It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
hedwards: In other words, feminism isn't actually about equal rights, it's about advancing the rights of women. Glad you cleared that up, I was concerned that i was missing something.

The whole idea of a movement that's advancing women's rights is perverse. There's little or no incentive to keep those folks honest and having all those turncoat men advancing the cause is beyond sick.
I suspect you would also think unions advancing workers' rights and conditions is rather perverse! Why should anyone having a little principles and solidary be anything but hostile and bigoted, in truth, and only looking into their own interest??

Indeed, I think you are twisting htown1980's words on purpose, just because you do not agree. Can you do a little better, maybe?
avatar
htown1980: Do you think the majority of rapists are women and the majority of domestic violence is committed by women?
Probably our fellow fora member does not think so, unless he cum she is very naïve - but also if it actually were so, it would not be morally any better, just more implausible.

Meanwhile, the OP, which I still hope to be a provocation, possibly - because if true, it would be rather a sad reflection of most persons not being too welcome to gaming enjoyment.
avatar
hedwards: In other words, feminism isn't actually about equal rights, it's about advancing the rights of women. Glad you cleared that up, I was concerned that i was missing something.

The whole idea of a movement that's advancing women's rights is perverse. There's little or no incentive to keep those folks honest and having all those turncoat men advancing the cause is beyond sick.
avatar
TStael: I suspect you would also think unions advancing workers' rights and conditions is rather perverse! Why should anyone having a little principles and solidary be anything but hostile and bigoted, in truth, and only looking into their own interest??

Indeed, I think you are twisting htown1980's words on purpose, just because you do not agree. Can you do a little better, maybe?
I'm not twisting her words. I've quoted without editing what she said.

And that union thing is a load of bollocks that doesn't reflect anything I've said. I've worked union jobs for years and unions ultimately are good for everybody. Unions are better for members than non-members, but we don't toss people to the wolves the way that feminists toss men to the wolves.

Unions don't exploit the ignorance of members to harm non-members the way that feminists do.
avatar
hedwards: In other words, feminism isn't actually about equal rights, it's about advancing the rights of women. Glad you cleared that up, I was concerned that i was missing something.

The whole idea of a movement that's advancing women's rights is perverse. There's little or no incentive to keep those folks honest and having all those turncoat men advancing the cause is beyond sick.
avatar
htown1980: Did you seriously think feminism is about advancing the rights of men? Didn't the use of "fem" give it away?

Do you think it is fine for a movement to advance the rights of men in custody battles? Do you think that is perverse? I don't at all, because I recognise that in some areas men's rights need to be advocated (custody rights being one area) and in other areas women's rights need to be.
Your ignorance of the history of feminism is astonishing. Have you even read anything about that at all? The transformative movement was based on the notion that everybody was being oppressed by the gender roles assigned to children at birth. And yes, that includes men.

There used to be plenty of male feminist involved in the movement, and they used to be welcomed by female feminists as being an equal part to the solution. It wasn't about taking things from men and forcing us into a subservient position, it was about bringing back the yin to balance out all the social yang.

If you're not familiar with the transformative movement, the equal rights movement, the 3rd wave and radical feminist movements, then what right do you have to call yourself a feminist? And those are just the basics, there's plenty of other groups and I'm letting you off easy for not demanding that you know about more than those major groups.

Here's a hint, if you're too lazy to research a movement, do everybody a favor and keep your mouth shut while the adults talk. All you're doing is making feminists look stupid.

avatar
hedwards: Women being underpaid, rapists being male, domestic violence being primarily committed by men. Men controlling all the power etc., the whole movement is based on a series of tropes with little effort being made to assess the validity or applicability of any of them. There's no actual evidence to support any of those tropes, but feminists cling to them because admitting that men aren't solely responsible would cause them to lose out on fund raising opportunities.

Just today the local paper ran an article about a pair of women making a dating website to help women avoid creepy men. Never mind that there are ample creepy women out there and that desirable men are unlikely to be willing to put up with that shoddy treatment.
avatar
htown1980: I don't think that is a correct use of the word "trope".

Do you think the majority of rapists are women and the majority of domestic violence is committed by women?
Rapists it's hard to say, but it's well established that women make up half of the domestic violence offenders. Female rapists are difficult to make an assertion about because of the way that women attack men for owning up to having been raped, sexually assaulted or sexually abused by a woman.

The studies on domestic violence are clear and compelling and it's pretty much only feminists and women's rights activists that sweep that under the rug.

https://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/no-one-believed-me-domestic-violence-against-dads/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/20/us-men-too-suffer-domestic-violence-idUSPAT97046720080520

As far as the use of the word trope goes, I'm using it the standard fashion, even if I'm not bothering to fill in the details.
Post edited October 02, 2014 by hedwards
avatar
htown1980: Did you seriously think feminism is about advancing the rights of men? Didn't the use of "fem" give it away?

Do you think it is fine for a movement to advance the rights of men in custody battles? Do you think that is perverse? I don't at all, because I recognise that in some areas men's rights need to be advocated (custody rights being one area) and in other areas women's rights need to be.
avatar
hedwards: Your ignorance of the history of feminism is astonishing. Have you even read anything about that at all? The transformative movement was based on the notion that everybody was being oppressed by the gender roles assigned to children at birth. And yes, that includes men.

There used to be plenty of male feminist involved in the movement, and they used to be welcomed by female feminists as being an equal part to the solution. It wasn't about taking things from men and forcing us into a subservient position, it was about bringing back the yin to balance out all the social yang.

If you're not familiar with the transformative movement, the equal rights movement, the 3rd wave and radical feminist movements, then what right do you have to call yourself a feminist? And those are just the basics, there's plenty of other groups and I'm letting you off easy for not demanding that you know about more than those major groups.

Here's a hint, if you're too lazy to research a movement, do everybody a favor and keep your mouth shut while the adults talk. All you're doing is making feminists look stupid.
Feminism has always been about equal rights for women. Feminism is, by definition, about... females (that's where the fem comes from). I agree that some feminists consider that everybody is oppressed by the gender roles assigned by children at birth, including men, but that doesn't mean that the focus of feminism is on men's rights as well as women's rights. You can acknowledge that "oppression" and then focus on women's rights.

I'm not going to have a debate about whether the majority of rapists or domestic violence offenders are men or women. I think that is clear.

I am interested on your opinion on organisations that advance the rights of men in custody battles or focus on the suicide rate amongst men. I think those organisations are essential and not perverse at all. Do you think they are perverse because they only focus on advancing men's rights?
low rated
avatar
htown1980: snip
Is feminism about correcting injustices affecting women? We may disagree what is unjust, but if the mechanism for the injustice is corrected then: it was a sexist mechanism, its removal improves women's status relative to men, which is fine; it was not a sexist mechanism, its removal improves everyone's status, which is also fine.

Does feminism try to improve the status of women? If it changes some sexist mechanism, the change improves women's status relative to others, which is fine; if it changes some non-sexist mechanism, it also improves status of women relative to others, but do you think this is fine?

And that's assuming effectiveness, because unintended consequences, etc... but do you see the potential problems? When feminism shifted (and it did) from correcting injustices around negative liberties (couldn't vote, couldn't work, etc...) to correcting "injustices" around positive liberties, it basically jumped the shark. Not always of course, but whenever it assumes as sexist mechanisms which correlate, but are not caused, by sexism.
avatar
htown1980: Feminism has always been about equal rights for women.
Equal rights can also mean less rights in some instances. Otherwise you aren't fighting for equal rights but for more rights.
avatar
htown1980: snip
avatar
Brasas: Is feminism about correcting injustices affecting women? We may disagree what is unjust, but if the mechanism for the injustice is corrected then: it was a sexist mechanism, its removal improves women's status relative to men, which is fine; it was not a sexist mechanism, its removal improves everyone's status, which is also fine.

Does feminism try to improve the status of women? If it changes some sexist mechanism, the change improves women's status relative to others, which is fine; if it changes some non-sexist mechanism, it also improves status of women relative to others, but do you think this is fine?

And that's assuming effectiveness, because unintended consequences, etc... but do you see the potential problems? When feminism shifted (and it did) from correcting injustices around negative liberties (couldn't vote, couldn't work, etc...) to correcting "injustices" around positive liberties, it basically jumped the shark. Not always of course, but whenever it assumes as sexist mechanisms which correlate, but are not caused, by sexism.
I am not suggesting that every change put forward by every feminist is good. There are many subjects raised by other feminists that I disagree with. The points I was trying to make in my post were:

1. By definition, feminism is about equal rights for women. It is not about equal rights for men, that is masculism.
2. It is not perverse for a group to focus on one issue that affects only one gender.

I am genuinely interested if Hedwards does think that it is perverse for a movement to advance women's rights, does he also think it is perverse for a movement to focus on men's rights, such as equal rights for men to custody of their children...

avatar
htown1980: Feminism has always been about equal rights for women.
avatar
jadeite: Equal rights can also mean less rights in some instances. Otherwise you aren't fighting for equal rights but for more rights.
Agreed
Post edited October 02, 2014 by htown1980
low rated
avatar
htown1980: snip
I'm not going to help hed get out of the logical contradiction he fell into, plus he might honestly not be aware of it yet... but I disagree with you that feminism is about equality. It WAS about equality and now is mostly about improving women's status. I know you're too smart to believe the two are always aligned. I mean I can believe you and the dictionary definition (prescriptive) or I can believe my (lying?) eyes. Which do you think I should trust more?

This link is not appropriate for the gamersgate news thread, but I think fits here. Given how many people today reject rationality, let me immediately say this guy is extremely conservative. Still he has been doing a large research into feminist theory, and raises several interesting points. Please have a read and I'm sure you can find his earlier posts if you care to. Then if you disagree his take on CURRENT (radical) feminism is factually correct I will be willing to answer any disagreements, even if it requires me to be a bit of a devil's advocate of his position.

"Fem" lingo: TRIGGER homophobia
How I see it: conservative opinions about gender
http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/30/could-it-be-any-more-obvious/
avatar
htown1980: snip
avatar
Brasas: I'm not going to help hed get out of the logical contradiction he fell into, plus he might honestly not be aware of it yet... but I disagree with you that feminism is about equality. It WAS about equality and now is mostly about improving women's status. I know you're too smart to believe the two are always aligned. I mean I can believe you and the dictionary definition (prescriptive) or I can believe my (lying?) eyes. Which do you think I should trust more?

This link is not appropriate for the gamersgate news thread, but I think fits here. Given how many people today reject rationality, let me immediately say this guy is extremely conservative. Still he has been doing a large research into feminist theory, and raises several interesting points. Please have a read and I'm sure you can find his earlier posts if you care to. Then if you disagree his take on CURRENT (radical) feminism is factually correct I will be willing to answer any disagreements, even if it requires me to be a bit of a devil's advocate of his position.

"Fem" lingo: TRIGGER homophobia
How I see it: conservative opinions about gender
http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/30/could-it-be-any-more-obvious/
I think some feminists are looking for equality, some feminists think they are about looking for equality but are more about improving women's status and some feminists don't care about equality at all. It is like any other group of people, there will be good and bad, people who I agree with and people who I don't agree with. You and I may disagree on whether a particular proposition is one or the other. If you are saying that there are no feminists who strive for equality, then I disagree.

Interesting article. I can't wait til I become a lesbian. :)
low rated
avatar
htown1980: snip
I don't think you will. What I'm saying is that at present, in the "1st world", feminists like you, that believe in equality, are "useful idiots". I'm sure that may offend you, and that it will offend someone, for which I am sorry in advance - I still think it's true, but then I tend to see most political debates through an anti totalitarian prism.

Actually, let me try and initiate a more meaningful debate. What areas of "1st world" life do you think women are treated unfairly? A lot of the discussion in gaming area focuses on sexual objectification. A lot of discussion overall focuses on remuneration, career choices and reproductive rights. If you want, just choose one of these, or any other, and ill tell you why I don't consider it unfair against women. You'll get first shot to criticize.

Yes... I do have too much free time ;)
avatar
jadeite: Equal rights can also mean less rights in some instances. Otherwise you aren't fighting for equal rights but for more rights.
avatar
htown1980: Agreed
So, how many feminists have fought to reduce the right of women in those instances? And how many of them have not been denounced as traitors by other feminists?
avatar
htown1980: Agreed
avatar
jadeite: So, how many feminists have fought to reduce the right of women in those instances? And how many of them have not been denounced as traitors by other feminists?
I don't think feminists need to fight for reduced rights of women. I think feminists should be allowed to choose what rights they want to fight for and masculinsts should argue for increased rights of men, or reduced rights of women if they think it appropriate.
avatar
Brasas: snip
OK. Lets go with, right to work in the sex industry. Its an industry that predominantly employs women, why should it be illegal to sell sex?
Post edited October 02, 2014 by htown1980
avatar
jadeite: So, how many feminists have fought to reduce the right of women in those instances? And how many of them have not been denounced as traitors by other feminists?
avatar
htown1980: I don't think feminists need to fight for reduced rights of women. I think feminists should be allowed to choose what rights they want to fight for and masculinsts should argue for increased rights of men, or reduced rights of women if they think it appropriate.
Oh, it's perfectly fine for them to do so. They just shouldn't call it a fight for equality if that's the case.
low rated
avatar
htown1980: Again, you are not following what I am trying to say.
I am fully following what you are saying, and what you are saying is wrong, evil and dangerous. Your attitude is no different than that of any supremacy group. You cannot focus only on one side and claim to be for equality. That would be like saying the Nazis were fighting for equal rights for ethnic Germans. (and yes, I just confirmed Godwin's Law)
avatar
htown1980: Again, you are not following what I am trying to say.
avatar
HiPhish: I am fully following what you are saying, and what you are saying is wrong, evil and dangerous. Your attitude is no different than that of any supremacy group. You cannot focus only on one side and claim to be for equality. That would be like saying the Nazis were fighting for equal rights for ethnic Germans. (and yes, I just confirmed Godwin's Law)
OK, maybe you could answer this question.

What is your opinion on organisations that advance the rights of men in custody battles or focus on the suicide rate amongst men?