Feminism, misogyny, and accusations of misogyny

Foxhound38

It seems this Miley Cyrus saga has thrown up a few questions...

A friend of mine essentially accused her in social media of making a tit of herself at that awards show during the week (google it if you're unfamiliar with it) and acting inappropriately given that there was children in the audience and at home watching. Having then looked at the performance, I found myself largely agreeing with him - it was totally wide of the mark and inappropriate.

I checked back on his post a few hours later - and quite a few left-wing feminist activists that he knew were up in absolute arms about what he said. They accused him of "slut-shaming" and misogyny. He explained that he felt that was nonsense because he would also be the first person to call a lad who undergone such shenanigans in front of kids a gob****e and a tit, and pointed out that had he done so the feminist brigade would be nowhere to be found accusing him of misandry.

Now I know this lad isn't sexist - in fact he spent much of his time in college marching and campaigning for various womens rights issues (which is how he knows these feminists). I also have no reason to doubt that he would call any man who performed like that in front of kids (rightly) a tit and a gob****e, which is all he said about Miley Cyrus either.

I was uncomfortable reading the feminists take on this and reaction to be honest. It seemed to me that they were not reading what he was saying, just throwing the sexism card at him because he dared criticize a woman. That would be fine, but these same feminists also make many a blanket criticism of men in their discourse. So what's the story here? Is it a case of "all men are b*stards but all women need defending"? That's the most asinine (and sexist) bull I've ever heard in my life...

The reason I bring this up is because it seems to be a fairly common stance amongst radical feminists. What's the story here?

For Forks Sake

Yes.
No.
Maybe.
Atari Jaguar.

That's everything covered you misogynist pig. Now for important questions of the day; daddy or chips?

1ZRed

Why are you asking me? I was too busy looking at the Smith's reaction to it

http://newsbite.it/public/images/articles/will-smith-family-vmas-1.jpg


Will looks a bit intrigued

Sunglasses Ron

It actually is not all that shocking, is it? The performance I mean, I've seen a lot more boundary pushing.

Cyrus seems to have about three brain cells of which two are on the blink. A few weeks back I read something about her and her fiance getting relationship counselling.

What is she, 19 or so? Relationship counselling? Marriage? Jesus ****ing wept.

hatrickpatrick

I haven't seen any slut shaming of Miley Cyrus or criticising the performance in a sexual manner, it's all simply been "Wow, that was a bizarre, not entertaining and badly written act". I didn't find it crap because of the "shock" or anything, just that it was incomprehensible and badly acted.

Of course, there are those radicals who believe any criticism of a member of <insert sub-group here> amounts to general hatred of <insert sub-group here>; those people are muppets and can be safely ignored.

old hippy

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It actually is not all that shocking, is it? The performance I mean, I've seen a lot more boundary pushing.

Cyrus seems to have about three brain cells of which two are on the blink. A few weeks back I read something about her and her fiance getting relationship counselling.

What is she, 19 or so? Relationship counselling? Marriage? Jesus ****ing wept.

I think everyone should be able to avail of such services, no matter what age. Just because she's young, doesn't make any of her difficulties any less real, for her at any rate.

kneemos

Don't they all take their clothes off sooner or later?

My name is URL

She made more of an ass than a tit of herself.. a soggy, horrible ass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UUD3zyu7Ek

Femme_Fatale

She's just continuing the attention-seeking tradition of the former child-star or former squeaky-clean starlet ensuring to let everyone know that they're not so innocent anymore!!! (See: Spears, Aguilera, Perry, Lohan). Nothing "slut-shaming" about noting that.

Sunglasses Ron

old hippy wrote: »

I think everyone should be able to avail of such services, no matter what age. Just because she's young, doesn't make any of her difficulties any less real, for her at any rate.

This is not 50 years ago when people had less opportunities to live a more interesting life. All of the very few people I have known to consider marriage this early have been goons of the highest order.

Karl Stein

Why am I reading this?

old hippy

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

This is not 50 years ago when people had less opportunities to live a more interesting life. All of the very few people I have known to consider marriage this early have been goons of the highest order.

You need to move in different circles, in that case.

Maybe they really want to get married?

joseph brand

There's no such thing as bad publicity. Is anyone really surprised any more?

Miley is keeping her face all over the media and the money will roll in.

o1s1n

old hippy wrote: »

You need to move in different circles, in that case.

Maybe they really want to get married?

You really need to change your name to devil's advocate, seriously :pac:

Regarding the OP, any woman who calls that slut shaming is an absolute moron and should be ignored.

I really want to support feminist ideologies, but the modern iteration I see spewing this kind of drivel all over the internet does them far more harm than good.

Sunglasses Ron

old hippy wrote: »

You need to move in different circles, in that case.

Maybe they really want to get married?

How should I phrase this. Most people who think getting married in ones late teens is a good idea tend not to be the sharpest tools in the drawer.

The chances of a regular couplen staying together after marrying at this age would be slim.

The chances of a celebrity couple, non existent. It takes a certain type of stupid to think this is a good move. I seem to recall Bob Geldof's daughter of about the same age saying she wasn't sure her marriage would even last, BEFORE she got married and swiftly divorced.

runawaybishop

1ZRed wrote: »

Why are you asking me? I was too busy looking at the Smith's reaction to it

http://newsbite.it/public/images/articles/will-smith-family-vmas-1.jpg


Will looks a bit intrigued

Why does his son always look so worried, did he get botox?

Foxhound38

Yeah, I'm actually sympathetic to the feminist cause myself, but this sort of extremist bull is mental and doing them more harm than good.

He has been "invited" to take himself off and take a "Gender Studies" class several times in the thread. What exaclty goes on in these classes? Do you come out of them thinking all men are bastards and utterly unable to criticize any woman for any reason?

hatrickpatrick

o1s1n wrote: »

You really need to change your name to devil's advocate, seriously :pac:

Regarding the OP, any woman who calls that slut shaming is an absolute moron and should be ignored.

I really want to support feminist ideologies, but the modern iteration I see spewing this kind of drivel all over the internet does them far more harm than good.

Little known backstory: There's an extremely influential community of extremely radical and crackpot "social justice"* warriors on the discussion website Reddit known as SRS (Sh!tRedditSays), and they are largely responsible for the recent moving of these radical ideas into the mainstream.

Their entire belief system can effectively be summed up as follows: "I have a human right never to have my feelings hurt by anything, and this trumps everyone else's right to freedom of speech". In other words, anything they find in any way offensive, they will launch an incredibly vitriolic and relentless campaign of smears and harassment until either their target shuts up or is forced to from abandonment of advertising sponsorship and so on.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Check them out on Reddit and you'll see very quickly that they can't last; sooner or later they always alienate their own members and will probably go into a major decline shortly enough.

*Social justice in this case is in fact a radical "social commie" ideal in which instead of trying to bring everyone up to the highest level, they want to bring everyone down to the lowest, and that's their concept of equality. So for instance it doesn't involve making women more free, but stripping rights away from men and women until both are equally miserable.

hatrickpatrick

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Yeah, I'm actually sympathetic to the feminist cause myself, but this sort of extremist bull is mental and doing them more harm than good.

He has been "invited" to take himself off and take a "Gender Studies" class several times in the thread. What exaclty goes on in these classes? Do you come out of them thinking all men are bastards and utterly unable to criticize any woman for any reason?

Friend of mine did one of these in the States out of sheer boredom and curiosity, she left in disgust after two classes when the professor was talking about how women should have guys "whipped" by using their sexuality as a bargaining counter in relationships :rolleyes:

And this is exactly what I mean, they manage to piss off women even more than they piss off men so that they're left with only the most radical crazies, and then they ban anyone who is not there to "circlejerk" (essentially, anyone who ever raises disagreements or checks/balances on what's being proposed), with the end result that the radicals get more radicalised and any moderates are kicked out.

Of course, this is one girl's experience, I'm sure there are gender studies courses which are genuinely well meaning and sincere, but as we all know, it only takes a tiny number of radical eejits to cause a sh!tstorm of epic proportions.

I Heart Internet

I wasn't shocked by Miley's performance (who is these days, a glance at the Daily Mail website will show you what she regularly gets up to) just bemused.

I think she was playing for the TV and other media rather than actually, genuinely trying to entertain the people who were actually stood there watching her.

I was bemused to see her behaving so provocatively in front of an audience of mainly teenage girls with camera phones. They were there to be entertained and to see someone famous (anyone will do) and she gives them a strip show.

It just seemed weird.

That said, I think Miley is HOT. I'm delighted to see her in as few clothes as she wants. Just think she probably needs to think through how she approaches her performances/audiences better........or not and keep getting MASSIVE media exposure - her choice.

Links234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Little known backstory: There's an extremely influential community of extremely radical and crackpot "social justice"* warriors on the discussion website Reddit known as SRS (Sh!tRedditSays), and they are largely responsible for the recent moving of these radical ideas into the mainstream.

I think you're giving too much credit to a bunch of gasbags who like to abuse people under the guise of "social justice"

now check your privilege, sh*tlord!

hatrickpatrick

Links234 wrote: »

I think you're giving too much credit to a bunch of gasbags who like to abuse people under the guise of "social justice"

now check your privilege, sh*tlord!

Well the sad thing is, they have actually managed to mount several successful campaigns to stifle reasonable discussion, a recent example being Dr. Phil's attempt to open a discussion about drunk sex, he was immediately flooded with angry SRSters accusing him of being a "Rape enabler" to the point where he deleted the tweet to spare himself the onslaught of vitriol he was receiving.

Now of course, there are those who believe that all drunk sex is automatically rape and those who don't, the point is, what justification is there for saying we can't even have a discussion about it without harassment and threats towards he or she who simply raises it as a topic of conversation?

One does not simply achieve anything by silencing critics instead of engaging in active debate with them.

My name is URL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Little known backstory: There's an extremely influential community of extremely radical and crackpot "social justice"* warriors on the discussion website Reddit known as SRS (Sh!tRedditSays), and they are largely responsible for the recent moving of these radical ideas into the mainstream.

To be fair, it's a two way street on Reddit.. and it leads to headaches in both directions.

There's dozens of factions (for want of a better word), warring pointlessly over gender issues. r/mensrights is less about actual men's rights and more about attacking anything purportedly 'feminist'.

hatrickpatrick

My name is URL wrote: »

To be fair, it's a two way street on Reddit.. and it leads to headaches in both directions.

There's dozens of factions (for want of a better word), warring pointlessly over gender issues. r/mensrights is less about actual men's rights and more about attacking anything purportedly 'feminist'.

I'm a complete noob to the entire reddit experience, I was linked directly to SRS from 4chan so as you can imagine, so far I've probably seen only one side of a particularly piss-soaked coin

newport2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well the sad thing is, they have actually managed to mount several successful campaigns to stifle reasonable discussion, a recent example being Dr. Phil's attempt to open a discussion about drunk sex, he was immediately flooded with angry SRSters accusing him of being a "Rape enabler" to the point where he deleted the tweet to spare himself the onslaught of vitriol he was receiving.

Now of course, there are those who believe that all drunk sex is automatically rape and those who don't, the point is, what justification is there for saying we can't even have a discussion about it without harassment and threats towards he or she who simply raises it as a topic of conversation?

One does not simply achieve anything by silencing critics instead of engaging in active debate with them.

Unfortunately, this has been a very successful tactic of a lot of interest groups in recent years. By silencing their debate, the impression that they are right - without question - is created and their opinions often end up being treated as facts.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” - voltaire

Links234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One does not simply achieve anything by silencing critics instead of engaging in active debate with them.

You've got it wrong though, you assume they're trying to achieve anything. Most of those "social justice" types are really just using that as a front to act badly and insult people

Muise...

am I the only one who finds the whole thing hilarious? It wasn't your typical po-faced ho routine - Smiley gave a cheeky Betty Boop-style turn, the like of which I haven't seen since the neighbour's cat was in heat. Then the internet goes all righteous spazz with the slut-shaming and moral shriekery.

Well played Cyrus, epic trolling!

Femme_Fatale

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

She's just continuing the attention-seeking tradition of the former child-star or former squeaky-clean starlet ensuring to let everyone know that they're not so innocent anymore!!! (See: Spears, Aguilera, Perry, Lohan). Nothing "slut-shaming" about noting that.

The five ages of female stars...

Cute baby grows into amusingly precocious child -
Innocent teen struggling with identity and coming to terms with adulthood -
Shagadelic 20 -something sex kitten finds her inner vixen -
Meets Mr. Right and becomes soccer mom -
Driving Miss Daisy

Jonny Blaze

The onion called this back in 2008..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOgj2etJs3Y&feature=player_embedded

Weirdly accurate.

SeventySix

Foxhound38 wrote: »

It seems this Miley Cyrus saga has thrown up a few questions...

A friend of mine essentially accused her in social media of making a tit of herself at that awards show during the week (google it if you're unfamiliar with it) and acting inappropriately given that there was children in the audience and at home watching. Having then looked at the performance, I found myself largely agreeing with him - it was totally wide of the mark and inappropriate.

I checked back on his post a few hours later - and quite a few left-wing feminist activists that he knew were up in absolute arms about what he said. They accused him of "slut-shaming" and misogyny. He explained that he felt that was nonsense because he would also be the first person to call a lad who undergone such shenanigans in front of kids a gob****e and a tit, and pointed out that had he done so the feminist brigade would be nowhere to be found accusing him of misandry.

Now I know this lad isn't sexist - in fact he spent much of his time in college marching and campaigning for various womens rights issues (which is how he knows these feminists). I also have no reason to doubt that he would call any man who performed like that in front of kids (rightly) a tit and a gob****e, which is all he said about Miley Cyrus either.

I was uncomfortable reading the feminists take on this and reaction to be honest. It seemed to me that they were not reading what he was saying, just throwing the sexism card at him because he dared criticize a woman. That would be fine, but these same feminists also make many a blanket criticism of men in their discourse. So what's the story here? Is it a case of "all men are b*stards but all women need defending"? That's the most asinine (and sexist) bull I've ever heard in my life...

The reason I bring this up is because it seems to be a fairly common stance amongst radical feminists. What's the story here?

Did he call out Robin Thicke 'a tit and a gob****e' for being involved in the whole thing? He is a man and he was also participiating in the 'inappropriate' behaviour in front of kids?

Jonny Blaze

SeventySix wrote: »

Did he call out Robin Thicke 'a tit and a gob****e' for being involved in the whole thing? He is a man and he was also participiating in the 'inappropriate' behaviour in front of kids?

Albeit a fully clothed man..

SeventySix

So it was only her outfit that was the problem. It was skimpy sure, but hardly scandalous?

dr.bollocko

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm a complete noob to the entire reddit experience, I was linked directly to SRS from 4chan so as you can imagine, so far I've probably seen only one side of a particularly piss-soaked coin

Complaining about SRS when linked from a very racist site would seem a bit one-sided to the ****redditsays people.


The point of that community is to point out horrible racist / sexist crap people say on reddit that gets upvoted.

Foxhound38

SeventySix wrote: »

Did he call out Robin Thicke 'a tit and a gob****e' for being involved in the whole thing? He is a man and he was also participiating in the 'inappropriate' behaviour in front of kids?

He did as a matter of fact - he actually pointed out the wierd juxtoposition of his rapish lyrics to her grinding her arse up against him. She was the bigger of the two eejits in this case though

Jonny Blaze

So it was only her outfit that was the problem. It was skimpy sure, but hardly scandalous?

I don't know.. the majority of popular music is inappropriate for kids.

The outfit was a bit much alright, but par for the course for the VMA's.

Pretending to fingerbang yourself with a giant foam hand while wearing it is something else though isn't it?

o1s1n

SeventySix wrote: »

Did he call out Robin Thicke 'a tit and a gob****e' for being involved in the whole thing? He is a man and he was also participiating in the 'inappropriate' behaviour in front of kids?

SeventySix wrote: »

So it was only her outfit that was the problem. It was skimpy sure, but hardly scandalous?

Both of them are muppets, she was by far the bigger muppet. That's all there is to it. Stop trying to make it a gender issue.

Tiddlypeeps

SeventySix wrote: »

Did he call out Robin Thicke 'a tit and a gob****e' for being involved in the whole thing? He is a man and he was also participiating in the 'inappropriate' behaviour in front of kids?

He is a tit, but he wasn't the one jiggling around the stage with his ass hanging out of his shorts acting like a gobsh*te. He just walked around the stage singing his song.

He wasn't really the protagonist of the show, the spotlight was well and truly on Miley so it's not unsurprising that she is the main focus of any discussion about it.

munchkin_utd

Jonny Blaze wrote: »

I don't know.. the majority of popular music is inappropriate for kids.

The outfit was a bit much alright, but par for the course for the VMA's.

Pretending to fingerbang yourself with a giant foam hand while wearing it is something else though isn't it?

I have to congratulate muppets like her for simulating sex live on tv as this type of "pushing boundaries" (toward possibly eventually staging a proper live orgy on stage or the likes - maybe behind a screen or something for a bit of fake modesty) will only eventually lead to some sort of censorship guidelines I feel.

If stars want to (edit: explore their kinky side in private/ for an adult audience and) make a porno then grand.

But I dont want my 2year old son dry riding my 3 year old daugher trying to emulate some idiot on tv on a show which should be family viewing, or at least along those lines.

SeventySix

o1s1n wrote: »

Both of them are muppets, she was by far the bigger muppet. That's all there is to it. Stop trying to make it a gender issue.

I didnt make it a gender issue, I asked for clarification. I asked if this guy had criticism for Robin Thicke too, as the OP said his friend would be the first guy to call out a man for acting like a gobs***e. The friend did, so fair enough.

I think it was a horrible performance from all of them, and they all should be embarrassed by it. They were all involved so I dont feel one is worse than the others. I think critising her with out any criticism for the other acts in the performance is a bit of a double standard.

Tiddlypeeps

munchkin_utd wrote: »

If stars want to make a porno then grand.
But I dont want my 2year old son dry riding my 3 year old daugher trying to emulate some idiot on tv.

So why do you let your 2 and 3 year old watch stuff like that on tv

SeventySix wrote: »

I didnt make it a gender issue, I asked for clarification. I asked if this guy had criticism for Robin Thicke too, as the OP said his friend would be the first guy to call out a man for acting like a gobs***e. The friend did, so fair enough.

I think it was a horrible performance from all of them, and they all should be embarrassed by it. They were all involved so I dont feel one is worse than the others. I think critising her with out any criticism for the other acts in the performance is a bit of a double standard.

How is it a double standard? One acted like a much bigger gobsh*te than the other.

Crooked Jack

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Yeah, I'm actually sympathetic to the feminist cause myself, but this sort of extremist bull is mental and doing them more harm than good.

He has been "invited" to take himself off and take a "Gender Studies" class several times in the thread. What exaclty goes on in these classes? Do you come out of them thinking all men are bastards and utterly unable to criticize any woman for any reason?

Sadly, for some, feminism has come to mean men-hating, which runs contrary to the actual goals of real feminism. I have great respect for genuine feminists and a number of my heroes or people I would look up to would be feminist. Hell, I'd be feminist myself in that regard but these sort of clowns get everybody who calls themselves feminist labeled as bitter auld whingin bat.

munchkin_utd

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

So why do you let your 2 and 3 year old watch stuff like that on tv

á music awards cermony with expensive stage shows really shouldnt be some sort of fake porno is simply my point and should be family viewing .

Bananatop

Surely we're in an age when a few whiny bats do not a whole group tarnish? Would it be alright to say a few men rape, therefore all men are tarnished? I don't think it would, it's quite a dangerous thing to do to label a group of people just because of a few outlier opinions/actions. It creates an atmosphere of mistrust and fear, all because of the actions of a few. Probably the outcome they wanted in the first place.

Jaxxy

At the risk of getting pounced on here, I don't think it was all that bad. Yeah, Miley is a bit of a dope and Robin Thicke's lyrics have always been highly sexual, but playing about with a foam finger and shaking her arse isn't going to traumatise a stadium full of teens. Teenage boys hanging around at the corner shop at the end of the road after school engage in much more salacious actions than that.

I think perhaps it would be more useful to educate young teens rather than try to hide all matters of sexuality from them.

SeventySix

munchkin_utd wrote: »

á music awards cermony with expensive stage shows really shouldnt be some sort of fake porno is simply my point and should be family viewing .

Calling it a fake porno is a touch hysterical in fairness. It was crude for sure but she was mostly dressed, and it wasnt much more graphic than madonna and britney years ago with the canes!

Tiddlypeeps

munchkin_utd wrote: »

á music awards cermony with expensive stage shows really shouldnt be some sort of fake porno is simply my point and should be family viewing .

But it's not, this sort of crap goes on at the VMA's all the time, so why let them watch it?

If you are worried about them emulating the behaviour they see then the solution seems kind of simple to me. I guess I'm just not seeing your issue.

Muise...

munchkin_utd wrote: »

á music awards cermony with expensive stage shows really shouldnt be some sort of fake porno is simply my point and should be family viewing .

It shouldn't necessarily be family viewing - that's only been the case since music has been manufactured to appeal to children, and has led to the absurd situation where a singer or actor has to behave as a "role model" even when their contract with Disney et al is up, and when the only role models should be the parents, teachers, older siblings, people in a child's immediate environment, anyway.

RDM_83 again

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Complaining about SRS when linked from a very racist site would seem a bit one-sided to the ****redditsays people.


The point of that community is to point out horrible racist / sexist crap people say on reddit that gets upvoted.

Can you really say 4Chan is a really racist site? Allowing complete freedom of speech ain't the same thing.
It seems that though being extremely liberal is the fashionable (internet) view these days, you can't be that and hold a "no free speech for facists" line.

ps I think its fair enough to want to restrict highly offensive speech myself, but if you do don't pretend that your any different to people 40/50 years ago, its just that the consensus view to be enforced has shifted.

o1s1n

SeventySix wrote: »

I think it was a horrible performance from all of them, and they all should be embarrassed by it. They were all involved so I dont feel one is worse than the others. I think critising her with out any criticism for the other acts in the performance is a bit of a double standard.

Yep, they should all be embarrassed by it.

However, that doesn't mean people can't aim their criticism to you know, the person who made an ass out of themselves far above and beyond anyone else.

That's not a double standard, it's fairly straight forward.

old hippy

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

How should I phrase this. Most people who think getting married in ones late teens is a good idea tend not to be the sharpest tools in the drawer.

The chances of a regular couplen staying together after marrying at this age would be slim.

The chances of a celebrity couple, non existent. It takes a certain type of stupid to think this is a good move. I seem to recall Bob Geldof's daughter of about the same age saying she wasn't sure her marriage would even last, BEFORE she got married and swiftly divorced.

Maybe it's a good thing that this particular couple are going for counselling, then?

dr.bollocko

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Can you really say 4Chan is a really racist site? Allowing complete freedom of speech ain't the same thing.
It seems that though being extremely liberal is the fashionable (internet) view these days, you can't be that and hold a "no free speech for facists" line.

ps I think its fair enough to want to restrict highly offensive speech myself, but if you do don't pretend that your any different to people 40/50 years ago, its just that the consensus view to be enforced has shifted.

I could buy the argument that free speech is powerful and 4chan is noble if they didn't use the anonymity and free speech to make n-word jokes all day and night.