Toxic Feminism

[Starry]

Was this directed at me?

The Borat vids I posted earlier were satire. Not meant to reflect a position I take. If I said something to offend you then I hope you'd chat me up about it in PM or VM form.

No not at all. I think you are an incredibly honest and fair person. I actually get a lot out of your contributions. No, not about you at all.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

No not at all. I think you are an incredibly honest and fair person. I actually get a lot out of your contributions. No, not about you at all.

Cool. Well I wasn't sure because I was goofing around the other day with comments like "misandry isn't real" which was sarcasm on my part but it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just in reply to something anticlimactic wrote and I didn't know if you took offense or thought I was teasing or harassing you.

 

[jixmixfix]

Are you referring to me as an SJW? I hold allegiance to none and all. I don't pidgeonhole myself into any one ideological group and I don't blanket an entire group of any one ideology as an enemy just for disagreeing with me. That's what SJW and alt right people who play identity politics tend to do. No way, not me.

Are you referring to me as an SJW? I hold allegiance to none and all. I don't pidgeonhole myself into any one ideological group and I don't blanket an entire group of any one ideology as an enemy just for disagreeing with me. That's what SJW and alt right people who play identity politics tend to do. No way, not me.

bahahhaha ok liberal.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

bahahhaha ok liberal.

Well, it's funny, when I get around liberal friends and have poltitical discussions they tend to think I'm an extreme libertarian or conservative, then I get around a conservative and I'm labeled a liberal. So it is what it is. I don't really take offense at being called a liberal. I'm a classical liberal basically.

 

[jixmixfix]

Feminism is about equal rights for men and women. I'm in favor of that. What I mind is feminazis trying to take rights away from men and giving an unfair advantage to women.

Feminism is about equal rights for men and women. I'm in favor of that. What I mind is feminazis trying to take rights away from men and giving an unfair advantage to women.

the only way women can compete with men is if they take away mens rights away. You can throw as much money as you want at women to get into stem but they will still underperform in comparison to men.

 

[Luigi]

the only way women can compete with men is if they take away mens rights away. You can throw as much money as you want at women to get into stem but they will still underperform in comparison to men.

You're assuming that men in general are better at math and science than women.
If it's not an assumption, then prove it.

 

[jixmixfix]

You're assuming that men in general are better at math and science than women. If it's not an assumption, then prove it.

You're assuming that men in general are better at math and science than women. If it's not an assumption, then prove it.

not an assumption its the truth just look at the amount of male graduates, employees that get the highest pay in those fields.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

the only way women can compete with men is if they take away mens rights away. You can throw as much money as you want at women to get into stem but they will still underperform in comparison to men.

It would be helpful if you posted your data or stats to back up why you feel this way. Is this just something you believe, or have you seen hard evidence to back it up?

I agree that affirmative action and quota based hiring may do more harm than good however I'm not sold on the idea women can't do STEM as well as men.

 

[Luigi]

[MENTION=7278]jixmixfix[/MENTION]
That's not proof, that's just your words. Show me the statistics, or I can't believe you.
Looks like I'm not the only one not taking your word for it. The Wookie is, too.

 

[jixmixfix]

That's not proof, that's just your words. Show me the statistics, or I can't believe you. Looks like I'm not the only one not taking your word for it. The Wookie is, too.

Really go do some research yourself even feminists know the numbers.

 

[Luigi]

Really go do some research yourself even feminists know the numbers.

You make claims without proof, then when I challenge you to prove the claim you made, you tell me to go research it myself. Why would I do that? You don't see me making claims without evidence. I don't pretend to know a reliable source of information for such statistics either. Your argument is invalid.

 

[jixmixfix]

You make claims without proof, then when I challenge you to prove the claim you made, you tell me to go research it myself. Why would I do that? You don't see me making claims without evidence. I don't pretend to know a reliable source of information for such statistics either. Your argument is invalid.

You make claims without proof, then when I challenge you to prove the claim you made, you tell me to go research it myself. Why would I do that? You don't see me making claims without evidence. I don't pretend to know a reliable source of information for such statistics either. Your argument is invalid.

k I will you show you evidence when i get home.

 

[Luigi]

k I will you show you evidence when i get home.

Now you're talking

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Hey, I'll piss a lot of feminists off by saying I think hypergamy is more or less a real innate characteristic in women (and yes, I understand outliers and exceptions will exist, and sex is a spectrum with two poles). I don't think it makes women evil or less than men. Check out the Hong Kong study, there's also some other good studies ranging from peer reviewed journals to dating website statistics that more or less back up phenomenons such as hypergamy and the pareto principle (80-20 rule) in female mate selection. I can get the links and stats together but that isn't really the point of discussion in this thread and also It's a subject that makes people upset, so it's pointless to beat a dead horse. Guess what, in fairness, I think that men are more polygamous (again, exceptions and outliers exist).

However, I have yet to see data convincing me women are any less suited to science and math than men. I agree with the feminists that if they are, it's probably more due to social conditioning than to biological makeup.

 

[Luigi]

However, I have yet to see data convincing me women are any less suited to science and math than men. I agree with the feminists that if they are, it's probably more due to social conditioning than to biological makeup.

You said it.
I don't know about other guys, but I had social conditioning for math and science, but when I got to college I was no good at either of those subjects, so the only reasonable option left for me was English.

 

[anticlimatic]

This might be less due to some moderator bias than to a greater percentage of liberals on the forum, meaning they're more likely to report a member in droves, whereas there's fewer conservative members to do the same when they see a liberal member being contentious in political discussions.

It's true. Infractions are based on volume of reports rather than any kind of objective standard to maximize impact efficiently. Apparently it works better than the system that preceded it, but it does tend to encourage snowballing mob rule- which even in small doses can magnify irritation and rudeness from conservative members, which of course leads to more conservative bans, and more disparity between the policing power of the two groups. Basically you have be a saint to survive as a conservative on this board, but you can be as shitty as you want to be if you're a leftist. Which is why I think any conservative that can survive here is a treasure.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It's true. Infractions are based on volume of reports rather than any kind of objective standard to maximize impact efficiently. Apparently it works better than the system that preceded it, but it does tend to encourage snowballing mob rule- which even in small doses can magnify irritation and rudeness from conservative members, which of course leads to more conservative bans, and more disparity between the policing power of the two groups. Basically you have be a saint to survive as a conservative on this board, but you can be as shitty as you want to be if you're a leftist. Which is why I think any conservative that can survive here is a treasure.

And when you have what is essentially an echo chamber, the people in the majority are less likely to notice that sort of bias, or to at least tolerate it as justified.

 

[citizen cane]

-isms are tricky, because they tend to generate strong reactions. By the textbook definition of believing that men and women deserve equal rights and privileges, I am a feminist. The problem is that not everyone ascribes the same meaning to certain words, and when strong thoughts and emotions are involved, so are strong reactions.

 

[Coriolis]

Feminism is about equal rights for men and women. I'm in favor of that. What I mind is feminazis trying to take rights away from men and giving an unfair advantage to women.

Where do you see this happening? Can you give some examples? The only unfair advantage I see women getting is in avoiding compulsory military service or registration. Feminists have consistently fought to open at least volunteer military positions to women. The "rights" I see men have lost are the right to be sole head of household: to determine alone where the family will live, how children will be schooled, how finances will be managed; also the right to sex whether their wives consent or not. Feminists expect couples to make these decisions together.

There is one area in which men as a group will "lose", and that is in having to compete with women for job and eductional positions when there is a fixed number of positions. Many of those positions go to women rather than men, now that women are no longer excluded by gender. For example: say a particular university accepts 500 students into its freshman class every year. When women were excluded, all 500 would be men. Now, a significant portion are women, so men collectively "lost" those seats at that uni. Of course, with higher education open to women now (and minorities), there is probably increased supply to meet the demand, so more options for everyone.

bahahhaha ok liberal.

Namecalling. (No - that doesn't mean "liberal" is derogatory, just that you prefer to slap labels on people rather than discuss what they actually think. Lazy.)

the only way women can compete with men is if they take away mens rights away. You can throw as much money as you want at women to get into stem but they will still underperform in comparison to men.

Unsupported generalization.

However, I have yet to see data convincing me women are any less suited to science and math than men. I agree with the feminists that if they are, it's probably more due to social conditioning than to biological makeup.

As a woman in science, I can attest to this. Women and girls can be hesitant to get involved in science and math because they are afraid they won't do well. Once in the door, though, they can more than keep up with the work. Of course it would help if they didn't have to contend with the negative pressure and unwelcoming environments too many still encounter.

You said it.
I don't know about other guys, but I had social conditioning for math and science, but when I got to college I was no good at either of those subjects, so the only reasonable option left for me was English.

If I was conditioned for any fields, it was arts and language, and I became an experimental physicist. Best for each of us to be as free as possible to develop our actual gifts and pursue our interests, whether they end up being traditional for our gender or not.

It's true. Infractions are based on volume of reports rather than any kind of objective standard to maximize impact efficiently. .

Assumptions made in ignorance. This topic has been addressed in several feedback threads.

This might be less due to some moderator bias than to a greater percentage of liberals on the forum, meaning they're more likely to report a member in droves, whereas there's fewer conservative members to do the same when they see a liberal member being contentious in political discussions.

We must consider the possibility that more egregious behavior here comes from members who hold conservative views (just like we see more crime from blacks, or more terrorism from muslims - see how that works?) I'm sure we can all name quite conservative members here who never run afoul of the rules. Those who do could learn from their example.

If my logic is so alternative then by all means, in as simple of terms as I provided, explain how a movement that defines itself as being gender equal refuses to adopt a gender equal title. Start there.

Feminism pursues gender equality, but from the perspective of women, much as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League promotes religious equality from the perspective of Jews, the NAACP promotes racial equality from the perspective of blacks, and the LGBT movement promotes sexuality and gender identity equality from the perspective of those who don't conform to tradition. Sure - a gender-neutral name would address this particular complaint about feminism, but there are plenty more, some constructive and worth addressing, many unsupported or outright far-fetched, so it is just a red herring. I for one am more interested in what feminism does than what it is called. I and others have already explained in detail exactly how feminism addresses rights and opportunities for men as the flip side of doing the same for women.

 

[anticlimatic]

Assumptions made in ignorance. This topic has been addressed in several feedback threads.

Where do you think I'm sourcing my data?

With respect to moderation, the focus is on the actual behaviors of the individual and how those behaviors are impacting other members.

All kinds of reasons but at the end of the day we have to evaluate behavior and the impact on others. Its the guiding rule.

The guiding rule isn't based on populist reflections of the forum majority. However, when a member kicks sand in the face of people and multiple people are complaining over an extended period of time, it does get noticed.

It's not a bad guiding rule honestly, the only problem is that a particular demographic has made getting offended an art and have exploited that aspect of the rule en mass.

Feminism pursues gender equality, but from the perspective of women

Without taking into account the perspective of men how can you say with a straight face that feminism has anything to do with blanket equality for both men and women?

I for one am more interested in what feminism does than what it is called.

Feminism polices labels for the sake of not discriminating against the underrepresented (unless they happen to be men, because fuck them). So once again we're back to the paradox of hypocrisy between its name and what it does, and its declaration that it's for equality.

Feminism is only for equality subjectively, so long as the caveat that women are inferior to men is taken for granted. Reject that caveat and consider equality in objective terms and the whole argument falls apart.