[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

[DSMatticus]

I don't know anything about thunderf00t's atheist commentary, but his feminist commentary is a pile of ass. It boils down to "it is that way, so it is that way, so stop complaining." Though he did recently get his Twitter account (temporarily) suspended for "participating in targeted abuse," over which he jumped rather quickly to some unfounded assumptions about Sarkeesian's personal involvement. But nonetheless, it was suspended, and there isn't anything floating around from his twitter feed to suggest he was at all being abusive that I've seen. Making bad arguments abrasively is not abuse, so someone presumably fucked up and/or crossed the line there. But I am open to seeing a smoking gun, should there have been a legitimate reason.

Also found this interesting.

That study is stupid and you're stupid for posting it.

Before you take that too seriously (it isn't), let me ask you a question: would you classify what I just did as harassment? It's definitely name-calling. It's also the sort of thing someone would say if they were trying to embarrass you. Do you feel harassed? Or do you just think I'm being kind of an asshole?

Here, let's try another one: that was so dumb it made me want to punch you in the balls. That's vaguely threatening, but it's also very obviously not serious. I would rather hope you don't feel intimidated, but you're always walking a fine line when evoking violence to express disagreement. So, do you feel harassed? Or do you just think I'm being kind of an asshole acting in bad taste?

That study's definition of harassment really doesn't match what we regard as the crime or even always a serious matter. By that study's definition, TGD would be a bunch of horrific scumbags abusing eachother all the time. Their "sustained harassment," "stalked," and "sexually harassed" columns are the most relevant, because those establish additional elements which escalate the matter from potentially acceptable casual assholery into unacceptable behavior. And when you consider those three, it looks exactly like what I'd expect: sustained harassment is about equal and women are more likely to be the victim of unwanted sexual bullshit and very determined creeps.

Essentially, the study includes minor bullshit and the real moral of the story kicks in at the section labelled "Young women experience particularly severe forms of online harassment." Because their definition of "particularly severe online harassment" is basically the only thing in their study that actually is harassment in the first place. That isn't to say the other things aren't problems, especially in mixed-age spaces like the internet, but they aren't harassment anymore than when we yell at Occluded Sun.

[ACOS]

I'd never even heard of thunderf00t until a couple of days ago, when I stumbled upon him while I was trying to find out how Sarkeesian got her name in to all this b.s.
I watched him rant for over an hour; and I've yet to see/hear anything from that ranting that isn't true. He may or may not otherwise be an ass (I don't know - what I've seen seems like he just like to call out idiots for being idiots); but he's absolutely right on this issue.
Sarkeesian has proven to be the Chicken Little that cried "wolf". So my initial instinct is to reflexively think the exact opposite of what she is saying; unless the situation is incontrovertibly proven otherwise.

As to the study: I get your point.
However, as it pertains to this particular discussion, part of the article's assessment of the data is yet another debunking of the type of some of the toxic garbage that Sarkeesian likes to spew.
Furthermore, the reason for "harassment" and the method of the "harassment" are 2 different things. Look, when somebody pisses you off, it is often a person's instinct to want to hurt that other person in some way. And thanks to the safety of internet anonymity, it's easy to try to go straight for the jugular; i.e., deliberately try to say what you can imagine as being the most hurtful thing possible. And some people magically grow internet balls, and cross the line; because of the absence of any actual real threat of throat punch (not to mention that cops have better things to do than go tracking down mean people on the internet). So people are pieces of shit on the internet, because LCD.
Like when Lord Mistborn starts throwing around that incendiary "bigot" bullshit. But whatever.

Besides ...

[DSMatticus]

You don't need to go any more than five minutes into the first video in the playlist you linked to know thunderf00t has no idea what he's talking about.

He is arguing in defense of the damsel in distress because "loving partners put into these (wildly implausible) situations would want to rescue one another" (paraphrased). I have no idea why that argument resonated with you, but that is actually a wildly idiotic non-sequitur. The trope is called the damsel in distress, and feminists criticize it because it happens a fuckton more than the dude in distress.

If you believe the media we consume influences our attitudes AND you agree that the damsel in distress occurs more than the dude in distress AND you aren't actually sexist, then it follows that you would like to see less damsels in distress and/or more dudes in distress. Having characters become helpless victims to advance the plot is as valid a storytelling tool as any, but the fact that women make up the majority of helpless plot-advancing victims reinforces rather uncomfortable notions about women.

The core premise that it's unhealthy to associate women with helplessness is fucking rock solid. The problem is that Sarkeesian is an incredibly shitty critic and an incredibly shitty feminist, not that the issues she's talking about aren't real; she fucks up her research, she fucks up the arguments, and to top it all off she's got a sex-negative streak that shrines through occasionally. But the damsel in distress is still a symptom of a very real underlying problem that should be addressed as a step towards equality.

Edit: note that these arguments don't really say anything about whether an individual work is sexist, and that's not accidental. We are talking about attitudes and the way entertainment collectively reinforces them. The question of when an individual work can be condemned as sexist for being part of a larger trend which very clearly is sexist is much thornier, and I'm simply not touching on it. It's irrelevant to whether the larger trend exists, and even in a perfectly egalitarian society where damsels and dudes are interchangeable there would still be damsels in distress and that wouldn't be sexist by definition. Context genuinely matters.

Besides ...

This is somewhat tangential, but...

First off, that image has a logo and a link in it. If you've never been and are just posting it from somewhere else, you should take a quick peek and then reconsider whether or not you want to post that anymore. If you have been and are posting it from there, then Jesus fucking Christ.

Secondly, words kill people. It's a thing. It's incredibly hard to get people to take shit like school bullying seriously, but the fact is that isolating people from healthy relationships with their peers while constantly subjecting them to even minor scorn will (unsurprisingly) drive some non-zero percentage of people to kill themselves. And bullshit nonspirational macros like "toughen up" have the exact opposite effect, in that they don't help people going through that but they do encourage people to blame the victim for being weak.

[Username17]

thunderf00t really put his foot in his mouth several times and I don't even watch his stuff anymore. Basically, way back in the Elevator fiasco he was able to correctly identify that there was something fundamentally wrong with Watson's argument, but he wasn't able to articulate what it was. And then, rather than just saying that, he gibbered incomprehensibly and unsurprisingly said several things that were awful. This caused a shit storm of its own, and then rather than walking it back or just letting it die, he decided to throw a temper tantrum.

Look, people say things that are nominally in the name of feminism that are horrible and regressive all the time. Just like how people say things that are nominally in the name of evolutionary biology but are actually racist bullshit, or things that are nominally in the name of egalitarianism but actually just more of the same "rich people should be allowed to own poor people" shit we've been getting since the days of the pharaohs. The fact that someone says something shitty does not mean that the movement or the ideas that they have voluntarily associated with are bad or wrong. And very importantly, it doesn't mean that blanket attacking everything they say is a particularly good idea.

It is in fact fairly difficult to tease out exactly why Rebecca Watson's elevator speech is offensive or Anita Sarkeesian's portrayal of ideal gender roles is repressive. The catch is actually hidden in quite a lot of text, most of it inoffensive or even self evident. If you can't figure out where the bad argument starts and the standard declarations of human rights as premises end, you shouldn't try to mount a rebuttal at all. Just chime in to say you're pretty sure that's bullshit if you must, and then leave the poop for someone else to pick up.

If you pull a thunderf00t and lash out against whatever strands of argument you can find, you're going to end up repeatedly making arguments against basic human rights and come off as a massive douche. If you just act like the X-Box Live trolls and respond to arguments whose conclusions you don't like with rape threats and invectives, you're going to look like a dangerous cave man.

Rebecca Watson is wrong because she's presenting an impossible standard: getting affirmative consent to ask for affirmative consent. It's infinite regress: you literally can't begin human contact under her rules. But other than that catch-22, pretty much everything she is saying is basic common sense and recognition of human dignity. If you don't correctly identify that single piece of bullshit, anything you say against her is probably not going to come out right. And that is a huge understatement on my part.

Sarkeesian is less of a land mine, because she is a fraudulent hack. Her position is basically that of Phyllis Schlafly, and she loads it down with buzzwords and fake research to use affinity fraud to get money from a different group of people. But even so, you have to be extra double careful to attack her actual fallacious positions, rather than the buzzwords she laces her arguments with in order to appeal to women and people who like women. Because honestly, most people fall into one or both of those categories.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

To be fair, I became more sympathetic to Rebecca Watson's position on realising the added wrinkle of being somewhere where she couldn't just physically fuck off until the lift opened. So, anyone trying to extrapolate her position to when you're in a bar would be full of shit, but inside a lift, maybe.

Of course, I haven't researched and checked the fine details and am blatantly trying to provoke someone into posting citations for my own entertainment... I mean information.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I'd like to point out that ACOS is probably just confused as to what feminism is, and was reflexively defending...the internet? Video game players? Whatever it was, something he enjoyed was mentioned in a negative light by feminists and so he is angry.

He also seems confused as to what bigotry is. He said he enjoyed a video called "If Men Acted Like Feminists" and expected people to nod in agreement. That's like telling people to check out "If Men Acted Like Jews."

ACOS, why do you think feminism is bad. What the fuck do you even think it is?


Also, I can see where Omeg and Watson come from with the elevator thing. There's pressure when you physically can't escape a situation. There are more appropriate times and places to ask for a hookup than when alone in an elevator (almost any other time). It becomes an awkward elevator ride if she says no, so why not ask when one of you is about to leave?

Obviously not worth ranting about, but I dunno. I imagine I'd be a little nervous if somebody who could physically overpower me asked me to fuck them (no matter how innocently) in a place where I couldn't leave after saying no.

[Username17]

To be fair, I became more sympathetic to Rebecca Watson's position on realising the added wrinkle of being somewhere where she couldn't just physically fuck off until the lift opened. So, anyone trying to extrapolate her position to when you're in a bar would be full of shit, but inside a lift, maybe.

Of course, I haven't researched and checked the fine details and am blatantly trying to provoke someone into posting citations for my own entertainment... I mean information.

Being in an elevator is completely irrelevant and rather hurts her argument. She is physically in a confined space, but she's also being monitored by cameras. Why she may "feel" alone, she factually isn't in some very important ways. There is in fact security nearby and an ongoing video recording. Factually, she's much safer in the elevator of a convention center than most other places she could be "alone" with another human being.

Now, taking her at her word, it is apparently factually true that she doesn't feel safe in elevators. But that's also a non-rational and more importantly non-universal feeling. Many people feel more comfortable talking in elevators, because it provides the illusion of privacy and the reality of security and also has a pre-defined end (the doors will in fact open), allowing the social connection to terminate organically and non-awkwardly. There is no way to know that she feels this way or that way until she says so.

Rebecca Watson asking that people respect her latent claustrophobia and not have social interactions in places she feels uncomfortable is simply more of her "ask for affirmative consent to ask for affirmative consent" shellgame. Since it is possible that any person will feel non-rationally uncomfortable in any conceivable situation and not want to talk you for any of infinity reasons, it would be impossible to begin any conversation ever under her rubric.

It's a simple catch-22. The location doesn't matter. The circumstances don't matter. Because the thrust of the argument is that you're supposed to conversationally acquire permission to initiate conversation - which is impossible. While it is demonstrably true that any possible combination of location and circumstances could lead someone to not want you to initiate a communication, you cannot know that until they have given you a sign one way or the other. And that requires that some form of line of communication already be open.

-Username17

[Blade]

From what I understood of the Rebecca Watson incident, the problem is also the fact that young women are getting asked for hookups basically all the time in public places. This and being generally started at lustily, which isn't necessarily a nice experience.

[Username17]

From what I understood of the Rebecca Watson incident, the problem is also the fact that young women are getting asked for hookups basically all the time in public places. This and being generally started at lustily, which isn't necessarily a nice experience.

Those are irrelevant facts. They are true, but they aren't relevant to Rebecca Watson's argument nor to the argument against her. Basically that would be the argument:

• We have to do something.
• This suggestion is something.
• Therefore we must do it.

Rebecca Watson throws a lot of stuff in there about how it's bad for women to be treated like meat, but the thing she is actually attacking is a man asking if she wanted an extended social interaction and then accepting it when she said "No." That's the problem. The anecdotal behavior she brought up is not bad behavior. It's good behavior. And that makes everything else that comes out of her mouth on the subject sound like crazy talk.

There are lots of bad behaviors that happen every day. But asking someone if they would like to have a chat and then leaving when answered in the negative is not one of those things.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

By that study's definition, TGD would be a bunch of horrific scumbags abusing each other all the time.

Wait, is this statement meant to be for or against the validity of the study?

[violence in the media]

From what I understood of the Rebecca Watson incident, the problem is also the fact that young women are getting asked for hookups basically all the time in public places. This and being generally started at lustily, which isn't necessarily a nice experience.

Frank elaborated on this, but this line of argument always leaves me wondering under exactly what circumstances the person making the argument believes it is acceptable to ask someone for a hookup. Like, should there be a chaperone? How 18th-century courtship are we supposed to make this? I don't want to hear about what other circumstances are better, or less not good either; I'd like the layout for when the person making the request is acting in an unimpeachable manner.

And, as a tangent to that, what degree or quantity of additional attempts at persuasion/enticement are acceptable as well.

e.g.
Elevator Dude: "No? Are you sure? It'll be fun; I was awarded oral performer of the year at the 2011 Adult Video Awards. "

Watson: "On second thought, I'm intrigued. Let's go for that coffee."

[Whipstitch]

This conversation has always hit me close to home because the only time I've ever flirted in an elevator it resulted in a woman dressed as Officer Jenny writing her room number on my hand as her sister gave me some serious stinkeye. Cons are the best.

[Josh_Kablack]

By that study's definition, TGD would be a bunch of horrific scumbags abusing each other all the time.

Wait, is this statement meant to be for or against the validity of the study?

I am totally confused, but I think the point is that even invalid methodologies can sometimes generate true results.

[DSMatticus]

To be fair, I became more sympathetic to Rebecca Watson's position on realising the added wrinkle of being somewhere where she couldn't just physically fuck off until the lift opened.

Crime in elevators is a thing, but moreso for people in low-income housing than hotels hosting large convention. There was a camera on them and while it was late at night the con still had people running around because it's a con and that is how cons are. But mostly, it's just bullshit either way. The man asked if she wanted to come up for coffee, likely with the unspoken implication that it might lead to sex. Watson's video responses had two key points; that it was intimidatng and that it was objectifying.

The intimidation aspect is bullshit. Obviously, you are free to be threatened by anything. It's an emotional response to perceived danger, and the things people perceive as danger are essentially arbitrary and run the full spectrum of legitimacy. Some people will avoid the number thirteen. Some will cross the street to avoid black people. Others will leave the locations of open carry demonstrations. And the vast majority will flee from people who are threatening to stab them in the face while brandishing a knife. Fault has to be evaluated by some standard other than perceived danger, or else you end up with people like Geraldo Rivera telling ethnic minorities to stop wearing hoodies and not being able to call them racist shitbags. The man offered coffee and a chat, possibility of sex implied. Nothing more, nothing less. That simply is not an act of intimidation. You might feel threatened by that because "some men are rapists," but to turn that around as an obligation on men to behave a certain way is "how am I supposed to know you're not a rapist? Just assume that all women are worried that you are and leave us alone!" levels of bullshit. It's completely unacceptable.

The objectification aspect is somehow even worse. Even granting that casual sex was the man's primary intention, if you think it automatically follows from a man wanting to have casual sex with you that he is objectifying you, then you have taken such a bitterly cynical view of male sexuality that you are actually a misandrist asshole. Objectification is a real problem, but male sexuality is not inherently objectifying and to declare that it is is mind-bogglingly offensive. There is simply nothing wrong with casual sex. It's just a thing ordinary people sometimes do because sex is fun; fuck the fundies and their sexual mores!

[Neeeek]

Being in an elevator is completely irrelevant and rather hurts her argument. She is physically in a confined space, but she's also being monitored by cameras. Why she may "feel" alone, she factually isn't in some very important ways. There is in fact security nearby and an ongoing video recording. Factually, she's much safer in the elevator of a convention center than most other places she could be "alone" with another human being.

That's not really true. The existence of cameras doesn't make her actually safer, it makes it easier to catch an attacker later if something happens. If her concern is being attacked, not her attacker being punished (which it presumably is), then being stuck in an elevator is a problem, because there is nowhere she can go to avoid someone she finds threatening.

Theoretically, the cameras might be a deterrent, but that requires the person who needs deterring to know there is a camera on them, and think about it when the situation comes up. I know I usually only am cognizant of camera in elevators when I am alone in them. Otherwise, I'm dealing with the people in there with me.

[violence in the media]

That's not really true. The existence of cameras doesn't make her actually safer, it makes it easier to catch an attacker later if something happens. If her concern is being attacked, not her attacker being punished (which it presumably is), then being stuck in an elevator is a problem, because there is nowhere she can go to avoid someone she finds threatening.

Theoretically, the cameras might be a deterrent, but that requires the person who needs deterring to know there is a camera on them, and think about it when the situation comes up. I know I usually only am cognizant of camera in elevators when I am alone in them. Otherwise, I'm dealing with the people in there with me.

This makes the argument sound even more ridiculous, because now it sounds like the world[/i] is supposed to understand that Rebecca Watson finds it threatening to be alone...with a man(!)...in any vaguely confined circumstances, no matter how temporary or observed. If the dude just got in the elevator to go to his room, would we have gotten a blog-whine about he should have waited for the next elevator--because it was late and she was sleepy and that was scary to have him silently in there with her and OMG he might see what floor she's on--and he foolishly didn't realize that she's insane?

[ACOS]

Okay, so I've now been a little more informed about this thunderf00t guy. That being said, his specific critique of Sarkeesian is spot-on. He is very detailed about her lies, doublespeak, and shell games. Say what you want about him; but his critique of Sarkeesian isn't a problem.

You don't need to go any more than five minutes into the first video in the playlist you linked to know thunderf00t has no idea what he's talking about.

He is arguing in defense of the damsel in distress because "loving partners put into these (wildly implausible) situations would want to rescue one another" (paraphrased). I have no idea why that argument resonated with you, but that is actually a wildly idiotic non-sequitur. The trope is called the damsel in distress, and feminists criticize it because it happens a fuckton more than the dude in distress.

I'll admit that he is a bit clumsy about it at times; but I simply take it that he's just so frustrated at the thing, that he ends up putting too much stuff on the heap - "jumps the shark", so to speak. He's also trying to convince people to simply lighten-up and stop being so thin-skinned about shit.
I am in no way saying that sexism doesn't exist. I am, however, saying that there are way too many instances where mountains are made of molehills, and where windmills are perceived as giants. The story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an ingrained part of the cultural consciousness for a reason; and the results are entirely predictable.

If you believe the media we consume influences our attitudes AND you agree that the damsel in distress occurs more than the dude in distress AND you aren't actually sexist, then it follows that you would like to see less damsels in distress and/or more dudes in distress. Having characters become helpless victims to advance the plot is as valid a storytelling tool as any, but the fact that women make up the majority of helpless plot-advancing victims reinforces rather uncomfortable notions about women.

The core premise that it's unhealthy to associate women with helplessness is fucking rock solid. The problem is that Sarkeesian is an incredibly shitty critic and an incredibly shitty feminist, not that the issues she's talking about aren't real; she fucks up her research, she fucks up the arguments, and to top it all off she's got a sex-negative streak that shrines through occasionally. But the damsel in distress is still a symptom of a very real underlying problem that should be addressed as a step towards equality.

What you've said here is correct. The problem is that people seem to only really care about media that is "for men, by men", or whatever. Nobody fucking cares about media that is "for women, by women" (myself included), because people realize that it's just yet another niche that is being served for those willing to buy it; but if something is "for men, by men", then people lose their fucking minds.
My central problem has to do with double-standards. And I'm sick and tired of people making up their own rules about what they want to cry about, and then constantly shoving it in my face.
If women are upset that there isn't enough "woman-friendly media" out there, then the only solution to that problem is for more women to go out and make that media. It's window-licking retarded to expect men to be able to cater to women's sensibilities; and anyone who insists that they do is equally retarded.

And seriously, given the content of both your most recent post as well as the one quoted here, I'm telling you that the two of us aren't actually that far apart on this issue - don't get lost in the minutiae.

Besides ...

This is somewhat tangential, but...

First off, that image has a logo and a link in it. If you've never been and are just posting it from somewhere else, you should take a quick peek and then reconsider whether or not you want to post that anymore. If you have been and are posting it from there, then Jesus fucking Christ.

I did, in fact, just grab that image off of a completely different and unrelated site.
That being said, I've since spent about 20 minutes snooping around the original site; as well as over an hour on Master Chim's facebook page. And aside from his apparent Viking fetish, I don't see anything to get all up-in-arms over. Sure, I can see how, at first glance, how the whole mma-alpha-male-tough-guy motif might be a little off-putting. But when you dig down in to his Core Values, he's nothing more than a run-of-the-mill traditionalist. And he's big on stuff like duty, honor, integrity, respect, and dignity ... a person could do worse than to try to understand and appreciate where he's coming from.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving him a blanket endorsement. I'm just saying that he appears to be a stand-up guy with a sense of moral clarity ... there are certainly worse things in the world. And if you look at the fact that he happens to accept "gender roles", and fixate over that to the point that you negate or ignore the rest of it, then I'd say you've missed the forest for the trees.

Secondly, words kill people.

Wrong. People choose to allow words to motivate them, sometimes to deadly action. This is a very complex, complicated, nuanced, and even delicate issue; and I find the rhetorically reductionist manner in which you've broached the topic to be rather irresponsible and myopic.

Now, I'd say that further discussion of these last 2 topics (i.e., ThePressureProject and "words kill") might warrant their own threads. If you still want to discuss them, I'm game.

---

He also seems confused as to what bigotry is. He said he enjoyed a video called "If Men Acted Like Feminists" and expected people to nod in agreement. That's like telling people to check out "If Men Acted Like Jews."

ACOS, why do you think feminism is bad. What the fuck do you even think it is?

The "If Men Acted Like Feminists" is a parody bit aimed at demonstrating the ridiculousness of some of the various aspects of the "feminist" crusade against "sexism"; showing how much of today's agenda is Tilting At Windmills, or is otherwise taking itself too seriously; as well as highlighting certain double-standards.
As parody, I found it humorous in its truthiness.

To answer your question:
Feminism, as a concept - that is, the desire for social gender equality - is quite laudable on its face.
As a movement, however, it's much a different story. In recent years - that is to say, within my lifetime - the movement has been hijacked by extremist elements, and has been turned in to an excuse to just generically hate on anything that has to do with men that doesn't involve men worshiping at women's feet. They go out of their way to find an excuse to call something sexists/misogynist, with the necessary presumption that they're going to find it. And that's bullshit.
The term "feminazi" isn't derogatory to women; it refers to the embodiment of a certain type of attitude, and it is a caricature that actually does really exist in real life. Unfortunately, the feminist movement has been, by and large, hijacked by the feminazi sect - complete with lies and invented statistics and all other sorts of misandry - and I find it to actually be quite counterproductive.
As it pertains to this discussion, Sarkeesian is one such example of said caricature. Unfortunately, many people misunderstand the application of that caricature, and inappropriately assume it to be misogynistic. But the fact remains, she uses lies and false data to promote her Chicken Little crusade, all under the guise of "feminism".

That's not really true. The existence of cameras doesn't make her actually safer, it makes it easier to catch an attacker later if something happens. If her concern is being attacked, not her attacker being punished (which it presumably is), then being stuck in an elevator is a problem, because there is nowhere she can go to avoid someone she finds threatening.

Theoretically, the cameras might be a deterrent, but that requires the person who needs deterring to know there is a camera on them, and think about it when the situation comes up. I know I usually only am cognizant of camera in elevators when I am alone in them. Otherwise, I'm dealing with the people in there with me.

(for those who might be unclear: that's what's called a "joke"; lighten up)

[Kaelik]

My central problem has to do with double-standards. And I'm sick and tired of people making up their own rules about what they want to cry about, and then constantly shoving it in my face.
If women are upset that there isn't enough "woman-friendly media" out there, then the only solution to that problem is for more women to go out and make that media. It's window-licking retarded to expect men to be able to cater to women's sensibilities; and anyone who insists that they do is equally retarded.

If poor people are upset that there isn't enough poor people friendly legislation, they should just go out and buy their own legislators. It's not like there are factors inherent in the current system that significantly prevent them from doing so, and that those are they things we are trying to change...

Oh wait, it is exactly like that.

To answer your question:
Feminism, as a concept - that is, the desire for social gender equality - is quite laudable on its face.
As a movement, however, it's much a different story. In recent years - that is to say, within my lifetime - the movement has been hijacked by extremist elements, and has been turned in to an excuse to just generically hate on anything that has to do with men that doesn't involve men worshiping at women's feet. They go out of their way to find an excuse to call something sexists/misogynist, with the necessary presumption that they're going to find it. And that's bullshit.

No what happened is the exact same bullshit PR experts that got Bush elected twice and told everyone that democrats destroy the economy also started using the exact same PR techniques, mostly taking advantage of Overton Window Shifting, confirmation bias, and the ability to direct the public's attention where they want it, to brainwash idiots like you into thinking feminism is bad wrong.

And you fell for it, because you are an idiot.

[nockermensch]

I am in no way saying that sexism doesn't exist. I am, however, saying that there are way too many instances where mountains are made of molehills, and where windmills are perceived as giants.

Dude, no. Whatever this "way too many" number of instances of women crying wolf are, they still pale next to the very real number of women being legit abused by men and needing help. I won't deny something like "tumblr feminists" or "SJW" exist, but these are more properly called "teens and twenty-somethings being stupid". Pointing to tumblr to decry the state of modern feminism is like pointing to 4chan 8chan to show how horrible anti-feminism is. You'll only see the louder idiots like this.

My central problem has to do with double-standards. And I'm sick and tired of people making up their own rules about what they want to cry about, and then constantly shoving it in my face.
If women are upset that there isn't enough "woman-friendly media" out there, then the only solution to that problem is for more women to go out and make that media. It's window-licking retarded to expect men to be able to cater to women's sensibilities; and anyone who insists that they do is equally retarded.

So, let me get this straight: Are you arguing for White History month and the end of affirmative action, right?

[Mistborn]

The term "feminazi" isn't derogatory to women; it refers to the embodiment of a certain type of attitude, and it is a caricature that actually does really exist in real life.

Yes "feminazi" is a fucking derogatory term fuckface, it's a slur aginst anyone who advocates for feminist causes. The fact you think that turn of phrase is even remotely acceptable just outs out as the worst kind of fedora bedecked MRA douchebag.

[DSMatticus]

That being said, his specific critique of Sarkeesian is spot-on.

No, no it isn't, because of that thing I said and more. Thunderf00t does not restrict himself to criticizing Sarkeesian's arguments, he is criticizing Sarkeesian's position. Sarkeesian's position is sane, but her arguments are so fucking terrible she does the position discredit. Thunderf00t does not get that, and that is why his videos are bad, bad, bad even though the videos he is criticizing are also bad, bad, bad.

What you've said here is correct. The problem is that people seem to only really care about media that is "for men, by men", or whatever. Nobody fucking cares about media that is "for women, by women" (myself included), because people realize that it's just yet another niche that is being served for those willing to buy it; but if something is "for men, by men", then people lose their fucking minds.

Oh, I get why you you thought that was a good argument. It is because you are stupid in exactly the same way thunderf00t is. If 75% of media consumed is "for men, by men" and 25% of media consumed is "for women, by women," do you think that will help reinforce within society (among both men and women) a male-centric perspective of gender roles? The focus of the complaints is the inequality of representation!

Now, the ideal is to just have "for men, by men"/"for women, by women" not mean anything; to have sex/gender be irrelevant. But that's not going to happen for a long-fucking-time/forever, and balancing the power each side enjoys is an important step along the way, and it is the step we are at.

If women are upset that there isn't enough "woman-friendly media" out there, then the only solution to that problem is for more women to go out and make that media. It's window-licking retarded to expect men to be able to cater to women's sensibilities; and anyone who insists that they do is equally retarded.

And seriously, given the content of both your most recent post as well as the one quoted here, I'm telling you that the two of us aren't actually that far apart on this issue - don't get lost in the minutiae.

We actually are very far apart, because you are a bigoted asshole who thinks the correct answer to sexism in media is ignore it until it goes away (it won't), and I am a sane not-asshole-though-sometimes-I-play-one-on-the-internet who thinks the correct answer to sexism is to encourage media depictions which help kill it the fuck dead. You are concern-trolling in the name of misogyny, and I'm a feminist who is pissed off that a bunch of journalists are going to get away with standing up for censorship by shouting misogynist into a megaphone in the name of a cause I support.

Your actual suggestion for fixing potentially sexist trends in media is "well, women should do something about that." Because clearly there is no institutional inertial in anything at all and the solution to all deeply-engrained social problems is for someone somewhere to just wish hard enough. That makes it very clear you do not actually give a fuck about the success of the cause, or are a naive child.

Wrong. People choose to allow words to motivate them, sometimes to deadly action. This is a very complex, complicated, nuanced, and even delicate issue; and I find the rhetorically reductionist manner in which you've broached the topic to be rather irresponsible and myopic.

I can tell this is going to be fun.

Instead of talking about suicides related to school bullying, let's talk about suicides related to parental sexual abuse. Please tell us all about how "complex, complicated, nuanced, and even delicate" a matter that is and how "rhetorically reductionist" and "irresponsible" I'm being to suggest that sometimes we can assign responsibility to proximate causes of a suicide and not to its victims. Remember; it's not like the parents are the ones putting the guns in their children's mouths. It's the children who "choose" to allow themselves to be "motivated" to "deadly action."

Alternatively, you can admit that assigning responsibility for suicide to proximate causes will sometimes be appropriate, and that therefore your "toughen up" macro is actually deeply offensive victim-blaming in some huge number of cases.

That being said, I've since spent about 20 minutes snooping around the original site; as well as over an hour on Master Chim's facebook page. And aside from his apparent Viking fetish, I don't see anything to get all up-in-arms over. Sure, I can see how, at first glance, how the whole mma-alpha-male-tough-guy motif might be a little off-putting. But when you dig down in to his Core Values, he's nothing more than a run-of-the-mill traditionalist. And he's big on stuff like duty, honor, integrity, respect, and dignity ... a person could do worse than to try to understand and appreciate where he's coming from.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving him a blanket endorsement. I'm just saying that he appears to be a stand-up guy with a sense of moral clarity ... there are certainly worse things in the world. And if you look at the fact that he happens to accept "gender roles", and fixate over that to the point that you negate or ignore the rest of it, then I'd say you've missed the forest for the trees.

There is an image macro on the site almost literally saying that a woman's place is in the kitchen and attempting to pass that off as positive by describing it as a "strong family." One of the podcasts on the front page discusses the "the murder of masculinity" (it's in the title) by the media. He is not pro- any of those values you mentioned, he is pro-masculinity, and he defines masculinity as a bunch of seemingly positive things while lamenting the good old days when people solved their problems by beating eachother up like real men.

He is an almost comically shitbaggish socially conservative mansplainer.

[Neeeek]

My central problem has to do with double-standards. And I'm sick and tired of people making up their own rules about what they want to cry about, and then constantly shoving it in my face.
If women are upset that there isn't enough "woman-friendly media" out there, then the only solution to that problem is for more women to go out and make that media. It's window-licking retarded to expect men to be able to cater to women's sensibilities; and anyone who insists that they do is equally retarded.

If poor people are upset that there isn't enough poor people friendly legislation, they should just go out and buy their own legislators. It's not like there are factors inherent in the current system that significantly prevent them from doing so, and that those are they things we are trying to change...

There is also a whole thing where if some form of media features a woman, a minority or a homosexual and it fails, that is often claimed to be the reason. Not "It sucked" which is the reasoning that would be used if it was a straight white man.

[hyzmarca]

From what I understood of the Rebecca Watson incident, the problem is also the fact that young women are getting asked for hookups basically all the time in public places. This and being generally started at lustily, which isn't necessarily a nice experience.

Frank elaborated on this, but this line of argument always leaves me wondering under exactly what circumstances the person making the argument believes it is acceptable to ask someone for a hookup. Like, should there be a chaperone? How 18th-century courtship are we supposed to make this? I don't want to hear about what other circumstances are better, or less not good either; I'd like the layout for when the person making the request is acting in an unimpeachable manner.

Logically speaking, you start with something neutral and unassuming "wow, I can't believe the weather that we're having, how about them Yankees." If conversation ensues, then you have introductions. If the opening gets ignored, then no harm. Follow introductions with proposal to continue conversation in a quiet public or semi-public place. In other words the phrase "for coffee" is connected to the noun "Starbucks" rather than "my room".

Hypothetically.

I mean, at least talk for a little bit before the sexual proposition.

[Leress]

hyzmarca, you don't know about the details of the Watson's elevator encounter were do you?

Here:

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-myth ... and-jokes/

There a thread about it here:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54833

[Maj]

Oh, god. Not this shit again. Fortunately, there's a search function: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54833