The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Lordieth]

I like how feminists are getting more toxic as days pass. It's really nice.

You say that now, but two recently got into the UN. Won't be so funny when they're influencing policy to shut down freedom of speech.

[New Larthinia]

I like how feminists are getting more toxic as days pass. It's really nice.

You say that now, but two recently got into the UN. Won't be so funny when they're influencing policy to shut down freedom of speech.

Heh, and that proves they're equal to us.

[Wallenburg]

I like how feminists are getting more toxic as days pass. It's really nice.

You say that now, but two recently got into the UN. Won't be so funny when they're influencing policy to shut down freedom of speech.

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

[Ostroeuropa]

I like how feminists are getting more toxic as days pass. It's really nice.

For all his faults, Paul Elam predicted this. It's one of the only two articles of his i've read. He said that since it was never based in anything rational or attached to reality, but rather constant rationalizations, fearmongering, zealousness, and appeals to some of the worst aspects of humanity, this was the inevitable conclusion.

He pointed out that feminist hate and hysteria campaigns end up with millions of male victims in some form or another, and their continued refusal to address mens issues grinds more and more men into suicide and due to their campaigning, worsening conditions. Their lack of empathy on the matter and fervent believe they are in the right and under attack only driving them ever more delusional with their proposals on how to fix the menz with whom there is something wrong.

He did jump the shark after that and say that we'd better be prepared to a genocide as the climax though.

The TRP/MGTOW extreme radical guys would say (getting progressively more radical from start to the end of this paragraph.) "That's just how women are and we need to accept it, wait for them to destroy society, then lock them in gynaceums like the athenians did, and write down in huge letters "Yeh, the ancient traditionalists were right. Women are insane soulless monsters with no sense of self-awareness. Don't forget it. Here's a detailed history of the experiment where we thought they might be able to handle responsibility. They resolutely refused and kept demanding more and more power with no responsibility. Obviously, this destroyed everything and they blamed the men for it. We're now back in the stone age. I guess here we go again, better not forget this time."

The MRM would be more straightforward about it and say that it's just the result of indoctrination and delusional belief systems forcing discriminatory attitudes on people who get surrounded by a toxic miasma of dehumanizing rhetoric against a particular group of people, as well as society being gynocentric.

That gynocentrism is the point of contention. Is it just that women are incapable of accepting a society that doesn't revolve entirely around them, or is it merely something that's socially constructed. TRP/Hardline MGTOW says the first. MRM the second. Hence their belief it's futile to change it and that they stop being MRAs.

[Ostroeuropa]

You say that now, but two recently got into the UN. Won't be so funny when they're influencing policy to shut down freedom of speech.

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

Yeh, emma watsons "He for she" shit. That's how it should work?
Really?

That's the entire fucking problem. Sarkeesian at the UN is just the inevitable conclusion.

She's there waffling about how men need to help out with womens issues. She doesn't say anything about mens issues from an androcentric perspective. She's part of the problem and doesn't realize it, like millions of "Moderate" feminists.

[Wallenburg]

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

Yeh, emma watsons "He for she" shit. That's how it should work?
Really?

That's the entire fucking problem. Sarkeesian at the UN is just the inevitable conclusion.

She's there waffling about how men need to help out with womens issues. She doesn't say anything about mens issues from an androcentric perspective. She's part of the problem and doesn't realize it, like millions of "Moderate" feminists.

Or...don't read the article. That's fine by me too.

[Lordieth]

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

Yeh, emma watsons "He for she" shit. That's how it should work?
Really?

That's the entire fucking problem. Sarkeesian at the UN is just the inevitable conclusion.

She's there waffling about how men need to help out with womens issues. She doesn't say anything about mens issues from an androcentric perspective. She's part of the problem and doesn't realize it, like millions of "Moderate" feminists.

Sarkesian is basically asking to be protected from criticism. Most of the flak she gets isn't misogyny, it's people calling her out on her bullshit. What she does is cherry-pick the worst comments she gets, and completely ignores the genuinely-deserved criticism.

The internet is actually wonderfully egalitarian in that regard. Male or female, if you go out of your way to attack people with misinformation, be prepared to face the worst the internet has to offer. This however simply provides her fuel to justify her position. Remember Jack Thompson? He used to get death threats. Are we going to claim that was misandry? No.

Anita basically wants to make it easier for her to punish her critics under the guise of "feminism". What's saddening is that so many people have given her the time of day that it's basically fed into her delusion that everyone is out to get her because she's a woman. No, Anita, it's because you talk bollocks. There may be a section who are genuine misogynists, but the majority dislike you because you misrepresent the truth. I think women are great. I think you are regressive.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh, emma watsons "He for she" shit. That's how it should work?
Really?

That's the entire fucking problem. Sarkeesian at the UN is just the inevitable conclusion.

She's there waffling about how men need to help out with womens issues. She doesn't say anything about mens issues from an androcentric perspective. She's part of the problem and doesn't realize it, like millions of "Moderate" feminists.

Sarkesian is basically asking to be protected from criticism. Most of the flak she gets isn't misogyny, it's people calling her out on her bullshit. What she does is cherry-pick the worst comments she gets, and completely ignores the genuinely-deserved criticism.

The internet is actually wonderfully egalitarian in that regard. Male or female, if you go out of your way to attack people with misinformation, be prepared to face the worst the internet has to offer. This however simply provides her fuel to justify her position. Remember Jack Thompson? He used to get death threats. Are we going to claim that was misandry? No.

Anita basically wants to make it easier for her to punish her critics under the guise of "feminism". What's saddening is that so many people have given her the time of day that it's basically fed into her delusion that everyone is out to get her because she's a woman. No, Anita, it's because you talk bollocks. There may be a section who are genuine misogynists, but the majority dislike you because you misrepresent the truth. I think women are great. I think you are regressive.

She isn't unaware of what she's doing.
I'm starting to think she may be a bonafide psychopath or something.

[Lordieth]

Sarkesian is basically asking to be protected from criticism. Most of the flak she gets isn't misogyny, it's people calling her out on her bullshit. What she does is cherry-pick the worst comments she gets, and completely ignores the genuinely-deserved criticism.

The internet is actually wonderfully egalitarian in that regard. Male or female, if you go out of your way to attack people with misinformation, be prepared to face the worst the internet has to offer. This however simply provides her fuel to justify her position. Remember Jack Thompson? He used to get death threats. Are we going to claim that was misandry? No.

Anita basically wants to make it easier for her to punish her critics under the guise of "feminism". What's saddening is that so many people have given her the time of day that it's basically fed into her delusion that everyone is out to get her because she's a woman. No, Anita, it's because you talk bollocks. There may be a section who are genuine misogynists, but the majority dislike you because you misrepresent the truth. I think women are great. I think you are regressive.

She isn't unaware of what she's doing.
I'm starting to think she may be a bonafide psychopath or something.

Nah, she's not psychotic. It's the Dunning–Kruger effect. She thinks she's an expert, and because other people have treated her as such, and she has used her privilege (feminist extremists are going to love this) to protect herself from criticism of her ideas. Nobody in the media dare questions what she says. It's the popular thing, siding with feminism. It's like racial tokenism.

Look at us, we support a woman! Look how totally not-sexist we are!

It makes me weep for modern journalistic integrity.

[Chessmistress]

You say that now, but two recently got into the UN. Won't be so funny when they're influencing policy to shut down freedom of speech.

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

The matter is that the first approach cannot work because it smells like the old apple pie of mum, but when you try to eat it then you realize there's nothing more than some silly sweet words.
The second is a realistical approach: silencing misogynists will empower women, without need to begging help from males.

[Galloism]

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

The matter is that the first approach cannot work because it smells like the old apple pie of mum, but when you try to eat it then you realize there's nothing more than some good and sweet words.
The second is a realistical approach: silencing misogynists will empower women, without need to begging help from males.

Ah, sweet sweet censorship.

That's always worked well, you know.

Incidentally, when are you going to stop referring to men with the dehumanizing "males"? You've been told already - multiple times.

[Lordieth]

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

The matter is that the first approach cannot work because it smells like the old apple pie of mum, but when you try to eat it then you realize there's nothing more than some good and sweet words.
The second is a realistical approach: silencing misogynists will empower women, without need to begging help from males.

As misguided or naive as it may be, I do believe that Emma Watson has genuinely good intentions.

The problem isn't "silencing misogynists". People like Anita want to dictate what is and isn't free speech. It harms free thought and genuine criticism, and is utterly regressive. We already have laws that protect people against cyber-bullying or harassment.

[Chessmistress]

The matter is that the first approach cannot work because it smells like the old apple pie of mum, but when you try to eat it then you realize there's nothing more than some good and sweet words.
The second is a realistical approach: silencing misogynists will empower women, without need to begging help from males.

As misguided or naive as it may be, I do believe that Emma Watson has genuinely good intentions.

I couldn't care less about good intentions, I care about results.

[Galloism]

The matter is that the first approach cannot work because it smells like the old apple pie of mum, but when you try to eat it then you realize there's nothing more than some good and sweet words.
The second is a realistical approach: silencing misogynists will empower women, without need to begging help from males.

As misguided or naive as it may be, I do believe that Emma Watson has genuinely good intentions.

The problem isn't "silencing misogynists". People like Anita want to dictate what is and isn't free speech. It harms free thought and genuine criticism, and is utterly regressive. We already have laws that protect people against cyber-bullying or harassment.

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As misguided or naive as it may be, I do believe that Emma Watson has genuinely good intentions.

The problem isn't "silencing misogynists". People like Anita want to dictate what is and isn't free speech. It harms free thought and genuine criticism, and is utterly regressive. We already have laws that protect people against cyber-bullying or harassment.

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

That sounds like Paradise... however... free speech needs to be preserved. That means allowing twats like Bindel and Koss to keep foaming at the mouth.

[Chessmistress]

As misguided or naive as it may be, I do believe that Emma Watson has genuinely good intentions.

The problem isn't "silencing misogynists". People like Anita want to dictate what is and isn't free speech. It harms free thought and genuine criticism, and is utterly regressive. We already have laws that protect people against cyber-bullying or harassment.

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

All depends how the laws will be worded.
I have see a team of Feminists complaining about cyber-violence against women.
I expect something like a Cyber-VAWA or an extension to cyberspace of Convention of Istanbul.
The latter would be the best, and using that extension it would also encourage USA to join the entire Convention of Istanbul.
Step by step, you know how it works...

[Galloism]

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

That sounds like Paradise... however... free speech needs to be preserved. That means allowing twats like Bindel and Koss to keep foaming at the mouth.

I know. I don't support the silencing of transphobes and bigots. I'd rather they speak so we know who they are. As long as their views are public, they can be criticized, deconstructed, and destroyed, and I can leave their adherents either abandoning them or desperately trying to shove their fingers in their ears while everyone else rolls their eyes and sees how vapid their arguments actually were.

If you drive them underground, it tends to reinforce the bigotry. Being open is self-correcting.

[Occupied Deutschland]

How feminism should work.

How it completely fucks itself.

The matter is that the first approach cannot work because it smells like the old apple pie of mum, but when you try to eat it then you realize there's nothing more than some silly sweet words.
...

Oh come on, now you don't even like mom's apple pie?
This is too much. Be as radical as you'd like, but dammit can't we all at LEAST agree on our mother's apple pie being delicious? Is that too much to ask? *nod*

[Lordieth]

As misguided or naive as it may be, I do believe that Emma Watson has genuinely good intentions.

The problem isn't "silencing misogynists". People like Anita want to dictate what is and isn't free speech. It harms free thought and genuine criticism, and is utterly regressive. We already have laws that protect people against cyber-bullying or harassment.

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

Heh. Yeah, it could backfire in the same way that religious freedom has backfired against Christians in the US, what with that genius Satanic movement ruffling some feathers.

I think we all know that this isn't about equality. It's about tipping the scales in the favour of women over men. That's what I abhor in third-wave-feminism. Not the strive for equality. The self-righteous, selfish entitlement to have privileges beyond what is equal, as some form of retribution or switch in the balance of power. I think that's what so many men find so distasteful about third-wave feminism. Most of the men I have spoken to who are critical of it are not the women-hating devils that extremist feminists make them out to be. It's a rather lame tactic to quieten dissent to paint critics as misogynists. It's even uglier when one of their own speaks out against them. You'd think they'd drowned their dog or something.

[Galloism]

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

All depends how the laws will be worded.
I have see a team of Feminists complaining about cyber-violence against women.

I expect something like a Cyber-VAWA or an extension to cyberspace of Convention of Istanbul.

Going for more sexism? Ok. Weird, you... bizarro feminist you.

The latter would be the best, and using that extension it would also encourage USA to join the entire Convention of Istanbul.
Step by step, you know how it works...

Where do these delusions come from? How would expanding Istanbul to make it more sexist cause the USA to join it?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That sounds like Paradise... however... free speech needs to be preserved. That means allowing twats like Bindel and Koss to keep foaming at the mouth.

I know. I don't support the silencing of transphobes and bigots. I'd rather they speak so we know who they are. As long as their views are public, they can be criticized, deconstructed, and destroyed, and I can leave their adherents either abandoning them or desperately trying to shove their fingers in their ears while everyone else rolls their eyes and sees how vapid their arguments actually were.

If you drive them underground, it tends to reinforce the bigotry. Being open is self-correcting.

Yeah. I don't like them either. Bigots and transphobes are awful awful people but free speech, you've taught me, doesn't apply only to ideas we like or agree with.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh, emma watsons "He for she" shit. That's how it should work?
Really?

That's the entire fucking problem. Sarkeesian at the UN is just the inevitable conclusion.

She's there waffling about how men need to help out with womens issues. She doesn't say anything about mens issues from an androcentric perspective. She's part of the problem and doesn't realize it, like millions of "Moderate" feminists.

Or...don't read the article. That's fine by me too.

I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents—but the boys were not. - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

The thing is, feminists have no credibility left. I don't believe her about this. Maybe you all shouldn't have constantly lied to advance your agenda. Then there's the fact that maybe she was raised to be demanding when she wants something. Maybe she is bossy. Maybe we raise women to be entitled and when they want something, they often act like they are entitled to it.
None of that was even broached as a possibility. It was assumed that it must be something unfair. The women can NEVER be at fault. Was her behavior actually different to how the boys acted? We can't know.
Because feminism just gets asserted at the truth instead of them being concerned about whats actually happening.
Maybe women are told they are bossy and that isn't fair.
Maybe women are raised to be bossy instead of to be leaders and are told that is leadership.
We can't know. Because she's running on religious zealotry, not reality, and so are most people who discuss these issues. They are fucking incapable of entertaining ideas that put women in a less than perfect victim light.

Or hey, here's one. Maybe men acting stern and efficient is acceptable because they aren't fucking allowed to be tender and supportive and emotional and stuff.
So when a woman does it, people think she's actively choosing to be a hardass bitch, whereas a man basically has no choice in the matter.

So ease up on men, and the men'll start getting called bossy assholes too.

When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press. - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

Ignoring that male actors also do, going great so far.

When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.” - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

I don't believe her here either sadly, but even if it's the case, it's stupid. It's the result of girls not communicating with boys about what the boys like and just listening to other women in fashion magazines and shit, or listening to other women who are informed by these things. This is a problem that effects both genders when they are young, and could be solved by actual fucking dialogue and education. Boys don't find toned girls unappealing, quite the opposite. Yes, boys believe ridiculous and self-destructive shit as a result of not communicating too.

When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.

Finally we get to something. I wonder if she can guess why.

I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.

Wage gap nonsense.

Abortion. MRAs are pro-abortion. It seems like a no brainer.

I think it's right too, so how about you tell women to give more of a shit about politics. It's not mens fault women don't run for office as often. This again comes back to that unerring belief in womens moral authority. Feminiss never fucking consider maybe theres something wrong with the way women are behaving and acting. Why aren't their women in politics? The men must be stopping them somehow.

Respect is earned by accomplishments. You are not entitled to respect. You should get the same respect for the same accomplishments.

No country receives them because they're delusional nonsense things cooked up by feminists that are impossible to deliver on and such.

No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality. - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

After hundreds of years of feminism. Isn't that funny. It's almost like it's fucking nonsense and preventing actual equality.

Are they getting to mens issues soon?

And if you still hate the word—it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

Ok. Getting better.

In 1995, Hilary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly many of the things she wanted to change are still a reality today. - But what stood out for me the most was that only 30 per cent of her audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

Lol clinton. The domestic abuser who commented about women being the primary victims of war. But what stood out to you was the absence of menz. Gonna blame clinton for it? No? How about blaming feminism. I mean you're basically hinting at it all speech that they havn't given a fuck about mens problems so far, so a speech on womens issues doesn't get many men? Maybe they didn't want to be vilified for an hour and pay for the privilege.

Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.
- See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/ ... 3iR01.dpuf

And who's fault is that.

I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49 years of age; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.

Congratulations. She's an MRA.

If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.

And right back to gynocentrism.

Because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education.

[/quote]

And there's her reason for giving it. Not because she gives a shit about men, but because she's realized women won't have equality unless men do too, and she wants women to have equality.

That also ignores that the heforshe campaign completely ignored all of the mens issues she talked about.

That's what you want feminism to be? Disingenuous and misleading? Secretly gynocentric on top of the bits of gynocentrism they couldn't hide?

You're going to get pissy with me because i constantly reject "good" feminists.
Here's a challenge for you. Find me an actually good one, then we'll talk.
Kelinfort and Nan are two. If they ever become professional feminists, let me know.

So Watson apparently super duper cares about mens issues, but didnt bother talking to the MRM who would have pointed all this shit out to her.
Mhmm.

I like that she acknowledged mens issues. That's about all that's good she did about it. Typical.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In the name of equality, I say we make it so that those who speak in such a way that is either misogynist or misandrist can be silenced by law.

That way, Bindel can keep the tape on her mouth forever and Koss can be silenced. Fair's fair, and all that.

All depends how the laws will be worded.
I have see a team of Feminists complaining about cyber-violence against women.
I expect something like a Cyber-VAWA or an extension to cyberspace of Convention of Istanbul.
The latter would be the best, and using that extension it would also encourage USA to join the entire Convention of Istanbul.
Step by step, you know how it works...

Cybeviolence which won't be stopped by laws unless you make a perfectly functioning network which filters and collects all data of its users.

But even then, the more data it is collected, the more likely it is for a cybercriminal to actually cause serious real-world damage to a person. From ID-Theft to ID-Counterfeiting, money siphoning and worse.

[Lordieth]

All depends how the laws will be worded.
I have see a team of Feminists complaining about cyber-violence against women.
I expect something like a Cyber-VAWA or an extension to cyberspace of Convention of Istanbul.
The latter would be the best, and using that extension it would also encourage USA to join the entire Convention of Istanbul.
Step by step, you know how it works...

Cybeviolence which won't be stopped by laws unless you make a perfectly functioning network which filters and collects all data of its users.

But even then, the more data it is collected, the more likely it is for a cybercriminal to actually cause serious real-world damage to a person. From ID-Theft to ID-Counterfeiting, money siphoning and worse.

Sounds more like an internet police-state.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Cybeviolence which won't be stopped by laws unless you make a perfectly functioning network which filters and collects all data of its users.

But even then, the more data it is collected, the more likely it is for a cybercriminal to actually cause serious real-world damage to a person. From ID-Theft to ID-Counterfeiting, money siphoning and worse.

Sounds more like an internet police-state.

It is precisely what would need to happen in order to end cyber violence.

And to be honest, there's too much data that people should not be trusting to be so readily available online. So the ideas of "we need more protections against cyber violence by making it easier to identify perpetrators, even if it means giving up privacy and vital information to an online repository" isn't such a good idea.