Why are poeple on this site so obessed with feminists?

Post Reply New Topic

1)Regardless of whether or not it was real, the article discussed people judging ideas worse when they were informed that it came from a stereotype than when they were informed that it came from a non-stereotype.
2)Is there anyone, right now, loudly advocating that type of feminism? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any - the ones I run with are all intersectionalists, few of whom get any more time in the MSM than war protesters, libertarians, or socialists.

Like the idea of what is 'PC' or what is 'not PC,' that is a judgment call for each individual.


Citation, please? What I see is people being called out when they're dicks or as*holes (the whole Sony think is making me think of Team America, sorry), not any actual censorship other than bleeping out a word here or there that is not usually actually necessary to convey a person's point.

You're right that none of us have any sort of 'right' to be protected from offense; however, you seem to miss the corollary to that, which is that no one has to give you the time of day if they find you offensive.


I agree, but in this case the legal system is trying to get there (and, some places, the social system is trying to help).


No. That is equality of outcome (and a dystopian view, at that), not equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity does not mean that everyone finishes in the same place; it means that everyone starts at the same line, and no one has more hurdles thrown at them by the state and society than anyone else. What is left is a set of different outcomes set only by a person's own talent and efforts, rather than unearned privilege.

1)Feminists have been fighting to get women allowed into 'expendable' professions, not against it.
2)Being male also means that you're vastly more likely to commit violent crime. The problem is aggression and machismo, not feminism.
3)If men tried to be more tidy in their suicides, and felt more free to ask for help, they would have less success at killing themselves and more successful interventions to prevent suicide. Again, machismo.
4)It's an odd sort of slavery that is entered into voluntarily, left voluntarily, and ruled by equality under the law.


*snort*
You clearly haven't been paying attention. I started being called a 'strident' feminist during (IIrc) the 'women as objects' wars on this very forum.
Besides that, though, please: continue. At this point nothing I can say would make my points about the irrationality of the MRA movement than your words.

Uh, actually there's a published, peer-reviewed paper about it. 'Darwin Awards' is just a shorthand frame that everyone is familiar with.
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7094

...which doesn't get rid of the almost Darwin Award-worthy errors in your figure: a non-representative sample (a death has to make the news or otherwise come to their attention) and vague admissibility criteria. IIRC, the Darwin Awards include quite a few suicide attempts that went awry because of lesser oversights (like misjudging how much a bungee cord would stretch), so the authors may themselves be worthy of stupidity awards. If they'd gotten themselves killed, they'd be Darwin Award material.



You're right about what it is, but not about why. It's probably an after-effect of Vietnam. My Lai wasn't reported until late 1979 (when the US had already lost some 35,000 soldiers). Most men seeking draft-deferments before then weren't sophisticated enough to oppose the war for anti-colonial or anti-imperial reasons, so they sought deferments because they didn't want to go off and die. I don't blame them, but that doesn't make them great scientists. The result is that academia is pretty self-doting and timorous.

In fact, they're so effete that they're even afraid of getting imaginary dirt on their hands. Look at energy-saving technology, since that's near-and-dear to their hearts: In regenerative braking, hydropneumatic systems outperform battery/electric-motor systems by a wide margin (70% recovery vs. 30%), handle deep charge-discharge cycles with ease (that kills batteries), and weigh less. The only problem is that you might get oil on your hands while working on them. It's not even dirty oil. Often it's clear, odorless mineral oil like what you buy at a drug-store for medical use. Either way, it doesn't get black soot in it like used engine oil because it's nowhere near any combustion. It doesn't even get metallic grit in it because these systems use hydrostatic bearings that have no metal-to-metal contact, and therefore no wear. If you took some of it out after 10,000 miles and put it in a glass, someone might mistake it for dark beer.

Despite that, they're still afraid of working with their hands. Compare that to Aristotle (who advocated dissection), Galileo (who lapped his own telescopes), or Darwin (who did his own observations in the field), and it's pretty obvious why men don't want to be part of academia (and why it isn't even remotely meritocratic).



Several years ago I was passed over for a job working with at-risk kids, probably because I was male. A friend of mine who wanted to teach German had to take months of what amounted to baby-sitting classes to get her teaching license, and I think that even Latin teachers in MN have to take those. We don't teach Latin in grades where those skills would apply. There used to be a lot of male schoolteachers in MN.

Oh, and here's the abstract:



So yes, they really did use Darwin Award "data" in a peer-reviewed study. I especially like their gratuitous use of the word idiotic (rather than something quantitative and well-defined), since that makes it clear even to the imperceptive that we aren't looking at serious science.

No, just Americans will suffice. To make it easier we can deal just with those people who are alive and eligible to vote in the United States today. After all, we're unlikely to make much headway if we try to 'fix' the past.



1) Which changes the data to what extent?
2) I thought you were against victim blaming?



Love the double standard here. Men don't do 'women's work' because it's beneath them, women don't do 'men's work' because they get harassed.



And the objective inference is that men play hardball when it comes to killing themselves, whereas women are more likely to seek help.



Now you're blaming weak men for not being strong enough to fight against stronger men.



Oh dear. When men are discriminated against, it's an anomaly? I think we're just about done here.



I disagree that chivalry is BS, I just think it should be universal and applied irrespective of gender.



And men are increasingly being raised solely by their female parent (who were already the primary carers). It's almost as if men have been specifically programmed in a way that allows unscrupulous women to take advantage.



Not what I was asking for.



Says it all really. You might want to try stepping outside the echo chamber once in a while yourself.



Nonsense. The political ideology behind those changes is supported by men and women alike. You aren't the first feminist to disregard the beliefs and choices of women you don't agree with, and you certainly won't be the last. I'm not a huge fan of the American right wing either, but their choices are just as valid as yours.



But you still wear your feminist hat when discussing the former.



Which only serves to demonstrate my point, rather than refute it. Your statistical analysis in no way accounts for fair assessment of the individual circumstances, it instead homogenises people who merely share a handful of traits - some of which are abstract or too generalised. A good example of this is 'felon' which groups perjurers with serial-killers.



1) Hardly. It is nothing more than my personal assessment of your views based on how you have responded to my posts.
2) Patently? Equality of opportunity exists, equality of outcome is another matter entirely.





Your point was "That's often because men cite non-feminists or even anti-feminists arguing for chivalry and contrast them with feminists who want equality" in response to "whatever examples I did provide would be dismissed as not being "real feminists"".

Clearly I'm being prejudged based solely on my gender. Had you said "men often cite" I could let it slide, but that's not how you phrased it. Believe it or not, a not insignificant percentage of my gender is capable of free thought and critical thinking. You clearly choose to believe something else.



Links?





So you've separated the two sentences in a classic example of how to abuse fisking, claimed to be the victim of an injustice and pretended outrage. How exactly do you differ from the stereotypical gender-warrior feminist again?



It serves only to highlight that you misinterpret information based on your prejudices.

I think this a clouded view of the real situation. Yes these people are vocal, but you are conflating the movement and not giving credit to those that are doing good work, even if they are less vocal.

Never underestimate the propensity for people to be insensible. Why single out feminists? What is common is initial opinions not being well formed or thought out.

Also you are wasting your energy getting so annoyed.

Why not? I don't like self righteous people who live in bubbles and think that their opinions are so self-evidently true that anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or has ulterior motives generally, feminists just happen to both fit that description and frequently blunder into my space, much to their sorrow. I've also yet to meet one with the ability to argue rationally and reasonably, which doesn't improve my disposition towards them.

How is this self righteousness exclusive to feminists? You could say that about pretty many any pressure group. I mean if I had a penny for every time someone who thought they knew better then everyone, I would be incredibly rich.

Yet you are lumping all feminists together becuase you you have a bad experience with some vocal people who call themselves feminist, rather then more pragmatic and reasonable ones.

Also I don't get why you would even get so annoyed. This is wasted mental energy, why would allow anyone to have that power over you?

So because others cannot argue rationally, you will take the immoral and unjust position of denying them equality.

Nice moral position that. Not.

Nice way to do unto others. Not.

Regards
DL

Apparently, your reading comprehension is worse than your mind reading ability, as I never said anything about equality, only that I find a particular group to be annoying in general; perhaps you should work on that before criticizing people you clearly don't understand.



Seriously? People still do this?

Asked and answered, councilor, next question.



You know, I am being a little hypocritical here, I normally object to generalizing, but I also object to feminists pretending that every person who has a problem with them is some fedora wearing neckbeard that thinks they're all Andrea Dworkin, when the real problem is the stick in the mud twitter feminists that pounce upon anyone who runs afoul of their constantly changing "rules", including each other. I'm also officially coining the term "stick in the mud feminists" to describe who I'm talking about here, as I think that best conveys my feelings about them, which are similar to my feelings regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.




It's hardly a power, I like to debate and argue, I just don't like the high levels of self righteousness that online feminists tend to bring, along with the other things I've mentioned. Do you like people that accuse you of various biases when you disagree with them on the issues?

Yes. Have you missed how well things are going in other social areas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Regards
DL

But you know what's funny? Women are more often likely to be religious than men (but men are more likely to get extremist but they are a minority still).

I find this is true in both muslim and christian communities.

You can do your own research about this and you'll find it's true.

There's an old Christian arab saying "The praying is for women" - referring to the majority of church attendees (who are women) and the religious practices such as praying and fasting which are often taken more seriously by women than men.




http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1 ... 0199608102

Personally in my surrounding, I find men are less strictly religious and are more likely to be sarcastic about some religious concepts - while women really take faith seriously and less likely to joke about it.

For example, I have been stood corrected several times by women for typing "merry xmas" because I have omitted "Christ" - men have never complained about this.

The_Face_of_Boo

No argument and it is not a surprising fact that more women pray than men. Men are the oppressors so they have no need to pray for the deliverance from oppression and the return of their natural equal rights.

Women do.

You make my case. Thanks.

Regards
DL