Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2014, 04:23 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(26-08-2014 03:14 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I am calling Poe's Law.

He's a pho. He's only pretending to be physicist.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
27-08-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
One last point about feminism.
http://youtu.be/MKlrOBPorUA

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(26-08-2014 01:55 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 01:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  O rly?



Concern trolling? Tsk, tsk.


Nope.

So if you are disagreeing with these actually being true about the feminist movement, you must disagree with them. If that is the case, we have probably similar views on gender politics.
Then this disagreement is purely on what feminism is, and who the people are when we refer to feminists. If that is the case, it is an argument about definitions. All I am saying is that the majority of people who call themselves feminists (PZ Meyers, Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, Melody "Twitter PTSD" Hensley) behave and have these views.
So I am unsure of what you are actually disputing, as you aren't explaining the specific parts that you disagree with and why.
Come back when you are ready to have a rational discussion.

Hi there Spino. I have been following this thread and I think you mean well. We have had a recent influx of folks with opinions that might be best described as anti-feminist. Some members of our community have lost their patience a couple trolls ago. I don't think you intend to cause trouble. I do think you have some misgivings about feminism and hopefully I can better explain that too you.

Feminism is principally about gender equality, which extends not only to females, but to males, and transgender males and females as well. In the modern feminist movement, feminist takes issue with the cultural influences in our society, rather than the laws and statutes. I think many feminist believe that, according to the law, men and women are pretty much equal, but according how we view men and women and their place in society, women are still disadvantaged to men.

Modern feminist point to things like the wage gap, the often times poor or disproportionate representation of women in media, and domestic and sexual violence statistics to support their claim that women are still disadvantaged to men in our society. Feminist are very concerned with gender stereotypes and societal gender roles - gender being not what "sex" you have but rather what cultural identity and expected societal function people of that sex adopt.

I myself often take issues with the way modern feminist phrase certain terms. I don't particularly like the term "rape culture". I am not particularly fond of the term "white privilege" or when modern feminists or minority activists say things like "check your privilege". In some ways, I think the modern feminists movement does have a bit of a branding problem. Keep in mind though, they are trying to get attention to their cause, and more importantly attention for their ideas. The ideas behind "rape culture" and "white privilege" are good ones, and supported with both good arguments and accurate statistics. The terms themselves though, I often find, turn people off.

A broad definition of feminism, and some of the core ideas that support it's ideology:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/femini...minism.htm

A choice quote from that link:
Quote:In other words, feminism describes a culture in which women, because they are women, are treated differently than men, and that, in that difference of treatment, women are at a disadvantage; feminism assumes that such treatment is cultural and thus possible to change and not simply "the way the world is and must be"; feminism looks to a different culture as possible, and values moving towards that culture; and feminism consists of activism, individually and in groups, to make personal and social change towards that more desirable culture.

I said something similar in a previous post: Feminism is about pointing out the gender disparities in our culture, and have the audacity to say "we can do better".

Here is an excellent buzz feed piece on "rape culture" and what it means to a feminist:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/wh...pe-culture

To briefly summarize, rape culture concerns victim blaming, condoning sexual violence and aggression, slut shaming, and the sexual objectification of women. Feminist who believe in rape culture believe that the way we view women in our culture contributes and facilitates sexual violence towards women.

I feel like many people have a very distorted view of what feminism is. I think many people experience some provocative aspect of feminism and then believe this represents the beliefs and attitudes of all feminist. Worst still, I think even more people experience a second hand characterization of a feminist, so not even something a feminist said but something a feminist was reported as saying, and then they characterize the whole feminist movement by this mischaracterization. I consider myself a feminist. It becomes very frustrating having to explain over and over again, to both men and women mind you, that feminism isn't about man hating, or the superiority of of women over men, or any other such nonse. Feminist ideas challenge the way we think and feel about women on a very fundamental level. It criticizes images, tropes, motifs, and themes we have become accustomed to and loved from a very early age. It can be difficult and jarring to hear our way of life so sharply criticized. It is difficult to objectively contemplate not only what we think, but how we think. If you are person who values new ideas, objectivity, and critical thinking, then I think you really owe to yourself to look at feminism closely and with an open mind. They are good ideas, even if they come off as abrasive and can be difficult to swallow.

I hope that helped. Feel post any questions or comments and I will do my best to address them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
27-08-2014, 11:32 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 01:55 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  So if you are disagreeing with these actually being true about the feminist movement, you must disagree with them. If that is the case, we have probably similar views on gender politics.
Then this disagreement is purely on what feminism is, and who the people are when we refer to feminists. If that is the case, it is an argument about definitions. All I am saying is that the majority of people who call themselves feminists (PZ Meyers, Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, Melody "Twitter PTSD" Hensley) behave and have these views.
So I am unsure of what you are actually disputing, as you aren't explaining the specific parts that you disagree with and why.
Come back when you are ready to have a rational discussion.

Hi there Spino. I have been following this thread and I think you mean well. We have had a recent influx of folks with opinions that might be best described as anti-feminist. Some members of our community have lost their patience a couple trolls ago. I don't think you intend to cause trouble. I do think you have some misgivings about feminism and hopefully I can better explain that too you.

Thank you for responding in a manner where we can actually discuss. You have no idea how much that is appreciated.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Feminism is principally about gender equality, which extends not only to females, but to males, and transgender males and females as well. In the modern feminist movement, feminist takes issue with the cultural influences in our society, rather than the laws and statutes. I think many feminist believe that, according to the law, men and women are pretty much equal, but according how we view men and women and their place in society, women are still disadvantaged to men.

I do agree that in areas of society women may be disadvantaged, and it is more on a social level. It may be just the environment that I am in. I live in a middle-class area in the UK, and go to a well-educated school. Gender issues never really show up in an area like that.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Modern feminist point to things like the wage gap, the often times poor or disproportionate representation of women in media, and domestic and sexual violence statistics to support their claim that women are still disadvantaged to men in our society. Feminist are very concerned with gender stereotypes and societal gender roles - gender being not what "sex" you have but rather what cultural identity and expected societal function people of that sex adopt.

As for the wage gap, the last time I checked, there are laws against paying women less for the same job. I would posit possible reasons for why these statistics exist.
- The statistics aren't taking into account that women are less likely to want to get a promotion after a certain point in time. Sheryl Sandberg did a TED talk on it.
- Women just happen to be joining companies that are going for quotas. Because there are less women looking for these jobs, the women hired may be less qualified. Because of this, the business isn't making as much money, and so pays employees less.
- Women are more likely to stay at home and take care of the kids. The stats don't take into account men are more likely to be employed.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I myself often take issues with the way modern feminist phrase certain terms. I don't particularly like the term "rape culture". I am not particularly fond of the term "white privilege" or when modern feminists or minority activists say things like "check your privilege". In some ways, I think the modern feminists movement does have a bit of a branding problem. Keep in mind though, they are trying to get attention to their cause, and more importantly attention for their ideas. The ideas behind "rape culture" and "white privilege" are good ones, and supported with both good arguments and accurate statistics. The terms themselves though, I often find, turn people off.

When I have heard feminists talk about these terms, I tend to see goalpost shifting when the things are actually defined.
For example: "some people say that there isn't a rape culture because our society hates rapists more than murderers" and will go on to explain more on a level that sometimes there are people who will attack the victim and dispute her lack of consent (which is the defence lawyer's job, innocent or guilty).

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  A broad definition of feminism, and some of the core ideas that support it's ideology:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/femini...minism.htm

A choice quote from that link:
Quote:In other words, feminism describes a culture in which women, because they are women, are treated differently than men, and that, in that difference of treatment, women are at a disadvantage; feminism assumes that such treatment is cultural and thus possible to change and not simply "the way the world is and must be"; feminism looks to a different culture as possible, and values moving towards that culture; and feminism consists of activism, individually and in groups, to make personal and social change towards that more desirable culture.

I said something similar in a previous post: Feminism is about pointing out the gender disparities in our culture, and have the audacity to say "we can do better".

I think the main problem is that the difference in western culture is so seriously small, and the difference isn't 100% culture. If feminists expect a truly equal society to have 50:50 gender in every single area of society, I would have to disagree.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Here is an excellent buzz feed piece on "rape culture" and what it means to a feminist:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/wh...pe-culture

To briefly summarize, rape culture concerns victim blaming, condoning sexual violence and aggression, slut shaming, and the sexual objectification of women. Feminist who believe in rape culture believe that the way we view women in our culture contributes and facilitates sexual violence towards women.

I would have to disagree with even that existing. Like I said earlier, people are paid to defend even guilty rapists.
I would also point out that sometimes what is lumped in with victim blaming is actually a valid concern. There is a difference between "I would advise young women to watch what they drink and behave responsibly when going out" and "if you don't do these things, you deserve rape." I understand that there are those who will say that, (although most of the time are religious fundamentalists, of which I would stand right there with you and oppose) but they are in the minority. I would give the example of the advice to lock your door isn't the same as saying you deserve to be burgled.
I would also point out that there is a greater acceptance of sexual violence against men. What are the reactions to a male prison rape joke? Laughs. A female rape joke? MISOGYNIST! I am all for freedom of speech, and I think all jokes are allowed, even in poor taste. But my disagreement is the double standard.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I feel like many people have a very distorted view of what feminism is.

I would say prominent feminists are the cause of that.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I think many people experience some provocative aspect of feminism and then believe this represents the beliefs and attitudes of all feminist. Worst still, I think even more people experience a second hand characterization of a feminist, so not even something a feminist said but something a feminist was reported as saying, and then they characterize the whole feminist movement by this mischaracterisation.

I would point out that most feminists who are quoted are generally popular, and have followings of large groups of like-minded people. Anita Sarkeesian isn't alone in her views, she has a devoted enough following to give her $160000 for her handful of "video games are sexist" videos.

I really think the problem is that there is no orthodoxy in feminist thought. It is a mish-mash of people who self-identify and because of this there are always conflicting opinions on the same issues. However, unlike the atheist community, where prominent atheists will call each other out when they disagree, prominent feminists will agree and then more rational feminists like yourself will denounce them when it makes them look bad. I think the closest analogy would be Christians who accept evolution and science and accept gay people, will say "that isn't real Christianity" when shown the hateful bigot fundamentalists, but then are more active in attacking anti theists for opposing creationism in schools than the teaching of creationism.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I consider myself a feminist. It becomes very frustrating having to explain over and over again, to both men and women mind you, that feminism isn't about man hating, or the superiority of of women over men, or any other such nonse. Feminist ideas challenge the way we think and feel about women on a very fundamental level. It criticizes images, tropes, motifs, and themes we have become accustomed to and loved from a very early age. It can be difficult and jarring to hear our way of life so sharply criticized. It is difficult to objectively contemplate not only what we think, but how we think. If you are person who values new ideas, objectivity, and critical thinking, then I think you really owe to yourself to look at feminism closely and with an open mind. They are good ideas, even if they come off as abrasive and can be difficult to swallow.

I understand that feminism isn't about man hating, but I would point out that as much as many feminists will call for equality, actions speak louder than words.
I think TheAmazingAtheist said it best. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on one of them."
Also, I would like to point out that the images, tropes and motifs that may be considered "harmful" or "sexist" by feminists are always gynocentric. Thunderf00t did a video Sarkeesian-style where he showed that men are oppressed by the media.
But the main problem is you can overanalyse culture and media to prove anything. That is why I hated English in school, as it was all about doing it, and I have a bias towards critical thinking.

(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I hope that helped. Feel post any questions or comments and I will do my best to address them.

I hope you also understand my position. I will also address any comments or questions.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes spinosauruskin's post
27-08-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Feminism is principally about gender equality, which extends not only to females, but to males, and transgender males and females as well. In the modern feminist movement, feminist takes issue with the cultural influences in our society, rather than the laws and statutes. I think many feminist believe that, according to the law, men and women are pretty much equal, but according how we view men and women and their place in society, women are still disadvantaged to men.

I do agree that in areas of society women may be disadvantaged, and it is more on a social level. It may be just the environment that I am in. I live in a middle-class area in the UK, and go to a well-educated school. Gender issues never really show up in an area like that.

"Gender issues never really show up", eh?

How hard have you looked?

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Modern feminist point to things like the wage gap, the often times poor or disproportionate representation of women in media, and domestic and sexual violence statistics to support their claim that women are still disadvantaged to men in our society. Feminist are very concerned with gender stereotypes and societal gender roles - gender being not what "sex" you have but rather what cultural identity and expected societal function people of that sex adopt.

As for the wage gap, the last time I checked, there are laws against paying women less for the same job.

Laws existing does not in and of itself mean anything.

Laws have long existed against racial discrimination as well.
(perhaps those also "never really show up" in your end of the world; if so, you're exceptionally fortunate)

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would posit possible reasons for why these statistics exist.
- The statistics aren't taking into account that women are less likely to want to get a promotion after a certain point in time. Sheryl Sandberg did a TED talk on it.
- Women just happen to be joining companies that are going for quotas. Because there are less women looking for these jobs, the women hired may be less qualified. Because of this, the business isn't making as much money, and so pays employees less.
- Women are more likely to stay at home and take care of the kids. The stats don't take into account men are more likely to be employed.

Funnily enough, that came up recently here, too.
(18-08-2014 08:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 04:38 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  How is time factor taken into consideration? Pay increase is based on what at selected companies? You have to ask for it? Are women less inclined to ask for a pay increase compared to men? etc..
Point being, is it because they're women and being discriminated against based on gender or is it because of something else.

It's like I said.

Statisticians aren't idiots. The superficial objections you or I can reflexively think of are already accounted for.

Here in Ontario, for example.

Factors such as educational attainment, gendered occupations, and unequal childcare roles are separately accounted for. Not that they aren't in and of themselves manifestations of inequality, but they are one step removed from direct discrimination, which in any case does exist.

Suffice to say no, wage gaps are real.

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  A broad definition of feminism, and some of the core ideas that support it's ideology:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/femini...minism.htm

A choice quote from that link:

I said something similar in a previous post: Feminism is about pointing out the gender disparities in our culture, and have the audacity to say "we can do better".

I think the main problem is that the difference in western culture is so seriously small, and the difference isn't 100% culture. If feminists expect a truly equal society to have 50:50 gender in every single area of society, I would have to disagree.

No one has ever advocated that, so feel free to disagree with all the straw men you like.

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I myself often take issues with the way modern feminist phrase certain terms. I don't particularly like the term "rape culture". I am not particularly fond of the term "white privilege" or when modern feminists or minority activists say things like "check your privilege". In some ways, I think the modern feminists movement does have a bit of a branding problem. Keep in mind though, they are trying to get attention to their cause, and more importantly attention for their ideas. The ideas behind "rape culture" and "white privilege" are good ones, and supported with both good arguments and accurate statistics. The terms themselves though, I often find, turn people off.

When I have heard feminists talk about these terms, I tend to see goalpost shifting when the things are actually defined. For example: "some people say that there isn't a rape culture because our society hates rapists more than murderers" and will go on to explain more on a level that sometimes there are people who will attack the victim and dispute her lack of consent (which is the defence lawyer's job, innocent or guilty).

It's not goalpost shifting if it was never defined otherwise.

So there's that.

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Here is an excellent buzz feed piece on "rape culture" and what it means to a feminist:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/wh...pe-culture

To briefly summarize, rape culture concerns victim blaming, condoning sexual violence and aggression, slut shaming, and the sexual objectification of women. Feminist who believe in rape culture believe that the way we view women in our culture contributes and facilitates sexual violence towards women.

I would have to disagree with even that existing. Like I said earlier, people are paid to defend even guilty rapists.
I would also point out that sometimes what is lumped in with victim blaming is actually a valid concern. There is a difference between "I would advise young women to watch what they drink and behave responsibly when going out" and "if you don't do these things, you deserve rape." I understand that there are those who will say that, (although most of the time are religious fundamentalists, of which I would stand right there with you and oppose) but they are in the minority...

So, then, you wouldn't "disagree with even that existing". Since you just said it exists...

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would give the example of the advice to lock your door isn't the same as saying you deserve to be burgled.

The difference lies in how agency is ascribed.

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would also point out that there is a greater acceptance of sexual violence against men. What are the reactions to a male prison rape joke? Laughs. A female rape joke? MISOGYNIST! I am all for freedom of speech, and I think all jokes are allowed, even in poor taste. But my disagreement is the double standard.

It's not a double standard if different people are doing either. Could you give an example of a single person both condemning jokes about a woman being sexually abused and endorsing jokes about a man being sexually abused?

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I feel like many people have a very distorted view of what feminism is.

I would say prominent feminists are the cause of that.

Or perhaps those who spread misinformation. Either way.

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I think many people experience some provocative aspect of feminism and then believe this represents the beliefs and attitudes of all feminist. Worst still, I think even more people experience a second hand characterization of a feminist, so not even something a feminist said but something a feminist was reported as saying, and then they characterize the whole feminist movement by this mischaracterisation.

I would point out that most feminists who are quoted are generally popular, and have followings of large groups of like-minded people. Anita Sarkeesian isn't alone in her views, she has a devoted enough following to give her $160000 for her handful of "video games are sexist" videos.

Her thesis was not and is not "video games are sexist".

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I really think the problem is that there is no orthodoxy in feminist thought. It is a mish-mash of people who self-identify and because of this there are always conflicting opinions on the same issues. However, unlike the atheist community, where prominent atheists will call each other out when they disagree, prominent feminists will agree and then more rational feminists like yourself will denounce them when it makes them look bad.

Wait, you're calling Michael a "radical feminist"?

Furthermore, that's incoherent. If there is no orthodoxy, there is nothing for "prominent" feminists to agree on - which you've just said they do. Which is it?

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I think the closest analogy would be Christians who accept evolution and science and accept gay people, will say "that isn't real Christianity" when shown the hateful bigot fundamentalists, but then are more active in attacking anti theists for opposing creationism in schools than the teaching of creationism.

Cool story, bro. Relevance?

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I consider myself a feminist. It becomes very frustrating having to explain over and over again, to both men and women mind you, that feminism isn't about man hating, or the superiority of of women over men, or any other such nonse. Feminist ideas challenge the way we think and feel about women on a very fundamental level. It criticizes images, tropes, motifs, and themes we have become accustomed to and loved from a very early age. It can be difficult and jarring to hear our way of life so sharply criticized. It is difficult to objectively contemplate not only what we think, but how we think. If you are person who values new ideas, objectivity, and critical thinking, then I think you really owe to yourself to look at feminism closely and with an open mind. They are good ideas, even if they come off as abrasive and can be difficult to swallow.

I understand that feminism isn't about man hating, but I would point out that as much as many feminists will call for equality, actions speak louder than words.

I think TheAmazingAtheist said it best. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on one of them."

Surprisingly, what he says does not actually define what feminism is. Do you take issue with the definition Michael_Tadlock gave in his post? If so, how?

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Also, I would like to point out that the images, tropes and motifs that may be considered "harmful" or "sexist" by feminists are always gynocentric.

Citation needed.

(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Thunderf00t did a video Sarkeesian-style where he showed that men are oppressed by the media.

So what? Only straw men have ever claimed that men are never disadvantaged by gender inequalities...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I do agree that in areas of society women may be disadvantaged, and it is more on a social level. It may be just the environment that I am in. I live in a middle-class area in the UK, and go to a well-educated school. Gender issues never really show up in an area like that.

"Gender issues never really show up", eh?

How hard have you looked?

Oh yeah I forgot, I need to check my privilege.
How hard have you looked for thetans?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  As for the wage gap, the last time I checked, there are laws against paying women less for the same job.

Laws existing does not in and of itself mean anything.

Laws have long existed against racial discrimination as well.
(perhaps those also "never really show up" in your end of the world; if so, you're exceptionally fortunate)

And guess what: they work.
Most of the racism that occurs is in hiring, of which can be more ambiguous. But funnily, http://youtu.be/iSksPKQ7Ys0

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would posit possible reasons for why these statistics exist.
- The statistics aren't taking into account that women are less likely to want to get a promotion after a certain point in time. Sheryl Sandberg did a TED talk on it.
- Women just happen to be joining companies that are going for quotas. Because there are less women looking for these jobs, the women hired may be less qualified. Because of this, the business isn't making as much money, and so pays employees less.
- Women are more likely to stay at home and take care of the kids. The stats don't take into account men are more likely to be employed.

Funnily enough, that came up recently here, too.
(18-08-2014 08:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's like I said.

Statisticians aren't idiots. The superficial objections you or I can reflexively think of are already accounted for.

Here in Ontario, for example.

Factors such as educational attainment, gendered occupations, and unequal childcare roles are separately accounted for. Not that they aren't in and of themselves manifestations of inequality, but they are one step removed from direct discrimination, which in any case does exist.

Suffice to say no, wage gaps are real.

Where exactly does it say that? Most other stats I have found are unadjusted, and aren't 100% fixed for extraneous variables. Look, you may be correct that in Canada, and even America there may be some level of pay inequality, but I don't live in Canada, and am not saying it exists nowhere. Considering statistics are thrown around in propaganda all of the time, I had to put in needed scepticism. This is purely for intellectual honesty, not for any deep-seated misogyny.
But really, even if it is the case, what are you going to do about it? Feminism isn't really equipped to deal battles like this, especially if it is more likely to do with individuals in more religious right wing areas where they are likely to look the other way rather than some evil institutional problem.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I think the main problem is that the difference in western culture is so seriously small, and the difference isn't 100% culture. If feminists expect a truly equal society to have 50:50 gender in every single area of society, I would have to disagree.

No one has ever advocated that, so feel free to disagree with all the straw men you like.
Legal quotas for jobs. Not a fucking strawman.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  When I have heard feminists talk about these terms, I tend to see goalpost shifting when the things are actually defined. For example: "some people say that there isn't a rape culture because our society hates rapists more than murderers" and will go on to explain more on a level that sometimes there are people who will attack the victim and dispute her lack of consent (which is the defence lawyer's job, innocent or guilty).

It's not goalpost shifting if it was never defined otherwise.

So there's that.

Well "rape culture" is defined in different ways. But when I think of that, my mind goes to Saudi Arabia or Iraq where a rape culture actually exists, where victim blaming is really a problem. So my point was that a culture that allows rape would be a better definition for that term, and then that calling a culture that has some individuals defending rapists, or sometimes giving advice to help reduce the risk for others as the actual definition of the term is pointless.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would have to disagree with even that existing. Like I said earlier, people are paid to defend even guilty rapists.
I would also point out that sometimes what is lumped in with victim blaming is actually a valid concern. There is a difference between "I would advise young women to watch what they drink and behave responsibly when going out" and "if you don't do these things, you deserve rape." I understand that there are those who will say that, (although most of the time are religious fundamentalists, of which I would stand right there with you and oppose) but they are in the minority...

So, then, you wouldn't "disagree with even that existing". Since you just said it exists...

No because it involves a minority, not the whole culture.
Do we also live in a murder culture? I'm sure murder is actually more glorified in the media than rape.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would give the example of the advice to lock your door isn't the same as saying you deserve to be burgled.

The difference lies in how agency is ascribed.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? It's a bit vague.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would also point out that there is a greater acceptance of sexual violence against men. What are the reactions to a male prison rape joke? Laughs. A female rape joke? MISOGYNIST! I am all for freedom of speech, and I think all jokes are allowed, even in poor taste. But my disagreement is the double standard.

It's not a double standard if different people are doing either.

That is a valid point, and may be the case in some situations.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Could you give an example of a single person both condemning jokes about a woman being sexually abused and endorsing jokes about a man being sexually abused?

http://youtu.be/5rkl_oLSKQc
It is right near the end, so you could skip most of it if you want.
Go straight to 4:36 if that is the case.
This was just what I found on youtube. I am not associated with MRM just in case you accuse me of that.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would say prominent feminists are the cause of that.

Or perhaps those who spread misinformation. Either way.

Who is spreading misinformation?

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I would point out that most feminists who are quoted are generally popular, and have followings of large groups of like-minded people. Anita Sarkeesian isn't alone in her views, she has a devoted enough following to give her $160000 for her handful of "video games are sexist" videos.

Her thesis was not and is not "video games are sexist".

Oh yeah it's that video games are "Misogynistic power fantasies" her words not mine.
Please don't tell me you also agree with her "third person effect"

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)Anita Sarkeesian Wrote:  The more you think that media is just harmless entertainment, the more you are likely to be affected by it.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I really think the problem is that there is no orthodoxy in feminist thought. It is a mish-mash of people who self-identify and because of this there are always conflicting opinions on the same issues. However, unlike the atheist community, where prominent atheists will call each other out when they disagree, prominent feminists will agree and then more rational[b] feminists like yourself will denounce them when it makes them look bad.

Wait, you're calling [b]Michael a "radical[b] feminist"?

Read it again.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Furthermore, that's incoherent. If there is no orthodoxy, there is nothing for "prominent" feminists to agree on - which you've just said they do. Which is it?

There isn't orhodoxy in atheism, although atheists agree on lots of issues. Are you going to say there is orthodoxy in atheism? No. Just because there isn't a definite guideline attached, doesn't mean they won't agree.
My best bet would be that some of these feminists, but definitely Sarkeesian, are con artists.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I think the closest analogy would be Christians who accept evolution and science and accept gay people, will say "that isn't real Christianity" when shown the hateful bigot fundamentalists, but then are more active in attacking anti theists for opposing creationism in schools than the teaching of creationism.

Cool story, bro. Relevance?

Just saying that is the behaviour of many moderate feminists. It seems like a religion to me.
http://youtu.be/SgbgxB9O6AM
I guess I see religions as methods of obtaining power.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I understand that feminism isn't about man hating, but I would point out that as much as many feminists will call for equality, actions speak louder than words.

I think TheAmazingAtheist said it best. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on one of them."

Surprisingly, what he says does not actually define what feminism is. Do you take issue with the definition [b]Michael_Tadlock gave in his post? If so, how?

The difference is that equal rights also requires increasing the rights of men, of which I have never encountered a feminist trying to do. If feminists and MRAs weren't always in such a flame war, I would think that they may both be doing something good. But the vitriol between them suggests that they either have differing views on reality, or on what equality looks like. I have disagreements with both sides, and agree with both sides on some issues.
I consider those to make the genders truly equal, and to do that by fixing inequalities from both sides, egalitarians, not feminists.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Also, I would like to point out that the images, tropes and motifs that may be considered "harmful" or "sexist" by feminists are always gynocentric.

Citation needed.

Negative claim.
Also, there are no pink unicorns on the moon.
Shall I make it more pragmatic for you?
I have yet to see feminists dealing with harmful and/or sexist tropes, images and motifs against men. Because of this, I will take the position that they do not do so until given evidence to the contrary.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:32 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Thunderf00t did a video Sarkeesian-style where he showed that men are oppressed by the media.

So what? Only straw men have ever claimed that men are never disadvantaged by gender inequalities...

Accuses me if a strawman by strawmanning me. I was pointing out that analysing too much can come up with almost anything. Stefan Molyneux has analysed Star Wars and Harry Potter to the point where he thinks they are both about mentally ill people, and the magical worlds are their delusions. Thunderf00t did that in jest to show the lack of critical thinking and confirmational bias involved.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I love the smell of sanctimony in the morning.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes spinosauruskin's post
27-08-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Gender issues never really show up", eh?

How hard have you looked?

Oh yeah I forgot, I need to check my privilege.

You may feel that way, but it isn't something I suggested.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  How hard have you looked for thetans?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

That has nothing to do with burden of proof. It has to do with your false generalisation.

But two can play this tedious game, while you're at it:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Laws existing does not in and of itself mean anything.

Laws have long existed against racial discrimination as well.
(perhaps those also "never really show up" in your end of the world; if so, you're exceptionally fortunate)

And guess what: they work.

Let me connect the dots for you, since you seem unwilling (unable?).

I did not deny that. Nor did I deny that laws requiring equal treatment on gender have had positive effects.

What I implied, and you apparently missed, was that laws alone do not remove prejudice and discrimination.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Most of the racism that occurs is in hiring, of which can be more ambiguous.

Yes. And?

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  But funnily, http://youtu.be/iSksPKQ7Ys0

That doesn't appear to be related, but... "Patriarchy means no woman ever has power anywhere" is not a thing anyone has ever suggested.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Funnily enough, that came up recently here, too.

Suffice to say no, wage gaps are real.

Where exactly does it say that? Most other stats I have found are unadjusted, and aren't 100% fixed for extraneous variables. Look, you may be correct that in Canada, and even America there may be some level of pay inequality, but I don't live in Canada, and am not saying it exists nowhere. Considering statistics are thrown around in propaganda all of the time, I had to put in needed scepticism. This is purely for intellectual honesty, not for any deep-seated misogyny.

The figures are from Statistics Canada, who have an extremely good record of providing impartial data.

It's incredibly facile to assume qualifiers you or I might think of in a few seconds to have been ignored by competent statisticians.

Not that "oh, but women just work worse jobs" is a very satisfying explanation.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  But really, even if it is the case, what are you going to do about it? Feminism isn't really equipped to deal battles like this, especially if it is more likely to do with individuals in more religious right wing areas where they are likely to look the other way rather than some evil institutional problem.

If one wishes to make the incredible claim that feminism had nothing to do with passing pay equity legislation and publicising disparities in employment and attainment, sure.

I don't see that as a particularly reasonable or defensible claim, but okay.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No one has ever advocated that, so feel free to disagree with all the straw men you like.
Legal quotas for jobs. Not a fucking strawman.

... Such as?

I am aware of some very limited quota systems for very specific circumstances. That does not even come close to approaching the "If feminists expect a truly equal society to have 50:50 gender in every single area of society..." you just suggested.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not goalpost shifting if it was never defined otherwise.

So there's that.

Well "rape culture" is defined in different ways. But when I think of that, my mind goes to Saudi Arabia or Iraq where a rape culture actually exists, where victim blaming is really a problem.

How much of it does there have to be for it to be "a problem"? Since you just acknowledged that it exists elsewhere as well...

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  So my point was that a culture that allows rape would be a better definition for that term, and then that calling a culture that has some individuals defending rapists, or sometimes giving advice to help reduce the risk for others as the actual definition of the term is pointless.

The term itself is over forty years old, and there has been a great deal of progress in most societies since then. But it was never intended to mean wholesale endorsement of rape.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  So, then, you wouldn't "disagree with even that existing". Since you just said it exists...

No because it involves a minority, not the whole culture.

... no one ever said it had to be totalitarian?

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Do we also live in a murder culture? I'm sure murder is actually more glorified in the media than rape.

I know you're being facetious, but some people would say "yes".

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The difference lies in how agency is ascribed.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? It's a bit vague.

We might assume a burglar deliberately picks easier targets - in which case protective measures are reasonable.

Choosing a different outfit does not make a person easier or harder to rape; the claim is instead that the rapist has no agency.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not a double standard if different people are doing either.

That is a valid point, and may be the case in some situations.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Could you give an example of a single person both condemning jokes about a woman being sexually abused and endorsing jokes about a man being sexually abused?

http://youtu.be/5rkl_oLSKQc
It is right near the end, so you could skip most of it if you want.
Go straight to 4:36 if that is the case.
This was just what I found on youtube. I am not associated with MRM just in case you accuse me of that.

I'd note that the "traditional" gender theory response to that would be that ridiculing a man for being emasculated is anything but inconsistent with patriarchal attitudes.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Her thesis was not and is not "video games are sexist".

Oh yeah it's that video games are "Misogynistic power fantasies" her words not mine.
Please don't tell me you also agree with her "third person effect"

I don't see how that affects what I said. Her argument is that video games - as with any cultural medium - may be (and should be) examined from a gender theory perspective.

I don't particularly care about her nor her ideas, but I find it rather perplexing that so much hatred and outright threats have been directed at her for something so innocuous.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)Anita Sarkeesian Wrote:  The more you think that media is just harmless entertainment, the more you are likely to be affected by it.

And? Do you deny that? That's hardly a feminist idea; it's a longstanding position in media studies...

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Furthermore, that's incoherent. If there is no orthodoxy, there is nothing for "prominent" feminists to agree on - which you've just said they do. Which is it?

There isn't orhodoxy in atheism, although atheists agree on lots of issues. Are you going to say there is orthodoxy in atheism? No. Just because there isn't a definite guideline attached, doesn't mean they won't agree.
[/quote]

The two-word summary of atheist is "no God". The two-word summary of feminism is "gender equality".

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency - if there are things "feminists" all agree on, that's by definition orthodox.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  My best bet would be that some of these feminists, but definitely Sarkeesian, are con artists.

If she wanted to con people, there are ways to do it without receiving constant rape and death threats.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Surprisingly, what he says does not actually define what feminism is. Do you take issue with the definition Michael_Tadlock gave in his post? If so, how?

The difference is that equal rights also requires increasing the rights of men, of which I have never encountered a feminist trying to do.

Ah. Then you really haven't been looking very hard...

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  If feminists and MRAs weren't always in such a flame war, I would think that they may both be doing something good. But the vitriol between them suggests that they either have differing views on reality, or on what equality looks like. I have disagreements with both sides, and agree with both sides on some issues.
I consider those to make the genders truly equal, and to do that by fixing inequalities from both sides, egalitarians, not feminists.

To use a tired old analogy, the American civil rights movement was very much centred on blacks - does that mean it wasn't about equality for everyone? No - but the most immediate way to address inequality is to focus on the most unequal.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed.

Negative claim.
Also, there are no pink unicorns on the moon.
Shall I make it more pragmatic for you?
I have yet to see feminists dealing with harmful and/or sexist tropes, images and motifs against men. Because of this, I will take the position that they do not do so until given evidence to the contrary.

That's slightly better. The claim is not negative in any case; "they don't do X" and "they only do not-x" are here equivalent.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  So what? Only straw men have ever claimed that men are never disadvantaged by gender inequalities...

Accuses me if a strawman by strawmanning me.

Nope. I did not say you made that claim. I did not say anyone made that claim. Don't go fallacy fallacy on me again, guy.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I was pointing out that analysing too much can come up with almost anything. Stefan Molyneux has analysed Star Wars and Harry Potter to the point where he thinks they are both about mentally ill people, and the magical worlds are their delusions. Thunderf00t did that in jest to show the lack of critical thinking and confirmational bias involved.

So what? That if I look hard enough I can find almost anything does not mean that some of the things I do find don't count.

(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I love the smell of sanctimony in the morning.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

I invite you to provide an example of me being hypocritical. I can't say I see any trace of it in my responses to this thread.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Spino: I want to remind you that saying "there is some cultural problem in society" is not the same thing as saying "you have this cultural problem in society", although, to be fair, you, and I, and everybody else for that matter probably do carry around some discrimination with us about something. If not sexism, then racism, or ableism, something right - we are human. A big part of feminism is about pointing that out. People who don't have a problem with victim blaming can carry on doing the right thing, people who do and don't realise it might be able to self reflect and change, and all of us can discourage this behavior when we see it. A big problem many people have with feminism is they don't like to be told what to do or how to think, and many people feel it is not a problem for them or their inner circle. You may be right. For some people though, it certainly is a problem, and a little reminder for the rest of us now and again can't hurt. These are ideas after all. Ideas die and wither away unless people keep thinking about them. A change in cultural is literally impossible if nobody challenges the status quo.

I think we are mostly in agreement that culture can be a problem, even in the west. You may not like to identify as a "feminist", which is fine. If we can get to the point where we talk about the ideas of feminism then it is just as good, whatever you call yourself or however you identify. It is a funny thing actually; I would argue that western society is, in many ways, far more egalitarian than it has ever been, even while "feminist" continues to be probably the most maligned social ideology (with the exception of veganism maybe. Another argument for another thread Tongue ). Squabbling about terms and shifting the burden of proof is pointless. In a thread condemned like this one the most positive thing we can do is discuss the real issues, specifically and without ideological terms. A deeper probe into the wage gap or the effect of cultural on sexual violence would be much more enlightening and fruitful discussion I think Smile .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
27-08-2014, 08:57 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You may feel that way, but it isn't something I suggested.

It was sarcasm.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  How hard have you looked for thetans?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

That has nothing to do with burden of proof. It has to do with your false generalisation.

But two can play this tedious game, while you're at it:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Nope, because the fallacy fallacy is when one makes the argument that you made a fallacy, therefore it am correct. That would be a strawman. So not really.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let me connect the dots for you, since you seem unwilling (unable?).

I did not deny that. Nor did I deny that laws requiring equal treatment on gender have had positive effects.

What I implied, and you apparently missed, was that laws alone do not remove prejudice and discrimination.

And what I mean is how is this happening still? If the laws are being followed, how does this discrimination continue?

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Most of the racism that occurs is in hiring, of which can be more ambiguous.

Yes. And?

The race pay gap is generally attributed to education and lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
What I mean is that the focus, if there is discrimination, is on the wrong area.
I forgot to also elaborate on another point.
The other area where institutions can discriminate is courts, and feminism, as far as I have heard, has kept quiet about this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11...74742.html

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't appear to be related, but... "Patriarchy means no woman ever has power anywhere" is not a thing anyone has ever suggested.

It's just how the patriarchy is made out as this highly powerful system of oppression. The point to be made is it isn't particularly effective.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The figures are from Statistics Canada, who have an extremely good record of providing impartial data.

It's incredibly facile to assume qualifiers you or I might think of in a few seconds to have been ignored by competent statisticians.

Not that "oh, but women just work worse jobs" is a very satisfying explanation.

I was giving extraneous variables that were not explicitly mentioned to be corrected for. I am not assuming that they are incompetent, but that a lot of data is unadjusted. But I am still unsure how it is even happening if it is against the law.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If one wishes to make the incredible claim that feminism had nothing to do with passing pay equity legislation and publicising disparities in employment and attainment, sure.

I don't see that as a particularly reasonable or defensible claim, but okay.

Again, you are always calling strawman when I give a view of another feminist, of which is a guilt by association rather than strawman (and that is only if I were to attribute those views to you rather than the feminists I have heard it from, of which I was trying to make the point that you are likely to disagree with them), but then seek to strawman me constantly.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... Such as?

I am aware of some very limited quota systems for very specific circumstances. That does not even come close to approaching the "If feminists expect a truly equal society to have 50:50 gender in every single area of society..." you just suggested.

Well at least we are on the same page about that issue. Let's just both denounce those who do espouse that position rather than squabble over who holds it.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How much of it [rape culture] does there have to be for it to be "a problem"? Since you just acknowledged that it exists elsewhere as well...

I would guess when there is more than the odd troll on the internet who is actually saying "you deserve rape"
I will accept that I dont live in Canada or the US, and that was the point on my response to Michael. I am just making superficial judgments on the mainstream media and when it comes to culture, you can take my positions with a grain of salt.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The term itself is over forty years old, and there has been a great deal of progress in most societies since then. But it was never intended to mean wholesale endorsement of rape.

I don't see how it is a legitimate term then.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... no one ever said it had to be totalitarian?

Totalitarian? I was just saying common rather than extreme minority opinion.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Do we also live in a murder culture? I'm sure murder is actually more glorified in the media than rape.

I know you're being facetious, but some people would say "yes".

By no means, I was giving a completely serious question.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Can you please explain what you mean by this? It's a bit vague.

We might assume a burglar deliberately picks easier targets - in which case protective measures are reasonable.

Choosing a different outfit does not make a person easier or harder to rape; the claim is instead that the rapist has no agency.

Oh you fell into another strawman. I specifically did not use that as an example as I don't consider choice of clothing a factor in sexual assault. I used the example of drinking, as that does actually affect how likely one is to be assaulted.
By no means does it say the rapist has no agency. It is just under the assumption that there are those who will rape out there, and these statistically increase your chances, so be wary when making the decision.
It is saying a drunk person is like not locking your door. It isn't wrong to not lock your door, nor should you be blamed for such. It is just saying you have a better chance of the crime not happening.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  That is a valid point, and may be the case in some situations.


http://youtu.be/5rkl_oLSKQc
It is right near the end, so you could skip most of it if you want.
Go straight to 4:36 if that is the case.
This was just what I found on youtube. I am not associated with MRM just in case you accuse me of that.

I'd note that the "traditional" gender theory response to that would be that ridiculing a man for being emasculated is anything but inconsistent with patriarchal attitudes.

Okay, so the patriarchy humiliates men as well. I guess we are in agreement that it is a problem, and is attributed to traditional gender roles and needs to be fixed. The rest are just meaningless issues with definitions then. Let's just accept we agree.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Oh yeah it's that video games are "Misogynistic power fantasies" her words not mine.
Please don't tell me you also agree with her "third person effect"

I don't see how that affects what I said. Her argument is that video games - as with any cultural medium - may be (and should be) examined from a gender theory perspective.

And that her arguments have been refuted in several series of videos. Mrrepzion, The Fantastic Sceptic and Thunderf00t to name a few.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I don't particularly care about her nor her ideas, but I find it rather perplexing that so much hatred and outright threats have been directed at her for something so innocuous.

Gamers are a volatile bunch. You criticise anything on the internet, you get attacks. Criticise anything involving gaming, you get metaphorically crucified.
If you are wrong, prepare for internet suicide.
The really heinous stuff is trolling. People trying to get a rise out of her. Feminists like Anita are quite easy to offend, and react quite defensively. Trolls love that kind of behaviour.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  

And? Do you deny that? That's hardly a feminist idea; it's a longstanding position in media studies...

YES.
It sounds like homeopathy.

One example. Let's keep the gaming theme.
I have been playing Fallout New Vegas for three-ish years. Over that space of time, I have played about ten character playthroughs. In each of those, I killed at least 1000 enemies, as I completed all three "Lord Death" challenges. Every playthrough I have become a more efficient killer.
I have been playing Call of Duty for five years. I have killed at least 100000 enemies per yearly release. Every game I have become a more efficient killer.
I am also going through puberty, where testosterone levels are increasing. Now explain why I am becoming less violent if this harmless entertainment is affecting me so much. I enjoy killing things in those games. I am against death in real life.

(27-08-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The two-word summary of atheist is "no God". The two-word summary of feminism is "gender equality".

And Christianity is "follow Jesus" espoused by rich, homophobic, bigoted, pro-war, Christians. Actions speak louder than words.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I was merely pointing out the inconsistency - if there are things "feminists" all agree on, that's by definition orthodox.

But my position is the only things they agree on are abstract, under defined concepts. That isn't orthodoxy.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  My best bet would be that some of these feminists, but definitely Sarkeesian, are con artists.

If she wanted to con people, there are ways to do it without receiving constant rape and death threats.
http://youtu.be/eZ64PwLLd8Q
What a free $160K for the sheer price of lying in a couple of videos and some attacks on twitter that I can then use to further my political agenda? If I had no ethical standards, that would be heaven for me.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  The difference is that equal rights also requires increasing the rights of men, of which I have never encountered a feminist trying to do.

Ah. Then you really haven't been looking very hard...

Citation needed.
Maybe there are, but it isn't that easy to find. Care to give me some evidence, or just going to keep giving unsupported claims?
Person 1: "I have never seen aliens"
Person 2: You just aren't looking hard enough
Person 1: Care to enlighten me?
Person 2: No, but I will be pedantic about your choice of words.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  If feminists and MRAs weren't always in such a flame war, I would think that they may both be doing something good. But the vitriol between them suggests that they either have differing views on reality, or on what equality looks like. I have disagreements with both sides, and agree with both sides on some issues.
I consider those to make the genders truly equal, and to do that by fixing inequalities from both sides, egalitarians, not feminists.

To use a tired old analogy, the American civil rights movement was very much centred on blacks - does that mean it wasn't about equality for everyone? No - but the most immediate way to address inequality is to focus on the most unequal.

Was there any disadvantage to being white? I would guess no.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Negative claim.
Also, there are no pink unicorns on the moon.
Shall I make it more pragmatic for you?
I have yet to see feminists dealing with harmful and/or sexist tropes, images and motifs against men. Because of this, I will take the position that they do not do so until given evidence to the contrary.

That's slightly better. The claim is not negative in any case; "they don't do X" and "they only do not-x" are here equivalent.

Just remember that it was colloquial. A strong statement making a claim doesn't require absolute certainty. Give me some evidence of X and I will completely change my tune.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Accuses me if a strawman by strawmanning me.

Nope. I did not say you made that claim. I did not say anyone made that claim. Don't go fallacy fallacy on me again, guy.

My apologies, although still not a fallacy fallacy.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I was pointing out that analysing too much can come up with almost anything. Stefan Molyneux has analysed Star Wars and Harry Potter to the point where he thinks they are both about mentally ill people, and the magical worlds are their delusions. Thunderf00t did that in jest to show the lack of critical thinking and confirmational bias involved.

So what? That if I look hard enough I can find almost anything does not mean that some of the things I do find don't count.

No but the method of inquiry has to be objective, and not determine absurd, false, or contradictory claims. The analysis of games from the position of a "media critic" (not many towering intellectuals with that title) is not a particularly effective method.
You see, when it comes to determining what is true, I care more about the reliability of the method more than the conclusions of such used correctly. If somebody was given personal revelation that the earth was round, it wouldn't be wrong, but the method is a bad way of doing it. When we then have a proposition in which we are trying to determine if it is true, we should see which method has led there, and if no reliable method has done so, we do not yet take it as true, even provisionally.
But I am sure you already knew that.

(27-08-2014 06:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 05:19 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

I invite you to provide an example of me being hypocritical. I can't say I see any trace of it in my responses to this thread.

Strawman attacks, and your sanctimonious tone when replying to me.

I am also unsure whether you were trying to be condescending or hostile, and will give you the benefit of the doubt. I also apologise if I came across that way, 'tis the sad truth of internet disagreements.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes spinosauruskin's post
28-08-2014, 06:32 AM
Re: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Spino, if what I think you're saying on the last point making paragraph is what you think, you are categorizing something in a way you might need to understand what is or isn't being approached objectively.

I'm not exactly sure of your stance so I may be putting words into your mouth, but if you lean to thinking overanalyzing can be an issue and part of that issue is that it lacks objectivity, then you're misunderstanding the point of such style of analysis.

Not all fields operate on the same terms and i'm bothered I frequently see this argument. If you think analysis must be objectively based, I don't know how along you are on schooling, you may dislike the English/fine arts classes you'll have if you have issues with the methodology of literary analysis. Which is what feminist frequency or other like critics are essentially using applied to other media. It's ignoring or not understanding that literary analysis isn't making an objective all encompassing point of it's topic. Thunderfoots countervideo disappointed me because it treated it that way. He's coming from a scientific field and mindset and his males are also stereotyped as hyper masculine figures that can effect mindsets the same way isn't a negative punch against feminism. Yes, it is also true. Because one didn't focus on all possible elements of an analysis doesn't invalidate that. The process is about taking a segment and focusing on it.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: