Whinging feminists in the media

Leg End Reject

I was supposed to have exited this thread but ..

Start from a point where the differences between men and women are acknowledged and find a common ground from there.

Don't make one the aggressor and one the victim, you'll only find examples for both.

CageWager

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'll say one more thing and I'll bow out of this thread:

I know very few feminists in real life. Those I know are either obnoxious and largely disliked, or have had a negative experience(s) with an ex(es) and use feminism as a shield against their own misandry.

Most people (of either gender) are well adjusted and acknowledge assholes (of either gender) as assholes and move on with their lives.

Who earns what and who does what in the house requires communication and acknowledgement of each other's circumstances, aptitudes and qualifications.

The one thing that galls me about feminism is that it uses a broad brushstroke to imply all women are victims. I'm not a victim, nor have I ever been.

I haven't been more adversely affected by Covid than men, individual circumstances and employment dictate how you've been affected. As a crude example, a female hairdresser and a male construction worker have both lost the right to work, so both genders can be equally affected depending on their job. Unless people want to claim that men out of work during the pandemic have sat and scratched their balls for the entire time.

That sounds like the title of an Irish Times article I'd expect to see lol

Leg End Reject

CageWager wrote: »

That sounds like the title of an Irish Times article I'd expect to see lol

I might write it for the reaction! :pac:

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I can't, because I avoid them like the plague. I don't need to hear I'm a victim, nor that my life is difficult, because I know neither are true. I based my post on those I know in real life. I could ask them to name a few for you if you like?

If you care to tell me how and why I'm wrong I'm all ears. Well eyes, but you get the drift.

Lol. Enough said.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is that the effects of feminism are felt far beyond that of the individual. Feminism grew out the US, and the influence of US culture cannot be denied when it comes to "Western" culture. There are plenty of threads on boards talking about how American culture spreads and affects other countries, and Feminism is part and parcel to that.

Then there's the influence it has in psychology, the media, and government. It's felt in education when consent classes are proposed for boys, but no similar kind of classes suggested for girls (so that they can better understand boys and give/deny consent in a better fashion). It's felt in universities when the administrations themselves implement policies which have their foundation in feminism, and women's studies. It's felt when we see reams of "research" and observations about gender and personality from psychologists who obviously have connections to feminist ideology.. which in turn, extends into many other areas, from early child development, right through to how HR handles employees, or the discussions about the importance (or lack thereof) of fathers (but mothers are naturally needed). And then it's felt when the media bandies around terms such as toxic masculinity, or encourages the belief in a rape culture existing. Hell, the gender wage gap keeps rearing its head every few months regardless of the many times it's been debunked, and that provides plenty of stress in workplaces for managers.

The influence of feminism is not about individuals expressing feminist expressions of thought. Most of that is limited to the US, and various student groups in universities. The effect of feminism is how it has contributed (both positives and negatives) to society, and culture. Which, in turn, affects us indirectly.. and sometimes directly.

This just reads like a buzzword salad that you guys have been told by Ben Shapiro or similar to get annoyed about.

I suspect that if anyone had been negatively impacted or had experience of these supposedly rampant ideals in real life, we'd have been told them by now but everything is just specific enough to have some people further irked at how they too are being impacted by this except not really in the case of the real world.

Wallet Inspector

I don't want special treatment for being a woman - that's not what the Suffragettes and women's liberation movement were about. They were about equality, not concessions.

Wanderer78

If we keep going down this road, we should demand free sex changes

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

This just reads like a buzzword salad that you guys have been told by Ben Shapiro or similar to get annoyed about.

Oh ffs. This is just another of the dismissive posting style that seems all the rage these days. Just like your claim of all women being labelled as crazy feminists for expressing their opinion. If it's not one, its the other. Either women are victims, or the people criticisng feminism are all associated to one another.. and get their opinions from the same source.

I have my own thoughts and opinions, independent of the well known speakers like Shapiro, or Peterson (neither of whom I've watched in years)

I suspect that if anyone had been negatively impacted or had experience of these supposedly rampant ideals in real life, we'd have been told them by now but everything is just specific enough to have some people further irked at how they too are being impacted by this except not really in the case of the real world.

I suspect you would be, or have already been, dismissive of others personal experiences of feminism on this thread... unless it matched your pov.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I have my own thoughts and opinions, independent of the well known speakers like Shapiro, or Peterson (neither of whom I've watched in years)

Feminists—male feminists in particular, I've noticed—cannot abide any woman who does not conform to what they believe the "correct" opinions and choices of women to be. Those women are accused of false consciousness or internalised misogyny, or, for those who are au fait with the evolving lingo, of being "privileged".

To fail to identify as a victim, to deny the existence of an authoritarian patriarchal cabal, to suggest that perhaps a woman might enjoy life with something other than their personal contribution to GDP as the sole meaningful focus (and, worse—that's okay), is to commit heresy.

And for people who just know the "proper" answers but cannot explain them in any sort of logically coherent manner (because the logic is often a sort of faith-based affair that depends on generations of incestuous academia that has at this point lost all connection to reality), the easiest way to dismiss the pesky opinionated women who refuse to stay in their box of misery and oppression, is to convince oneself that they are the bad people. Just like... whoever you fancy, really. The villain du jour. Trump. Ben Shapiro. Jordan Peterson.

Whatever it takes to remove agency from the wrong-thinking woman so that her inconvenient opinions and assertions can be dismissed, rather than engaged with.

The irony would be funny, were it not wending its way through every media and educational institution, telling women and girls they're doomed to live an immiserated life of failure and additional obstacles.

vriesmays

Wallet Inspector wrote: »

I don't want special treatment for being a woman - that's not what the Suffragettes and women's liberation movement were about. They were about equality, not concessions.

The problem with equality is that people have different potentials. How many people in Ireland completed a music degree since 2000. How many of these have composed a symphony.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Feminists—male feminists in particular, I've noticed—cannot abide any woman who does not conform to what they believe the "correct" opinions and choices of women to be.

…

the easiest way to dismiss the pesky opinionated women who refuse to stay in their box of misery and oppression, is to convince oneself that they are the bad people.

…

Whatever it takes to remove agency from the wrong-thinking woman so that her inconvenient opinions and assertions can be dismissed, rather than engaged with.

The irony would be funny…

The irony IS funny!

You’re doing exactly the same thing you criticise in other people who don’t share your opinions. It’s not a thing that’s unique to feminism or male feminists or any of the rest of it, it’s just people, and some people are just like that - they condemn anyone who doesn’t share their opinions and make out like they’re a terrible person and all the rest of it, and if that doesn’t work, they play the victim. It’s never been limited to academia or anything else - politics, religion, you name it, there are people who imagine that their ideas are how everyone should be, and everyone should conform, and if they don’t, those people are being irrational and unreasonable and the individual in question then portrays themselves as the victim of some oppressive ideology.

I don’t feel that feminism or feminists are oppressive, because for one thing that would be giving it more credit than it’s due, and secondly they just don’t have that kind of power. I hear far more complaining about the ills of feminism, than I ever hear feminists complain, and I’ve known a good many feminists throughout my life, and they know I don’t care that they call themselves feminists, either an idea is a good idea, or it’s a bad idea, regardless of the motivating ideology behind it. Same is true of the many left-leaning or liberal types I’ve known throughout my life, they’re grand for the most part, completely harmless, but there are a few who are self-righteous and full of their own self-importance, and when people don’t agree with them, oh boy do they get shìrty

99nsr125

Tell me how wrote: »

This just reads like a buzzword salad that you guys have been told by Ben Shapiro or similar to get annoyed about.

I suspect that if anyone had been negatively impacted or had experience of these supposedly rampant ideals in real life, we'd have been told them by now but everything is just specific enough to have some people further irked at how they too are being impacted by this except not really in the case of the real world.

Wow

What a great way to debate by not debating

Don't address any point and just say buzzword. I'll do a basic objective standard of reversing the viewpoint.


"This just reads like a buzzword salad that you gals have been told by some woman to get annoyed about"


There you go, can you seen how rude and ridiculous that is. Everytime you do that you reinforce that you have no evidentiary viewpoint and are just throwing out rage because someone else has done better than you.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The irony IS funny!

You’re doing exactly the same thing you criticise in other people who don’t share your opinions.

I don't think I am. I haven't actually given much of an opinion about anything other than feminists who attempt to shut down discussion by way of association guilt. "Ben Shapiro said this, I think Ben Shapiro is a Very Bad Person (TM), ergo I will not engage with this idea".

I will grant you that I should have been more specific in that it's some feminists, not all, who take that tack.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a thing that’s unique to feminism or male feminists or any of the rest of it, it’s just people, and some people are just like that - they condemn anyone who doesn’t share their opinions and make out like they’re a terrible person and all the rest of it, and if that doesn’t work, they play the victim.

Certainly. But this is a thread about feminists. "Whinging feminists in the media" to be precise.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s never been limited to academia or anything else

My point about academia was not that academia, in particular, is more likely to use any given logical fallacy. It was that feminist academia, at its foundation, is nonsensical and conjectural. It begins with the presupposition that authoritarian patriarchy exists for the benefit of all men and at the expense of all women. And if you take pretty much any academic paper that comes out of feminist academia today and follow it back through all of its references, and in turn follow all of those referenced papers back through their own references, and so on, you eventually end up at a paper that was created out of whole cloth printed with the fever dreams of an edgy 70s feminist scholar.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I hear far more complaining about the ills of feminism, than I ever hear feminists complain.

I think that's likely a by-product of feminism being an ideology-du-jour in the mainstream media. Consequently, there are many opinion pieces and articles to pick apart. Were the top newspapers running weekly columns from, I dunno, men's rights activists or traditional conservative women, you'd likely hear complaining about them more often.

But those articles do not run. Which is why this thread is here at all.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I referred to former communist countries, since meeee raised references to Croatia. I also mentioned Asian countries like China and S.Korea because of the hierarchical nature of such companies, as examples of where women gain positions without the corresponding authority (since, again, she raised the points of non-western nations often having women in upper positions). The example of my ex was minor... but that's what meeee chose to focus on. Pretty true to form with her responses actually.

Actually I never mentioned Croatia. I wish to point out that just perfectly illustrates the inaccuracies in your posts. Just because they are long you get away with a whole pile nonsense passed as truth.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I never mentioned Croatia. I wish to point out that just perfectly illustrates the inaccuracies in your posts. Just because they are long you get away with a whole pile nonsense passed as truth.

Yup. I slipped. My mistake. The original responses to you referred to Slovenia. A country that operated under a communist system. The points I made earlier remain accurate.

You keep seeking to dismiss my posts as opposed to arguing against them.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think I am. I haven't actually given much of an opinion about anything other than feminists who attempt to shut down discussion by way of association guilt. "Ben Shapiro said this, I think Ben Shapiro is a Very Bad Person (TM), ergo I will not engage with this idea".

I will grant you that I should have been more specific in that it's some feminists, not all, who take that tack.

Certainly. But this is a thread about feminists. "Whinging feminists in the media" to be precise.

I’m not disagreeing with you, I get where you’re coming from. You don’t even have to qualify what you’re saying with ‘some’ because I know you were only referring to those feminists who’s opinions you don’t share, as whinging, or as you point out - those feminists, and male feminists in the media who you characterise as whinging, rather than engaging with their points. I’m agreeing with you because the first person that came to mind when I read your post is Blind Boy - just the stupid look of him is enough to drive me round the bend, never mind whatever latest BS he’s spouting. I have much more time for conservative feminists like Breda O’ Brien - not everyone’s cup of tea, but she makes her point well, and she has a weekly column in the Irish Times, mainstream media.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My point about academia was not that academia, in particular, is more likely to use any given logical fallacy. It was that feminist academia, at its foundation, is nonsensical and conjectural. It begins with the presupposition that authoritarian patriarchy exists for the benefit of all men and at the expense of all women. And if you take pretty much any academic paper that comes out of feminist academia today and follow it back through all of its references, and in turn follow all of those referenced papers back through their own references, and so on, you eventually end up at a paper that was created out of whole cloth printed with the fever dreams of an edgy 70s feminist scholar.

Again though, you’re characterising their argument as nonsensical and conjectural rather than engaging with the point. Academia at it’s core in terms of politics is generally nonsensical and conjectural and mainly concerned with philosophy, of which the vast majority throughout history have been men. Most of the academic philosophers who have put forward ideas which bear no relation to people’s everyday lives, have been men! I’ll bet you can’t even name a famous philosopher who was a woman, off the top of your head. I’ll bet you can name plenty of philosophers who were men. Feminist academia only accounts for a vanishingly small part of all academia, and sure, you could trace it back to the 70’s, and any attempt to go back further than that would be difficult given women weren’t regarded as worthy of having an opinion of any note in academia for as long as it has existed. Feminism is a relatively new concept which evolved from liberal academia, which accounts for most of academia in both the US and Europe, and yes, even here in Ireland since the ‘sexual revolution’ in the 60s when edgy feminist scholars were thought to have burned their bras at protests (sadly, it’s one of those myths that got legs, like Stonewall).

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think that's likely a by-product of feminism being an ideology-du-jour in the mainstream media. Consequently, there are many opinion pieces and articles to pick apart. Were the top newspapers running weekly columns from, I dunno, men's rights activists or traditional conservative women, you'd likely hear complaining about them more often.

But those articles do not run. Which is why this thread is here at all.

Those articles don’t run because they would rightly be regarded as men whinging, or conservative women whinging! That’s not to say there aren’t many, many avenues where both men and women have a good whinge in mainstream media. The Daily Mail for example is one of the most widely distributed newspapers and media in the English speaking world. Fox is one of the largest conservative media outlets in the English speaking world. There’s rarely any criticism of them because it’s difficult to take them seriously, but there’s no doubting their popularity, increasing popularity, in a society which has never had much time for outliers and upstarts, instead characterising them as whingers instead of engaging with their arguments. It’s disingenuous to claim to want a debate and then engage in the lowest of all logical fallacies that is the ad hominem.

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You keep seeking to dismiss my posts as opposed to arguing against them.

This is why a discussion on these issues is doomed to failure. There are so many who are performing mental gymnastics trying to find a reason why they can accuse you of misogyny, sexism, racism (insert ism or aphobia) etc so that they can focus on that safer ground rather than engage in any real manner. There has been little in the way of honest discussion on this thread imo.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not disagreeing with you, I get where you’re coming from. You don’t even have to qualify what you’re saying with ‘some’ because I know you were only referring to those feminists who’s opinions you don’t share, as whinging, or as you point out - those feminists, and male feminists in the media who you characterise as whinging, rather than engaging with their points.

Not really. To be honest, I wouldn't classify them as "whingeing" at all, that's just the title of the thread. There are a good number of feminists with whom I disagree but whose points I can respect. I haven't engaged with any feminists in this thread. In fact, my only contribution has been to point out a propensity for dismissal by way of association, after seeing that in play a few times in this thread. And seeing it, in all honesty, from one side of the discussion.

You may disagree with me about that, but to reframe it as refusal to engage with any points made is, I think, a little harsh (insofar as my posting in this thread goes).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again though, you’re characterising their argument as nonsensical and conjectural rather than engaging with the point.

I'm not. I'm making an observation about feminist academia that I've arrived at through a good many years of studying it. I suppose I could argue with the "point" of feminist academia, but that would take much more time than even my own dissertation did, and I'm not really here to deconstruct the entirety of an academic field because you took exception to me having the temerity to criticise it generally, ya know?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Academia at it’s core in terms of politics is generally nonsensical and conjectural and mainly concerned with philosophy, of which the vast majority throughout history have been men.

Certainly. But—again—this thread is about feminism in particular.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll bet you can’t even name a famous philosopher who was a woman, off the top of your head.

Hypatia was pretty badass, I guess? Rand if you like that sort of thing. Most people with senses have heard of Montessori.

It is okay to admit that you could not name a single female philosopher off the top of your head without projecting that onto me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feminist academia only accounts for a vanishingly small part of all academia,

And yet we can see its influence easily in the sorts of terms (patriarchy, benevolent sexism, toxic masculinity and so on) that have entered the common lexicon. And I believe that outsize influence is part of the discussion here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those articles don’t run because they would rightly be regarded as men whinging, or conservative women whinging!

That can certainly be your opinion, just as it is the opinion of many here that the articles being referred to in this thread are feminists whingeing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fox is one of the largest conservative media outlets in the English speaking world. There’s rarely any criticism of them

Criticism of Fox News in the US is so prevalent as to be memetic, repeated ad infinitum even by people who have rarely, if ever, watched it (which I would not recommend, but the point remains).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s disingenuous to claim to want a debate and then engage in the lowest of all logical fallacies that is the ad hominem.

Again, while this would be a fair enough point had I been engaging with any particular argument or idea and skirted it to instead attack the poster, that is not the case here. I made an observation specifically about a certain tactic I've seen used here to avoid the need to defend position or argue against opposition.

You may disagree with that if you like. Have at it. But please stop attempting to reframe my general observation about an avoidance strategy as though it were ever a response to any particular argument. It wasn't, and it's getting tedious.

Peace.

fisgon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have much more time for conservative feminists like Breda O’ Brien - not everyone’s cup of tea, but she makes her point well, and she has a weekly column in the Irish Times, mainstream media.

.

Breda O'Brien is a feminist?

vriesmays

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is why a discussion on these issues is doomed to failure. There are so many who are performing mental gymnastics trying to find a reason why they can accuse you of misogyny, sexism, racism (insert ism or aphobia) etc so that they can focus on that safer ground rather than engage in any real manner. There has been little in the way of honest discussion on this thread imo.

That's because they can't engage in the debate/argument, they attack the person instead e.g. questioning a hundred fake asylum seekers relocating to a small Irish town means you're racist.

.