Particularly Jezebel's tendency to whine about conventionally attractive women.
That tendency, while weirdly puritanical, is hardly without pedigree among the great big mess of ideas that call themselves "feminist". Indeed, you can divide pretty much any social movement into a liberal wing and a puritanical wing. No matter how anti-puritanical the movement's origins, some people always seem to circle around back to puritanism again. It's just the way humans think, I guess.
Traci Egan Morrissey recently moved to Vice, but I remember her once saying "I don't get raped because I'm smart.", demonstrating exactly how smart she is.
Let's be fair: thinking intelligently about how to minimize your risk of being raped really will minimize your risk of being raped, just like thinking intelligently about how to protect your identity, or secure your home, or prevent any other crime.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Here's a question. Why should I care about these other benign just forms of feminism when the feminists with power Gloria Steinem, Michael Kimmel, etc. and the leaders of the groups like NOW are man-hating marxist worldview holding A-holes?
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
If women want equal treatment, they shouldn't go around parading the feminist movement. Feminism is not asking for equal treatment. It is asking for special treatment. I am against feminism but that doesn't mean I go around beating women.
Feminism is such a convenience for women. They can just play the feminism card when the odds are against them. And frankly, it gets irritating.
If women want equal treatment, they shouldn't go around parading the feminist movement. Feminism is not asking for equal treatment. It is asking for special treatment. I am against feminism but that doesn't mean I go around beating women.
Feminism is such a convenience for women. They can just play the feminism card when the odds are against them. And frankly, it gets irritating.
Am I getting flamed for this? Hope not.
Can you be more specific about the special treatment that feminism is asking for?
Can you describe the situations in which the odds are against women, and why?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Jezebel ≠ feminism, though. Particularly Jezebel's tendency to whine about conventionally attractive women.
Well, let's say I'm trying to figure out what a movement stands for. If it's a centralized one (e.g. a political party or a religious organization) then I can view official sources. In the case of a non-centralized movement, what is the methodology by which I can determine the belief system of that movement? Obviously, nothing here will be perfect. There's no official manifesto to turn to; no central source to appeal to. What I'm saying here is, "here is a source that a) carries the banner of feminism (i.e., declares itself to be such) and b) is wildly popular among U.S. internet users." Again, not perfect. But it's not as if I'm trying to determine what Christianity is by reading Westboro Baptist documents.
If you're going to insist that I determine a perfect way to figure out what feminism is then 1) I am open to suggestions (and that's me doing as much as I possibly can) and 2) if you can't offer any, I'm not sure you're in a place to demand it from anyone else. I don't mean this to be rude in any way, but this is frustrating because it often feels like trying to pin down a moving target.
Traci Egan Morrissey recently moved to Vice, but I remember her once saying "I don't get raped because I'm smart.", demonstrating exactly how smart she is.
Something that I would love to discuss in another thread, if possible.
Oh, and I suggest you put that on Photobucket. My monitor has the text so small I can't read it.
Article titles include:
-Male Victims of Domestic Violence: Have you ever beaten up your boyfriend? Cause, uh, we have.
-Sexual Objectification of Men: Why Shameless Objectification Can Be a Good Thing.
-Race & Gender: Why the 'End' of White Men is Actually Good for White Men.
-Gender Roles & Male Sensitivity: If You Want a More Thoughtful Boyfriend, Try Pegging Him.
More besides that. By the way, I've read through them all and most (not exactly all, but most) read exactly like they sound based on the title.
Particularly Jezebel's tendency to whine about conventionally attractive women.
That tendency, while weirdly puritanical, is hardly without pedigree among the great big mess of ideas that call themselves "feminist". Indeed, you can divide pretty much any social movement into a liberal wing and a puritanical wing. No matter how anti-puritanical the movement's origins, some people always seem to circle around back to puritanism again. It's just the way humans think, I guess.
Well, there is what we call SWERFs. This is feminism where you still get to call other women whores. And if they really are, be all condescending about how you'll take them away from that life (not caring what they want, of course) to a farm where they can due much harder work for minimum wage! Yay!
Traci Egan Morrissey recently moved to Vice, but I remember her once saying "I don't get raped because I'm smart.", demonstrating exactly how smart she is.
Let's be fair: thinking intelligently about how to minimize your risk of being raped really will minimize your risk of being raped, just like thinking intelligently about how to protect your identity, or secure your home, or prevent any other crime.
It's still a bit grating, especially since every bit of carelessness is mistaken for consent.
Well, let's say I'm trying to figure out what a movement stands for. If it's a centralized one (e.g. a political party or a religious organization) then I can view official sources. In the case of a non-centralized movement, what is the methodology by which I can determine the belief system of that movement? Obviously, nothing here will be perfect. There's no official manifesto to turn to; no central source to appeal to. What I'm saying here is, "here is a source that a) carries the banner of feminism (i.e., declares itself to be such) and b) is wildly popular among U.S. internet users." Again, not perfect. But it's not as if I'm trying to determine what Christianity is by reading Westboro Baptist documents.
Well, there's also Feminists for Life, which is actually an anti-abortion group and has nothing to do with feminism. You have TERFs, who spend more time pissing off lesbians (actual lesbians, rather than simply boycotting men), gays, bisexuals, and transgender ("Transgender people are going to kill all the lesbians!") than actual feminism. Both are extremely out of the mainstream of feminism.
-Male Victims of Domestic Violence: Have you ever beaten up your boyfriend? Cause, uh, we have.
-Sexual Objectification of Men: Why Shameless Objectification Can Be a Good Thing.
-Race & Gender: Why the 'End' of White Men is Actually Good for White Men.
-Gender Roles & Male Sensitivity: If You Want a More Thoughtful Boyfriend, Try Pegging Him.
More besides that. By the way, I've read through them all and most (not exactly all, but most) read exactly like they sound based on the title.
As I said, though Jezebel is clickbait. I call it Lady 4chan. Because, you know, they've posted Rule 34 of Disney characters before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Well, there's also Feminists for Life, which is actually an anti-abortion group and has nothing to do with feminism. You have TERFs, who spend more time pissing off lesbians (actual lesbians, rather than simply boycotting men), gays, bisexuals, and transgender ("Transgender people are going to kill all the lesbians!") than actual feminism. Both are extremely out of the mainstream of feminism.
Please provide how one should determine what the mainstream feminist belief system is. So far, you've talked about sites not representing that belief system. While they may not represent your belief system, I'm at a loss to figure out what basis you have for the claim of what "mainstream" feminism is about. It's such a widespread label.
After all, I'm guessing the radical feminists you dismiss as not being what feminism is about might have a similar dismissal for your own views on the matter.
Jezebel ≠ feminism, though. Particularly Jezebel's tendency to whine about conventionally attractive women.
Article titles include:
-Male Victims of Domestic Violence: Have you ever beaten up your boyfriend? Cause, uh, we have.
-Sexual Objectification of Men: Why Shameless Objectification Can Be a Good Thing.
-Race & Gender: Why the 'End' of White Men is Actually Good for White Men.
-Gender Roles & Male Sensitivity: If You Want a More Thoughtful Boyfriend, Try Pegging Him.
More besides that. By the way, I've read through them all and most (not exactly all, but most) read exactly like they sound based on the title.
Reminds me of the inverse for really bad male advice about women, it just seems that technology has finally allowed for the idiot woman advice to finally come more public. The only reason idiot male ideas about women persisted in public for so long was because, at a time, they did hurt and alienate women. I agree that, presuming this is true about Jezebelle and their core audience as a whole, then I agree with you.
It's like whenever I was a youngster people always said "Don't hit women," I always said "Don't hit people" and other such things. If a woman ever hits me, and they have in the past, there's typically a verbal warning and some sort of block from the hit. If it's a repeat offender, I'll berate the person in their little personal space to their face like a drill sergeant.
Certainly, I can understand hitting where a man is coming into personal space and begins to sexually assault a woman then that is more than qualified to strike. Like someone plays "honk the breast" and gets sucker punched, yea they deserved it. I'm not sorry, but I do believe there are times when hitting is permissible.
Speaking as someone who has been sexually assaulted before, I will say most leveled headed horny people will at least apologize and not do it again. Although the strangest incident I had was whenever I said, "Don't ever do that again! How'd you like it if I did it to you?" Followed by a smile and a "sure go right ahead, what part do you want to touch?" People are strange...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
This new(ish) quote system aggravates the living heck out of me, so I'm just gonna focus on this particular part:
I honestly don't think that was Ljoss's point. Most people bring up Jezebel by what I call the Law of Blue Hair:
"At any leftist protest, the mainstream media will immediately zoom in on the dude with blue hair."
Meaning they'll always pick the walking stereotype to construct an ad hominem around.
Well, I certainly don't think I'm committing ad hominem, because who would I be committing it against? I'm certainly not committing it against Jezebel by listing their own article titles. It sounds more like you think I'm building a strawman but that's really the opposite of what I'm trying to do. In other words, I'm not trying to misrepresent mainstream feminism, I'm trying to accurately represent it.
To that end, I asked openly about the method we would need to accurately represent it. I rejected the idea that we could appeal to a central authority since in my understanding no such central authority exists. If it does, let me know. Since I do not believe that it exists, I asked whether a good start might include finding a website that both 1) carries the banner of feminism (claims to be feminist) and 2) is hugely popular in my area. Jezebel, as it happens, had a 477 ranking on Alexa in the U.S. meaning it is extremely popular and it fits criterion 1 as well.
I didn't (and still don't) pretend that this was the perfect way to go about it. I admitted that it is not perfect. If I spoke 20 languages including Swahili then maybe I would find a whole bunch of other sites that are popular outside the U.S. and cross-reference them to develop a better understanding of what mainstream feminism is worldwide. Sadly, I have neither the intelligence nor the time to do any of that. That's why I asked if you had access to a better methodology and stressed that I would be quite eager to hear about it. If not, then I think I've done OK for now in not misrepresenting mainstream feminism.
If I had, say, used Westboro Baptist to represent mainstream Christianity or ISIS to represent Islam then I could absolutely understand a strawmanning charge, since these groups are clearly outside the mainstream for their religion, at least to my understanding in case you care to differ there. But Jezebel, again, claims to be feminist and is wildly popular in the U.S. So I take it they represent a rather larger percentage of feminists.
My criticism of the choice of Jezebel would be that Jezebel is fundamentally a business that manufactures clicks on attention-grabbing headlines. The criteria for whether something should be a headline on Jezebel is not "is this an accurate representation of feminism?" but rather "will this lure people into clicking on it?" So of course the headlines are going to be ridiculous.
My criticism of the choice of Jezebel would be that Jezebel is fundamentally a business that manufactures clicks on attention-grabbing headlines. The criteria for whether something should be a headline on Jezebel is not "is this an accurate representation of feminism?" but rather "will this lure people into clicking on it?" So of course the headlines are going to be ridiculous.
How are the reactions to the pieces? Because if someone posts, "Woman beats her husband," to grab attention - the reactions should still be negative. Mass-shooting stories get attention, and the reactions are "that's awful" - not, "You go girl!"
To be clear, I haven't read the pieces or the comments. I'm just pointing out that how attention-getting the headline is has little to do with the problem.
[
How are the reactions to the pieces? Because if someone posts, "Woman beats her husband," to grab attention - the reactions should still be negative. Mass-shooting stories get attention, and the reactions are "that's awful" - not, "You go girl!"
To be clear, I haven't read the pieces or the comments. I'm just pointing out that how attention-getting the headline is has little to do with the problem.
I don't read Jezebel, so I have no idea. But remember that Ljoss' evidence for Jezebel's relevance was Alexa rank, which is a measure of traffic, which is obtained via attention-grabbing headlines. If we want to say that the headlines are not relevant, we also have to conclude that Alexa probably rank isn't either.
I don't read Jezebel, so I have no idea. But remember that Ljoss' evidence for Jezebel's relevance was Alexa rank, which is a measure of traffic, which is obtained via attention-grabbing headlines. If we want to say that the headlines are not relevant, we also have to conclude that Alexa probably rank isn't either.
No one said headlines aren't relevant, you just made an argument that "shocking" headlines are probably motivated - at least in significant part - by issues of traffic-generation rather than social agenda or genuine beliefs. I pointed out that this factor doesn't discount the impact of the article and doesn't prevent us from evaluating broad opinion based on the comments. If an article announcing a school shooting gets a lot of traffic, and a lot of commentators lamenting the event - then we can draw conclusions based on that section of the populace's attitudes toward school shootings. The same can be done for these articles.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider relevant? How would one go about figuring out a broad view of beliefs and attitudes within the feminist movement? How would you determine a source as properly representative?
I strongly caution against evaluating anything by the cesspool that is internet comment sections.
Shall I take this to mean that you have no method then? Or would you like to address this from my previous post:
Quote from stairc »
Out of curiosity, what would you consider relevant? How would one go about figuring out a broad view of beliefs and attitudes within the feminist movement? How would you determine a source as properly representative?
So far you've just tried to discount anything you disagree with as not being representative for X, Y or Z reasons. If you've actually contributed a consistent method for determining what is representative, we can apply that.
I can reasonably criticize a proposed method without proposing one of my own.
Absolutely. However, you then can't make any claims about what feminism broadly stands for or what it believes then - since you don't have a method for evaluating that. If you don't make any such claims, cool.
In any case, it's fine to use the best-current-method as long as one doesn't draw any conclusions beyond the limitations of the method. It's fine to point a smeared telescope at the horizon, fully knowing the limitations of the telescope, provided one doesn't pretend that they can see clearly. You might still be able to spot the blurry blackness of land.
I think a better place to look online to get an idea of what feminism looks like in the anglosphere would be to look up non-profit groups and elected/candidates for public office that identify themselves either as a feminist or gender equality activists and see what their goals/platform/proposed/passed legislation are. This method would be one of the better ones I think, because then we are looking at people that are actually trying to affect some kind of change in society. Which atleast could answer one big question, politically what are the goals of the feminist/gender equality movement.
Aternatively you could take a survey to determine what "mainstream feminism" is. Although it would of course be limited by who is being surveryed, the general public of a country/province, college students, college students majoring in gender studies/professors teaching the classes, people involved in a women's advocacy organizations. The survey would ask people things like "do you consider yourself a feminist?" and then ask what those that identify themselves as such what the term means to them, while also of course asking those that doesn't identify as such what the term means to them. That would start to give you an idea of what feminism looks life in that country, province, university and so on.
What percent of feminists do you believe are bitter man haters? In my opinion its 2% of feminists that have any genuine hatred for men.
What percentage of "misogynists" do you believe literally hate women? Many individuals accuse feminists of being "bitter man haters" in the pretty much the same way.
Misogynists hate it when women do certain things, they don't hate women in general in the way a klan member hates immigrants or people of african descent. The same by and large goes for the so called "feminazi man-haters". Tying this into current politcal debate, myself being a liberal democrat when high profile Democrats talk about "the republican war on women" I shake my head because there is no war on women themselves, but rather (from the liberal point of view of course) a war on womens rights.
Misogynists hate it when women do certain things, they don't hate women in general in the way a klan member hates immigrants or people of african descent. The same by and large goes for the so called "feminazi man-haters".
I am entirely positive that is not a correct statement at all.
Misogynists hate it when women do certain things, they don't hate women in general in the way a klan member hates immigrants or people of african descent.
If that's a correct definition, a huge number of feminists are also misogynists - because they hate it when women support the patriarchy or take similar actions.
Can we just agree that this qualifies as misogyny? Not as horrible as this, but pretty damn horrible.
First article's about death threats against Anita Sarkeesian and her canceling a speech in Utah as a result.
Second article's about ISIS. I will admit the men's rights movement is better than ISIS.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
That tendency, while weirdly puritanical, is hardly without pedigree among the great big mess of ideas that call themselves "feminist". Indeed, you can divide pretty much any social movement into a liberal wing and a puritanical wing. No matter how anti-puritanical the movement's origins, some people always seem to circle around back to puritanism again. It's just the way humans think, I guess.
Let's be fair: thinking intelligently about how to minimize your risk of being raped really will minimize your risk of being raped, just like thinking intelligently about how to protect your identity, or secure your home, or prevent any other crime.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Infraction for trolling. - Blinking Spirit
Feminism is such a convenience for women. They can just play the feminism card when the odds are against them. And frankly, it gets irritating.
Am I getting flamed for this? Hope not.
Can you be more specific about the special treatment that feminism is asking for?
Can you describe the situations in which the odds are against women, and why?
Well, let's say I'm trying to figure out what a movement stands for. If it's a centralized one (e.g. a political party or a religious organization) then I can view official sources. In the case of a non-centralized movement, what is the methodology by which I can determine the belief system of that movement? Obviously, nothing here will be perfect. There's no official manifesto to turn to; no central source to appeal to. What I'm saying here is, "here is a source that a) carries the banner of feminism (i.e., declares itself to be such) and b) is wildly popular among U.S. internet users." Again, not perfect. But it's not as if I'm trying to determine what Christianity is by reading Westboro Baptist documents.
If you're going to insist that I determine a perfect way to figure out what feminism is then 1) I am open to suggestions (and that's me doing as much as I possibly can) and 2) if you can't offer any, I'm not sure you're in a place to demand it from anyone else. I don't mean this to be rude in any way, but this is frustrating because it often feels like trying to pin down a moving target.
Something that I would love to discuss in another thread, if possible.
Article titles include:
-Male Victims of Domestic Violence: Have you ever beaten up your boyfriend? Cause, uh, we have.
-Sexual Objectification of Men: Why Shameless Objectification Can Be a Good Thing.
-Race & Gender: Why the 'End' of White Men is Actually Good for White Men.
-Gender Roles & Male Sensitivity: If You Want a More Thoughtful Boyfriend, Try Pegging Him.
More besides that. By the way, I've read through them all and most (not exactly all, but most) read exactly like they sound based on the title.
I honestly don't think that was Ljoss's point. Most people bring up Jezebel by what I call the Law of Blue Hair:
"At any leftist protest, the mainstream media will immediately zoom in on the dude with blue hair."
Meaning they'll always pick the walking stereotype to construct an ad hominem around.
Well, there is what we call SWERFs. This is feminism where you still get to call other women whores. And if they really are, be all condescending about how you'll take them away from that life (not caring what they want, of course) to a farm where they can due much harder work for minimum wage! Yay!
It's still a bit grating, especially since every bit of carelessness is mistaken for consent.
Well, there's also Feminists for Life, which is actually an anti-abortion group and has nothing to do with feminism. You have TERFs, who spend more time pissing off lesbians (actual lesbians, rather than simply boycotting men), gays, bisexuals, and transgender ("Transgender people are going to kill all the lesbians!") than actual feminism. Both are extremely out of the mainstream of feminism.
As I said, though Jezebel is clickbait. I call it Lady 4chan. Because, you know, they've posted Rule 34 of Disney characters before.
On phasing:
Please provide how one should determine what the mainstream feminist belief system is. So far, you've talked about sites not representing that belief system. While they may not represent your belief system, I'm at a loss to figure out what basis you have for the claim of what "mainstream" feminism is about. It's such a widespread label.
After all, I'm guessing the radical feminists you dismiss as not being what feminism is about might have a similar dismissal for your own views on the matter.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Reminds me of the inverse for really bad male advice about women, it just seems that technology has finally allowed for the idiot woman advice to finally come more public. The only reason idiot male ideas about women persisted in public for so long was because, at a time, they did hurt and alienate women. I agree that, presuming this is true about Jezebelle and their core audience as a whole, then I agree with you.
It's like whenever I was a youngster people always said "Don't hit women," I always said "Don't hit people" and other such things. If a woman ever hits me, and they have in the past, there's typically a verbal warning and some sort of block from the hit. If it's a repeat offender, I'll berate the person in their little personal space to their face like a drill sergeant.
Certainly, I can understand hitting where a man is coming into personal space and begins to sexually assault a woman then that is more than qualified to strike. Like someone plays "honk the breast" and gets sucker punched, yea they deserved it. I'm not sorry, but I do believe there are times when hitting is permissible.
Speaking as someone who has been sexually assaulted before, I will say most leveled headed horny people will at least apologize and not do it again. Although the strangest incident I had was whenever I said, "Don't ever do that again! How'd you like it if I did it to you?" Followed by a smile and a "sure go right ahead, what part do you want to touch?" People are strange...
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>
Well, I certainly don't think I'm committing ad hominem, because who would I be committing it against? I'm certainly not committing it against Jezebel by listing their own article titles. It sounds more like you think I'm building a strawman but that's really the opposite of what I'm trying to do. In other words, I'm not trying to misrepresent mainstream feminism, I'm trying to accurately represent it.
To that end, I asked openly about the method we would need to accurately represent it. I rejected the idea that we could appeal to a central authority since in my understanding no such central authority exists. If it does, let me know. Since I do not believe that it exists, I asked whether a good start might include finding a website that both 1) carries the banner of feminism (claims to be feminist) and 2) is hugely popular in my area. Jezebel, as it happens, had a 477 ranking on Alexa in the U.S. meaning it is extremely popular and it fits criterion 1 as well.
I didn't (and still don't) pretend that this was the perfect way to go about it. I admitted that it is not perfect. If I spoke 20 languages including Swahili then maybe I would find a whole bunch of other sites that are popular outside the U.S. and cross-reference them to develop a better understanding of what mainstream feminism is worldwide. Sadly, I have neither the intelligence nor the time to do any of that. That's why I asked if you had access to a better methodology and stressed that I would be quite eager to hear about it. If not, then I think I've done OK for now in not misrepresenting mainstream feminism.
If I had, say, used Westboro Baptist to represent mainstream Christianity or ISIS to represent Islam then I could absolutely understand a strawmanning charge, since these groups are clearly outside the mainstream for their religion, at least to my understanding in case you care to differ there. But Jezebel, again, claims to be feminist and is wildly popular in the U.S. So I take it they represent a rather larger percentage of feminists.
How are the reactions to the pieces? Because if someone posts, "Woman beats her husband," to grab attention - the reactions should still be negative. Mass-shooting stories get attention, and the reactions are "that's awful" - not, "You go girl!"
To be clear, I haven't read the pieces or the comments. I'm just pointing out that how attention-getting the headline is has little to do with the problem.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I don't read Jezebel, so I have no idea. But remember that Ljoss' evidence for Jezebel's relevance was Alexa rank, which is a measure of traffic, which is obtained via attention-grabbing headlines. If we want to say that the headlines are not relevant, we also have to conclude that Alexa probably rank isn't either.
No one said headlines aren't relevant, you just made an argument that "shocking" headlines are probably motivated - at least in significant part - by issues of traffic-generation rather than social agenda or genuine beliefs. I pointed out that this factor doesn't discount the impact of the article and doesn't prevent us from evaluating broad opinion based on the comments. If an article announcing a school shooting gets a lot of traffic, and a lot of commentators lamenting the event - then we can draw conclusions based on that section of the populace's attitudes toward school shootings. The same can be done for these articles.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider relevant? How would one go about figuring out a broad view of beliefs and attitudes within the feminist movement? How would you determine a source as properly representative?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Shall I take this to mean that you have no method then? Or would you like to address this from my previous post:
So far you've just tried to discount anything you disagree with as not being representative for X, Y or Z reasons. If you've actually contributed a consistent method for determining what is representative, we can apply that.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Absolutely. However, you then can't make any claims about what feminism broadly stands for or what it believes then - since you don't have a method for evaluating that. If you don't make any such claims, cool.
In any case, it's fine to use the best-current-method as long as one doesn't draw any conclusions beyond the limitations of the method. It's fine to point a smeared telescope at the horizon, fully knowing the limitations of the telescope, provided one doesn't pretend that they can see clearly. You might still be able to spot the blurry blackness of land.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think a better place to look online to get an idea of what feminism looks like in the anglosphere would be to look up non-profit groups and elected/candidates for public office that identify themselves either as a feminist or gender equality activists and see what their goals/platform/proposed/passed legislation are. This method would be one of the better ones I think, because then we are looking at people that are actually trying to affect some kind of change in society. Which atleast could answer one big question, politically what are the goals of the feminist/gender equality movement.
Aternatively you could take a survey to determine what "mainstream feminism" is. Although it would of course be limited by who is being surveryed, the general public of a country/province, college students, college students majoring in gender studies/professors teaching the classes, people involved in a women's advocacy organizations. The survey would ask people things like "do you consider yourself a feminist?" and then ask what those that identify themselves as such what the term means to them, while also of course asking those that doesn't identify as such what the term means to them. That would start to give you an idea of what feminism looks life in that country, province, university and so on.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
If that's a correct definition, a huge number of feminists are also misogynists - because they hate it when women support the patriarchy or take similar actions.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
First article's about death threats against Anita Sarkeesian and her canceling a speech in Utah as a result.
Second article's about ISIS. I will admit the men's rights movement is better than ISIS.
On phasing: