Feminists 1, lingerie 0

KomradeBishop

drumswan wrote: »

If idiotic feminists didnt keep publishing absurd articles like this one in the national press there would be nothing to campaign against. This is not 'any random example' its one of a series of articles produced by a group of journalists writing in a national newspaper. They are not 15 year old bloggers on tumblr.

Nobody cares about what some inane barely-coherent nonsense a crackpot writes in a newspaper article.

The newspapers spew out this stuff, because it generates controversy/sales/clicks/ad-revenue - they don't give a toss about their readers or insulting their intelligence, just about advertising/money - so 'campaigning' by posting a "lets look at the what the stupid feminist has to say ha-ha" post, on one of the heaviest-traffic forums in Ireland, really just tells the IT that this makes more money for them, and they should pay journalists to put out more of that nonsense.

If you want to 'campaign' against it, start a letter-writing campaign and boycott against the Irish Times - rather than giving them more funding with links; same goes for all the YouTube/blog links, they all generate money for the extremists on both sides, which is why they try to be so inflammatory/controversial.

Shrap

Jake1 wrote: »

No, I mean the other ones, You are fabulous

Ah good. So by the "other ones" you mean the class of person who thinks they represent either women's or men's rights by mistakenly taking a narrow view of either gender's roles and thinking they're fighting against the persecution of that narrow view?

Because, as I'm sure you know, that kind of carry on isn't the exclusive preserve of feminists. See my previous post that mentions John Waters and David Quinn. These kind of people, male or female, are equally offensive to their own genders.

catallus

Hey! What's wrong with John Waters!!?

Shrap

alchemist33 wrote: »

So why hardline feminists want to portray women as weak pawns just confuses the hell out of me.

Y'know, they're not even hardline feminists. They're narrowline feminists if anything. I'm hardline. I demand equality and I get it. I don't take kindly to anyone, male or female, telling me what to think - in this case (the article in the OP) that Hozier has somehow offended female sensibilities by accompanying a fashion show of some rather lovely underwear.

Shrap

catallus wrote: »

Hey! What's wrong with John Waters!!?

Oh, don't get me started Most men I know rather object to his dangerously narrow-minded approach to men's rights, specifically those regarding gay men.

strobe

If people didn't keep re-linking these articles leading to high hit rates, media outlets wouldn't pay people to write them.

You're basically doing unpaid promotional work for both the outlet and the journalist in question Zulu. They're playing you.

catallus

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, don't get me started

But...but what am I supposed to do with all this popcorn now?!

Kylo Ren

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Between the overwhelming nerd angst of "Gamergate" and the extremist feminist craze that's been invading the tubes, 2014 has seen two of the worst things to come out of the internet since Rickrolling. Here's hoping 2015 sees a return to videos of cats doing silly things so we can all take a breather.

It's interesting you mention Gamergate because I watched a video last night on why it and feminism has garnered so much attention this year.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Apologies for the mobile link, I'll update it when I get home. Interesting video all the same.

Earl Turner

drumswan wrote: »

Except these feminists are attempting to codify anti-feminism as hate speech.

They are a problem, its no use just dismissing them as crackpots and telling people that people like the author in the article arent actually feminists at all. She is a feminist and has a credible voice among them. They get to publish article after article in the national press.

They are spearheading an insidious political movement in Europe and need to be exposed for what they are,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

Exactly. This 'it's just a tiny minority' is a lie

This is an excellent article that shows what today's feminism is all about, shutting down debate and dissent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

This is why men will not support feminism because we know full well it has nothing to do with 'equality'.

cletus van damme

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, don't get me started Most men I know rather object to his dangerously narrow-minded approach to men's rights, specifically those regarding gay men.

apart form the gay men . waters represent men's right quite well.
he can be whiny but speak a lot of sense and truth

SeanW

Candie wrote: »

It's yet another nutjob comment being put out there as though it's got some kind of mainstream significance. I could put some beauties off Return of Kings or AVFM,

You are not comparing like with like.

We live in a country that has been so hopelessly corrupted by the Feminist-Left, that our government is about to criminalise sex between consenting adults, among just one of dozens of legislative and societal victories.

How much Return of Kings inspired legislation has been passed in the Western world?

drumswan

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nobody cares about what some inane barely-coherent nonsense a crackpot writes in a newspaper article

Yes they do, this is just the public face of feminism which is driving change for the worse in our society, shutting down dissent and free speech to advance their own narrow position.

Shrap

SeanW wrote: »

We live in a country that has been so hopelessly corrupted by the Feminist-Left

.....Aaand, I'm outta here. Too much stupid.

KomradeBishop

Earl Turner wrote: »

Exactly. This 'it's just a tiny minority' is a lie

This is an excellent article that shows what today's feminism is all about, shutting down debate and dissent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

This is why men will not support feminism because we know full well it has nothing to do with 'equality'.

So, this author, Brendan O'Neill, denies global warming, is against tackling racism in football and denies instances of racism (thinks it's a sign of a 'class war' ), is against same-sex marriage and against campaigns for it.

In that article, he is complaining about feminist students protesting an abortion debate, where no female debater appeared to be invited to debate, and where the person chosen for the pro-choice position, was a borderline racist, who is also against same-sex marriage.

Then he goes on a lengthy rant/whine about students-of-today being against free speech, because they keep exercising their right to free speech by protesting his debates on various topics like:

I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods.

Pro-Israeli-government there too, nice.

Good company to have there, for backing anti-feminist attacks.

drumswan

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, this author, Brendan O'Neill, denies global warming, is against tackling racism in football and denies instances of racism (thinks it's a sign of a 'class war' ), is against same-sex marriage and against campaigns for it.

In that article, he is complaining about feminist students protesting an abortion debate, where no female debater appeared to be invited to debate, and where the person chosen for the pro-choice position, was a borderline racist, who is also against same-sex marriage.

Then he goes on a lengthy rant/whine about students-of-today being against free speech, because they keep exercising their right to free speech by protesting his debates on various topics like:

Pro-Israeli-government there too, nice.

Good company to have there, for backing anti-feminist attacks.

The usual ad hominem argument I see.

coffee_cake

Students being students and now feminism is the downfall of society
give us a break

KomradeBishop

drumswan wrote: »

The usual ad hominem argument I see.

You think people shouldn't know what kind of a nutter he is?

Anyway, ad-hominem to attack the credibility of peoples sources/links, is actually a valid/non-fallacious use of ad-hominem - so long as I don't use it against his actual arguments (which would be fallacious):

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I also debunked his claims of censoring free speech directly - without using ad-hominem - by showing that what he was talking about, was actually just people exercising their own right to free speech, by protesting against him.

coffee_cake

Things must be bad if we're on the same side KB
:pac:

drumswan

Rubbish, you dismissed his arguments based on his character, classic ad hominem.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Things must be bad if we're on the same side KB
:pac:

Yeah I could have sworn my internet was broken there for a moment and the universe had collapsed inwards on itself. Maybe it's just the Christmas spirit though.

osarusan

drumswan wrote: »

Rubbish, you dismissed his arguments based on his character, classic ad hominem.

Much like arguments are routinely dismissed because of the university major of the author.

"Gender studies? Must be bullsh!t"

KomradeBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

Things must be bad if we're on the same side KB
:pac:

Rare indeed I might still be arguing with Libertarians in the end at least, as a lot of anti-feminist ammunition comes from that movement

BBDBB

I must say I thought misogynistic underwear would be more revealing



<voiceover man> ......and now the Non Misogynistic Range from Victorias Secret,..........here's Mavis wearing an inflatable onsie which beautifully hides her body, and has a 4 star NCAP safety rating, which means she safe from impact at up to 30 mph............. we think its supportive and comfortable to wear, we'll know more once she takes off the diving helmet

Potatoeman

BBDBB wrote: »

I must say I thought misogynistic underwear would be more revealing



<voiceover man> ......and now the Non Misogynistic Range from Victorias Secret,..........here's Mavis wearing an inflatable onsie which beautifully hides her body, and has a 4 star NCAP safety rating, which means she safe from impact at up to 30 mph............. we think its supportive and comfortable to wear, we'll know more once she takes off the diving helmet

Victorian secret.

coffee_cake

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Rare indeed I might still be arguing with Libertarians in the end at least, as a lot of anti-feminist ammunition comes from that movement

I'd be as wary of saying libertarians all support them as much as feminists all support article in the OP

KomradeBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd be as wary of saying libertarians all support them as much as feminists all support article in the OP

Ah, absolutely - I wouldn't think that (definitely none of the Libertarians I've debated with on economic topics); just interesting to see the funding links.

Potatoeman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ah, absolutely - I wouldn't think that (definitely none of the Libertarians I've debated with on economic topics); just interesting to see the funding links.

Its another American thing. The athiest and feminist have been at each other over there too.

Philo Beddoe

drumswan wrote: »

If idiotic feminists didnt keep publishing absurd articles like this one in the national press there would be nothing to campaign against. This is not 'any random example' its one of a series of articles produced by a group of journalists writing in a national newspaper. They are not 15 year old bloggers on tumblr.

Let's put things in perspective here. We're talking about newspapers here. This is 2014, your average no-mark journo writing in an Irish newspaper reaches less people than a 15 year old blogger on Tumblr.

Philo Beddoe

drumswan wrote: »

Rubbish, you dismissed his arguments based on his character, classic ad hominem.

Actually he did the opposite...

Earl Turner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, this author, Brendan O'Neill, denies global warming, is against tackling racism in football and denies instances of racism (thinks it's a sign of a 'class war' ), is against same-sex marriage and against campaigns for it.

In that article, he is complaining about feminist students protesting an abortion debate, where no female debater appeared to be invited to debate, and where the person chosen for the pro-choice position, was a borderline racist, who is also against same-sex marriage.

Then he goes on a lengthy rant/whine about students-of-today being against free speech, because they keep exercising their right to free speech by protesting his debates on various topics like:

Pro-Israeli-government there too, nice.

Good company to have there, for backing anti-feminist attacks.

You've proven his point. The liberal feminist brigade tolerant no dissent. You describe him as mentally ill for daring to voice an opinion on global warming and gay marriage. Don't worry I'm sure it will be soon illegal to criticise feminism and then the whole world will be one huge safe space.

Except of course for the Middle East and Africa where women genuinely are oppressed. Funny how you never hear feminists speaking out about real injustice. I guess its more important to harass a scientist for wearing the wrong kind of t-shirt and bitching about a musician playing at a fashion show.