Women and sexism.

[Forsher]

She has?

Yes. I haven't followed this user too closely, but they were definitely doing a lot of that in the FGM thread. Their contributions start here.

Also, they have a nation called TERF, which speaks for itself.

...

I'm sitting here trying to think about how to process the content of the OP and this information (in particular, the willingness to associate with the term TERF) and I'm, uh, failing... And, I mean, I only read just the linked posts, let alone whatever else.

I'd actually challenge everyone here to find me a sexism issue that effects women that couldn't be solved by ending sexist treatment of men. (In the western world, at least.)

(By the way, i'd also say that some mens issues are caused by sexism against women.)

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

That people take the views in the OP is actually a quite serious example of men's issues... it should be obvious that it is an enormous problem if you have people seeking to redefine words to exclude aspects of the human condition.

But, yeah, thread's more or less about how to define sexism and examples of issues should be brought up purely in that context (within this thread, at least).

[Ostroeuropa]

Another example of mens issues and women using institutions to oppress men:

Remember all the shitstorms about sexism in gaming?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2584 ... t=Abstract

From the oversexualized characters in fighting games, such as Dead or Alive or Ninja Gaiden, to the overuse of the damsel in distress trope in popular titles, such as the Super Mario series, the under- and misrepresentation of females in video games has been well documented in several content analyses. Cultivation theory suggests that long-term exposure to media content can affect perceptions of social realities in a way that they become more similar to the representations in the media and, in turn, impact one's beliefs and attitudes. Previous studies on video games and cultivation have often been cross-sectional or experimental, and the limited longitudinal work in this area has only considered time intervals of up to 1 month. Additionally, previous work in this area has focused on the effects of violent content and relied on self-selected or convenience samples composed mostly of adolescents or college students. Enlisting a 3 year longitudinal design, the present study assessed the relationship between video game use and sexist attitudes, using data from a representative sample of German players aged 14 and older (N=824). Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes-measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society-were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players. Implications for research on sexism in video games and cultivation effects of video games in general are discussed.

were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players.

So basically, a woman uses narrative and feelz based reasoning to claim something causes sexism against women.
No evidence needed, just the narrative and how dare you question it are you a sexist?
This is then used to launch a media campaign to attack men in gaming, and to drum up support for women in gaming as well as force institutional concessions to women in video games, etc.
Despite the fact that the original grievance was a complete fantasy.
So then, what happened?
Well, we had a non-sexist situation before.
It was interpretated as sexist toward women, and "fixed."
So what do we have now?
Well, a female supremacist one ofcourse.

Same as when the feminist movement decided that male-only spaces were sexist while simultaneously deciding female ones weren't.
(Different sections of the movement perhaps, but since they both utilize gynocentric "Women are oppressed" reasoning, the result is female supremacy even if individually they aren't causing that, as a movement they do, since they don't check eachother.)

This is what uncritical acceptance of feminist narratives such as the one outlined in the OP have done to society.
Because of this, and in addition to the research suppression, men have been raped, beaten, belittled, etc for decades without redress.
Because naturally, men can't be oppressed.

It's phrased stronger than i'd like, but this quote one sums it up. (In response to "Why won't the MRA work with feminists?")

"Hell will freeze over before that happens. Doing that will require feminists to admit that they are prejudiced conspiracy-ridden hate-mongers who have contributed to child abuse, rape, and physical violence towards innocent men."

The OP is one such feminist.

Feminism isn't good social science. It's terrible social science. It starts with it's premise and works from there. That's creationist level thinking, and we've applied it to society, with appalling results.

There are other feminists who blather about how they accept mens issues too.
I'm increasingly considering that to be a nonsense position. Feminism IS a mens issue. Sharing a label with the movement that frequently victimizes men doesn't make me particularly confident in your assertions to care about mens issues.

[Sagredo]

Yes. I haven't followed this user too closely, but they were definitely doing a lot of that in the FGM thread. Their contributions start here.

Also, they have a nation called TERF, which speaks for itself.

...

I'm sitting here trying to think about how to process the content of the OP and this information (in particular, the willingness to associate with the term TERF) and I'm, uh, failing... And, I mean, I only read just the linked posts, let alone whatever else.

TERF only posted once.

This puppet account of Chessmistress made may have been to post counter-opinions with it (which could be trolling right?).

However TERF was never used for any such purpose so it's not trolling, and Chessmistress owned up to the puppet within minutes.

Does that "speak for itself"?

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

That people take the views in the OP is actually a quite serious example of men's issues... it should be obvious that it is an enormous problem if you have people seeking to redefine words to exclude aspects of the human condition.

Enormous problem?

Only xkcd can express this

[Ostroeuropa]

...

I'm sitting here trying to think about how to process the content of the OP and this information (in particular, the willingness to associate with the term TERF) and I'm, uh, failing... And, I mean, I only read just the linked posts, let alone whatever else.

TERF only posted once.

This puppet account of Chessmistress made may have been to post counter-opinions with it (which could be trolling right?).

However TERF was never used for any such purpose so it's not trolling, and Chessmistress owned up to the puppet within minutes.

Does that "speak for itself"?

That people take the views in the OP is actually a quite serious example of men's issues... it should be obvious that it is an enormous problem if you have people seeking to redefine words to exclude aspects of the human condition.

Enormous problem?

Only xkcd can express this

So you're just gonna call him wrong and act like it's an argument?
ok.

[Sagredo]

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

Oh I see, you don't actually want a solution to womens problems. You just want to whine about them?
Oh okay then, carry on.

Oh but wait, you want to be taken seriously at the same time?
We might have a problem.]

(By the way, the topic is Women being sexist against men. So you've kind of done exactly what you were implying I was. Funny.)

You challenged anyone here to find a sexism issue affecting women which couldn't be SOLVED by ending sexism against men. Not helped out a bit, affected a bit. SOLVED.

In a head nod to the thread subject, in parantheses, you allowed that some men's issues are caused by sexism against women.

Do you really see it that way? That all the women's issues could be solved by ending sexism against men. But to solve all the men's issues, it would not suffice to end all sexism against women? Men would need a little something more, to sweeten the deal?

That said, I did selectively edit your post. I couldn't resist pointing out that blatant double standard. I'll try to answer your post as a whole.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh I see, you don't actually want a solution to womens problems. You just want to whine about them?
Oh okay then, carry on.

Oh but wait, you want to be taken seriously at the same time?
We might have a problem.]

(By the way, the topic is Women being sexist against men. So you've kind of done exactly what you were implying I was. Funny.)

You challenged anyone here to find a sexism issue affecting women which couldn't be SOLVED by ending sexism against men. Not helped out a bit, affected a bit. SOLVED.

In a head nod to the thread subject, in parantheses, you allowed that some men's issues are caused by sexism against women.

Do you really see it that way? That all the women's issues could be solved by ending sexism against men. But to solve all the men's issues, it would not suffice to end all sexism against women? Men would need a little something more, to sweeten the deal?

That said, I did selectively edit your post. I couldn't resist pointing out that blatant double standard. I'll try to answer your post as a whole.

Yes, I do see it that way.
Because the issues which could be solved by directly addressing sexism against women have all already been solved. The remainder are backfires of misandry.
And yes, solved. Ending the sexism might not be possible, ofcourse, it might only be possible to curtail it sufficiently, which would merely help out.
But the cause of essentially all the womens issues I hear talked about these days is sexism against men.

[Sagredo]

You challenged anyone here to find a sexism issue affecting women which couldn't be SOLVED by ending sexism against men. Not helped out a bit, affected a bit. SOLVED.

In a head nod to the thread subject, in parantheses, you allowed that some men's issues are caused by sexism against women.

Do you really see it that way? That all the women's issues could be solved by ending sexism against men. But to solve all the men's issues, it would not suffice to end all sexism against women? Men would need a little something more, to sweeten the deal?

That said, I did selectively edit your post. I couldn't resist pointing out that blatant double standard. I'll try to answer your post as a whole.

Yes, I do see it that way.
Because the issues which could be solved by directly addressing sexism against women have all already been solved.

I don't think they have. Anywhere, not even in Sweden.

The remainder are backfires of misandry.
And yes, solved. Ending the sexism might not be possible, ofcourse, it might only be possible to curtail it sufficiently, which would merely help out.
But the cause of essentially all the womens issues I hear talked about these days is sexism against men.

That's ... well I should not say. It seems a very strange opinion to me.

I will save my words to make a reply I promised you to the post I first replied to. You scorned me, and perhaps rightly, for picking only two sentences out of your post to reply to. I will now turn my efforts to a full reply of that post.

[Forsher]

...

I'm sitting here trying to think about how to process the content of the OP and this information (in particular, the willingness to associate with the term TERF) and I'm, uh, failing... And, I mean, I only read just the linked posts, let alone whatever else.

TERF only posted once.

This puppet account of Chessmistress made may have been to post counter-opinions with it (which could be trolling right?).

You're right, we can't know. The name could even have been a similar situation to this.

Hell, for all I know, you're just another incarnation that represents the sane arm of whatever Chessmistress actually believes. Just as I, for instance, could actually be anyone you care to name (e.g. I'm secretly Barack Obama's cleaner).

However TERF was never used for any such purpose so it's not trolling, and Chessmistress owned up to the puppet within minutes.

It's more like, posted to clarify who it belonged to. You know, how, for instance, if I accidentally posted with a nation called Forser or something. (Note, if Forser is a real nation, it's not a puppet of mine.)

Does that "speak for itself"?

Not sure why that is in quotation marks...

Ask yourself, given the content of the initial link that Dakini provided, given the characterisation noted by Threlizdun, given the noted inconsistency in the OP, given remarks like the one about men in this thread, given all that context, what seems more likely?

That people take the views in the OP is actually a quite serious example of men's issues... it should be obvious that it is an enormous problem if you have people seeking to redefine words to exclude aspects of the human condition.

Enormous problem?

Only xkcd can express this

The someone in this case being you.

I know I am, but what are you?

Yeah, but seriously, if you can't see how that's an enormous problem, hand in any feminist credentials and report to control for immediate transportation from the moon back to earth... you're a danger to the castration ray project.

No, but actually seriously (for reals this time), I really do hope that it is immediately apparent why there is a problem with arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of words like sexism and racism that exclude negative aspects of the human condition. I mean, conceptually it's no different to a child defining their room as that small area of the floor right by the door in an attempt to pretend that their room is tidy.*

*Although, to be fair, the child is probably less likely to walk into the contradiction I noted in the OP.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, I do see it that way.
Because the issues which could be solved by directly addressing sexism against women have all already been solved.

I don't think they have. Anywhere, not even in Sweden.

The remainder are backfires of misandry.
And yes, solved. Ending the sexism might not be possible, ofcourse, it might only be possible to curtail it sufficiently, which would merely help out.
But the cause of essentially all the womens issues I hear talked about these days is sexism against men.

That's ... well I should not say. It seems a very strange opinion to me.

I will save my words to make a reply I promised you to the post I first replied to. You scorned me, and perhaps rightly, for picking only two sentences out of your post to reply to. I will now turn my efforts to a full reply of that post.

Well if you pick an issue i'm prepared to lay out why I think what I said is the case on that one.

[Galloism]

I don't think they have. Anywhere, not even in Sweden.



That's ... well I should not say. It seems a very strange opinion to me.

I will save my words to make a reply I promised you to the post I first replied to. You scorned me, and perhaps rightly, for picking only two sentences out of your post to reply to. I will now turn my efforts to a full reply of that post.

Well if you pick an issue i'm prepared to lay out why I think what I said is the case on that one.

How about the people who stand outside abortion clinics yelling that the women who go in them are "sluts" or should have "closed their legs"?

[Lesser Qing]

Castration Ray
Wtf

[Ostroeuropa]

Well if you pick an issue i'm prepared to lay out why I think what I said is the case on that one.

How about the people who stand outside abortion clinics yelling that the women who go in them are "sluts" or should have "closed their legs"?

To be fair, in the same post we're talking about I explicitly ruled out the abortion fiasco and said it's pure misogyny.

(Though not abortion. I'd say that one is fairly clear cut misogyny.)

[Galloism]

How about the people who stand outside abortion clinics yelling that the women who go in them are "sluts" or should have "closed their legs"?

To be fair, in the same post we're talking about I explicitly ruled out the abortion fiasco and said it's pure misogyny.

(Though not abortion. I'd say that one is fairly clear cut misogyny.)

oh. Sorry. Proceed.

[Roderia]

I disagree.

[Ostroeuropa]

To be fair, in the same post we're talking about I explicitly ruled out the abortion fiasco and said it's pure misogyny.

oh. Sorry. Proceed.

No problem. I should have included it the second time I made the claim.

[Sagredo]

TERF only posted once.

This puppet account of Chessmistress made may have been to post counter-opinions with it (which could be trolling right?).

You're right, we can't know. The name could even have been a similar situation to this.

Hell, for all I know, you're just another incarnation that represents the sane arm of whatever Chessmistress actually believes. Just as I, for instance, could actually be anyone you care to name (e.g. I'm secretly Barack Obama's cleaner).

However TERF was never used for any such purpose so it's not trolling, and Chessmistress owned up to the puppet within minutes.

It's more like, posted to clarify who it belonged to. You know, how, for instance, if I accidentally posted with a nation called Forser or something. (Note, if Forser is a real nation, it's not a puppet of mine.)

Does that "speak for itself"?

Not sure why that is in quotation marks...

Ask yourself, given the content of the initial link that Dakini provided, given the characterisation noted by Threlizdun, given the noted inconsistency in the OP, given remarks like the one about men in this thread, given all that context, what seems more likely?

Enormous problem?

Only xkcd can express this

The someone in this case being you.

I know I am, but what are you?

Yeah, but seriously, if you can't see how that's an enormous problem, hand in any feminist credentials and report to control for immediate transportation from the moon back to earth... you're a danger to the castration ray project.

No, but actually seriously (for reals this time), I really do hope that it is immediately apparent why there is a problem with arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of words like sexism and racism that exclude negative aspects of the human condition. I mean, conceptually it's no different to a child defining their room as that small area of the floor right by the door in an attempt to pretend that their room is tidy.*

*Although, to be fair, the child is probably less likely to walk into the contradiction I noted in the OP.

You tried two times to be serious. Perhaps you'd like to try a third time?

People who deliberately misuse a common word, trying to redefine it by misuse, should be rebuked for their intent, and corrected in their usage.

That has been done, quite sufficiently, to the OP of this thread.

But after all, the redefinition of terms is a weak method of argument or persuasion. The OP has wasted her credibility and her own time in making this thread.

To see it as a serious threat is to waste your own credibility and waste your own time, defending the previous meaning of a word. You have better uses for you debating talent.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're right, we can't know. The name could even have been a similar situation to this.

Hell, for all I know, you're just another incarnation that represents the sane arm of whatever Chessmistress actually believes. Just as I, for instance, could actually be anyone you care to name (e.g. I'm secretly Barack Obama's cleaner).



It's more like, posted to clarify who it belonged to. You know, how, for instance, if I accidentally posted with a nation called Forser or something. (Note, if Forser is a real nation, it's not a puppet of mine.)



Not sure why that is in quotation marks...

Ask yourself, given the content of the initial link that Dakini provided, given the characterisation noted by Threlizdun, given the noted inconsistency in the OP, given remarks like the one about men in this thread, given all that context, what seems more likely?



The someone in this case being you.

I know I am, but what are you?

Yeah, but seriously, if you can't see how that's an enormous problem, hand in any feminist credentials and report to control for immediate transportation from the moon back to earth... you're a danger to the castration ray project.

No, but actually seriously (for reals this time), I really do hope that it is immediately apparent why there is a problem with arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of words like sexism and racism that exclude negative aspects of the human condition. I mean, conceptually it's no different to a child defining their room as that small area of the floor right by the door in an attempt to pretend that their room is tidy.*

*Although, to be fair, the child is probably less likely to walk into the contradiction I noted in the OP.

You tried two times to be serious. Perhaps you'd like to try a third time?

People who deliberately misuse a common word, trying to redefine it by misuse, should be rebuked for their intent, and corrected in their usage.

That has been done, quite sufficiently, to the OP of this thread.

But after all, the redefinition of terms is a weak method of argument or persuasion. The OP has wasted her credibility and her own time in making this thread.

To see it as a serious threat is to waste your own credibility and waste your own time, defending the previous meaning of a word. You have better uses for you debating talent.

I don't think you realize quite how widespread this assertion of the OPs is, and what it's been used to overlook and to justify.

[Forsher]

Castration Ray
Wtf

It's an old joke.

I don't think you realize quite how widespread this assertion of the OPs is, and what it's been used to overlook and to justify.

Quite. I mean, even after about a dozen pages of discussion and numerous strong critiques (as well as many more just pointing out the wrongness) you still end up with this post's existence.

The simple reality is that there are a) a lot of people out there who will not read threads b) a lot of people out there who are susceptible to this way of thinking and c) a lot of people who (at least broadly) agree with the idea that you need to allow for power relations when dealing with racism and sexism (arguably the former is more common).

You can't stop because of (a) and because of (b) you need to make the explanations better and (c) requires that they are strong explanations, as well as easily understood.

Furthermore, frindle.

And this is before you get into the tricky situation that sometimes arises in trying to establish that there are issues worth fighting for that are more relevant to men and the internet's general disinterest in bothering to distinguish between arguments a and b so long as both have approximately the same conclusion c.

[Izzyshipper]

This is why I don't call myself a feminist, preferring simply egalitarian. Firstly, a movement which seeks equality of both sexes should have the word "fem" in it. I understand at the time of it's origin it made sense for the sheer disparity of rights between men and women, but I think it's outgrown it's use. Another reason is that I have heard of very few feminist organizations, if any, campaign for discrimination against men. For example, in the UK, the state pension age was recently raised to 65 to be alongside men. Women until then were allowed to retire and receive a full pension five years earlier than men, who usually work longer and pay more tax. It wasn't through the efforts of any feminist campaign group, indeed many complained about it. Not to say I don't think woman's rights are an important issue, I just dislike the label due to the connotations partially caused by the campaign movements and thinkers singularity of focus.

[Lordieth]

I'd actually challenge everyone here to find me a sexism issue that effects women that couldn't be solved by ending sexist treatment of men. (In the western world, at least.)

(By the way, i'd also say that some mens issues are caused by sexism against women.)

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

Why can't feminism be discussed as both an issue for men and for women? Considering it's an issue that involves both genders.

[Gauthier]

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

Why can't feminism be discussed as both an issue for men and for women? Considering it's an issue that involves both genders.

Because of course in with the usual suspects it always boils down to "Feminism is the politically correct term for the Cult of Valerie Solanas".

[Sagredo]

I entered this debate without reading all the opinions posted. I've confused the debate, for which I apologize.

Also, I've made a fool of myself. That was bound to happen, better sooner than later.

[Ostroeuropa]

Interesting. Let's talk about your men's issues. Apparently that's the subject now.

Why can't feminism be discussed as both an issue for men and for women? Considering it's an issue that involves both genders.

Because there's a sizable camp of people in the feminist movement actively hostile to discussion of mens issues and by extension hostile to men.
It isn't a safe space for male victims of traumatic sexism.
You've got two types of feminists,
assholes who are sexist to men, and naive people trying to force men into contact with sexists who will ridicule and belittle their experiences.

If you care about mens issues, you can't be a feminist and still be taken seriously. At least, you can't be just a feminist. I'll concede it's viable to be a feminist/MRA.

Because of the aforementioned group, feminism is not the place to discuss mens issues, and attempts to make it so are sexist in and of themselves, since they carry an implication that men who would prefer not to have their experiences dismissed are somehow wrong or questionable for prefering to discuss mens issues outside of the feminist movement. (Instead of, oh, I don't know, sick of the feminist movement being a useless shitpile when it comes to mens issues, or sick of being constantly belittled and attacked when trying to discuss those issues, as much as half of you insist it's a movement for it.)

Suppose Christians kept insisting that the place for gay rights to be discussed was inside megachurches and refused to accept otherwise, and were hostile to the idea of gay rights being discussed elsewhere shutting down those discussions with the justification that the only legitimate discussion of gay rights was in megachurches.
Or shut them down because gays are an abomination and don't deserve rights / gays aren't oppressed.

Either way, you'd have christians running around shutting down discussion of gay rights.
And half of them insisting christianity doesn't oppress gays.
Meanwhile ofcourse, preventing any and all progress on gay rights.
That's how completely stupid feminism is.

If you're a feminist and an MRA, that's acceptable.
If you're just a feminist who thinks feminism is the place for men too, you're a naive sexist.
If you're a feminist who doesn't think men have issues of sexism, you're just a sexist.

There can't be a discussion of mens rights in the feminist movement. It always devolves into a shouting match, because of the aforementioned group.
The group of feminists trying to force that to happen are just derailing mens rights to preserve their clubs legitimacy as an equality movement rather than a womens rights movement. They aren't doing it to help men. They're doing it in a self-serving manner. Rather than admit feminism is ill suited to it's purpose, they'd rather ignore reality and throw men under the bus to preserve their view of the movement and feel better about it.
It's sexism, all around. Varying types, and some less blatant. Some less malicious. But still damaging, and still worthy of contempt.

Misandrist feminists shut down discussion inside the movement very successfully.
Naive feminists shut down discussion outside of it by insisting over and over feminism is the place for the discussion and getting butthurt when people don't accept their insistence of that in the face of evidence otherwise.
The existence of naive feminism is a blight on our society. Stop peddling that bullshit and let men discuss their gender issues how they want to discuss them.

Maybe if feminists asked "Why do people not want to discuss mens issues with us?" they might actually make some progress, instead of "Why don't those people realize we're the place to discuss mens issues."
You are not entitled to annexing other peoples social movements, especially when half of you are actively hostile to the demographic.

[Sagredo]

If you're a feminist and an MRA, that's acceptable.
If you're just a feminist who thinks feminism is the place for men too, you're a naive sexist.
If you're a feminist who doesn't think men have issues of sexism, you're just a sexist.

And if you're an MRA, and scornful of any feminist who isn't a feminist/MRA? Finding them "acceptable" at best.

What are you then, Ostroeuropa?

So eager to label feminists as sexist, what are you?

[Ostroeuropa]

If you're a feminist and an MRA, that's acceptable.
If you're just a feminist who thinks feminism is the place for men too, you're a naive sexist.
If you're a feminist who doesn't think men have issues of sexism, you're just a sexist.

And if you're an MRA, and scornful of any feminist who isn't a feminist/MRA? Finding them "acceptable" at best.

What are you then, Ostroeuropa?

So eager to label feminists as sexist, what are you?

I'm a gender abolitionist.
I'd also accept being called an MRA, but don't identify as one. I think gender is ultimately a social construct that will be eradicated once/if sexism and gender roles are eradicated, and that this is a positive thing.
You'll notice I pointed out the behaviors feminists engage in that are sexist, and why they are sexist. I also provided a way they can avoid this.
If you disagree with why the behaviors I pointed out are sexist, you can argue it.

The reason i'd consider feminist/MRA acceptable is that I think the feminist movement is too tarnished at this point to be worth identifying with, what with the research suppression and such.
Identifying with a movement that enabled widespread societal oppression strikes me as pretty suspect. But if you also identify as being for the rights of the group that movement has historically oppressed, that's acceptable. Just a bit strange.