What is the point of feminism?

[Sucumbio]

Hm.

Okay so rather than handle the report traditionally I'm going to suggest two things in public:

1.) While videos are cool in terms of sources, like citing a book, I'd appreciate DH users using examples FROM the video. We can in our own time watch 10 min + vids and or read 100 page+ books but for the purposes of making an argument I find it lazy, however counterintuitive it may seem, to just throw a video in. I get that these vLOGGERS may say what you're thinking better than you can, but pleaae, try, and present your arguments as paraphrase. You may link to the video but ONLY linking to a video will from here out be considered spam.

2.) stop double/triple/quadruple (really?) posting! Use the EDIT button pls.

As for the video itself, the *** reference was not actually him calling it, he was saying one of the people who supposedly support MRAs would use that term. Had he been directly saying / calling people ****, yes the video would be infracted, but in actuality he's paraphrasing someone else. In point of fact he remains fairly pc when addressing his intended audience (gay feminist men) even though I'll agree he's a bit crass, but I think this is more to do with his personality than his message (and thus the deconstructionist in me is revealed).

Carry on.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

There are many incorrect things that you’ve said on this forum, but I want to get this out of the way first.

Welcome to SmashBoards! By all means, I'd love to be proven wrong. Show me what you got.

First, you describe those of Muslim faith as “politically negligible.” Why do you describe them as so? They are a very important ethnic minority here in the US, and have dealt with terrible racism due to post-9/11 anti-Islam sentiment. Muslim-Americans are very important in political discourse today, and have been for the past decade.

The topic was power, not sentiment or discourse. 'brodeus was arguing that some substantial political group is exercising "male political power" in the USA. Muslims simply don't have political power here. If you deny that Islam explicitly advocates the "abject subservience" of women, then you'll surely agree that conservative Christianity doesn't either.

Second, I encourage to read up pieces written by Muslim women. Here is one: http://www.onislam.net/english/read...h/447376-why-i-wear-the-muslim-headscarf.html). Describing Muslim faith as “explicitly advocating for the abject subservience of women to men” is a very western, very white understanding of Islam. You are not Muslim. Neither am I. Let actual Muslim women speak on and explain their gender and faith.

Muslim women have unique insights about their situation, but they are also a biased sample. Those who were sufficiently fed up with the situation - and fortunate enough to escape without being killed - are now former Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"there is a link between the religion of Islam, which I worked and believed hard into, and how some of our rights as Muslim women, or all of our rights as Muslim women, are taken away. In particular, Islamic extremist movements – and I argued that Islamic extremist movements were fighting for idea, it was an idea and it’s a powerful idea."​

Given the many white Westerners who casually defend Islam as you do, and the many non-western, nonwhite critics of Islam who risk their lives to speak out, it's rather crude to paint my view as Western and white. Furthermore, identity is a sloppy predictor of truth, so your standpoint theory looks distinctly ad-hominem in this context.

In this article, Hernandez, the author, addresses your view that Muslim women are oppressed, using the hijab as an example. She explains that covering up is done so that men have to engage with women intellectually. Some see it as a way to demand men’s respect. Please, educate yourself on the intricacies of being Muslim and female before making uneducated remarks like this.

My boss is Muslim, his wife helps him at work, and they employ a few other Muslims. I know anecdotes aren't conclusive but her submissiveness and his disrespect are very suggestive of their gender roles. I should ask her how she feels about the hijab (she always wears it to work). Regardless of the rationale, a hijab is often required of Muslim women. While it may embody negative assumptions about men's self-control, it certainly restricts women's choices. I find it odd that you deny that Muslim women are oppressed, yet appear to deploy feminist theory. Do you believe Western women are oppressed?

 

[adumbrodeus]

You're missing the point aphro, there's certainly good reasons why this effect exists, but in modern society it's wrong to have this power differential, especially when the result of this power differential is men being more miserable as a class due to the toxic expectations masculinity places upon us and women being not only deprived of agency but socialized to consider being deprived of agency a good thing. This is why feminist critique of media is such a pivotal part of the movement, because that's a major part of how those expectations are transferred in human society.

As far as conservative religious movements not wishing to completely deprive women of their agency, haven't you been paying attention? What about the Hobby Lobby decision? What about the recent fuor over planned parenthood?(lets leave out the wider debate about the actual morality and look at it in terms of the more general push by the religious right to restrict women)

The fact is, I come from a background deep in conservative religious circles (specifically Catholic traditionalists, but had ties to other religious conservative movements), opposition to legalized divorce is common as is opposition to birth control. A full complimentarian interpretation of Ephesians 5:22 is quite standard and this is extended to even premarital gender roles. I never encountered purity ring cerimonies but they are common among some circles. The "quiverfull" movement as represented by the Duggars has a great deal of power and influence.

This is not something you have a leg to stand on.

A rational approach involves egalitarian parenting, equal opportunity, and freedom from gender roles, not quotas, affirmative action, women-only programs/entitlements, or overblown rhetoric about oppression, patriarchy, etc.

That's the intent of feminism. Consider this, what is the intent of affirmative action? To increase representation of a given group in fields that they're rare in. In the long term what does increased representation do? Break down stereotypes against their participation in that field. Of course in the US the purpose of most affirmative action initiatives is to counter unconscious biases rather then increase field representation. Note that this bias cuts both ways.

Not entirely sure what's overblown about it though, systematic power disenfranchisement is certainly worth weighty rhetoric, but so is systematic lower wellbeing. However power differentials often culminate in dramatic individual cases of severe well-being deprival, the greater the differential the more likely this is to overwhelm the well-being advantage of the more protected position.

Which brings me to my point, men's issues are real and important to discuss but do not invalidate women's issues. Both are worthy of weighty attention, but men's issues are not issues of lack of power, but lack of wellbeing. The assumption that lack of wellbeing is created by lack of power that permeates many men's movements is wrong, the correct answer is that it's created by competition.

 

[Zachary Smith]

If it's not too much trouble, could you explain? I'm not too sure of the differences myself.

Here's an incredible article: http://jezebel.com/the-myth-of-the-***-hag-and-dirty-secrets-of-the-gay-ma-1506868402

In the part titled "queer vs. gay," the author explains that queer "...confounds. It confounds because it works against contemporary society's obsession with gender taxonomy." Further, "...to identify as "queer" is to be at ease with your own masculinity and femininity that you're not constantly having to fear for your own gender expression."

The article touches upon how gay as a term and community is controlled by cis white gay men, and can be un-inclusive to queer people of color, and those who don't identify as gay, such as bisexual, sexually fluid, trans, gender-nonconforming, and so on. Using queer allows me to shape my identity without aligning myself with the exclusionary nature of gender binaries and white privilege.

I would like to recognize that it is a privilege for me to use the term "queer." It has been re-arppropriated from a slur to a descriptor of an incredible community. Of course, it is still used occasionally as a slur; I've been called it negatively a number of times. Still, I owe a great deal to the previous generation of queer activists.

Hm.

2.) stop double/triple/quadruple (really?) posting! Use the EDIT button pls.

As for the video itself, the *** reference was not actually him calling it, he was saying one of the people who supposedly support MRAs would use that term. Had he been directly saying / calling people ****, yes the video would be infracted, but in actuality he's paraphrasing someone else. In point of fact he remains fairly pc when addressing his intended audience (gay feminist men) even though I'll agree he's a bit crass, but I think this is more to do with his personality than his message (and thus the deconstructionist in me is revealed).

Carry on.

First, understand that I'm new and that I'm learning. Thanks for the tip; I'll stop with the multiple postings.

Second, I'm fully aware that the vlogger isn't actually using the slur toward anyone. That still doesn't mean he has the right to use it. It still hurts. He can communicate his point without it. He isn't even directly quoting anybody, or really even paraphrasing. Not that either would excuse it's use here.

Notice that the title of the article I shared includes the slur. That's because queer men are the only ones who should use it. When they do they are re-appropriating it, finding empowerment by using it themselves when it's been an violent insult thrown at them throughout history.

I realize you are the moderator. But what gives you the right to define the power behind words like the f-slur and how their used? You write it off as him being " a bit crass," which really diminishes the effect the words actually have, regardless of their context. Additionally, you haven't addressed how the video openly insults those with mental disabilities.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Why do you set up such binaries? It isn't either or. And no, I do not call myself an egalitarian. In my first post I explicitly mentioned I was feminist.

Also, I don't identify as gay. Queer is the term I use in describing my sexuality. Keep that in mind? If that confuses you I'll explain.

And I watched half of the video. Please, don't expect me to watch any more. The guy already has already used the f** slur twice. Regardless of the point he's making, using that word hurts in a way I don't think you'd be able to understand.

Why should I listen to a straight cis white man tell me how to handle myself? Why should I continue to listen to someone who asks straight on if I'm "f***king slow" for being queer and supporting feminism? What right does he have to be an authority on my personal experiences?

And why do you listen to this stuff? Why not find queer vloggers? Let them explain to you what it's like to be queer, and how they've engaged with feminine/masculine expression, and where they've found acceptance.

Please, take care in the content you share. Regardless of your intention, you could really hurt someone. I've reported the post; there are many queer and disabled individuals who are part of this community, and this video directly insults both parties. This is the debate hall, yes, but one can debate without stooping to such a level.

Hah, well you're certainly a lost cause. Thanks for making that clear.

Define your terms and I might start taking you seriously. People who think it's OK to censor others when they feel offended (by contrary perspectives) are missing the point. Like you said, this is the debate hall, not emotional circle-jerk hall.

Sucumbio Lone videos seem effective at the right moment, but whatever. I guess I'll add summaries in the future. Videos could be taken down after all, it would be the same as an empty post.

 

[adumbrodeus]

FlusteredBat I don't think YOU have the right to decide who is and isn't welcome here. You disagree with his mentality towards slurs, fine. But there are other ways to express ideas and we do have certain rules that govern their usage recognizing that certain governing rules are necessary to facilitate friendly discussion. These rules vary from community to community and are always open to criticism.


Zachary Smith
Woot nice to have another queer person in the conversation, that's actually another signifigant critique that I have with the MRM movement because queer community issues that affect queer men (and queer people who society believes SHOULD be men but aren't) actually substantially illustrate the well-being issues that plague men and masculinity. Yet the MRM consistently ignores Queer voices and in contrast feminism has been more then willing to incorporate them into their social critique of masculinity, which is why in spite of the video's expectation, lots of queer men are feminists.

The result is feminism actually has a better criticism of masculinity then the MRM, because the MRM complain about the results of masculinity as it effects them without really attacking the cultural artifice which creates these problems, it doesn't attack the expectation of masculinity itself.

 

[FlusteredBat]

FlusteredBat I don't think YOU have the right to decide who is and isn't welcome here. You disagree with his mentality towards slurs, fine. But there are other ways to express ideas and we do have certain rules that govern their usage recognizing that certain governing rules are necessary to facilitate friendly discussion. These rules vary from community to community and are always open to criticism.

You're right, my moderator ego briefly emerged before editing the post. I don't possess that authority here. No lecture is required.

Yet you must understand that Zachary implicitly expressed the same thing. Gonna give him a hard time? Of course not. This is the Oppression Olympics after all.

Dig deeper into the content of A Voice For Men before spreading ignorant lies about the MRM.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You're right, my moderator ego briefly emerged before editing the post. I don't possess that authority here. No lecture is required.

Yet you must understand that Zachary implicitly expressed the same thing. Gonna give him a hard time? Of course not.

Disagreed, you explicitly said he was unwelcome, as if to eject him from the community. He made a personal appeal to you with the implication was a violation of how we SHOULD treat other people then disagreed with the mod. He was arguing how things should be whereas you were acting as if you did have the power to decide community membership.

Dig deeper into the content of A Voice For Men before spreading ignorant lies about the MRM.

I have. I'm not saying there aren't Queer MRM views out there, I'm saying that the discussion of men's issues and queerness within the movement is extremely mute considering how big and obvious an illustration it is of men's issues, especially compared to how loudly feminism talks about it.

Edit: At the Islam discussion, there's a significant difference between discussing the actions of a particular segment of a religion and discussing the religion as a whole.

There is a difference between saying Wahhabism or the Quiverfull movement teaches abject female subjugation and saying that Christianity or Islam teaches abject female subjugation. Large religions have drastic variances in opinion so there can be drastic differences between different groups of believers. This includes feminist Muslims.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I have. I'm not saying there aren't Queer MRM views out there, I'm saying that the discussion of men's issues and queerness within the movement is extremely mute considering how big and obvious an illustration it is of men's issues, especially compared to how loudly feminism talks about it.

Already, huh? Even though you clearly didn't even bother listening to Paul Elam's video(s) on the topic.

The MRM doesn't care about sexuality, we listen regardless. An individual amounts to more than their various categories. Seem familiar?

Feminists use stuff like gay rights as complete non-sequiturs into why women are somehow the most oppressed of all. That's why they're so loud about it, they don't care about homosexuals as human beings. Gotta set the "injustice" mood before launching into one of their obnoxious speeches to justify more preferential legislation.

I'm trying to help people realize how masochistic it is to be a male feminist. Have a little pride in the value of your own gender for once. That actually goes for female feminists as well.

 

[Zachary Smith]

​

Woot nice to have another queer person in the conversation, that's actually another signifigant critique that I have with the MRM movement because queer community issues that affect queer men (and queer people who society believes SHOULD be men but aren't) actually substantially illustrate the well-being issues that plague men and masculinity. Yet the MRM consistently ignores Queer voices and in contrast feminism has been more then willing to incorporate them into their social critique of masculinity, which is why in spite of the video's expectation, lots of queer men are feminists.

The result is feminism actually has a better criticism of masculinity then the MRM, because the MRM complain about the results of masculinity as it effects them without really attacking the cultural artifice which creates these problems, it doesn't attack the expectation of masculinity itself.

Hey! Nice to meet ya.

A lot of men's rights activists, the vlogger included, try to appeal toward masculine queer men, shaming femininity in queer men as a result. And masculine queer men definitely find acceptance in the feminist community. If they ever experience push back it's probably because they've done something sexist. In the most recent article I linked, it really explores ways queer men can and do objectify women.

Feminists use stuff like gay rights as complete non-sequiturs into why women are somehow the most oppressed of all. That's why they're so loud about it, they don't care about homosexuals as human beings. Gotta set the "injustice" mood before launching into one of their obnoxious speeches to justify more preferential legislation.

I'm trying to help people realize how masochistic it is to be a male feminist. Have a little pride in the value of your own gender for once. That actually goes for female feminists as well.

In what ways do feminists not care about queer men? You keep saying that and have offered no examples other than the video, which floats on the assumption that femininity is something unnatural and to be ashamed of.

And please. Don't tell us to "have a little pride." That's just disrespectful.

 

[Sucumbio]

But what gives you the right to define the power behind words like the f-slur and how their used?

Okay, just to be clear, a word is powerless by itself. And given the context in which he uses it, he's actually insulting the person by demonstrating their ignorant speech choice, if he were to use the word itself for his own benefit, then he'd be the target of appropriate ridicule. I think the video ticked you off to the point you didn't follow it correctly and immediately assumed everything that he said had to be a waste of your time. This is why I wanted future usage to be typed, cause posters here wouldn't be so confusing.

You write it off as him being " a bit crass," which really diminishes the effect the words actually have, regardless of their context.

He swears. He talks ****. He badmouths a lot of people and groups of people. He is also entitled to his opinion. Rather than argue against its use as a source in debate, attack the statements themselves. Obviously your debate opponent has endorsed this man's views. There's your starting point. Address these points. If you don't think you should be called names, then prove why he's wrong in this assessment.

Again this issue really revolves around a video that could have gone unnoticed, but he brought it up, so by all means shut him down. But don't act as if the video isn't taking a legitimate stance, because it is. There ARE people out there who will call you ***. To your face. If we're to promote a society of tolerance we must first deal with hate speech, and hiding from it or pretending it doesn't exist is not the way to do this.

 

[FlusteredBat]

In what ways do feminists not care about queer men? You keep saying that and have offered no examples other than the video, which floats on the assumption that femininity is something unnatural and to be ashamed of.

Paul Elam did direct his audience toward this particular series of articles by Andybob which thoroughly answer your question.

Here are some excerpts from part three:

Spoiler

As men, gay men are accused of inhabiting some kind of tastefully appointed rainbow wing of ‘the patriarchy’ from which they benefit as recipients of those aforementioned unearned male privileges, making them ‘part of the problem’. As gay men, they demonstrate their inherent misogyny by rejecting women and being more impervious to feminist shaming, approval and manipulation than straight men.

...

Most problematic of all, is the tendency for gay men to unashamedly celebrate and enjoy their male sexuality without adequate feminist supervision, or the need to acquire signed and witnessed declarations of enthusiastic consent. The very existence of the overwhelmingly sex-positive nature of mainstream gay male culture openly challenges the widely-held assumption among feminists that feminists alone hold a monopoly on the topic of male sexuality.

Spoiler

[Marilyn Frye] laments that: “In so doing, [homosexuals] acquiesce in and support the reservation of full citizenship to males and thus align themselves with the political adversaries of feminism.” Even more damning is her claim that, “gay men generally are in significant ways, perhaps in all important ways, only more loyal to masculinity and male-supremacy than other men.” How naughty of them.

Frye contends that one of the main reasons why gay men prefer to identify as men is because, like all men, they are obsessed with what she calls “the magic of the penis”, the mystical deity that all privileged members of ‘phallocratic culture’ worship. Baffled? Frye helpfully explains:

"It is a culture in which an identification of the penis with power, presence and creativity is found plausible – not the brain, the eyes, the mouth or the hand, but the penis. In that culture, any object or image which at all resembles or suggests the proportions of an erect penis will be imbued with or assumed to have special mythic, semantic, psychological or supernatural powers.

If worship of the phallus is central to ‘phallocratic culture’, then gay men, by and large, are more like ardent priests than infidels, and the gay rights movement may be the fundamentalism of the global religion which is Patriarchy. In this matter, the congruence of gay male culture with straight male culture and the chasm between these and women’s cultures are great indeed."

As the anointed ones in this ‘phallocratic culture’, Frye warns that gay men are to be regarded by women in general – and feminists in particular – with even deeper fear and suspicion than they regard straight men because:

"Women generally have good experiential reason to associate negative values and feelings with penises, since penises are connected to a great extent with their degradation, terror and pain…So far as living with the threat of r*pe permits, many women’s attitudes toward penises tend to vacillate between indifference and contempt."

Spoiler

"The tone and ethos of men’s house culture is sadistic, power-oriented, and latently homosexual, frequently narcissistic in its energy and motives. The men’s house inference that the penis is a weapon, endlessly equated with other weapons is also clear."

Throughout her polemic, [Kate Millett] conflates homosexuality with sadism and violence. She contends that the taboo imposed on the latent homosexuality inherent in ‘men’s house institutions’ is inevitably channeled into violence, going so far as to cite the, ”Nazi experience as an extreme case in point here.” This is a particularly ignorant and offensive reference in view of the fact that the “Nazi experience” for thousands of gay men was to be herded into concentration camps before being gassed to death. [14] Millett may be offering her idea of a white flag to gay men by conceding that the, “negative and militaristic coloring of such men’s house homosexuality is, of course, by no means the whole character of homosexual sensibility”, but that white flag looks like a pink triangle to me, as it probably does to most gay men.

Spoiler

Here are but a few screeches from that whiny and entitled din:

"Gay men need to stop perpetrating misogyny and ally themselves to the feminist movement. And the first step to becoming a true ally is listening to women speak about the issues that are important to them, whether its wage equality, reproductive rights, access to birth control or anything else. We can start there." [29]

"So many of us are only familiar with the idea that male privilege being the province of straight men that we discount how gay men are able to exert dominance and control over women." [30]

"In order to combat misogyny, gay men should claim feminism as allies, but not in a queer-opting or mansplaining way." [31]

"Gay men are men. They r*pe women just like straight men etc." [32]

 

[adumbrodeus]

You already did, huh? Even though you clearly didn't even bother listening to Paul Elam's video(s) on the topic.

I'm not saying there doesn't exist any work directed at MRM and queer issues, what I'm saying is that the area of work is vanishingly small compared to the work by the work of the community as a whole, and where it exists the theme is "gay men should hate feminism" as compared to "here's how queer issues illustrate the problem with society's conceptualization and expectations of masculinity".

Feminist use stuff like gay rights as a complete non-sequitur into why women are somehow the most oppressed of all. That's why they're so loud about it, not that they actually care about homosexuals as individuals.

Sure there are individual feminists like that, but feminists have also always been on the front lines of fighting for LGBTQ issues, hell the major reason why second wave feminism fell (you'll note that almost all those quotes are taken from notable second wave feminists and TERFs) was because people got pissed off at the poor treatment of the LGBTQ community by second wave feminists.

Yet, even during second wave feminism, feminists were on the picket line fighting with us.

Sure, individual feminists can suck, sure feminism was awful during the second wave, but there is no doubt that modern feminism prioritizes the lgbtq community.

Are there criticisms of gay men? Sure, but gay men are as capable of being sexist as anyone else, but similarly look at the backlash Patricia Arquette received because of her comments backstage, the only feminists that came to her defense were TERFs. Similarly modern feminism comes down hard on transophobia.

Your perception is incorrect.

 

[FlusteredBat]

adumbrodeus You're so predictable. Apparently the people who are still showered with praise at the top echelons of gender studies are not real feminists. Are you a real feminist?? How the hell could you possess any authority as a man to speak for women and what it means to be a feminist?

I think you need to reassess where you stand in all of this.

Please recount the overwhelming multitude of positive egalitarian changes brought about by feminism in recent times. What has feminism achieved? Tell us, mister expert. You can't just say 'feminism is gosh-darn wonderful' and leave it at that. Where's the proof? I don't see any! 60+ years after second wave feminism, they are still whining about the SAME FREAKING ISSUES despite having turned both the media and the state into their own personal attack dogs. Oppressive patriarchy, right? Let's not also forget how far the harpy talons have dug into the education system at every level.

Feminists discovered that crying victim causes society to bend over and crap dollar bills over their poor little faces. It's such a vague and contradictory ideology because closure is anathema to their bloody entitlement.

 

[Rich Homie Supreme]

Absolutely true! I swear women actually get it better than men. I mean, who wouldn't want to be payed less than their peers despite doing the same amount, if not more work? Who wouldn't want to be objectified solely as a sex object? And I sure wish I could get **** threats day-in and day-out. Hell women on average get ***** way more than men, so that's a privilege too right?

Do people honestly believe that women are treated better than men in our society? And yes, I am referring to the US and other western civilizations.

Lemme guess racism isn't a thing either?


No, because slavery isn't a thing anymore, but that doesn't mean racism isn't.

The gender pay gap is a myth perpetuated by feminists who want to claim victimhood because playing the victim gives you power. Also, if you are actually getting paid less for the same amount of work in the same position, report your employer to the police! That's illegal! Objectification is not only bull**** but it isn't a gendered issue because men are "objectified" too. **** threats day in and day out? What are you doing or saying to people to make them threaten you this much?
Also, at least when a woman is ***** by a man or sexually assaulted by a man, people are very supportive and don't act like it was no big deal. But when the roles are reversed...
Sometimes I really wish I was female. Just because of all the advantages women get over men.

That's because queer men are the only ones who should use it.

This sounds really stupid. It's like when black people say that only they can say the n word. It is a word, either everyone can use or no one can.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Sometimes I really wish I was female. Just because of all the advantages women get over men.

Norah Vincent agrees. She put on an elaborate ruse to better understand the male experience. Can you guess what happened?

Kinda swept under the rug by feminists.

 

[adumbrodeus]

adumbrodeus You're so predictable. Apparently the people who are still showered with praise at the top echelons of gender studies are not real feminists. Are you a real feminist?? How the hell could you possess any authority as a man to speak for women and what it means to be a feminist?

I think you need to reassess where you stand in all of this.

Yes because I certainly said they're not real feminists as opposed to disagreeing with their positions on feminism because it wasn't queer inclusive while recognizing the movement has changed.

You certainly seem to take liberties with representing the positions of those you disagree with.

The fact is, these people either stopped talking about queer issues, were marginalized, or changed positions. Mitchfest's slow and recently final death is the most potent symbol of this. Certainly you can be feminist without being queer inclusive, but you will be marginalized.

Please recount the overwhelming multitude of positive egalitarian changes brought about by feminism in recent times. What has feminism achieved? Tell us, mister expert. You can't just say 'feminism is gosh-darn wonderful' and leave it at that. Where's the proof? I don't see any! 60+ years after second wave feminism, they are still whining about the SAME FREAKING ISSUES despite having turned both the media and the state into their own personal attack dogs. Oppressive patriarchy, right? Let's not also forget how far the harpy talons have dug into the education system at every level.

Is it a surprise when those issues aren't solved? For christ's sake, access to brith control is still at issue. But sure, the state is feminism's personal attack dog, that's why hobby lobby and the planned parenthood "crises" are a thing.

Yes, it's totally feminism sucking rather then being at an impasse with their ideological opponents (primarily the religious right).

 

[Kurri ★]

The gender pay gap is a myth perpetuated by feminists who want to claim victimhood because playing the victim gives you power. Also, if you are actually getting paid less for the same amount of work in the same position, report your employer to the police! That's illegal! Objectification is not only bull**** but it isn't a gendered issue because men are "objectified" too. **** threats day in and day out? What are you doing or saying to people to make them threaten you this much?
Also, at least when a woman is ***** by a man or sexually assaulted by a man, people are very supportive and don't act like it was no big deal. But when the roles are reversed...
Sometimes I really wish I was female. Just because of all the advantages women get over men.


This sounds really stupid. It's like when black people say that only they can say the n word. It is a word, either everyone can use or no one can.

Did you read the rest of the thread? I'm sure I had something somewhere that further explained the wage gap along with sources. Maybe not though...

 

[FlusteredBat]

Did you read the rest of the thread? I'm sure I had something somewhere that further explained the wage gap along with sources. Maybe not though...

The statistical "wage gap" observed between the average earnings of men and women is not caused by prejudice as the feminists say, but differences in career choices and total work hours.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Did you read the rest of the thread? I'm sure I had something somewhere that further explained the wage gap along with sources. Maybe not though...

...and I replied to ya

 

[Zachary Smith]

Okay, just to be clear, a word is powerless by itself. And given the context in which he uses it, he's actually insulting the person by demonstrating their ignorant speech choice, if he were to use the word itself for his own benefit, then he'd be the target of appropriate ridicule. I think the video ticked you off to the point you didn't follow it correctly and immediately assumed everything that he said had to be a waste of your time. This is why I wanted future usage to be typed, cause posters here wouldn't be so confusing.

Whoa whoa whoa. Believing a word is powerless by itself is a terribly naive view. Who told you that? And this doesn’t really answer my question. I’ll ask again: what gives you the right to define the power behind f** and how it can be used? Or at least, why do you think you have the right to do so?

“[Feminists] do…as long as you’re on fire. As long as you’re flamboyant enough as a gay man, to go out there in their little shop window and give the world what it wants to see, of what it calls f**s, by any other name.”

(This is a quote from the video in which Elam uses the slur for the first time)

Yes, Elam isn’t explicitly using the slur negatively. It’s my understanding that he’s using it to describe what he believes to be a caricature of gay men.

Throughout what I’ve seen of the video, Elam’s argument rests largely on the belief that feminine expression in queer men is a way of them being forced for forefront their sexuality as part of their identity. But gender expression and sexuality are two separate things, and Elam’s rhetoric shames queer men who do present more feminine, as he from the very beginning writes them of as caricatures that he doesn’t believe truly exist.

But feminine queer men do exist, and for him to use f** as a descriptor of them is tantamount to calling them f**s himself.

There are other ways Elam both directly and indirectly insults queer identity, and am willing to go into them if you'd like. It’s silly that I have to repeat myself but the video directly insults queer individuals, and I haven’t even touched upon how he explicitly makes fun of disabled individuals.

He swears. He talks ****. He badmouths a lot of people and groups of people. He is also entitled to his opinion. Rather than argue against its use as a source in debate, attack the statements themselves. Obviously your debate opponent has endorsed this man's views. There's your starting point. Address these points. If you don't think you should be called names, then prove why he's wrong in this assessment.

Of course he’s entitled to his opinion? Me brining into question whether it needs to be shared here with individuals it insults isn't me stating that he isn't. Arguing against its use as a source is completely valid. The video was unproductive, and legitimately harmful.

There ARE people out there who will call you ***. To your face. If we're to promote a society of tolerance we must first deal with hate speech, and hiding from it or pretending it doesn't exist is not the way to do this.

You preach tolerance yet tell me that people will inevitably call me a f**. What is your point? In what ways am I hiding from hate speech / pretending it doesn’t exist? If letting hate speech remain is your way of dealing with it, then I question your definition of tolerance in the first place.

adumbrodeus you want to speak on this? I understand if you don’t, but another view point could help.

 

[JNOON]

Uh...
1. Weaken gender roles and expectations, resulting in greater autonomy.
2. Overturn social views and attitudes towards women. Whether you like it or not, our societies favour men (usually white men... sincerely, a white man).
3. Decrease the horrid amount of domestic violence, ****, etc. experienced by women.

In other countries, women are fighting for other, more basic rights.

Anyway, the way I see this wave of feminism is that it is crucial in overturning institutionalised social views and attitudes. Yes, it is not perfect and yes, there are many ignorant feminists... but I don't really see why people reject it so much, and so diligently, either. In fact, it's quite funny to see some men get bitter and worked up about it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The gender pay gap is a myth perpetuated by feminists who want to claim victimhood because playing the victim gives you power. Also, if you are actually getting paid less for the same amount of work in the same position, report your employer to the police! That's illegal! Objectification is not only bull**** but it isn't a gendered issue because men are "objectified" too. **** threats day in and day out? What are you doing or saying to people to make them threaten you this much?
Also, at least when a woman is ***** by a man or sexually assaulted by a man, people are very supportive and don't act like it was no big deal. But when the roles are reversed...
Sometimes I really wish I was female. Just because of all the advantages women get over men.

Yes, the 78 cents figure is not meant to discuss equal pay for equal work, rather it discusses the sum of wage differences due to systematic factors. Elements like being passed over for promotions at a higher rate, perceived relative incompetence to men in certain fields (and perceived competence in others, but it nets for a lower average), that's what the figure accurately represents.

The issues that you're discussing are issues of well-being, not issues of power.

This sounds really stupid. It's like when black people say that only they can say the n word. It is a word, either everyone can use or no one can.

You can say it, but you'll be perceived as an asshole. This is language, context matters. Both the context you give and the listener's context.


Edit:

And I read back in the thread, big mistake....

False. Irish slaves were bought and sold at the same time too. There were also black slave owners in the US.

The current racism which is most prevalent? Hatred toward whites.

Ya no. The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. They could own property, could testify in court, nor did it inherently pass to descendants, and they had certain legal protections. Compare to slaves where North Carolina v. Mann for example, that slaveowners are not liable for injury to their slaves due to their nature as property. Furthermore, laws were put in place which actively punished indentured white servants for the escape of slaves if they escaped together due to the inability to add service time to slaves, cementing the legal distinction.

But to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure how this was supposed to make your case. The poor treatment of the Irish was based on religion and ethnicity. This merely means that certain white people were part of an ethnically and religiously oppressed class, not that blacks were not part of an oppressed class.

And define what you mean by "hated".

Instead of expressing sympathy as is par for the course in response to the plight of any other racial experience, you react with vitriol. Whites are not part of some goddamn borg-mind oppression conspiracy. The fact that I share the same skin colour as Ted Bundy doesn't make me a serial killer. Why do I even have to say this? Indiscriminate categorization according to race is the very definition of racism.

Apparently Barack Obama is just a puppet of the white overlords.

Yes, because the argument is certainly that there's some gigantic conspiracy instead of modern systematic racism being as a result of cogitative biases that are easily testable.

adumbrodeus you want to speak on this? I understand if you don’t, but another view point could help.

I'm perfectly fine with the video being used as a source because, as you have illustrated, it makes my point about the movement's inability to discuss the root cause of male gender issues, the expectation of masculinity. Instead it is intent on only discussing the results, like trying to bail out a boat without fixing the giant hole in the hull.

I also wanted to illustrate how the MRM handles queer men, and calling effeminate gay man f*****s is a perfect illustration of WHY Queers see the movement as hostile. It's a poor way to make an argument but as a source to illustrate MRM attitudes towards queer men it's a glorious resource and I'm glad (and slightly amazed) he posted it since it validates absolutely every objection I have towards what the movement is now.

Or not, would've been nice to be proven wrong here, but spent too much time around the movement for it to be likely. C'est la vie.

 

[Sucumbio]

Whoa whoa whoa. Believing a word is powerless by itself is a terribly naive view. Who told you that? And this doesn’t really answer my question. I’ll ask again: what gives you the right to define the power behind f** and how it can be used? Or at least, why do you think you have the right to do so?

“[Feminists] do…as long as you’re on fire. As long as you’re flamboyant enough as a gay man, to go out there in their little shop window and give the world what it wants to see, of what it calls f**s, by any other name.”

(This is a quote from the video in which Elam uses the slur for the first time)

Yes, Elam isn’t explicitly using the slur negatively. It’s my understanding that he’s using it to describe what he believes to be a caricature of gay men.

Throughout what I’ve seen of the video, Elam’s argument rests largely on the belief that feminine expression in queer men is a way of them being forced for forefront their sexuality as part of their identity. But gender expression and sexuality are two separate things, and Elam’s rhetoric shames queer men who do present more feminine, as he from the very beginning writes them of as caricatures that he doesn’t believe truly exist.

But feminine queer men do exist, and for him to use f** as a descriptor of them is tantamount to calling them f**s himself.

There are other ways Elam both directly and indirectly insults queer identity, and am willing to go into them if you'd like. It’s silly that I have to repeat myself but the video directly insults queer individuals, and I haven’t even touched upon how he explicitly makes fun of disabled individuals.



Of course he’s entitled to his opinion? Me brining into question whether it needs to be shared here with individuals it insults isn't me stating that he isn't. Arguing against its use as a source is completely valid. The video was unproductive, and legitimately harmful.



You preach tolerance yet tell me that people will inevitably call me a f**. What is your point? In what ways am I hiding from hate speech / pretending it doesn’t exist? If letting hate speech remain is your way of dealing with it, then I question your definition of tolerance in the first place.

adumbrodeus you want to speak on this? I understand if you don’t, but another view point could help.

The first bit is quite simple. It's censored because we do not endorse calling people ****. It's derogatory. So the authority in terms of professionalism and moderation lies in infracting users who would do this. Linking to a video that happens to have the word in it isn't necessarily wrong. He doesn't say I think your a ***. He says feminists think you're a ***. Big difference. The former is an overt opinion which we'd censor / not allow. The second is an opinion of debate that you're free to disagree with although doing so walks right into flusteredbat's trap, which was to present someone else's argument as his own.

I don't give credence to name calling. If the best he could do was call you slow, then obviously his message is defunct. Why play into that? There's no reason to... I wrote him off as misguided when he mentioned that. But he got your goat with that comment and once again you got sucked into his world. Don't get trolled.

Hate speech and intolerance are one in the same. To truly deal with it would be to go to his blog and blast him directly. Smashboards is not the place.

Once again I will reiterate why linking to a video is lazy and problematic. A video may have one or several points that one feels validate their stance. But it runs the risk of being too long to watch, and may contain detractors that have no real reason to be included here. It's in every smash Debater's interest to pick out the parts deemed important and make those points separately, which also gives you the opportunity to eliminate the parts that are either nonsense, non sequitur, or below standards (I'd like to think no one here would stoop to name calling).

 

[FlusteredBat]

Hate speech and intolerance are one in the same..

Wrong.

Hate speech: The act of vocalizing one's indiscriminate hatred of specific groups based on assumed commonality.
Intolerance: To push back against notions or belief systems which threaten a preferable way of life.

 

[Elin]

The middle eastern countries at the moment is where feminism is needed.

Most western countries already have mostly equal rights for women.

In the Middle East, a female'll get killed by the government if she was *****. Yet a good deal of feminazis ignore this so they can be privileged in western countries. It's disgusting, and it should stop.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The middle eastern countries at the moment is where feminism is needed.

Most western countries already have mostly equal rights for women.

In the Middle East, a female'll get killed by the government if she was *****. Yet a good deal of feminazis ignore this so they can be privileged in western countries. It's disgusting, and it should stop.

Yes because western organizations and individuals have such a good record with handling human rights issues in other areas.

Yes there are bigger issues of gender equality in other countries, but we can't strong arm them otherwise we more then likely end up perpetuating the same types of abuses that imperial powers have engaged in throughout history and this is no excuse to avoid tackling issues at home, otherwise you end up with a situation like this.

If you don't think our gender issues are worth handling then be reminded that women are still denied agency in a variety of ways especially in terms of healthcare access and men for their part are given a gender role that has agency but is so inflexible that it systematically causes men to lose out on every standard of well being. Multiply that by a hundred fold for people of any gender who are queer.

 

[Elin]

Yes because western organizations and individuals have such a good record with handling human rights issues in other areas.

Yes there are bigger issues of gender equality in other countries, but we can't strong arm them otherwise we more then likely end up perpetuating the same types of abuses that imperial powers have engaged in throughout history and this is no excuse to avoid tackling issues at home, otherwise you end up with a situation like this.

If you don't think our gender issues are worth handling then be reminded that women are still denied agency in a variety of ways especially in terms of healthcare access and men for their part are given a gender role that has agency but is so inflexible that it systematically causes men to lose out on every standard of well being. Multiply that by a hundred fold for people of any gender who are queer.

Oh....

 

[Kurri ★]

Wrong.

Hate speech: The act of vocalizing one's indiscriminate hatred of specific groups based on assumed commonality.
Intolerance: To push back against notions or belief systems which threaten a preferable way of life.

Semantics

 

[FlusteredBat]

Semantics

Wrong again. Even after I lay it out. They are not "one and the same". Please think before you post.

Would you call defense against violent aggressors hate speech? Is reclaiming stolen property hate speech? Calling out a liar?

How about intolerance of intolerance?!

 

[Kurri ★]

Wrong again. Even after I lay it out. They are not "one and the same". Please think before you post.

Would you call defense against violent aggressors hate speech? Is reclaiming stolen property hate speech? Calling out a liar?

How about intolerance of intolerance?!

Semantics again. You know damn well what sort of intolerance Sucumbio is referring to, but instead you'd rather tote your e-peen to get your kicks.

 

[Elin]

This is getting intense!

Just how I like it.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Semantics again. You know damn well what sort of intolerance Sucumbio is referring to, but instead you'd rather tote your e-peen to get your kicks.

If you disagree with my definitions then PROVIDE COUNTER-DEFINITIONS. There is no "sort of". What makes you think that rambling on about e-peens proves me wrong?

It is ridiculous to accuse me of dwelling on minutia between supposedly near-identical concepts when the basis of my objection is that hate speech and tolerance are not near-identical.

This is an example of pointless semantics:

Spoiler

What colour is this square? Blue?

NO! It's clearly cerulean!

SKY BLUE!

CERULEAN!

SAPPHIRE!!

etc.

Are you going to answer my questions?

Would you call defense against violent aggressors hate speech? Is reclaiming stolen property hate speech? Calling out a liar?

How about intolerance of intolerance?!

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think what Sucumbio was trying to say with this was

Hate speech and intolerance are one in the same.

That all hate speech is an expression of intolerance, I don't think he expressed it clearly but that they're exactly the same thing seems pretty ludicrous so it seems better to ask him rather then debate over semantics.

Also FlusteredBat your definition is not the common understanding of what is meant by intolerance. Generally it is understood as

"unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own."

Feeling that one's way of life is threatened is not a perquisite.

 

[Sucumbio]

Thanks adum, you are correct I believe Hate Speech to be a clear example of intolerance I guess I just didn't word it sufficiently.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Thanks adum, you are correct I believe Hate Speech to be a clear example of intolerance I guess I just didn't word it sufficiently.

Don't play around with language, it will get people killed.

 

[Elin]

I still wish I could do something about the misogyny in the Middle East....

It's inhumane.

 

[FlusteredBat]

True misogyny does not exactly serve the long-term sustainability of a tribe.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I still wish I could do something about the misogyny in the Middle East....

It's inhumane.

It is, and there are organizations dedicated specifically to this area of work that truly understand the culture and issues, ones that work strongly with local women's groups. If you're interested, you could get involved in one of those areas of international advocacy and those groups will teach you how to help without strong-arming.

Don't play around with language, it will get people killed.

Or, you could ask. That intolerance and hate speech have the exact same meaning is a patently ridiculous assertion, while it's certainly possible he's being ridiculous the more likely answer was that he misspoke.

The DH is for discussing and debating ideas, not discussing and debating words. Words are merely the medium we use to discuss ideas.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Or, you could ask. That intolerance and hate speech have the exact same meaning is a patently ridiculous assertion, while it's certainly possible he's being ridiculous the more likely answer was that he misspoke.

The DH is for discussing and debating ideas, not discussing and debating words. Words are merely the medium we use to discuss ideas.

I can virtually guarantee that if I had instead followed up with "Yeah! Hate speech and intolerance are exactly the same thing!" NOBODY would have bat an eye. If we can't accept the same definitions then debating is an utterly fruitless endeavor. The most crucial aspect of communication is coherence, not subjectivism.

You're on my ignore list now, so don't expect any more responses.