Self Defense: "Weak men put their hands on women for any reason!"

[AfungusAmongus]

Quite the opposite, the point that is at issue is that egalitarianism as applied to gender has no actual positions and limiting it is a reframe.

Labels express not only positions but also attitudes. 'Egalitarian' emphasizes the pro-equality attitudes that Sensucht displayed here, whereas 'feminist' implies specific interest in women's issues (...'on the basis of equality', as the definition usually goes).

Egalitarianism is the philosophy that all people have equal worth and any movement that believes that it's pushing for equality is egalitarian by nature.

Sensucht endorsed a substantive egalitarian ethic ("Persons of any combination of sex and gender should have equity of opportunity"), not a fundamental or background egalitarian premise ("all people have equal worth"). See Egalitarianism (SEP).

Because poverty is the reasons that these things don't change in most of africa. The social customs pre-existed the poverty but to make progress with gender issues.

What makes you think Africans will scrap their traditions upon gaining wealth? Wealthy Jewish families still circumcise their baby boys (MGM) according to ancient tradition. The most effective way to change such traditions is to highlight the harms they cause (pain, sexual dysfunction, risk of infection).

As far as saudi arabia realize that A. it purposefully radicalized it's population by feeding large amounts of money and power to Salafist clerics and B. that it imposes it's restrictions by law explicitly to placate those very same clerics.

But why did the royal family empower Salafist clerics? The reasons were political rather than economic: (1) the Iranian Revolution and (2) extremist seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca made them fear Islamist violence. Saudi patriarchy simply isn't reducible to economic forces - regional culture and religion are central to the story.

I think you're not very well educated on the history of your movement, are you? It explicitly grew out of the idea of masculinism as a counter to feminism's beliefs in patriarchy, positing matriarchy as a counter theory.

Smug insult plus ironic strawman... no attempt to give evidence... look if you want me to take you seriously please:
1. be respectful, and
2. cite sources.

There's disagreement with MRM, but you know what, the same was true of feminism in the past, if your philosophy wants academic positions you need to fight for them like feminism did.

True enough. Nonetheless, MRA's often take liberal views of gender roles - for example The Second Sexism applies the feminist playbook to men's issues:

even if we grant that this [men's greater workplace fatalities] is because men do take greater risks, this does not preclude the possibility of discrimination. Men might be pressured, for example, to assume such risks. The pressure might be explicit or it might be implicit in their gender role.

 

[FirestormNeos]

brb making a Ra's Al Ghul Mii and pitting it against a Jigglypuff as a metaphor for the debate going on right now.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well, there's always Martin Luther King Jr. to keep people in check, so it's worth giving them a chance--

*looks up second wave feminism*

Couldn't find anything. Mind providing a laundry list of problems with second wave feminism?

Complete ignoring of racial issues, appropriation of queer identity*, advocating discrimination against gay men and being exclusionary and endorsing exclusion of trans individuals.


*by this I mean the functional equivalent of them putting on blackface, said they were really black, tried to make themselves the perceived legitimate advocate for black issues at the exclusion of the groups made by black americans, advocated for issues based on how the effected white women, and argued for the superiority of those that assume blackness as a political identity over those who have it thrust upon them by genetics.



To give the devil it's due, it did actually have a significant concentration on working class women's issues (eg glass floor), something which modern feminism spends little time on due to lack of attention rather then ideology, but something that needs to be fixed.


Overall, a lot of problems, third wave feminism was a reaction to these issues and extended these lessons to anti-colonialism

ohhh... which ones?

Off the top of my head, International Alliance of Women, UNIFEM and ICW. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

The "everyone has different views on what is right and what is wrong, so who am I to judge those things?"

And then we get pure philosophy, that position is only really defensible under existentialism otherwise social agreement tends to produce optimal results and therefore rules of conduct which ultimately boil down to "equality is best" can be derived from first principals.

On the bright side, that fiasco is the closest we'll ever get to a real life version of Predator Vs. Alien.

I wish I shared your enthusiasm.

Labels express not only positions but also attitudes. 'Egalitarian' emphasizes the pro-equality attitudes that Sensucht displayed here, whereas 'feminist' implies specific interest in women's issues (...'on the basis of equality', as the definition usually goes).


Sensucht endorsed a substantive egalitarian ethic ("Persons of any combination of sex and gender should have equity of opportunity"), not a fundamental or background egalitarian premise ("all people have equal worth"). See Egalitarianism (SEP).

You previously asserted that one can be an egalitarian and an MRA in fact you yourself identified as one, therefore it's obvious that the issues that one is interested in isn't the defining point, you too asserted that it was the reason why you arrived at those issues.

Feminism argues unequal opportunity for genders and in practice concentrates on women's issues, MRM argues unequal opportunity for genders and concentrates on men's issues. While this might not necessarily be true of all branches of feminist thought, modern feminism certainly comes from an egalitarian mindset as does MRM, as does LGBTQ issues.

The difference of concentration for movements that agree with each other is specialization, not dimishing of other's concerns.

What makes you think Africans will scrap their traditions upon gaining wealth? Wealthy Jewish families still circumcise their baby boys (MGM) according to ancient tradition. The most effective way to change such traditions is to highlight the harms they cause (pain, sexual dysfunction, risk of infection).

I don't, rather I'm arguing that they can't without the resolution of the poverty issue and poverty causes a doubling down on traditional and perceived traditional views.

Why? Maslow's hierarchy of needs, struggling for basic survival on a day to day basis makes it impossible to give attention to criticizing cultural norms creating conservatism. We see this again and again in societies, existential crises either for the country or a large enough portion of the individuals produces a doubling down on conservative cultural norms and a preference for simplified life philosophies that fit with those cultural norms.

But why did the royal family empower Salafist clerics? The reasons were political rather than economic: (1) the Iranian Revolution and (2) extremist seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca made them fear Islamist violence. Saudi patriarchy simply isn't reducible to economic forces - regional culture and religion are central to the story.

Actually they'd been empowering them for a long time before then via financial aid and patronage. The movement's founder Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud's alliance was fundamental to the creation of the first Saudi state and this dynastic patronage continued to almost the current day. The modern Saudi state actually exported Salafism as a means of passively exerting political power and radicalized the poor internally as a means of keeping those who might potentially rebel under control, essentially pointing them at somebody else because even though the ruling class was westernized, the country it heavily supported Salafist Islam and the extremist interpretation was written into it's laws.

The difference that those two events created was that they became worried about Salafists turning inward and actually rebelling, it lead to the end of exporting and encouraging Salafism as a political strategy and appeasing them as the new political paradigm.

Smug insult plus ironic strawman... no attempt to give evidence... look if you want me to take you seriously please:
1. be respectful, and
2. cite sources.

That wasn't s much an argument, that was disbelief that you're affiliating with something you're obviously not well read on at all.

Have you not read The Manipulated Man or The Myth of Male Power? That men are the oppressed gender and women aren't is fundamental in the split in men's liberation which birthed the men's right's movement (reference: The Limits of "The Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movements' Discourse by Professor Michael Messner). Masculinism is constructed as a philosophical opposition to feminism, up to and including a systematic social oppression of men by women that is the ideological opposite of the patriarchy, the matriarchy.

Which is inaccurate and frustrating but wouldn't be anywhere near as much of an issue if the movement spent it's energy opposing men's gender roles as opposed to simply opposing feminism.

True enough. Nonetheless, MRA's often take liberal views of gender roles - for example The Second Sexism applies the feminist playbook to men's issues:

I'm aware which is why it confounds me that the movement spends all it's energy attacking feminism rather then criticizing these social gender roles even though feminism obviously has a far more progressive view of men's gender roles then society at large.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Complete ignoring of racial issues, appropriation of queer identity*, advocating discrimination against gay men and being exclusionary and endorsing exclusion of trans individuals.


*by this I mean the functional equivalent of them putting on blackface, said they were really black, tried to make themselves the perceived legitimate advocate for black issues at the exclusion of the groups made by black americans, advocated for issues based on how the effected white women, and argued for the superiority of those that assume blackness as a political identity over those who have it thrust upon them by genetics.

You talk about racism in Second Wave in the form of an asteric mark, yet the mark is placed in "appropriation of queer identity."

clarification?

I wish I shared your enthusiasm.

I cycle between a lot of emotions with that ordeal. Most of them negative. But that might be because I'm getting sick of hearing it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You talk about racism in Second Wave in the form of an asteric mark, yet the mark is placed in "appropriation of queer identity."

clarification?

It was a comparison to illustrate exactly how deranged the behavior was, political lesbianism as it was expressed by second wave feminism, is precisely the same behavior the paragraph described except applied to sexuality instead of race.

I cycle between a lot of emotions with that ordeal. Most of them negative. But that might be because I'm getting sick of hearing it.

Try being subscribed to KiA for a while, it's quite the "interesting" echo chamber.

 

[FirestormNeos]

It was a comparison to illustrate exactly how deranged the behavior was, political lesbianism as it was expressed by second wave feminism, is precisely the same behavior the paragraph described except applied to sexuality instead of race.

ah, i see...

Try being subscribed to KiA for a while, it's quite the "interesting" echo chamber.

What's a KiA?

 

[adumbrodeus]

ah, i see...

You want sources? I can offer many examples of mainstream 2nd wave feminist thinkers being derisive towards women who are "merely lesbians out of lust" as opposed to those who who chose to be so out of political motivation, of them trying to separate lesbianism from the rest of queer activism, arguing that it's to protect lesbians from the misogyny inherent in gay male culture (tying into the point about them encouraging bias against gay men because they viewed being a gay male as misygyny due to gay men "excluding women", and all the other claims I made about second wave feminism.

The major difference between the second and third wave was because younger feminists were disgusted with the second wave's treatment of lgbtq people and basically forcefully seized philosophical control.

What's a KiA?

Reddit's gamergate discussion central.

 

[FirestormNeos]

You want sources? I can offer many examples of mainstream 2nd wave feminist thinkers being derisive towards women who are "merely lesbians out of lust" as opposed to those who who chose to be so out of political motivation, of them trying to separate lesbianism from the rest of queer activism, arguing that it's to protect lesbians from the misogyny inherent in gay male culture (tying into the point about them encouraging bias against gay men because they viewed being a gay male as misygyny due to gay men "excluding women", and all the other claims I made about second wave feminism.

O_O

list 'em.

The major difference between the second and third wave was because younger feminists were disgusted with the second wave's treatment of lgbtq people and basically forcefully seized philosophical control.

YAAAAY!

Reddit's gamergate discussion central.

OH GOD YOU SAID IT--!

*Cringes, Vomits and Spasms Violently*

sorry, I have a medical condition where my body attacks itself upon the name of issues I'm not comfortable talking about are brought up in conversation. See also a town in Missouri where a teenager was killed by police for disputed reasons, any mass shooting in the last 16 years, and if a certain Wii U game about a blue hedgehog fighting a robot lizard is good or not.

Doctor says he'll have a special drug that'll cure me of the aliment ready hopefully by April of this year.

 

[adumbrodeus]

O_O

list 'em.

Opponents of political lesbianism argue that "genuine" lesbians are motivated purely by lust towards women, rather than a decision to reject men and heterosexuality.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights

As for the rest of my claims, see


Gender hurts: a feminist analysis of the politics of transgenderism

Unpacking queer politics: a lesbian feminist perspective

Both by Sheila Jeffreys, fun little reads about "Lesbian" politics.

Then there's the Redstockings who explicitly argued against male homosexuality on those grounds, Sheila Jeffreys only implies that by arguing that male liberation was looking to homosexuality as a substitute for giving into feminist demands.


Satisfied?

OH GOD YOU SAID IT--!

*Cringes, Vomits and Spasms Violently*

sorry, I have a medical condition where my body attacks itself upon the name of issues I'm not comfortable talking about are brought up in conversation. See also a town in Missouri where a teenager was killed by police for disputed reasons, any mass shooting in the last 16 years, and if a certain Wii U game about a blue hedgehog fighting a robot lizard is good or not.

Doctor says he'll have a special drug that'll cure me of the aliment ready hopefully by April of this year.

Shouldn't have asked me to describe what it was then *waggles finger*

 

[AfungusAmongus]

That wasn't s much an argument, that was disbelief that you're affiliating with something you're obviously not well read on at all.

Wow, I'm so done with your insults and strawmen.

The whole concept of men and women oppressing each other is ridiculous. That's a fabrication of the feminist movement. What is true is that both sexes have roles that can legitimately be considered oppressive, but those roles are not roles designed by men or women, they were designed by biological necessity and the necessity of survival. Survival was the oppressor.

(from MenWeb)

 

[FirestormNeos]

Satisfied?

yes.

Shouldn't have asked me to describe what it was then *waggles finger*

ur right. tis my own fault for asking.

 

[adumbrodeus]

yes.

So now you understand why there's a such a rift between the modern lgbtq movement and 2nd wave feminism.

Edit: And also now you get a feel for why modern western feminism is so hesitant to deal with other group's issues without thorough education and even when it does it strongly prefers a supporting role. This is also why Patricia Arquette got roasted so much for her backstage comments,

 

[FirestormNeos]

Which branch of feminism, if any, would advocate censorship?

Mind you, not the MovieBob definition of censorship.

So now you understand why there's a such a rift between the modern lgbtq movement and 2nd wave feminism.

Edit: And also now you get a feel for why modern western feminism is so hesitant to deal with other group's issues without thorough education and even when it does it strongly prefers a supporting role. This is also why Patricia Arquette got roasted so much for her backstage comments,

Patricia Arquette... was she the one who made that one Oscar speech about payment?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Which branch of feminism, if any, would advocate censorship?

Mind you, not the MovieBob definition of censorship.

No significant branch advocates state censorship of materials currently though in the past there were some significant voices (including arguments that freedom of speech was in and of itself a tool of the patriarchy to oppress in 2nd wave but even they have back off as they were marginalized), as far as corporations not publishing objectionable materials, well that's a bit murkier because usually by publishing a material they're endorsing the speech contained therein, so it's not censorship so much as disagreeing with their speech. Criticism. Disagreeing with what somebody says, even to the point of boycotting is not censorship, that is in and of itself an exercise of free speech. The same is true of having rules in a private and non-governmental venue.

That said my personal opinion is, there are exceptions to this rule, free speech is only legally applicable to the government but the reality is that certain corporations have sufficient market control that they have the effective ability to squash free speech, an easy example is ISPs due to the commonality of regional monopolies and generally the small number of choices. Same could be said of digital distribution platforms that have a giant market share, criticizing the content of the speech is certainly fair game, but criticizing the distributor that allows it in my opinion shouldn't be the case, such distributors should be encouraged to use value neutral criteria for deciding what to distribute, though their choices in terms of in house productions are fair game.

Similarly I'd encourage many types of sites that subsist on user based content to maintain viewpoint neutrality.


But it's important to remember, criticism is not censorship!

Patricia Arquette... was she the one who made that one Oscar speech about payment?

Wage equality? Yes.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Wage equality? Yes.

Okay then.

Oddly enough, my mom really liked that she made that speech. Should I be worried?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Okay then.

Oddly enough, my mom really liked that she made that speech. Should I be worried?

No? Why would it be?

As I said it was her backstage comments that were at issue, the only thing I can really point to about her speech is the continuing emphasis on upper and middle class women's issues that emphasis on wage equality represents, but it is in and of itself a very legitimate issue.

 

[FirestormNeos]

There's this thing going on with Nintendo Characters on feminist posters, like for example Toadette being in the "Rosie The Riveter" poster. People are mad at Nintendo for doing this. I don't understand why. Are they feminists? Are they correct?

So much confusion.

EDIT: Did some research. Nothing on their official website. Nothing on their Twitter. This must've just been some nonsense whipped up by the lab boys over at Black Mesa. IGNORE THIS.

No? Why would it be?

As I said it was her backstage comments that were at issue, the only thing I can really point to about her speech is the continuing emphasis on upper and middle class women's issues that emphasis on wage equality represents, but it is in and of itself a very legitimate issue.

oh, you weren't referring to the speech.

Wait, what backstage comments?

 

[adumbrodeus]

There's this thing going on with Nintendo Characters on feminist posters, like for example Toadette being in the "Rosie The Riveter" poster. People are mad at Nintendo for doing this. I don't understand why. Are they feminists? Are they correct?

So much confusion.

EDIT: Did some research. Nothing on their official website. Nothing on their Twitter. This must've just been some nonsense whipped up by the lab boys over at Black Mesa. IGNORE THIS.



oh, you weren't referring to the speech.

Wait, what backstage comments?

These comments

"It's inexcusable we go around the world talking about equal rights for women in other countries ... and we don't have equal rights for women in America.The truth is even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, there are huge issues that are at play that really do affect women. It's time for all … the gay people and people of color that we've all fought for to fight for us now

 

[FirestormNeos]

These comments

OHHHHH... ohhhh... uggggh...

 

[adumbrodeus]

OHHHHH... ohhhh... uggggh...

Yep, minimizing the importance of lgbtq concerns and racial concerns after the former still doesn't have marriage equality and still isn't covered under equal rights provisions in most states and the latter had multiple incidents that made them very concerned for their lives from the government, combined with the fact that it pretty much directly states that that PoC and gays are not intersectional with women.... well let's just say a lot of POC and lgbtq people got quite frustrated given feminism's poor 2nd wave history but it was particularly poorly received by lesbian and PoC feminists. Pretty much only TERFs supported it.

 

[Troll Man]

I'm currently lurking around and I'm going to admit that...

1- How do we know sexism doesn't have a confirmation bias? What's stopping me from assuming that everything has some form of encouraging some sort of sexist idea?

Common sense.
If you find out that something might be inherently sexist and you never thought about it, your knee jerk response shouldn't be to react, but rather to think critically about an issue and try to understand where somebody's coming from.

2- How do we know for certain whether a woman is flaunting her sexuality because "woo! freedom!" or if she's doing it because of societal pressure?

Society really doesn't encourage women to be open with their sexuality unless it directly helps men. A woman wearing something provocative, for example, is more likely to be shamed because she's too "slutty" but when a man asks a woman out and she says no, she's a "prude" or some other thing

3- How can we fix these social issues that feminism talks about without resorting to censorship of art?

Educating people and getting outraged about sexism in our art and culture. Mortal Kombat, for example, is a very popular series of games, but so obviously over-sexualizes and objectifies women.

If we were really against sexism in our video games, we wouldn't allow such a disgusting game to surface. It's like if I told you a game that portrays Jews as icky, nasty, greedy little people with big noses just got its 10th installment and is still a big hit. You'd (hopefully) be like "well there's OBVIOUSLY something wrong with our culture"

4- Are women as impressionable as we are lead to believe by many sociologists, or is that just the patriarchy once again brainwashing us to believe that women can't look at a picture of a skinny person without having a body identity crisis?

It's not that women are "impressionable", and it's not just one picture. Society has this idea that a skinny girl > chubby girl in terms of what's "pretty", but that's not true at all. The super models we show our young girls, and even the toys we let them play with have IMPOSSIBLE proportions.

Boys are taught through our culture that our worth lies in ourselves, after this is taught to us, the main character usually gets "the pretty girl." Conversely, girls are taught (for the most part) that their worth lies in their looks.

5- Would the MRA exist even if Feminism didn't cause people to challenge gender discrimination? Or are they feminism's more paranoid and somewhat selfish cousin? Or maybe they are a purely reactionary concept?

They're reactionaries who saw that women had a movement and thought "****, we need one too."
My problem with the MRM isn't that though, my problem is that unlike feminism the toxic individuals are found directly at the center of the movement. Paul Elam, the founder of the a voice for men website said that if he were in a jury and the attorney showed over-whelming evidence that the rapist was guilty, he'd still elect to set him free, as to "counter-act" false **** accusations, which, despite what MRAs will tell you, is not an epidemic by any stretch of the mind. Girl writes what (a youtuber) said that she didn't find anything ethically questionable about an article that said "women should be terrorized by their men, it's the only thing that stops them from behaving like chimps" and she herself spoke at the AVFM conference.

Meanwhile, feminism is a social movement that finds itself in academia, there are countless books and papers written by people who study gender relations and discrimination, who have actual degrees in gender studies.

6- If and when women finally have equal rights to men (if they don't already), what will become of feminism?

Feminism will have become a fully integrated part of society by then.

7- Can someone explain to me why matters like the design of a fictional character are more important and discussion-worthy then the cancer to feminism that is "Pro-Life" scumbags in the political environment, or the crap happening to women in the middle east?

It isn't, but it still warrants intellectual conversation. These characters are a reflection of how we see women, as books, movies, etc.. are all a reflection of society.
Just because A is more oppressed than B doesn't mean that B is not oppressed, similarly, you can focus on both sets of issues.

8- What is feminism's answer to Moral Relativism?

No one time period is exempt from modern judgement.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Common sense.
If you find out that something might be inherently sexist and you never thought about it, your knee jerk response shouldn't be to react, but rather to think critically about an issue and try to understand where somebody's coming from.

Oh, so if someone tried to explain to me why Frozen is subliminally sexist towards women, take it with a grain of salt?

Society really doesn't encourage women to be open with their sexuality unless it directly helps men. A woman wearing something provocative, for example, is more likely to be shamed because she's too "****ty" but when a man asks a woman out and she says no, she's a "prude" or some other thing

By whom, exactly? Bigotry's greatest weapon is the concept of being a faceless entity.

If the people responsible are mostly men, your point still stands. If the people doing the **** shamming are mostly women, your point can still stand anyway but needs to be tweaked to better explain why.

Educating people and getting outraged about sexism in our art and culture. Mortal Kombat, for example, is a very popular series of games, but so obviously over-sexualizes and objectifies women.

If we were really against sexism in our video games, we wouldn't allow such a disgusting game to surface. It's like if I told you a game that portrays Jews as icky, nasty, greedy little people with big noses just got its 10th installment and is still a big hit. You'd (hopefully) be like "well there's OBVIOUSLY something wrong with our culture"

That would only be my response if there is a second opinion to confirm that the portrayal was indeed what you said it was. My actually playing the game being the most credible as I get the portrayal as well as context.

It's not that women are "impressionable", and it's not just one picture. Society has this idea that a skinny girl > chubby girl in terms of what's "pretty", but that's not true at all. The super models we show our young girls, and even the toys we let them play with have IMPOSSIBLE proportions.

Boys are taught through our culture that our worth lies in ourselves, after this is taught to us, the main character usually gets "the pretty girl." Conversely, girls are taught (for the most part) that their worth lies in their looks.

No comment. **** barbie.

My problem with the MRM isn't that though, my problem is that unlike feminism the toxic individuals are found directly at the center of the movement.

Most intelligent criticism of MRA goes to this sentence. Good job, here's a cookie.

Feminism will have become a fully integrated part of society by then.

I assumed that much. But what happens afterword? What happens to feminism when there are no more dragons for it to slay?

It isn't, but it still warrants intellectual conversation. These characters are a reflection of how we see women, as books, movies, etc.. are all a reflection of society. Just because A is more oppressed than B doesn't mean that B is not oppressed, similarly, you can focus on both sets of issues.

Okay, lemme rephrase my question:

Why is it that we're seeing a lot of influential people who attempt to bring intellectual conversation (and media outrage) to matters like video games, but not nearly as much intellectual conversation (and media outrage) from issues like genital mutilation in Africa or the stoning to death of women who go outside their homes or dare to get an education in the Middle East?

____

You make a lot of points that @ adumbrodeus makes better, but it's better then most of the trash you run into on Tumblr.

B+

 

[adumbrodeus]

Oh, so if someone tried to explain to me why Frozen is subliminally sexist towards women, take it with a grain of salt?

I wouldn't automatically discount it, rather consider whether the criticism is warranted based on reading the argument. For example frozen DOES have feminist issues even though it's production goal is quite feminist. For example, that all the main female characters had exactly one body type.

In Frozen's case I would argue that it's strongly outweighed by it's treatment of other issues and considered in a general societal context it is quite feminist (deconstruction of the primacy of romantic love as a judge of women's worth, deconstruction of worth of women being based on male approval, these are big societal issues being constantly reinforced through media), so I'd argue that though it does have issues it's a substantial net positive. Compare to Sucker Punch which was similarly Feminist in intent but had issues in characterization and failed to get it's intended message across.

It's good to criticize even feminist media and recognize where it fails, but at the same time it's also important to take a step back and realize "this is still very strongly feminist relative to our society as a whole".

 

[Troll Man]

Oh, so if someone tried to explain to me why Frozen is subliminally sexist towards women, take it with a grain of salt?

I haven't seen Frozen, but that wasn't really the point. My point is to keep an open mind, because sexism seems rather subtle at times. If you hear a crazy idea like "we shouldn't let trans women into the movement because they're not real women" then of course you should dismiss it.

By whom, exactly? Bigotry's greatest weapon is the concept of being a faceless entity.

If the people responsible are mostly men, your point still stands. If the people doing the **** shamming are mostly women, your point can still stand anyway but needs to be tweaked to better explain why.

Not quite. Women can **** shame just as well as men. It's just a problem society has in general. For example, people think that victim-blaming is okay, and regardless of what gender you are, saying that makes you a bad person. Feminists fight AGAINST victim-blaming and ****-shaming because they're rampant parts of society that shouldn't exist.

That would only be my response if there is a second opinion to confirm that the portrayal was indeed what you said it was. My actually playing the game being the most credible as I get the portrayal as well as context.

Right, but denying that Mortal Kombat objectifies women is like denying that Ike is the best P:M character Squirtle is blue. The problem with the gaming community is that it seems like we don't want to admit that yeah, these games are sexist and might turn women off to them as a result. Hell, even I've started to play less games because the community and the games so obviously objectify women that it disgusts me. We should strive to be more inclusive, not to perform mental gymnastics so that we can continue the status quo.

I assumed that much. But what happens afterword? What happens to feminism when there are no more dragons for it to slay?

Feminism just becomes the accepted way of thinking by all members of society. I don't know what response you're looking for.

Okay, lemme rephrase my question:

Why is it that we're seeing a lot of influential people who attempt to bring intellectual conversation (and media outrage) to matters like video games, but not nearly as much intellectual conversation (and media outrage) from issues like genital mutilation in Africa or the stoning to death of women who go outside their homes or dare to get an education in the Middle East?

You're more likely to hear about issues in the first world because YOU'RE living in the first world. If you read the academic literature, or do a bit of research, you'll find that feminists and feminist organizations are trying to combat FGM, and you might find out about feminist organizations all over the world, e.g the all China's women federation.

You make a lot of points that @ adumbrodeus makes better, but it's better then most of the trash you run into on Tumblr.

Tumblr isn't where you should get your ideas on feminism from, feminism is an academic movement as well as a social one, as such, you should let the academic literature speak for itself. If you'd like book recommendations, or even papers, I'd be happy to send some over via PM.

That being said, I don't see a lot of feminists on tumblr who misrepresent the movement. A lot of the ones I've seen are pretty spot on from my experience.

B+

You're going to ruin my average.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That being said, I don't see a lot of feminists on tumblr who misrepresent the movement. A lot of the ones I've seen are pretty spot on from my experience.

As a percentage you're correct, there aren't a lot, most feminists on tumblr (and reddit for that matter) are earnest and decent representations, if not necessarily well academically educated. But feminism is a massive movement and in terms of raw numbers there certainly are a lot.

But at that point it becomes confirmation bias, there are endless examples of bad ones so rather then comparing a percentage and recognizing it's less then 1%, it mentally becomes "I'm seeing a lot of bad ones therefore this is seen as legitimate mainstream feminism".

You're going to ruin my average.

Sorry you're being graded on a curve! mwahahaha

 

[Sucumbio]

This is an excellent corner of the greater issue: women and media. The Dream Angels commercial by Victoria Secret is something that embodies what I mean. (if you wanna watch it you'll have to Google it yourselves ).

Essentially these types of marketing ploys attempt to break into the psyche of many groups. Women wanting to feel sexy. Men wanting to pay homage to their significant other. Even teens are seduced by the commercial enterprises of these types of companies. Thus we have a perpetual engine of sexually driven motifs that well define for a great many people that which is deemed expected, appropriate, and commonplace.

So the question becomes, how does this compromise feminist ideology, or does it?

To me it seems a dangerously fine line between female empowerment, and female objectification. Especially when young men are its target.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I wouldn't automatically discount it, rather consider whether the criticism is warranted based on reading the argument. For example frozen DOES have feminist issues even though it's production goal is quite feminist. For example, that all the main female characters had exactly one body type.

What I meant by taking it with a grain of salt.

It's good to criticize even feminist media and recognize where it fails, but at the same time it's also important to take a step back and realize "this is still very strongly feminist relative to our society as a whole".

So in other words, it's... Really That Good? /referencestoobscureyoutubethingslol

I haven't seen Frozen, but that wasn't really the point. My point is to keep an open mind, because sexism seems rather subtle at times. If you hear a crazy idea like "we shouldn't let trans women into the movement because they're not real women" then of course you should dismiss it.

k good i was worried this was one of those "listen and believe" moments.

Not quite. Women can **** shame just as well as men. It's just a problem society has in general. For example, people think that victim-blaming is okay, and regardless of what gender you are, saying that makes you a bad person. Feminists fight AGAINST victim-blaming and ****-shaming because they're rampant parts of society that shouldn't exist.

Since both men and women **** shame, I would personally advise against stating it's a problem because of sexism, as that creates an inaccurate stigma that only one of the sexes does it.

As for Victim Blaming, I personally believe that said problem with society comes from our primitive instinct to try and prevent a problem from happening again, even if it's not realistically going to be prevented.

Right, but denying that Mortal Kombat objectifies women is like denying that Ike is the best P:M character Squirtle is blue.

HA, I KNEW IT! I KNEW P:M WASN'T PERFECTLY BALANCED! THOSE SCRUBS THOUGHT I WAS JUST PARANOID, BUT I SURE SHOWED THEM!

The problem with the gaming community is that it seems like we don't want to admit that yeah, these games are sexist and might turn women off to them as a result. Hell, even I've started to play less games because the community and the games so obviously objectify women that it disgusts me. We should strive to be more inclusive, not to perform mental gymnastics so that we can continue the status quo.

I'm not going to argue against the "Mortal Kombat objectifies women" part.

However, look back at @ adumbrodeus 's response to my comment with Frozen. What if someone, we'll call them Robin because it's gender neutral, argued that because of that flaw, Frozen needs to be put in the same boat you say Mortal Kombat is in? Yes, it has flaws, but it's not as bad as MK. However, Robin just refuses to see it. Robin thinks they both are offensive and overrated.

What do we have to prevent Robin from over-zealously bashing undeserving works?

That being said, I don't see a lot of feminists on tumblr who misrepresent the movement. A lot of the ones I've seen are pretty spot on from my experience.

Alright, lemme argue a better example: How about the people who took #KillAllMen seriously and unjokingly supported the idea of exterminating half the planet?

You're going to ruin my average.

git noscopd, skwub.

This is an excellent corner of the greater issue: women and media. The Dream Angels commercial by Victoria Secret is something that embodies what I mean. (if you wanna watch it you'll have to Google it yourselves ).

Essentially these types of marketing ploys attempt to break into the psyche of many groups. Women wanting to feel sexy. Men wanting to pay homage to their significant other. Even teens are seduced by the commercial enterprises of these types of companies. Thus we have a perpetual engine of sexually driven motifs that well define for a great many people that which is deemed expected, appropriate, and commonplace.

So the question becomes, how does this compromise feminist ideology, or does it?

To me it seems a dangerously fine line between female empowerment, and female objectification. Especially when young men are its target.

Better question is, why would Victoria Secret aim it's commercials at men? I'm legitimately confused. How is that going to make them money?

 

[Sucumbio]

Better question is, why would Victoria Secret aim it's commercials at men? I'm legitimately confused. How is that going to make them money?

Big picture thinking of course. By enticing men and boys they determine for them what they should seek in a female, and thus wimen have determined for them what they should do to show off for men. It's cyclic.

Disney perpetuates the pretty pretty princess motif, like Barbie. All fall under the same net, though which is big companies making money off of sexual desires in the population by controlling those desires at a fundamental level.

 

[Troll Man]

Since both men and women **** shame, I would personally advise against stating it's a problem because of sexism, as that creates an inaccurate stigma that only one of the sexes does it.

No it doesn't. Women can be sexist towards women, just like men can be sexist towards men.
If a boy is crying, other boys might call him a "*****" or something of the sort, because men are supposed to be stoic characters who don't show emotion because of their strength in society (you have patriarchy to thank for that picture of men), whereas women are overly-emotional cowards who are too frail to do stuff outside of the kitchen (again, patriarchy). Historically, the term "*****" has been used to demean cis women by associating the vagina with weakness/cowardice.

The boys are being sexist towards the boy in this scenario. Similarly, women can be sexist towards other women, it's just that most of the time the people doing the victim blaming tend to be men, because men don't really have to worry about being ***** as much as women do.

As for Victim Blaming, I personally believe that said problem with society comes from our primitive instinct to try and prevent a problem from happening again, even if it's not realistically going to be prevented.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's sexist, feminists will argue that instead of blaming the victim you should, you know, teach boys in society not to ****.

I'm not going to argue against the "Mortal Kombat objectifies women" part.

Hopefully because you know that it's true.

However, look back at @ adumbrodeus 's response to my comment with Frozen. What if someone, we'll call them Robin because it's gender neutral, argued that because of that flaw, Frozen needs to be put in the same boat you say Mortal Kombat is in? Yes, it has flaws, but it's not as bad as MK. However, Robin just refuses to see it. Robin thinks they both are offensive and overrated.

What do we have to prevent Robin from over-zealously bashing undeserving works?

No work is exempt from criticism, and arguing over how sexist something is doesn't really matter. "HOW sexist" something is isn't quantifiable. We can research how OFTEN sexism occurs in the work place, media, school, etc.., but we can't really talk about the quantity of sexism as if it were a unit. Bringing up the problem and seeking out the solution matters. If there are bits about Frozen that exemplify sexism in our society we should talk about them, regardless of how much we love Frozen.

Alright, lemme argue a better example: How about the people who took #KillAllMen seriously and unjokingly supported the idea of exterminating half the planet?

You're talking about such a small minority of the movement that it'd be the equivalent of me whining about Islamic terrorists when I talk about Islam as a whole, or the Westboro Baptist church when I talk about Christianity. These people don't even warrant our attention, and every time you bring them up it furthers the notion that feminists are just man-hating assholes. For every time you bring up people who took "#KillAllMen" seriously when talking about feminism, you'd have to talk about genuine, scholarly feminists around 1,000,000 times if you really want to paint a picture of what feminism is.

Better question is, why would Victoria Secret aim it's commercials at men? I'm legitimately confused. How is that going to make them money?

Because men buy their SOs Victoria Secret.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Since both men and women **** shame, I would personally advise against stating it's a problem because of sexism, as that creates an inaccurate stigma that only one of the sexes does it.

As for Victim Blaming, I personally believe that said problem with society comes from our primitive instinct to try and prevent a problem from happening again, even if it's not realistically going to be prevented.

Strongly disagreed, sexism isn't something men do to women implicitly, sexism is a complex set of attitudes ingrained in our society about both men and women that individuals may act or or explicitly oppose. Nothing about sexism prevents women from being sexist against women or men being sexist against men. Enforcing gender norms is as much an element of socially established identity within a group and deviation from that identity is punished as well.

I'm not going to argue against the "Mortal Kombat objectifies women" part.

However, look back at @ adumbrodeus 's response to my comment with Frozen. What if someone, we'll call them Robin because it's gender neutral, argued that because of that flaw, Frozen needs to be put in the same boat you say Mortal Kombat is in? Yes, it has flaws, but it's not as bad as MK. However, Robin just refuses to see it. Robin thinks they both are offensive and overrated.

What do we have to prevent Robin from over-zealously bashing undeserving works?

We can't stop Robin from having their opinion, they in fact has every right to that opinion. However the proper response is to discuss it, I have my view that in spite of it's problems it does more to dismantle sexism then to enforce. We have a discussion, I present my views that relative to society overall it's quite progressive and it's merits outweight it's issues.

But generally the people with utopian or idiotic views tend to get ignored, Robin's views here are utopian, she has no sense of comparison.

Alright, lemme argue a better example: How about the people who took #KillAllMen seriously and unjokingly supported the idea of exterminating half the planet?

About .000000001% of the feminist movement. Slight exaggeration but true.

Better question is, why would Victoria Secret aim it's commercials at men? I'm legitimately confused. How is that going to make them money?

Because Victoria's Secret views changing perceptions of how women need to be in order to appeal to men is more commercially viable then changing women's perceptions of what would make them sexy.

Yes, there's a whole host of unfortunate implications there.

The boys are being sexist towards the boy in this scenario. Similarly, women can be sexist towards other women, it's just that most of the time the people doing the victim blaming tend to be men, because men don't really have to worry about being ***** as much as women do.

While true, it's more that society ignores the possibility of **** of men then a simple utilitarian reasoning that it's more likely. It's part of men's fundamental gender role. Where it occurs it's supposed to womanize the man, which is why "**** as comedy" is a trope.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's sexist, feminists will argue that instead of blaming the victim you should, you know, teach boys in society not to ****.

I take objection to the phrasing here, it should be "stop teaching boys to ****", while I understand the reasoning behind the initial phrase it also implicitly genders **** as male which is a component in the creation of **** culture. "Stop teaching boys to ****" places the emphasis squarely on the fact that it's learned behavior.

 

[Troll Man]

I take objection to the phrasing here, it should be "stop teaching boys to ****", while I understand the reasoning behind the initial phrase it also implicitly genders **** as male which is a component in the creation of **** culture. "Stop teaching boys to ****" places the emphasis squarely on the fact that it's learned behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States
99% of arrestees for **** are male.[11]

If you ever talk to rapists (before any sort of rehabilitation if you're going to bring that up) they usually think that **** is okay. Literally just look up interviews with rapists.

 

[FirestormNeos]

big companies making money off of sexual desires in the population by controlling those desires at a fundamental level.

Holy ****, I just got a really hamhanded AWESOME movie idea!

No it doesn't. Women can be sexist towards women, just like men can be sexist towards men.
If a boy is crying, other boys might call him a "*****" or something of the sort, because men are supposed to be stoic characters who don't show emotion because of their strength in society (you have patriarchy to thank for that picture of men), whereas women are overly-emotional cowards who are too frail to do stuff outside of the kitchen (again, patriarchy). Historically, the term "*****" has been used to demean cis women by associating the vagina with weakness/cowardice.

Looking back, that comment of mine was poorly worded.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's sexist, feminists will argue that instead of blaming the victim you should, you know, teach boys in society not to ****.

People don't like that saying because it's so ****ing obvious. I suppose the counterargument to this is that "despite this advice being obvious, we don't bother following through with it because we assume it's so obvious."

Hopefully because you know that it's true.

Despite you're name, you aren't really doing anything to troll, so yes, I'm dropping the argument because I know Mortal Kombat is just a controversy-baiting objectification-fest, and if that makes it "sexist," then fine, sexist it is.

No work is exempt from criticism, and arguing over how sexist something is doesn't really matter. "HOW sexist" something is isn't quantifiable. We can research how OFTEN sexism occurs in the work place, media, school, etc.., but we can't really talk about the quantity of sexism as if it were a unit. Bringing up the problem and seeking out the solution matters. If there are bits about Frozen that exemplify sexism in our society we should talk about them, regardless of how much we love Frozen.

And what if Frozen is loved because of how much it does to work against sexism?

You're talking about such a small minority of the movement that it'd be the equivalent of me whining about Islamic terrorists when I talk about Islam as a whole, or the Westboro Baptist church when I talk about Christianity. These people don't even warrant our attention, and every time you bring them up it furthers the notion that feminists are just man-hating *******s. For every time you bring up people who took "#KillAllMen" seriously when talking about feminism, you'd have to talk about genuine, scholarly feminists around 1,000,000 times if you really want to paint a picture of what feminism is.

Tiny minority, but you don't need to be part of a majority to have power. If that were the case, feminism would never have begun in the first place.

Because men buy their SOs Victoria Secret.

Wait, wouldn't that make said men come off as gross?

Strongly disagreed, sexism isn't something men do to women implicitly, sexism is a complex set of attitudes ingrained in our society about both men and women that individuals may act or or explicitly oppose. Nothing about sexism prevents women from being sexist against women or men being sexist against men. Enforcing gender norms is as much an element of socially established identity within a group and deviation from that identity is punished as well.

Again, my comment was poorly worded.

We can't stop Robin from having their opinion, they in fact has every right to that opinion. However the proper response is to discuss it, I have my view that in spite of it's problems it does more to dismantle sexism then to enforce. We have a discussion, I present my views that relative to society overall it's quite progressive and it's merits outweigh it's issues.

Average MRA: "Oh, so Robin can have their own opinion, but when someone's opinion is that men have problems too, that's not okay???"

Disclaimer: I do not endorse any MRA teachings. I do, however, endorse going back in time and tormenting the everliving **** out of Joe McCarthy and everyone involved with the Salem Witch Trials.

About .000000001% of the feminist movement. Slight exaggeration but true.

If it's only .000000001%, how did it get so loud?

I take objection to the phrasing here, it should be "stop teaching boys to ****", while I understand the reasoning behind the initial phrase it also implicitly genders **** as male which is a component in the creation of **** culture. "Stop teaching boys to ****" places the emphasis squarely on the fact that it's learned behavior.

I would like to know where they're specifically learning it from.

 

[adumbrodeus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States
99% of arrestees for **** are male.[11]

If you ever talk to rapists (before any sort of rehabilitation if you're going to bring that up) they usually think that **** is okay. Literally just look up interviews with rapists.

Not gonna deny that it's more common among my, my contention is that it's a socially taught male gender role and "teach men to not ****" actually has has the effect of promoting that gender role. Hence part of breaking down **** culture is tackling the social norms that teach men that **** is inherent to men which has a normalizing effect.

It is of course just one of the many norms.


In wider discussion though, but relevant to the topic of breaking down the maleness of **** as a gender, is that even though you're correct that **** is much more likely as men, part of the reasons you're pulling a gender variance that high is because forced sexual contact by women against men is generally not legally ****, it's sexual assault. **** generally requires penetration. Beyond that, the stigma against reporting for male on female contact is even greater, yes even beyond the victim blaming women face, because men's role is to always want sex. To not want it is gender treason, so they're disbelieved and even when it's clear, such as a teacher with a boy under the legal age they're let off, so even comparing both sexual assaults and ***** the numbers are still inflated. It's only when men are asked the right questions do we get a decent picture of how common female on male **** is.

Here's some statistics of the issues, note that being made to penetrate is under other sexual violence not ****, but we're still looking at almost a 2/1 ration of female to male victims.

This isn't to trivialize male on female ****, quite the contrary, I'm arguing that this as a necessary measure to reduce male on female ****.

Because the gendering of **** is in fact part of what teaches these men it's ok to **** along with other cultural aspects like trivialization of women's sexual choices.

To stop **** of women part of what we need to do is stop teaching it as something essential to men and start teaching it as a learned behavior created by the patriarchy.

People don't like that saying because it's so ****ing obvious. I suppose the counterargument to this is that "despite this advice being obvious, we don't bother following through with it because we assume it's so obvious."

Except society consistently does the opposite by trivializing female agency. Consider media like "popeye" and "this means war", which are my goto examples because they're the clearest but an example of a general trend. Women are portrayed as prizes, not things with agency.

Tiny minority, but you don't need to be part of a majority to have power. If that were the case, feminism would never have begun in the first place.

But you need to convince enough of the majority to support or at least not oppose your policy goals, either by winning them over on specific issues, compromise on specific issues, or trickery.

At the end of the day, the surest path to power is numbers organized towards a goal and money, feminism has achieved some goals, but their power is still reflective of minority status.

Average MRA: "Oh, so Robin can have their own opinion, but when someone's opinion is that men have problems too, that's not okay???"

Disclaimer: I do not endorse any MRA teachings. I do, however, endorse going back in time and tormenting the everliving **** out of Joe McCarthy and everyone involved with the Salem Witch Trials.

You have the same right to your opinion as Robin does, and like we criticize Robin opinion we will criticize yours where it's wrong, and if either of you you reach the point of being an a***ole then we will strongely criticize you.

Feminism has plenty of internal criticism, for example my condemnation of TERFs is not atypical in the least.

If it's only .000000001%, how did it get so loud?

Well, you have two effects, people whose views are reasonable who re just bad at expressing it are covered under this:

That's pretty much purely self-selection bias because the same lack of grace and willingness to consider others' points of views tend to lead to people talking a lot. This is true of any group.


Then you have the people with truly horrific opinions, your TERFs, people who actually do want to commit gendercide, political lesbians, etc. They actually aren't louder, what actually happens is people are specifically looking for the crazies. Why? Because crazies are amusing to point and laugh at, but seeing a lot of this without recognizing "this is a tiny percentage of the group as a whole", even when it's just tumblr blogs that are barely watched and have no real influence, that does something, it shapes perception.

I would like to know where they're specifically learning it from.

Media and social mores, I posted two specific clear examples but there are many tropes that are a clear example of viewing of women as objects and prizes rather then agents.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Except society consistently does the opposite by trivializing female agency. Consider media like "popeye" and "this means war", which are my goto examples because they're the clearest but an example of a general trend. Women are portrayed as prizes, not things with agency.

Yeah, I remember hearing that "This Means War" was a complete pile of... Wait a minute, this is a kid's site.

But you need to convince enough of the majority to support or at least not oppose your policy goals, either by winning them over on specific issues, compromise on specific issues, or trickery.

At the end of the day, the surest path to power is numbers organized towards a goal and money, feminism has achieved some goals, but their power is still reflective of minority status.

Me reading this:

You have the same right to your opinion as Robin does, and like we criticize Robin opinion we will criticize yours where it's wrong, and if either of you you reach the point of being an a***ole then we will strongely criticize you.

Feminism has plenty of internal criticism, for example my condemnation of TERFs is not atypical in the least.

Well, you have two effects, people whose views are reasonable who re just bad at expressing it are covered under this:

That's pretty much purely self-selection bias because the same lack of grace and willingness to consider others' points of views tend to lead to people talking a lot. This is true of any group.

Including Gam... You know what, forget I said anything. Have a cookie.

Then you have the people with truly horrific opinions, your TERFs, people who actually do want to commit gendercide, political lesbians, etc. They actually aren't louder, what actually happens is people are specifically looking for the crazies. Why? Because crazies are amusing to point and laugh at, but seeing a lot of this without recognizing "this is a tiny percentage of the group as a whole", even when it's just tumblr blogs that are barely watched and have no real influence, that does something, it shapes perception.

Was the person who shot Andy Warhol a TERF?

Media and social mores, I posted two specific clear examples but there are many tropes that are a clear example of viewing of women as objects and prizes rather then agents.

If I were to link someone to the Trope Index, what are the chances of someone highlighting all the ones causing problems? :3

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yeah, I remember hearing that "This Means War" was a complete pile of... Wait a minute, this is a kid's site.




Me reading this:

Lol I think I know what you realized.

Including Gam... You know what, forget I said anything. Have a cookie.

Yum! A samoa

Was the person who shot Andy Warhol a TERF?

No, a she was a radical feminist but that idealogical which and her views included criticism of gender as a concept as is defining for the movement but didn't identify with political lesbianism nor the trans criticism whch took off in the 80s from the movement, she certainly endorses other "interesting" ideas and you know, shooting people generally puts you in the bad feminist category.

If you want TERFs, the face of the movement is an odious women named Sheila Jeffreys.

If I were to link someone to the Trope Index, what are the chances of someone highlighting all the ones causing problems? :3

I could, but in this particular context I think the ur example is standard hero reward. The whole idea of women (or her sexuality) being property that belongs to the winner started with this and filtered into various subtropes. Smooch of victory is the first that comes to mind.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Lol I think I know what you realized.

What was it? Guess correctly, and you get another cookie.

Yum! A samoa

Oh cool, we both like Samoa Cookies. :3

she certainly endorses other "interesting" ideas

Like what?

and you know, shooting people generally puts you in the bad feminist category.

Yup, pretty much.

If you want TERFs, the face of the movement is an odious women named Sheila Jeffreys.

*Looks her up*

ಠ_ಠ

I could, but in this particular context I think the ur example is standard hero reward. The whole idea of women (or her sexuality) being property that belongs to the winner started with this and filtered into various subtropes. Smooch of victory is the first that comes to mind.

*Snaps Fingers* Done.

Note to self: When making video game/movie, fire anyone who suggests including standard hero reward.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What was it? Guess correctly, and you get another cookie.

Two possibilities:

1. That anti-feminist forces have an interest in portraying these types of feminists as far more influential as they are and resort to trickery in an attempt to do so.

2. That these types of feminists have an interest in portraying themselves as far more powerful then they are and resort to trickery in an attempt to do so,

Oh cool, we both like Samoa Cookies. :3

*brofist*

Samoas da best.

Like what?

Read for yourself, she wrote the SCUM Manifesto. Her own words will do her more justice then my description.

*Looks her up*

ಠ_ಠ

Pretty much my reaction when I got introduced to her.

*Snaps Fingers* Done.

Note to self: When making video game/movie, fire anyone who suggests including standard hero reward.

Please do, makes the world a better place.

 

[FirestormNeos]

Two possibilities:

1. That anti-feminist forces have an interest in portraying these types of feminists as far more influential as they are and resort to trickery in an attempt to do so.

2. That these types of feminists have an interest in portraying themselves as far more powerful then they are and resort to trickery in an attempt to do so,

*brofist*

Samoas da best.

We should start a branch of feminism called Samoa Feminism, where we sit around and eat Samoas and talk about how wonderful Samoas are. :3

Read for yourself, she wrote the SCUM Manifesto. Her own words will do her more justice then my description.

*Looks up SCUM Manifesto on Wikipedia*

...

*Angry Animatronic Noises*

Please do, makes the world a better place.

It will be a pleasure.

 

[FirestormNeos]

This just in- Joss Whedon thrown under bus by Iron Man. No seriously. Tony Stark came into existence and threw the director of The Avengers under a bus.

 

[Ura]

If a female were to try to physically assault a male, I don't see why it's unreasonable for a male to take the necessary steps of defending himself.

What else is the male supposed to do? Sorry if this sounds rather simplistic but it's pretty much black and white from my POV.