Swapping genderswapping

[Jade Margery]

Wow, that editor must be really misbehaving.

 

[Gadarene]

Wow, that editor must be really misbehaving.

Meatspace priorities. Sorry they don't cater to your timetable. Keep on waiting.

 

[Jade Margery]

Hey, take your time. I expected to be waiting for quite a while anyway.

 

[Gadarene]

The point of her article (linked here, for those who are wondering what we are talking about)

It had already been linked.

is literally that feminists don't actually hate men.

She can claim that - that doesn't make it true.

(It is also, by the way, NOT a headline of a newspaper as you earlier described, but the title of a short opinion column)

Same difference. The same sort of statement would not be considered ok to make about any other group.

And the same sort of statement - denying the issues faced by a group - would be considered hatred of that group, so by the same token she is engaging in hatred of men.

"...(A) younger generation of feminists has embraced what Slate writer Amanda Hess calls “ironic misandry”. Hess wrote last year that the rise in popularity of “male tears” mugs and man-hating inspired shirts and crafts serves as a sort of ****-you to the constant barrage of harassment that feminists often face: “On its most basic level, ironic misandry functions like a stuck-out tongue pointed at a playground bully.”"

Imagine you know a guy, and every time you have a disagreement, he claims that you eat babies because you once said you didn't like children. Eventually, you get so annoyed at being repeatedly called a baby eater that you get a T-shirt that says 'the tastiest part of a baby is the soft spot' with a picture of a baby on a plate to make fun of him. Upon seeing this, he screams "I KNEW IT! YOU ADMIT IT! YOU EAT BABIES! Cannibalism is terrible, how could you make fun of children being killed and devoured?"

You might rightfully face palm at the guy's complete lack of ironic awareness, the fact that any time you say anything that doesn't agree with his preconceived notion of your appetites he ignores it, and the stupidity of the entire situation in the first place.

Not really the same situation. It's more like you're not eating baby, but sitting two tables away is a feminist tucking into a baby mixed grill.

Or to put it another way, it would be like how all those Evil Atheist Conspiracy jokes about eating kittens if there actually were a significant number of atheist kitten-eaters.

Some feminists 'hate' men the same way some people say they 'hate' hipsters. You might groan when you see a guy in a flannel shirt riding a fixie down the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean you want to go on a shooting spree at an indie music store. There is a huge difference. Can you honestly say that you have never, in your entire life, said that you hated something or someone when you were actually just frustrated and annoyed? You are ignoring the nuance and context and focusing only on what you want to see - justification for your criticism of feminists.

Well, people who hate hipsters aren't agitating for changing law and society based on dodgy personal ideology and double standards, so again, I'd say you're comparing apples with oranges.

Some feminists might mean their hate this way, but the way they phrase isn't necessarily distinguishable from those that are serious about it.

Funny how a society that allegedly hates women takes misogyny super serial, but lols at the notion of misandry?

There have been several misogynistic shooting sprees though. (Article) And while there have been a few female spree shooters (less than ten out of all 1314), none of their stated motivations were male hatred.

Ah yes, Elliott Rodger - the "misogynistic" shooter who killed more men than he did women. Going by his manifesto, yes, he was misogynist, but this is not more of a deal than the fact that he was also misandrist, and generally misanthropic.

More on that story later!

So... let me see if I'm getting this right.

To you, a joke making fun of being accused of a ridiculous stereotype = a joke about a violent, traumatic attack that happens to nearly 300,000 innocent people every year, male and female. (Ref)

Cool strawman sis

By that logic, we could never make jokes about anything, because everything is related to some kind of issue. Are you really saying that either everything is in bad taste, or nothing is? Different subjects have different levels of acceptability to the public for a reason.

Obviously you're unaware of the policing of rape jokes going on, a lot of it driven by feminists:

How to Make a Rape Joke
The Trouble With Rape Jokes And 3 Tips for Surviving Them ? Everyday Feminism
Feminism fights back against rape jokes - BBC News

And for the record, the 'rape jokes' I personally find most offensive are the ones about men being raped, because often there is no attempt whatsoever to be respectful or even indicate that it is wrong. Examples off the top of my head include the movie Wedding Crashers and the Amazon episode of Futurama, both playing sexual assault against men for laughs.

Mmmm....yes, and I've noticed considerably less feminist pushback against those. Of course, that old chestnut of "rape culture" is rarely if ever applied to men.

And I'd say that you have to start tackling a problem somewhere (regarding rape) and also... come on. (Regarding sitting and clothes.)

Funny how it's tackling a problem in a way that completely erases a portion of it. And really, how is it much harder to say "teach people not to rape", or "teach men and women not to rape"?

Heck, I'd say men are going better on that bit of teaching. Men at least know it is possible for men to commit rape. Women IME are far less cognisant of the fact that they can.

Regarding sitting and clothes, yes, when someone calls sitting a particular way a display of privilege / aggression towards nearby people/women, then yes, I'd argue that person has some serious issues towards men to put forward such a stupid proposition.

Men's Rights Activism Takes To Public Transit: The Great "Manspreading" Debate | Ravishly

"In this sense, manspreading is a manifestation of gendered territorial entitlement; it taps into, if you will, the male privilege of taking up physical space."

The real reason men should keep their legs together | Barbara Ellen | Comment is free | The Guardian

"It matters because it doesn't always end there. While leg-splaying can be entirely passive and unintentional, this distorted sense of male entitlement to space can sometimes lead to far more worrying behaviour. Men making unwanted overtures to women, commenting on their appearance, getting annoyed when they are not responded to, even, in extreme cases, following them, or becoming aggressive, all of which can be very intimidating, especially if a woman is young and/or alone."


Ramping up the threat narrative against men in that classic feminist fashion. Guy sitting with his legs spread on the train? HE MIGHT ASSAULT YOU.

Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train

I suppose this is what you get in newspapers when you treat tumblr as the next Reuters, but feminists have their amazing standards for quality journalism, I suppose

On that tumblr, note the disdain for statements about male physiology coming from men, and more worryingly the disdain for the fact that these people are having their pictures posted online without their consent, without their faces being blurred out.

Imagine the sort of reaction you'd see from feminists to men dismissing female physiological issues, or taking pictures of them online without them realising to upload online. And then being told that it's ok, because what they're really doing is highlighting their displays of privilege.

As for what you wear, this is in reference to #shirtstorm, when lead Rosetta scientist Matt Taylor wore a shirt made by a lady friend of his on TV during the comet landing.

Leading to charming pieces like this:

I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing | The Verge

And tweets like this:

https://storify.com/cantfakethefunk/shirtstorm-dr-matt-taylor-and-the-truth

I'll say in their defence that even for some feminists this was jumping the shark. That doesn't change the fact that this online mob was motivated by feminism.

I don't see how one shirt will have any effect on women getting into science (and frankly, if it were to, I think science is better of without such people. But I don't believe that, possibly because I have a better belief in women than the shirtstorm whingers do) - and if it's representative of a wider problem, why dogpile the one guy about it?

There was no apparent harm from that guy's shirt - the immediately apparent harm from that twitter mob was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toDIxpQ5Oa4

While female rapists do exist (and should be prosecuted just as male rapists are), the majority of rapists are male and the majority of victims are female. You will not find any statistics to refute that.

Depends on how you frame it. Studies are increasingly showing that women are the majority rapists of men.

Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.

But look, let's grant your assertion that women are the majority of rapists. So what? How does that justify memes and posters like "Don't be that guy" or "Teach men not to rape"? I don't see slogans like "Don't be that Muslim" at airports or "Teach black men not to steal" alongside parking meters as likely to go down to well, do you?

So why is it different when the target is men?

As for stats - I'm of the opinion that it's only recently that we're figuring out just how much of a problem rape is for men as well, and how much of it is female-perpetrated. Given that in many western states women can't even be accused of rape - true in the UK, for example - I think there's a big cultural resistance to breaking out of the "it's something men do" mindset. Obviously older stats are going to reflect that in some way - heck, even the CDC doesn't call it "rape" when a woman forces a man to penetrate her - they called it "made to penetrate" instead.

Sure sounds like rape to me. Although that may have been an inadvertant benefit, in that not even male victims of rape will always call it rape themselves, it probably helped to get a truer picture of the numbers. I can't say it still comes across as something society is concerned about however.

Does it not make sense to try to focus on the larger group of aggressors?

No. For one, as I already mentioned, majority aggressors with regard to other serious crimes aren't singled out in terms of non-essential, superficial characteristics, like race.

For two - I think focusing on a majority perpetrator group is a bad idea, as it tends to leave the victims of the minority perpetrator group neglected.

I don't see why this needs to be gendered at all - surely "all rape is bad, let's stop it" is a bad idea, but some people - both feminist and non-feminist alike - insist on framing it in this "it's something men do to women" way.

Editor is still messing me about whenever I preview, so I'm going to hit post now and do the rest in a second post.

 

[Gadarene]

Links please. Links please. Links please.

I'll focus on a couple of cases that I think will resolves all three in some way.

You mentioned Elliott Rodger earlier - despite the fact that he never identified as a men's rights activist, before the bodies were even cold, this was being used by feminists in the media to smear a movement they didn't like:

Elliot Rodger, Gunman in California Mass Shooting, was influenced by the "Men's Rights Movement"

Elliot Rodger's California shooting spree: further proof that misogyny kills | Jessica Valenti | Comment is free | The Guardian

Elliot Rodger, UCSB Shooter: Internet History Reveals Men?s Rights Movement Beliefs In Wake Of Mass Murder [VIDEO]

So one shooter confirms the MRM's status as a "hate movement". Even though Rodger wasn't an MRA, or even a pickup-artist. Both of those groups are considered to be distinct movements with them MRM anyway.

And when this happened, how did the MRM react? They denounced him, and said we wasn't anything to do with them.

As an example:

Murderer kills six: 4 men and 2 women. Cause: Misogyny!

Contrast that with a feminist who did attack only men with intent to kill - Valerie Solanas.

Not only is her work considered feminist canon:

SCUM Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it's also considered "satire" even today by some feminists:

On the SCUM manifesto

HAHAHA, Pulliing A Solanas, amirite?

http://www.xojane.com/issues/the-new-new-misandry-what-it-means-to-man-hate-in-2013

Where's the outrage over popular feminist site Jezebel affiliating themselves with Solanas' manifesto?

According to Valerie Solanas, Jezebels Are S.C.U.M.

Where's the Elliott Rodger manifesto school play perforance, put on by a touring MRM theatrical group?

The SCUM Manifesto – Now As A School Performance « PappaRättsGruppen

Do you even think for one second a men's group would get away with half of this [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

Oh but wait, one murderous guy who wasn't an MRA totally proves the MRA is a problem and should be classed as a hate movement. One murderous feminist who actually was a feminist, that most feminists consider to be a feminist - "why do you hate feminist?! Not All Feminists Are Like That!"

Hilarious that in your previous paragraph you decry generalizing and judgement, and then in your very next paragraph you generalize and judge.

I explicitly stated that not all feminists are like that, how is there a generalisation there? It's a bit like me and Christianity really - just because there are some sane, unbigoted Christians that I get one with doesn't mean I have to like Christianity, or identify with it or refrain from challenging it publicly when it tries to change society for the worse.

I'll wait. So far I have seen a lot of accusations in this thread against the 'feminist movement', but the only actual evidence of these accusations has been criticizing the public transit version of parking over two spaces and an article that literally starts with 'Feminists don't hate men.' Oh the horror.

And the main reason I held back from replying was because like most feminists I've encountered, you're likely just going to blow these critiques of your movement off, given how dismissive you've already been.

Intellectual honesty, integrity and consistency is not something I've really come across much within your movement and certainly not when it comes to self-reflection, but maybe you'll be an exception.

 

[Gadarene]

Apologies for the several typos, can't edit without the post disappearing entirely.

 

[Cearbhall]

If you flipped the gender of a statement about "women" or "black people" to "men" or "white people" respectively, and it sounded like an unfair generalisation or a stereotype, then it was a suggestion that you were being sexist/racist.

There's a visual version of this called the Hawkeye Initiative that started a couple years ago and is quite amusing. It consists of fan art of Hawkeye and other male comic book characters in the poses and clothing of female characters.

There's a rather interesting new subreddit called /r/menkampf - and they've been doing some entertaining experiments with this notion of swapping terms out.

In short, they swap terms like "men" or "cismen" to "Jews", and terms like "women" to "Aryans".

The results are rather interesting.

There's a Chrome extension called Jailbreak the Patriarchy that allows you to swap all the gendered pronouns on the page.

This is not dredged up from some random tumblrite either, this is the swapped form of an excerpt from this article by feminist journalist Jessica Valenti.

I love Jessica Valenti. I had to read one of her books for a seminar.

Isn't it kind of a problem that the attitudes espoused by some quite noteworthy feminists in the public are virtually indistinguishable from some other quite nasty prejudices?

Yes, it is. I'm quite fond of it as a discipline, but I'm not too keen on the "anything goes" culture that the Internet has created.

 

[Gadarene]

There's a visual version of this called the Hawkeye Initiative that started a couple years ago and is quite amusing. It consists of fan art of Hawkeye and other male comic book characters in the poses and clothing of female characters. There's a Chrome extension called Jailbreak the Patriarchy that allows you to swap all the gendered pronouns on the page. I love Jessica Valenti. I had to read one of her books for a seminar. Yes, it is. I'm quite fond of it as a discipline, but I'm not too keen on the "anything goes" culture that the Internet has created.

Cheers very much Cearbhall - much appreciated

Well, ok, apart from liking Jessica Valenti. Ick

 

[TerranceL]

Ah yes, Elliott Rodger - the "misogynistic" shooter who killed more men than he did women. Going by his manifesto, yes, he was misogynist, but this is not more of a deal than the fact that he was also misandrist, and generally misanthropic.

Nothing shows how little feminist value the lives of men than the above.

He murdered more men, BUT HE MURDERED WOMEN, MUHSOGGYKNEE!

His manifesto showed hatred for men and women, BUT HE HATED WOMEN, MUHSOGGYKNEE!

Men, our lives, our pain, and our deaths are just skipped over by feminist.

But they don't hate us.

Mmmm....yes, and I've noticed considerably less feminist pushback against those. Of course, that old chestnut of "rape culture" is rarely if ever applied to men.

Which is very curious since the very concept of "rape culture" was created to describe men getting raped in prison. Gosh feminist jumped on that one and made it their own little tool to bash men quickly didn't they?

"In this sense, manspreading is a manifestation of gendered territorial entitlement; it taps into, if you will, the male privilege of taking up physical space."

Well to be fair, a man was allowed outside without his female keeper. Who knows what he could have done!?

 

[TerranceL]

There's a visual version of this called the Hawkeye Initiative that started a couple years ago and is quite amusing. It consists of fan art of Hawkeye and other male comic book characters in the poses and clothing of female characters.

This has always been curious to me, considering how many male heroes are drawn halfnaked or wearing skintight clothing. Just another case of people not being part of a community deciding they are the arbiters of what is right in said community.

I love Jessica Valenti. I had to read one of her books for a seminar.

What part of her do you like? Where she devalues men as a sex? Where she laughs at the pain of men? Her habit of getting butthurt at everything and turning non-gendered issues into gendered ones?

 

[Cearbhall]

.

 

[Gadarene]

Feminism is hate group now? In my world, it's a discipline.

By the same standards many feminists decry other groups, it is a hate group.

 

[Cearbhall]

Of course not, but why would you want to be part of a group where such behaviour is considered acceptable?

Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions? Just wondering. I know there are people who feel this way, and though I don't agree, I think it's a valid position. It just seems to boil down to attitudes towards semantics.

Fortunately, you do not get to define feminism for me. I am for equal rights, not superior ones.

It's very strange to me that people try to lump all feminists together. Anyone can claim the term. Is there any movement/religion/discipline in which all people agree?

 

[Gadarene]

Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions?

It is because of my experience with religion that I was tipped off to the problems in feminism. Similar faulty mindsets, similar mistakes.

 

[Cearbhall]

This has always been curious to me, considering how many male heroes are drawn halfnaked or wearing skintight clothing. Just another case of people not being part of a community deciding they are the arbiters of what is right in said community.

What makes you assume that they're outside the community? It's mostly comic book readers and writers/artists who get sick of it and wanted to see things change. They're the ones who have to look at it. I'm not a reader of them myself, so I can't speak as to whether their assessment is accurate in the grand scheme of things.

It is because of my experience with religion that I was tipped off to the problems in feminism. Similar faulty mindsets, similar mistakes.

I was referring more to the idea that the actions of some people within the group taints the label itself, and that this development means the label should be abandoned by all. I personally don't see it that way, but nor do I demonize all Christians/Muslims for having a label in common with wrong-doers. I was wondering if his philosophy also carries over to religion.

 

[Jade Margery]

She can claim that - that doesn't make it true.

As your claim doesnt make it false.

Same difference. The same sort of statement would not be considered ok to make about any other group.

And the same sort of statement - denying the issues faced by a group - would be considered hatred of that group, so by the same token she is engaging in hatred of men.

You used that as an example of how 'mainstream' hating men was by 1) quoting it out of context (only providing half of the title) and b) saying it was a headline when it wasn't. Is it really the same thing, or is it just you feeling uncomfortable about being wrong?

And as was earlier pointed out, there are many groups it would be considered okay to make that statement about. Straight people, white people, christians, Americans... pretty much anyone 'on top' of the privilege pile.

Or to put it another way, it would be like how all those Evil Atheist Conspiracy jokes about eating kittens if there actually were a significant number of atheist kitten-eaters.

You realize that when you generalize about the ebil feminist agenda, you sound just like those people who wail and gnash their teeth about the homosexual agenda, or the atheist agenda, right? Gay people don't want to make your kids gay, atheists aren't actually agents of satan, and feminists don't really hate men. It's all just propaganda to smear and discredit people who are raising awareness about real issues.

Ah yes, Elliott Rodger - the "misogynistic" shooter who killed more men than he did women. Going by his manifesto, yes, he was misogynist, but this is not more of a deal than the fact that he was also misandrist, and generally misanthropic.

That he was incompetant and failed at his goal of killing more women than he did, doesn't make it any less a misogynistic act
.

So... let me see if I'm getting this right.
To you, a joke making fun of being accused of a ridiculous stereotype = a joke about a violent, traumatic attack that happens to nearly 300,000 innocent people every year, male and female. (Ref)

Cool strawman sis

When discussing the appropriateness of making fun of being accused of misandry, you said:

Since when does "it's only a joke" about an issue make it ok? Last time I checked, feminists were more than a little up in arms about sexist jokes and rape jokes.

So yes, you compared those two subjects on even ground, and no, it's not a strawman. Nice dodge, bro.

Obviously you're unaware of the policing of rape jokes going on, a lot of it driven by feminists:

Of course I am aware, I was just talking about it, wasn't I? I never denied that there is currently a backlash against rape jokes, (hell, I indicated that I am also against them in general) so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That some people find flippant remarks about rape to be offensive, and are expressing that opinion, as is their free-speech right? Oh noes!

Mmmm....yes, and I've noticed considerably less feminist pushback against those. Of course, that old chestnut of "rape culture" is rarely if ever applied to men.

Maybe you're just not listening.

Nerdy Feminist: We Live in a Rape Culture. And it Hurts Everyone.
Essential Concepts: How Patriarchy and Rape Culture Hurt Men | Change Happens: The SAFER Blog
It's not feminism that hurts men - Features - The F-Word
https://theradicalidea.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5-ways-the-patriarchy-hurts-men-too/

Funny how it's tackling a problem in a way that completely erases a portion of it. And really, how is it much harder to say "teach people not to rape", or "teach men and women not to rape"?

"Hey, I know you're trying to fix something, but you're not trying to fix EVERYTHING, so you're really just a hypocrite who actually wants to make things worse."

Heck, I'd say men are going better on that bit of teaching. Men at least know it is possible for men to commit rape. Women IME are far less cognisant of the fact that they can.

Women AND men are often ignorant of the damage that a woman rapist/assaulter can do to a man. Ironically, this is a thing that feminism would solve. When men and women are truly considered equal, a female rapist will face the same stigma as a male rapist. A woman's punch will be considered assault just as much as a man's.

Regarding sitting and clothes, yes, when someone calls sitting a particular way a display of privilege / aggression towards nearby people/women, then yes, I'd argue that person has some serious issues towards men to put forward such a stupid proposition.

Men's Rights Activism Takes To Public Transit: The Great "Manspreading" Debate | Ravishly

The real reason men should keep their legs together | Barbara Ellen | Comment is free | The Guardian

Ramping up the threat narrative against men in that classic feminist fashion. Guy sitting with his legs spread on the train? HE MIGHT ASSAULT YOU.

Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train

The articles quoted are not just about 'manspreading'; they are using it as a jumping off point for a discussion about body language, personal territory, and gender norms.

I suppose this is what you get in newspapers when you treat tumblr as the next Reuters, but feminists have their amazing standards for quality journalism, I suppose

You linked a tumblr blog, an online community, and another opinion piece (not a journalism piece). I suppose this is what you get in posts when you treat every website like it's a newspaper? Or is this another one of those 'same differences' when you say a thing is not actually what it is to make your point sound better?

On that tumblr, note the disdain for statements about male physiology coming from men, and more worryingly the disdain for the fact that these people are having their pictures posted online without their consent, without their faces being blurred out.

Are you aware that the tumblr you keep referring to is run by a man? One who does not (at least in the thirty-odd pages I skimmed) claim to be a feminist?

As to the non-blurring of faces, I'm not about to defend what I find abhorrent. I think it's wrong to post photos of people without their permission/unblurred, but disrespect for that kind of privacy is hardly unique to feminists.

Imagine the sort of reaction you'd see from feminists to men dismissing female physiological issues, or taking pictures of them online without them realising to upload online. And then being told that it's ok, because what they're really doing is highlighting their displays of privilege.

I don't have to imagine. Plenty of those sites already exist. Hell, I was on one once (from behind, but it was definitely me.)

As for what you wear, this is in reference to #shirtstorm, when lead Rosetta scientist Matt Taylor wore a shirt made by a lady friend of his on TV during the comet landing.

Leading to charming pieces like this:

I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing | The Verge

Yes, I know about shirtstorm.

The guy wore a sexist and unprofessional shirt, and people pointed out that it was sexist and unprofessional. And then he appologized for it. And then it was over. What point are you trying to make? The 'charming' article you quote doesn't scream for his head or demand his job or say he's a monster. It says that some people found his choice of clothing offensive, and why they found it offensive.

And tweets like this:

https://storify.com/cantfakethefunk/...-and-the-truth

Tweets like... what? Did you actually read the page you just linked?

It is a person summarizing the activity of the 'feminist twitter lynch mob' by noting every aggressive and/or personally attacking tweet that went out before Taylor apologized. The page's conclusion? There were three (3!) personally attacking tweets. Three.

As far as a deluge of critical tweets - THAT even barely happened. Most of the tweets are supportive.
So - that was ALL of Nov. 12.
Abusive tweets in "feminist lynch mob" = 3
I suspect that Taylor did realize - especially when being confronted with teachers talking about their students - that he made a mistake.
It could be that he felt pressured to apologize - I don't know - I can't read minds. But he was not "bullied" by a "feminist lynch mob".
Going through 4 recent hours of tweets and the entire day of Nov. 12th - there are more abusive tweet TO OTHER PPL in his mentions.
Currently, in his mentions - he is being thanked and applauded for apologizing & being asked to help stop the harassment of his critics.
Looking through Taylor's mentions. Starting to wonder if he was crying due to being love-bombed by ********.
I'm not even kidding - many of them are tagging him in with abuse toward Eveleth. I'd find that disturbing if I were him.

So, three abusive tweets, that at their worst called him a jerk. Nobody threatened to kill him, or rape him, or mutilate him. Nobody posted his address online or pictures of his house or his phone number or the phone numbers of his relatives. Nobody even said he should be fired. This is wrong to you? This is a great injustice? This is misandry in action? No wonder we're laughing.

"You should have your tongue ripped out": the reality of sexist abuse online
Zoe Quinn: 'Twitter #Gamergate has ruined my life' - Telegraph
Page o’ Hate | Skepchick
Image Based Harassment and Visual Misogyny | Feminist Frequency
https://storify.com/JessicaValenti/what-happens-when-a-woman-writer-asks-a-question-o

I'll say in their defence that even for some feminists this was jumping the shark. That doesn't change the fact that this online mob was motivated by feminism.

The very website you linked showed that there was no online mob. Once again, blaming feminism for something that doesn't actually exist.

I don't see how one shirt will have any effect on women getting into science (and frankly, if it were to, I think science is better of without such people. But I don't believe that, possibly because I have a better belief in women than the shirtstorm whingers do) - and if it's representative of a wider problem, why dogpile the one guy about it?

There was no apparent harm from that guy's shirt - the immediately apparent harm from that twitter mob was this:

He apologized for making a mistake and got emotional. OH THE HARMS. TRULY HE IS BUT A HOLLOW SHELL OF HIS FORMER MANLY SELF. HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER.

Depends on how you frame it. Studies are increasingly showing that women are the majority rapists of men.

Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.
But look, let's grant your assertion that women are the majority of rapists. So what? How does that justify memes and posters like "Don't be that guy" or "Teach men not to rape"? I don't see slogans like "Don't be that Muslim" at airports or "Teach black men not to steal" alongside parking meters as likely to go down to well, do you?

So why is it different when the target is men?

If you would like to start a campaign illuminating the problem of female rapists and make a bunch of posters saying 'Erection is not consent' or 'Don't be that woman', by all means go ahead. I would totally support that. As I have already pointed out, equal societal standing between men and women would mean that female rapists would face the same consequences as male rapists.

And the difference is that racial and religious minorities do not enjoy a position of societal privilege and power.

As for stats - I'm of the opinion that it's only recently that we're figuring out just how much of a problem rape is for men as well, and how much of it is female-perpetrated. Given that in many western states women can't even be accused of rape - true in the UK, for example - I think there's a big cultural resistance to breaking out of the "it's something men do" mindset. Obviously older stats are going to reflect that in some way - heck, even the CDC doesn't call it "rape" when a woman forces a man to penetrate her - they called it "made to penetrate" instead.

Sure sounds like rape to me. Although that may have been an inadvertant benefit, in that not even male victims of rape will always call it rape themselves, it probably helped to get a truer picture of the numbers. I can't say it still comes across as something society is concerned about however.

Ironically, that's an opinion you share with the FEMINIST whose studies/article you were just referencing.

Stemple is a longtime feminist who fully understands that men have historically used sexual violence to subjugate women and that in most countries they still do. As she sees it, feminism has fought long and hard to fight rape myths—that if a woman gets raped it’s somehow her fault, that she welcomed it in some way. But the same conversation needs to happen for men. By portraying sexual violence against men as aberrant, we prevent justice and compound the shame. And the conversation about men doesn’t need to shut down the one about women. “Compassion,” she says, “is not a finite resource.”

No. For one, as I already mentioned, majority aggressors with regard to other serious crimes aren't singled out in terms of non-essential, superficial characteristics, like race.

When it comes to rape, gender is not a non-essential characteristic. It is a defining one - in either direction.

For two - I think focusing on a majority perpetrator group is a bad idea, as it tends to leave the victims of the minority perpetrator group neglected.

That is a fair argument, and you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Jade Margery]

So, in your first link post, your evidence that feminists hate men can be summed up as:

Many people, male and female, feminist or not, are annoyed by guys who take up more space than they need to in public transit.

Some feminists have expressed their opinion that rape jokes are not funny and contribute to the trivialization of rape and sexual assault.

A guy who wore a shirt covered in half naked women at an inappropriate time was asked to apologize for it, did so, and had his apology accepted.

A feminist wants people to pay more attention to male sexual assault victims.

Wow. Such hatred.

Will get to second post after a short break.

 

[Skavau]

"You should have your tongue ripped out": the reality of sexist abuse online
Zoe Quinn: 'Twitter #Gamergate has ruined my life' - Telegraph
Page o’ Hate | Skepchick
Image Based Harassment and Visual Misogyny | Feminist Frequency
https://storify.com/JessicaValenti/w...s-a-question-o

A few things should be noted about the people you've listed there (I don't know about Helen Lewis) - they're all agitators.

Rebecca Watson is outright openly in favour of doxxing people she perceives to be fair game.

Zoe Quinn openly attempted to blacklist a videogame developer, Brad Wardell and spent time encouraging her followers and to harass (amongst agitating herself) to this end. What was she trying to blacklist him for? He sent a tweet to an artist encouraging him to apply to Stardock. Unknown to him the person he sent a tweet to had previously posted a disparaging comic strip including Zoe Quinn.

She assumed, and I would argue deliberately that they were connected and accused him of trying to hire that person because of that comic. She unloaded on him, her followers did and he faced a barrage of abuse and attacks and even had a civil case against him, that he won, bought up. It was all done, all orchestrated because he was an unperson in their eyes, fair game, and needed to be intimidated into renouncing support for GG or hounded out of the industry.

She's not an innocent flower and has not, to my knowledge, apologised to Brad Wardell.

Anita Sarkeesian is a huckster of the most obvious variety. Originally endorsed Suey Park's #CancelColbert hashtag and then appeared on the show herself. Her producer, Jonathan McIntosh is an anti-gamer in the same way than Jack Thompson was. He appears to loathe violent video games in their entirety.

In any case the vast majority of abuse that these figures receive are from anonymous egg accounts on Twitter that have an account lifespan of days if not hours. They retweet, sensationalise, create a moral panic and portray them as representative of their critics in an attempt to smear anyone who criticises them as misogynistic and hateful. In creating this atmosphere they do more harm for women in gaming than any 14 year old 8chan dork could. Do Zoe, Anita et al receive criticism? Of course, they're deliberately divisive and partisan figures. They receive a lot of criticism. They use this springboard as a basis to suggest they receive a lot of abuse and through their friends in the media and through the technological ignorance of the media receive positive headlines and guest writing slots about how progressive they are, how they're just trying to reform gaming's attitudes towards women and fight against harassment and threats towards women.

Underneath all of that they've done some nasty things and said some nasty things themselves that never get enough media attention.

Jessica Valenti is also a troll. Nothing more there needs to be said. She's a baiter.

 

[Gadarene]

As your claim doesnt make it false.

That's the beauty of assertion.

You used that as an example of how 'mainstream' hating men was by 1) quoting it out of context (only providing half of the title) and b) saying it was a headline when it wasn't. Is it really the same thing, or is it just you feeling uncomfortable about being wrong?

Says the person nitpicking over (b)? Come on.

Headline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The headline is the text indicating the nature of the article below it."


Do you need me to explain any other basic terms to you?


And no, I didn't quote half the title - I said that she not only denies feminist misandry but said even if it existed it wouldn't matter. Do you need me to parse the title for you as it relates that sentence as well?

And as was earlier pointed out, there are many groups it would be considered okay to make that statement about. Straight people, white people, christians, Americans... pretty much anyone 'on top' of the privilege pile.

Which shows what a pile of crap the concept is. If is not fair to make such statements about any one group, it is not fair to make such statements about any other - certainly not on the basis of innate traits.

You realize that when you generalize about the ebil feminist agenda, you sound just like those people who wail and gnash their teeth about the homosexual agenda, or the atheist agenda, right? Gay people don't want to make your kids gay, atheists aren't actually agents of satan, and feminists don't really hate men. It's all just propaganda to smear and discredit people who are raising awareness about real issues.

Well, let's see - you can't make anyone gay, nor does Satan exist. A person who constantly bangs on about how men "oppress" women hating men? You're leagues ahead there in terms of plausibility.

This also is a false comparison too in that men have their issues too as a result of their gender. I wouldn't say the same is true of white people and straight people.

That he was incompetant and failed at his goal of killing more women than he did, doesn't make it any less a misogynistic act.

Ah ok, so it's not misandry, it's incompetent misogyny.

Nice dodge of the point. His manifesto expressed hatred of men, women, his family, Asians and more besides. Cherry-picking one out of that rather sizeable list to hijack an atrocity and make it all about you is pretty despicable behaviour - not least when you use it to hypocritically smear another political group.

When discussing the appropriateness of making fun of being accused of misandry, you said:

So yes, you compared those two subjects on even ground, and no, it's not a strawman. Nice dodge, bro.

Are you making fun of misandry, or are you mocking the notion of male issues? When both groups of people are using "male tears" or "#killallmen" or "lol misandry" as their tagline, they're going to become blurred together.

And no, again, I wasn't comparing them in terms of severity. This is why I made the snarky disclaimer I did, because you lot love to make this mistake/obfuscation - comparing two things in intent or principle isn't the same as comparing them in outcome. Throwing your hands up and going "BUT THAT ISN'T AS SERIOUS" either leads me to think you're just not paying attention or you're trying really hard to avoid admitting to fault. That was not the claim - it never was.

The point was that joking about something people find to be a serious issue isn't taken lightly when feminists are on the receiving end of it - like rape jokes - so why doesn't this cut both ways?

Maybe you're just not listening.

Nerdy Feminist: We Live in a Rape Culture. And it Hurts Everyone.
Essential Concepts: How Patriarchy and Rape Culture Hurt Men | Change Happens: The SAFER Blog
It's not feminism that hurts men - Features - The F-Word
https://theradicalidea.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5-ways-the-patriarchy-hurts-men-too/

Did I say it was never applied to men?

"Hey, I know you're trying to fix something, but you're not trying to fix EVERYTHING, so you're really just a hypocrite who actually wants to make things worse."

Oh come on. Constantly focusing on one perpetrating group of an issue over all others is regularly considered bigoted. Focusing on Muslim terrorism or theft by non-whites while virtually ignoring the same crimes committed by other people isn't considered egalitarian. Do try and be consistent here.

It's literally a change of one term, and that's too much to ask?

Women AND men are often ignorant of the damage that a woman rapist/assaulter can do to a man. Ironically, this is a thing that feminism would solve. When men and women are truly considered equal, a female rapist will face the same stigma as a male rapist. A woman's punch will be considered assault just as much as a man's.

How exactly would feminism solve this? Be specific, rather than just vaguely asserting that "oh well everyone would be equal anyway".

I don't notice a rash of campaigns by feminists in the UK to fix our gendered rape laws, for example. The feminists here are more concerned with fixing more urgent issues than female rapists, like getting boobs out of the Sun newspaper, or banning Blurred Lines in universities.

You know, important stuff like that.

And while feminists have done some amendment of rape laws in the US iirc, they still haven't considered any form of non-penetrative rape. In the CDC stats referred to in the Stemple piece men are most often made to penetrate their female partners.

The articles quoted are not just about 'manspreading'; they are using it as a jumping off point for a discussion about body language, personal territory, and gender norms.

The quote from Ravishly is actually referring to manspreading - and if you think a dude sitting down is engaging is "territorial entitlement" or whatever mishmash of sociologico-bollocks it was, then yes, I would argue you are a bigot. It reminds me of the EDL types in my country who think seeing several brown-skinned Muslims walking down the street is a sign of the impending Muslim takeover.

Taking ordinary, everyday things people do and constructing them into some overarching narrative involving threat and oppression? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty clear sign you're being prejudiced as hell.

You linked a tumblr blog, an online community, and another opinion piece (not a journalism piece). I suppose this is what you get in posts when you treat every website like it's a newspaper?

I shoudn't treat The Guardian as a newspaper? Amazing

Or is this another one of those 'same differences' when you say a thing is not actually what it is to make your point sound better?

I will say they're all equally stupid and bigoted - is that better?

Are you aware that the tumblr you keep referring to is run by a man? One who does not (at least in the thirty-odd pages I skimmed) claim to be a feminist?

It's far from the only blog of this kind - there's a more famous one, but the URL contains profanity so I didn't think the link would work.

Let's just say his disdain for those things is no worse than that of some feminists on the issue.

But wow, your counter here is "it's run by a man"? I'd call this amateurish, but that would be charitable. So what if it's run by a man? Just because he doesn't experience the same physical experiences as some other men doesn't mean he gets to disregard them. Just because he's not concerned about these people being photographed without their consent doesn't mean some men aren't.

But hey, by that logic - this site exists:

Women Against Feminism

Sorry you wasted all that time with feminism, Jade

As to the non-blurring of faces, I'm not about to defend what I find abhorrent. I think it's wrong to post photos of people without their permission/unblurred, but disrespect for that kind of privacy is hardly unique to feminists.

Good to see you have some standards here, but "well we're no worse than them" is a pretty weaksauce defence. You're proposing a higher standard than this - act like it. Don't downplay it with feeble lines like this.

Yes, I know about shirtstorm.

The guy wore a sexist and unprofessional shirt, and people pointed out that it was sexist and unprofessional.

No, they didn't - and even the headlines of the articles I posted indicate it wasn't just that. They claimed he was keeping women out of science. It was also claimed that he was misogynist - that he hated women. That's an awful lot to concoct from just one bad shirt, and they are rotten things to accuse someone as enthusiastic as science as him on the back of nothing.

And if a woman in STEM was judged on what she wore, bloody hell, we'd never hear the end of it, and it would be oppression of women this, misogyny that, blah di blah.

And then he appologized for it.

Well, he broke down publicly after being accused of a lot of pretty crappy things that weren't true, like the above. Yeah, people tend to break down under bullying.

And then it was over.

No, it wasn't. Some people on twitter didn't feel the apology was enough. That's why it's never worth pandering to idiots like that.

What point are you trying to make? The 'charming' article you quote doesn't scream for his head or demand his job or say he's a monster. It says that some people found his choice of clothing offensive, and why they found it offensive.

Tweets like... what? Did you actually read the page you just linked?

It is a person summarizing the activity of the 'feminist twitter lynch mob' by noting every aggressive and/or personally attacking tweet that went out before Taylor apologized. The page's conclusion? There were three (3!) personally attacking tweets. Three.

So, three abusive tweets, that at their worst called him a jerk.

Nobody threatened to kill him, or rape him, or mutilate him. Nobody posted his address online or pictures of his house or his phone number or the phone numbers of his relatives. Nobody even said he should be fired. This is wrong to you? This is a great injustice? This is misandry in action? No wonder we're laughing.

"You should have your tongue ripped out": the reality of sexist abuse online
Zoe Quinn: 'Twitter #Gamergate has ruined my life' - Telegraph
Page o’ Hate | Skepchick
Image Based Harassment and Visual Misogyny | Feminist Frequency
https://storify.com/JessicaValenti/what-happens-when-a-woman-writer-asks-a-question-o

Fallacy of relative privation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because it isn't as serious doesn't mean it isn't motivated by an irrational dislike of men.

I also wouldn't really appeal to Gamergate articles as examples of online harassment suffered by women. Most of the coverage of that topic, apart from a handful of Vice and Time pieces, completely ignored the harassment received by gamergaters, many of them male, and much of it including death threats and doxxing.

The very website you linked showed that there was no online mob. Once again, blaming feminism for something that doesn't actually exist.

Bollocks. Most of those tweets were coming from feminists.

He apologized for making a mistake and got emotional. OH THE HARMS. TRULY HE IS BUT A HOLLOW SHELL OF HIS FORMER MANLY SELF. HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER.

Yeah, I'm sure he was crying because he was just apologetic, not because his big day was marred by a bunch of idiots with tall poppy syndrome getting offended over nothing.

If you would like to start a campaign illuminating the problem of female rapists and make a bunch of posters saying 'Erection is not consent' or 'Don't be that woman', by all means go ahead. I would totally support that. As I have already pointed out, equal societal standing between men and women would mean that female rapists would face the same consequences as male rapists.

That's the thing though, one has to actively approach that goal - not just deny statistics and assert that oh yeah, feminism's totally got that while doing nothing concrete towards that specific end.

And the difference is that racial and religious minorities do not enjoy a position of societal privilege and power.

And here's where you lose me completely. Sorry, but I cannot believe someone who says something so utterly wrong and daft can be any way serious about wanting equality.

If it's wrong to generalise based on gender/race for one group, then it's wrong for all genders/race. This notion that it's ok to generalise but only if the group is supposedly privileged is completely retrograde. That's the same sort of dynamic we're trying to get away from.

It's no different from stereotyping and prejudice - and old-fashioned racists and sexists had their junk science and philosophy too, so you can throw as many buzzwords like privilege at it as you want. It doesn't make it cogent or credible.

Ironically, that's an opinion you share with the FEMINIST whose studies/article you were just referencing.

Sure, but as I said, I never claimed all feminists were bad. Doesn't excuse the feminists who ignore those stats though. You're doing the religious "but look at all the charities we have" thing in response to your group being criticised.

When it comes to rape, gender is not a non-essential characteristic. It is a defining one - in either direction.

It is non-essential in that rape is not a male thing, any more than theft is not a black thing, fraud is not a Jewish thing, and terrorism isn't a Muslim thing. Rape is committed by both genders, so there is no reason to single one gender out for challenging it.

That is a fair argument, and you're entitled to your opinion.

Ta muchly

 

[Gadarene]

Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions? Just wondering. I know there are people who feel this way, and though I don't agree, I think it's a valid position. It just seems to boil down to attitudes towards semantics.

Some people do, some people don't, I suppose. I didn't affiliate as Christian towards the end of my belief in it, mainly because I didn't want to be associated with the creationist/evangelical types. I have no problem IDing as atheist or non-feminist, because those are much simpler stances. They're just based around rejection of a stance, not around multiple conflicting definitions of a set of positive claims.

And often for those people, the handful of good types experienced under a particular group don't change the fact that a lot of it is negative and that more of that group's influence may not be desirable. E.g. saying that the solution to men's problems is "more feminism" is the rhetorical equivalent of the line that we need more guns around after a killing spree.

It's very strange to me that people try to lump all feminists together.

Well, they kind do that themselves by the fact that they identify with the same term.

Anyone can claim the term. Is there any movement/religion/discipline in which all people agree?

It's not about uniform agreement, no-one has claimed that. It's that there aren't that many (what I would call) actually egalitarian feminists in the movement that are in the mainstream press, arguing against these feminists I speak of that are just making the situation worse. I'm grateful for those that exist like Sommers, Patai, Young et al., but they're scarce.

Very often those feminists insisting that "not all feminists are like that" usually end up being a lot more "like that" than they might otherwise like to admit.

What makes you assume that they're outside the community? It's mostly comic book readers and writers/artists who get sick of it and wanted to see things change. They're the ones who have to look at it. I'm not a reader of them myself, so I can't speak as to whether their assessment is accurate in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think it's fair to say they're not outside the community in this case. However, I don't think it's fair either to demand that the community change its output based on their relative ignorance of it. That seems rather entitled to me.

It reminds me of the #changethecover furore, when Batgirl was posed with the Joker, and the refrain was "you'd never see Batman in a position of threat like that" and, lo and behold, covers indicating just that were provided.

I was referring more to the idea that the actions of some people within the group taints the label itself, and that this development means the label should be abandoned by all. I personally don't see it that way, but nor do I demonize all Christians/Muslims for having a label in common with wrong-doers. I was wondering if his philosophy also carries over to religion.

I think it depends in part on what philosophy underpins it all - when for the most part the moderates and the extremists are using the same ideas that are also wrong at a fundamental level (Christianity/Islam in the one case, and patriarchy/oppression/privilege etc on the other), I'm not really reassured by the presence of moderates. I'd much rather the wrong ideas just be done away with altogether, frankly.