Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Gay Tony

MRA's, Male Privilege, Men's Issues, etc.

Recommended Posts

G's Ah's

Radical feminism is no longer a fringe nor the subset of Western feminism. It controls the mainstream movement and has done for almost a decade now. Anyone that thinks otherwise may as well have shoved their heads in the proverbial sand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
6 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

Radical feminism is no longer a fringe nor the subset of Western feminism. It controls the mainstream movement and has done for almost a decade now. 

This is a pretty big assertion given the dearth of evidence presented to support it. In fact, what does it even mean? That the loudest voices in "mainstream" feminism are aligned with radfem? That the general direction of the movement is? That the majority of people who self-identity as such confirm to that narrative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Lol. Radical Ferminism in no way shape or form controls the mainstream movement. They're still the vast minority, specially in face of Liberal Feminism dominating nearly all discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
5 hours ago, sivispacem said:

This is a pretty big assertion given the dearth of evidence presented to support it.

It's not really a big assertion. Take #MeToo for example. I doubt that would have existed let alone become as big and as influential if liberal feminists remained the preeminent force within Western feminism, simply because it would not have been a platform for the misandry to be unleashed into the mainstream. You also have to look at evidence in places like India  and Israel, where their respective legislatures were set to introduce gender-neutral rape laws but didn't because of the backlash from radical feminist groups. Then there's the CDC in the US which does not consider men to be victims of rape unless they're penetrated thanks to Mary Koss, who doesn't believe that men can be raped. 

 

Quote

In fact, what does it even mean?

It means that the feminists with the greatest power, control, and influence within the feminist movement are radical feminists. This means that they also wield substantial power, control, and influence over governments and other public institutions when looking at gender equality issues. This means that only radical feminist concepts and ideas will be introduced, and only radical feminist perspectives and opinions will be considered. Once you dominate the narrative (and the narrative surrounding gender equality is overwhelmingly about how these issues affect women), you can start implementing whatever you want. Prominent feminist media outlets like Feminist Current and Jezebel are starting to incite a backlash against liberal feminism for, what they claim to be, "feminism for white cis, hetero women". 

 

Quote

That the loudest voices in "mainstream" feminism are aligned with radfem? That the general direction of the movement is? That the majority of people who self-identity as such confirm to that narrative?

The first two essentially, but the third one is increasingly becoming so as liberal feminists and those not agreeing with the current orthodoxy either are pushed out of the movement or voluntarily cease to identify themselves as feminists. 

 

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Lol. Radical Ferminism in no way shape or form controls the mainstream movement. They're still the vast minority, specially in face of Liberal Feminism dominating nearly all discourse.

That is not true at all, although the same cannot be said for Japan, which is far more conservative than Western society is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
13 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

That is not true at all, although the same cannot be said for Japan, which is far more conservative than Western society is. 

I live in Japan, but come from Brazil, and am more in touch with the situation in America. I also tend to frequent several radical feminist groups, thanks to a couple of friends of mine.

 

And you're full of sh*t. The Radical Feminist movement is NOT controlling the mainstream movement. Ask any radical feminist out there, and they will tell you exactly what I'm telling you know. Liberal feminism has taken over because it's much more "accessible" to women and "agreeable" with most men. 

 

I don't think you know what radical feminism is either. Here's a list of excellent books for you to read if you wish to make informed comments regarding Radical Feminism. Or for a lighter introduction, I'd recommend this.

 

By the way, the #MeToo movement is extremely liberal feminism. Radical feminists see it for what it is: a vain attempt at bringing abuse to light supported by the mass media and their influencers. Basically, a waste of time since it only serves to make you feel good or shame someone or whatever, none of which are actual steps to fix the issues inherent with abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
12 hours ago, Tchuck said:

And you're full of sh*t.

I wish that were true. Honestly, I wish that I was wrong about this. But this is one of the few instances where I don't want to be right. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

If radical feminists control the feminist movement and can put such immense pressure on governments as you think, then why does the legalisation and normalisation of prostitution persist? Why are slurs for radfems like 'TERF' and 'SWERF' such common things to hear? Why do radfems refer to the bulk of the movement as 'libfems'? Why did they lose the Sex Wars?

 

Me and Tchuck are both involved in the radical feminist movement and are telling you that you are wrong. I've also explained in great detail what the feminist conception of patriarchy is and the history of the movement that lead to libfems becoming so dominant. There's not much point having a discussion when you're arguing against a version of feminism that only exists in your head. 

 

For the record, this idealised version of liberal feminism you have that always avoids 'misandry' is a fantasy. All feminism involves some level of anti-male hostility, liberal or otherwise. The reason you think the suffragettes (which you falsely conflate with liberal feminism) seem so cuddly is because they were a single issue campaign involving millions of women. Some were liberals, some were not. Those that participated in the Russian Revolution definitely weren't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
On 7/25/2018 at 4:01 PM, Eutyphro said:

(I could call you a vile bitter cúck but it gets us nowhere),

Okay. 

 

On 7/25/2018 at 4:01 PM, Eutyphro said:

 Isn't it clear to you that you've provided absolutely zero facts thoughout all the time we've debated this issue? 

No, not at all. The concept of patriarchy has been explained to you countless times. The relationship between modern leftism and postmodernism has been explained to you countless times. The irrelevance of your cherry-picked evopsych studies has been explained countless times.  Then you ignore it all and go back to posting the same sh*t a week later. 

 

On 7/25/2018 at 4:01 PM, Eutyphro said:

Your entire position is religious. You've even called yourself an 'orthodox feminist'. It's your personal faith pretty much. And if anyone questions it you lash out with insult ridden rants. Maybe actually questioning your own beliefs would give you a neurosis and I should cut you some slack though. 

Lol okay let's have an open discussion and I'll try not to have a mental breakdown. Please tell me for the upteenth time how Baron-Cohen has debunked feminism. Make sure you post lots of allusions to Peterson's batsh*t feminine chaos dragon nonsense without coming and repeating it, because that never gets old.

 

btw, orthodox just means oldskool. 

 

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
3 hours ago, Melchior said:

If radical feminists control the feminist movement and can put such immense pressure on governments as you think, then why does the legalisation and normalisation of prostitution persist?

Prostitution exists insofar as those countries have not been pressured to render prostitution illegal in its entirety, or criminalise the purchasing of sex, due to other issues regarding sexual assaults, especially with the flood of migrants from patriarchal societies treating women like pieces of meat. The most recent country to criminalise the purchase of sex was France. 

 

Quote

Why are slurs for radfems like 'TERF' and 'SWERF' such common things to hear?

I am surprised you refer to them as "slurs", given they're not often used at all. If they were slurs, I'd have used them more often. 

 

Quote

Why do radfems refer to the bulk of the movement as 'libfems'?

Because cementing control often means portraying parts of the movement that you disagree with as enemies or traitorous. It's how many leaders got rid of elements in political and social movements that they didn't like. 

 

Quote

Me and Tchuck are both involved in the radical feminist movement and are telling you that you are wrong.

And I should care about this for what reason? I don't consider either of you to be authorities on the subject and I don't consider either of your opinions to be valid. 

 

Quote

I've also explained in great detail what the feminist conception of patriarchy is and the history of the movement that lead to libfems becoming so dominant. There's not much point having a discussion when you're arguing against a version of feminism that only exists in your head.

And I have explained why you are wrong. The thing with this is my opinions are based on exposure to mainstream Western feminism, feminist media, feminists on social media, where such ideas and concepts are present. They are based literally on the words of feminists themselves. If such a thing is so foreign to you, then perhaps consider the premise of the rhetoric not matching the reality. 

 

Quote

For the record, this idealised version of liberal feminism you have that always avoids 'misandry' is a fantasy.

I didn't say that liberal feminism wasn't anti-men. I called them moderates, because they're not overtly misandrist and aren't going out of their way to ensure men become the most reviled group in Western society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
3 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

I am surprised you refer to them as "slurs", given they're not often used at all. If they were slurs, I'd have used them more often. 

Seriously? And you pretend to know anything about feminism? TERF and SWERF are most absolutely used as slurs. This just shows your blatant misrepresentation of reality.

 

3 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

And I should care about this for what reason? I don't consider either of you to be authorities on the subject and I don't consider either of your opinions to be valid. 

The feeling is mutual, but at least we have actual contact with the movement and with people belonging to it, are well acquainted with the literature and all, whereas you made up a strawman of what radical feminism is, decided it is the largest branch of feminism, and refuse to accept reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
4 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Seriously? And you pretend to know anything about feminism? TERF and SWERF are most absolutely used as slurs. This just shows your blatant misrepresentation of reality.

Misrepresentation of reality? I'm being told that moderates are radicals and radicals are moderates, and that two acronyms are now all of a sudden slurs, by two people who have spent the entire time not actually demonstrating any actual knowledge whatsoever? 

 

Why should I be surprised that people even associated with feminism are evasive as actual feminists. 

 

Quote

The feeling is mutual, but at least we have actual contact with the movement and with people belonging to it, are well acquainted with the literature and all, whereas you made up a strawman of what radical feminism is, decided it is the largest branch of feminism, and refuse to accept reality.

The reality is that radical feminism is in full control of the Western feminist movement. That is simply something you cannot possibly deny, even from people as disconnected from the real world as you two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Ha. That moment when someone who has never even read a book on radical feminist theory, much less have any contact with people in radical feminism groups, goes on to say that radical feminism dominates the global feminist movement. Hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

57 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

I'm being told that moderates are radicals and radicals are moderates

No, you're being told that 'radical feminism' refers to a specific strain of feminist thought, one which has not been 'mainstream' for decades, and has--rightfully, in my view--been rejected by the vast majority of those who identify as feminists.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, G's Ah's said:

The reality is that radical feminism is in full control of the Western feminist movement. That is simply something you cannot possibly deny, even from people as disconnected from the real world as you two. 

"Black is white. I won't present any evidence to support the assertion black is white, but it is reality. It is incontrovertible fact because I say so. Even people as disconnected from reality as you cannot deny that black is white".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
23 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Ha. That moment when someone who has never even read a book on radical feminist theory, much less have any contact with people in radical feminism groups, goes on to say that radical feminism dominates the global feminist movement. Hilarious.

And hence why academics and people who claim to be such are out of touch with reality, because they refuse to even acknowledge anything that doesn't exist in their books. 

 

22 hours ago, make total destroy said:

No, you're being told that 'radical feminism' refers to a specific strain of feminist thought, one which has not been 'mainstream' for decades, and has--rightfully, in my view--been rejected by the vast majority of those who identify as feminists.

It has been rejected by other branches of Western feminism, but to deny that radical feminist and radical feminists are not mainstream is to deny the reality of the modern day movement, which is inherently radicalised and dominated by radical feminist concepts. 

 

22 hours ago, sivispacem said:

"Black is white. I won't present any evidence to support the assertion black is white, but it is reality. It is incontrovertible fact because I say so. Even people as disconnected from reality as you cannot deny that black is white".

Except that is not what I am saying. Radical feminism is dominating the modern Western feminist movement. Ergo, black is black and white is white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
21 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

 

 

It has been rejected by other branches of Western feminism, but to deny that radical feminist and radical feminists are not mainstream is to deny the reality of the modern day movement, which is inherently radicalised and dominated by radical feminist concepts. 

 

 

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Whether or not you personally view something as 'radical' has no bearing on whether or not it's actually 'radical feminism', because again, it refers to a specific strain of feminist thought, one which rejects pornography, prostitution/sex work, and trans* issues entirely. It is not a term for 'feminism that makes G's Ah's feel uncomfortable.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
1 hour ago, G's Ah's said:

Radical feminism is dominating the modern Western feminist movement.

And where would we find the evidence to support this claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

If radical feminism was dominating Western feminism, I have to believe we'd see far more hostility to the Trans community at pride events - rather than it being a fringe element speaking about it - as well as more calls for gender segregation, which seems to be a popular concept among radfems.

You can't just interpret a generalised contempt for men as proof that radical feminists are dominating the wider feminist message, there are key differences in their aims, methods and rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
On 7/25/2018 at 10:46 PM, sivispacem said:

I'm still totally lost on this one, especially given we know the broad context at this point- an internal business event involving a senior representative of a large public company..

Can you give an example of when a company figurehead saying "n*gger" might be contextually acceptable at an official business event? Because I sure as sh*t can't think of one.

Wasn't it in the context of some form of training and he was instructed to say it in the context of some scenario they were training? We know very little about the context. And yes, someone could say 'nïgger' in stead of 'n-word', because saying 'n-word' is just embarrassing.
 

Quote

I'm not sure this really rings true, given that a variety of public figures ranging from Margaret Atwood to Tony Robbins have expressed misgivings about the movement without having their "careers ruined".

Margaret Atwood is old and retired, and Tony Robbins is self employed. Both of them still faced backlash though, but they can't easily be ruined I guess. Though I have seen efforts to ruin Tony Robbins over this.
 

Quote

Regardless, vague allusions to cherry-picked examples entirely devoid of context does not a coherent argument make

I can't really be expected to make an index of the vast amount of these cases. That would be a much too boring thing to ask anyone to do, except for someone obsessed with boring hoaxes. We all know this is not 'cherry picked', but that this happens all the time. People are currently dragged through the mud for speaking on controversial topics all the time. That's clear as day.
 

Quote

and nor does using the Twittersphere as a coherent barometer of mainstream public opinion. 

The Twittersphere isn't a barometer of mainstream political opinion. Twitter is dominated by attention hungry bad tempered c*nts that are so bored they might as well destroy someone elses life. But the mainstream media consider what is popular on twitter news, and this makes twitter influential. I'd propose never treating anything that happens on twitter as newsworthy ever again, except in rare exceptions. But that is not how it currently is.
 

Quote

At this point I suspect you're failing to disambiguate reality- that the majority of the political, sociological and economic hierarchy is dominated by men

I've never really denied this have I? It's mostly due to the fact that to reach the top of any hierarchy you have to work full time, and combining that with children is pretty much impossible. It's also currently changing naturally because women are dominating higher education. The pay gap is increasingly flipping towards women. It has flipped up until the age where most women start choosing family over career. Young women earn more money than young men in many Western countries.
 

Quote

that men have voluntarily and wilfu lly organised themselves in a way designed to exclusively deny women socioeconomic power

Are you talking about the present, or about a hundred years agot? In the present there is no evidence men are organizing themselves with the explicit intent to exclude women from socioeconomic power, and as there's no evidence for this, it is, like I said, a paranoid conspiracy to believe such a thing.
 

Quote

The fact you've "never" seen feminists make economically focused arguments suggests to me that you're arguing from a pigeon-holed misrepresentation

Would you care to cite one single feminist who makes such 'economically focused arguments'? If you don't then what you are saying is quite vapid. Maybe Fonz could help out. I'm sure if you find such a feminist and we look at her work though, we'll find many biased and ideological interpretations of history throughout it. The fact that you think feminists generally make 'economically focused arguments' makes me feel like you live in bizarro world. I know one feminist who makes economically focused arguments and I happen to be a fan of. His name is John Stuart Mill.
 

On 7/26/2018 at 2:27 PM, Tchuck said:

Here's a list of excellent books for you to read if you wish to make informed comments regarding Radical Feminism. Or for a lighter introduction, I'd recommend this.

Some of the books on that list are part of the third wave. Kimberle Crenshaw came up with intersectionality, and Judith Butler is also foundational to the third wave. I wouldn't consider the third wave 'liberal' by any means, but we've gone over that a gazillion times (whether idpol is liberal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
21 hours ago, make total destroy said:

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

Except I do know what I am talking about. The problem is virtually everyone here has either bought into the barefaced lie that Western feminism is still filled to the brim with "well meaning" liberal feminists or completely detached from the real world by refusing to budge from academic impressions of how the movement is doing. Either that or there's a lot of radical feminists here. Which would make the most sense. 

 

Quote

Whether or not you personally view something as 'radical' has no bearing on whether or not it's actually 'radical feminism', because again, it refers to a specific strain of feminist thought, one which rejects pornography, prostitution/sex work, and trans* issues entirely. It is not a term for 'feminism that makes G's Ah's feel uncomfortable.'

And all of this is present, if not at the forefront, of mainstream Western feminism. It's not about definitions, this is actually happening. 

 

21 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

And where would we find the evidence to support this claim?

I have already provided evidence back when you were too busy coming up with amusing yet inane insults rather than an actual argument. 

 

18 hours ago, Typhus said:

If radical feminism was dominating Western feminism, I have to believe we'd see far more hostility to the Trans community at pride events - rather than it being a fringe element speaking about it - as well as more calls for gender segregation, which seems to be a popular concept among radfems.

So the recent protests where radical feminists stopped pride parades in the UK and the advent of women's only public transport buses/train coaches and women's only gyms among other spaces isn't a sign? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
40 minutes ago, G's Ah's said:

I have already provided evidence

No you didn't. You provided falsehoods and your own opinion which is based on ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

So we are going to fill an entire page with posts by people who haven't contributed to the discussion at all echoing each other that the term 'radical feminism' isn't used accurately? Doesn't that seem f*cking boring and pedantic? And maybe someone can have an opinion on feminism without reading a bachelors worth of feminist literature? I'm pretty sure most of the pedants here have read jacksh*t feminist theory themselves.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus
2 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

 So the recent protests where radical feminists stopped pride parades in the UK and the advent of women's only public transport buses/train coaches and women's only gyms among other spaces isn't a sign? 

If that reaction was the norm among Feminists, it would be, but that's not the case. However, it does show that radical feminism isn't a fringe section, and has a wider groundswell of support than people think. It's entirely possibly that these more radical voices will become more prominent in the coming years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Wasn't it in the context of some form of training and he was instructed to say it in the context of some scenario they were training? We know very little about the context. And yes, someone could say 'nïgger' in stead of 'n-word', because saying 'n-word' is just embarrassing.

Even if "instructed to say it" were actually true- and it's a step or two further than anyone describing the actual situation seems to have gone, that doesn't make it contextually acceptable.

The verbatim quote he was alleged to have made, "Colonel Sanders called blacks n*ggers, and Sanders never faced public outcry" is fantastically ignorant even without his use of racial slurs.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I can't really be expected to make an index of the vast amount of these cases. 

I don't think it's too much to ask to back up the assertion that the destruction of the careers and lives of individuals who draw the ire of social media feminists is noteworthy in its frequency and prominence.

If you aren't willing to back up assertions you make, or consider providing evidence other than cherry-picked examples (and yes, they are by very definition cherry-picked) too much of a burden, might I suggest you don't bother?

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

People are currently dragged through the mud for speaking on controversial topics all the time. That's clear as day.

Which no-one will disagree with; the issue is threefold:

 

1) The assertion that it is "feminists" and their supporters who are more prolific in doing this than other groups;

2) That these invariably, or even frequently result in the "destruction" of people's careers and lives, or even;

3) That there is any real substantive knock-on effect for these individuals outside of the social media sphere.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

The Twittersphere isn't a barometer of mainstream political opinion.

Then why imply it is by citing social media movements as the arbiter of people's literal career? Pointing to pissing matches between self-identifying feminists and other people on social media tells you nothing.

You shouldn't act surprised that hysterical mobs of any political persuasion act as hysterical mobs; the onus here is on demonstrating that these groups and their narratives are indeed a barometer of mainstream feminist thought and both you and G's Ah's have utterly failed to do so.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I've never really denied this have I?

Your entire argument is premised on it being the prevailing school of mainstream thought amongst feminists. It's a straw man.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

In the present there is no evidence men are organizing themselves with the explicit intent to exclude women from socioeconomic power

I never said or implied they were. You should probably try reading my posts next time, rather than taking a wild stab at what you think they might say.

As above, your entire argument is premised on the belief that the mainstream narrative of feminist thought is that men voluntary organise themselves to explicitly exclude women.

Your rebuttals earlier in the threat were aimed at addressing that very assertion, as well as perpetrating the notion that's what mainstream feminists used the term "patriarchy" to refer to.

 

Not only did nobody in the thread every make that assertion, it's not one that really appears in feminist discourse, even outside of the mainstream, at all.

Never, contextually or otherwise, have I, or apparently anyone, else seen "patriarchy" defined the way you claim that feminists define it.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Would you care to cite one single feminist who makes such 'economically focused arguments'?

Are you joking? Feminist economics is a fully-established subdiscipline of economics that's widely taught at universities. If I was to cherry-pick but a few vocal proponents, they would include Marilyn Waring, Nancy Folbre, Diane Elson, Deniz Kandiyoti, Brigitte Young, Sarah Jewell...

But then again, your appreciation of feminist discourse stems entirely from social media spats so I wouldn't expect you to have any appreciation of how integrated certain schools of thought from it are in the wider context of the social sciences.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Doesn't that seem f*cking boring and pedantic? 

What's "boring and pedantic" is your constant mischaracterisation of mainstream thought, refusal to countenance the fact you might be wrong, and lack of willingness to support your assertions.

I wouldn't consider myself anything close to an expert on feminism but it's clear even to me that you lack even the most fundamental grasp of it.

 

2 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

So the recent protests where radical feminists stopped pride parades in the UK...

I don't think this is a sign of anything. Does the fact that anti-abortion Christian extremists harass women and block access to clinics mean that the entire Christian community must be militantly anti-abortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
3 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Even if "instructed to say it" were actually true- and it's a step or two further than anyone describing the actual situation seems to have gone, that doesn't make it contextually acceptable.

The verbatim quote he was alleged to have made, "Colonel Sanders called blacks n*ggers, and Sanders never faced public outcry" is fantastically ignorant even without his use of racial slurs.

I can't really judge it out of context though.
 

Quote

Which no-one will disagree with

Well great.
 

Quote

the issue is threefold:

I can't be bothered to go along with a boring attempt to muddy the discussion and move the goalposts. I have better sh*t to do than to go along with boring pedantry that is most likely disingenuous in order to 'win another discussion' as 'the great debater'.

This is my original claim on political correctness in response to Fonz:

"It does exist. It's pretty much the new mainstream morality being pushed on the masses in order to tame them. And challenging it does get you in trouble. The mainstream media who push this morality will go on a witch hunt against you if you challenge it in the slightest, and intimidates everyone doing so by attempting to destroy their careers. Hence why most people don't dare speak on a lot of important social themes. There's a mainstream orthodoxy that can't ever be challenged, or they'll attempt to utterly ruin you.

I happen to completely stand by it and haven't really found a credible counterargument. I'm not convinced by boring pedantry and attempts to misinterpret claims and move goalposts. I have provided examples, especially in the context of #metoo. You're free to agree or disagree.
 

Quote

Then why imply it is by citing social media movements as the arbiter of people's literal career?

Because, the arbiter of people's high profile careers isn't public opinion in the year 2018 sivis. You might think it is, because your opinion rather strongly coincides with mainstream narratives, but it is not. The mainstream media love twitter, because twitter is a way to produce news narratives out of thin air. It's a never ending source of fake outrage for the media to run on.
 

Quote

Are you joking? Feminist economics is a fully-established subdiscipline of economics that's widely taught at universities.

To pretend it is the mainstream of feminist thinking is a joke. A small search of the names you provided indicated that some of them are more strongly geared towards sociology than economy. Furthermore, the type of 'economic realism' that Fonz indicates as being at the basis of radical feminism is historical materialist Marxism, which has been utterly rejected by the mainstream of economic thought for dozens of years.
 

Quote

I wouldn't consider myself anything close to an expert on feminism but it's clear even to me that you lack even the most fundamental grasp of it

I'm quite certain I have a better grasp of feminist theory than you do, though I must admit, I'm not well read in 'feminist economics' which is a fringe phenomenon.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I can't be bothered to go along with a boring attempt to muddy the discussion and move the goalposts

"I can't be bothered to engage in any further discussion, or to continue defending the comments I've already made, so I'm just going to try some wildly off-the-mark attempts to poison the well and sprinkle in few ad hominems for good measure".

What's that word of yours you love so much? Oh yes, disingenuous. That's even before we come to selectively ignoring a good 75% of my post.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Because, the arbiter of people's high profile careers isn't public opinion in the year 2018 sivis

I'm glad you agree with me given this is exactly what I f*cking said. Social media by and large isn't the arbiter of famous people's careers, regardless of whether they say controversial, idiotic or bigoted things. 

I can only assume you actually meant the arbiter of careers "shouldn't" be public opinion, not isn't, but given you've edited your post once already without correcting this maybe you did mean to contradict yourself and agree with me? Who knows with you, given your ideological views change with the breeze.

 

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

To pretend it is the mainstream of feminist thinking is a joke

"I don't think this is mainstream feminism, so this isn't mainstream feminism"

The fact you think feminist economics is a "fringe phenomenon" and yet believe that you have a better grasp of feminist theory than me smacks of Dunning-Kruger.

You can either believe that feminist economics is a fringe phenomenon, or you can have a basic grasp of feminist theory. The two are mutually exclusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
21 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

No you didn't. You provided falsehoods and your own opinion which is based on ignorance.

Yes I have. Go back to the previous page where I link two stories regarding radical feminists preventing gender neutral rape laws from being implemented in India and Israel, among other evidence presented. 

 

19 hours ago, Typhus said:

If that reaction was the norm among Feminists, it would be, but that's not the case.

We're making the assumption that it has to be a norm in order for such things to be considered legitimate evidence. The transphobia in feminism is only a recent phenomena, beginning concurrent with transgender people demanding better treatment from society. It is likely that radical feminists and mainstream feminism simply didn't regard transgender individuals as anything more than part of the LGBT community and therefore did not perceive them as the threat they do now. We can't assume that this won't be a default position being adopted by Western feminists. 

 

Quote

However, it does show that radical feminism isn't a fringe section, and has a wider groundswell of support than people think. It's entirely possibly that these more radical voices will become more prominent in the coming years.

The whole crux of my argument is that radical feminism has been in charge of the mainstream movement for a while now, but with events such as #MeToo, and the open misandry of the mainstream movement as it stands currently, only now are we beginning to see the effects of this new feminist order. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
7 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

Yes I have. Go back to the previous page where I link two stories regarding radical feminists preventing gender neutral rape laws from being implemented in India and Israel, among other evidence presented. 

Yeah, sure. Every time I think of India or Israel I think of feminism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's
12 hours ago, Darth Yokel said:

Yeah, sure. Every time I think of India or Israel I think of feminism.

You'd be surprised. But this requires an inquisitive, open mind. Or at least a willingness to debate instead of just sitting there being asinine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel
3 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

You'd be surprised. But this requires an inquisitive, open mind. Or at least a willingness to debate instead of just sitting there being asinine. 

Says the guy who's just regurgitating alt-right talking points from reddit. You're not fooling anyone, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • 4 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 4 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.