Misandry Marches On - NUS stops Gay Male representatives

[Vassenor]

To be fair these days "SJW" means "holds an opinion in opposition to mine".

[Chessmistress]

Chessmistress, as much as I applaud your dedication to the feminist movement, I think your ideas and efforts to support them, as well as the people you also support, are actually causing the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. I'm a feminist myself, and support the idea behind the movement, but radical feminism has been causing a very large backlash against feminism and women.

Over the years I've seen a steady increase in the amount of people who oppose the feminist movement because of ideas like these, and who turn their efforts away from helping women and furthering the cause for equality to instead trying to counter the radicals. I've heard borderline sexist statements from people who previously supported feminism, and it's giving me some cause to worry about the direction the movement is headed. I don't want to see infighting in private media circles, when this energy could be instead directed toward furthering women's rights and the rights of the LGBT community.

Of course, these are just my personal observations, which cannot be taken for evidence, but I just wanted to let you know what I've seen.

I understand your concerns, but I think that a little backlash is natural: more and more we will approach to true, substantive, equality, more and more males will suffer the loss of their privileges, and that will cause backlash...but...the alternative what could be? Doing nothing?
An example: during 70s Feminism was mainly about women's sexual liberation - that's why it was easy for many males supporting it - I guess many of them simply hoped to get laid, more and more.
Now it's about equal pay, more women on the workplace, limiting the excesses caused by a misleaded idea of the sexual revolution (like, in example: limiting drunk hook-up culture through affirmative consent laws), and so on. Since more women in the workplace means more competitors for men, then it's natural many men oppose it; since affirmative consent laws means that males will have to being more careful when a woman is drunk, then it's natural that's uncomfortable for some or many of them and by so many will oppose it, and so on.
But, again: what would be the alternative?

[United States of Conner]

Chessmistress, as much as I applaud your dedication to the feminist movement, I think your ideas and efforts to support them, as well as the people you also support, are actually causing the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. I'm a feminist myself, and support the idea behind the movement, but radical feminism has been causing a very large backlash against feminism and women.

Over the years I've seen a steady increase in the amount of people who oppose the feminist movement because of ideas like these, and who turn their efforts away from helping women and furthering the cause for equality to instead trying to counter the radicals. I've heard borderline sexist statements from people who previously supported feminism, and it's giving me some cause to worry about the direction the movement is headed. I don't want to see infighting in private media circles, when this energy could be instead directed toward furthering women's rights and the rights of the LGBT community.

Of course, these are just my personal observations, which cannot be taken for evidence, but I just wanted to let you know what I've seen.

I understand your concerns, but I think that a little backlash is natural: more and more we will approach to true, substantive, equality, more and more males will suffer the loss of their privileges, and that will cause backlash...but...the alternative what could be? Doing nothing?
An example: during 70s Feminism was mainly about women's sexual liberation - that's why it was easy for many males supporting it - I guess many of them simply hoped to get laid, more and more.
Now it's about equal pay, more women on the workplace, limiting the excesses caused by a misleaded idea of the sexual revolution (like, in example: limiting drunk hook-up culture through affirmative consent laws), and so on. Since more women in the workplace means more competitors for men, then it's natural many men oppose it; since affirmative consent laws means that males will have to being more careful when a woman is drunk, then it's natural that's uncomfortable for some or many of them and by so many will oppose it, and so on.
But, again: what would be the alternative?

Yeah, because women are only sex toys made for male enjoyment.

[Kelinfort]

Chessmistress, as much as I applaud your dedication to the feminist movement, I think your ideas and efforts to support them, as well as the people you also support, are actually causing the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. I'm a feminist myself, and support the idea behind the movement, but radical feminism has been causing a very large backlash against feminism and women.

Over the years I've seen a steady increase in the amount of people who oppose the feminist movement because of ideas like these, and who turn their efforts away from helping women and furthering the cause for equality to instead trying to counter the radicals. I've heard borderline sexist statements from people who previously supported feminism, and it's giving me some cause to worry about the direction the movement is headed. I don't want to see infighting in private media circles, when this energy could be instead directed toward furthering women's rights and the rights of the LGBT community.

Of course, these are just my personal observations, which cannot be taken for evidence, but I just wanted to let you know what I've seen.

I understand your concerns, but I think that a little backlash is natural: more and more we will approach to true, substantive, equality, more and more males will suffer the loss of their privileges, and that will cause backlash...but...the alternative what could be? Doing nothing?
An example: during 70s Feminism was mainly about women's sexual liberation - that's why it was easy for many males supporting it - I guess many of them simply hoped to get laid, more and more.
Now it's about equal pay, more women on the workplace, limiting the excesses caused by a misleaded idea of the sexual revolution (like, in example: limiting drunk hook-up culture through affirmative consent laws), and so on. Since more women in the workplace means more competitors for men, then it's natural many men oppose it; since affirmative consent laws means that males will have to being more careful when a woman is drunk, then it's natural that's uncomfortable for some or many of them and by so many will oppose it, and so on.
But, again: what would be the alternative?

I understand your concerns, but I think that a little backlash is natural: more and more we will approach to true, substantive, equality, more and more males will suffer the loss of their privileges, and that will cause backlash...but...the alternative what could be? Doing nothing?

This is a false equivalency. Your solution is as unacceptable as is doing nothing. The alternative is a better approach, with better solution. Not doing nothing.

An example: during 70s Feminism was mainly about women's sexual liberation - that's why it was easy for many males supporting it - I guess many of them simply hoped to get laid, more and more.

This makes no sense. Second wave feminism was broadly opposed to sexual liberation for both men and women, only supporting such inanities as lesbian seperatism. Regardless, there's no statistics to support your claim. I'd argue more men are receptive to liberal feminism today rather than in the 1970's.

1. Now it's about equal pay, more women on the workplace, limiting the excesses caused by a misleaded idea of the sexual revolution (like, in example: limiting drunk hook-up culture through affirmative consent laws), and so on. 2. Since more women in the workplace means more competitors for men, then it's natural many men oppose it; 3. since affirmative consent laws means that males will have to being more careful when a woman is drunk, then it's natural that's uncomfortable for some or many of them and by so many will oppose it, and so on.

Let's go through these one by one:

1. Drunken hookups, something you seem...pretty worried about...aren't as prevalent as to be believed. Affirmative consent laws, despite their flaws, are more about teaching consent (this should also include women). You keep bringing up drunken hookups, but this is less of a problem than young adults and teens lacking sex ed to know how to consent to sober sex. I don't know where you're going with that.

2. That doesn't make sense. This isn't the same as nativist arguments against immigration because these are women already in the workplace.

3. Again, you seem fixated on this concept of drunken hookups when the root of the problem is young adults and teens who have never been educated on sex education. They lack judgment and knowledge of what consent actually means.

[Kelinfort]

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where did I say that? I've pretty much just said what you did here. Feminist theory is the reason for this, and feminists spread feminist theory.

Its tenuous, I was exaggerating, and I don't actually think you really are (but others apparently do) and I was unfair to suggest I think you were but:

...and allowing feminists to dictate the narrative surrounding oppression.

I can imagine maybe, maybe, if you looked at this with your glasses off, upside down whilst submerged in water and with a generous bucketload of bias, an inclination towards shitposting and a personal vendetta against you, someone might imagine this is a hate boner post against feminists.
And to an extent, it is - you are an anti-feminist after all, but it's not an unwarranted attack in the slightest. Feminism has done great things, but is clearly influencing very, very stupid things as evidenced by this article.
Of course, instead of debating or arguing the point, some people would rather try and smear and shitpost into the ground. It suggests they lack the ability to do the former, and are therefore forced to do the later.

Okay, may have read too much into it. No problem.

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

Given the state of things as they are currently and the driving out of the left wing and its institutions that has gone on so long, I don't think this is possible. Instead if they want to oppose these people, they'll be better off joining movements like gamergate, the MRM, the New Right, etc, and continuing to build bridges with right wing liberals as those groups have been doing.

[New Edom]

To be fair these days "SJW" means "holds an opinion in opposition to mine".

No. SJW refers to people who tarnish social justice with accusations that anyone who doesn't agree with everything they say--even if they agree with general principles--of being sexist, racist and otherwise evil.

[Kelinfort]

Its tenuous, I was exaggerating, and I don't actually think you really are (but others apparently do) and I was unfair to suggest I think you were but:

I can imagine maybe, maybe, if you looked at this with your glasses off, upside down whilst submerged in water and with a generous bucketload of bias, an inclination towards shitposting and a personal vendetta against you, someone might imagine this is a hate boner post against feminists.
And to an extent, it is - you are an anti-feminist after all, but it's not an unwarranted attack in the slightest. Feminism has done great things, but is clearly influencing very, very stupid things as evidenced by this article.
Of course, instead of debating or arguing the point, some people would rather try and smear and shitpost into the ground. It suggests they lack the ability to do the former, and are therefore forced to do the later.

Okay, may have read too much into it. No problem.

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

Given the state of things as they are currently and the driving out of the left wing and its institutions that has gone on so long, I don't think this is possible. Instead if they want to oppose these people, they'll be better off joining movements like gamergate, the MRM, the New Right, etc, and continuing to build bridges with right wing liberals as those groups have been doing.

I will, gladly, reject both and leave ideological camps to the fighting. My views are mine alone.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Right well this decision is fucking idiotic beyond belief, im going to go play some games to try and purge this nonsense from my mind if even for a few hours.

[Chessmistress]

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

Affirmative consent laws, despite their flaws, are more about teaching consent (this should also include women).

Are you still pretending laws are about "teaching"? No, laws are another thing
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/law

noun
1.
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2.
any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.
Compare by law, statute law.
3.
the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance:
maintaining law and order.
4.
a system or collection of such rules.

Education is about teaching, laws aren't about teaching.

[New Edom]

Okay, may have read too much into it. No problem.



Given the state of things as they are currently and the driving out of the left wing and its institutions that has gone on so long, I don't think this is possible. Instead if they want to oppose these people, they'll be better off joining movements like gamergate, the MRM, the New Right, etc, and continuing to build bridges with right wing liberals as those groups have been doing.

I will, gladly, reject both and leave ideological camps to the fighting. My views are mine alone.

I think there's nothing wrong with ideology--provided that the idealists recognize that they don't own words. Communists don't own the concept of 'communal'. Christians don't own forgiveness, Republicans don't own patriotism, and LGBT activists, feminists and Black Lives Matter activists do not own equality. If two people agree that people should be treated fairly and equally and agree to address general issues, their methods shouldn't have to be cause for hatred.

Rather than wanting to be part of community, identity politics leads people to want to make their own little communities everyone else has to support.

[Imperializt Russia]

To be fair these days "SJW" means "holds an opinion in opposition to mine".

No. SJW refers to people who tarnish social justice with accusations that anyone who doesn't agree with everything they say--even if they agree with general principles--of being sexist, racist and otherwise evil.

Say what you will, as commonly used, it's a buzzword for "person I disagree with on indeterminate topics".

[Camicon]

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have
*snip*

And yet that doesn't change the fact that gay man are faced with problems in the LGBT+ community that are specific to them, nobody else, and removing their rep prevents those issues from being raised, and denies that men can be victimized and discriminated against. Kelinfort is right; this is a terrible development. Anyone with even an ounce of intellectual honesty on the matter can see and admit as much.

The LGBT+ community is silencing some of it's members because they don't fit a feminist narrative. The two are not the same, and shouldn't be interacting in this way.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

Student feminism in the UK is mostly dominated by middle-class white women who have more white privilege than I have male privilege.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

Student feminism in the UK is mostly dominated by middle-class white women who have more white privilege than I have male privilege.

Be silent you patriarchal something or other.

[The balkens]

Student feminism in the UK is mostly dominated by middle-class white women who have more white privilege than I have male privilege.

Be silent you patriarchal something or other.

I will fight this injustice by spreading the shit out of my legs the next time i get on a bus.

They gon' learn today.

[Napkiraly]

Be silent you patriarchal something or other.

I will fight this injustice by spreading the shit out of my legs the next time i get on a bus.

They gon' learn today.

If you get accused of 'manspreading' just spread your body across all of the seats.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Be silent you patriarchal something or other.

I will fight this injustice by spreading the shit out of my legs the next time i get on a bus.

They gon' learn today.

I will fight this injustice by spreading the shit out of my legs the next time i get on a bus.

They gon' learn today.

If you get accused of 'manspreading' just spread your body across all of the seats.

You two, beheheheheheh!! Nice.

[Wallenburg]

This is a terrible development. I would encourage leftists to wrangle in the radicals aggressively.

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

All gays are white.

You heard it here first, folks.

[Chessmistress]

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

Student feminism in the UK is mostly dominated by middle-class white women who have more white privilege than I have male privilege.

First: the two privileges are NOT comparable.
Second: you have male privilege, female students don't have it.
Third: privilege is mostly invisible to the ones that have it - so you cannot establish how much privilege you have just only for being a male.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

All gays are white.

You heard it here first, folks.

#Triggered

[Napkiraly]

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

All gays are white.

You heard it here first, folks.

Only white men can be gay, duh. Everybody knows that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Student feminism in the UK is mostly dominated by middle-class white women who have more white privilege than I have male privilege.

First: the two privileges are NOT comparable.
Second: you have male privilege, female students don't have it.
Third: privilege is mostly invisible to the ones that have it - so you cannot establish how much privilege you have just only for being a male.

That's a complete sidestep.

[Chessmistress]

I don't see how it could be "terrible".
Quite the opposite.
I think it's a positive development that NUS is recognizing male privilege and white privilege that gay males have.

All gays are white.

You heard it here first, folks.

Never said so.
But NUS highlighted not just only an high level of misogyny but also racism within the gay community: so I MUST suppose they're overwhelmingly whites, because non-whites cannot be racist, exactly as women cannot be sexist.

[Wallenburg]

All gays are white.

You heard it here first, folks.

#Triggered

Indeed, I'm surprised that people aren't always triggered by SpongeBob SquarePants.