Feminism Fail: It's Only Sexist When Men Do It

The Amazing Atheist discuses the biases of feminism and why he can't take it seriously.
DerHasisttotsays...

Great sift. Acceptance of misandry is becoming more and more of a problem. I don't agree with his generalisation of feminism/feminists and his other generalisations, but otherwise he is right on.

No one has the right to physically harm anyone, except in direct imminent self-defense.

hpqpsays...

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

gwiz665says...

"That is not what Christianity is about, it's about love and peace and harmony or some such bullshit. It's totally not about oppressing, shunning and alienating people outside the circle."

Feminism needs to call itself something different to differentiate itself from all the assholes.
>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

bareboards2says...

I helped start a theater company years ago. We struggled with our mission statement. We wanted to call ourselves "feminist" because of all the negative crap that is attached to that word but we also felt it was restrictive, just as you say, Gwiz.

We ended up saying we were "feminist/humanist." Claimed being feminist proudly while saying we weren't sexist.

>> ^gwiz665:

As in, it should not be feminism, it should be "equalism".

oxdottirsays...

I wish I could have upvoted this comment 5 times.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

hpqpsays...

While I understand and agree with the idea, there is a reason it was called "feminism" and not simply "equalism".

"Sexism", while applying to both sexes by definition, is in reality almost always directed against women; the bulk of the fight for gender equality is about giving women equal rights and status and changing society's view thereof, hence "feminism".

In a world where, over the centuries, men were treated as inferior to women, the movement to fight for equal rights would most certainly have been called "virilism". See what I mean?

>> ^gwiz665:

As in, it should not be feminism, it should be "equalism".

Januarisays...

Right... because there arn't multiple videos of women being punched in the genitals right here on the sift for comedic value.

"Only when it happens to a man is it funny"... what a joke.

braindonutsays...

I upvoted your comment, because I agree with the sentiment. But I think the angry atheist still has a point, too. His claim to fame is being a loudmouth, which doesn't serve him very well when he tries to make a point on a sensitive issue that not many people are good at considering.

We've had more and more of these kerfluffles lately and I expect they will become even more frequent. Another example is the Dawkins vs Watson nonsense that happened not too long ago.

And if interaction between feminists and non-feminists weren't complex enough, even feminism itself is splintering as new generations of women are entering the fold and the old guard is becoming irrelevant. Such dynamics are extremely complex, especially when people aren't able to objectively look at the world and their role in it.

So, I upvoted both your comment and the video. I think they are both right, to a point, and also wrong, to a point.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Sarzysays...

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.

Lawdeedawsays...

Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.

What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.

This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."

I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...

And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

blankfistsays...

>> ^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.

Lawdeedawjokingly says...

>> ^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.


And the same way Muslims are allowed to...wait, you mean this "playfully" stuff turns violent and hateful? That there are gang killings based on race, which some are started because of jokes? Opps... (I am saying, Sarzy, you are wrong sir, or ma'am...or monkey, whichever... This "playful" stuff sounds funny, but when a cracker takes offense to being made fun of everyday of his life (Because those making race jokes can't take a hint that the joke wasn't funny for 1/2 the year and it's still not funny,) and breaks a black man's face for the bullying that he has been receiving, and then someone dies--which happens--it's no longer fun or funny.)

hpqpsays...

Wow, talk about analogy fail.

According to what definition of "feminism" are these women feminists? Oh yeah, your own prejudicial stereotype (one which seems quite common unfortunately). As for comparing it to Christianity, you are way, way off.

Christians have a book of doctrine; some follow it closely (like this guy), and are called "fundamentalists". Others distance themselves from some of its many moral failings, and are called "moderates". What Harris criticises about the moderates is that, as a silent majority, they lend credence to the loud, hateful fringe (this criticism applies just as well to muslims and jews). And why do they hesitate to take a firm stance against the fundamentalists? Because they know that, religion-wise, the fundamentalists are right, and that they - the moderates - are the half-hearted christians.

I don't think I have to spell out the other half of your failed analogy, by now the point should be quite clear. Next time, you might want to read up on your social history before giving lessons. For starters, have some wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

As for complaining about feminists not swarming to the podiums to call out this display of extremely bad taste, don't you think they have much more important things yet to do? You know, like fighting for equal pay, reproductive rights, against job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc etc, not to mention the battles to be fought in developing and/or religion-ridden countries?



>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.
What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.
This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."
I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...
And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.

hpqpsays...

Also, beware the feminazi gynofascists controlling the vagina supply!!!


Porksandwichsays...

Punished for the sins of the father type mentality. Goes along well with a lot of social injustices going on in America usually effecting the non-rich...even the middle class. Just another tool to use to divide and conquer.

Plus, I even thought the story of some chick garbage disposaling a severed penis was a joke. I mean seriously...he had to have known she was bat shit crazy...I can only assume that's why he wanted the divorce.

>> ^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.

Lawdeedawsays...

Definition 'of' and 'what' are two different things. Common use versus written defs. Take the word "Majority" and in the dictionary it says the "most," and in popular culture people use it to mean most. However, try telling that to an English teacher, and she flunks you for it... Majority apparently applies only to voting. So let's not pretend that "feminist" or "feminism" means the archaic definition that was placed into Wiki because it's most politically correct.

Feminists lost their grasp on equal rights because they had too many members who want greater rights. Most feminists are good people--but they fucked up when they let bad people in their group.

Ie., Feminists allow these women to take their mantra by not disclaiming them in a loud enough manner.

So yeah--epic analogy success.

And feminists may not follow a book, but their doctrines might as well be written on stone tablets. "And the first commandment is that all women shall be paid equally to men regardless of profession. All men shall have no say in court, as it pertains to marriage matters. This I shall command, in the name of the Great Vag, all shall spread my word from their lips."

And sorry, you're right. Feminists shouldn't worry about "right" or "wrong," or, about decency when it comes to matters like this. No, like you note, they should be worried about money, I mean, equal pay. When you put it like that, I like feminists less and less.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow, talk about analogy fail.
According to what definition of "feminism" are these women feminists? Oh yeah, your own prejudicial stereotype (one which seems quite common unfortunately). As for comparing it to Christianity, you are way, way off.
Christians have a book of doctrine; some follow it closely (like this guy), and are called "fundamentalists". Others distance themselves from some of its many moral failings, and are called "moderates". What Harris criticises about the moderates is that, as a silent majority, they lend credence to the loud, hateful fringe (this criticism applies just as well to muslims and jews). And why do they hesitate to take a firm stance against the fundamentalists? Because they know that, religion-wise, the fundamentalists are right, and that they - the moderates - are the half-hearted christians.
I don't think I have to spell out the other half of your failed analogy, by now the point should be quite clear. Next time, you might want to read up on your social history before giving lessons. For starters, have some wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
As for complaining about feminists not swarming to the podiums to call out this display of extremely bad taste, don't you think they have much more important things yet to do? You know, like fighting for equal pay, reproductive rights, against job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc etc, not to mention the battles to be fought in developing and/or religion-ridden countries?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.
What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.
This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."
I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...
And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.


Lawdeedawsays...

@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...

StimulusMaxsays...

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...

hpqpsays...

Instead of dignifying the comment below with a response, I'll let it make my point for itself.

As for pointing out your prejudicial stereotyping, my intention was not to offend or insult, but to provoke a reevaluation of your views. We all have prejudices, myself included; when I look back at the comments I made about the Oslo attacks (e.g. here), for example, I am ashamed of having jumped to a prejudice-based conclusion (and I hope I would still be even had I been right).

As some great philosopher surely said: "To err is human, but to stick to it after being proven wrong is just plain dumb."

cheers

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Definition 'of' and 'what' are two different things. Common use versus written defs. Take the word "Majority" and in the dictionary it says the "most," and in popular culture people use it to mean most. However, try telling that to an English teacher, and she flunks you for it... Majority apparently applies only to voting. So let's not pretend that "feminist" or "feminism" means the archaic definition that was placed into Wiki because it's most politically correct.
Feminists lost their grasp on equal rights because they had too many members who want greater rights. Most feminists are good people--but they fucked up when they let bad people in their group.
Ie., Feminists allow these women to take their mantra by not disclaiming them in a loud enough manner.
So yeah--epic analogy success.
And feminists may not follow a book, but their doctrines might as well be written on stone tablets. "And the first commandment is that all women shall be paid equally to men regardless of profession. All men shall have no say in court, as it pertains to marriage matters. This I shall command, in the name of the Great Vag, all shall spread my word from their lips."
And sorry, you're right. Feminists shouldn't worry about "right" or "wrong," or, about decency when it comes to matters like this. No, like you note, they should be worried about money, I mean, equal pay. When you put it like that, I like feminists less and less.

spoco2says...

Yeah, as @hpqp said, he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. It's bullshit that the man having his penis chopped off is just hilarious, but that doesn't discredit the entire movement for equality between the sexes, that's a cheap shot.

Lawdeedawsays...

That is a perfectly acceptable comment hp.

I know I err. I admit err when it occurs and/or when someone reasonably conveys the message. In fact, I made a whole Sift Talk about where I made a mistake. No shame for me or for you either. We are bigger for admitting our mistakes. That is why I am human instead of plain dumb.

With that said, you imply prejudice where it doesn’t apply. I have not prejudged anyone or any concept. I learned of the concepts and then formed conclusions after I gathered what info I could (Mostly from real life.) I like the movement, I just don’t like those people who feed off of it for their own fuck-tard hatred and greed.

What was harsh of me was to point out that others' take my viewpoint but do it simply spoken. I used them as a shield of my POV My problem is that I go further in explaining my points, trying sometimes too hard, and perhaps insult and/or confuse more than I intend. I am not sure--the words written on the computer, in front of me, alway seem to have the best of intentions, the best message to convey---but that's eye-of-the-beholder. So if I offended, I am sorry. If I confused, I am sorry. I did not mean to. It's just cut-and-dry to me unless you can note other points that make me shift (Which is actually very easy to do.)

In response to your “Analogy fail” comment, I put “Epic Success” or some crap. Yeah, that was lame of me and not adult-like at all, but then, we both said those things to convey a point.

@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.

>> ^hpqp:
Instead of dignifying the comment below with a response, I'll let it make my point for itself.
As for pointing out your prejudicial stereotyping, my intention was not to offend or insult, but to provoke a reevaluation of your views. We all have prejudices, myself included; when I look back at the comments I made about the Oslo attacks (e.g. here), for example, I am ashamed of having jumped to a prejudice-based conclusion (and I hope I would still be even had I been right).
As some great philosopher surely said: "To err is human, but to stick it after being proven wrong is just plain dumb."
cheers
>>

Lawdeedawsays...

>> ^spoco2:
Yeah, as @hpqp said, he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. It's bullshit that the man having his penis chopped off is just hilarious, but that doesn't discredit the entire movement for equality between the sexes, that's a cheap shot.


Um, I don't mean to keep this going to much longer, but if that was what hpqp said, then that would be fine. However, that’s not quite what he said (even if he had intended to say that,) and it’s not quite what others (Including the Angry Atheist) are arguing against either.

Most, if not all (Like myself) agree that the movement fucking rocks. Keep it up! And men, you need to get in there and fucking help too! However, these women need to be vilified from within the group because, just like in every movement in life, there are douches within. It’s noted these very rare occurrences are rare…ish…which is not quite right nowadays. Go to divorce court, in Florida, and have a penis. They will bend it back on you and fuck you with it hard. Your kids are her kids… Jail time? Not if you have a vag here in FL… I am not sure hp knows that is standard practice in Florida, and other States in the USA.

hpqp, from my interpretations, said pretty much that just because feminism has these types of individuals it's not their fault at all. There is no need to refute this barbarity from the movement because the movement (just like with most movements) doesn’t teach this barbarity. These people laughing, a whole audience, are simply dicks, not feminists, because they belong to some other group.

draak13says...

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?


dgandhisays...

This is one of the things about being an oppressed minority. If you say something stupid it's the groups fault. If you say something smart it's an exception.

Blaming feminists en masse for a small group of presumably feminist women being psychotic is sexist.

As for the overplayed victim card, our society lets this shit go because our society is sexist, not because it is overly feminist.

quantumushroomsays...

Is that what liberal Blacks are doing? Being 'playfully racist' to make up for oppression they never experienced?

One percent of the population commits 50% of the murders. Sound fair?


>> ^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.

StimulusMaxsays...

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?


blankfistsays...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Is that what liberal Blacks are doing? Being 'playfully racist' to make up for oppression they never experienced?
One percent of the population commits 50% of the murders. Sound fair?

>> ^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.



I think you may not like black people.

bareboards2says...

This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This.

>> ^Januari:

Right... because there arn't multiple videos of women being punched in the genitals right here on the sift for comedic value.
"Only when it happens to a man is it funny"... what a joke.

bareboards2says...

I have been told that I am crap at trolling. It certainly isn't something I want to be good at -- I only have done it in self protection and to try to gain some peace from being picked at.

I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gender gap. Women hear men making "jokes" about violence towards women all the time. Rape jokes, hahahahahaha. Ha.

I wonder if this wasn't some attempt to match that energy -- you men laugh at our pain? We'll laugh at yours.

And we do it badly. Not much practice, you see, unlike the guys.

I watched the original segment and I was appalled at how this was discussed. It wasn't funny to me in the least and I was horrified at the laughter. I also don't laugh at rape jokes.

bareboards2says...

Ah blankfist, I can always count on you to downvote my comments. Sometimes I just sit and watch the little "negative one" pop up. I sing the Jeopardy theme song while I wait. "Ding," there it is.

What bothers you about what I wrote? Did I say something untrue?

Or maybe too true and you don't like it.

ChaosEnginesays...

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.

Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.

On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

hpqpsays...

THIS.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You know what? Despite how much I think that those women are idiots, I can actually live with their stupid tirade. What was done to that poor guy was undoubtedly wrong, and that woman should go to jail. But I really don't care enough about the opinions of those women for their jokes on the subject to bother me. The act itself bothers me far more. So yeah, they're wrong and stupid, but their wrongness and stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the real and seriously fucked up issues facing women globally. Do you really think that, shrill shrieking harpies that they are, those women would actually mutilate a man like that? Well, maybe Sharon Osbourne.
Genital mutilation and gang rape are still not unusual in the third world. So frankly, these bitches can have their pathetic little comedy segment. If you want to fix a house, do you worry about the picture that's hanging crooked or the cracks in the foundation? That picture needs straightening al right, but it's just not a priority.
On a sidenote, there's an interesting dynamic in that clip. Sharon Osbourne hijacks the debate and decides it's hilarious. The rest of them look momentarily shocked, but decide to go along with it since the audience thinks it's "outrageous". Sara Gilbert makes a vain attempt to inject some sense, but she's steam-rolled by Sharon. I'd say it would have been a very different piece without her there.

quantumushroomsays...

I don't pretend to love every person of every race like leftists do, so there are Blacks I find despicable and Blacks I like. It's almost as if I'm judging people by the content of their character!

As for the stats about crime, no one has a right to their own facts. When it comes to facts, you can either learn them or be ignorant. Righteous indignation and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.



>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Is that what liberal Blacks are doing? Being 'playfully racist' to make up for oppression they never experienced?
One percent of the population commits 50% of the murders. Sound fair?

>> ^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.


I think you may not like black people.

bareboards2says...

Um, sweetpea, another way to say this is that "leftists" hate the sin but love the sinner.

A true Christian moral value, whether you are Christian or not.

The best Christians I know aren't.


>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't pretend to love every person of every race like leftists do, so there are Blacks I find despicable and Blacks I like. It's almost as if I'm judging people by the content of their character!

draak13says...

@StimulusMax, you do make an interesting point; we can't jump to equality because the people on top don't get on board with it.

@bareboards2, I'm surprised you didn't contribute more to the conversation. I thought this would be something you felt strongly about!

bareboards2says...

I do, sweetpea, I do feel strongly. Sometimes I just stay away from things like this for my own mental health. Grit my teeth and wait for it to pass.

It is just discouraging to see stuff like this capture so many votes and head for Number One. That comic that hpqp posted was right on -- all that self congratulation. I shudder.

Besides, there are plenty of great people much more articulate than me already here. I am enjoying them enormously!


>> ^draak13:

@StimulusMax, you do make an interesting point; we can't jump to equality because the people on top don't get on board with it.
@bareboards2, I'm surprised you didn't contribute more to the conversation. I thought this would be something you felt strongly about!

moodoniasays...

I think this video is bang on the money pointing the larger hypocrisy in all this, and in particular the Dworkin-esque ranting that has been a staple of daytime tv since the 80's.

Recently two sportscasters made off camera sexist comments about the abilities of female referees, they both lost their jobs.

These five fuckwits are breaking their hearts laughing about a gruesome sex attack that almost resulted in murder, I assume they all still have jobs? I'm guessing the show hasnt been cancelled?

I find it very encouraging that people are calling them out on this, about time.

*promote

lampishthingsays...

Hear hear.>> ^moodonia:

I think this video is bang on the money pointing the larger hypocrisy in all this, and in particular the Dworkin-esque ranting that has been a staple of daytime tv since the 80's.
Recently two sportscasters made off camera sexist comments about the abilities of female referees, they both lost their jobs.
These five fuckwits are breaking their hearts laughing about a gruesome sex attack that almost resulted in murder, I assume they all still have jobs? I'm guessing the show hasnt been cancelled?
I find it very encouraging that people are calling them out on this, about time.
promote

braindonutsays...

Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it, no matter what the context. I think that's the point I take away from this whole topic. If some asshole men are making fun of a woman who's gotten raped, then those asshole men are just as horrible as these women. Case closed.

I can bitch and moan all day about other people behaving in ways that I don't approve. In the end, the only thing I have control over is how I behave. And by doing so, I can ensure I remain the exception to the rules.

>> ^bareboards2:

I have been told that I am crap at trolling. It certainly isn't something I want to be good at -- I only have done it in self protection and to try to gain some peace from being picked at.
I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gender gap. Women hear men making "jokes" about violence towards women all the time. Rape jokes, hahahahahaha. Ha.
I wonder if this wasn't some attempt to match that energy -- you men laugh at our pain? We'll laugh at yours.
And we do it badly. Not much practice, you see, unlike the guys.
I watched the original segment and I was appalled at how this was discussed. It wasn't funny to me in the least and I was horrified at the laughter. I also don't laugh at rape jokes.

bareboards2says...

So we agree, right? I hated the laughter.

>> ^braindonut:

Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it, no matter what the context. I think that's the point I take away from this whole topic. If some asshole men are making fun of a woman who's gotten raped, then those asshole men are just as horrible as these women. Case closed.
I can bitch and moan all day about other people behaving in ways that I don't approve. In the end, the only thing I have control over is how I behave. And by doing so, I can ensure I remain the exception to the rules.
>> ^bareboards2:
I have been told that I am crap at trolling. It certainly isn't something I want to be good at -- I only have done it in self protection and to try to gain some peace from being picked at.
I wonder if what we are really seeing here is a gender gap. Women hear men making "jokes" about violence towards women all the time. Rape jokes, hahahahahaha. Ha.
I wonder if this wasn't some attempt to match that energy -- you men laugh at our pain? We'll laugh at yours.
And we do it badly. Not much practice, you see, unlike the guys.
I watched the original segment and I was appalled at how this was discussed. It wasn't funny to me in the least and I was horrified at the laughter. I also don't laugh at rape jokes.


Winstonfield_Pennypackersays...

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.

See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.

It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

braindonutsays...

As many times as we've disagreed in the past, I couldn't agree with this more.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.
See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.
It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

Winstonfield_Pennypackersays...

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with folks. That's what makes the world a fun place to live. However, when people start laughing at the misery of others it has become something else entirely. This is why so many modern comedians, commentators, journalists, and politicians just chap my hide. They openly practice hatred, but pretend it is OK because they wrap it up in a joke, or by targeting someone they don't like. Then all of a sudden you have entire audiences of clapping sheep LAUGHING racism, sexism, violence, and hatred. Disgusting.

Lawdeedawsays...

I would not say that one action, or even multiple makes an evil man.

Additionally, I will say that if one group tolerates a growing corruption, a festering if you will, within, then they are the ones propagating "racism" or "sexism" within their group. Not those who "prejudice" against them. And besides, prejudice is a natural instinct, a safety mechanism of sorts. Without it, we would all be dead.

Hatred, however, is counter intuitive...

But, upvote your comment because despite the trivial distinctions in definitions I make, you are on point.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.
See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.
It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

Winstonfield_Pennypackersays...

I would not say that one action, or even multiple makes an evil man.

I'm operating under the classic Christian philosophy that if you are guilty of one violation, then you stand condemned before the entire law. I realize not everyone agrees with perfection as a standard, but there it is. As far as I'm concerned, people who allow hatred into their lives - even to a minor extent - stand in need of repentance as much as any other sinner.

And besides, prejudice is a natural instinct, a safety mechanism of sorts. Without it, we would all be dead.

I would correct this statement. Prejudice is not a natural instinct. What you are speaking of is 'stereotyping'. Stereotyping is a normal human reaction to quickly 'sort' in order to facilitate social interaction and as a self defense against potential physical threats as well as a psychological facilitator. However, PREJUDICE is when you apply negative stereotypes to all persons in a group despite evidence that contradicts the stereotype. Prejudice is evil. Stereotypes are human nature.

Asmosays...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.


Ahh crap, I agree with this as well... =\

People, generally, do not want equality, they want supremacy. The slave becomes the master, the oppressed becomes the oppressor. And they hide behind historic crimes against their forebears as excuses.

critical_dsays...

Ok, so I admit that I have spent more time in reading these comments than I spent watching the video. I think I was turned off by the annoyingly loud voice, the sensational nature of the presentation, or maybe I am just tired of people voicing their opinion as Gospel (pun intended).

Regardless of it's many forms (sexism,racism) hate has it's roots in fear. Until we can all accept responsibility for the fear/hate that is in us all, we will never evolve.

MichaelLsays...

Dude, chill out or you'll pop an artery in your brain. A roomful of moronic chicks make comments and you're going nuclear.

They're morons -- only other morons take them seriously.

bareboards2says...

So.... all the horrible sexist crap I have to look at on the Sift day after day? That is evil too?

That is what you are saying. No tolerance. EVER.

So sexist crap ends today?

Man oh man, this is the happiest day of my life!


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. .... Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

braindonutsays...

I forced my way through. Truth be told, I hate this guy. He reminds me of an obnoxious, dorky, "always have to be right" roommate.
>> ^Xax:

Couldn't watch it; dude's fucking obnoxious.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More