Feminism and the emasculation of men

KyussBishop

Piliger wrote: »

The intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. It is clear from all of your escalating questionable posts, that you are simply playing games and twisting facts and comments made by male posters. Your attempts to turn the reality of the situation upside down at every turn to deny the legitimacy of the discussion is evidently for one reason and one reason only, to disrupt the discussion with irrelevant and patently false 'argument'.

You accused me of 'misandry' earlier, without anything to back that up, which is a smear and a deliberate lie.

You know full well that is bullshít, and again now, you're trying to paint me as having a problem with male posters, which I'll be happy for you to go on doing, as it is highlighting the extent to which you will go to lie and smear other posters.


Your (and tritium's) tactic in the thread now is:
Take any criticism I apply to either of you, and pretend it applies to me - without any backing - and then stonewall.
In your own case, you take it a step further, and go on the pathetic path of trying to smear me as a misandrist.

Your direct and blatantly obvious lie in your post above, shows your lack of credibility and dishonesty, and lends backing to my own points outlining various dishonest methods of argument in your post.

KyussBishop

smoking_kills wrote: »

Search you-tube-search Google.

The feminists who are most vocal are leading the movement. As such they represent the movement, the silent majority are just that, silent.
You will find opposing views like trutium and other have said, but look at the views on the video/blog/website compared to the alternative view. Its obvious to anyone who follows the online and even offline feminist movement who speaks for movement, and what their views are!

Again "it's obvious", and "look up some feminsts on youtube", both are fallacious arguments - and you're relying upon generalizing from part of the feminist movement, to the whole - once again.

You can't prove a generalization, by using another form of the same generalization - it's a circular argument.

smoking_kills

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again "it's obvious", and "look up some feminsts on youtube", both are fallacious arguments - and you're relying upon generalizing from part of the feminist movement, to the whole - once again.

You can't prove a generalization, by using another form of the same generalization - it's a circular argument.

Anita Sarkeesian is now the self proclaimed (and by others) face of feminism in gaming. That's not generalizing. There are plenty of feminists who disagree with her, but do not get the attention or following she gets.

Piliger

smoking_kills wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian is now the self proclaimed (and by others) face of feminism in gaming. That's not generalizing. There are plenty of feminists who disagree with her, but do not get the attention or following she gets.

It's the typical argument when men try to discuss our need to fight for fairness and justice to divert it into semantic nonsense and the 'meaning' of feminist. It's not the first nor the last time.

smoking_kills

Piliger wrote: »

It's the typical argument when men try to discuss our need to fight for fairness and justice to divert it into semantic nonsense and the 'meaning' of feminist. It's not the first nor the last time.

Like I said, you can be any TYPE of feminist you like, but you DON'T speak for the movement, hence NO ONE will listen to you.

Its women like Anita who speak for your movement, whether you like it or not.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said earlier, they're getting things done and they're not being vocally opposed. Even if a majority don't agree with them, they are facillitating their actions by failing to do anything to oppose them.

I don't think that would be facilitating/supporting their views/actions - I wouldn't personally expect people to speak out against crackpot groups that try to fly under the same banner; would be good if they did more, but I don't think it can be pinned on them as an obligation, or representative of their views.

A political party is one thing (silence there can be tacit support, sure), but a diverse collection of political movements is different.

I'd also say that it'd be difficult to claim nobody speaks out on it either (which I realize you didn't claim, but I would not be surprised to find people speaking out on it - just probably not handed the megaphone that the crackpots are, in the media).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Thanks For the record, I don't have any issue with you either, as you probably know I actually greatly admire a lot of your political ideologies and your debating style.

Cheers and same, as I don't think there are many other posters also knowledgeable of and who care about monetary reform.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What if it can be shown, as I have with some links which I can repost if you like, that whether they are majority held views or not, they are succeeding in changing rules, regulations and policies in various areas and therefore restricting people's freedom? Even if not backed by the majority, this cannot be ignored.

I'd agree with you, that there's definitely a significant part of the modern feminist movement, who hold quite harmful views, and I agree they need to be tackled - and it would be good for the wider feminist movement to participate with this - I'm just very careful/wary about anything, that hints at generalizing about the wider movement, as I think it's pretty easy for generalizations (if not challenged) to become unquestioned, even if they are unbacked.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

People are just making sweeping generalizations without any kind of backing.

Well as I say, I have in fact backed mine up, I'll happily provide more references if you're interested?

Ah, was it backed with case-by-case examples, or with something that can be considered a sample of the whole movement?

The trouble with this, is that when you take a case-by-case example - like listing prominent authors or academics - you can't use that to back up a generalization about the whole movement, because to do that, you have to rely on generalizing specific examples to the whole movement (i.e. you rely on the same generalization, to prove the generalization - it's a circular argument).

I don't recall what you posted, but to give merit to a generalization, there kind of needs to be a statistic that gives some kind of reliable percentage figure - such as among feminist academics, people studying feminism/gender-equality or such (which would give merit to the generalization for those specific groups), or best of all, stats on the wider political movement itself (more difficult, but definitive).

So far I don't think there's been anything like that in the thread.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said, I don't regard them as representative of the majority, or as I said, "feminists", but they are representing feminism to a certain extent when their policies are being implemented by governments and institutions on the grounds of self-styled "feminist campaigns".
It would be entirely different if people like myself were falsely accusing them of calling themselves feminists, but they do self identify as such, that's not something I'm merely pulling out of thin air.

Ya but the problem there, is it seems still like generalizing about feminism - generalizing about what the political movements advocate is also a problem.

A group that is politically influential, isn't necessarily representative of the wider movement either - which can be seen with many different kinds of political lobbying (particularly business lobbying and such).

I think the problems you (and others) are pointing out are real, and important, I just (again) think that the generalizations can be harmful and not warranted.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

True, and actually to a certain extent the same applies to you - very reasonable and moderate arguments. Maybe we should grab an island somewhere and start our own country?

Heh - hell probably the only other person on this island to understand the issue of monetary reform; certainly something I've thought of being politically active about (though wouldn't know where to begin).

KyussBishop

smoking_kills wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian is now the self proclaimed (and by others) face of feminism in gaming. That's not generalizing. There are plenty of feminists who disagree with her, but do not get the attention or following she gets.

She seems like a prominent feminist, sure, but to claim she is the face of feminism is generalizing - that generalization might be appropriate, but it would need to be shown, by proving that a large enough number of the feminist community agrees with her - that's hard to do.

Just because someone has a media spotlight, doesn't make them an accurate representation of the views of the wider movement - a lot of the crackpots get given the media spotlight, just because they are controversial.

smoking_kills

KyussBishop wrote: »

She seems like a prominent feminist, sure, but to claim she is the face of feminism is generalizing - that generalization might be appropriate, but it would need to be shown, by proving that a large enough number of the feminist community agrees with her - that's hard to do.

Just because someone has a media spotlight, doesn't make them an accurate representation of the views of the wider movement - a lot of the crackpots get given the media spotlight, just because they are controversial.

self proclaimed face of feminism in gaming

That's what i actually said, I did not say the face of feminism....it is different


doesn't make them an accurate representation of the views of the wider movement


Yes, to the public at large it does, if no one else has a voice, how can the public tell what the wider movements views actually are....telepathy???

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

tritium you can play the idiotic 'turn all questions back to the poster asking them' game all day, it's transparent for anyone to see who is reading the thread, and makes it really obvious that you are dodging backing up your generalizations.

What generalisations did I make Kyuss. I called you on trying to define you own little version of the word feminist, a definition that is inherently flawed because it omits a key part of the definition (those five words you had a minor hissy fit about earlier). In effect you did the very thing you accused libertarians of a few pages back

You make the generalization, you need to provide the proof - proof that doesn't rely on making the exact same generalization (i.e. selective samples, making it a circular argument) - the burden of proof is on you - and you can even use your own definition of feminism to do it as well.

Thats exactly what I've repeatedly asked you to do. I'm still waiting

I made no generalizations, I don't need to backup any claims.

"
'The feminists' is anyone who fits the definition of feminism, which (being about equality between genders) arguably fits the majority of the population -"
" if the people you speak of, don't support equality, it's not right to generalize them as representative of feminism, because there are way more feminists who truly do support equality."

"just because many feminists don't advocate on mens issues, doesn't mean they'd be opposed to that - many could easily be open to advocation on mens issues, if informed about them."

"Feminists are much more widely present in the population than people assume, and
2: The fringe groups are a lot less representative than people think."
"
What the silent majority thinks is the most important part about feminism, simply because they are the majority, and they dwarf the politically active fringe elements that are being talked about here."

So, how do you define generalisations in your dictionary?

KyussBishop

smoking_kills wrote: »

self proclaimed face of feminism in gaming

That's what i actually said, I did not say the face of feminism....it is different


doesn't make them an accurate representation of the views of the wider movement


Yes, to the public at large it does, if no one else has a voice, how can the public tell what the wider movements views actually are....telepathy???

Ok, I misinterpreted you there; I see what you're saying, but that still doesn't justify the generalizations:
If the public thinks the feminist movement is accurately represented, by certain people with questionable views, that doesn't mean those views are actually representative of the movement (I get that the public can see it that way though), and so, that isn't a justification for generalizing.

That's a form of 'argument ad populum'.

KyussBishop

Since nobody else is bothering much with statistics, here are some:

Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes
Only one-fifth of Americans identify as feminists, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word.

According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans -- including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men -- consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither.
...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

'Few' makes it sound like a small number, but that 20% is 62 million people in the United States alone - would have a tough time linking that many people, to radical feminist views, or other questionable views that people are generalizing to the wider feminist movement.

Piliger

smoking_kills wrote: »

Yes, to the public at large it does, if no one else has a voice, how can the public tell what the wider movements views actually are....telepathy???

A question oft asked by men in relationships..

Yes. The truth is that feminism is as feminism does. This is the face of the feminism that we, as men, have to deal with. The face of feminism that has taken over the media and political agenda. Again International Women's day. What was a useful day of focus many years ago has become an appalling anachronism.

pundy

Piliger wrote: »

A question oft asked by men in relationships..

Yes. The truth is that feminism is as feminism does. This is the face of the feminism that we, as men, have to deal with. The face of feminism that has taken over the media and political agenda. Again International Women's day. What was a useful day of focus many years ago has become an appalling anachronism.

Ignore it and it shall be no more.

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

What generalisations did I make Kyuss. I called you on trying to define you own little version of the word demi ist, a definition that is inherently flawed because it omits a key part of the definition (those five words you had a minor hissy fit about earlier). In effect you did the very thing you accused libertarians of a few pages back

Eh? You tried to take equality out of the definition of feminism, and then tried to warp the definition of feminism as being about inequality, by jumping to multiple conclusions about the 'womens rights' part of the definition.

tritium wrote: »

Thats exactly what I've repeatedly asked you to do. I'm still waiting

What generalizations have I made? You're just messing around with demanding from me, what I ask of you, as an excuse for stonewalling.

Here's one of your generalizations:

tritium wrote: »

On the other hand there is a considerable slew of academic feminism, which is the heart of defining feminist theory, that runs little beyond anti men hate speech - and which is somewhat surprisingly tolerated where other forms of hate speech wouldn't be

tritium wrote: »

My issue is more the uncriticised hate speech (and actions) coming from academic feminism and they way they've hijacked the word equality (taking in souls like yourself along the way)

Got any stats to back up this generalization about academic feminism?


Looking back, I actually agree with a lot of what is in this post (parts not on the definition of feminism):
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89259409&postcount=780

So opinions are not necessarily so far apart, yet there are still generalizations getting used, and seemingly the defense of being able to use generalizations overall, which is my main sticking point here.

tritium wrote: »

"'The feminists' is anyone who fits the definition of feminism, which (being about equality between genders) arguably fits the majority of the population -"
" if the people you speak of, don't support equality, it's not right to generalize them as representative of feminism, because there are way more feminists who truly do support equality."

"just because many feminists don't advocate on mens issues, doesn't mean they'd be opposed to that - many could easily be open to advocation on mens issues, if informed about them."

"Feminists are much more widely present in the population than people assume, and
2: The fringe groups are a lot less representative than people think."
"
What the silent majority thinks is the most important part about feminism, simply because they are the majority, and they dwarf the politically active fringe elements that are being talked about here."

So, how do you define generalisations in your dictionary?

My link in my previous post there, shows that (in the US at least) most people support equality, which backs what I said regarding the 'equality' definition of feminism earlier - it doesn't require that they identify with feminism, only that they can fit the definition.

The article also says:

asked if they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did

The percentage supporting feminism explicitly (rather than equality), was just 20%, so my other statement that (by the dictionary definition) most support equality, is correct by a vast majority.

So there you go, I proved that all of my claims you posted, have significant merit (pretty much beyond dispute).

Piliger

Again in the Irish Times today - yet another sexist attack on men.

"Quarter of Irish women have been victims of violence" and two pages of total exclusion of statistics about violence against men in relationships. A total and complete whitewash of the ongoing domestic violence against men.

http://www.cosc.ie/

29% of women and 26% of men suffer domestic abuse when severe abuse and minor incidents are combined
13% of women and 13% of men suffer physical abuse or minor physical incidents and
29% of women (1 in 3) and only 5% of men (1 in 20) report to the Gardaí.

But no. According to "the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) " Men do not exist except as violent aggressors. Women only exist as victims.

Appalling.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

According to "the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) " Men do not exist except as violent aggressors. Women only exist as victims.

A myth that existed long, long before feminism... and can be propagated by men.

Foxtrol

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

A myth that existed long, long before feminism... and can be propagated by men.

I’ve noticed a general trend from ‘feminist’ posters on this thread to dismiss any anti-male issues if men could play any involvement in the problem; they are laws ‘written by men’ or now a stereotype ‘propagated by men’.

A female manager who doesn’t has little resources could decide not to hire a woman because she is in the age group where there’s a high chance of requiring maternity leave, should this issue be ignored because a female could be involved?

It’s a very easy, yet poor, excuse to sidestep actually discussing an issue that is raised.

Freddie Dodge

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh - hell probably the only other person on this island to understand the issue of monetary reform; certainly something I've thought of being politically active about (though wouldn't know where to begin).

Problem with that Island is that despite your attempts to be more "understanding" of women, few of them would be interested in joining you there. Maybe a few of the "all PIV is rape" crew might want you around for some menial or dirty tasks, but the normal lovely hotties would be on MY island. Piliger and tritium would probably be there too.

Besides you and Htrick would soon run out of money for your left leaning political system, and in your efforts to borrow your way out of the problem, we'd end up owning your Island.

To add insult to injury, I'd declare bitcoin the national currency there.

Piliger

Foxtrol wrote: »

It’s a very easy, yet poor, excuse to sidestep actually discussing an issue that is raised.

Which is, of course, the very motive behind the comments.

Piliger

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

A myth that existed long, long before feminism... and can be propagated by men.

Oh yes. Unfortunately we have a large proportion of self loathing me these days, produced by the decades long drip drip drip of misandrous media.

KyussBishop

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Problem with that Island is that despite your attempts to be more "understanding" of women, few of them would be interested in joining you there. Maybe a few of the "all PIV is rape" crew might want you around for some menial or dirty tasks, but the normal lovely hotties would be on MY island. Piliger and tritium would probably be there too.

Besides you and Htrick would soon run out of money for your left leaning political system, and in your efforts to borrow your way out of the problem, we'd end up owning your Island.

To add insult to injury, I'd the declare bitcoin the national currency there.

Heh, you know this actually sums up perfectly, the type of schoolyard tribalism that these kind of "Us vs Them" ideologically-divided threads - on topics of mens-rights/feminism, bitcoin/cyber-libertarianism, among more - tend to turn to.

Piliger

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh, you know this actually sums up perfectly, the type of schoolyard tribalism that these kind of "Us vs Them" ideologically-divided threads - on topics of mens-rights/feminism, bitcoin/cyber-libertarianism, among more - tend to turn to.

Unfortunately that is the very intention of most non-male posters.

Femme_Fatale

Foxtrol wrote: »

I’ve noticed a general trend from ‘feminist’ posters on this thread to dismiss any anti-male issues if men could play any involvement in the problem; they are laws ‘written by men’ or now a stereotype ‘propagated by men’.

I knew someone would dismiss my post by saying it was an attempt to side-step. It is not. It is simply saying: blame feminism when feminism is to blame, don't blame every issue faced by men due to their gender, on feminism. Because that's simply incorrect. Similarly, not every negative issue women have faced is because of men. Plenty of them have been propagated by women, and most of them by society in general... as with anything.
You don't have to be a feminist to be of a different view to you on this thread btw. And I have not for one second dismissed negatives which men experience due to being men. If anything I've highlighted some of those issues.

A female manager who doesn’t has little resources could decide not to hire a woman because she is in the age group where there’s a high chance of requiring maternity leave, should this issue be ignored because a female could be involved?

It's a realistic business decision at times that could be made by a woman or a man; I'm not ecstatic about it, but I see how it could be necessary for some businesses.

Piliger wrote: »

Oh yes. Unfortunately we have a large proportion of self loathing me these days, produced by the decades long drip drip drip of misandrous media.

I don't know if those men are self loathing; I think they just buy into nonsense like "Men are the aggressors/predators, women are the victims", "Men can always fend for themselves", "Men should only ever be strong and never show vulnerability", "Men can't be assaulted by women" and "Men certainly can't be sexually assaulted by women".
The above views are as old as the hills and instilled in a lot of men's and women's psyches.

Femme_Fatale

Piliger wrote: »

Which is, of course, the very motive behind the comments.

A lie.

There is International Men's Day in November btw. And I don't see a problem with it.

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

Unfortunately that is the very intention of most non-male posters.

Indeed.

We all just want to crush men under our high heels and make them our sex slaves....

pity I don't wear high heels or have sex with men...

I suppose that latter part make me anti-man.

Men - do you know who these feminists are?
Really are?
They are your mothers. Your sisters. Your aunts. Your daughters. Your nieces.

What do the vast majority want? - to be given the same opportunities and treatment as their fathers. Their brothers. Their uncles. Their sons. Their nephews.

Most don't give a flying about who claims to be 'the face of feminism' or what any academic writes in some obscure journal. They want to be treated as of equal value. That is it.

Now please - continue your rants.

KyussBishop

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

A lie.

And far from the first - the last post says it all really:

Piliger wrote: »

Unfortunately that is the very intention of most non-male posters.

Some severe cognitive dissonance going on, where someone can be accused of misandry based on nothing earlier, and then stuff like the above can be spouted, apparently without even a pause for thought...

Femme_Fatale

Incarnations wrote: »

That's because lots of guys would have liked to have had sex with an attractive female teacher.

Point - missed.

A teacher still shouldn't be having sex with their pupil, even if the pupil wants it.

GalwayGuy2

We all just want to crush men under our high heels and make them our sex slaves....

:eek:

pity I don't wear high heels or have sex with men...

Bannasidhe

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

:eek:

ummmm....

soz.

But that's just me. I know many feminists who really like having sex with men and this mate of mine has these high heeled boots made from snakeskin and.... opps...off topic...

pharmaton

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now please - continue your farts.

fyp