Women's rights

[Trivea]

Being a (female) traditional feminist myself, feminism is okay - as in, wanting the genders to be treated as equals and not wanting females to be seen as inferior simply because they're female (or males as inferior simply because they're male, it works both ways). However, today there is less 'feminism' and more 'female supremacy', which is just as uncool as male supremacy.

 

[Mandalore_15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_in_Sheep%27s_Clothing

Come on.... that's like the most well-known idiom there is....

And?

Do you think an idiom can only be used with clear rules governing its rhetorical intention?

It's got everything to do with sheep (good, gives you wool) and wolves (bad, eats your sheep).

That's a very revealing interpretation..

Think about the implications of what you just said.

What? That farmers believe sheep are good and wolves are bad?

A farmer with lots of sheep is able to feed and clothe his family.
A farmer with lots of wolves dies.

It's not hard....

This idiom's been around for over 500 years. It's meaning is as defined as any word in the dictionary. Anyone in western culture not ignorant or obtuse knows it's meaning.

So really, you're either ignorant, obtuse and looking to be offended or trolling.

Congratulations on meeting "evilthecat", the escapist's resident troll when it comes to matters of gender or sexuality. How he hasn't been suspended yet is quite the mystery to me...

 

[Hagi]

I would immediately decide that I liked the food. I would wait before saying the food was good.

I would immediately decide that I enjoyed the movie. I would wait before saying the movie was good.

I would immediately decide that beating the child was bad since there are already laws against that.

Does that answer your question?

So to clarify, art is objectively good or objectively bad, and can be objectively interpreted, all that is required is a consensus of an appropriate percentage of the population. There is no room for deviation from this consensus, and anyone who does is being ridiculous.

You really enjoy twisting my words don't you?

Saying a movie is good does not imply it's objectively good. Movies are incapable of being objectively good, that's their nature.

Saying a movie is good does however imply that there's an actual significant following who thought the movie was good.

And no, I can't give you exact numbers on how big that following has to be. You'll have to be a big boy and use your own judgement for that, again risking of course that other people might call your judgement lousy.

 

[ChickenZombie]

I dont think your sex, age, race, or nationality should matter. it's all how an individual acts. Its all about personality. Generalization is one of the issues with modern philosophy.

"Women feel this, men feel this". No. Maybe the majority of women feel one way, but relly, you just have to accept that everybody is an individual.

 

[funguy2121]

I've never had the pleasure of encountering an extreme feminist.

I think they do more harm than good. I know one used to drink in my sisters local until she got into a heated debate with my sister over her letting my brother in law pay for everything (it was my sisters birthday, he took her out for a drink) so my sister beat the shit out of her.

Thats as close as i've come to one.

Thats about as close as i'd like to ever get.

Oh hold on, I tell a lie.

I read an article from some feminist that claimed all men support rape.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Now that is a woman with clear issues.

Best post I've seen on one of these threads in quite a while, since it nicely sums up what seems to be the viewpoint of (sadly) the majority of the Escapist:

1. I'm not familiar with any feminists

and

2. I think they hurt more than they help

Now, this poster used the term "extreme" feminist but I don't think that's what he meant, even if he does. The example he gave was of a woman who urged her friend not to let her boyfriend pay for all of her shit, i.e. buy her. This hits close to home for me because my mother, a self-described arch conservative who reads Ann Coulter books, hates feminism even as she reaps the benefits (case in point...) and will be voting for Rick Perry in the next Presidential election, has been dating for the past couple of years, and the majority of the guys she goes out with are pretty loaded and constantly trying to blind her from seeing clearly in their new relationship by buying her love. I humbly submit to you that this transcends being a feminist issue. It's bigger than that. And your sister responded by "beating the shit out of her," which is either something that you felt was a cool way to end a B.S. story or a truly extreme reaction on your sister's part. The woman you describe as an "extreme" feminist doesn't come out looking like the extreme one in this situation at all.

As for the article you posted on the internet, a much more eloquent poster than I has already responded to that.

I think there's a fundamental disagreement between the majority of feminists and the majority of Escapists that, overall, women on this planet have it harder than men (and by women, and a whole shit-ton of feminists will back me up on this one, I mean biological females who want to make their own way in this world, and not gold-digging opportunists). The feminists just happen to be the ones who are right here.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I'm sorry, but I need more than anecdotal evidence before I believe that it isn't sexist. And before I believe it's "just a cartoon". There is no significant information to suggest it seriously isn't anything else. Until I see a statistically significant group that finds this cartoon neutral and "just a cartoon", I believe that there exists significant evidence in the cartoon itself that demonstrates that it is poorly thought out and constructed as well as containing some rather eyeroll-worthy sexism and that the cartoon not "just a cartoon".

Do you also want more then anecdotal evidence to believe this world isn't controlled by invisible pink space dragons who, as a joke, have acted exactly as the laws of physics would?

Maybe some more then anecdotal evidence that this picture isn't actually referring to quantum ice-cream?

No, just proof that the cartoon is neutral. And that it's "just" cartoon.

A cartoon being just a cartoon isn't claiming anything. That's the neutral starting point. Something not being sexist is the neutral starting point.

It's not about proving something isn't something. It's about proving something IS.

I know. And that's why I asked that you prove it is neutral and that it IS just a cartoon. Rather unfair of you then, by your own statements, to expect people to prove what it isn't then, eh? (PS: It's taking a position, and claiming something about, feminists and misandrists, so it's not neutral or just a cartoon).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You really enjoy twisting my words don't you?

Saying a movie is good does not imply it's objectively good. Movies are incapable of being objectively good, that's their nature.

Saying a movie is good does however imply that there's an actual significant following who thought the movie was good.

And no, I can't give you exact numbers on how big that following has to be. You'll have to be a big boy and use your own judgement for that, again risking of course that other people might call your judgement lousy.

Why does saying a movie is good imply that there's a significant following who thought it was good? Why does any perspective require a "significant" following to be valid? By saying that the validity of any perspective is determined by consensus, and that anyone falling outside of that consensus is exercising poor judgment or being "silly", you're essentially endorsing tyranny of the majority.

What if the majority consensus is filled near to entirety with people who have, at best, a vague or rudimentary understanding of what is being discussed? What happens then? What if the dissenting voice has significant experience?

I've honestly never met anyone before who uses "consensus" as their sole criteria for determining validity. It's fascinating.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Your mistake lies in seeing me as the authority. I'm not.

In the end it's your own judgement on how much makes enough.

However, if you put your judgement at a dozen people in a forum thread then you should expect people like me to call you out on it. I can't give you straight numbers, they don't exist. However I can implore you to use logical thought.

If a dozen people on an internet forum is enough then that means that basically every viewpoint in existence is a reasonable one. From this picture being misogynistic to video games being corruptive to the youth.

So I'd advise you to put your judgement a bit higher then that.

But in the end you have your judgement and I have mine. If I don't agree with yours and I feel the need I'll tell you so on these forums. You're free to do the same with me.

We don't have to come to agreement after all. I'm pretty sure me thinking your judgement lousy or you thinking mine lousy isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse.

But yeah, if you think the anecdotal evidence provided in this threat is enough? I think your judgement is lousy.

But I don't create all my opinions by seeking consensus, in internet forums or otherwise. There are number of factors that go into anyone's decision making process, or the procedure by which they form judgments on the things they see. When you see a film, do you wait until you have a consensus of 50 people before you decide you enjoyed it? When you eat a meal, do you wait until the Zagat is in before you decide whether or not it tasted good?

If you saw a man beating a child without provocation on the street, would you be able to decide for yourself whether the act you saw was ethical? Or would you need a consensus, or intervention by a protest group, before you could decide whether or not your initial reaction was valid?

I would immediately decide that I liked the food. I would wait before saying the food was good.

I would immediately decide that I enjoyed the movie. I would wait before saying the movie was good.

I would immediately decide that beating the child was bad since there are already laws against that.

Does that answer your question?

Don't you find that constantly relying on majority opinions before having one yourself to be a rather immature attempt to avoid needing to think critically about things yourself? Oh wait, I guess you don't until a statically significant portion of the population tells you.

 

[Rawne1980]

And your sister responded by "beating the shit out of her," which is either something that you felt was a cool way to end a B.S. story or a truly extreme reaction on your sister's part. The woman you describe as an "extreme" feminist doesn't come out looking like the extreme one in this situation at all.

I can say, with hand on heart, that having my sister fighting is not my idea of a "cool" way to end a story.

She's never been the most placid of women even when we were kids, I say kids I was a kid she was coming up to her teens when I was born (she's 12 years older than me) and i'm 31 now so that was my 40 (at the time) year old sister scrapping in the middle of the pub.

Nope, not my idea of a "cool" way to end a tale.

I do understand my sisters reasoning if not the end result. She's been married for 20 years so think she's entitled to have her husband treat her to a night out without someone basically calling her a prostitute for allowing her husband to pay for her drinks on her birthday.

Then again if thats "buying someones love" i'll make sure to tell my own wife I can never again buy her a present or take her out because it's demeaning to her as a woman.

 

[Hagi]

I know. And that's why I asked that you prove it is neutral and that it IS just a cartoon. Rather unfair of you then, by your own statements, to expect people to prove what it isn't then, eh? (PS: It's taking a position, and claiming something about, feminists and misandrists, so it's not neutral or just a cartoon).

Fine. I'll play your game.

Cartoon = Cartoon.

And is there any feature inherent in a cartoon that's either decidedly negative or positive? If not then a cartoon is neutral.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Spoiler

I feel the reason for this:

Sexism is still quite prevalent in the first world. It's simply gone underground, to the subconscious. I'm a female in a male dominated field. There is an overwhelming assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, even by people who you would never think to be sexist.

Is this:

The real issue is the princessification of young girls. Practically from birth, we drill into their heads, "You're better than everyone else in the world, and they should treat you that way. You don't need to be self sufficient, or study in school, just keep acting helpless and pretty, and your prince will take care of you. If he doesn't give up all of his wants, needs, and aspirations, he doesn't really love you. Remember, relationships are about being served, not an equal partnership. All you can ever bring to the table is sex appeal, anyways."

I assume alot of times in my work(tech) environment that alot of women get/expect a pass just for being women when it comes to technical knowledge. now this isnt a dig on women. my wife is a tier 5 NOC tech with M$. im more refering to Jen Barber from The IT Crowd

Admittedly, I missed this part in my initial post.

I'm not talking about first impressions.

I'm talking about people maintaining this attitude (women aren't as capable as men) well after you've gotten to know the female in question.

 

[LokiArchetype]

The only thing that tarnishes the view of feminism more than feminist supremacists is

a) Feminists denying such people exist and insinuating that men make them up to discredit feminism.

b) Feminists going 'no true scotsman' on the issue and choosing a definition of feminism to deliberately exclude those people once their existence is shown, then acting like men are ignorant for viewing people who identify as feminists as feminists instead of going by a certain feminist's own rigid personal definition.

c) Feminists blaming everyone else for associating supremacists with them instead of blaming the supremacists for associating with them.


It makes feminists look deceptive, willfully ignorant of wrongdoing within their own group, lacking accountability, and overly eager to blame men.

 

[Hagi]

Don't you find that constantly relying on majority opinions before having one yourself to be a rather immature attempt to avoid needing to think critically about things yourself? Oh wait, I guess you don't until a statically significant portion of the population tells you.

Do you find that completely ignoring what everyone else thinks leads to well considered opinions? I think it's rather immature to consider one's own opinion so far above all others as to consider them irrelevant.

Isn't the whole point of critical thinking to consider opinions not your own? To not go by anecdotal evidence and singular occurrences? To continually consider the bigger picture and statistics?

It's not difficult to intentionally misinterpret someone else's opinion to your own opposite extreme. It however doesn't actually lead to useful discussions.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I know. And that's why I asked that you prove it is neutral and that it IS just a cartoon. Rather unfair of you then, by your own statements, to expect people to prove what it isn't then, eh? (PS: It's taking a position, and claiming something about, feminists and misandrists, so it's not neutral or just a cartoon).

Fine. I'll play your game.

Cartoon = Cartoon.

And is there any feature inherent in a cartoon that's either decidedly negative or positive? If not then a cartoon is neutral.

I've already explained that the cartoon takes a particular stance towards feminists and misandrists. Therefore, it contains inherently non-neutral features.

 

[Hagi]

You really enjoy twisting my words don't you?

Saying a movie is good does not imply it's objectively good. Movies are incapable of being objectively good, that's their nature.

Saying a movie is good does however imply that there's an actual significant following who thought the movie was good.

And no, I can't give you exact numbers on how big that following has to be. You'll have to be a big boy and use your own judgement for that, again risking of course that other people might call your judgement lousy.

Why does saying a movie is good imply that there's a significant following who thought it was good? Why does any perspective require a "significant" following to be valid? By saying that the validity of any perspective is determined by consensus, and that anyone falling outside of that consensus is exercising poor judgment or being "silly", you're essentially endorsing tyranny of the majority.

What if the majority consensus is filled near to entirety with people who have, at best, a vague or rudimentary understanding of what is being discussed? What happens then? What if the dissenting voice has significant experience?

I've honestly never met anyone before who uses "consensus" as their sole criteria for determining validity. It's fascinating.

Because people act silly at times. They judge things without rationally considering them and they're not aware of doing so.

If only a single person holds an opinion the chances of nobody else coming to that same conclusion are rather low. Not everybody is an Einstein able to come up with truly unique and revolutionary ideas. Most of the time if nobody agrees with us it's because we're not being reasonable.

If a large group holds an opinion chances are much higher (not 100%) of that opinion being reasonable given the tools and information available. Note that reasonable doesn't mean true, it means that with the knowledge and tools these people have it's logical that they came to the conclusion they have.

Therefore if you're to only one who thinks something is good or whatever, then chances are pretty high you're not actually the next Einstein and instead are just being silly.

While if your opinion is shared by a larger group of people then chances are pretty high that whatever considerations lead to that opinion are reasonable considerations.

Again, we're talking about chances here. Not certainties, so you can leave your popularity fallacy at home.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Don't you find that constantly relying on majority opinions before having one yourself to be a rather immature attempt to avoid needing to think critically about things yourself? Oh wait, I guess you don't until a statically significant portion of the population tells you.

Do you find that completely ignoring what everyone else thinks leads to well considered opinions? I think it's rather immature to consider one's own opinion so far above all others as to consider them irrelevant.

Isn't the whole point of critical thinking to consider opinions not your own? To not go by anecdotal evidence and singular occurrences? To continually consider the bigger picture and statistics?

It's not difficult to intentionally misinterpret someone else's opinion to your own opposite extreme. It however doesn't actually lead to useful discussions.

Tsk, tsk, what statistical majority informed you that I don't take the judgement of others into account? You must inform them they are in error. Unlike you making rather illustrative examples of how you rely on others to do your opinion making for you, I do not believe I have made any statement claiming that I never take the opinions of others into account.

And no, critical thinking is in large part being able to think for yourself without relying on others to tell you what to think.

You've not actually explained how I misinterpreted your words. You did, after all, state that you even relied on others to tell you that beating a child is bad rather than decide for yourself.

EDIT: And speaking of, what statistically representative group informed you that the cartoon was neutral and just a cartoon containing no sexism? And how can you judge someone or their opinions as "silly" unless and until a majority of people inform you?

 

[Hagi]

I know. And that's why I asked that you prove it is neutral and that it IS just a cartoon. Rather unfair of you then, by your own statements, to expect people to prove what it isn't then, eh? (PS: It's taking a position, and claiming something about, feminists and misandrists, so it's not neutral or just a cartoon).

Fine. I'll play your game.

Cartoon = Cartoon.

And is there any feature inherent in a cartoon that's either decidedly negative or positive? If not then a cartoon is neutral.

I've already explained that the cartoon takes a particular stance towards feminists and misandrists. Therefore, it contains inherently non-neutral features.

How is that stance either decidedly negative or positive?

The only thus far undisputed statement about that comic is: misandrists sometimes pretend to be feminists. That's a factual statement, not a opinionated one. It's neither positive nor negative. It's neutral.

 

[Hagi]

Don't you find that constantly relying on majority opinions before having one yourself to be a rather immature attempt to avoid needing to think critically about things yourself? Oh wait, I guess you don't until a statically significant portion of the population tells you.

Do you find that completely ignoring what everyone else thinks leads to well considered opinions? I think it's rather immature to consider one's own opinion so far above all others as to consider them irrelevant.

Isn't the whole point of critical thinking to consider opinions not your own? To not go by anecdotal evidence and singular occurrences? To continually consider the bigger picture and statistics?

It's not difficult to intentionally misinterpret someone else's opinion to your own opposite extreme. It however doesn't actually lead to useful discussions.

Tsk, tsk, what statistical majority informed you that I don't take the judgement of others into account? You must inform them they are in error. Unlike you making rather illustrative examples of how you rely on others to do your opinion making for you, I do not believe I have made any statement claiming that I never take the opinions of others into account.

And no, critical thinking is in large part being able to think for yourself without relying on others to tell you what to think.

You've not actually explained how I misinterpreted your words. You did, after all, state that you even relied on others to tell you that beating a child is bad rather than decide for yourself.

I did not.

I said that one of the reasons, nowhere implying that was the only reason, why beating children is bad is because it's in the law. Reason for it being in the law that scientific and political discussion determined it should be there.

I never implied not to think for myself. That's how you're misinterpreting me. I only said that other opinions are a factor in the making of my own opinions, again not implying that it's the only factor.

However I'm aware of the relativity of my own opinions. You don't know me and therefore can't put real value into my opinions. You do however know some larger groups of people, you know statistics and you know scientific research. So in a discussion it's generally better to provide the conclusions of those as they're more reliable (more != 100%) then my own opinion when reasoned from the point of view of a stranger.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Because people act silly at times. They judge things without rationally considering them and they're not aware of doing so.

If only a single person holds an opinion the chances of nobody else coming to that same conclusion are rather low. Not everybody is an Einstein able to come up with truly unique and revolutionary ideas. Most of the time if nobody agrees with us it's because we're not being reasonable.

If a large group holds an opinion chances are much higher (not 100%) of that opinion being reasonable given the tools and information available. Note that reasonable doesn't mean true, it means that with the knowledge and tools these people have it's logical that they came to the conclusion they have.

Therefore if you're to only one who thinks something is good or whatever, then chances are pretty high you're not actually the next Einstein and instead are just being silly.

While if your opinion is shared by a larger group of people then chances are pretty high that whatever considerations lead to that opinion are reasonable considerations.

Again, we're talking about chances here. Not certainties, so you can leave your popularity fallacy at home.

This is all well and good, but we're talking about a single 7 page thread on an internet forum. Maybe 20-30 different people have posted in this thread, and there's been far from a consensus even amongst those individuals. How on earth can you then claim to have sufficient ammunition, following your own laws of consensus, to claim ANY opinion stated in that thread is valid or invalid? If we're going to follow your own deeply confusing and troubling logic to the extent that "nothing is valid until consensus is established", then your own rejection of those opinions is just as invalid as the opinions itself. Indeed, no one could really say anything in ANY thread discussing ANY topic that wasn't rigorously reinforced by pre-existing consensus without it being immediately invalid, and ergo "silly". Or "whiny", whichever of your ad hominem attacks you feel is most judiciously applied any given circumstance, I suppose. Although I suppose you'd need to arrive at some sort of consensus before deciding.

 

[SillyBear]

snip

How about thousands of people in an audience laughing at the fact a man was mutilated?

You know, the thing that happened on CBS not long ago?

You don't think that doesn't show a really disturbing anti-male rhetoric that exists in our culture?