Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[Ora Amaris]

...and with a gender equality movement the focus will still mainly be on women.

I mean it's not like we have just a teensy bit more to deal with.

I think this is a very good point.
It's a bit of a pity that this point is lost on Ostro.
While he's turned off by feminism for no real good reason, I think if he helped it, he'd contribute positively to it.

[Redenstaat]

In the end it comes down to a hatred of femininity.

I don't know if that is always the case. I've certainly experienced people who do not hate females, but rather think that there is a place for females in some hierarchy based on perceived emotions, behaviors, etc, of the genders. They harbor no hatred of the qualities of females, they believe that it is of lower rank based on their false notions of gender and stereotyping. There is a difference between hating something and thinking that something should be in a certain place based on traits, even if those traits are bogus or socially conceived.

Men's Equality is a lie is how it's different from regular equality

Could you please rephrase this? I am having a hard time understanding what you meant.

[United Dependencies]

If you're quoting someone I recomend the quote button in the top right of their post.

If you want to break their argument up then just add [/quote] put your text in then close it off with [quote].

[Redenstaat]

If you're quoting someone I recomend the quote button in the top right of their post.

If you want to break their argument up then just add [ / quote ] put your text in then close it off with

. [ / quote ] [ / quote ]

I was impatient and having a hard time with it - I am awful at using forums. So I just quickly posted what I thought and was working on getting the bolded parts quoted. Turns out I added a " in the ending [ / quote ] when I shouldn't have been. Thank you for the help though.

[The Steel Magnolia]

In the end it comes down to a hatred of femininity.

I don't know if that is always the case. I've certainly experienced people who do not hate females, but rather think that there is a place for females in some hierarchy based on perceived emotions, behaviors, etc, of the genders. They harbor no hatred of the qualities of females, they believe that it is of lower rank based on their false notions of gender and stereotyping. There is a difference between hating something and thinking that something should be in a certain place based on traits, even if those traits are bogus or socially conceived.

So like I said, a hatred of femininity.

Could you please rephrase this? I am having a hard time understanding what you meant.

There are legitimate problems men face, absolutely. The groups that are working to fix those problems either call themselves feminists or are unaffiliated with MRAs.

MRAs are hate groups.

[Redenstaat]

So like I said, a hatred of femininity.

Perhaps.

There are legitimate problems men face, absolutely. The groups that are working to fix those problems either call themselves feminists or are unaffiliated with MRAs.

What are MRAs?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So like I said, a hatred of femininity.

Perhaps.

There are legitimate problems men face, absolutely. The groups that are working to fix those problems either call themselves feminists or are unaffiliated with MRAs.

What are MRAs?

Male Rights Activists.

Think of them as the extreme reactionaries of people who are concerned about men's discrimination in society.

[Zapato]

What are MRAs?

Men's Rights Activists.

[Sebbal]

This behavior isn't new by any means. I first saw it in old news reels from the 30s, but they were difficult to understand because the narration was in German.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I don't know if that is always the case. I've certainly experienced people who do not hate females, but rather think that there is a place for females in some hierarchy based on perceived emotions, behaviors, etc, of the genders. They harbor no hatred of the qualities of females, they believe that it is of lower rank based on their false notions of gender and stereotyping. There is a difference between hating something and thinking that something should be in a certain place based on traits, even if those traits are bogus or socially conceived.

So like I said, a hatred of femininity.

Could you please rephrase this? I am having a hard time understanding what you meant.

There are legitimate problems men face, absolutely. The groups that are working to fix those problems either call themselves feminists or are unaffiliated with MRAs.

MRAs are hate groups.

It's kind of weird to me. As a society we've accepted the simple notion that a "White Rights Activist Group" would be a bunch of morons whose sole motivating force in life is the maintenance of privilege at the expense of everyone who isn't why, so why can't we realize the same is true for a "Male Rights Activist Group"? Because it is. "MRA" is the same shit as neo nazi groups, minus the Hitler obsession; it's a bunch of privileged turds with a victim complex trying very hard to destroy social progress.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's kind of weird to me. As a society we've accepted the simple notion that a "White Rights Activist Group" would be a bunch of morons whose sole motivating force in life is the maintenance of privilege at the expense of everyone who isn't why, so why can't we realize the same is true for a "Male Rights Activist Group"? Because it is. "MRA" is the same shit as neo nazi groups, minus the Hitler obsession; it's a bunch of privileged turds with a victim complex trying very hard to destroy social progress.

Do you know what the ACLU does to white rights groups? Defend their right to assembly and free speech, and their ability to participate in public dialogue.

Your premise, the idea that there is no legitimate purpose for speaking about men's rights, is wholly incorrect, as demonstrated by the widespread deletion of rape of men by women via shitty definitions; but even were your premise correct, it would not justify the use of illegal and violent silencing tactics.

If MRAs' case within academic dialogue were as unsound and controversial as white nationalists, there would be no need to attempt to silence them. Universities are served by bringing in controversial speakers and allowing them open debate; and the decline in doing so is viewed as a sign of the decline of academic freedom.

However, there is a very real need to address the problems of men and boys, especially within the context of the university, which is increasingly a domain from which men and boys are being excluded, intentionally or not; and the hostile knee-jerk reaction of trying to silence anything which is not a feminist perspective on gendered issues is problematic.

[Baltenstein]

I don't know about the US, but in Germany, for example, male pupils routinely finish school with worse grades (and subsequently, less chances for college graduation/job application) than female pupils in almost every layer of the primary and secondary education system.
I'm by no means implying that this is intentional on the school system's part, but it's obviously a problem that needs to be adressed.

[The Truth and Light]

Your premise, the idea that there is no legitimate purpose for speaking about men's rights, is wholly incorrect, as demonstrated by the widespread deletion of rape of men by women via shitty definitions

Which feminism fights, ironically, since rape apology and rape deletion are widespread against both sexes outside feminist circles.

but even were your premise correct, it would not justify the use of illegal and violent silencing tactics.

If MRAs' case within academic dialogue were as unsound and controversial as white nationalists, there would be no need to attempt to silence them.

You have a strange - and somewhat contradictory - definition of "silencing".

[Tahar Joblis]

Your premise, the idea that there is no legitimate purpose for speaking about men's rights, is wholly incorrect, as demonstrated by the widespread deletion of rape of men by women via shitty definitions

Which feminism fights

No, it does not. Feminism, on the balance, has promulgated, more than attacked, the myth that rape is a thing that men do / women have inflicted upon them. For example, claiming the vast majority of rapists are male requires using figures derived from a sexist definition of rape. NE & TM did so quite recently, while objecting to someone bringing up that women commit rape and men are victims:

When over 90% of rapists are male, and rape against males is almost entirely within institutional settings as opposed to civilian ones, yeah it becomes a male-female issue. Your fee-fees do not warrant this enormous "WHAT ABOUT MENS" red herring.

As we know, using a gender-neutral definition of rape, which feminist-endorsed research tends to avoid doing, the majority of male rape victims are victimized by women outside of institutional settings.

Studies have shown men and women are not nearly so different in this regard. This should not be news to anyone on NSG, given how many times I have repeated this, but NE & TM continues to parrot the traditional feminist line that rape is a man-on-woman problem.

Mind, this is the same NE & TM who said:

Rape him.

In response to:

I'm not one to start two topics this close together, but this just caught my eye:
http://jezebel.com/5884760/women-in-the-military-should-just-expect-to-be-raped-says-fox-news-asshole

On FOX news, a woman, among many other horrendous statements, said that women in the military should have seen it coming that they got raped:

Just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they've actually discovered the difference between men and women! And the sexual abuse report says that there's been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? Uh, these people are in close contact.

I can't even process this, how the fuck is anyone this ignorant? I'm sorry, I think I need to go lie down.

I.e., calling a woman a man and saying that she should be raped for saying something disagreeable about rape. The combination of sexist stereotyping and endorsement of rape should make it perfectly clear what sort of person you're defending as a "feminist."

You have a strange - and somewhat contradictory - definition of "silencing".

Pulling the fire alarm, chanting loudly while beating clubs on the floor to drown people out, threatening violence, and screaming at people to shut up pretty well qualify as silencing tactics.

They proved ultimately ineffectual in this case, and have drawn more attention to the talk than it would have received otherwise; but they are indeed silencing tactics.

[The Truth and Light]

For example, claiming the vast majority of rapists are male requires using figures derived from a sexist definition of rape

See, I can splice up people's posts and ignore the rest too!

There is no "sexist definition of rape", you're literally arguing against the consensus of the sociological and social justice community here.

Pulling the fire alarm, chanting loudly while beating clubs on the floor to drown people out, threatening violence, and screaming at people to shut up pretty well qualify as silencing tactics.

There's no skewing of information here; nope, none at all.

[Tahar Joblis]

There is no "sexist definition of rape"

Yes, there is. There are, in fact, multiple sexist definitions of rape floating around.

There's no skewing of information here

No, there is not. Evidence for every one of those things is present in the OP's links.

[The Truth and Light]

Yes, there is. There are, in fact, multiple sexist definitions of rape floating around.

Mhm, provided we're using your definition of sexist - the one you chose because it happens to perfectly contradict feminism (not because it causes gender equality, in fact, it inhibits it). This is also the same definition that is highly disputed in sociological circles, and there is no reason why we should adopt your definition.

No, there is not. Evidence for every one of those things is present in the OP's links.

The fact that you just used the OP as a source just shows your extreme bias. It's quite laughable.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, there is. There are, in fact, multiple sexist definitions of rape floating around.

Mhm, provided we're using your definition of sexist

Which is, in fact, the dictionary's definition of sexism.

And, in fact, excluding vaginal sex from being rape of a man isn't actually even a consensus position in feminism. It's just a tiny buried footnote attached to the figures that feminists use by consensus. The typical person casually identifying as feminist will, upon being confronted with a graphic scenario of rape of a man by a woman, agree that the scenario describes rape; they just don't know that the figures feminists commonly use exclude that.

the one you chose because it happens to perfectly contradict feminism (not because it causes gender equality, in fact, it inhibits it). This is also the same definition that is highly disputed in sociological circles, and there is no reason why we should adopt your definition.

If by "highly disputed," you mean "some sociologists think that nothing that harms men is sexism," thrown in a pile of non-falsifiable junk hypotheses, well, yes, there are some fucked up people in the field of sociology.

The fact that you just used the OP of a source just shows your extreme bias. It's quite laughable.

The fact that you don't have to go past what the OP provided to demonstrate that the protesters engaged in silencing tactics is what makes your objections laughable.

[Forsher]

It seems to have also found Twitter.

What the fucking fuck?

Don't ask me, I found it while thinking Google was a better way of finding the original quote.e

What the fucking fuck?

Bwahahahahaha!

This is literally so rich I can't deal.

I'm not sure what this means.

What the fucking fuck?

Eh, not like it's youtube.

Just because your NSG quotes never made it to Twitter...

... this is what we call a joke, to be clear.

I was going to read the rest of the thread but I haven't got time for 50 or so pages of stuff this week, so I just got the bits with "Forsher" in.

Oh, and yeah, I noticed someone making the "but women have more problems" argument (that could be said better). I will point out again that does not mean that women are subject to the greatest problems and I maintain (see here) that there's a better way of doing this.

Oh, and yeah (again), there are major disadvantages for males. Notice how few of you cared. I mean, I even phrased it controversially.

Yes, there is. There are, in fact, multiple sexist definitions of rape floating around.

Mhm, provided we're using your definition of sexist - the one you chose because it happens to perfectly contradict feminism (not because it causes gender equality, in fact, it inhibits it). This is also the same definition that is highly disputed in sociological circles, and there is no reason why we should adopt your definition.

No, there is not. Evidence for every one of those things is present in the OP's links.

The fact that you just used the OP as a source just shows your extreme bias. It's quite laughable.

Avenio's post way back when says the same thing about the fire-alarm (and that's the important bit as far as I am concerned because it's the only protest tactic I remember) and it has a totally different slant.

Would this be a definition of sexist contrary to that found in dictionaries? That is one that mentions some mumbo-jumbo about socio-cultural power or somesuch?

Such definitions when the word is changed to racist get rightly savaged.

[The Truth and Light]

Mhm, provided we're using your definition of sexist

Which is, in fact, the dictionary's definition of sexism.

Which is why no one is going to take you seriously. If you rely on the dictionary as your basis for understanding sociological terms like sexism, you're being willfully ignorant.

[The New Sea Territory]

Ah. That trick. Did you know that sexual violence is way less common than, oh I don't know....crime? IE Organized or unorganized. Non-sexual. All that. Yeah. Those matter more.

Sexual violence and assault are more important than most regular crimes. If someone steals something of mine, I can replace it and put it behind me. If I were raped, i'd carry that baggage for the rest of my life.

In summation, people > stuff

So your saying that If everything in my house was stolen, I could just "replace it"? And then have to pay for all the recovery programs these people want to put in for women? No.

[The Truth and Light]

What the fucking fuck?

Don't ask me, I found it while thinking Google was a better way of finding the original quote.e

Bwahahahahaha!

This is literally so rich I can't deal.

I'm not sure what this means.

That I find the situational irony there funny? Some random person quoted Neo Art on Twitter. But meh, it's not funny anymore.

[Forsher]

Which is, in fact, the dictionary's definition of sexism.

Which is why no one is going to take you seriously. If you rely on the dictionary as your basis for understanding sociological terms like sexism, you're being willfully ignorant.

This may come as a shock to you but fields like sociology are rife with disagreement. As I demonstrated with you and Smash earlier (Saturday my time) feminisms very definition differs amongst feminists on the same forum.

It may also surprise you that, yes, sometimes sociologists can be wrong and that, yes, applying a a technical usage in another context (for example, I bet you don't know what an economic profit is off the top of your head... as opposed to an accounting profit) can be wrong.

I refer you to the starting sentence of this.

[Forsher]

Don't ask me, I found it while thinking Google was a better way of finding the original quote.e



I'm not sure what this means.

That I find the situational irony there funny? Some random person quoted Neo Art on Twitter. But meh, it's not funny anymore.

I'm not sure where you were finding irony in that...

I mean, unless Neo Art makes a habit of quoting NSG on Twitter which would beg the question, "Why do you know so much about Neo Art?" (I mean, the man is notoriously touchy about people talking to him.)

[The Truth and Light]

That I find the situational irony there funny? Some random person quoted Neo Art on Twitter. But meh, it's not funny anymore.

I'm not sure where you were finding irony in that...

I mean, unless Neo Art makes a habit of quoting NSG on Twitter which would beg the question, "Why do you know so much about Neo Art?" (I mean, the man is notoriously touchy about people talking to him.)

I honestly hope you were the only person who read that much into that.