Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you say I'm a feminist?
Because otherwise your definition is clearly wrong now isn't it.
Would you say all of the MRM are feminists?

I would say if you advocate gender equality from a gynocentric perspective, you are a feminist.
I'd also say that advocating from a gynocentric perspective is sexist.

If you believe that women should be treated equally with men then yes you would be a feminist.

However, I have a hard time believing that you are a feminist based on your frequent anti feminist rants such as...

Feminists only survive in gangs that can shout down and abuse people. In an environment like this, they lose quickly. It's also the basis for their belief system being so central to them. It's like white supremacy.
They only know white supremacists and spend most of their time talking to them. They can't conceive of so many of their best friends being wrong. It's a typical feature in cults.

And white supremacists roaming around, spreading an atmosphere of fear and abusing people, pretty much only works when they outnumber people.
Same as feminists.
Get one in an actual debate where they are expected to back up their nonsense, and they have absolutely nothing but temper tantrums and assertions.
White supremacists use violence, feminists use social violence and institutional power with the implicit threat of state violence.
This shit is nothing new.
If people would just fact check everything feminists said, remember that they are demanding everything be viewed from the perspective of an aggrieved woman (Thus begging the question in the first place), and dismissing other viewpoints by asserting this one is the valid one based on their blind zeal, they'd quickly lose ground.
Just need solidarity with people who stand up to them, and to start holding them accountable when they are violent in their protests or when they engage in mass-libel against individuals. They are just modern day jackboots, thats all.

So yes when you equate people who are trying to achieve gender equality (feminists) with "jackboots" it gives me the impression that you probably don't believe in gender equality.

I do believe in gender equality. I frequently advocate for actual gender equality that encompasses men, their perspectives, and their problems too.
That's why I dislike feminists so much.
If you think the mens rights movement are feminists too, then surely the same logic you used here applies to you. Why do you keep attacking them? You must clearly not really believe in gender equality.
You're welcome to find a single stance on any issue that I hold that isn't conducive to gender equality as evidence i'm not really in favor of it.

I think the simpler answer to all this is that feminism and gender equality aren't actually necessarily related. Rather, that feminism is about a very specific worldview, a gynocentric one, and that it's views on what constitutes gender equality and gender advocacy stem from this, and are as such warped.

Same as how if you're completely and totally ignorant of any culture except white european culture and insist other people adhere to it because it's obviously the best one, you're an imperialist.
If you're completely and totally ignorant (Or rather, unreceptive and dismissive) of any viewpoint except aggrieved womens, you're a feminist.
Both are bigoted.

[Natapoc]

If you believe that animals should be treated well before slaughtered for food you are a vegetarian.

No because the definition of vegetarian has nothing to do with views on how animals should be treated before being slaughter. It has to do with not eating them.

This is why my statement is logical and your statement is a non sequitur.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

If you believe that animals should be treated well before slaughtered for food you are a vegetarian.

No because the definition of vegetarian has nothing to do with views on how animals should be treated before being slaughter. It has to do with not eating them.

This is why my statement is logical and your statement is a non sequitur.

You redefine words, declare others definitions to be incorrect based on your own values, and assign status to people without their permission.

You're either a hypocrite, or have imbibed of far too much Flavor-Aide.

[New Edom]

Why do you keep infantilizing women?

If women have no power, then what was the point of giving women the vote?

Women have no power. Let's proceed to disregard all women leaders, celebrities, authors, businesswomen, athletes, etc.

Let's add to this. European descended female colonists in the United States, Canada and Mexico had no power over Indians, Black people or Asians at any time. They were not relatively more powerful or privileged. They could not buy or sell these people at any time or force them to work.

Let's go farther; the ability to force a man who landed a satellite on a comet to make a tearful public confession in public is not power.

Massive marketing campaigns, UN appointments, many media appearances for Heforshe is not power.

The fact that women play a huge role in the raising of children--that's not power. (so in other words, bell hooks--supposedly a feminist luminary--is not a writer speaking with any influence to feminists since she claims that this is a fundamental pillar of Patriarchy). This is not a form fo power.

Increasing number of female candidates for the highest office in countries in the world? Not power. Bear in mind--for a demographic that has relatively low representation, there are more women than Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other minorities running for the office of President of the United States. One could make an argument on the basis that feminists do that racism is far more important a problem than sexism. Anyway, it's not power though.

[Ostroeuropa]

Women have no power. Let's proceed to disregard all women leaders, celebrities, authors, businesswomen, athletes, etc.

Let's add to this. European descended female colonists in the United States, Canada and Mexico had no power over Indians, Black people or Asians at any time. They were not relatively more powerful or privileged. They could not buy or sell these people at any time or force them to work.

Let's go farther; the ability to force a man who landed a satellite on a comet to make a tearful public confession in public is not power.

Massive marketing campaigns, UN appointments, many media appearances for Heforshe is not power.

The fact that women play a huge role in the raising of children--that's not power. (so in other words, bell hooks--supposedly a feminist luminary--is not a writer speaking with any influence to feminists since she claims that this is a fundamental pillar of Patriarchy). This is not a form fo power.

Increasing number of female candidates for the highest office in countries in the world? Not power. Bear in mind--for a demographic that has relatively low representation, there are more women than Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other minorities running for the office of President of the United States. One could make an argument on the basis that feminists do that racism is far more important a problem than sexism. Anyway, it's not power though.

Controlling the majority of the economy is not power either, apparently.

[Natapoc]

No because the definition of vegetarian has nothing to do with views on how animals should be treated before being slaughter. It has to do with not eating them.

This is why my statement is logical and your statement is a non sequitur.

You redefine words, declare others definitions to be incorrect based on your own values, and assign status to people without their permission.

You're either a hypocrite, or have imbibed of far too much Flavor-Aide.

I've done none of the things you accuse me of. I've not redefined any words. Do you seriously think the definition of vegetarian includes anything about how animals should be treated before slaughter? ?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

You redefine words, declare others definitions to be incorrect based on your own values, and assign status to people without their permission.

You're either a hypocrite, or have imbibed of far too much Flavor-Aide.

I've done none of the things you accuse me of. I've not redefined any words. Do you seriously think the definition of vegetarian includes anything about how animals should be treated before slaughter? ?

Yes, actually. Many vegetarians are such because of the abuses done to animals before they are slaughtered for food.

Alternately, anyone who espouses for animal rights must be a vegetarian, because vegetarians espouse animal rights.

This is the A:B::B:C argument you are making.

[Ostroeuropa]

You redefine words, declare others definitions to be incorrect based on your own values, and assign status to people without their permission.

You're either a hypocrite, or have imbibed of far too much Flavor-Aide.

I've done none of the things you accuse me of. I've not redefined any words. Do you seriously think the definition of vegetarian includes anything about how animals should be treated before slaughter? ?

He's pointing out that you've arbitrarily decided to redefine feminism to fit your current agenda.
Just like he arbitrarily decided to redefine vegetarianism.
Feminism cannot advocate for mens rights and still be feminism.
Do you accept that men need rights advocacy, and that misandry exists?

If so, you must necessarily accept the need for the existence of the mens rights movement.

[Natapoc]

I've done none of the things you accuse me of. I've not redefined any words. Do you seriously think the definition of vegetarian includes anything about how animals should be treated before slaughter? ?

Yes, actually. Many vegetarians are such because of the abuses done to animals before they are slaughtered for food.

Alternately, anyone who espouses for animal rights must be a vegetarian, because vegetarians espouse animal rights.

This is the A:B::B:C argument you are making.

You are confusing the for personal motivation to become a vegetarian with what vegetarianism intrinsically is.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Yes, actually. Many vegetarians are such because of the abuses done to animals before they are slaughtered for food.

Alternately, anyone who espouses for animal rights must be a vegetarian, because vegetarians espouse animal rights.

This is the A:B::B:C argument you are making.

You are confusing the for personal motivation to become a vegetarian with what vegetarianism intrinsically is.

And you are confusing the personal motivation to become a Feminist with what Feminism intrinsically is.

Exciting, isn't it?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

You are confusing the for personal motivation to become a vegetarian with what vegetarianism intrinsically is.

So if feminism is only the advocacy of female rights in the interest of bringing females to equality with males, if this equality was ever achieved in a lasting way would feminism necessarily cease to exist?

[Natapoc]

You are confusing the for personal motivation to become a vegetarian with what vegetarianism intrinsically is.

And you are confusing the personal motivation to become a Feminist with what Feminism intrinsically is.

Exciting, isn't it?

Not at all, people can adopt feminist views for any number of reasons. For example many people become feminists after seeing a friend being abused.

Feminism is a belief in gender equality by giving women equality with men. That's literally what it is. Not a motivation for believing as such.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

And you are confusing the personal motivation to become a Feminist with what Feminism intrinsically is.

Exciting, isn't it?

Not at all, people can adopt feminist views for any number of reasons. For example many people become feminists after seeing a friend being abused.

Feminism is a belief in gender equality by giving women equality with men. That's literally what it is. Not a motivation for believing as such.

You redefine words, declare others definitions to be incorrect based on your own values, and assign status to people without their permission.

You're either a hypocrite, or have imbibed of far too much Flavor-Aide.

[Ostroeuropa]

And you are confusing the personal motivation to become a Feminist with what Feminism intrinsically is.

Exciting, isn't it?

Not at all, people can adopt feminist views for any number of reasons. For example many people become feminists after seeing a friend being abused.

Feminism is a belief in gender equality by giving women equality with men. That's literally what it is. Not a motivation for believing as such.

Where in the definition of feminism does it advocate for giving men rights that women hold, or for dealing with mens issues, or for giving women responsibilities that men hold?
I'd like a source too.

You're wrong, basically.
Feminism purely advocates for womens rights using the excuse of equality of the sexes. It is a supremacy movement.

Tell you what, convince us you are genuine, and find us a post or two where you've advocated for mens rights on a particular issue, from a non-gynocentric perspective. (I.E, that men are being disadvantaged, or would be disadvantaged, in a set of circumstances, that this is wrong, and it must be addressed or resisted.)
That might show us you are arguing in good faith and not being intentionally misleading. I'm happy to find you some where i've argued for womens rights.

[Tekania]

Not at all, people can adopt feminist views for any number of reasons. For example many people become feminists after seeing a friend being abused.

Feminism is a belief in gender equality by giving women equality with men. That's literally what it is. Not a motivation for believing as such.

Where in the definition of feminism does it advocate for giving men rights that women hold, or for dealing with mens issues, or for giving women responsibilities that men hold?
I'd like a source too.

You're wrong, basically.
Feminism purely advocates for womens rights using the excuse of equality of the sexes. It is a supremacy movement.

Tell you what, convince us you are genuine, and find us a post or two where you've advocated for mens rights on a particular issue, from a non-gynocentric perspective. (I.E, that men are being disadvantaged, or would be disadvantaged, in a set of circumstances, that this is wrong, and it must be addressed or resisted.)
That might show us you are arguing in good faith and not being intentionally misleading. I'm happy to find you some where i've argued for womens rights.

Here's the thing, you are both right. By book definition and theory feminism is an equality movement. The theory concept is making women's rights equal to that of men. But like many non-centralized equality movements the terminology picks up baggage independent of the core theory which follows it in practice. There are people in the feminist community which practice and posit things which are intrinsically in opposition to what the theory pushes for, and these peoples speech and practice, classed under their own self-labeled title as a feminist puts baggage on the movement as a whole as long as the community as a whole appears to embrace them. Bu book definition/theory I am a feminist.... but I do not label myself a part of the "feminist movement" because the movement is composed of vocal leaders, largely embraced who are not actually feminist and I refuse to place myself under the same moniker as them. Some people identify with the modern movement still and are actually feminists, and these people generally do like to point it out as an equality movement (which is what it should be).

What is going on here is a contest between the book definition, the theory behind what it should mean and the colloquial definition in how it comes out in practice. Neither definition is objectively right or wrong.

[Chessmistress]

You are confusing the for personal motivation to become a vegetarian with what vegetarianism intrinsically is.

So if feminism is only the advocacy of female rights in the interest of bringing females to equality with males, if this equality was ever achieved in a lasting way would feminism necessarily cease to exist?

Of course.
But women will establish when equality is really reached, not males.
When Global Gender Gap Report will be 1.00 in every country, then equality will be reached, in example.
Now equality is not reached, there's no even a single country with an 1.00 index on the Global Gender Gap Report.

[Destiny Island]

So if feminism is only the advocacy of female rights in the interest of bringing females to equality with males, if this equality was ever achieved in a lasting way would feminism necessarily cease to exist?

Of course.
But women will establish when equality is really reached, not males.
When Global Gender Gap Report will be 1.00 in every country, then equality will be reached, in example.
Now equality is not reached, there's no even a single country with an 1.00 index on the Global Gender Gap Report.

Boy that is gonna be a long while from now. But maybe we'll see it in our lifetime. Maybe.

[Hirota]

Of course.
But women will establish when equality is really reached, not males.
When Global Gender Gap Report will be 1.00 in every country, then equality will be reached, in example.
Now equality is not reached, there's no even a single country with an 1.00 index on the Global Gender Gap Report.

Boy that is gonna be a long while from now. But maybe we'll see it in our lifetime. Maybe.

SJW's are too busy moaning about how computer generated women are being repressed to do anything about the wage gap in countries with actual significant income inequality.

[Susurruses]

If you believe that animals should be treated well before slaughtered for food you are a vegetarian.

Feminists can be good eatin'. Although that's usually a 'small' death rather than a slaughter.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/05/13/life ... -of-men/#1

A pretty good article as to why feminism has become a bit of a shitpile, full of racism, homophobia, and misandry.

Something they expressed scads of during the Gamergate scandal.
(quotes from linked studies.)

racial bias was more common in white women who read about pervasive sexism than those who did not.

(Similar results for homophobia and such.)
This is why making shit up to drum up perceived sexism where none actually exists is bad.
It turns people into bigots.
(Wage gap, falsifying domestic violence and rape disparities, etc.)
This results in people perceiving discrimination without actually having experienced it, which the studies note tends to turn them into bigots.
(People who have actually experienced discrimination tend to avoid this pitfall.)

Feminists continual drumming up of non-issues such as manspreading and such is another expression of this, as well as their one-sided discussion of issues.
It is an ideology that breeds intolerance, stereotyping, and hatred against everyone except white middle class women.

Overall, the results suggest that making discrimination salient triggers social identity threat, rather than a sense of common disadvantage, among stigmatized group members, leading to the derogation of other stigmatized groups.

This is precisely why the feminists spend so much of their time dismissing and belittling mens issues.

[Susurruses]

Women have no power. Let's proceed to disregard all women leaders, celebrities, authors, businesswomen, athletes, etc.

Let's add to this. European descended female colonists in the United States, Canada and Mexico had no power over Indians, Black people or Asians at any time. They were not relatively more powerful or privileged. They could not buy or sell these people at any time or force them to work.

Let's go farther; the ability to force a man who landed a satellite on a comet to make a tearful public confession in public is not power.

Massive marketing campaigns, UN appointments, many media appearances for Heforshe is not power.

The fact that women play a huge role in the raising of children--that's not power. (so in other words, bell hooks--supposedly a feminist luminary--is not a writer speaking with any influence to feminists since she claims that this is a fundamental pillar of Patriarchy). This is not a form fo power.

Increasing number of female candidates for the highest office in countries in the world? Not power. Bear in mind--for a demographic that has relatively low representation, there are more women than Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other minorities running for the office of President of the United States. One could make an argument on the basis that feminists do that racism is far more important a problem than sexism. Anyway, it's not power though.

Is that not erecting a Straw Feminist by neglecting intersectionality and (accidentally?) conflating relative privilege (within a defined class) with systemic power (of that class in relation to others)?
(That said, you're like.. not even half-wrong.
There are many criticisms to be leveled at 'middle-class white hetero- cis- feminists' as a group.)
[That said, absolute statements about groups of people are rarely ever accurate, & I suspect trying to avoid them in this thread is a good idea.]

As to the shirt guy... It was hardly the most appropriate thing to be wearing for a public broadcast.
However the vehemence behind some of the shit thrown was.. excessive.
Dude seemed sincere in his apology for having offended with it, but.. crying over it makes me think he just genuinely hadn't thought it through; clearly something of what was said affected him quite badly for him to be that upset.
It didn't seem 'forced' in the sense that he honestly hadn't meant any harm by it; I can see why one might make the argument that the backlash acted as a coercive force, but I'd like to think that if it had been a more polite backlash then he'd have apologised just the same.
(Presumably, I hope, everyone he actually works alongside is fine with it? But there's a difference between a clear understanding between colleagues and something going out to the wider world. )
I think.. that part of the problem is that outside of a personal context, there isn't that automatic 'calm reasonable quiet polite friendly' approach to broaching problems.
It just instantly snaps to blunt and even aggressive outrage, on every 'side' to such things.
(Hell, that sort of brute-force back-&-forth has taken place here in this thread. It doesn't tend to help so much as it just stresses and upsets people, and it certainly isn't likely to change minds.)
But then.. how do we (as people) ensure that we do consider the humanity of those around us and don't immediately lash out at individuals that may not actually have any malicious intent?
Clearly we should, but it seems to be a difficult thing to do when focusing on relative strangers; there's a dehumanising element to someone that is quite literally defined by whatever singular (perceived) mistake is highlighted.
That one trait becomes almost their entire character. Not really helpful to productive dialogue.
*shrugs* Mob mentalities get stupid.

I think there's another conflation going on with the UN/media thing, where 'publicity' doesn't necessarily actually do anything useful.
(& even legal approaches don't necessarily alter the status quo on a sociocultural level.)
Still, it's something. Not something that would've happened in the past.
(Honestly, the "NO power. None. Whatsoever." is falling into that 'absolute statement' issue.)
Although, there's an issue, I think:
Would they need special appointments if there was already equality of power?

... can a marginalised group of people exercise real power over subordinates in a system where they have little power afforded to them?
(ie: Can women that care for children actually have much influence over them if they themselves are bound to an oppressive society in which they and the child are immersed?)
[Note: This is more of a hypothetical. It is phrased under the assumption that the relevant doctrine holds absolutely true, rather than with a sincere full belief that it is.]

.. what if the answer to "Which is worse: Racism or Sexism?" is just "Yes" ?
(... which, now I think about it, pretty much is the answer: they're both shitty things that need to go, and they should both be getting attention and effort.)
That actually loops back around to the first thing about the more privileged subsection of women/feminists neglecting to support the rest.
It's a fair criticism, but needs to avoid seeming like "Pick one" when that's a false dichotomy.


... is part of the problem that different people are stating things under the assumption that others understand the framework within which they are saying it, and furthermore that they already know the underlying points upon which their statements are based?
I'm pretty sure that certainly isn't helping..

... then again I suppose another element is that people are sometimes seeming like they'd rather be a bit of an arse to someone than be pleasant or even diplomatic about things.
*shrugs!*

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/one-airmans ... -the-sarc/

Worth reading for a womans perspective on victim feminism and how it's a problem.
(US Pilot.)

[New Edom]

Let's add to this. European descended female colonists in the United States, Canada and Mexico had no power over Indians, Black people or Asians at any time. They were not relatively more powerful or privileged. They could not buy or sell these people at any time or force them to work.

Let's go farther; the ability to force a man who landed a satellite on a comet to make a tearful public confession in public is not power.

Massive marketing campaigns, UN appointments, many media appearances for Heforshe is not power.

The fact that women play a huge role in the raising of children--that's not power. (so in other words, bell hooks--supposedly a feminist luminary--is not a writer speaking with any influence to feminists since she claims that this is a fundamental pillar of Patriarchy). This is not a form fo power.

Increasing number of female candidates for the highest office in countries in the world? Not power. Bear in mind--for a demographic that has relatively low representation, there are more women than Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other minorities running for the office of President of the United States. One could make an argument on the basis that feminists do that racism is far more important a problem than sexism. Anyway, it's not power though.

Is that not erecting a Straw Feminist by neglecting intersectionality and (accidentally?) conflating relative privilege (within a defined class) with systemic power (of that class in relation to others)?
(That said, you're like.. not even half-wrong.
There are many criticisms to be leveled at 'middle-class white hetero- cis- feminists' as a group.)
[That said, absolute statements about groups of people are rarely ever accurate, & I suspect trying to avoid them in this thread is a good idea.]

My point is that power is power. Saying 'women have no power' is not a statement that holds up under scrutiny. It could be argued that women have historically had less power in a number of areas of life than men generally in most societies, but it's not simply 'women have no power". This would be like the mayor of a large city saying that because they are not head of state or government that they have no power.

As to the shirt guy... It was hardly the most appropriate thing to be wearing for a public broadcast.
However the vehemence behind some of the shit thrown was.. excessive.
Dude seemed sincere in his apology for having offended with it, but.. crying over it makes me think he just genuinely hadn't thought it through; clearly something of what was said affected him quite badly for him to be that upset.
It didn't seem 'forced' in the sense that he honestly hadn't meant any harm by it; I can see why one might make the argument that the backlash acted as a coercive force, but I'd like to think that if it had been a more polite backlash then he'd have apologised just the same.
(Presumably, I hope, everyone he actually works alongside is fine with it? But there's a difference between a clear understanding between colleagues and something going out to the wider world. )

The point here is that feminists keep saying generally that they have no influence and are shut out of power--yet they clearly had the power to influence here. Whether the shirt was in bad taste or not, they were able to pressure, insist, demand, whatever it took--to get this guy to apologize in public.

I think.. that part of the problem is that outside of a personal context, there isn't that automatic 'calm peeasonable quiet polite friendly' approach to broaching problems.
It just instantly snaps to blunt and even aggressive outrage, on every 'side' to such things.
(Hell, that sort of brute-force back-&-forth has taken place here in this thread. It doesn't tend to help so much as it just stresses and upsets people, and it certainly isn't likely to change minds.)
But then.. how do we (as people) ensure that we do consider the humanity of those around us and don't immediately lash out at individuals that may not actually have any malicious intent?
Clearly we should, but it seems to be a difficult thing to do when focusing on relative strangers; there's a dehumanising element to someone that is quite literally defined by whatever singular (perceived) mistake is highlighted.
That one trait becomes almost their entire character. Not really helpful to productive dialogue.
*shrugs* Mob mentalities get stupid.

Followers of an ideology who feel that they do not have to justify or explain their position beyond a few bullet points and speak as though they have the right to make demands on society have power. They have the power, for instance, to insist that public speakers at universities be censored, that books be censored, that t-shirts be censored. This may not be the kind of power that they want, but it is power nevertheless.

Take this as an example: Malcolm X and Martin Luther King did not have the kind of power that perhaps they wanted, but they had the power of influence and activism nevertheless, enough that they were considered threatening to their opposition. That is power.

While your points about how people argue are reasonable, I have to say that I do not believe feminists generally have goodwill towards people outside of their ideology. I have never seen any examples of this on any broad basis, only on an individual basis. For instance I have never seen any sense of common cause.

Here's a good example: an organization of churches in my city are against human trafficking, and have donated money, public speaking and time towards this cause. Feminists leaders spoke against identifying with them because of a strong belief that the church leadership was misogynist, because some of them had spoken in favour of traditional views on marriage. So understand: trying to end human trafficking in the city was less important than how it was done and who it was done with.

I think that alongside your views on how such arguments go that there's another issue, which is the perceptions of one's power. A lot of Patriarchy Theory in application ends up being in sum "women have no power/haven't enough power" and so of course the arguments then degenerate. In the above example, the feminist leaders could have accepted a common cause in one thing while deploring another for a sense of the greater good, but I think part of the issue is that they couldn't accept that they could simply do that, that a compromise to achieve something while intending to revisit another issue later could take place. This is one of two things generally in my experience: either a lack of perception of power (not realizing how much power one has) or a lack of goodwill towards others. Often a combination of both.

I think there's another conflation going on with the UN/media thing, where 'publicity' doesn't necessarily actually do anything useful.
(& even legal approaches don't necessarily alter the status quo on a sociocultural level.)
Still, it's something. Not something that would've happened in the past.
(Honestly, the "NO power. None. Whatsoever." is falling into that 'absolute statement' issue.)
Although, there's an issue, I think:
Would they need special appointments if there was already equality of power?

Well there's a few things you said here. First of all, just because an appointment is given on a particular perceived crisis does not automatically mean that the crisis exists, or let's say it does, that the solutions proposed are right.

For instance, there's a comedy skit by Mitchell and Webb where a Minister of Finance or something is being talked to by two of his civil servants about budget issues for the government, and he proposes "Have you tried 'kill all the poor'?" They're appalled, but he says he just wants to see if it would work theoretically. My point is that a real problem can exist and the solutions can be unworkable, badly analyzed or even stupid.

Again, the main point here was to debunk the idea that women have no power, and point out that it is more that feminists generally seem to believe that women don't have enough power. There's a huge difference. In the former case, it implies that anything you do towards changing that can be vitally important; in the second it suggests that you might really need to think about it and what kind of society you are trying to influence the existence of.

This I think is part of the problem for First World feminism: it simply doesn't have the issues of traditionalist societies trying to make social and economic transitions towards the modern age. It's like that "One Billion Rising" commercial Eve Ensler did where the white woman in the office is having her hair touched by a guy standing behind her, and it's somehow just as bad as the woman being gang raped or the girl being abused and so on. Like being made to feel uncomfortable means you are powerless rather than--being made to feel uncomfortable. So instead of harassment meaning "you are being bothered by someone and have little power to stop it", it becomes "someone said/did something that bothered me and I want them punished for it because I shouldn't have to tell them to stop or establish my own boundaries." This perception of power is part of the issue here, and many people who support women simply seem to accept it.

... can a marginalised group of people exercise real power over subordinates in a system where they have little power afforded to them?
(ie: Can women that care for children actually have much influence over them if they themselves are bound to an oppressive society in which they and the child are immersed?)
[Note: This is more of a hypothetical. It is phrased under the assumption that the relevant doctrine holds absolutely true, rather than with a sincere full belief that it is.]

I appreciate the distinction you made above.

Children from 0-12 go through enormous changes. It is during this time that they become socialized, learn their motor and speech skills. It takes at least 4 years to toilet train the average child, 3 to teach most how to basically communicate with words, about 5 to teach them to entirely dress themselves, and so on. It is a huge responsibility. Holding this responsibility is power. Parents have rights over their children that no one but the state can challenge. They can decide where their children are educated, how they are treated medically, how they spend their recreational time, even who their friends are. And yes, they can harm them too, and in ways that are hard for outsiders to find out about. A lot of what a person will become in adulthood is in the hands of their parents. Power.

.. what if the answer to "Which is worse: Racism or Sexism?" is just "Yes" ?
(... which, now I think about it, pretty much is the answer: they're both shitty things that need to go, and they should both be getting attention and effort.)
That actually loops back around to the first thing about the more privileged subsection of women/feminists neglecting to support the rest.
It's a fair criticism, but needs to avoid seeming like "Pick one" when that's a false dichotomy.

I think one of the popular phrases lately is 'oppression olympics'. The rhetoric used to make a case can be pretty stupid. Like for instance, a well meaning lady at a Slutwalk said "No one cares about consent." I imagined the activists all kind of looking at one another at that. I understand what she probably meant, which would have been "We need to have a better understanding of consent in our society" or something like that, which I would agree with. Some might say "what's the difference" to which I would say "a lot".

... is part of the problem that different people are stating things under the assumption that others understand the framework within which they are saying it, and furthermore that they already know the underlying points upon which their statements are based?
I'm pretty sure that certainly isn't helping..

... then again I suppose another element is that people are sometimes seeming like they'd rather be a bit of an arse to someone than be pleasant or even diplomatic about things.
*shrugs!*

You make a good point here about how the arguments often go. If we go with assumption A then it follows that B and C are correct sort of thing. I think that this often misses the point as with my human trafficking issue above.

I think that with feminism itself that generally the followers of the movement suffer from the notion that everything their ideology says as its basis is not merely correct but stands to reason and so anyone disagreeing is evil, stupid or crazy. However no ideology is a body of scientific facts, it's just a set of theories about how to interpret how we ought to behave. Ideologies are perspectives, not reality, and need to be treated as such.

[New Edom]

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/one-airmans-view-open-letter-to-the-sarc/

Worth reading for a womans perspective on victim feminism and how it's a problem.
(US Pilot.)

Good points. I can accept that organizations can have elements of corruption in them that will avoid damaging the reputation of respected people, for instance, but this is where feminism becomes stupid. Rather than seeing that as just how organizations become complacent and arrogant, they see it as 'misogyny' and bring in a bunch of ideological nonsense to deal with it, rather than dealing with say the corruption to begin with. So you get this politically correct nonsense rather than justice.

[Chessmistress]

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/one-airmans-view-open-letter-to-the-sarc/

Worth reading for a womans perspective on victim feminism and how it's a problem.
(US Pilot.)

Laws and everything about sexual assault is meant for the greater majority of women, and not for few exceptional women.
That applies to very law and every public policy, always.
Also note that her title is "Airman"

I really think that article is full of ludicrous lies, and especially that part is very insulting for all survivors of sexual assault, for million women:

When I walk into a room and people are laughing and having a good time, you are the reason they take one look at me and either stop talking or leave. They’re afraid. They’re afraid of me, and it’s because of you. They are afraid that with all of this “power” I have, I can destroy them. They will never respect me or the power and the authority I have as a person, or the power I have as an Airman, because I am nothing more than a victim. That I as a victim, somehow I control their fate. With one sentence, I can destroy the rest of their lives.

I think that's good that males stop telling sexist jokes when she walk in: that's exactly the purpose of some policies, and these policies should be even strenghtened.
In fact, males should stop telling sexist jokes even when women aren't around, because sexist jokes fuel rape culture.

And I think that's even more insulting, because it's also a total reversal of reality

When you forbid me from going into my male friends room to play X-Box on a deployment with the other people on my shift, you isolate me. When you isolate me, you make me a target. When you make me a target, you make me a victim. You don’t make me equal, you make me hated.