Thanks for the link to the UN report.
I think it's worth noting that although Anita Sarkeesian and ZoŽ Quinn were invited speakers at the launch event of this report, no doubt due to their public profiles in this area, it doesn't seem that either woman was part of the United Nations working group which actually wrote the report. The full list of the members of the Working Group on Broadband and Gender can be found here: http://www.broadbandcommission.org/workinggroups/Pages/bbandgender.aspx There are 20 commissioners and 21 invited external members, and neither Sarkeesian nor Quinn are mentioned.
That is worth noting, thank you for doing so. As I must have forgot to do so in my initial post. However; It is also worth noting that both women were there, as speakers to represent women everywhere.
That is true, currently it has no force of law. However I never stated it did, and merely stated these suggestions are under the UN's consideration. But the report it'self calls out for a number of things of which are strikingly disturbing. It boils down to basically being, a call for Chinese levels of internet censorship. Which, is, wrong. If this were all about actual online cyber bullying/harassment, such as threats of violence. I would understand. But to openly, and verbally extend it to. Your a liar, or you suck. Is nonsense, as that is not worth jail time for nor is it at all harassment. The Liar part at least, as calling out some one for their bull shit is not harassment. If you put yourself out there as a critic, you are open to others giving you criticism. Anita is under the impression she should be able to say whatever she wants about any subject, and be immune to critics. As if ,a critic should be immune to other critics. She thinks she can speak of controversial things such as Toxic Masculinity being a key reason for men committing mass shootings, as well as stating most mass shootings are done by men, without people turning around and saying. "Hold on, thats a bit much." (Personally I agree most men are mass shooters, but I do not attribute it to masculinity being toxic). And the criticisms there on, be it intellectual, aggressive, or ignorant are all considered by her as harassment. Further, she even turns her criticisms around to say "See, they are against what I am saying. So it must be true." Because in her own words, the more you deny these things are sexist, the more sexist it has made you. Agree with her or not, her views are not the point. The point is she thinks she can be out there in the world and be public with her own views, without any one being allowed to challenge them or talk to her about them. It is a classic, I am right, you are wrong, na na, na na, booboo. Where as, meanwhile in reality, through free speech, criticism is a right all Americans have. And to put yourself out there, is to make your self open to criticism. Something of which, all are open to. As she has the right to be a critic, so does this right Include the people who speak against her. Perhaps a lot is in bad taste, but a lot is also in good and intellectual taste. Of which is also considered harassment to her. And then there are also those people on youtube she also calls out as harassers, when as far as I have seen, they simply critique her. Ie: Mrrepzion, Thunderfoot, Sargon of Akkad. Every thing is open to criticism, criticism is not harassment. Now as for the real harassment's, these men I have mentioned get their own harassment as well. Id say Mrrepzion gets it the worst out of her critics, because people that dislike his opinions even go as far as sending threatening messages to his parents, and writing bomb threats pretending to be him. Harassment is a real issue yes. But, if this were to extend to men and not focus on women, further if this were to focus on ACTUAL harassment and not include the tame and or mundane, (Such as considering some one openly disagreeing with you, as harassment.) then I would not have so much of a problem with it. But as it stands, Anita and Zoey's speech focused almost entirely on women. Further, they, with their own words try to consider differing opinions as harassment. This is not smoke and mirrors. Their own words say and allude to these things. Silence, our, critics. Here is the actual conference in it's entirety, as you clearly stated you did not watch the videos I previously put up. (They were there mainly as quick versions, since they hit the bullet point issues without having to watch a 2 hour discussion.)
Videos, no disclaimer needed: I do not appreciate putting a disclaimer towards those videos. Just because you find their tones outrageous, does not mean you should warn people towards watching them, as if their feelings are so fragile they will cry from even the 3 minute one. For one, any one's voice is worth hearing, and if your going to shut your ears down at the slightest incline of anything you do not like then I dont think this part of the board is for you. Both videos are merely put foreword as I have previously mentioned, as the videos that made me aware of the issue, further they are also there because they are not 2 hours long. I wont put a disclaimer and I strongly disagree with you making a disclaimer towards them, as I wont molly coddle full grown adults as children. Watch the video for yourself. And if any of you wish to ignore another's point of view, because you dont agree with them, or like their tone, then by all means that is your prerogative. Just remember any ones opinion is worth your time, and to close yourself down to it is not listening, nor is it learning. And if all you learn is you dont like the persons video, well then, there you have it. It was not a waste of your time however, because, even if you hated the video or dislike the person's views, you were at least willing to hear what they have to say. Which on default, means you further grew as an intellectual.
That's really not the sort of material you want to put forward if you're looking for an honest discussion of an issue, in my opinion.
First off, Are you suggesting these men are dishonest? I have not always agreed with these youtubers, but watch their videos any way because, I make myself open to any ones side of a discussion. Even if I dont entirely agree with them, I assure you these men, and the entirety of both videos never have by my account, stated anything dishonest. I only ever see them use fact. Now how they use fact's be it disingenuous or wholly factual is up to discussion, but facts they use none the less. Unlike critics such as Anita, who wholly base their ideas on assertions or, really old data that is by all means no longer relevant. Further, how would you know if they were or were not honest, if you clearly stated.
I didn't watch more than about a minute or so of either of the videos
So as of this comment I am confused? Did you or did you not watch their videos? Or am I just not reading what you said correctly?
Secondly, if thats not the kind of material I should put foreword? Then, what kind of material do you suggest? I personally think every ones opinion is worth noting. Just because you find something immediately inflammatory doesn't mean you cant find something you agree with in their words. But if you feel a different kind of material is in order, then, by all means suggest it. None the less, I listen to all sides. Including feminists. I even listen to MRA's. I listen to Egalitarians, as I am egalitarian. I listen to the broadly named, humanists. I also listen to atheists, Christians, Muslims, a- I think you get the idea. I couldn't possibly agree with all of them, but I listen to them. No matter how inflamatory any become, as many often do. Especially the MRA's and feminists. Whys that? Why do I listen to just about every side I can? Because we can agree, that is how you learn. A social lens is not how learning is done, only by accepting and listening to the opinions of others do we learn. To close yourself off of to other perspectives leaves you only living with your own perspective and that of people who share it. Which only snowballs into ideologies.