Is feminism a dirty word?

ancapailldorcha · 16-10-2014 12:48PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If that's the only difference, then it's not really a credible criticism of feminists - that's a problem with media balance, and the complaints should be directed at the newspapers/media-outlets, that select for controversy - they get to decide what is and isn't published.

Of course. My point is that a lot of them won't dare print the male side of the story for fear of being labelled as misogynistic regardless of the fact that many feminists don't actually feel negative towards men. Men are just an easy targets and people love a good villain.

StudentDad · 16-10-2014 12:49PM

Feminism isn't a dirty word, of itself. What is important is gender equality. That is what society ought to strive for. Labels to a certain extent are irrelevant.

Where the label 'feminism' is used as a vehicle for misandry, then there is a problem.

SD

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2014 02:58PM

StudentDad wrote: »

...
Where the label 'feminism' is used as a vehicle for misandry, then there is a problem.

Pair that with it being used as an excuse for misogyny.

S.L.F · 16-10-2014 03:12PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

+1.

Call me naive but I truly believe that the only way forward is for everyone to focus on everyone's rights. Focusing on one demographic creates the illusion that the "other half" have it rosy. Movements like feminism were needed in the past but now, while I wouldn't say women and men are equal, I would only feel comfortable supporting a movement campaigning for gender equality for both.

Women's Liberation was needed but feminism was never needed.

We do not need a Marxist society.

Equal certainly but nor Marxist equality.

SeanW wrote: »

If SLF is confused about Naziism and Communism he is well justified in being so. Yes, they are markedly dissimilar in that one is left wing and one is right wing, but identical in as much as they were both evil, totalitarian ideologies bent on murder, destruction and ultimately genocide against entire peoples. Naziism and Communism were different mainly in their economic models and the finer points of their perspective world views. On the important things they were identical.

The more correct way to look at it is authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. An authoritarian supports large scale government, abuse of power, large scale interference in the lives of ordinary people. An authoritarian is more likely than anyone else to support repression, totalitarianism and injustice, either against everyone or against groups they choose to target. For the Communists, it was the "bougrouis" and ended up becoming a campaign of genocide against the people of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Tibet etc. The Nazis were the same, only they hated "untermenschen" mainly with Jews.

A libertarian does not agree with a leviathan state, does not favour any kind of discrimination, and actively seeks to protect all people against injustice.

Feminism is not as evil as either of the above totalitarian ideologies, but it's on the same spectrum - a somewhat evil, deeply authoritarian movement. It's based on hatred and a desire to promote and prepetuate injustice and to interfere in peoples live on a massive scale to achieve a deranged goal. In that sense, it can be compared perhaps to a non-violent form of fundamentalist Islam or the Catholic Church - indeed I've observed significant overlap between the views of feminists and religious fruitcakes. Ruhama is a case in point.

To be fair here.

Communism and Nazism did not start as violent movements either.

All of these evil movement started as "We want to make an equal society but there problem is those people there are stopping us (insert app bad guy)"

Ruhama is run by feminists not the Church.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I never made such a claim. Earlier in the thread I suggested that there are extremists and nutters in the feminist movement, and that they are not representative of the mass of feminists.

aka.....'the leaders of the feminist movement'

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Are there examples of prominent mens rights groups, speaking out against the extremists in the mens rights movement? I've gone looking, and it's hard to find any examples, so just want to bat that down, as it seems like an unquestioned assumption.

There you go a guy who claims to be for Men's rights being blasted by a major MHRM website.

Another one

Let me know if you need further clarification on the issue.

Can you have a search and see if you can find any main stream feminists putting the boot into the leaders lunatic element of feminism.

I personally know of 2 of them Christine Hoff Sommers and some woman called Camilla

Parga (or something similar)

On a different note altogether here is a link to show people what feminism really is all about....have a read.

Arne_Saknussem · 16-10-2014 03:38PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I think feminists have a right to advocate a point of view, and if that point of view is that "Lads' Mags" promote values that causes them concern, they have the right to say so, and say so loudly if they wish. To deny them such a right would be censorship.

They don't think you should have that right though, not if you disagree with them.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fi&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friatider.se%2Fforslag-gor-det-straffbart-kritisera-feminism

nyarlothothep · 16-10-2014 03:55PM

I object to feminism just as I would object to masculinism. Women's rights were needed in the past and still are in Saudi Arabia but feminism as it is today is a joke. For example bossy is now a chauvinist word. Well that's strange because last week me and my friend were describing a male as bossy so it's bs. Feminism is like Roman Christianity, it's a conspiracy designed to pacify the male population under eusocial guidelines, the rise of the matriarchal society attends the stigmatisation of introversion and self reliance, which are threats to the group consensus. Need I say more...:pac:

whats newxt · 16-10-2014 04:13PM

Let's face it feminism is a dirty word and IMHO it should be, They say feminism is about equality for men and women but my question is whens the last time feminists stood for men's rights it just doesn't happen so it seems to me that feminism is in fact a sexist organisation (female supremacy cult) anyway who cares feminism is destroying itself no need for anyone to interfere.

hatrickpatrick · 16-10-2014 04:43PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Are there examples of prominent mens rights groups, speaking out against the extremists in the mens rights movement? I've gone looking, and it's hard to find any examples, so just want to bat that down, as it seems like an unquestioned assumption.

I'm not sure that is a reasonable line of argument/narrative, for pouring doubt on feminism's credibility.

I've definitely seem some and I'll find you some links when I'm at home this evening. Off the top of my head, I can tell you that Reddit's MensRights forum, arguably one of the biggest such forums on the internet, frequently and very vocally disassociates itself from groups such as TheRedPill. And I've seen many posts on these forums attempting to start campaigns to censor misandrist groups on Facebook, which are almost always met with calls of "we can't win the battle for men's rights by taking away free speech". Feminist groups when presented with the exact same issue as it pertains to misogynist groups on Facebook? Boycott advertisers until Facebook caves and begins censoring them.

Again I'm not defending any of the content which is attacked, but I cannot support any movement which calls for banning everything it finds offensive. It ties in with political correctness and is authoritarian, so to claim that feminism isn't authoritarian is to claim that these feminist groups aren't real feminists, or else that even though they're making waves and causing various media to restrict their speech, they shouldn't be taken seriously.

KomradeBishop · 16-10-2014 05:25PM

S.L.F wrote: »

There you go a guy who claims to be for Men's rights being blasted by a major MHRM website.

Another one

Let me know if you need further clarification on the issue.

Can you have a search and see if you can find any main stream feminists putting the boot into the leaders lunatic element of feminism.

I personally know of 2 of them Christine Hoff Sommers and some woman called Camilla
Parga (or something similar)

On a different note altogether here is a link to show people what feminism really is all about....have a read.

AVfM is itself not a credible organization, due to being led by Paul Elam, where he says here, about women who get raped after hustling drinks in bars:

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get **** faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

In my opinion their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.

http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

He is a scumbag, and he is the founder of that organization - he is himself an extremist, and that whole organization is in disrepute.

As for Christine Hoff Summers - she is a member of the Libertarian think-tank funded Independent Womens Forum, who promote stuff like climate change denial - so that's another disreputable organization, neither examples are credible.

KomradeBishop · 16-10-2014 05:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've definitely seem some and I'll find you some links when I'm at home this evening. Off the top of my head, I can tell you that Reddit's MensRights forum, arguably one of the biggest such forums on the internet, frequently and very vocally disassociates itself from groups such as TheRedPill. And I've seen many posts on these forums attempting to start campaigns to censor misandrist groups on Facebook, which are almost always met with calls of "we can't win the battle for men's rights by taking away free speech". Feminist groups when presented with the exact same issue as it pertains to misogynist groups on Facebook? Boycott advertisers until Facebook caves and begins censoring them.

Again I'm not defending any of the content which is attacked, but I cannot support any movement which calls for banning everything it finds offensive. It ties in with political correctness and is authoritarian, so to claim that feminism isn't authoritarian is to claim that these feminist groups aren't real feminists, or else that even though they're making waves and causing various media to restrict their speech, they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Reddit is just a discussion forum like Boards though, and you find plenty of people here criticising extremists feminism, who may self-identify as feminists?

This authoritarian thing seems to be irrelevant: Some feminists are authoritarian, I'm sure, but not all of them - the same way women being threatened by extremists MRA's, shows a fascistic/authoritarian bent among some of the MRA types, but of course, not all of them are like that.

In particular, the 'register-her' site that Paul Elam setup, to document feminist enemies (including aiming to document personal info, like home address, route to/from work etc.) - knowing that some of the extremist MRA's types are prone to harassment and threats of violence/death - that seems like a tacit condoning/encouragement of fascistic/authoritarian tactics, to intimidate and silence/censor critics within the feminist movement.

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2014 05:43PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

They don't think you should have that right though, not if you disagree with them.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fi&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friatider.se%2Fforslag-gor-det-straffbart-kritisera-feminism

I followed your link, and it does indeed lead to an article that headlines a proposal to make it a criminal offence to critcise feminism. But the tenor of the piece made me suspicious, and I checked further, and I found that the actual proposal is to make antifeminist threats and harassment illegal. [http://www.nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.10947191%21reform.pdf Go to page 35, which is in English.]

Not quite the same thing.

whats newxt · 16-10-2014 05:54PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

16-10-2014 06:01PM

I find the debate on the issue of consent to be terrifying tbh. On one side there's the mentalists on the "MRA" side, in the middle there's people like me who think people should be responsible for themselves, on the other extreme there's whoever the hell comes up with the rules for colleges in the US and the one-sided need to seek consent.
Reading cases where someone doesn't think they were raped until someone else convinces them they were and that being enough for someone to be kicked out of college is insane and yet things seem to be veering more and more towards that end. The vast majority of people have been "raped" by the criteria of having had anything to drink and wished they hadn't done what they did the night before. Course it's only the men who have to take responsibility.

Also there's the whole issue that many of the pillars on which arguments are built on are unchallengeable. And questioning anything is invading a "safe space" and is a "trigger" for someone somewhere.

mrkiscool2 · 16-10-2014 06:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I find the debate on the issue of consent to be terrifying tbh. On one side there's the mentalists on the "MRA" side, in the middle there's people like me who think people should be responsible for themselves, on the other extreme there's whoever the hell comes up with the rules for colleges in the US and the one-sided need to seek consent.
Reading cases where someone doesn't think they were raped until someone else convinces them they were and that being enough for someone to be kicked out of college is insane and yet things seem to be veering more and more towards that end. The vast majority of people have been "raped" by the criteria of having had anything to drink and wished they hadn't done what they did the night before. Course it's only the men who have to take responsibility.

Also there's the whole issue that many of the pillars on which arguments are built on are unchallengeable. And questioning anything is invading a "safe space" and is a "trigger" for someone somewhere.

THIS!

I was well known in the Class Reps system in a college for being totally against the idea of the "Don't be that Guy" campaign not just because the branding of the campaign was sexist but because the fact that a woman could have a few drinks (not be sober but not be too drunk to give consent either) take a guy home and then accuse him of rape the next day because she was ashamed of her decision is incredible. Like if I have a few drinks and decide to get some chipper then regret it the next morning I can't accuse the chipper of theft. Fair enough if the woman is far to drunk to give consent but it's usually just a few and slightly impaired decision making, nothing serious. The guy is rarely sober either.

And that was one of the big points I made that wasn't properly argued. I know it's nearly impossible to quantify how drunk someone is (alcohol affects us all differently) but I made the point that if two people are as drunk as each other, go back to one of their places and have sex is it still the guy's fault? Only feminists (I knew them personally as they disliked my views and I disliked theirs) pointed out that it was. Which is shameful. We need to have a proper debate about consent with all parties there-women, men, feminists, MRA's, egalitarians, humanists etc. Because men aren't always to blame

hatrickpatrick · 16-10-2014 06:16PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Reddit is just a discussion forum like Boards though, and you find plenty of people here criticising extremists feminism, who may self-identify as feminists?

It's arguably the biggest Mens' Rights discussion forum on the internet. Boards is hardly the home of feminism online.

This authoritarian thing seems to be irrelevant: Some feminists are authoritarian, I'm sure, but not all of them - the same way women being threatened by extremists MRA's, shows a fascistic/authoritarian bent among some of the MRA types, but of course, not all of them are like that.

Once again, the authoritarian ones are causing changes to rules etc - they are getting things done. And they're not being opposed by other feminists, ergo other feminists either support censorship or don't care. Either way, that makes them a movement I can't get behind.

In particular, the 'register-her' site that Paul Elam setup, to document feminist enemies (including aiming to document personal info, like home address, route to/from work etc.) - knowing that some of the extremist MRA's types are prone to harassment and threats of violence/death - that seems like a tacit condoning/encouragement of fascistic/authoritarian tactics, to intimidate and silence/censor critics within the feminist movement.

Paul Elam is a scumbag and many, many MRAs have no problem stating this - I know many who boycott AVfM altogether because of it. But again, is he having mainstream impact? Blurred Lines has been banned in many college campuses around the world. Can you show me some toxic MRA extremism which has had anything near that level of real-world impact?

KomradeBishop · 16-10-2014 06:46PM

whats newxt wrote: »

[noparse]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc
[/noparse]

And a video from the climate-change-denial-supporting think-tank member mentioned earlier, who has no real credibility, since she's happy to associate with such denialism.

ALiasEX · 16-10-2014 06:55PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again, the authoritarian ones are causing changes to rules etc - they are getting things done. And they're not being opposed by other feminists, ergo other feminists either support censorship or don't care. Either way, that makes them a movement I can't get behind.

Have MRAs opposed it?

mrkiscool2 · 16-10-2014 06:59PM

I'm just curious as to why everyone here is so caught up in the whole "feminism vs MRA" type thing here. I totally understand one posters comments on here have been quite incendiary but from what I gather here we are all for gender equality. I won't deny I have problems with feminism but I have the same problem with MRA's to be honest. You can't achieve equality by focusing on one gender, it's a case of both sides coming together to sort it out.

KomradeBishop · 16-10-2014 07:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again, the authoritarian ones are causing changes to rules etc - they are getting things done. And they're not being opposed by other feminists, ergo other feminists either support censorship or don't care. Either way, that makes them a movement I can't get behind.

It's not been established yet, that the same is not true of the mens rights types - I'm sure there is lots of opposition to such stuff, among feminists on message boards, like there is for MRA's on that particular message board - we see it right here on Boards, so it seems logical that it would be even more prevalent on a forum dedicated to the topic.

So - what we are comparing here is mens rights types opposing extremists on message boards, so if we are not to have double standards, we need to compare that against feminists opposing extremists also on message boards - which they do seem to do.

The issue then, is why do newspapers select for the extremists among feminists? That's not necessarily a problem with feminists, it can just be newspapers trying to sell.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Paul Elam is a scumbag and many, many MRAs have no problem stating this - I know many who boycott AVfM altogether because of it. But again, is he having mainstream impact? Blurred Lines has been banned in many college campuses around the world. Can you show me some toxic MRA extremism which has had anything near that level of real-world impact?

Him and his organization certainly seem to be part of the dominant/mainstream section of the mens right movement - it's very hard to Google/read-up on mens right stuff, without them being prominently featured.

Are there good examples of censorship from extremist feminists, that aren't small-scale like college campus things? It seems a really minor thing, to be criticizing all of feminism over.

woodoo · 16-10-2014 08:33PM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I object to feminism just as I would object to masculinism.

Start describing yourself as a masculinist and see how that goes down. You will be called a male supremacist or a woman hater.

StudentDad · 17-10-2014 12:33AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Pair that with it being used as an excuse for misogyny.

I've never understood this fixation on gender or sexual orientation for that matter.

Too many discussions degenerate into gender biased mud slinging contests. Which is why to a large extent the term 'feminist' is largely irrelevant to me anyway.

We should be putting people before gender and not getting hung up on the wobbly bits.

SD

17-10-2014 04:11AM

Criticism of a "feminist" argument? You just love disagreeing with women.

S.L.F · 17-10-2014 09:52AM

whats newxt wrote: »

Let's face it feminism is a dirty word and IMHO it should be, They say feminism is about equality for men and women but my question is whens the last time feminists stood for men's rights it just doesn't happen so it seems to me that feminism is in fact a sexist organisation (female supremacy cult) anyway who cares feminism is destroying itself no need for anyone to interfere.

It has never at any time had anything to do with equality.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

AVfM is itself not a credible organization, due to being led by Paul Elam, where he says here, about women who get raped after hustling drinks in bars:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

He is a scumbag, and he is the founder of that organization - he is himself an extremist, and that whole organization is in disrepute.

As for Christine Hoff Summers - she is a member of the Libertarian think-tank funded Independent Womens Forum, who promote stuff like climate change denial - so that's another disreputable organization, neither examples are credible.

He writes a piece of satire and every person who wants to bash the MHRM has to dump him.

Compare that to the writings of Andrea Dworkin or any of the other horrors of the feminist movement and there is nothing but silence from people.

ALiasEX wrote: »

Have MRAs opposed it?

The MHRM is practically powerless against the evil ideology of feminism.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I'm just curious as to why everyone here is so caught up in the whole "feminism vs MRA" type thing here. I totally understand one posters comments on here have been quite incendiary but from what I gather here we are all for gender equality. I won't deny I have problems with feminism but I have the same problem with MRA's to be honest. You can't achieve equality by focusing on one gender, it's a case of both sides coming together to sort it out.

The MHRM is about equality of men and in time if we ever get there we'll drop the "Men's" part of the name.

Feminism is about changing our society so it is a Marxist based one.

Just about every revolution which has been inspired by Marxism has lead to thousands or millions of deaths.

In the USSR they stamped on equality on every thing.

If there was a collection of farmers and one happened to be doing far better than all the others he (usually a male) was brought off and sent to prison or just executed for not being equal.

Then of course all the other people in the area would suffer because they'd all be afraid of making too much and risking the same fate.

There is no middle ground between the MHRM and feminism.

One is an equal rights movement and the other is trying to bring Marxism into all of our society.

StudentDad wrote: »

I've never understood this fixation on gender or sexual orientation for that matter.

Too many discussions degenerate into gender biased mud slinging contests. Which is why to a large extent the term 'feminist' is largely irrelevant to me anyway.

We should be putting people before gender and not getting hung up on the wobbly bits.

SD

With feminists they know that people will listen to women before they will listen to men so they've been pushing the myth that women are oppressed compared to men in an effort to bring the Marxist hell into reality.

Nothing to do with equality.

The MHRM has been pushing back at that because it is men who are suffering more than women.

Deleted User wrote: »

Criticism of a "feminist" argument? You just love disagreeing with women.

The women of the MHRM would disagree with you totally.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 10:19AM

S.L.F wrote: »

He writes a piece of satire and every person who wants to bash the MHRM has to dump him.

Compare that to the writings of Andrea Dworkin or any of the other horrors of the feminist movement and there is nothing but silence from people.

Can you really blame people for being unable to take idiots like these seriously? If you're going to talk utter nonsense, this is what happens -

With feminists they know that people will listen to women before they will listen to men so they've been pushing the myth that women are oppressed compared to men in an effort to bring the Marxist hell into reality.

Nothing to do with equality.

The MHRM has been pushing back at that because it is men who are suffering more than women.

People, regardless of their gender, have a natural aversion to utter shìte talk, and that's exactly what the above is (in fact, utter shìte talk has formed the basis of much of the content of your posts in this thread), so when you say above that "people will listen to women before they'll listen to men". you do realise that men are people too, right?

So perhaps you should think about what you want to say before you say it, then think about whether people want to hear it or not, and adjust the tone and wording of your message accordingly, so you don't end up being perceived as a hate monger suggesting that 'women beg to be raped', and then have your minions try to defend your idiocy by claiming it to be satire. Nothing fcuking funny about rape.

Seriously, for your own sake, stop with all your MHRM nonsense, because you're just continuing to add to the stereotype of the bitter little man that hates women, whatever your man's name is, is a classic example, and that's why people (regardless of their gender) tune out and couldn't be arsed listening to you.

It's not because people don't care, it's because you're continuing to come out with incoherent waffle instead of making any substantive point, and your posts are proving more difficult to understand as they go on. I've tried to understand them, I really have, but now I'm just giving up, as you show no signs of caring whether anyone understands you or not.

S.L.F · 17-10-2014 10:30AM

From here

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?

There are so many problems with this.

She adds women who (just like me who detests the evil ideology of feminism) believe in equality and calls them feminists.

Women who are not making as much as someone else either need to pull their finger out and work harder or more hours or do more dangerous jobs or travel further or take less time off work in order to make as much as their colleagues.

When women start speaking everyone goes silent, this was proved when Emma Watson spewed her nonsense to the UN.

When has anyone read or heard a story of a man being reported for doing a speech?

Here she's basically asking for equal outcome for the same work men do.

The there is Dale Spender

"

"Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, and practised no cruelties… Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety on the streets, for childcare, for social welfare, for rape crisis clinics, women's refuges, reforms in the laws. If someone says, "Oh, I'm not a feminist!" I ask, 'Why? What's your problem?'

The problem is that they are making our society more unequal than it was before.

Numerous men have gone and killed themselves after not being allowed see their children because of crappy laws which feminists have pushed through.

If any one reads the Istanbul Convention (which our govt plans to push down the necks of all males in Ireland) you'll see suggestions of classes for boys to learn to 'respect' females.

The vote here in Ireland was given to both men and women at the same time.

In the USA men cannot get to vote unless they sign up for selective service.

Most men did not have a vote for at least as long as most women did in the UK.

Education, have a read of the mandate of the feminist charity called CARE, they will ONLY teach women and girls and when it comes to domestic abuse they will ONLY help girls and women in spite of IPV being at least equal between the genders.

Safety on the streets.....just for women again in spite of the vast majority of men having been victims of assault or murder they ONLY care about women.

Child care...it's been proved that a family with biological parents is the best possible start for children yet feminists have been making it a priority to break families up.

Rape crisis centers and Women's centers were made to gather funds in order to push through their Marxist ideology.

Reforms in laws....see the new legislation on prostitution they plan to bring in to Ireland also the Istanbul Convention.

S.L.F · 17-10-2014 10:34AM

Have a read of this lovely feminist inspired pdf so you can see what they think of boys and men.

I challenge anyone to find a similar one about women from the European Commission?

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 10:47AM

S.L.F wrote: »

Reforms in laws....see the new legislation on prostitution they plan to bring in to Ireland also the Istanbul Convention.

S.L.F I'm really trying here to engage with you, but instead of addressing any of my points, you climbed up on your soap box again, and reiterated the same waffle. Fair enough, I'm not going to bother addressing your points either (they've already been comprehensively addressed numerous times by other posters in this thread, and you haven't listened to a word!), but the above statement interests me. What's your problem with the new laws regarding sex work?

Would it not apply equally to both men and women? That's what you want isn't it?

SeanW · 17-10-2014 10:59AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

S.L.F I'm really trying here to engage with you, but instead of addressing any of my points, you climbed up on your soap box again, and reiterated the same waffle. Fair enough, I'm not going to bother addressing your points either (they've already been comprehensively addressed numerous times by other posters in this thread, and you haven't listened to a word!), but the above statement interests me. What's your problem with the new laws regarding sex work?

Would it not apply equally to both men and women? That's what you want isn't it?

Assuming this is not a wind-up you are being seriously disingenuous here. The vast majority of sex work transactions (I don't have exact figures) presumably are men buying from women.

Thusly, the Swedish model (the buyer is always guilty of a crime regardless of any circumstance) is necessarily discrimination.

It would be like saying "laws against gay marriage don't discriminate against gay people because the law "applies equally to everyone."

But it's BS and I call on you to explain why you posted the equivalent.

Links234 · 17-10-2014 11:35AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Paul Elam is a scumbag and many, many MRAs have no problem stating this - I know many who boycott AVfM altogether because of it. But again, is he having mainstream impact? Blurred Lines has been banned in many college campuses around the world. Can you show me some toxic MRA extremism which has had anything near that level of real-world impact?

Can I just point out that in no meaningful way has Blurred Lines been banned? Because really, has anyone's ability to purchase the song been taken away? Or has their ability to listen to the song been curtailed? Just read some of the links you provided, and the so-called "ban" amounts to little more than removing it from a playlist:

Derby and the University of the West of Scotland follow Leeds and Edinburgh and remove 'degrading' song from playlists in student bars

UCLU women's officer Beth Sutton tweeted: "UCLU have just passed motion to not play blurred lines in union spaces & events. Solidarity with all survivors!"

A student union deciding that they're not going to play it at their events is the big bad nasty real world impact that extremist feminism has brought about? Despite sensationalist use of the word banned, the song hasn't actually been banned or censored at all, nobody has been stopped from buying the song or listening to the song. Saying that Blurred Lines has been banned would be like if I rang up a radio station and asked them to play Hammer Smashed Face by Cannibal Corpse, and they said erm, no we're not going to play that and me throwing a tantrum saying they've banned Hammer Smashed Face!

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2014 11:40AM

SeanW wrote: »

Assuming this is not a wind-up you are being seriously disingenuous here. The vast majority of sex work transactions (I don't have exact figures) presumably are men buying from women.

Thusly, the Swedish model (the buyer is always guilty of a crime regardless of any circumstance) is necessarily discrimination.

It would be like saying "laws against gay marriage don't discriminate against gay people because the law "applies equally to everyone."

But it's BS and I call on you to explain why you posted the equivalent.

So you accuse me of being disingenuous, you have no figures, you make presumptions, you're claiming laws that apply to both genders equally is discrimination...

And you call what I posted BS?

The reason I posted that I was interested in why SLF had a problem with the new laws regarding sex work is because I genuinely AM interested in why SLF has a problem with them when they apply to both genders equally.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments