Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
To me, the most interesting thing here is that the discussion went pretty much as I expected it. For the most part, the very concept of gender equality is considered a joke around these parts, and that was the majority reaction on IRC when the subject was brought up.
It wasn't until I made a marginally offensive statement that all hell broke loose. And I don't find what I said to be too controversial. We know for a fact that there are a lot of men on the internet, and I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with me that a great deal of people on the internet are ignorant about a lot of things, particularly something so outrageous as basic concepts of feminism and gender equality struggles.
But that was somehow construed as an attack on the male gender by me. Suddenly, in an all too unsurprising reversal, the joke that is misogyny made place for the serious discussion that is misandry. Suddenly men were offended. Suddenly it was no longer a joke, but a matter of important principle. Suddenly the great moral imperative is to collectively dismiss me, defame me, distort my views and then laugh at the result.
And that just about reinforces my point. This isn't an attack on the male gender, but about cultural truisms. It's simply harder to understand women's struggles if you aren't a woman. Just as it's harder to understand racism if you aren't part of an oppressed race. It's nothing inherent, it's a matter of not having the same experiences as other demographics, and not having your worldview shaped in the same way. What I do find appalling, however, is the fact that nobody's even willing to give something like this a second thought.
Finally, as icing on the cake, we get a response from our own William F. Buckley, Warp. The same person who also believes Islamophobia is a hoax has come out of the woodworks not only to dismiss the patriarchy as propaganda (even though the evidence for it is overwhelming and unequivocally supported as very real by the social sciences), but also to redefine feminism. Not based on any evidence, mind you, but based on his personal reading of the term itself. In other words, forget about all of feminist theory and the tons of authors that have written on the topic and the nature of the movement itself; the term itself sounds like females and therefore it can't possibly be about gender equality, according to Warp.
I normally wouldn't even reply to this sort of lunacy, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people on this forum agree with him. To them I can only say that they should open up a book sometime.
moozooh wrote:
I put in conscious effort to be more aware of how my actions and attitudes might make anybody feel uncomfortable or unworthy, and try to avoid these actions. I understand if it doesn't make me as worthy a human being in your or Dada's book, but that's how I believe in equality. Not singling some people out and ignoring the rest.
Actually, I think it's great that you're putting in an effort to try and be more understanding of this issue. That's what I was hoping for. I'm certainly not about to attack you for that.
Bringing down the society-wide bias against women that still exists today can only be done if we're collectively ready to rethink these dogmas and put our own actions up for inspection.
What I don't get, however, is why you're so invested in helping bring me down. You've posted a bunch of quotes in the IRC topic, a lot of them without context. Like the one where I say "everything is about sex to Swordless", which was in direct response to him accusing me of only being a feminist in order to elicit sex. Do you think you're being honest by taking that quote out of context and posting it as if I'm the bad guy here?
This is the typical response of a typical male-dominated forum: complete apathy about a really important issue, namely, women's rights and the struggle for equality, and complete hysteria about a minor issue such as a guy like me making some marginally offensive statements about the men of this forum.
But that was somehow construed as an attack on the male gender by me.
I don't want to bring in the gender debate, what I'm particularly unhappy with is your and Upthorn's attack on the community. Somehow the entirety of TASVideos is at fault. "This community sucks", "this community is the worst". The fuck? What did all the other people ever do to you or any women?
If you want to blame somebody in your crusade, fine, that's your call. But don't blame people who aren't even taking part in your fights. You're doing a hell of a disservice to whatever idea you're promoting.
And assuming things about people you don't know isn't any better. If I don't subscribe to your particular ideology, it doesn't mean I have to be forcefully stuffed into a false dichotomy, thankyouverymuch.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
moozooh wrote:
Dada wrote:
But that was somehow construed as an attack on the male gender by me.
I don't want to bring in the gender debate, what I'm particularly unhappy with is your and Upthorn's attack on the community. Somehow the entirety of TASVideos is at fault. "This community sucks", "this community is the worst". The fuck?
To a great deal of the community, the issue of women's rights is more of a joke than a serious discussion. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that because I think it's true, particularly after this discussion.
It's not so strange that someone would get angry about that. Gender equality is a real issue, and the apathy towards it that some communities exhibit, including this one, is truly disgusting.
Edit: I'm asked on IRC to clarify that I don't mean the whole community. I do think this community expresses apathy towards the issue in general, but not everybody in it does. I hope to see more people taking the gender equality side of the argument in the future, then.
moozooh wrote:
If I don't subscribe to your particular ideology, it doesn't mean I have to be forcefully stuffed into a false dichotomy, thankyouverymuch.
I'm curious as to what you think my particular ideology is. It's not so controversial: the concept of equal rights, equal pay, and a society that doesn't have a cultural bias that disfavors women. That's what feminism is. You may not like calling yourself a feminist, but if you're for those things, then you might as well. I never said anything otherwise.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Dada wrote:
And that just about reinforces my point. This isn't an attack on the male gender, but about cultural truisms.
So what you believe is "true" and not just your opinion?
Dada wrote:
It's simply harder to understand women's struggles if you aren't a woman. Just as it's harder to understand racism if you aren't part of an oppressed race.
Harder, sure. But do you think you are the only one here who understands the issue?
You do realize that people might understand the issue and just not agree with you right?
To a great deal of the community, the issue of women's rights is more of a joke than a serious discussion. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying that because I think it's true, particularly after this discussion.
What great deal? Less than a dozen people who bothered to argue with you on the subject is a great deal now?
Note that all of them—I repeat, all of them—actually agree with the concept of equal rights, equal pay and so on. I haven't seen anybody on the entire site denying any women their rights, and I can well see why they're poking fun at your righteous outbursts: because you're assuming the worst (which I expect to be far from the truth) and getting up in arms about it without any kind of proof. Have you made great advancements in your mission by fighting the windmills?
Dada wrote:
It's not so strange that someone would get angry about that.
Yeah, I bet Upthorn witnessed how some of us did something bad to a woman, so he insulted the whole community and stormed off. Or not? What exactly did he see? For instance, he would never see me do that kind of thing because I just don't do it. What would be my fault then? Should I or anybody else here be at fault in the first place?
Behavior like that is why the modern Western culture is so damn uptight. Being an average decent person is not enough anymore; you're always being under suspicion. Can't joke about anything—being not completely serious on any touchy (read: every one of them) issue is a crime. One can be considered dangerous and put under arrest if one just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Happened to my friend who just happens to love children, being like a big kid himself. They've held him in a police office because he happened to be taking photos of some random kids on a playground and smiling. Way to fucking go, society.) Men become afraid of intimacy because they're exposing themselves to legal abuse—if a girl says you raped her you will never prove otherwise. Even if you aren't put in jail, you'll never see the end of it from your peers, colleagues, and random people who will hate you on principle. Every personal thing that goes wrong but could be sorted out on personal level is used as a vessel to promote some agenda or dish out some legal punishment. People become afraid of each other and shut off. There is just no place for positive emotions to breed in such hostile environment because everything is seen as abusive and people are being given more power than can handle (and, to be fair, truly deserve). This goes about everybody, not women in particular.
Please understand that when you're saying that a lot of rapes go unreported, it's often because the victims don't want this pity train, this mass hysteria ignited by people like you surrounding them. They want to go back to their normal life at all costs, without all of this stupid unwanted attention. The militant attitude, the generalizations, using your own assumptions as the basis for your claims—all of it has to go. It's not a way to solve problems, has never been.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
For the most part, the very concept of gender equality is considered a joke around these parts, and that was the majority reaction on IRC when the subject was brought up.
No, the subject brought up was feminism. Which is a joke.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
moozooh wrote:
Please understand that when you're saying that a lot of rapes go unreported, it's often because the victims don't want this pity train, this mass hysteria ignited by people like you surrounding them. They want to go back to their normal life at all costs, without all of this stupid unwanted attention. The militant attitude, the generalizations, using your own assumptions as the basis for your claims—all of it has to go. It's not a way to solve problems, has never been.
Actually, women don't report rapes because of the massive cultural suspicion that they probably are to blame for it themselves. That's why there's such a thing as the SlutWalk protests. And you should read this UK government report on the matter, it's very illuminating (it also notes that between 75% and 95% of rape cases go unreported). This is about a cultural bias towards the assailant's side of the story.
The other thing that you mentioned about how you can't even make jokes anymore is because sometimes jokes can offend people. You have to suspend judgment and use empathy when that happens. In reality, things like rape jokes are really quite commonplace and the backlash against it is really minor.
That's not really proof of any kind.
I also wonder how the mean, median, and outliers for both men and women compare. Personally, I have a huge sex drive, but my girlfriend will absolutely wear me out if I let her. We've had weeks where we were together and do little except have sex. At the end, we each have orgasmed between 25-30 times, and I need to recover a bit sexually. Meanwhile, she wishes we had had even more sex.
Enterim wrote:
The friend zone is an incredibly misogynistic concept. Women have no obligation to have sex with you and it's incredibly disingenuous and deceitful to try to trick them into it. I know it sucks to not have someone feel the same way you do, but you don't have to be so sexist and pathetically sex-starved that you have to blame women for not wanting to have sex with you.
Plus, think of it from the woman's perspective: you meet someone whom you think you can really trust and count on as a friend and it turns out he isn't even interested in you as a person but only wants to have sex with you? I think that's a lot lot worse than being friendzoned.
And don't give me crap about the "bro-zone", I'm talking here about the internalized misogyny that demonizes women for having the ability to discern when and with whom she has sex.
If you think women owe you sex, then perhaps the fact that you're a sexist creep is why they won't talk to you and not that you're a "nice guy?"
I actually just feel sorry for this dude.
While myself and others have happy and fulfilling relationships with affectionate, cool girls, this guy thinks that asking a question on how to be viewed by woman romantically instead of as just a friend is "incredibly misogynistic". (Nevermind that women often ask the same question with regards to guys they're interested in)
With an attitude like that, I wouldn't be surprised if his relationships with women have been incredibly unfulfilling. He is probably too afraid to ever mention his own personal desires within the relationship, whether they be sexual or intellectual, and suffers accordingly.
Edit-
Dada and Enterim, throwing out shitty, intellectually dishonest buzzwords and phrases like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism", and linking to a brain-dead, extremely biased, and misandrist (hatred towards men) feminist blog isn't going to convince people of anything.
It's only going to show us that you want to avoid an intellectually honest discussion at any cost.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada and Enterim, throwing out shitty, intellectually dishonest buzzwords and phrases like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism", and linking to a brain-dead, extremely biased, and misandrist (hatred towards men) feminist blog isn't going to convince people of anything.
How aren't you doing the same thing, using buzzwords to accuse us of using buzzwords?
Furthermore, as I've stated before, when you actually start reading the theorists in the relevant fields of social science, terms like rape culture aren't controversial. They're virtually unequivocally supported by the people who have spent all their lives theorizing about this.
Then there are people like the men's rights activists (which the Southern Poverty Law Center added to their list of hate groups not too long ago) who claim that feminists are really misandrists whose only goal is to bring men down. You can believe those, or you can start reading real social theorists like bell hooks.
I very strongly recommend that the people reading this topic actually pick up a book by a respected author in the field of gender studies like bell hooks and read it and then make up their mind, based on a full understanding of the argument that feminism tries to make. Or if you don't have the time, read a few articles.
Dada and Enterim, throwing out shitty, intellectually dishonest buzzwords and phrases like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism", and linking to a brain-dead, extremely biased, and misandrist (hatred towards men) feminist blog isn't going to convince people of anything.
You can argue the details of what "rape culture" is all day, but you can't really deny it at it's base.
Actually, women don't report rapes because of the massive cultural suspicion that they probably are to blame for it themselves. That's why there's such a thing as the SlutWalk protests. And you should read this UK government report on the matter, it's very illuminating (it also notes that between 75% and 95% of rape cases go unreported). This is about a cultural bias towards the assailant's side of the story.
The other thing that you mentioned about how you can't even make jokes anymore is because sometimes jokes can offend people. You have to suspend judgment and use empathy when that happens. In reality, things like rape jokes are really quite commonplace and the backlash against it is really minor.
Bullshit.
The backlash is not at all minor; people, even in un-PC occupations like "mixed martial arts fighter", and even when not specifically making the joke about women, lose their jobs over rape jokes.
Also, if we're going to cite random numbers about rape, how about a study that found at LEAST 41% of reported rapes in a college town were fake?
Their methodology was simple; a rape report was ONLY counted as "fake" if the woman herself ADMITTED it was all a lie. If she made an accusation, the police found zero evidence to support it, and the guy had a perfect alibi, but she never recanted, it was still not considered "fake".
And yes, I'm aware that feminnists have criticized and attacked this study, even though the methodology is simple and straightforward. For a comprehensive list of estimates from all studies, check this link out;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney
By the way, I'm sure that there are many rapes which are in fact unreported, especially in developing, third world countries.
However, my point is that rape allegations work both ways (some rapes are not reported, while some reported rapes are blatant lies). This sense of "balance" is something feminism sorely lacks in its scholarship.
Edit-
Dada wrote:
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada and Enterim, throwing out shitty, intellectually dishonest buzzwords and phrases like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism", and linking to a brain-dead, extremely biased, and misandrist (hatred towards men) feminist blog isn't going to convince people of anything.
How aren't you doing the same thing, using buzzwords to accuse us of using buzzwords?
What buzzwords did I use, exactly?
Dada wrote:
Furthermore, as I've stated before, when you actually start reading the theorists in the relevant fields of social science, terms like rape culture aren't controversial. They're virtually unequivocally supported by the people who have spent all their lives theorizing about this.
Then there are people like the men's rights activists (which the Southern Poverty Law Center added to their list of hate groups not too long ago) who claim that feminists are really misandrists whose only goal is to bring men down. You can believe those, or you can start reading real social theorists like bell hooks.
I very strongly recommend that the people reading this topic actually pick up a book by a respected author in the field of gender studies like bell hooks and read it and then make up their mind, based on a full understanding of the argument that feminism tries to make. Or if you don't have the time, read a few articles.
Typical feminist. Rather than making an intelligent argument yourself, you tell people to read feminist literature.
Now, it would be fine if you told people merely to educate themselves on the matter and read both sides, but you specifically tell them to only read YOUR LITERATURE that supports YOUR IDEAS, all while demonizing the opposing point of view. That's brain-washing and discrimination in its purest form.
Also, you didn't answer the main point I made.
Enterim started this whole idiocy by stating that a man inquiring on how to make a woman see him romantically instead of just as a Platonic friend is asking something "incredibly misogynistic".
Personally, I think you have to be brainwashed from an early age to feel this way, but I will give you a chance to explain the reasoning going on here.
Try not to ignore this either, and not answer by linking to a bunch of tangentially related feminist blog entries.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
Actually, women don't report rapes because of the massive cultural suspicion that they probably are to blame for it themselves. That's why there's such a thing as the SlutWalk protests. And you should read this UK government report on the matter, it's very illuminating (it also notes that between 75% and 95% of rape cases go unreported). This is about a cultural bias towards the assailant's side of the story.
The other thing that you mentioned about how you can't even make jokes anymore is because sometimes jokes can offend people. You have to suspend judgment and use empathy when that happens. In reality, things like rape jokes are really quite commonplace and the backlash against it is really minor.
Bullshit.
The backlash is not at all minor; people, even in un-PC occupations like "mixed martial arts fighter", and even when not specifically making the joke about women, lose their jobs over rape jokes.
And that's one anecdotal example. When you look at the big picture, you find that there's quite a great deal of support for rape jokes in general. A good case study was the Penny Arcade "Dickwolves" comic. The vast majority of responses to it was in support of Penny Arcade, not in opposition to the fact that they made a joke about rape. There are numerous other cases.
IronSlayer wrote:
This study has been criticized for not having a good methodology, and not just by one person. Quote:
According to Lisak, Kanin's study lacked any kind of systematic methodology and did not independently define a false report, instead recording as false any report which the police department classified as false. The department classified reports as false which the complainant later said were false, but Lisak points out that Kanin's study did not scrutinize the police's processes or employ independent checkers to protect results from bias.
And other studies have found a number of 1.5%. Generally it's considered very difficult to make a good determination with any scientific accuracy. To quote that scientific paper I linked to:
In great pain, the rape victim tells of her assault to police, prosecutors, judges, and jurors, but no one believes her. They suspect either that she fabricated the experience because she wanted it or that she caused it by her own bad behavior.
[...]
By contrast, the criminal justice system has overreacted to infamous anecdotes of men falsely accused.
IronSlayer wrote:
What buzzwords did I use, exactly?
You don't consider "misandrist" to be an MRA buzzword? Furthermore, you didn't actually comment on any of the things mentioned in the blog entry, you just called it "brain-dead".
Dada wrote:
Typical feminist. Rather than making an intelligent argument yourself, you tell people to read feminist literature.
See, I can play this game too. Rather than making an intelligent argument about any of the arguments I've made so far, in addition to telling people to pick up a book because they might find it illuminating to read an actual feminist argument, you're telling people that educating themselves and making up their own mind is somehow "brainwashing" and "discrimination".
It's not "anecdotal". It's not something that happened to a personal friend of mine that I'm reporting second-hand. (The definition of the term)
It was a major news story that happened to a well-known fighter who has been described as nothing but a class act. And he got fired for making a rape joke on Twitter, one that never even referenced women specifically.
Ergo, your statement that there is little consequence to rape jokes is bullshit.
Dada wrote:
When you look at the big picture, you find that there's quite a great deal of support for rape jokes in general. A good case study was the Penny Arcade "Dickwolves" comic. The vast majority of responses to it was in support of Penny Arcade, not in opposition to the fact that they made a joke about rape. There are numerous other cases.
Incidentally, "Dickwolves" was about MEN being raped. By wolves with dicks on their hands. In a fantasy MMO setting.
Yes, if you're getting incensed about that, instead of legitimate discrimination against women, your priorities are extremely fucked-up.
Dada wrote:
This study has been criticized for not having a good methodology, and not just by one person. Quote:
I'm well aware of the criticism and have read all of it, considering I noted as much in the post you quoted.
I will even tell you where the criticism is objectively bullshit.
Dada wrote:
According to Lisak, Kanin's study lacked any kind of systematic methodology and did not independently define a false report, instead recording as false any report which the police department classified as false.
An absolute lie. The methodology was defined at the very beginning of the study.
I will copy and paste it, since you didn't address it;
Their methodology was simple; a rape report was ONLY counted as "fake" if the woman herself ADMITTED it was all a lie. If she made an accusation, the police found zero evidence to support it, and the guy had a perfect alibi, but she never recanted, it was still not considered "fake".
Dada wrote:
And other studies have found a number of 1.5%.
Another bald-faced lie. Even your hero Lisak estimates the number to be 5.9%.
The 1.5% you're referring to is the "minimum" found by Theilade and Thomsen. They noted the "maximum" was 10% in the same paper, so it's intellectually dishonest to claim 1.5% was the number they found.
Every single other study ever published has found the figure to be higher than 1.5%.
Also, many studies have found false rape accusations to account for 40-50% of all reports. One report even found it to be 90%. I know it's antithetical to you, but why don't you post the ENTIRE list so people can make up their own minds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney
Try not to blatantly ignore it this time, m'kay?
Dada wrote:
By contrast, the criminal justice system has overreacted to infamous anecdotes of men falsely accused.
Care to provide any evidence for this, or is this just another invention/lie of the many you're so fond of repeating?
Also, feel free to respond to my edit above, that you ignored exactly as I predicted. I'll even copy and paste it for you;
Enterim started this whole idiocy by stating that a man inquiring on how to make a woman see him romantically instead of just as a Platonic friend is asking something "incredibly misogynistic".
Personally, I think you have to be brainwashed from an early age to feel this way, but I will give you a chance to explain the reasoning going on here.
Try not to ignore this either, and not answer by linking to a bunch of tangentially related feminist blog entries.
Dada wrote:
You don't consider "misandrist" to be an MRA buzzword?
No. I don't consider "misogyny" to be a buzzword, either. But things like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism" are. Because they're poorly-defined, nebulous terms meant to evoke an emotional instead of an intellectual response.
Dada wrote:
See, I can play this game too. Rather than making an intelligent argument about any of the arguments I've made so far, in addition to telling people to pick up a book because they might find it illuminating to read an actual feminist argument, you're telling people that educating themselves and making up their own mind is somehow "brainwashing" and "discrimination".
Except YOU NEVER DID THIS.
I will just copy and paste again, since you're so fond of ignoring the arguments of others;
Now, it would be fine if you told people merely to educate themselves on the matter and read both sides, but you specifically tell them to only read YOUR LITERATURE that supports YOUR IDEAS, all while demonizing the opposing point of view. That's brain-washing and discrimination in its purest form.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
And that's one anecdotal example.
It's not "anecdotal". It's not something that happened to a personal friend of mine that I'm reporting second-hand. (The definition of the term)
It was a major news story that happened to a well-known fighter who has been described as nothing but a class act. And he got fired for making a rape joke on Twitter, one that never even referenced women specifically.
And that might happen on occasion, but it proves nothing about the big picture. I can match every tweet that got someone fired with a rape joke that people laughed about and didn't do anything about. Does that mean they occur in equal numbers? Of course not, you need statistical evidence.
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
When you look at the big picture, you find that there's quite a great deal of support for rape jokes in general. A good case study was the Penny Arcade "Dickwolves" comic. The vast majority of responses to it was in support of Penny Arcade, not in opposition to the fact that they made a joke about rape. There are numerous other cases.
Incidentally, "Dickwolves" was about MEN being raped. By wolves with dicks on their hands. In a fantasy MMO setting.
Let's not bring this whole case into this, but the argument was that Dickwolves made fun of the concept of rape itself (regardless of to whom it happens; it's just as bad when it happens to men, which is also why feminists spoke out against it). Yes, it was nonsensical in the way that you mention, but that was the argument that was made: it made the concept of rape a joke, and people disagreed with that.
Actually, it was mostly about the response of Penny Arcade: they misrepresented what the critics were saying and then ridiculed the misrepresentation, and furthermore a group of their fans even started harassing the people who decided to speak out. It got pretty nasty, so nasty that they even had to take down the t-shirt they made (to try and capitalize on fans who believed the authors' free speech was "under attack") and publicly tell people to please stop harassing the feminists who made blog posts about their comic.
IronSlayer wrote:
I'm well aware of the criticism and have read all of it, considering I noted as much in the post you quoted.
Yes. I actually got that from your link. I don't see why this is such a big revelation? It's pretty clear, when you look at the Wikipedia article, that some complaints were made about the methodology of the study. Your argument seems to be "the study had a methodology, therefore complaints about its methodology were false".
The basic premise here is that it's in general very difficult to make a good methodology for deciding what a false accusation is, which is why the conclusions are all over the place. One has a 1.5% minimum, another is 41%. If you want to take those studies seriously, feel free to do so, but I'm not going to, and I doubt a lot of people will. Particularly if you read the article I linked to that attempts to explain the problems.
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
By contrast, the criminal justice system has overreacted to infamous anecdotes of men falsely accused.
Care to provide any evidence for this, or is this just another invention/lie of the many you're so fond of repeating?
It's in the abstract of the article that I linked you to, which I advise you to read.
IronSlayer wrote:
Enterim started this whole idiocy by stating that a man inquiring on how to make a woman see him romantically instead of just as a Platonic friend is asking something "incredibly misogynistic".
Personally, I think you have to be brainwashed from an early age to feel this way, but I will give you a chance to explain the reasoning going on here.
Try not to ignore this either, and not answer by linking to a bunch of tangentially related feminist blog entries.
"Friend-zoning" is the concept that you're right to be angry when a woman says no to your sexual avances. That she's not "holding up her end of the bargain". Yes, I think there's something very wrong with that. Women aren't just things that you get sex from if you pay them the appropriate amount of attention.
There's a quote on this term. I don't know who first said this, but it goes like this:
"Girls are not slot machines that you insert friendship coins into until sex falls out."IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
You don't consider "misandrist" to be an MRA buzzword?
No. I don't consider "misogyny" to be a buzzword, either. But things like "rape culture" and "sexual negativism" are. Because they're poorly-defined, nebulous terms meant to evoke an emotional instead of an intellectual response.
And if you pick up any book by a respected theorist like for example bell hooks, you'll find that it's not controversial at all in the social sciences. It's not "nebulous", it's been discussed at length for decades long by numerous theorists.
There are also people who think that "global warming" is a buzzword designed to elicit an emotional response, and virtually the entirety of the climate science academic world disagrees with them.
IronSlayer wrote:
Now, it would be fine if you told people merely to educate themselves on the matter and read both sides, but you specifically tell them to only read YOUR LITERATURE that supports YOUR IDEAS, all while demonizing the opposing point of view. That's brain-washing and discrimination in its purest form.
The people who support MRA viewpoints can advocate that people read those instead of feminist theorists. I don't consider it my duty. If people want to read other things than the ones I think will give them a good insight into this topic, that's their choice, but I can't advocate for viewpoints that I don't support. Let the people who support those viewpoints do that.
Furthermore, telling people to read a book and make up their own minds has nothing to do with brainwashing, certainly nothing to do with discrimination.
See Dada, you are not going to beat me in an argument on this matter, since I have read at least as much feminist literature as you have, can recite all the arguments even better than you, and am better versed on all the relevant statistical studies.
However, unlike you, I have also read the anti-feminist literature equally, so I am versed on both sides of the debate. You, however, read the feminist literature while blindly ignoring any fact or reasoning contradicting it.
It's thus delightfully ironic that the person shouting at everyone to "educate themselves" is the most desperately in need of education himself.
The funny thing is that I even agree with some feminist claims, and even believe discrimination against women occurs, even in Western society.
However, your statements specifically have been a mixture of falsehoods, exaggerations, bald-faced lies, and absolute bunk.
Dada wrote:
And that might happen on occasion, but it proves nothing about the big picture. I can match every tweet that got someone fired with a rape joke that people laughed about and didn't do anything about. Does that mean they occur in equal numbers? Of course not, you need statistical evidence.
Okay, please provide said "statistical evidence".
I provided you a clear example of someone who got fired for a single Twitter joke about rape, while not even referencing women directly.
Your sole counterargument was this Internet comic about MEN being raped in an MMO by WOLVES WITH DICKS FOR HANDS, and which STILL got its creators an incredible amount of controversy and backlash.
Dada wrote:
Yes. I actually got that from your link. I don't see why this is such a big revelation? It's pretty clear, when you look at the Wikipedia article, that some complaints were made about the methodology of the study. Your argument seems to be "the study had a methodology, therefore complaints about its methodology were false".
The basic premise here is that it's in general very difficult to make a good methodology for deciding what a false accusation is, which is why the conclusions are all over the place.
So you disagree that a good methodology is only counting a report as fake if the women herself later admits it was a complete lie? I think that's a methodology extremely generous to the women claiming rape, actually.
Please enlighten us on what makes this a bad methodology?
Dada wrote:
One has a 1.5% minimum,
No, we have already gone over why this is inaccurate. The study in question stated the minimum was 1.5% false reports of rape and the maximum was 10%.
Thus, they found the number to be 1.5-10%, not 1.5%.
Dada wrote:
another is 41%. If you want to take those studies seriously, feel free to do so, but I'm not going to, and I doubt a lot of people will. Particularly if you read the article I linked to that attempts to explain the problems.
Yes, I have read all of those links. I have also read the Lisak paper that claimed the number was 5.9%.
I also have read the US Justice Department report that claimed it was 8% in 1997, under the Clinton administration.
I have also read the four reports that thought it was between 40-50%, the report that thought it was 90%, and the countless reports that had it at 10-25%. (The mean/median of the link I cited, by the way)
However, I seriously doubt you even went through the Introduction of the Kalin paper.
That's what's known as "being extremely biased" and "self-delusion"; when you refuse to even consider the other side of the debate.
Dada wrote:
It's in the abstract of the article that I linked you to, which I advise you to read.
Kindly link me to an objective research article with standard methodology, not a feminist blog post with assumptions, buzzwords, and anecdotal (the true definition of that word, not "a major news story") evidence.
Dada wrote:
"Friend-zoning" is the concept that you're right to be angry when a woman says no to your sexual avances. That she's not "holding up her end of the bargain".
Uh...no, it isn't. You're redefining the term to suit your agenda, but no one in this entire topic has defined it as such. I don't see any posts mentioning a "right to be angry".
From my own post in the very first page of the topic,IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
Complaining about being "friend zoned" is pretty childish, I'd say.
I partially agree. However, if you get the "let's just be friends" speech a lot, chances are you're doing something wrong.
Humorously enough, I even partially agreed with you, before you went off the deep end with your twaddle. I stated that the "friend zone" could be avoided by a man who avoids making certain mistakes.
Where does anger towards women enter into ANY of that?
For clarification, the ACTUAL definition of a "friend zone" is a woman who sees you as just a friend when you want her to see you romantically.
Dada wrote:
There are also people who think that "global warming" is a buzzword designed to elicit an emotional response, and virtually the entirety of the climate science academic world disagrees with them.
Also not true.
As an actual scientist who has taken climate science classes from some world-class experts on the subject, there is far from unanimous agreement on this, and that was before the whole leaked e-mail fiasco about data fudging. For instance, one fact that you probably don't know is that the ice cores they take to determine CO2 levels are taken from Greenland, not from Antarctica, because "they don't like the data" from the latter.
It's besides the point, but it's funny that you can't even get a tangential analogy right.
Dada wrote:
Furthermore, telling people to read a book and make up their own minds has nothing to do with brainwashing, certainly nothing to do with discrimination.
You're telling people to read sources that advocate a certain viewpoint while completely ignoring sources that argue the opposite viewpoint.
That is the very definition of extreme bias and brainwashing.
What a stupid topic.
Here's how it works: You meet a girl. You make a move. She allows or rejects the move. If she rejects it, you're likely going to be, at best, a friend. If she doesn't reject it, well...
Unless there's some compelling reason to behave otherwise, after a girl's rejected one of my advances, I don't tend to seek her company again. There are plenty of women out there.
The only reason the "friend zone" is even a topic of discussion is because some men get hung up on certain women and can't take "no" for an answer. Move on with your life. Get out and meet more women. It's really not that hard...
What a stupid topic.
Here's how it works: You meet a girl. You make a move. She allows or rejects the move. If she rejects it, you're likely going to be, at best, a friend. If she doesn't reject it, well...
Unless there's some compelling reason to behave otherwise, after a girl's rejected one of my advances, I don't tend to seek her company again. There are plenty of women out there.
The only reason the "friend zone" is even a topic of discussion is because some men get hung up on certain women and can't take "no" for an answer. Move on with your life. Get out and meet more women. It's really not that hard...
Exactly. Couldn't agree more with this. Don't waste your time pining away after a certain girl; go out and find someone even cooler and more amazing than her.
Also, feminism is retarded. It masquerades under the false pretense of gender equality.
Gender equality is currently unattainable. When I, as a male, am capable of bringing a child to term inside of myself, then giving birth with minimal intervention, we'll have achieved something resembling gender equality. Feminism is, as someone mentioned, little more than cultural Marxism and historical revisionism. It's oblivious to the fact that for millenia, women were not treated as lesser beings, but rather as greater beings. They had lesser physical strength, so the societal role of men was to protect them and do for them the things that require archetypically male strength. Society, for most of human civilization, held women up as paragons of what it means to be human, leaving the heavy burdens for the men.
Both feminists and MRAs (which are, by feminist definitions, feminist) are a bunch of whiny crybabies incapable of looking at the situation and seeing that everything has tradeoffs, including gender. Almost universally, they appear to sincerely wish that they were of the opposite gender, so they could use some societally-provided mechanism to improve their lot in life.
The term "feminist" is a great label. It's great for about one thing: allowing me to trivially be aware that an individual does not possess legitimate faculties of reason and perception.
There are no feminists who get it because feminism is fundamentally errant and inconsistent with reality.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
At the risk of being labeled "conceding defeat", I'm simply not going to reply to what I think is a lot of "I'm right, you're so very wrong" posturing and instead only look at the things that matter.
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
And that might happen on occasion, but it proves nothing about the big picture. I can match every tweet that got someone fired with a rape joke that people laughed about and didn't do anything about. Does that mean they occur in equal numbers? Of course not, you need statistical evidence.
Okay, please provide said "statistical evidence".
I provided you a clear example of someone who got fired for a single Twitter joke about rape, while not even referencing women directly.
Yes, you provided me with one single data point. Given that you consider that to be valid evidence, I could now provide you with another tweet of someone making a rape joke who didn't make it to the news and didn't get fired.
My point is that linking to single data points is useless.
But more importantly, when someone makes a rape joke that doesn't land them into hot water, it's not news. Nobody particularly cares; it happens all the time. When someone does get fired, it's newsworthy. Does that mean the former never happens because it's harder to find newspaper articles about? Reality is more complicated than a few data points.
So I provided you with a minor counterexample: the Dickwolves comic. Again: investigate what really happened, and you'll find that the backlash was fairly limited and the vast majority of independent observers took their side, and in fact a great deal of harassement of the people who spoke out followed. There are tons of pictures of people wearing the t-shirt to show their solidarity.
There are tons of other examples in this post. Examples which you dismissed offhand, without examining them, because you don't like the blog on which they're posted.
IronSlayer wrote:
The link you quoted stated that there was no methodology, period.
It said it lacked a systematic methodology. That's different from saying it didn't have a methodology at all.
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
The basic premise here is that it's in general very difficult to make a good methodology for deciding what a false accusation is, which is why the conclusions are all over the place.
So you disagree that a good methodology is only counting a report as fake if the women herself later admits it was a complete lie? I think that's a methodology extremely generous to the women claiming rape, actually.
Please enlighten us on what makes this a bad methodology?
They deferred to what the police decided to be a "false" report, and left it undefined. There was no scrutiny of the process used by the police to make this determination.
There's a very simple conclusion to draw: it wasn't a scientific study.
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
One has a 1.5% minimum,
No, we have already gone over why this is inaccurate. The study in question stated the minimum was 1.5% false reports of rape and the maximum was 10%.
Exactly as I said: a 1.5% minimum. And yes, as you point out, the maximum was 10%.
And the study you quoted reached the number of 41%.
The numbers are all over the place. One even has 90%, based on the grandiose sample size of 18.
These studies are difficult to do right, it's hard to determine a good methodology, and they operate based on extremely small sample sizes.
IronSlayer wrote:
Uh...no, it isn't. You're redefining the term to suit your agenda, but no one in this entire topic has defined it as such. I don't see any posts mentioning a "right to be angry".
Actually, "friendzoning" is about being told you're "just a friend". That's true. But the reason why we're discussing this is because a lot of people can't accept that fact because they believe it's not right to be "just a friend".
Yeah, when you get down to the core definition, it's a pretty benign concept. Not in practice, however.
Remember that the world is bigger than this forum. If nobody here believes they're being mistreated by being friend zoned: great. But a lot of people do take that line.
IronSlayer wrote:
Dada wrote:
There are also people who think that "global warming" is a buzzword designed to elicit an emotional response, and virtually the entirety of the climate science academic world disagrees with them.
Also not true.
As an actual scientist who has taken climate science classes from some world-class experts on the subject, there is far from unanimous agreement on this, and that was before the whole leaked e-mail fiasco about data fudging. For instance, one fact that you probably don't know is that the ice cores they take to determine CO2 levels are taken from Greenland, not from Antarctica, because "they don't like the data" from the latter.
The fact you're even alluding to the so-called "climategate" faux scandal shows you don't know what you're talking about, in spite of your appeal to authority. Those emails didn't contain any information that wasn't already either known or published.
When you're trying to impose a gigantic scientific hoax on the world, I believe it's generally not a good idea to publish the specifics in a scientific paper.
Furthermore, when you look at polls taken among actual climate scientists, you'll find that there's virtual unequivocal support on the general notions of anthropogenic climate change. The amount of support for it is just overwhelming.
In the same way, when you look at social scientists who focus on gender studies, you'll find that concepts like the patriarchy and rape culture, which you dismissed as "buzzwords", are overwhelmingly accepted there too.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Hey, where's the outrage about the mean things Swordless said to me?
[03:58am] Swordless: You're a preachy whiny feminist, go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
[04:01am] Swordless: You're whiny and a far leftist
Oh, right, it's only worth getting upset when a feminist says something mean.
I've stirred up a fair controversy here. I want to thank Dada and Enterim for having more experience with feminism than me and defending it well.
I want to say that the key point is still to treat people equally and promote feminism to ensure equality. Some posters expressed that they feel sexism is no longer a problem, or that feminism is a joke. This sadly isn't true. If a man wants to know how sexism affects women, I suggest he asks his sister, or a girl friend, about her experiences. Most women have a lot of stories to tell.
This brings me to a point about generalization. A key point of feminism is that the psychological differences between men and women are caused by upbringing, and that if fundamental differences exist they are much smaller by comparison. When feminists talk about men having privilege in matters of sexism, it doesn't mean that the men are naturally bad. The point is that some people are favoured by society, and understanding this privilege is useful when it comes to understanding feminism. Everyone has some degree of privilege (especially me!) but it can be overcome with empathy.
At the risk of being labeled "conceding defeat", I'm simply not going to reply to what I think is a lot of "I'm right, you're so very wrong" posturing and instead only look at the things that matter.
Why, of course! Go ahead and ignore the evidence that doesn't support your claim. Gloss over the instances where you have presented a bald-faced lie as "statistical evidence" and the link I used to debunk it.
It's typical of your entire approach to this subject. Whenever any argument or piece of evidence disagrees with you, you never address it directly.
Instead, you claim the writer either needs "more education (sic)" (ie "read books that agree with my point of view and ignore the ones that don't") or just ignore them entirely.
Dada wrote:
Yes, you provided me with one single data point. Given that you consider that to be valid evidence, I could now provide you with another tweet of someone making a rape joke who didn't make it to the news and didn't get fired.
Please go ahead and do so, then. I have been waiting a long time for you to offer legitimate evidence to support your ridiculous assertions.
So far, I have provided one very recent and salient data point about rape jokes, where someone was fired for a Twitter joke about rape in general (not women, specifically). You have provided ZERO data points.
Since YOU are the one that needs to prove his extravagant claim ("rape jokes are largely ignored"), you are the one who needs the evidence, not me. That's basic logic, by the way, although a lot of feminists disregard that as "paternalistic" and "promoting rape culture", too.
Amusingly, one famous feminist, Sandra Harding, noted Newton's theories on physics encourage men to rape women.
By the way, when I manage to find even a single, giant exception to a rule, and you can find none to support it, it's strong evidence that the rule is inaccurate.
Dada wrote:
My point is that linking to single data points is useless.
But you haven't linked to anything, period. All you have provided is either empty or blatantly false rhetoric.
Dada wrote:
So I provided you with a minor counterexample: the Dickwolves comic.
Since you willfully ignored my words on the subject, I will just copy and paste them.
This is not a "counterexample" of any kind; it's an Internet comic about MEN being raped in an MMO by WOLVES WITH DICKS FOR HANDS, and which STILL got its creators an incredible amount of controversy and backlash.
Dada wrote:
It said it lacked a systematic methodology. That's different from saying it didn't have a methodology at all.
Again, please explain to us how "only counting a report as fake if the women herself later admits it was a complete lie" is not a "systematic methodology".
I have asked you about this for several posts now, and you continue to ignore it.
Dada wrote:
They deferred to what the police decided to be a "false" report, and left it undefined. There was no scrutiny of the process used by the police to make this determination.
Please go ahead and actually read the research article. The police only considered a report "false" if the woman recanted her rape accusation and admitted it was all a lie.
Tell me what your quibble with this methodology is.
Dada wrote:
There's a very simple conclusion to draw: it wasn't a scientific study.
Using data obtained from police under a very clear criteria is not "scientific"? It's actually way moreso than virtually all other studies on the matter, which you would know if you happened to read any of them.
Dada wrote:
Actually, "friendzoning" is about being told you're "just a friend". That's true. But the reason why we're discussing this is because a lot of people can't accept that fact because they believe it's not right to be "just a friend".
Yeah, when you get down to the core definition, it's a pretty benign concept. Not in practice, however.
Get out of here with that nonsense.
I have asked you half a dozen times (as has moozooh, rog, and others) to provide an example of ANYONE in this topic blaming or being angry about women because of the "friend zone".
There hasn't been a single example.
Instead, you have multiple guys, myself included, stating that "friend zones" occur because of mistakes men make.
Dada wrote:
Remember that the world is bigger than this forum. If nobody here believes they're being mistreated by being friend zoned: great. But a lot of people do take that line.
If nobody on this forum was guilty of that, then why did you write a giant rant accusing most people here of being "stupid boys" that were "misogynist"?
Dada wrote:
The fact you're even alluding to the so-called "climategate" faux scandal shows you don't know what you're talking about, in spite of your appeal to authority. Those emails didn't contain any information that wasn't already either known or published.
Except for certain data being thrown out that doesn't support the anthropogenic global warming model, of course.
Dada wrote:
Furthermore, when you look at polls taken among actual climate scientists, you'll find that there's virtual unequivocal support on the general notions of anthropogenic climate change. The amount of support for it is just overwhelming.
Funny how you're the one appealing to authority. I'm well aware that most climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming; so did the two very intelligent professors I had.
And back in the 1970s, the vast majority of leading climate scientists believed in global cooling.
I can get into this discussion with you as well and prove you every bit as foolish if you care to start a new topic.
Dada wrote:
In the same way, when you look at social scientists who focus on gender studies, you'll find that concepts like the patriarchy and rape culture, which you dismissed as "buzzwords", are overwhelmingly accepted there too.
Of course! It's an echo chamber for people like yourself who ignore any evidence that doesn't support their myopic views!
A genuinely good idea (no sarcasm)! But be sure to keep an open mind, because some of their stories will probably shock you. Here is a quote from a friend of mine;
"I don't know how men stand women; I just seem them as living sex dolls."
Thing is, this friend is female. She feels this way because she has always had few female friends, and had severe suicidal thoughts in high school because of the mockery, social isolation, and torment she suffered from other girls.
I don't agree with her quote at all, but hey, according to feminists, since she is a woman, she knows way more about this any guy does, right?
Chamale wrote:
A key point of feminism is that the psychological differences between men and women are caused by upbringing, and that if fundamental differences exist they are much smaller by comparison.
Incidentally, "Dickwolves" was about MEN being raped. By wolves with dicks on their hands. In a fantasy MMO setting.
This doesn't really help your argument. In fact, it demonstrates his point fairly well. Men getting raped are treated even worse by society than women. The rape of a man is just as bad as the rape of a woman.
