Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you miss them addressing the UN?

No. They were addressing the UN regarding online harassment, which is an actual issue that needs an actual solution.

You can say that the UN stuff was biased or one sided because they aren't considering abuse that men and boys receive. OK, I'd agree with that.

All of that assumes that the UN is actually in a position to actually do anything.

If they did then I am sure that applications implemented on Twitter, Facebook etc to stop abuse against woman could be used by men anyway.

It's all very hypothetical. I'm not seeing any actual negative impact here?

She has the ear of the UN with a view to stopping harassment. Fine. That's a real problem that really should be dealt with.

silverharp

I guess Orubiro, it seems to feed into a perceived anti male bias in society. I'm immune to it personally and its more a form of entertainment , but you can't have a society narrative that says men are bad women are good and not have any negative consequences. How boys are taught, the perceived role and value of fathers, attitudes to justice. Take that waterloo station false rape case for example, that is directly as a result of the recent feminist narrative. What's next is the quandry? Switching off and ignoring it all is cool. Be aware if it and chuckle in amusement when you spot it in real life or in the media.

JPNelsforearm

orubiru wrote: »

No. They were addressing the UN regarding online harassment, which is an actual issue that needs an actual solution.

You can say that the UN stuff was biased or one sided because they aren't considering abuse that men and boys receive. OK, I'd agree with that.

All of that assumes that the UN is actually in a position to actually do anything.

If they did then I am sure that applications implemented on Twitter, Facebook etc to stop abuse against woman could be used by men anyway.

It's all very hypothetical. I'm not seeing any actual negative impact here?

She has the ear of the UN with a view to stopping harassment. Fine. That's a real problem that really should be dealt with.

There is a solution, dont say stupid things if you cant handle criticism, however blunt or inane the criticism is.
If you still cant handle it.






All of these feminist solutions to harassment are just tools to eradicate freedom of speech on various online platforms.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

No. They were addressing the UN regarding online harassment, which is an actual issue that needs an actual solution.

You can say that the UN stuff was biased or one sided because they aren't considering abuse that men and boys receive. OK, I'd agree with that.

All of that assumes that the UN is actually in a position to actually do anything.

If they did then I am sure that applications implemented on Twitter, Facebook etc to stop abuse against woman could be used by men anyway.

It's all very hypothetical. I'm not seeing any actual negative impact here?

She has the ear of the UN with a view to stopping harassment. Fine. That's a real problem that really should be dealt with.

From the article linked

The Broadband Commission Working Group on Gender gathered at the United Nations yesterday to present its findings on what they consider to be a "rising tide of online violence against women and girls."

Both Quinn and Sarkeesian were among those called on to speak about their involvement with the UN Women's coalition that was formed to reduce instances of gendered cyber violence. Each spoke of the systemic nature of the problem, while touching upon their personal experiences as a target of online harassment.

If we presuppose all of the harassment is gender based, how do we falsify the hypothesis?

How does one separate the trolls who attack fame, from those who attack gender?

How does one resolve the ultimate basis and instigation behind a troll/stalker/creep/wind up merchant/thug?

Genuine questions. I'd be very interested if you could attempt to answer them.

I absolutely and totally agree that Saarkesian (amongst others) was and probably still is subject to ridiculous levels of online harassment. I'd like to understand how we make the next step in identifying the source.

As a thought experiment, consider a person of X Race, of Y Gender, of Z Sexuality who posts a statement S on social media which results in reams and reams of abuse.

Can you tell me which of the 4 variables above the abuse stems from?

orubiru

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

There is a solution, dont say stupid things if you cant handle criticism, however blunt or inane the criticism is.
If you still cant handle it.

All of these feminist solutions to harassment are just tools to eradicate freedom of speech on various online platforms.

I can agree but only up to a point.

Harassment and bullying online is a real thing and a genuine problem.

Sure, we can all just switch off the internet, but there is surely room for discussion on how to identify and stop particularly bad cases of harassment.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

From the article linked

If we presuppose all of the harassment is gender based, how do we falsify the hypothesis?

How does one separate the trolls who attack fame, from those who attack gender?

How does one resolve the ultimate basis and instigation behind a troll/stalker/creep/wind up merchant/thug?

Genuine questions. I'd be very interested if you could attempt to answer them.

I absolutely and totally agree that Saarkesian (amongst others) was subject to ridiculous levels of online harrassment. I'd like to understand how we make the next step in identifying the source.

As a thought experiment, consider a person of X Race, of Y Gender, of Z Sexuality who posts a statement S on social media which results in reams and reams of abuse.

Can you tell me which of the 4 variables above the abuse stems from?

Listen I agree with you that online harassment is not just gender based.

The only way to falsify the hypothesis that it is gender based is to say "look, men experience abuse to" or similar. This is why people whining about "whataboutery" are actually doing damage. I don't know how we can fix that.

Maybe we can never understand the motivations of trolls. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to punish and prevent the most extreme instances of trolling.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You haven't even established her as particularly 'radical'/extremist, so..

She claims that sexism cannot occur against a man. This is a radical viewpoint is it not?

You identify it as stupid. I agree. It's more than that though surely? There's a vast difference between an ignorant person making such a statement, and a quasi-professional feminist who studies and discusses gender issues, and has been afforded time by the UN on the subject of gendered abuse making it.

Recall that we've heard something similar recently from the Goldsmith's University Diversity officer;
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/goldsmiths-university-diversity-officer-in-racism-row-i-cant-be-racist-because-im-an-ethnic-minority-10243202.html

'I can't be racist because I'm an ethnic minority woman'

KomradeBishop wrote: »

... when you refer to 'them' you're not referring to radfems, just feminists in general.

Stop doing this.

Even if I am totally wrong about Saarkesian's 'radicalness', I am not doing this. I am simply wrong about Saarkesian.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

Listen I agree with you that online harassment is not just gender based.

The only way to falsify the hypothesis that it is gender based is to say "look, men experience abuse to" or similar. This is why people whining about "whataboutery" are actually doing damage. I don't know how we can fix that.

So in essence we have a hypothesis that we are not permitted to falsify?

This is a problem!

orubiru wrote: »

Maybe we can never understand the motivations of trolls. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to punish and prevent the most extreme instances of trolling.

Agree absolutely.

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

I guess Orubiro, it seems to feed into a perceived anti male bias in society. I'm immune to it personally and its more a form of entertainment , but you can't have a society narrative that says men are bad women are good and not have any negative consequences. How boys are taught, the perceived role and value of fathers, attitudes to justice. Take that waterloo station false rape case for example, that is directly as a result of the recent feminist narrative. What's next is the quandry? Switching off and ignoring it all is cool. Be aware if it and chuckle in amusement when you spot it in real life or in the media.

Totally agree.

One of the positives of having these Youtubers is that they are giving people the tools and the arguments to criticize Feminist Theory.

If the feminist narrative can be contradicted reasonably and rationally then that kind of stuff should be out there and available to anyone who is interested.

At the moment, this is the situation we have. There are loads of articles and videos telling the story from a feminist perspective. There are loads of articles and videos telling the story from the other side. They are free to argue and counter-argue. They are free to debunk and poke fun. This is all good.

Personally, I question the concept of Rape Culture and the proposal that "teach men not to rape" is a valid solution to ending rape. I'd question the gender pay gap and I think that people have flawed opinions on "objectification" etc.

People should be allowed to make up their own minds. Right now, we are all totally free to do that.

If there's a day when Youtubers etc start getting shut down completely because they criticized Feminism then we should be worried. If posters start getting banned for questioning the "Rape Culture" narrative then it's all over.

Right now, I don't see any proof that the scenarios above are a realistic prospect.

JPNelsforearm

orubiru wrote: »

I can agree but only up to a point.

Harassment and bullying online is a real thing and a genuine problem.

Sure, we can all just switch off the internet, but there is surely room for discussion on how to identify and stop particularly bad cases of harassment.

If its illegal go to the police. If someone was repeatedly sending me or my family death threats for example, doxxing me etc, Id make records and go to the police.
If someone was repeatedly calling me a "stupid cnut" every single day, however, the solution is to toughen up, block the individual, whatever. Its silly.

As for bullying...if its between kids, go to the school, parents etc etc, and you should be controlling them on the net in the first place.

If its between adults, toughen up, get over it. Set your twitter to private or start a new one under a pseudonym etc etc

At the end of the day, if you, as an adult, cant handle the rough and tumble of online debate, maybe you should avoid that sector of the internet, where you know you will run into criticism(however blunt it may be). Personal freedom and common sense go hand in hand, dont police other peoples behaviour on the internet, police your own.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

So in essence we have a hypothesis that we are not permitted to falsify?

This is a problem!

I wouldn't say "not permitted" exactly but yes it is a problem.

The Black Oil

Anything that ends up with 'gate' attached to it, I don't even...

Anyway, one can be critical of certain feminists or strands of feminism without being a misogynist or an MRA or a dick. Going by Twitter, some of course don't appear to see it that way.

We have the likes of Una Mullally's frequent men bashing and seeking to dissect many issues on the basis of gender, quotas for this and that. A gender of audit of the Irish media being her latest example. Don't get me wrong, as I male I know I'm unlikely to experience the anything near the harassment that some women have to deal with, online and offline, but this doesn't mean we can't call out the likes of Mullally, Jessica Valenti and so on. I don't see how their particular brand of feminism is terribly empowering, tbh. It is poor public discourse, end of. Some of these people end up becoming better know for who they are and not their ideas. This coupled with clickbait articles means that discussing and reading about social issues online, even on mainstream sites, is somewhat of a PITA. And I think as Robin linked to the quote from Paula Kirby, most of us are sick of it.

orubiru

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If its illegal go to the police. If someone was repeatedly sending me or my family death threats for example, doxxing me etc, Id make records and go to the police.
If someone was repeatedly calling me a "stupid cnut" every single day, however, the solution is to toughen up, block the individual, whatever. Its silly.

As for bullying...if its between kids, go to the school, parents etc etc, and you should be controlling them on the net in the first place.

If its between adults, toughen up, get over it. Set your twitter to private or start a new one under a pseudonym etc etc

At the end of the day, if you, as an adult, cant handle the rough and tumble of online debate, maybe you should avoid that sector of the internet, where you know you will run into criticism(however blunt it may be). Personal freedom and common sense go hand in hand, dont police other peoples behaviour on the internet, police your own.

Again, I find myself agreeing with you.

I guess what I am saying is that I agree that your solutions would work but I am open to the idea that there are alternative solutions out there that don't necessarily just start and end with "toughen up or stay off the internet".

If Twitter etc will potentially end up in situations where they can be sued by users because they were not protected from abuse by another user then their hand will be forced anyway.

KomradeBishop

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

...

Stuff like quota's/affirmative-action are a complex one. Applying it to business is one thing (it's a myth that higher-up positions in business are based on meritocracy, so AA/quotas is a 'social engineering' policy that acknowledges this and tips the balance to try and correct a perceived wrong), which I could 'possibly' agree with if I research it more - but I don't know if I agree with applying it to politics (which is also not a meritocracy, but since quota's interfere with the democratic process, that's to be dealt with very cautiously).

It being implemented in politics though, is something I view as an experiment in social engineering also - which will live or die based on the evidence of whether it achieves its stated goals and the good it may do, versus the harm it will cause.

That's a topic open for debate - it's not inherently 'radical'/extremist.


There's a long way to go on redefining rape laws, while avoiding overstepping bounds and causing miscarriages of justice - it's also something that will need adjustment/experimenting, to find the right balance - all of that is still very much an open debate also, not inherently 'radical'/extremist.


Individuals losing their job over off the cuff comments is bad, agreed - but that's due to public outrage from the wider public overall, not limited to radfems or even feminists.


There's a lot worthy of debate/challenge from the mainstream feminist movement (and not really any lack of debate, requiring challenge), but there isn't really anything from the minor/insignificant examples of radfem's, that really needs any attention/challenge - yet they are very frequently the examples used, to straw-man the wider movement.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

LOL now I'm straw manning and being "directly wrong".
You're argument seems to be that because she's acknowledged gender discrimination against men(which I'd like to see proof of) that she can't in anyway be trying to attack men.
It's seems like the equivalent of taking a neo-nazi at their word, because they say they're not a racist.
Do you honestly believe that re-defining a word so that a group can't use it helps that group?
It's the exact same thing as referring to discrimination based on race against white people as "reverse racism".
It's taking powerful well defined words away from a group.
She attempt to weaken their defence and make discrimination against them easier.

Not really. If such a cynical interpretation of what she said was valid (which her acknowledging gender discrimination against men, in the link she posted, signals against), then you need to establish a trend of her attempting to actually do that.

You're not a mind reader. Saying that she is trying to redefine that word to discriminate against men, is effectively a conspiracy theory - and a pretty silly/ridiculous one at that, given the impossibility of getting that change in definition accepted culturally - and given that she acknowledges gender discrimination against men.

Comparing her to a neo-nazi here out of nowhere, is ridiculous Godwin-esque hyperbole as well.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

To clarify, in the last sentence I was talking about other people using the same re-definition.
Given how I was using the example of posters on boards.ie, and she doesn't have an official account or is identifiable on this site.

If you were alluding to ex-posters on Boards, then why are you attributing such cynical assumptions to Sarkeesian as well?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And another thing, the title of the thread is "Fully Baked Left Wing Cookies".
It a thread to list all the crazy stuff left wing people are doing.
Care to provide an example?

It's also a thread to debunk examples of supposed 'crazy left wing' people.

silverharp

The Black Oil wrote: »

Anything that ends up with 'gate' attached to it, I don't even...

Anyway, one can be critical of certain feminists or strands of feminism without being a misogynist or an MRA or a dick. Going by Twitter, some of course don't appear to see it that way.

We have the likes of Una Mullally's frequent men bashing and seeking to dissect many issues on the basis of gender, quotas for this and that. A gender of audit of the Irish media being her latest example. Don't get me wrong, as I male I know I'm unlikely to experience the anything near the harassment that some women have to deal with, online and offline, but this doesn't mean we can't call out the likes of Mullally, Jessica Valenti and so on. I don't see how their particular brand of feminism is terribly empowering, tbh. It is poor public discourse, end of. Some of these people end up becoming better know for who they are and not their ideas. This coupled with clickbait articles means that discussing and reading about social issues online, even on mainstream sites, is somewhat of a PITA. And I think as Robin linked to the quote from Paula Kirby, most of us are sick of it.

as you mention Jessica Valenti , I couldnt resist, a coupleof her headlines :pac:

JPNelsforearm

orubiru wrote: »

Again, I find myself agreeing with you.

I guess what I am saying is that I agree that your solutions would work but I am open to the idea that there are alternative solutions out there that don't necessarily just start and end with "toughen up or stay off the internet".

If Twitter etc will potentially end up in situations where they can be sued by users because they were not protected from abuse by another user then their hand will be forced anyway.

Twitter are possibly(depending on the unique situation) liable under US laws, individuals on twitters platform are liable under their local laws for anything they say. The idea that its a complete free for all(not that you are saying that, thats the way its framed by proponents of speech restriction) is utterly false and a misrepresentation.

I think any solutions so far proposed are verging on the Orwellian. Twitter and facebook already ban/suspend/suspend users for a period of time, for racism harassment etc, which imo is a massive overreach, unless someone is doing something utterly egregious and illegal you are just banning opinions speech you dont like.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

She claims that sexism cannot occur against a man. This is a radical viewpoint is it not?

Again you deliberately leave out, that she explicitly said she was using the stupid 'Prejudice + Power' definition of sexism (not necessarily a stupid concept, but stupid to try and define the word sexism as that).

She did not claim that gender discrimination cannot occur against a man - as the definition she supplied explicitly acknowledged that:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Afemfreq%20since%3A2014-11-13%20until%3A2014-11-16&src=typd&lang=all

If you did not know that she clarified this, you could reasonably say you were not misrepresenting her - but you do know that she was using a different definition, so you are deliberately misrepresenting her, by leaving out context - as I pointed this out to you earlier.

You are claiming she is 'radical', based on a deliberate misrepresentation of what she said - and I bet you are going to deliberately leave out the context behind that quote again, in the future, to try and do the same - not going to get away with it though, without it being pointed out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Recall that we've heard something similar recently from the Goldsmith's University Diversity officer;
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/goldsmiths-university-diversity-officer-in-racism-row-i-cant-be-racist-because-im-an-ethnic-minority-10243202.html

You are comparing Sarkeesian's statement - where she acknowledges discrimination goes both ways between genders - to a person who denies discrimination goes both ways between races/genders.

You are not comparing like with like. That diversity officer engaged in racial and gender discrimination - something which the 'Prejudice + Power' concept does not support.

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

as you mention Jessica Valenti , I couldnt resist, a coupleof her headlines :pac:

You know, Pick Up Artists would have a field day with this. The contrast in her headlines there makes her look like some kind of female caricature born in the mind of a "master" PUA.

Step 5893 : If she rejects your hisses, whistles and stares then disengage and ignore her completely. Eventually, she will come crawling back telling you that she misses your hisses whistles and stares. You see, the female despises attention whilst simultaneously craving attention. She hates herself for wanting the attention of males. You can use this self-loathing (self-negging) to lower her self-esteem and put yourself in charge.

Well. That was actually quite disturbing.

Bristolscale7

This is worth a watch

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not really. If such a cynical interpretation of what she said was valid (which her acknowledging gender discrimination against men, in the link she posted, signals against), then you need to establish a trend of her attempting to actually do that.

You're not a mind reader. Saying that she is trying to redefine that word to discriminate against men, is effectively a conspiracy theory - and a pretty silly/ridiculous one at that, given the impossibility of getting that change in definition accepted culturally - and given that she acknowledges gender discrimination against men.

So now it's a conspiracy theory.:rolleyes: Anything to not address the point.
Care to answer the question in my last post.
Do you honestly believe that re-defining a word so that a group can't use it helps that group?
Simple answer, Yes or No?
You say she acknowledges gender discrimination against men(I'm still waiting for a direct link to this).
But she says you can't be sexist against men.
Do you believe saying "There’s no such thing as sexism against men" helps or hurts men?
She is deliberately re-enforcing the idea that discrimination against women is more important than discrimination against men.

Also how is it impossible that the definition of sexism cannot be changed?
The definition of literally has to changed to include a definition of something that goes against the original meaning.
Who are you to say that this is impossible.

Comparing her to a neo-nazi here out of nowhere, is ridiculous Godwin-esque hyperbole as well.

You're bringing Godwins Law into this and you're accusing me of hyperbole.

If you were alluding to ex-posters on Boards, then why are you attributing such cynical assumptions to Sarkeesian as well?

Where have I mentioned ex-posters?
And where have I attributed cynical assumptions to Sarkeesian?
Because I haven't.

It's also a thread to debunk examples of supposed 'crazy left wing' people.

And by debunk you mean casually dismissing with crude language.
I didn't have much hope for you actually being able to provide an example.
Given how you've spent much of the thread trying to shoehorn in your own agenda anywhere you could.

silverharp

orubiru wrote: »

You know, Pick Up Artists would have a field day with this. The contrast in her headlines there makes her look like some kind of female caricature born in the mind of a "master" PUA.

Step 5893 : If she rejects your hisses, whistles and stares then disengage and ignore her completely. Eventually, she will come crawling back telling you that she misses your hisses whistles and stares. You see, the female despises attention whilst simultaneously craving attention. She hates herself for wanting the attention of males. You can use this self-loathing (self-negging) to lower her self-esteem and put yourself in charge.

Well. That was actually quite disturbing.

that came far too naturally to you :pac: , Im just going to tell my son not to date anyone that uses "Patriarchy" in conversation , its the heuristic equivalent of a confederate flag.

JPNelsforearm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Stuff like quota's/affirmative-action are a complex one. Applying it to business is one thing (it's a myth that higher-up positions in business are based on meritocracy, so AA/quotas is a 'social engineering' policy that acknowledges this and tips the balance to try and correct a perceived wrong), which I could 'possibly' agree with if I research it more - but I don't know if I agree with applying it to politics (which is also not a meritocracy, but since quota's interfere with the democratic process, that's to be dealt with very cautiously).

Perceived wrong being the salient point. The concept of quotas is completely at odds with everything our civilisation is built on. Its radical leftism, rabid feminism. Its altering society, through legal means, to fit their perception of how things should be.

It being implemented in politics though, is something I view as an experiment in social engineering also - which will live or die based on the evidence of whether it achieves its stated goals and the good it may do, versus the harm it will cause.

That's a topic open for debate - it's not inherently 'radical'/extremist.

Id regard it as radical in the extreme, the idea that jobs should be filled on the basis of population statistics/demographics. To me, thats insanity. Not to mention dangerous when its applied to the military as is the case in the US, where every test and study conducted showed women just are not physically or mentally capable of passing the training required to serve in front line units, never mind what theyd actually be like in a combat zone. Yet as opposed to recognising this, they simply dilute the standards for women so they can meet government mandated "gender equality".

There's a long way to go on redefining rape laws, while avoiding overstepping bounds and causing miscarriages of justice - it's also something that will need adjustment/experimenting, to find the right balance - all of that is still very much an open debate also, not inherently 'radical'/extremist.

Eh, its already happened
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/new-rape-laws-turning-sex-into-a-crime/16684#.Vr3hmvKLTWI

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/in-dystopian-britain-the-police-now-hunt-down-8216pre-rapists8217/17954#.Vr3kBPKLTWI

"To see what tyranny looks like, look no further than the case of the Yorkshire man who must give the cops 24 hours’ notice before he has sex with anyone. The man, who can’t be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty of rape in a trial last year. And yet a magistrate’s court decided he was nonetheless dodgy, and served him with a Sexual Risk Order decreeing that he must provide the police with the name, address and date of birth of anyone he plans to bed, ‘at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place’. So despite not being found guilty of a crime, he will still be treated as a criminal. This should alarm anyone who cares about due process, liberty and not allowing the state to stick its snout into the sexual relations of consenting adults."

Individuals losing their job over off the cuff comments is bad, agreed - but that's due to public outrage from the wider public overall, not limited to radfems or even feminists.

True, but its the same spectrum, sjws/rabid fems/anti racists/ etc etc

There's a lot worthy of debate/challenge from the mainstream feminist movement (and not really any lack of debate, requiring challenge), but there isn't really anything from the minor/insignificant examples of radfem's, that really needs any attention/challenge - yet they are very frequently the examples used, to straw-man the wider movement.

Your definition of rad fem is different than mine, anyone proposing gender quotas and egregiously one sided legal principles as regards rape is a rabid feminist. They are making proposals that will have a massive effect on society, with zero evidence, or even manner in which to collect said evidence , to back up their assertions.

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

that came far too naturally to you :pac: , Im just going to tell my son not to date anyone that uses "Patriarchy" in conversation , its the heuristic equivalent of a confederate flag.

Haha. Blame the people who have managed to plaster the name "Roosh V" all over every Facebook feed in the world.

Dating Feminists isn't so bad really. I think the good old general rule of not discussing religion or politics can come in quite handy. You can just use the internet to vent (for now anyway).

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So now it's a conspiracy theory.:rolleyes: Anything to not address the point.
Care to answer the question in my last post.
Do you honestly believe that re-defining a word so that a group can't use it helps that group?
Simple answer, Yes or No?

You haven't established that she is doing that...yes, you're making up a conspiracy theory, that the word is being redefined, explicitly so other groups can't use it.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You say she acknowledges gender discrimination against men(I'm still waiting for a direct link to this).
But she says you can't be sexist against men.

She links it right here:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Afemfreq%20since%3A2014-11-13%20until%3A2014-11-16&src=typd&lang=all

Have you been reading anything posted on this? Any of it?

You're either not reading what is being said, or you're engaging in selective blindness here - i.e. are deliberately ignoring what is being said - because no matter what definition of sexism is used, no definition denies gender discrimination against men.

The only two definitions of sexism in this debate:
1: The dictionary definition. Explicitly acknowledges gender discrimination.
2: The 'Prejudice + Power' definition. Also acknowledges gender discrimination, including against men.


If you can't even get that right, then I'm going to assume you're deliberately trying to straw-man her - and am not going to waste time on the rest of your post.

KomradeBishop

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Perceived wrong being the salient point. The concept of quotas is completely at odds with everything our civilisation is built on. Its radical leftism, rabid feminism. Its altering society, through legal means, to fit their perception of how things should be.

Not really. Quota's are just another method of 'social engineering', of which our society is built upon many forms of, other than quota's.

The 'perceived wrong' of gender discrimination against women, through many areas of society, is well documented and established - the specific areas where it's a problem, and the usefulness of policies like quota's, for trying to correct such issues, is up for debate though.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Id regard it as radical in the extreme, the idea that jobs should be filled on the basis of population statistics/demographics. To me, thats insanity. Not to mention dangerous when its applied to the military as is the case in the US, where every test and study conducted showed women just are not physically or mentally capable of passing the training required to serve in front line units, never mind what theyd actually be like in a combat zone. Yet as opposed to recognising this, they simply dilute the standards for women so they can meet government mandated "gender equality".

Social Engineering based on demographics has been in the mainstream for an extremely long time, just usually based on discriminating against - rather than for - certain demographics; the US military only just got rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" remember.

In any case - it's certainly not 'radical'.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Eh, its already happened
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/new-rape-laws-turning-sex-into-a-crime/16684#.Vr3hmvKLTWI

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/in-dystopian-britain-the-police-now-hunt-down-8216pre-rapists8217/17954#.Vr3kBPKLTWI

"To see what tyranny looks like, look no further than the case of the Yorkshire man who must give the cops 24 hours’ notice before he has sex with anyone. The man, who can’t be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty of rape in a trial last year. And yet a magistrate’s court decided he was nonetheless dodgy, and served him with a Sexual Risk Order decreeing that he must provide the police with the name, address and date of birth of anyone he plans to bed, ‘at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place’. So despite not being found guilty of a crime, he will still be treated as a criminal. This should alarm anyone who cares about due process, liberty and not allowing the state to stick its snout into the sexual relations of consenting adults."

I agree that that's a pretty reprehensible infringement on the guys rights, but I don't agree that it's a systemic problem - that's a completely new law, from last year, and as I said, it's going to take time to find a fair balance for these laws - obviously they should not be applied to innocent people.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Your definition of rad fem is different than mine, anyone proposing gender quotas and egregiously one sided legal principles as regards rape is a rabid feminist. They are making proposals that will have a massive effect on society, with zero evidence, or even manner in which to collect said evidence , to back up their assertions.

Yes, anyone who has a problem with feminism, defines whatever policies they don't like as 'radfem' policies - so that they can take the most extreme examples of attention-seeking radfem activity/videos, and use them to straw-man the wider movement. That was a big part of my point earlier in the thread.

There is nothing 'radical' about quota policies though, and both the use of quota's and rape law changes, are under constant revision - with evidence being gathered as to the efficacy of the changes along the way; there's nothing inherently 'radical' about this, as much as opponents would like to portray it that way, this can fit in precisely with evidence-based policymaking.

KomradeBishop, what in your opinion is a radical feminist viewpoint/policy?

silverharp

IIf you agree that discrimination against is wrong than so is discrimination for. An example is the NY fire department. They used to have a physical exam to get in but now have lowered the standard to get more women in. Firstly it undermines the women who could meet the old srandard as they will be viewed as tokens and it lowers the standard of service as there are now fire fighters who will be slower getting equipment up and running or will not be able to get you out of a building because they can't carry you or what not. We live in a meritocracy and the best person should always get the job

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

IIf you agree that discrimination against is wrong than so is discrimination for. An example is the NY fire department. They used to have a physical exam to get in but now have lowered the standard to get more women in. Firstly it undermines the women who could meet the old srandard as they will be viewed as tokens and it lowers the standard of service as there are now fire fighters who will be slower getting equipment up and running or will not be able to get you out of a building because they can't carry you or what not. We live in a meritocracy and the best person should always get the job

No we do not live in a meritocracy, that is a myth. Our entire economic system is inherently based on: Wealth > Merit.

Our tax system discriminates against people of high income and wealth due to this, to try and ameliorate the damage this causes to our society.

So no, I'm not against discrimination - nobody is really - I'm against forms of discrimination, which can reasonably be argued, as being ethically unjust. Which can become quite a convoluted and complex topic, given how intertwined it is with politics/economics/society/etc..

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No we do not live in a meritocracy, that is a myth. Our entire economic system is inherently based on: Wealth > Merit.

Our tax system discriminates against people of high income and wealth due to this, to try and ameliorate the damage this causes to our society.

So no, I'm not against discrimination - nobody is really - I'm against forms of discrimination, which can reasonably be argued, as being ethically unjust. Which can become quite a convoluted and complex topic, given how intertwined it is with politics/economics/society/etc..

That's got nothing to to with having tokens in a fire department. Do you agree that standards should not be lowered because it suits gender quotas?