Seems to me the word 'feminist' has been so trashed, hijacked and hard to know what it means by any particular person who uses it(unless you personally know that person). It's just sooo loaded with meaning beyond definition these days. The word often poisons meaningful dialogue of issues due to how it's perceived by different people. Seems to me anytime you create a word to define a group it gets misused and or hijacked and has its meaning twisted (pc/ sjw/ socialist/ truther/ environmentalist/ etc.).

More about particular issues. Less about particular groups (which this video is part of).

men and women can be feminist and masculinist depending on the gender issue at hand.

Masculism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism
vs
Feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Yeah, somewhere something got confused. My suspicion is that it became more fashionable again and then amongst some groups, they overshot the mark through the sort of one-upmanship you tend to get, particularly among college age political activists. An "I'm a more hardcore feminist than you!" type thing. That's the sort of thing that took some elements of the peace movement during the Vietnam era from basic anti-war/anti Cold war ideals, to militant factions claiming to be communists who supported the North Vietnamese regime and behaving in ways that hurt the overall peace movement (mistreating returning GIs and performing acts of sabotage and terrorism).

It seems you always get this thing with political movements. Groups with mostly but not entirely similar ideals and goals end up expending more effort opposing each other more than on their primary aims.

All that said, though I always understood the feminist movement to be concerned with social equality for all people, I wouldn't necessarily condemn them for being primarily interested in equality for women. They should, of course, be aware and acknowledge that this is just a specialized subset of the "social equality" movement as a whole.

I'm sure she has some valid points but the fact-checker in me has to ask about the sources of the statistics for "100k to 140k males raped in prison" and "almost half the domestic abuse victims are men". Something more than "studies have shown". Doesn't take away from her speech so much as it makes me tune that part out the same way I would when Bill O'Reilly is shouting big numbers at his guests. Especially when she rounds it up to the higher estimate of 140k towards the end.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

LOL.done and done

Damn women trying to hog all the equality to themselves.

A lot of this seems like semantics but....

Many of the issues that men face are due to the same institionalised gender inequality that feminism seeks to rectify. The suicide rates, the custody bias etc is a product of 1000s of years of patriarchy. That strong silent stoic cliche of masculinity is a fantasy (with real damage) dreamed up by the same society that put women's place in the kitchen. Its all the same poison.

Feminism isn't oppositional to men's rights. I consider myself a feminist not just because I want women to be paid the same as me, but because I think its a movement that seeks to create a society that is better for men too. I'd call myself a masculist but I'm afraid that term has probably been tainted too much by those who see it as a sort of counter-movement to feminism.

So yeah. A lot of what she says is quite true but my experience of feminism has not been this bizzaro version where it is all about women getting what women want. Most of my friends are feminist, all of my close family are...none of them are like that. I guess a lot of it comes down to the fact that ideas that make you angry spread more, and that's why there is this twisted perception of feminism when I think the reality of the movement is quite different.

MY TWO CENTS
BY SOME GUY.

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.

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.

in politics counter-movements are there to correct imbalances: there are valid specific feminist and masculist points to be made in the discussion..I'd say in general there are still more feminist issues that need to be tackled.

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.

#alldicksmatter people!

@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.

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?

Please link the original video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNErQFmOwq0

I just can't understand why we all focus on what makes us different from each other instead of what we have in common. We're always looking for differences. Always.
That's the real problem. A lack of empathy, an addiction to differences.

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".

@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.

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.

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".

Ironically, a lot of the more hardline early feminists didn't like the term feminist at all because they didn't think it went far enough.

but...OK FINE. I'll dignify the intentional misunderstanding to get it out of the way. My brand. My opinion. My perspective. Are we done with the whole "that's just your opinion man" bs now because I don't see how it's relevant.

That's your association not mine . I'd rather take the risk and hope I can make some positive associations with the word thanks rather than surrender it because some people think it is about hating men.

I don't know about feminism in the US, but where I live, the feminist movement was started by women who couldn't vote, couldn't go to school, couldn't work, had no rights when they married, and there were zero family rights. These women were able to resolve most of these issues by fighting for many years. YES, it was about equality... They should be admired for their dedication, not slurred.

So a very large part of the work has been done. The last remaining battles being at the workplace and in the media. I get that some people think feminism is not needed anymore . But to me this lady in the video is annoyingly only looking at the snapshot of today's media depiction of feminism.

Of course, she can say now "I don't need feminism", after all the work has been done by her grandmothers .

P.S What the hell is it about comparing rape statitics between men and women ? Does't make any sense to me.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

Why is it a little sad?

Does it take air away from what ever issue you want to see promoted on the sift? If you want everyone to agree with you, there are plenty of forums of people who will nod along with everything you say. ; )

And I love how because some of us agree with the woman in the video, we're threatened and wronged... That's a great conversational tactic, ascribing negatives to people you disagree with to instantly portray them as venal and weak... X D

So you're complaining because people don't all lockstep to your opinions, and taking cheapshots at the same because they don't...

Where's the empathy now? \= )

Why is it that the Videosift crowd is generally competent enough to call bullshit on "no, all lives matter"-rhetoric, but not enough to see through this type of nonsense? It's the exact same fallacy - yes, men do suffer in modern society, and yes, white people are mistreated by cops, but that's not a reasonable argument against feminism or against Black Lives Matter.

There's a decent quote by Anatole France on this kind of simpleminded 'equality in name only': "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Trying to create equality on paper, and be color-blind or gender-blind or money-blind or whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for, just cements the actual inequalities in society, all because you don't want to 'focus on differences'.

Well, if a majority of the 'black lives matter' people normally chanted 'death to whitey', 'all white people are rapists', 'Anyone who's skin is not brown is evil', etc, especially if they then used their group to harass and quash any dissent, I don't think they would get much support either.
So the fact that men suffer from most, if not all of the issues 'feminists' claim are forced on them solely BY men, almost to the same extent, or to GREATER extents while being completely ignored and actually blamed IS a reasonable argument against today's brand of anti male 'feminism'.
It is not a reasonable argument against equality...but that's no longer what 'feminism' is about.

I didn't listen to the video, I just read the comments. I guessed what the video would say, and the comments 100% supported my intuition.

I'm a "second wave feminist." And guess what? There were plenty of "man hating" women back then, just as radical and separatist and angry as these presumed "third wavers."

And we were pretty angry back then. I was one of the angry ones. Until I understood that everyone suffers under the patriarchy. And until I understood that I had to go thru the mad phase so I could change my thinking. It was a growth process, not unlike being a angry teenage.

And then you grow up.

I find it pretty damn funny that literally nothing has changed in 40 years. I heard these same arguments back then.

It's all good. It is better now. Women have much more freedom than they used to have. (When I was a teenager, a married woman couldn't get her own credit card. Everything was in her husband's name. How fucked up is that?)

And there is work to do, including work that men need to do to break free of the crap that the patriarchy traps them with. Nobody can do it for them, though. It is their work.

Please don't lecture me about not watching the video. I know I "should." But I have 40 years of this crap. I don't need any more.

You might have had a point if you hadn't pissed it all up the wall with this pearler...

"whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for"

So ya know what, enjoy being a victim because my dick opens every door in the world for me, no effort required. /eyeroll

I was thinking more battering ram, just smash it in to stuff until it yields to my manliness... = |

If we're going to get made out to be knuckle dragging Neanderthals, might as well go the whole hog... =)

I'm sorry, did I trigger you? Did I piss in your safe space? Aww.

There are BLM activists who make inflammatory comments about white people (oh no whatever shall we do) and there are feminists who make inflammatory comments about men (oh no whatever shall we do). I posit, for your reasoned consideration:

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."

Oops. Sorry. A well formatted post does not a correct argument make....it did look nice though. ;-)

You are incorrect, the majority of ACTIVE feminists today DO make derogatory, often actionably libelous statements about men. They have absolutely taken over as the voice of 'feminism', and real Feminists (like myself) find them disgusting and actually worse than those they rail against, because they are complaining about something while trying to become that thing at the same time. They don't want to end inequality, they just want to be on the side with more power.

Your' 'bullet points' have been 'destroyed' by @enoch...so I'll ignore them....except to say FUCK YOU BUDDY, because men ARE raped MORE than women, but your answer...."We can pretty much take it; we as a group already have most of the money, most of the privilege, and most of the presidents. We don't need a safe space." What utterly ridiculous, short sighted, unthinking bullshit.
I should have Babette and friends come by and rape the fuck out of you with a broom handle, then see how your 'safe space' makes it all just go away. Perhaps then you might see the ridiculousness of your statement.

On the other hand, saying YOU ARE INCORRECT does not a counterpoint make. There is absolutely nothing you offer up to support that the majority of feminists make derogatory and often illegal statements about men. There are millions of feminists, and your anecdotal experience doesn't do anything to top anyone else's. You. Have. Nothing.

Secondly, your little shouty pout at me could have been avoided if you read even part of my superbly formatted post. I explicitly wrote that we as a group have an easier time of taking inflammatory comments . Not illegal comments, not rape threats, not rape. Most men (not you) can shrug off an inflammatory comment without needing an MRA support group.

In fact - go back and read my statement and admit that I was talking about inflammatory comments, not rape. Do it. I've never made light of rape and I never intend to, and I don't want your weasely lying post implying that I have. Go back. Read my post. Admit your mistake. I can take an insult, but not a disgusting lie.

It makes a better counterpoint than silly, misrepresented, just plain wrong 'bullet points'....and was followed with more.
The argument is not worth linking the dozen recent angry man hating feminist videos...you wouldn't see the ridiculousness anyway.

No, you're wrong about what you said (or didn't say)....here's the proof you require.
In that same post where you wrote '"We can take it...we don't need a safe space", you said "Also, please don't say that men suffer from most or all of the opression that women suffer, as much or to a greater degree, without sources. I'll give you some examples of what you could have done:
•Women suffer from sexual violence at much greater rates than men (Example source: some man-hating bull dyke known as the CDC, "Sexual violence facts at a glance, 2012")"

Which, as you KNOW, just plain ignores MOST sexual assaults perpetrated on men and pretends they aren't victims in order to make a mistaken point....that men aren't victims, only women are, when the reality is that men are the victim of sexual abuse MORE often than women.

The two certainly seemed related when you wrote them together.

EDIT: How about this guy (the teacher, not the douche narrator)? Doesn't HE need a safe space? Note: 16 men and 9 women in the group attacking the teacher...it's not just women putting this crap out.
http://videosift.com/video/secondclancy-the-new-face-of-social-justice-warriors#comments

Now go back, admit your mistake. I can take on insult AND disgusting lies, but not at the same time.

Proper format does not a correct argument make.

@Babymech
jesus holy christ...

were you truly unable to discern my tongue firmly planted in cheek?

and then take issue with pay gap discrimination?
ok-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

/cue rainbow

which you may take issue that i used wiki as a reference,which is pretty much your counter-position to my links.

which is just utter weak sauce.

oh that study was by a conservative think tank and therefore they have an "agenda".nevermind that christina hoff sommers is a feminist,nevermind that you didnt refute the numbers..lets just stick with "agenda" to refute any and all statistics that do not coincide with your narrative.

should i gather by implication that christian hoff sommers is not a feminsist?even though she identifies as one? or is she just the "wrong" kind of feminist?

come on man,are you really that blinded by your own bullshit?

and then you proudly attempted to dissect the rest of my comment taking positions i never took,but was rather using to express that in much of our dialogue..i was fucking agreeing with you.

you literally wrote one big,massive and utterly useless straw man.while i was actually trying to have a conversation.i may have indulged in some smart assery but that is mainly due to my perception of you.that i respected you enough not to treat you like a precious little flower or some fragile snowflake.

maybe you see this is as a right/wrong dynamic.

but here is the cold,hard truth:context matters.
and if you insist on viewing this situation in such a narrow and myopic way,the larger context will ALWAYS be unavailable to you.

so until you are ready to evaluate,without bias,new information.that may possibly contradict your current narrative,then you will always be stuck in your own self-delusion.

you were challenged.
your response was lack luster and a straw man.
and i can only assume by your words that any contrary evidence or contradictory opinions that may conflict with your own will be met with similar straw men,presumptions,deflecting and goal post moving.

because if ya cant beat em,
berate and belittle them.

Feel free to be specific, and not just coy and vague. Which parts were intended as 'tongue in cheek' - was it linking to right wing activist blogs? I am truthfully and honestly unsure, because we don't know each other - for some people, quoting CHS would be a joke, similar to quoting Anne Coulter, and for others it's a valid source. I still don't know which, if either, opinion you hold.

Trust me, I will happily and heartily chuckle at your wry, irascible tongue in cheek wit, if you can tell me which parts you thought you were being tongue in cheek about, and what your serious arguments are.

As to whether Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist or not, I would guess that it's not as easy as just calling yourself a feminist. I can call myself a conservative, but the evidence is against me: I never vote conservative, I typically espouse progressive views, and I usually criticize flaws in conservative thought and policy, comparing it unfavorably to progressive thought. I think a reasonable person would have to say that I'm either being disingenuous if I call myself a conservative, or that I'm very very bad at it.

I don't get to decide what CHS calls herself, but as a rational person I have to look at her argument and see if it's based in feminism or in something entirely different, and make up my own mind about it regardless of labels.

As for the rest, I'm not sure, again, which parts you say are just straw manning it up and which parts we agree on. I thought we had some disagreements but you might have been tongue in cheek about all of it, for all I know.

For example, I thought we were in agreement on this: "so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message" - so I didn't comment on that part. It makes sense to me, and unless you were being tongue in cheek, we're in agreement.

I thought we came to an agreement (?) on the prevalence of rape and the need to look at the whole picture, but also agreed (?) that there are several other disheartening factors at work in the so-called justice system.

I thought, however, that we disagreed about your entire first point (both about how making discrimination illegal should eliminate the wage gaps, and about how no serious economists cite it). This is where I thought CHS was a poor rebuttal - regardless of her right wing activism, she's certainly not an economist; she's a philosopher by education, and not a particularly credible source on the economy. Again, if you were being tongue in cheek when quoting her I'll just erase that part and assume that we agree.

As for contradictory evidence, I can't swear that I'll be influenced by it, and I certainly won't accept it uncritically - we all have a hard time breaking down our own biases. But I'll happily and gratefully read it, as I assume you will too.

And here we are again.
THIS is the reason why we can't have nice things.
Instead of agreeing that certain things are wrong and need to be changed, we argue about who got it worst. Instead of acknowledging that we have a lot work to do until we become the nice people Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek wants us to be, we fight about shitty details. We'd rather point fingers than making a change from within ourselves.
Any change for the better in any society comes from within. It's a painfully slow process and it requires more patience and blood than humanly bearable. We, as a society, need to suffer greatly before we learn our painful lesson. We always pay a price much too high. We pay in human suffering. We pay in blood. All the time.
What doesn't help is antagonizing each other. Apparently, we can't help it.

#i'mjustsayingi'mamisanthrope

You don't need to link any angry man-hating feminist videos, and I don't need to link any angry woman-hating videos by people calling themselves humanists while threatening Anita Sarkeesian's life. We both know that they exist, and should ideally agree that this doesn't mean most self-labelled feminists hate men and most self-labelled humanists don't hate women. In fact, the vast majority of feminists and humanists don't even make angry videos on the internet.

Then you go into statistics on rape by men against women outside of prison and rape by men against in prison. This is a fucking horrible cultural phenomenon, and I discussed that. Above. You saw it? Yeah you did. But you wanted to make pretend rape threats instead, which fine, that's your deal, I guess. Nevertheless I can quote myself, again:

"if we concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison."

Furthermore - I gave you some quotes specifically showing you good sources of arguments. Not examplesof things men should tolerate or be fine about it. Quite the opposite, in fact. Don't pretend that I said that men should be fine with rape, because I never did. I said that just as white people have the privilege to shrug off inflammatory comments by BLM activists while still respecting the underlying movement, men have the privilege to be able to shrug off some inflammatory comments by feminist activists while still respecting the underlying movement. I am a little surprised that you responded with "I should have some people rape the fuck out of you" but okay, that's how you roll. If you don't want to go back on that comment - we'll just let it stand on its own, I guess.

As for Nicholas Cristakis in the video you link to, there's a shitload to discuss there, but it's much more nuanced and weird than feminism vs whatever.

- There's the weirdness of the role of a 'Master' and what it has come to mean at Yale. While I think the students are being unbearably unbearable, it would be a little different if they did it to a teacher rather than a master, who has a sort of weird guidance counsellor / therapist role. I don't know why that role needs to exist, or what it means in practice normally.
- There's the absolute insufferable pampered entitled gall and rudeness of those students which makes my goddamn blood boil.
- There's the question of racism and cultural appropriation at halloween (which started the whole thing) which to me is both a silly and difficult debate; I'm absolutely disguested by blackface, but I don't really mind if some four-year old white or black or hispanic girl wants to dress up as Mulan.
- There's the issue of job security in the academic world and what kind of protection Christakis has from fallout over a perfectly reasonable letter his wife wrote...

Those are all interesting, I agree, but I don't see what the video has to do with this one.

I looked up how he described his own role: "Officially, Masters are charged with setting the “intellectual, social, and ethical tone of the College.” On a practical level, I am here to support you, our wonderful Silliman students. I spend time trying to get to know and advise students; working with our amazing residential staff to foster college life; and hosting social and academic events. I also devote energy to anticipating needs, whether they involve space allocation, resources, or new programs to meet students’ interests. Oh, and I deliver sweets at odd hours. "

To me this is a different role from a teacher, and it seems like someone that the students might expect to provide them with safety and hugs rather than constructive criticism... But it still seems absurd to me and I hate their entitled rudeness.

I hate to break it to you but everytime they used their transporters they killed themselves and created a new clone in their place. This is a civilization that would commit suicide every week just to visit a vacation planet, or just to move from room to room quickly. There has to be a better way to live.

Yes, but as I said, the majority of ACTIVE, self labeled "feminists" are the man hating brand today, and it's causing many to no longer self label themselves 'feminist' lest they be confused with this vocal majority.

You ignore the pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by women in prison as well, or the pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by women outside of prison. Yes, it happens, and is prosecuted far more rarely for various reasons, marginalizing those real victims....just like these "feminists" do, pretending all men are rapists, and all women are victims. It's simply not true, and it muddies and sullies any real point they might have about equality.
I think you know I was using hyperbole to make a point. I don't advocate anyone being raped in real life...not even mass rapists, but I do see that it might be the only way to show SOME people who have a total lack of empathy for people that don't hold their mindset.

"Master"? I thought they said "dean". Is that the same thing? EDIT: If so, the dean is not a guidance counselor/therapist any more than a judge is outside college. They have guidance counselors and therapists for those jobs.

The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..."We can pretty much take it; we as a group already have most of the money, most of the privilege, and most of the presidents. We don't need a safe space." ...do you still say that seeing how he's NOT capable of just 'shrugging it off' and ignoring them, knowing that many have lost their careers for simply not agreeing with this brand of PC-Nazi?
EDIT: Would you say that to a man who's been raped by a woman? How about a white man raped by a woman of color? Not about the rape itself, but that they still have all the power and can 'pretty much take it/they don't need a 'safe space'', while implying these kids can't take it and do need a safe space?

@Babymech
alright!
/claps hands..
now we are getting somewhere!
is it time to make out yet?

on a good note.
we agree more than disagree.
so it appears anyways.we may vary on the particulars but i think it safe to assume we can agree on the bulk i.e:human rights,fairness and justice.

(or it may be because you are just as disgusted by those overly privileged whiners as i am,snapping their fingers and shouting about "safe places")

solidarity!!

anyways...
i used sommers as a reference because she identifies as a feminists.you may dispute if she is in fact a feminist but thats how she identifies.i thought i was being deliciously ironical,but i digress.

here is a far better,and bipartisan source for your consideration from 2011:https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2011/Gender-Wage-Gap-May-Be-Much-Smaller-Than-Most-Think

notice everything is sourced and noted.

the key in our discussion is how we comprehend data,and data in raw form can be just as confusing and misleading if the right questions are not asked,which makes it easy for us all to be manipulated (which i think you mentioned as well).

so just for the record:
i am not anti-feminist,but i am anti-bullshit,against weak and facile arguments to create an emotional response in order to promote a political agenda.

because we all lose in the end,and it detracts from the real issues and real grievances.

why certain rabid feminists thought it perfectly ok to threaten this woman with death and violence,and yet,with zero sense of self-aware irony will use the threat of violence to THEM to promote their politics.

all because she disagreed with them.

anyways..thanks for hanging in there mate.
ill be right over for our lil make out session.

Hmmm. That doesn't sound like a therapist or guidance counselor to me. "Advising students" is not the same thing by far, and therapist, not at all....at least not in my eyes. More like a 'campus manager' to me.
I agree, it sounds different from 'teacher', but it's even farther away from 'head cuddler'. His job is, in part, to ensure a variety of ideas and ideals are free to be represented on campus, all with safety and respect for the others' rights to express THEIR viewpoints, and to squash any group that actively tries to hinder that freedom of expression. Anyone asking for "safe space" should calmly be asked to leave campus, as it's not 'safe' for their fragile mindsets, indeed it's designed to challenge them.

So, you have to resort to theoretical philosophy questions concerning a throw-away-reference to make a point?

Can't we just get the fuck along?
Why is that shit so hard? I can't understand. I don't want to, it's supposed to be simple.

Nope, just gave a sterling example of why the woman in the video is right and why angry as fuck feminist types (male or female) give up their place in the conversation (as opposed to getting chased off by mean old men) because they can't address their fellow human beings (again, male or female) with an ounce of common courtesy. =)

Because admitting (or even addressing) your points means admitting that you have points, and that they are relevant and mebbe even right. /shock horror

Bailing out with a wannabe funny/realistically nothing comeback is far easier than an actual reply, which might even start a conversation.

And we obviously can't have that.

Jesus you two... I made a joke about Star Trek because I had to 'bail out' of what, a plea for everyone to agree and get along? I don't think it's a horrible thing for people to disagree, at least if they have genuinely differing viewpoints and respect each other enough to argue about it.

There is an actual conversation here, and some points are getting resolved and others will be more entrenched when it's all over - one star trek joke one way or the other doesn't change that.

Which points did you want to actually adress? "Instead of agreeing that certain things are wrong and need to be changed, we argue about who got it worst"? It helps to figure out which large groups of people are getting the worst treatment, because if we want to improve society we need to start with the ones who get it worst.

Every single person on earth has shitty things happen to them at some point, and every society will always fail someone at some point - but if we are going to change those societies we need to start figuring out where we're failing the worst, and start adressing that. It will probably take some arguments to agree on those things, but once we do we can slowly move forward.

Being dismissive and pretending that everybody who disagrees with you is angry or 'bailing out' will not get us closer to agreements. I don't think.

The first point I think we can safely disagree on without needing to dig further. We can both think of examples of very irrational, angry feminists and we can both think of examples of rational and grounded feminists. I am sorry that your experience tends mostly toward the first, whereas mine tends mostly toward the second; so many people that I know personally or that I see in media are happy to call themselves feminist that to me it's starting to mean absolutely nothing.

Masters and associate masters (nicholas and his wife, respectively) have some kind of non-teaching support role in relation to the campus and the student body. They're not deans, but more sort of community and relations managers. Without excusing the rudeness in the video, I think it would a whole different principle if these were, for example, students shouting down a professor in one of their classes (which I'm sure has also happened). The master's role is different.

"The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..." They don't need as much protection from inflammatory comments, but they need job protection, protection against threats, protection against libel, protection against violence, etc., like anybody else. What we see in the video is a PR guy (public relations between the university and the student body) being caught up in a PR shit storm. He's not getting this shit because he's male but because he's the face of student relations. His wife got a lot of shit as well. I don't think he deserves getting shouted down by anybody, but my point is that this isn't the same as a feminist making a generic blog post about how all men are shitty people; it's a specific shit storm playing out around racism at Yale, his role and his wife's role as responsible for student relations, and about what students believe they are entitled to from the school staff. It's a very specific, very different situation, where the students thought they had a right to expect something from him which maybe wasn't part of his role. (I would bet a reasonably large amount of money that he's more PC than you or I would ever care to be).

Finally, I don't know what you are asking if I would "say to a man who has been raped by a woman" Would I say to them that they should ignore shitty feminist blogs about how men are shit? Absolutely. Somebody who has suffered sexual violence should stay far away from that kind of toxic bullshit. But maybe that isn't the scenario you're presenting - let me mirror it and see if I understand what kind of scenario you want me to consider: if a friend of mine has been robbed by a black man, and then dismisses all black civil rights activists as criminals and thugs, would I try to argue with him? I hope I would, though it would be difficult as hell.

If I knew a man who had been raped by a woman, I would try to support him in getting through that, and not blame all feminists. If I knew a woman who had been raped by a man, I would try to support her in getting through that, and not blame all men's rights activists. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

Just wanted to respond to show that I'm not ignoring this, but mainly just nodding my head. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think that feminism is needed despite some of the excesses of its adherents, just like I don't consider myself a civil rights activists, but think that it's a needed movement despite some of the excesses of its adherents (I'm too lazy to be either a feminist or a civili rights activist).

I completely agree that the wage gap is real but incredibly hard to isolate, define and quantify, and that a lot of the intended measures to adress it can end up fucking over individuals while failing to adress the core issues. That, to me, means that we have to work smarter and harder, which some economists are doing. I just don't think CHS is the one leading that field forward, unfortunately.

And finally, death threats and threats of violence seem to me like they are almost synonymous with the internet. I find I can't draw any conclusions from the existence of threats of violence online, because if I did I would conclude that the following are all toxic cultures of death and violence: feminism, gaming, conservatism, progressivism, ISIS, Harry Potter, men's rights activism and environmentalism, to mention just a few. Of all of those I'm pretty sure it's only ISIS that actually represents a toxic culture of death.

OK, that's more like it to me. No, we don't need AS MUCH protection (in general).
Again, I think you have missed what a "Master" is. Read his description with an eye towards "dean" and I think you'll get my point. He's not PR, or HR, he facilitates student activities, and sets the 'tone' on campus...so his job is really to teach these people that they're 100% wrong about what college is about and for, and to show them (EDIT: but not necessarily on an individual basis) that 'safe space' is the opposite of what college is for... at least that's what I get from his own words.
No, this instance isn't JUST about shouting at men and calling them "bad". I seriously doubt the vitriol would have been as thickly directed at his wife, though. Maybe I'm wrong, these girls are really just angry at their own failings and screaming at the world. I blame their parents for never telling them they aren't special snowflakes, better and cuter than everyone else.
The students are obviously wrong about what they are entitled to.
I thought I was clear...I guess not....I mean-would you say to them that they don't need 'protection'....as you said originally?

EDIT:I feel like you've/they've made the mistake of thinking that, since most positions of power are held by men, most men have power. I know that's what '3rd wave feminists' think...I've heard them say it. It's not true. That's kind of my point about the male rape victim...men are not always the one's holding the powerful position, and thinking they are simply perpetrates the inequality, but tries to swing it to the other side. That's not progress.

Hrm...

"whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for"

"I'm sorry, did I trigger you? Did I piss in your safe space? Aww."

Why is it that people that go out of their way to offend suddenly complain when it comes back at them?

I had a pretty reasonable response brewing to the post where you came up with the fuckhead bit, and trashed it because reasonable didn't seem what you were interested in. So why waste my time trying to reason with a person who is unreasonable right?

And hey, that's my presumption. Mebbe I caught you on a bad day, mebbe I'm being the ass here, it's entirely possible.

But this conversation is pretty much as pointless as vocal 3rd wave feminism. It's going around in circles, people occasionally getting mad, and the majority of the sift probably peaked in and decided they couldn't be fucked wading in among the 10 or so people dedicated to perpetuating the "conversation"... And of course it's not really accomplishing anything, we're all still being relatively civil to each other even if a bit terse...

The battle for equality isn't won, but it's pretty close (well, at least in the west, just forget about the majority of the worlds women who still live in conditions that make the 50's seem blissful...). 3rd wavers aren't fighting massive social injustice anymore, they are battling things like #gamergate and feedback against Sarkeesian, Tucker Max or that Return of Kings mob (who seem to be the biggest trolls on the planet but w/e).

Seriously, they are spending a lot of time and energy arguing with the lowest common denominators (who by and large love the attention). There used to be a time you could safely ignore the village idiot because, hey, he's a fucking idiot. Now, any dumbass can post on the internet and people will descend on them like the proverbial plagues of Egypt, followed shortly by supporters showing up. Not because those one offs are indicative of even a significant minority in broader society, but because it generates plenty of online hype to see "some guy" say something fucking awful and then the sides line up to start yelling at each other...

So I'm not overly concerned if we end up agreeing because in the grand scheme of things, it's also fairly pointless. We're both entitled to our opinions and they seem to be vaguely in the same park aka "equality good, hate and oppression bad", seems like a good place to stop.

Nailed it