Feminism in decline

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Not on this website, considering it is flaming and possibly trolling. I would just cut down on the name calling and personal attacks in general.

Sure, sure, but I like STAYING on topic, and when saying everyone here are over sensitive people is that something that could get me banned? I don't think so.

And for you: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime ... Than+Women?

It'll get you a warning. Though possibly not, since you don't even have twenty posts yet. Perhaps a stern unofficial. I have no idea.

Regardless: You are gladly and flagrantly breaking the rules.

[Llamalandia]

Sure, sure, but I like STAYING on topic, and when saying everyone here are over sensitive people is that something that could get me banned? I don't think so.

And for you: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime ... Than+Women?

It'll get you a warning. Though possibly not, since you don't even have twenty posts yet. Perhaps a stern unofficial. I have no idea.

Regardless: You are gladly and flagrantly breaking the rules.

How about actually addressing the link and source?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It'll get you a warning. Though possibly not, since you don't even have twenty posts yet. Perhaps a stern unofficial. I have no idea.

Regardless: You are gladly and flagrantly breaking the rules.

How about actually addressing the link and source?

Oops, sorry, forgot it's not okay to let the new guy know about some basic rules that'll keep him out of trouble. My bad.

[Llamalandia]

How about actually addressing the link and source?

Oops, sorry, forgot it's not okay to let the new guy know about some basic rules that'll keep him out of trouble. My bad.

It's fine, but you also already reported him, you are clearly trying to get him into trouble, which I would point out sounds vaguely mods as weapony. But whatever, let's just say you are honestly informing him. I'd say he's informed sufficiently and we can go back to debating the the small unjustified pay gap between men and women.

[UIJ]

Sure, sure, but I like STAYING on topic, and when saying everyone here are over sensitive people is that something that could get me banned? I don't think so.

And for you: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime ... Than+Women?

It'll get you a warning. Though possibly not, since you don't even have twenty posts yet. Perhaps a stern unofficial. I have no idea.

Regardless: You are gladly and flagrantly breaking the rules.

I actually just went to help and hit the one stop shop rules and nothing came up... I "can't tell" if these are true rules. And I feel you being kind of rude and being quite a jerk to me. Like a troll. BUTT, moving on...

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Not on this website, considering it is flaming and possibly trolling. I would just cut down on the name calling and personal attacks in general.

Sure, sure, but I like STAYING on topic, and when saying everyone here are over sensitive people is that something that could get me banned? I don't think so.

And for you: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime ... Than+Women?
And because you'll want more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... n-men.html

Because calling people tards and continually insulting them is...necessary for maintaining the topic, I suppose.

I am still not convinced by the last one, but Payscale is at least more reputable I beleive. However, there are things like this that state it is a significant issue in many countries. Perhaps it is better in the US compared to others.

[Llamalandia]

It'll get you a warning. Though possibly not, since you don't even have twenty posts yet. Perhaps a stern unofficial. I have no idea.

Regardless: You are gladly and flagrantly breaking the rules.

I actually just went to help and hit the one stop shop rules and nothing came up... I "can't tell" if these are true rules. And I feel you being kind of rude and being quite a jerk to me. Like a troll.

I think he is just afraid to address the actual points you have been making, but seriously he is right, you should tone it down just a tad. I doubt anything you've done is that serious, but mods and posters on here in general do actually happen to be a bit oversensitive and touchy about things. Not horrible by any means but a bit on the pc side of things.

[Reploid Productions]

You tard. (Sorry for calling you a tard, I just added that because...?)

You must be ten, can you count to ten? That's been proven to be biased and wrong, also take the fact in of how hard a person works, their position in their job field and if wemen do get payed less at a place because it's a small biz and maybe the owner is sexist. You uncultured swine.

Here you are you pansy

These. The site rules. Read them. Learn them. Quit it with the personal insults. On these forums, you attack the argument, you do not attack the poster. Namecalling such as "tard" serves no other purpose but to attack the poster and get people riled up. Continue in such a manner, and moderation will end up banning you.

For now, we'll leave it at an official *** WARNING for flaming ***.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[UIJ]

You tard. (Sorry for calling you a tard, I just added that because...?)

You must be ten, can you count to ten? That's been proven to be biased and wrong, also take the fact in of how hard a person works, their position in their job field and if wemen do get payed less at a place because it's a small biz and maybe the owner is sexist. You uncultured swine.

Here you are you pansy

These. The site rules. Read them. Learn them. Quit it with the personal insults. On these forums, you attack the argument, you do not attack the poster. Namecalling such as "tard" serves no other purpose but to attack the poster and get people riled up. Continue in such a manner, and moderation will end up banning you.

For now, we'll leave it at an official *** WARNING for flaming ***.
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

I was being dead serous when I said I I couldn't get to them. It brings me to a page that says, "this topic doesn't exist". Also I'm done here as I can not convince anyone here about my point anyways. And it's in my normal interwebs speech to say things like tard, it's part of my personality. One last thing before I back to Netflix, I said that I was sorry for saying "tard" buts that's me. Like how I say scrub as an around term for humans. Bye, admin person/other being.

[Reploid Productions]

I was being dead serous when I said I I couldn't get to them. It brings me to a page that says, "this topic doesn't exist". Also I'm done here as I can not convince anyone here about my point anyways. And it's in my normal interwebs speech to say things like tard, it's part of my personality. One last thing before I back to Netflix, I said that I was sorry for saying "tard" buts that's me. Bye, admin person/other being.

Since your browser apparently cannot handle the URL BBCode, this step-by-step walkthrough will lead you straight to them.

1.) Click "Board index" in the upper left corner of the page.
2.) Once there, scroll down to the section of the forum labelled "Nuts and Bolts"
3.) Click the board labelled "Moderation"
4.) Locate the topic titled "The One Stop Rules Shop" posted by Euroslavia.
5.) Click on the text that reads "The One Stop Rules Shop" to access the thread.
6.) Read, and be enlightened.

"Normal internet speech" or "that's just my personality" are not sufficient excuses. You can modify your speech and express yourself in ways that remain within the site rules, just like many of our users have successfully done, even those that come from the least civilized corners of 4chan or Reddit.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[UIJ]

I was being dead serous when I said I I couldn't get to them. It brings me to a page that says, "this topic doesn't exist". Also I'm done here as I can not convince anyone here about my point anyways. And it's in my normal interwebs speech to say things like tard, it's part of my personality. One last thing before I back to Netflix, I said that I was sorry for saying "tard" buts that's me. Bye, admin person/other being.

Since your browser apparently cannot handle the URL BBCode, this step-by-step walkthrough will lead you straight to them.

1.) Click "Board index" in the upper left corner of the page.
2.) Once there, scroll down to the section of the forum labelled "Nuts and Bolts"
3.) Click the board labelled "Moderation"
4.) Locate the topic titled "The One Stop Rules Shop" posted by Euroslavia.
5.) Click on the text that reads "The One Stop Rules Shop" to access the thread.
6.) Read, and be enlightened.

"Normal internet speech" or "that's just my personality" are not sufficient excuses. You can modify your speech and express yourself in ways that remain within the site rules, just like many of our users have successfully done, even those that come from the least civilized corners of 4chan or Reddit.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Sure. You... Good, No, Great human! *shuders*

[New Edom]

So here's a concept I disagree with that feminists put about: objectification. I watched this PSA recently that depicted women in sexy outfits standing on pedestals with men talking about them like they were toys or something. The main tagline of the ad was "when we talk about women as objects, we will treat them as objects."

That's all very well, but what about the way that men treat one another in war, or increasingly how women treat other men and one another in war as they taken on more combat roles? Throughout much of history, men have been capable of even admiring people who they later mutilated or killed in action. So this notion of 'all we need to do is see them as other people' is not really the issue as far as I'm concerned. It's having a clear understanding of how to treat others that matters. In all this talk about objectification, consent and so on, I haven't seen anything but vague moralizing and a few 'don'ts'. How long can an ideology sustain people on such fluff?

[The New Sea Territory]

So here's a concept I disagree with that feminists put about: objectification.

That's something that not all feminists agree on.

[New Edom]

So here's a concept I disagree with that feminists put about: objectification.

That's something that not all feminists agree on.

How can I tell though? If major websites that are supposed to educate on feminism, public speakers and leading activists talk about it, and hardly any other feminists contradict the concept, what am I to think?

[The New Sea Territory]

That's something that not all feminists agree on.

How can I tell though? If major websites that are supposed to educate on feminism, public speakers and leading activists talk about it, and hardly any other feminists contradict the concept, what am I to think?

Feminism, contrary to popular belief, is not an organized movement, and no one really has a monopoly on the term because of it. Different feminists view objectification differently and offer different solutions.

[Llamalandia]

How can I tell though? If major websites that are supposed to educate on feminism, public speakers and leading activists talk about it, and hardly any other feminists contradict the concept, what am I to think?

Feminism, contrary to popular belief, is not an organized movement, and no one really has a monopoly on the term because of it. Different feminists view objectification differently and offer different solutions.

Who at least or what faction rather has a plurality within the feminist movement then? I mean, who should we be listening to if we want to understand feminism, but don't want to read 20 books on one issue all offering slightly different opinions.

[Dyakovo]

No, I don't.

it's a generalization, love.

And clearly incorrect.

---

wat

wait

wat

no

Non-consensual intercourse is rape. If one of the parties does not consent (is sleeping) then they are being raped. This seriously makes me afraid for your community.

Is all non-consensual sex actually rape though?

Yes. By definition.

---

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

"Rape
A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will."

Two animals can't consent, but they can still have sex. Drunk people can have sex but it isn't rape. Unless one of the parties is unable to give consent while the other is, it isn't rape.

But by your definition, a sleeping person, has neither consented to nor refused sex. It may or may not be against his/her will to have sex. But we don't know. At any rate, I'm satisfied, I believe we agree that not all non-consensual sex is rape. After all as your definition says, it requires criminial intent.

Lack of consent is the default.

[Hirota]

I am still not convinced by the last one, but Payscale is at least more reputable I beleive. However, there are things like this that state it is a significant issue in many countries. Perhaps it is better in the US compared to others.

I don't think you'll find many people that would disagree that there is a disparity between genders in third world nations.

Problem is that the most vocal high profile individuals who talk about the wage gap ARE referring to the mythological "77c in a dollar" US wage gap rather than focusing on genuine income inequality.

[Dyakovo]

I am still not convinced by the last one, but Payscale is at least more reputable I beleive. However, there are things like this that state it is a significant issue in many countries. Perhaps it is better in the US compared to others.

I don't think you'll find many people that would disagree that there is a disparity between genders in third world nations.

Problem is that the most vocal high profile individuals who talk about the wage gap ARE referring to the mythological "77c in a dollar" US wage gap rather than focusing on genuine income inequality.

Your own link doesn't even really support what you're saying. Did you read the whole thing or just the title?

How Much Discrimination?
And however wide or narrow the gap, discrimination by employers isn’t responsible for all of it. In fact, a women’s pay specialist in Obama’s own Department of Labor — even as she was arguing that pay discrimination is not a “myth” — said research shows discrimination accounts for less than half of the raw pay gap.
Pamela Coukos, a senior program adviser at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, wrote in the Labor Department’s “official blog”:

Pamela Coukos, June 7, 2012: Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination – making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs.

Similarly, an economist and a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis said last year that the economic literature indicates the actual pay gap between men and women with similar characteristics is “much lower” than the raw gap. Despite the gains in recent decades, they wrote:

Natalia Kolesnikova and Yang Liu, October 2011: Men are more likely to be lawyers, doctors and business executives, while women are more likely to be teachers, nurses and office clerks. This gender occupational segregation might be a primary factor behind the wage gap.

Economists have identified a host of factors — other than discrimination by employers — that lead to lower earnings for women. These include such things as women choosing to work fewer overtime hours, choosing jobs that offer more “family friendly” fringe benefits in lieu of higher pay, and choosing to leave the workforce for years to rear children. Whether these choices are voluntary, or unfairly forced on women by society, is a good question. But they are not discrimination by employers.
How much of the gap is due to outright employer discrimination continues to be a subject of lively debate, which we won’t presume to settle here. Even a study prepared for the Bush administration’s Labor Department, and released the week before Obama took office, stopped short of concluding that discrimination isn’t holding down women’s pay at least somewhat.

Also, a note on the Natalia Kolesnikova and Yang Liu quote... Really? Women are less represented in traditionally "male" jobs and more so in traditionally "female jobs"?

[CTALNH]

I still consider myself a feminist and no I do not support stupid people like the people in tumblr and anita sarkeesian.


Even if they do make some good points they fuck them so hard and take so many things for granted and spew so much lies that anything good that might have come from discussing those things is fucking gone and anyone that was really interested in discussing a really trying to make a difference in those sectors is put off from doing that because said people acting like complete fucking idiots.

[Hirota]

Your own link doesn't even really support what you're saying. Did you read the whole thing or just the title?

Yes I did. Did you? And did you read what I actually said?

The article says the "77c in a dollar" claim is untrue. The article also points out the gap (whatever size that is, and it suggests the number is closer to 82 in the dollar and closing rapidly) is not primarily because of discrimination, but mostly or entirely because of differences in work-life balance or career choices - as mentioned in your own quote of the article when you mentioned Pamela Coukos, and repeated by the report from CONSAD.

You appear to be assuming that I am implying no wage gap exists - that is not true and you either made a genuine error or are trying to strawman. I am making the case that the "77c in a dollar" claim is untrue. I am also making the case that it is unclear what proportion of the wage gap exists because of discrimination (based on the studies quoted - possibly none, possibly a minority), and how much exists because of other factors.

[Grave_n_idle]

Or, alternatively, no matter how often it's explained, someone from the anti-feminist camp trots out some non-representative minority, or misrepresents something - and the explanation gets lost in three days of arguing about something that was bullshit in the first place.

Ehh, maybe there is some truth in that, but if the issues are really ssuch bullshit they should be fairly easily refuted and they don't seem to be. More importantly, well, maybe feminists should make sure this "non-representative minority" is clearly and quickly refuted by the this supposed majority of reasonable mainstream feminists.

On the contrary, the very basic lie on which this thread was founded, 'the decline of feminism', has been shown several times to be - at best - a matter of mis-labelling, and - at worse - a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

[The New Sea Territory]

Feminism, contrary to popular belief, is not an organized movement, and no one really has a monopoly on the term because of it. Different feminists view objectification differently and offer different solutions.

Who at least or what faction rather has a plurality within the feminist movement then? I mean, who should we be listening to if we want to understand feminism, but don't want to read 20 books on one issue all offering slightly different opinions.

To put it bluntly, you won't understand unless you understand the "slightly" different opinions. You don't have to read 20 books...more like 20 wikipedia articles, to get the gist of the differences.

[Gravlen]

It's his responsibility to ensure that consent is freely and willingly given. He should have asked her, and maybe he would have avoided becoming a rapist.

Just to be clear, would you agree that in other sexual encounters in which she was a willing participant, that it was her responsibility to ensure that his consent was freely and willingly given?

To be clear, any party to a sexual encounter has an obligation to ensure that the partner(s) freely and willingly has consented to the sexual acts, and to stop if consent is withdrawn.

[Ostroeuropa]

Who at least or what faction rather has a plurality within the feminist movement then? I mean, who should we be listening to if we want to understand feminism, but don't want to read 20 books on one issue all offering slightly different opinions.

To put it bluntly, you won't understand unless you understand the "slightly" different opinions. You don't have to read 20 books...more like 20 wikipedia articles, to get the gist of the differences.

Would you regard MRAs as a type of feminist?

If so, there's a lot more diversity in opinion than you're making out.
If not, on what basis, given the demand for equal rights?

(I would personally say no, they are not feminists, because they do not utilize a gynocentric perspective on gender issues.)