Congratulations! Your comment on woman destroys third wave feminism in 3 minutes has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 10 Badge!

i never used misandrist as a definition,but my final few words on my comment "if you own a penis,you are evil" was directly taken from a placard i saw in some feminist rally.

and that was a tame one.

another one read "all men are rapists".

but as i stated.
i am fairly new to this third wave feminism.
not a big fan so far.

anyways,guess we disagree and thats fine.

peace brother.

*edit* probably should add why i even came to your page teehee.
thanks for the clarification on the different feminisms.

What I understand as third wave feminism is that it is a sort of counter-movement to 2nd wave feminism. A typical third wave feminist position might be that previous feminist movements were principally concerned with white, middle/upper class straight women. So yah, I question your decision to use "3rd wave feminism" as a proxy for "misandrists".

hey man,
thanks for addressing the distinctions between the two videos.

and i can agree with your assertions,but i fear the larger implications.

i have been down the rabbit hole for a few days now in regards to "intersective third wave" feminism,and wow..juuust wow.

the deeper i go,the more disturbing and horrific it becomes.

so yeah,
turdnugget losing his job does not really bother me as much as how easily i see social media being used to control speech,opinions and attitudes.i guess i saw a tactic that could easily,and quickly be abused.which was mainly due to what was happening to greg elliot and the targeted prosecution by the SJW third wave feminists.

now maybe i conflated the two,but i think my concerns are not specious.

you know me.
i am ultra anti-authoritarian.
i am prefer a free market of ideas,which translates to zero censorship..none.
anything goes...
lets put it all out there,so we can weed out the bad ideas.

so turdnugget losing his job?
not that big a deal,and lets be honest..he was grotesque,but how easily would it be to fabricate a situation? edit? how many examples do we need to see that just the act of accusing can have devastating effects upon the accused with little or no evidence?

and that is where my concern lies,not some idiotic racist who was too dumb to shut up in front of a camera.

@newtboy irt "I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? "

The video notes that the complainant in the case admits that the accused did not send her anything libelous, threatening or sexually related. That kinda covers all bases on harassment grounds, so if the only offense is "sending tweets", I would humbly suggest that she doesn't use twitter where.. people send you tweets... = \

@krelokk

I removed the last line of your post. You're entire rant/spiel/manifesto sans the dig about the accused perfectly describes the state of play with feminism as the bully. Irony is delicious... =)

@enoch irt your description

I think the difference between the racist and this guy the scale of consequences to the act they committed.

Losing a job because of a racist spiel openly given to a video camera = probably disproportionate, but it's the companies choice over who it hires, right? He has not been charged from what I could see (being a racist prick isn't a crime in the US right?), although I suspect his facebook page is gone because it got jumped on.

Losing a job, huge legal bills, facing jail time and a permanent record as a convict for having a difference of opinion = yeah, entirely disproportionate.

Activism is not inherently evil, much like a large gathering of people isn't inherently evil. It's when it get's abused.

One hopes the judge in this case sees sense and that the accused can sue the complainant for the damage she has caused to him.

It's because those called 'feminists' today were called 'fem-a-nazis' back when the term 'feminism' meant 'equal rights'. These girls have disenfranchised any male 'feminist' from the 'movement', and driven off most thinking women. They deserve derision.

@Sayja
i can agree that that this is not a zero sum situation.

but i have to disagree that this video,or even the other video i posted has anything to do with 'mens rights".

and i have to take you to task for your specious claim that 'there seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened by feminism".

while i cannot speak for anybody other than myself,i can quite confidently state that i personally,do not feel threatened by feminism,but i find this "intersective third wave feminism" to be a form of feminism that,until recently i have been wholly unaware of ,to be out of touch and nothing that resembles the feminism i grew up with.

and i think that distinctions differentiating the two forms of feminism extremely important.

equality,fairness and justice are noble ideals to fight for and classic feminism did just that.it took amazing courage for those women to stand up and fight for issues regarding women.
see:suffragist movement of the 1800's.

or the bra-burners of the 60's fighting for their sexual rights and rejecting traditional social norms.that they owned their bodies and therefore.their future.

even the proud women of the 70's 80's and 90's who brought to light the casual nature of our society in regards to womens sexuality and heightened rape awareness.

what i find most disturbing,and i am struggling to understand (and maybe you can help me in that regard) is how the feminist movement which has taken courage and determination,addressing real and actual womens issues,has been perverted into this weird,perpetual victimhood decrying the "oppressive patriarchy".

because this new feminism is threatening and is garnering actual real life consequences.
see: stephanie guthrie vs greg elliot
see:the duke lacrosse players

cases where you don't actually have to BE harassed,you just have to "FEEL" as if you are being harassed.

or where you can accuse three boys of rape,get the coach fired and ruin three boys lives,and when it is revealed to all be a fabrication?

the accuser walks away with zero consequences.

so i find it delicious irony when some will defend these "third wave' feminists and state EMPHATICALLY,that words have consequences and that these men SHOULD pay a price for their words.

yet the accusers rarely,if ever,pay for THEIR words.no consequences for THEIR misrepresentation.they just falsely accused.which had real world consequences.

hypocrisy much?

and where was this "oppressive patriarchy" swooping in to protect these men?

can you explain how that is morally,or intellectually consistent?
because it appears to me to be pretty damn hypocritical.

so this woman disagrees with the current trend of feminism.
that is her right and she explains why she disagrees.
does this mean she deserves the death threats and threats of physical violence from these feminists?

so if you could explain to me this "third wave feminism" i would really appreciate it my friend,because i dont get it and it is a real break from the philosophical feminism that have grown accustomed.

What a joke. Gotta love ideologies being *destroyed* by YouTube opinions. Amazing how often feminism is turned into a straw man for these types of discussions.

A little sad to see this and the other men's rights type video that Enoch submitted so quickly jumping to Top 15. There seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened and wronged by feminism, and I don't get it. It's not a zero sum situation.

Agree a lot with JustSaying's comment about a" lack of empathy" and "an addiction to differences".

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

Re. Anita and Bendilin. He freely created a game where you beat up Sarkesian, Guthrie freely pointed to this fact out to his prospective employer. Presumably they exercised their freedom of judgement to decide whether to employ him or not. Freedom. (but not from consequences). Maybe I am missing something, but if he made a game that he didn't want potential employers to see...then, err, yeah.

I don't know anything about the Greg Elliot thing, and I don't know how harassment cases are dealt with in Canada. I'll admit that I've really no idea how you criminalise harassment without it being exploited relatively easily. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that somebody who uses feminism and false testimony to pursue personal vendettas against somebody who offended them is NOT what the feminist movement is about.

I must say I find it quite ironic for the guy in this video be talking about self-inflicted victimhood. . If there really is a cabal of feminists trying to silence those with differing opinions then, well, for the most part they don't appear to be doing a very good job to me.

You kind of just proved his whole point there...........

"I think feminism is..."

I'm not sure anyone can claim ownership of the terms definition, but it was originally a fairly hard-line collectivist ideology.

I would have thought only 1st wave feminists could really try to lay claim, everyone else needs to qualify their terms or expect to be misunderstood.

If I was you, I would just stick to "humanist" or "egalitarian". It covers everything you seem to espouse and avoids needless association with the psychotic ideologues.

What part of feminism, as you define it, is not already covered by humanism?

@Jinx
this is why i specifically titled this "third wave",which i am fairly new in understanding,but it does not resemble the feminism that i have been exposed to.

i have many feminist friends who resemble nothing like this "third wave" of feminism.the deeper i delve the more fanatical and zealous i find their positions.

the feminists i know do not hate men.
do not seek to subvert them or marginalize them.
they seek for equality,for human dignity,for a right to be/choose who they wish to be,and they extend that to men as well.

which is very much a humanist approach.

but THIS flavor of feminism is a whole new animal.

if you own a penis,
you are evil.

No. I shouldn't.

Yeah...I don't think so. "Your brand" of feminism maybe.

I think feminism is part of humanism. I consider myself to be both, and I consider them each to be a large part of why I consider myself to be the other.

It's extremely important to note that, at the collegiate level, it is taught in introductory sociology courses that feminism is exactly what she says it is. Feminism by its traditional definition is actually a pretty crappy thing, which most people from both sexes would agree on in modern times. While feminists have done wonderful things for women's rights, her message of gender equality is really refreshing.

You should really qualify your entire piece with "My particular brand of feminism..."

If you combined all forms of feminism to establish some kind of mean set of values, the line would be drawn somewhere in the realm of "at the expense of men", or nearby quotas in the workplace rather than merit. Your particular view is fairly moderate and, in my completely not backed up by any sort of empirical evidence opinion, fairly unrepresentative.

For myself, I prefer humanist. All people deserve the same common rights, opportunities etc, and they should not come at the expense of others.