Page 4 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


In recent years, feminism is increasingly derided. What best explains this?
Feminism is associated with certain political factions, which the opposing factions seek to undermine by demonising feminism. 5%  5%  [ 5 ]
As society becomes more sedentary and internet bound, culture bubbles tend to polarise opinion and isolate opinions from the influences of real life which would tend to make a persons perspective of feminism more nuanced and appreciative of the good that feminists do. 7%  7%  [ 7 ]
As society becomes more sedentary and internet bound, self esteem plummets, and with it the likelihood of decent relationships. This provides fertile ground for MRA's and stupid feminist ideologies to thrive and feed off each other. Both serve to turn the public against feminism in general. 8%  8%  [ 8 ]
"Feminism" is often used as a marketing veneer that aims to obscure certain horrific realities. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
The weak minded demonise feminism because they want the assistance of society in re-subjugating women. 3%  3%  [ 3 ]
Many feminists filter ideas through a feminist ideological filter, thereby trivialising and obscuring important information. 13%  13%  [ 14 ]
Feminists are ever expanding the definition of rape and aberrant behaviour to include things like flirtation, and this provides a convenient avenue for the character assassination of anybody, including ideological opponents (see elevator gate). 21%  21%  [ 22 ]
Feminist stereotypes of men and women cripple relationships with toxic preconceptions that seldom correspond with reality. 20%  20%  [ 21 ]
Because it takes very little effort to write a feminist polemic and find a great deal of success doing that, the bar is set incredibly low. Idiots who do this create a lot of bad press for the feminists who actually have something valuable to say. 14%  14%  [ 15 ]
Something else. 10%  10%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 105

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

02 Jun 2015, 10:11 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Firstly, I really don't see how anyone can call the male gaze "dogmatic nonsense".


When it's removed from its context and presented as something external to advertising - i.e. the way it's commonly used by feminists to, for example, describe what they refer to as "creeps" - then it's dogmatic nonsense. When a phrase is used almost exclusively by adherents of a single ideology - i.e. patriarchy, mansplaining, male gaze - it's dogmatic nonsense.

Quote:
It's an obvious, well-documented phenomenon, and unlike privilege (also obvious and well-documented) it isn't used nebulously, as far as I have seen, and doesn't have any other connotations.


I can assure you that it is, indeed, used nebulously.

Quote:
You don't have to think that the male gaze is a bad thing, but it certainly exists. There just isn't nearly as much use of men as eye candy as there is of women, be that in terms of partial nudity or shot selections or the dress of background characters...


I don't think it's legitimately a "thing" in the first place, as Mulvey completely disregarded the possibility of a female equivalent on the grounds that men "cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification".

Image

Taken from http://www.vogue.com/slideshow/1292975/ ... le-models/

As for the relative prevalence of the sexualisation of men and women in various media, I'm unaware that anyone is actually counting, but it seems that both sexes are strongly represented - albeit not always in the same manner. The suggestion, however, that there is anything inherently wrong with finding another human being attractive to look at, or that in so doing they somehow become akin to a disempowered object, remains a ridiculous and puritanical one.

Quote:
(and fwiw, a quick read of her blog shows that this one feminist who has expressed extreme views also cares about secularism, Lords reform, AV, internet privacy, the freedom to offend religious people, judicial overreach, trans welfare, mental health, and climate change, all issues which affect men just as much as women if not more so. So cut the "feminists don't care about men" spiel)


Say what you like about Mussolini, right?

But seriously, were I to put forward a case for an analogous "female gaze" whereby men are defined primarily by how women perceive them, my starting point would be the popular trending of a #killallmen hashtag, and the relative obscurity of the equivalent #killallwomen.



Aspialyan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2015
Posts: 39

02 Jun 2015, 10:23 pm

My last two girlfriends have been bi-sexual...

Confused aspies maybe

but actually a betterpartner than the earlier straights i knew..

just have one now..



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,266
Location: Reading, England

05 Jun 2015, 3:26 pm

adifferentname wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Firstly, I really don't see how anyone can call the male gaze "dogmatic nonsense".


When it's removed from its context and presented as something external to advertising - i.e. the way it's commonly used by feminists to, for example, describe what they refer to as "creeps" - then it's dogmatic nonsense. When a phrase is used almost exclusively by adherents of a single ideology - i.e. patriarchy, mansplaining, male gaze - it's dogmatic nonsense.

Quote:
It's an obvious, well-documented phenomenon, and unlike privilege (also obvious and well-documented) it isn't used nebulously, as far as I have seen, and doesn't have any other connotations.


I can assure you that it is, indeed, used nebulously.

I've never seen it used in that context but I'll let it slide.

Quote:
Quote:
You don't have to think that the male gaze is a bad thing, but it certainly exists. There just isn't nearly as much use of men as eye candy as there is of women, be that in terms of partial nudity or shot selections or the dress of background characters...


I don't think it's legitimately a "thing" in the first place, as Mulvey completely disregarded the possibility of a female equivalent on the grounds that men "cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification".

Mulvey had/has some pretty crazy ideas - I don't think most people would want to watch a film she approved of - and the concept now exists independent of her original formulation. I've certainly seen "female gaze" used by feminist critics of TV and film.


Quote:
As for the relative prevalence of the sexualisation of men and women in various media, I'm unaware that anyone is actually counting,

Disingenuous.
Quote:
The suggestion, however, that there is anything inherently wrong with finding another human being attractive to look at, or that in so doing they somehow become akin to a disempowered object, remains a ridiculous and puritanical one.


Quote:
Quote:
(and fwiw, a quick read of her blog shows that this one feminist who has expressed extreme views also cares about secularism, Lords reform, AV, internet privacy, the freedom to offend religious people, judicial overreach, trans welfare, mental health, and climate change, all issues which affect men just as much as women if not more so. So cut the "feminists don't care about men" spiel)


Say what you like about Mussolini, right?

That's quite obviously a misrepresentation of my argument.

What I'm saying is more analogous to "Hitler increased pensions, so it's fair to say that moderate fascists also support pension reform".

Quote:
But seriously, were I to put forward a case for an analogous "female gaze" whereby men are defined primarily by how women perceive them, my starting point would be the popular trending of a #killallmen hashtag, and the relative obscurity of the equivalent #killallwomen.

#killallmen is hardly a popular hashtag. A quick browse of Twitter shows about 50 Tweets in the past 24 hours, 49 of them by people explicitly opposed to the tag, and one seemingly using it ironically. I don't think most seemingly-earnest uses are serious, and checking the media coverage backs me up. Essentially, it's an excuse for your fellow MRAs to cry misandry by deliberately misunderstanding a joke and then continuing it yourselves. Elevator Gate all over again.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

05 Jun 2015, 9:14 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Mulvey had/has some pretty crazy ideas - I don't think most people would want to watch a film she approved of - and the concept now exists independent of her original formulation. I've certainly seen "female gaze" used by feminist critics of TV and film.


But only by feminist critics of TV and film. Again, we're back to dogma. The rest of the world calls it voyeurism, and it's perfectly well understood without adding an unnecessary level of implied oppression.

Quote:
Quote:
As for the relative prevalence of the sexualisation of men and women in various media, I'm unaware that anyone is actually counting,

Disingenuous.


Hardly. Male sexualisation is used in TV, film, print, etc and to sell products to both women and men. All can be considered art forms, and are fair reflections of common standards of human beauty, if not fair a fair reflection of Joe Average - which is kind of the point. There's nothing wrong with fantasy until a line is crossed and someone actually gets hurt.

Quote:
Quote:
Say what you like about Mussolini, right?

That's quite obviously a misrepresentation of my argument.


Well no, it was simply a pithy joke - hence the "but seriously" immediately afterwards. That doesn't mean, of course, that there isn't some substance to it.

Quote:
#killallmen is hardly a popular hashtag.


It has trended on multiple occasions. If it's fallen into disuse, brilliant. That doesn't excuse its former 'glory', however.

Quote:
A quick browse of Twitter shows about 50 Tweets in the past 24 hours, 49 of them by people explicitly opposed to the tag, and one seemingly using it ironically. I don't think most seemingly-earnest uses are serious, and checking the media coverage backs me up.


The popular media would also have you believe that all users of the gamergate hashtag are misogynist cyber-terrorists, hell-bent on coordinated campaigns of harassment. They're hardly infallible.

Quote:
Essentially, it's an excuse for your fellow MRAs to cry misandry by deliberately misunderstanding a joke and then continuing it yourselves. Elevator Gate all over again.


Wherein you demonstrate your own dogmatic thinking wherein any man who speaks out against feminism is a MRA. I encourage all reasonable people to eschew such close-minded black and white thinking. The politics of division are just one of many reasons I (and others) find fault with modern feminists.

I advocate the rights of both men and women. If you feel compelled to attach a label to me, go with egalitarian. N.B. the above was not an indictment of MRAs - I don't find anything intrinsically wrong with actively supporting a cause you believe in. Likewise there are more than a handful of feminists whose views I find largely tolerable. As I pointed out in my first post on this thread, the backlash is against feminists and their behaviours, not feminism as a concept.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,266
Location: Reading, England

06 Jun 2015, 6:08 pm

adifferentname wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Mulvey had/has some pretty crazy ideas - I don't think most people would want to watch a film she approved of - and the concept now exists independent of her original formulation. I've certainly seen "female gaze" used by feminist critics of TV and film.


But only by feminist critics of TV and film. Again, we're back to dogma. The rest of the world calls it voyeurism,

You don't understand the concept.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for the relative prevalence of the sexualisation of men and women in various media, I'm unaware that anyone is actually counting,

Disingenuous.


Hardly. Male sexualisation is used in TV, film, print, etc and to sell products to both women and men. All can be considered art forms, and are fair reflections of common standards of human beauty, if not fair a fair reflection of Joe Average - which is kind of the point. There's nothing wrong with fantasy until a line is crossed and someone actually gets hurt.

This is irrelevant to my post.

Quote:
Quote:
#killallmen is hardly a popular hashtag.


It has trended on multiple occasions.

And it would certainly seem that most of those Tweets are either ironic misandry - people playing up to the man-hating feminist boogeyman archetype so they can watch anti-feminists have a sense of humour failure - or, even greater in number, anti-feminists actually having a sense of humour failure, or even ironically using a tag that they don't realise is actually ironic.
Quote:
Quote:
A quick browse of Twitter shows about 50 Tweets in the past 24 hours, 49 of them by people explicitly opposed to the tag, and one seemingly using it ironically. I don't think most seemingly-earnest uses are serious, and checking the media coverage backs me up.


The popular media would also have you believe that all users of the gamergate hashtag are misogynist cyber-terrorists, hell-bent on coordinated campaigns of harassment. They're hardly infallible.

Well, they were right about #gamergate - although I think you exaggerate somewhat, there was definitely an acknowledgement that there was at least a significant minority (I'd say a large majority, but that wasn't the media picture) who were tin-foil misogynists occasionally slipping the word "ethics" into 140 characters of non-sequiturs sparked by a non-event.

Quote:
Quote:
Essentially, it's an excuse for your fellow MRAs to cry misandry by deliberately misunderstanding a joke and then continuing it yourselves. Elevator Gate all over again.


Wherein you demonstrate your own dogmatic thinking wherein any man who speaks out against feminism is a MRA. I encourage all reasonable people to eschew such close-minded black and white thinking. The politics of division are just one of many reasons I (and others) find fault with modern feminists.

I advocate the rights of both men and women. If you feel compelled to attach a label to me, go with egalitarian. N.B. the above was not an indictment of MRAs - I don't find anything intrinsically wrong with actively supporting a cause you believe in. Likewise there are more than a handful of feminists whose views I find largely tolerable. As I pointed out in my first post on this thread, the backlash is against feminists and their behaviours, not feminism as a concept.

It's just my experience.
Egalitarianism is pretty much a dead philosophy because it's widely recognised that it is highly flawed. It isn't appropriate to treat people equally, you need to accept their differences and treat them appropriately as a result of those differences. Giving everyone stairs to climb up is egalitarianism; giving them access to a building is feminism. One of those is quite plainly a ridiculous idea.

Consequently, egalitarianism as a philosophy is pretty much only preached by anti-feminists (MRAs) with a superficial understanding of feminism and egalitarianism. We see something similar with humanism, although that isn't a bankrupt ideology and I consider myself one - it's complementary with rather than an alternative to feminism. As a result, I have come to learn that it is an excellent heurestic to identify anyone who identifies as an egalitarian as also being an MRA, and that any anti-feminist is an MRA.

I note you raise "the politics of division" as a flaw of feminism without a hint of irony.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

06 Jun 2015, 9:38 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
The popular media would also have you believe that all users of the gamergate hashtag are misogynist cyber-terrorists, hell-bent on coordinated campaigns of harassment. They're hardly infallible.

Well, they were right about #gamergate - although I think you exaggerate somewhat, there was definitely an acknowledgement that there was at least a significant minority (I'd say a large majority, but that wasn't the media picture) who were tin-foil misogynists occasionally slipping the word "ethics" into 140 characters of non-sequiturs sparked by a non-event.

Egalitarianism is pretty much a dead philosophy because it's widely recognised that it is highly flawed. It isn't appropriate to treat people equally, you need to accept their differences and treat them appropriately as a result of those differences. Giving everyone stairs to climb up is egalitarianism; giving them access to a building is feminism. One of those is quite plainly a ridiculous idea.

Consequently, egalitarianism as a philosophy is pretty much only preached by anti-feminists (MRAs) with a superficial understanding of feminism and egalitarianism. We see something similar with humanism, although that isn't a bankrupt ideology and I consider myself one - it's complementary with rather than an alternative to feminism. As a result, I have come to learn that it is an excellent heurestic to identify anyone who identifies as an egalitarian as also being an MRA, and that any anti-feminist is an MRA.

I note you raise "the politics of division" as a flaw of feminism without a hint of irony.


This is ridiculous.

"Well, they were right..." According to who? Do 'they' have the authority to actually make a credible claim about that? At what point should an opposition have authority on the beliefs of the opposing force? For a clash between ideologies that are inherently unprovable it is absurd. To claim furthermore on the authority of the opposition the nature of the arguments on that which the opposing holds in even more absurd.

Egalitarianism is preached by many forms of Libertarianism and Communism. Egalitarianism is expounded by intellectuals of diverse leanings worldwide.

"Giving everyone stairs to climb up is egalitarianism; giving them access to a building is feminism."
That statement needs to be qualified and even still is categorically false. You confine an opposition to a box that you yourself have created in order to expound your own ideology. At the very least this is a question of implementation which makes little sense in the context of this conversation as the analogy fails to either accurately describe the differences between the two.

So, basically you deem a philosophy to be dead offhand and claim that those who disagree with you as being superficial? Your heuristic method is as intellectually dishonest as your claims. It is a simply a way to disregard the opposition.

I'm out. I'm done here. Goodbye to everyone.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

06 Jun 2015, 11:59 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
You don't understand the concept.


I understand it perfectly well, thanks. Next time try an actual rebuttal instead of an ad hominem.

Quote:
This is irrelevant to my post.


However it was relevant to mine, which you were responding to when you called it disingenuous. With another poster I might suggest this was ironic. In this case I rather suspect it isn't.

Quote:
And it would certainly seem that most of those Tweets are either ironic misandry - people playing up to the man-hating feminist boogeyman archetype so they can watch anti-feminists have a sense of humour failure - or, even greater in number, anti-feminists actually having a sense of humour failure, or even ironically using a tag that they don't realise is actually ironic.

Well, they were right about #gamergate - although I think you exaggerate somewhat, there was definitely an acknowledgement that there was at least a significant minority (I'd say a large majority, but that wasn't the media picture) who were tin-foil misogynists occasionally slipping the word "ethics" into 140 characters of non-sequiturs sparked by a non-event.


So, speaking as a feminist, your opinion is that #killallmen is just a bit of harmless fun, but #gamergate is a haven of misogynists masquerading as gamers desirous of ethical journalism, that feminists are beyond reproach but #gamergaters are a turgid mass of immorality.

Quote:
Egalitarianism is pretty much a dead philosophy because it's widely recognised that it is highly flawed. It isn't appropriate to treat people equally, you need to accept their differences and treat them appropriately as a result of those differences. Giving everyone stairs to climb up is egalitarianism; giving them access to a building is feminism. One of those is quite plainly a ridiculous idea.


Modern Egalitarianism, as with most philosophies, comes in a variety of forms - none of which match the fatuous definition you've provided. Liberalism, socialism and libertarianism are all examples of egalitarian philosophies, as is progressivism. Modern feminists, meanhwhile, practice puritanical gynocentrism, among other things.

Quote:
Consequently, egalitarianism as a philosophy is pretty much only preached by anti-feminists (MRAs) with a superficial understanding of feminism and egalitarianism.


Anti-feminist =/= MRA. You've already demonstrated your own lack of understanding of egalitarianism. Which specific sect of feminism do you believe is only superficially understood? We're not exactly talking rocket science here.

Quote:
We see something similar with humanism, although that isn't a bankrupt ideology and I consider myself one - it's complementary with rather than an alternative to feminism. As a result, I have come to learn that it is an excellent heurestic to identify anyone who identifies as an egalitarian as also being an MRA, and that any anti-feminist is an MRA.


I find the idea that you call yourself a humanist rather odd, in light of how black and white your thinking is. Your heuristic is an act of bigotry, not enlightenment, as demonstrated by the above false dichotomy.

Quote:
I note you raise "the politics of division" as a flaw of feminism without a hint of irony.


I did no such thing. I suggest you read my post again.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,027

07 Jun 2015, 1:34 am

I think the poll and thread have failed to accurately identify the subject under discussion.

Also, what constitutes "feminism" and what people are reacting to varies by region.

For example I have a friend who is a female programmer in Houston Texas. She experiences overt sexism in the workplace on an almost daily basis.

I've worked in software in Utah for more than two decades. I've never seen the kind of bullshit that she routinely puts up with.

She complains that there are no senior female programmers, which is pretty annoying to her since she probably ought to be recognized as one. But every software company i have worked for has female senior programmers.

So, I would say, feminisim in Houston is not quite the same activity as feminism in Utah.

Not that Utah is without need of reform.

On the other hand, as with most movements, there are people within it who want to make the strongest point they can, even if it means being slightly dishonest.

For example, there was a recent study published claiming to have found that among male and female college graduates with the "same education", females earn $3/hr less.

It turns out that by "same education" they mean graduated from the same university.

Clearly, graduates from engineering, hard sciences, and some other disciplines are going to have higher starting salaries than some others, and some disciplines are graduating more males than females.

It's unlikely that the people who compiled the study were unaware of that. They probably know, to the penny, how much it skewed their results.

How much does it help their cause, and how much does it hurt it? Hard to say.



AnnoyingKid
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2015
Posts: 13

10 Jun 2015, 11:43 am

"There just isn't nearly as much use of men as eye candy as there is of women"

That's because men are encouraged to be utilities of work. Not sexual ornaments of eye candy. Men who look sexualized are usually considered homoerotic. Or the target of cheap jokes and laughter, or called vain and egocentric. When women go to see a male stripper, it's a bunch of laughing and jeering. When men see a female stripper, she's not treated like a clown at a birthday party.