Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm more concerned with systematic sexism than I am with the incoherent ramblings of a few gender supremacists. Especially gender supremacists who have no ability to enact their goals.

I wouldn't be worried about the "incoherent rantings of a few gender supremacists" if they did not have power and influence.

This is not the case with female supremacists or pro-female sexists.

As I pointed out to you previously with regard to misandrists and misandry, and misandrists are mostly female supremacists if you boil it down (however rarely we may use the term), they are not powerless. Pro-female sexists have, under the guise of feminism:

• Stood in the way of "made to penetrate" cases being recognized as rape.
• Blocked research on domestic violence perpetrated by women.
• Blocked funding for domestic violence services that serve men.
• Attempted (and failed) to prevent statutory rape laws from being made gender-neutral.
• Attempted (and failed) to prevent child custody laws from being made nominally gender-neutral.
• Blocked all efforts to reform child custody assignment practices to make them actually gender-neutral.
• Caused, and then hampered efforts to end, the flight of male teachers out of the teaching profession.
• Hampered efforts to fix the slow relative decline of boys in the school system.

This is an incomplete list. I have, however, pointed you to very specific examples. I quoted a lecture from Cindy Struckman-Johnson on her experience trying to publish research that included male victims of female perpetrators. I pointed to a paper detailing a long list of specific episodes of obstruction and suppression in the literature on domestic violence. I cited chapter and verse on Mary Koss and her steadfast refusal to acknowledge "made to penetrate" cases as being rape; and I have told you that she is in a position of some power on the matter.

I have bludgeoned you over the head with a very large quantity of evidence that misandry - female supremacy - pro-female sexism - is not harmless.

[Steamtopia]

What do I think? Unnecessary drama. Games used to be about the actual games once.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm more concerned with systematic sexism than I am with the incoherent ramblings of a few gender supremacists. Especially gender supremacists who have no ability to enact their goals.

I wouldn't be worried about the "incoherent rantings of a few gender supremacists" if they did not have power and influence.

This is not the case with female supremacists or pro-female sexists.

As I pointed out to you previously with regard to misandrists and misandry, and misandrists are mostly female supremacists if you boil it down (however rarely we may use the term), they are not powerless. Pro-female sexists have, under the guise of feminism:

• Stood in the way of "made to penetrate" cases being recognized as rape.
• Blocked research on domestic violence perpetrated by women.
• Blocked funding for domestic violence services that serve men.
• Attempted (and failed) to prevent statutory rape laws from being made gender-neutral.
• Attempted (and failed) to prevent child custody laws from being made nominally gender-neutral.
• Blocked all efforts to reform child custody assignment practices to make them actually gender-neutral.
• Caused, and then hampered efforts to end, the flight of male teachers out of the teaching profession.
• Hampered efforts to fix the slow relative decline of boys in the school system.

This is an incomplete list. I have, however, pointed you to very specific examples. I quoted a lecture from Cindy Struckman-Johnson on her experience trying to publish research that included male victims of female perpetrators. I pointed to a paper detailing a long list of specific episodes of obstruction and suppression in the literature on domestic violence. I cited chapter and verse on Mary Koss and her steadfast refusal to acknowledge "made to penetrate" cases as being rape; and I have told you that she is in a position of some power on the matter.

I have bludgeoned you over the head with a very large quantity of evidence that misandry - female supremacy - pro-female sexism - is not harmless.

This is kind of why I assume feminists are arguing in bad faith. They never acknowledge the things you show them.
Considering the amount of stuff they lie about, it's simpler to assume that "We don't hate men" and "It's about equality" are just two more lies from people who lie frequently about the wage gap, rape stats, domestic violence, false accusations, practically every issue really.
Either that or the ideology has closed them off to facts so much that they may as well be arguing in bad faith, like creationists.
They seem incapable of acknowledging that their movement has created systemic sexism as much as it has fought it, and that it is de-facto a female supremacy movement. This is because of their gynocentric viewpoint and refusal to take misandry seriously, as well as their constant recontextualization of mens issues as really being about women.

[Chessmistress]

So both you and the MRA types think I'm a bigot. Oh well, I'm used to being the only one in a thread who thinks like me. According to economic theory that should make me more valuable right? lol

I don't care at all about what males think, I don't need a male mansplaining for me.
I suspect you're a little bigoted because you seem focused on concepts like "obscenity" and even "morality", but that's an outdated point of view, the opposite of radical feminist thought, we condemn coercion and, more generally, abuse of power of males over women.
"Obscenity" is an argument of the church.
I couldn't care less about economic theory: a nation of mine, founder of Women Empire, even has "icouldntcareless" as currency

Yes Emma Goldman really was a great writer and a great woman: But even more an amazing revolutionary. I've read many of her works. Did you know she was one of the most influential anarchists of all time?

Have you read any of her works? If not I suggest you read them, they are very insightful and brilliantly, and passionately written.

Yes.
Anarchy cannot exist without Radical Feminism, and I said "Radical Feminism" and not simply feminism.
Do you know her works? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Federici
I do not agree with all the things she wrote (especially regarding capital punishment), but she's great too, I think.

edit: I don't mind THAT much that you participate in a region that advocates male slavery as an outlet for whatever power dynamic fetishes you and other participants may have.

I just think you do a poor job at representing feminism when you do so.

Women Empire is not meant for representing feminism.
Indeed I even carefully avoided to request an embassy with The Feminist Region, and the main region we have embassies with is Amazon Federation that is for (from their WFE) "matriarchy, gynocracy and feminism".
That even if I noticed that within The Feminist Region there's a female supremacist nation http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sisterhood (just check "Gender Roles" in her factbook) and a gynarchy http://www.nationstates.net/nation=cleopatra_selene
Also in their RMB there are "friendly" messages towards males like
"Ohhh. In Page MRA's are just executed. "
Even after that, I repeat, I carefully avoided to request an embassy with them, just for the purpose to avoid conflating female supremacy with feminism.
So, I really think you're missing the target saying I'm misrepresenting feminism, since my region is not feminist.

I've said many times that I think it would be funny if a real female supremacist (good luck finding one, most women are so focused on equality they never even consider anything like that) joined nation states to argue against feminism on the grounds that they disagree with being equal to men... It would be funny to see how the MRA types reacted to that.

Again my main problem with what you're doing is that you are conflating a submissive male fetish with a serious movement for justice and equality and selectively quoting real feminists to do so.

I can assure you that if I wouldn't limit my delegate and another user, you'd see it
What means "selectively quoting real feminist"?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Current research provides considerable support for differentiating among types of intimate
partner violence, and such differentiations should provide benefits to those required to
make recommendations and decisions about custody and parenting plans, treatment programs,
and legal sanctions. As indicated, there is a need for continuing research on partner
violence that will expand and refine our understanding of these men and women who
engage in violence within the family. Among other things, little is known about the precipitants
of female violence, the types of emotional abuse and violent acts they perpetrate, and
the impact on children’s adjustment, particularly with emotionally abusive, controlling
women who are violent with their nonviolent partners. The significant role of substance
abuse in intimate partner violence has been observed, but not with respect to differentiation
among types of violence. Treatment programs that focus on the causes and contexts of
different types of violence are more likely than one-size-fits-all approaches to address the
major issues underlying the violence and, therefore, to develop recommendations that
achieve more positive results.

http://ocadvsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Differentiation-Among-Types-of-Intimate-Partner-Violence.pdf

Believe it or not, there is good to be had with discussing and researching the inconsistencies within Feminist loud speakers vice Feminism Actual. Feminists, those who are actually interested in equality as opposed to the shrill Tumblrinas, perform studies like the one linked.

It asks good questions, identifies serious issues, and is well suited to debate.

[Natapoc]

I suspect you're a little bigoted because you seem focused on concepts like "obscenity" and even "morality"

Wait... What? No, I'm against porn due to oppression, not "obscenity" or "morality". I'm for morality when morality is used to mean ethics and against morality when it means religious control.

Apparently you don't read what I write. lol.

Or more accurately you read what I write in a similar way as you take the quotes of brilliant women out of context (Just as the MRA's do).

[Susurruses]

In semi-related news, Johnathan MacIntosh (writer for Feminist Frequency), has some, um, interesting Tweets regarding Age of Ultron and feminism (https://archive.is/Oqx02):

Age of Ultron had dialogue making fun of testosterone infused violence then proceeded to revel in testosterone infused violence for 2 hours.

Attention media makers: Lampshading a thing does NOT then automatically give you free license to go ahead and use that thing in your media.

Simply acknowledging something is not the same as critiquing it. Likewise self-referential humor is not the same as commentary or criticism.

The levels of toxic hegemonic masculinity on display in Age of Ultron was off the charts. That fact passes without comment in most reviews.

The core ideological underpinning of superhero stories is that violence is inevitable so "good guys” have a responsibility to be violent.

If that sounds strangely familiar, that's because it’s also the core ideological underpinning of US Military and US police force actions.

In essence, it is impossible for an superhero film ever live up to his, and by extension the Tropes vs. Women series', expectations. I needn't remind you that the film's director, Joss Whedon, is also the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a series praised for its feminist themes, as well as Firefly. The film has two female main characters, Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, which in my personal opinion were well-written.

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.
(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)
[Then with Firefly we have the issue of Reavers being based on the "savage Natives" trope, along with the planned-but-thankfully-never-made 'gang rape episode' where Mal suddenly treats Inara "like a lady" because she was assaulted and traumatised by Reavers. With the horrific implication that suddenly she's a lady because she didn't consent that time.
Bonus horror: This was apparently used to pitch the show.]

Sidenote: Yikes. Scarlet Witch is well-written? Some unfortunate fuckery in there.
Isn't she (along with her brother) supposed to be Roma and Jewish?
And yet they

have her voluntarily 'enhanced' by a Nazi organisation

, which is farcical.
Though obviously they can't reference the father, given those rights belong to Fox.
So suddenly they're white kids.
(Which isn't even getting into the bullshit with a couple cast members chanting 'gypsy', referring to her, even when they were told that's considered offensive.)

Whedon is an arse.
(There are issues with the way Black Widow is handled too, but that's somewhat less egregious.)

[Steamtopia]

I suspect you're a little bigoted because you seem focused on concepts like "obscenity" and even "morality"

Wait... What? No, I'm against porn due to oppression, not "obscenity" or "morality". I'm for morality when morality is used to mean ethics and against morality when it means religious control.

Apparently you don't read what I write. lol.

Or more accurately you read what I write in a similar way as you take the quotes of brilliant women out of context (Just as the MRA's do).

Porn is oppression?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

In semi-related news, Johnathan MacIntosh (writer for Feminist Frequency), has some, um, interesting Tweets regarding Age of Ultron and feminism (https://archive.is/Oqx02):



In essence, it is impossible for an superhero film ever live up to his, and by extension the Tropes vs. Women series', expectations. I needn't remind you that the film's director, Joss Whedon, is also the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a series praised for its feminist themes, as well as Firefly. The film has two female main characters, Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, which in my personal opinion were well-written.

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.
(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)
[Then with Firefly we have the issue of Reavers being based on the "savage Natives" trope, along with the planned-but-thankfully-never-made 'gang rape episode' where Mal suddenly treats Inara "like a lady" because she was assaulted and traumatised by Reavers. With the horrific implication that suddenly she's a lady because she didn't consent that time.
Bonus horror: This was apparently used to pitch the show.]

Sidenote: Yikes. Scarlet Witch is well-written? Some unfortunate fuckery in there.
Isn't she (along with her brother) supposed to be Roma and Jewish?
And yet they

have her voluntarily 'enhanced' by a Nazi organisation

, which is farcical.
Though obviously they can't reference the father, given those rights belong to Fox.
So suddenly they're white kids.
(Which isn't even getting into the bullshit with a couple cast members chanting 'gypsy', referring to her, even when they were told that's considered offensive.)

Whedon is an arse.
(There are issues with the way Black Widow is handled too, but that's somewhat less egregious.)

Are Feminists finally turning on Wheedon? Took them long enough.

[The Lone Alliance]

As I said before, I think the entire approach of Feminist Frequency is wrong, whether you agree with their concern about sexism or not. The issue really with games/movies/media in general when it comes to depiction of anyone is more a matter of greed/ignorance/laziness/complacency than systemic anything, in my opinion. While racism or sexism may be issues, they are more the result, in my opinion, than the actual reason for why some things are regressing or not changing fast enough.

Companies make what sells and trying to shoehorn stuff that you feel is 'pro-woman' something which, it's quite clear that no matter what they do will never appease them. (Seriously a game actually put in almost everything they wanted about women and they STILL called them sexist) therefore what will eventually happen is that companies will just stop putting women in games period simply so the likes of FF won't have anything to talk about.

This will put women in gaming backwards.

As I mentioned before, in the late eighties there was a surge of rather egalitarian perspectives both in games and in popular media. Games increasingly offered female characters (Mortal Kombat for instance) that were tough, interesting and so on; movies offered entirely egalitarian perspectives such as the movies "Aliens", "Terminator II" "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and others.

Several RPGs of the 90s had some powerful women too back then. SNES era square liked having female characters in their games, and while many times the women were support characters they were no less awesome in their own right. Final Fantasy VI is one example off the top of my head, the majority of the plot of the first half of the game used a male(Locke) as the primary character, the majority of the plot revolved around the girl you started out playing(Terra), then when the second half of the game rolls around the player character primarily ends up revolving around the second main female character(Celes) with the previous male character being completely optional to winning. The very way the game is set up actually pushes both girls into being the most well balanced and strongest characters in the game, which is very contrary to the RPG expectations back then of women mostly being devoted to being 'medics'.

Really, one thing that is argued about these games is that the women all seem to be attractive and they claim sexism is why. What is far more likely is that the fanservice in games is less a fault of sexism and more the fault of better graphics engines.

In other words, once "Breast Physics" became a thing it was inevitable that fan service would grow to be more important.

The key to getting around some elements of unfairness is sometimes simply making sure that good talent goes forward. I'm not discounting other knids of activism, but focusing on whether or not sexism is systemic or not to me misses the point in this arena. It is more about the fact that if you show a good story and a good set of characters, it will cause people generally to appreciate them, history seems to show.

Really, one of the funny things about Gamergate is that for all the claims that they're "Trying to drive women out of gaming" they actually are the ones who made sure that SeedScape and Afterlife Empire became possible. SeedScape was made by a female game developer who sided with gamergate, which caused the supposed 'pro-feminist' antis to try and get her game kicked off Steam. (So much for supporting women) Gamergate got her game greenlit on steam. The latter game is the one made possible by TFYC*s. Meanwhile on the anti-side, how many up and coming developers they have promoted? None.

Yet they gave thousands of dollars for John to have Anita bitch about games.

*For anyone who still wants to claim that they're 'not really feminists' I invite you to read their page where they state their endorsement of the theories of Dorothy Edith Smith, Sandra L. Bartky, Judith Butler, and Naomi R. Wolf.

There will be holdouts and traditionalists but gaming in particular is a field where people want newer, better, faster, more interesting, more fun. This is what the battleground should really be, providing and encouraging the development of the best games that more people will enjoy.

Except it's very clear that many on the other side don't believe games should be fun, the people who made up of Gamergate have had spokespersons who have literally said "Games should stop being about fun and more about pushing social issues." They believe that games that don't support their views should be suppressed or excluded until all games meet their approval.

That is unacceptable, gaming is big enough for everyone and every thing, from powerful female characters, to damsels in distress, to heartless villains, to even a walking cliche.

If "Feminists" and "Social Justice Warriors" believe that they should have the right to decide what should be socially acceptable in gaming and that they cannot stand the fact that their ideas are being rejected?

Then they have only their own intolerance to blame.

[Chessmistress]

Porn is oppression?

Yes, just like prostitution.
It's reduction of women to commodities through coercion (economic blackmail).
It's a form of violence against women.

I suspect you're a little bigoted because you seem focused on concepts like "obscenity" and even "morality"

Wait... What? No, I'm against porn due to oppression, not "obscenity" or "morality". I'm for morality when morality is used to mean ethics and against morality when it means religious control.

Apparently you don't read what I write. lol.

Don't mess with me.
You know well I'm against porn much more than you: indeed I advocate for laws that would bann it, when instead you seems to have not the courage to advocate for a direct bann of porn.

You compared a sexual fantasy role play, without coercion, totally free, with porn

Their region is a sexual fantasy role play region for a particular segment of submissive men: Which is interesting given what Chessmistress previously said about porn.

I expect such comparison from a priest, due his "morality", not from a Radical Feminist, who should be aware of the difference between free and consensual acts (fantasy role play) and coercion / economic blackmail + objectification (porn).

Or more accurately you read what I write in a similar way as you take the quotes of brilliant women out of context (Just as the MRA's do).

Apart from that you missed the fact that I pointed out that every thing that seems to worry you about my region is also present - though lesser - in The Feminist Region, and that's why I think you shouldn't be worried about "misrepresentation of feminism within Women Empire" because Women Empire is not feminist, when instead The Feminist Region is feminist as the name suggest....have you ever noticed it? Have you read my previous post?

That's my factbook
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... ok/id=main
It's all about anti-objectification, anti-porn and for independence of women.
There's nothing "out of context"
There are just only 2 quotes out of 20 that can be interpreted differently, and I was strongly suggested to add these quote by my friend (as said, someone is not moderate like me):
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the famous quote of Mary Daly

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

That's not out of context - Mary Daly even always refused to admit males in advanced stages of her women's studies course: I agree with her, for the very same reason I don't think males can be leaders within feminism nor even call themselves "feminists" but just only "allies".
Everybody can see the quote of Mary Daly is about "evolution of humanity" and not about "slaughtering" or something similar.
Mary Daly was an university professor, not a thug, also she was the dissertation advisor to Janice Raymond.
More informations here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly
My friend also suggested me to include a quote of Sally Miller Gearhart: I refused, it seems to me an unfair thought: there's a thin but significant line between Mary Daly and Miller Gearhart, and I'll never cross it: the line between an idea of natural evolution and an idea about abuse of power by humans.

[Hirota]

Isn't she (along with her brother) supposed to be Roma and Jewish?

Yes- kinda, and not really. In at least some of the comics their mother is Roma, but it isn't entirely clear as some of the backstory in House of M was created in a fictional universe created by the siblings.

Magneto is Jewish, but Judaism typically passes matrilineally, so would presumably their mother would have to be Jewish.

Secondly, Magneto is a non-entity in the Cinematic Universe so he cannot be their parent - at least they cannot do more than allude.

This is part of the problem when you mix comic books which can conflict with one another alongside copyright.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.
(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)
[Then with Firefly we have the issue of Reavers being based on the "savage Natives" trope, along with the planned-but-thankfully-never-made 'gang rape episode' where Mal suddenly treats Inara "like a lady" because she was assaulted and traumatised by Reavers. With the horrific implication that suddenly she's a lady because she didn't consent that time.
Bonus horror: This was apparently used to pitch the show.]

Sidenote: Yikes. Scarlet Witch is well-written? Some unfortunate fuckery in there.
Isn't she (along with her brother) supposed to be Roma and Jewish?
And yet they

have her voluntarily 'enhanced' by a Nazi organisation

, which is farcical.
Though obviously they can't reference the father, given those rights belong to Fox.
So suddenly they're white kids.
(Which isn't even getting into the bullshit with a couple cast members chanting 'gypsy', referring to her, even when they were told that's considered offensive.)

Whedon is an arse.
(There are issues with the way Black Widow is handled too, but that's somewhat less egregious.)

Yes, how dare he ever deviate from proper feminist orthodoxy in even a handfull of the hundreds of episodes of TV shows that he's produced?

[Glorious KASSRD]

Porn is oppression?

Yes, just like prostitution.
It's reduction of women to commodities through coercion (economic blackmail).
It's a form of violence against women.

Wait... What? No, I'm against porn due to oppression, not "obscenity" or "morality". I'm for morality when morality is used to mean ethics and against morality when it means religious control.

Apparently you don't read what I write. lol.

Don't mess with me.
You know well I'm against porn much more than you: indeed I advocate for laws that would bann it, when instead you seems to have not the courage to advocate for a direct bann of porn.

You compared a sexual fantasy role play, without coercion, totally free, with porn

Their region is a sexual fantasy role play region for a particular segment of submissive men: Which is interesting given what Chessmistress previously said about porn.

I expect such comparison from a priest, due his "morality", not from a Radical Feminist, who should be aware of the difference between free and consensual acts (fantasy role play) and coercion / economic blackmail + objectification (porn).

Or more accurately you read what I write in a similar way as you take the quotes of brilliant women out of context (Just as the MRA's do).

Apart from that you missed the fact that I pointed out that every thing that seems to worry you about my region is also present - though lesser - in The Feminist Region, and that's why I think you shouldn't be worried about "misrepresentation of feminism within Women Empire" because Women Empire is not feminist, when instead The Feminist Region is feminist as the name suggest....have you ever noticed it? Have you read my previous post?

That's my factbook
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... ok/id=main
It's all about anti-objectification, anti-porn and for independence of women.
There's nothing "out of context"
There are just only 2 quotes out of 20 that can be interpreted differently, and I was strongly suggested to add these quote by my friend (as said, someone is not moderate like me):
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the famous quote of Mary Daly

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

That's not out of context - Mary Daly even always refused to admit males in advanced stages of her women's studies course: I agree with her, for the very same reason I don't think males can be leaders within feminism nor even call themselves "feminists" but just only "allies".
Everybody can see the quote of Mary Daly is about "evolution of humanity" and not about "slaughtering" or something similar.
Mary Daly was an university professor, not a thug, also she was the dissertation advisor to Janice Raymond.
More informations here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly
My friend also suggested me to include a quote of Sally Miller Gearhart: I refused, it seems to me an unfair thought: there's a thin but significant line between Mary Daly and Miller Gearhart, and I'll never cross it: the line between an idea of natural evolution and an idea about abuse of power by humans.

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men” - Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) - women’s suffrage movement leader and abolitionist (from your Facebook "favorite quotes)
You consider this proof your for equality?

[Seangoli]

That's not out of context - Mary Daly even always refused to admit males in advanced stages of her women's studies course: I agree with her, for the very same reason I don't think males can be leaders within feminism nor even call themselves "feminists" but just only "allies".
Everybody can see the quote of Mary Daly is about "evolution of humanity" and not about "slaughtering" or something similar.
Mary Daly was an university professor, not a thug, also she was the dissertation advisor to Janice Raymond.
More informations here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly
My friend also suggested me to include a quote of Sally Miller Gearhart: I refused, it seems to me an unfair thought: there's a thin but significant line between Mary Daly and Miller Gearhart, and I'll never cross it: the line between an idea of natural evolution and an idea about abuse of power by humans.

So rather than engage men and help them understand your point of view, you would much rather exclude them entirely from the discussion and tell them to shut the hell up. In other words, the only means of fixing the problems in society that you argue exist is to perpetrate those exact same problems yourself. You do realize this is exactly what you, and Mary Dary, are advocating, no? It's nothing more than eye-for-eye mentality. Supplanting one system for another system, only with different people in charge, is not a better system at all. It's political and social vengeance, and nothing more. It literally fixes nothing, and instead changes which group is controlling the discourse on the subject.

Equally, it's gender essentialist bullshit at its finest. The quote you chose to highlight her views and yours requires an assumption that women are essentially better than men by nature and the world would be far better under what could be described as a matriarchal system. This is utter rubbish. The very fact that men are view by her, and apparently you, as something that is inherently diseased is borderline insanity, vitriolic, and virulent and should have no place in the discussion of equality. Because it is apparent that such a statement comes from someone who has no actual interest in such concepts.

And you wonder why people don't agree with your mentality.

[Chessmistress]

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men” - Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) - women’s suffrage movement leader and abolitionist (from your Facebook "favorite quotes)
You consider this proof your for equality?

Yes, because she was referring to the fact that women didn't get drunk like men: she said it at a meeting for temperance.
The fact that, regarding consumption of alcohol, early XX century women were far better (less abuse of alcohol) than men, is an historical reality.

So rather than engage men and help them understand your point of view, you would much rather exclude them entirely from the discussion and tell them to shut the hell up. In other words, the only means of fixing the problems in society that you argue exist is to perpetrate those exact same problems yourself. You do realize this is exactly what you, and Mary Dary, are advocating, no? It's nothing more than eye-for-eye mentality. Supplanting one system for another system, only with different people in charge, is not a better system at all. It's political and social vengeance, and nothing more. It literally fixes nothing, and instead changes which group is controlling the discourse on the subject.

Equally, it's gender essentialist bullshit at its finest. The quote you chose to highlight her views and yours requires an assumption that women are essentially better than men by nature and the world would be far better under what could be described as a matriarchal system. This is utter rubbish. The very fact that men are view by her, and apparently you, as something that is inherently diseased is borderline insanity, vitriolic, and virulent and should have no place in the discussion of equality. Because it is apparent that such a statement comes from someone who has no actual interest in such concepts.

And you wonder why people don't agree with your mentality.

Feminism is about issues pertaining women.
Men can be and should be engaged: they can tell their point of view about issues pertaining women as "allies".
Mary Daly thoughts weren't about vengeance.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Feminism is about issues pertaining women.
Men can be and should be engaged: they can tell their point of view about issues pertaining women as "allies".

So you would endorse the existence of a separate men's rights organization to deal with issues pertaining to men, such as the draft and homelessness?

[Galloism]

Feminism is about issues pertaining women.
Men can be and should be engaged: they can tell their point of view about issues pertaining women as "allies".

So you would endorse the existence of a separate men's rights organization to deal with issues pertaining to men, such as the draft and homelessness?

Of course not. Men are supposed to patiently wait until all the problems facing women are solved, and then, if we're patient and beg, they might actually address ways in which men are systematically disadvantaged.

Maybe.

[Glorious KASSRD]

So you would endorse the existence of a separate men's rights organization to deal with issues pertaining to men, such as the draft and homelessness?

Of course not. Men are supposed to patiently wait until all the problems facing women are solved, and then, if we're patient and beg, they might actually address ways in which men are systematically disadvantaged.

Maybe.

No they won't. According to them, all problems for men are from the patriarchy, and by removing us from politics they shall instantly solve our "minor issues". Somehow.

[Chessmistress]

Of course not. Men are supposed to patiently wait until all the problems facing women are solved, and then, if we're patient and beg, they might actually address ways in which men are systematically disadvantaged.

Maybe.

No they won't. According to them, all problems for men are from the patriarchy, and by removing us from politics they shall instantly solve our "minor issues". Somehow.

You joke about it, but it's really so.
But it's NOT about removing men from politics!
It's just only about removing patriarchy.
I already wrote that I would OPPOSE the thought of a government with 100% females.
And, trust me, I'm pretty vocal when I oppose something.
Feminism is a struggle for equality, and it'll benefit even men.

[Hirota]

Yes, because she was referring to the fact that women didn't get drunk like men: she said it at a meeting for temperance.
The fact that, regarding consumption of alcohol, early XX century women were far better (less abuse of alcohol) than men, is an historical reality.

It's almost as if you can post any quote from a famous person and use it to justify any silly thing you want...But, please, do carry on posting those quotations that you feel prove something!

[Seangoli]

Feminism is about issues pertaining women.
Men can be and should be engaged: they can tell their point of view about issues pertaining women as "allies".
Mary Daly thoughts weren't about vengeance.

None of this detracts from my point in the least. Engaging a group requires discourse and discussion. Not platitudes about how you are "allies" with them, only to refuse to allow them into the discussion at all. Mary Daly's complete refusal to admit male students into her classes, and thus help inform and engage the male population, is the exact opposite of engaging a group. It is dismissing them entirely from the discussion, assuming that their views and voices are irrelevant entirely, and desiring to move forward without them entirely. The fact that you apparently support her means that you also have no desire to engage men in the discussion at all, and don't even view them as proper allies. Even if they are supportive of your opinions, at that. Calling a group "allies" requires you to actually engage them properly.

Equally, it is readily apparent that her thoughts certainly are about vengeance politics, at least it's pretty obvious that she would prefer that route. Her own statements are loaded with gender essentialism, attributing males to effectively a disease on humanity that inhibits "proper" evolution of the human race. Mary Daly's refusal to engage men in the discussion at all, as well as her dismissive nature towards transexuals, indicates quite clearly that she views men as inferior for not other reason than they are born a male. She wants and desires a world where the systems of subjugation are purely in the hands of women. You and her may not state it as such, nor do you and her likely even realize it is what you advocating for, but that is exactly what she (and you) are arguing for. The view that the world requires a depopulation of men to be "better" gives a very clear signal to this (And that such a world would necessarily be better off in the first place).

Dress it up how you like, but to be blunt you (And her) are giving into the same sort of gender essentialist bullshit that has been argued by other feminists for decades. So good job both to you and Daly for attempting to undo much of legwork that has been made by the feminist movement on the issue of gender and equality. It's bloody marvelous.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Feminism is about issues pertaining women.
Men can be and should be engaged: they can tell their point of view about issues pertaining women as "allies".
Mary Daly thoughts weren't about vengeance.

None of this detracts from my point in the least. Engaging a group requires discourse and discussion. Not platitudes about how you are "allies" with them, only to refuse to allow them into the discussion at all. Mary Daly's complete refusal to admit male students into her classes, and thus help inform and engage the male population, is the exact opposite of engaging a group. It is dismissing them entirely from the discussion, assuming that their views and voices are irrelevant entirely, and desiring to move forward without them entirely. The fact that you apparently support her means that you also have no desire to engage men in the discussion at all, and don't even view them as proper allies. Even if they are supportive of your opinions, at that. Calling a group "allies" requires you to actually engage them properly.

Equally, it is readily apparent that her thoughts certainly are about vengeance politics, at least it's pretty obvious that she would prefer that route. Her own statements are loaded with gender essentialism, attributing males to effectively a disease on humanity that inhibits "proper" evolution of the human race. Mary Daly's refusal to engage men in the discussion at all, as well as her dismissive nature towards transexuals, indicates quite clearly that she views men as inferior for not other reason than they are born a male. She wants and desires a world where the systems of subjugation are purely in the hands of women. You and her may not state it as such, nor do you and her likely even realize it is what you advocating for, but that is exactly what she (and you) are arguing for. The view that the world requires a depopulation of men to be "better" gives a very clear signal to this (And that such a world would necessarily be better off in the first place).

Dress it up how you like, but to be blunt you (And her) are giving into the same sort of gender essentialist bullshit that has been argued by other feminists for decades. So good job both to you and Daly for attempting to undo much of legwork that has been made by the feminist movement on the issue of gender and equality. It's bloody marvelous.

You may want to be aware that they are something of a TERF.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

You joke about it, but it's really so.
But it's NOT about removing men from politics!
It's just only about removing patriarchy.
I already wrote that I would OPPOSE the thought of a government with 100% females.
And, trust me, I'm pretty vocal when I oppose something.
Feminism is a struggle for equality, and it'll benefit even men.

You never answered the question:

If men are to be excluded from feminism, then would you support men in forming a parallel organization to feminism in order to deal with the ways that Patriarchy oppresses men?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

You joke about it, but it's really so.
But it's NOT about removing men from politics!
It's just only about removing patriarchy.
I already wrote that I would OPPOSE the thought of a government with 100% females.
And, trust me, I'm pretty vocal when I oppose something.
Feminism is a struggle for equality, and it'll benefit even men.

You never answered the question:

If men are to be excluded from feminism, then would you support men in forming a parallel organization to feminism in order to deal with the ways that Patriarchy oppresses men?

Or even ways in which men suffer from problems not caused by social constructs.