Hello all, I'm sure this isn't a light topic, but let's try to keep the discussion civilized first and foremost.
I've recently read an interesting article on Slave Leia's costume. I'm not sure if I can link it here, but just google "Slave Leia is the Hero Feminists Need, But do Not Deserve". In the article, the author (a girl, not that it matters, imo) argues that Slave Leia's costume is going to be wiped out from any future products related to the star wars franchise. And feminists are happy about it, but they are wrong to be so. She argues that Leia is actually an empowering figure and that she wears that costume and beats Jabba with it, proving that she can be both sexy and dominating. Well, you can read the artcile for more information, I'm not going to summarize everything here. Alright, I also looked up and I saw that Carrie Fisher, the actress that portrays Leia, was actually the one who asked to show up in a more revealing outfit, because she wanted to expose more her female physique (you can check that on wikipedia).
Then I shared this article with a person that is close to me, that also happens to be a feminist. I wanted to see her reaction to that.
Let me just tell you something about me first: I think feminism has achieved important things for women, from the right to vote to the right of having a political life, etc. And I know women suffer everyday as victims of rape, contempt and ridicularization from males or even other females. I'm not here to argue this is not true. I just think, in particular, that feminism is not a good thing, but I can see that it is necessary thing. Briefly explaining myself: I think when people get together in groups they start to act in group mentality, thinking that their group is right and whoever is not part of it can't understand them. That shuts the door for dialogue and reasonable discussions. Ideally everyone would see themselves as equals, and every human would defend the right of other humans no matter if they are black, homossexual, female, asian or whatever may cross your mind. I strive for a world with equality, but since I know the system is still stuck in a way where equality was not achieved, there is the necessity for groups to be formed to fight for their rights, and that is what feminism represents.
Alright, back to the topic: this person that saw the article said that Leia's costume was, in fact, sexist. She said that it didn't matter that the actress wanted to wear something like that and that it didn't matter the character of Leia wins the fight after all. The way they were depicting her was sexist. And then she said something that really pisses me off: I'm a guy and I can't understand, and because of that I also can't give my opinion.
Now, I can't think of a worse way to handle a discussion than saying that someone 'doesn't understand' and therefore they are wrong. There are discussions where things are too technical, and involve a lot of previous knowledge for you to even be able to give your 2 cents about it. If a person is making a building, and I have no idea how buildings are made, I sure can't expect for this person to take my suggestions seriously. That was not the case here.
I've seen time and again feminists acting as if the word 'sexist' was a propriety of their own, where a straight guy can't possibly say what is sexist, because only feminists know what that is. That makes no sense. That word has a specific definition on a dictionary, no group owns the right to use it exclusively, and every human being that took its time to read about it and see clear examples can discuss about what is or what is not sexist. When someone says that I can't argue because I'm not offended by it as they are, because I'm not part of their world, that seems to me like the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. "I suffer everyday with sexism, you don't, so you don't understand what is sexism and you are wrong". This sort of mentality that just straight up shuts out all dialogue is the reason why I think making groups is often a bad thing. People are not open to debate, they don't want argue with logic, they just want to say that they are right and you are wrong, end of discussion.
Alright, I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this. Do you think there is a tendency for groups to shut down dialogue? Do you think sexism is something that only someone that suffers it everyday can identify or classify? Let's keep it civil, please. I'm particularly interested in hearing another feminist opinion on this, since I think they can help shed more light into the discussion. Thanks in advance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
I think it's easy for people who were at one point powerless, once given power, to abuse that power or mistake 'getting even' for fairness. If you want fairness, you need to consider the following:
How much does that previous marginalization affect current circumstances?
How much does that marginalization continue today, and what is the impact?
How much is the group's perception of the current circumstances affected by their past?
How much is the perception of the group by outsiders affected by their lack of shared experiences?
How much should attitudes and policies today be affected by what had happened in the past?
The reality is that 'You can't understand' is the lazy argument for someone who doesn't want to have to think too hard about something. If you can't explain it so that someone without that experience can understand, you don't really understand it yourself and it's just a gut emotional feeling. In the case of your friend, it wasn't because you aren't a woman - you've already pointed out that other feminists have a different opinion. It was because it was her opinion and she was hiding behind feminism to justify it, when in fact it was only her opinion.
Like any ideology feminism is the home of a lot of disaffected people. Having an ideology that explains why other people just can't understand 'the truth' is a really convenient way to convince yourself your opinions are reality.
But this isn't a feminist thing. Literally every ideology has a lot of people who use that ideology to justify why their opinion is reality. It's a natural by-product of the fact that human beings only have a limited capability to understand the world outside of their own experiences. Finding simple solutions to complex problems is just easier, so we approximate and simplify.
The reality is that this isn't about feminism, it's about your friend and it's about human nature. Feminism is just fine, but like any ideology there are people who express it well and people who don't.
I'm particularly interested in hearing another feminist opinion on this, since I think they can help shed more light into the discussion.
So you're saying that someone with firsthand experience might have more valuable things to contribute to the topic? Huh, imagine that.
Certainly shutting down discussion by saying "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story" is never a good thing. But I do think there's something to be said for a less extreme version of the sentiment. It can be easy to dismiss or trivialize something that you don't experience. As men, it's pretty easy for us to go about our daily lives without ever having to think about this sort of sexism. It's then natural to feel like someone who complains about it is making a big deal out of nothing.
I think it's easy for people who were at one point powerless, once given power, to abuse that power or mistake 'getting even' for fairness.
But this isn't a feminist thing. Literally every ideology has a lot of people who use that ideology to justify why their opinion is reality. It's a natural by-product of the fact that human beings only have a limited capability to understand the world outside of their own experiences. Finding simple solutions to complex problems is just easier, so we approximate and simplify.
The reality is that this isn't about feminism, it's about your friend and it's about human nature. Feminism is just fine, but like any ideology there are people who express it well and people who don't.
I'm well aware that these problems do not extend only to feminism, that is why I generalized when talking about group mentality. I think when in a group you start to induce people into a way of thinking that even harmless things can be considered problematic. Or you start to misinterpret things. But the only part that gets me really upset is trying to avoid discussion by saying that someone else doesn't understand or is in a privileged position. If you can't reason with someone about what you believe then you will never find out why you believe what you do.
I agree it is not a feminism problem, it is more of a thing of human nature. Question is: is there a way to fix it? Because everytime someone wants do discuss a sensitive topic people bring emotional responses to the table, and that kills the discussion.
I'm particularly interested in hearing another feminist opinion on this, since I think they can help shed more light into the discussion.
So you're saying that someone with firsthand experience might have more valuable things to contribute to the topic? Huh, imagine that.
Certainly shutting down discussion by saying "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story" is never a good thing. But I do think there's something to be said for a less extreme version of the sentiment. It can be easy to dismiss or trivialize something that you don't experience. As men, it's pretty easy for us to go about our daily lives without ever having to think about this sort of sexism. It's then natural to feel like someone who complains about it is making a big deal out of nothing.
I think you missed my point a little sir. I said that I'm interested in feminists because a lot people here come from the same background, and most of them are males. I value all opinions equally (in a subject that does not require expertise), but I also value different perspectives. I hope that finding a feminist girl willing to speak her mind about this will generate an interesting discussion.
For the rest of what you said: sentiments shouldn't be involved in a discussion like the one I pointed out. Saying if something is sexist or not has absolutely nothing to do with sentiment, it has to do with the definition of the word and its applicability. Discussing about that is only a matter of finding out if the definition fits, which brings us to the use of reasonable, logical arguments. That is why I don't agree the use of emotion here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
I think you missed my point a little sir. I said that I'm interested in feminists because a lot people here come from the same background, and most of them are males. I value all opinions equally (in a subject that does not require expertise), but I also value different perspectives. I hope that finding a feminist girl willing to speak her mind about this will generate an interesting discussion.
Why a feminist girl? Men can be feminists too.
For the rest of what you said: sentiments shouldn't be involved in a discussion like the one I pointed out. Saying if something is sexist or not has absolutely nothing to do with sentiment, it has to do with the definition of the word and its applicability. Discussing about that is only a matter of finding out if the definition fits, which brings us to the use of reasonable, logical arguments. That is why I don't agree the use of emotion here.
I don't understand this reply. I didn't say anything about "sentiments".
I agree it is not a feminism problem, it is more of a thing of human nature. Question is: is there a way to fix it? Because everytime someone wants do discuss a sensitive topic people bring emotional responses to the table, and that kills the discussion.
Not unless you have a way to simultaneous teach the whole human race empathy and increase their intelligence to the point where they don't need to abstract complex problems into perceived simple ones.
I don't understand this reply. I didn't say anything about "sentiments".
Sorry, I was reading fast because I had to leave and I read "but I think there is something to be said for a less extreme version of using sentiments" or something like that. That said, it is still hard for me to see a place in a discussion for the sentiment of 'wanting the other person to shut up because they don't understand', or something like it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
[Not unless you have a way to simultaneous teach the whole human race empathy and increase their intelligence to the point where they don't need to abstract complex problems into perceived simple ones.
Seems rough. I would he happy with a solution to take people off their defensive stance they assume once you start to question their beliefs. Like "you know, feminism has accomplished many things, but I believe they are not right about this in partic..."
*gets interrupted* "You know nothing Jon Snow, just stay quiet in your place because we are right".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
[Not unless you have a way to simultaneous teach the whole human race empathy and increase their intelligence to the point where they don't need to abstract complex problems into perceived simple ones.
Seems rough. I would he happy with a solution to take people off their defensive stance they assume once you start to question their beliefs. Like "you know, feminism has accomplished many things, but I believe they are not right about this in partic..."
*gets interrupted* "You know nothing Jon Snow, just stay quiet in your place because we are right".
Well I mean, sometimes people are just tired of explaining, or it's not the right context for explaining, or they're not a real authority.
What you're asking for here is a complete change in human nature. Endowing everyone with about a hundred times more patience would be a start, I guess.
[Not unless you have a way to simultaneous teach the whole human race empathy and increase their intelligence to the point where they don't need to abstract complex problems into perceived simple ones.
Seems rough. I would he happy with a solution to take people off their defensive stance they assume once you start to question their beliefs. Like "you know, feminism has accomplished many things, but I believe they are not right about this in partic..."
*gets interrupted* "You know nothing Jon Snow, just stay quiet in your place because we are right".
I think Jay is right. You're really making a big deal out of something that is intrinsic to human nature--a lack of willingness to listen.
There's no shortage of that in any field.
It's easy to get sucked into what they're saying "you can't understand it because you're not a woman...etc"
But don't get misdirected by it. That's rarely the actual underlying issue.
Other ideologies have their own equivalents of this (people unwilling to listen). Hell my own father won't listen to me when I offer him suggestions. He has a tendency to panic: someone is going to break into my house, ISIS makes a threat against D.C. I actually offer genuine and real solutions to preparedness against disaster, but he won't take a single concrete step, opting instead of stew in a state of fear.
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
Do you think there is a tendency for groups to shut down dialogue?
I'm going to answer a slightly different question - there appears to be a tendency for groups of like-minded individuals to move towards more extreme views (in any context). See here, for example. Excerpt -
One source of problems in group decisions is that many deliberating groups end up adopting a more extreme version of the position toward which they tended before deliberation began. The problem is especially severe for groups of like-minded people, who typically get more extreme as a result of deliberation.
Do you think sexism is something that only someone that suffers it everyday can identify or classify?
No, but someone who does suffer it everyday probably has more moral authority on the topic.
Going off-script for a moment. You know how you roll separately for Intelligence and Wisdom?
Intelligence - I think you're right that her argument didn't address your perspective.
But given that you started with a specific case where there are divergent viewpoints, it's not unreasonable to have left the conversation with divergent viewpoints. (See also every 5-4 SCOTUS verdict as further evidence that it can be difficult to reach consensus on complex topics. And they have devoted their lives to legal interpretation. And have the benefit of historical precedent, codified rules, advice from leading experts, ...)
Wisdom - what did you hope to achieve with the conversation, and did your conversation reach those objectives?
i.e., were you hoping to dissuade your feminist friend from her feminist ways? If so, did pointing out an article (on a conservative website), then starting a debate about it work? Was she aware that this was supposed to be an intellectual debate only, with no emotions involved?
Do you feel hurt at all that your viewpoints were so summarily dismissed?
I certainly would.
But over time I've come to accept that no amount of "being right" on a technical point is going to change a friend's mind, and certainly not one who is already entrenched.
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
That is human nature.
That's a bit far, I think. It entirely depends on the person you're talking to.
And there is a major difference between not listening and not agreeing. No one has to agree with one another, and as I mentioned in a previous post sometimes people are simply tired of arguing about it.
I will note that I have been verbally abused by sexist misandrists in the name of "feminism" (in quotes, because misandry and feminism are not the same thing). I think that no matter what idea you have, if the type of person with an inclination towards radicalism gets a hold of it, they will bastardize it and propagate it with the new connotations they have created. In all honesty, as a Mod of the Mafia forum here, we oftentimes will see people guilty of "group think" simply because an idea seems okay at first. Sometimes, it's out of laziness; others, we see it happen as a result of lack of critical analysis.
So while I don't necessarily think that uniting over a joint cause is a bad thing, I do believe that radicals that bastardize the original spirit of your ideas and force the new (and incorrect) doctrine down people's throats are a detriment to constructive dialogue and society as a whole. These people do not look for discourse; only for victims.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Do you think there is a tendency for groups to shut down dialogue?
I'm going to answer a slightly different question - there appears to be a tendency for groups of like-minded individuals to move towards more extreme views (in any context). See here, for example. Excerpt -
One source of problems in group decisions is that many deliberating groups end up adopting a more extreme version of the position toward which they tended before deliberation began. The problem is especially severe for groups of like-minded people, who typically get more extreme as a result of deliberation.
Yes, I knew there was a scientific background for that claim, thanks for providing some reference. I didn't have the time to read the whole thing though, when I do I might come back to comment something.
Do you think sexism is something that only someone that suffers it everyday can identify or classify?
No, but someone who does suffer it everyday probably has more moral authority on the topic.
What exactly do you mean by that? Does this 'moral authority' holds value in any logical argument? I don't mean to seem cold or insensitive, it is just that I think some things are not justification for other things.
Do you feel hurt at all that your viewpoints were so summarily dismissed?
I certainly would.
Yes, of course I did, but I felt more frustrated than hurt though.
About the other things you said - my only intention was to ilustrate a point: that people can start to act irrationaly under the flag of their ideology, without stop to thinking about what they're saying, causing overreaction and sometimes even aggressiveness towards people that disagree with them, even if they do so in a polite, reasonable manner. I was actually expecting someone here to defend the thesis that Slave Leia's costume was, in fact, sexist, but since no one has said anything it seems everyone agrees with the text (or just didn't read it). I think you can defend that using reasonable arguments (though I'm still inclined to think that it isn't sexist), but not saying 'yeah, it is because I said so and I know what I'm talking about'.
I will note that I have been verbally abused by sexist misandrists in the name of "feminism" (in quotes, because misandry and feminism are not the same thing). I think that no matter what idea you have, if the type of person with an inclination towards radicalism gets a hold of it, they will bastardize it and propagate it with the new connotations they have created. In all honesty, as a Mod of the Mafia forum here, we oftentimes will see people guilty of "group think" simply because an idea seems okay at first. Sometimes, it's out of laziness; others, we see it happen as a result of lack of critical analysis.
So while I don't necessarily think that uniting over a joint cause is a bad thing, I do believe that radicals that bastardize the original spirit of your ideas and force the new (and incorrect) doctrine down people's throats are a detriment to constructive dialogue and society as a whole. These people do not look for discourse; only for victims.
That is bad man, I've been assistant in a philosophy class of undergrad students and I have been called sexist from one student that misunderstood me and overreacted to comments that I made. People take things to the extreme, and if you try to argue from different opinions than what they are used to (which was one of my duties as assistant) they think you are some evil, malevolent creature, full of prejudice and discrimination (much of the time because they are unwilling to listen and actually have a reasonable debate, although I must say that case was an exception, a lot of people engaged in the debate, some of them agreeing with me and some using arguments to try to prove me wrong, which was part of the point of the exercise).
I honestly think the best way to not encourage group mentality is to not see yourself as part of a group. That may seem odd or stupid, but if you just think as if you are doing a confraternization and that everyone, from inside or outside, has the right to have an opinion that could be equally valid, then discussion and reasonability can flourish.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
Unfortunately, I see two problems with that solution:
1. Most who claim not to pander to a particular group or status or class have the "I am a unique and special snowflake, and as such, I am am above reprieve" mentality.
2. A lot of insecure people who don't feel like they have a purpose will join a group and allow themselves to succumb to mob mentality simply to belong to something if they're lonely enough.
While I don't really have any constructive solutions, as society is a plague unto itself, I can at least provide my own experience and hopefully allow someone to suggest something that might make waves in a positive way.
But, I digress - I'm a cynic and misanthrope, so I'm inclined to expect the worst from people.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
That is human nature.
That's a bit far, I think. It entirely depends on the person you're talking to.
And there is a major difference between not listening and not agreeing. No one has to agree with one another, and as I mentioned in a previous post sometimes people are simply tired of arguing about it.
You might think it's a bit far. But from my experience, it is rare that someone will offer you the engagement of their mind--regardless of whether or not you are on "their side"
Thinking is hard for people.
You point a difference between not listening and not agreeing. Yes there is a difference, but let me unify both of them with common ground: Dismissal of your points.
I think people by and large, are so unwilling to listen to anyone, so unwilling to offer their brain cells to deliberate on what the other party has to say, that they will simply dismiss you the vast majority of the time.
In the case of feminism, dismissal may come in the form of: you're just a man so you can't understand what I'm saying.
But in religion, dismissal may come in the form of declaring someone a heretic. In other environments dismissal comes in the form of declaring someone as socially unacceptable, undesirable, or even a bad person.
Not even Einstein could get people to listen to his theories until Max Planck advocated for him.
David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time dismissed Ramunjan. It wasn't until his papers arrived at the doorsteps of DH hardy (of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) that Ramunajan was "discovered"
The story of humanity time and time again is that of an abject unwillingness to listen to what the other person has to say unless there is a specific reason to. You might refine it and break it down into listening vs agreeing. But why bother? There's a common thread of consistent human behavior that unites all this and its dismissal.
In totality, there has been a long standing tradition in feminism to wipe out male objectification and "sexiness is a problem." This is a sense of Victorian moral standards about women's bodies in an effort of liberation. The other extreme is for women to engage in bra burning and engage in casual sex. There are several different versions of feminism, and representation within the system.
Quite frankly, I look towards modern feminists such as Anita Sarkesian and seen a lot of discrepancies for depictions of women. You can look at the Feminist Frequency's site and see Buffy the Vampire Slayer as an example. Yet, she has several socially conservative examples of how not to portray women. However, Buffy the Vampire has had a number of issues such as sex, violent relationships (Buffy-Spike relationship was strange), and a few others like the sex fueled ghost episode. Which for myself as as a social conservative who actually likes Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Wars, and so forth and ascribes to many feminist ideals as an egalitarian has issues with some of the staple modern feminist materials.
I feel that there is a limit to using sex lives matter, but that there should be specific characters that enable a standard for abstinence and show some sexual conservatism. Yet, if male video games objectify women, then the issue with sex in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is worthy of equal discussion but is not given much.
Overall, I feel that certain aspects of sex with Buffy were overused after the Angel love story aspect. There was little to be done in the future, but I feel that feminism is like any other ideology and has contradictions and people who disagree which is a good thing.
What needs to happen with feminism, though, is an opening up of different perspectives and a more welcoming narrative than just "this hurts men and women, but it's happening to women that causes men to do X" as a crux for an argument on why as a man "I should care about this issue." Which is why I don't self identify with feminism, even though some of the people that were formative to me are feminists.
I just see egalitarianism as a way to say acknowledging that everyone has problems, and we need to find a healthy solution for everyone that most people can live with that it actually affects. And I don't mean religious conservatives harping over gay marriage is unconstitutional, more like say rape shield laws that do serve to protect women that fail to protect men who are wrongly accused such as the Duke Lacrosse Players.
I feel that, such as the case of rape shield laws, that they should extend to the accused and the public should respect both parties' right to privacy since rape is now a very taboo subject that can taint someone's reputation for a very long time. A public admission of guilt and so forth is fine, but there is a limit where people are wrongly accused.
Most of the time, systems need to be tweaked to deal with the public's inability to deal with suspending guilt.
As for entertainment, we change so much in our culture that in the last few decades television has become so liberal and media in general that nowadays nudity and so forth is either good art or bad art. It's no similar to Miley Cyrus being buck naked, or Slave Princess.
It's a pulp western adventure film made in the 70's. You had a young woman who wanted to show off her body and be an action hero, they gave it to her. It's still enjoyed by millions of women worldwide. The costume is rather popular for cosplay after a cursory glance and the cosplay community tends to be rather feminist. And after a while, I think that looking at a woman who dresses herself well is fine. So as long as you honor her in such a way that is respectful and courteous.
I've looked at woman dressed up, I've looked at men who are dressed up. There are just some people are who damn good at what they do and work hard to look good. Looking as a form of positive attention, and complimenting people on a good look is fine.
It's like having that "talk" where your spouse starts to gain too much weight. It's a delicate subject to broach. There's the stupid way, that "you're getting fat" versus the smarter direction and honest consideration that "I'm concerned about our health, I'd like to eat better and exercise more a bit I think we can use that to spend more quality time together. What do you think?" You can see the difference, the one is concerned about heart disease and making it about the both whereas the other is making it about "her" or "him."
Complimenting a girl on looking well is great, complimenting a girl on having nice tits.. eh not so much unless you really know someone extremely well and tend to be rather intimate with them. You know like a wife or something.
Feminism is unnecessary and dangerous. It's unnecessary because I honestly see very little disparity between sexes that isn't caused by biology or accomplishments. If a male physician earns more than a female waitress, are we going to call the man a sexist who needs his salary slashed to support the woman? If a female model earns more than a male policeman, are we going to say that the buyers of the model's magazine are sexist and should instead buy magazines featuring the man instead? These examples are due to biological differences or specific accomplishments of the individuals.
Feminism is dangerous because it tries to brainwash the public, especially young women, that women are natural born victims. I have seen this in some of my peers and friends while growing up. They'd complain about not being taken seriously or not getting the same opportunities while not being willing to put in the work. I remember a girl in my Biochem class complaining that the prof (a male) didn't like female students and would thus grade them more harshly. I did fine in that class. As did the female students I knew who put in the hours to study for it. This particular girl who complained was the type to come to lab totally unprepared and would then try to befriend the high-achieving male students to give her "help." She tried to make it subtle, but we all saw it.
I'd like to get a real Feminist's take on the example above. On the one hand, Feminism would agree that she's a girl and thus would need extra help to be on an even playing field with the others because Biochem naturally favors males or something. On the other hand, Feminism would say that using her feminine-ness is wrong because that's bowing to patriarchy.
Regarding Leia .. whether it's necessary or not is irrelevant. I like the way it was shown. The way she's dressed is no different from how some shows feature a dangerous stripper doing something bad that's important to the plot. Feminists will find a way to make any female video game character a poster-girl for sexism. Heck, they'd probably find some way to make my Jane Shepard character appear to be sexist as well.
Sorry for the rant. Hope it all makes sense.
EDIT:
PS. Ashiok, a word of advice. Don't waste your time or energy arguing with a feminist. Most of them are too brain washed to listen to reason. They will continue to believe that they're victims and need special treatment no matter what you tell them.
I will note that I have been verbally abused by sexist misandrists in the name of "feminism" (in quotes, because misandry and feminism are not the same thing). I think that no matter what idea you have, if the type of person with an inclination towards radicalism gets a hold of it, they will bastardize it and propagate it with the new connotations they have created. In all honesty, as a Mod of the Mafia forum here, we oftentimes will see people guilty of "group think" simply because an idea seems okay at first. Sometimes, it's out of laziness; others, we see it happen as a result of lack of critical analysis.
So while I don't necessarily think that uniting over a joint cause is a bad thing, I do believe that radicals that bastardize the original spirit of your ideas and force the new (and incorrect) doctrine down people's throats are a detriment to constructive dialogue and society as a whole. These people do not look for discourse; only for victims.
Exactly this.
I think many people on the internet (not necessarily the ones posting here) have knee-jerk reactions to things and always assume the worst.
Feminism isn't a bad thing. In many places, it is absolutely necessary. But the radical misadrists posing as feminists ruin the whole movement for the reasonable feminists who want equal status with men (while misandrists want to drag men down).
And the reaction from the men's rights activists that have popped up recently haven't helped either. Their entire argument seems to be "Oh, you have problems? Well we do too, and we deserve to have our problems validated before yours because reasons!" The whole 'our problems are worse than your problems' from both sides is ridiculous. Why can't both sets of problems be valid, and worth attention?
In regard to the Leia problem, I don't think it can ever be solved. You have people who say it's empowering for a woman to be in a bikini, chained to an oppressor, beating him. but you also have people who say it's oversexualisation of women for the benefit of men who only see women as objects. And honestly, in my opinion, they're both right.
@Imgio34 I think your first statement is wrong. Radical feminism is unnecessary and dangerous, but the reasonable feminism isn't. You're making a massive generalisation about a movement that has been around for decades, and using it to make the statement that it isn't necessary.
@Imgio34 I think your first statement is wrong. Radical feminism is unnecessary and dangerous, but the reasonable feminism isn't. You're making a massive generalisation about a movement that has been around for decades, and using it to make the statement that it isn't necessary.
I do agree that feminism was needed at one point in our history. But that time has passed. It's no longer needed now. As such, much of the feminism we see today are radical.
At one point in time, Italian immigrants were discriminated against in this country. I'd be laughed at for days if I were to start a group that demands equal rights / pay / status for Italian Americans.
I do agree that feminism was needed at one point in our history. But that time has passed. It's no longer needed now. As such, much of the feminism we see today are radical.
At one point in time, Italian immigrants were discriminated against in this country. I'd be laughed at for days if I were to start a group that demands equal rights / pay / status for Italian Americans.
Come on, man. This is an absurd example. Italian Americans (like myself) make the same as everyone else. It's verifiable that women don't make the same as other groups, even when controlling for leave used.
Most of the feminism we 'see' today are random people on the internet or in real life. Let's not kid ourselves, none of you are talking about the leaders of women's rights organizations. The only reason you remember these women in particular is because they were obnoxious, but you're all equating your anecdotal evidence with reality. The reality is there are tons of women who would identify as 'feminist', but they're not obnoxious about it and they don't give a damn about Slave Leia's outfit.
There are ongoing gender disparity issues that still require feminism. Maybe they're not as obvious as sufferage, but the 'biological difference' as an explanation is bull*****. That's how people used to dismiss women because of their 'delicate constitutions'.
The US Military just opened up all combat roles for women. Why? Because when they finally put women through the training, they discovered that (SURPRISE!) physical differences are a spectrum, and if they're letting in guys on the low end of the spectrum there is no reason not to let in women who can meet the same criteria. The problem is that the assumption was always that women can't do it. These are the kinds of things feminism is still important for, just like civil rights still matter.
I do agree that feminism was needed at one point in our history. But that time has passed. It's no longer needed now. As such, much of the feminism we see today are radical.
At one point in time, Italian immigrants were discriminated against in this country. I'd be laughed at for days if I were to start a group that demands equal rights / pay / status for Italian Americans.
Come on, man. This is an absurd example. Italian Americans (like myself) make the same as everyone else. It's verifiable that women don't make the same as other groups, even when controlling for leave used.
Most of the feminism we 'see' today are random people on the internet or in real life. Let's not kid ourselves, none of you are talking about the leaders of women's rights organizations. The only reason you remember these women in particular is because they were obnoxious, but you're all equating your anecdotal evidence with reality. The reality is there are tons of women who would identify as 'feminist', but they're not obnoxious about it and they don't give a damn about Slave Leia's outfit.
There are ongoing gender disparity issues that still require feminism. Maybe they're not as obvious as sufferage, but the 'biological difference' as an explanation is bull*****. That's how people used to dismiss women because of their 'delicate constitutions'.
The US Military just opened up all combat roles for women. Why? Because when they finally put women through the training, they discovered that (SURPRISE!) physical differences are a spectrum, and if they're letting in guys on the low end of the spectrum there is no reason not to let in women who can meet the same criteria. The problem is that the assumption was always that women can't do it. These are the kinds of things feminism is still important for, just like civil rights still matter.
Sorry I don't know how to respond to set the quotes so that it looks like I'm responding to one quote at a time.
The commonly used 77 cents per each dollar is a myth. A quick search online will show plenty of evidence. Christina Hoff Sommers has a very good video about this on youtube. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links here, so I'll refrain from doing so.
You are absolutely right about the slave outfit. I am a woman and I don't care about it. I actually think it was used appropriately. Had she been in a full set of rebel armor, the scene would have looked ridiculous.
The biological differences are very real. I was a decent athlete in high school. But there was no way that I could compete even with the "low end of the spectrum" members of the boys basketball team. We were at a disadvantage in both height and weight. I have heard about the military issue. I'm sure there are some super athletic in shape women who can cut it with the Army Rangers (ie Commander Jane Shepard!!!), but the average female Ranger will never match up well with the average male Ranger. This is what I meant by biological differences. You can't have the mens' sports teams compete against womens' sports teams - assuming equally ranked (that means high school vs high school; college vs college; etc) in anything other than a super friendly all star game event. The mens team will win every time.
I also mentioned the accomplishments section as a break from the biological differences. I work in medicine, and I don't consider myself at a disadvantage due to gender. In my training, I have been on teams where I felt like I was doing a better job than my male peers, and I have been on the opposite of that - where my peers were clearly doing a better job than me. Biological differences would not account for any of those. This is where all that matter are the individual's talents, determination to learn and get better, and willingness to put in the hours required to achieve something.
I do agree that feminism was needed at one point in our history. But that time has passed. It's no longer needed now. As such, much of the feminism we see today are radical.
At one point in time, Italian immigrants were discriminated against in this country. I'd be laughed at for days if I were to start a group that demands equal rights / pay / status for Italian Americans.
Come on, man. This is an absurd example. Italian Americans (like myself) make the same as everyone else. It's verifiable that women don't make the same as other groups, even when controlling for leave used.
Most of the feminism we 'see' today are random people on the internet or in real life. Let's not kid ourselves, none of you are talking about the leaders of women's rights organizations. The only reason you remember these women in particular is because they were obnoxious, but you're all equating your anecdotal evidence with reality. The reality is there are tons of women who would identify as 'feminist', but they're not obnoxious about it and they don't give a damn about Slave Leia's outfit.
There are ongoing gender disparity issues that still require feminism. Maybe they're not as obvious as sufferage, but the 'biological difference' as an explanation is bull*****. That's how people used to dismiss women because of their 'delicate constitutions'.
The US Military just opened up all combat roles for women. Why? Because when they finally put women through the training, they discovered that (SURPRISE!) physical differences are a spectrum, and if they're letting in guys on the low end of the spectrum there is no reason not to let in women who can meet the same criteria. The problem is that the assumption was always that women can't do it. These are the kinds of things feminism is still important for, just like civil rights still matter.
The issues with feminism:
1. There's a brand issue trying to gain traction with men, namely because of "feminism" and "female" makes a splice. This is like talking about the Black Empowerment Movement, which is now today branded as the Civil Rights Movement that is heavily associated with the BEM and Feminism proper and now can be extended to gays.
2. The language associated with feminism is different than what most people are used. There are key phrases like privilege and cis that don't translate well into common speech without learning the aspect of those languages. Privilege itself is a loaded term and doesn't do well whenever trying to speak to people about issues.
3. There's a brand image issue without a leader that is well liked by multiple different types of women.
4. There's a left/right divide politically. As a few years ago feminism had conservatives taking the title, and a number of liberals were rather disturbed with Sarah Pailin calling herself a conservative feminist.
What needs to be built is for there to be a conservative version of feminism. But I feel that time would be better to deal with being able to combine most of the disparate aspects of the different ideas held within the greater Civil Rights Movements out there and work towards classical liberalism's ideals while using modern tools.
For example, we have a really bad orphan situation in the US as well as a juvenile justice system that is problematic. Yet, conservatives are very fixated on being anti-abortion. And there is little move on liberals to take the plight of children to improve much there.
It's a reevaluation of what we consider to be our top social issues that requires time to percolate and adjust our culture. For example, a lot of the issues within poorer communities are that men, typically black men, are taken to jail and out of the community. Separating families without a father figure, creates rifts in those areas where single parent homes are truly single parent homes without the necessary redundancy to deal with young people. So it's basically Mom and the kids, whereas at least with a divorced couple that the Dad is still there around to provide support to the broken family. And people who come from divorced families can and do succeed better than having a father in jail.
So we have to consider that:
1. Black men going to jail over drugs
-black empowerment movement
-jail reform
-drug war
-prisoner rights
-poverty reduction
So with one sentence we can name a level of complexity, and the issue is that being more inclusive over time to begin programs and building them and shutting them down if they do not work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
I do agree that feminism was needed at one point in our history. But that time has passed. It's no longer needed now. As such, much of the feminism we see today are radical.
At one point in time, Italian immigrants were discriminated against in this country. I'd be laughed at for days if I were to start a group that demands equal rights / pay / status for Italian Americans.
Come on, man. This is an absurd example. Italian Americans (like myself) make the same as everyone else. It's verifiable that women don't make the same as other groups, even when controlling for leave used.
Most of the feminism we 'see' today are random people on the internet or in real life. Let's not kid ourselves, none of you are talking about the leaders of women's rights organizations. The only reason you remember these women in particular is because they were obnoxious, but you're all equating your anecdotal evidence with reality. The reality is there are tons of women who would identify as 'feminist', but they're not obnoxious about it and they don't give a damn about Slave Leia's outfit.
There are ongoing gender disparity issues that still require feminism. Maybe they're not as obvious as sufferage, but the 'biological difference' as an explanation is bull*****. That's how people used to dismiss women because of their 'delicate constitutions'.
The US Military just opened up all combat roles for women. Why? Because when they finally put women through the training, they discovered that (SURPRISE!) physical differences are a spectrum, and if they're letting in guys on the low end of the spectrum there is no reason not to let in women who can meet the same criteria. The problem is that the assumption was always that women can't do it. These are the kinds of things feminism is still important for, just like civil rights still matter.
Sorry I don't know how to respond to set the quotes so that it looks like I'm responding to one quote at a time.
The commonly used 77 cents per each dollar is a myth. A quick search online will show plenty of evidence. Christina Hoff Sommers has a very good video about this on youtube. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links here, so I'll refrain from doing so.
You are absolutely right about the slave outfit. I am a woman and I don't care about it. I actually think it was used appropriately. Had she been in a full set of rebel armor, the scene would have looked ridiculous.
The biological differences are very real. I was a decent athlete in high school. But there was no way that I could compete even with the "low end of the spectrum" members of the boys basketball team. We were at a disadvantage in both height and weight. I have heard about the military issue. I'm sure there are some super athletic in shape women who can cut it with the Army Rangers (ie Commander Jane Shepard!!!), but the average female Ranger will never match up well with the average male Ranger. This is what I meant by biological differences. You can't have the mens' sports teams compete against womens' sports teams - assuming equally ranked (that means high school vs high school; college vs college; etc) in anything other than a super friendly all star game event. The mens team will win every time.
I also mentioned the accomplishments section as a break from the biological differences. I work in medicine, and I don't consider myself at a disadvantage due to gender. In my training, I have been on teams where I felt like I was doing a better job than my male peers, and I have been on the opposite of that - where my peers were clearly doing a better job than me. Biological differences would not account for any of those. This is where all that matter are the individual's talents, determination to learn and get better, and willingness to put in the hours required to achieve something.
You're very right, the wage gap myth is simply a myth. The "study" that "feminists" use doesn't take into account 2 very important factors:
1. Women consistently gravitate to lower paying jobs (teaching, nursing, customer service)
2. Women consistently take more time away from work and drop out of the workforce more often than their male counterparts.
The study the 'feminists' use is simply a straight comparison of the average income women gets vs the average income men get. It does not compare the numbers based on similar positions, nor take into account the increased tendency for these women to drop out of the workforce entirely for years at a time. Fun fact, it is in fact illegal for a company to pay one group of people less than another for the same job, but don't let a 'feminist' hear you say that, you'll just get called a mysoginist
I've recently read an interesting article on Slave Leia's costume. I'm not sure if I can link it here, but just google "Slave Leia is the Hero Feminists Need, But do Not Deserve". In the article, the author (a girl, not that it matters, imo) argues that Slave Leia's costume is going to be wiped out from any future products related to the star wars franchise. And feminists are happy about it, but they are wrong to be so. She argues that Leia is actually an empowering figure and that she wears that costume and beats Jabba with it, proving that she can be both sexy and dominating. Well, you can read the artcile for more information, I'm not going to summarize everything here. Alright, I also looked up and I saw that Carrie Fisher, the actress that portrays Leia, was actually the one who asked to show up in a more revealing outfit, because she wanted to expose more her female physique (you can check that on wikipedia).
Then I shared this article with a person that is close to me, that also happens to be a feminist. I wanted to see her reaction to that.
Let me just tell you something about me first: I think feminism has achieved important things for women, from the right to vote to the right of having a political life, etc. And I know women suffer everyday as victims of rape, contempt and ridicularization from males or even other females. I'm not here to argue this is not true. I just think, in particular, that feminism is not a good thing, but I can see that it is necessary thing. Briefly explaining myself: I think when people get together in groups they start to act in group mentality, thinking that their group is right and whoever is not part of it can't understand them. That shuts the door for dialogue and reasonable discussions. Ideally everyone would see themselves as equals, and every human would defend the right of other humans no matter if they are black, homossexual, female, asian or whatever may cross your mind. I strive for a world with equality, but since I know the system is still stuck in a way where equality was not achieved, there is the necessity for groups to be formed to fight for their rights, and that is what feminism represents.
Alright, back to the topic: this person that saw the article said that Leia's costume was, in fact, sexist. She said that it didn't matter that the actress wanted to wear something like that and that it didn't matter the character of Leia wins the fight after all. The way they were depicting her was sexist. And then she said something that really pisses me off: I'm a guy and I can't understand, and because of that I also can't give my opinion.
Now, I can't think of a worse way to handle a discussion than saying that someone 'doesn't understand' and therefore they are wrong. There are discussions where things are too technical, and involve a lot of previous knowledge for you to even be able to give your 2 cents about it. If a person is making a building, and I have no idea how buildings are made, I sure can't expect for this person to take my suggestions seriously. That was not the case here.
I've seen time and again feminists acting as if the word 'sexist' was a propriety of their own, where a straight guy can't possibly say what is sexist, because only feminists know what that is. That makes no sense. That word has a specific definition on a dictionary, no group owns the right to use it exclusively, and every human being that took its time to read about it and see clear examples can discuss about what is or what is not sexist. When someone says that I can't argue because I'm not offended by it as they are, because I'm not part of their world, that seems to me like the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. "I suffer everyday with sexism, you don't, so you don't understand what is sexism and you are wrong". This sort of mentality that just straight up shuts out all dialogue is the reason why I think making groups is often a bad thing. People are not open to debate, they don't want argue with logic, they just want to say that they are right and you are wrong, end of discussion.
Alright, I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this. Do you think there is a tendency for groups to shut down dialogue? Do you think sexism is something that only someone that suffers it everyday can identify or classify? Let's keep it civil, please. I'm particularly interested in hearing another feminist opinion on this, since I think they can help shed more light into the discussion. Thanks in advance.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
Like any ideology feminism is the home of a lot of disaffected people. Having an ideology that explains why other people just can't understand 'the truth' is a really convenient way to convince yourself your opinions are reality.
But this isn't a feminist thing. Literally every ideology has a lot of people who use that ideology to justify why their opinion is reality. It's a natural by-product of the fact that human beings only have a limited capability to understand the world outside of their own experiences. Finding simple solutions to complex problems is just easier, so we approximate and simplify.
The reality is that this isn't about feminism, it's about your friend and it's about human nature. Feminism is just fine, but like any ideology there are people who express it well and people who don't.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So you're saying that someone with firsthand experience might have more valuable things to contribute to the topic? Huh, imagine that.
Certainly shutting down discussion by saying "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story" is never a good thing. But I do think there's something to be said for a less extreme version of the sentiment. It can be easy to dismiss or trivialize something that you don't experience. As men, it's pretty easy for us to go about our daily lives without ever having to think about this sort of sexism. It's then natural to feel like someone who complains about it is making a big deal out of nothing.
I agree it is not a feminism problem, it is more of a thing of human nature. Question is: is there a way to fix it? Because everytime someone wants do discuss a sensitive topic people bring emotional responses to the table, and that kills the discussion.
I think you missed my point a little sir. I said that I'm interested in feminists because a lot people here come from the same background, and most of them are males. I value all opinions equally (in a subject that does not require expertise), but I also value different perspectives. I hope that finding a feminist girl willing to speak her mind about this will generate an interesting discussion.
For the rest of what you said: sentiments shouldn't be involved in a discussion like the one I pointed out. Saying if something is sexist or not has absolutely nothing to do with sentiment, it has to do with the definition of the word and its applicability. Discussing about that is only a matter of finding out if the definition fits, which brings us to the use of reasonable, logical arguments. That is why I don't agree the use of emotion here.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
Why a feminist girl? Men can be feminists too.
I don't understand this reply. I didn't say anything about "sentiments".
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
*gets interrupted* "You know nothing Jon Snow, just stay quiet in your place because we are right".
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
What you're asking for here is a complete change in human nature. Endowing everyone with about a hundred times more patience would be a start, I guess.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I think Jay is right. You're really making a big deal out of something that is intrinsic to human nature--a lack of willingness to listen.
There's no shortage of that in any field.
It's easy to get sucked into what they're saying "you can't understand it because you're not a woman...etc"
But don't get misdirected by it. That's rarely the actual underlying issue.
Other ideologies have their own equivalents of this (people unwilling to listen). Hell my own father won't listen to me when I offer him suggestions. He has a tendency to panic: someone is going to break into my house, ISIS makes a threat against D.C. I actually offer genuine and real solutions to preparedness against disaster, but he won't take a single concrete step, opting instead of stew in a state of fear.
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
That is human nature.
No, but someone who does suffer it everyday probably has more moral authority on the topic.
Going off-script for a moment. You know how you roll separately for Intelligence and Wisdom?
Intelligence - I think you're right that her argument didn't address your perspective.
But given that you started with a specific case where there are divergent viewpoints, it's not unreasonable to have left the conversation with divergent viewpoints. (See also every 5-4 SCOTUS verdict as further evidence that it can be difficult to reach consensus on complex topics. And they have devoted their lives to legal interpretation. And have the benefit of historical precedent, codified rules, advice from leading experts, ...)
Wisdom - what did you hope to achieve with the conversation, and did your conversation reach those objectives?
i.e., were you hoping to dissuade your feminist friend from her feminist ways? If so, did pointing out an article (on a conservative website), then starting a debate about it work? Was she aware that this was supposed to be an intellectual debate only, with no emotions involved?
Do you feel hurt at all that your viewpoints were so summarily dismissed?
I certainly would.
But over time I've come to accept that no amount of "being right" on a technical point is going to change a friend's mind, and certainly not one who is already entrenched.
And there is a major difference between not listening and not agreeing. No one has to agree with one another, and as I mentioned in a previous post sometimes people are simply tired of arguing about it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So while I don't necessarily think that uniting over a joint cause is a bad thing, I do believe that radicals that bastardize the original spirit of your ideas and force the new (and incorrect) doctrine down people's throats are a detriment to constructive dialogue and society as a whole. These people do not look for discourse; only for victims.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
What exactly do you mean by that? Does this 'moral authority' holds value in any logical argument? I don't mean to seem cold or insensitive, it is just that I think some things are not justification for other things. Yes, of course I did, but I felt more frustrated than hurt though.
About the other things you said - my only intention was to ilustrate a point: that people can start to act irrationaly under the flag of their ideology, without stop to thinking about what they're saying, causing overreaction and sometimes even aggressiveness towards people that disagree with them, even if they do so in a polite, reasonable manner. I was actually expecting someone here to defend the thesis that Slave Leia's costume was, in fact, sexist, but since no one has said anything it seems everyone agrees with the text (or just didn't read it). I think you can defend that using reasonable arguments (though I'm still inclined to think that it isn't sexist), but not saying 'yeah, it is because I said so and I know what I'm talking about'.
That is bad man, I've been assistant in a philosophy class of undergrad students and I have been called sexist from one student that misunderstood me and overreacted to comments that I made. People take things to the extreme, and if you try to argue from different opinions than what they are used to (which was one of my duties as assistant) they think you are some evil, malevolent creature, full of prejudice and discrimination (much of the time because they are unwilling to listen and actually have a reasonable debate, although I must say that case was an exception, a lot of people engaged in the debate, some of them agreeing with me and some using arguments to try to prove me wrong, which was part of the point of the exercise).
I honestly think the best way to not encourage group mentality is to not see yourself as part of a group. That may seem odd or stupid, but if you just think as if you are doing a confraternization and that everyone, from inside or outside, has the right to have an opinion that could be equally valid, then discussion and reasonability can flourish.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
1. Most who claim not to pander to a particular group or status or class have the "I am a unique and special snowflake, and as such, I am am above reprieve" mentality.
2. A lot of insecure people who don't feel like they have a purpose will join a group and allow themselves to succumb to mob mentality simply to belong to something if they're lonely enough.
While I don't really have any constructive solutions, as society is a plague unto itself, I can at least provide my own experience and hopefully allow someone to suggest something that might make waves in a positive way.
But, I digress - I'm a cynic and misanthrope, so I'm inclined to expect the worst from people.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
You might think it's a bit far. But from my experience, it is rare that someone will offer you the engagement of their mind--regardless of whether or not you are on "their side"
Thinking is hard for people.
You point a difference between not listening and not agreeing. Yes there is a difference, but let me unify both of them with common ground: Dismissal of your points.
I think people by and large, are so unwilling to listen to anyone, so unwilling to offer their brain cells to deliberate on what the other party has to say, that they will simply dismiss you the vast majority of the time.
In the case of feminism, dismissal may come in the form of: you're just a man so you can't understand what I'm saying.
But in religion, dismissal may come in the form of declaring someone a heretic. In other environments dismissal comes in the form of declaring someone as socially unacceptable, undesirable, or even a bad person.
Not even Einstein could get people to listen to his theories until Max Planck advocated for him.
David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time dismissed Ramunjan. It wasn't until his papers arrived at the doorsteps of DH hardy (of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) that Ramunajan was "discovered"
The story of humanity time and time again is that of an abject unwillingness to listen to what the other person has to say unless there is a specific reason to. You might refine it and break it down into listening vs agreeing. But why bother? There's a common thread of consistent human behavior that unites all this and its dismissal.
Quite frankly, I look towards modern feminists such as Anita Sarkesian and seen a lot of discrepancies for depictions of women. You can look at the Feminist Frequency's site and see Buffy the Vampire Slayer as an example. Yet, she has several socially conservative examples of how not to portray women. However, Buffy the Vampire has had a number of issues such as sex, violent relationships (Buffy-Spike relationship was strange), and a few others like the sex fueled ghost episode. Which for myself as as a social conservative who actually likes Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Wars, and so forth and ascribes to many feminist ideals as an egalitarian has issues with some of the staple modern feminist materials.
I feel that there is a limit to using sex lives matter, but that there should be specific characters that enable a standard for abstinence and show some sexual conservatism. Yet, if male video games objectify women, then the issue with sex in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is worthy of equal discussion but is not given much.
Overall, I feel that certain aspects of sex with Buffy were overused after the Angel love story aspect. There was little to be done in the future, but I feel that feminism is like any other ideology and has contradictions and people who disagree which is a good thing.
What needs to happen with feminism, though, is an opening up of different perspectives and a more welcoming narrative than just "this hurts men and women, but it's happening to women that causes men to do X" as a crux for an argument on why as a man "I should care about this issue." Which is why I don't self identify with feminism, even though some of the people that were formative to me are feminists.
I just see egalitarianism as a way to say acknowledging that everyone has problems, and we need to find a healthy solution for everyone that most people can live with that it actually affects. And I don't mean religious conservatives harping over gay marriage is unconstitutional, more like say rape shield laws that do serve to protect women that fail to protect men who are wrongly accused such as the Duke Lacrosse Players.
I feel that, such as the case of rape shield laws, that they should extend to the accused and the public should respect both parties' right to privacy since rape is now a very taboo subject that can taint someone's reputation for a very long time. A public admission of guilt and so forth is fine, but there is a limit where people are wrongly accused.
Most of the time, systems need to be tweaked to deal with the public's inability to deal with suspending guilt.
As for entertainment, we change so much in our culture that in the last few decades television has become so liberal and media in general that nowadays nudity and so forth is either good art or bad art. It's no similar to Miley Cyrus being buck naked, or Slave Princess.
It's a pulp western adventure film made in the 70's. You had a young woman who wanted to show off her body and be an action hero, they gave it to her. It's still enjoyed by millions of women worldwide. The costume is rather popular for cosplay after a cursory glance and the cosplay community tends to be rather feminist. And after a while, I think that looking at a woman who dresses herself well is fine. So as long as you honor her in such a way that is respectful and courteous.
I've looked at woman dressed up, I've looked at men who are dressed up. There are just some people are who damn good at what they do and work hard to look good. Looking as a form of positive attention, and complimenting people on a good look is fine.
It's like having that "talk" where your spouse starts to gain too much weight. It's a delicate subject to broach. There's the stupid way, that "you're getting fat" versus the smarter direction and honest consideration that "I'm concerned about our health, I'd like to eat better and exercise more a bit I think we can use that to spend more quality time together. What do you think?" You can see the difference, the one is concerned about heart disease and making it about the both whereas the other is making it about "her" or "him."
Complimenting a girl on looking well is great, complimenting a girl on having nice tits.. eh not so much unless you really know someone extremely well and tend to be rather intimate with them. You know like a wife or something.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Feminism is dangerous because it tries to brainwash the public, especially young women, that women are natural born victims. I have seen this in some of my peers and friends while growing up. They'd complain about not being taken seriously or not getting the same opportunities while not being willing to put in the work. I remember a girl in my Biochem class complaining that the prof (a male) didn't like female students and would thus grade them more harshly. I did fine in that class. As did the female students I knew who put in the hours to study for it. This particular girl who complained was the type to come to lab totally unprepared and would then try to befriend the high-achieving male students to give her "help." She tried to make it subtle, but we all saw it.
I'd like to get a real Feminist's take on the example above. On the one hand, Feminism would agree that she's a girl and thus would need extra help to be on an even playing field with the others because Biochem naturally favors males or something. On the other hand, Feminism would say that using her feminine-ness is wrong because that's bowing to patriarchy.
Regarding Leia .. whether it's necessary or not is irrelevant. I like the way it was shown. The way she's dressed is no different from how some shows feature a dangerous stripper doing something bad that's important to the plot. Feminists will find a way to make any female video game character a poster-girl for sexism. Heck, they'd probably find some way to make my Jane Shepard character appear to be sexist as well.
Sorry for the rant. Hope it all makes sense.
EDIT:
PS. Ashiok, a word of advice. Don't waste your time or energy arguing with a feminist. Most of them are too brain washed to listen to reason. They will continue to believe that they're victims and need special treatment no matter what you tell them.
Exactly this.
I think many people on the internet (not necessarily the ones posting here) have knee-jerk reactions to things and always assume the worst.
Feminism isn't a bad thing. In many places, it is absolutely necessary. But the radical misadrists posing as feminists ruin the whole movement for the reasonable feminists who want equal status with men (while misandrists want to drag men down).
And the reaction from the men's rights activists that have popped up recently haven't helped either. Their entire argument seems to be "Oh, you have problems? Well we do too, and we deserve to have our problems validated before yours because reasons!" The whole 'our problems are worse than your problems' from both sides is ridiculous. Why can't both sets of problems be valid, and worth attention?
In regard to the Leia problem, I don't think it can ever be solved. You have people who say it's empowering for a woman to be in a bikini, chained to an oppressor, beating him. but you also have people who say it's oversexualisation of women for the benefit of men who only see women as objects. And honestly, in my opinion, they're both right.
@Imgio34 I think your first statement is wrong. Radical feminism is unnecessary and dangerous, but the reasonable feminism isn't. You're making a massive generalisation about a movement that has been around for decades, and using it to make the statement that it isn't necessary.
My current trade binder.
"People most likely to cry "troll" are those who can't fathom holding a position for reasons unrelated to how they want to be perceived"
I do agree that feminism was needed at one point in our history. But that time has passed. It's no longer needed now. As such, much of the feminism we see today are radical.
At one point in time, Italian immigrants were discriminated against in this country. I'd be laughed at for days if I were to start a group that demands equal rights / pay / status for Italian Americans.
Most of the feminism we 'see' today are random people on the internet or in real life. Let's not kid ourselves, none of you are talking about the leaders of women's rights organizations. The only reason you remember these women in particular is because they were obnoxious, but you're all equating your anecdotal evidence with reality. The reality is there are tons of women who would identify as 'feminist', but they're not obnoxious about it and they don't give a damn about Slave Leia's outfit.
There are ongoing gender disparity issues that still require feminism. Maybe they're not as obvious as sufferage, but the 'biological difference' as an explanation is bull*****. That's how people used to dismiss women because of their 'delicate constitutions'.
The US Military just opened up all combat roles for women. Why? Because when they finally put women through the training, they discovered that (SURPRISE!) physical differences are a spectrum, and if they're letting in guys on the low end of the spectrum there is no reason not to let in women who can meet the same criteria. The problem is that the assumption was always that women can't do it. These are the kinds of things feminism is still important for, just like civil rights still matter.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Sorry I don't know how to respond to set the quotes so that it looks like I'm responding to one quote at a time.
The commonly used 77 cents per each dollar is a myth. A quick search online will show plenty of evidence. Christina Hoff Sommers has a very good video about this on youtube. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links here, so I'll refrain from doing so.
You are absolutely right about the slave outfit. I am a woman and I don't care about it. I actually think it was used appropriately. Had she been in a full set of rebel armor, the scene would have looked ridiculous.
The biological differences are very real. I was a decent athlete in high school. But there was no way that I could compete even with the "low end of the spectrum" members of the boys basketball team. We were at a disadvantage in both height and weight. I have heard about the military issue. I'm sure there are some super athletic in shape women who can cut it with the Army Rangers (ie Commander Jane Shepard!!!), but the average female Ranger will never match up well with the average male Ranger. This is what I meant by biological differences. You can't have the mens' sports teams compete against womens' sports teams - assuming equally ranked (that means high school vs high school; college vs college; etc) in anything other than a super friendly all star game event. The mens team will win every time.
I also mentioned the accomplishments section as a break from the biological differences. I work in medicine, and I don't consider myself at a disadvantage due to gender. In my training, I have been on teams where I felt like I was doing a better job than my male peers, and I have been on the opposite of that - where my peers were clearly doing a better job than me. Biological differences would not account for any of those. This is where all that matter are the individual's talents, determination to learn and get better, and willingness to put in the hours required to achieve something.
The issues with feminism:
1. There's a brand issue trying to gain traction with men, namely because of "feminism" and "female" makes a splice. This is like talking about the Black Empowerment Movement, which is now today branded as the Civil Rights Movement that is heavily associated with the BEM and Feminism proper and now can be extended to gays.
2. The language associated with feminism is different than what most people are used. There are key phrases like privilege and cis that don't translate well into common speech without learning the aspect of those languages. Privilege itself is a loaded term and doesn't do well whenever trying to speak to people about issues.
3. There's a brand image issue without a leader that is well liked by multiple different types of women.
4. There's a left/right divide politically. As a few years ago feminism had conservatives taking the title, and a number of liberals were rather disturbed with Sarah Pailin calling herself a conservative feminist.
What needs to be built is for there to be a conservative version of feminism. But I feel that time would be better to deal with being able to combine most of the disparate aspects of the different ideas held within the greater Civil Rights Movements out there and work towards classical liberalism's ideals while using modern tools.
For example, we have a really bad orphan situation in the US as well as a juvenile justice system that is problematic. Yet, conservatives are very fixated on being anti-abortion. And there is little move on liberals to take the plight of children to improve much there.
It's a reevaluation of what we consider to be our top social issues that requires time to percolate and adjust our culture. For example, a lot of the issues within poorer communities are that men, typically black men, are taken to jail and out of the community. Separating families without a father figure, creates rifts in those areas where single parent homes are truly single parent homes without the necessary redundancy to deal with young people. So it's basically Mom and the kids, whereas at least with a divorced couple that the Dad is still there around to provide support to the broken family. And people who come from divorced families can and do succeed better than having a father in jail.
So we have to consider that:
1. Black men going to jail over drugs
-black empowerment movement
-jail reform
-drug war
-prisoner rights
-poverty reduction
So with one sentence we can name a level of complexity, and the issue is that being more inclusive over time to begin programs and building them and shutting them down if they do not work.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
You're very right, the wage gap myth is simply a myth. The "study" that "feminists" use doesn't take into account 2 very important factors:
1. Women consistently gravitate to lower paying jobs (teaching, nursing, customer service)
2. Women consistently take more time away from work and drop out of the workforce more often than their male counterparts.
The study the 'feminists' use is simply a straight comparison of the average income women gets vs the average income men get. It does not compare the numbers based on similar positions, nor take into account the increased tendency for these women to drop out of the workforce entirely for years at a time. Fun fact, it is in fact illegal for a company to pay one group of people less than another for the same job, but don't let a 'feminist' hear you say that, you'll just get called a mysoginist
My current trade binder.
"People most likely to cry "troll" are those who can't fathom holding a position for reasons unrelated to how they want to be perceived"