Elevatorgate(Rebecca Watson), Video Game Gate(Anita Sarkeesian) and lately the Dongle Gate(Adria Richards) are shaking up the world with their radical ideals over "matriarchy" and "feminism". Thoughts please.
Feminism -
- Thread starter homerbeoulve
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix.
- Status
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Yeah, what it is, is a little something called female chauvanism, which, if you guessed, is like the male counterpart, but it is female who believe they are superior as opposed to equal.
Yeah, what it is, is a little something called female chauvanism, which, if you guessed, is like the male counterpart, but it is female who believe they are superior as opposed to equal.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Use Google and you'll find out.
Niachu said:
Use Google and you'll find out.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
1.The elevatorgate fiasco was about this female blogger who was at this convention where a man asked her if she would like to get some coffee. Then she made a video claiming he was a sexist and treating her like an object and that he only wanted sex. Which meant she thought he was accosting her for sex in an elevator.
2.Anita Sarkeesian started a very large controversy after she kickstarted something called Tropes Vs Women in video games. Which is a video series that is virtually identical to the videos she already does on films that she deems that are sexist (and she has a lot of them). The controversy mostly stemmed from how she viewed games from the 1980s sexist because they employed the "damsel in distress" motif that has been around in fiction for thousands of years.
3.Dongle gate is something that happened very recently at this convention for Python coders called "Py-con" where these two developers made a penis joke about dongles, and this woman overheard it. Then she posted a picture of them and put it up on twitter attempting to slander them. One of the men was fired (who also has 3 children) and the woman was also fired.
My thoughts on them.
1. has been talked about to death. Even Richard Dawkins spoke about how ludicrous this was and most feminists dislike even mentioning this fiasco entirely because of how trivial it is when you boil it down.
2. Anita Sarkeesian I particularly despise mostly because she carefully selects the games she mentions. Baring in mind that she asked for money from the public to do a series of videos and they don't have very different production caliber to the videos she did for free. It's also arguable if she would even be news if she didn't get death threats from trolls who should have ignored it. I'd mention her specific arguments but this one video does it already. [youtube]f7EftgW9NcE[/youtube]. One thing I'd add is how there were games in the Amiga/dos era that had complex female characters. Examples such as the Ultima series on home computers. But apparently we should only speak about Mario, because Mario was popular. Which reminds me of the attitude that we should call film sexist because the only type of films out now are Transformers.
The biggest thing that annoys me about the Anita Sarkeesian bit is that people consider her video academic. Which is laughable since it's as academic as a Nostalgia Critic review.
3. This situation is particularly humorous mostly because nobody won from the situation. Both parties suffered and it was over something that shouldn't have been blown out of proportion in the first place. Bare in mind that the two men were complete and total strangers to the woman and the only thing they had in common was they were at the same convention. Apparently eavesdropping on private conversations and slandering individuals on Twitter is a firing offense.
1.The elevatorgate fiasco was about this female blogger who was at this convention where a man asked her if she would like to get some coffee. Then she made a video claiming he was a sexist and treating her like an object and that he only wanted sex. Which meant she thought he was accosting her for sex in an elevator.
2.Anita Sarkeesian started a very large controversy after she kickstarted something called Tropes Vs Women in video games. Which is a video series that is virtually identical to the videos she already does on films that she deems that are sexist (and she has a lot of them). The controversy mostly stemmed from how she viewed games from the 1980s sexist because they employed the "damsel in distress" motif that has been around in fiction for thousands of years.
3.Dongle gate is something that happened very recently at this convention for Python coders called "Py-con" where these two developers made a penis joke about dongles, and this woman overheard it. Then she posted a picture of them and put it up on twitter attempting to slander them. One of the men was fired (who also has 3 children) and the woman was also fired.
My thoughts on them.
1. has been talked about to death. Even Richard Dawkins spoke about how ludicrous this was and most feminists dislike even mentioning this fiasco entirely because of how trivial it is when you boil it down.
2. Anita Sarkeesian I particularly despise mostly because she carefully selects the games she mentions. Baring in mind that she asked for money from the public to do a series of videos and they don't have very different production caliber to the videos she did for free. It's also arguable if she would even be news if she didn't get death threats from trolls who should have ignored it. I'd mention her specific arguments but this one video does it already. [youtube]f7EftgW9NcE[/youtube]. One thing I'd add is how there were games in the Amiga/dos era that had complex female characters. Examples such as the Ultima series on home computers. But apparently we should only speak about Mario, because Mario was popular. Which reminds me of the attitude that we should call film sexist because the only type of films out now are Transformers.
The biggest thing that annoys me about the Anita Sarkeesian bit is that people consider her video academic. Which is laughable since it's as academic as a Nostalgia Critic review.
3. This situation is particularly humorous mostly because nobody won from the situation. Both parties suffered and it was over something that shouldn't have been blown out of proportion in the first place. Bare in mind that the two men were complete and total strangers to the woman and the only thing they had in common was they were at the same convention. Apparently eavesdropping on private conversations and slandering individuals on Twitter is a firing offense.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Here's a pointer on creating threads that people will want to respond to: provide some compelling examples in the first post. The title you chose is...hyperbolic. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's my first impression. Feminism is a broad topic and I don't know who these ladies are.
In a recent thread I created I didn't just post "Jared Diamond, a scientist, thinks agriculture is the devil. Discuss." If you want to provoke discussion, narrow down your topic and ideally provide your take on it. It's only courteous.
And thank you, Cuddlebug. As of right now the only thing I can say about them is that only #2 seems directly related to feminism? As in the issue is specifically addressed. I dunno, I guess I'll have to listen to Anita's videos (now that I actually can.)
homerbeoulve said:
Here's a pointer on creating threads that people will want to respond to: provide some compelling examples in the first post. The title you chose is...hyperbolic. I don't mean to be harsh, but it's my first impression. Feminism is a broad topic and I don't know who these ladies are.
In a recent thread I created I didn't just post "Jared Diamond, a scientist, thinks agriculture is the devil. Discuss." If you want to provoke discussion, narrow down your topic and ideally provide your take on it. It's only courteous.
And thank you, Cuddlebug. As of right now the only thing I can say about them is that only #2 seems directly related to feminism? As in the issue is specifically addressed. I dunno, I guess I'll have to listen to Anita's videos (now that I actually can.)
Abhor-able
kiwifarms.net
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Males like confrontation. However, considering your reasonable words, I'll forgive you for not starting a fight.
Niachu said:
Males like confrontation. However, considering your reasonable words, I'll forgive you for not starting a fight.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
However, since this topic seems to be about the basic concept of feminism (based on the title), I'll go ahead and give my thoughts on that.
It's the 21st century, and there are still people who believe that feminism = female dominance, when it in fact has always been about setting women equal to men. See, the fact is that women are being paid less than men for simply being women, a lot of American laws work against women, and society as a whole has this image in their heads that women are somehow inferior. Frankly, it's kind of insulting to mankind's intelligence that this debate has been going on for over 30 years in the United States, and even more insulting that it didn't even have any mainstream attention before the 1970's. I wouldn't go around calling myself a "male feminist" because the people who do that are usually garbage loveshies, but I'm not exactly against the idea of it all.
As for a woman's "place" in society, it's the same place held by Whites, Hispanics, straights, gays, and transgender people. That is to say that nobody is granted a "place" in society based solely on what they're born with. It's all merited by what a person chooses to do with their life. Some people (like my dad) are good homemakers, and wind up doing 95% of the work in the house. Some people (like my mom) just go to work and call it a day when they get home. Now the way American life is portrayed in the movies is that the man has to be a man and do the "man's work" and come home while the woman does all the "woman's work" at home and does it all with a smile. But that's not the way it works in my house, and that's not the way it works in a lot of American households. Hell, the idea of a mother having a job is a foreign concept to a lot of people, and that's really sad. Gender neutrality is a possibility in this era, and it always has been because women are identical to men because, in reality, we're all the same species and are all capable of doing things that anyone else in our species can.
So what is it that drives one to the conclusion that one of the sexes is inferior? Well, for women, men mostly make the claim that they're born inferior and are not capable of doing anything that a man could do. There's also the claim that women are more emotional, physically weak, and are the ones who give birth and are therefore inferior. For men, some women will make the claim that they're born inferior and would never be able to go through the arduous tasks that women are naturally capable of such as child birth. They also claim that men are more prone to seduction, mentally inferior, and unable to control and express emotions properly like normal human beings should be able to. In the end, it all comes down to this:
[youtube]WO23WBji_Z0[/youtube]
And in reality, every single one of those claims are bull. Women can be dumb, men can be smart, women can be strong, men can be weak, it really goes on and on and on.
To sum up, the sexes are equal, and anyone who tries to fight for dominance is trying to do nothing more than hurt the image of their own sex. We've seen it since the beginning of time with men, but women aren't free from this. This isn't a woman's world. Nor is it a man's world. The world is simply a place full of men and women, and our objective is to look past our petty differences and progress as a species. Now since feminism is what's in question here, I'll use women for this. There are indeed women out there that want to both the fall of male dominance in society and the rise of female dominance, which is exactly what feminism is not about. They're the people that will push a man off a bus seat under the assumption that they will hit on them, and the kinds of people who will yell rape for bumping into a man on the subway platform. There are plenty of creepy rapists out there that will attack in public, but to make the assumption that some awkward man that just happens to be in your general vicinity is going to do it (and not make the assumption that they're, oh, I don't know, gay or asexual) is incredibly sexist in itself. You don't have to start worrying until they try to touch you or you notice them intentionally following you around. And yes, women are capable of raping women, so think about that next time a man rudely decides to sit next to you on the bus because the seats are filling up.
Now let's review. Is feminism wrong? No. Is female dominance wrong? Yes. Is male dominance wrong? Yes. Is it possible for a man to be a victim of sexism? Yes. Is a man being a victim of sexism a sign that women are trying to take over our society and threaten our way of life? No, and fuck you, you just lost your speaking privileges. These are very very simple things to understand, yet people continue to make assumptions about the other race, and people continue to play holier than thou just for being born with different genitalia. So if you're mad that some woman is talking about how Princess Peach is some kind of damsel in distress or how it's unfair that Krystal didn't get her own game, I implore you to stop giving a shit about video games for like, two seconds, and start taking some initiative to understand what feminism is really about and why the word "feminist" shouldn't be used as an insult.
Quick rule about getting people to respond thoughtfully on something: Never ever leave it at one sentence and finish up with, "Google it." I think it's okay if you're just mentioning something and someone doesn't know what it is, but if it's the subject of your entire topic, at least try to say a little more than some names without giving a proper description of them. Besides, we want to hear what YOU think as well.homerbeoulve said:
However, since this topic seems to be about the basic concept of feminism (based on the title), I'll go ahead and give my thoughts on that.
It's the 21st century, and there are still people who believe that feminism = female dominance, when it in fact has always been about setting women equal to men. See, the fact is that women are being paid less than men for simply being women, a lot of American laws work against women, and society as a whole has this image in their heads that women are somehow inferior. Frankly, it's kind of insulting to mankind's intelligence that this debate has been going on for over 30 years in the United States, and even more insulting that it didn't even have any mainstream attention before the 1970's. I wouldn't go around calling myself a "male feminist" because the people who do that are usually garbage loveshies, but I'm not exactly against the idea of it all.
As for a woman's "place" in society, it's the same place held by Whites, Hispanics, straights, gays, and transgender people. That is to say that nobody is granted a "place" in society based solely on what they're born with. It's all merited by what a person chooses to do with their life. Some people (like my dad) are good homemakers, and wind up doing 95% of the work in the house. Some people (like my mom) just go to work and call it a day when they get home. Now the way American life is portrayed in the movies is that the man has to be a man and do the "man's work" and come home while the woman does all the "woman's work" at home and does it all with a smile. But that's not the way it works in my house, and that's not the way it works in a lot of American households. Hell, the idea of a mother having a job is a foreign concept to a lot of people, and that's really sad. Gender neutrality is a possibility in this era, and it always has been because women are identical to men because, in reality, we're all the same species and are all capable of doing things that anyone else in our species can.
So what is it that drives one to the conclusion that one of the sexes is inferior? Well, for women, men mostly make the claim that they're born inferior and are not capable of doing anything that a man could do. There's also the claim that women are more emotional, physically weak, and are the ones who give birth and are therefore inferior. For men, some women will make the claim that they're born inferior and would never be able to go through the arduous tasks that women are naturally capable of such as child birth. They also claim that men are more prone to seduction, mentally inferior, and unable to control and express emotions properly like normal human beings should be able to. In the end, it all comes down to this:
[youtube]WO23WBji_Z0[/youtube]
And in reality, every single one of those claims are bull. Women can be dumb, men can be smart, women can be strong, men can be weak, it really goes on and on and on.
To sum up, the sexes are equal, and anyone who tries to fight for dominance is trying to do nothing more than hurt the image of their own sex. We've seen it since the beginning of time with men, but women aren't free from this. This isn't a woman's world. Nor is it a man's world. The world is simply a place full of men and women, and our objective is to look past our petty differences and progress as a species. Now since feminism is what's in question here, I'll use women for this. There are indeed women out there that want to both the fall of male dominance in society and the rise of female dominance, which is exactly what feminism is not about. They're the people that will push a man off a bus seat under the assumption that they will hit on them, and the kinds of people who will yell rape for bumping into a man on the subway platform. There are plenty of creepy rapists out there that will attack in public, but to make the assumption that some awkward man that just happens to be in your general vicinity is going to do it (and not make the assumption that they're, oh, I don't know, gay or asexual) is incredibly sexist in itself. You don't have to start worrying until they try to touch you or you notice them intentionally following you around. And yes, women are capable of raping women, so think about that next time a man rudely decides to sit next to you on the bus because the seats are filling up.
Now let's review. Is feminism wrong? No. Is female dominance wrong? Yes. Is male dominance wrong? Yes. Is it possible for a man to be a victim of sexism? Yes. Is a man being a victim of sexism a sign that women are trying to take over our society and threaten our way of life? No, and fuck you, you just lost your speaking privileges. These are very very simple things to understand, yet people continue to make assumptions about the other race, and people continue to play holier than thou just for being born with different genitalia. So if you're mad that some woman is talking about how Princess Peach is some kind of damsel in distress or how it's unfair that Krystal didn't get her own game, I implore you to stop giving a shit about video games for like, two seconds, and start taking some initiative to understand what feminism is really about and why the word "feminist" shouldn't be used as an insult.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Okay.... since I actually know the peeps you are talking about, andd was in fact considering adding a thread to the lolcow index about them, ill give my opinion.
While it is certainly true that some high profile "feminists" act like petulant little arseholes who use the fact they are female and "feminist" to act either like utter scumbags and expect impunity, or like pretentious and clueless morons and expect immunity from criticism due to varying levels of political correctness (usually overstated) among the progressives in society, this is certainly not the majority, or even a significant minority. Of all the feminists I have met in my life, thus far the only one I have had a problem with is the one who stole half my beer whenever we would go out drinking.
You brought up the dongle lady who got a guy fired simply for giggling at the word dongle a row behind her during an interlude at a conference, despite not talking to her, referring to her or any women, or even noticing she was there, and then cried "I AM A FEMINIST MARTYR!!!PITY MEEEEEE!!!!" when she got some karmic payback in the form of being fired herself for her unprofessionalism and online bullying.
As for the trope lady, I agree with cuddlebug. She utterly and pointedly ignore any and all examples that detract from her screed, which may well have had a place back in the 80s, but these days is almost entirely bullshit since i can happily say the last few dozen games I have played with prominent female characters have either happily subverted, or entirely averted the "damsel in distress" trope.
Personally however, not a single one of these pseudo feminist crybabies present even a fraction of the danger that those like Gail Dines do (who I am honestly considering doing a thread on because of her utter dishonesty, casual bigotry against "fallen" women, sheer fucking stupidity, and utter shamelessness in posturing as some radical feminist guru to force censorship and Victorian age morality) since it is the work of her and her ilk that has the EU seriously discussing a ban on pornography simply because she finds it "icky".
Okay.... since I actually know the peeps you are talking about, andd was in fact considering adding a thread to the lolcow index about them, ill give my opinion.
While it is certainly true that some high profile "feminists" act like petulant little arseholes who use the fact they are female and "feminist" to act either like utter scumbags and expect impunity, or like pretentious and clueless morons and expect immunity from criticism due to varying levels of political correctness (usually overstated) among the progressives in society, this is certainly not the majority, or even a significant minority. Of all the feminists I have met in my life, thus far the only one I have had a problem with is the one who stole half my beer whenever we would go out drinking.
You brought up the dongle lady who got a guy fired simply for giggling at the word dongle a row behind her during an interlude at a conference, despite not talking to her, referring to her or any women, or even noticing she was there, and then cried "I AM A FEMINIST MARTYR!!!PITY MEEEEEE!!!!" when she got some karmic payback in the form of being fired herself for her unprofessionalism and online bullying.
As for the trope lady, I agree with cuddlebug. She utterly and pointedly ignore any and all examples that detract from her screed, which may well have had a place back in the 80s, but these days is almost entirely bullshit since i can happily say the last few dozen games I have played with prominent female characters have either happily subverted, or entirely averted the "damsel in distress" trope.
Personally however, not a single one of these pseudo feminist crybabies present even a fraction of the danger that those like Gail Dines do (who I am honestly considering doing a thread on because of her utter dishonesty, casual bigotry against "fallen" women, sheer fucking stupidity, and utter shamelessness in posturing as some radical feminist guru to force censorship and Victorian age morality) since it is the work of her and her ilk that has the EU seriously discussing a ban on pornography simply because she finds it "icky".
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Its a term used in teh victorian age (and by a very tiny number of "feminists" these days despicabaly) to describe women who are part of the sex/adult industry.
In the past they were considered worthless subhuman whores who needed to be spat upon or interned in asylums for their evil, but these days some of the sex-negative feminists see them as either gender traitors ("how DARE you willingly engage in porn or prostitution when it fucks with my moral crusade"), or more often as brainless, idiotic children who don't know whats best for them, and thus need big mummy feminist to hold them by the hand and make all their choices for them, since their own choices or opinions are so meaningless.
It has been noted many, many, many times now that the existence of homosexual prostitutes and porn does not exist to these people, since that messes up their "porn is an EVUL conspiracy by the patriarchy to enslave wimmin" just as much as the basic choices of the women involved in porn or prostitution
Saney said:
Its a term used in teh victorian age (and by a very tiny number of "feminists" these days despicabaly) to describe women who are part of the sex/adult industry.
In the past they were considered worthless subhuman whores who needed to be spat upon or interned in asylums for their evil, but these days some of the sex-negative feminists see them as either gender traitors ("how DARE you willingly engage in porn or prostitution when it fucks with my moral crusade"), or more often as brainless, idiotic children who don't know whats best for them, and thus need big mummy feminist to hold them by the hand and make all their choices for them, since their own choices or opinions are so meaningless.
It has been noted many, many, many times now that the existence of homosexual prostitutes and porn does not exist to these people, since that messes up their "porn is an EVUL conspiracy by the patriarchy to enslave wimmin" just as much as the basic choices of the women involved in porn or prostitution
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Are feminists not aware that nature intended the female form to arouse men because it sorta helps to keep the human species going?
If men weren't turned on by women we all would have died out a long time ago...
(I hope I didn't sound like a loveshy there, you all know what I mean....
)
edit: I mean the super crazy misandrist feminists btw
Are feminists not aware that nature intended the female form to arouse men because it sorta helps to keep the human species going?
If men weren't turned on by women we all would have died out a long time ago...
(I hope I didn't sound like a loveshy there, you all know what I mean....
)edit: I mean the super crazy misandrist feminists btw
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Again, I think you use the term "feminist" too liberally to describe these women. A good comparison would be like saying all democrats are marxists/stalinists because a few dozen self proclaimed democrats espouse these views. Sex negative feminists are a minority in the feminist movement due to the general progressive trend towards openness and against censorship, and this is infinitely more true for the Valerie Solanis (google "scum manifesto" to peer into the nightmares of the average loveshy) type radfems, who have pretty much regressed into an anti transgender cult at this point.
bungholio said:Are feminists not aware that nature intended the female form to arouse men because it sorta helps to keep the human species going?
If men weren't turned on by women we all would have died out a long time ago...
(I hope I didn't sound like a loveshy there, you all know what I mean....
Again, I think you use the term "feminist" too liberally to describe these women. A good comparison would be like saying all democrats are marxists/stalinists because a few dozen self proclaimed democrats espouse these views. Sex negative feminists are a minority in the feminist movement due to the general progressive trend towards openness and against censorship, and this is infinitely more true for the Valerie Solanis (google "scum manifesto" to peer into the nightmares of the average loveshy) type radfems, who have pretty much regressed into an anti transgender cult at this point.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
To answer your question, Homer, only the loveshies are pigs and inferior to us. The men in this forum and the rest of the world are cool in our book.
To answer your question, Homer, only the loveshies are pigs and inferior to us. The men in this forum and the rest of the world are cool in our book.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Top-notch post. However, I must challenge this claim. Men and women have a myriad of differences in biology and brain chemistry, and some of these natural differences are what gives birth to claims of men/women being inferior/superior to the other. However, that does not denote inequality, which was what perhaps you meant?
Yes, feminists are aware that men like to ogle. It's not as if women are exempt from ogling, either.
It comes down to self-control. Keep it to yourself before it becomes harassment.
The Hunter said:
Top-notch post. However, I must challenge this claim. Men and women have a myriad of differences in biology and brain chemistry, and some of these natural differences are what gives birth to claims of men/women being inferior/superior to the other. However, that does not denote inequality, which was what perhaps you meant?
bungholio said:Are feminists not aware that nature intended the female form to arouse men because it sorta helps to keep the human species going?
If men weren't turned on by women we all would have died out a long time ago...
(I hope I didn't sound like a loveshy there, you all know what I mean....
edit: I mean the super crazy misandrist feminists btw
Yes, feminists are aware that men like to ogle. It's not as if women are exempt from ogling, either.
It comes down to self-control. Keep it to yourself before it becomes harassment.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Feminism isn't a problem. Nobody disagrees with its core tenets. American liberalism is a problem though, and that's what feminists have been unfortunately tainted with. American liberalism seeks to place the heart over the rational, and seeks superiority for whatever their interest group is through "positive discrimination" like affirmative action. The Adria Richards fiasco is the perfect example of "it made me feel bad so send the nukes." Everything with liberals is about their feelings and never about logic; this is not an issue that has anything to do at all with women's rights. I see the same exact shit clogging up the gay movement, the movement for racial equality, and other movements. Identity politics and special interest groups are the worst thing to happen to this country, and they serve to perpetuate sexual/racial/sexuality-based distinctions instead of solving them.
It's this "let's make up things based on our feelings and demand superiority" mentality that has led me to check out of any gay rights activism. Some people make-up things like being a third gender, something unsubstantiated by academia. And that somehow this entitles them to expensive societal reforms and benefits? At what point are people just heaving shit at the wall and hoping it sticks? I lost it when I heard gays press for affirmative action. I just can't tolerate any kind of special interest group, because they serve to perpetuate artificial distinctions that don't need to exist.
Another ridiculous example is countless accusations of racism where it has not occurred. Al Sharpton in general is the worst example of this. And just a few years ago, someone thought "black hole" was a racist term. It's stuff like this that is ruining legitimate civil rights movements; the tainting influence of modern American leftist ideology, where people's emotions and feelings are important for some strange reason, and logic ceases to exist.
Hopefully that context proves it's not a women's rights problem. There are real problems with women's rights that remain in this society (you absolutely deserve equal pay for equal qualifications), but there are also highly unsavory elements in all special interest groups pressing for superiority, using a basis that makes no sense. This is a leftist problem more than anything else. Go on the Tumblr to see the category of people I'm talking about here.
Leftism has turned everyone into sensitive people and ruined legitimate movements. Being sensitive is an absolutely deplorable trait.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
So I'm going to quote this post as an intro to my expansion on what exactly the problem is with special interest groups. You may disagree with me, and I'm sorry if you do, but your post brings up a valid point. Men and women are not the same exact kind of people, just like people of varying sexualities differ, and to a lesser extent, people of varying races. The important bit to keep in mind though is that every class of people has intrinsic value, strengths, and weaknesses, and that the scientific principle of biodiversity dictates that there will always be outliers who challenge each of these strengths and weaknesses. That is, men and women are equal in dignity, not so much as characteristics.
The central debate raging on within the blogosphere is why women aren't in tech. I don't buy the assertion that women are mentally inferior (they have graduated college more than men for generations), but I also don't buy that we need affirmative action programs to shoehorn in unqualified candidates where they do not belong, which is what these leftist programs seek to do. I don't really know why women aren't in tech, but it's not because men "hate" them. This accusation is levied time and time again, but it's simply untrue. Anyone of any "social justice" movement, be it feminism, gay activism, or racial activism, is so sensitive that they mistakenly believe the entire world is against them. My hypothesis is that the vast majority of them simply aren't interested, and I'll expand on that in the next paragraph.
The left in particular is peddling a highly corrosive rhethoric that men and women are absolutely the same. It's simply not true. Women and men both possess natural characteristics that fall within 99% of their specific group. I gave a hypothesis that women aren't as interested in tech as men are. Of course I can't test it, but I draw on common sense and life experience to tell me this. I once saw a post on reddit where some little girl's hippie parents bought her Hot Wheels cars because they "didn't want to subscribe to traditional gender norms." What these leftists often forget is that these "traditional gender norms" are ingrained in 99% of men and women by nature! You know what the girl did with the cars? She tucked them into her dollhouse bed like they were babies. Are some of us so arrogant that we can decide to override nature, possibly at a highly destructive price?
Now, I draw on the scientific principle of biodiversity to prove that discrimination based on gender is still wrong. Biodiversity dictates that members of a certain natural distinction naturally vary among their class. This is why we have tomboys and...tomgirls. It is highly objectionable to suppress the natural diversity of certain individuals on the basis that 99% of their class acts a different way. There are plenty of women who want to enter tech, perhaps not as many as men. Does this permit employers to assume women are mentally inferior, and pass over them in the hiring process? Absolutely not! To allow one capable person to fall through the cracks based on the fact that they exhibit biodiversity in their class is objectionable enough to absolutely argue against its occurrence and work toward its elimination. The same applies to the toy car example I used above; if your daughter constantly races her Barbies like they were cars, chances are she is exhibiting biodiversity, and for you to suppress that based on cultural norms is just as objectionable.
I believe the line is drawn at programs seeking to end "underrepresentation" through affirmative action, though. If not as many women are naturally into tech as are men, what can you possibly do about that short of genetic reengineering? Perhaps a better example would be the daughter who tucked her cars into bed. These traits are ingrained in people. There's nothing we can do to change them, and perhaps there shouldn't be any efforts to change them. If a certain group of people are "underrepresented" in a certain department, and you've done all you can to eliminate hiring discrimination, affirmative action seeks to shoehorn underqualified candidates favored solely on their minority status. Because racial/gender quotas are illegal in the United States, this problem is far more exhibited in university admissions, where certain seats are reserved for certain minority classes in the mistaken belief that 21st century America is a sort of majority spoils system and not a meritocracy.
So, I hope that clears up my opinions on this entire mess. Women deserve equal rights. All minorities deserve equal rights. But nobody deserves special treatment; leftist special interest groups serve to do just this, and it's tainted feminism's (and gay/racial activism's) good name. To say that "men are better than women" is such a general, nonsensical statement because men and women are better at different things! To suggest that certain things are "lesser" than others (such as suggesting men's raw strength makes them better than women and their nuturing nature) is where sexism creeps in. And finally, biodiversity means there will always be a steady trickle of women who wish to fight in combat roles, and men who wish to be fashion designers, and neither of these people must be prohibited from exhibiting their contributions to society.
Feminism isn't a problem. Nobody disagrees with its core tenets. American liberalism is a problem though, and that's what feminists have been unfortunately tainted with. American liberalism seeks to place the heart over the rational, and seeks superiority for whatever their interest group is through "positive discrimination" like affirmative action. The Adria Richards fiasco is the perfect example of "it made me feel bad so send the nukes." Everything with liberals is about their feelings and never about logic; this is not an issue that has anything to do at all with women's rights. I see the same exact shit clogging up the gay movement, the movement for racial equality, and other movements. Identity politics and special interest groups are the worst thing to happen to this country, and they serve to perpetuate sexual/racial/sexuality-based distinctions instead of solving them.
It's this "let's make up things based on our feelings and demand superiority" mentality that has led me to check out of any gay rights activism. Some people make-up things like being a third gender, something unsubstantiated by academia. And that somehow this entitles them to expensive societal reforms and benefits? At what point are people just heaving shit at the wall and hoping it sticks? I lost it when I heard gays press for affirmative action. I just can't tolerate any kind of special interest group, because they serve to perpetuate artificial distinctions that don't need to exist.
Another ridiculous example is countless accusations of racism where it has not occurred. Al Sharpton in general is the worst example of this. And just a few years ago, someone thought "black hole" was a racist term. It's stuff like this that is ruining legitimate civil rights movements; the tainting influence of modern American leftist ideology, where people's emotions and feelings are important for some strange reason, and logic ceases to exist.
Hopefully that context proves it's not a women's rights problem. There are real problems with women's rights that remain in this society (you absolutely deserve equal pay for equal qualifications), but there are also highly unsavory elements in all special interest groups pressing for superiority, using a basis that makes no sense. This is a leftist problem more than anything else. Go on the Tumblr to see the category of people I'm talking about here.
Leftism has turned everyone into sensitive people and ruined legitimate movements. Being sensitive is an absolutely deplorable trait.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
Niachu said:
So I'm going to quote this post as an intro to my expansion on what exactly the problem is with special interest groups. You may disagree with me, and I'm sorry if you do, but your post brings up a valid point. Men and women are not the same exact kind of people, just like people of varying sexualities differ, and to a lesser extent, people of varying races. The important bit to keep in mind though is that every class of people has intrinsic value, strengths, and weaknesses, and that the scientific principle of biodiversity dictates that there will always be outliers who challenge each of these strengths and weaknesses. That is, men and women are equal in dignity, not so much as characteristics.
The central debate raging on within the blogosphere is why women aren't in tech. I don't buy the assertion that women are mentally inferior (they have graduated college more than men for generations), but I also don't buy that we need affirmative action programs to shoehorn in unqualified candidates where they do not belong, which is what these leftist programs seek to do. I don't really know why women aren't in tech, but it's not because men "hate" them. This accusation is levied time and time again, but it's simply untrue. Anyone of any "social justice" movement, be it feminism, gay activism, or racial activism, is so sensitive that they mistakenly believe the entire world is against them. My hypothesis is that the vast majority of them simply aren't interested, and I'll expand on that in the next paragraph.
The left in particular is peddling a highly corrosive rhethoric that men and women are absolutely the same. It's simply not true. Women and men both possess natural characteristics that fall within 99% of their specific group. I gave a hypothesis that women aren't as interested in tech as men are. Of course I can't test it, but I draw on common sense and life experience to tell me this. I once saw a post on reddit where some little girl's hippie parents bought her Hot Wheels cars because they "didn't want to subscribe to traditional gender norms." What these leftists often forget is that these "traditional gender norms" are ingrained in 99% of men and women by nature! You know what the girl did with the cars? She tucked them into her dollhouse bed like they were babies. Are some of us so arrogant that we can decide to override nature, possibly at a highly destructive price?
Now, I draw on the scientific principle of biodiversity to prove that discrimination based on gender is still wrong. Biodiversity dictates that members of a certain natural distinction naturally vary among their class. This is why we have tomboys and...tomgirls. It is highly objectionable to suppress the natural diversity of certain individuals on the basis that 99% of their class acts a different way. There are plenty of women who want to enter tech, perhaps not as many as men. Does this permit employers to assume women are mentally inferior, and pass over them in the hiring process? Absolutely not! To allow one capable person to fall through the cracks based on the fact that they exhibit biodiversity in their class is objectionable enough to absolutely argue against its occurrence and work toward its elimination. The same applies to the toy car example I used above; if your daughter constantly races her Barbies like they were cars, chances are she is exhibiting biodiversity, and for you to suppress that based on cultural norms is just as objectionable.
I believe the line is drawn at programs seeking to end "underrepresentation" through affirmative action, though. If not as many women are naturally into tech as are men, what can you possibly do about that short of genetic reengineering? Perhaps a better example would be the daughter who tucked her cars into bed. These traits are ingrained in people. There's nothing we can do to change them, and perhaps there shouldn't be any efforts to change them. If a certain group of people are "underrepresented" in a certain department, and you've done all you can to eliminate hiring discrimination, affirmative action seeks to shoehorn underqualified candidates favored solely on their minority status. Because racial/gender quotas are illegal in the United States, this problem is far more exhibited in university admissions, where certain seats are reserved for certain minority classes in the mistaken belief that 21st century America is a sort of majority spoils system and not a meritocracy.
So, I hope that clears up my opinions on this entire mess. Women deserve equal rights. All minorities deserve equal rights. But nobody deserves special treatment; leftist special interest groups serve to do just this, and it's tainted feminism's (and gay/racial activism's) good name. To say that "men are better than women" is such a general, nonsensical statement because men and women are better at different things! To suggest that certain things are "lesser" than others (such as suggesting men's raw strength makes them better than women and their nuturing nature) is where sexism creeps in. And finally, biodiversity means there will always be a steady trickle of women who wish to fight in combat roles, and men who wish to be fashion designers, and neither of these people must be prohibited from exhibiting their contributions to society.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
I'd give you positive rep for that if we had it here...
.
I heard not too long ago that a pre-school in Sweden stopped using the words "boy" and "girl", and started to call all the kids "hen" or something like that. Things can get so ridiculous sometimes.
Same for that one couple from Canada who wanted to raise their children without a gender.
I'd give you positive rep for that if we had it here...
.I heard not too long ago that a pre-school in Sweden stopped using the words "boy" and "girl", and started to call all the kids "hen" or something like that. Things can get so ridiculous sometimes.
Same for that one couple from Canada who wanted to raise their children without a gender.
Re: To women in this forum: Are we(men) pigs and inferior to
In regards to the topic at hand...hoo-boy. I don't feel like touching this one tonight. I'm just glad my fellow cwckians are giving very thoughtful responses.
Sweden is so awesome because things like this happen and no one there really gives a damn about it. If that happened in America people would start riots.bungholio said:
In regards to the topic at hand...hoo-boy. I don't feel like touching this one tonight. I'm just glad my fellow cwckians are giving very thoughtful responses.
- Status
Similar threads
The narcissism of feminism
