class Man or a Straight Black Cisgender Abled Middle Class Man doesn't. Because there are things that both of those men have better in their lives than what the other has. And the Straight and White cisgender abled middle class man has it better in all categories. But still doesn't have it as good as a straight white cisgender abled Upper Class man does.

These are Axes of oppression and privilege. And yes. Somewhere out there is a Bisexual Black Transgender Disabled Poverty Stricken Woman. There are actually many of them. It's not about who has the "Most" oppression. It's not the oppression olympics as people are fond of waving it off. It's about finding where the oppression is in a given person's life and fixing that problem.

And so women who are privileged in a variety of ways, and sheltered from the oppression they face as women through regional considerations (specific nice neighborhood/town), ignorance of their oppression, or cash (because cash is a huge benefit) undercut feminism. Specifically because feminism is not relevant to their individual life, they campaign against it helping others.

Just like Black Sashes stood at the forefront of Anti-Suffrage movements saying "I'm queen of my home. I raise my babies. That's it. I don't need to vote."

Thank you for taking the time to read all of that. Here. Have a nice music video on the topic of suffrage to unwind. Something that is under attack, even today, by hard right groups still seeking to limit the political power of women and minority men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYQhRCs9IHM
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Kathadon

This is informative and engaging on the history of Feminism.

Thank you for taking the time to write it.
My ON'S and OFF'S:

I'll do whatever pleases but I'll bleed 'em in the end.

My BDSM test results.

Steampunkette

You're very welcome.  :-)

I highly encourage everyone to seek out other sources who are willing to share. Just do take into account the biases of the writers you look into, especially in the second wave of feminism.

Also avoid TERFs like the plague. They're simply dreadful people.  :'(
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Thankyou, I had some limited idea of the history but this really helped put it all together into a more cohesive whole. I'm so glad to see the progress that we've made and it gives me hope that more can be achieved. The idea now of a woman not being able to vote just seems strange and hard to imagine for me. I hope sometime in the future the issues people are struggling for today seem equally incomprehensible.

The video was very fun too.

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 04, 2014, 11:43:36 PMAlso avoid TERFs like the plague. They're simply dreadful people.  :'(

I know a few older feminists who haven't really taken intersectionality on board. I don't like their viewpoint regarding transgendered people and cringe at some of the concepts like 'you have to bleed to be a woman'.

I don't think that they're dreadful people though. To hold to their values and beliefs when everyone was telling them that they were wrong would have been incredibly tough in the face of the opposition they fought against. I think it's meant internalizing some values to the degree that they're difficult to shake even now that time has moved on and we have a better understanding of these concepts. They helped change the world, but it's a tragedy that in doing so they haven't been able to achieve the benefits in free-thinking and openness that their struggles have opened to so many other men and women.

It's sad, and I don't like the pain that it can cause for transgendered people, but I don't think they're dreadful.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Steampunkette

Couple of notes:

I acknowledge that I'm probably biased against TERFs because I get reams of hate mail from them. Violent threats, questioning of my gender, biological essentialism, etc.

Now there are Trans-Critical feminists. And they I can talk to and deal with on a reasonable basis, even educate. But trans-exclusionary radical feminists often espouse illegal and often violent actions. Not limited to outing trans women to violent hate groups, employers, friends, acquaintances, and family or even going so far as to release people's private medical information publicly.

Second: Transgendered is not the term. Transgender is. Think of it like the states of matter rather than an event in the past. A liquid isn't a liquided gas, for example. Transgender individuals or transgender people works fine, but it's a state of being rather than something you do or have done. I don't, currently, transgender. I haven't transgendered. And I don't look forward to transgendering. I am transgender.

The common verb tied to transgender individuals is Transition, which can be put into the past tense as transitioned or a present activity as transitioning.

Hope that helps!
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

consortium11

As with pretty much all (I'd say the answer is all but I'm giving myself some wiggle room) political/social/whatever you want to call it movements/ideas/groups/whatever you want to call them feminism is a big term that encompasses a wide range of groups. Steampunkette's done a a great job above of setting out many of the various different approaches and views within feminism. The difference between the various "waves" is an important one to note as is the fact that "radfems"/TERFs who often get the attention are a small, small, small minority. If one delves into the feminist blog'o'sphere you'll frequently see feminists themselves leading the charge against such figures (notably the TERFS)... but it rarely goes beyond that online domain to make wider news.

Why do such people get the attention while the efforts against them don't?

1) Because it makes good, clickbait ready (in this modern age) copy to write about man hating, radical feminists who have chosen to become "lesbian" (and I use the quotes as I'm not even sure it can be classed as lesbianism) as a political statement and detest the idea of a woman who's settled down, got married and had children. It gets comment sections flowing, the twitter-verse ablaze etc etc.

2) As Steampunkette says, most of these radfems/TERFs came out of the second wave and so they're now frequently old and established enough to have a louder microphone than their numbers really demand. To give a simple example, I give you Julie Burchill and an article that neatly encapsulates virtually everything that's wrong with that brand of feminism (warning, extremely transphobic language). Just to give it some context Burchill is (or at least was) one of the highest profile feminists in the UK regularly writing for the Guardian/Observer (the most prominent progressive paper). Yet in that article (originally written for the Observer) she not only goes on a transphobic rant which deservedly got most of the attention and criticism she also throws in a casual aside about feasting on lobster and champagne as a young writer... not exactly "salt of the earth" style of living.

That in many ways sums up prominent second wave feminists in today's day and age; white, wealthy and stuck with a worldview that concentrates entirely on men vs white, relatively wealthy women. They look at feminism as being solely about men vs women without taking other factors... be they monetary, gender, disability or race-based into account. And they tend to be pretty strongly transphobic.

That's why the third wave is important. It understood that matters of gender can't be divorced from other matters entirely. If feminism is about making life better for women (and I'll comment a bit more on that later but it's a good starting point) then does it really matter if the life of a disabled, poor, black, homosxua woman is as terrible as the life of a disabled, poor, black, homosexual man... sure it's equal but it's still terrible. If feminism is about improving the lives of women then it doesn't matter if the issues aren't strictly gender based... they're still issues.

With that said though, I think there are some issues with Third Wave feminism that do hark back somewhat to the issues with the Second Wave. In truth saying issues with Third Wave feminism is somewhat unfair because it's more to do with issues of the amount of media coverage certain things get, but they also get considerable support from other feminists. I'll call the issue "trivial feminism", although again that's somewhat unfair... the issues may not be trivial in-and-of themselves but in light of other things they seemingly become so and/or only impact on a tiny number of women.

Now, I'm not going to follow the "why are you concentrating on this when something worse is happening?" argument. It's weak and false... no-one says the police should stop investigating robberies because there are unsolved murders to give a simple example. But the triumph of intersectionality was recognising how issues of class/wealth (although the two are different), race, sexuality, disability etc impact on women and thus must be given attention. Yet all too often we instead see the "headline" feminist issues being "Ban Bossy" (which is actually a somewhat important idea ruined by a terrible slogan and focus) or "No More Page 3" or "women on banknotes" or tropes vs women in video games or increasing the number of female board members at companies or well, pretty much anything on Jezebel. Even when intersectionality does make an appearance again it tends to delve into the "trivial" things... what insensitive comment did what celebrity make for example. Again, I'm not saying these issues should be completely ignored or not campaigned for... but why so much attention and support for them as compared to say, increasing the standard of living of those in poverty or campaigning against genital mutilation (although that one does at least get some support)? This touches on the wider privilege argument but in my view the two/three biggest privileges one can have are to be able in body/mind and to have wealth... if privilege is about having advantages in life then I'd strongly suggest that someone without physical or mental disabilities and considerable wealth has a bigger advantage in life then someone who suffers from physical or mental disabilities (or at least the more impactful types) and is incredibly poor regardless of pretty much any other factor. If we follow intersectionality then it's therefore those things that should get the most attention and support... far too frequently it isn't. Far too often modern Third Wave feminism comes across as upper-middle class, fairly wealthy, ablebodied-and-minded women complaining about issues that either impact on relatively few women or that are somewhat trivial. It's privileged women forgetting that they are privileged and thinking that the most serious issues for all women are the ones that impact on them.

And that brings us to privilege.

Ah, privilege.

Privilege is simple. There are certain things in life... having a certain amount of wealth, being of a certain race, sex, sexuality or religion, not having disabilities are all common examples... that in essence make life easier. That doesn't mean life will be easy, just easier. I understand why people react badly to the idea; it sometimes comes across as saying that they do have an easy life because they're a white, heterosexual male from a middle class background for example when that may not be the case... but the truth is that life is most likely easier for a white, heterosexual cis-male from a "nice" middle class background then it is for a black, gay, trans-woman from a dysfunctional poverty stricken background even if everything else is the same. "Privilege" also is specific rather than universal... a man may have more privilege than a women in matters related to gender but that doesn't mean he likewise has more in other areas... a gay man likely has less than a straight woman when it comes to sexuality for example. You don't "tot up" a privilege score by combining all factors and use that in every situation... you look at the ones relevant to the situation at hand.

But I think there are real issues with the way "check your privilege!" is used.

"Check your privilege!" is a trite phrase that, to me, is essentially saying that one shouldn't rely on anecdote or universalize your experiences. So a man saying "I don't see what's the issue with comments on looks... I'd love a woman to say they thought I was damn sexy" is taking his own (privileged) viewpoint/anecdote and universalizing it for his argument. Because he isn't bothered by it it isn't an issue... but as a result of his privilege he's unlikely to have been subjected to such remarks from unwanted third parties throughout his life or have people who were meant to be taking him seriously professionally say it etc etc. He should step back, acknowledge his privilege and reconsider his view.

I do note that this should work both ways... just as someone with a lot of privilege in a given area should be careful not to universalise their views so should someone with very little; someone who has suffered extreme racial abuse throughout their life should not assume their experiences and reaction are universal any more than someone who hasn't suffered any should assume theirs are.

So far so good for me. And it's worth adding that someone can go off, check their privilege and come back with exactly the same position. As long as they're using evidence and not merely universalizing their own experiences/anecdotes then their privilege no longer matters... it's the strength of the argument they use.

And that's why I dislike "check your privilege!". Far too often I see it used not as a call to reconsider your argument/comment and think whether your position in and experience of life made you make that argument/comment without looking at other views, opinions and feelings but instead as a way to shut down discussion or a club to beat people with. A man makes a comment on a gender issue... check your privilege! You're a man and thus your argument is wrong. A white person makes a comment on race... check your privilege! You're white and thus your argument is wrong! What, you're still talking? Privilege! A white person saying that they don't see an issue with stop and search by the police can legitimately be asked to check their privilege... historically the police overuse such powers on certain  minorities and thus their race shields the commentator from the downsides of such laws... but if the white person comes back, having considered their position and keeps the same one addng that the police disproportionately stop and search certain minorities because statistically certain minorities commit a disproportionately high number of crimes then telling them to check their privilege means nothing... they have and now have evidence rather than universalized anecdote; they may well be wrong but it's the argument that needs to be confronted, not who gave it.

One final comment on modern feminism. It's caught in a pretty difficult debate with itself on the concept of sexuality or, more accurately, sexualisation and sex. When Miley Cyrus does her twerking, tongue sticking out thing is that a young woman taking control of her sexuality and reveling in it or is it someone being exploited? Is a pornstar who earns a considerable amount of money having sex on camera (normally more than their male co-stars) an example of feminism in action or a sad example of how women are reduced to a piece of meat? Is a woman appearing on the previously mentioned Page 3 an example of how women can voluntarily enjoy looking "sexy" and be rewarded for it or being demeaned? Are women who engage in BDSM play on the submissive side simply reveling in the fact they are now free to ask for this or are they perpetuating the idea of the weak woman being dominated by a man? The debate between "sex positive" and "sex negative" feminists is still ongoing and there's no end in sight.

Back to feminism specifically.

And back to arguably the biggest question of all.

The nature of it.

First, I'm sure we've all heard the "feminism is wrong, we should be egalitarians" argument. It's fairly weak as it only ever seems to apply to feminism. As far as I'm aware no-one criticizes lung cancer charities for not dealing with breast cancer or aid for Africa charities for not giving aid to Asia. But it does touch on one point, which is the difficulty of getting a nice definition of feminism and what it really means.

Isn't it simple? I did say above that feminism is about making life better for women and that seems to make sense. But it also runs slap bang into the idea of "man haters". If feminism is just about making life better for women then it doesn't matter what the consequences for men are. Screw 'em. Give women all the rights, make men suffer etc etc. For a movement largely built around the injustice women suffered in comparison to men it would be extremely strange to turn it into a "revenge" movement about repeating such injustice but the other way. Would life for women improve if for every bit of money a man earned, half of it was taken away, put into a fund and then distributed to all women? Most likely. Is that the sort of feminism all but the most fringe groups want or would support? I highly doubt it.

So change it round then... make the goal of feminism to make women equal to men. But that runs into it's own problems. Gender pay gap? Lower male wages... problem solved. Slut shaming? Insult men who sleep around just as much as you insult women etc etc. That would be a completely legitimate way to "solve" such issues and bring equality. And if the goal is equality then you also have to consider the ways that men are statistically worse off than women... more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be assaulted, statistically likely to die earlier. You have to solve those issues by either making things worse for women or directly making things better for men... and a feminism based around making life worse for women or concentrating on improving mens' lives seems a very strange brand of feminism.

Worse, it also runs into an issue mentioned near the start of this piece. Make the lives of women equal to the lives of men... but if the life of a mentally and physically disabled, homosexual, poor Muslim is still pretty bad (note; if) then is it really a cause for celebration that men and women with those characteristics struggle through it on equal footing? It's focusing entirely on one area of privilege and ignoring all the others.

As it stands neither "making life better for women" or "making women equal to men" are a goal in and of themselves that seem acceptable. Trying to combine them works in principle but trying to put together exact wording doesn't seem to help much "improving women's lives till they're equal to men" is a decent start but has its own problems. The concept is somewhat easy to understand but to put that in words, especially short, snappy words which would be the perfect answer to "what is feminism?" Not so easy.

Which is where intersectionality is important again.

If life is better for everyone then life will be better for women as well. If life is better for LGBT people it will be better for LGBT women. If life is better for people of all races, it will be better for women of all races. If life is better for people of limited wealth it will be better for women of limited wealth. If life is better for people regardless of gender then it will be better for women. Feminism and feminists will obviously focus on the female aspect of that... the clue's in the name... but the positive of intersectionality is that they don't have to focus on that alone. Feminism is about making life better for women... but to better the life of women involves bettering the life of everyone.

To give a simple example, many people (rightfully) complain that domestic abuse is sometimes painted as an entirely gendered issue with men as the abusers and women the victims. That's not true... the evidence suggests that while more women are abused (and their abuse tends to be of a worse kind) men are also the victims. Likewise people complain about how services and shelters for victims of domestic abuse are often aimed at and restricted to ciswomen... there have been some awful individual stories about trans-women and men being left alone and helpless. But...

1) We're seeing more and more feminists take the view that they're campaigning against domestic abuse not just domestic abuse against women and thus the opening of more gender-neutral shelters and support (and occasionally ones specific to men).

2) The issue of domestic abuse against men is getting more and more attention and support then ever. It may be indirect, it may have come about by people trying to say "Gotcha! Men are abused too!" to feminists in arguments and debates but the result is that a problem that had long been swept under the carpet has finally been given some attention. That's a good thing.

There are still debates and issues to be hand within feminism... the sex positive/negative thing mentioned above for one and the role of men within it for another; can a man be a feminist or merely an ally? Can a man take a leading role in a feminist movement? Is it right for a man to explain/correct a woman on feminism (even if he's seemingly right) or is that classic "mansplaining". Is the sort of "OMG!" gossipy, somewhat snarky trend in modern online feminism a real replacement (or improvement) on the more academic, "boots on the ground" type of feminism of yesteryear? We could look at why the sort of issues mentioned in the section on "trivial" feminism get more attention than other areas.

But feminism for me is about making life better for women. But life can only get better for women when it's better for everyone. Feminism is in essence a branch of positive egalitarianism; it doesn't want people to have an equally sucky life, it wants them to have an equally good one.

consortium11

Quote from: Caehlim on November 05, 2014, 12:03:07 AMI don't think that they're dreadful people though.

I have a less positive view.

To give some quotes (source here). I'll note I'm starting with the mild (and I use that term very loosely) ones and building up...

In spoilers for extremely transphobic hate speech; it's about as bad as one can imagine
QuoteSCAMs (Surgically and Chemically Altered Males) are nothing more than MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) in dresses.

QuoteThe libfems who are being so indoctrinated by patriarchal trans ideologies need to wake up and stop believing the lies. Libfems, especially, please stop internalizing the big patriarchal lie that says that men can somehow “become” women, a lie that was created by the male-supremacist medical establishment to begin with. Libfems, please stop supporting trans attacks against us. Stop believing they are “women;” they’re MEN. Show us that you don’t want to be handmaidens of patriarchy, coz that’s sad…

QuoteI feel like all one would need to do to counteract the funfem support of transwomen is ask them if they’d like to fuck a transwomen. Hypocritical eye-darting may just ensue.

QuoteOh, dontcha know? Anybody can be a woman if they feel like one…even if they have a big, hairy cock hangin’ between their legs.

QuoteI get really angry at these men who assert they are womon…I just wanna tell them to fuck off and find a gender of their own and leave OURs alone- bastards all of them…


QuoteThe male-born are biologically incomplete mutants, useless and obsolete; walking viruses on two legs and a cancer, spreading disease, death and destruction wherever they go. They are the walking-dead and the antithesis to life. Gyn-energy sucking vampires who have to plug into women and feed on them in order to survive. No different than a parasite who sucks the life and energy out of its host.

QuoteThere are no words to describe them. There are tiny parasitic wasps who paralyze small animals (spiders, caterpillars, etc.) and lay their eggs on them, so the animal is alive while being slowing eaten by the growing baby. But the wasps aren’t deliberately cruel. These men remind me of a deliberately female-hating version of that. They’ve prove what I’ve been saying for decades — they are more female-hating than even many het men. The character in Silence of the Lambs who skinned women to wear really seems more accurate all the time.

QuoteThey expect we’ll be shocked to see statistics about them being killed, and don’t realize, some of us wish they would ALL be dead.

That's a small example of one set of quotes from one list of them. There are more.

I struggle to see how anyone who is happy to hold and voice those views can be seen as anything other than dreadful. They may be lovely in lots of other ways (although considering some of those quotes and the bile it would take to not only think but also express them I'm not entirely sure) but, to indulge in some hyperbole, Ed Gein loved and cared for his mother... he was also a despicable man. Again, that's hyperbolic but I think the point is somewhat clear.

Kathadon

#7
I would go so far as to mention SWERFs to be another branch of Feminism to be avoided.

Sex worker exclusionary Feminists. Nothing like the hypocrisy of a group denying an other group's agency like SWERFs  do to those women in pornagraphy and the legal sex trades.

I completely agree that Feminism gets a bad wrap by the general public. Even going so far as to have this fact mentioned recently by Emma Watson on the floor of the U.N. Unfortunately there is no core Feminist ideology as the movement is still fluid in many academic circles and no Feminist I.D. card handed out to to show which branch is the "real" Feminism. That is how we get sex negative and sex positive feminists after all.

There is also the problematic power structures in many feminist groups that is also a cause for concern for women of color. Although I believe some groups are taking steps to enact changes to diversify themselves and should be commended for it.
My ON'S and OFF'S:

I'll do whatever pleases but I'll bleed 'em in the end.

My BDSM test results.

Shjade

I have little to add on this topic overall, just one thought:

All these acronyms sure do seem like a swell way to dehumanize people.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Steampunkette

Pretty good post on the topic, Consortium. I disagree with the "Trivial Feminism" idea, though and here is why:

We live in a society where people are bombarded by media. Constant inundation of comedy, political theory, action, adventure, drama, and more. Where ideas are communicated far more strongly than they are by a teacher who talks about a given topic for a half an hour once a year. And a given person is going to be exposed to hundreds of tiny microaggressions in a given day. Microaggressions that shape the way we view the world because we're surrounded by the same viewpoint coming from a hundred different sources, whether as credible as a primary source (teacher) or not, gives the impression that the primary source of information is wrong in relation to greater society.

Before I transitioned I had no idea that sexism was as pervasive as it is. But over the course of a year I went from completely oblivious to it to being surrounded and bombarded with it from every source. I don't think I can express how much that opened my eyes.

And yeah. Sex Worker Exclusionary Rad Fems are also terrible. I'm perfectly cool with examining the harmful structures in porn and sex work, specifically the hazards of the job and the way sex workers are treated, but that's about as far as I go into it, and always with an eye to supporting and protecting the sex worker herself from abuse.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 12:29:43 AMI acknowledge that I'm probably biased against TERFs because I get reams of hate mail from them. Violent threats, questioning of my gender, biological essentialism, etc.

Yeah, that can definitely have an effect on how you see people.

QuoteNow there are Trans-Critical feminists. And they I can talk to and deal with on a reasonable basis, even educate.

That was more what I was thinking.

QuoteBut trans-exclusionary radical feminists often espouse illegal and often violent actions. Not limited to outing trans women to violent hate groups, employers, friends, acquaintances, and family or even going so far as to release people's private medical information publicly.

That's horrific.

QuoteSecond: Transgendered is not the term. Transgender is.

Ah thankyou, I will try to remember that.

Quote from: Shjade on November 05, 2014, 01:12:24 AMAll these acronyms sure do seem like a swell way to dehumanize people.

That can certainly be true and is something I think we should all try to be careful of. Sometimes it's just more convenient for typing, for example when I say GLBTQA-friendly I'm not trying to dehumanize gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer or asexual people. But sometimes it's more than that, certainly something I think we should be conscious of in our use of language. Well spotted.

Quote from: consortium11 on November 05, 2014, 12:51:21 AMI struggle to see how anyone who is happy to hold and voice those views can be seen as anything other than dreadful. They may be lovely in lots of other ways (although considering some of those quotes and the bile it would take to not only think but also express them I'm not entirely sure) but, to indulge in some hyperbole, Ed Gein loved and cared for his mother... he was also a despicable man. Again, that's hyperbolic but I think the point is somewhat clear.

I've just never really been able to hate people. I'm not trying to get up on a high horse here and I'm not saying that it's the best way of viewing things, or that people doing otherwise is wrong, it's just where I tend to naturally drift to myself. That's just part of my own bias looking at these situations.

Ed Gein for example had quite a difficult life and was the victim of childhood bullying and what many would consider in modern days to be an abusive family environment. The compulsions that drove him to commit murder were part of the course of his life's events, I can't despise him for it even if I support his incarceration for the protection of others and acknowledge that his actions caused horrible suffering for his victims and those affected by his crimes.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Lady Laura

#11
Feminism is an absolute failure it is now tied to the left of politics and many of the things that happen to women which also effect the men who care for them are ignored by feminists who are more interested in pursuing trivial policies.

Look at the Rotterham case in England as an example, the feminists were silent.

No time or respect for feminism at all.

And yes it is poorly represented - by the feminists themselves.

Kathadon

Quote from: Lady Laura on November 05, 2014, 02:40:05 AM
Feminism is an absolute failure it is now tied to the left of politics and many of the things that happen to women which also effect the men who care for them are ignored by feminists who are more interested in pursuing trivial policies.

Look at the Rotterham case in England as an example, the feminists were silent.

No time or respect for feminism at all.

And yes it is poorly represented - by the feminists themselves.

I would not call the Rotterham case a failure of Feminism, but of the authorities for fear of being labeled with Islamophobia. Generalising those authorities as entirely left leaning themselves is simplistic and disingenuous.

That said it is a very glaring example of modern society's simplistic believe the victim ideology when it is a fact that nothing is black and white. It is not racist to investigate crimes allegedly committed by a minority. A perceived victim is not infallible and the potential victim in this case was not the muslim minority, but the young women. A case of institutionalised political correctness gone tragically too far.
My ON'S and OFF'S:

I'll do whatever pleases but I'll bleed 'em in the end.

My BDSM test results.

Steampunkette

Anti-Feminists trot out the Rotherham case pretty often. And it remains a bogus red herring slung about to undermine social justice movements.

If your argument is that Rotherham proves all feminism is dead, useless, and terrible then I have no respect for it. Too much has been accomplished to say one failure (Specifically the single biggest trigger of Third Wave feminism in the UK thanks to the silencing performed by Second Wavers) negates the value.

If you (generic you) hate feminists and or feminism then I highly recommend adding me to your ignore list to avoid the temptation to make uncivil posts.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Lady Laura

#14
Quote from: Kathadon on November 05, 2014, 03:03:28 AM
I would not call the Rotterham case a failure of Feminism, but of the authorities for fear of being labeled with Islamophobia. Generalising those authorities as entirely left leaning themselves is simplistic and disingenuous.

That said it is a very glaring example of modern society's simplistic believe the victim ideology when it is a fact that nothing is black and white. It is not racist to investigate crimes allegedly committed by a minority. A perceived victim is not infallible and the potential victim in this case was not the muslim minority, but the young women. A case of institutionalised political correctness gone tragically too far.

Rotterham is but one of many cases, there is a rape epidemic across Western Europe and most of the rapists are Muslims, they don't act because as I said Feminism has hitched it's tethers to the Left and the Left couldn't give a stuff if White women and girls are raped, the Left care about the downfall of the West and they seem to love Islam.

I would call Rotterham Institutionalized Racism against White Anglo Saxon's, not just PC and something we are seeing more and more of.

Not sure how off topic I am getting so will reign it, the title of the thread caught my eye and I just laughed as it is Feminists who give Feminism a bad name and it would have been PC Feminist Drones who failed to act on the complaints and information that were handed to them for fear of upsetting their PC masters.

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 03:15:40 AM
Anti-Feminists trot out the Rotherham case pretty often. And it remains a bogus red herring slung about to undermine social justice movements.

If your argument is that Rotherham proves all feminism is dead, useless, and terrible then I have no respect for it. Too much has been accomplished to say one failure (Specifically the single biggest trigger of Third Wave feminism in the UK thanks to the silencing performed by Second Wavers) negates the value.

If you (generic you) hate feminists and or feminism then I highly recommend adding me to your ignore list to avoid the temptation to make uncivil posts.

Oh don't worry Steam, I ignore your posts anyway, you make less and less sense all the time and do nothing but apologize for the failures of PC and drone and on and on about your idea of Social Justice yet obviously couldn't care less about 1,400 British girls who were abused not to mention the rape and sexual assaults of many of other women.

Typical Left Wing hypocrisy.

Your term "Red Herring" alone means you are in denial, so just ignore anyone who makes sense and you will remain happy I am sure.

Your wish is granted, you are on my ignore list as I cannot talk to someone who wants to see what I love and what is a part of me die.

Oddly enough I wasn't responding to you in my first post on this thread anyway.

Steampunkette

Glad I could help Caelhim, by the way.

And if you'd like a shorter way to say GBLTQAIP+ I find MOGAI works very well.

It stands for "Marginalized Orientations, Genders, And Intersex" and is moving around social justice circles very positively. Much more positively than GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which while initially popular came under heavy scrutiny when it was revealed the term came from an incredibly bigoted scientist who used GSM as a dog whistle to shit on MOGAI individuals.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Lady Laura on November 05, 2014, 05:27:18 AMFeminism has hitched it's tethers to the Left

Feminism is an abstract noun, it can't hitch its tethers anywhere, it's a group composed of those who join it.

If you feel that feminism is lacking in right wing representation and you have those values yourself, why not join the group and thereby diversify its range of political opinion. Women's causes can only be strengthened by having people of all political affiliations coming out in support of them.

The American right wing has had strong involvement in feminism and suffrage from the beginning. The Republican National Committee organized the National Woman's Republican Association back in 1888. No one owns feminism.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Lady Laura

Quote from: Caehlim on November 05, 2014, 05:42:53 AM
Feminism is an abstract noun, it can't hitch its tethers anywhere, it's a group composed of those who join it.

If you feel that feminism is lacking in right wing representation and you have those values yourself, why not join the group and thereby diversify its range of political opinion. Women's causes can only be strengthened by having people of all political affiliations coming out in support of them.

The American right wing has had strong involvement in feminism and suffrage from the beginning. The Republican National Committee organized the National Woman's Republican Association back in 1888. No one owns feminism.

It was a figure of speech I thought someone on a writing site would have understood that.

Feminism is dead anyway they just don't realize it yet and yes it is owned by the Left wing and they can have it. It's an embarrassment to intelligent women everywhere.

Caehlim

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 05:40:44 AMIt stands for "Marginalized Orientations, Genders, And Intersex" and is moving around social justice circles very positively.

It's a nice phrase, I'll add it to my linguistic toolbox. Although honestly I've come to kind of like the alphabet soup approach of GLBTQAIP etc. By its very nature it shows just how diverse human sex, sex expression, sexuality and gender can be. The fact that it's a group that can't be easily simplified, even in an abbreviation... I like that. That covers what diversity is all about to me in a delightfully meta way.

QuoteGSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which while initially popular came under heavy scrutiny when it was revealed the term came from an incredibly bigoted scientist who used GSM as a dog whistle to shit on MOGAI individuals.

Even without that history, I don't like that term as much. It sounds like a diagnosis. Far too clinical for my liking (although I suppose it could be fine for academic and scientific texts).
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caehlim

Quote from: Lady Laura on November 05, 2014, 05:49:23 AMIt was a figure of speech I thought someone on a writing site would have understood that.

Just because I enjoy writing, doesn't mean I can glean the context of everything written by everyone always. I'm a hobbyist writer of erotic fiction, it's hardly the highlight of my resume, even if it is a damn fun hobby.

And honestly, that comment strikes me as a little bit rude. If you think I've missed something, I'd appreciate you explaining it, rather than calling my abilities as a writer and worthiness to be on the site into question. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it looks.

QuoteFeminism is dead anyway they just don't realize it yet and yes it is owned by the Left wing and they can have it.

If people start abandoning women's issues because of division between unrelated political principles then yeah, it probably is dead. Wouldn't you rather do something about it? If the right doesn't get involved, why be surprised that the issue only has left wing representation?
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Steampunkette

I can definitely understand and appreciate that viewpoint! It's why I love the Vlog Brothers video "Human Sexuality is Complicated" And while I would rather not go too far afield in this thread maybe I'll make up a separate thread to explain in greater detail what they explain in a very brief video.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Blythe

Nothing much to add (and am mostly posting to get this in my "unread replies" list) except that I very much enjoyed the opening post, and I got to learn a new term, 'political lesbianism.' Thanks for an insightful and informative topic, Steampunkette.  :-)

Steampunkette

Happy to do it! Giving people a more full understanding of Social Justice Movements helps, I find. Especially when they get the fuller picture of the actions that lead to the movement's formation or change. It can also help people to look at things critically and see how they connect. So that's cool, too!
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Nadir

#23
Staff note; Please disregard Lady Laura's posts. Staff has discovered this person is a duplicate account of a previously banned member and have acted accordingly. Thank you.

Steampunkette

I also want to apologize for using the conjunctive it's instead of the possessive its in the title of this thread.

I know it bugs the crap out of some people and it is a mistake I make quite often.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Beorning

A quick, somewhat provocative response, Steampunkette:

If feminism is misrepresented, then what should I made of the fact that (according to what I've been told) the feminist discussion in Sweden is dominated by "men are eeeeevil" mentality? Which leads Swedish feminists to such wonderful ideas like taxing *every man* on behalf of rape victims? Or like the idea that it's actually wrong for a woman to engage in any kind of romantic relationship with men - so, a truly liberaterated woman must also be a lesbian?

And what should I make of those feminists in my country, that claim that women are actually better suited for government than men? Because, apparently, all men are egotistic and selfish, while women are cooperative and selfless by nature?

Steampunkette

You should make of them this: They're primarily TERFs who are using Sweden's relatively small population to elevate themselves into the spotlight by playing into the 24/7 news cycle with ever more outrageous assertions to garner themselves 15 minutes of fame.

This has also had a chilling effect on mainstream feminism as they've been forced into silence for fear of being the target of the rampant hatred that has overtaken the Swedish Feminist Movement.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 09:50:03 AMIf feminism is misrepresented, then what should I made of the fact that (according to what I've been told) the feminist discussion in Sweden is dominated by "men are eeeeevil" mentality?

This is a little vague, I'll focus on your more specific follow up.

QuoteWhich leads Swedish feminists to such wonderful ideas like taxing *every man* on behalf of rape victims?

Gudrun Schyman, the former leader of the swedish left party suggested this back in 2004. The policy did not pass in the Riksdag. She then left the part after being found guilty of tax evasion. Now she runs a particular party called Feminist Initiatives that received 0.4% of the votes in the previous election.

As Steampunkette said in her original post, it's often the second wave feminists who propose these kind of strict gender divided policies. Gudrun Schyman is 66 and certainly closer in age to that period of feminist ideology. Her inability to successfully pass these laws or attract any significant votes suggests that she is not a representative woman with a finger on the pulse of the nation.

QuoteOr like the idea that it's actually wrong for a woman to engage in any kind of romantic relationship with men - so, a truly liberaterated woman must also be a lesbian?

This idea, which begun in the 1960s was mostly promoted by a group known as The Furies Collective, who promoted this view in 1971... before their collective ceased to exist in 1972. Again, this appears to be a dated phenomenon from the era of second wave feminism.

QuoteAnd what should I make of those feminists in my country, that claim that women are actually better suited for government than men? Because, apparently, all men are egotistic and selfish, while women are cooperative and selfless by nature?

Well they're certainly being sexist, but I don't have sufficient details to track down further information on this.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Beorning

#28
Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 09:57:07 AM
You should make of them this: They're primarily TERFs who are using Sweden's relatively small population to elevate themselves into the spotlight by playing into the 24/7 news cycle with ever more outrageous assertions to garner themselves 15 minutes of fame.

This has also had a chilling effect on mainstream feminism as they've been forced into silence for fear of being the target of the rampant hatred that has overtaken the Swedish Feminist Movement.

Hm. You mentioned "mainstream feminism". But, in Sweden, the "men are evil" feminists *are* the mainstream of feminism...

Quote from: Caehlim on November 05, 2014, 10:12:46 AM
This is a little vague, I'll focus on your more specific follow up.

Gudrun Schyman, the former leader of the swedish left party suggested this back in 2004. The policy did not pass in the Riksdag. She then left the part after being found guilty of tax evasion. Now she runs a particular party called Feminist Initiatives that received 0.4% of the votes in the previous election.

As Steampunkette said in her original post, it's often the second wave feminists who propose these kind of strict gender divided policies. Gudrun Schyman is 66 and certainly closer in age to that period of feminist ideology. Her inability to successfully pass these laws or attract any significant votes suggests that she is not a representative woman with a finger on the pulse of the nation.

A question: what was the reaction in Sweden to the "rape tax" idea? Was there outrage? How many people were against it? Did any feminists speak out against it?

Quote
This idea, which begun in the 1960s was mostly promoted by a group known as The Furies Collective, who promoted this view in 1971... before their collective ceased to exist in 1972. Again, this appears to be a dated phenomenon from the era of second wave feminism.

Actually, I've been told that this kind of thing is happening right now...

Quote
Well they're certainly being sexist, but I don't have sufficient details to track down further information on this.

One proponent of this idea include Magdalena Środa, who seems to be one of the better known representatives of the feminist movement here. She is frequently invited to TV programmes, writes articles in the leading Polish daily, has even been in the government...

Vorian

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
Hm. You mentioned "mainstream feminism". But, in Sweden, the "men are evil" feminists *are* the mainstream of feminism...

The question I have though is, are they really the mainstream, or just the minority shouting the loudest, and that the media prefers to focus on?
Ons/Offs - Updated 10/8/14 to reflect my switch to Liege and attempt a bit more clarity.
Ideas
Absences - Updated 3/26/15

consortium11

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 01:29:51 AM
Pretty good post on the topic, Consortium. I disagree with the "Trivial Feminism" idea, though and here is why:

We live in a society where people are bombarded by media. Constant inundation of comedy, political theory, action, adventure, drama, and more. Where ideas are communicated far more strongly than they are by a teacher who talks about a given topic for a half an hour once a year. And a given person is going to be exposed to hundreds of tiny microaggressions in a given day. Microaggressions that shape the way we view the world because we're surrounded by the same viewpoint coming from a hundred different sources, whether as credible as a primary source (teacher) or not, gives the impression that the primary source of information is wrong in relation to greater society.

I guess my point is this:

Which is going to have an impact on more women's lives; the lowering standard of living that lower and middle class/income people are going through at the moment or the lack of women on banknotes? I'd argue strongly that it's the lowering of living standard... yet it was the banknotes issue that get the headlines, articles and campaigns (although I should note that's partly due to a semi-Streisand effect where it got into the news because of the abuse those supporting it received). Again, that's not necessarily to be critical of feminism or the campaign itself more the way it's presented and the media attention but it's still there. There may well be a case to argue that it's important for more women to appear on banknotes; I don't disagree. But is putting women on banknotes going to do as much for women's lives as improving access to healthcare (and the quality of that healthcare) for those less well off? Yet which gets the feminist attention and media coverage?

To give a topical example, the Fawcett Society is one of the oldest, most established and most respected femenist/women's rights groups in the UK and has led the way on campaigns relating to the makeup of board rooms and parliament. They recently released a campaign/t-shirt called "this is what a feminist looks like" which was worn by a number of celebrities and politicians. One can certainly debate the moral message of saying you need to buy a £45 t-shirt to look like a feminist but the real issue reared it's head when it was reported that the t-shirts were made in a sweatshop by primarily female workers. Now, there has been further investigation and conditions may not be quite as bad as original reports indicated but the central point remains; is it more important for a few celebrities and politicians to wear a t-shirt or for women to have good working conditions that pay a good wage?





I'm not going to engage with "Lady Laura's" entire posts for obvious reasons but I do think they touch on one thing worth mentioning.

The Rotherham abuse was a failure of lots of things, one aspect of which was the fear of being seen as Islamophobic. Unfortunately for far too long everyone was silent on it apart from the far right and when someone did speak up about it they got shouted down for giving succor to racists. And that fear of being seen as supporting racists or at least giving them ammunition is something of an issue within both feminism and the wider social justice movement. It shows one of the tensions within intersectionality; if a certain minority is frequently abused and insulted should one point out the issues within that minority or is that merely giving others ammunition to continue the attack?

The most obvious example of this is radical Islam. Radical, fundamentalist Islam has huge issues with LGBT and women's rights. Even given the most positive possible interpretation, that things like not being alone in the room with a male non-family member and having to wear obstructive clothing (to give two examples) are an attempt to protect women, it's hugely restrictive and authoritarian. Yet where you'd expect feminists to take the lead in opposing this all too often the space is given to the far right. I've seen a number of EDL protests (as a passerby/observer rather than participant) and it was interesting to note that while the vast majority of the crowd was the stereotypical drunken, skinhead football fan chanting "Muslim bombers off our streets!" and "I'm English till I die" there were a small number of slightly uncomfortable looking people holding up rainbows and the Venus symbol in support of LGBT rights and feminism specifically but they were a small, small minority.

The tension is this; is it "cultural imperialism" (frequently seen as a negative thing in social justice circles) to campaign for women's rights in other cultures and societies? Is it racist/islamophobic to demand equal rights for women in a culture that has long denied them that? And if one does so is one aiding the far right and islamophobes in doing so? One can look at the controversy around Ayaan Hirsi Ali and whether she should be embraced or rejected by feminism as an example of this.

Is calling Islam (or at least aspects of culture that have been integrated into Islam in some form) sexist a feminist act or an Islamophobic act? Should feminists speak out even if doing so they end up on the same side of the debate with far right Islamophobes? What happens when fighting for women's rights means contributing to an atmosphere where Islam is heavily criticized?

Steampunkette

Whether their voices are loudest or not they're still Radical Feminists rather than mainstream Feminists. The definition of the word doesn't change and the political position remains extreme.

It would take a massive geopolitical shift for feminism to become obsolete and then for the next wave of "feminists in name only" to push for a fully matriarchal society (with all attendant systemic oppression of men). Until such a time comes Radical Feminists will remain fringe, even if they're in power in a given location.

Does that make sense?

As for the cultural imperialism and impact on Islam: It's really touch and go.

If you're fighting for women to have the RIGHT to take off the Burqa or the Hijab and be a member of whatever religion they choose, but not explicitly trying to attack Islam for being sexist, then you're in the right zone as a Western Feminist. The problem comes when the attacks on the religion happen, and they happen fast and often when it comes to white western feminists. Often in the form of Dog Whistle Politics.

If you're fighting for women to have the RIGHT to move around the Middle East unaccompanied by a man safely and with all the same modes of transportation available to men then you're in the right place. But when you turn around and shit on Islam for being controlling or sexist you're in the wrong place.

The key difference is this: It's not your (generic your) religion. And when it isn't your religion you cannot understand it in the way that people who follow it do, no matter how hard you try. Even if it seems misguided or wrong it's not your place to tackle it. But laws that FORCE religion are a problem. Laws that restrict women are a problem. And those things are generally acceptable to tackle. Just don't be surprised when most of the women who gain the freedom to do things that are against their religion choose not to do those things, favoring instead to honor their God in whatever manner they feel is appropriate.

Not unlike how no one (credible, at least) in the US is trying to campaign for Mormon Underwear to be banned. But if it became mandatory, regardless of your religion, people would fight against it tooth and nail.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 10:14:13 AMA question: what was the reaction in Sweden to the "rape tax" idea? Was there outrage? How many people were against it? Did any feminists speak out against it?

These are good questions but I'm not sure exactly. I did try to find out. A lot of the sources are in Swedish which makes it a bit difficult for me to research this very thoroughly. Also the newspaper articles I was trying to look at for this have been taken down, they don't seem to be still archiving them from back in 2004. That's why I had to try to guess from some rough statistics that I could find.

QuoteActually, I've been told that this kind of thing is happening right now...

Well I can name one feminist that I've met in person who has this belief, so I know it does still exist. However I can also name people who believe the Earth is flat as well (albeit none personally). Name a political belief and I can point out some extreme radicals who propose ridiculous things.

So I guess the question is whether this is a significant part of current feminist thought or is this a fringe extremist philosophy? That's a subjective judgement and I'm sure people's mileage will vary. Personally I'm subscribed to quite a few feminist lists at the moment, many of them with a queer focus and I'm not seeing any articles appearing on this topic at the moment so I have a hard time accepting that this is a widespread view under active discussion. That said, I've mostly subscribed to more modern intersectionalist groups so it may just be a filtering bias.

QuoteOne proponent of this idea include Magdalena Środa, who seems to be one of the better known representatives of the feminist movement here. She is frequently invited to TV programmes, writes articles in the leading Polish daily, has even been in the government...

Despite Sroda being reasonably older, reviewing some of her work that I've been able to see doesn't paint her as being a second wave feminist or ignoring intersectionality. She actually seems reasonably progressive from some of the things I can find. This is made difficult of course because I don't speak Polish either, but that's the impression I get from English translated summaries that I can find. Nor does she appear to be a fringe figure or radical. Everything I can find seems to suggest that she is taken rather seriously as a mainstream voice of feminism in Poland.

I couldn't find any sources in English where she said anything similar to what you quoted. I'm not saying that she didn't, just that I can't find any sources for better information.

I agree, that what you quoted her as saying is sexist. I really think that gives a bad impression to people who encounter that kind of statement from a feminist group. I can understand why she's pushing though, with Poland having a very low rate of women participating in the labour market for an EU country and a very high wage discrepancy. Still, I don't think she should be making statements like that.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Steampunkette

As for the other portion of your argument:

It's both a fallacious choice and it ignores the wider connotations in favor of singular vision.

Feminists can work on a wide variety of things at once because there are a hell of a lot of us engaged in different aspects of society as our personal fields of purview. You touched on that in your initial post in the thread, but then muscled on through to minimize and deflect the social implications of "Trivial" things.

As I explained, before, the long term social impact will continue to shape how people view women. And any long term plan of positive change must address that long term impact. Yes. Individually they seem like small, trivial, or even irrelevant issues. I acknowledge that. But as they impact us on aggregate they should be looked at as an aggregate, and in that light they become far more important and pressing than they initially appear. Will they save the lives of people currently living under the poverty line? No. But they will help to elevate future generations above the poverty line.

"Can't see the Forest for the Trees" is a great turn of phrase to explain the problem with this argument.

Though if you want to talk about the issues of Capitalism we'd need a whole separate thread for it (And I'd jump at the chance!) including examples of feminism benefiting off third world labor and outsourced and underpaid jobs. A pretty common saying in Social Justice circles, these days, is that "There are no Ethical Consumers in Capitalist Societies" and it's spot-on!

Caehlim: Two notes about Polish Translation.

1. It's never perfect.
2. Dog Whistles don't Translate.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Hemingway

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
Hm. You mentioned "mainstream feminism". But, in Sweden, the "men are evil" feminists *are* the mainstream of feminism...

No. No, they're not. Sure, they claim that "men's violence against women is the greatest security threat to Europe", which is unfortunate - and somewhat weird according to the typical understanding of the word 'security'. It's not quite saying all men are evil, though.

Their stated politics, however, are anti-racist and anti-discrimination. I don't see much in the way of "men are evil" in their official platform.

Now, the real reason I wanted to post something in this thread was the mention of TERFs. Never actually saw that acronym before. Anyway. I agree wholeheartedly on that - you'd have to look very hard for a group with a more vile agenda than that. I really don't understand the logic. To me, it looks like a group of people 'advocating' for the rights of a historically oppressed and marginalized group, while being hateful toward some of the weakest and most frequently abused groups in society.

Ephiral

Well. Up until extremely recently, trans* people didn't have much in the way of a voice or platform anywhere, so even in a lot of movements that are progressive at their core, "throw trans* people under the bus" has become fairly standard operating procedure. Yes, it's horribly hypocritical, but... not unexpected.

What makes it tragilarious is that some of the most respected second-wave radicals - the sort of people the TERFs look up to - might have had some seriously misguided views on trans* folks, but they acknolwedged our right to exist and the necessity of getting us the treatment we need.

Lustful Bride

I think that some of the problem is that the radicals who are nearly out of their minds with hate towards everything male and bully other women who don't think like them are so loud and vocal. They get heard and seen far more than moderates who want positive change and choice.

If this image of feminism is to change then more women need to stand up and say "I'm not a radical like her! They do not represent feminism accurately. Look over here friends, this is what feminism is. Just wanting a choice, to be treated equally, to be respected. Not to take things from others and shame people.'


Slywyn

That's a good goal. It really is. But then you get people saying "No True Scotsman Fallacy! All Feminists are like that!" and other assorted crap.

People will use any excuse they can to discredit feminism. And it really sucks.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Lustful Bride

#38
Quote from: Slywyn on November 05, 2014, 03:20:30 PM
That's a good goal. It really is. But then you get people saying "No True Scotsman Fallacy! All Feminists are like that!" and other assorted crap.

People will use any excuse they can to discredit feminism. And it really sucks.

Yup, and sad truth is there will always be those few people who are the physical embodiment of the stereotype. *facepalm* that's the most infuriating thing in the world. When you are trying to say that the stereotype is not the majority and should be ignored, then one of them shows up and ruins your argument.



Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 11:05:44 AM
A pretty common saying in Social Justice circles, these days, is that "There are no Ethical Consumers in Capitalist Societies" and it's spot-on!


*just shakes head in response* As a capitalist who cares for all people I shake my head at this. Nothing in this life is ever 100% outside of math and scientific studies. You cant just lump people together like that.

Beorning

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 10:43:10 AM
Whether their voices are loudest or not they're still Radical Feminists rather than mainstream Feminists. The definition of the word doesn't change and the political position remains extreme.

It would take a massive geopolitical shift for feminism to become obsolete and then for the next wave of "feminists in name only" to push for a fully matriarchal society (with all attendant systemic oppression of men). Until such a time comes Radical Feminists will remain fringe, even if they're in power in a given location.

Does that make sense?

Actually, I can't agree with that.

I feel that in your representation of feminism you're doing a lot of labelling: you create a definition of feminism according to which it's a sensible movement with balanced views - and, based on that definition, you label the more aggressive forms of feminism as radical, fringe and, basically, not quite right. And you insist on sticking to these labels with no regard to real power these various forms of feminism have.

I prefer to look at feminism not through labels, but through reality. And the fact is that, according to what I've heard, the man-hating version of feminism has some serious power in Sweden. So, sorry, I don't agree with you just shrugging at them and dismissing them as feminist fringe. How can you call them a fringe variant of feminism, if they have so much clout in Sweden?

I'm definitely not trying to say that what you call TERFs constitute the majority of feminists. But they are a significant group, an existing facet of the movement. You cannot just dismiss them as "not real feminists" and say that the "real feminism" is being misrepresented, when accusations of feminists hating men arise. Because the truth is that some feminists *do* hate men and that a part of the movement actually is kind of crazy...

And speaking of labelling, I really, really don't appreciate what you're doing with the women who don't agree with feminism. It's oh-so-conventient to label them as "Black Sashes" and treat them all as ignorant, privileged, naive or brainwashed by patriarchy. But it's not fair to them. Is it so hard to admit that, maybe, these women have some opinions worth considering?

Quote from: Caehlim on November 05, 2014, 11:03:39 AM
These are good questions but I'm not sure exactly. I did try to find out. A lot of the sources are in Swedish which makes it a bit difficult for me to research this very thoroughly. Also the newspaper articles I was trying to look at for this have been taken down, they don't seem to be still archiving them from back in 2004. That's why I had to try to guess from some rough statistics that I could find.

I'd really like to know what the response to this idea was. Because if no-one aside from a few radical feminists treated it seriously, then okay - no problem. But if it really was something considered worth debating, then it'd show that this brand of feminism really does have influence in Sweden. And that it shouldn't be dismissed as something fringe and unrepresentative of the movement...

Quote
Well I can name one feminist that I've met in person who has this belief, so I know it does still exist. However I can also name people who believe the Earth is flat as well (albeit none personally). Name a political belief and I can point out some extreme radicals who propose ridiculous things.

Actually, I've been told that this is considered a serious idea in Sweden nowadays. It's not some ridiculous thing only a few radicals promote, it's a notion that's getting some traction there.

Quote
Despite Sroda being reasonably older, reviewing some of her work that I've been able to see doesn't paint her as being a second wave feminist or ignoring intersectionality.

Well, she can't ignore intersectionality - she's a lesbian herself  :-) At least according to my feminist sister who met her...

Quote
She actually seems reasonably progressive from some of the things I can find. This is made difficult of course because I don't speak Polish either, but that's the impression I get from English translated summaries that I can find. Nor does she appear to be a fringe figure or radical. Everything I can find seems to suggest that she is taken rather seriously as a mainstream voice of feminism in Poland.

Because she *is* treated seriously. At the same time, she does say some outrageous things. Aside from "men are selfish, women are selfless" thing, she also proposed that all and any parties that are in favour of death penalty should be banned across Europe. Because, according to her, death penalty is so uncivilized that it shouldn't be allowed to be a part of political discourse. You know, I am an ardent opponent of death penalty and even I find such an idea outrageous...

And again - despite of all she's saying, she's respected and considered one of the main faces of feminism here. So, with things being this way... how can I buy into Steam's claim that "mainstream" feminism is nice and friendly - and all claims of it being sexist and aggresive are just chauvinistic propaganda?

Cherri Tart

Actually, if you really want it to distill it to it's real essence, feminism is simply the belief that women should be treated equally as men, with the same rights. No more, no less. All that other stuff is just people defining it to their own vision. It's not about hating men, wanting to have more rights, or getting rid of men all together. It's simply about equality.
you were never able to keep me breathing as the water rises up again



O/O, Cherri Flavored

Beorning

Yeah, but these days, there's no such thing like "distilled" feminism. There are whole branches of these movement with specific opinions on various issues, specific demands etc. Some of these branches are okay. Some... aren't.

Cherri Tart

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 04:54:41 PM
Yeah, but these days, there's no such thing like "distilled" feminism. There are whole branches of these movement with specific opinions on various issues, specific demands etc. Some of these branches are okay. Some... aren't.

Agreed, but that's why I tend to get my back up when someone makes assumptions about me after I identify myself as a feminist. Preconceived notions of what that means doesn't help anybody. Yes, I'm a lesbian, but I like guys. I have guy friends - I don't have sex with them (usually, it's complicated) but I do enjoy hanging out with them. I will jump on fighting for a lot of what one could consider 'women's issues', because they concern me personally, but I'm just as likely to speak up if I see the rights of guys getting stomped on as well and I will get up in the face of "feminists" whose actions are discriminatory or hateful or unjust.
you were never able to keep me breathing as the water rises up again



O/O, Cherri Flavored

Beorning

Quote from: Cherri Tart on November 05, 2014, 05:00:53 PM
Agreed, but that's why I tend to get my back up when someone makes assumptions about me after I identify myself as a feminist. Preconceived notions of what that means doesn't help anybody. Yes, I'm a lesbian, but I like guys. I have guy friends - I don't have sex with them (usually, it's complicated) but I do enjoy hanging out with them. I will jump on fighting for a lot of what one could consider 'women's issues', because they concern me personally, but I'm just as likely to speak up if I see the rights of guys getting stomped on as well and I will get up in the face of "feminists" whose actions are discriminatory or hateful or unjust.

That's commendable  :-) Althought I'd like to point out that these people aren't "feminists" - they are feminists, without any qualifiers.

Valthazar

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 04, 2014, 09:53:47 PMFurther, if you look at the "Statue" image, you'll see what quickly became known as "Black Sashes" or "Black Ribbons". The Anti-feminist. Often bullied or coerced with social pressure into speaking out against the right to vote. We see Black Sashes in modern Anti-Feminist movements as well. Almost invariably they are people who live in an environment where either sexism harms them only in ways they cannot perceive (having been raised in that environment from birth) or is seen as a "Small Enough" problem as to be irrelevant to their life. Thus all women are doing fine and sexism does not exist because of their anecdotal evidence. Often enough Black Sashes are women who have been bombarded with imagery of the "Ugly bull dyke man hating feminist" to the point that they espouse "Equality, but not Feminism"

I don't think this is entirely accurate.  Like Beorning said, many of these women have interesting views on these issues that deserve equal merit - at least in my opinion.  Some conservative women that I have spoken with tend to feel side-lined when it comes to mainstream dialogue about feminism.  These are women who hope to see improvements, but don't necessarily agree with how feminism is manifesting itself today.

Hemingway

Beorning, where do you get these ideas about Sweden? I'm not Swedish, but I do live in Scandinavia, and news tend to filter across borders. In the recent election, the feminist party Feminist Initiative did not even cross the threshold for getting seats in the parliament - smaller than the toxis Sweden Democrats. How is this the case if the radical feminists are somehow in the process of taking over the country?

We do hear a lot of stories from Sweden here, but most of them are exaggerated.

In other words, sources. Sources are needed for what you're saying - "I heard" is not a source. Because right now you're just stating your own opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Beorning

Quote from: Hemingway on November 05, 2014, 05:15:15 PM
Beorning, where do you get these ideas about Sweden? I'm not Swedish, but I do live in Scandinavia, and news tend to filter across borders. In the recent election, the feminist party Feminist Initiative did not even cross the threshold for getting seats in the parliament - smaller than the toxis Sweden Democrats. How is this the case if the radical feminists are somehow in the process of taking over the country?

We do hear a lot of stories from Sweden here, but most of them are exaggerated.

In other words, sources. Sources are needed for what you're saying - "I heard" is not a source. Because right now you're just stating your own opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Uhm... would you believe me if I told that I'm actually getting these facts from a feminist living in Sweden..?

Sorry I can't point you toward any online sources...

Beguile's Mistress

I avoid feminists and talk of feminism because in my personal experience it's seldom anything but boring or confrontational most of the time.  Diatribes and lectures turn me off.  People are people and should be treated as such all the time no matter what.  I belong to a small group that helps people get the help they need to progress through life or fight individual injustices when necessary but in a more low key way than the most of the activists.

You don't like the way someone has treated you?  Have a conversation with them listening as much as you are talking because calling them names or bullying them with a rant is never going to work. 

Hemingway

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 05:19:13 PM
Uhm... would you believe me if I told that I'm actually getting these facts from a feminist living in Sweden..?

I'd believe you were getting your information there, yes - but not that they were actually facts. Because they aren't.


Blythe

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 05:19:13 PM
Uhm... would you believe me if I told that I'm actually getting these facts from a feminist living in Sweden..?

Sorry I can't point you toward any online sources...

I strongly encourage you to look into researching the topic and finding some sources, mostly because relying on one feminist to dictate your ideas of feminism in a place, you are in danger of allowing yourself to be led into stereotyping everyone that might fall under that label. It feels like you are allowing a single person to shape your view of something, which is not a productive or particularly informative approach learning about a topic.

Beorning

Quote from: Blythe on November 05, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
I strongly encourage you to look into researching the topic and finding some sources, mostly because relying on one feminist to dictate your ideas of feminism in a place, you are in danger of allowing yourself to be led into stereotyping everyone that might fall under that label. It feels like you are allowing a single person to shape your view of something, which is not a productive or particularly informative approach learning about a topic.

You're right, but to clarify: it's not that I met one Swedish feminist who was a TERF and now I build my views of all Swedish feminists on her. It's that this particular feminist is actually critical of TERFs etc. and told me of how influential (or, at least, visible) they are in Sweden...

Blythe

Quote from: Beorning on November 05, 2014, 05:34:45 PM
You're right, but to clarify: it's not that I met one Swedish feminist who was a TERF and now I build my views of all Swedish feminists on her. It's that this particular feminist is actually critical of TERFs etc. and told me of how influential (or, at least, visible) they are in Sweden...

This clarification does help.  :-)

But regardless, my above advice still applies. While I'm not saying to discount your feminist friend's advice or information, a good maxim when dealing with a new subject to learn about is "trust but verify." When in doubt, asking her for her sources about TERF feminists in Sweden could be helpful for you as you learn more about the political layout in regards to feminists in Sweden.

Beorning

Quote from: Blythe on November 05, 2014, 05:38:12 PM
This clarification does help.  :-)

Good, because I don't want to end up looking like a bastard to you :)

Quote
But regardless, my above advice still applies. While I'm not saying to discount your feminist friend's advice or information, a good maxim when dealing with a new subject to learn about is "trust but verify." When in doubt, asking her for her sources about TERF feminists in Sweden could be helpful for you as you learn more about the political layout in regards to feminists in Sweden.

Well, can't disagree with that. Although I don't speak Swedish, so finding sources might be hard...

Also, the few things I've read about Swedish feminism on my own really fit with what my informant is saying...

Steampunkette

Lot of activity in this thread!

Let me back up to the Black Sashes, quickly. Black Sashes are not and never were people who had serious criticism of feminism and it's implementation. They were and are automatic gainsayers of anything with the title "Feminism". This is a distinct difference. And their reasoning behind the issue is, invariably, "I've got mine, so there's no problem". Hence the "-I'm- queen of my home -I- raise -My- babies, that's is. -I- don't need the vote"

It's not "Women aren't actually oppressed in that fashion and/or here is a list of resources that include citations that shape this conversation that you haven't cited and might explain the disconnect we're having". It's "It isn't a problem for -me- so we shouldn't bother changing anything for anyone else's benefit."

I suppose I didn't get that across very clearly in the initial post and I apologize.

As for Sweden and the mainstream argument: You're arguing that because it is common in Sweden it becomes Sweden's Mainstream. I think what we're having here is a difference in communication. When I say "Mainstream" I don't mean "Popular in an Area" I mean "Core Ideals and Thrust of a Political Affiliation". It's like arguing that Fiscal Centrist in a nation whose Overton Window has swung far enough that has swung far enough left to make Centrism seem hard right is 'actually' a Fiscal Conservative. The Overton Window is only showing what is considered socially acceptable in the area, and can obscure the truth, but objective external viewers can still see that the "Fiscal Conservative" is a Centrist.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Valthazar

I don't want people to start jumping on me, but just out of curiosity I decided to look up some Swedish laws that may affect men and women.  Like Caehlim said, most of it is in Swedish, but when I googled, I found a link on A Voice for Men (and I know MRA is a running joke here), but it contained some interesting laws that may be helpful in this discussion.

Steampunkette

Oh, it's okay, Valthazar. MRAs are a joke, everywhere!

Sorry. Couldn't resist. More seriously: There is a greater context in those laws that is being selectively ignored to make a point.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Valthazar

What I found most surprising in that link was this law:

QuoteChapter 6

3 § The child is from birth in the custody of both parents, if they are married to each other, and in other cases of mother alone. if the parents later marry each other, the child from that time will be in in the care of both of them, unless the Court has previously entrusted custody to one or two specially appointed custodians.

As the article states, Germany has been condemned by the EU court of human rights for having the exact same law a few years ago and the German Parliament was forced to change it.  This article is from December 2012, so I don't know if this law was also overturned or not.

My concern is that the vast majority of moderate "real" feminist activists who are working for equality (and I realize many genuinely are) still tend to overlook issues like these, mislabeling it as a step towards equality.  Perceptions of equality vary among individuals, and I think that is where much of the negative sentiments on feminism arise from.

Hemingway

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 06:27:23 PM
Oh, it's okay, Valthazar. MRAs are a joke, everywhere!

Sorry. Couldn't resist. More seriously: There is a greater context in those laws that is being selectively ignored to make a point.

I definitely agree with this. Further, the 'explanation' given for a lot of them didn't really seem to match the laws as written.

Steampunkette

To give some context to those laws:

In Denmark the Sexual and Physical Violence rate (as investigated by the European Union) is 52%. In Finland it comes in at 47% and in Sweden at 46%. They are number 3 on the list of worst offenders.

Though, to be fair, the UK and France come in fourth place at 44%.

22% of all the women in Sweden have been assaulted (sexually or otherwise) by a partner and reported it. According to all surveys and domestic violence searches in the nation there is underreporting on approximately 67% of all cases. So that 22% is, approximately, 37% of all women.

That's ridiculously huge. Assuming an even population split that represents 18 of the 46% of violence in the whole of the nation. About half of all violent and sexual crime is Domestic Abuse of Women. All violent Crime. For the whole country. Half of it is domestic abuse.

In that situation laws designed to give women legal and political power to extricate themselves from households of abuse are a reasonable measure. And a big part of that is custody of the children which are often used as a bargaining chip by abusers. "If you leave I'll just beat the kids, and you can't take them with you" is something heard in households across the world.

In a place with domestic violence against women on THAT scale, taking that power away from abusers is very important, even though it also takes the power away from law abiding good men. People need to recognize that fact. MRAs never can.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Shjade

For a more optimistic view of the law (if admittedly a less realistic one) consider the possibility that lawmakers in that country are simply overzealous fans of Beyonce and constructed the law so as to support and encourage her advice, which they took very much to heart, with regard to the placement of rings upon those whom you like.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Hemingway

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 07:35:07 PMPeople need to recognize that fact. MRAs never can.

The fact that sometimes equality in principle does not lead to equality in practice? Because that seems to be one of the hardest things for a lot of people to understand - and not just in questions of gender and sex.

I do have a question, though - do you have a source for those statistics? I'd like to know a bit more.

Lustful Bride

Quote from: Shjade on November 05, 2014, 07:55:53 PM
For a more optimistic view of the law (if admittedly a less realistic one) consider the possibility that lawmakers in that country are simply overzealous fans of Beyonce and constructed the law so as to support and encourage her advice, which they took very much to heart, with regard to the placement of rings upon those whom you like.


Then again I cant remember the last time I listened to beyonce so.... :P

Oniya

'If you like it, put a ring on it' is the lyric (as I recall).  A 'response' to the old hook of 'If you loved me, you'd have sex with me.'
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

consortium11

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 07:35:07 PM22% of all the women in Sweden have been assaulted (sexually or otherwise) by a partner and reported it. According to all surveys and domestic violence searches in the nation there is underreporting on approximately 67% of all cases. So that 22% is, approximately, 37% of all women.

You're misreading the study.

22% of women surveyed across Europe said they had been subject physical and/or sexual violence by a partner. Of that 22%, 67% didn't report the most serious incident to the police.

That said, Sweden did come out as one of the worst countries in the survey... it was higher than the EU average in pretty much every category and in some cases twice as high. But we should remember a couple of things:

1) The survey was of about 0.04% of the female Swedish population. There's also the standard issue with a self-selecting audience; if you receive a phonecall asking you to take part in survey on sexual violence those most impacted by it as most likely to respond.

2) Before we paint Sweden as a hotbed of domestic abuse we should also remember what is noted within the survey itself; countries with higher gender equality tend to respond more openly in surveys relating to sexual assault. Without wanting to stereotype too much do people genuinely think that a woman in Sweden (generally seen as being one of the best places in the world to be a woman) is twice as likely to suffer from sexual violence than a woman in Bulgaria? Or simply more likely to talk about it? (Although we should note that the results indicate that Swedish women reported incidents to the police less than other countries as well)

3) More a general point about statistics and Sweden; Sweden almost always comes near the top of the list when it comes to rape statistics. But a significant reason for this is that the definition of rape in Sweden is wider than in other countries (where much of what the Swedes consider rape is classed as a sexual assault) and the way the Swedish justice system works means that if a crime is reported as a rape it goes on the system as a rape even if it isn't prosecuted or is eventually changed to a different crime; we're frequently comparing apples and onions here.

Steampunkette

You're right, Consortium, save for one detail.

I didn't misread that study, I read a mistranslated version of the same study reproduced on a Swedish site I was linked to in a Tumblr chain discussing the MRA article and the larger imagery around it.

I should've checked the translation and that's my fault. I apologize.

Though you do raise a good point about people's willingness to talk about it. There's a pretty strong theory that violence against women is about the same in every nation in the world, it's just a different matter of how it is treated and interacted with. In some nations women specifically under report violence because of expectations of violence against them in their culture, the way victims of crimes are publicly treated, and the resulting interpersonal considerations should they report.

Well. That's the theory behind the under reporting of violence espoused by the theories surrounded Rape Culture, at least.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Valthazar on November 05, 2014, 06:05:51 PM
I don't want people to start jumping on me, but just out of curiosity I decided to look up some Swedish laws that may affect men and women.  Like Caehlim said, most of it is in Swedish, but when I googled, I found a link on A Voice for Men (and I know MRA is a running joke here), but it contained some interesting laws that may be helpful in this discussion.

If you want to read the Sweden: Children and Parents code chapters 6 and 21 in English in their completeness, I found a full translation:

http://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Sweden-Parental-Responsibilities-Legislation.pdf

It's really not that sexist once you consider basic biology. When a new child is born, you definitely have a mother because she's rather involved in the process and is going to be right there with you in the hospital while the baby is getting registered. For her to be automatically one of the people with custody makes sense because she's had custody for the last nine months and you can be pretty damn certain the baby is hers.

Anything else that isn't based on a document already in government recording keeping (like a marriage certificate) CAN'T be the automatic process because it requires human oversight and judgement. Which we see is provided in section 5.

QuoteSection 5
If both parents have custody of a child or one of them does and if either of them
wishes the custody position to be changed, the court shall, having regard to the best
interests of he child, order that the parents are to have joint custody or entrust custody to one
of the parents. The court may not order joint custody if both parents are opposed to it.
Questions concerning a change in the custody position as provided in the first paragraph
shall be considered on the application of one or both of the parents. In a divorce case the
court may, of its own motion, entrust custody of the child to one of the parents, if joint
custody is manifestly incompatible with the best interests of the child.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Caehlim

Quote from: Hemingway on November 05, 2014, 07:57:59 PMThe fact that sometimes equality in principle does not lead to equality in practice? Because that seems to be one of the hardest things for a lot of people to understand - and not just in questions of gender and sex.

I've always found this a really interesting topic, a lot of game theorists have done some really interesting analysis on this point.

Have you ever heard of the theory of second best? Here's the wiki article explaining it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_second_best

Basically making the law "more fair" will not necessarily make the situation "more fair" because of the existing differences. In these cases you may actually have to make the law "less fair" in order to make the situation "more fair". (I'm putting more and less fair in scare quotes because this is a simplification, you'd actually need a much more rigorous standard to apply then something as simple as more fair)

Quote from: Valthazar on November 05, 2014, 06:05:51 PMand I know MRA is a running joke here

As someone who cares about equality, issues that affect men trouble me just as much as issues that affect women. It's unfortunate that MRA or whatever you want to call people who bring attention to issues confronting men have such... well, in the language of this thread, terrible representation.

We do need to be aware that counselling services for males who undergone trauma and abuse are less prevalent than female oriented services. Disparities in suicide rates should be a matter of concern as well. There are some other issues as well, but these are the two that trouble me the most.

The problem comes when these issues are portrayed as being the opposite of feminism or in opposition to feminism. Now, most people look at issues confronting men as being an excuse, distraction or derailment tactic rather than treating them seriously. This is partly because that's how they've been used in a lot of debates but it's also partly because some feminists who are less versed in intersectionality decry these issues even when presented in reasonable ways.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Steampunkette

Oh, there's no doubt that issues facing men need to be addressed. Especially when it comes to issues of legality and social justice. The biggest issue is that such topics are rarely discussed on their own merit and are brought up by MRAs as a method of recentering discussion of women's rights issues on men.

That is why MRAs aren't taken seriously.

When MRAs start campaigning for marriage equality, trans care, anti-racist messaging, and other issues of discrimination that men face they'll be taken much more seriously and might even develop into a real and important political movement. Currently they're farcical.

I would like to note a couple of things about the MRA talking points you brought up, though. Men commit suicide in greater numbers than women, but it's not for lack of trying. Three times as many women as men attempt suicide. We're just not as socially conditioned and trained in appropriate methods of ending our lives and often fail.

There's also the issue that about 1,000 male suicides per year are Murder-Suicides in which the man kills his intimate partner (or former intimate partner) before taking his own life. Women make up a significantly smaller portion of murder-suicides and tend to kill their children.

That said we definitely need more male counseling for domestic violence, among many other topics. But for that to have any sort of positive effect we need to change the environment of toxic masculinity. Specifically the part where "Real Men Don't Cry" or otherwise share their emotions/problems with others. It's very harmful to everyone.

And yes. If I have $2 and you have $10 and we each are given two additional dollars we will not be any closer to having an equal sum of money.Given enough instances of two dollar increments it could become a statistically insignificant difference ($8 difference doesn't mean much when you're talking about $5,000 for example) but we could reach actual equality much more quickly and efficiently by giving the person with $2 all $4 each cycle for two cycles and then giving both people $2 thereafter.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 10:25:08 PMWhen MRAs start campaigning for marriage equality, trans care, anti-racist messaging, and other issues of discrimination that men face they'll be taken much more seriously and might even develop into a real and important political movement. Currently they're farcical.

By the same logic that I can call myself a feminist I can also call myself a Men's Right's Activist (although I really don't like to because... ick...) and I do campaign for marriage equality, trans care and anti-racist messaging.

Personally I just find it easier to call myself a strongly intersectionalist feminist and say that men's issues are feminist issues. A culture of Kyriarchy has negative effects on everyone (though most strongly upon oppressed groups).

QuoteI would like to note a couple of things about the MRA talking points you brought up, though. Men commit suicide in greater numbers than women, but it's not for lack of trying. Three times as many women as men attempt suicide. We're just not as socially conditioned and trained in appropriate methods of ending our lives and often fail.

There's nothing minor about even attempted suicide. I have friends who have survived attempted self-destruction (both male and female) and their issues should never be erased from the discussion. We need to make sure that people in this kind of situation receive the right aftercare (which often they don't).

However if men are therefore at greater risk of successful suicide, (whether because of culturally enhanced combat aptitude or whatever factor leads to it) then we also need to make sure that they receive more care in the prevention stage because they're unlikely to survive to the post-care stage.

QuoteThere's also the issue that about 1,000 male suicides per year are Murder-Suicides in which the man kills his intimate partner (or former intimate partner) before taking his own life. Women make up a significantly smaller portion of murder-suicides and tend to kill their children.

This means that by taking more action to prevent male suicide, we're also taking action to prevent murder. This sounds like a worthy area in which to invest time and energy.

QuoteThat said we definitely need more male counseling for domestic violence, among many other topics. But for that to have any sort of positive effect we need to change the environment of toxic masculinity. Specifically the part where "Real Men Don't Cry" or otherwise share their emotions/problems with others. It's very harmful to everyone.

Absolutely.

QuoteAnd yes. If I have $2 and you have $10 and we each are given two additional dollars we will not be any closer to having an equal sum of money. Given enough instances of two dollar increments it could become a statistically insignificant difference ($8 difference doesn't mean much when you're talking about $5,000 for example) but we could reach actual equality much more quickly and efficiently by giving the person with $2 all $4 each cycle for two cycles and then giving both people $2 thereafter.

Yes but the people who started with $10 will hang out at slightly more expensive places and thus network with eachother, develop their own exclusive trading lists, help eachother find better investment opportunities for their money. They'll work in teams investing their $12 together to get a greater payoff, while the people with $4 will only just be able to cover their living costs and won't have any excess to invest.

Then they'll turn around and sneer at the poor people who started with $2 and say "what are you complaining about, you got the $2 handout just like I did. I just made my money work for me." (ignoring the cultural background that strongly supported them and provided them advantages at every turn).
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Steampunkette

My previous post had a major error in it that I'm correcting, now.

There are approximately 1,000 murder-suicides a year, with a 10 to 1 ratio of male killer/suicide to female.

In the first half of 2011 for example there were 313 murder-suicides. 30 were committed by women. 283 were committed by men. There were 378 murder victims in the first half of that year.

I apologize for making that mistake.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Oniya

Quote from: Caehlim on November 05, 2014, 10:50:07 PM
By the same logic that I can call myself a feminist I can also call myself a Men's Right's Activist (although I really don't like to because... ick...) and I do campaign for marriage equality, trans care and anti-racist messaging.

Could always call yourself a 'humanist':

QuoteHumanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Orange Marmalade

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 05, 2014, 10:25:08 PM
Oh, there's no doubt that issues facing men need to be addressed. Especially when it comes to issues of legality and social justice. The biggest issue is that such topics are rarely discussed on their own merit and are brought up by MRAs as a method of recentering discussion of women's rights issues on men.

That is why MRAs aren't taken seriously.

Most likely this happens because feminists have a habit of recentering every issue around them or around blaming men for all their problems.

This is why feminists aren't taken seriously.

Aren't generalizations fun?

Oniya

Quote from: Orange Marmalade on November 05, 2014, 11:40:40 PM
Most likely this happens because feminists have a habit of recentering every issue around them or around blaming men for all their problems.

This is why feminists aren't taken seriously.

Aren't generalizations fun?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Especially when the fact that the issues facing men was stated as being something that does need to be addressed on its own merit.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Orange Marmalade

Quote from: Oniya on November 05, 2014, 11:43:22 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right.  Especially when the fact that the issues facing men was stated as being something that does need to be addressed on its own merit.

My point was simply to point out the absurdity of her statement by changing the roles around. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Caehlim

Quote from: Oniya on November 05, 2014, 11:25:40 PM
Could always call yourself a 'humanist':

I do think of myself as a humanist as well.

I just worry about some of these terms like feminist becoming divided, rather than including diversity. I don't want feminism to be seen as purely a radical extremist philosophy but if the moderates leave a group, then it just makes it easier to parody them and whatever new group(s) they form will still be tainted with the same brush but lack a lot of the momentum that the movement has built up. It's worth people standing up and saying "I'm feminist", even if you're not exactly like every other feminist out there. Maybe you'll add something new and unique to feminism or at least encourage the idea that women's issues are important.

I kinda feel the same way about MRA, but... I have to pick my battles, and that one looks really really hard. I'm doing what I can to stand up for responsible treatment of men's issues and present it in a more positive and moderate light, but... there is just such a bad reputation and so many bigots amongst the groups. It's a far tougher battle then feminism which really only has a few extremists (to my perception) who make it a difficult group to support.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Slywyn

A really good response to "Why call it feminism"

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Braioch

#77
There are perhaps....a few things about feminism as a movement and their groups that have been left out and I gathered a few things together so you might understand why people stand so firmly against it.

There was some serious shadiness about the suffragettes that doesn't get mentioned.

Like when they worked against male domestic abuse victims at the hands of female abusers being recognized. Which is something that people try to address sometimes, but that tends to end badly. Which is sad, since there are many places that talk about it.

Or heck when men who were accused of rape weren't even allowed anonymity due to campaigning from them.

Or sidelined stimulus funding for hard hit jobs simply because the hardest hit jobs had mostly males working?

Or still perpetuating the wage gap that's been refuted several different times.

The continued perpetuation of the rape (of which the occurred of that crime is going down) myth that continues to be called into question. Even the 'rape culture' that they talk about has been criticized by RAINN

There was the attack of one of their own too

Or the...this stuff. Which that kind of mentality meant that this stuff gets skated over quite well.

? ? ? ? ? ?

Plus the stuff that gets actively ignored

Finally, some collected quotes from known feminist leaders to really make you feel warm and fuzzy.

So...when misrepresentation of feminism is touted, I point in the direction of these things of which these are only a few that I took together to bunch together for you. If feminism is having anything done to it, it's been run and dictated by too many people with false ideas and radical notions. This current third wave is running on a principle of spouting lies and exaggerations to get what they want and they're actually succeeding.

Well, if you think it's being misrepresented, just remember that those people might be paying attention to these things instead.

(Which as I pointed out in the thread about Anita's videos, if moderate feminists don't want to be bundled up with people who do these awful things under the same banner, then it's time to collectively stand together and refuse to let your banner be stolen. Otherwise you will continue to be held to the same standard.)
I'm also on Discord (like, all the time), so feel free to ask about that if you want

[tr]
   [td]
[/td]
   [td]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Valthazar

Quote from: Braioch on November 06, 2014, 01:01:15 AM? ? ? ? ? ?

I like how they had to cite a University of Louisville professor to reach the conclusion that, "men scatter urine not so much during the actual urination as during the 'shaking off' that follows."  :P

Braioch

I'm also on Discord (like, all the time), so feel free to ask about that if you want

[tr]
   [td]
[/td]
   [td]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Steampunkette

Take a second look at the OP and then at what you posted, Braioch. Specifically where I mentioned the Anglo-centric racism of First and Second Wave Feminism.

Then take a look at the dates of many of your entries, like the working against male abuse shelters, and how that falls, specifically, against the Radical Feminists of the Second Wave, another item I spoke about.

Much of the rest of what you've got that doesn't fall under the auspices of the things already mentioned is examples of twisting context or removing it altogether. Let's touch on the Five Rights Feminists don't want men to have.

Number 1: Control over when women have children.
... really? That's... really. That's what they opened the article with? That men should determine when women carry another being inside of their body for almost a year and deal with the pains attendant to that activity? Sure... Let's talk about that one.

Artificial Uteruses. Something feminists have been pushing for for a long time, right alongside Uterine Transplant techniques. Why? Initially so that trans women like myself can bear children of our own (Thanks to the skin-cell technique, something lauded by feminists as an amazing and positive breakthrough). Though say, couldn't a Man take some of his skin cells, turn them into Ovum, and then use an artificial uterus to have a child without anyone interfering with his reproductive rights?

I mean... That's one way to look at it. But the website itself is advocating for forcing women to carry men's children whether they want to carry them or not and that is just a fucked up situation. Or is it arguing that men should be the ones who decide to terminate a pregnancy? I can't imagine that's what it's about since that portion is preceded by complaints about women having the birth control pill.

But then, guys have a huge variety of condoms to choose from at every gas station, bathroom, and supermarket in the States while women have to go get a prescription for their BC, so that can't be it... right?

Number 2: The right to have rape taken seriously.
Mmmhmm... right. That's... hmm. Well there's Steubenville and every other situation we've seen in the news where someone, or a group of someones, rapes a woman and she's harassed, attacked, denied, and generally treated like shit. Sometimes disowned by her family, often mistreated by cops, doctors, lawyers, and more. And invariably questioned on how she got herself raped... but let's touch on the whole male-rape issue since that's what this is about.

Toxic masculinity makes a joke of male rape. Feminists fight against toxic masculinity. That includes helping men who have been raped get taken seriously. Of course this doesn't include situations where "But men get raped, too!" is thrown about to try and derail and recenter a discussion of rape of women and the social implications around it...

Number 3: The Right to have Mental Issues taken seriously.
This one is patently false. This is another aspect of toxic masculinity (No crying. Bottle it up. Never talk about your emotions.) that feminists have been fighting for decades. How bad is number 4 going to be, exactly?

Number 4: The right to NOT be assumed natural caregivers
Wh.. wait what? Okay. Hang on. I had to reread it. Alright so. It posits that  feminists are against the idea that men can take care of their (the feminist's) children and that feminist organizations are against automatic joint custody and parenting... Well... Both of those are surely to some degree true but also ignore the wider context. Yes. Most feminists don't hire a male babysitter, I imagine (I also imagine it's hard to get an accurate estimate on how many do or don't). And yes, feminists are against automatic joint custody of children.

The first part is because while feminists WANT a society where men can be assumed to be equal caregivers to children we do not live in a society that supports that conclusion, currently. And thanks to the toxic masculinity behind the previous two points it leaves very few men in the child care industry. That's less a shunning of dude and more of a hiring "Person who is available for the job". Of course if you follow the link you'll find what the article is ACTUALLY talking about is hiring mexicans to take care of their children. Because racism. Certainly not because of economic factors and a corrupt capitalist society, nope!

The second part. Yes. Automatic Joint Custody of children is a TERRIBLE idea. You have to understand that the whole "Bias against men in court" thing is a myth and has been forever. The bias against men when it comes to custody of children happens BEFORE court. 70% of divorcing couples decide to give full custody of the child to the mother because of social expectations of a mother's superiority to care for the children. Of the remaining 30% of divorce cases that go to court with custody on the line men get either full or joint custody 85% of the time, even in case of abusive parenting and domestic violence.

The fact is that even in a society where parents are considered equally capable of taking care of their kids rather than the assumption that women are the better caretaker by default there are going to be a wide variety of situations where one person's job or life requires more investment of time and energy than the other person's does, and joint custody in those cases will not be the right answer for the child's wellbeing. Defaulting to joint custody is a bad idea, and cases should be handled on the merits and tribulations of the individuals involved. Not some external mandate.

Number 5: Genital Mutilation.
Okay. Wow. Yeah. No. First things first: Circumcision is not NEARLY the same as vaginal mutilation in intent, method, or result. These two things are not comparable.

That is -why- feminists don't talk about it as an equivalent idea. Because it isn't. That's like saying a stab wound is exactly as bad as twelve stab wounds. Don't compare the two, you only undermine your position by doing so.

That said: Circumcision is something that should probably be held off on until the child is old enough to choose for themself.

I'm noticing a pattern in the links you've provided, though. Basically all of them are opinion pieces and blog posts written by diehard anti-feminists, more than a few of whom delve into outright misogyny in their attacks of the feminist movement.

One you listed in particular caught my eye, though: http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/ In which the Department of Labor busts the myths of the pay gap based on gender... including the myth that it doesn't exist, doesn't affect women in specialized fields, that it exists because women take more flexible hours to take time off for kids, and that the gap will go away on it's own... Essentially it states, flatly, that the pay gap is real and even if it may be inflated by some metrics it's not going away and it affects women of all social strata.

I think I'll just leave most of the other points, though, with all their value or lack thereof determined by other readers. I do encourage everyone to read through the links, though. They do tell interesting stories.

As far as the pissing story goes... I really don't know what to make of it. Though it -should- be noted, again, that Sweden's popular feminists are Second Wave Radfems. Which, again, touches on items already covered as to why feminism itself is represented so poorly in the media.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Caehlim

Quote from: Braioch on November 06, 2014, 01:01:15 AMEven the 'rape culture' that they talk about has been criticized by RAINN

This is a really interesting document, thankyou for sharing it. I've been reading through it and it's very interesting seeing the recommendations of a group with such experience on the issue.

Quote? ? ? ? ? ?

Body shaming at it's "finest". That's just a really ugly policy.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Steampunkette

Yeah.. I should step in on that one... the "Criticism" of rape culture is a little note about how it's "Blamed" for rape when rape is a conscious decision of a person.

Which, y'know, is great, so long as you assume that person lived within a bubble safe and secure from hearing, seeing, or interacting with how our society handles issues of rape.

People don't make conscious decisions apropos of nothing. There are factors that lead to decisions. Risks and Rewards are weighed against each other, cultural and personal experiences are measured, and one's moral compass (largely dictated by cultural norms) are all a part of what leads to the decision. Including the decision to rape someone.

Rape culture is not "To Blame" for rapes. But it is a factor in people's decision to commit rape, and as such it should be countered whenever possible.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Braioch

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 06, 2014, 01:50:22 AM
Take a second look at the OP and then at what you posted, Braioch. Specifically where I mentioned the Anglo-centric racism of First and Second Wave Feminism.

Then take a look at the dates of many of your entries, like the working against male abuse shelters, and how that falls, specifically, against the Radical Feminists of the Second Wave, another item I spoke about.

The list is simply compiling together things that show that feminism does not always have its 'pretty' face and that's exactly why there are people who have issues with it, nothing more, nothing less.

Much of the rest of what you've got that doesn't fall under the auspices of the things already mentioned is examples of twisting context or removing it altogether. Let's touch on the Five Rights Feminists don't want men to have.

QuoteNumber 1: Control over when women have children.
... really? That's... really. That's what they opened the article with? That men should determine when women carry another being inside of their body for almost a year and deal with the pains attendant to that activity? Sure... Let's talk about that one.

Artificial Uteruses. Something feminists have been pushing for for a long time, right alongside Uterine Transplant techniques. Why? Initially so that trans women like myself can bear children of our own (Thanks to the skin-cell technique, something lauded by feminists as an amazing and positive breakthrough). Though say, couldn't a Man take some of his skin cells, turn them into Ovum, and then use an artificial uterus to have a child without anyone interfering with his reproductive rights?

I mean... That's one way to look at it. But the website itself is advocating for forcing women to carry men's children whether they want to carry them or not and that is just a fucked up situation. Or is it arguing that men should be the ones who decide to terminate a pregnancy? I can't imagine that's what it's about since that portion is preceded by complaints about women having the birth control pill.

But then, guys have a huge variety of condoms to choose from at every gas station, bathroom, and supermarket in the States while women have to go get a prescription for their BC, so that can't be it... right?

Did you perchance read that bit? Click the provided links in that section?

It was discussing how women can opt out of parenthood by rights of many options, but men do not have that ability. Women can choose that they do not want to be parents, they don't have to take on responsibility for raising the child or being financially obligated. Men lack that choice, men whom can even be saddled with another man's child, cannot opt out in anyway if he wants too.

It never mentioned...anything about abortions or...any of that...

QuoteNumber 2: The right to have rape taken seriously.
Mmmhmm... right. That's... hmm. Well there's Steubenville and every other situation we've seen in the news where someone, or a group of someones, rapes a woman and she's harassed, attacked, denied, and generally treated like shit. Sometimes disowned by her family, often mistreated by cops, doctors, lawyers, and more. And invariably questioned on how she got herself raped... but let's touch on the whole male-rape issue since that's what this is about.

Toxic masculinity makes a joke of male rape. Feminists fight against toxic masculinity. That includes helping men who have been raped get taken seriously. Of course this doesn't include situations where "But men get raped, too!" is thrown about to try and derail and recenter a discussion of rape of women and the social implications around it...

Again, did you read and click?

It was about how rape upon women is taken very seriously while the male victims are lost, ignored, or even berated.

QuoteNumber 3: The Right to have Mental Issues taken seriously.
This one is patently false. This is another aspect of toxic masculinity (No crying. Bottle it up. Never talk about your emotions.) that feminists have been fighting for decades. How bad is number 4 going to be, exactly?

...it even addresses the 'toxic masculinity.'

QuoteNumber 4: The right to NOT be assumed natural caregivers
Wh.. wait what? Okay. Hang on. I had to reread it. Alright so. It posits that  feminists are against the idea that men can take care of their (the feminist's) children and that feminist organizations are against automatic joint custody and parenting... Well... Both of those are surely to some degree true but also ignore the wider context. Yes. Most feminists don't hire a male babysitter, I imagine (I also imagine it's hard to get an accurate estimate on how many do or don't). And yes, feminists are against automatic joint custody of children.

The first part is because while feminists WANT a society where men can be assumed to be equal caregivers to children we do not live in a society that supports that conclusion, currently. And thanks to the toxic masculinity behind the previous two points it leaves very few men in the child care industry. That's less a shunning of dude and more of a hiring "Person who is available for the job". Of course if you follow the link you'll find what the article is ACTUALLY talking about is hiring mexicans to take care of their children. Because racism. Certainly not because of economic factors and a corrupt capitalist society, nope!

How...how do you say "Yes. Most feminists don't hire a male babysitter, I imagine" and then turn around and claim they want a society where men are assumed as equal caregivers?

???


The second part. Yes. Automatic Joint Custody of children is a TERRIBLE idea. You have to understand that the whole "Bias against men in court" thing is a myth and has been forever. The bias against men when it comes to custody of children happens BEFORE court. 70% of divorcing couples decide to give full custody of the child to the mother because of social expectations of a mother's superiority to care for the children. Of the remaining 30% of divorce cases that go to court with custody on the line men get either full or joint custody 85% of the time, even in case of abusive parenting and domestic violence.

The fact is that even in a society where parents are considered equally capable of taking care of their kids rather than the assumption that women are the better caretaker by default there are going to be a wide variety of situations where one person's job or life requires more investment of time and energy than the other person's does, and joint custody in those cases will not be the right answer for the child's wellbeing. Defaulting to joint custody is a bad idea, and cases should be handled on the merits and tribulations of the individuals involved. Not some external mandate.

QuoteNumber 5: Genital Mutilation.
Okay. Wow. Yeah. No. First things first: Circumcision is not NEARLY the same as vaginal mutilation in intent, method, or result. These two things are not comparable.

That is -why- feminists don't talk about it as an equivalent idea. Because it isn't. That's like saying a stab wound is exactly as bad as twelve stab wounds. Don't compare the two, you only undermine your position by doing so.

That said: Circumcision is something that should probably be held off on until the child is old enough to choose for themself.

You will notice it never once says they're similar or one is more important than the other but simply that ONE is being ignored or even mocked.

QuoteI'm noticing a pattern in the links you've provided, though. Basically all of them are opinion pieces and blog posts written by diehard anti-feminists, more than a few of whom delve into outright misogyny in their attacks of the feminist movement.

Yeah, except...they're not. Many of them are reports, studies or news articles.
So.

QuoteOne you listed in particular caught my eye, though: http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/ In which the Department of Labor busts the myths of the pay gap based on gender... including the myth that it doesn't exist, doesn't affect women in specialized fields, that it exists because women take more flexible hours to take time off for kids, and that the gap will go away on it's own... Essentially it states, flatly, that the pay gap is real and even if it may be inflated by some metrics it's not going away and it affects women of all social strata.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp

We have conflicted on that area it seems, so I'll have to look into it more.

QuoteI think I'll just leave most of the other points, though, with all their value or lack thereof determined by other readers. I do encourage everyone to read through the links, though. They do tell interesting stories.

This is incredibly condescending, please refrain from that.

QuoteAs far as the pissing story goes... I really don't know what to make of it. Though it -should- be noted, again, that Sweden's popular feminists are Second Wave Radfems. Which, again, touches on items already covered as to why feminism itself is represented so poorly in the media.

That one was a bit of humor on my part

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 06, 2014, 02:31:38 AM
Yeah.. I should step in on that one... the "Criticism" of rape culture is a little note about how it's "Blamed" for rape when rape is a conscious decision of a person.

Which, y'know, is great, so long as you assume that person lived within a bubble safe and secure from hearing, seeing, or interacting with how our society handles issues of rape.

People don't make conscious decisions apropos of nothing. There are factors that lead to decisions. Risks and Rewards are weighed against each other, cultural and personal experiences are measured, and one's moral compass (largely dictated by cultural norms) are all a part of what leads to the decision. Including the decision to rape someone.

Rape culture is not "To Blame" for rapes. But it is a factor in people's decision to commit rape, and as such it should be countered whenever possible.

You accused me of removing things from context and you are doing that here. You are completely disregarding that rape statistics have covered that men are almost as likely as women to be raped, that the current rape statistics that are flouted about were based off a very poorly done and criticized study. The same study that was the beginning of this 'rape culture' that keeps getting passed around.
I'm also on Discord (like, all the time), so feel free to ask about that if you want

[tr]
   [td]
[/td]
   [td]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Steampunkette

I did not intend to be condescending at all and I apologize for coming across that way.

As far as men and women being raped nearly equally: That is not at all the point of a discussion of rape culture.

Rape Culture, as a concept, is the idea that our society makes light, deflects responsibility, or even condones rape in a variety of situations. Whether we're giggling at a small guy getting locked in a big prison cell with "Bubba" or having female characters in TV shows and movies falsely cry rape as a "Common thing" our society has a lot of shitty attitudes about what rape is and how to handle it. From under-education or flat misinformation we communicate that rape only happens between a violent aggressor and a helpless victim and that all other situations of unwanted sex are just "Miscommunications" typically instigated by the victim.

That's what rape culture is about in feminist discussions. When talking about it, as relates to women, feminists talk about how society treats female rape victims. And that's it. Because that's what the discussion is about. How it impacts male victims is not a part of -that- discussion about female victims. It's a separate discussion that definitely needs to happen and DOES get talked about.

There is nothing in discussion of Rape Culture that mandates it only applies to women or only women get raped or whatever other argument is brought forward. That is a derailment.

As to the five things: Maybe it's something I'm reading into the text, maybe it's just something other people gloss over without looking at more deeply. I stand by my responses to how feminism interacts with those topics.

I'm not going to be discussing this matter any further for a while. I am beginning to get frustrated at trying to get across concepts and ideas and I think it has begun to affect my writing.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Ephiral

Orange Marmalade: The problem with your equivalence is that you'll be hard-pressed to find pillars of the feminist community that turn up on SPLC's hate-group watch. You won't see feminists trying to run cams that undermine real charities doing good work. Or calling the victims of a child rapist "whores". Or speaking out for domestic violence and rape. The distortion of feminism comes from its critics. The "distortion" of the MRA movement comes from its core.




Braioch, I'm really only going to touch on one of your links: The alleged "quotes from feminist leaders". Most of those names I, for one, don't recognize in a feminist context. Some of the ones I do - Solanas and Dworkin - are not only not leaders, but not taken seriously by mainstream third-wave feminism. Other quotes on that list... um... actually aren't objectionable. And do the Canadian panel on violence against women, or an allegedly-popular piece of graffiti, really count as feminist leaders?

Shjade

Quote from: Braioch on November 06, 2014, 02:38:35 AM
Again, did you read and click?

It was about how rape upon women is taken very seriously while the male victims are lost, ignored, or even berated.
I don't have time for the rest right now, but on this point: did you read her response? It was about how raped women are ALSO often lost, ignored, even berated.

That's typically the response to rape, regardless of the victim, by a lot of people.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Kathadon

As this subject has quickly becoming a claim and counterclaim fest of talking past one another as online Feminist discussions usually do, I will try and redirect the conversation. If both Feminists and MRA's claim to have the same basic goal of equality between the sexs why is it there is not more dialogue between the two groups? I have heard as a rebuttal that the NAACP and the KKK want the same thing as well, but this is a false equivalence. So why has no attempt been made by moderate Feminists and moderate MRA's (which I am sure exist) to come together in common cause for well.....anything?

I have also noticed the phrase toxic masculinity thrown about a bit. While gender theory is established much of the scientific research on whether culture or biology being the dominant influence on a person's gender identity is still in its infancy. Could we all agree on that? So phrases like toxic masculinity have become dog whistles to refute traditional gender roles for both men, women, and a cause of considerable pain for transgender. Correct? We do not on average say that a woman in a traditional caregiver role is shackled to her family, or enslaved to her children for instance. The choice of language is important. You can agree or disagree that traditional roles are harmful or not, but this phrase strikes me as no better than calling black culture thuggish in America. It shows a clear bias on the part of the speaker or writer.


OT: And the Southern Poverty Law Center has become a joke. They label as hate groups anyone that disagrees with  progressive aims with a focus on the far right. They tend to ignore the far left as well.  While it is their right to dislike or disagree with groups campaigning to end gay marriage or advocating for the deportation of illegal immigrants in California, a hate group has a very clear legal definition. The SPLC has used their list as a tool to shame, character assassinate, and delegitimize folks just for being a member in a conservative church or movement. Which is why the FBI dropped them as a partner in their hate watch campaigns. You do not get to dilute the true nature of a hate crime by applying that label to wide swaths of the American public solely on a political slant because they advocate differently than you. The SPLC are treading a fine line of having, by their own definition, to label themselves as a hate group.
My ON'S and OFF'S:

I'll do whatever pleases but I'll bleed 'em in the end.

My BDSM test results.

Ephiral

Take a look at the last link I posted. It's very little but direct quotes from Paul Elam, the man behind A Voice For Men and one of the central pillars of the MRA community. It also answers your first and last points. Feminists aren't interested in talking with self-identified MRAs because, by calling yourself an MRA, you identify with a community that centers around that. And are you really going to tell me there's no hatred there? That a group that grandstands in such a manner doesn't have hatred as a core value?

Caehlim

Quote from: Kathadon on November 06, 2014, 12:14:43 PMSo phrases like toxic masculinity have become dog whistles to refute traditional gender roles for both men, women, and a cause of considerable pain for transgender.

Just for the record, this issue has already been somewhat discussed over in the companion thread on Men's Liberation: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=217006.msg10663464#msg10663464
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Kathadon

Quote from: Ephiral on November 06, 2014, 12:36:04 PM
Take a look at the last link I posted. It's very little but direct quotes from Paul Elam, the man behind A Voice For Men and one of the central pillars of the MRA community. It also answers your first and last points. Feminists aren't interested in talking with self-identified MRAs because, by calling yourself an MRA, you identify with a community that centers around that. And are you really going to tell me there's no hatred there? That a group that grandstands in such a manner doesn't have hatred as a core value?

Forgive me if I do not take We Hunt the Mammoth as an unbiased or credible source for anything in these types of debates. I see alot of out of context quotes some that are vile. Does it mean there are no MRA moderates? Probably not.

If there are goals that align why has no one tried to bridge the gap between the two sides? Fear, demonization, and hatred is the only reason I can see.

Quote from: Caehlim on November 06, 2014, 12:43:41 PM
Just for the record, this issue has already been somewhat discussed over in the companion thread on Men's Liberation: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=217006.msg10663464#msg10663464

And thank you for that. I missed that thread.
My ON'S and OFF'S:

I'll do whatever pleases but I'll bleed 'em in the end.

My BDSM test results.

Oniya

I think it's more that the people that are concerned with the goals that align don't choose to identify with a group that is known for being aggressively anti-the-other-side.  Like it or not, the acronym of 'MRA' has been pretty well co-opted by people like Paul Elam.

It's the same way that people seeking to build bridges across religious divides don't choose to hang out with the WBC.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Caehlim

Quote from: Kathadon on November 06, 2014, 01:17:02 PMAnd thank you for that. I missed that thread.

No problem at all. It's very relevant to this thread as well and you brought up unique points that hadn't been touched on the other thread.

I just didn't want you missing half the conversation.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Ephiral

Quote from: Kathadon on November 06, 2014, 01:17:02 PM
Forgive me if I do not take We Hunt the Mammoth as an unbiased or credible source for anything in these types of debates. I see alot of out of context quotes some that are vile. Does it mean there are no MRA moderates? Probably not.
So you're saying that the quotes on that page did not in fact come from Paul Elam?

And... yeah, considering that AVfM is pretty much mainstream as far as the MRA movement goes... anybody who identifies as an MRA is, at the very least, condoning that. So they're not exactly moderate.

Steampunkette

Can we put the MRA discussion in the Men's Liberation thread, please?

Especially since it -actively- comments on Radical Masculinists who are, in fact, the moderates that feminists have actively worked alongside since the 70s?
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Deamonbane

#95
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I didn't make this, but I respect the fuck outta the person that did...
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Slywyn

There are many things wrong with that, and I don't know where to begin or how to phrase them. Maybe someone smarter than I am can handle it because I don't think I could manage.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Kythia

242037

Valthazar

It really depends on the woman - and how lighthearted she is.  I think it is possible for a feminist to be really passionate about making meaningful change, and at the same time, also be able to laugh (if she personally wants to) at a funny sexist joke or sexy novelty - such as something from Spencer's.

What's happening now is that the women who do laugh at the jokes and sexy novelties are being vilified by other women, so they tend to distance themselves from 'feminism.'  Even here on E, when I joke around about stupid stuff with women, I notice the women who find humor in such things saying "I'm all for equal rights, but I'm not a feminist or anything."

alextaylor

Equality between the sexes is always good. But feminists just tend to pick the wrong fights. There are important issues, like discrimination in hiring, in investing, in friendships. But what feminists do is they look to cure the symptoms and do nothing about the cause. And their attempted cure is often so full of side effects that it scares people off.

There's a lot of possible solutions:
- push for paternity leave so married women aren't discriminated against
- make engineering sexy so pretty girls don't pick jobs that have lousy pay like art, sales, marketing, fashion, food (and then complain about women getting lower average salary)
- build more/better nurseries so that there are less stay at home moms
- give free comp sci courses or design courses to stay at home moms or offer remote jobs like data entry
- teach people to raise their girls to be tougher and raise their boys to be prettier

And it frustrates me so much when feminists keep bringing up Rape Culture because all it does is start fights and solves nothing.
O/O

Steampunkette

Feminists have been pushing for Paternity leave (and for society to stop shitting on men for taking care of their kids and the household) for years. http://jezebel.com/paternity-leave-why-dads-going-home-with-baby-is-aweso-1489938655 Here's a Jezebel article from last year, one of the first results on a Google Search. Though, really, what we want is joint Parental Leave that both the mother and father can spend, together or individually at any given point between the two of them. (Or mother and mother, father and father, father and nonbinary parent, mother and nonbinary parent, you get the idea)

Making Engineering Sexy: Just reinforces stereotypes of what a woman is supposed to be (Sexy). Far better is trying to target young girls with science education to get them interested in engineering and other STEM occupations while simultaneously trying to alleviate the stigma against women in STEM fields. Both things that feminists are doing.

Build More/Better Nurseries: Are you serious on this one? I really can't tell. Most women who are unable to find support for their children so they can go to work don't have the issue of a lack of nurseries around: It's a lack of money. Besides, Parental Leave (number 1 on the list) would help solve the issue.

Give Free Comp Sci/Jobs to Stay at Home Moms: Feminism is an ideological movement, not a corporation. We don't have data entry jobs to hire stay at home Moms for because that's not how this sort of movement works. Though feminism does try to sponsor STEM programs for women whenever possible (mostly aimed at children rather than stay at home Moms because you need a lifetime of learning about the subject matter to get the job, y'know?)

Teach people to raise their girls tougher and boys prettier: W... what? This... I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean parents should put makeup on their sons and tell their daughters to "Walk it off"? 'Cause that's the kind of thing that pisses people off about feminist straw-men and has for decades. While we're trying to break down the socially enforced gender roles that lead to "Tough Boy, Pretty Girl, Nonbinary Nonexistence!" and have been FOR DECADES it's not as simple as just reversing the stereotypes or trying to put in a half and half solution.

As for Rape Culture... yeah. It start fights and solves nothing. It's not a solution. It's an expression to encapsulate a series of propositions that explain the sociological implications of a society which trivializes and condones rape in a wide variety of situations while simultaneously demonizing a specific type of extremely violent rape to push the horror of the crime (regardless of it's circumstance) off.

This is why the Steubenville Rapists, who brutally raped a drunken girl and dumped her unconscious and battered body naked in a snowbank near her house, are known as "Good Boys whose future shouldn't be ruined"

And it's also why inmates who get stuck in a cell with a big dude named Bubba getting violently raped are the butt of jokes (no pun intended). Because violent rape is FUNNY if you socially condemn someone!

But because it's such a new term people don't fully understand and people don't like the implications it puts on the society they live in (and often support to a jingoistic extent) it starts arguments. But it's only through education that people will come to understand what it is actually about.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Steampunkette

As for the shirt thing... Yeah. So many red herrings and concern trolling flying around from antifeminists and MRAs I don't want to get into it too deeply. Here's the four part explanation of the problem:

1. Dude wore a shirt covered in half-nude women to work.
2. The shirt was sexist and it really should have occurred to him that it was inappropriate attire.
3. Dude apologized for his mistake.

Things that don't matter:
It was made by a woman. A black guy writing racist propaganda against black men is still writing racist propaganda.
Freedom of Speech. He's got every right to wear that shirt: Everyone else has every right to point out how fucked up it is.
He Landed a Probe on a Moving Object from Thousands of Miles Away. So what? He gets a free ride to passively be a jerk? Fuck that.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Silk



Scantly dressed sure, but I wouldn't really say half naked only things really exposed is arms legs with a dash of low crop clothing, unless you consider the idea of a leotard to be half naked (only one that comes close is the strap lines on the top left), no dangerous exposure besides a couple of poses. Tacky and inappropriate? Sure, Belittling statement and sexist pig? Not really.

Steampunkette

1. I said I didn't want to get into this too deeply.
2. Quibbling over which half of the woman is nude is pointless they're still "Scantily Clad" and sexualized.
3. I didn't once call him a sexist pig. Don't mischaracterize me or my statements, please.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Kythia

Sorry, Silk, I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.  Are you saying people are wrong to find it sexist?  Because, yanno, thats not really up to you.  Or are you just saying that you personally didn't find it so.  In which case...cool. I guess.  I'll sleep well tonight now that's cleared up. 
242037

Valthazar

Are people who are offended by the shirt saying it is sexist because of the scantily clad women?   Would it still be sexist if his shirt featured both scantily clad men and women?

Silk

You did say his shirt was sexist and that he was passively being a jerk though (implying he somehow intended it)

No but a black man calling a black man a N***a is considered acceptable, but a white man saying it is a racist.

What happened to the "Don't judge us by how we dress" thing? Guess I just have this  notion that equality should be both or neither. If one doesn't want to be judged, then they shouldn't judge themselves. And don't bring up the whole rape thing. Major or minor, the same premise of judging another by their clothing is still there.

Quote from: Kythia on November 19, 2014, 06:23:09 AM
Sorry, Silk, I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.  Are you saying people are wrong to find it sexist?  Because, yanno, thats not really up to you.  Or are you just saying that you personally didn't find it so.  In which case...cool. I guess.  I'll sleep well tonight now that's cleared up. 

No I'm saying the response to something as miniscule as a shirt is insanely overblown and should be called out. I'm glad you'll sleep better though, I'm losing sleep over the injustices perpetrated by a ideological group that continuously claims to have the moral high ground yet in many cases is no better than what it "fights against". But I guess being condescending is the way forward for some people.



So wheres the uproar against the blatant sexism against her shirt?

Kythia

Quote from: Silk on November 19, 2014, 06:39:21 AM
So wheres the uproar against the blatant sexism against her shirt?

9gag.  See, as an example, the image you posted.
242037

Silk

Quote from: Kythia on November 19, 2014, 06:42:10 AM
9gag.  See, as an example, the image you posted.
Yeah, in response to the blatant bullshit against Matt Taylor It's pretty full of it right now and rightly so.  Yet there is still plenty of people trying to justify the aggro he's gotten while defending the feminist movement. Same nobody takes 9gag seriously and the stuff posted there won't see the light of day in pretty much any media unlike a certain movement I need not mention.

Seriously though. I would love to call myself a feminist, but this constant tripe and nit-picking of things that are overblown and in the grand scheme of things really don't matter. Is forcing me, and a rather sizable portion of society to distance ourselves from it. It detracts from the good that it does. So let's play a little game.

Matt Taylor's achievements are being overshadowed because and I quote.
QuoteHe Landed a Probe on a Moving Object from Thousands of Miles Away. So what? He gets a free ride to passively be a jerk? Fuck that.

So the Feminist movement
Quote from: Steampunkette on November 19, 2014, 05:19:27 AM
Feminists have been pushing for Paternity leave (and for society to stop shitting on men for taking care of their kids and the household) for years. http://jezebel.com/paternity-leave-why-dads-going-home-with-baby-is-aweso-1489938655 Here's a Jezebel article from last year, one of the first results on a Google Search. Though, really, what we want is joint Parental Leave that both the mother and father can spend, together or individually at any given point between the two of them. (Or mother and mother, father and father, father and nonbinary parent, mother and nonbinary parent, you get the idea)

Making Engineering Sexy: Just reinforces stereotypes of what a woman is supposed to be (Sexy). Far better is trying to target young girls with science education to get them interested in engineering and other STEM occupations while simultaneously trying to alleviate the stigma against women in STEM fields. Both things that feminists are doing.

Build More/Better Nurseries: Are you serious on this one? I really can't tell. Most women who are unable to find support for their children so they can go to work don't have the issue of a lack of nurseries around: It's a lack of money. Besides, Parental Leave (number 1 on the list) would help solve the issue.

Give Free Comp Sci/Jobs to Stay at Home Moms: Feminism is an ideological movement, not a corporation. We don't have data entry jobs to hire stay at home Moms for because that's not how this sort of movement works. Though feminism does try to sponsor STEM programs for women whenever possible (mostly aimed at children rather than stay at home Moms because you need a lifetime of learning about the subject matter to get the job, y'know?)

Teach people to raise their girls tougher and boys prettier: W... what? This... I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean parents should put makeup on their sons and tell their daughters to "Walk it off"? 'Cause that's the kind of thing that pisses people off about feminist straw-men and has for decades. While we're trying to break down the socially enforced gender roles that lead to "Tough Boy, Pretty Girl, Nonbinary Nonexistence!" and have been FOR DECADES it's not as simple as just reversing the stereotypes or trying to put in a half and half solution.

As for Rape Culture... yeah. It start fights and solves nothing. It's not a solution. It's an expression to encapsulate a series of propositions that explain the sociological implications of a society which trivializes and condones rape in a wide variety of situations while simultaneously demonizing a specific type of extremely violent rape to push the horror of the crime (regardless of it's circumstance) off.

This is why the Steubenville Rapists, who brutally raped a drunken girl and dumped her unconscious and battered body naked in a snowbank near her house, are known as "Good Boys whose future shouldn't be ruined"

And it's also why inmates who get stuck in a cell with a big dude named Bubba getting violently raped are the butt of jokes (no pun intended). Because violent rape is FUNNY if you socially condemn someone!

But because it's such a new term people don't fully understand and people don't like the implications it puts on the society they live in (and often support to a jingoistic extent) it starts arguments. But it's only through education that people will come to understand what it is actually about.

So that excuses some of them from being a bunch of whiny little nitpicking bitches to everyone that isn't part of their club or had the audacity to be born male? People say don't condemn Christianity for the actions of the WBC, or Islam for the ISIS, different being both of those condemn those groups quite openly. Most I hear is "Well that's not real feminism" as if that makes it all ok.

Kythia

Quote from: Silk on November 19, 2014, 06:52:59 AM
Yeah, in response to the blatant bullshit against Matt Taylor It's pretty full of it right now and rightly so.  Yet there is still plenty of people trying to justify the aggro he's gotten while defending the feminist movement. Same nobody takes 9gag seriously and the stuff posted there won't see the light of day in pretty much any media unlike a certain movement I need not mention.

Again, I'm not clear of your point.  Are you annoyed that a backlash against Valenti's shirt hasn't gained more traction?  It was fairly heavily discussed when it came out a few months ago, I seem to recall.  Not to the extent of Matt's, I'll grant, but it did certainly happen.  It got overshadowed a little by some other stuff (Valenti was accused of wearing it in response to male suicide figures being released then some made up quotes were attributed to her) which moved the conversation from the shirt itself. 
242037

Oniya

Here's a silly question.

Has the person who designed Matt Taylor's shirt come under the same degree of fire as he has himself, and has there been an apology from that front?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Silk

Quote from: Oniya on November 19, 2014, 08:33:18 AM
Here's a silly question.

Has the person who designed Matt Taylor's shirt come under the same degree of fire as he has himself, and has there been an apology from that front?

Of course not, it's a woman who made it so she did no wrong. Apparently

Slywyn

Quote from: Silk on November 19, 2014, 08:46:08 AM
Of course not, it's a woman who made it so she did no wrong. Apparently

Except people have said many times she's wrong for making the shirt, SOOOOOOOOO.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Kythia

Quote from: Slywyn on November 19, 2014, 08:59:10 AM
Except people have said many times she's wrong for making the shirt, SOOOOOOOOO.

Yeah, I was about to say.  Meanwhile in the real world...Steampunkette has criticised her misogyny in this very thread:

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 19, 2014, 05:53:09 AM
It was made by a woman. A black guy writing racist propaganda against black men is still writing racist propaganda.
242037

Steampunkette

Silk, I'm beginning to realize we're not going to see eye to eye on the topic.

Yes. There are Radfems who exist and cry out for all penises to be destroyed and men to be enslaved and call for political lesbianism. Not a question or a debate and it was touched on in the original post of this thread, specifically noting that it represented the violent edge of second wave feminism (and people who are in their 50s and 60s, today)

That doesn't negate the achievements first wave feminism made or undermine or devalue the work third wave feminism is doing. And it's not like we can somehow get rid of Second Wave Radfems or the daughters they raise believing the same ideology is somehow a good thing any more than Christians can get rid of the Westboro Baptist Church. They exist. The best we can do is limit their impact and move on. Thankfully they're all getting older and older and will, eventually, die out. Part of what I'm waiting for, y'know?

So I guess you can either choose to identify as a third wave feminist and support forward momentum, gain education on issues that exist around you but are hidden behind weak reasoning that is reinforced socially, and work toward a better future for women...

Or you can not do those things and try to succeed at what you are looking to do, whatever that is.

But at this point I understand enough about the sociology and background, history and politics, that you're not going to convince me to ignore what's going on. And yeah, I realize that sounds Culty or Brainwashed but, really, from my perspective a lot of the antifeminist posts in this thread and others seem just as confused or willfully ignorant.

I've been where you are, so don't think I don't understand your points or anything. I've just gained a wider perspective over the years than I had, then.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Oniya

Okay -  has there been any statement from her on the matter?  I'm not going to poke into the 'whys or why-nots', I just want to know if the designer has come forward with anything.  As a crafter, I know that if one of my creations caused such extreme embarrassment to someone that I had given it to (all the reports I've seen have said it was a gift), then I would be mortified.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Beguile's Mistress

I finally tracked down a journal I kept when I was in high school.  In it I had chronicled my first encounter with feminism.  I still feel the same today. 

Slywyn

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on November 19, 2014, 10:03:35 AM
I finally tracked down a journal I kept when I was in high school.  In it I had chronicled my first encounter with feminism.  I still feel the same today.

What was the encounter, out of curiosity?
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Blythe

Just as a note about the scientist shirt topic since it was also in this thread--it now has it's own topic here.

Blythe

The topic of Matt Taylor's shirt is not on-topic for this particular thread, please. Let's move to other thread-relevant topics.

Vekseid

Alright, I've mentioned this on multiple occasions: I do not want the Daily Pedophile a.k.a. the Daily Mail to be linked to or referenced on Elliquiy. They are not now, and never have been a reliable source for anything whatsoever. There is a reason I call them the Daily Pedophile, and they taint everyone who ever gets bilked into reading a single word of their filth.

Ahem.

Thank you.

Steampunkette

#121
So let's talk about the little things and why they lead to such terrible representation of feminism.

Firstly, no matter what someone tells you, the little things matter. A lot.

The big things, like the right to vote and equal ownership of property (which didn't happen until just before the Civil War in the US on a national scale, by the way), are huge and important victories. But why on Earth do they exist?

In Ancient Egypt, for example, around 3,100BC: Women were full citizens as far as property rights were concerned. They could own land, clothing, businesses. They could buy and sell and throw away their possessions if they so chose without issue. They could appear in a court of law to present a civil suit without requiring a man present to be their surrogate or their representation...

But by the time of Greece's ascent into power a woman could do none of those things. Those rights were specifically taken -away- from women in Greece's various lawbooks. What changed so drastically? (To be clear I used Egypt and Greece as comparative points to give context of the time disparity. Prior to the writing of the laws which stripped women's rights they stood on roughly the same footing as Egypt's women)

The first thing one must understand is this: Big things do not happen apropos of nothing. There is cause and there is effect, and in all but the most extreme of situations each action will have an equal reaction. It takes a particularly volatile situation or personality for an overwhelming reaction to occur.

If all the people around you owned land and businesses and houses and took their grievances to a civil court like regular ordinary people did, what kind of event would it take to drive you to remove all of those rights from half of the people around you? It would need to be something of dire seriousness, I imagine. Something so shocking to a standard course of reality that there would be massive ripples throughout society. But from what we know of Greece no such event occurred. No massive precipitous catastrophe from which all other dominoes fell.

Nothing. And yet half the population had their rights stripped away, easy as you please.

There is another impetus which allows for a massive destruction of personal rights, of course. And it's one we've seen over and over and over again, throughout history: Dehumanization.

The alternative to a single precipitous event is the plethora of tiny matters that reduce a person or group of people to something less than their peers. And once a group has been dehumanized to a certain degree taking away their rights is simple.

So while fighting for one's rights is of incredible importance, one also has to remember that we're fighting to be recognized as equal. Not just in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of our peers.

And while many may rally to the cry that women are already seen as equal, I look to the microaggressions and the casual sexism and cissexism that flow around me and say "No. We are not. Here is proof. Here is the hundred thousand tiny ways you show that you do not see us as equal to yourself and to others."

I've seen the difference. From being treated as "One of the Guys" to being treated as "A Girl" is a hell of a lot farther than most people like to believe.

Because the difference is made up of tiny steps.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Kythia

I'm sorry, but this example doesn't work.  Sparta, contemporaneous with Greece, had full property rights for women.  Your argument seems to be "In this place at this time women's rights were x,y,z.  In a different place in a different time they were a,b,c.  So what changed?" 

Well, it was the place.  The place is what changed.  There's no reason to hypothesise a chain of tiny strippings of rights, simply that you are discussing two different cultures.  "In China in 500 CE people grew rice.  In Europe in 550 CE they grew wheat.  Why the change?"

I agree tiny things matter.  In the now locked shirt-thread I argued that at length.  But this argument doesn't demonstrate it.  There's no reason I'm aware of to assume that this:

Quote from: Steampunkette on November 21, 2014, 09:14:45 AM
Nothing. And yet half the population had their rights stripped away, easy as you please.

actually happened - no reason to suggest people had those rights to lose.  Greece and Egypt are different places and you can't simply draw a line between them.
242037

gaggedLouise

Minoan Crete (around 20th to 15th cent. BC) has been hypotheszed sometimes as a society where women were dominant or at least moved on quite equal terms with men, and could wield real political and religious power. The trouble with that is, we don't have any written texts of any weight from the Minoans - none we are able to read anyway. Their art, paintings and lifestye does give an impression of femininity though, and there's an absence of clear images of male rulers, kings and so on. See Dawn of the Gods by British archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes and some later books.

With the Minoans, we know some of what hppened though. Their country was most likely invaded by the Mycaenean Greeks who were much more macho and warlike; the old ways were mostly suppressed and many of the women no doubt enslaved.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Kythia

Quote from: gaggedLouise on November 21, 2014, 10:04:24 AM
Minoan Crete (around 20th to 15th cent. BC) has been hypotheszed sometimes as a society where women were dominant or at least moved on quite equal terms with men, and could wield real political and religious power. The trouble with that is, we don't have any written texts of any weight from the Minoans - none we are able to read anyway. Their art, paintings and lifestye does give an impression of femininity though, and there's an absence of clear images of male rulers, kings and so on. See Dawn of the Gods by British archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes and some later books.

With the Minoans, we know some of what hppened though. Their country was most likely invaded by the Mycaenean Greeks who were much more macho and warlike; the old ways were mostly suppressed and many of the women no doubt enslaved.

Yeah, as I understand it something broadly similar happened centuries later with the invasion of Egypt.  But, one would assume, it happened in the opposite direction when the people we now call Spartans (unsure whether that was their name at the time) moved in to what we now call Sparta (ditto?).

Throughout the ancient world there were a variety of attitudes to things like this, and drawing a line across geography doesn't work.  Struggling to think of a pure example.  Benin?
242037

Steampunkette

Now with all of that said: Why is it such a problem with Feminism?

The first answer is that it is Easy to Ignore.

Most women in Western Society grow up surrounded by the Little Things. It is the background noise of their life. As simple and common as the high pitched ringing you hear in your ears right now... now that I have you specifically listening for it. Whether you're listening to it or not, that ringing is always there, just at the top of your register. Sometimes if you focus real hard you can hear other sounds as well. Just as steady. Just as clearly. But only when you recognize they're there and pay attention to them.

Now with that background noise comes something far worse: Internalization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP3cyRRAfX0 Linked for child

I'm sure plenty of us have seen this commercial. And, together, the statements of the mother and father tell a very discrete story of discouragement. But each, on it's own, seems perfectly reasonable. A parent simply being protective of their child, her clothing, or their own sanity when a school project gets "Out of hand". But none of those interactions exist without the others because the girl experiences all of them. And she has since before she had an understanding of words. Or, rather, the girls that the character represents that exist in our society are bombarded with these messages.

By the end of the video we're given a rather ham-handed idea of how the girl views herself.

The ham-handed ending, however, is a fairly good example of what internalization of sexism looks like. It's very likely that character will grow up and impart the same values on her children, probably just as unintentionally as her own parents did.

And what's worse: she'll defend each lesson and each value as perfectly valid because in the moment itself it seems like a fine thing to say, but the impact will be cumulative. At that point she's gained enough tolerance for the abuse that it no longer registers as abuse that she's placing upon her daughter to ever so slowly crush her interest in science and nature and anything otherwise coded for "Boy" in our society.

The second answer is: It's Easy to Dismiss.

It's not a big deal. It's irrelevant. It's tiny and pathetic and small and you shouldn't bother with it. You'll hear that a lot when you talk about any sort of Social Justice, and feminism is no different. But while you'll hear that about stuff that is considered a bigger deal (like the rampant sexism in gamer culture) the protestations get louder the more specific an example.

Because it is so easy to separate that example from all the others. To say that "This" one is too small to care about. That there are bigger matters to handle. To deride an argument as being miniscule and not having a bigger target.

What these arguments tend to miss, though, is that small, casual, common, thoughtless forms of sexism are far more pervasive than overt examples... but they are no less important specifically because they are so very common. They form an unconscious and simple form of dehumanization and minimization of women that is so ingrained that even the thought of examining it is viewed as a perverse waste of time.

Which brings us to the third reason: Self Inspection is Hard.

Looking at oneself honestly, and judging the motivations behind actions that are performed on a routine, is difficult. Seriously criticizing those motivations under the question of sexism (or any other pernicious form of bias for that matter) is even harder. Because we do not think of ourselves as sexists. And to self-criticize on the basis of sexism results in two common ends: Either recognizing that some of our social cues that we've internalized are sexist, or vehemently opposing even the idea that we might be sexist and rejecting the entire experience out of hand.

On some rare occasions people can, presumably,  honestly and sincerely look into themselves and find no internalized bias, but I've never seen it happen or heard of it happening.

I have, honestly and sincerely, looked into myself and found bias I didn't recognize was there. I openly admit it. And it is only through honest appraisal that we can work towards bettering ourselves, or at least shielding others from our internalized biases.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Steampunkette

#126
As for why I used Egypt it's because I was trying to show a span of time.

From 3100BC to around 600BC.

Egypt is one of the oldest societies on the planet and I wanted to express how far back our problems stretch. But if you want to play it that way, sure. Let's look at it that way.

All across the Middle East and even into India the law was laid down that women had property rights. In fact Biblical Judaism circa 1800BC specifically had women holding the same rights that were outlined in Egypt save that inheritance went to Men only, unless no direct descendant men existed in which case the inheritance went to wife or daughter in that order.

Hindu texts hold to similar doctrines, but further limit property rights to Earnings, Gifts, and Possessions gathered prior to the wedding. Which meant once you were married whatever came into the household was the husband. That was in 1500BC, though.

Then along comes Hellenistic Greece passing it's laws specifically stripping women of the right to hit courts without a dude or own property beyond her own earnings from a job she has to work for a man to get.

And then Rome came in and went "Wow, you Greeks were uptight!" and brought back the rights to inherit, divorce, and own property up to and including land. And then by Byzantium in 565AD you're getting into the severe restriction of women's rights, again.

Shit rolls downhill after that pretty much across the board outside of Islamic states where women are instead granted unprecedented freedoms all the way through 'til the 1950s.

But it's worth noting that it is generally understood by sociologists and historians of ancient periods that the relatively modern norms of women not having ownership rights (which the US only fixed in 1852) and similar standards of equality are exactly that: Modern. A change from a more egalitarian past when men and women were both just considered human.
Yes, I am a professional game dev. No I cannot discuss projects I am currently working on. Yes, I would like to discuss games, politics, and general geek culture. Feel free to PM me.

I'm not interested in RP unless I post in a thread about it.

Merah

For all the condemnation of ancient Greece's handling of women's rights, it's worth noting that Plato is perhaps the earliest example of a serious intellectual argument for the equal treatment of women. He still held many misconceptions but he saw far ahead of his time on this--credit where credit is due to Western philosophy. Sad that this component of his thinking wasn't adopted until many centuries later.

Skynet

#128
Quote from: Steampunkette on November 21, 2014, 10:33:58 AM
But it's worth noting that it is generally understood by sociologists and historians of ancient periods that the relatively modern norms of women not having ownership rights (which the US only fixed in 1852) and similar standards of equality are exactly that: Modern. A change from a more egalitarian past when men and women were both just considered human.

I understand that there are many aspects of history the general populace gets wrong, but I think that this quoted bit is the wrong choice of phrase, or is too optimistic regarding women's rights in the ancient world.  Women had better property and inheritance rights in several old societies listed, but I'd hesitate to think that it's "equal" in light of all the other societal issues which were still horribly repressive for women.

In ancient Rome, one of the examples, female slaves could be raped with impunity.  In ancient Greece male homosexuality was accepted but lesbians were most likely not thought to exist (they didn't seem to be acknowledged in their works).  I don't have direct sources to cite, but many readings on this subject about the sample ancient societies indicated that sexual progressiveness was hardly consistent.

Sorry for nitpicking and quoting the text of a denied poster who probably won't have the opportunity to respond soon, but I tend to see on the Internet about people trying to argue "that the old days weren't so bad until those assholes came along," or taking one aspect of forward-thinking and assuming that it applies more broadly than it really does.

Ephiral

Quote from: Skynet on November 24, 2014, 08:41:13 PMIn ancient Rome, one of the examples, female slaves could be raped with impunity.  In ancient Greece male homosexuality was accepted but lesbians were most likely not thought to exist (they didn't seem to be acknowledged in their works).  I don't have direct sources to cite, but many readings on this subject about the sample ancient societies indicated that sexual progressiveness was hardly consistent.

Since we're nitpicking, do you know where the term 'lesbian' comes from?

Skynet

#130
In the Wikipedia entry for 'Sexuality and community' it mentions that such conduct was considered "disgraceful for a female."

So I was wrong on the count of not believing they exist, but it still does not paint a pretty picture: the ancient Greeks were homophobes when it came to lesbians.  Not just that, but their sources on male sexuality are very common in comparison to women's desires; how much of it is due to loss of cultural knowledge, biased historians, and the prejudices of the Greeks at the time I do not know, but is probably a combination of all three.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I derailed this thread.  I'll probably start up a new thread if folk want to continue this course other than PM.

Deamonbane

Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Ephiral

#132
And He-Man has totally been a traditional centerpiece of a masculine childhood for generations, and not a relatively short-lived 80s thing that occasionally sees some nostalgia value pointed at it. This is what makes those two equivalent.

EDIT: I'm leaving aside matters of active vs passive characterization, power fantasy vs trophy, etc because seriously one of these has way more cultural impact than the other so of course it's going to get way more attention. The fact that you had to go to something that gets as little space in popular culture as He-Man? It says a lot.

Kythia

Also, I'm not sure what point you think you've made. I've never heard of he-man (which ties in with Ephiral's comment) but looking at the image it certainly does look like a vaguely unhealthy role model. The sole non idiotic thing i can think of is that you're pointing out that men have unrealistic expectations foisted on them by the media as well. And yes. Yes you do. You've made the point in a really bad way, giving the benefit of the doubt, but its a fair point.

If that wasn't what you were trying to say then for future reference, more people will understand your message if you use actual words.
242037

Beorning

Out of curiosity, on what grounds do you believe Barbie to a "trophy" and He-Man to be a "power fantasy"?

I'm not an expert on Barbie, but couldn't she be seen as a sort of "power fantasy" for women? After all, Barbie in her various incarnations is beautiful and rich...

Not trying to argue, just thinking out loud.

Quote from: Kythia on November 26, 2014, 01:59:36 PM
I've never heard of he-man

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o Really???

Seriously, I've always assumed that everyone knows who He-Man is... But I'm an 80s child, of course.

Ephiral

Quote from: Beorning on November 26, 2014, 02:02:03 PM
Out of curiosity, on what grounds do you believe Barbie to a "trophy" and He-Man to be a "power fantasy"?

I'm not an expert on Barbie, but couldn't she be seen as a sort of "power fantasy" for women? After all, Barbie in her various incarnations is beautiful and rich...
...and sitting around looking pretty and not really doing anything,in the overwhelming majority of incarnations (and certainly in what pops into people's heads when you say "Barbie". That's not a power fantasy.

Beorning

Quote from: Ephiral on November 26, 2014, 02:11:28 PM
...and sitting around looking pretty and not really doing anything,in the overwhelming majority of incarnations (and certainly in what pops into people's heads when you say "Barbie". That's not a power fantasy.

It may be a "social power" fantasy  ;) But yeah, I get what you're saying.

Ephiral

That's actually a very significant issue in male vs female toys and role models, and it tends to be invisible unless you're aware of it (and then you see it everywhere). Fantasies and role models for boys are people of action - they're pretty much always the driving force in their worlds, changing things around them. They are agency incarnate. For girls... well, we're getting more of that, fortunately, but it's still very much the exception.

Beorning

Oh, I know. I'm not in disagreement that this is an issue...

BTW. Speaking of that, the He-Man franchise was actually a bit progressive here: it gave boys the role-model of He-Man (who was, well, a total he-man), but it also gave the girls the character of Teela!

On the other hand, compare the opening to the He-Man show and to the show about his sister, She-Ra:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yeA7a0uS3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR65P73X5GI

Notice something?  ;D

Ephiral

Yep. This is a good case of the sort of thing I was talking about: He-Man is acting "by the power of Greyskull", "has the power", and is "the most powerful man in the universe". His team are the "Masters of the Universe". She-Ra is defined first and foremost in relation to her male counterpart (TBF, she was introduced later, but it's a very common trend even when this isn't the case, and even when referring to real people), is doing things "for the honour of Greyskull", and has literally no mention of power whatsoever.

And this is in a character who actually is doing things and moving the story.

Beorning

Well, I was personally referring to the fact that She-Ra's world seems to be much more, well... girly  ;D Cute companions, a unicorn with rainbow wings etc. But yeah, your observations are solid, too (although I'd say that She-Ra gives the impression of being quite powerful, even if she doesn't mention it).

Quote from: Ephiral on November 26, 2014, 02:54:08 PM
His team are the "Masters of the Universe".

To be fair, I've always assumed that "the Masters of the Universe" refered to *all* powerful characters in this show, both good and bad. That would mean that the Masters included Teela and Evil-Lyn. And even if we assume that the Masters were He-Man's team, then there's Teela again... But yeah, there's two powerful women in a whole show.

Quote from: Ephiral on November 26, 2014, 02:54:08 PM
She-Ra is defined first and foremost in relation to her male counterpart (TBF, she was introduced later, but it's a very common trend even when this isn't the case, and even when referring to real people)

Out of curiosity: examples for that?

Ephiral

To use an example that's still fresh in my brain: Scientists marry scientists on a fairly regular basis, for fairly obvious reasons. For a long time, it was seen as a conflict of interest for married couples to work together directly... which pretty much inevitably meant that the wife was reduced to low-level work on someone else's team, or getting whatever lab time she could scrounge off the books. Her career was defined in relation to his. Similarly, there's a strong trend of erasure in science and history alike - women's accomplishments are very commonly assigned to the men they were working with, up to and including leaving women out on Nobel prizes for work they spearheaded.


Skynet

Speaking of Barbie and the downplaying of women scientists, the toy designers made an incredibly terrible attempt at teaching girls that they can be computer designers.

Basically Barbie through her own incompetence spreads a computer virus and gets some male technicians to do all the work.  And then she takes all the credit.

Of course this is not the intent of the writers, but coincidentally it ends up playing into the "women are terrible at computers" trope when the moral of the story was supposed to be the exact opposite.

Shjade

Long story short:
If you're going to make a comparison of Barbie vs. Male Equivalent, He-Man isn't what you put in that slot.

G.I. Joe is.

If anyone would like to compare Barbie with G.I. Joe for their impact on a generation regarding ideals for sense of self, goals, personhood, etc., I'm all ears.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Kythia

Quote from: Shjade on November 27, 2014, 12:14:02 AM
If anyone would like to compare Barbie with G.I. Joe for their impact on a generation regarding ideals for sense of self, goals, personhood, etc., I'm all ears.

Their impact on an American generation.
242037

Deamonbane

Quote from: Ephiral on November 26, 2014, 01:38:44 PM
And He-Man has totally been a traditional centerpiece of a masculine childhood for generations, and not a relatively short-lived 80s thing that occasionally sees some nostalgia value pointed at it. This is what makes those two equivalent.

EDIT: I'm leaving aside matters of active vs passive characterization, power fantasy vs trophy, etc because seriously one of these has way more cultural impact than the other so of course it's going to get way more attention. The fact that you had to go to something that gets as little space in popular culture as He-Man? It says a lot.
He-Man was... actually quite a popular thing for a long time around here. Loong time. Throught the 80s and into the 90s. Even got a crappy movie adaptation. I only know about Barbie because my sister had one that she introduced as a giant evil... thing with her Ninja Lego Set.

My apologies for coming from a different cultural background and having facts on this one instead of yours. Many many apologies indeed.
Angry Sex: Because it's Impolite to say," You pissed me off so much I wanna fuck your brains out..."

Ephiral

Quote from: Deamonbane on November 27, 2014, 01:27:53 PM
He-Man was... actually quite a popular thing for a long time around here. Loong time. Throught the 80s and into the 90s. Even got a crappy movie adaptation. I only know about Barbie because my sister had one that she introduced as a giant evil... thing with her Ninja Lego Set.

My apologies for coming from a different cultural background and having facts on this one instead of yours. Many many apologies indeed.
He-Man had the same impact here - which still doesn't even begin to touch on Barbie's 55 years and counting, entire series of films, cameo appearances in other, wildly popular movies, and billions of dolalrs of revenue from 150 countries.

Seriously, you're comparing an 80s-90s fad, struggling to survive today in comic book form, to this:



So... sorry that you were unaware of it, but seriously one of these things has way more cultural impact than the other. The comparison just doesn't work.

Beorning

I'd agree with that. Barbie is definitely bigger than He-Man... I'm pretty surprised that you haven't heard of her, Deamonbane.

Lustful Bride

#149
More bad representation of Feminism.

Apparently in Australia Target and multiple other stores are removing GTA V from their shelves because it "promotes violence against women." and some big petition was made to remove it.

http://mmgn.com/ps4/news--target-australian-removes-gta-v-from-sale-due

.......*facepalm* I don't like GTA, I don't like any game that really promotes crime and glorifies lawlessness, but at the same time im not gonna make shit up to get it removed. I mean yeah you can go around causing Anarchy but its not like its a "wife beater" simulator.

Ugh, i don't even know what to say.

EDIT: too lazy to find a better article on this. wouldn't even know where to look. :P

Slywyn

What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Lustful Bride

Quote from: Slywyn on December 04, 2014, 04:48:00 PM


Freedom and equality for all mankind! Let every Human being have the same rights as the other!  ;D

SouvlakiSpaceStation

#152
Love Chimamanda. And I love how Beyonce included some sound bites of her in this song:

http://youtu.be/17hPCHLMpyM
(edited-- I posted the wrong video  :-[)

(I wish I could post the original music video because it's so great, but of course it's not on Youtube. :( )

I have troubled and mixed thoughts over celebrities championing feminism out of nowhere though. I'm afraid it will become de-politicized and just another capitalist marketing tool.

There's no way I'm reading the rest of this thread.
I'm back!! I think?
.:. About Souvlaki .:. My RP ideas .:.
Aways & absences (updated June 16 '16) .:. My tumblr. (NSFW. It's a mixture of inane ramblings, porn, and cute animals.)
AAHHHHHHHHHH ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) BUTTS

Caehlim

Quote from: SouvlakiSpaceStation on December 07, 2014, 09:37:56 PMI have troubled and mixed thoughts over celebrities championing feminism out of nowhere though. I'm afraid it will become de-politicized and just another capitalist marketing tool.

It's a tough call. On one hand I think what you suggest there might happen (in some ways I think it already has).

However on the other hand, I think feminism will achieve its goals when everyone everywhere takes it on board and it's just a part of everyday culture.

I think there's going to be some uncomfortable moments in between as we get there.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Prosak

#154
My brother has sometime ago disscussed feminism on the boards. I wont pretend I know everything but I will try to make sense. Feminism is about combatting womens suffrage. Not equal rights. It's about focusing on womens issues, for example: achieving the right to vote, but not caring in general about how men only get drafted. A "right" or policy of law feminists chose not to fight for, due to not wanting that. A, we only want to take the good and leave the bad kind of mentality. Feminism was a good movement which gave way for modern women in the west. But is still needed for other, more third world countries. Here in the west it is sort of given a "beating a dead horse" image these days.

And can you blam peaople? Rather then any persuit vs the all to real suffrage women face all over the world. The most vocal and followed nit pick, blindly swearing there is still suffrage for women in the west. When barely any is legit. The only credible complaints such as rape, is not just a women problem. Men get raped to. Pluss, why use broad terms? All men suffer toxic masculinity. Teach men not to rape. (implying all will)

Sorry, I guess that makes me a rape apologist blinded by his white privaleg. ( a sarcastic poke at no particular person, in order to highlight offensive statements created and intended to undermine any man or women that does not agree with the echo chamber that is radical feminists.)

Sorry for any women who agrees with me, my research shows your a victim of internalised mysoginy. And your opinion is mute, for your to oppressed to recognize all of american men oppress you. (really?)

I dont believe all feminists are this idiotic, I in fact understand it's necessity. Even here in the west, where women DO have equal rights. It is still relevant. Not to change the US or europe, but to remind us to fight against real mysoginy. (a strong word turned into pillow fluff by it's overly impropper and popular use in the west.) Im not saying bigotry doesnt exist here, but it IS a minority. Women are, treated with much higher regard then most men. But this is where feminists get it wrong. The persuit of equal rights begins and ends with government, law, and policy. Not with the social treatment of others. For there will always be ass hats, and there will never be a day where everyones treated like their own special little snow flakes. As a man much wiser then me once said. "Whenever I am told, 'thats offensive' I like to tell them, I fail to see your point."

I am Aglitarian. The real word which describes equal rights. And all I have to say is, I urge feminism to shut out their radical and sexist spokes people. And listen to women whom are much wiser. And base their views with FACTS. Not, I said it and that makes it so idiocy.

Edit, my bro is Garuss vakarian by thew ay. In case any one wondered.

Kythia

Suffrage doesn't mean "suffering" or similar, as you seem to think.  It means political franchise - the right to vote in essence.  Feminism is certainly not about combating women's suffrage.

The rest of your post is also wrong, but will take more sobriety than I have to explain why. 
242037

Caehlim

Hi Prosak, I've spoken with your brother a bit, it's nice to meet you.

Suffrage is a bit of a confusing term because it sounds so similar to suffering. The word suffrage actually refers however to the right to vote, women's suffrage is a good thing and not something feminism has combated again but rather fought for. I just want to clarify this because you use the term a few times in your post where I think perhaps you meant to write women's suffering.

Edit: I was typing this at the same time as Kythia. Sorry for the duplicate point.

Quote from: Prosak on December 12, 2014, 08:16:51 PMAs a man much wiser then me once said. "Whenever I am told, 'thats offensive' I like to tell them, I fail to see your point."

Earlier in your post you referred to being offended by being described as a rape apologist or blinded by white privilege. As best I can judge by the tone of your statements (which is difficult to tell with anything written), it seems that you're actually quite bothered by offensive depictions of your own male gender identity. It might help you to see the point of others, if you compare it with how you yourself feel.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Apple of Eris

Wow... so much wrong with that post...

Quote from: Prosak on December 12, 2014, 08:16:51 PM
My brother has sometime ago disscussed feminism on the boards. I wont pretend I know everything but I will try to make sense. Feminism is about combatting womens suffrage. Not equal rights. It's about focusing on womens issues, for example: achieving the right to vote, but not caring in general about how men only get drafted. A "right" or policy of law feminists chose not to fight for, due to not wanting that. A, we only want to take the good and leave the bad kind of mentality. Feminism was a good movement which gave way for modern women in the west. But is still needed for other, more third world countries. Here in the west it is sort of given a "beating a dead horse" image these days.

No. Women's Suffrage was started by Suffragetes. Yes they could be considered feminists, but that doesn't mean ALL feminists were ONLY suffragetes. That's like saying a square is a rectangle so all rectangles are squares.

Quote
And can you blam peaople? Rather then any persuit vs the all to real suffrage women face all over the world. The most vocal and followed nit pick, blindly swearing there is still suffrage for women in the west. When barely any is legit. The only credible complaints such as rape, is not just a women problem. Men get raped to. Pluss, why use broad terms? All men suffer toxic masculinity. Teach men not to rape. (implying all will)

Sorry, I guess that makes me a rape apologist blinded by his white privaleg. ( a sarcastic poke at no particular person, in order to highlight offensive statements created and intended to undermine any man or women that does not agree with the echo chamber that is radical feminists.)

Sorry for any women who agrees with me, my research shows your a victim of internalised mysoginy. And your opinion is mute, for your to oppressed to recognize all of american men oppress you. (really?)

To be honest, I can barely decipher half of this section. First off I'd venture most western feminists want women all over the world to have equal rights, I know I do. However I don't know what you think I should be doing about it to show my support for other women who have their rights limited. Am I supposed to say attend a rally against Iranian policies? Is that enough? Do I need to raise money for groups there? Or maybe I should fly there and march against the Iranian government's policies?

"The only credible complaint is rape." Really? Are you F-ing kidding me? How about the the complaint that it's harder for women to advance in major corporations. Sometimes because we're penalized for our role in procreation. How about the double standards women face sexually? I can't protest that? What about the fact that on average I'll make less than males in similar positions? WHat about the FACT that given IDENTICAL resumes, one with the name John, the other with the name Jennifer, the MALE resume was more likely to get a call back and be offered 3-5K more on average as a starting salary. Those are FACTS. How about not being harassed when I walk down the street? You ever have a guy follow you three blocks because he wants your number? You ever have a guy stand in a doorway and not let you through because he thinks he has the right to make you talk to him? Yeah, I have. More often than I would care to discuss. That's a reality for a lot of women, and that doesn't even address the catcalling and more.

And NO, I, nor any credible feminist I've seen claims ALL men do these things. If you don't that's awesome, big thumbs up to you. You don't need to point out you don't. We're talking about the ones who do. They may not be a majority, but they're damn sure a vocal minority at least.

And then you want to complain about broad terms? Hello pot, this is kettle calling. You're labelling all feminists with the same brush then complain bout generalizing? Yeah, good luck with that.

Your research huh? Well where is this research? Did you do a study? Is it published in a peer reviewed journal? I'm excited to hear more about this "research".

And I'd comment on the rest of that section but I can't tell what your point was or if you even had one.

Quote
I dont believe all feminists are this idiotic, I in fact understand it's necessity. Even here in the west, where women DO have equal rights. It is still relevant. Not to change the US or europe, but to remind us to fight against real mysoginy. (a strong word turned into pillow fluff by it's overly impropper and popular use in the west.) Im not saying bigotry doesnt exist here, but it IS a minority. Women are, treated with much higher regard then most men. But this is where feminists get it wrong. The persuit of equal rights begins and ends with government, law, and policy. Not with the social treatment of others. For there will always be ass hats, and there will never be a day where everyones treated like their own special little snow flakes. As a man much wiser then me once said. "Whenever I am told, 'thats offensive' I like to tell them, I fail to see your point."

Governmental, Law, and Political change often start with societal change. Change the society and government will change as well. Please go look at how changing social views on gay marriage and marijuana legalization are changing government policy in regards to those issues. The same with women's issues. The more we talk about it and change minds, the more likelihood of governmental and legal changes.

Quote
I am Aglitarian. The real word which describes equal rights. And all I have to say is, I urge feminism to shut out their radical and sexist spokes people. And listen to women whom are much wiser. And base their views with FACTS. Not, I said it and that makes it so idiocy.

Edit, my bro is Garuss vakarian by thew ay. In case any one wondered.

And I urge you to listen to the voices of the majority of feminists who want equal rights and equal treatment. We're not looking for a pedestal we're looking to be treated with the same courtesy and respect as men. You might as well urge republicans to denounce voices like Rush Limbaugh or Ted Cruz, or Democrats to denounce Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren. They may be on the farther ends of the spectrum in their views, but their views are representative of only a sample of the group, not all of it.

And by the way, most feminists are egalitarian. If you can't see that, well, I suggest you read up on modern feminism, not some of the crazier stuff from the 1960s.
Men are those creatures with two legs and eight hands.  ~Jayne Mansfield
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, then call whatever you hit the target. ~Ashleigh Brilliant

Ons/Offs
Stories I'm Seeking

Prosak

#158
Kythia: How so? I think you find me labelling all feminists ratical. I speak only against twitter feminists. By spokespeople I reffer to the anept faces of social justice warriors.

Im sorry if you find me inept, I spoke with calm clarity. Take this if anything.

Those who see no true issue, and insist there is, are not wise but blind.

Further, i will use an example. A situation which shows the problems amoung certain feminists. As well as why people face palm. When, for example. A mans brought to a tearfull apology on tv, told he is a vile pig filled with mysogyny, undermining his staple on history as well as his proudest achievement in his scientific career. Over.... A shirt... It was not a  win for women, but a sad sad show of bullying.


And for the record, ya, I meant suffering. Sorry for my inacurate use of grammer. T_T

Cae: I beleive I meant to imply those things are "offensive." Not that they offend me. None the less my point was to show that men are often the villian. Women viewed the victim. Thats what i meant by showing those broad terms. As for my sarcastic quips, Is  to show that these kinds of statements are meant to undermine anothers views, things said to silence others. It was not about the offense. Is it offensive to me? Yes. But I was not trying to use my offense. Merely show examples of things that turn people away. Though, Ia gree with your closing words. It's just people needt o try and keep their offense to themselvs when debating, or trying to teach. If all peopleh ear is, that offends me. What are they tol earn other then, you have feelings. (well shoopda woop we all do. Lol. )

Pleasure to meet you to by the way. ^^ Garuss actually speaks highly of your nuetral and peacefull stance.

Apple: Im kind of sick, so im sorry for the short rebuttle. And honestly I made my self look dumb. Well, here goes an attempt at rectifying that.

Listen, im not trying to undermine feminism. I merely tried, to no avail, to explain that feminism,but not all feminists, about the rights of women. Not men. There for is a movement that only adresses women. This is ok. I just have a disslike for the ditestable words of a few, whom are highly regarded. While other, more fair acivists are scolded, for their lack of extremity. FactualFeminist is a feminist I follow and often agree with. An educated women with a solid background. Whom supports her claims with facts. Listen, Aglitarians are those who advocate rights for men and women of any race or sexuality. Feminists advocate rights for women. The missconception is that feminist is the word for equal rights. Im not saying feminists as a whole are not for equal rights but am merely pointing out the ignorance of broadening a word for all equal rights when a suitable term exists. Im basically nit picking defenition. In the end it is justa l abel, but my ocd demands propper labelling. Lol. ^_^; I hope that made sense?

Bare with me when I say, Feminism is currently not taken seriously for one reason. As my mom told me " Pick your battles." What does this mean? Feminism is currently a buzz word associated with hating men, becouse. Rather then carefully picking battles. They try to change, or call offense to too much at one time. When someone doese this they overwhelm, and ears shut down as a result.

Please, believe me. I listen. I will name off Ayaa Hirsi Ali. As a sensible, well worded feminist. None the less I thank you for being civil when you had every right to feel offended by me.

Edit: by the way though, Im no talking 1960's. Im talking, Gamer gate, Not Your Shield, protesting at events for mens rights, twitter feminists. Modern day crazies that make blogposts saying men should have thier nuts chopped off, and reproduction be left to sperm banks. (Not making it up, people really say these kinds of things. I wish, wish, wish I was joking.) Im not bassing opinion on the past, merely our mind boggling present.

Caehlim

Quote from: Prosak on December 12, 2014, 09:38:04 PMFurther, i will use an example. A situation which shows the problems amoung certain feminists. As well as why people face palm. When, for example. A mans brought to a tearfull apology on tv, told he is a vile pig filled with mysogyny, undermining his staple on history as well as his proudest achievement in his scientific career. Over.... A shirt... It was not a  win for women, but a sad sad show of bullying.

Please don't start this topic again. We have Eight pages of it already on another thread. Probably best if you put any conversation on that issue over in the appropriate thread to avoid derailing.

QuoteNone the less my point was to show that men are often the villian. Women viewed the victim.

That can often be the case, and I personally think that a villain-victim dichotomy is too simplistic to be useful. If the various things that harmed women were as simple as a single voluntary act then it wouldn't be the insidious problem that it is.

QuoteAs for my sarcastic quips, Is to show that these kinds of statements are meant to undermine anothers views, things said to silence others.

I certainly agree that there are times where these are used in just such a way, however they do refer to real phenomena as well. The problem with using these terms in a dialogue is that both sides have to already understand the meaning and cultural phenomena referenced. On their own, these words and phrases are fairly useless at conveying anything and when they're just used in that way it can sometimes be a tool of silencing and intimidation.

However consider as well whether your own usage could potentially be viewed in such a way as well.

QuoteIf all peopleh ear is, that offends me. What are they tol earn other then, you have feelings. (well shoopda woop we all do. Lol. )

Well I think in most contexts that should be enough. I don't want to offend anyone or hurt their feelings. However in an actual discussion on the topic, while sharing emotional experiences can be useful and valid we also do need to look at more detailed explanations.

QuotePleasure to meet you to by the way. ^^ Garuss actually speaks highly of your nuetral and peacefull stance.

Thankyou. I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm neutral, I actually have strong opinions on the topic. I just think that when things get too hostile people can stop listening and thinking, I hope that by discussing things in a calmer way I might be able to get people to reconsider long held views, and in order to be fair I try to listen and understand other peoples' points as well and consider whether I might be mistaken.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

SouvlakiSpaceStation

I'm back!! I think?
.:. About Souvlaki .:. My RP ideas .:.
Aways & absences (updated June 16 '16) .:. My tumblr. (NSFW. It's a mixture of inane ramblings, porn, and cute animals.)
AAHHHHHHHHHH ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) BUTTS

Vorian

Quote from: Caehlim on December 12, 2014, 11:14:39 PM
That can often be the case, and I personally think that a villain-victim dichotomy is too simplistic to be useful. If the various things that harmed women were as simple as a single voluntary act then it wouldn't be the insidious problem that it is.

That, and - Personally, I feel that that narrative only serves to promote and reinforce some serious double standards in terms of what's viewed as abuse or sexual assault/harassment between men and women. Better recognition of these problems all around is going to be necessary if we're ever going to actually solve anything. It's kinda insulting to both men and women, really.
Ons/Offs - Updated 10/8/14 to reflect my switch to Liege and attempt a bit more clarity.
Ideas
Absences - Updated 3/26/15


Valthazar

Quote from: Prosak on December 12, 2014, 08:16:51 PMThe persuit of equal rights begins and ends with government, law, and policy.

This is a valid observation.  Much of the aims of today's brand of feminism lay within increasing the scope of government legislation.  Today's feminist movement often caters to the views of women with a more expansive view of government, and marginalizes the views of women favoring more limited forms of government. 

One can debate whether or not feminism's goals can only be achieved through increasing the scope of government laws.  Personally, I do not think this needs to be the case - since at its core, feminism is a movement of ideology, rather than policy.  For better or for worse, by not engaging conservative leaning women in the dialogue, feminism has firmly entrenched itself as a liberal leaning movement (which I would assert is why it is so politically contentious).

This is also why today's brand of feminism cannot so easily be thought of as a movement "simply for equality" since at its core, it isolates large swathes of women.

Caehlim

Quote from: Valthazar on December 13, 2014, 03:31:14 PMOne can debate whether or not feminism's goals can only be achieved through increasing the scope of government laws.  Personally, I do not think this needs to be the case - since at its core, feminism is a movement of ideology, rather than policy.

Yeah. I'm a big government kind of guy myself (so long as its rational, efficient and doesn't try to legislate morality) and I still don't think that increasing laws are the best way of achieving the goals of feminism. Don't get me wrong, we need to fix problems in the law that are disadvantageous to women and sometimes that will involve creating laws (although I think it will also involve deleting about an equal number), but I don't think it should be the answer to everything.

To truly achieve the goals of feminism I think we need to change the culture that exists in the day-to-day environment much more than specifically the halls of power. It's all well and good if domestic violence doesn't occur in areas with heavy police patrols, but we need to find a fix that will help people when the police aren't around. Otherwise we're at risk of disadvantaging the poor and remote.

QuoteFor better or for worse, by not engaging conservative leaning women in the dialogue, feminism has firmly entrenched itself as a liberal leaning movement (which I would assert is why it is so politically contentious).

Sorry, I can't agree with this at all. No one ever got anywhere in achieving social change by saying "but I wasn't invited to share my opinion."

If conservative women want to get involved in feminism they have to quite simply get involved in feminism and fight for their voice to be heard just like everyone else. If someone gives you a stage and a podium without you fighting for it, then it's not a stage or podium that's ever going to achieve social change.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Kythia

Quote from: Caehlim on December 13, 2014, 08:20:38 PM
Sorry, I can't agree with this at all. No one ever got anywhere in achieving social change by saying "but I wasn't invited to share my opinion."

If conservative women want to get involved in feminism they have to quite simply get involved in feminism and fight for their voice to be heard just like everyone else. If someone gives you a stage and a podium without you fighting for it, then it's not a stage or podium that's ever going to achieve social change.

This.  I've started and deleted a few posts here struggling to articulate what was wrong with that sentence and you've hit the nail on the head, Caehlim.  There is no barrier to involvement (or, at least, no additional barrier) and addressing a disenfranchisement does require the disenfranchised to want that to change.  If - as you claim and frankly I would disagree with - conservative women are being "left out" of feminism then there is an onus (not 100% of it, granted, but equally not 0%) to actually do something about it that isn't whining.
242037

Valthazar

#166
I agree with you that much of the solution lies in established conservative women becoming more involved with feminism.  However, as it exists now, we can certainly agree that feminism is not the apolitical, purely academic entity we want it to be.  Rather, as it exists today, academic feminism (as it is taught in university classrooms) is a cloaked liberal-leaning ideology that takes for granted a growth of government as a means for achieving its goals. 

Equality itself can either mean equality under existing laws, equality achieved via laws additional to the existing ones, or even a cultural equality that transcends legal status alone.  Throughout much of the 19th century, feminism strove for equality under existing laws - largely seeking reforms of the existing framework.  At the time, it was the more radical feminists who protested class structures in society (most notably, the idea of a patriarchal class above women).  These 'radical' feminists, as do many of today's feminists, believed that the law itself creates groups of people who were either advantaged or disadvantaged, suggesting that the system of laws themselves needs to be overhauled for women's rights to be secured. 

One can argue that today's brand of feminism centers on socialist feminism which argues that women can only be equal after "private property and the economic relationships it encouraged—that is, capitalism—were eliminated," or equalized amongst men and women.  As a result, socialist feminists seek to impose equality via new legislation (on issues surrounding wages, marriage, caregiver status, etc).  To the contrary, to individualist feminists, "justice" is not an end-goal which reflects an ideal socioeconomic arrangement in society, but rather, a means which permits the "free and peaceful choices of individuals in the legal sense of the word."  In other words, any voluntary choice is "just" - so long as each man, woman, institution, or business has the choice to carry out their wishes. 

According to individualist feminists, an organization or institution that has a strong bias against women and one that actively recruited women could exist side by side - so long as each was privately funded and no one was forced to participate in either.  Individualist feminists would also view the biased organization as inherently immoral, but they would use, "education, protest, picketing, boycott, moral persuasion—the whole slate of persuasive strategies" rather than attempting to use the 'force of law' to restrict the college's peaceful decision to not associate with women.  On a theoretical level, this is antithetical to the econo-socialist model of feminism taught in academia, which subconsciously or consciously, focuses unilaterally on the 'state' legally imposing their view of a just society.

Part of the reason for feminism's contention today is not due to disagreement on the end goals.  Rather, the "government heavy" brand of feminism sold in mainstream culture and academic institutions isolates those with differing understandings of justice and equality.  For as much can be said about the need for more conservative women being involved with feminism, much more can be said about the failure of professors (who are supposed to convey ideas in an apolitical manner) to convey ideologically different stances.  I would also argue that many feminists who are passionate about social change via legislation would not openly embrace individualist feminists.

Kythia

QuoteI agree with you that much of the solution lies in established conservative women becoming more involved with feminism.  However, as it exists now, we can certainly agree that feminism is not the apolitical, purely academic entity we want it to be.

Well, depending on precisely what you mean there, and there are a few ways that could be read, I certainly don't want feminism to be an apolitical, purely academic entity and I remain unconvinced anyone does.  I want it to be a living breathing movement that exists in the real world: If I had to chose between Women's Studies departments ceasing to exist and street level campaigners ceasing to exist I'd choose the former without a pause for breath.  The academic aspects should, must, be nothing more than an outgrowth of the worldly.  Not to say one can't inform the other, just to say that if there ever ends up being a conflict then the lived experience must triumph.

As to the rest: Hmmm...I'm not sure to what extent I'd grant any of that.  Sure, there are different strands - the two you mention aren't even a complete list.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, I personally consider that to be a good thing though, of course, not everyone does.  And I'd probably grant that feminism as a whole sits left of centre in practice.  Where I think we disagree is, as I touched upon in the first paragraph, your belief that feminism comes "downwards" from academia vs. mine that it comes "upwards" from everyday life.  It is, of course, possible to be a feminist, and a "good" one, without engaging with academia but not possible to be a feminist academic without engaging with how it works - the analogy would be with, say, physics.  Physicists don't create physics, physics creates physicists.  If there is a feeling of disillusionment/disenfranchisement then the way to address that isn't through professors, professors are little more than journalists reporting on the facts.  The way to change that is through engaging with the areas they report on and analyse.
242037

Valthazar

Quote from: Kythia on December 14, 2014, 06:29:52 AMWell, depending on precisely what you mean there, and there are a few ways that could be read, I certainly don't want feminism to be an apolitical, purely academic entity and I remain unconvinced anyone does.  I want it to be a living breathing movement that exists in the real world: If I had to chose between Women's Studies departments ceasing to exist and street level campaigners ceasing to exist I'd choose the former without a pause for breath.  The academic aspects should, must, be nothing more than an outgrowth of the worldly.  Not to say one can't inform the other, just to say that if there ever ends up being a conflict then the lived experience must triumph.

I am not sure what benefit comes from intentionally politicizing the inherent nature of feminist theory and feminist research literature.  While as you say, different groups of individuals may choose to incorporate their interpretations of these ideologies into political campaigns (such as campaigning for laws and legislation striving for equality), the inherent feminist theory underlying these views are apolitical. 

Whether or not one chooses to engage with academia, one can only justify their feminist views if their statements have been corroborated in peer-reviewed research journals.  Topics such as rape culture, porn culture, and the patriarchy have been well-documented in the literature, and thus, women who talk about this outside of academia also have merit.  However, a lay person cannot simply develop a feminist theory and start perpetuating this as fact.  For better or for worse, the theoretical basis for what constitutes “feminism” is the domain of Ph.D.s.  Political activists may choose to draw from this wealth of apoliticized, empirical literature to develop political campaigns for justice.  I think most of the rational individuals criticizing contemporary feminism find fault with these politicized interpretations of the literature, rather than the theoretical basis of the women’s studies literature itself.

I compare this to teaching in many ways.  Anyone can be an excellent teacher, and anyone can develop strategies to effectively convey information to students.  However, in order to gain credibility for one’s teaching style, they need to corroborate their teaching style with research-based teaching techniques in the research literature.  If they develop an innovative approach or technique that no one else is using (or at least, has not been published), they need to write/publish a research article demonstrating its effectiveness, because otherwise, they lack credibility.

My primary assertion is that feminism, as it is currently being taught in academia to 18-22 year olds, is no longer teaching the core tenants of the movement, but is rather perpetuating one (or a group of) politically-motivated applications of feminist theory favoring government-centric remedies.  If anything, I think this is done subconsciously – perhaps in trying to engage with students on a “more basic” level that they can relate to.

For example, discussions about the gender wage discrepancies are frequently presented to young women as a simplistic choice between “passing laws to prevent the gender wage gap” and “letting discrimination perpetuate.”  Rarely ever are budding feminists exposed to the myriad of interpretations of justice and equality (as has been documented in the literature by feminists of all ends of the political spectrum), and permitted to debate the different ways this may manifest in political campaigns.  As it stands now, college-age students are in a precarious situation where they seemingly need to choose between being opposed to women's issues (in the simplistic manner in which it is portrayed) or favoring government-centric solutions.

Kythia

No, you're putting the cart before the horse there.  What you seem to be arguing is that no movement or ideology can exist without a formalised academic structure giving it rigour.  This is incorrect, and can easily be shown to be - which do you think came first: feminism as an everyday movement or an academic understanding of feminism?
242037

Valthazar

Quote from: Kythia on December 14, 2014, 07:54:39 AMwhich do you think came first: feminism as an everyday movement or an academic understanding of feminism?

Feminism as an everyday movement.  That is similar to the question of - which came first: teaching children, or the profession of education? 

Children were taught first, before the academic understanding of education as a profession was developed.  But in this day and age, unless a teaching method or educational approach has been documented in peer-reviewed literature, its credibility is suspect in the classroom.

Kythia

Potentially so, I have no idea to what extent evidence informs teaching practice in this country, let alone the US.  But its a false analogy because there are objective, stateable aims to education.  You want kids to learn stuff, retain it, understand it, etc.  There is, as you've said yourself, no such teleology in feminism.  In order for Professor McExample's research to lead my practice it would first be necessary to show that Prof. McExample wants the same things to happen as I do which is by no means guaranteed.  Even if the entire faculty of every single university in the world wanted something different to what I want, that wouldn't in any way invalidate what I want or necessarily make it not feminist. 

By your logic it is actually impossible for conservative women to become involved (if we grant your assertion that they aren't and want to be) as there is no theoretical underpinning enabling them to be.  Without something to study and analyse there can't be academic explanations of it, and if you're claiming that an academic understanding of something is necessary then you're closing the door to any change to the status quo. 
242037

Valthazar

In the liberal arts (which women and gender studies frequently falls under), professors conduct literature reviews in their area of specialization, and then put forth research hypotheses for further study to contribute scholarly material.  In the liberal arts, 'research hypotheses' frequently represent new perspectives, viewpoints, and philosophies that synthesize existing material, and put forth new ideologies and narratives.  These are the same ideologies and viewpoints that inform what material is taught to the next-generation of feminists sitting in the classroom.  We can agree to disagree on whether peer-reviewed literature represents 'fact' with regard to women's studies.

I had stated that the theoretical framework of feminist theory (at its core) is largely apolitical - with expansive understandings of what constitutes equality and justice.  In other words, the sheer amount of feminist research that exists can appeal to men and women across the political spectrum (including conservative women):

Quote from: Valthazar on December 14, 2014, 07:49:25 AMRarely ever are budding feminists exposed to the myriad of interpretations of justice and equality (as has been documented in the literature by feminists of all ends of the political spectrum), and permitted to debate the different ways this may manifest in political campaigns.
Quote from: Valthazar on December 14, 2014, 03:20:16 AMIndividualist feminists would also view the biased organization as inherently immoral, but they would use, "education, protest, picketing, boycott, moral persuasion—the whole slate of persuasive strategies" rather than attempting to use the 'force of law' to restrict the college's peaceful decision to not associate with women.

My central argument is that much of the research that takes place by existing Ph.D.s, who are informing the next-generation of feminists, largely focus their research on topics pertaining to the role of the state (government) in fostering justice.  On the other hand, a more balanced research and teaching perspective would also teach and educate students from the myriad other feminist theories reflecting differing understandings of justice and equality (separate from the socio-economic one) - as highlighted in my earlier posts.

Caehlim

Valthazar, sorry I don't think I'm going to be able to respond to your points for a little while. I've got a headache and it's not helping me construct cogent political discussion at the moment. Just wanted to mention something since it's partly in response to my comments and I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you after the effort you're putting into your posts. I'll jump back into the discussion later when my brain is working.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Kythia

But you're totally overlooking and neglecting the traffic in the other direction.

Quotethe research that takes place by existing Ph.D.s, who are informing the next-generation of feminists

focuses on only one aspect.  The research taking place by existing PhDs is also being informed by the current generation of feminists.  I would argue considerably more so.  I personally have never read a single PhD thesis by a Women's Studies student.  I can't even name one.  I don't know anyone who can.  And I'm a PhD student myself, I'm hardly anti-academia. I can name countless people on the ground whose activities are being analysed and critiqued by those students, though. 

Your argument relies on theory travelling in one direction only - academia to the world - when you admit yourself that that isn't what has historically happened.  As soon as you put in the other direction your argument becomes a lot weaker.
242037

Valthazar

Quote from: Kythia on December 14, 2014, 09:06:14 AMThe research taking place by existing PhDs is also being informed by the current generation of feminists.  I would argue considerably more so.

This is most certainly true, I have conducted field research as well.  However, I am speaking specifically about the higher elevation research, which attempts to develop overarching narratives and themes based on a selection of the existing literature.  This guides future areas of study.

I was not referring to consulting others' dissertation topics.  I was, however, referring to teaching being based on prior literature - as described above with other researchers' field reports and narratives.  When a professor of women's studies submits his or her syllabus for review at the beginning of the semester, she must know with absolute certainty that all the material she plans to teach has been peer-reviewed in the literature.  If she interjects perspectives relating to feminism that have not been reviewed in the literature (which may even be factually true if it were published), a student can rightfully criticize her for this.

To return to the original point, my concern is that much of the higher order feminist research currently taking place is overwhelming focusing on one subset of feminist theory - and neglecting to educate students on feminist ideologies that value justice from a non-socioeconomic perspective.  For example, even the notion that there is an umbrella term known as feminist economics - which openly supports a pro-government perspective - suggests that mainstream understanding of "feminism" today is increasing being linked with a left-leaning ideology - which when looking at the collective whole of feminist research (not by sheer number of articles, but my representation), is from from the case.  Feminist ideology at its core is apolitical.

Kythia

Quote from: Valthazar on December 14, 2014, 09:39:56 AM
When a professor of women's studies submits his or her syllabus for review at the beginning of the semester, she must know with absolute certainty that all the material she plans to teach has been peer-reviewed in the literature.  If she interjects perspectives relating to feminism that have not been reviewed in the literature (which may even be factually true if it were published), a student can rightfully criticize her for this.

...

wow

...

OK.  I think that might be the root of our problem then, we might be arguing across the Atlantic.

Over here, the 1988 Education Reform Act guarantees the right to: "question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have"  Submitting a syllabus for approval would be...I can't imagine.  It's just not conceivable.  There'd be genteel rioting in the streets.
242037

Valthazar

There is a difference between teaching questionable facts as facts versus the professor questioning assumptions (while permitting - and encouraging - students to disagree openly and critically analyze content, which may lead to further study).  The latter is healthy, and the 1988 Education Reform Act refers to the latter.

I am sure there is a similar review process in the UK, though the specific nature of the review process may vary.  When liberal arts disciplines like English, Women's Studies, or History are taught in an academic setting, there needs to be some sort of check-and-balance to ensure that the concepts the professor is teaching have at least some recognition and respect in the wider academic community. 

This is also why the concept of tenure is increasingly coming under scrutiny (for other reasons as well).  People like the Kevin MacDonald who were respected professors of Psychology in the past, have now started voicing pro-white racist views, and the university can do very little about this.

Kythia

Quote from: Valthazar on December 14, 2014, 10:12:07 AMI am sure there is a similar review process in the UK, though the specific nature of the review process may vary.  When liberal arts disciplines like English, Women's Studies, or History are taught in an academic setting, there needs to be some sort of check-and-balance to ensure that the concepts the professor is teaching have at least some recognition and respect in the wider academic community.

Not in the same way, no. Professors are expected to be regularly publishing in appropriate places, which ensures their work is up to date, sensible, etc. In some departments there may also be requirements either internal or to guarantee acceptance by professional organisations. Outright review of a syllabus though? God no.
242037

gaggedLouise

#179
Speaking from Sweden here, I have never heard of a professor (or a college of professors in a subject) having to make sure in advance that every single item on the reading syllabus, and what they're planning to say in their lectures, have been solidly peer-reviewed in the sense of that word within the medical/natural science community, and that those articles and books are "free of bias" or theories that are too new - or members of the teaching staff would risk getting sued or disciplined by the head of the university. I have a hard time seeing how that could work within humanities, historical or social studies. No one expects every single item you read at a course in modern history, philosophy, law or women's studies to be free of any kind of bias or not arguing some points of its own beyond what sits safely upon what is already assured by the consensus of research.

So yes, I think Kythia is right this could be about U.S. standards (at some universites?) vs UK/European standards.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Valthazar

#180
I suggested that deviating from scholarly literature causes the professor to open herself up to criticism (nothing to do with getting sued).  I was speaking specifically about the written syllabus itself (not what is orally taught in class, since that is virtually impossible to regulate on a case-by-case basis).  I was also not making any commentary about this being an administrative means to combat bias in teaching.  Rather, it is necessary to ensure that the views being taught are respected by at least some other groups of scholars in the field.  This prevents fringe views (which may be of a suspect nature) from being taught.  Often times, by its very nature, teaching is inherently biased - since instructors survey the literature and can choose only a selection of content to teach students.

In the US, there are no universal "curriculum standards" for higher education, but rather, regional private accreditation agencies.  Universities voluntarily apply for accreditation, and are only obligated to undergo the review/renewal process so long as the university wishes to stay accredited.  There are literally hundreds (if not more) accrediting agencies in the US, so each university has a different curriculum/syllabus review process based on their accrediting agencies' stringency.

Virginal Tech's syllabus and course approval process offers a great overview of the process.  Rhode Island College goes into extreme depth about the structure of their undergraduate curriculum committee.

I am not involved with women's studies, so I decided to search for some examples of course proposal forms in women's studies online. 

Examples
University of Maryland - Baltimore County states, "We ask that courses designated GWST be informed by contemporary gender and women’s studies scholarship and that for that will count for the Critical Sexuality Studies minor be informed by LGBT, queer, and sexuality studies scholarship."

The University of New England states that, "course content must clearly reflect and acquaint students with recent scholarship on women, gender, and/or feminist theory."

Nazareth College has a word document which outlines their requirements for new courses in their syllabus review process.  The document states how, "The course should represent and employ recent feminist scholarship, methodologies, concepts and analyses so that students can acquire an understanding of the multiplicity of feminist approaches and perspectives and can develop their own informed positions on the issues raised in class." 

Recently, Gettysburg College actually ran into a similar dilemma we are facing in this thread - where some instructors were trying to introduce "unconventional" topics (which were not always literature based) into their women's studies program.  This was the solution they decided:

"On the one hand, we wanted to choose courses in a way that protected the scholarly quality of the women's studies program; on the other hand, we were well aware of the political risks we ran by excluding some courses.  We finally set up two classifications for courses -- core and affiliated -- with stricter standards for the core courses than for the affiliated, but with a limit on how many affiliated courses a student could count toward the women's studies minor (no more than 2 out of 6)."