Defining Misogynism

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Legion:

Lionsfan:

I mean, is it really wrong that girl gamers want to be treated as equals to male gamers? Not to get all cliched and bring up race, but was it entitlement when black people didn't want blackface to be used in movies?

It depends on the line of argument used. I see so many different or contradictory concerns that it really isn't possible to use the term "girl gamers" when it comes to discussing changes.

1) Some people are unhappy with there being "sexy" female characters at all.
2) Some people are unhappy with there being too many "sexy" female characters, but not enough "non-sexy" female characters (The Triple A gaming market in general).
3)Some people are unhappy with "sexy" female characters, but only when they are nothing else (Rachel from Ninja Gaiden 2).
4) Some people are unhappy with some "sexy" female characters being in a game, but only if there is not a variety of other types of women in the game as well.

Issues 2,3 and 4 I'd say are perfectly valid concerns, but I would say point number 1 does come from a false sense of entitlement. As it normally comes from the line of argument that sexualising women in any shape or form is automatically bad.

That women don't like it, despite the fact that many women are perfectly okay with it. As is seen by the fact that there are so many cosplays of these characters and the voice actresses are clearly happily to be associated with a game that has them.

The kind of people who oppose "sexy" women games entirely are not all that common, but sometimes the arguments seem to bleed together, or people contradict themselves, which is where arguments quite often start.

Like boots said, I don't think I've ever seen Number 1, and about this part of your response:

Note: I did not say they demanded they don't exist, I said they are unhappy with them

the guy I was responding to, he was saying that more and more women are demanding that publishers bow down to their whims.

Legion:
1) Some people are unhappy with there being "sexy" female characters at all.
......
I would say point number 1 does come from a false sense of entitlement.

This part is confusing me. Why is merely being unhappy about it linked with a false sense of entitlement? I mean, if they are just unhappy about it but don't demand anything, why would they have a false sense of entitlement?

Uhura:

Legion:
1) Some people are unhappy with there being "sexy" female characters at all.
......
I would say point number 1 does come from a false sense of entitlement.

This part is confusing me. Why is merely being unhappy about it linked with a false sense of entitlement? I mean, if they are just unhappy about it but don't demand anything, why would they have a false sense of entitlement?

Poor wording on my part I guess. I chose the word "unhappy" because a lot of other words would come across as loaded or judgemental.

I meant people acting as though they have the right to say that developers "should not" do X with their game. I don't mean people who are demanding they stop, I mean people who are suggesting that they are wrong to do what they want with their own product.

Criticism is fine. Saying that that it's bad that they exist, when they are quite easily avoidable, is quite another.

Zoe Castillo:

Catrixa:
Huh. A dude met some bitchy women, then made a YouTube video on it, eh? Seems like a thing. You know, I've met some asshole men, too. I guess I can copy-paste my experience onto all men (except specific ones I like, because they are OK, obviously) and rant about it on YouTube for 15 minutes. I'm pretty sure I can find some sources no one has heard about and claim they're credible, too. And anything is a fact if you say "This is a FACT!" after it three times (it can't be any less, or people might question you). Also, it looks like all propaganda is true again. This is good to know, because coming up with opinions (wait, crap, these aren't opinions, these are facts, my bad) is easy when I don't have to think about them. Huh. How many viewers does this guy have? I think I've got a camera around here somewhere...

This made me smile =)

OT: it took me a good 3 minutes to realize this isn't satire......
I mean the skull in the background , the armchair, the smoking ...... all this was missing is a bear skin rug.

anyway this should be required viewing for anyone who even thinks of talking to this guy ... Christ.......

(Or maybe this is just a brilliant piece of viral marketing for a new command and conquer game )

Thank you, I like making people smile :D!

...And if this is viral marketing for a new C&C... Day 1 purchase. I haven't played a game that had me clutching my sides laughing for hours in ages... Now I want to play Red Alert 2 again... (wonder where my disks went...)

Colour-Scientist:

lacktheknack:

OT: A misogynist is anyone, man or woman, who is in a state of believing women to be inferior to men.

Misogyny is an attribute of any action, artistic expression, etc, that conforms to the mentality that women are inferior to men.

It's possible to perform misogynistic actions without being a misogynist.

For example, if you are trying to hire one person, and you receive an application from a man and a woman, then by hiring one, you are doomed to perform a misogynist or misandric action. Even if you select the male candidate because he has more experience and schooling, your selecting him was a misogynistic action, because it fits the mindset that women are worth less than men.

I'm not sure I get the point your trying to make there so I'm going to argue with what I percieve your point to be.

You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. You select the candidate with the most relavent experience and education for the job.
I don't understand what that has to do with misogyny. That decision isn't based in the idea that men are inherintly better than women but that the particular applicant was more qualified for the position.

An example of misogyny would be:
You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. Both are qualified for the position but you hire the man because you believe that the woman will not perform as well at the job as the man due to her gender.

The first example completely trivialises the actual issue of misogyny in the workplace and in the hiring process.

I hadn't thought about the trivialization aspect.

Dangit, there went my method of deflecting unfair claims of "YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST".

Seems to me that all too often...

1. If a man dislikes women, he is a misogynist.

2. If a man likes things about women and is attracted to some of them because he enjoys their company and finds them to be enjoyable people to be around or do things with, he is also a misogynist who is probably "objectifying" them, and has secret designs on raping them if only that pesky law would stop getting in the way (like virtually all men of all kinds who have ever lived, BTW, natch).

3. If a man ignores women, he is also a misogynist.

I really wish that was genuinely at odds with how it feels a lot of the time :(

Meanwhile, misandry is often not even treated as a real word. Oh well.

And to use that idea of job applicants to illustrate how it feels even better...

Situation 1: A company isn't hiring a lot of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is being SEXIST against women! It's not hiring them, because it doesn't think women can do a good job.

Situation 2: A company is hiring a disproportionately HIGH amount of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is clearly being sexist... because they're only being hired so they can be SEXUALLY HARASSED!

Seriously, I don't want to live on this planet anymore, as they say.

EDIT:

Colour-Scientist:
You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. You select the candidate with the most relavent experience and education for the job.
I don't understand what that has to do with misogyny. That decision isn't based in the idea that men are inherintly better than women but that the particular applicant was more qualified for the position.

Of course, the problem wouldn't even arise somewhere like Germany where if a man and a woman are competing for the same job and are equally qualified... it is ILLEGAL to hire the man -_-.

And in a country where there are more unemployed men than women.

GG, Feminism.

Wow, Western women sure do have few opportunities ¬_¬.

vid87:

aba1:

I was watching a few related videos out of curiosity and I thought this video hit some interesting points.

"Women can't hear what men haven't said." As much I support the hell out of this sentiment, I feel like a big problem is that men don't know how to articulate their side of things - see the "men's movement" and all their hate-mongering.

To be honest the only hateful feelings I have ever seen towards anything in the mens movements is towards feminism and to be fair many of the feminist ideologies out right hold back or stop many of the rights or prejudices men fight for/against, even still most just disagree with their ideologies which tend to range from womens issues first to only women matter. So no I wouldn't call them hate mongering at best frustrated with a very specific opposing ideology.

Legion:

Note: I did not say they demanded they don't exist, I said they are unhappy with them. So actually, your reply could be considered a strawman, effectively as you are "attacking" a statement I never said. Although I am not going to make accusations as I am pretty sick of people using buzzwords as counter-arguments.

Oh, my mistake. Go un then, find examples of people who are unhappy that sexy girls exist in video games at all.

The accusations of Skullgirls being sexist is an example of it.

No, that's an example of people complaining about the design of characters in a single game. More importantly, it's a complaint about over-sexualization, not sexiness. Believe it or not, there's more to being "sexy" than upskirts and improbably massive boobs.

Anyway, as far as I could tell most of the critics were just complaining that the art style was cheap, unoriginal and gimmicky and the game felt like it was stuffed to the breeches with fan service. There were also people who complained that it was just adding to the slew of female objectification in video games, but those people would fall into your Type 2 and 4 groups.

Do we really need five pages to come to a general consensus that this guy is a tool?

Legion:

Poor wording on my part I guess. I chose the word "unhappy" because a lot of other words would come across as loaded or judgemental.

I meant people acting as though they have the right to say that developers "should not" do X with their game. I don't mean people who are demanding they stop, I mean people who are suggesting that they are wrong to do what they want with their own product.

You're making a meaningless distinction between criticism and people saying what developers should and should not do in their games. Because that is literally what critics do:

"This inventory system should have been better organised."
"The writers should have included more conflict to make this character more well-rounded."
"These combat controls should not have been so needlessly fiddly."
"This plot hole should not be here."

No one's suggesting that they are wrong to do what they want with their own product. People are just saying that what they're doing with their product is wrong, in the sense of being unappealing to them as a consumer. That's the whole point of criticism.

Seriously, if a developer wants to block their ears to all criticism and go their own way and make the game that they want in exactly the way that they want to make it, with no input from potential consumers or game critics whatsoever, they're free to do so. But they'd better be willing to foot the (potentially multi-million dollar) bill for it themselves, and they won't have any right to expect people to buy it when it's done.

itsthesheppy:
Do we really need five pages to come to a general consensus that this guy is a tool?

Didn't you get the memo?

"Well he might be a tool, but you have to admit that he has a point..."

boots:

Legion:

Note: I did not say they demanded they don't exist, I said they are unhappy with them. So actually, your reply could be considered a strawman, effectively as you are "attacking" a statement I never said. Although I am not going to make accusations as I am pretty sick of people using buzzwords as counter-arguments.

Oh, my mistake. Go un then, find examples of people who are unhappy that sexy girls exist in video games at all.

The accusations of Skullgirls being sexist is an example of it.

No, that's an example of people complaining about the design of characters in a single game. More importantly, it's a complaint about over-sexualization, not sexiness. Believe it or not, there's more to being "sexy" than upskirts and improbably massive boobs.

Sorry to hop in on this I just thought it was worth noting that sexy is a state of being sexual while sexualization is the process. So while they are not the same thing they do apply in the same context. As in a sexualized person will be sexy and backwards a sexy person will be sexualized as they both are different states of the same thing and one leads to the other and backwards.

Darken12:
If those sexist actions/conceptions stem from contempt, hatred or anger at women or their status as fully realised human beings and/or their status as the equals of men, that's misogyny.

But ascribing those feelings as the motivation of those actions without some kind of evidence really isn't helpful. Reserving for oneself the right to describe actions as misogyny without any interest in the perpetrator's intention is more likely to close conversations than open them up. Too often it's getting used less as an accurate and helpful description than as a "<you/they> are wrong, I win" to end discussion before it begins or render something off the table before it even receives examination.

There is real misogyny out there, including in the culture in which I live and participate; I don't dispute that. There is also behavior that's ignorant, chauvinistic, and/or sexist without it being reasonable to describe it as "woman-hating"- which is what misogyny means. I genuinely think that if it keeps being used so broadly and indiscriminately, while it may be great for blog posts that seek only to preach to the choir, such conversations are going to exclude a great many of the people who could actually make things better.

aba1:
To be honest the only hateful feelings I have ever seen towards anything in the mens movements is towards feminism and to be fair many of the feminist ideologies out right hold back or stop many of the rights or prejudices men fight for/against, even still most just disagree with their ideologies which tend to range from womens issues first to only women matter. So no I wouldn't call them hate mongering at best frustrated with a very specific opposing ideology.

Yeah, I think the problem is that if a man ever questions anything that's painted with the horse**** "gender equality" or "women's rights" tags, then he's automatically a "sexist" or "misogynist" (Why are they so quick to assume these things anyway? Do they secretly hate themselves and assume that other people also find women so easy to dislike?) no matter how much evidence he has or how much sense he's making.

Also it doesn't help that "gender equality" usually means making things better for women so that they're AT LEAST as good for women as for men, REGARDLESS.

It's almost like: "Why don't we talk about men's problems?"
"LOL, men don't have problems."
"Yes... that is kind of one of the problems I was referring to."

As though men's lives will always take care of themselves automatically no matter what. Which leads me to another contradiction of Feminism where it seems to suggest at the same time... that men and women are equally capable, except that women require lowered entry standards and tons of help (from men and only men) in order to compete with men. Ehhrmm... what in the Christ?

Another thing that bothers me is all of this congratulatory ****e for women who manage to do anything more complicated than tying their shoelaces. "Women in Business" and all this crap.
I'm sorry... you just told me that women could do things just as well as men... now you expect me to be impressed that a woman did something that millions of men do every day?
That just sounds insulting to women, not to mention unfair that it assumes things are so very easy for men and we're justified in highering our expectations for men.
Doesn't exactly seem to help, if people being seen equally is indeed one's goal... and I doubt it is the goal of many of these disingenuous wretches.

It's like men are meant to view women equally, AND pity them at the same time.

Not to mention how Feminists always seem to interpret things traditionally associated with women as being automatically terrible and worthless/shameful, with a woman's worth being determined by how similar to a traditional man she manages to be (without, obviously, the associated danger or lack of sympathy).
Hence why Men Only things are wrong (the men keeping the best stuff for themselves as usual), and Women Only things are perfectly fine because... Christ, who the **** would want that? It must be terrible: it's for women! -_-
(And/or the obvious alternative of pitying them and just letting them have their damn X, Y or Z)

This really "grinds my gears" as it were ¬_q

It's like they tell you all your life to treat people equally... then if you ever do apply the same standards to women as you do to men (within reason, even), YOU'RE the sexist. It's sexist to treat the sexes the same, all of a sudden.

I guess the main problem is that nobody cares about men... ESPECIALLY men. Or, you know, that the blatantly obvious double standards and sexism against men is just suppressed/ridiculed so people don't even honestly give it a chance. Maybe more women would care then, I dunno; some of the more prominent people involved with men's rights seem to be women.

Callate:
There is real misogyny out there, including in the culture in which I live and participate; I don't dispute that. There is also behavior that's ignorant, chauvinistic, and/or sexist without it being reasonable to describe it as "woman-hating"- which is what misogyny means. I genuinely think that if it keeps being used so broadly and indiscriminately, while it may be great for blog posts that seek only to preach to the choir, such conversations are going to exclude a great many of the people who could actually make things better.

Indeed... and I think it's important to keep things in perspective:

The mere fact that there IS misogyny, is not proof of some kind of mass society-wide problem.

If you think of just about any viewpoint possible, SOMEBODY almost certainly has it. It may be unfortunate... or it may even be an inevitable result of the diversity of human experience, which may be a good thing in certain amounts... but you're not going to eradicate any opinion whatsoever, nor is there any real need to.

Same for modern Feminism itself: if people just ignored the whackos, they wouldn't matter. Maybe they'd even say something now and then that would lead to an interesting thought.

I'm confused. Was that video in the OP a bad satyr or just a huge rant from someone who clearly has issues with women? I mean the nonsense he said was staggering. Kind of nonsense i'd expect in a comedy sketch.

SeanSeanston:
Seems to me that all too often...

1. If a man dislikes women, he is a misogynist.

2. If a man likes things about women and is attracted to some of them because he enjoys their company and finds them to be enjoyable people to be around or do things with, he is also a misogynist who is probably "objectifying" them, and has secret designs on raping them if only that pesky law would stop getting in the way (like virtually all men of all kinds who have ever lived, BTW, natch).

3. If a man ignores women, he is also a misogynist.

I really wish that was genuinely at odds with how it feels a lot of the time :(

Meanwhile, misandry is often not even treated as a real word. Oh well.

Oh hey Mr. Strawman argument, I haven't seen you around in a while.

I mean seriously dude, I don't think I have ever seen any examples of the 2nd and 3rd bit happen ever. And I don't think there is any proof of any of that stuff happening.

As far as the misandry stuff goes...well it doesn't really get taken all that seriously because a lot of the internet "examples" of misandry are this: http://vimeo.com/64941331

As far as this

And to use that idea of job applicants to illustrate how it feels even better...

Situation 1: A company isn't hiring a lot of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is being SEXIST against women! It's not hiring them, because it doesn't think women can do a good job.

Situation 2: A company is hiring a disproportionately HIGH amount of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is clearly being sexist... because they're only being hired so they can be SEXUALLY HARASSED!

Seriously, I don't want to live on this planet anymore, as they say.

Even more strawman dude. I mean, you can't just list off these things without some sort of proof/evidence.

EDIT:

Colour-Scientist:
You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. You select the candidate with the most relavent experience and education for the job.
I don't understand what that has to do with misogyny. That decision isn't based in the idea that men are inherintly better than women but that the particular applicant was more qualified for the position.

Of course, the problem wouldn't even arise somewhere like Germany where if a man and a woman are competing for the same job and are equally qualified... it is ILLEGAL to hire the man -_-.

And in a country where there are more unemployed men than women.

GG, Feminism.

Wow, Western women sure do have few opportunities ¬_¬.

I feel like a broken record here, but proof man. We needz it

Lionsfan:
I mean seriously dude, I don't think I have ever seen any examples of the 2nd and 3rd bit happen ever. And I don't think there is any proof of any of that stuff happening.

As for 2... you honestly think the motives of men are never questioned when they approach women? Or that the word "creeper" isn't thrown around rather liberally, at least on the interwebs?

As for 3... I notice someone mention it during the fallout of the whole Adria Richards affair. I honestly think he had a point regarding areas where men traditionally make up the majority, such as those conventions.
So much complaining from a certain group of women about how "sexist" the technology sector is, but they never seem happy.
If men start approaching women in these places... they're creeping. If men simply ignore them, they're sexist for not making women feel welcome enough (which apparently, they need in spades according to these people... it was Richards herself who suggested that girls might give up their entire career dreams because of... some old crap that didn't make sense but we all know the donglegate story).

Lionsfan:
As far as the misandry stuff goes...well it doesn't really get taken all that seriously because a lot of the internet "examples" of misandry are this: http://vimeo.com/64941331

Honestly, misandry's pretty obvious in the world unless people go around with their eyes closed.

Men tend to be sent to prison for longer than women are for the same crimes. There's a good one for a start.

Women are just as violent as men but only the domestic violence committed by men against women ever gets any real attention and men are painted as inherently violent and controlling, which is utter bollocks. Just one very good example of the kind of lies and misinterpretations that lead to general suspicion of men beyond what is reasonable.

Lionsfan:
Even more strawman dude. I mean, you can't just list off these things without some sort of proof/evidence.

It was an opinion of how things appear to me, based on my own observations.

But it IS completely true that if women aren't succeeding in a sector, it is automatically assumed that sexism is to blame and somehow... men become responsible for the actions of women when Feminists don't like what women are doing.

Hence, those absurd quotas for women (and usually ONLY women, because **** men anyway and it's not like women are good enough to ever make up the majority of boards of directors EVER... apparently).

Lionsfan:
I feel like a broken record here, but proof man. We needz it

Honestly... Google... 5 seconds. Not hard. I assume you're sitting at a computer.

From Wikipedia:
Article 3 of the German Basic Law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job

Yes... discrimination based on sex is not allowed... except for where it is.

Here's France:
Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January 2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the proportion will increase to 40%. All male director nominations will be invalid as long as the condition is not met, and financial penalties may apply for other directors.[32]

Yep. Women must be given these high-ranking, highly-paid jobs whether they are qualified or not. **** having the best people for the job, gender neutrality and judging people on their actions and abilities... we're supposed to see gender again now.

But I see no quotas for women in highly dangerous jobs. The kind where men make up over 90% of fatalities. Or for women to make up more of the homeless. Or any form of affirmative action for men in the many areas where they fall behind.

I think it's ****ing disgusting, a complete affront to any notion of "gender equality" and everyone involved in such injustice should die in a fire, but that's just me.

Honestly, you'd swear that women did not already have every single chance that men do to be appointed to these jobs. And I see absolutely no suggestion of a 40% quota for men (though Norway, to its credit, at least implements this horse**** "fairly").
I mean what difference does it make if directors are 100% men or 100% female or anywhere in between? Christ, they're worse than children.

In conclusion: Job opportunities reduced for men, increased for women.

Also a good one is how women tennis players now make more at Wimbledon than men do.

They used to make more than men. Then they complained and now they make even more.

Apparently, it was unfair that women weren't paid the same as men for playing fewer sets at a lower standard and bringing in far less money (tickets to men's games cost more because there's more demand because it's a better standard of play).

Even worse: It's impractical for men to enter both the singles and doubles contests... but not for women due to the shorter games, so not only do women make more... they then have further opportunity to make EVEN MORE. And THAT was called "equality".
It would be funny if it wasn't so sickening on principle.

boots:

Magenera:

As you pointed out, most vagina's play's towards the "casual" gaming market. In fact that is where most of the female gamer's, and the market for female gamer's reside in.
Some examples: :D

I would rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty spork than play any of those games, mainly because apart from the Wii Fit they aren't marketed towards women, they're marketed towards little girls. Children. Show me a few examples of games marketed towards middle-aged women (who, incidentally, represent a larger portion of the gaming demographic than teenage boys) and then we'll talk.

Just because i felt this needed some light hearted misogynistic humor:

Reminds me of why i miss the M!LF, such an awesome Tv show going overboard in such an awesome way. But that's off topic.

I think it's actually quite difficult to pinpoint which games are being specifically targeted at women. However your typical triple A game probably never will. Based on some studies i've seen the interests of female gamers diverge from male gamers as in being less into violence, competitiveness and more into social interactions. And since triple A games often live on violence and/or competitiveness i doubt they'll ever go for the female audience.

Callate:
But ascribing those feelings as the motivation of those actions without some kind of evidence really isn't helpful. Reserving for oneself the right to describe actions as misogyny without any interest in the perpetrator's intention is more likely to close conversations than open them up. Too often it's getting used less as an accurate and helpful description than as a "<you/they> are wrong, I win" to end discussion before it begins or render something off the table before it even receives examination.

There is real misogyny out there, including in the culture in which I live and participate; I don't dispute that. There is also behavior that's ignorant, chauvinistic, and/or sexist without it being reasonable to describe it as "woman-hating"- which is what misogyny means. I genuinely think that if it keeps being used so broadly and indiscriminately, while it may be great for blog posts that seek only to preach to the choir, such conversations are going to exclude a great many of the people who could actually make things better.

You make good points and I would agree with you on an intellectual basis, but there is a tendency to dismiss sexist and misogynistic behaviour as "not a real problem and therefore not worth discussing or trying to fix." Calling out attention to the fact that this or that behaviour is harmful to women, for this or that reason, does a great deal of good towards getting people to actually take the matter seriously and not dismiss it as "boys will be boys" or "that's just how people are" and other similar excuses.

And the term "misogyny" does help with that. Pure, concentrated misogyny is actually rare. What's actually common (and what many feminists try to address) is a diluted, watered down version of misogyny that is so common as to be very excusable. And because it's so excusable, it needs to be addressed seriously to avoid people dismissing it (and therefore nothing ever changing).

Darken12:
You make good points and I would agree with you on an intellectual basis, but there is a tendency to dismiss sexist and misogynistic behaviour as "not a real problem and therefore not worth discussing or trying to fix." Calling out attention to the fact that this or that behaviour is harmful to women, for this or that reason, does a great deal of good towards getting people to actually take the matter seriously and not dismiss it as "boys will be boys" or "that's just how people are" and other similar excuses.

Except it really isn't the problem that some make it out to be.

Not to mention that it seems to suggest that women have some sort of special right to never be made uncomfortable by anyone ever.

Whereas making jokes about men isn't sexism, and sexual harassment of men doesn't exist by definition.

Darken12:
And the term "misogyny" does help with that. Pure, concentrated misogyny is actually rare. What's actually common (and what many feminists try to address) is a diluted, watered down version of misogyny that is so common as to be very excusable. And because it's so excusable, it needs to be addressed seriously to avoid people dismissing it (and therefore nothing ever changing).

But is it really, though?

Not nearly as common as misandry, I would think.

I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads, where they think that men are judging them harshly because they're women or judging all women based on their performance and they really aren't. Neither do men give a **** about women in powerful positions, that's just paranoia.

EDIT: Oh, but I'll tell you what WILL cause misogyny...

Those ****ing quotas.

People will be able to say "There's [woman's name], who only got the [job name] because she's a woman."...

...AND THEY'LL BE COMPLETELY CORRECT.

Expect to see a lot of this in future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

Probably because of unqualified people being given important jobs because of underhanded political reasons, not their human abilities.

Honestly, is this even real life? Laws that state positions cannot be filled by giving them on the basis of merit? It's worse than Soviet Russia.

It's also another example of the fact that women will NEVER EVER in their lives experience actual institutionalized, state-supported sex discrimination like men now have to. Even on the extraordinarily small off-chance that they did... all they would have to do was complain and it would all be fixed instantly, as though their rights actually mattered, unlike the often much bigger problems of other people.

SeanSeanston:
Except it really isn't the problem that some make it out to be.

Not to mention that it seems to suggest that women have some sort of special right to never be made uncomfortable by anyone ever.

Whereas making jokes about men isn't sexism, and sexual harassment of men doesn't exist by definition.

I would not agree. I would consider it a problem worth addressing.

Having said that, what you point out are often considered men's issues, and there are groups (such as the MRAs) that are focused on solving those problems. Worry not, they are being addressed.

SeanSeanston:
But is it really, though?

Not nearly as common as misandry, I would think.

I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads, where they think that men are judging them harshly because they're women or judging all women based on their performance and they really aren't. Neither do men give a **** about women in powerful positions, that's just paranoia.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree. While I agree that some extremists take it too far, misogyny is a real issue and sexist attitudes, while mild and nowhere near what they were in previous times, are still widespread.

SeanSeanston:
EDIT: Oh, but I'll tell you what WILL cause misogyny...

Those ****ing quotas.

People will be able to say "There's [woman's name], who only got the [job name] because she's a woman."...

...AND THEY'LL BE COMPLETELY CORRECT.

Coincidentally, we just spoke of this on the CommuniCast. We all more or less agreed that quotas are bad because they foster that kind of attitude.

Oh dear God, I absolutely could not make it through two minutes of that video. What an absolute idiot trying to pass himself off as cultured or intelligent by speaking clearly and displaying such cliche, cringe-worthy 'classy' behavior. From what I saw he's a pure philistine who can't accept change, regardless, I'll jump into the conversation in medias res. I define misogyny as anything which promotes, on a semi-serious basis, support for the oppression of a female for their gender. Lighthearted jokes are fine if not incredibly dull, low-culture and unfunny; that being said there's a clear difference between a joke that harbors no animosity and a passionate joke condoning something like, I don't know, rape culture.

SeanSeanston:
Whereas making jokes about men isn't sexism, and sexual harassment of men doesn't exist by definition.

Be warned, I'll go off on an unrelated diatribe here.

This is absolutely untrue, I think it's a misconception that arises primarily regarding feminism due to the stupid tumblr-generation of feminists. Most sensible feminists would that yes, making jokes about men is sexism and female-on-male sexual harassment does exist. Feminism does not exist for the purpose of vaulting women over men, but rather for promoting a culture free of inherent gender bias. Now, that's not to say it supports the demolition of gender roles, but rather that all genders receive fair treatment in society. You be asking yourself now, "Then why do they attack men?" Then answer to this question is more easily understood if we look at Marxism. Marxism promotes a classless society yet its writings attack the bourgeoisie and aristocracy. This occur because, in order to establish the classless, we must criticize and point out the flaws in society. The same principle applies to all gender theories, there must be some degree of hostility or it'll be dismissed.

SeanSeanston:
I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads, where they think that men are judging them harshly because they're women or judging all women based on their performance and they really aren't. Neither do men give a **** about women in powerful positions, that's just paranoia.

This is pretty much a case of see no evil, hear no evil. You don't see it because, at some level, you don't want to see it and you've certainly never been a victim of it. Think of the last time you settled down with a female and had a serious conversation on how her gender has affected her recent experience, can't remember, huh? If you were to do this and seriously consider you would begin to see it, however you should not submit to her complaints--question some of them, voice your own views. This is how gender equality truly comes about, not by attacking each other with a "men are from mars, women are from venus" sentiments, but from attempting to actually listen to the other side's views.

Now, I don't want to be seen as a staunch supporter of feminism. It has it's flaws, huge, gaping flaws and I recognize those. My support of feminism wavers every time I read about how Hemingway is the world's biggest misogynist or how every Joanna Newsom song has a hidden "I AM WOMYN, HEAR ME ROAR!" message to it. Even worse, I find myself enjoying the struggles of modern society, I feel it produces some incredibly powerful works.

I'm just confused.

Apologies for using your post as a stage for my unrelated and muddled rants.

StoriesHeard:
snip

Hey I was just glancing though and I am not trying to be rude or tell you what to do but it is considered rude to speak on peoples behalf and if you want people to both take your opinions seriously and listen to them you really can't be telling them what they have and haven't done or what they do or do not think since only they actually know these things. Again not trying to attack you just a heads up if you want to be taken seriously.

aba1:

StoriesHeard:
snip

Hey I was just glancing though and I am not trying to be rude or tell you what to do but it is considered rude to speak on peoples behalf and if you want people to both take your opinions seriously and listen to them you really can't be telling them what they have and haven't done or what they do or do not think since only they actually know these things. Again not trying to attack you just a heads up if you want to be taken seriously.

I hardly see whose behalf I was speaking on. Care to inform?

StoriesHeard:

aba1:

StoriesHeard:
snip

Hey I was just glancing though and I am not trying to be rude or tell you what to do but it is considered rude to speak on peoples behalf and if you want people to both take your opinions seriously and listen to them you really can't be telling them what they have and haven't done or what they do or do not think since only they actually know these things. Again not trying to attack you just a heads up if you want to be taken seriously.

I hardly see whose behalf I was speaking on. Care to inform?

SeanSeanston's you only made like 1 or 2 posts so I assumed you would know which one sorry I should have been clearer. Also I think you meant "I don't see whose behalf I was speaking on" since "hardly" means you would have seen whose opinion you were speaking on behalf of only a little bit which doesn't make to much sense since either you do see it or you don't.

aba1:

StoriesHeard:

aba1:

Hey I was just glancing though and I am not trying to be rude or tell you what to do but it is considered rude to speak on peoples behalf and if you want people to both take your opinions seriously and listen to them you really can't be telling them what they have and haven't done or what they do or do not think since only they actually know these things. Again not trying to attack you just a heads up if you want to be taken seriously.

I hardly see whose behalf I was speaking on. Care to inform?

SeanSeanston's you only made like 1 or 2 posts so I assumed you would know which one sorry I should have been clearer.

I know which post you're referring to, I don't see how I'm speaking on his behalf. I think it's pretty safe to assume he's never been the victim of male-on-female discrimination and I highly doubt that most people who say "I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads" have had serious discussions with women on the impact gender has on everyday life. Furthermore, it has less to do with his experiences as it does with that of many men; I thought I made this pretty clear in my multiple warnings and apologies for using his posts as a basis to make semi-unrelated statements.

StoriesHeard:
a passionate joke condoning something like, I don't know, rape culture.

Yeah, passionate jokes about sexist delusional horse**** is a real problem facing society ^_-

That's a tactic Feminists love though: Coming up with legitimate-sounding terms (in this case, "rape culture") to avoid addressing an issue with reason and evidence by presenting it as some sort of established concept with its own name and, surely as a consequence, history of being scientifically evaluated and verified.

StoriesHeard:
Most sensible feminists

Most sensible Feminists... and yes, I'm going to recognize that there are people who apply that completely subjective and self-applied term to themselves, who aren't sexist, delusional arse****s, who usually fall into 1 of 2 groups:

1. Those who do believe in actual equal treatment, but are too indoctrinated to realize that man have many serious issues.
2. Those who call themselves feminists yet actually recognize that men have problems too, and sometimes even defend the rights of men, e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers)

Either way, most sensible Feminists... do not honestly ****ing matter, because they are not the ones lobbying for misandric, sexist legislation. They do not have much power and they usually prefer sitting at home, doing nothing about anything, calling themselves "feminists" even though they hardly understand a damn thing about the concept, let alone looked at it from more than 1 biased angle.
USUALLY, I say, because there are in group 1. Then Sommers up there, in group 2... isn't part of a large enough group to make a real difference in between being savaged by the mainstream feminists.

StoriesHeard:
making jokes about men is sexism and female-on-male sexual harassment does exist.

Generally though, nobody cares and the law/society is skewed heavily against taking such things seriously.

StoriesHeard:
Feminism does not exist for the purpose of vaulting women over men

Could have fooled me. Is that why it's always campaigning for equal rights to be given for men to see their own children? -_-

You should look at the situation on that in America, it's quite shocking. GirlWritesWhat on YouTube has a lot to say on such serious matters in general.

She gave a talk about the problems of Feminism to the New York Libertarian Party recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LkYDpQQVJ0

I think it's quite a good summary of what is so ****ed up in general about the entire concept. It's about an hour long, but if someone cares enough to have an opinion on such matters, that's not really that long.

StoriesHeard:
but rather for promoting a culture free of inherent gender bias.

Again... domestic violence... supporting easier convictions for rape when men are accused of raping women... anonymity for rape accusers but not the accused...

etc. etc.

Unless you walk around with your eyes closed, it's hard not to see these things.

StoriesHeard:
Now, that's not to say it supports the demolition of gender roles, but rather that all genders receive fair treatment in society. You be asking yourself now, "Then why do they attack men?" Then answer to this question is more easily understood if we look at Marxism. Marxism promotes a classless society yet its writings attack the bourgeoisie and aristocracy. This occur because, in order to establish the classless, we must criticize and point out the flaws in society. The same principle applies to all gender theories, there must be some degree of hostility or it'll be dismissed.

Except

A. You cannot justify attacking people based on something like their gender ever.
B. No one ever dares dismiss feminists, no matter how rambling or hostile, for fear of being labelled a sexist by sexists.

StoriesHeard:
This is pretty much a case of see no evil, hear no evil. You don't see it because, at some level, you don't want to see it and you've certainly never been a victim of it.

Sorry, maybe that's my fault for not living in 1957.

StoriesHeard:
Think of the last time you settled down with a female and had a serious conversation on how her gender has affected her recent experience, can't remember, huh?

What about the last time anyone cared about how men's gender ever affects them ever?

It's kind of tiring when your gender is depicted as being the cause of everything bad in the world ever, and simultaneously gets none of the praise for all the good it's done and does, including for women.

Meanwhile, you've never seen any advantage to being male while you're treated as though it makes life so very easy and there are blatantly gigantic issues staring you in the face that you suspect everyone actually realizes but just doesn't care about.

There's a lot of talk about the "glass ceiling" (of course, no reasonable evidence or motive is ever given) but not a lot about how women make up very little of the people at the bottom of society. Feminism is all about grabbing as much as it can without regard for anyone else.

E.g. The vast majority of the violence in the world is done to men, but you only hear about stopping violence AGAINST WOMEN. Yes, the safest group in society should be even safer, and if resources are used on that which could have been used for keeping men safe instead... too ****ing bad. I suppose there's a good reason that "violence against women" is a phrase, and violence when it happens to men is just called "violence", since it does make up almost all of it.

Are you suggesting that "feeling" discriminated against somehow means something? Somehow we don't all look for things to blame at times that aren't ourselves?
One big difference is that women are encouraged to think that their gender holds them back and may be responsible for why they're not succeeding as they'd wish.
If a man was legitimately handicapped by his gender (such as in the aforementioned laws where a man may experience not being hired because of his gender and a woman may not ever), and complained about it... he would still not be taken seriously.

Sexism allegations are a lot like rape allegations TBQH: They require little or no evidence, everyone important takes the woman's side, and no consequences usually happen to false accusers.

It's Feminists (the ones that aren't completely open manhaters, just ignorant and deluded) who need to think about the sexism experienced by the other gender, the sexism they don't see because they don't care and they've been told all their lives that it only happens to women.
Men get enough bombardment about women's "problems" (usually something like women are expected to look presentable when on TV, where of course men are never judged by appearances or anything equally shallow) every time they watch TV or open a newspaper. Rarely do women ever get forced to consider the possibility that being a man isn't the jackpot they're indoctrinated to believe it is.

Also, I'm kinda tired right now... I hope I phrased things well but I may have been a little abrupt or messy in places...

StoriesHeard:

aba1:

StoriesHeard:

I hardly see whose behalf I was speaking on. Care to inform?

SeanSeanston's you only made like 1 or 2 posts so I assumed you would know which one sorry I should have been clearer.

I know which post you're referring to, I don't see how I'm speaking on his behalf, I think it's pretty safe to assume he's never been the victim of male-on-female discrimination and I highly doubt that most people who say "I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads" have had serious discussions with women on the impact gender has on everyday life. Furthermore, it has less to do with his experiences as it does with that of many men; I thought I made this pretty clear in my multiple warnings and apologies for using his posts as a basis to make semi-unrelated statements.

See that is what I am talking about you are making assumptions about his life then claiming them true on his behalf.

"I think it's pretty safe to assume he's never been the victim of male-on-female discrimination"

You say it is safe to assume meaning you are certain you are correct meaning you know with absolute certainty. Then you go on to speak of a experience, the experience of male on female discrimination meaning you know with absolute certainty that he has not had that experience. The thing is since you are speaking about him you are speaking on his behalf saying what he has or has not done. So I am left guessing either you are his conjoined twin or you are speaking about knowledge you don't have on his behalf. So I guess I have to ask are you his conjoined twin? Since you never know you might be who am I to say I don't know either of you.

StoriesHeard:
I think it's pretty safe to assume he's never been the victim of male-on-female discrimination

I think it's also pretty safe to assume that almost no woman in the Western world under the age of 30 has been either.

One important thing to remember is that we have different standards for men and women. That can turn something that would be sexist against women, into something that isn't even given a second thought when it happens to a man.

EDIT: But hey, haven't we all been victims of it, in a sense?
Like when you see ads about domestic violence and they all paint men as violent and women as helpless victims. The message being: men's suffering does not matter, and man are responsible for all domestic violence.
It's not very nice and it does wear on your sense on self after a while.

StoriesHeard:
and I highly doubt that most people who say "I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads" have had serious discussions with women on the impact gender has on everyday life.

Would a woman, or anyone, have a serious discussion with me about the impact gender has on my everyday (or hypothetical future) life?

No.

Not ever.

I don't see why I should respect people in ways that they don't and would never respect me.
(Mostly referring to feminists there, but also it's hardly fair to expect me to honestly care about women's issues when men's issues get virtually zero attention and those "issues" that remain for women are highly trivial or imaginary, or both.)

StoriesHeard:
Furthermore, it has less to do with his experiences as it does with that of many men; I thought I made this pretty clear in my multiple warnings and apologies for using his posts as a basis to make semi-unrelated statements.

That's equally (or moreso, because men are constantly told to think of women's problems and not the other way around) true of women though, it must be said. Despite the obvious obstacles faced by men, nobody really cares, even men because most don't realize the inherent injustices at work or they just aren't inclined to complain.

I mean, you have women talk about the reduced opportunities from being a woman...

...they never mention that being born female gave them a greater opportunity to even reach adulthood in the first place.

People talk of female genital mutilation, but it's perfectly fine to risk the life of a newborn male child by mutilating his genitals.

I don't even know how to rebuttal your statements, they're completely unrelated to mine. Whether you like or not your view of feminism is completely corrupted by the third-wave bullshit, I attempted to make it clear that what you think is feminism is not true to the core values of actual feminism but instead you continue to rant against things completely unrelated to its actual ideals.

This is a useless discussion if you're not going to seriously consider these issues. I really do wonder why I continue to bother with forums, they truly attract the lowest form of discourse.

'twas fun for the two hours it lasted.

Ow ow ow, My head fucking hurts. Listening to this I am like "ow ow" because I can see where he comes from. I do not agree but this hurts my brain because he is only looking at it as women being stupid. Men can be worse. As a penis owner I have such a issue with men not being men, paying for dinner, opening doors for women, and paying for tickets at the movies is just what you do. If men do not like what they are seeing in women, just change your mind on what you interest what there is out there. I try to keep my mind open, I have dated men and women. I have never seen the issue with people I show interest in. When I draw the line in the sand I have never seen that issue with people I was with. Now what I mean is I never have dated a dumb woman and by dumb I do not mean the average woman. I mean the women who and I am pulling from personal experience because most of my coworkers are female, get fired from a job like KFC or a diner for not doing their job. Everyone saw it, everyone knew this woman was a person who within 2 weeks of working there had sex with a employee. She now is either fired or down to one day. Honestly I thought she was going to fail from the start because she is chatty in a job you need to really work.

(about the anecdote in the bar) Yes, truly women are the spawn of satan for being RUDE and having a BAD ATTITUDE. Because in this video he's just the epitome of charming. Truly this is worse thing you can do to another human being.

I think the problem is that we're still thinking of women as one group, like all women are the same, in the same way ultra radical feminists think all men are misogynist and rapists.

This is going to sound harsh, but as a detached observer and how things tend to work out. In terms of entitlement women feel they have, while not pc, if you have a culture that implies men have to be impressive to 'win women over', some women will be lazy and accept the trophy wife title and take the highest bidder because it is still socially acceptable to do that. Women complain because they get away with it, if the man truly does not want to put up with it, he can dump her, but for some reason he puts up with it, because he wants a woman, or sex. This is same reason woman put up with abusive men.

I'll make this simple, why do women invade male spaces? Because of all the implications that being 'female' is bad and lame and being 'male' is positive and strong. It's more complicated than that, but that's a big part. (That's a show for chicks...) Also, the options pop media insists for women are very limiting, you're breaking the mold if you dont want to shop for clothes every day.

Ah yes, the ironclad statistics of saying 'all women only marry jerks'. Ah so MEN can be split into good men and jerks, but ALL women are terrible.

Welp:
I don't even know how to rebuttal your statements, they're completely unrelated to mine. Whether you like or not your view of feminism is completely corrupted by the third-wave bullshit, I attempted to make it clear that what you think is feminism is not true to the core values of actual feminism but instead you continue to rant against things completely unrelated to its actual ideals.

Again, what ideals?

It's a completely self-applied term.

It could mean anything to anyone.

It's the old "Not All Feminists Are Like That" argument, which can be used to deflect any criticism of Feminists, no matter how common they are, away from Feminism itself.

If there are so many Feminists with ideals that involve respecting men equally... then why are they not up in arms when the reality of domestic violence is so twisted and used to push an agenda?
Why do they never do anything to help men ever, unless as an unavoidable side-effect of improving women's rights/privileges?

The Wonder of the net:
As a penis owner I have such a issue with men not being men, paying for dinner, opening doors for women, and paying for tickets at the movies is just what you do.

Wait, what?

Bahahahahahahaha...

Cellseam:
I think the problem is that we're still thinking of women as one group, like all women are the same, in the same way ultra radical feminists think all men are misogynist and rapists.

For instance... let's not forget how it's largely men that allowed all of this to happen. Those in power who used it for their own corrupt ends, those in the public who are ignorant as all hell, and those who would do something if they were women being treated unfairly... but they're men so they stay quiet.

Cellseam:
I'll make this simple, why do women invade male spaces? Because of all the implications that being 'female' is bad and lame and being 'male' is positive and strong. It's more complicated than that, but that's a big part.

And I think a lot, or most, of that is inside the heads of certain very insecure women.

I think the problem is they don't realize that while they have an inferiority complex... most other people don't actually care enough to put the energy into actively looking down on anyone if they're not getting in their way.

Cellseam:
Also, the options pop media insists for women are very limiting, you're breaking the mold if you dont want to shop for clothes every day.

Oh let's be fair here... men are pigeonholed too. Men are supposed to like sports, cars, ****ty games like COD etc. etc.

EDIT: And as an aside... one thing that pisses me off is even young men being roped into this old person's conflict.
It doesn't matter that you were born in the 80s or 90s and that you have never known a world before that, you are still somehow treated as though you have the same prejudices and views that grown men in the 50s are meant to have had.

As though somehow a man in his 20s would see it as a good thing to have to support another adult human and an entire family, just because he's a man. Yes, that sounds unambiguously brilliant and not a lot of pressure at all.
Or that we'd have a problem with the idea of women with important jobs, for absolutely no stated reason. Or that we in any way expect or have experienced privilege from being male.

You don't have to work to remove preconceptions that never existed in the first place.

On the other hand, we have experienced the phenomenon of it being ok to say things that are sexist against men, but not even being able to say things that are true that some women don't like.
e.g. Men are better drivers than women, because they have better spatial awareness and quicker reactions. Hence why there has never been a successful top-level female racing driver and no woman has even entered the F1 World Championship in over 20 years. Women also cause more car crashed per mile driven than men do.

Somehow though, that might be considered sexist, as though women's fragile minds might collapse or some such >_>.

EDIT: Also, I am genuinely stunned by the EU's recent-ish decision to stop allowing insurance companies to charge men more for insurance. STUNNED.

Of course, there are still women complaining... even though they'll still be paying less than men used to have to pay just because they were born male. Not used to equal treatment, I guess.

SeanSeanston:

The Wonder of the net:
As a penis owner I have such a issue with men not being men, paying for dinner, opening doors for women, and paying for tickets at the movies is just what you do.

Wait, what?

Bahahahahahahaha...

My point was ever since I was younger and lets go and say I'm 21 looking at my 29 year old brother and saw how he was with dating. you pay for a movie blah blah blah. Point was even though you and her both work you do it because its chivalry. Now I do have a girl I am interested in. I took her on dates and yea she choose a douche over me but I didn't throw a fit about it I said what ever. I am still her friend. I still fuck with the head of her boyfriend by having a better relationship with her then she does with him. But its the point of women and men are different so blah thats ganna happen. We do not have to have a issue with paying for dinner or a movie but thats not all a relationship is. That is what I have the issue with. The issue of relationships that are all about draining your wallet.

The Wonder of the net:
My point was ever since I was younger and lets go and say I'm 21 looking at my 29 year old brother and saw how he was with dating. you pay for a movie blah blah blah. Point was even though you and her both work you do it because its chivalry. Now I do have a girl I am interested in. I took her on dates and yea she choose a douche over me but I didn't throw a fit about it I said what ever. I am still her friend. I still fuck with the head of her boyfriend by having a better relationship with her then she does with him. But its the point of women and men are different so blah thats ganna happen. We do not have to have a issue with paying for dinner or a movie but thats not all a relationship is. That is what I have the issue with. The issue of relationships that are all about draining your wallet.

Oh wait, so you're AGAINST all that chivalric bull****?

I wasn't completely sure initially when I read the first post... but then after reading it a few times it seemed like you were saying you had an issue with men not doing those things.

...did I get it right this time? xD

I'm tired too because it's late where I am. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Anyway, I really don't see why a man has to try harder to impress a woman than the other way around. I see where it originated, but we don't live in the past.
After all, a woman has a biological clock and a man doesn't. If they break up then, to be perfectly frank, he has a lot more time to find someone else than she does, and he has more options open. Also the inherent greater sense it makes for men to be polygamous than for women; you'd think it would make more sense for HER to convince HIM to choose to stay with her and only her while she has enough time.

Just pointing out some observations ^_^

Oh and that reminds me of those excuses that some women use to avoid taking the initiative. Well, they're probably moreso lying to themselves. Like not approaching a man they like, because for some reason he and everyone else will think she's easy o_o. Or that he won't want her to approach him, because he'd rather take the initiative and feel "like a man" (all of a sudden equality means nothing, eh?)... so it's really almost like they're doing him a favour by not approaching him? <_>

All just very poor excuses... but I admit I'd be tempted to use such reasoning if I could get away with it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here