The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Ostroeuropa]

Gotta contain the BS and keep it at a manageable size.

Gonna move in together yet or are you not at that stage of your relationship?

I'm not moving in with anyone unless they are preggo, sorry. Having my own place isn't something i'd like to give up unless i'm certain. Frankly I think people are too keen on it.
Plus, i'm not into the whole youngling murder stuff.

More seriously, Gallo takes issue with my approach. We're only aligned in caring about mens issues. He doesn't identify as an MRA.

[Cekoviu]

The Daily Mail is not a source.

It's sufficient for this purpose. I also linked to the Sydney herald and and article written by Clementine Ford herself in Daily Life.

Is this fake news too?

Gonna move in together yet or are you not at that stage of your relationship?

I'm sorry, are you trying to shame us using heteronormative assumptions about masculinity?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm sorry, are you trying to shame us using heteronormative assumptions about masculinity?

What masculinity?
Oh. Yours.
Oh. I'll be here with my ponies.

[Wrapper]

Republicans? Nah, those guys suck.

Wow, you've racked up a lot of warnings in such a short time. This will not do.

*** Two-week ban plus DEAT for repeated flaming/flamebaiting/trolling. ***

[Cekoviu]

Republicans? Nah, those guys suck.

Wow, you've racked up a lot of warnings in such a short time. This will not do.

*** Two-week ban plus DEAT for repeated flaming/flamebaiting/trolling. ***

What does DEAT mean? Sorry, I'm a noob.

[Hirota]

I'm sorry, are you trying to shame us using heteronormative assumptions about masculinity?

You know how you have often observed that if you scratch the surface of some right leaning politician condemning things like gay marriage youll tend to encounter a slightly higher than normal chance of same politician having a homosexual relationship?

I think we've discovered the reverse. Scratch the surface of a ostensibly far left leaning individual and we find a homophobe lurking.

Actually, it's not that shocking. Plenty of left leaning actors have been embroiled in #metoo, probably disproportionately so.

Ho hum. Cognitive biases will never really go away.

Anyway, the beeb took aim at at "grid girls" in a segment yesterday. Whilst I tend to agree with the sentiments, I was forced to wonder how much wood was left to scrape from the bottom of this particular barrel.

Edit: huh apparently this is bigger than just the beeb, but good on Susie Wolff for putting it in context: http://www.cityam.com/239248/f1-grid-gi ... usie-wolff

It's probably going to be something that happens organically, especially now we are in the position where girls are now being empowered to do STEM. But I don't think that's a good reason to deny girls who want to stand in front of F1 cars in lycra. It ain't my cup of tea, but personal choices and all that jazz

[Galloism]

Given certain... developments... I want to flesh out this thing a little more.

I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated. In any case, it is sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.

This is a really terrible thing. It's an awful thing.

To demonstrate just how awful a thing it is, let me demonstrate:

I actually think it makes sense to categorize hanging someone without charge as a form of physical violence other than murder, and to use the term murder for violent acts in which a the victim is killed in ways other than hanging. In any case, it is physical violence and needs to be taken seriously.

Does that sound ok to you? It doesn't to me. It sounds like making excuses in order to make sure that the class that already has a harder time getting justice (in the former case, men; in the latter case, black people) not be able to get any awareness of the actual murders taking place by crouching them in hard to care about terms. Then, they use those terms to misrepresent the actual data and no one pays attention because it fits the preconceived narrative - further burying victims and protecting perpetrators.

[Hirota]

Wow, you've racked up a lot of warnings in such a short time. This will not do.

*** Two-week ban plus DEAT for repeated flaming/flamebaiting/trolling. ***

What does DEAT mean? Sorry, I'm a noob.

The history behind the name is a bit meta, but the result is the offending nation is deleted.

[New Edom]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1543652405711848&id=597441976999567

I have to agree here. Shaming and stereotyping men to be virgin because of a hobby is extremely harmful. For both men and women.

Ugh, Clementine Ford. She's a horrible person.

She quite literally defends justifies hatred of men as a class, daydreams about committing genocide against men, and literally signs books with messages about killing men.

In the first article, Ford deflects the question "why do you hate men" with "well that's irrelevant, but it would not be surprising, considering how horrible men are to women." It is on this kind of idea that modern feminism rests: that men are horrible to women, women put up with it far too much and it all needs to stop.

I see this as a normal modern feminist position. There are aberrations--sex positives, some more liberal feminists--but overall this is a normal feminist message. The others are as well. I also see many modern liberals accepting this message without question.

Instead of berating feminists for being misandrists, perhaps these men should start taking responsibility for the abominable, destructive and dehumanising treatment of women throughout all of history up to and including the present day.

Because here's the thing: at a broad sweep, men have given us countless reasons to hate them. They have certainly provided ample evidence of their hatred for us, and the violence they inflict has more physical, cultural and economic power behind it than women subjugated by a patriarchal system could ever hope to replicate.

With this kind of viewpoint presented in popular media, and generally agreed with by many people who are celebrities, politicians and journalists, I doubt that there can be common ground. Here, even talking about real abuses men and boys suffer requires endless citation and proof which barely makes a dent in the wall of skepticism that men's rights are not simply what feminism has defined it as.

[New Edom]

Given certain... developments... I want to flesh out this thing a little more.

I actually think it makes sense to categorize made-to-penetrate as a form of sexual violence other than rape, and to use the term rape for sexual acts in which the victim is penetrated. In any case, it is sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.

This is a really terrible thing. It's an awful thing.

To demonstrate just how awful a thing it is, let me demonstrate:

I actually think it makes sense to categorize hanging someone without charge as a form of physical violence other than murder, and to use the term murder for violent acts in which a the victim is killed in ways other than hanging. In any case, it is physical violence and needs to be taken seriously.

Does that sound ok to you? It doesn't to me. It sounds like making excuses in order to make sure that the class that already has a harder time getting justice (in the former case, men; in the latter case, black people) not be able to get any awareness of the actual murders taking place by crouching them in hard to care about terms. Then, they use those terms to misrepresent the actual data and no one pays attention because it fits the preconceived narrative - further burying victims and protecting perpetrators.

I'm sick to my stomach. And yet, given the ideological background, it is logical. If you take what Clementine Ford says as being definitive to any extent, Futrelle is carrying that to logical conclusions.

[New Edom]

I'm sorry, are you trying to shame us using heteronormative assumptions about masculinity?

You know how you have often observed that if you scratch the surface of some right leaning politician condemning things like gay marriage youll tend to encounter a slightly higher than normal chance of same politician having a homosexual relationship?

I think we've discovered the reverse. Scratch the surface of a ostensibly far left leaning individual and we find a homophobe lurking.

Actually, it's not that shocking. Plenty of left leaning actors have been embroiled in #metoo, probably disproportionately so.

Ho hum. Cognitive biases will never really go away.

Anyway, the beeb took aim at at "grid girls" in a segment yesterday. Whilst I tend to agree with the sentiments, I was forced to wonder how much wood was left to scrape from the bottom of this particular barrel.

Edit: huh apparently this is bigger than just the beeb, but good on Susie Wolff for putting it in context: http://www.cityam.com/239248/f1-grid-gi ... usie-wolff

It's probably going to be something that happens organically, especially now we are in the position where girls are now being empowered to do STEM. But I don't think that's a good reason to deny girls who want to stand in front of F1 cars in lycra. It ain't my cup of tea, but personal choices and all that jazz

Most ideologies naturally lend themselves to being exploited by people who are mostly good at manipulating social systems to their benefit. Because of this, such persons tend to create an atmosphere of fear around being to any extent in opposition or skepticism about the claims of the ideology. The result is that other leaders tend to respond with cowardice and moral weakness. They tend to be backed up by people who believe what their told, or who are simply conforming to new norms.

If the general feminist movement had its way, sexuality would look like this:
1. Women in power only. Women on top, women picking up and dropping any relationships they want. Men pleasing women. That is all.

[Mattopilos II]

This response has unfortunate implications.

Generally if one accuses a person of saying something with unfortunate implications, they are kind enough to explain what they are, not just say it and confuse the other person, like you have.

Perhaps it needed to be said, but "it" refers to "the new york times article". I don't think that New York Times article was a fair representation of reality, even though you said it was. This is because the sexist classification led them to read over some fairly major data points.

What. No seriously, where did I say I agreed with that article? I don't recall. If I did, then I would make it clear I don't.

You said the article was a fair representation of reality - and it's not.

No, I didn't. I never said that.

In fact, the article reads off the executive summary, which uses those sexist definitions to skew reality.

And I agree that is a problem, because I never said it was a fair representation of reality.

Because people don't read beyond the executive summary. This includes most journalists. It wasn't that the NY Times was being skewed, it's that the dodgy classification resulted in results they took at face value.

See my older responses, it is clear where I stand on this.

At least among adults, men and women suffer rape at roughly equal rates, and just like most perpetrators against women are men, most of the perpetrators against men are women. Because of dodgy classifications, it takes me hours to convince each person of this.

I have looked at the data and I agree. Not that you seem to listen to me.

If the CDC used nonsexist terms, because the feminist academics before them had used nonsexist terms, all I would have to do is point at the CDC data and go "see? it's roughly equal". Because they use sexist terms lifted from academia however, here we are.

They haven't used sexist terms - they are used obfuscating terms.

[Mattopilos II]

I imagine it is difficult to be a thoughtful feminist--much as it would have been difficult to be a thoughtful Christian during the revival craze from the 1980s to the early 2000s. Having some knowledge of what the ideology is about, familiar with its literature, only to have ignorant people rushing forward to show their zeal, egged on by more powerful zealots.

thoughtful feminist are not feminist they are called egalitarians because they realize that both genders need some help.

That doesn't make them not feminists.

[Wysten]

thoughtful feminist are not feminist they are called egalitarians because they realize that both genders need some help.

That doesn't make them not feminists.

you see we call ourselves egalitarians because we don't want such baggage as
Literally all of Buzzfeed
Big Red
Feminist Frequency
Tumblr
and much much more.

[Mattopilos II]

I'm sorry, are you trying to shame us using heteronormative assumptions about masculinity?

What masculinity?
Oh. Yours.
Oh. I'll be here with my ponies.

Bronies can be masculine, no?

[Mattopilos II]

That doesn't make them not feminists.

you see we call ourselves egalitarians because we don't want such baggage as
Literally all of Buzzfeed
Big Red
Feminist Frequency
Tumblr
and much much more.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

[Wysten]

you see we call ourselves egalitarians because we don't want such baggage as
Literally all of Buzzfeed
Big Red
Feminist Frequency
Tumblr
and much much more.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

Name one egalitarian that has advocated for the death of men or have lectured men on how bad they are or have tried to control what I say and think.

[Mattopilos II]

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

Name one egalitarian that has advocated for the death of men or have lectured men on how bad they are or have tried to control what I say and think.

You are changing the goalposts here. I am talking about the term "egalitarian", not feminism. That term is loaded, but so is egalitarian. They don't need to say those kinds of things to have a loaded term. Stop trying hard to change topics to where you can shout at me.

[Proctopeo]

you see we call ourselves egalitarians because we don't want such baggage as
Literally all of Buzzfeed
Big Red
Feminist Frequency
Tumblr
and much much more.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

Which people?

[New Edom]

you see we call ourselves egalitarians because we don't want such baggage as
Literally all of Buzzfeed
Big Red
Feminist Frequency
Tumblr
and much much more.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

I would say that if this has any truth to it is because too many people believe in feminist propaganda about MRAs. Such as that MRAs want to turn the clock back and put women in the kitchen, or are just whining about stuff feminism is already doing, or just don't like losing male power, etc. Or that all the advocates for the movement are insane or stupid. Furthermore, anyone who seriously criticizes feminist policy is almost invariably called misogynist or stupid. So I can see why some would call themselves egalitarian on this kind of basis, but it's foolish, yes, mostly because they'll get called misogynists anyway.

[Mattopilos II]

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

Which people?

MRAs tend to use egalitarian, given they see themselves as the true representation of equal rights for both sexes, as well as people who don't identify as feminists or MRAs, but have some stance on the issue. It gets messy though, since you can pretty much claim you are egalitarian, and people will have one of two responses to it, depending on what their own views are. I am not exactly sure what MRAs think of the term, but they use it so I assume it isn't negative. For feminists, it tends to be seen with a negative connotation because it is used by MRAs. feuds die hard.

But people know that egalitarian is used to mean "I am not a feminist but too wimpy to say MRA". Its got even more baggage than the term feminist.

I would say that if this has any truth to it is because too many people believe in feminist propaganda about MRAs. Such as that MRAs want to turn the clock back and put women in the kitchen, or are just whining about stuff feminism is already doing, or just don't like losing male power, etc. Or that all the advocates for the movement are insane or stupid. Furthermore, anyone who seriously criticizes feminist policy is almost invariably called misogynist or stupid. So I can see why some would call themselves egalitarian on this kind of basis, but it's foolish, yes, mostly because they'll get called misogynists anyway.

The question is how much is propaganda, and how much is truth. I have met too many to say I agree with what they think, and many of the people I have agreed with on mens rights... don't claim to be MRAs. They distance themselves from it.

[New Edom]

Which people?

MRAs tend to use egalitarian, given they see themselves as the true representation of equal rights for both sexes, as well as people who don't identify as feminists or MRAs, but have some stance on the issue. It gets messy though, since you can pretty much claim you are egalitarian, and people will have one of two responses to it, depending on what their own views are. I am not exactly sure what MRAs think of the term, but they use it so I assume it isn't negative. For feminists, it tends to be seen with a negative connotation because it is used by MRAs. feuds die hard.

I would say that if this has any truth to it is because too many people believe in feminist propaganda about MRAs. Such as that MRAs want to turn the clock back and put women in the kitchen, or are just whining about stuff feminism is already doing, or just don't like losing male power, etc. Or that all the advocates for the movement are insane or stupid. Furthermore, anyone who seriously criticizes feminist policy is almost invariably called misogynist or stupid. So I can see why some would call themselves egalitarian on this kind of basis, but it's foolish, yes, mostly because they'll get called misogynists anyway.

The question is how much is propaganda, and how much is truth. I have met too many to say I agree with what they think, and many of the people I have agreed with on mens rights... don't claim to be MRAs. They distance themselves from it.

On what basis do they support men's rights, and on what issues?

[Mattopilos II]

MRAs tend to use egalitarian, given they see themselves as the true representation of equal rights for both sexes, as well as people who don't identify as feminists or MRAs, but have some stance on the issue. It gets messy though, since you can pretty much claim you are egalitarian, and people will have one of two responses to it, depending on what their own views are. I am not exactly sure what MRAs think of the term, but they use it so I assume it isn't negative. For feminists, it tends to be seen with a negative connotation because it is used by MRAs. feuds die hard.



The question is how much is propaganda, and how much is truth. I have met too many to say I agree with what they think, and many of the people I have agreed with on mens rights... don't claim to be MRAs. They distance themselves from it.

On what basis do they support men's rights, and on what issues?

They support men in regards to rape statistics, as well as domestic abuse issues. They also think that this comes about by shaming men as being seen as "weak" because of societal norms, and that this needs to be questioned. They might not use the same terminology, or focus on feminist ideas as much, but there is overlap. As you said, and other on here, MRAs (as you say) don't want to remove feminists nor claim that they are useless - you want to challenge the practices they have and any mistakes they make.

[New Edom]

On what basis do they support men's rights, and on what issues?

They support men in regards to rape statistics, as well as domestic abuse issues. They also think that this comes about by shaming men as being seen as "weak" because of societal norms, and that this needs to be questioned. They might not use the same terminology, or focus on feminist ideas as much, but there is overlap. As you said, and other on here, MRAs (as you say) don't want to remove feminists nor claim that they are useless - you want to challenge the practices they have and any mistakes they make.

Interesting. Who would you classify as such persons--people like filmmaker Cassie Jaye for instance?

[Mattopilos II]

They support men in regards to rape statistics, as well as domestic abuse issues. They also think that this comes about by shaming men as being seen as "weak" because of societal norms, and that this needs to be questioned. They might not use the same terminology, or focus on feminist ideas as much, but there is overlap. As you said, and other on here, MRAs (as you say) don't want to remove feminists nor claim that they are useless - you want to challenge the practices they have and any mistakes they make.

Interesting. Who would you classify as such persons--people like filmmaker Cassie Jaye for instance?

Hmm, she is an interesting case. She likes to snuggle up to the MRA movement quite a bit, so I would say... maybe? She goes so far to claim privilege regarding sex is "a myth", which I wouldn't agree with, nor do I think in such a conclusive way outside MRMs. Basically, she seems far too hostile to the feminist movement, rather than "critical". Given how she was previously seen as a feminist, doing this might be a way for her to get more supporters - a hardline stance against it.

EDIT: sorry, I meant to say she talks to people in the men's right movement a lot, INCLUDING those that think privilege is a myth... one person being that who wrote a book called "The Myth of Male Power".