Is feminism a dirty word?

Sand · 30-11-2014 12:30PM

masculinist wrote: »

YouTube is a fantastic resource for dissecting and analyzing feminist viewpoints.

I would never ram opinions down anyones throat. I encourage people to listen and think for themselves.

Scroll to 2:30 in this clip above and you will see a tactic used by a Feminist which has been used against me on these boards. Denigration of somebodys point of view even if backed up with a factual resource followed by a refusal to engage in the debate, a dismissing of the facts.

I don't use Twitter so most of the American culture war stuff passes me by, but its absolutely staggering that someone like Suey Park can be widely considered an influential figure in any political or media movement. She seems like a hypocritical, self centered fool. And a racist. And a sexist. These would seem like important disqualifications for a feminist. Yet she enjoys loud, if not wide, support from feminists. Her and the likes of Glenn Beck seem well matched for each other.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 12:52PM

masculinist wrote: »

YouTube is a fantastic resource for dissecting and analyzing feminist viewpoints.
...

No, no it isn't. It's the worst source of any information, on both the feminist and mens rights side.

The people being highlighted, can be nobodies with either no following, or only a tiny following, or they can have a following generated out of deliberately sensationalized/shít-stirring videos aimed at getting clicks/views (since that's how people make money off of YouTube videos - it's not the quality of the content that matters, it's the loudness/obnoxiousness of it, which helps generate controversy and clicks).

The videos are also perfect for avoiding dissection/criticism as well, because nobody is going to bother watching a whole 18m+ long video, which is likely to just be a lengthy verbalized brainfart from an extremist.

You can skim and pick-out/highlight/quote criticism-worthy sections from an article, in a few minutes, but you can't do this with an 18m long video, without wasting a crapload of time.

Nobody should ever take a YouTube video in a debate seriously (especially in gender debates, given how frequently they are used) - and 'argument by YouTube' is, for any of the more serious discussion forums on Boards, something that's even against the charter (if I recall correctly); there, people are expected to present their arguments, in their own words, not by YouTube.

Earl Turner · 30-11-2014 12:58PM

Now the goal is to remove the word 'man' from the English language. American universities are banning the word 'freshman'. Presumably feminists get triggered and feel like they've been raped when they hear it.

I'm so glad feminists are fighting everyday for equality!

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

Sand · 30-11-2014 01:12PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You can skim and pick-out/highlight/quote criticism-worthy sections from an article, in a few minutes, but you can't do this with an 18m long video, without wasting a crapload of time.

Isn't that a positive? Rather than skimming an argument, looking for something objectionable to strawman you're forced to listen to the argument if you want to respond to it?

UCDVet · 30-11-2014 01:16PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, no it isn't. It's the worst source of any information, on both the feminist and mens rights side.

The people being highlighted, can be nobodies with either no following, or only a tiny following, or they can have a following generated out of deliberately sensationalized/shít-stirring videos aimed at getting clicks/views (since that's how people make money off of YouTube videos - it's not the quality of the content that matters, it's the loudness/obnoxiousness of it, which helps generate controversy and clicks).

The videos are also perfect for avoiding dissection/criticism as well, because nobody is going to bother watching a whole 18m+ long video, which is likely to just be a lengthy verbalized brainfart from an extremist.

You can skim and pick-out/highlight/quote criticism-worthy sections from an article, in a few minutes, but you can't do this with an 18m long video, without wasting a crapload of time.

Nobody should ever take a YouTube video in a debate seriously (especially in gender debates, given how frequently they are used) - and 'argument by YouTube' is, for any of the more serious discussion forums on Boards, something that's even against the charter (if I recall correctly); there, people are expected to present their arguments, in their own words, not by YouTube.

People should also remember that YouTube is a legitimate business for a lot of people. You get paid for generating content that gets views. There are, literally, people who troll on YouTube videos to get paid; not because they believe in what they are saying.

Sand · 30-11-2014 01:20PM

UCDVet wrote: »

People should also remember that YouTube is a legitimate business for a lot of people. You get paid for generating content that gets views. There are, literally, people who troll on YouTube videos to get paid; not because they believe in what they are saying.

The same is true of almost all media.

Wibbs · 30-11-2014 01:20PM

Earl Turner wrote: »

Now the goal is to remove the word 'man' from the English language. American universities are banning the word 'freshman'. Presumably feminists get triggered and feel like they've been raped when they hear it.

I'm so glad feminists are fighting everyday for equality!

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

Numero uno consider the source of this(and the reference link above). This utter nonsense has sprung from a US university. Quell effin surprise. They are the absolute ground zero for head in the clouds "PC" groupthink. I'd reckon the vast majority of daft so called feminism we hear about and get riled up about today has sprung and continues to spring from that same source, bolstered by ex "social studies" students who then got into the mostly online media. Nearly every single case of online and offline media and radical nonsense springs from this source and usually directly. The completely bogus 1 in 4 stat comes from there, as does the paygap myth among others. Naive and simplistic leftie adolescent ramblings given the veneer of an adult conversation.

US colleges are cultures and laws unto themselves. Yes they are becoming more and more anti men and this will have an effect beyond their ivy covered ivory towers and that needs to be tackled when and where it comes up with extreme prejudice, but don't make the mistake of equating what your tie dyed lank haired hippie selfie taking self described pangenderist student or faculty member muppet believes and what the vast majority of men and women believe regarding equality outside that empty headed echo chamber.

The vast majority of people in the real world think this to be nonsense too, but unless they're in college themselves it just doesn't figure in their daily lives.

Secondly the website you linked to is more often than not doing a Daily Mail type "expose" and commentary on some loony left UK council banning christmas or whatever. They're in it for the clickbait that such commentary produces. Yes it is something to be pointed at, however and as usual they get deep into their usual spiel backing up their stated premise.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 01:21PM

Earl Turner wrote: »

Now the goal is to remove the word 'man' from the English language. American universities are banning the word 'freshman'. Presumably feminists get triggered and feel like they've been raped when they hear it.

I'm so glad feminists are fighting everyday for equality!

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

If you choose to follow that link, click on the "About" tab. Jaw-drop stuff.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 01:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with feminism as with all seemingly virtous politically correct crusades, is that they started out with a great cause, fought the good fight, but never really set out an 'end game'.

Nobody in those movements (I would lump in anti-racism and anti-homophobia) can agree on what "victory" looks like.

I am in no way comparing these, but on a completely unrelated topic it's like the 'war on terror'. Nobody knows what victory looks like.

You say you're not comparing, but in the same sentence you go on and then compare them to the war on terror being never-ending; you're not comparing like-with-like there.

The 'war on terror' is aimed at (supposedly) solving a problem, when that problem is itself created by and is being perpetuated by war; the motivation behind most 'terrorist' attacks, has been retaliation for war.
How do you solve that? Obvious: Stop attacking (or assisting in attacks) on foreign countries.

What if you want to keep on attacking other countries? Just label people 'terrorists', and when they inevitably attack you for attacking or helping to attack other countries, pretend it's an evil/inexplicable 'terrorist' attack ("They hate us for our freedom! not because we're blowing the shít out of their countries/families..."), and use it as an excuse for war/more-attacks.
In this case, the whole point of the war on terror is that it is supposed to be self-perpetuating and neverending, because it's really just an excuse to engage in war.

None of the social issues you mention, are a self-perpetuating problem like that; the problems caused by those social issues, are so spread-out through society, and the way those problems manifest in society, change as society itself changes, so you can't just write a simple checklist which says "solve all of these issues and we're done".

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 01:54PM

Earl Turner wrote: »

Now the goal is to remove the word 'man' from the English language. American universities are banning the word 'freshman'. Presumably feminists get triggered and feel like they've been raped when they hear it.

I'm so glad feminists are fighting everyday for equality!

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

So, by "American universities are banning" - implying this is a growing problem universally affecting US universities - you actually meant 'one American university'.

Except...the word was not actually banned either, someone just edited 'freshman' to 'first-year' in a campus newspaper article - only because it was more accurate than 'freshman' (and they still use 'freshman' in the appropriate context: any student coming out of high-school, without respect to gender):
http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/top-news/at-elon-a-freshman-by-any-other-name-1.404075

Perfect example of a controversy being whipped up, from literally nothing; it took me less than a minute to Google this as well - why are the people who post this nonsense, so bad or lazy at basic fact-checking - just eating-up whatever a random website tells them?

If people want to demand that feminists make the effort to 'denounce' random supposed examples of extremist feminism like this, then they can themselves make a basic effort to check that what they're posting isn't total nonsense in the first place - well more than half of the links that people provide, supporting an anti-feminist view, are really really easy to find problems with, with less than a minute of Googling.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 01:58PM

Sand wrote: »

Isn't that a positive? Rather than skimming an argument, looking for something objectionable to strawman you're forced to listen to the argument if you want to respond to it?

Skimming an article for objectionable content, does not make for a straw-man.

UCDVet · 30-11-2014 02:01PM

Sand wrote: »

The same is true of almost all media.

Excellent point

But the barrier to entry is much lower for youtube. Still, you are 100% correct. All media stands to profit from increased viewers. Generating controversy is a great way for them to achieve that.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 02:04PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you choose to follow that link, click on the "About" tab. Jaw-drop stuff.

"Women and homosexuals are discouraged from commenting here.
...
5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character."

Nice...totally not misogynistic ****.

hatrickpatrick · 30-11-2014 02:37PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's an inappropriate analogy: there is a considerable difference of scale between criticising a man's choice of apparel and blowing people to bits.

To many young people, free speech and freedom from censorship is one of the most important fundamental human rights.

Demanding that people condemn the actions of others is a way of trying to restrict their freedom by setting an agenda for them:
- "You are not an acceptable feminist unless you condemn the attacks on the wearing of such a shirt. Do you condemn them?"
- "It's not as simple as that. We have to consider..."
- "Answer 'yes' or 'no': do you condemn them?"

It is that simple for some of us I'm afraid. There's nothing to consider - if you believe in censorship on the grounds of offense, you are going against the values which the majority of people who grew up in the nineties were raised on, and many people of that generation will reject any such ideology. I know I'm not alone in this, and I know that this is why many women my own age, while believing in equality, will not identify as feminist. Not because they think it's irrelevant, not because they think it's man hating, not because they're apathetic, but specifically because they don't believe in the "it offends me, therefore it should be banned" ideology.

30-11-2014 02:45PM

Earl Turner wrote: »

Now the goal is to remove the word 'man' from the English language. American universities are banning the word 'freshman'. Presumably feminists get triggered and feel like they've been raped when they hear it.

I'm so glad feminists are fighting everyday for equality!

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

What's next? Are feminists going to fight to remove 'man' from the word 'woman'?

Fr_Dougal · 30-11-2014 02:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's next? Are feminists going to fight to remove 'man' from the word 'woman'?

There was a feminist on here before that didn't like being referred to as 'female' because of the references to 'male'. Think she since closed her account out of the embarrassment of the comment.

UCDVet · 30-11-2014 03:03PM

TheZohan wrote: »

There was a feminist on here before that didn't like being referred to as 'female' because of the references to 'male'. Think she since closed her account out of the embarrassment of the comment.

Oddly enough, as a man, I'd argue the opposite.

Men are always getting the minimum. Look at the word 'man' and 'woman'. It mirrors our society perfectly. Men get what they get, but WOMEN get everything the man gets + more.

WO + Man = Woman.
Man = Man.

Look at clothing. We used to have men's clothing and women's clothing. Men wore pants and women wore skirts and dresses. But not any more. Women are free to dress in whatever they want. But not men. Our society doesn't approve of men wearing dresses.

Just like the spelling of the words....women get all that men get PLUS MORE.

(I'm kidding but, seriously, some people will find anything to object too)

RobYourBuilder · 30-11-2014 03:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's next? Are feminists going to fight to remove 'man' from the word 'woman'?

Womyn's group in Ennis Co Clare for LGBTQ womyn and friends

http://www.dublinlesbianline.ie/groups.html

You gotta laugh at this sort of thing.

Sand · 30-11-2014 03:13PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Skimming an article for objectionable content, does not make for a straw-man.

Skimming with the intent of looking for something objectionable to attack actually does. Reading an argument with the intent of understanding it and responding to the argument, leads to a better debate overall. There is a prevalent problem on internet discussion forums where you have people who will ignore the argument, skim the post, look for something, anything objectionable and then strawman it.

If Youtube videos make it harder for people to do this, then its an advantage of the medium. Sure, it takes longer to listen to someone's argument than to merely skim it but if your time really is that precious why are you wasting it on a half involved internet argument? Do something else more important to you, with 100% of your effort.

UCDVet wrote: »

Excellent point But the barrier to entry is much lower for youtube. Still, you are 100% correct. All media stands to profit from increased viewers. Generating controversy is a great way for them to achieve that.

I should point out that I'm not defending Youtube videos in themselves. They are just a medium, and the message can be and often is total rubbish. I don't get my news from Youtube. But I wouldn't dismiss Youtube videos out of hand - I've seen some well presented and thoughtful videos, and I've seen some utter tripe in the more traditional media.

You're right though - Youtube has a lower barrier to entry, so people with rubbish to spout get an audience much more easily than in the 1950s (for example). But traditional media is also moving away from that patriarchal/elitist 1950s media model, and are themselves trying to appease and win the ad dollars/euros from those same people with rubbish to spout. There is a race to the bottom with the 24/7 news cycle where opinion and speculation are more important than facts.

30-11-2014 03:21PM

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

http://www.dublinlesbianline.ie/groups.html

You gotta laugh at this sort of thing.

Obscure, but funny in a profoundly tragic way

Sand · 30-11-2014 03:26PM

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

http://www.dublinlesbianline.ie/groups.html

You gotta laugh at this sort of thing.

Its not even consistent in its usage. Switches from womyn to women and back again all the way through the listing.

Earl Turner · 30-11-2014 03:32PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you choose to follow that link, click on the "About" tab. Jaw-drop stuff.

I see nothing objectionable.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 03:34PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To many young people, free speech and freedom from censorship is one of the most important fundamental human rights.

So his choice of what to wear is an expression of his right to free speech, but criticising his choice is not free speech, but a denial of his fundamental rights that can be equated to blowing people to bits?

It is that simple for some of us I'm afraid. There's nothing to consider - if you believe in censorship on the grounds of offense, you are going against the values which the majority of people who grew up in the nineties were raised on, and many people of that generation will reject any such ideology. I know I'm not alone in this, and I know that this is why many women my own age, while believing in equality, will not identify as feminist. Not because they think it's irrelevant, not because they think it's man hating, not because they're apathetic, but specifically because they don't believe in the "it offends me, therefore it should be banned" ideology.

So, in your "simplified" model, people can be called to account for the actions of others, and if they choose to say nothing, or if they wish to offer a nuanced reply, they are somehow wrong and deserving of opprobrium.

Perhaps you should give some thought to the idea that some women are reluctant to declare themselves feminists because of the intemperate position you and others take.

Earl Turner · 30-11-2014 03:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's next? Are feminists going to fight to remove 'man' from the word 'woman'?

As you've seen, yes they do. Some will insists on 'womyn' as its less oppressive. I've also seen words like 'stupid' and 'braindead', even when used to attack white men, banned as they oppress mentally challenged people.

'Phobia' can no longer be used, so something like 'homophobia' becomes something like 'homoantagonism'. It's positively Orwellian.

My favourite so far has been seeing 'folks' replaced with 'folx' as the former is white supremacist.

Earl Turner · 30-11-2014 03:41PM

TheZohan wrote: »

There was a feminist on here before that didn't like being referred to as 'female' because of the references to 'male'. Think she since closed her account out of the embarrassment of the comment.

Have you got a link? This I got to see.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 03:49PM

Sand wrote: »

Skimming with the intent of looking for something objectionable to attack actually does. Reading an argument with the intent of understanding it and responding to the argument, leads to a better debate overall. There is a prevalent problem on internet discussion forums where you have people who will ignore the argument, skim the post, look for something, anything objectionable and then strawman it.

We're talking about articles/YouTube videos, not posts where people have presented their argument in their own words. Skimming does not equal not understanding - skimming does not equal making assumptions about an article - skimming does not mean taking quotes out of context.

It's piss easy to skim an article, and if you come across something objectionable, to go back through it without skimming, to see that it is in the correct context.

KomradeBishop · 30-11-2014 03:51PM

Earl Turner wrote: »

I see nothing objectionable.

You find nothing objectionable about the following?
"Women and homosexuals are discouraged from commenting here.
...
5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character."

Earl Turner · 30-11-2014 03:56PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You find nothing objectionable about the following?
"Women and homosexuals are discouraged from commenting here.
...
5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character."

It's not Boards.ie where everyone is welcome to post, it's not a feminist 'safe space' its a website aimed at heterosexual men.

Yes I agree with the second statement.

Wibbs · 30-11-2014 04:09PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You find nothing objectionable about the following?
"Women and homosexuals are discouraged from commenting here.

Not particularly TBH. Their club, their rules. If for example I saw a Lesbian site/forum that stated men and straight women are discouraged from commenting here I'd think the same thing. Their club, their rules. Now don't ge me wrong I don't agree with it because just as night follows day, it leads to an echo chamber, as evidenced by the attached forum, where straight men are "discouraged" and/or banned because they don't quite tow the party line, or kow tow to the various party "gurus". Basically if you're of a mind to question or drift beyond the shores of "all women are dangerous bitches, whose only saving grace is their youth and beauty, but foreign women, even better from non first world countries are OK if you keep them on a tight leash of game" then you're on shaky ground.

5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character."

Within this subgroup this would hold somewhat true and historically it certainly held more than somewhat true. As far as sexual attraction goes it would again hold somewhat true as a very broad generalisation. A young objectively good looking woman has simply more choices in potential suitors than an older plain woman and a socially aware, clever and rich man has more choices in potential suitors than a socially inept man and age is less of a restriction for men. However in the day to day real world of most of the rest of us this stuff is at most at low level background and says nothing about a woman or man's value in the rest of life's endevours.

30-11-2014 04:10PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you choose to follow that link, click on the "About" tab. Jaw-drop stuff.

I find that website refreshing as it's one of the few places I can read opinions that are grounded in logic and closer to reality than most feminist publications.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments