The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What stories are being made up here?

"A man was arrested recently for not paying child support because he was being held hostage in Iraq for five months and it came due during that time, and after he was saved, he was arrested."

That one. That one right there.

What makes you say it's made up? Ostro's probably gonna give the source for it as soon as he gets back online. Whatever you think about him, he's good at citing his stuff.

[Torrocca]

"A man was arrested recently for not paying child support because he was being held hostage in Iraq for five months and it came due during that time, and after he was saved, he was arrested."

That one. That one right there.

What makes you say it's made up? Ostro's probably gonna give the source for it as soon as he gets back online. Say what you will about him, he's good at citing his stuff.

The other posts in this thread putting it into a highly-suspect territory.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What makes you say it's made up? Ostro's probably gonna give the source for it as soon as he gets back online. Say what you will about him, he's good at citing his stuff.

The other posts in this thread putting it into a highly-suspect territory.

K, found it. Just hit ctrl f and type iraq.

[Torrocca]

The other posts in this thread putting it into a highly-suspect territory.

K, found it. Just hit ctrl f and type iraq.

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

[Albrenia]

K, found it. Just hit ctrl f and type iraq.

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

I don't. I guess people over 100 years old might.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

I don't. I guess people over 100 years old might.

If it’s still in effect then it’s as recent as the last person affected by it.

[Torrocca]

I don't. I guess people over 100 years old might.

If it’s still in effect then it’s as recent as the last person affected by it.

Which, for all we know according to Ostro's post, was something that led to that amendment being past in the first place, or it literally just happened, and no source decrypting that's been provided.

[Marginal Territory]

If it’s still in effect then it’s as recent as the last person affected by it.

Which, for all we know according to Ostro's post, was something that led to that amendment being past in the first place, or it literally just happened, and no source decrypting that's been provided.

While that law has been relevant in high profile cases in 1993 and 2006, the case you guys were talking about is that of Bobby Sherrill, which happened in 1990. (The date is mentioned in this one)

[Des-Bal]

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

Assuming that's the case then recent was a bad descriptor but it's certainly not making up stories. The law, to the best of my knowledge, is still rigid in it's application. A judge cannot reduce payments retroactively so if the Sherril case happened today nothing would be different.

[Torrocca]

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

Assuming that's the case then recent was a bad descriptor but it's certainly not making up stories. The law, to the best of my knowledge, is still rigid in it's application. A judge cannot reduce payments retroactively so if the Sherril case happened today nothing would be different.

My bad in that regard; making up details about the story would be a more apt descriptor.

Regardless, that's utterly shitty in all regards.

[Des-Bal]

My bad in that regard; making up details about the story would be a more apt descriptor.

Regardless, that's utterly shitty in all regards.

It's very shitty but ultimately well intentioned, regardless of how Ostro characterized it the amendment was not a feminist ploy to subjugate men it was to stop what was perceived as overly lenient judges allowing deadbeat dads to duck their bills then later forgive them. In the spirit of empowering women, only the spouse can discharge the debt. The problem is that's a really shitty system. I think it's emblematic of a lot of feminist policies, it's was not totally thought out, it was backed by rhetoric rather than research, and it's completely well intentioned.

And of course after it was passed the feminist push that drove it had no interest in addressing the problems it created. That lack of follow through or reassessment is also fairly typical. I don't know of any feminist effort to help people know what's expected under the law so instead of someone whose been sent to jail moving to have their payments reduced or suspended until they can meet them they do nothing and are then completely fucked when as a matter of law no force in heaven or hell can reduce what they owe without their presumably estranged ex's say so.

[Torrocca]

My bad in that regard; making up details about the story would be a more apt descriptor.

Regardless, that's utterly shitty in all regards.

It's very shitty but ultimately well intentioned, regardless of how Ostro characterized it the amendment was not a feminist ploy to subjugate men it was to stop what was perceived as overly lenient judges allowing deadbeat dads to duck their bills then later forgive them. In the spirit of empowering women, only the spouse can discharge the debt. The problem is that's a really shitty system. I think it's emblematic of a lot of feminist policies, it's was not totally thought out, it was backed by rhetoric rather than research, and it's completely well intentioned.

And of course after it was passed the feminist push that drove it had no interest in addressing the problems it created. That lack of follow through or reassessment is also fairly typical. I don't know of any feminist effort to help people know what's expected under the law so instead of someone whose been sent to jail moving to have their payments reduced or suspended until they can meet them they do nothing and are then completely fucked when as a matter of law no force in heaven or hell can reduce what they owe without their presumably estranged ex's say so.

Yeah. I mean, I totally get the intention behind it, but it needs to be readdressed in a much more forgiving manner than what it's actually providing.

[Forsher]

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

I don't. I guess people over 100 years old might.

Only if they forgot it was 2018.

I thought, when I clicked on the thread and read it backwards because, you know, reading forwards is for wimps... that this was going to be some reference to some kind of, I don't know, study. The 1980s is often still recent in academic contexts because a lot of the general approaches people take these days started in the 1980s and, in some fields, it might not be clear what research from then means (wholly anyway) or stuff still feels under-studied.

In the post that it actually occurred in? Given the way it was used, 2017 would not count as recent.

Unless something from the last few months shows up in a subsequent post by Ostro I think we have to call this a made-up story.

I mean, do you consider 1986 to be recent by any means?

Assuming that's the case then recent was a bad descriptor but it's certainly not making up stories. The law, to the best of my knowledge, is still rigid in it's application. A judge cannot reduce payments retroactively so if the Sherril case happened today nothing would be different.

Bad Descriptor doesn't even come close to it.

I want to compare this to the Serena Williams thing. As TJ pointed out, there were definitely people who wanted to have a go at issues in tennis and they just needed something that looks enough like a great example. Which they got. But it does matter a lot that it was a really bad example. And people should care about that.

Let's say, as seems likely from what people have been saying in this thread, the status quo is sufficiently unchanged. Okay, that's fair. But look at how Ostro wants to use it:

1. Reveals the total lack of empathy or consideration for men and their situation put into the laws written with a gynocentric focus in mind

Taken in isolation the meaning of this statement is completely the same. It's just as much as problem when you're doing things like this in 1986 as if you're doing things now. The problem is that this is a completely stupid way of reading this. It's been posted in this thread. It's a contribution to this thread's general theme of conversation (which, whatever people were saying, was characterised well enough by Torrocca here). I'd argue that Des-Bal made this point himself.

This isn't, hey, guys... I was on a Wiki-Walk and came across this case where... That's a completely different conversation.

2. A blatant and obvious instance of injustice that would be headline news on all major stations if it occurred to a woman

Completely different statement if this is now or then, right?

We're in a completely different world.

3. Total lack of feminist outrage and activism over it.

Again, he needs and wants this to be something which ought to be a flashpoint now. But the chronology is way off or the substance is way off.

I mean, it goes back to that first point. I imagine (a) this really is an old story and (b) Ostro just didn't notice the dates because (c) he wants it to be recent so assumed it was... it does play perfectly into his character arc in this thread, right?

People want an example to ignite the fire so badly they don't stop to think about whether or not it's capable of keeping the fire burning.

I could quote the rest of Ostro's post. Once you've set the scene in the way he has... used this particular contextualisation... you've got to keep applying it throughout, it doesn't just disappear. And that's why I think we have to see the post as a made up story... even though you could have a proper conversation about the Amendment. In the same way that we could have a proper conversation about sexism in tennis were basically everything different.

Incidentally, still interested to read those links Ostro.

* Which is what happened to my reply to Proctopeo, mashed some keys and it was gone along with my motivation to follow up on those three posts I hoped to get back to... but it had thematic similarities... alternative facts really are alternative facts, not just lies, it's terribly unfortunate that the person who made the phrase famous was, in fact, lying at the time... the phrase would be tremendously useful if only people didn't think it a synonym for lies.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't. I guess people over 100 years old might.

Only if they forgot it was 2018.

I thought, when I clicked on the thread and read it backwards because, you know, reading forwards is for wimps... that this was going to be some reference to some kind of, I don't know, study. The 1980s is often still recent in academic contexts because a lot of the general approaches people take these days started in the 1980s and, in some fields, it might not be clear what research from then means (wholly anyway) or stuff still feels under-studied.

In the post that it actually occurred in? Given the way it was used, 2017 would not count as recent.

Unless something from the last few months shows up in a subsequent post by Ostro I think we have to call this a made-up story.

Assuming that's the case then recent was a bad descriptor but it's certainly not making up stories. The law, to the best of my knowledge, is still rigid in it's application. A judge cannot reduce payments retroactively so if the Sherril case happened today nothing would be different.

Bad Descriptor doesn't even come close to it.

I want to compare this to the Serena Williams thing. As TJ pointed out, there were definitely people who wanted to have a go at issues in tennis and they just needed something that looks enough like a great example. Which they got. But it does matter a lot that it was a really bad example. And people should care about that.

Let's say, as seems likely from what people have been saying in this thread, the status quo is sufficiently unchanged. Okay, that's fair. But look at how Ostro wants to use it:

1. Reveals the total lack of empathy or consideration for men and their situation put into the laws written with a gynocentric focus in mind

Taken in isolation the meaning of this statement is completely the same. It's just as much as problem when you're doing things like this in 1986 as if you're doing things now. The problem is that this is a completely stupid way of reading this. It's been posted in this thread. It's a contribution to this thread's general theme of conversation (which, whatever people were saying, was characterised well enough by Torrocca here). I'd argue that Des-Bal made this point himself.

This isn't, hey, guys... I was on a Wiki-Walk and came across this case where... That's a completely different conversation.

2. A blatant and obvious instance of injustice that would be headline news on all major stations if it occurred to a woman

Completely different statement if this is now or then, right?

We're in a completely different world.

3. Total lack of feminist outrage and activism over it.

Again, he needs and wants this to be something which ought to be a flashpoint now. But the chronology is way off or the substance is way off.

I mean, it goes back to that first point. I imagine (a) this really is an old story and (b) Ostro just didn't notice the dates because (c) he wants it to be recent so assumed it was... it does play perfectly into his character arc in this thread, right?

People want an example to ignite the fire so badly they don't stop to think about whether or not it's capable of keeping the fire burning.

I could quote the rest of Ostro's post. Once you've set the scene in the way he has... used this particular contextualisation... you've got to keep applying it throughout, it doesn't just disappear. And that's why I think we have to see the post as a made up story... even though you could have a proper conversation about the Amendment. In the same way that we could have a proper conversation about sexism in tennis were basically everything different.

Incidentally, still interested to read those links Ostro.

* Which is what happened to my reply to Proctopeo, mashed some keys and it was gone along with my motivation to follow up on those three posts I hoped to get back to... but it had thematic similarities... alternative facts really are alternative facts, not just lies, it's terribly unfortunate that the person who made the phrase famous was, in fact, lying at the time... the phrase would be tremendously useful if only people didn't think it a synonym for lies.

Subjective evaluations of passages of time and non-standardized units of it don't make something made up. But if you must know I was short on time (Actually already late) and didn't check the date, only verifying its authenticity and then running with the post. I sometimes forget the MRM studies history as well as current events, and the source in particular I used is one that tends toward current events but also history on occasion.

It's also irrelevant given that it's an example case which I pointed out is consistent with how the law is still used and applied and there's multiple examples of it. We don't see major campaigns on the issue, and crucially, the typical feminist response to MRAs complaining about child support is to pretend it's about children when as we can clearly see the Bradley amendment was passed under feminist rationales to correct a perceived power imbalance between women and men, and the bradley amendment is the source of a lot of the egregious and repulsive cases of abuse of men due to child support.

In essence, feminist policy and lenses on this issue meant that we have state enforced lack of empathy and consideration for men's well-being, position, or even ability to pay, when a woman requests that state enforced lack of empathy.

As for your request for sources, I cannot show you the lack of a thing. If you want to show me articles now demanding the sexism against men in Tennis be dealt with, then please, go ahead. Please note, I am not discussing the people who want to change tennis rules. I am specifically discussing the people who ran with stories about Tennis being sexist against women and the organizations that began to mobilzie on that basis, since those people tend to claim feminism cares about men too. Show me that they are still mobilized and still producing articles. The presence of other, unrelated folk producing articles about Tennis rather than Sexism In Tennis aren't the thing i'm discussing. The point is to show these people are insincere, and merely gaslighting when they say they care about men too.

As for Bradley, every part of the post is solid and makes sense save for a minor hiccup on time, which is not particularly relevant given that it is merely an example of an ongoing issue and there's plenty of others. I think it's noteworthy that this kind of thing is legitimately the best shot the pro-feminist side have at making a point in the thread, and it's a technicality devoid of actual substantive criticism of the post and the argument it makes. Substantially the point remains the same and its criticism of feminism is still valid.

A man was arrested recently for not paying child support because he was being held hostage in Iraq for five months and it came due during that time, and after he was saved, he was arrested.

That is absolutely fucked up, but I think rather than being a gender issue it more so reflects the rigidity and capriciousness of the law in general, of which there are many examples. A few years ago, a 14 year old human trafficking victim was criminally charged with prostitution. Or you can have a look at how some people spend a year in jail for the most minor misdemeanors just because they can't make bail, or the guy who was arrested because a cop decided the donut sprinkles in his car might be meth.

I think the moral of the story is "fuck the state."

I think ignoring the gendered element here is ignoring sexism frankly. This kind of draconian treatment is reserved for men due to no lobby actively looking out for their interests and rights, and the sentencing bias means that draconian laws will tend toward harming mostly men and not women as much. As an example you've got the policy on child pornography and arrest of boys.

14 year old boy, 14 year old girl. She sends him nudes. He's arrested for possession of child pornography.
14 year old boy, 14 year old girl. He sends her nudes. He's arrested for production of child pornography.

That kind of thing is frequent and systemic in terms of differing treatment of men and women by the law and the enforcement of draconian and fucked up outcomes. A fucked up outcome imposed on a woman generates a national scandal and mobilizes the thousands of lobbies and interest groups dedicated to helping women. No such societal apparatus exists for men, and the gaslighting claims that the one that exists for women "cares about men too" are used to shut down attempts to create one.

[Forsher]

Subjective evaluations of passages of time and non-standardized units of it don't make something made up.

One liners do not make arguments.

But if you must know I was short on time (Actually already late) and didn't check the date, only verifying its authenticity and then running with the post. I sometimes forget the MRM studies history as well as current events, and the source in particular I used is one that tends toward current events but also history on occasion.

This is a made up story... your language creates the entirely false impression that I never once entertained the idea that this happened. In reality, of course, I very specifically stated that this is probably what happened.

It's also irrelevant given that it's an example case which I pointed out is consistent with how the law is still used and applied and there's multiple examples of it. We don't see major campaigns on the issue, and crucially, the typical feminist response to MRAs complaining about child support is to pretend it's about children when as we can clearly see the Bradley amendment was passed under feminist rationales to correct a perceived power imbalance between women and men, and the bradley amendment is the source of a lot of the egregious and repulsive cases of abuse of men due to child support.

It was explained to you why it is relevant. Either address those reasons or ignore the post entirely, don't restate the implicit case with more words.

In essence, feminist policy and lenses on this issue meant that we have state enforced lack of empathy and consideration for men's well-being, position, or even ability to pay, when a woman requests that state enforced lack of empathy.

As for your request for sources, I cannot show you the lack of a thing.

wut

Did you, or did you not, read "that some papers are pointing out that feminist lobbyists and journalists lied constantly and to everyone when they said Umpires discriminate against women"

If you want to show me articles now demanding the sexism against men in Tennis be dealt with, then please, go ahead. Please note, I am not discussing the people who want to change tennis rules. I am specifically discussing the people who ran with stories about Tennis being sexist against women and the organizations that began to mobilzie on that basis, since those people tend to claim feminism cares about men too. Show me that they are still mobilized and still producing articles. The presence of other, unrelated folk producing articles about Tennis rather than Sexism In Tennis aren't the thing i'm discussing. The point is to show these people are insincere, and merely gaslighting when they say they care about men too.

Either you didn't stop to read what I wrote or you're gaslighting us... since I can't see any reason to try the latter, it must be the former. Remarkably, Ostro, people are interested in your foundations.

As for Bradley, every part of the post is solid and makes sense save for a minor hiccup on time, which is not particularly relevant given that it is merely an example of an ongoing issue and there's plenty of others.

Yes, you said. But it does matter for the reasons I explained before. If you feel those are bad or poorly explained reasons, talk about them. Your conclusion is not in question.

I think it's noteworthy that this kind of thing is legitimately the best shot the pro-feminist side have at making a point in the thread, and it's a technicality devoid of actual substantive criticism of the post and the argument it makes. Substantially the point remains the same and its criticism of feminism is still valid.

How arguments are constructed means basically everything Ostro. It is interesting you, supposedly, wish to hold Feminism to this standard... condemning at every possible instance their gaslighting and constantly taking a rhetorical structure shared with the Nazis to extraordinary places... but when it is suggested that your own approach is, in fact, exactly the same (you Nazi) it becomes "a technicality devoid of actual substantive criticism"... on which point I notice you have not adjusted your post to reflect the timing.

It should also be pointed out that I am clearly not trying to talk about the substantive point. Observe how I do not respond to Ostro but, instead, to Des-Bal and Albrenia and literally do nothing other than talk about what we might call rhetorical strategy.

[Chestaan]

Student pours bleach and water on men’s crotches to stop them manspreading

So, uhhh, have you guys seen this?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Student pours bleach and water on men’s crotches to stop them manspreading

So, uhhh, have you guys seen this?

Saw that, she is a twat.

[Tahar Joblis]

Student pours bleach and water on men’s crotches to stop them manspreading

So, uhhh, have you guys seen this?

Sounds like the sort of thing that leads to criminal charges.

[Des-Bal]

Student pours bleach and water on men’s crotches to stop them manspreading

So, uhhh, have you guys seen this?

Okay since the link doesn't say "student paralyzed after pouring bleach and water on men's crotches" I'm going to assume it was a woman exercising some of that good old fashioned privilege.

And called it.

[Ostroeuropa]

The ratio of water to bleach she used is also not deemed safe for contact with human skin and she may have caused minor damage to them, their crotches, genitals and so on. It was watered down half the amount it would need to be to be deemed safe, and her statement indicates she is aware it is not a safe mixture as she references how much stronger it is than "The mixture which women use to wash things" (Notably her sexist worldview shines through in this statement too and indicates the type of person she is.).

I doubt she'll face charges, but she should.

[Chestaan]

Yeah as one of my mates said when I showed him, he said a better title would have been "Woman Assaults Men"

[Costa Fierro]

So Reddit has quarantined /r/TheRedPill. As opposed to the standard "they have shocking material, are you brave enough to enter?" sign, they've also included a link to the "Stony Brook University's Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities" for more information on what they call white knighting "positive masculinity". And who do we find on the board of directors?

Eve Ensler, of Vagina Monologues fame.

Carol Gilligan, creator of "the ethics of care", by promoting female morality as being better than male morality.

Gloria Steinem, need I say more?

Naomi Wolf, ditto.

So, feminists and non-feminists: what do we think of this attempt at reeducation?

[Galloism]

So Reddit has quarantined /r/TheRedPill. As opposed to the standard "they have shocking material, are you brave enough to enter?" sign, they've also included a link to the "Stony Brook University's Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities" for more information on what they call white knighting "positive masculinity". And who do we find on the board of directors?

Eve Ensler, of Vagina Monologues fame.

Carol Gilligan, creator of "the ethics of care", by promoting female morality as being better than male morality.

Gloria Steinem, need I say more?

Naomi Wolf, ditto.

So, feminists and non-feminists: what do we think of this attempt at reeducation?

TRP is a pretty awful place.

Trying to redirect people to another awful place that’s 100% diametrically opposed to the first awful place would not appear to be the right action.

[Proctopeo]

So Reddit has quarantined /r/TheRedPill. As opposed to the standard "they have shocking material, are you brave enough to enter?" sign, they've also included a link to the "Stony Brook University's Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities" for more information on what they call white knighting "positive masculinity". And who do we find on the board of directors?

Eve Ensler, of Vagina Monologues fame.

Carol Gilligan, creator of "the ethics of care", by promoting female morality as being better than male morality.

Gloria Steinem, need I say more?

Naomi Wolf, ditto.

So, feminists and non-feminists: what do we think of this attempt at reeducation?

While, given Reddit's recent expansion of their quarantine policy, it's not surprising that TRP got the treatment, the choice of words (and link) associated with the quarantine are just so terrible.

[Costa Fierro]

TRP is a pretty awful place.

TRP is basically just filled with high school kids boasting that they've finally got laid and snake oil salesmen. Compared to many other places on Reddit, TRP isn't shit by any metric.

Trying to redirect people to another awful place that’s 100% diametrically opposed to the first awful place would not appear to be the right action.

It's Reddit. The people that run the place aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.