Is the word 'feminist' offensive?

[Haktiva]

Yeah that kind of inflates the numbers a bit. Casual gamers and the nerdy kind like me are pretty different, but we haven't gotten into that and gamergate has its own thread.

So you ignore the numbers by assuming that the games that you play are more true than the games they play.

You know, you would be a great subject for fallacy bingo.

an ad hominem approach? eh, the numbers don't lie, i'd be going into a no true Scotsman rant if I really was going into such details. and casual gamers are the kind who are more or less newcomers and aren't fans of the original material. still gamers, but not the same as hardcore geeks.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

If you feel somehow attacked by the word, yes.

[Haktiva]

If you feel somehow attacked by the word, yes.

I'm not a feminist or MRA

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

an ad hominem approach? eh, the numbers don't lie, i'd be going into a no true Scotsman rant if I really was going into such details. and casual gamers are the kind who are more or less newcomers and aren't fans of the original material. still gamers, but not the same as hardcore geeks.

"No true scotsman" is exactly my point.

But tell me, why do you think that just because males made up the majority of the gaming demographic in the early days that males are entitled to keep women out of gaming?

[Haktiva]

an ad hominem approach? eh, the numbers don't lie, i'd be going into a no true Scotsman rant if I really was going into such details. and casual gamers are the kind who are more or less newcomers and aren't fans of the original material. still gamers, but not the same as hardcore geeks.

"No true scotsman" is exactly my point.

But tell me, why do you think that just because males made up the majority of the gaming demographic in the early days that males are entitled to keep women out of gaming?

because I'm a card carrying member of the He Man Woman Haters Club

and men have the right to choose who they let into their circles. gaming isn't strictly a male space, it just was by tradition. games pandered to them and still do, so those are the kinds of games that men will buy and play. When it comes to men keeping women out of gaming, all they guys can really do is not talk to them or not let them on their team when they play. They can't do much aside from vote with their feet and their wallet. It's a matter of what games people go towards. The games dominated by men tend to make the most money because they pander to them in one way or another. I think feminists get pissed is because they don't see a lot of games that pander to them, and the ones that are out there that do aren't very successful.

[Dakini]

And when I say hypocrisy, the feminists throughout history did indeed fight for equality, but it was pretty selective. Yeah, they got the right to vote, but they sure weren't willing to sign up for the draft.

You're aware that feminist groups fought for women to be drafted in the supreme court, yes?

It's all about where they get their meal ticket from I suppose.

Ah yes, with women it's all about the Benjamins.

Ever heard the saying "Married women vote Republican and single women vote Democrat?", that refers to where they get their protection and provision from.

Your stereotypical expression that you claim is common sense totally helps your "argument" here.

Are they gonna get whatever hubby(or personal equivalent) can work for or are they gonna get Big Daddy Government's cheese(and subsequently vote for politicians who offer them crackers to go with that cheese at the expense of taxpayers, mostly through men's labor since men work, earn and produce more in general)?

Yep. You sure got women pegged. We're all a bunch of lazy moochers and you're not just making sexist as fuck generalizations.

It's funny you mention affirmative action, because women pretty much hijacked it from black men. Honestly though I just end up laughing when those types of people decry there not being enough women in STEM fields. Women simply aren't interested in them for the most part. In my school (communications electronics) we've only got like five females in the field. None of them are in my class, so I can't say they're any better or worse than I am, though honestly they're the kind who know what it means to sink or swim, something I can actually appreciate.

Your extremely limited experience interacting with women in the sciences does not mean that women are disinterested in STEM.

In all I really just see a lot of gender politics to be a mating game. The hardcore feminists, the ones who get out into the street and make idiots of themselves, probably don't have as good a chance to breed as the airheads with the IQ on a monkey (at least with the general population of men).

First of all, not all women want to "breed" as you so eloquently put it, just as not all men want to reproduce. Secondly, I definitely know a lot of feminists who are in long term relationships (myself included), even if they haven't got around to doing the whole baby thing yet.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

because I'm a card carrying member of the He Man Woman Haters Club

and men have the right to choose who they let into their circles. gaming isn't strictly a male space, it just was by tradition. games pandered to them and still do, so those are the kinds of games that men will buy and play. When it comes to men keeping women out of gaming, all they guys can really do is not talk to them or not let them on their team when they play. They can't do much aside from vote with their feet and their wallet. It's a matter of what games people go towards. The games dominated by men tend to make the most money because they pander to them in one way or another. I think feminists get pissed is because they don't see a lot of games that pander to them, and the ones that are out there that do aren't very successful.

So you're pretty much just a male chauvinist, then? You'd want to keep women out of gaming even if they didn't threaten to change the rules of your clubhouse?

[Dakini]

Not really. The difference between liberal feminists and radical feminists isn't how much they want or even how supposedly "extreme" they are, it's whether they believe in patriarchy as a concept. Liberal feminists basically say "we can improve conditions for women by voting, protesting, organizing, etc. and work with the system to make things better." Radical feminists believe in an intrinsic, cultural problem that can only be dealt with by systematically dismantling it.

I don't consider radical feminists extremists (except for transphobic radfems who are right-wing scum). Only separatist feminists and "political lesbians" are really on the fringe of the ideology.

Patriarchy only really exists when there's a male scarcity, meaning women have to compete for men as opposed to the other way around. How do we get such a system? It's usually after a big war where a lot of the men die, meaning less guys to take care of the laaaaaaaaadieeeeeees(Thank you Bill Burr).

When male and female numbers are about even, then we get into gynocentrism, where women have more power over the guys in terms of who gets access to the reproductive process and for what price.

Dude, just because you can't get a date doesn't mean that we live in a gynocentrist society. Maybe your shitty opinions about women just mean that no woman in her right mind wants to spend any amount of time with you.

[Wallenbergia]

Anyone so weak, and thin-skinned as to be offended by the word "feminist" has natural selection coming for them. If the school, the district in which it exists, the state which oversees it, or the government which funds it are officially against feminism, they shouldn't have let her into the school with the shirt on in the first place, but that's not the case, and they did let her wear it. Erasing it from a picture is null, and ineffectual at best, ignoring the clearly empty-headed nature of the reasoning behind it.

[Haktiva]

You're aware that feminist groups fought for women to be drafted in the supreme court, yes?

And then the tradcon women killed it. Fucking Phyllis Schlafly.

Ah yes, with women it's all about the Benjamins.

and it's all about the *censored* for guys, right?

Your stereotypical expression that you claim is common sense totally helps your "argument" here.

There's truth to every stereotype, ya know.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html

Yep. You sure got women pegged. We're all a bunch of lazy moochers and you're not just making sexist as fuck generalizations.

It's called a generalization for a reason. Lowest common denominator, bro. Trust me, women have pulled their weight, have being the key word. And do try not to take things so personal, this is the internet after all, like anything we say to each other can do anything IRL, aside form make me laugh.

Your extremely limited experience interacting with women in the sciences does not mean that women are disinterested in STEM.

Women as a group, brother. Men make up the majority in Stem fields, but most guys aren't even into it. that number is understandably smaller in women. i believe in a meritocracy, not affirmative action.

First of all, not all women want to "breed" as you so eloquently put it, just as not all men want to reproduce. Secondly, I definitely know a lot of feminists who are in long term relationships (myself included), even if they haven't got around to doing the whole baby thing yet.

I'm a very blunt person, I make no apologies, especially for being a transgendered lesbian that identifies as a man.

and of course you do, most people know a lot of people who are in LTRs(Lord knows why nowadays) and haven't gotten around to making a baby. Perhaps they enjoy each other's company. We'll just have to see how the finances go.

[Haktiva]

Anyone so weak, and thin-skinned as to be offended by the word "feminist" has natural selection coming for them. If the school, the district in which it exists, the state which oversees it, or the government which funds it are officially against feminism, they shouldn't have let her into the school with the shirt on in the first place, but that's not the case, and they did let her wear it. Erasing it from a picture is null, and ineffectual at best, ignoring the clearly empty-headed nature of the reasoning behind it.

the only problem I see with the school is that they don't like students having free speech. I guess it just shows the victim war between feminists and MRAs is heating up.

[Haktiva]

Patriarchy only really exists when there's a male scarcity, meaning women have to compete for men as opposed to the other way around. How do we get such a system? It's usually after a big war where a lot of the men die, meaning less guys to take care of the laaaaaaaaadieeeeeees(Thank you Bill Burr).

When male and female numbers are about even, then we get into gynocentrism, where women have more power over the guys in terms of who gets access to the reproductive process and for what price.

Dude, just because you can't get a date doesn't mean that we live in a gynocentrist society. Maybe your shitty opinions about women just mean that no woman in her right mind wants to spend any amount of time with you.

I love how you jump right to that argument. I salute a proud keyboard warrior such as yourself.

[Haktiva]

because I'm a card carrying member of the He Man Woman Haters Club

and men have the right to choose who they let into their circles. gaming isn't strictly a male space, it just was by tradition. games pandered to them and still do, so those are the kinds of games that men will buy and play. When it comes to men keeping women out of gaming, all they guys can really do is not talk to them or not let them on their team when they play. They can't do much aside from vote with their feet and their wallet. It's a matter of what games people go towards. The games dominated by men tend to make the most money because they pander to them in one way or another. I think feminists get pissed is because they don't see a lot of games that pander to them, and the ones that are out there that do aren't very successful.

So you're pretty much just a male chauvinist, then? You'd want to keep women out of gaming even if they didn't threaten to change the rules of your clubhouse?

Perception is reality, that's what they taught us in boot camp.

And I perceive that a lot of girls could kick my ass in vidya because I haven't been able to get my hands on a controller in months. I feel crippled. Military life kinda sucks like that.

[Dakini]

You're aware that feminist groups fought for women to be drafted in the supreme court, yes?

And then the tradcon women killed it. Fucking Phyllis Schlafly.

Actually, the all-male supreme court killed it. Phyllis Schlafly (who is very definitely not a feminist) just gloated.

Ah yes, with women it's all about the Benjamins.

and it's all about the *censored* for guys, right?

I definitely wouldn't say that.

Your stereotypical expression that you claim is common sense totally helps your "argument" here.

There's truth to every stereotype, ya know.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html

...which can just as easily be explained by married women tending to be older (except those from conservative states, where the marriage age is low) and older people tending to be more conservative.

From your source:

Fifty-three percent of married female voters went for Romney. Among single women, by contrast, Romney was about as popular as an extra 20 pounds; a mere 31 percent supported him.
...
Sixty-two percent of married men voted Republican, while 55 percent of single men voted Democratic.

Leaving aside the part where I don't actually understand how 52% of men voted Republican, but greater percentages of married and single men apparently did (I'm wondering if they specifically only included white men here), there is a gap between married and single people of both genders on this point, which is probably something that can be attributed to age more than anything else. The gap being smaller between married and single men than married and single women (7% versus 22%) is a bit weird, but the explanation offered doesn't have to be the correct one (especially since this explanation is offered by someone who automatically makes the sexist assumption that all women are concerned about their weight).

Yep. You sure got women pegged. We're all a bunch of lazy moochers and you're not just making sexist as fuck generalizations.

It's called a generalization for a reason. Lowest common denominator, bro. Trust me, women have pulled their weight, have being the key word. And do try not to take things so personal, this is the internet after all, like anything we say to each other can do anything IRL, aside form make me laugh.

I'm not your bro.

Your extremely limited experience interacting with women in the sciences does not mean that women are disinterested in STEM.

Women as a group, brother. Men make up the majority in Stem fields, but most guys aren't even into it. that number is understandably smaller in women. i believe in a meritocracy, not affirmative action.

I'm not your brother either. Also, you're talking to someone who is both a woman and has a better degree in an STEM field than you're likely to get (and who went through a department where the graduate students were more female than male, despite being a "hard science").

Women are definitely interested in STEM.

First of all, not all women want to "breed" as you so eloquently put it, just as not all men want to reproduce. Secondly, I definitely know a lot of feminists who are in long term relationships (myself included), even if they haven't got around to doing the whole baby thing yet.

I'm a very blunt person, I make no apologies, especially for being a transgendered lesbian that identifies as a man.

I think you're mistaking bluntness for something else.

and of course you do, most people know a lot of people who are in LTRs(Lord knows why nowadays) and haven't gotten around to making a baby. Perhaps they enjoy each other's company. We'll just have to see how the finances go.

People tend to form LTRs because they love another person, enjoy their company and possibly want to build a life with them. You know, the same reasons people have always formed LTRs.

[Dakini]

Dude, just because you can't get a date doesn't mean that we live in a gynocentrist society. Maybe your shitty opinions about women just mean that no woman in her right mind wants to spend any amount of time with you.

I love how you jump right to that argument. I salute a proud keyboard warrior such as yourself.

Ah, so I'm right. Good to know.

[Haktiva]

Actually, the all-male supreme court killed it. Phyllis Schlafly (who is very definitely not a feminist) just gloated.
Fair point

I definitely wouldn't say that.

my point exactly. i can generalize for both sides.

...which can just as easily be explained by married women tending to be older (except those from conservative states, where the marriage age is low) and older people tending to be more conservative.

From your source:



Leaving aside the part where I don't actually understand how 52% of men voted Republican, but greater percentages of married and single men apparently did (I'm wondering if they specifically only included white men here), there is a gap between married and single people of both genders on this point, which is probably something that can be attributed to age more than anything else. The gap being smaller between married and single men than married and single women (7% versus 22%) is a bit weird, but the explanation offered doesn't have to be the correct one (especially since this explanation is offered by someone who automatically makes the sexist assumption that all women are concerned about their weight).

So most women have no worries about turning into tubs of lard? guess the girls I work out with just do it for fun.

I'm not your bro.

I know, guy.

I'm not your brother either. Also, you're talking to someone who is both a woman and has a better degree in an STEM field than you're likely to get (and who went through a department where the graduate students were more female than male, despite being a "hard science").

Women are definitely interested in STEM.

I know, man, sheesh. It's like you think I think women are stupid or something. And I dunno, the Marine Corps teaches ya pretty well, at least when it comes to communications electronics.

People tend to form LTRs because they love another person, enjoy their company and possibly want to build a life with them. You know, the same reasons people have always formed LTRs.

I thought it was mutual exploitation, trading male labor for female reproductive capacity. romantic love wasn't really much of a thing until maybe the Middle Ages, since arranged marriages were pretty much the norm for like most of human history.

[Dakini]

Oh, and to further highlight the silliness of "women are just feminists because they can't find someone who will pump them full of baby juice" claim: feminist-identified women are more likely to be in stable heterosexual relationships than non-feminist women.

They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.

They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.

The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.

Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

So uh, yeah. Your stereotypes are inaccurate.

[Dakini]

my point exactly. i can generalize for both sides.


So most women have no worries about turning into tubs of lard? guess the girls I work out with just do it for fun.


I know, guy.


I know, man, sheesh. It's like you think I think women are stupid or something. And I dunno, the Marine Corps teaches ya pretty well, at least when it comes to communications electronics.

People tend to form LTRs because they love another person, enjoy their company and possibly want to build a life with them. You know, the same reasons people have always formed LTRs.

I thought it was mutual exploitation, trading male labor for female reproductive capacity.

See, this is why you're single and frustrated with a "gynocentric society".

Also, you are aware that men play a role in reproduction too, right?

Oh, and that women who weren't wealthy have basically always worked, right?

romantic love wasn't really much of a thing until maybe the Middle Ages, since arranged marriages were pretty much the norm for like most of human history.

...for the rich, sometimes. It turns out that most people aren't rich though.

[Haktiva]

Oh, and to further highlight the silliness of "women are just feminists because they can't find someone who will pump them full of baby juice" claim: feminist-identified women are more likely to be in stable heterosexual relationships than non-feminist women.

They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.

They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.

The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.

Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

So uh, yeah. Your stereotypes are inaccurate.

Hard to believe with the divorce statistics and the "marriage strike" as they call it. then again, this is relationships we're talking about, not marriage. But it does raise a good point that people who agree with each other about stuff they consider important tend to have a better relationship(no shit eh?)

[Haktiva]

I thought it was mutual exploitation, trading male labor for female reproductive capacity.

See, this is why you're single and frustrated with a "gynocentric society".

Also, you are aware that men play a role in reproduction too, right?

Oh, and that women who weren't wealthy have basically always worked, right?

romantic love wasn't really much of a thing until maybe the Middle Ages, since arranged marriages were pretty much the norm for like most of human history.

...for the rich, sometimes. It turns out that most people aren't rich though.

Oh do go on please. Why am I frustrated as I enjoy myself?

yes, I passed Sex-Ed. I do know one man can get a hundred women pregnant in one day but a hundred women can only have one pregnancy at a time. for the most part, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. that's where gynocentrism comes from, the protection and provision of females for the sake of keeping the species going. Women have a right to their own body, but how well society does will more or less influence the "sexual marketplace". No I'm not talking about prostitution.

And yeah, it's the same with males who weren't wealthy too. those rich bastards didn't work much either. of course, a guy can work until he breaks, women are pretty much the most vulnerable things in the world when they're pregnant, almost as much as babies are. technology has freed men and women from a lot of those old burdens, but appears to have created new ones that we don't seem to know how to deal with.

with poorer families it was usually more hands to reendow the tallow. plus infant mortality rates were pretty fucking high back then so it was a bit of a necessity people bumped uglies(sanctified by the church, of course and a dowery was paid to the groom's family, if not money than a few chickens would work).

[Dakini]

Oh, and to further highlight the silliness of "women are just feminists because they can't find someone who will pump them full of baby juice" claim: feminist-identified women are more likely to be in stable heterosexual relationships than non-feminist women.



So uh, yeah. Your stereotypes are inaccurate.

Hard to believe with the divorce statistics and the "marriage strike" as they call it. then again, this is relationships we're talking about, not marriage. But it does raise a good point that people who agree with each other about stuff they consider important tend to have a better relationship(no shit eh?)

Actually, the high divorce rate is basically a myth and the men who decided to go on a "marriage strike" are the sort of assholes nobody wants to marry anyway (Also, there are what, 100 of them tops? Who gives a fuck about so few people nobody wanted to marry in the first place refusing to get married?).

It takes more than just agreeing about stuff to have a good relationship (though it definitely helps). Personally, I suspect that a relationship between equals is less stressful than a relationship where one party thinks the other party is lesser or where one party is saddled with the burden of making all the money or doing all the household chores/childcare.

[Haktiva]

Hard to believe with the divorce statistics and the "marriage strike" as they call it. then again, this is relationships we're talking about, not marriage. But it does raise a good point that people who agree with each other about stuff they consider important tend to have a better relationship(no shit eh?)

Actually, the high divorce rate is basically a myth and the men who decided to go on a "marriage strike" are the sort of assholes nobody wants to marry anyway (Also, there are what, 100 of them tops? Who gives a fuck about so few people nobody wanted to marry in the first place refusing to get married?).

Gonna find propaganda on either side. and what makes those guys assholes? I'm assuming they're MRAs, basically tradcons who want wify back?

I personally can't understand marriage from an economic loin of view. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. don't think you need to have a paper endorsed by the state to show that you love somebody.... and then have a bog fight over bullshit when you decide to terminate the contract.

It takes more than just agreeing about stuff to have a good relationship (though it definitely helps). Personally, I suspect that a relationship between equals is less stressful than a relationship where one party thinks the other party is lesser or where one party is saddled with the burden of making all the money or doing all the household chores/childcare.

and this is why I love technology, actually makes you look for your equal.

[Dakini]

Actually, the high divorce rate is basically a myth and the men who decided to go on a "marriage strike" are the sort of assholes nobody wants to marry anyway (Also, there are what, 100 of them tops? Who gives a fuck about so few people nobody wanted to marry in the first place refusing to get married?).

Gonna find propaganda on either side.

Your source is totally not even discussing the same thing as mine. Mine discussed nuances of the divorce rate and yours discusses the total number of married couples.

and what makes those guys assholes? I'm assuming they're MRAs, basically tradcons who want wify back?

Something like that. I think they're mostly "men going their own way" who refuse to fucking leave already.

I personally can't understand marriage from an economic loin of view. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. don't think you need to have a paper endorsed by the state to show that you love somebody.... and then have a bog fight over bullshit when you decide to terminate the contract.

Technically, you're going to have the same kinds of problems fighting over shit even if you just cohabitate (e.g. "we both bought the house/car/couch/dog, who keeps it?" is always going to be a problem). Personally, my partner and I got married for all the sweet, internationally recognized rights that come with it.

It takes more than just agreeing about stuff to have a good relationship (though it definitely helps). Personally, I suspect that a relationship between equals is less stressful than a relationship where one party thinks the other party is lesser or where one party is saddled with the burden of making all the money or doing all the household chores/childcare.

and this is why I love technology, actually makes you look for your equal.

Except that some people still don't.

[Haktiva]

Gonna find propaganda on either side.

Your source is totally not even discussing the same thing as mine. Mine discussed nuances of the divorce rate and yours discusses the total number of married couples.
The numbers are what matters, honestly. Not really a fan of marriage anyways so I guess it's a moot point

Something like that. I think they're mostly "men going their own way" who refuse to fucking leave already.

MGTOW? Leave where? They're not MRAs, that much I know.

Technically, you're going to have the same kinds of problems fighting over shit even if you just cohabitate (e.g. "we both bought the house/car/couch/dog, who keeps it?" is always going to be a problem). Personally, my partner and I got married for all the sweet, internationally recognized rights that come with it.

I'll take your word for it, but I still don't understand it.

Except that some people still don't.

people tend to have quite an ego nowadays, don't they?

[Tahar Joblis]

You gotta ask yourself who the privileged ones really are.

So... not feminists? Because we criticize them all the time these days?

I know I do.

Criticizing feminists gets you blasted severely.

I believe we noted in the GamerGate thread that criticizing feminism was enough to lead to (groundless) complaints that the Honey Badger Brigade was purportedly harassing panelists at the Calgary Expo, ultimately leading to the expulsion of the HBB from the Expo (leading to a significant financial loss, as booth fees were not refunded). Criticizing feminists in public is playing with fire. You get away with it here without any consequences of note because you're pseudo-anonymous in an environment where it is expected that you will remain effectively anonymous to most of the people reading what you write.