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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Dijkstra:

It's not clear, you are being paranoid about it. Assuming they want to delegitimize opinions that does not prove that they will therefore want to fight Facebook comments. That is a paranoid leap in logic. 'I'm sorry but their intentions are quite clear' is a cop out. It screams 'I don't have actual logic to link the two so I'll just say this is clear'.

I'm sorry but when an organization asks for the press to manipulate their audience by ensuring a certain opinion is always presented in a deligitimized way there is nothing paranoid about thinking they would push it further if they could. They have already crossed the line of asking for mass manipulation. At this point it's merely a matter of the means used to do so.

And let me ask a question: how would you feel if a political party would ask the media to ensure opposing ideologies are never legitimized? Wouldn't you think that party went full bonkers?

generals3:

Dijkstra:

It's not clear, you are being paranoid about it. Assuming they want to delegitimize opinions that does not prove that they will therefore want to fight Facebook comments. That is a paranoid leap in logic. 'I'm sorry but their intentions are quite clear' is a cop out. It screams 'I don't have actual logic to link the two so I'll just say this is clear'.

I'm sorry but when an organization asks for the press to manipulate their audience by ensuring a certain opinion is always presented in a deligitimized way there is nothing paranoid about thinking they would push it further if they could. They have already crossed the line of asking for mass manipulation. At this point it's merely a matter of the means used to do so.

They didn't ask for it to manipulate for delegimitization. It says they don't want it legitimized.

"The media must ensure that it has the competence to meet extreme actors without legitimising them or their opinions."

This is nothing that should be alarming. The media should report the facts and not give extra credence to them beyond merely the facts. You twist it to be considered mass manipulation to NOT be biased. Only proving my point further.

Dijkstra:

They didn't ask for it to manipulate for delegimitization. It says they don't want it legitimized.

"The media must ensure that it has the competence to meet extreme actors without legitimising them or their opinions."

This is nothing that should be alarming. The media should report the facts and not give extra credence to them beyond merely the facts. You twist it to be considered mass manipulation to NOT be biased. Only proving my point further.

Irrelevant. They're are still asking for one particular opinion to be treated differently, which is still manipulation. If you want to do things right than you ask the media to never legitimize ANY opinion. Otherwise you're asking the media to hold a double standard and thus push public opinion in one direction. What do you think will happen when people see feminists being legitimized and anti-feminists never?

and you forgot "antifeminist sentiments are not fuelled or legitimised"

They don't want sentiments to be fuelled or legimitized. You see they want to manipulate how the media directs peoples sentiments.

generals3:

Dijkstra:

They didn't ask for it to manipulate for delegimitization. It says they don't want it legitimized.

"The media must ensure that it has the competence to meet extreme actors without legitimising them or their opinions."

This is nothing that should be alarming. The media should report the facts and not give extra credence to them beyond merely the facts. You twist it to be considered mass manipulation to NOT be biased. Only proving my point further.

Irrelevant. They're are still asking for one particular opinion to be treated differently, which is still manipulation. If you want to do things right than you ask the media to never legitimize ANY opinion. Otherwise you're asking the media to hold a double standard and thus push public opinion in one direction. What do you think will happen when people see feminists being legitimized and anti-feminists never?

and you forgot "antifeminist sentiments are not fuelled or legitimised"

They don't want sentiments to be fuelled or legimitized. You see they want to manipulate how the media directs peoples sentiments.

It's quite relevant when you accuse them of saying something they did not, it only proves my point further about your bias. Should I start accusing you of trying some manipulation by the way with your dishonest choice of words? Present something in a more, dare I say, delegitimizing point of view is manipulation after all! I guess next you'll want to start going after Facebook comments!

And nope, I do not see where they say it should be treated differently. I'd say that it is a good standard for all things. Perhaps they simply don't believe it is being applied well here. I do not see anything revolutionary in the idea that the media should be able to meet extreme actors and not legitimize them or their opinions. It is not their job to make it work in every aspect possible, they are focused on one particular aspect. It is not some scary conspiracy if they only work in their particular sphere. In essence, you have failed to prove they asked for different treatment here because you have not shown that such treatment is not already supposed to be the norm.

Oh so I see how it is. If the media isn't your spokesperson then they are trying to direct people's sentiments with the media.

You know, you're going further into conspiracy territory when you start acting like the media will mind control the world.

Dijkstra:

It's quite relevant when you accuse them of saying something they did not, it only proves my point further about your bias. Should I start accusing you of trying some manipulation by the way with your dishonest choice of words? Present something in a more, dare I say, delegitimizing point of view is manipulation after all! I guess next you'll want to start going after Facebook comments!

I see you totally missed the point. This isn't about an individual opinion. I, you and everyone can present his own opinion the own way he wants. However neither I, you or anyone else should have the pretense to ask the press to never legitimize your opposing ideology.

Let me ask you the following: Wouldn't a politician asking for muslim symbols to banned from public offices be asking for a double standard? After all he didn't say anything about any other religious symbols. Wouldn't you also agree the right way to do it would be to ask for religious neutrality?

And nope, I do not see where they say it should be treated differently. I'd say that it is a good standard for all things. Perhaps they simply don't believe it is being applied well here. I do not see anything revolutionary in the idea that the media should be able to meet extreme actors and not legitimize them or their opinions. It is not their job to make it work in every aspect possible, they are focused on one particular aspect. It is not some scary conspiracy if they only work in their particular sphere. In essence, you have failed to prove they asked for different treatment here because you have not shown that such treatment is not already supposed to be the norm.

But it is written black on white they ask for anti-feminism never to be legitimized. They ask for ONE opinion to be treated in a certain way. That's asking for a double standard. The right way to go would be asking for neutrality. But that wouldn't ensure their ideology is brought forward in a more positive way.

Oh so I see how it is. If the media isn't your spokesperson then they are trying to direct people's sentiments with the media.

See now you're just trying to lie about me. Have I ever stated that the media should be my spokesperson? Actually I have merely stated that a group asking the media to be their spokesperson is asking for plain manipulation. It's manipulating the way information flows. If a certain news outlet decides to be full pro-feminist that's fine, just like it's fine for one to go full pro-anti-feminist. But asking that there should be no pro-anti-feminist flow of information is plain disgusting. Either you ask for neutrality or you don't ask for anything. Because only asking to control the way information flows for your opposing view is plainly wrong.

You know, you're going further into conspiracy territory when you start acting like the media will mind control the world.

Opinions are formed based on information gathered and not only the raw data is information, the way it is sent to you matters as well. Thinking the media have 0 influence on opinions would be nave to say the least. There is a reason why dictators tend to censor the press. However what I never said is that they control your mind. But the mere fact they have an effect on people's opinion and this panel of "experts" asks for a double standard is just as wrong as it gets.

generals3:

Dijkstra:

It's quite relevant when you accuse them of saying something they did not, it only proves my point further about your bias. Should I start accusing you of trying some manipulation by the way with your dishonest choice of words? Present something in a more, dare I say, delegitimizing point of view is manipulation after all! I guess next you'll want to start going after Facebook comments!

I see you totally missed the point. This isn't about an individual opinion. I, you and everyone can present his own opinion the own way he wants. However neither I, you or anyone else should have the pretense to ask the press to never legitimize your opposing ideology.

So you oppose their right to make a request of someone and thus their right to free speech. Okay... Besides which, you refuse to look at whether it is a reasonable request and simply react to the fact there was one. That, again, speaks of bias. It says you're on a side. The question is if it is a reasonable request that they not legitimize extreme views in their reporting on them. I do not see what is wrong with asking the news to be unbiased on that point.

And nope, I do not see where they say it should be treated differently. I'd say that it is a good standard for all things. Perhaps they simply don't believe it is being applied well here. I do not see anything revolutionary in the idea that the media should be able to meet extreme actors and not legitimize them or their opinions. It is not their job to make it work in every aspect possible, they are focused on one particular aspect. It is not some scary conspiracy if they only work in their particular sphere. In essence, you have failed to prove they asked for different treatment here because you have not shown that such treatment is not already supposed to be the norm.

But it is written black on white they ask for anti-feminism never to be legitimized. They ask for ONE opinion to be treated in a certain way. That's asking for a double standard. The right way to go would be asking for neutrality. But that wouldn't ensure their ideology is brought forward in a more positive way.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I already addressed the double standard accusation. 'You have not shown that such treatment is not already supposed to be the norm.' You have not proven that they asked for different treatment because you have not proven they did not ask for the other party to be treated differently from how they already are.

Also, the slippery slope thing? It is already practically a standard to avoid trying to legitimize racist views if reported on. Certainly there would be an outcry if they did and certainly people would want that stopped. And yet... where are the Facebook comment hunters you are so terrified of? Where's Big Brother for that, hmm?

Oh so I see how it is. If the media isn't your spokesperson then they are trying to direct people's sentiments with the media.

See now you're just trying to lie about me. Have I ever stated that the media should be my spokesperson? Actually I have merely stated that a group asking the media to be their spokesperson is asking for plain manipulation. It's manipulating the way information flows. If a certain news outlet decides to be full pro-feminist that's fine, just like it's fine for one to go full pro-anti-feminist. But asking that there should be no pro-anti-feminist flow of information is plain disgusting. Either you ask for neutrality or you don't ask for anything. Because only asking to control the way information flows for your opposing view is plainly wrong.

You make a big outcry if people want them to not push a particular view, so pretty much yes. And again, they have not asked them to do that. You continue to distort. And nope, it isn't disgusting to ask someone something.

Also, not all views are equally legitimate anyway. Nor are they in any way obligated to ask for anything for the opposing side. You want it? Do it yourself.

You know, you're going further into conspiracy territory when you start acting like the media will mind control the world.

Opinions are formed based on information gathered and not only the raw data is information, the way it is sent to you matters as well. Thinking the media have 0 influence on opinions would be nave to say the least. There is a reason why dictators tend to censor the press. However what I never said is that they control your mind. But the mere fact they have an effect on people's opinion and this panel of "experts" asks for a double standard is just as wrong as it gets.

You're making this out to be some grand conspiracy and even used the word 'Orwellian'. That implies a fair bit.

I wonder how they would define 'feminism' and 'anti-feminism'. Isn't threats and harassment already illegal regardless of context?

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.

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

EDIT: It appears that there is actually a english summary on page 35.

Thoughts:
According to your English source what the Nordic Council wants to do is not stated anywhere - they have just received recommendations from what seems to be a pretty extremist group. What does it say in your Icelandic source about this? I think it is pretty important to be picky about such things.

As a knee-jerk reaction, I do not think that their policy is worth sacrificing free speech on the internet for.

Completely ruined? Nah. Used in part to fuel some less than stellar agendas? Yes, as with many other things.

Last but not least, the English source feels a bit on the extremist side itself. It is hard to choose a just side when both sides have resorted to flinging poop.

Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism and equality
Feminism is the thought that an unequal framework exist in society that favors men over women. And that it is necessary to act in order to remove this inequality. Anti-feminists speak against feminism and claim that such a framework does not exist or that the framework actually favors women over men.

So we have to agree with feminist drones and never contest them? In my experience(mainly academic and the internetz.) feminism has been largely warped from an fight for equality to "getting all the extra rights we can while playing the victim" and "let's overanalyze everything until we can get offended by something so we can change it."* Now I treat all women like men and make no distinction and have largely liberal political tendencies with some belief in social reforms. Am I anti-feminist?

While I'm an advocate of free speech I'd be so inclined as to ban neo-nazi and other forms of extreme hate speech, but where do you draw the line? I'm a History graduate and some of the communist inclined colleagues I frequently criticize call me a Zionist fascist pig should I be banned? (Brazil, the place were liberalism is the extreme right wing and conservative parties are long dead.)

*

DevilWithaHalo:

Paradoxrifts:
I've always wondered what this particular animal farm will do when they run out of horses.

You really think they won't find something innocuous to complain about? They've already started!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2300554/Are-nail-polish-names-anti-feminist-Manufacturers-accused-disempowering-women-colors-like-Dirty-Slut.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/why-the-word-panties-is-so-awful-and-what-to-do-about-it/273224/

Prime example of what I meant by overanalysis.

so. what do they do? they ACTUALLY RECOMMEND- yes it says recommend. no problem here, ay?
nobody has do follow a recommendation. and this is free for discussion, so no problem there i think.

(and at the MRA:
the thing with the custody is based on sexism-you cant make us accountable for a problem which the society makes if the society and mostly the people in charge are men who choose to let the status be that way and believe in that "shes a good mother because of VAGINA!" thingy..

patriarchy hurts men too. unless it is not longer expected from women to take care of children and elder just because they are women and, have therefore to be better in caring(which is bullshit galore) women Will get more often custody for the children-because the society and this includes the judges will think- women are women and therefore better at caring for their family. men have to work and are "naturally" not good at caring and homework so they cant get custody. which is bullshit as well. so men, stand up for your children and start fighting the "a good parent is a mother" myth. start doing your fair share of homework, step back in your carrier, take your time off for your child-and that pelse in the first year and do not wait until the child is more easy manageable.

if you did this, i bet my ass that there wont be so much problem with fathers getting full or half custody-because the people who decide that will know that the man which want custody will sacrifice his carrier and his free time to be all with his children and is very well able to care for a child, organize homework and provide money by jobbing part time. (like its expected from mothers because of vaina and such.)

but unless our society stops believing in the mother mythos there will ever be people which believe in rigid gender roles to the extent of women and men.(my mother wasnt very good at her role. happily i have my dad. and if ill get children, my partner will take care. but i dont like children anyway. they are loud, annoying and expensive. and because i am a women everybody expecte me to put my children above everything else (career, anyone?)

(ah, sometimes i dream a little dream in which people would be paid based on their importance in society, these rich managers would get a problem and all the hard working wo/men wich face poorness because the pension they get is based on their income would earn so much more money because educating children and caring for elders is damn important)

firmicute:
so. what do they do? they ACTUALLY RECOMMEND- yes it says recommend. no problem here, ay?
nobody has do follow a recommendation. and this is free for discussion, so no problem there i think.

(and at the MRA:
the thing with the custody is based on sexism-you cant make us accountable for a problem which the society makes if the society and mostly the people in charge are men who choose to let the status be that way and believe in that "shes a good mother because of VAGINA!" thingy..

patriarchy hurts men too. unless it is not longer expected from women to take care of children and elder just because they are women and, have therefore to be better in caring(which is bullshit galore) women Will get more often custody for the children-because the society and this includes the judges will think- women are women and therefore better at caring for their family. men have to work and are "naturally" not good at caring and homework so they cant get custody. which is bullshit as well. so men, stand up for your children and start fighting the "a good parent is a mother" myth. start doing your fair share of homework, step back in your carrier, take your time off for your child-and that pelse in the first year and do not wait until the child is more easy manageable.

if you did this, i bet my ass that there wont be so much problem with fathers getting full or half custody-because the people who decide that will know that the man which want custody will sacrifice his carrier and his free time to be all with his children and is very well able to care for a child, organize homework and provide money by jobbing part time. (like its expected from mothers because of vaina and such.)

but unless our society stops believing in the mother mythos there will ever be people which believe in rigid gender roles to the extent of women and men.(my mother wasnt very good at her role. happily i have my dad. and if ill get children, my partner will take care. but i dont like children anyway. they are loud, annoying and expensive. and because i am a women everybody expecte me to put my children above everything else (career, anyone?)

(ah, sometimes i dream a little dream in which people would be paid based on their importance in society, these rich managers would get a problem and all the hard working wo/men wich face poorness because the pension they get is based on their income would earn so much more money because educating children and caring for elders is damn important)

Lack of basic grammar and spelling aside....

It seems you are making a "feminism has got this" claim. At least I think you are.

If that is the case;

1) Feminism does not have a monopoly on gender-equality.
2) The patriarchy hurts men claim, in the context you used it(child custody), does not exclude the MRHM from trying to tackle that issue. MRAs (well most do, some don't) want default 50-50 custody. Which solve that issue a lot faster than feminism; feminism which, on the subject, only says its because of patriarchy and does not provide any real solution to the issue of child custody and support. Outside of the same old tired, "It will get better once we get rid of the patriarchy." (Feel free to correct me on this one. I would love to hear the feminist solution to biased child support/custody.)

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

No, I would not say so. I would not hold an entire worldwide movement accountable for the actions of a minority in a small area of the planet.

This is indeed going too far, yes, and it should be opposed on the grounds of freedom of speech and anti-censorship, but we should try to keep calm, rational, and avoid painting an entire worldwide movement under the same brush.

Lilani:

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

Um, no. Just in the way we don't look at PETA's antics and say the idea of not abusing animals is "completely ruined" or "beyond all repair." The textbook definition of feminism is advocating that social, political and all other rights of women be equal to that of men. I refuse to be the first to initiate the "there's still progress to be made" argument, but I will say even if you could prove in all first-world countries women are completely equal to men and we are completely over sexism, it's safe to say there are still many countries in the middle east and in Africa who (among other things) could use a healthy dose of feminism.

You do know PETA kills most of the animals they rescue. I am surprise real animal rights activist have not gone to sueing them. To me PETA are the nazis, and the Jews are the animals. As for these feminism activist they tend to not care about the Middle East, and Africa, so it seems they are either self centered, or prone to political correctness. I have not seem on the news anything regarding the treatment of women in Africa, and the Middle East, which makes 1900 treatment of women look like heaven.

Gergar12:
As for these feminism activist they tend to not care about the Middle East, and Africa, so it seems they are either self centered, or prone to political correctness. I have not seem on the news anything regarding the treatment of women in Africa, and the Middle East, which makes 1900 treatment of women look like heaven.

Um, what? You are condemning people for trying to improve things in the country they live in, not somewhere else?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked