NATION

PASSWORD

Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
New Edom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22627
Founded: Mar 14, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Edom » Thu May 14, 2015 11:30 am

Chessmistress wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.jqpublicblog.com/one-airmans-view-open-letter-to-the-sarc/

Worth reading for a womans perspective on victim feminism and how it's a problem.
(US Pilot.)


Laws and everything about sexual assault is meant for the greater majority of women, and not for few exceptional women.
That applies to very law and every public policy, always.
Also note that her title is "Airman"

I really think that article is full of ludicrous lies, and especially that part is very insulting for all survivors of sexual assault, for million women:

When I walk into a room and people are laughing and having a good time, you are the reason they take one look at me and either stop talking or leave. They’re afraid. They’re afraid of me, and it’s because of you. They are afraid that with all of this “power” I have, I can destroy them. They will never respect me or the power and the authority I have as a person, or the power I have as an Airman, because I am nothing more than a victim. That I as a victim, somehow I control their fate. With one sentence, I can destroy the rest of their lives.


And I think that's even more insulting, because it's also a total reversal of reality

When you forbid me from going into my male friends room to play X-Box on a deployment with the other people on my shift, you isolate me. When you isolate me, you make me a target. When you make me a target, you make me a victim. You don’t make me equal, you make me hated.


You say 'lies' and 'distortion of reality'. I have a few questions for you on the basis of what you said.

1. I thought that feminism included respecting women's perceptions of reality. Why is this woman's perspective being dismissed?

2. You said the laws aren't for a few exceptional women. What did you mean by that?

3. Are you saying that the fact that this woman is offended that she and the men in her unit are not being trusted to be alone with one another (even though in the military your life can depend on the person next to you and trust has to be built for this to work) is completely unreasonable?

4. Are you saying that on the basis of number three that women in the military should be isolated from men and not treated as comrades in arms?
"The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's far more expensive to do things cheaply, and it's more democratic to do things in secret." - Jim Hacker "Yes Minister"

User avatar
Teutonic Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Teutonic Germany » Thu May 14, 2015 11:40 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.jqpublicblog.com/one-airmans-view-open-letter-to-the-sarc/

Worth reading for a womans perspective on victim feminism and how it's a problem.
(US Pilot.)

Weakness. Pure and utter weakness.
One Nation Conservative: Bismarck für immer
Compass: Right: 2.5 Authoritarian: 3.39
Pro: Central state, capitalism, social stability, LGBT, pro choice, single party, traditionalism, domestic work, Russia, Deutschland
Anti: liberalism, communism, libertarianism, fanatical social conservatism, Feminism, MRM, USA, UK


Yes, you have a duty to yourselves, to each other, and to society

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 11:49 am

Teutonic Germany wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:http://www.jqpublicblog.com/one-airmans-view-open-letter-to-the-sarc/

Worth reading for a womans perspective on victim feminism and how it's a problem.
(US Pilot.)

Weakness. Pure and utter weakness.


What is?
This is a common grievance women I speak to have with feminism.
It's probably the primary reason for women becomming anti-feminists, if not their sympathy for men.
(I.E, that feminism treats them like toddlers while giving them privileges and powers over men that they do not want.)
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Thu May 14, 2015 11:50 am

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
Natapoc wrote:You are confusing the for personal motivation to become a vegetarian with what vegetarianism intrinsically is.


So if feminism is only the advocacy of female rights in the interest of bringing females to equality with males, if this equality was ever achieved in a lasting way would feminism necessarily cease to exist?


No feminism would not cease to exist. That's like asking: If democracy became the universal norm, would democracy (or advocacy of democracy) cease to exist?

Feminism would simply stop being about change and start being about maintaining the existing equality.

When full equality has been achieved it will simply be about maintaining that equality. In such a future almost everyone will be a feminist because almost everyone will believe in gender equality.

What a nice day that will be!
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Teutonic Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Teutonic Germany » Thu May 14, 2015 11:53 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Teutonic Germany wrote:Weakness. Pure and utter weakness.


What is?
This is a common grievance women I speak to have with feminism.
It's probably the primary reason for women becomming anti-feminists, if not their sympathy for men.
(I.E, that feminism treats them like toddlers while giving them privileges and powers over men that they do not want.)

The fact that these men fear an allegation of sexual misconduct that's completely unfounded. I certainly shouldn't have to explain just how few false and true claims of sexual harassment in your national military are taken seriously. I fear their ability to fight for their country.

Not to mention the cheating husband is not caused by these new laws, but by a willful failure to uphold the family.
One Nation Conservative: Bismarck für immer
Compass: Right: 2.5 Authoritarian: 3.39
Pro: Central state, capitalism, social stability, LGBT, pro choice, single party, traditionalism, domestic work, Russia, Deutschland
Anti: liberalism, communism, libertarianism, fanatical social conservatism, Feminism, MRM, USA, UK


Yes, you have a duty to yourselves, to each other, and to society

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 11:58 am

Natapoc wrote:
Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
So if feminism is only the advocacy of female rights in the interest of bringing females to equality with males, if this equality was ever achieved in a lasting way would feminism necessarily cease to exist?


No feminism would not cease to exist. That's like asking: If democracy became the universal norm, would democracy (or advocacy of democracy) cease to exist?

Feminism would simply stop being about change and start being about maintaining the existing equality.

When full equality has been achieved it will simply be about maintaining that equality. In such a future almost everyone will be a feminist because almost everyone will believe in gender equality.

What a nice day that will be!


Paradise beyond the urals.
Do you hate the working class, comrade?

Seen it all before.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 12:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Thu May 14, 2015 12:03 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
No feminism would not cease to exist. That's like asking: If democracy became the universal norm, would democracy (or advocacy of democracy) cease to exist?

Feminism would simply stop being about change and start being about maintaining the existing equality.

When full equality has been achieved it will simply be about maintaining that equality. In such a future almost everyone will be a feminist because almost everyone will believe in gender equality.

What a nice day that will be!


Paradise beyond the urals.
Do you hate the working class, comrade?

Seen it all before.


Have you? What is it about you and your desire to equate feminism with Stalinism and Nazism(previous posts)?

Yes I've seen this all before too... On the Glenn Beck show.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 12:05 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Paradise beyond the urals.
Do you hate the working class, comrade?

Seen it all before.


Have you? What is it about you and your desire to equate feminism with Stalinism and Nazism(previous posts)?

Yes I've seen this all before too... On the Glenn Beck show.


That time I was more implying that you think the promised land is deliverable by your ideology and you've put the cart before the horse.
You think abandoning the ideology means you won't reach there, but really, it's that your ideology is a preaching about a place it cannot take you, because it is malformed.
If you want gender equality, you need to abandon feminism. A gynocentric perspective on gender issues will get us nowhere, it will just further entrench female privilege.
Plus, I was alluding to the fact that you have ideological zeal, and are proclaiming your ideology as the one true way to heaven (Without evidence, I might add.)
It's a common thing really.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38942
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Thu May 14, 2015 12:10 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Paradise beyond the urals.
Do you hate the working class, comrade?

Seen it all before.


Have you? What is it about you and your desire to equate feminism with Stalinism and Nazism(previous posts)?

Yes I've seen this all before too... On the Glenn Beck show.


TERFs do make some Nazis look reasonable.
Tʜ Sʀssʀɪs Sɴ Cʟʙ ғ Dʙ Iʟɢɪs
¸¤*˜*¤¸¤*˜*¤¸ If it's too sweet we can add some salt ¸¤*˜*¤¸¤*˜*¤¸
The thirty-something tsundere trans cryptofascist nobody warned you about
P x D I ʙ ʟ ɪ

User avatar
Teutonic Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Teutonic Germany » Thu May 14, 2015 12:11 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Have you? What is it about you and your desire to equate feminism with Stalinism and Nazism(previous posts)?

Yes I've seen this all before too... On the Glenn Beck show.


That time I was more implying that you think the promised land is deliverable by your ideology and you've put the cart before the horse.
You think abandoning the ideology means you won't reach there, but really, it's that your ideology is a preaching about a place it cannot take you, because it is malformed.
If you want gender equality, you need to abandon feminism. A gynocentric perspective on gender issues will get us nowhere, it will just further entrench female privilege.
Plus, I was alluding to the fact that you have ideological zeal, and are proclaiming your ideology as the one true way to heaven (Without evidence, I might add.)
It's a common thing really.

You both need to abandon these delusion and realise men and women are not unequal in the slightest. Peddling the idea that either men or women are "privileged" over the other only disrupts the real work which must be done to support each other, to support families, and to support society.
One Nation Conservative: Bismarck für immer
Compass: Right: 2.5 Authoritarian: 3.39
Pro: Central state, capitalism, social stability, LGBT, pro choice, single party, traditionalism, domestic work, Russia, Deutschland
Anti: liberalism, communism, libertarianism, fanatical social conservatism, Feminism, MRM, USA, UK


Yes, you have a duty to yourselves, to each other, and to society

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Thu May 14, 2015 12:12 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Have you? What is it about you and your desire to equate feminism with Stalinism and Nazism(previous posts)?

Yes I've seen this all before too... On the Glenn Beck show.


That time I was more implying that you think the promised land is deliverable by your ideology and you've put the cart before the horse.
You think abandoning the ideology means you won't reach there, but really, it's that your ideology is a preaching about a place it cannot take you, because it is malformed.
If you want gender equality, you need to abandon feminism. A gynocentric perspective on gender issues will get us nowhere, it will just further entrench female privilege.


I see.

Yeah we just don't agree on female privilege. I just don't believe female privilege exists in the real actual physical world that I live in.

It will probably be impossible for you and I to ever agree on the solution to gender issues since I think patriarchy is to blame while you think some kind of female privilege is to blame.

We look at the same data and see two different things. I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this.
Last edited by Natapoc on Thu May 14, 2015 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 12:30 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
That time I was more implying that you think the promised land is deliverable by your ideology and you've put the cart before the horse.
You think abandoning the ideology means you won't reach there, but really, it's that your ideology is a preaching about a place it cannot take you, because it is malformed.
If you want gender equality, you need to abandon feminism. A gynocentric perspective on gender issues will get us nowhere, it will just further entrench female privilege.


I see.

Yeah we just don't agree on female privilege. I just don't believe female privilege exists in the real actual physical world that I live in.

It will probably be impossible for you and I to ever agree on the solution to gender issues since I think patriarchy is to blame while you think some kind of female privilege is to blame.

We look at the same data and see two different things. I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this.


Well, there is the women are wonderful effect. That would seem to tilt things toward my interpretation.
Women have a strong in group bias.
Men do not, and in fact lack a mechanism for in group bias, and favor women. (Though not as much as women favor women.)
That would seem to suggest that women and their view of men is the problem.

Even if you claim that the expression of men favoring women is sexism (And it is. It's chivalry and such.) and that this is benevolent form of the patriarchy, you havn't addressed that women exhibit MORE benevolent sexism toward women than even men do.
I think it's pretty much the coup de grace on these discussions.

It's clear that when you actually analyze in group bias between the genders, women are the crux of the problem, not men.
You realize women have raised basically two entire generations of men right? And yet these people are still "Misogynists."?
How long will it take women to realize that it's their own behavior and perceptions fueling this problem, and that they need to be confronted about it.
I won't deny that in the past men had a part to play too, and in some ways still do. Feminism was good for dealing with those aspects. But it's served it's purpose now, and is only holding us back from the real discussion that needs to be had, which is confronting female privilege.

It's why women are underrepresented at the top of society. Too many of them feel entitled to just marry a rich person and so never bother trying anything until they hit 30 and panic. It's an example of their entitlement shooting them in the face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect

I can agree to disagree on this and just focus on actual issues, but i'd appreciate knowing how you reconcile the data on in-group biases with your worldview.
It seems to only make sense in mine.

Womens view of men as monsters also causes them to be fearful, despite men being at more danger than women are in public.
This is another example of womens sexism backfiring on them.

Almost all of the womens issues I can think of, are just womens sexism backfiring, usually directly and immediately, unlike the typically feminist claptrap that has to route it through "Patriarchy" first when they talk about male sexism backfiring.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 12:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9222
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Thu May 14, 2015 12:35 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
That time I was more implying that you think the promised land is deliverable by your ideology and you've put the cart before the horse.
You think abandoning the ideology means you won't reach there, but really, it's that your ideology is a preaching about a place it cannot take you, because it is malformed.
If you want gender equality, you need to abandon feminism. A gynocentric perspective on gender issues will get us nowhere, it will just further entrench female privilege.


I see.

Yeah we just don't agree on female privilege. I just don't believe female privilege exists in the real actual physical world that I live in.

It will probably be impossible for you and I to ever agree on the solution to gender issues since I think patriarchy is to blame while you think some kind of female privilege is to blame.

We look at the same data and see two different things. I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this.

Privilege a convenient but inaccurate generalization that glosses over a large collection of meaningful distinctions in favor of a simplistic dualism between "privilege" and "oppression." If dualistic reasoning is patriarchal, the privilege/oppression narrative is as patriarchal as they come.

Privileges, plural and specific, are real, and most classes of persons have them. Women have them; men have them; you may try to argue that one of those collections is more significant, but denying either entirely is delusion. Simple example: It is widely socially acceptable for women wear pants or skirts; I receive routine reminders that this privilege is specific to women.

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Thu May 14, 2015 12:36 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
It's why women are underrepresented at the top of society. Too many of them feel entitled to just marry a rich person and so never bother trying anything until they hit 30 and panic. It's an example of their entitlement shooting them in the face.

You seriously believe that sexist canard? Holy shit.
Last edited by Kelinfort on Thu May 14, 2015 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Teutonic Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Teutonic Germany » Thu May 14, 2015 12:38 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
That time I was more implying that you think the promised land is deliverable by your ideology and you've put the cart before the horse.
You think abandoning the ideology means you won't reach there, but really, it's that your ideology is a preaching about a place it cannot take you, because it is malformed.
If you want gender equality, you need to abandon feminism. A gynocentric perspective on gender issues will get us nowhere, it will just further entrench female privilege.


I see.

Yeah we just don't agree on female privilege. I just don't believe female privilege exists in the real actual physical world that I live in.

It will probably be impossible for you and I to ever agree on the solution to gender issues since I think patriarchy is to blame while you think some kind of female privilege is to blame.

We look at the same data and see two different things. I don't think we'll ever be able to agree on this.

And I don't agree on male privilege. Both of these are nothing more than bullshit arguments from ideologues.
One Nation Conservative: Bismarck für immer
Compass: Right: 2.5 Authoritarian: 3.39
Pro: Central state, capitalism, social stability, LGBT, pro choice, single party, traditionalism, domestic work, Russia, Deutschland
Anti: liberalism, communism, libertarianism, fanatical social conservatism, Feminism, MRM, USA, UK


Yes, you have a duty to yourselves, to each other, and to society

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 12:41 pm

Kelinfort wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
It's why women are underrepresented at the top of society. Too many of them feel entitled to just marry a rich person and so never bother trying anything until they hit 30 and panic. It's an example of their entitlement shooting them in the face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect

You seriously believe that sexist canard? Holy shit.


Yes. I think our society raises women to think they are entitled to a husband who will provide for them, and that some of them spent economics class daydreaming about this.
Men, conversely, have it made clear to them that they are on their fucking own and it's sink or swim.
Which of these two groups do you think is going to come out ahead, the one that knows they have a fallback, some of which may even find the fallback preferable, or the one that knows it's all on them?
For the record, were the dynamic reversed men would behave precisely the same way. It's just this is the dynamic we inherited, with women having an easy-mode option at least APPARENTLY presented to them, even though eventually they will realize that it's a vanishingly small chance of working.
I think this stands in the way of women becoming equal partners in society.

Lets not ignore the fact, that some of them do actually end up in precisely that situation, which only perpetuates the entitlement further.
Women seem to feel entitled to mens resources. Alimony and child support are just further expressions of this.
This isn't any more sexist than the feminist lines about men feeling entitled to womens bodies.

Women, by and large, can always demand males do things for them, and males will usually oblige either out of bias in favor of women, or fear of womens social power to have them ostracized.
This leads to women as a class having less skills and frankly ending up with incentive to strive.
The white plantation owner becomes fat while the slave develops muscles and such.

The best way to fix this situation for both men and women is malicious non compliance.

As an example, When a woman asks a man to carry her things, he should agree, and then purposefully break them. If enough men do this kind of shit, women will stop asking.
Applied broadly across all of womens demands of men, this will eventually result in women doing more for themselves, striving more, and eventually lead to them being represented at the higher eschelons of society.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 12:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Thu May 14, 2015 12:44 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Kelinfort wrote:You seriously believe that sexist canard? Holy shit.


Yes. I think our society raises women to think they are entitled to a husband who will provide for them, and that some of them spent economics class daydreaming about this.
Men, conversely, have it made clear to them that they are on their fucking own and it's sink or swim.
Which of these two groups do you think is going to come out ahead, the one that knows they have a fallback, some of which may even find the fallback preferable, or the one that knows it's all on them?
For the record, were the dynamic reversed men would behave precisely the same way. It's just this is the dynamic we inherited, with women having an easy-mode option at least APPARENTLY presented to them, even though eventually they will realize that it's a vanishingly small chance of working.
I think this stands in the way of women becoming equal partners in society.

Lets not ignore the fact, that some of them do actually end up in precisely that situation, which only perpetuates the entitlement further.
Women seem to feel entitled to mens resources. Alimony and child support are just further expressions of this.
This isn't any more sexist than the feminist lines about men feeling entitled to womens bodies.

Source?

Seriously, this claim is straight from the people who allege women fuck alphas until they're thirty and marry a rich beta because they'd be poor otherwise. It's symptomatic of your plunge into fallacious ideas.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 12:46 pm

Kelinfort wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Yes. I think our society raises women to think they are entitled to a husband who will provide for them, and that some of them spent economics class daydreaming about this.
Men, conversely, have it made clear to them that they are on their fucking own and it's sink or swim.
Which of these two groups do you think is going to come out ahead, the one that knows they have a fallback, some of which may even find the fallback preferable, or the one that knows it's all on them?
For the record, were the dynamic reversed men would behave precisely the same way. It's just this is the dynamic we inherited, with women having an easy-mode option at least APPARENTLY presented to them, even though eventually they will realize that it's a vanishingly small chance of working.
I think this stands in the way of women becoming equal partners in society.

Lets not ignore the fact, that some of them do actually end up in precisely that situation, which only perpetuates the entitlement further.
Women seem to feel entitled to mens resources. Alimony and child support are just further expressions of this.
This isn't any more sexist than the feminist lines about men feeling entitled to womens bodies.

Source?

Seriously, this claim is straight from the people who allege women fuck alphas until they're thirty and marry a rich beta because they'd be poor otherwise. It's symptomatic of your plunge into fallacious ideas.


Added in an edit:

Women, by and large, can always demand males do things for them, and males will usually oblige either out of bias in favor of women, or fear of womens social power to have them ostracized.
This leads to women as a class having less skills and frankly ending up with incentive to strive.
The white plantation owner becomes fat while the slave develops muscles and such.

The best way to fix this situation for both men and women is malicious faux-compliance.

As an example, When a woman asks a man to carry her things, he should agree, and then purposefully break them. If enough men do this kind of shit, women will stop asking.
Applied broadly across all of womens demands of men, this will eventually result in women doing more for themselves, striving more, and eventually lead to them being represented at the higher eschelons of society.


Source is observation of society. Same as the feminist sources, by the way.
And you'll note, I specifically said earlier that i'm not in favor of a solely androcentric approach to understanding this issue either. Merely that it needs to be considered when discussing the issues.
I think women need to be trained to stop expecting things from men and to stop demanding them.
Men also need some adjustments, but most of those have already taken place.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Thu May 14, 2015 12:48 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Kelinfort wrote:Source?

Seriously, this claim is straight from the people who allege women fuck alphas until they're thirty and marry a rich beta because they'd be poor otherwise. It's symptomatic of your plunge into fallacious ideas.


Added in an edit:

Women, by and large, can always demand males do things for them, and males will usually oblige either out of bias in favor of women, or fear of womens social power to have them ostracized.
This leads to women as a class having less skills and frankly ending up with incentive to strive.
The white plantation owner becomes fat while the slave develops muscles and such.

The best way to fix this situation for both men and women is malicious non compliance.

As an example, When a woman asks a man to carry her things, he should agree, and then purposefully break them. If enough men do this kind of shit, women will stop asking.
Applied broadly across all of womens demands of men, this will eventually result in women doing more for themselves, striving more, and eventually lead to them being represented at the higher eschelons of society.


Source is observation of society. Same as the feminist sources, by the way.
And you'll note, I specifically said earlier that i'm not in favor of a solely androcentric approach to understanding this issue either. Merely that it needs to be considered when discussing the issues.
I think women need to be trained to stop expecting things from men and to stop demanding them.
Men also need some adjustments, but most of those have already taken place.

:roll:

So you have none. I didn't ask for a bash of fallacious feminism or the sexists who support undocumented claims, I asked for empirical evidence.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 49521
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu May 14, 2015 12:52 pm

Kelinfort wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Added in an edit:

Women, by and large, can always demand males do things for them, and males will usually oblige either out of bias in favor of women, or fear of womens social power to have them ostracized.
This leads to women as a class having less skills and frankly ending up with incentive to strive.
The white plantation owner becomes fat while the slave develops muscles and such.

The best way to fix this situation for both men and women is malicious non compliance.

As an example, When a woman asks a man to carry her things, he should agree, and then purposefully break them. If enough men do this kind of shit, women will stop asking.
Applied broadly across all of womens demands of men, this will eventually result in women doing more for themselves, striving more, and eventually lead to them being represented at the higher eschelons of society.


Source is observation of society. Same as the feminist sources, by the way.
And you'll note, I specifically said earlier that i'm not in favor of a solely androcentric approach to understanding this issue either. Merely that it needs to be considered when discussing the issues.
I think women need to be trained to stop expecting things from men and to stop demanding them.
Men also need some adjustments, but most of those have already taken place.

:roll:

So you have none. I didn't ask for a bash of fallacious feminism or the sexists who support undocumented claims, I asked for empirical evidence.


Well I can provide example articles that have led me to this conclusion, but as you well know, empirical evidence is not possible for these type of claims. Out of interest, do you know of ANY feminist claim that has empirical evidence in support of sexism existing?
I'd love to see what that evidence would look like, or if you're merely holding a double standard.
(Incidentally, not ignoring you. Have to go out. will respond later date.)
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu May 14, 2015 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Thu May 14, 2015 12:54 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Kelinfort wrote: :roll:

So you have none. I didn't ask for a bash of fallacious feminism or the sexists who support undocumented claims, I asked for empirical evidence.


Well I can provide example articles that have led me to this conclusion, but as you well know, empirical evidence is not possible for these type of claims. Out of interest, do you know of ANY feminist claim that has empirical evidence in support of sexism existing?
I'd love to see what that evidence would look like, or if you're merely holding a double standard.
(Incidentally, not ignoring you. Have to go out. will respond later date.)

This shouldn't be hard to find the rate at which women are married to richer households, no? Studies, for example.

And I should support a group I'm not a part of...why? No thanks. I am not obligated to prove anything as I didn't claim anything besides the fact feminists arguments tend to be fallacious and there are many undocumented claims of sexism from both feminists and the MRM.
Last edited by Kelinfort on Thu May 14, 2015 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
New Edom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22627
Founded: Mar 14, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Edom » Thu May 14, 2015 12:57 pm

I have an observation here. The reason I believe why feminism is frustrating and alienating to some people has nothing to do with the proposed outcome of equality between men and women. In a way it is not even the analysis of why there is inequality or what inequalities exist, or what activism is necessary and so on.

The main reason why is that feminists generally insist that their interpretation of reality is not merely correct but that those who disagree with them are foolish, ignorant or terrible people. People who disagree with them ultimately therefore are not simply people with a different point of view, they HATE WOMEN. Of course this is frustrating, and of course there is opposition. It is the equivalent to saying "people who don't believe in Christianity are immoral."

Furthermore, as we have seen here, feminists seem to generally feel that they don't have to provide proof or backup for things that they claim to be true. It is a common tactic to then start throwing accusations that people are demanding that they do all their thinking for them, that they do massive amounts of research, as though their claims should just be accepted because they are 'right'. So how CAN there be a fair discussion with people who take such positions? I don't think there can be.
"The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's far more expensive to do things cheaply, and it's more democratic to do things in secret." - Jim Hacker "Yes Minister"

User avatar
Teutonic Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Teutonic Germany » Thu May 14, 2015 1:00 pm

New Edom wrote:I have an observation here. The reason I believe why feminism is frustrating and alienating to some people has nothing to do with the proposed outcome of equality between men and women. In a way it is not even the analysis of why there is inequality or what inequalities exist, or what activism is necessary and so on.

The main reason why is that feminists generally insist that their interpretation of reality is not merely correct but that those who disagree with them are foolish, ignorant or terrible people. People who disagree with them ultimately therefore are not simply people with a different point of view, they HATE WOMEN. Of course this is frustrating, and of course there is opposition. It is the equivalent to saying "people who don't believe in Christianity are immoral."

Furthermore, as we have seen here, feminists seem to generally feel that they don't have to provide proof or backup for things that they claim to be true. It is a common tactic to then start throwing accusations that people are demanding that they do all their thinking for them, that they do massive amounts of research, as though their claims should just be accepted because they are 'right'. So how CAN there be a fair discussion with people who take such positions? I don't think there can be.

The sad thing is Feminists yell where there is no problem. They have no evidence that a problem even exists.
One Nation Conservative: Bismarck für immer
Compass: Right: 2.5 Authoritarian: 3.39
Pro: Central state, capitalism, social stability, LGBT, pro choice, single party, traditionalism, domestic work, Russia, Deutschland
Anti: liberalism, communism, libertarianism, fanatical social conservatism, Feminism, MRM, USA, UK


Yes, you have a duty to yourselves, to each other, and to society

User avatar
New Edom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22627
Founded: Mar 14, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Edom » Thu May 14, 2015 1:22 pm

Teutonic Germany wrote:
New Edom wrote:I have an observation here. The reason I believe why feminism is frustrating and alienating to some people has nothing to do with the proposed outcome of equality between men and women. In a way it is not even the analysis of why there is inequality or what inequalities exist, or what activism is necessary and so on.

The main reason why is that feminists generally insist that their interpretation of reality is not merely correct but that those who disagree with them are foolish, ignorant or terrible people. People who disagree with them ultimately therefore are not simply people with a different point of view, they HATE WOMEN. Of course this is frustrating, and of course there is opposition. It is the equivalent to saying "people who don't believe in Christianity are immoral."

Furthermore, as we have seen here, feminists seem to generally feel that they don't have to provide proof or backup for things that they claim to be true. It is a common tactic to then start throwing accusations that people are demanding that they do all their thinking for them, that they do massive amounts of research, as though their claims should just be accepted because they are 'right'. So how CAN there be a fair discussion with people who take such positions? I don't think there can be.

The sad thing is Feminists yell where there is no problem. They have no evidence that a problem even exists.


If misogyny is everywhere and is riddled in our very upbringing in every possible way, then they don't need evidence, according to what is taught about Patriarchy Theory.
"The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's far more expensive to do things cheaply, and it's more democratic to do things in secret." - Jim Hacker "Yes Minister"

User avatar
Teutonic Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 12, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Teutonic Germany » Thu May 14, 2015 1:23 pm

New Edom wrote:
Teutonic Germany wrote:The sad thing is Feminists yell where there is no problem. They have no evidence that a problem even exists.


If misogyny is everywhere and is riddled in our very upbringing in every possible way, then they don't need evidence, according to what is taught about Patriarchy Theory.

Utter bullshit, I must say.
One Nation Conservative: Bismarck für immer
Compass: Right: 2.5 Authoritarian: 3.39
Pro: Central state, capitalism, social stability, LGBT, pro choice, single party, traditionalism, domestic work, Russia, Deutschland
Anti: liberalism, communism, libertarianism, fanatical social conservatism, Feminism, MRM, USA, UK


Yes, you have a duty to yourselves, to each other, and to society

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aclion, Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, Ameriganastan, Amjedia, Andoros, Andsed, Angleter, Bezkoshtovnya, Communal concils, Des-Bal, Dresderstan, Dumb Ideologies, Empire of Asgadr, Estanglia, Fartsniffage, Flaireis, Frachen, Frollocracy, Galloism, Gormwood, Gun Manufacturers, Ifreann, Kragholm Free States, Kyrinasaj, LiberNovusAmericae, Liriena, Mettaton-EX, Nakena, Nazeroth, Nilrahrarfan, Pernoctem, Petrolheadia, RiderSyl, Seikokka, Selissu, Shark isle, Socialist Workers Combine, The Gilded Star, The Grims, The Rapture Republic, Torrocca, True Refuge, Uiiop, Umpus, Yusseria, Zrhajan

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron