Feminism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: Feminism
I think feminism pretty much achieved its goal. What is dangerous now are women who get enormous advantages in court - so much that they only get married and divorced to receive half of a man's property and then receive regular payments till the end of their lives. This U.S. court practice is the Catholic doctrine of till death doth us part, that's how primitive this is. The actor Robbie Williams was forced to pay 30 million dollars (IIRC) to women who divorced him.




I'd say there is still a discrimination today towards children that is equal, if not greater than originally discrimination against women, blacks, gays and atheists. Children are the most helpless and dependent of all groups or minorities. They are physically weaker, mentally limited, economically dependent, without political rights, culturally primitive.
The most prevalent violence in the world is hitting of children. Everything else, murder, spousal violence or wars, is comparatively rare. It's not the case with you guys, but there are whole Libertarian movements since the 70's and they are committed to Non-Aggression Principle. They have the responsibility for this ideal, more than anyone else. Yet when confronted with this most prevalent and most destructive violence in the world, and most easy to prevent (no political barriers to non-hitting of children), they are silent.
That is something quite unimaginable with any other minority - blacks were enslaved, but they were enslaved openly. Nobody said, we love blacks, women, gays and Jews, beating them in secret.
But the culture is all about loving the kids, yet the reality is about exploiting them. That is a fascinating divide, isn't culture about justifying what is?

A situation never seen in other emancipation movements, when we all once were children, it's like we all were black slaves before and most of us are ashamed for once being helpless, ignorant and dependent.

I know it's not about women, but as I said, women are pretty much all right in developed countries, sometimes with huge advantages from the state and courts. Movements achieve their goals and disband to get on with their lives. But the problem with government programs is, no problem, no funding. I think the old activist Erin Pizzey complained how some feminist movements keep women dependent in order to parade them as victims when there is a decision to be made about funding of equality programs.
So that's the message, gender equality is great, atheism is great and if they're so great, surely they can help other exploited minorities who need help too.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 04:24 PM
RE: Feminism
(09-09-2014 04:23 PM)CleverUsername Wrote:  I'd just prefer a different term. I want equality on both sides, and using the term "feminism" just seems like the equivalent of calling myself a baseball fan when really I'm a fan of all sports (hypothetically, I don't really like sports).

Even if it isn't the best term at first glance, I can't think of a replacement. Humanism is already taken.

I would rather just educate people so that they associate Feminism with equality rather than with female only advocacy, or worse, misandry.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: Feminism
(10-09-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I think feminism pretty much achieved its goal. What is dangerous now are women who get enormous advantages in court - so much that they only get married and divorced to receive half of a man's property and then receive regular payments till the end of their lives. This U.S. court practice is the Catholic doctrine of till death doth us part, that's how primitive this is. The actor Robbie Williams was forced to pay 30 million dollars (IIRC) to women who divorced him.




I'd say there is still a discrimination today towards children that is equal, if not greater than originally discrimination against women, blacks, gays and atheists. Children are the most helpless and dependent of all groups or minorities. They are physically weaker, mentally limited, economically dependent, without political rights, culturally primitive.
The most prevalent violence in the world is hitting of children. Everything else, murder, spousal violence or wars, is comparatively rare. It's not the case with you guys, but there are whole Libertarian movements since the 70's and they are committed to Non-Aggression Principle. They have the responsibility for this ideal, more than anyone else. Yet when confronted with this most prevalent and most destructive violence in the world, and most easy to prevent (no political barriers to non-hitting of children), they are silent.
That is something quite unimaginable with any other minority - blacks were enslaved, but they were enslaved openly. Nobody said, we love blacks, women, gays and Jews, beating them in secret.
But the culture is all about loving the kids, yet the reality is about exploiting them. That is a fascinating divide, isn't culture about justifying what is?

A situation never seen in other emancipation movements, when we all once were children, it's like we all were black slaves before and most of us are ashamed for once being helpless, ignorant and dependent.

I know it's not about women, but as I said, women are pretty much all right in developed countries, sometimes with huge advantages from the state and courts. Movements achieve their goals and disband to get on with their lives. But the problem with government programs is, no problem, no funding. I think the old activist Erin Pizzey complained how some feminist movements keep women dependent in order to parade them as victims when there is a decision to be made about funding of equality programs.
So that's the message, gender equality is great, atheism is great and if they're so great, surely they can help other exploited minorities who need help too.




First the politics now this. Bro females still don't have it easy.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Feminism
(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It has been my experience that people are very reluctant to criticize their own culture. Their is a deeply emotional component to story telling, dance, imagery and iconography, and food. We have social rituals that we grow up with and learn to embrace as our personal and cultural identity. When someone challenges that it is often the case that the person being challenged reacts defensively and emotionally (myself included). When you add a layer of social stigma on top of it, it is not surprising to me how difficult it is to discuss feminism, although it is frustrating. However, if you accept that the problems with gender equality go deeper than the law, and that at least some aspects of it reside in our culture, then the only way to solve those problems is to look introspectively and critically at our culture. How we, as a society, think about women is not going to change if we don't challenge the way we think.

I worry when people advocate against games and other media that I love. I enjoy all kinds of different art, and I don't want it to have to cater to politically correct demands. I am aware that you are only advocating examination and thought, not censorship, but not everyone is so considerate. I think I could easily find Misandrists who would gladly censor shows, movies, and games that "offend" them.

I do accept that gender problems go deeper than the law. I don't know what to do about that.

(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  When you are trying to analyze something is it is usually helpful to compare it to something else. If the ONLY portrayal of female victims where weak helpless damsels, then that may say something we didn't intent to say about female victims. It doesn't have to be malicious to be present. I wouldn't argue that we should pass laws or create institutions to control the kinds of stories we tell. It can be the case that you consume a piece of media, enjoy it, while still recognizing some of the questionable elements within said media. There is value in identifying something for what it is even if you don't change it. Just by pointing it out can diminish its power over yourself and other people.

I guess I just don't understand what value you are getting from analysis like this. It wouldn't make any difference to me even if there weren't any sexist people at all. The media would still likely exhibit sexist themes, if only to tell stories about times when there were those issues.

I just don't care to expend the energy to critique the media on these issues without an intention to change things. That seems to me a recipe for perpetual frustration with the media. If I am going to complain, I want it to be useful.

(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  In Anita's feminist frequency video she leads with mario as a demonstration of the damsel in distress trope. For illustrative purposes, mario is probably the best example of the trope. That doesn't mean mario is a sexist game, or that people should stop playing it. The people who consume mario as a media and the people who create it are not misogynists. Still, taking the time to see the elements of the mario story that could potentially be harmful to the perception of woman is valuable. It reminds us to view and portray women in other lights. It diminishes the influence of that trope on our perception of women.

Even if I agreed that a damsel in distress trope was harmful to the perception of women, I still wouldn't consider the media the primary source of that harm. I don't have to go looking for Mario for an example, I can just stay late at work.

I work in a restaurant on the weekends and often head to my car well after midnight. So do the other employees, many of them female. Many of them won't walk to their car without a male escort, or at a pinch, with a group of other women. They often go out of their way to ask one of the men to accompany them. It seems to me that when it comes to protection from physical harm, males are commonly considered more well equipped to handle things. It also seems to me that men are, either overtly or covertly, commonly saddled with the responsibility to keep women and children safe as a higher priority than looking out for themselves.

The same women that might point to Mario and make complaints about how it represents them as being helpless and weak, will be the same women who will be given protection and priority in practically every emergency situation that could possibly occur. I would be interested to hear what they would have to say about inequality when they are pulled from a fire first, or left cringing in bed while their husband investigates the strange noises from downstairs.

If women really have a problem with this state of affairs, I suggest that they accept full responsibility for themselves. I don't see any reason why women should become or remain weak by deferring their security and care to others. As far as I can tell, Feminism has done wonders in this regard. Women now vote, have careers in professions formerly denied them, are responsible for their birth cycles and contraception, serve in the military, and generally do everything men do, if they want to.

(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Examining a piece of media and trying to understand "what it means" is complicated and rarely straight forward processing. However, that doesn't mean that you can't make good conclusions or create strong arguments.

Examining media to understand "What it means" gives me a headache and reminds me of the horrible way my high school English teachers ruined my first readings of Mark Twain.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
10-09-2014, 05:49 PM
Re: Feminism
So what you're saying is you have a personal preference against the literary style critiquing.

It is exactly intended to be like treating video games the way a English teacher analyzes Mark Twain. You can not like doing it, but is you really don't think it's useful or shouldn't be done across media; I am not sure what to tell you about it. It's an informative intellectual pursuit, and it's not in the business of making declarative statements.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 08:34 PM
RE: Feminism
Fuck men. Men suck dick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 10:17 PM
RE: Feminism
(10-09-2014 05:12 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It has been my experience that people are very reluctant to criticize their own culture. Their is a deeply emotional component to story telling, dance, imagery and iconography, and food. We have social rituals that we grow up with and learn to embrace as our personal and cultural identity. When someone challenges that it is often the case that the person being challenged reacts defensively and emotionally (myself included). When you add a layer of social stigma on top of it, it is not surprising to me how difficult it is to discuss feminism, although it is frustrating. However, if you accept that the problems with gender equality go deeper than the law, and that at least some aspects of it reside in our culture, then the only way to solve those problems is to look introspectively and critically at our culture. How we, as a society, think about women is not going to change if we don't challenge the way we think.

I worry when people advocate against games and other media that I love. I enjoy all kinds of different art, and I don't want it to have to cater to politically correct demands. I am aware that you are only advocating examination and thought, not censorship, but not everyone is so considerate. I think I could easily find Misandrists who would gladly censor shows, movies, and games that "offend" them.

I do accept that gender problems go deeper than the law. I don't know what to do about that.

It is a good that we seem to have found some common ground. I think with these kinds of problems the most effective thing you can do it speak out. You and I are aware of some of these problems, we have some agreement on it, we should talk to other people who are not aware of these problem; take the time to explain it to them, why it's not so good, and how we can do better. Progressive dialogue has been the driving force of all social movements. We are so much better of today because of all the vocal feminists who refused to be quite about the issues in the past. We still have a ways to go though. One of the ways we make it better is we talk about it. Acceptance and resignation to the status quo is the death to progress.

Quote:
(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  When you are trying to analyze something is it is usually helpful to compare it to something else. If the ONLY portrayal of female victims where weak helpless damsels, then that may say something we didn't intent to say about female victims. It doesn't have to be malicious to be present. I wouldn't argue that we should pass laws or create institutions to control the kinds of stories we tell. It can be the case that you consume a piece of media, enjoy it, while still recognizing some of the questionable elements within said media. There is value in identifying something for what it is even if you don't change it. Just by pointing it out can diminish its power over yourself and other people.

I guess I just don't understand what value you are getting from analysis like this. It wouldn't make any difference to me even if there weren't any sexist people at all. The media would still likely exhibit sexist themes, if only to tell stories about times when there were those issues.

I just don't care to expend the energy to critique the media on these issues without an intention to change things. That seems to me a recipe for perpetual frustration with the media. If I am going to complain, I want it to be useful.

I reject the notion that no strong arguments can be made. If you specifically examine certain media in regards to certain issues, I think the arguments for one side can be overwhelming better formed and more convincing as compared to the arguments of the other side. I realise I just used a generalism to explain that Tongue, let me be specific. Let's talk about the Bechdel Test. A movie passes the Bechdel Test if it meets a very narrow set of requirements:

1) There are at least two female characters with names
2) Two female characters talk, to each other, about something other than a man.

The fact that so many movies fail the Bechdel Test certainly seems to imply a lot about female representation in media. In 2013 and 2014, about half of the oscar nominated films failed the Bechdel test. I believe when you examined all major budget films in aggregate they fared even a bit worse.

Keep in mind, of course, that the Bechdel test is not the litmus test for whether or not a movie is good. Life of PI is a great movie, and it fails this test. The Charlies Angel's movies were terrible it passed. The Bechdel Test, when interpreted correctly, is illustrative. This observation can allow you to make very good, very well formed, and very objective arguments and conclusions.

Quote:
(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  In Anita's feminist frequency video she leads with mario as a demonstration of the damsel in distress trope. For illustrative purposes, mario is probably the best example of the trope. That doesn't mean mario is a sexist game, or that people should stop playing it. The people who consume mario as a media and the people who create it are not misogynists. Still, taking the time to see the elements of the mario story that could potentially be harmful to the perception of woman is valuable. It reminds us to view and portray women in other lights. It diminishes the influence of that trope on our perception of women.

Even if I agreed that a damsel in distress trope was harmful to the perception of women, I still wouldn't consider the media the primary source of that harm. I don't have to go looking for Mario for an example, I can just stay late at work.

I work in a restaurant on the weekends and often head to my car well after midnight. So do the other employees, many of them female. Many of them won't walk to their car without a male escort, or at a pinch, with a group of other women. They often go out of their way to ask one of the men to accompany them. It seems to me that when it comes to protection from physical harm, males are commonly considered more well equipped to handle things. It also seems to me that men are, either overtly or covertly, commonly saddled with the responsibility to keep women and children safe as a higher priority than looking out for themselves.

The same women that might point to Mario and make complaints about how it represents them as being helpless and weak, will be the same women who will be given protection and priority in practically every emergency situation that could possibly occur. I would be interested to hear what they would have to say about inequality when they are pulled from a fire first, or left cringing in bed while their husband investigates the strange noises from downstairs.

If women really have a problem with this state of affairs, I suggest that they accept full responsibility for themselves. I don't see any reason why women should become or remain weak by deferring their security and care to others. As far as I can tell, Feminism has done wonders in this regard. Women now vote, have careers in professions formerly denied them, are responsible for their birth cycles and contraception, serve in the military, and generally do everything men do, if they want to.

You are grossly overgeneralizing here. It is an unfortunate state of things that these female employees require a male escort inorder feel safe. Where you see playing into gender stereotypes, I see an unfortunate by product of violence against women. I think women everywhere have very good reasons to fear being targeted as a victim because they are women. I can't imagine what it must be like to be afraid every time you have to walk out to your car.

However, it is certainly possible for women to play in to negative gender stereotypes. Women are just as much perpetrators of our culture as men are. Women can perpetuate negative stereotypes against women, and, I believe, these women need to be educated too in addition to some men.

Quote:
(09-09-2014 04:34 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Examining a piece of media and trying to understand "what it means" is complicated and rarely straight forward processing. However, that doesn't mean that you can't make good conclusions or create strong arguments.

Examining media to understand "What it means" gives me a headache and reminds me of the horrible way my high school English teachers ruined my first readings of Mark Twain.

I appreciate how you feel, but I reject the implication that it is not worth doing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
10-09-2014, 11:25 PM
RE: Feminism
(10-09-2014 05:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So what you're saying is you have a personal preference against the literary style critiquing.

It is exactly intended to be like treating video games the way a English teacher analyzes Mark Twain. You can not like doing it, but is you really don't think it's useful or shouldn't be done across media; I am not sure what to tell you about it. It's an informative intellectual pursuit, and it's not in the business of making declarative statements.

I am saying that I don't enjoy art as much when I waste my time looking for meanings that may or may not be there at all, and likely were not intended by the author.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2014, 11:26 PM
RE: Feminism
(10-09-2014 08:34 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Fuck men. Men suck dick.

Especially the gay ones. Although, I suppose if a statistical inquiry were ever to be done, I wouldn't be surprised enough to learn that women suck more dick and more often.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
11-09-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Feminism
(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  It is a good that we seem to have found some common ground. I think with these kinds of problems the most effective thing you can do it speak out. You and I are aware of some of these problems, we have some agreement on it, we should talk to other people who are not aware of these problem; take the time to explain it to them, why it's not so good, and how we can do better. Progressive dialogue has been the driving force of all social movements. We are so much better of today because of all the vocal feminists who refused to be quite about the issues in the past. We still have a ways to go though. One of the ways we make it better is we talk about it. Acceptance and resignation to the status quo is the death to progress.

What would the purpose of speaking out be if we don't intend for anyone to actually do anything? Is it that merely educating people on the existence of sexism in media will in effect immunize them against being infected with those ideas in real life?

(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I reject the notion that no strong arguments can be made. If you specifically examine certain media in regards to certain issues, I think the arguments for one side can be overwhelming better formed and more convincing as compared to the arguments of the other side. I realise I just used a generalism to explain that Tongue, let me be specific. Let's talk about the Bechdel Test. A movie passes the Bechdel Test if it meets a very narrow set of requirements:

1) There are at least two female characters with names
2) Two female characters talk, to each other, about something other than a man.

The fact that so many movies fail the Bechdel Test certainly seems to imply a lot about female representation in media. In 2013 and 2014, about half of the oscar nominated films failed the Bechdel test. I believe when you examined all major budget films in aggregate they fared even a bit worse.

Keep in mind, of course, that the Bechdel test is not the litmus test for whether or not a movie is good. Life of PI is a great movie, and it fails this test. The Charlies Angel's movies were terrible it passed. The Bechdel Test, when interpreted correctly, is illustrative. This observation can allow you to make very good, very well formed, and very objective arguments and conclusions.

We agree that there is sexism in the media. We agree that neither of is in favor of censorship. For what exactly are there strong arguments?

Can you explicitly outline for me what you believe is the sexist implication of a movie failing the Bechdel Test? Then, could you outline how the implication actually effects real life? I am having difficult linking media representations with real life consequences. I suspect women have a great deal of conversation unrelated to men all the time. If I can learn that independently, why would I care if the media was accurate?

(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You are grossly overgeneralizing here. It is an unfortunate state of things that these female employees require a male escort in order to feel safe. Where you see playing into gender stereotypes, I see an unfortunate by product of violence against women. I think women everywhere have very good reasons to fear being targeted as a victim because they are women. I can't imagine what it must be like to be afraid every time you have to walk out to your car.

If it were only a byproduct of violence against women, why hasn't the common solution been rooted in female action to solve their own issues? It is true that women are targeted often as victims of violent crimes. However, instead of armed and self defense savvy women marching boldly up to their cars, like any man already does, the solution has been to use men as bodyguards. It seems logical to me that if these women felt confidant in their ability to defend themselves effectively, they wouldn't ask for an escort. The mere request is an admission of weakness.

Understand that I know their fear is legitimate. I know the threats are real. I know fear is justified. I don't mention weakness in order to be insulting or judgmental, because I am afraid when I walk to my car too. I am weak in the face of violent crime too. It seems to me that I have a different set of unspoken social requirements to follow. I am not arrogant or stupid enough to think that I would do any better in the face of violence than most women. I am no fighter, and even if I was, I have no guarantee of being able to defend myself effectively against an ambush or multiple attackers. However, the social climate in this society requires me to walk to my car without showing fear or asking for protection from someone else, and I do it. I would like to know why women aren't required to take that responsibility for themselves?

Understand as well that it doesn't really matter to me if women decide they never want to protect themselves without help. I will gladly lend a hand if I can, even if I can't do much. I care about other people, even if the rules aren't exactly fair. I just wonder if they recognize the contradiction in demanding rights while shirking responsibility.

(10-09-2014 10:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I appreciate how you feel, but I reject the implication that it is not worth doing.

I don't know what the value is in talking about gender related expectations in a society. If you see some value in it, tell me more about that. What do you get out of it? How do people benefit from examining these things? What is to be gained here?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: