The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Costa Fierro]

I met a MRA in real life today.

It was scary, they wanted to attack my friend because they would not go out with them. They were also a stereotype, greasy hair, beanie, "le nerd" stuff.

I hope not all MRAs are truly like this.

I'm not. For one thing, whilst I am in possession of a beanie, I don't have greasy hair (it's actually really short, my brother jokingly refers to me as a "white supremacist") and all that "le nerd" shit is for 12 year olds.

Other than that, your bog-standard MRA who has been told more times to "seek help" than he can remember.

[Galloism]

I met a MRA in real life today.

It was scary, they wanted to attack my friend because they would not go out with them. They were also a stereotype, greasy hair, beanie, "le nerd" stuff.

I hope not all MRAs are truly like this.

How did you know he was an MRA? Legitimately curious.

[Hirota]

I met a MRA in real life today.

It was scary, they wanted to attack my friend because they would not go out with them. They were also a stereotype, greasy hair, beanie, "le nerd" stuff.

I hope not all MRAs are truly like this.

How did you know he was an MRA? Legitimately curious.

Because it fitted the stereotype obviously!

It's interesting, it's perfectly fine to make sweeping assumptions about MRA's all being the same type, but even make a hint of an implication that all feminists are in the same broad demographic and suddenly you are a sexist shitlord.

It's almost as if some people are incapable of perceiving their own hypocrisy and are just as obnoxious as the people they claim to despise, right Heid?

[Hirota]

I'm going to look at you so you can cower in fear at my overwhelming power.

But we're equals, you know.

According to Chess I should run in fear because you might rape me.

Especially on the internet. Us men have obviously learnt how to rape over the internet.

For the uninitiated, that is a clip from Brass eye. Even though it's over 15 years old, it's still disturbingly accurate.

[Philjia]

Small poll of 1004 women suggests that ~9/10 women are happy to be women. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37600771

Women's hour is a great programme, incidentally.

[Giovenith]

Really nice, productive conversation I think.

[New Edom]

Really nice, productive conversation I think.

It's a bit better. I think that it's at least courteous. What were your throughts about it?

[Wallenburg]

How did you know he was an MRA? Legitimately curious.

Because it fitted the stereotype obviously!

It's interesting, it's perfectly fine to make sweeping assumptions about MRA's all being the same type, but even make a hint of an implication that all feminists are in the same broad demographic and suddenly you are a sexist shitlord.

It's almost as if some people are incapable of perceiving their own hypocrisy and are just as obnoxious as the people they claim to despise, right Heid?

Hirota, you didn't even bother reading the post by Heidisteinian Fempire, did you? They didn't make any generalizations about MRAs, and even specifically said "I hope not all MRAs are truly like this". You are the only one making assumptions here, and accusing them of hypocrisy makes absolutely no sense.

[Hirota]

Because it fitted the stereotype obviously!

It's interesting, it's perfectly fine to make sweeping assumptions about MRA's all being the same type, but even make a hint of an implication that all feminists are in the same broad demographic and suddenly you are a sexist shitlord.

It's almost as if some people are incapable of perceiving their own hypocrisy and are just as obnoxious as the people they claim to despise, right Heid?

Hirota, you didn't even bother reading the post by Heidisteinian Fempire, did you?

Yes I did. Did you?

They didn't make any generalizations about MRAs,

I met a MRA in real life today.

So how exactly how does one know someone is an MRA in day-to-day conversation? Heid goes on:

It was scary, they wanted to attack my friend because they would not go out with them.

Sounds like they assume because they imagined they "wanted to attack my friend" it fit the same old recycled generalisations levelled against MRA's.

They were also a stereotype, greasy hair, beanie, "le nerd" stuff.

Short of the basement dwelling slur, sounds very familiar, same old generalisations.

and even specifically said "I hope not all MRAs are truly like this".

This is little more than an attempt to Backslide from the "all x are y" fallacy.

So yes wall, I did read it.

You are the only one making assumptions here

You've just proven that isn't true with this assumption of your own. Congratulations on kafkatrapping yourself!

[Giovenith]

Really nice, productive conversation I think.

It's a bit better. I think that it's at least courteous. What were your throughts about it?

I'm one hour in, so I can't really comment on the whole thing fully, but I think what it really boils right down is that the "problem of modern feminism" if we are to give it a term, sort of works like this:

>Academics come up with feminist theories and create shorthand language within their own circles
>Pop media gets a hold of these theories and shorthands and twists them, as pop media tends to do
>Pop media gets regurgitated into social media, which further twists it, creating what one might call "SJWs"
>People notice SJWs, and make a point of disseminating their bad rhetoric and pointing out their disturbing growth trends
>Much like what happened to Academics, SJW criticism gets twisted by people who don't know what they're talking about - the "get rekt fag drink bleach freespeach FTW" types
>While SJW!Critics are disturbed by the SJWs, Academics come back and become disturbed by the "Radical Anti-SJWs" (let's call 'em ASJWS)
>Academics and SJW!Critics, while not fundamentally disagreeing on the real main issues, begin pointing the finger at each other for creating these messes - "You misrepresent our side! Why won't you take responsibility for your idiots?!" "No YOU misrepresent our side! Why won't YOU take responsibility for YOUR idiots?!"

^And that's sort of where we are at this point.

With the recent wave of, "[soandso] ask SJWs..." and "Reasonable questions for anti-SJWs..." and the responses to that and so on, we might actually be heading in a positive direction. I think what needs to happen right now is for all the "reasonable people" on both sides is to filter out who are radical trolls and who have the legitimate concerns and talk to the legit ones, regardless of labels - that sounds like common sense, but easier said than done. It also seems to be that the nature of pop viral articles and social media's ability to create witch hunt mentality are the primary ultimate sources to blame for this entire issue.

If any of that makes sense.

[Wallenburg]

Hirota, you didn't even bother reading the post by Heidisteinian Fempire, did you?

Yes I did. Did you?

Why do you think I bothered to respond to your post?

They didn't make any generalizations about MRAs,

I met a MRA in real life today.

Saying that you met an MRA is generalizing MRAs now?

So how exactly how does one know someone is an MRA in day-to-day conversation?

People are able to speak. They might have asked the MRA if they were an MRA. The MRA might have said so without being asked. Again, you are unfairly and unreasonably assuming that Heid's identification of this individual was without basis.

Heid goes on:
Sounds like they assume because they imagined they "wanted to attack my friend" it fit the same old recycled generalisations levelled against MRA's.

Is it really that difficult to believe that this individual may have actually wanted to attack their friend? Why is it that you assume Heid only imagined it? Furthermore, you also assume that Heid applied the MRA label to this person based on a stereotype, and that this individual could not possibly be an MRA simply living up to this stereotype by coincidence.

They were also a stereotype, greasy hair, beanie, "le nerd" stuff.

Short of the basement dwelling slur, sounds very familiar, same old generalisations.

Do people with greasy hair and beanies not exist?

and even specifically said "I hope not all MRAs are truly like this".

This is little more than an attempt to Backslide from the "all x are y" fallacy.

You aren't approaching their post with even an iota of good faith. You automatically assume everything about the situation to totally discredit the poster, despite having no evidence to support your assumptions. When Heid says something that could even remotely be interpreted as a possible jab at MRAs, you pretend that is the only possible meaning behind the post. When the poster EXPLICITLY indicates a desire to avoid stereotyping MRAs negatively, you effectively say they are lying.

You are molding Heid's words to best convenience your desire to attack Heid, regardless of the truth or their actual opinions.

You are the only one making assumptions here

You've just proven that isn't true with this assumption of your own.

I made no assumption. You automatically assumed the worst, ignoring multiple avenues for far more reasonable interpretation of Heid's post. It's printed right here. Heid spoke vaguely about an encounter with someone they identified as an MRA. You filled in the blanks and even ignored provided statements to justify an absurd attack on Heid.

[Gravlen]

According to Chess I should run in fear because you might rape me.

Especially on the internet. Us men have obviously learnt how to rape over the internet.

For the uninitiated, that is a clip from Brass eye. Even though it's over 15 years old, it's still disturbingly accurate.

Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

[New Edom]

It's a bit better. I think that it's at least courteous. What were your throughts about it?

I'm one hour in, so I can't really comment on the whole thing fully, but I think what it really boils right down is that the "problem of modern feminism" if we are to give it a term, sort of works like this:

>Academics come up with feminist theories and create shorthand language within their own circles
>Pop media gets a hold of these theories and shorthands and twists them, as pop media tends to do
>Pop media gets regurgitated into social media, which further twists it, creating what one might call "SJWs"
>People notice SJWs, and make a point of disseminating their bad rhetoric and pointing out their disturbing growth trends
>Much like what happened to Academics, SJW criticism gets twisted by people who don't know what they're talking about - the "get rekt fag drink bleach freespeach FTW" types
>While SJW!Critics are disturbed by the SJWs, Academics come back and become disturbed by the "Radical Anti-SJWs" (let's call 'em ASJWS)
>Academics and SJW!Critics, while not fundamentally disagreeing on the real main issues, begin pointing the finger at each other for creating these messes - "You misrepresent our side! Why won't you take responsibility for your idiots?!" "No YOU misrepresent our side! Why won't YOU take responsibility for YOUR idiots?!"

^And that's sort of where we are at this point.

With the recent wave of, "[soandso] ask SJWs..." and "Reasonable questions for anti-SJWs..." and the responses to that and so on, we might actually be heading in a positive direction. I think what needs to happen right now is for all the "reasonable people" on both sides is to filter out who are radical trolls and who have the legitimate concerns and talk to the legit ones, regardless of labels - that sounds like common sense, but easier said than done. It also seems to be that the nature of pop viral articles and social media's ability to create witch hunt mentality are the primary ultimate sources to blame for this entire issue.

If any of that makes sense.

It does, though I'd also suggest that there are academics directly shepherding some of the SJWs. I mean they arent' just getting it from pop media, they're also getting it in gender studies and social sciences classes. Ideas from feminism and environmental movements for instance are now presented in post secondary textbooks as being normal and correct in many cases. One history book I had last year described the status of women in my country's colonial history as "used for breeding, sex and housework" and "oppressed" for women's status. And that was just a history course. There are concepts presented simply as though they are reality rather than bodies of thought. Ironically religion courses i take are more fair in their approach, at least allowing the students to consider whether or not they agree with the ideas being proposed. So the protests in Toronto don't just come from pop media.

Now you take this to its logical conclusion. People like Meghan Murphy who founded feministcurrent.com in Canada got their degree in women's studies, which basically means all they can do is couple that with counseling, journalism, communications or something purely academic for the most part, whicih means that their JOB is going to be 'fight the patriarchy'. These people are not pop media, they're actually deliberately fueling the fight.

So your view is true, but it's not the ONLY trhing that is true.

[Hirota]

Why do you think I bothered to respond to your post?

You don't want the honest answer to that question

Saying that you met an MRA is generalizing MRAs now?

Seriously? You get snide at me for not reading and then try and pull this shit?

People are able to speak.

No shit sherlock

They might have asked the MRA if they were an MRA.

Who on earth does this the first time of meeting someone? I'm putting this firmly in the implausible category.

The MRA might have said so without being asked.

Whats better than one implausible scenario. Two!

Again, you are unfairly and unreasonably assuming that Heid's identification of this individual was without basis.

Far more reasonable than your imaginary fairy tales. But instead of trying to suggest fiction, why don't you let Heid explain. Maybe there is a perfectly sensible explaination.

Is it really that difficult to believe that this individual may have actually wanted to attack their friend?

That claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, which in this instance is Heid.

Why is it that you assume Heid only imagined it?

I don't - thats why burden of proof.

Furthermore, you also assume that Heid applied the MRA label to this person based on a stereotype, and that this individual could not possibly be an MRA simply living up to this stereotype by coincidence.

How about you let Heid explain.

They were also a stereotype, greasy hair, beanie, "le nerd" stuff.

Short of the basement dwelling slur, sounds very familiar, same old generalisations.

Do people with greasy hair and beanies not exist?[/quote]Yawn.

and even specifically said "I hope not all MRAs are truly like this".

This is little more than an attempt to Backslide from the "all x are y" fallacy.

You aren't approaching their post with even an iota of good faith.[/quote]Yes because you always approach posts in good faith right?

You automatically assume everything about the situation to totally discredit the poster,

Lie.

despite having no evidence to support your assumptions.

Plenty of evidence, you're just ignoring it.

When Heid says something that could even remotely be interpreted as a possible jab at MRAs,

It's not remote. you pretend that is the only possible meaning behind the post.

When the poster EXPLICITLY indicates a desire to avoid stereotyping MRAs negatively, you effectively say they are lying.

And I'm sure they can set the record straight themselves without you sticking your nose in where it doesn't help.

You are molding Heid's words to best convenience your desire to attack Heid, regardless of the truth or their actual opinions.

And they have the right of reply without you making assumptions of your own.

You are the only one making assumptions here

You've just proven that isn't true with this assumption of your own.

I made no assumption.[/quote]Lie.

You automatically assumed the worst, ignoring multiple avenues for far more reasonable interpretation of Heid's post.

Again a lie.

It's printed right here.

HIlarious you want to refer to what is written when you've demonstrated no interest in reading up to now.

Heid spoke vaguely about an encounter with someone they identified as an MRA.

With no information on how they identified them as an MRA other than descriptions about their demeanour and dress.

You filled in the blanks and even ignored provided statements to justify an absurd attack on Heid.

Except there was some information. Another lie.

How about we both let Heid clarify for themselves without you trying (and failing) to pull the whole white knight routine.

[Hirota]

Especially on the internet. Us men have obviously learnt how to rape over the internet.

For the uninitiated, that is a clip from Brass eye. Even though it's over 15 years old, it's still disturbingly accurate.

Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

Well, all we need is proof that pedophiles are genetically similar to crabs and we might as well start calling Brass Eye journalism.

[Philjia]

Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

Well, all we need is proof that pedophiles are genetically similar to crabs and we might as well start calling Brass Eye journalism.

I don't have to use my hands to hurt you.

[Costa Fierro]

Well, all we need is proof that pedophiles are genetically similar to crabs and we might as well start calling Brass Eye journalism.

I don't have to use my hands to hurt you.

Exactly. Gypsy curses are a thing.

[Philjia]

I don't have to use my hands to hurt you.

Exactly. Gypsy curses are a thing.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

[Costa Fierro]

Exactly. Gypsy curses are a thing.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

A pen is as lethal as a sword if it's used in the right way.

[New Edom]

Exactly. Gypsy curses are a thing.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Are you selling penis mightiers?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't have to use my hands to hurt you.

Exactly. Gypsy curses are a thing.

I'm unaware of any Romany heritage but just to be safe everyone here should cross my palm with silver.

[Balkenreich]

Especially on the internet. Us men have obviously learnt how to rape over the internet.

For the uninitiated, that is a clip from Brass eye. Even though it's over 15 years old, it's still disturbingly accurate.

Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

What.

[Gravlen]

Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

What.

Eloquent statement.

[Des-Bal]

[
Since you seem to post what you did with the implication that the notion is absurd:

Man gets a double sentence for internet rape of Lake Elmo girl

You actually can rape someone over the internet.

I don't think you can. That article says that he was charged with "first degree criminal sexual conduct" which isn't a crime in washington. I think was probably charged with first degree sexual misconduct with a minor but he was almost certainly not charged with the crime "Rape" or "Rape of a Child." So while you cannot rape a child over the internet you can totally get in trouble for sexually engaging a child over the internet which should totally not be news.

[The Grene Knyght]

What do y'all other feminists think about revolutionary feminism - the idea that the full realisation of feminist ideals cannot be realised until the destruction of capitalism - or alternately, feminism is intrinsically tied to the liberation of the working class.

Personally, I'm for this idea (in case my flag doesn't give it away lol). I mean its simple enough in my eyes - capitalism is a system of oppression, wielded against women (and men), so its destruction is integral to the liberation of women.