Feminists 1, lingerie 0

bodice ripper

I am offended by how poorly written that article is.

catallus

Duggy747 wrote: »

EDIT: Googled it for the craíc and sure enough some eejit actually wrote an article about smart phone technology and misogyny :pac:

OMFG, have you actually read that it's hilarious!

"My phone is too big for my hands, damned misogyny, all the while people are getting tear-gassed" And she's serious :pac::pac::pac:

And she's an Assistant professor You could not make that shít up!

suicide_circus

anncoates wrote: »

I think we can all safely agree that it's a ridiculous article.

Pretty hell bent on wrapping this thread up, aren't you? Close the thread, anncoates has spoken. Here endeth the lesson.

tritium

catallus wrote: »

OMFG, have you actually read that it's hilarious!

"My phone is too big for my hands, damned misogyny, all the while people are getting tear-gassed" And she's serious :pac::pac::pac:

And she's an Assistant professor You could not make that shít up!

Oh my god she must hate tablets, the spawn of a misogynistic devil!

Education is wasted on some people

Shrap

Duggy747 wrote: »

EDIT: Googled it for the craíc and sure enough some eejit actually wrote an article about smart phone technology and misogyny :pac:

Oh dear, oh dear. The reason for her ire appears to be this: "PATHETIC Photo I TOOK IN GEZI PARK TRYING TO DOCUMENT TEAR GAS WITH A PHONE TOO BIG FOR MY HANDS"

Please note, this is not a feminist issue. In fact, I feel justified in altering the well known phrase "It's a poor workman who blames his tool" to "It's a poor workwoman who blames her lack of a tool".

FFS. Makes me despair of what people think equality is these days :mad:

Seriously?

tritium wrote: »

Oh my god she must hate tablets, the spawn of a misogynistic devil!

Education is wasted on some people

More likely the type of education is at fault here, a degree in victimology via some gender-'science' department or some other such feminist rubbish.

Shrap

Seriously? wrote: »

More likely the type of education is at fault here, a degree in victimology via some gender-'science' department or some other such feminist rubbish.

I'd prefer you didn't call it "feminist" rubbish tbh. It's just plain old stupidity, not feminism.

AboutaWeekAgo

You can't blame the man for wanting to sing a few songs while a bunch of half naked supermodels walk up and down in front of him. Not a bad way to make a living.

catallus

"I cursed that what was taken for granted by the male designers and male users of modern phones was simply not available to me.

I cursed that I could not effectively document how large numbers of ordinary people had come to visit a park were being massively tear-gassed because I simply could not take a one-handed picture.

I especially cursed that I could not lift the camera above my head, hold it steadily *and* take a picture—something I had seen countless men with larger hands do all the time."

It is pure gold

anncoates

anncoates wrote: »

I think some people's lives would be far less stressful - and AH far more easier to read - if we simply accepted that the edicts delivered by some columnists in some liberal middle class media may be at worst, plain wrong, and at best, a minority view.

To do that would remove the raison d'etre from so many of the soapboxers and ultra repetitive posters who like to talk these things around in circles, as though they actually matter.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the rest of us are getting along just fine.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Pretty hell bent on wrapping this thread up, aren't you? Close the thread, anncoates has spoken. Here endeth the lesson.

He's got it nailed.

It's yet another nutjob comment being put out there as though it's got some kind of mainstream significance. I could put some beauties off Return of Kings or AVFM, but thankfully I'm aware that most men and women know a nutjob comment when they see it and don't feel the need to pretend that I'm persecuted by the musings of some hack that can barely string a coherent sentence together, never mind a coherent opinion. And I certainly don't hold the general population of men responsible in part or in whole, nor do I expect them to queue up to condemn the words of nutters, nor assume them in agreement if they don't.

But carry on, I await the usual flurry of youtube links of extremists I would otherwise have never heard of, imagined consequences to the fabric of society, insane extrapolations regarding the interactions between the sexes, and last but not least, some PUA evangelism for the sheer fun of it all.

RWCNT

There should be a separate forum where dopes can post links to the ramblings of weirdoes and use it as an excuse to slag feminism. It's taken over a pretty sizeable amount of AH.

Carlos Orange

catallus wrote: »

OMFG, have you actually read that it's hilarious!

"My phone is too big for my hands, damned misogyny, all the while people are getting tear-gassed" And she's serious :pac::pac::pac:

And she's an Assistant professor You could not make that shít up!

The best part is that she has a Nexus 4.

Shrap

catallus wrote: »

"I cursed that what was taken for granted by the male designers and male users of modern phones was simply not available to me.

I cursed that I could not effectively document how large numbers of ordinary people had come to visit a park were being massively tear-gassed because I simply could not take a one-handed picture.

I especially cursed that I could not lift the camera above my head, hold it steadily *and* take a picture—something I had seen countless men with larger hands do all the time."

It is pure gold

It's pure muppetry. And the stupid is hurting my head. This is a woman who does not understand that if you (as a woman) wish to have equality, you do not start by complaining that a tool was not made for your gender. You just pick up the feckin tool and get the hang of it.

And I speak as someone who can ably use a chainsaw (one that suits my size), build a dry stone wall, drive a tractor and NOT get treated like I'm going to hurt myself or can't do the job right. That's equality, not demanding a fecking tractor to suit my dainty little hands. Jesus H. I so hate that the word "feminism" has been hijacked by people who wouldn't know equality if it hit them, and that goes for both genders actually.

drumswan

Candie wrote: »

To do that would remove the raison d'etre from so many of the soapboxers and ultra repetitive posters who like to talk these things around in circles, as though they actually matter.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the rest of us are getting along just fine.



He's got it nailed.

It's yet another nutjob comment being put out there as though it's got some kind of mainstream significance. I could put some beauties off Return of Kings or AVFM, but thankfully I'm aware that most men and women know a nutjob comment when they see it and don't feel the need to pretend that I'm persecuted by the musings of some hack that can barely string a coherent sentence together, never mind a coherent opinion. And I certainly don't hold the general population of men responsible in part or in whole, nor do I expect them to queue up to condemn the words of nutters, nor assume them in agreement if they don't.

But carry on, I await the usual flurry of youtube links of extremists I would otherwise have never heard of, imagined consequences to the fabric of society, insane extrapolations regarding the interactions between the sexes, and last but not least, some PUA evangelism for the sheer fun of it all.

Except these feminists are attempting to codify anti-feminism as hate speech.

They are a problem, its no use just dismissing them as crackpots and telling people that people like the author in the article arent actually feminists at all. She is a feminist and has a credible voice among them. They get to publish article after article in the national press.

They are spearheading an insidious political movement in Europe and need to be exposed for what they are,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

jaja321

The whole thing is ridiculous. They are models, modelling underwear, for a company that sells underwear. How is that an issue?

anncoates

suicide_circus wrote: »

Here endeth the lesson.

Chance would be a fine thing.

catallus

Who cannot be a feminist?!; equal pay for equal work is what its all about!

Potatoeman

catallus wrote: »

"I cursed that what was taken for granted by the male designers and male users of modern phones was simply not available to me.

I cursed that I could not effectively document how large numbers of ordinary people had come to visit a park were being massively tear-gassed because I simply could not take a one-handed picture.

I especially cursed that I could not lift the camera above my head, hold it steadily *and* take a picture—something I had seen countless men with larger hands do all the time."

It is pure gold

I find many phones too small for me but thats because they are made for the Asian market. You have to wonder why she bought the device instead of just getting a smaller one.

KomradeBishop

Oh look, a feminist somewhere on the Internet said something stupid, time for another AH thread.

anncoates

KomradeBishop wrote: »

O time for another AH thread.

At what stage can it be classified as a loosely organized campaign?

KomradeBishop

anncoates wrote: »

At what stage can it be classified as a loosely organized campaign?

Yea ever since the GamerGate stuff it's gotten insanely frequent. There are even 'think-tanks' from the Libertarian movement backing anti-feminism - the same movement that put craploads of money into online/offline astroturfing for the US Tea Party movement:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Independent_Women%27s_Forum

That's why I've been countering it so often - smells hugely of promoted shít-stirring, and it takes less than a minute of Googling to find something wrong with almost every single source posted by people attacking feminism (though there are still some reasonable posters with valid criticisms) - and you have loads of stuff like the OP, which takes any random example of a feminist being stupid, and uses it to start a thread and organize a circle-jerk.

hullaballoo

Underwear is misogynistic and a Hozier advertising hosiery is a travesty all right.

But what the fcuk has José Mourinho got to do with anything?

drumswan

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea ever since the GamerGate stuff it's gotten insanely frequent. There are even 'think-tanks' from the Libertarian movement backing anti-feminism - the same movement that put craploads of money into online/offline astroturfing for the US Tea Party movement:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Independent_Women%27s_Forum

That's why I've been countering it so often - smells hugely of promoted shít-stirring, and it takes less than a minute of Googling to find something wrong with almost every single source posted by people attacking feminism (though there are still some reasonable posters with valid criticisms) - and you have loads of stuff like the OP, which takes any random example of a feminist being stupid, and uses it to start a thread and organize a circle-jerk.

If idiotic feminists didnt keep publishing absurd articles like this one in the national press there would be nothing to campaign against. This is not 'any random example' its one of a series of articles produced by a group of journalists writing in a national newspaper. They are not 15 year old bloggers on tumblr.

catallus

Shrap wrote: »

It's pure muppetry.

I would respectfully disagree.

As an example of finely balanced lunacy the article is almost flawless.

The key is to assert the point in such a manner as to leave the reader guessing about whether the writer is taking the mick.

There are some people who could write about the X-Factor and produce timeless prose; and then there's the type who can't help but write tabloid dross about a war-crimes tribunal.

I think the writer in this case has unwittingly exhibited a peculiarly modern tendency to be blind to everything but what matters to oneself.

I admit I just glanced over all the hyperbole, feminist's sicken my hole most of the time.

But Im curious, as to who she buys her underwear off. Does she buy from some secret company who dosen't advertise. Or does she just knit her own knickers?

Shrap

drumswan wrote: »

If idiotic feminists didnt keep publishing absurd articles like this one in the national press there would be nothing to campaign against. This is not 'any random example' its one of a series of articles produced by a group of journalists writing in a national newspaper. They are not 15 year old bloggers on tumblr.

You know, the national press also give over huge quantities of space to the likes of David Quinn and John Waters as well? This happens. Papers publish stuff that will appeal to a minority of idiots and get the backs up of a huge majority. They do it to sell papers.

This kind of thing is offensive to read because it is clearly an extremely ill thought out opinion that is written from a narrow-minded point of view, and as you can see from the first 2 pages of this thread, nobody agreed with the views of the reporter.

Maximus Alexander

Between the overwhelming nerd angst of "Gamergate" and the extremist feminist craze that's been invading the tubes, 2014 has seen two of the worst things to come out of the internet since Rickrolling. Here's hoping 2015 sees a return to videos of cats doing silly things so we can all take a breather.

Shrap

Jake1 wrote: »

I admit I just glanced over all the hyperbole, feminist's sicken my hole most of the time.

Do you just mean the hyperbolic ones who are using the word feminism to excuse them for not being able to write in a balanced fashion? Or do you mean me? "Feminists" includes me, you see, and I'd like to know if I'm sickening your hole.

alchemist33

jaja321 wrote: »

The whole thing is ridiculous. They are models, modelling underwear, for a company that sells underwear. How is that an issue?

I don't know, but I'd guess the writer sees fancy lingerie as a male invention designed so that men can ogle women, and the lingerie industry as a male domain which gives no credence to women as intelligent human beings. Which must only mean that women who wear lingerie are brainless sheep influenced by these devious men.

So why hardline feminists want to portray women as weak pawns just confuses the hell out of me.

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

Do you just mean the hyperbolic ones who are using the word feminism to excuse them for not being able to write in a balanced fashion? Or do you mean me? "Feminists" includes me, you see, and I'd like to know if I'm sickening your hole.

No, I mean the other ones, You are fabulous