Matt Taylor's shirt

[Kythia]

Yeah, its somewhat difficult to see how "Some women are being treated poorly" leads to "We should abandon a movement that seeks to ensure women aren't treated poorly."

[Cycle]

Feminism is a sinking ship, if your a good person and have a lick of sense. Take my advice, bail now. Take your chances in the river, for the ship will sink you.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

The Oxford Dictionary defines "feminism" as follows:  "[ˈfeməˌnizəm]  NOUN   the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

So, you are suggesting that we, as a society, should stop advocating for women to have equal political, social, and economic rights as men?  And take our chances doing what instead?

[Silk]

What do you mean by this, exactly?

The Oxford Dictionary defines "feminism" as follows:  "[ˈfeməˌnizəm]  NOUN   the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

So, you are suggesting that we, as a society, should stop advocating for women to have equal political, social, and economic rights as men?  And take our chances doing what instead?

Well the common one is that with that definition entirely excludes avocation of mens rights to be equal to women, it leads to a issue that is often seen in modern feminism. An example if you will.

A man has to work for 8 hours and gets paid £6 a woman works for 6 hours and gets paid £6. Which on paper is a fair deal, but when you say a man makes makes £48 in a days work, but a woman makes £36 in a day's work it becomes unfair, so the woman get's her pay raised to £8 so they both result in £48 a day. But there is no avocation that the man is now working 2 hours more for the same pay as the woman.

Not saying that feminism doesn't do that, but it barely gets a fraction of the attention that discrepancies against women gets. This includes, jail time for same crime. Boys grades in schools, Domestic violence, rape (In many counties erections are seen as consent regardless of the mans wishes) Suicide rates, false child support claims. Although these issues are slowly getting more attention and addressed more, its almost never under the banner of "Feminism" even though it might be a feminist advocating it.

[Kythia]

OK, even if it were correct that feminism paid no attention to men's issues (or issues that disproportionately affect men, to phrase it a little better) - which it isn't - that still wouldn't be a valid point.  Are you objecting to any movement that doesn't try to address every single problem in the world?  Because that's simply not a sensible position to take.  So yeah, even if we grant your demonstrably untrue premise, it wouldn't matter in the slightest - working towards women's equality would still be a good thing.

[Silk]

It's quite simple really. One, I didn't say feminism didn't I said it doesn't get the attention, nor the banner of feminism rallying cry about them. Just thought I'd correct you there. Also, in a objective sense, equality is a balance between, which means you need a balance of focus. You can't have a scale which has one side with 4kg of sugar and the other with 5kg of butter, then make it equal by giving the side with sugar 5kg of butter but only give the other side 2kg of sugar if you want the scale to be balanced.

[Kythia]

It's quite simple really. One, I didn't say feminism didn't I said it doesn't get the attention, nor the banner of feminism rallying cry about them. Just thought I'd correct you there. Also, in a objective sense, equality is a balance between, which means you need a balance of focus. You can't have a scale which has one side with 4kg of sugar and the other with 5kg of butter, then make it equal by giving the side with sugar 5kg of butter but only give the other side 2kg of sugar if you want the scale to be balanced.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point, it's been a long day at work.  Could you explain that again please?

[Silk]

If you have a scale. Lets call it the equality scale.  Two sides, Males and females. Currently the scale is out of balance. Males have 6 kg of butter, while females have 4kg of sugar. Now for an organization that wants to get the balance between the two to reach equality, you can't just give females 3kg of the 6kg of butter and give males 1kg of sugar then call it a day. Because that isn't balanced. It would be women with 3kg of butter and 3kg of sugar, while males have 3kg of butter and 1kg of sugar.

If equality is to be achieved then the balance must be struck, otherwise it's just going to be imbalanced the other way. Which a lot of people are of the growing view that Feminism's version of equality is just for females to have the same amount of butter as men, while not really caring about that women have 4kg of sugar over men. When true equality would be for them both to have 3kg of butter and 2kg of sugar. Its a matter of give and take, and recently Feminism has done a whole lot of taking.

[Kythia]

If you have a scale. Lets call it the equality scale.  Two sides, Males and females. Currently the scale is out of balance. Males have 6 kg of butter, while females have 4kg of sugar. Now for an organization that wants to get the balance between the two to reach equality, you can't just give females 3kg of the 6kg of butter and give males 1kg of sugar then call it a day. Because that isn't balanced. It would be women with 3kg of butter and 3kg of sugar, while males have 3kg of butter and 1kg of sugar.

If equality is to be achieved then the balance must be struck, otherwise it's just going to be imbalanced the other way. Which a lot of people are of the growing view that Feminism's version of equality is just for females to have the same amount of butter as men, while not really caring about that women have 4kg of sugar over men. When true equality would be for them both to have 3kg of butter and 2kg of sugar. Its a matter of give and take, and recently Feminism has done a whole lot of taking.

OK, sorry for not following you earlier.

What on earth makes you think that is happening?  Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just the impression you've been left with?  Not to claim that your impression is ignorable, but clearly it makes a difference whether this is a problem of perception or of fact.

[Silk]

This is just my personal perception in response to what Cycle posted and what appears to be the growing consensus of people who are losing favor of Feminism in general. Objectively right or no, that seems to be what's getting peoples goat.

[Kythia]

So how would you suggest that is overcome?  Taking you as the type specimen, what would convince you (and, by extension, others)that you're mistaken?

[Silk]

For me personally, it would be more time to be focused on things I personally feel that matter. Currently we have much larger uproars about scientist's T-shirts and video games than we do about one sex having 4 times the suicide rates other another. Or that systematically boys are disadvantaged within school settings and that we are trying to change boys to fit schools instead of schools to fit boys. Not that it's just feminists faults in that regard, media certainly doesn't help. Also the cherry picking of information to suit needs would be a nice change of pace. It's kinda like the anti-vaccination thing going on. One study, that was founded to be a complete fraud. Is about the only evidence given in support. Yet it's still screamed and lorded as the be all of end all and all evidence to the contrary is shouted down or otherwise ignored.

[Kythia]

Do you have any examples of that cherry picking, or is it again a matter of perception - that it appears to you there is cherry picking happening even if you can't point to any of it?  Again, both are valid but the distinction matters.

As to the bulk of your post, yeah I know that over here (UK) white working class males are systematically underperforming in schools, its a fairly big issue.  Firstly, I return to the point that even if feminism had nothing at all to say on this matter it would still not make feminism a bad thing - just as, say, gay rights organisations have nothing to say on that matter. 

Feminism has, though, engaged with the it- there's a really interesting book about it available online which traces through the subject. 

I suspect the issue here is with the media you choose to consume being more receptive to short, easily discussed matters like a shirt or whatever rather than ones that require more in depth analysis.  In short, I think your issue is 100% with the media but I can understand how it looks like an issue with feminism. 

All I can really suggest is that you have a scout around and look in to the issues.  Obviously, as I think has been clear by my posts, I think you're mistaken on this point.  But I can't, I dunno, forcefeed it to you. 

EDIT:  Managed to use "matter" three times in one sentence.  *hangs head in shame*

[Silk]

http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Not sure on their validity as they were quick Google searches, but you get the idea. Anyway getting off topic and I got assignments to write so I won't respond for a while.

[Kythia]

Fair enough, there are some problems with validity there but I certainly don't want to distract you from assignments.  It was good talking with you and best of luck with the schoolwork.

[Cycle]

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion (emphasis added):

Well the common one is that with that definition entirely excludes avocation of mens rights to be equal to women, it leads to a issue that is often seen in modern feminism.

From this definition:

The Oxford Dictionary defines "feminism" as follows:  "[ˈfeməˌnizəm]  NOUN   the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

I bolded something that is relevant:  equality.  One equals one.  Two does not equal one.  One does not equal two. 

Thus, that definition actually does call for men's rights to be equal to women's.

Equal is equal.

[consortium11]

Do you have any examples of that cherry picking, or is it again a matter of perception - that it appears to you there is cherry picking happening even if you can't point to any of it?  Again, both are valid but the distinction matters.

To pick out a topical example, a stat that was frequently paraded around during the recent UVA rape scandal (and one that both Biden and Obama have repeated and used) was that one in five women will be sexually assaulted while at college/university in the US and a woman is actually at more risk of being sexually assaulted if she goes to college then if she doesn't. However the study this is based on is of two universities and even with a financial reward for those taking part the response rate was very low. Even the lead author of the study states that "We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic" and "In no way does that make our results nationally representative."

On a side note much of what I talk about here is discussed in this article, an excellent piece that came about as a response to the Rolling Stone UVA rape debacle.
Another example from the same topic that gets cited is that the actual situation is even worse; one in four women in college will be raped. The issue. The responses to the study actually indicated that 1.7% of the respondents had been raped. First, the 1.1% of attempted rapes are bundled in to give 2.8%. Then, as the study only covered a 6 month period they doubled it to 12 months. Then they concluded that as they only covered a year and most people spend five years at college they should multiply the number by five... hence roughly 25% (although that should still be cited as either suffer rape or attempted rape). For comparison, a 25% rate of being raped would mean that a US female college student is marginally more likely to be raped than a woman in the Congo where rape is regularly used as a punishment.

For obvious reasons it's fairly difficult to find completely water-tight, accurate figures on sexual assaults in general. It is worth noting though that the National Crime Victimisation Survey found the rate of completed or attempted sexual assault on college age females was 0.6% between 1995 and 2013. While there are some issues with the methodology and it may under-represent the total amount, those issues are far less consuming then those used in the studies above. There's an interesting discussion within the study above about the difference between the studies and the responses.

One swallow doesn't make a summer (or a study as my typo originally said and I thought was too appropriatly to be taken out completely) and I'd be the first to agree with you that one, some or even lots of feminists using bad statistics to make their points does nothing to invalidate feminism itself. But it is worth noting that the feminists using such stats tend to have the biggest platforms, the loudest microphones and the most important friends. When you have the President of the United States of America trying to set national policy on the basis of statistics that the author says shouldn't be considered nationally representative but which have been loudly and repeatedly used by feminists everyone should be concerned.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Blyth: I didnt even have to finish reading, your right. What I mean to say, is feminists with actual sense and reasoning should keep themselves from the ones who complain about a mans shirt, call gamers misogynist's and act like any one who disagrees with radical statements are sexist or simply indoctrinated women. Women whom are actually intelligent, and seek not to be viewed among radical and all be it narrow sighted feminists should try to speak louder. Theres not much to sugar coat when I say there are some twisted people that are respected as feminist's. Look at Briana Wu, she went on tv multiple times and is treated like a victim. And for some time respected amoung the twitter following of feminists. (Which is a gross incalcuable amount of women who say things like #gamergate is why we need #killallmen)

Silk: How about a story to show an action beyond cherry picking, more in the realm of gross social behavior: Back in november, a single mom was killed by a sick and disturbed man whom put photos of it on 4 chan. I, as most other normal human beings would show at the very least basic human empathy. Instead she goes on to twitter to say : Police investigate 4 chan link to murder. Gamergate, please tell me how my life is not in danger?

Notice how the narcissist looks at a tragedy, which should never have happened. And makes it about HER. To what depths of selfish and out right idiotic behavior are men and women like this not willing to sink to in order to further their own bs political agenda and garner more attention? 4 chan is not gamer gate, it in fact has completely sided against gamergate and deletes or blocks any post or person mentioning it. 4 chan is not connected to gamer gate, yet this moron doesnt even know her  own ally's and connects dots to say that this guy based on his connection to 4 chan is connected to gamergate. Further the killer was simply a disturbed man in need of mental help, but never received it and therefor it resulted in tragedy. Being a sexist is not what matters in the situation, the fact that she was a women does not matter, it doesnt make it less or more tragic.

Yet brianna makes it about HER. Look at this word, and you will define Brianna Wu, Zoey Quin, Anita Sarkesian, and any sjw on twitter in general. Narcisism:

1: An obvious self focus on interpersonal relations and exchanges.
2: A lack of psychological awareness.
3: A difficulty with Empathy
4: Problems distinguishing ones self from others.
5: Hyper sensitivity to any insult, or imagined insult
6: Detesting those whom do not admire, adhere, or agree with you
7: Using other people without considering the cost's of doing so
8:Pretending to be more important then you really are
9: Claiming to be an expert at many fields, even without proper knowledge or education
10: An inability to view the world in the perspective of others, or basic human ability to understand other points of view.

(I dont mean to use the tragic incident, I merely mean to shine a light on the self serving behavior of a un empathetic women. I understand the views of feminism, I just dont understand the radical things people say and do. Her actions are detestable, by any rational person. There for my own disagreement with her opinion is not the point of my mentioning of this. I considered the costs of using her, I understand I am using Briana as an example, I chose to do so with this knowledge weighing the benefit of putting light on a subject vs me being viewed as sexist. This is the action of a women that is not liable for out cry but liable for remembrance. To remember who she really is. I am not offended, I am disgusted. But my disgust is for her having no care for the grieving, simply wanting to further her own personal image.)

We are all susceptible to being a bit full of ourselves, but a narcissist is an extreme. An extreme which these women and men are.

Kythia: (Edit: I feel as though my sarcasm was mean, I apologies for it. Being mean was not the intent.) Tell me, is there anything you can provide to back up your argument that mens rights are a concern for feminist? I assure you, by a margin it is not. If I went and began talking about men's rights id be labeled a misogynist, laughed off stage. Oh, heres evidence that  the radicals dont fucking care about men though:

Meet Ms. Valenti, a so called literary pillar in the feminist community.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Thank you ms.Valenti for your unbias support of all genders, I can sleep well at night knowing you represent my best interests in social change, and the treatment of the sexes. I tottaly feel like I matter, after all. SHE SWIMS IN MY TEARS.

Oh, and this is a quite popular mug

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Cycle: Egalitarian, the belief that all men, women, colors, sexuality's are equal.

Feminism: The avocation of womens rights.

A feminist can be: Aglitarian.

A feminist can also be: Sexist, racist, narcissistic, or down right stupid.

Dont automatically assume feminism equals mens rights as well as women. It does not. It is a movement based ENTIRELY, on womans rights. A feminist, CAN care for mens. But they DONT have to, to be FEMINIST. It is a clear misunderstanding, that just because your feminist, it means you care for all sex's. It doesn't. It simply, doesn't. At some point, people got to realize it is not all it's cracked up to be. It really, really is not. Ive met good feminists, despicable ones that yell in a mans face for asking her the time of day, and down right conniving ones always trying to set a situation in their favor. (To look good, and full fill an agenda.) All humans are liable to error, to evil actions. Feminists, are human beings to. And feminism, is simply a social movement, not a word that means equal rights. Egalitarian: Word for equal rights. Feminism: Name of a social movement.

[Silk]

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion (emphasis added):

From this definition:

I bolded something that is relevant:  equality.  One equals one.  Two does not equal one.  One does not equal two. 

Thus, that definition actually does call for men's rights to be equal to women's.

Equal is equal.

Except it's not equal because it implies attention to a simple facet. With almost all examples I've seen it's always compared to women, (Unless it's more in which case it's compared to men) It's loaded language.

Example with this.

http://imgur.com/gallery/n01WW

It starts off well, then it goes back to having the mens issues focused on women. Instead of it just being a mans issue. It decides to go "Like women". Well why does it have to be made about women again? Why is it only given credibility when it's made into a woman's issue?

[Kythia]

Kythia: Tell me, is there anything you can provide to back up your argument that mens rights are a concern for feminist? I assure you, by a margin it is not. If I went and began talking about men's rights id be labeled a misogynist, laughed off stage. Oh, heres evidence that  the radicals dont fucking care about men though:

I've already posted a link to a book in this thread, and in the female conscription one I reference another instance.  What sort of thing are you looking for in addition to what I've already provided?

[Kythia]

Sorry, consortium, I somehow managed to miss your post entirely.  Whoops.

Yeah, bad reporting of stats is a problem (and certainly not one limited to this issue).  My concern was with the characterisation of "cherry picking" more than the existence of bad stats though.  Cherry picking implies a level of malice that reporting and repeating bad stats doesn't.  I'm obviously not goign to sit here and claim that no feminist anywhere in the world has ever maliciously used bad stats, I imagine they have and I imagine five seconds of Google could find where.  But, painting the movement as a cherry picking one is a separate claim that I don't feel has been justified.

[Garuss Vakarian]

I've already posted a link to a book in this thread, and in the female conscription one I reference another instance.  What sort of thing are you looking for in addition to what I've already provided?

Allow me to qoate from my response on the other thread a bit:

Listen, in the past things were probably more civil. Male rights advocates and womens rights advocates worked together on common goals, thats great. But, I dont think they would today. Frankly, watch women who protest at men rights events, and you can see there is no getting along there any more.

The thing is, I wont pretend to know any suffering you faced. I wont pretend to know how these things make you feel. But, believe me, there are many out there who view feminists as bullies, and mean spirited people. Not out of ignorance, it is because a lot have acted in these past few years as mean spirited Bullies. As with my description of narcissism, one who chooses not to perceive the opinions of others is a narcissist. And believe me, if you dont share the opinions of these people, your either considered evil or indoctrinated. They would say it to your face. I can be as nice as humanly possible on twitter, and still be called a women hater about ten or fifteen times. But if I were to call Anita a misandrist, if I were to say any ill. I would probably be doxxed (Personal information pulled and given out on the internet. Doxxing is popular in the feminist circles on the web.), and ridiculed. What am I asking here? Stop looking to the past, women from before are not the women in the now. Though they accomplished much, does not mean current feminists accomplish anything other then looking bad, and nit picking in order to stay relevant. My point? My point in those pictures is, they dont care. If they did, they would consider the oppression a male may feel by wearing a shirt like that. Just as they say mat should have considered the oppression women would feel by wearing his shirt. It is a hypocrisy before you in those pictures. That was my point.

Edit: I dont hate feminism, I dont hate feminists, I am just tired of the crap. Get back on track, face real issues, not pointless social justices, like some guys shirt.

[Cycle]

Cycle: Egalitarian, the belief that all men, women, colors, sexuality's are equal.

Feminism: The avocation of womens rights.

Your definition is not consistent with the general definition of this term.

Cambridge Dictionary Online:  "an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men"

Wikipedia:  "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies which share a common stated aim: to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

Ubran Dictionary:  "The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.

"The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.

"Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.

"Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.

"Feminism is the belief that all people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties and can be intellectual equals regardless of gender. However, you should still hold the door for a feminist; this is known as respect or politeness and need have nothing whatever to do with gender discrimination."

Note this last definition specifically mentions the belief that all people should be treated equally.  Not just women.  Not just men.  But all people.

Example with this.

http://imgur.com/gallery/n01WW

Interesting example.  To quote (emphasis added): 

"A lot of time feminism is seen as man-hating at whatever. I did not consider myself a feminist for a long time because of this. However, the majority of feminists, the feminists that aren't all up in yo face are not looking to hate your manness. We are merely trying to make the world a little safer for everyone. That means I will treat women the same for sexual harassment as I do for men. That means I will not belittle a man's sexuality and masculinity. Everyone should feel free to be who they are in a safe environment."

[Garuss Vakarian]

Your definition is not consistent with the general definition of this term.

Cambridge Dictionary Online:  "an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men"

Wikipedia:  "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies which share a common stated aim: to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

Ubran Dictionary:  "The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.

"The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.

"Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.

"Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.

"Feminism is the belief that all people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties and can be intellectual equals regardless of gender. However, you should still hold the door for a feminist; this is known as respect or politeness and need have nothing whatever to do with gender discrimination."

Note this last definition specifically mentions the belief that all people should be treated equally.  Not just women.  Not just men.  But all people.


Interesting example.  To quote (emphasis added): 

"A lot of time feminism is seen as man-hating at whatever. I did not consider myself a feminist for a long time because of this. However, the majority of feminists, the feminists that aren't all up in yo face are not looking to hate your manness. We are merely trying to make the world a little safer for everyone. That means I will treat women the same for sexual harassment as I do for men. That means I will not belittle a man's sexuality and masculinity. Everyone should feel free to be who they are in a safe environment."

Ok, so how about Masculinism? That could just as easily be the word of equal rights. Thats simply all about males right? Feminism is all about womens rights. The word may have equal rights in a dictionary, but I wont use it. It doesnt represent me, it represents women. Why adopt a word with Femininity in it as the word for equal rights of both genders? Why not use a word with gender ambiguity? Or right, because.... Reasons!

[Kythia]

Or right, because.... Reasons!

I've never understood that saying.  "Oh, you do this because you have reasons do you?  Not like me, I never have a reason for anything.  Fuck you and your oppressive insistence on having reasons for doing things."

[Garuss Vakarian]

Well, my understanding of the saying is that is is told in jest. Or at least thats how I use the saying. As meant to provide a bit of humor, make things less tense in heated arguement. Ya know?

When I say Reasons! I say it in a hyper voice, and a ditsy attitude. Which is not aplicable in a forum, It's more funny in person. lol >_<