I've always wondered how long they had to film each episode in order to get 22 usable minutes.

After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

Reminds me of something...

You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.

To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.


Feminists do differentiate themselves. There are many different schools of thought within feminism.

And I think the political example is a bad one. The United States is a two party-system, where if you aren't an identified Democrat or Republican, you have little chance of being part of the next government. The parties encompass a highly diverse field, and sometimes, if you want to be in a position to make a difference, you have to associate with a few undesirables.

Furthermore, the Republican's outright endorsement of Tea Partiers is a far cry from feminists failing to condemn every single instance of "misandry".

Now that I think about it, why are we even asking feminists to differentiate themselves? There's already a differentiation. Feminism =/= Misandry.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@hpqp
Would you consider the Tea Party Republicans actual republicans? I would--even if they are a psychotic division of the branch. Because the Tea Party Hijacked its way into the republican party and republicans are not doing enough to kick them out. Instead, they are catering more and more to them. They are speaking up less and less. Does that make me prejudice? It is exactly the same reasoning I am using in this argument so you have to say, "yes." And to that I ask, why?
And if you say, "No, it's different," then your applying wishy-washy standards...
But even if I am "wrong" in my belief, calling me "prejudice" was a bit low for you, and I think you lost that argument simply for that insult.
In other words, I look at Gwiz's comments and that's exactly what I am saying. I just used different words. They (feminists) need to call themselves something different to differentiate themselves from all the assholes. Exactly the same thing. So point out to him what an analogy fail he made please and the fact that he is prejudiced too, since he thinks the definition of feminist is close to what I think it is...

Not privileged, but maybe someone who is can mark this as *dead.

>> ^Raveni:

I must admit that this video was FAR more exciting that the description led me to believe...


Agreed. How is it that a video with this title attracted enough people to get this in the top 15? Don't get me wrong, now that it's here I can see it deserves it, but who rushed to watch this when it was at 3 votes?


EDIT: I guess it was promoted at the beginning. Star powers change everything!

I'm not privileged, but I thought I'd point out that this (like all Daily Show videos) is *blocked.

More McGarnagle: http://youtu.be/ceqNcCUUakE

*beg

Thank-you. I also edited my comment as you were replying.

I don't think it's sufficient to say "what if the tables were turned". It's a completely different context. Angua1's link above illustrates this fallacy. I agree that calling a girl cute is relatively harmless (relative to what?), and given the nature of the sift, where we're encouraged to make our videos as a appealing and watchable as possible in order to win votes, it makes sense that we are going to try to use sex appeal. Can you, however, acknowledge that it must be frustrating for women to always be judged through the lens of their appearance and sexual desirability, rather than for the skills and talents that they have worked hard to cultivate? This girl's routine should be enough to impress us, regardless of her "cuteness".

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax - you make very valid points. I think at this stage in the thread, we're diluting the basic point that someone has pointed out - men are visual animals, and in the grand scheme of things, calling a girl "cute" isn't that big of a deal. If a woman were to post a video of a "cute" guy doing this same thing, I (and probably most people) wouldn't get offended, though honestly, it probably would not get a whole lot of votes, simply because the poster emphasized the attractiveness of the guy, making it seem like it's the predominant quality of the video.

You suggest that men are "intrinsically 'horndogs'," because, like all other animals, we want to pass on our genetic material. I understand how that might explain why we're predisposed to want to mate, but that doesn't explain why it's considered acceptable (or natural) for men to act like "horndogs". What if our society's courtship rituals necessitated a great deal of respect and reverence for the intelligence of those we courted? Acting like a "horndog" would be contrary to the aim of passing on our genetic material.

Let me ask you this: Women, as animals, also have a fundamental desire to pass on their genes. Why, then, in our society*, is it not considered normal for women to act as "horndogs?" (I'm not suggesting women don't lust after men, they of course do. It's not, however, considered socially acceptable** for them to portray that lust in the same manner).

* I use the term society loosely to mean Western Society, but of course there are sub-societies and sub-cultures and we all come from different places.
** Again, a generalization, but I think we can all agree that the portrayal of men as objects of lust occurs much less than women.

EDIT: Furthermore, are you suggesting that men's drive to procreate overrides all other desires? Have we, as a species, not overcome that drive at all? Do we not have alternative pursuits and drives? What about those people who find it satisfactory to leave a legacy though their work, rather than through their children?

EDIT 2: And do you really think that drive to pass on our genetics is sufficient to explain human sexuality? How do you explain people having sex for pleasure? Homosexuality? Birth control? I see so many holes in the biological justification for behaviour.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.

<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>
>> ^StimulusMax:
...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

...
...
...
seriously?

You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?

>> ^deathcow:

things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

Thanks NicoleBee! I'm gld you liked the video so much!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
I wish to *doublepromote this Chop chop, siftbot!

Oops, this is a dupe. *discard

It sounds like they have to yell some kind of tongue twister or something.