Feminists and the Nordic Council want to BAN "anti-feminism".....yes....BAN!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Shock and Awe:

So we're going to use the example of an individual who was mentally ill and abused as a child as a posterboy for the opposition? Well in that case all feminists are now Valerie Solanas. According to your logic anyway.

"All feminists are... Valerie Solanas" is a basic logical construction that crops up repeatedly in every, single debate on feminism. Heck, this whole thread, like pretty much every damn feminism debate thread, is basically an exercise in tarring all feminism by association with crazy shit extremist feminists do.

But it does illustrate that it's much easier for us to spot logical problems in arguments of people we don't like or agree with, whilst letting identical errors from those we agree or like slide unmentioned.

Agema:

Shock and Awe:

So we're going to use the example of an individual who was mentally ill and abused as a child as a posterboy for the opposition? Well in that case all feminists are now Valerie Solanas. According to your logic anyway.

"All feminists are... Valerie Solanas" is a basic logical construction that crops up repeatedly in every, single debate on feminism. Heck, this whole thread, like pretty much every damn feminism debate thread, is basically an exercise in tarring all feminism by association with crazy shit extremist feminists do.

But it does illustrate that it's much easier for us to spot logical problems in arguments of people we don't like or agree with, whilst letting identical errors from those we agree or like slide unmentioned.

Context is very important in that one, mon ami. If you read any later post you'll see that I said it was intellectual dishonesty.

I know everybody saw the title of the thread and want to go in charging, but I have to say that its pretty cool that there is actually is a serious government organization called the Nordic Council. I feel like I'm in Skyrim and that the source you should be using should be the Nord version of the Black Horse carrier and that the news article should be quoting some local Icelandic Jarl. lol.

Ok, I'll stop sounding like a ignorant American and get onto the serious stuff....

Hardcore_gamer:
Feminists in Scandinavia (Iceland where I live, Norway, Sweden etc) have always been more along the lines of "evil men hurr durr" rather then "lets actually help women!".

And now I got news in my local media that made me shake my head in disgust (technially it appears that its almost a week old on the english site I found that reported it, but at least in MY country I only heard the news now).

Feminists and the Nordic Council want the government to BAN websites that they consider to be "anti-feminist" or hostile towards feminism.

That is correct. If you dislike feminists, then the government should be able to go after your ass!

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/29/antifeminism-might-become-illegal-in-the-nordic-countries/

They also want to do a number of other things, like paying attention to other peoples "anti-feminist tendencies".

Note that I read the news in an Icelandic source first. This is merely the first english source I was able to find.

Well, aren't they a lovely bunch of people, but no they are wrong to want to censor the media because it might not be considered pro-feminist, and I would like to see what they consider harassment.

Hardcore_gamer:
So, can we all agree now that feminism as an idea has now been completely ruinned beyond all repair?

Thoughs?

EDIT: I think this is the actual program/idea. Though I think it is in Norwegian or Swedish. I am not entirely sure: http://forrettindafeminismi.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/antifeminisme.pdf

Well I wouldn't go so far as to throw the entire feminist movement under the buss because of these people, but the people you cited are a particularly nasty sect modern feminism.

Frission:
unreliable? Can someone also properly translate the pdf file?

I'm Swedish and as Gorr pointed out the pdf is in Norwegian. Anyway, I thought the section starting on Page 16 deserves some attention, so here's a rough summary of it:

Title: "Are men the problem?"

The first pragraph (titled Anti-feminism in the Nordic countries) reads: "This seminar is needed to understand. Understand why a small minority of men doesn't feel at home in the equal and multi-cultural society. Understand what is needed to face/meet this minority and prevent that animosity [uenighet means not to agree, so it could also be read as "prevent that disagreement..."] leads to hate or violence. Understand why a small group in this small minority doesn't hesitate to kill in their protest."

The second paragraph makes a connection to Behring-Breivik and his outspoken anti-feminism and racism [the norwegian phrase is "fremmedfiendtlighet", roughly "hatred of strangers", I shorthand it as racism because the two are very similar and I haven't heard a similar phrase in English], the school shootings in Finland and the ideals of masculinity that inspired them and the rise of Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden [an anti-immigrant, social conservative party] and the increasingly gender conservative reactionary rhetoric that followed their success. It also mentions that several public people in Iceland has expressed anti-feminist sentiments and the decade long debate in Denmark, remarkable because of its' strong anti-equality and racist tone.

The second sub-title is "Few, but violent" and the two short paragraphs basically summarize that most men are pro-equality and that anti-feminism is a small movement but that its' actions can have far reaching consequences because it employs both physical and non-physical violence.

The third sub-title is "Anti-feminism or criticism of equality?".
The first paragraph informs us that we must, in our eagerness to prevent backlash against feminism, be careful not to put everyone who talks about men and equality in the same group as the men who wan't women back in the kitchen [Yeah, it really says that, literally].

The second paragraph brings up the connection between anti-feminism and racism. It talks about research that shows that the resistance against "feminizing of the state" and women's rights to control their own reproduction are integral in right-wing ideology. This is also something these right-wingers share with extreme islamists, whom they are generally very critical of or outright hostile against.

The third paragraph tells us that self-dubbed "Men's Rights Activists" can also be labelled as anti-feminist as they seek to remove or diminish women's control of their own bodies as well as claiming that rape reporting is a proven tactic among women to oppress men. "Men's Rights Activists" also want to see a return to what they perceive as women's "natural" submission. Another group that should be added to the list of anti-feminists are men who harasses and threatens female debaters on the internet. Men who debates using aggressive rhetoric ["ytringer" can be both verbal or physical communication, I think rhetoric is the closest to what is intended] or diverts or derails the discussion should also be considered anti-feminists.

The last sub-title is "Men can too".
It reads (because this is the good stuff): "Equality is about giving men and women equal opportunities in society. Because of that we must be open to the fact that men too can experience challenges, not least because of a narrow male gender role. If we aren't open to equality dissolving the borders of both genders, we not only risk a false polarization of the equality debate, but also a more narrow definition of feminism. The German anti-feminist expert Hinrich Rosenbrock claims that anti-feminists react against a feminism that they perceive to be monolithic, homogeneous, misandrist ["mannsfiendtlig", literally "hateful against men"] and powerful. Because of that every time we, who work towards equality, wave the "anti-feminist"-flag when it becomes known that men experiences challenges too, we should understand why it can be easy to perceive us as such!

Last but not least we all want to work towards an equal, inclusive, multi-cultural society. To work against anti-feminism is thus about much more than just making sure anti-feminists are quiet and aren't causing a fuss ["lage
bråk" can also be translated as "starting a fight"]. It is also about making sure that no one, not even men, are left standing outside of the great community."

(EDIT: The author is a man named Are Saastad and the description of him states that: "Leads Reform - Resource Units for Men. Is a qualified nursing assistant in psychiatric care and has worked in hospitals in Oslo. He has also participated in the Norwegian society debate for many years" End edit)

So yeah, for what it is worth I find this text to be pretty representative of what I consider feminism to be. At any rate it is far from the crazy rad-fem stuff that Hardcore_gamer made it out to be.

thaluikhain:

Hardcore_gamer:
So, can we all agree now that feminism as an idea has now been completely ruinned beyond all repair?

So, if certain feminists in Scandinavia want to do such things as ban threats and harassment based on a person's gender, and protect marginalised men, then all of feminism should be abandoned?

While I don't agree with condemning the entire feminist movement for the actions of some Scandinavian feminist, advocating for a censorship of the media is pretty serious.

boots:
Oh, The Spearhead. This is going to be totally reliable and unbiased and won't misrepresent anything at all.

Instead of being sarcastic, provide a different source if you don't like the one provided in the OP. I looked and that was the only English one I could find, feel free to post a different English source reporting on this if you come across it.

boots:

Let's look at reality for a second. Boring, I know.

Antifeminist Threats and Harassment must be made Illegal."

Note the "threats and harassment" part? It's not banning antifeminist thought or discussion, it's banning active attempts to harm other people.

True, but this sure as hell seems to be a step in that direction....

"The press must take care of their responsibilities against antifeminism (The media must ensure that it has the competence to meet extreme actors without legitimising them or their opinions. Editors of online comments' fields have a special responsibility to ensure that their users are not made targets of threats and harassment, and that xenophobic and antifeminist sentiments are not fuelled or legitimised.)"

boots:

Shock and Awe:

So we're going to use the example of an individual who was mentally ill and abused as a child as a posterboy for the opposition? Well in that case all feminists are now Valerie Solanas. According to your logic anyway.

Er, you realise that the people on this board actually do insist that all feminists are Valerie Solonas (or Andrea Dworkin, take your pick).

Care to back that up with proof that I've done such a thing? I've actually gone out of my way to state that I don't think of Valerie Solonas in the same way that I would think of Gloria Steinem and that the two people don't think the same way.

boots:

Making it illegal to threaten people makes absolute sense. Freedom of speech does not cover verbal threats, hate speech or verbal assault.[/qupte] Uh, what? I have the right to walk down the street and call a Chinese-American a Chink and he in turn has the right to call me a Kraut.

boots:

[quote]9) Increase cooperation between experts on islamophobia, right wing extremism, neo-nazism and anti-semitism. Since there is a significant overlap in the groups promoting these ideas.

This makes sense, but including anti-feminism doesn't. Opposition to a political or academic idea is not the same as hatred towards a particular race or religion.

Glad we can agree on something.

Lilani:

I have never seen nor been shown by its proponents a MRA group that addresses real instances of discrimination men face. For example, custody battles in the US frequently favor women, even when the woman is clearly the less suitable parent. Also, it is very difficult for even perfectly qualified men to get jobs caring for children, society has grown to consider women getting slapped horrific and men getting slapped funny, and male rape is never taken as seriously as it should. However, the MRA groups don't push that stuff. They go on about how men are still expected to hold doors for women even though women are "supposed" to be equal and tripe like that. I would agree that there is a potential for them to be equal, but I have yet to spy a MRA group th

The MRA's are falling into the same spike pit that modern feminism did, only much faster and strangely more eagerly. I would be fully behind any MRA that addressed the sad sack state of affairs for paternal rights, and the double standard on domestic and sexual violence is something that's impossible to defend. The problem is, these groups all too often and all too eagerly take that as liscence to villify women.

LollieVanDam:

The MRA's are falling into the same spike pit that modern feminism did, only much faster and strangely more eagerly. I would be fully behind any MRA that addressed the sad sack state of affairs for paternal rights, and the double standard on domestic and sexual violence is something that's impossible to defend. The problem is, these groups all too often and all too eagerly take that as liscence to villify women.

Don't forget that men having to register for the draft is women's fault as well. Must have been all those women in government in the 1970s.

generals3:

Copper Zen:

generals3:
Neo-Feminism is a destructive ideology solely aimed at vilifying men.

I'm not familiar with Neo-feminism beyond what was said in the OP's blog link. Could you provide additional information with citations?

generals3:

It's a bit like how environmentalism has been hijacked by ex-commies who use "the environment" as an excuse to push their communist agenda which does nothing to help the environment.

Ex-commies? Communist agenda? Are you speaking of Finland? The environmentalists I've met in the US Southeast and my home state of Texas don't seem to belong to the same type of groups you're describing. The folks who disagree with them don't use such terminology, either.

Neo-feminism is what i have decided to call "feminism" because i feel calling what people now call feminism feminism is an insult to the feminists who fought hard to ensure women got equal rights. And because i don't really think fabricating and twisting facts is what feminism was about (which is something what neo-feminist activists love to do nowadays). Hence "neo-feminism".

While off course it can depend on the country in many european countries after the fall of the berlin wall and the communist ideology in general a lot of commies have decided to recycle themselves in environmentalism. And than you get what a friend called "watermelon" green parties. Parties which are green on the outside but red in the inside.

Two things:

One: It is intellectually dishonest to randomly create a term. Seriously. It causes confusion, if anything. I mean, I cannot just start calling liberalism that disagrees with earlier liberalism "Neo-liberalism". Neo-liberalism is already an established term. This current rebranding of feminism as something other then it is not really, really pisses me off. Feminism is feminism. The advocacy of womens rights with the intent of making men and women equal in society. Nothing more, nothing less. There are some pricks in the movement but there are some pricks in every movement.

Not every church is the WBC, I do not understand why so many men assume that every Feminist is the same as the one they once met online. It is the same leap of logic.

Two: What is wrong with being a communist environmentalist? I mean, I am a commie! And a bit of an environmentalist. Well, not really. The environment is fucked.

Out of interest, what do you have against Communism? It is just you seem to be trying to use it as a dirty word.

*reads some of your other posts*

The thing is that following the fall of the USSR communism lost all appeal to anyone in the west. After all the fall was proof communism was a failure in all aspects.

Oh, the fall of the USSR (Not communist. Not really. ) was an example of how Communism was a failure in "All" aspects? Really?

You looked at Russias current life expectancy and how much it has collapsed since the fall of communism? How about rates of poverty. Or alcoholism. Or drug abuse. Or the gap between rich and poor. Or... Well, Anything that really matters. Communism has not lost appeal to everyone in the west. Hell, I used to be the head of the Young Socialists, Cambridge Branch. I dropped out of the Workers Revolutionary Party at the start of the Libyan Revolution as a result of ideological issues and I am now a Labour Party activist with strong links to the Socialist Worker.

So please, do not make sweeping generalizations. If anything, the far left is gaining far more popularity these days as a result of austerity. Seriously, go look at the gains of the left in Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal...

Bugger, that was all off topic. Massively.

OT: Uh, stopping hate speech is always good. We have laws that already essentially do this in the UK. Hate speech can get you put in prison, as can death threats etc. Feminism is needed and is a very, very broad principle. You cannot do away with feminism, you simply cannot refer to all modern feminists as "Neo-feminists". There are plenty of feminist academics and stuff like that.

It is not just about activism. Feminism is far more then simple activism. Seriously.

Imperator_DK:
Hatespeech legislation is nothing new. As something which undermine the foundation of free debate democracy is built upon, it should not exist. But in this day and age the problem is more principled than practical. A US server, the TOR browser, and a bit of legal advice on how to play jurisdictions from civil rights enthusiasts, and they're all good to go.

It'll presumably only harden the tone anyway, as the hatespeech laws on race and religion have done across the EU. The law de facto can not be applied to ordinary mainstream discourse: So those who oppose them would do well to help create a rougher discourse on the subject they concern, in order to limit the scope of free speech they apply to. Which is rather regrettable for the people it's supposed to protect, but free speech is far too important to not accept some collateral damage in the defence of it.

So merely disagreeing with feminism is hatespeech?

Mr F.:
Seriously, go look at the gains of the left in Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal...

lol are you serious?

Our current left-wing government has been such a massive failure that the single biggest right-wing party (we have a 4 party system) is currently bigger then the next 2 left-wing parties combined. Elections are actually starting later this month after 4 years of left-wing government, and everything suggests that the right-winged parties are returning (before the current government was elected as the result of the collapse, they had been in power for over 16 years). The left is loosing support in Iceland, not gaining it.

Mr F.:

Two things:

One: It is intellectually dishonest to randomly create a term. Seriously. It causes confusion, if anything. I mean, I cannot just start calling liberalism that disagrees with earlier liberalism "Neo-liberalism". Neo-liberalism is already an established term. This current rebranding of feminism as something other then it is not really, really pisses me off. Feminism is feminism. The advocacy of womens rights with the intent of making men and women equal in society. Nothing more, nothing less. There are some pricks in the movement but there are some pricks in every movement.

Not every church is the WBC, I do not understand why so many men assume that every Feminist is the same as the one they once met online. It is the same leap of logic.

Neo is a prefix which means "new/different". It seems intellectually valid to call a movement which names itself feminism but stands for something different and new neo-feminism. It's not like i called it wobbledidoo-feminism.

And if feminism was feminism than i wouldn't need to use the term neo-feminism. Feminism is about equal rights but the current feminist movements go far beyond that. Hence why i call them neo-feminist movements. Calling them feminist movements wouldn't be fair to the true feminist movement (which is still needed in many parts of the world)

Two: What is wrong with being a communist environmentalist? I mean, I am a commie! And a bit of an environmentalist. Well, not really. The environment is fucked.

Out of interest, what do you have against Communism? It is just you seem to be trying to use it as a dirty word.

*reads some of your other posts*

I never implied there was something inherently wrong with. I just used an example to illustrate my point. Our green parties act like they're all about the environment while at the same time being much more silent about their extreme left wing agenda and sometimes they even abuse environmental issues for their communist agenda. A little example:
- We want to increase the taxes on carbon emissions ! (sure, why not, make it more expensive to pollute)
- We want the government to further subsidize poor families with their energy bills!

waaaiiittt... Isn't that essentially saying "make energy more expensive for rich people and cheaper for poor people?". So at the end the environment is just used to fund their communist agenda.

Oh, the fall of the USSR (Not communist. Not really. ) was an example of how Communism was a failure in "All" aspects? Really?

You looked at Russias current life expectancy and how much it has collapsed since the fall of communism? How about rates of poverty. Or alcoholism. Or drug abuse. Or the gap between rich and poor. Or... Well, Anything that really matters. Communism has not lost appeal to everyone in the west. Hell, I used to be the head of the Young Socialists, Cambridge Branch. I dropped out of the Workers Revolutionary Party at the start of the Libyan Revolution as a result of ideological issues and I am now a Labour Party activist with strong links to the Socialist Worker.

So please, do not make sweeping generalizations. If anything, the far left is gaining far more popularity these days as a result of austerity. Seriously, go look at the gains of the left in Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal...

Bugger, that was all off topic. Massively.

Actually i was just trying to illustrate what happened with very broad generalizations. (after all this topic isn't about communism and i didn't feel like it was needed to truly go into details)

The thing is that the fall of the berlin wall has made many people lose faith in communism and thus resulted in communist activists further losing popularity. This forced them to find something else, and they decided to go for environmentalism which at the time became a growing issue.

Hardcore_gamer:

Mr F.:
Seriously, go look at the gains of the left in Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal...

lol are you serious?

Our current left-wing government has been such a massive failure that the single biggest right-wing party (we have a 4 party system) is currently bigger then the next 2 left-wing parties combined. Elections are actually starting later this month after 4 years of left-wing government, and everything suggests that the right-winged parties are returning (before the current government was elected as the result of the collapse, they had been in power for over 16 years). The left is loosing support in Iceland, not gaining it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/5224092/Iceland-election-Left-wing-caretaker-government-wins.html

Seems my view on Iceland is out of date. I still hold that the far left is far from dead and gone and that Communism as an ideal has not been banished from the minds of all Europeans. Far from it. But this has no place in a discussion about feminism.

OT: Legislating against people being pricks is a good thing. Also, it is not censorship, not really. If you cannot say something without threatening someone, you should probably not be saying anything. Think of it as self-censorship.

You can still get your point across. You just have to do it without inciting violence.

Mr F.:

OT: Legislating against people being pricks is a good thing. Also, it is not censorship, not really. If you cannot say something without threatening someone, you should probably not be saying anything. Think of it as self-censorship.

You can still get your point across. You just have to do it without inciting violence.

But the problem is that their report is extremely vague about what can and cannot. Let me copy paste the relevant part i mentioned in my first post (which apparently almost got me a warning?)

"The press must take care of their responsibilities against antifeminism (The media must ensure that it has the competence to meet extreme actors without legitimising them or their opinions. Editors of online comments' fields have a special responsibility to ensure that their users are not made targets of threats and harassment, and that xenophobic and antifeminist sentiments are not fuelled or legitimised.)"

They are basically saying that the media should manipulate the masses by allowing anti-feminism while never legitimizing it. And since anti-feminism has never been defined this seems to be typical dangerous populism. When you have to be vague it's probably because the agenda won't sell that well

CogDiss:

So merely disagreeing with feminism is hatespeech?

No, but if you actually read the document instead of just taking the OP's lies at face value, it says that they're only recommending a ban on threats and harassment.

Hardcore_gamer:
snip

Speaking of which, are you planning on editing the lies out of the thread title at all? Because right now it would actually be more honest to title the thread: "Feminists advise Nordic Council to provide aid to disenfranchised and marginalised men". At least that part is actually true.

Humanity Wracked By Shocking Revelation

Governments in Turmoil as Icelandic Online Journalist Sheds Light on Feminist Plot!

image
Above: She wants to take your penis.

The Prime Minister David Cameron was summoned to the House of Commons today in order to calm the ruckus generated by the startling revelation.

He refused to comment on the matter, instead barging through crowds of female photographers with both hands gripping the Prime Ministerial box.

Such startling scenes were caused by the reveal yesterday evening of a group of female Icelandic terrorists intent on ending freedom of speech. Allegedly, they were only moments away from enacting their master plan to tap mens' shoulders when their backs were turned and quickly stretch duct-tape over their mouths.

And then they take their penises.

This, it has been confirmed, is only a single cell of a worldwide terrorist network. The network, while still in its nascent stages, has already firmly swayed almost half of the global population, and pulls the strings of various positions of power through blackmail, using what is known by many as the "Low-cut-top-lean" weapon of mass distraction.

The United Nations, with the firm support of all members of the security council and general assembly, hastily passed resolution #0104, declaring these plans to constitute conspiracy to terrorist acts, and has demanded the terrorist organisation surrender its WMDs under threat of a new US-led "War on-", the details of which are yet to be revealed.

Bill Bradford, 42, expressed worry at the situation, "What? No way! Bloody feminazis! I won't let them take my penis, OR MY LIBERTY!"

James Collins, 3 months, expressed indifference to the situation, "I don't see why I should really have to involve myself in drivel such as this, it's not like it's really a problem in the geopolitical or metaphysical scheme of things."

Proffessor Dickenson Holmes of the Institute for Studies offered an alternative theory, "My colleagues and I recently published a paper that challenges the mainstream orthodoxy of the threat from this organisation."

"In fact, this organisation isn't even an organisation at all- at least not one anybody cares about. Like France."

"They simply represent the latest data point in an extraordinary new trend we are currently studying"

"Get this," he said, "People, right, who say they have things like in common with other people, yeah, Aren't those people! I know, right!"

Whatever the accepted theory after the dust has settled, this reporter does know this: the world will be changed forever.

Gethsemani:

The second paragraph makes a connection to Behring-Breivik and his outspoken anti-feminism and racism [the norwegian phrase is "fremmedfiendtlighet", roughly "hatred of strangers", I shorthand it as racism because the two are very similar and I haven't heard a similar phrase in English]

Xenophobia. Means fear of the outsider more or less. It would be a better translation since it refers to immigrants or outsiders of any form rather than any people of a certain race. Based entirely in Greek because English is a silly language that can't decide who it wants to steal from the most.

Alright, more to the point. The way I see it is like the Heritage Institute putting forth a study that supports their position. It's probably full of crap and I doubt it will be taken seriously enough to be put into law, though it may have a couple supporters(in the U.S., this is way more than a couple but one advantage of partisan politics is that this insanity doesn't often get considered).

If it is, feel free to say I told you so. I still won't be siding with the MRAs though. I'll look for the free speech crowd.

Going through my American First Amendment filter, you must allow people to talk like pricks as long as they aren't harassing an individual or threatening violence. So this proposal has a couple good points that are probably already in practice covered by other existing laws against harassment and threats. The rest of it is more than a bit of insanity.

CogDiss:
"It is also about making sure that no one, not even men, are left standing outside of the great community."

I see that you've already labeled me as some kind of anti-feminist rapist in your head so further discussion with be pointless.

Is it just me or does that sounds like something a cult leader would say? No really for some reason i pictured myself Kane (from C&C) saying that. (just replace "men" with "People deceived by the GDI" and "community" with "Brotherhood" and you have a line that Kane could have totally said)

CogDiss:

I see that you've already labeled me as some kind of anti-feminist rapist in your head so further discussion with be pointless.

image

I correct you on something and suddenly I'm painting you as "an anti-feminist rapist"? Talk about hysteria.

boots:
Speaking of which, are you planning on editing the lies out of the thread title at all? Because right now it would actually be more honest to title the thread: "Feminists advise Nordic Council to provide aid to disenfranchised and marginalised men". At least that part is actually true.

He probably won't get around to addressing that. Just as he isn't admitting to the giant holes in his plan to save the poor and refused to admit his "proof" that his insane economic scheme was only valid proof if the economy in question is functioning within a totalitarian dictatorship. He's become really bad about this--starting threads convinced he is absolutely right, and just refusing to answer and address the problems with his plans when they are pointed out.

Hardcore_gamer:
-snip

Hardcore, making mistakes is not a bad thing. I've made mistakes, and I promise you every single person in this thread has made a mistake. You aren't stupid for having made a mistake--in fact, sometimes making mistakes is the best way to learn something. However, it is quite a problem to refuse to admit when you've made a mistake, or to pretend it's not there. That isn't being smart or brave, that's just being childish, and frankly it's why your threads get answered with hostile and patronizing remarks. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you either defend your mistakes to the death or just run away and pretend it never happened.

Lilani:
Just as he isn't admitting to the giant holes in his plan to save the poor and refused to admit his "proof" that his insane economic scheme was only valid proof if the economy in question is functioning within a totalitarian dictatorship.

I am actually thinking about making another experiment in Victoria 2 and making another thread about it. Except that this time I would be trying to play as a communist regime to show how poor the plannned economy is compared to a more free market.

Hardcore_gamer:

Lilani:
Just as he isn't admitting to the giant holes in his plan to save the poor and refused to admit his "proof" that his insane economic scheme was only valid proof if the economy in question is functioning within a totalitarian dictatorship.

I am actually thinking about making another experiment in Victoria 2 and making another thread about it. Except that this time I would be trying to play as a communist regime to show how poor the plannned economy is compared to a more free market.

I know this is Off Topic but wouldn't that be rather pointless considering the low amount of people who actually are communists in the R&P section?

Hardcore_gamer:

I am actually thinking about making another experiment in Victoria 2 and making another thread about it. Except that this time I would be trying to play as a communist regime to show how poor the plannned economy is compared to a more free market.

Right, because if real life doesn't convince people of the falsity of their beliefs, then a crappy simulation surely will!

Especially if that simulation is played by someone who has a record of hostility to vague and usually at least partially incorrect notions of "Socialism".

I mean, this place is just rife with communists to be proven wrong!

I don't know how the law works exactly in your country, but here in the US we would just laugh them off. There are some crazy feminists here too, I see so many on my college campus that blame men for every problem, including war. I think many of them are really just lesbians honestly, and they really just hate men.

I'm sure there are some decent feminists out there, I'm all for women having the same rights as men and all, but I think they need to tone down their "blame the men" attitude. And honestly, it may not be the "political correct" thing to say, but there are some significant differences between the sexes in more than just their physique. This is a scientific fact.

TheLycanKing144:
I think many of them are really just lesbians honestly, and they really just hate men.

It can be tricky to get homophobia and sexism into the same sentence, but hot damn if you didn't nail it. Congrats.

TheLycanKing144:
it may not be the "political correct" thing to say, but there are some significant differences between the sexes in more than just their physique. This is a scientific fact.

Whether it's Politically Correct is neither here nor there.[1]

No shit are there differences between men and women. You don't need to say "It's a scientific fact," to back that up.

No, the point still up for debate is how much those differences are the result of inherent physiology or other things.

Increasingly, the body of knowledge surrounding that research is heading to the conclusion that making any assertions of inherent difference is simply incorrect. Even gonads and body type aren't a sure indicator of all except the most organ-dependent of functions (like ovulating etc..)

TheLycanKing144:

I'm simply speaking from personal experience with many of the feminists I know. They run around my University and say things like "men are not needed" and "women are better" and other such nonsense, common sense would dictate that since they hate men so much and love women, then they are obviously lesbians.

Right, because all those men who said (and say) things like "Women are good for nothing but babies" and "Men are better" were obviously gay. They hated women, it's only common sense: they were obviously gay.

It's a wonder the human species didn't die out in the early 20th Century with all that man-love going around.

image

Look at these two misogynists!

boots:

You are basing this on the assumption that lesbians are lesbians because they hate men (as opposed to, y'know, because they are romantically interested in women), which is frankly disgustingly homophobic. And the old "you're just a lesbian" response is about the oldest and weakest reaction to feminism in the book. If you disagree with someone's point of view then explain why you disagree with it, don't make ad hominem attacks and try to discredit them by insisting that they most be homosexual.

I do wonder how that train of thought would paint bi-sexuals like me.

WE HATE EVERYONE!

And also no-one. Aww. <3

[1] (I don't think you know what "Politically Correct" means-- neither do most people, it drives me nuts. Example: It is politically incorrect to call the USA "America" or "The US." It's literally politically incorrect! Simple as that.)

TheLycanKing144:

I'm simply speaking from personal experience with many of the feminists I know. They run around my University and say things like "men are not needed" and "women are better" and other such nonsense, common sense would dictate that since they hate men so much and love women, then they are obviously lesbians.

You are basing this on the assumption that lesbians are lesbians because they hate men (as opposed to, y'know, because they are romantically interested in women), which is frankly disgustingly homophobic. And the old "you're just a lesbian" response is about the oldest and weakest reaction to feminism in the book. If you disagree with someone's point of view then explain why you disagree with it, don't make ad hominem attacks and try to discredit them by insisting that they most be homosexual.

TheLycanKing144:
This is a scientific fact.

Did anybody else think of this? "It is Anchorman! Not Anchorlady! And that is a scientific fact!"

TheLycanKing144:

I'm not a homophobe nor a sexist. Nice straw man though....

...common sense would dictate that since they hate men so much and love women, then they are obviously lesbians.

When they say they things like that, they're saying they dislike traditionally male attitudes, and (if they're a little more radical) that women make better leaders, etc, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with romantic or sexual feelings. You're holding these women to a standard that you do not hold men, because men far more frequently deride women without being gay.

In holding women to a different standard, based on their gender, you're exhibiting sexism. I'm not saying you're a sexist; you probably didn't realise you were doing it, and for all I know, these feminists you met may not have been reasonable people. But you seem to have been treating them differently than how you would have done if they were men.

If you ask any of these feminists, I guarantee that they'll say they don't hate all men.

((Oh, and Boots mentioned homophobia because it's quite simplistic to believe that that's what gay people are like. I can attest to that)).

Danny Ocean:

I do wonder how that train of thought would paint bi-sexuals like me.

WE HATE EVERYONE!

Come to think of it, this explains a lot. I do have a pretty damn low opinion of humanity in general...

Silvanus:

In holding women to a different standard, based on their gender, you're exhibiting sexism. I'm not saying you're a sexist; you probably didn't realise you were doing it, and for all I know, these feminists you met may not have been reasonable people.

If he'd paid any attention, he would have noticed that I didn't call him a sexist either. I don't use sexist as a noun because, well...

boots:

An interesting point to make, in view of the trend for commentators to start off a sentence with, "I'm not X [insert "sexist", "racist", or, increasingly, "homobhobic"] but..."

Part of the problem lies with the associations people have built up around the words. The papers seem to regard "racism" solely as outright statements of hatred which, to be frank, are rare. But this is just expedient, to excuse anything less (such as stereotyping or ending immigration from certain countries).

Gethsemani:

I'm Swedish and as Gorr pointed out the pdf is in Norwegian. Anyway, I thought the section starting on Page 16 deserves some attention, so here's a rough summary of it:

***Snippage***

(EDIT: The author is a man named Are Saastad and the description of him states that: "Leads Reform - Resource Units for Men. Is a qualified nursing assistant in psychiatric care and has worked in hospitals in Oslo. He has also participated in the Norwegian society debate for many years" End edit)

So yeah, for what it is worth I find this text to be pretty representative of what I consider feminism to be. At any rate it is far from the crazy rad-fem stuff that Hardcore_gamer made it out to be.

Thank you, Gethsemani! Your translation relieves the rest of us from depending on an individual's Blog.

Hardcore_gamer:
snip

It appears that the Title you gave this Thread is off-base and misleading. The exaggeration is disruptive. Such mis-titling is against the CoC. As Gethsemani's translation now demonstrates that The Spearhead's link (being the only English one apparently currently available to anyone) was erroneous I must insist that you change the title to something less incendiary. And refrain from further violating the Code of Conduct by creating threads with misleading titles, please.

The rest of you calm down and please enjoy a moment of Zen.

image

Silvanus:

TheLycanKing144:
This is a scientific fact.

Did anybody else think of this? "It is Anchorman! Not Anchorlady! And that is a scientific fact!"

TheLycanKing144:

I'm not a homophobe nor a sexist. Nice straw man though....

...common sense would dictate that since they hate men so much and love women, then they are obviously lesbians.

I'm genuinely unsure whether or not this is trolling, but I'm going to assume it's not for a little while longer. I'll reply as if it isn't.

Anyway. That's not how it works, Lycan. When they say they things like that, they're saying they dislike traditionally male attitudes, and (if they're a little more radical) that women make better leaders, etc, etc. It does not have anything to do with romantic or sexual feelings. You're holding these women to a standard that you do not hold men, because men far more frequently deride women without being gay.

In holding women to a different standard, based on their gender, you're exhibiting sexism. I'm not saying you're a sexist; you probably didn't realise you were doing it, and for all I know, these feminists you met may not have been reasonable people. But you seem to have been treating them differently than how you would have done if they were men.

If you ask any of these feminists, I guarantee that they'll say they don't hate all men.

((Oh, and Boots mentioned homophobia because it's quite simplistic to believe that that's what gay people are like. I can attest to that)).

Danny Ocean:

I do wonder how that train of thought would paint bi-sexuals like me.

WE HATE EVERYONE!

Come to think of it, this explains a lot. I do have a pretty damn low opinion of humanity in general...

I wasn't trolling, just speaking from personal experience. I would be more than happy to hear from some feminists that are not as extreme explain their positions to me, I simply did not have this opportunity in real life.

TheLycanKing144:

I wasn't trolling, just speaking from personal experience. I would be more than happy to hear from some feminists that are not as extreme explain their positions to me, I simply did not have this opportunity in real life.

Greetings. I am one such feminist.

However, I'm not about to apologize for my claiming of such a title, which I claim soley because I believe in the equality of oppurtunity and equality under the law for women, just because of the existence of radicals and idiots. After all, I wouldn't demand you hand in your Conservative card just because of the existence of Micheal Savage or Rush Limbaugh, now would I?

TheLycanKing144:

I wasn't trolling, just speaking from personal experience. I would be more than happy to hear from some feminists that are not as extreme explain their positions to me, I simply did not have this opportunity in real life.

Right, because it's not like there's an internet for that or anything.

I'd engage with the question personally, but apparently if you don't like my answers I'll get called a lesbian on the grounds that I "hate men".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked