I need feminism because...

KomradeBishop

If the criticism of feminists is restricted to newspapers, then the criticism is better placed with the newspapers, not with feminists - why are the newspapers selecting for extremists/controversy? It sells...

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

The point is that whoever those people are (I'm not familiar with either), they don't speak for me so I refuse to be obligated to denounce them (and where would I do that that would be sufficiently public to silence those arguments?) any more than any man should feel obliged to conspicuously denounce an extremist woman-hating MRA who doesn't speak for him. I refuse to be made defensive by something alien to me.

Fair point. I'm just trying to say that this is why a lot of people feel that feminism is anti-men. Of course, the people I mentioned don't speak for all feminists but I think that fact has been lost somewhere.

Candie wrote: »

If people subconsciously assume one nutjob speaks for an entire broad church and that anyone who isn't published in opposition to that nutjob is a tacit supporter, then they have pretty narrow minds.

That's a significant part of the population, unfortunately.

Candie wrote: »

With that, this thread is in danger of unintentionally becoming another round-and-round, and it's not what it's for. I'm not going to do here what I refuse to engage in elsewhere and justify myself in opposition to someone elses actions or words.

Fair enough. It's worth discussing but this isn't the thread for it.

eviltwin

Because I'm listening to 4fm at the moment talking about Ched Evens and the dj and a lot of the callers seem to think drunk women can't be raped :mad:

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

Because I'm listening to 4fm at the moment talking about Ched Evens and the dj and a lot of the callers seem to think drunk women can't be raped :mad:

Can consent? or can't be raped?

If it's the latter I share your anger.

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

Can consent? or can't be raped?

If it's the latter I share your anger.

Saying that its a woman responsibility to take care of herself so she shouldn't get drunk.

eviltwin

Candie wrote: »

The point is that whoever those people are (I'm not familiar with either), they don't speak for me so I refuse to be obligated to denounce them (and where would I do that that would be sufficiently public to silence those arguments?) any more than any man should feel obliged to conspicuously denounce an extremist woman-hating MRA who doesn't speak for him. I refuse to be made defensive by something alien to me.

If people subconsciously assume one nutjob speaks for an entire broad church and that anyone who isn't published in opposition to that nutjob is a tacit supporter, then they have pretty narrow minds.

With that, this thread is in danger of unintentionally becoming another round-and-round, and it's not what it's for. I'm not going to do here what I refuse to engage in elsewhere and justify myself in opposition to someone elses actions or words.

To quote Lewis Law "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism"

You only have to read the replies to any debate on feminism to know its still needed.

Links234

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I think that a lot of men are seriously threatened by the changing status quo and fear that they won't measure up on an equal playing field.

In response to gamergate, there's the fear that the evil feminist boogeywomen are coming to take their games away. Anita Sarkeesian is nothing more than Jack Thompson 2.0 to their eyes, and while Thompson wanted all violent games banned (if you don't know who he is, he's the disbarred attorney who famously filed loads of lawsuits against game developers, including the makers of GTA) they fear Sarkeesian with her fairly shallow criticism is gunning for everything she deems as sexist in games including poor innocent old Super Mario.

Stop right there you might think, isn't Anita Sarkeesian just pointing out sexism and saying "hey, gaming industry, you can do better than this"? That's not the same as banning anything!

But surprisingly, trying to effect positive change to how the gaming industry depicts women IS the same as banning things to some people. I had a very telling comment from a friend on facebook, who said that yes, it IS one and the same. That saying there is sexism in gaming is the same as wanting to ban it Jack Thompson style, because both are trying to change gaming. So from the perspective that any change at all is going to be negative, you've got people worked up into a frenzy about how their favourite hobby and their passion is going to be taken away from them.

This of course isn't the case, because over the years there's been a huge change in the demographic of people who play games, with reportedly about half of gamers are women nowadays. So it's understandable that women who are playing games might want to say hey, we're part of the audience too, maybe some games should reflect that?

But the problem is, some male gamers think that catering to anyone other than them is a slight or an attack. Don't think that's the case? A couple of years back, someone complained to Bioware for ignoring it's main demographic: the straight male gamer. Let the enormity of that idea sink in for a second.

They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

That right there is the attitude and viewpoint that's at play here, "things should be tailored exactly to fit what *I* like and **** everyone else!" This narcissistic idea that if they are not the sole audience for something, then gaming is being destoyed! That's why they're afraid things are being taken from them, because to them unless it suits their tastes it's as bad as everything being banned. And they view anyone who isn't them as outsiders, "fake geek girls" and such, interlopers trying to wreck gaming instead of actually being part of the gamer demographic. To them it's not the audience calling for change from within, it's the outsiders, the evil feminists coming in and attacking.

Just take a look at this, there was someone who worked for Bioware who submitted a glowing review a while back, EA says well he didn't do anything wrong. Big woop. Zoe Quinn allegedly slept with a journalist for a positive review that never even existed in the first place, oh no! We'll reign down fire and brimstone on you, grrr arrg! What's the difference? The former is one of the guys, so no harm done, but Zoe Quinn is an evil interloper feminist here to destroy!

Yeah, don't forget, #gamergate is about journalistic ethics and integrity. :rolleyes:

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

To quote Lewis Law "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism"

You only have to read the replies to any debate on feminism to know its still needed.

Is that such a good law though?

One could take a radical position on anything and justify it purely through reactionary comments...

Lemming

eviltwin wrote: »

To quote Lewis Law "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism"

You only have to read the replies to any debate on feminism to know its still needed.

That's a strawman argument. What was the context, content, and thrust of any given article? Those points will* dictate how any given article is received regardless of topic.

To be frank, the internet has given village idiots everywhere the power of audience, willing or not. That means some awfully misandrous sh*te gets written at times. That means some awfully misogynistic sh*te gets written at times. And in between, the trolls get bored and want to play ... Trying to boil it (whatever it is) down to "this is why <insert-ism here> is needed" is a somewhat opportunistic and dishonest argument to make.

At the end of the day, if you attack someone, don't be surprised if they turn around and lay you on the proverbial floor for being an asshat. That goes both ways as both genders have shown themselves perfectly capable of being absolutely sexist f*ckwits.

* I say "will" but we all know there's idiots everywhere who are professional "insultees" and will jump up and down at the drop of a hat out of either dogmatic belief or for kicks.

Lyaiera

To those of you saying, "Well if you write a ridiculous article, you're going to get a ridiculous response." Note that the axiom specifies reading the comments on "any" feminist article. Which I find holds to be true.

Also, for examples of well known feminists calling out the people on the fringes... Paris Lees article is one good example. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/paris-lees-terf-war-twitter-radical-feminists-088

Paris Lees wrote:

Unless you’re a ****ing loser, you probably haven’t been following the ongoing “war” between a few transgender activists and some so-called radical feminists. They’ve done their best to suck me into their collective madness recently, but I’m not playing ball. Let me fill you in. First up we have TERFs, short for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”. Basically, they’re full-on internet weirdos hell-bent on telling trans women that we’re not "real" women. They want to stop us using female loos, going to ****ty music festivals and, erm, accessing healthcare. I know, right? Throw a few obsessive trans folk into the mix, and a handful of privileged white feminists with nothing better to talk about and, well, you’ve got yourself the perfect pointless ****storm.

Lemming

Lyaiera wrote: »

To those of you saying, "Well if you write a ridiculous article, you're going to get a ridiculous response." Note that the axiom specifies reading the comments on "any" feminist article. Which I find holds to be true.

And equally, offering blanket defense of all/any articles because they are penned by feminists is foolish, rather than on merit of what said article says. To qualify what I've just said; the comment I originally posted against gave tacit defense to any and all feminist content regardless of its content. Why? Because it said that any negative response given regardless of the content responsible is justification for the existence of feminism. Maybe that's not what was meant, but that's what was written.

Lyaiera

Lemming wrote: »

And equally, offering blanket defense of all/any articles because they are penned by feminists is foolish, rather than on merit of what said article says. To qualify what I've just said; the comment I originally posted against gave tacit defense to any and all feminist content regardless of its content. Why? Because it said that any negative response given regardless of the content responsible is justification for the existence of feminism. Maybe that's not what was meant, but that's what was written.

No. The blanket reaction no matter the feminist content is proof that feminism is needed. This isn't hard. There's no comment on the original articles.

Basically you're using the MRA argument.

Feminist: The ill thought out and hateful reaction to feminism with no regard for the content of the feminism is wrong.
MRA: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BAD FEMINISTS!?!

Shakespeare's Sister

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've noticed that a lot of the Men's Rights stuff seems more concerned with attacking feminism that actually helping men which makes little sense to me.

That carry on with Anita Sarkeesian and similar nonsense almost makes me ashamed to be a gamer. What should have been a catalyst for change and diversity ended up as a tirade of misogyny.

This isn't about causing anyone to feel ashamed due to behaviour by others whom they happen to be in the same "group" as.

That is exactly the problem with the online misogyny that's becoming so apparent - e.g. certain women sneer at men who are short, therefore women are bitches to short men (rather than the reality, which is that certain people are assholes).

This isn't about objecting to criticism of the negative aspects of feminism either.

It's only about the way the negative aspects of feminism are used to attack all women and propagate the lie that women face no gender-related difficulties any more. It's about the endless "If the genders were reversed" them v us toxicity (I know that phrase is sometimes valid but it's overused, and it can be aggressive). It's blaming stuff on feminism that was already set in stone before feminism! It's about blaming anything that is damaging to men on feminism (yes, it's the feminists who glorify female teachers having sex with underage students of course; it's the feminists who are responsible for the lack of paternity leave, as opposed to an embedded notion of father = breadwinner, mother = childminder; it's only feminists who tell men who are experiencing domestic abuse to man up). That's not to say there aren't problems for men caused by hardline feminism, but blaming every single one of them, even those that aren't due to feminism, is just illogical.
The thing about how moderate feminists aren't known to speak out against the hardline ones, I can understand it in one sense (when reasonable people point it out) but it also reminds me of the "You're well able to criticise the IDF but not a word against Hamas", as if focus on Israel's military = automatic support of Hamas's terrorism.
It's just them v us stuff. There's something up if someone cannot bring themselves to concede there are moderate feminists a world away from the radicals.

But the hardline feminism and misandary can be criticised of course - just without the woman-hating. Some sadly find this difficult though.

As for admiration of Paul Elam... frightening.

efb

https://www.facebook.com/ThePostInt/posts/960331487315698

Lemming

Lyaiera wrote: »

Basically you're using the MRA argument.

No. I'm not.

You seem to presume that any negative response is an attack on the gender of the author.

I really shouldn't have to point the next bit out, but given I've had to write the above, I guess I do: that goes without saying that responses that DO attack any given author based on their gender are very much out of order.

Shakespeare's Sister

eviltwin wrote: »

Because I'm listening to 4fm at the moment talking about Ched Evens and the dj and a lot of the callers seem to think drunk women can't be raped :mad:

Ah jeez don't ever listen to phone-in shows if you have the choice not to, they're the aural equivalent of TheJournal.ie comments.
I heard one of those shows recently - they definitely plant trolls; they just HAVE to!

constance tench

Lyaiera wrote: »

To those of you saying, "Well if you write a ridiculous article, you're going to get a ridiculous response." Note that the axiom specifies reading the comments on "any" feminist article. Which I find holds to be true.

Also, for examples of well known feminists calling out the people on the fringes... Paris Lees article is one good example. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/paris-lees-terf-war-twitter-radical-feminists-088

But nobody said that. You are attempting to make an argument for an illogical statement...with a fallacy.


I had never heard of Paris Lees[transgender activist/feminist] till I watched a discussion/debate at the '100 women conference' earlier this year[BBC]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24371433

As far as I remember, she presented herself and her views in a confident, convincing, sincere and balanced manner...[a breath of fresh air!]
She has her reservations.

Feminism, in its current state, bears the 'hallmark' of a movement in crisis [as illustrated in the Vice article],and it now appears to be at a crossroads, but which way to turn...which way?

Paris Lees...

I'm trans and feminist. Most of my female friends in their 20s are feminist too, though few call it that. We see ourselves as equal to others, even if they don't. We struggle to earn the same as our male peers, to be heard as much, to see as much of ourselves in public and political life. But we've progressed, through feminism and the idea that people should be treated equally despite what fate pops between your legs at birth. Who wouldn't support that?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/18/trans-feminist-panel?commentpage=1

Jenneke87

Because in the Metro today: A record amount of rapes being reported in UK and Wales, with a rise of 29%. Frightning......

ivytwine

Jenneke87 wrote: »

Because in the Metro today: A record amount of rapes being reported in UK and Wales, with a rise of 29%. Frightning......

Could be seen as a positive tho- perhaps after the Rotherham and Jimmy Savile cover-ups were finally revealed people feel more comfortable reporting it.

I find it hard to believe that rape shot up almost 30% in a year- more likely more people reporting it.

meeeeh

I think a while ago a drop in procentage of cases that result in convictions (or prosecutions) was reported. I think someone posted a link here. It is very hard to make any sense out of the uk stats atm without having way more information.

Shakespeare's Sister

Well it's gone stratospheric really with the Gamergate and Ched Evans thing hasn't it? (I know these are nuanced cases, but discussion of them is actually possible without misogyny like, it really really is! :eek:)

FFS.

YumCha

Not just this:

But that days after it being posted both the Hollaback org and the woman in the video have received rape and death threats...WTF is wrong with people?

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7088867/catcall-video-hollaback-rape-threats

Also the stories in the comments here - there's some awful depressing ones:
http://www.thejournal.ie/open-thread-street-harassment-1751339-Oct2014/

Randy Shafter

After watching the video Yumcha posted of the woman walking along the street, two main things stuck out to me:

1. While most of the calls were objectifying the woman, others seemed fairly harmless and just people being wishing another person a good day. Of course, people can perceive comments in various ways.

2. There is also a chance that the video was edited in such a way as to omit genuine, friendly and non-threatening responses the woman may have received.

YumCha

WOMEN EVERYWHERE - A RANDOM MAN HAS LIFE ADVICE

Tigger99

Randy Shafter wrote: »

After watching the video Yumcha posted of the woman walking along the street, two main things stuck out to me:

1. While most of the calls were objectifying the woman, others seemed fairly harmless and just people being wishing another person a good day. Of course, people can perceive comments in various ways.

2. There is also a chance that the video was edited in such a way as to omit genuine, friendly and non-threatening responses the woman may have received.

They were wishing another person a good day, but would they do that to a random bloke? I doubt it very much. As for the remarks being fairly harmless, well there is no way of knowing which situation will escalate into something more serious. And listening to that rubbish gets very tiresome and intimidating.

I'm smiling at your suggestion that the video was edited. So what if there were additional happy friendly greetings? Don't make the low level harassment any better. And as for the friendly non threatening greetings you mention? Perhaps that's not the perception of a woman that they are directed at.

I'm sure the drunk guy walking past me on an isolated road at night a while ago thought he was being friendly by stopping and wanting to say hi. I wasn't so delighted.

ivytwine

YumCha wrote: »

WOMEN EVERYWHERE - A RANDOM MAN HAS LIFE ADVICE

Yumcha I love this, made me laugh! Next time a stranger tells me to smile I'm just going to do this to them until they go away.



I'm a divil for trolling creeps when I'm drunk. Was in Coppers last year and two lads kept following me and my friends around and annoying us, I told them to shift each other "it'd be really hot!" Being the unreconstructed troglodytes they were, they scarpered :P

Randy Shafter

Tigger99 wrote: »

They were wishing another person a good day, but would they do that to a random bloke? I doubt it very much. As for the remarks being fairly harmless, well there is no way of knowing which situation will escalate into something more serious. And listening to that rubbish gets very tiresome and intimidating.

I'm smiling at your suggestion that the video was edited. So what if there were additional happy friendly greetings? Don't make the low level harassment any better. And as for the friendly non threatening greetings you mention? Perhaps that's not the perception of a woman that they are directed at.

I'm sure the drunk guy walking past me on an isolated road at night a while ago thought he was being friendly by stopping and wanting to say hi. I wasn't so delighted.

Who knows, they may do that to a random bloke. It might not occur as much however. And if there were friendly greetings, god forbid someone tries to be nice to another human being. Not every comment people get is or has malice behind it. And i never said the positive, friendly greetings made any type of harassment better.

I already said that the woman may not have perceived the friendly greetings as being so friendly. Each person takes things differently. And all she may have heard were the cat-calls etc.

As for the drunk guy stopping to say hi, I can't really comment on that. You may have found it unpleasant and at least he stopped. Some people in that video actively followed the woman.

Carlos Orange

Randy Shafter wrote: »

There is also a chance that the video was edited in such a way as to omit genuine, friendly and non-threatening responses the woman may have received.

A response requires something to respond to. Somebody walking past you doesn't require a response.

Randy Shafter

psinno wrote: »

A response requires something to respond to. Somebody walking past you doesn't require a response.

Perhaps response was the wrong word to use. Comment would have been better. Some people were passing positive comments to the woman, others not so much.

constance tench

psinno wrote: »

A response requires something to respond to. Somebody walking past you doesn't require a response.

What, not even a hello or good day?, everybody heads down and no talking..is that what you would prefer?

In Yumcha's post of the woman walking the street, the woman gave no response and timidly kept on walking... no retorts, no response...OK, granted that is in a country where citizens bear arms...but shouldn't a woman assert herself as much as a man should in an uncomfortable situation?