Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Good point.

Well, concerning your discussion about porn, I think, and I hope, that there are porn movies that are made with the purpose of letting the actor/actresses do what they want of their bodies and thus expressing their sexualities, but they may be very rare.

There are some porn films where the actors hate their job, they hate the fact its only for somebody else sick kicks and only do it for the money. It's demeaning for them and exploitative. They only follow a script but aren't expressing anything, let alone their rights, their individuality, their dignity.

There is a name for this type of porn, it's called: bad

In good porn, the actors willingly take part because they do enjoy it. It is fun for them. And it's just as much for their own enjoyment as it is for anyone watching. In good porn actors are legitimately proud of their bodies and happy to show off what it can do. They aren't treated as objects, but people who enjoy sex, their bodies, their sexuality and are just confident enough to do it on camera.

I would say that porn actors do express their sexualities. But only if its done right and only if it includes the right people who are comfortable with that sort of expression

@Twee:

@Onion Syrup:

That wasn’t really @ the Feminist Frequency Vid; you didn’t say anything relevant to it so isn’t that more @ Feminist Frequency’s Existence In General? It’s also rather spurious to say “this person said this one thing I think is incorrect, therefore they and any projects they are involved in automatically have no credibility”.

Well, yes, I technically didn't say anything about the video. I'm questioning the credibility of its source. Do note that I just brought up one of numerous instances I saw Feminist Frequency falter.

What I think Twee is getting at is that in porn, actors and actresses aren’t expressing their sexuality, but instead are acting and are preforming sex acts etc. That they aren’t enjoying but are paid to do and it is just being used to get guys going. What this means is that they are shown in a way in which they are being treated like an object, not like a human being. The point is that is supposedly the case with most porn videos.

Essentially, yes, though it goes beyond pornography – this happens everywhere. You could say sexuality and sexual objectification boils down to "this person is horny" vs. "this person's body makes me horny and the person themselves is irrelevant", respectively.

People can also self-objectify if exposed to this sort of thing a lot, meaning they start to see themselves as objects for other people's enjoyment rather than an individual with their own thoughts, feelings and desires.

@Onion Syrup:

Well, yes, I technically didn’t say anything about the video. I’m questioning the credibility of its source.

I can see that, but I don't really see the point. Sarkeesian doesn't feature in it, and what the people are saying stands and falls on its own merit, what Sarkeesian had to say about Bayonetta doesn't really have any bearing on it. Her and/or her project (arguably) being wrong about even multiple things doesn't automatically make anything else connected to her invalid.

@Twee
Point Taken. My comment was more about Feminist Frequency itself than the video. And while yes, She can say some factual things and things not necessarily false every now and then despite being wrong about some things, it's still reasonable for people like me to doubt the stuff she says, since she is not always correct.

This is interesting. Misogynistic or no? You decide.

Seriously, this controversy is downright disappointing.
As far as I'm concerned, it is mysogynistic in the sense that she asked for what is considered as a "male" haircut, a type of haircut the barbershop is able to provide, and was denied because of her gender. As some of the commenters point it out, hairdressers have different trainings so it's not uncommon to refuse an haircut when it's a specific one you haven't been trained to do. Here, it's not the case at all.
I'm not sure if the "victim" here is transgender but, if that's the case and she identifies as a male, then she should be allowed in this barbershop.

But, at the same time, there are arguments in favor of a "male-only" space (the Barbershop is trying to be) that seems reserved to men only with its own atmosphere.. well.. for men. In the end, the female "victim" willingly went to THAT barbershop, knowing that it was a special place, to ask for an haircut, instead of going to another hairdressing salon.
I didn't lose myself into the flame war in the comments about "women-only gyms" and sexual discrimination acting as double-standards. It's always the same shit.

So, meh. There was discrimination but the "victim" forced it all over her, in this case.
At the same time, do we have the right to refuse the owner of this kind of shop to have a male-only policy if he wants to?

I stopped reading after, "Ragged Ass Barbers refused Evie Ruddy's request for a traditional men's haircut"

I knew that this wasn't exactly a fair look.

Any Ideology taken can be taken to the extreme

http://viralwomen.com/post/woman_with_her_tape_measure_confronts_manspreaders_on_the_subway
Thoughts? :P

"I have been the victim of manspreading."

Is this satire? Cus this looks like satire.

I googled 'manspreading' and the only results I got was that very article.

Sound like a term that was invented just now purely for the story. Because we need more unfair gender stereotypes.

Seriously, is being a seat-hog on public transport really a gender-specific offense?

Feminism is, in a way, like America: The ideas are great, but there are people that shit all over those ideas, and they happen to be in power.

Is it possible that if this phrase exists then it was previously exclusively used in one area/city? Although I suppose something like that would still find its way on urban dictionary.

Wait, THAT"S IT?

And then, Don meme'd on the "manspreading" with an article.

One second:

Alright, guys, stay on topic. God knows we don't need another thread talking about Don

Tbf, it's been 8 hours, so it's not like we spammed whole page with Don.

I find the best way to figure out if your argument is sexist is to reverse it.

So say "Men masturbating to porn is objectifying the people in the porn video"
Well Is women masturbating to porn objectifying the people in the porn video?

If its sexist for a Man to beat up a woman, then logically it must be sexist for a Woman to beat up a Man.

But most "feminists" don't see it that way. They prefer to have a double standard for the sexes and It seems like a lot of people treat, or at least talk, like females and males are a separate species or race. Like Men have evolved faster than Women.

Karen Straughan "debunking" the Sarkeesian's 25 invisible benefits video.
I can't help but agreeing to a lot of her points though.

You can't have too many Don threads IMO.

Who Is a Feminist Now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/fashion/who-is-a-feminist-now.html?_r=0

"Whether a woman in the public eye calls herself a feminist is an exercise in semiotics, she said,"

This is a problem a lot of discussions on poltics boil down to. Essentially:

A: "X means standing up for Y (with Y being something very abstract that almost everyone could support, like "freedom", "justice", "equality", etc)."

B: "No, in fact, X means Z, (Z being something universally bad)."

- dicitionary-checking ensues, disregarding the fact that most dictionary definitions are not authoritarian, but derived from the way the word is commonly used IRL -

This is why I've almost entirely stopped trying to define myself along ideological lines and tend to stick to single issues.

I'm not against feminists, i'm completly on their side. The problem is, i agree with gender equallity, but now, everyone is screaming "MYSOGINY" at everything without thinking nor searching for context. You screw up ? Well tough shit, weither you're a man or a woman dosen't matter. Don't expect favors because of your gender.

Wow, just wow. Don't you know when a woman screws up it's not her own fault, but because of the institutionalized misogyny that prevents her from succeeding? smh, it's like you support the patriarchy which gives men favors because of gender CONSTANTLY. please check your male privilege.

OK so another Karen Straughan video here but it sums up my feelings on the word feminism better then I ever could.

TotalBiscuit's comment on Staughan's Second video:

I made this point myself a while ago, the idea that harassment is tailored to the person and that yes, the kind of asshole that would troll and harass you is probably also a misogynist, a homophobe or whatever else (because well, they're an asshole). It's a tragic reality that the threat of rape is an extremely effective thing to use to hurt someone emotionally and is more effective against women than it is against men because its something women on average think about more often than men (though there are exceptions, such as say a victim of child abuse or an ex-convict, who may have either experienced rape himself in a prison environment or was almost certainly exposed to the possibility of it). The recent PEW study indicates that harassment types vary, but not that women are harassed on average more than men. They are harassed in different ways because an abuser identifies the most effective attack vector for the person and exploits it to do maximum emotional damage. As a heterosexual white man, things that an abuser might attack include career success, appearance, sexual history/prowess, social status, my masculinity in general, my sexual orientation or in many cases, one of the most effective, members of my family. A homosexual is more likely to be attacked for merely being gay and an abuser may attempt to exploit the persons insecurities about their sexuality, assuming they have any or perhaps attempt to invoke memories of previous homophobic abuse they may have suffered. Someone might argue that to not endure homophobia is a privilege. I can see your point to some extent, but to an abuser that is not a shield, not at all. It merely means they have to select a different tool for the job. Are these groups harassed MORE on average than your average male online? Well [citation needed] on that one.

Now this is all a conversation that could be had. But instead apparently it's more important to tell people that they are greatly privileged because there are more posters of men on the walls of Gamestop than there of women. Right, ok, that might be a bit of a first world problem there. You want more diverse characters in games? Great, 100% behind you on that one, let's do it, lots of games are boring and more diversity in characters and writing would help alleviate some of that. You want to attain it by condemning perfectly good characters we already have? Slut-shaming Bayonetta? Lying about Hitman: Absolution? Wilfully misrepresenting the work of developers as misogynistic? Making outrageous, uncited, unscientific claims about how videogames cause players to develop misogynistic attitudes in real life? Using silly circular logic like "the more you think you aren't affected, the more likely you are to be affected". Is that going to achieve any good what-so-ever? Justice achieved through lies is not justice.

If you want to cure the problem of assholes online well. Good luck, I don't know how to do that, but you could probably start by not deliberately antagonising people you disagree with and refusing to engage in any form of rational discourse. That might be a start.

Bring me your female leads, your female villains, your reasonably clothed NPCs. Bring me your transgendered, your varied ethnicities and sexual orientations. Bring me your overweight, your mentally ill, your disadvantaged minority groups of all kinds. Just, leave the bullshit on the boat. No, mayonnaise is not a gender.

Here are the links to studies provided by Straughan dealing with sex differences in personality and misperceptions in hostile and benevolent sexism (coupled with a video).

Twee, Platus, you may both hold stronger opinions that differ from this so, what do you think?

ugh, karen straughan [shudders]
that woman is actually a lot like beloved anita,
some valid points, but extremely lacking in substance, her cute stories about powerful women are isolated cases. her argumentation structure is that of a 12 year old, depicting women as lazy and unwilling to do physical labour, exploiting their "female powers" to get men to act as they wish them to. males who are positive about feminism have small penises, no balls and just want to get laid with that "feminist softie" image, because they are total losers and lack masculinity.
and of course, many men love her for those populist opinions. she can say all those things, she's a woman, she can't be a misogynist!
she talks about how she wants equality, but all she really does is to rant about feminism itself and feel buff about being an edgy "anti-feminist", she doesn't really make any points about what this equality really is and how to achieve it, everything she says could be summed up with tl;dr: feminism is bad 4every1.
she'd really need someone to sealion her.

that woman is actually a lot like beloved anita,

Except she doesn't ask for thousands of dollars to not even improve her video, she doesn't demonize people because they are male and they like playing videogames. She doesn't claim anything like that.

some valid points, but extremely lacking in substance, her cute stories about powerful women are isolated cases.

No they are not. The feminists who opposed a mens shelter, one off. The fact that spaces for men on campuses are being protested against by feminists, that's not one off. That has happened multiple times. And she always elaborates on what she means.

her argumentation structure is that of a 12 year old,

Like yours then. (By the way nice grammar is your capslock and shift key broken?) Also you gave no examples of this. To me this just looks like a bullshit statement.

depicting women as lazy and unwilling to do physical labour, exploiting their “female powers” to get men to act as they wish them to.

That's because in actually quite a lot of cases this is true. Even looking statistically at manual labour jobs shows this.

males who are positive about feminism have small penises, no balls and just want to get laid with that “feminist softie” image, because they are total losers and lack masculinity.

Yeah that's bullshit. That first bit is thing she is against. She may have accused men trying to be feminists to get in girls pants but it's not like that isn't the truth behind quite a few of them or in some cases suspicion because you can never 100% understand someones motives.

and of course, many men love her for those populist opinions. she can say all those things, she’s a woman, she can’t be a misogynist!

Many men love her because she is one of the few people to stand up and say "Hey the life of men is a lot worse then you think, there is actually some benefits of being a woman and there are some disadvantages of being a man. Let's talk about these issues without feminism breathing down our backs to try control the conversation. They like her because she is fighting for equality for them and her sons.

she talks about how she wants equality, but all she really does is to rant about feminism itself and feel buff about being an edgy “anti-feminist”, she doesn’t really make any points about what this equality really is and how to achieve it, everything she says could be summed up with tl;dr: feminism is bad 4every1.

No because she says that gender equality =/= feminism. Also its like how when you support mens rights, you are a misogynist and that talking about the issues that affect you is wrong because it takes the talk of women. You can discuss womens problems and are allowed to disregard mens but if you talk about an issue that affects men it has to be in the modern feminist way and it has to include discussion about women.

Also she is saying that feminism is so corrupted by a lot of the dark, ridiculous hypothesis of some of the feminists (I.E The big important ones who say we should just forcefully castrate most men and that's okay) that it can't be help to men. Solving feminist issues doesn't solve all the ones with men. In fact history would indicate the opposite because we've seen how the rise in feminism and womens rights have caused a bigger gap between the sexes (not to say that the latter is bad or anything.

you have serious issues if your really believe that mainstream feminism wants to castrate most men [citation needed]. i could say exactly the same about MRA: they don't want women to have a right to vote, or to study, no right of divorce for women, bring back medival gender roles, yeah!
anita is aking for money, great for her, i don't think her efforts justify the amount she asks for, but that her thing, and if she gets funded, it's not my problem.
her argumentation structure is exactly that: point out something stupid that some self declared feminist made up → feminism is bad, men are opressed because it's ok to express such opinions.

looking statistically at manual labour jobs will of course show that men are predominant there. this just makes your post more ridiculous, feminists oppose exactly that fact (men have to work, women stay at home, or maybe have a job as a grade school teacher at best).
i honestly had to deliberate wether i bring this up or not, but in times of war, women had to work at factroies, becasue there weren't enough men who weren't needed as soldiers. the russians also had a lot of female soldiers, and they were by no means worse than their male counterparts. later, in socialist countries like the GDR (and i'm not saying that it was great to live there or anything, before you accuse me of "state capitalism"- and "real scialism"-nostalgia), women also had to have a job. the state of course said that this was ment to bring equality, in fact it was just necessary to earn enough money for their families and their labour force being desperately needed by the misgoverned GDR economy.
still, statistics there were substancially different from today, if women are told from an early age, that men are supposed to build houses, and that they're supposed to keep them clean and feed the man, of course there'll be distorted statistics.

a few decades ago, there you wouldn't find a single female professor teaching at a university, why was that, were women just stupid? did their intelligence evolve enough within this few decades to become professors? history is filled with great men, but very little great women, are women inheritly bad musicans, artists, politicans? do they lack some math- or physics gene that only men have? seeing how there are rising numbers of female math- and physics teachers and professors, i don't think that's the case.

another point she likes to point out: harassment (not the sexual, for some reason), men get harassed on the internet more often, and get swatted. oh wow, how surprinsing, who would've thought that this would happen, seeing how statistically men are more likely to get into an internet argument, which may result in such harassment. statistics magic at work again.

you fail to understand that i don't "discard" men's problems, their origin is just exactly the same as that of women's problems.
i'll take the liberty of quoting a wise man: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
-karl marx
for example: in a society, where men and women are equal, where the woman isn't assigned to role of taking care of the children, do you really think the father would draw the shortest straw when it comes to child custody?

MRA is reactionary, and even those who don't want the 19th century (or earlier) back, or claim that they want equality, all neglect that feminism = equality, but that's really what it all comes down to, they just use that femitheism bullshit as an excuse for their misguided theories about "male empowerment". what does this male empowerment look like?

where did feminism cause a bigger gap between the sexes? in the way that women would more likely get a divorce when commanded to go to the kitchen and make you a sandwich?

also gr8 job @ pointing out my grammar m8, it sure adds substance to your statement. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WRITE LIKE THIS; SO YOU CAN SEE A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF MY HATE FILLED MISANDRY IN THIS POST?

you have serious issues if your really believe that mainstream feminism wants to castrate most men [citation needed]. i could say exactly the same about MRA: they don’t want women to have a right to vote, or to study, no right of divorce for women, bring back medival gender roles, yeah!
anita is aking for money, great for her, i don’t think her efforts justify the amount she asks for, but that her thing, and if she gets funded, it’s not my problem.
her argumentation structure is exactly that: point out something stupid that some self declared feminist made up → feminism is bad, men are opressed because it’s ok to express such opinions.

The difference is, they don't teach anyone about mens rights. They don't read books made by famous MRA's saying stuff like the things Andrea Dworkin or Sheila Jeffreys. Men aren't proposing laws that say that if a man accuses a woman of rape it doesn't matter if he lacks evidence she can go to jail on that claim. There aren't men protesting women getting their own spaces or shelters. If they did they would get stomped on by hate (rightly so of course, the point still stands of the hypocrisy).

The thing is that you obviously didn't see the video I posted. Because in that she says she knows not all feminists are like that but the ones that matter do. The ones that want gender equality (I.E Equalists) don't really have a say. The ones standing for womens rights are just people standing for womens rights, that's it, that doesn't make them a feminist because you don't have to be one to support those things contrary to popular feminist belief.

still, statistics there were substancially different from today, if women are told from an early age, that men are supposed to build houses, and that they’re supposed to keep them clean and feed the man, of course there’ll be distorted statistics.

Gender roles are not a feminist issue. It may be one most if not all feminists want to tackle but they go about it in the most ridiculous ways too. A lot of the solutions is to tell women to break gender roles (as you said they have done in times of war) but not all women want to. Also any modern wave feminism efforts to take down Gender Roles hasn't been working too well. Not much noticeable improvement at all.

another point she likes to point out: harassment (not the sexual, for some reason), men get harassed on the internet more often, and get swatted. oh wow, how surprinsing, who would’ve thought that this would happen, seeing how statistically men are more likely to get into an internet argument, which may result in such harassment. statistics magic at work again.

Actually your wrong with the sexual harassment. Guys making fun of other guys making fun of other guys by presuming their sexual organs are small, insignificant ("This guy has a small dick, he's the only one who will touch it.") they receive comments that presume their appearance to be sexually and physically repulsive ("You're fat and ugly, you'll be a virgin forever.") they demean their sexuality by implying it is wrong and immoral and belittle them about it ("You're a faggot, I bet you take dick in the ass.") it's different but still harassment of a sexual nature.

Also in the case of her video she is criticizing it talks about male privilege and how this apparently only affects women she points out how this is not true. Also I'll think you'll find solving men's issues would lower the amount of male harassers if they had a different attitude.

you fail to understand that i don’t “discard” men’s problems, their origin is just exactly the same as that of women’s problems.

Firstly I never accused you of anything. I don't know if you care about men's rights and the issues men face in today's society (although I do doubt it a a little personally) the point here is that mainstream and institutionalized feminism does discard it and in a lot of cases claim that they don't exist or aren't as important as women's or… On to my next point, they believe that solving women's problems = = solving men's. If you took away all the sexy model pics and made it so girls were less self conscious that wont do anything to the male underwear models and celebrities who are shown as always buff and toned. Or if your talking about Gender Roles as I said before it isn't a feminist issue nor a female exclusive problem. That just brings up the problem of men being discouraged, shouted down, ignored and/or at worst demonized when it comes to men discussing these issues.

MRA is reactionary, and even those who don’t want the 19th century (or earlier) back, or claim that they want equality, all neglect that feminism = equality, but that’s really what it all comes down to, they just use that femitheism bullshit as an excuse for their misguided theories about “male empowerment”. what does this male empowerment look like?

That's because feminism doesn't = equality. Equality = equality. That's what equalists fight for.

MRA isn't reactionary. If feminism stopped being a movement it would still carry on because it is not an anti-group, it is a group looking to solve men's rights issues.

What does male empowerment look like? It looks like men absolved from societies chains of social rules like that they have to be and act straight, they have to be strong and emotionless, unless it's anger. They wont suffer repercussions that enforced by others if they are a certain way. A lot of feminists don't want that, some want men subservient to women others want a woman's world that is built and managed by men, and as mentioned before some even want to commit mass gendercide or castration.

where did feminism cause a bigger gap between the sexes?

Wrong again, feminism didn't cause the gap directly. Feminism predicted more equality meant a smaller gap between men and women working in the same fields. Statistics (oh wait but you hate quantitative proof) show that the gap has increased.

also gr8 job @ pointing out my grammar m8, it sure adds substance to your statement. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WRITE LIKE THIS; SO YOU CAN SEE A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF MY HATE FILLED MISANDRY IN THIS POST?

First bit is irrelevant and not funny, what is funny is that you refuse to use simple punctuation, capital letters and spellchecker.

But I'm more interested in the second part. What I think you've done is take my post as a strawman argument when it clearly wasn't. The irony being that you parodying this showed me that you are actually building more of a strawman because I never called you a misandrist and I never said that you are against men.

the point with the sexual harassment was taken from her first "25 men bullshitting…" video, she speciafically omits sexual harassment and talks about swatting.

if you mean the first video by "The thing is that you obviously didn’t see the video I posted", with the young women saying that she identifies herself as a feminist and karen giving her the usual "ur not a feminist, feminists are of female-supremacists", yeah i've seen that. i have no idea what she means by "the ones that matter", probalby the femitheist and the big red. the feminists you know must be a funny bunch though, the kind you sometimes see on the internet. you see, she claims the power of definition here, although her "not all feminists are like that" should be a "the overwhelming majority of feminists isn't like that".
maybe socialist feminism is substancially different from what you, MRAs and karen think feminism is and we talk at cross-purposes, but i really can't share your views at "mainstream-feminism". if i'd ask any of the women that i know, who call themselves feminist, if they'd want more rights and privileges than men, i'd always get no as an answer, i go by the first definition of feminism , therefore it's feminism=emancipation=equality for me.

MRA is an anti-group, it has always been, it evolved from anti-feminism and groups that wanted to revoke women's rights to vote or go to universtiy in the early 20th century, but only really came to light after feminism showed up in the 60s. if immigrants and foreigners didn't exist, the identitary movoment wouldn't exist either, MRA's just the same. karen is a prime example of that, without feminism she wouldn't have anything to rant about.
fathers self-help groups don't count as MRA btw.

i have no idea what "equalism" is supposed to be, it's not even a real word, but is guess it's some kind of (gender) egalitarianism, which feminism is the largest part of.

the only valid points MRA have ever made are probably parental rights on the father's side, these inequalities stem from the gender role of the child-raising housewife though. plus the prison situation in the US and other countries. mandatory military service is outdated, though the fact that only men have to do this also clearly stems from the image of the weak woman who needs to stay at home. circumcision for men is nowhere near the same as for women, i dunno why it seems to be so common in the US though, i always thought only jewish, muslim and some other religious groups do that for reasons of faith. it's hard to tell if it has any physical effects on the child, though it's rather clear that these childrena aren't traumatised or psychically scarred in any way. but i can understand people not liking the idea, there are many feminists who are against that too (please don't quote that one tumblr post where some funny nutjob posted she'd circumcise her son so he won't feel sexual pelasure).
now, being against the criminalisation of marital rape should immediatley ring alarm bells. i understand the issue of false rape accusations, though there aren't any statistics on that matter and the few known cases are usually geared towards the media and blown up (the most prominent i can ramamber was a german weatherman being accused of rape by his girlfriend, but the investigation of her injurues revealed that they were self-inflicted), but marital rape is still rape and therfore it's a crime, a woman doesn't have the obligation to sleep with her husband and the husband doesn't have a "right" to have sex. discrimination of boys in education because of the "feminised" education system is one of these "bring back 19th century"-points, gradeschool teachers are mostly female because men aren't interested and rather teach at high schools. i don't support all-boys and all-girls schools, though that's a rather harmless demand.

i really don't see many valid points that MRAs make, you too don't seem to be able to point out any (except those "male shelters", whatever they are). what you described has more points of the LGBT movement and gender roles again, but those pseudo-feminist visions of male-governed woman's world, gendercide and castrations are really amusing. you totally forgot complete gendercide and reproduction through female-only cloning! ah, ok, i'm sorry but seriously, where do people get this from? i'd suggest less lecture of tumblr- and other self declared internet-feminists.

and becasue it's so funny, i'll say it again: the idea that feminists want to put women above men is ridiculous anti-feminist propaganda (that seems to work quite well though), it discredits the important changes feminism has brought about and feminist efforts in less progressive and undeveloped countries.

i never said i "hate" quantitative proof, but i also pointed out what is misleading about those statistics. very little women in company management? women just can't handle that job!
you still didn't answer what that ominous "gap" is.

i don't know what's wrong with my punctuation, sounds alright to me. then again i'm german and love me long sentences. capital letters are the work of capitalism and must be overthrown (nah, actually i don't see a reason to use them, that's what punctuation is for. i guess names starting with a capital letter are alright tho).
oh yeah, spell checkers, i'll totally wirte my posts in a texteditor with a spellchecker and then copy-paste them here, because they're official documents. i know what i wrote, but if the overall content of my posts is obscured by mistakes i'll happily rephrase things.

Here's something else:

If this is true, well…yeah.

I don't support feminism nor masculinism neither. These beliefs are biased. Respect one another :D

Cool. I hope these practices will be regulated.

Feminism was originally helping women have equal rights as men. Only NOW it's about giving men less rights.

Remember there is more than one face of feminism. The part that believes in removing the rights of men is only one extreme. Even then it can be debated if anyone who believes that is a real feminist

Talk to a lot of feminists and you might find that many still agree that the movement is about the sexes coming to an equal standing. Opinions vary, of course.

Oh, I know. It's just that ones who "matter" are the extremists.

i'm all ears

Okay since this seem to be related. So what do you think of the Bechdel Test?

"The Bechdel test asks if a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added.

Originally conceived for evaluating films, the Bechdel test is now used as an indicator of gender bias in all forms of fiction. Almost half of all contemporary films fail the test, and critics have noted that the test is most informative when applied in the aggregate, because individual works may pass or fail the test for reasons unrelated to sexism."

Thanks, Wikipedia.
 
I'm more of a "progressive" feminist regarding ideals, so I understand that the double-standard is warranted in some cases (due to unequal standing in society, ideals of equity over equality, etc.)

This comic isn't perfect in its text, because most people would be slowed by taking the ramp as opposed to the stairs due to it being narrow and only allowing a few students at a time. But it does make it possible for the student in the wheelchair to get in at about the same time as the other students (in theory). So it's not fair to the bulk of students, true. But it makes it possible for the student in the wheelchair. This explanation regarding equity and privilege is often glossed over, and both "sides" end up saying the other side is ignorant/illogical at best and misogynistic/misandrist at worst.

Most people who dislike more progressive forms of feminism aren't trained in the school of thought, and it won't make sense unless you are trained in it.
Most progressive feminists (I believe) do not do a good job of explaining their thought and fail to provide a compelling argument that others can understand.

Anyway, as for this "test," I think it's interesting but isn't necessarily a sign of explicit gender bias. It might be something subconscious or (more likely) embedded in the consciousness of the Western world for various reasons.

• Action movies tend to have males as the lead. It's likely that any supporting character is probably talking about the protagonist a lot, simply because any movie revolves around the lead.
• A lot of dramas involve romance which tends to be straight which lends itself to women talking about some man (possibly not even in a good way).
• A lot of horror movies have some sick man as the antagonist who's driving the movie's plot. This will tend to be a male, because males tend to be stronger and harder to overcome which creates a sense of helplessness and "horror." You have to sell some level of realism in horror, and it's just not as easy to sell realism if the woman is far stronger or physically capable than the men or if she's a ghost or something.
  • That said, I'd wager many horror movies with women as the antagonist have them using or being supernatural or using less direct means of overcoming their victims such as sex, chicanery, and whatnot. If you're using those means to make a woman scary, then you're also potentially portraying them as dishonest or sluts. Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, this.
• Comedies are complex. For a few reasons, men are easier sell as comedians or are easier to pick at (which, again, makes men out to be more likely to be leads):
  • People consider men to be funnier than women, because (in a theory) humor can be seen as a way of showing your power or simply not being worried about having a lack of it. Men tend to be in power more often in western society. Some less silly ways of humor wouldn't make as much sense coming from a woman.
  • Also, because of this power imbalance (again, in a theory), women and other groups are more difficult to make funny. If you laugh at a straight, white guy who's pretty normal, then it doesn't feel like you're picking on him for being normal. If you add most any other attribute (e.g., race, gender, orientation, etc.), then it can be a tightrope act in not trying to seem like you're picking at that attribute.

I don't think the test is bunk, but there are better, more in-depth ways of gauging such things.
 
You also have to take entertainment for what it is: entertainment. Sometimes, you use and play with ethical matters for the sake of the genre. So just because some sexist or gender-based attribute or trend is present or absent doesn't necessarily mean it is a sexist movie. It may simply be part of that world or universe.

Doesn't mean it's not sexist, mind you. Just doesn't mean it is either.

You have to look deeper, and even then, it's hard to prove without saying this is a subconscious or culturally-embedded attribute of sexism. Subconscious thought leading to action is very, very hard to support let alone prove.

So i'd like to bring up another topic. Domestic violence.

Now we all know what would count as abuse towards women right? Verbal, physical etc. Imagine if a man slapped his girlfriend or wife, or just a woman he knows, or yelled at her and threw harsh insults her way because she did something that angered him. This would be considered abuse. It is abuse, its damaging and its consider messed up in our society.

Now what I just described happens to men A LOT just as much as it happens women. How often will a man get yelled at by his wife because he messed something up, how often will a woman slap a man cause he said something offensive or looked at another woman. However this is considered totally normal in our society, in fact, its even played for laughs in the media.

Women hurting men is seen as not a big deal or sometimes even funny but when the genders are reversed then the attitude changes.

Now here is where the split comes in. MRA's believe it is the fault of feminism. They believe it's their fault because they are the ones who always claim that women are the victims and that men are the aggressors. Then you have feminists who believe it is the fault of the patriarchy for perpetuating the stereotype that all men are strong and that they have to be tough guys and the women are weak and need to be protected.

So what do you think is the real cause of the social issue in our world?

To me I see that this IS the fault of feminism if we define feminism as working towards gender equality which most feminists do (I do not though). I also believe that this isn't "The patriarchy's" fault either because I don't believe one exists anymore. This is because a patriarchy would not allow the women to abuse a man, instead a patriarchy would stamp down on the woman and not let the abuse happen as it shows a woman having power over a man or alternatively if it did happen it would both punish the man and woman, the man for being weak and the woman for acting out of line but we see that this is a case where men are punished and women are not or at least nowhere near as severe.

No this is the fault of those fighting for gender equality (so for some people this means feminists) are not doing their job properly. If it was done correctly, we would not be in a position where females can actively hurt men physically and emotionally without repercussion (if a patriarchy existed like it did a while ago, this wouldn't work) so the issue we have to deal with here is teaching young girls not that boys are not allowed to hit you, it's to teach them no one is allowed to hit you and you are not allowed to hit them.

To give an example I was picking up my nephew from primary school and walking him back to my sisters. He told me that a girl in his class threatened to punch him if he did not give her his colouring pencil and she told him that if he punched back he would get told off. He didn't believe her so he refused and she punched him the arm, he punched her in the same spot and she told the teacher. He explained and the female teacher told him "Boy's can't hit girls.". So by that situation we can tell that we can't teach my nephew to not be the aggressor, because he wasn't. And we can't teach him to retaliate because he can't. What else is there to do to except to do but to teach the girl about what's right and wrong? Straight from childhood is a girl learning she has this unfair power she can abuse men. As they get older it just gets worse.

This is something feminists don't want to address because it means wither admitting they have failed in someway, or they believe it's not a big enough issue in comparison to a man telling a woman to smile.

If it is brought up the only responses we see from feminists are:

You're taking the argument off women
If feminism did stand for gender equality why would this matter?

We are working towards that
There is no evidence, there are domestic abuse centres specifically for women, but not only is there none/significantly fewer for men there are self proclaimed feminists that have boycotted such places.

We'll get to it after we solve the problems for women
How is that fair women get priority when they are actually doing better in this area? Why can't you work towards both?

To clarify this was not anti-feminist but a criticism of feminism.

If a woman hits a man, the man is generally in no threat of danger. Most men tend to be much stronger than women.

Neither is right, and there is a double standard. But I'm not concerned about a man who got slapped by a woman. I would be concerned for a woman who was slapped by a man.

Firstly, that's not always the case. And slapping isn't the only way to physically abuse someone. A woman could easily claw, punch and sometimes even bite a man. Can cause some nasty damage.

That also doesn't account for verbal abuse and emotional abuse and manipulation.

And lastly. why can't a man just not slap with the fullest of strength. Should you still worry if it was a light slap or about a slap that is about the same as the woman's?

I suppose.
 
 
…Why don't women in the UFC don't fight men? Given that women can cause some nasty damage?
 
 
 
The fact is that men are often far stronger than women. Even if women scratched (women don't have claws) or bit a man, that man doesn't usually end up with serious injuries. He's got scratches and bite marks. Some people call that sex.

Most women need a knife or other weapon to inflict anything more than an annoying injury, and I think you know this. Play out a scenario in practice, not in terms of what could happen. How does it play out?

And no, it does not account for other forms of abuse. I'll never say that any form of abuse is OK. But that's not what you argued nor is that what you example made a point of. In your example, this gets "worse" as you get older, because the physiology of men and women create a much disparate gap in terms of physical prowess regarding physical altercations. And despite the double standard, this hardly harms men regarding physical abuse. If (most) women decide to fight me, I can usually defend myself or run to get away. I'm not really upset that I can't attack a woman in the same way myself and not be punished.

Going back to the arguing though, I don't think you'll find many cases where a man or woman gets arrested for verbally abusing another before they get divorced. Ultimately, they're both adults, so they can usually leave the relationship if the abuse is emotional or verbal. The cases where this isn't the case is where the abused is reliant on the abuser. Again, in practice, who tends to be the one that's reliant upon the other in these heterosexual relationships?
 
And again, you argue what's possible instead of what happens. Even with weapons, very few people, man or woman, will be attacked to the point where they feel endangered before they fight back or flee (or "faint"). And if you're absolutely livid at someone when your body goes into the "flight-or-fight" physiological state, you're not thinking rationally enough to hold back or hold back enough.

A woman can usually go all out, and the man can just physically hold her down. This is the likely and usual case. Afterwards, the man has to reassess his relationship with the woman.

A man can very rarely go all out without seriously injuring a woman. Afterwards, the woman is likely fearing for her life knowing that she cannot prevent the man from killing or nearly killing her with his bare hands.

So ultimately, when a man physically abuses a woman, there's an obvious concern for the well-being of the woman. The man can be emotionally hurt, but he can defend himself against the full weight of most women's attacks. His life, for the majority, is not in immediate danger if the woman goes berserk. The woman's is.

When the abuse is not physical, both parties can, by definition, leave the situation. And the cases where the abused cannot leave, it's likely due to fear of being physically abused. Again, this is usually where a woman is afraid to leave a relationship or relies on the man.
 
It is an unfair double standard, but that's a large part of why it exists.

I've seen women put a heel from their shoe through a man's cheek. Seen them use nails to claw at the eyes and face. kicks to the groin can render a man sterile.

women are not weak, they are completely willing to use any and all means needed to rip someone apart if they want too.

I wouldn't want anyone to get punched by anyone, it hurts no matter who does it.