Why are poeple on this site so obessed with feminists?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, we're upping the ante to all people, everywhere? Do you really want to go there?


two points:
1)that statistic generally leaves out women murdered in the course of sex work, because it's illegal in most states.
2)Men also make up ~89% of the Darwin Award recipients.
In other words, men choose to take on danger, and to do stupid things, in part because it is seen as 'masculine' to do so. The fact that they do so is part of the same poisonous ideology that says that men cannot wear makeup.


Death by industrial accident, death by voluntary stupidity, and death by murder are quite different things. If men would deign to take jobs that are considered 'women's work' like secretary or child care, or if they would refrain from harassing the men who do, and if they would refrain from harassing the women who try to take on 'men's work,' then the gender proportion of industrial accidents would change.
Here's an interesting essay on the topic:
http://inequalitybyinteriordesign.wordp ... ted-death/


Self-harm is, quite often, a prelude to suicide. Cutting of the arms results in what psychologists call "hesitation marks," a serious sign of suicide risk. Again, the fact that women want to go 'gently' and 'without mess' means that there is time for medical and pharmacological intervention, not that the did not mean to kill themselves. Having spent 15 years in a job that largely involved clinical work in an ER, I can state from my own experience that people who self-harmed with the goal of self harm were largely depressed to the level that they either did not care if they died, or actively sought death.

One thing that women have going for them, that men do not, is that women are already seen as 'weak' so there's not as much of a stigma to them asking for help. Again, if men were willing to fight against the repulsive, macho gender constructs that are imposed on them by society, and actually admit when they need help and seek it, they'd be better off.

because I think that it's a historical (and American) anomaly that the university gender imbalance is as it is. It has become 'effete' to be learned in anything - men going more into those dangerous, macho professions, striving to be jocks rather than scientists - but that will change sooner or later.
There's also the vast disproportion in men and women in the STEM fields, but that's another whole argument.

In general, I think that chivalry is BS, and I think that weak-kneed women who allow themselves to be rolled with no struggle are pathetic. A 30-lb dog will do more to protect itself than some full-grown women, though thankfully that is changing.
It does seem to be true, though, that men (at least NT men) like to 'rescue' women; in general, if a woman comes across as incompetent, she gets a lot more male attention. It's like the Japanese phenomenon of 'kawai.'


The two are not mutually exclusive. Hence the feminist philosophy of intersectionality.


first five links for 'intersectionality' on google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Intersectionality
http://socialdifference.columbia.edu/fi ... enshaw.pdf
http://www.uccnrs.ucsb.edu/intersectionality
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... -care.html

You could also hang out on http://feministing.com, http://www.feministe.us/blog/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/category/pandagon/, or any number of active feminist sites rather than listening to Rush Limbaugh about what feminism is.


However, the majority of men are vastly better represented by presidents, senators, justices, etc. than are the majority of women. This has been patently clear in the last decade, with laws not only clawing back advances in abortion rights but de facto making women wards of the state (largely in southern states) when they're pregnant.


True, but, again: the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm a socialist as well as a feminist.


BS. When employers are more likely to hire a white felon than a black man with a clean record, your pretensions of 'fair evaluation' fly out the window. You might not like it, but statistical differences in how people are treated do accumulate not only over a lifetime, but over a society, in the same way that minuscule advantages in fitness accumulate in a population over thousands of generations.


1)false dichotomy
2)it depends on what you mean by 'equality.' I am in favor of equality of opportunity, which we patently do not have in the US at this time, and I am in favor of taking measures to correct that.

Well, I'm not going to dig through the thread again trying to ferret out the quote that you meant. If you care about it, reiterate it.


the validity of lumping depends on the context, and you missed my point. I was saying that women who enjoy chivalry are largely *not* feminists, and largely would not claim to be so. Not all women are feminists.

Uh, yeah. My point?


I disagree, and the scientists who study the matter back me up on that despite your dismissal of the field because you don't like its conclusions.


*snort*
that borders on chastising me for getting into an argument on an internet forum built for arguing. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I want everyone to 'fly the same flag,' nor that I am 'shaming you,' any more than you disagreeing with me means that you think those things.

That's a little bit of a backhanded complement, but I think it's largely because I've been scientifically trained and I've been doing this for a while. People get emotional in this sort of argument, on both sides.



Yeah, it makes it clear that I was absolutely correct with my initial interpretation.

Actually, that article makes it clear that what people have a problem with are the stereotyped images (aka straw-feminists or straw-environmentalists) that they have of activists, not with most actual activists or with the philosophy in general.

Uh, what? Actual censorship is usually enacted by the religious right, to which feminism is anathema.

Political correctness largely means 'don't be a dick.'

Hang on, you just claimed that, having been born with a mental disorder, you shouldn't have to worry about anyone else's problems, yes? But now it "doesn't matter"?

No. You claimed that you have no access to help from the state because you are a man. It is clear from my links that men do have access to state help. Where women are the 'winners' in state assistance and divorce proceedings, it is largely because 1)they are far more likely to sacrifice their careers in favor of their spous and children than men are, and 2)they statistically take the lion's share of child care. Support is given to custodial parents, and custody is given to the primary care-taker of the children. End of story. Equality of opportunity.


That's your prerogative, but given that feminism is a sociolgical philosophy, you're probably on the wrong thread then.

Yes. I get it. People think that all feminists are extreme man-haters. And that supposedly is worse and more unnatural then men being woman-haters.

I show any offense to woman-hating jokes or comments, and it's like, "Oh you're a feminist and we have free speech so we're allowed to say women are stupid, bad drivers, evil, and on and on"

Today I read on Facebook that a page was posted by a group of male student dentists at a college in Halifax saying evil things about the female students, including that one of them needed to be given a rag full of chloroform. The scary thing is that men like this could actually end up killing women out of hatred. It's right here in Nova Scotia, so it's quite literally close to home. It's happened before. The female nurses who were killed in Montreal years ago... of course they should all be expelled but that won't stop the hate. But since I have an objection to such things... FEMINIST!

Lifelong atheist actually. You're obviously not good at judging people, though you seem to think you are.

I think we've danced this step before; I, and most people who are annoyed by feminists (AO aside) are not talking about the semi-mythical Dworkin straw feminist, but the all too common privilege checking trigger warning hashtag spewing LGBTWTFBBQ rights gender warrior type who claim that telling a woman to 'be careful' when walking through a bad neighborhood is "victim blaming", that 'good morning' is sexual harassment, etc. You can't tell me that this school of feminism isn't mainstream or common, as it is by far the most vocal and visible face of the movement at the moment, to the detriment of all.

Than what is the line of in sand where someone is a dick or not a dick? Again PC movement is about censoring everything to protect the mystical pure of heart people. Who cares if you offend someone it has nothing to do about anything. I could be offended by your exist and you don't go killing yourself for me?


Sorry for that misunderstanding. I don't see any value in my existents, I was just using myself as any example for my argument as a I find if you give personal examples people are more likely to relate you thus see the point in your argument.

There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is just a nicer way of saying slavery. That the slaves should drag down the masters to their levels. To clear up my other point, there are less funding for male needs in society as society sees the males as the expendable sex. Being male means your are more likely to have a violent crime happen to you, becoming homeless, and more likely to kill yourself. Of course the real killer is the slavery of man through marriage and divorce.


RAMBLE RAMBLE RAMBLE


This all comes down to feminism being just another from of slavery. The feminist want females to have all the rights without the responsibilities the comes from them. They always look for men or the state to bail them out whenever something goes wrong. But, who is the slaves of this society? Men, of course! Men only gets value from providing something where as a female has an inherent value. You don't see feminist fighting against this inequality.

Sorry, but are you trolling or being serious by comparing feminism to slavery?

If you're being serious, your entire post is null and void after that. Might want to read the definition of slavery

slav·ery
noun \ˈslā-v(ə-)rē\

: the state of being a slave

: the practice of owning slaves

Now, let's compare that to feminism

fem·i·nism
noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

Also, how in the name of sweet Jehovah are men "slaves"? Men have been in power for how long with no repercussions for oppression? This is Alex Jones level of trite, I'm sorry, but I'm just being honest.

Ditto for drug-dealers, shoplifters and smugglers. Is Michael Brown in the workplace death statistics? Do you have actual numbers showing a gender bias in the 'workplace' deaths that your argument applies to, or are you hoping that everyone will leap to a non sequitur conclusion based on partial data?



...and sometimes the opposite: Safer Sex as the Bolder Choice

There should certainly be a lesser cousin to the Darwin Awards for people who mistake gag sites for statistical evidence.

Here in Sweden, everyone talks about feminsm and feminists are everyhere, they have taken over all the swedish forums. In Sweden, we talk about racism, immigrants, Islam and feminism all the time.

1)Regardless of whether or not it was real, the article discussed people judging ideas worse when they were informed that it came from a stereotype than when they were informed that it came from a non-stereotype.
2)Is there anyone, right now, loudly advocating that type of feminism? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any - the ones I run with are all intersectionalists, few of whom get any more time in the MSM than war protesters, libertarians, or socialists.

Like the idea of what is 'PC' or what is 'not PC,' that is a judgment call for each individual.


Citation, please? What I see is people being called out when they're dicks or as*holes (the whole Sony think is making me think of Team America, sorry), not any actual censorship other than bleeping out a word here or there that is not usually actually necessary to convey a person's point.

You're right that none of us have any sort of 'right' to be protected from offense; however, you seem to miss the corollary to that, which is that no one has to give you the time of day if they find you offensive.


I agree, but in this case the legal system is trying to get there (and, some places, the social system is trying to help).


No. That is equality of outcome (and a dystopian view, at that), not equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity does not mean that everyone finishes in the same place; it means that everyone starts at the same line, and no one has more hurdles thrown at them by the state and society than anyone else. What is left is a set of different outcomes set only by a person's own talent and efforts, rather than unearned privilege.

1)Feminists have been fighting to get women allowed into 'expendable' professions, not against it.
2)Being male also means that you're vastly more likely to commit violent crime. The problem is aggression and machismo, not feminism.
3)If men tried to be more tidy in their suicides, and felt more free to ask for help, they would have less success at killing themselves and more successful interventions to prevent suicide. Again, machismo.
4)It's an odd sort of slavery that is entered into voluntarily, left voluntarily, and ruled by equality under the law.


*snort*
You clearly haven't been paying attention. I started being called a 'strident' feminist during (IIrc) the 'women as objects' wars on this very forum.
Besides that, though, please: continue. At this point nothing I can say would make my points about the irrationality of the MRA movement than your words.

Uh, actually there's a published, peer-reviewed paper about it. 'Darwin Awards' is just a shorthand frame that everyone is familiar with.
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7094

...which doesn't get rid of the almost Darwin Award-worthy errors in your figure: a non-representative sample (a death has to make the news or otherwise come to their attention) and vague admissibility criteria. IIRC, the Darwin Awards include quite a few suicide attempts that went awry because of lesser oversights (like misjudging how much a bungee cord would stretch), so the authors may themselves be worthy of stupidity awards. If they'd gotten themselves killed, they'd be Darwin Award material.



You're right about what it is, but not about why. It's probably an after-effect of Vietnam. My Lai wasn't reported until late 1979 (when the US had already lost some 35,000 soldiers). Most men seeking draft-deferments before then weren't sophisticated enough to oppose the war for anti-colonial or anti-imperial reasons, so they sought deferments because they didn't want to go off and die. I don't blame them, but that doesn't make them great scientists. The result is that academia is pretty self-doting and timorous.

In fact, they're so effete that they're even afraid of getting imaginary dirt on their hands. Look at energy-saving technology, since that's near-and-dear to their hearts: In regenerative braking, hydropneumatic systems outperform battery/electric-motor systems by a wide margin (70% recovery vs. 30%), handle deep charge-discharge cycles with ease (that kills batteries), and weigh less. The only problem is that you might get oil on your hands while working on them. It's not even dirty oil. Often it's clear, odorless mineral oil like what you buy at a drug-store for medical use. Either way, it doesn't get black soot in it like used engine oil because it's nowhere near any combustion. It doesn't even get metallic grit in it because these systems use hydrostatic bearings that have no metal-to-metal contact, and therefore no wear. If you took some of it out after 10,000 miles and put it in a glass, someone might mistake it for dark beer.

Despite that, they're still afraid of working with their hands. Compare that to Aristotle (who advocated dissection), Galileo (who lapped his own telescopes), or Darwin (who did his own observations in the field), and it's pretty obvious why men don't want to be part of academia (and why it isn't even remotely meritocratic).



Several years ago I was passed over for a job working with at-risk kids, probably because I was male. A friend of mine who wanted to teach German had to take months of what amounted to baby-sitting classes to get her teaching license, and I think that even Latin teachers in MN have to take those. We don't teach Latin in grades where those skills would apply. There used to be a lot of male schoolteachers in MN.

Oh, and here's the abstract:



So yes, they really did use Darwin Award "data" in a peer-reviewed study. I especially like their gratuitous use of the word idiotic (rather than something quantitative and well-defined), since that makes it clear even to the imperceptive that we aren't looking at serious science.