Pretty desperate to tie this in any way to feminism, you have to REALLY want it.

Either way the sort of celebratory way this video shows violence is pathetic. There are no 'winners' here.

Jesus christ, I'm 7 minutes in and he still hasn't made anything approaching a critique of "ideological feminism", whatever that's supposed to be.

Get to the fucking point.

right... finally. over 10 minutes in and we get to the first claim.
"what we're denying is that there's a rape culture"

Well, you can deny it all you want, but you're going to want to back that up with facts.. oh no, what's that? Let's just move straight on to the next point.

FFS, he is LITERALLY doing the exact same thing that his fucking stupidly long intro talked about. If you make a claim, that claim should be examined.

Can someone tell me if this gets any better? 'cos right now, I can't be bothered watching the rest of this unless there's a marked improvement in the quality of his "argument".

That thing about "best friend"? I have been saying that EXACT THING for years.

And not just about who pays for a date. It is for all aspects of the relationship. If I wouldn't put up with certain crap from a friend, why would I from a fella?

Side note -- never have I been in an abusive relationship. I wonder why that is?

But I know I am wired differently.

Long before feminism was a big important concept to me, I went on my first date with a young man I didn't know well.

I was 13 years old, in 1967. We went to a matinee at the local movie theater. Fifty cents a ticket.

I remember standing behind him in line, as he awkwardly paid, and I awkwardly didn't know what to do or say.

And my main thought was -- I have a job. I can afford my own ticket. (I cleaned test tubes in the junior high science lab. I still have sense memories of moldy agar in a petri dish.)

I never got over that. I still feel that way. Go ahead and treat me to something special that you can afford. Next time, it'll be my turn to pick the activity and I'll pick something I can afford.

I was lousy at dating. But I was clear about the basic equality necessary in order to respectful to both of us.

so i am sitting here drinking my coffee reading this thread and i have to say...

depressing.

so many wonderful people that i admire and respect getting twisted about?

words.

not the intent,nor over-all context..but words.

i can see where @newtboy is coming from,and what he is laying down is pretty non-controversial.i also see what @bareboards2 is laying down,and is not really in opposition to what newt is talking about.

both ideologies can reside in the same context and not be in conflict.in fact they compliment each other and ....and maybe i am reading their positions wrong..they actually agree on the fundamentals.

@bareboards2 actually addressed this by pointing out that "tone" can be misinterpreted.(good for you BB) and really the exchange between newt and BB was about their own self-identification.

yet this entire thread is almost exclusively focusing on words,and the gravitas and weight given to those words by the individual,which is subjective.

i feel newts pain.
i had a run where i was posting videos exposing hyper-militant third wave feminists and how they were using the justice system to punish those who disagreed with them,and every self-identified feminist came out of the wood work to declare their disappointment in me and defend the very thing they identified with.

what confused me was why people would even attempt to defend that absolute cluster fuck of abuse as somehow even being remotely to do with actual feminism.until i realized that many hadn't even watched the video or read the articles .so they were not defending those third wave feminists that had abused a justice system but rather defending a term that they self-identified as.

after long (and i mean long ..@Payback is still in therapy) back and forths between myself and fellow sifters.when i FINALLY got them to address the specific situation,not one...not ONE sifter..felt morally obligated to defend those feminists actions.

why?
because taken on its singular merits,those feminists were fucking wrong.

then why all the defensive posturing?
why the passive aggressive swipes at me?
and the exhaustive back and forths just to get self-identified feminists to at least admit that those particular feminists had abused their position to punish a man for simply disagreeing.

because they were defending feminism in general.
because they self-identified as feminists and failed to see the situation as it was and jumped to defend a WORD that they happened to identify with.

as a whole we can,as a society hold onto philosophies that are not mutually exclusive.
so you can be a feminist and a humanist.
or a humanist and an MRA advocate.

@bareboards2 may be a feminist but i know that if she witnessed me being harassed and discriminated against she would jump to my defense,as would @newtboy.

there are people who identify as something and yet can still be major dickweeds.so what they self-identify as does not automatically give them a pass.

so dont get so caught up in identity politics my friends.
they are just words after all.
just listen to the person talking,they will reveal if they are a total tool soon enough.how they self-identify is irrelevant.

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you

Yup, when everyone else in the thread disagrees with what you are saying, or how you are saying it, or the other things you're doing, it's obviously everyone else that has the problem... =)

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality.

Wow, talk about painting the world in broad strokes. I guess all Catholics are pedo's too?

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger.

*giggle* Yup, it's everyone else. Not you.

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

No, the bold that I put bold html tags around so it showed up as bold...

And I'm the one that apparently has reading problems. X D

I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

Don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out the door. /waves!

ps. You have far more in common with the 3rd wave feminazi's than you would like to think.

Edit: pps. Downvote me more baby, just shows you for the petty little sook that you are. ; )

Then perhaps you need a reading comprehension class. I have never even IMPLIED that others should follow my lead EDIT: UNLESS THEY ARE LIKE MINDED. I have, in fact, repeatedly said this is ONLY MY OPINION, NOT INSTRUCTIONS. I have not tried to "talk her out of" anything. I have repeated that 'others may think differently' ad nauseam.
I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you. You can't grasp that someone might have an opinion that different, but is NOT telling you or others to think the same way? That's on you.

YES IN MY OPINION. DUH. You can disagree all you like, but don't say I told you to follow, don't say I told you you're wrong to belong, don't say I tried to shame you. I did no such thing.

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality. If they also worked for male equality, I wouldn't care so much that the name is 'misleading'....IN MY OPINION. Since they don't work towards men's equality as well, it's apt....and it's not for me....it's also clearly only working for women's rights, not for total equality for all, contrary to many unsupported claims.

Go back to 8th grade and take reading comprehension.
I did not say or imply that 'only those like minded can understand', but 'only those like minded are being discussed'.
I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger. Before you reply in kind, I scored in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension....how did you score?

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

in response to the TYT comments: i really appreciate what TYT are trying to do but they need to get their shit on lock. they're too experienced to be operating like a high school news channel/early morning radio comedy show.

same with the real news but their stories are way, way better. and why can't they title their videos in any kind of coherent way?

and i feel similarly about bill maher. about 10-20% of the time he has something worth saying. he does, however, put together some awesomely bizarre groups of people, which i appreciate so long as they're allowed to speak in complete sentences.

anything from the amazing atheist or thunderf00t is just pure cringe these days. they lost the plot years ago and now just their voices sound like crying toddlers to me.

any MRA/ideologically anti-feminist stuff is also pure cringe. i'm all about critiquing ideas and i have my own critiques for parts of feminism but pretty much everything i've seen devolves to "look at this stupid fat girl" pretty quickly.

i also second what newtboy said.

anything political that bobknight posts is just a clusterfuck of wrong/partially wrong/intentionally misleading and adds nothing of substance to any discussion.



what i miss rachael maddow articles. she always seems to research and cover the facts of her stories really well.

One
more
total
communication
failure.
I wrote that there would only be an obligation for them to also help men IF they want to claim that 'feminism' is about pure equality of the sexes and not just working for women's rights, which is what had been contended. It was a reply to a claim, not a suggestion.
Please try reading again.

Sexual objectification is sexist, even if it's objectifying a man. What do you think the word means?
from dictionary.com
Sexist - relating to, involving, or fostering discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender

This is the exact thing I've come to dislike about 'feminism'. It seems you're saying his objectification and devaluation isn't up to par with the objectification and devaluation many women suffer from, so it's not "actual sexism", doesn't matter, and he should just shut up about it and quit his whining.....but if a woman said the exact same words about being uncomfortable being required to do the exact same actions there would be (and has been) a serious discussion of how to solve that disturbing sexist trend and a move to fire and shame the disgusting pig director/photographer that forced her to do something she was uncomfortable doing, and if someone dared to say her issues were minor, outrage and attack.

@newtboy

Look, man, I've been watching you dig your grave deeper with every post. I'm not really sure what you're not getting, given the patient explanations everyone has provided. No one is saying you can't want equality for all, but to get equality for all you have to start by helping groups that are clearly NOT equal in society achieve some level of equality.

Ergo, Feminists focus on helping women achieve equality. And let's be clear, when we say equality we're talking about achieving equality with white males, because they are the ones who historically and currently hold the privledged position in Western society.

So, your whole, "But what about men?" schtick is insulting to feminists precisely because men are already better off than women in most areas. Feminists have no obligation to make men's lives--particularly white men's lives--better than they already are. This is not to say white men have no problems or that in some areas (child custody comes to mind) they aren't at a disadvantage. And there are activist groups working towards improvement in these areas. But demanding that feminists work for men's issues shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is all about.

This reminds me of the whole recent Kit Harington flap, where Kit claimed Hollywood is "sexist" towards men and displayed a similar fundamental misunderstanding of what sexism is. His point was that male actors can be sexually objectified (he refered to being asked to take his shirt off on a photo shoot). But being occasionally objectified is no where near the same thing as the well documented actual sexism that goes on in Hollywood--vastly different paychecks for lead actressess compared to actors, the number and types of nude scenes actressess are asked to do compared to male actors, etc. No one is saying objectification (of either sex) isn't a problem but there's a much bigger problem for women (as usual) than there is for men and that's why there needs to be a group (feminists) advocating for women to tackle these larger problems before getting to the problem of Kit Harington's discomfort at disrobing for the camera.

No one ever suggested it should. I only ever suggested that it's not right for ME, even though I've been supporting it for decades. EDIT: The misplaced angry responses I've received for simply expressing my opinion has done nothing but reinforce the idea that I absolutely don't belong with 'feminists'.

Thanks to Babymech, I have found that school of thought, egalitarianism, equality for ALL, the only kind of equality that's equal.

Clearly 'feminism' is only about gender equality FOR WOMEN....and I think you don't find equality by ignoring unfairness that happens to the other 1/2 of the population (that's the reason I've identified as 'feminist' before now, I care about being fair to others, even if they aren't like me)....that's what you're upset about, inequalities to women being ignored and minimized, why on earth would you do it back to men? That's not gender equality, that's gender based vengeance.
EDIT: If you wish to argue that point, I insist you start with an example of 'feminism' working against women to secure equal rights for men or I'll discount your argument at the outset.
Otherwise, I'm out.

Your offended feelings shouldn't override the identity of the feminist movement, which has no obligation to pat you on the head because you claim you were "there at the start". So yes, I hope you find a movement with a title that fits your views more closely. If you think that feminism isn't about gender equality, then I can't help you figure that out.

"still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father..." This just isn't true; it's the kind of silly strawman that MRAs love to knock up, in fact. It's not reflected in law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

No, if you believe in and work for gender equality FOR WOMEN, you're a feminist.
Those who believe in gender equality for all are called egalitarians.

Why 'feminism' is historically 'feminism' is because it works to secure the rights of women. Period. The feminist movement has never, as far as I know, worked against unequal rights for women when the inequality benefits women...or said another way, worked for equality FOR men.

It was not ONLY women at the start, only mostly women, and you disrespect and dismiss the contributions of all those men who worked against their own self interests to secure equal rights for you. How rude and ungrateful....I bet you would be upset if women's contributions to men's issues were dismissed like that.
No, men have not done the bulk of the work, but they have been invaluable in getting action many, many times. Calling it feminism and acting like it's only by women totally 'disacknowledges' all those self sacrificing men....which is why I have a problem. If we and our votes, money, and efforts don't count and are completely unapreciated, then buh-bye.
Again, no one is even suggesting renaming the entire movement, I suggested that people WHO THINK LIKE ME might start or join another that's more inclusive from the start. If you don't think like me, it's not about you, and even if you do, it's not a command, it's barely a suggestion.

If you focus solely on those with the MOST disadvantages, you only swing the pendulum of unfairness the other direction in a never ending struggle back and forth. Only by focusing on equality for all can you come to the right solutions to inequalities.

(Expletive deleted)! Men and whites ABSOLUTELY need equal rights. Yes, in MOST cases men and whites have advantages, not all by far like you said, still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father...that is not the ONLY case where women are given advantages men aren't....another off the top of my head, domestic violence, men will ALWAYS be the one thought to be the aggressor without clear evidence to the contrary, but that's simply false, and leaves many abused men victimized twice. Same for sexual abuse/rape. Men get zero support if they've been raped, only ridicule and disbelief. Take each situation individually, or you'll continue to make that insulting, repulsive, self serving mistake that perpetuates inequality and pits men against women.

Equal child custody rights....yes, good example....how has the feminist movement worked to secure that....for men? If the imbalance is in their favor, that's FINE with feminists. I disagree strongly, and I won't be considering myself one anymore.

Don't overreact. If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist.

As has been pointed out, and as you acknowledge, you were not there at the start of feminism. Why feminism is feminism is because the fight for gender equality was not initiated by men, nor has the bulk of the work been done by men. Calling it anything but feminism disacknowledges that women are the prime movers here. The fight for gender equality is the fight, spearheaded by women, to bring women's rights up to meet men's existing privilege level. It's feminism. You get credit for being part of the movement, but that's not enough reason to rename that movement, and I can't understand that argument.

Equality for all is the goal, yes. But to do this, women and non-whites are the ones who need the "boost". So that's why the movements are called "feminism", and "Black Lives Matter". Men and whites don't need "equal rights"; they already have more rights than non-white and women, aside from a few issues such as equal child custody rights, which will equalise when gender rights reach balance.

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.