Gamer Gate (d_k is a self-loathing misandrist, but at least he's not Ernie)

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #451 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:29 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Because I mean that's the logical result of what you said, tho of course I'm crediting you with a ton more character than that, I think you're just unaware of what these guys are actually saying. They think the definition of rape should be narrowed so they can have more sex.


That's the crazy, and probably not even the worst of the crazy. But talking about that instead of substantive complaints is just serving the "men who disagree with women are bad" narrative.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #452 by RTWAP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:13 pm

dempsey_k wrote:You seem to be under the impression that equality comes with the price of more bonuses for men, as if we should use sexism as a lever to extract even better things for ourselves.

"Yeah we'll give equal pay and hiring quotas a try, if we enact go-kart Tuesdays"


I was under the impression you actually wanted to discuss this, not engage in pettiness. Sorry.
User avatar
MP
Registered Broad
Posts: 15633
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:13 pm
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Has given rep: 145 times
Received rep: 384 times

Post #453 by MP » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:16 pm

RTWAP wrote:I was under the impression you actually wanted to discuss this, not engage in pettiness. Sorry.


Who are you to judge a man's pettiness?
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 9 times

Post #454 by Sturminator » Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:09 am

Let' try to move the ball forward in a constructive manner, peeps. I see two topics vis-á-vis men's rights which don't seem to generate a hell of a lot of discussion, but are pretty important.

1) Boys are disadvantaged more so than girls by the parenting gap, and this is a big deal. In most western countries, the number of households headed by single mothers is shockingly large, and ever growing. Having only one parent around is a disadvantage no matter who you are, but lacking the parent of your own sex is considerably worse. It would be moronic to blame the mothers for this situation, but the simple fact of the matter is that the male children of single mothers grow up disadvantaged by "the system", at least in part as a result of custody laws which profoundly favor women.

2) There is one phase of life in the western world in which girls clearly have the advantage over boys: school. No, I'm not talking about academic performance and whatnot, where girls have a clear advantage which correlates with the first point, but rather the dynamics of social and sexual power. Simply put, adolescent boys generally suffer through a long period of sexual subordination. Boys become interested in sex earlier than girls (not just giggling about it, but actually doing it), but grow into their bodies more slowly, and in the meantime face a great deal of competition from above - older boys and men competing for the interest of the girls, and most of the time winning. This basic imbalance, combined with the fact that adolescent girls are among the cruelest creatures on god's green earth, can leave teenage boys and later young men with quite a lot of lingering bitterness towards the opposite sex.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no question that the adult world still favors men, and would continue to favor men even in a state of perfectly equal opportunity because of the fact that women have to schlep babies around. It's still a man's world, aye, but it's not much of a world for boys anymore, and that is a problem.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #455 by Ernie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:40 am

You really think it's easy to be a teenage girl?
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #456 by RTWAP » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:21 am

Ernie wrote:You really think it's easy to be a teenage girl?


No.

It might be easier. But I'm not even sure about that.

But just because there are tough things about being a girl, there are also tough things about being a boy. What I object to is an unwillingness to discuss or address any of the later just because the former exists. It's like saying we shouldn't treat prostate cancer because breast cancer kills more people.

Back to girls, I'm hopeful about progress in gender roles. My nephews had girls calling them and asking them out. I never heard of that happening, ever, in my generation. My nephews were also much more concerned about their clothes and hairstyle than any guy in my high-school time. Not that more style is an improvement, but at least it's progress to less rigid gender roles.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 9 times

Post #457 by Sturminator » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:59 am

Ernie wrote:You really think it's easy to be a teenage girl?


Easier than formulating a sensible response to this fucking non sequitur.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #458 by Ernie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:33 am

Well I'm certainly more concerned about my niece entering her teenage years than my nephews but that's probably just me being patriarchal or something.

ehhh shouldn't have waded back in here.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 9 times

Post #459 by Sturminator » Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:45 pm

Well, super.

In the future, I'll be sure to keep the Ernie's-concern-for-his-siblings'-children metric in mind. Meanwhile, other than reported sexual assaults, boys in the western world are behind girls on pretty much every indicator of well being: school performance, incarceration rate, victim rate of violent crimes, drug addiction rate, you name it.

My guess, Ernie, is that you're suffering from the disease of affluence and projecting it onto everyone else. To you, I bet the fantasy of some leb fumbling with your niece in the back of a miata seems much more present than the idea that your nephews may end up dead or as wastoids, but then again, your nephews probably have a father at home.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
Ernie
Registered Broad
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 pm
Location: The City of Vancouver
Received rep: 1 time

Post #460 by Ernie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:35 pm

Yup, shoulda seen that one coming.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #461 by RTWAP » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:36 pm

I don't think anyone disagrees that death threats and actual attacks are terrible. Some might try to defend the losers based on some perceived power imbalance or some shit. But that's just lame.

I can see cops not taking death threats from basement-dwelling teenagers as seriously as others. Stereotypes FTW! But there's not even a flimsy excuse for failing to act on actual attacks.
User avatar
Zardoz
Registered Broad
Posts: 5855
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:48 pm
Location: Hamilton
Has given rep: 74 times
Received rep: 258 times

Post #462 by Zardoz » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:43 pm

Just get him to watch Working Girl.
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 15 times

Post #463 by Roughneck » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:15 am

embracedbias wrote:I'm confused. Doesn't that seem counterproductive?


It sounds like Harper's next excuse to not help aboriginal women.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #464 by RTWAP » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:11 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:This seems like the best place to post this: The Trouble With White Feminism


Am I allowed to say that article was dumb?

So many internal contradictions. It all basically boils down to "I get to define what feminism is and anyone who disagrees with me is racist". Intersectional my ass. The world if full of injustices of one kind or another. They are all worthy of being discuss and addressed. To fault someone for not having exactly the same injustices in exactly the same order and priority is stupid. I agree that people outside a culture can be uninformed about the inner details of that culture. But they're already interested in it. The correct response is to inform them, not to call them racist or chastise them for "erasure of experiences" or "erasing racial voices".

Specific stupidities:
[INDENT]White feminism works on the assumption that all women are equally oppressed[/INDENT]

No. A million times no. Emma Watson does not stand up and say there are no women more oppressed than her. She says all people have an interest in seeing all women treated fairly. The goal is equality. That does not mean the diagnosis is equal oppression.

[INDENT]it’s commonly lamented that women—as in all women—make about 77–82 cents for every dollar that a man makes. But that’s only white women. Black and Hispanic women make even less, 69 cents and 60 cents, respectively, for every dollar that a white man makes. [/INDENT]

I would be very surprised if statisticians went so far as to strip out all the non-white women from their male-female wage comparison stats. Far more likely is that the stats represent men as a whole and women as a whole. Non-white women may make up only a portion of that number but including the numerous white portion of the female population is not an act of racism. For the sake of argument, if you excluded all non-whites then I'm sure there would still be a wage imbalance, and if you included only non-whites you would see a similar wage imbalance, albeit at lower average wage levels.

It's almost like there are other factors that can combine for those people. Race is probably one. Socio-economic background could be another. School quality. Neighbourhood environment. Parental expectation. Lots of factors. Complaining that they are all really part of feminism and need to be included whenever feminism is discussed is stupid. They overlap. Some people will want to discuss their intersection. Some will want to focus on racial equality, or gender equality, or educational equality. It's not intersectional. It is multi-dimensional.

Can you imagine someone chastising MLK because he is erasing the experiences of economically disadvantaged American Indians?

[INDENT]“White feminism dehumanizes racialized women by ignoring and erasing the voice of women of colour,” says Matunda. “It passively reaffirms ideas that whiteness and white opinions are the only ideas that really matter.”[/INDENT]

If a feminist who is white speaks about women from a minority culture, but then she's erasing the voices of others. And if she doesn't then she's ignoring them.

And anytime someone accuses someone else of passively doing anything, there's a very good chance they're doing nothing of the sort. They're just not actively addressing the topic. I didn't address the topic of Ukraine's resistance to Russian interference in this post. That does not mean I have passively reaffirmed Russia's right to interfere.

I get that it's annoying that many of the most prominent feminists are white. Western civilization is currently mostly white. People with power (celebrity or otherwise) get noticed and make good spokeswomen. But there are women with power who aren't white (Michelle Obama, Shonda Rhimes, Oprah, Judge Sotomayor). But if you exclude them from your definition of prominent feminists and then decry the lack of non-white feminists, the problem isn't reality, it's your approach to it.

If someone feels there aren't enough prominent feminists with a particular mix of cultural, economic, regional, orientation, or whatever facets, then speak up. Find such a representative and help them be a better spokeswoman. Organize for them. Fundraise for them. Raise their profile. But if your plan is to criticize the existing spokeswomen for failing to be like you then that's just going to make you look stupid. Anyone who is not like you will feel excluded. They're unlikely to want to listen to you or your spokesperson, or provide funds, or volunteer. You've already told them they are unwelcome. You have deliberately narrowed your focus to one small community. Having done so you cannot then claim to be a victim of mistreatment from the large community you spurned.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #465 by RTWAP » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:36 am

Thomas Malthus wrote:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_whoredom_of_the_left_20150308

I dunno where I stand on this issue.


Lakeman, along with the radical feminists allied with the shelter, is the bête noire not only of the state but of feckless liberals who think physical abuse of a woman is abhorrent if it occurs in a sweatshop but somehow is acceptable in a rented room, an alley, a brothel, a massage parlor or a car.


That's dumb. Anyone who writes like that is engaging in propaganda, not reasonable discourse, let alone reporting. I find it hard to believe any liberal is ok with violence against a woman simply because of where it occurred.

We are seeing a range of violence against women that generations before us never saw


I call BS. We've made progress. But we cannot stop to pat ourselves on the back. A lot of work remains to be done. But being dishonest about it doesn't help.


But the larger issue is an interesting one. Based on a reasonable application of personal freedom, people should be able to provide sexual services. The argument would be that fundamentally they are no different than other services bought or sold. One counter-argument is that they are different, on a moral level. I don't happen to agree with that, and I suspect many liberals don't either. Preventing the exercise of personal freedom for "moral reasons" has been the foundation of a lot of racist, sexist, and homophobic policies.

But there is an criminal-element argument as well. The unique social dynamics of prostitution provide fertile ground for criminal organizations (large and small) that mistreat prostitutes to increase profit margins. Banning prostitution because we haven't properly regulated or supervised it seems harsh. And there are niches within the sex trade that do not engage in mistreatment. Hard to justify closing them down to combat the harmful acts of others. Before banning it I would prefer other options be investigated. Regulation. Co-ops. Protection. Licensing. Whatever. Be innovative.
User avatar
IcE ColD
Registered Broad
Posts: 9270
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Out of Purgatory
Has given rep: 31 times
Received rep: 75 times

Post #466 by IcE ColD » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:05 am

Dog wrote:Why won't anybody think of the transgendered, handicapped, lesbian, ugly fat black woman?

:why:


Don't worry, you just did. There's still hope left!
This whole idea that we are even important is a fucking illusion. We’re just an accident left to our own devices.

Trent Reznor - 24/07/2018
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 15 times

Post #467 by Roughneck » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:37 pm

Aren't most people put in prison or deported against their will?
User avatar
Roughneck
Registered Broad
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm
Location: Cowtown
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 15 times

Post #468 by Roughneck » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:25 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Watch the video of Kristof doing that. He's ostensibly "saving" them. They go to prison, cops get more money from taxpayers worried about the women.


Yeah I get that, I'm just poking fun at the redundant phrasing that implies there are significant subsets of people who are hoping to be sent to prison or deported but just can't seem to make it work.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #469 by RTWAP » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:19 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Sometimes I think some intersectional feminists go too far with all the hatin of white dudes. Those thoughts just got buried in some corner with the stats behind Mike Peluso's pro-set rookie card

RTWAP, I can't believe you actually pulled an #alllivesmatter right before pulling an MLK whitewash to wipe your ass with what are essentially MLK's own beliefs

But by all means, DID ANYBODY BOTHER TO THINK OF THE WHITES FEELINGS


You're using nothing but buzzwords and labels. Please provide some actual content in your response next time.

Big#D wrote:but they don't want to be saved by some priviledged white woman. they want to overcome their disadvantages themselves. and they think themselves strong enough to do so.


That is definitely understandable. If they feel like some white feminist is being boorish while ostensibly "supporting" them then by all means, try to get that person to understand how their "support" is perceived. But if it's just non-constructive criticism and victim-status claiming then why bother?

Big#D wrote:Analogy time:
I'm assuming this is something like a person working on a crossword puzzle and then someone else walks in the room, looks over their shoulder and says the answer to 23 down when all the person wanted to do is finish the puzzle by themselves.


Good analogy, but aside from the worst possible examples, the "help" provided by white feminists is more like offering a dictionary to someone complaining about how tough the crossword is. Take it, or don't, but either way it shouldn't generate disrespect or insults in response.

dempsey_k wrote:Nothing anybody says can convince RTWAP that he's billowing white male tears of aggrievement and a supporter of structural sexism and racism. There is no point in discussing it.


You conclude this from no interaction with me whatsoever? You're just being an insulting dick. Either you're doing it for kicks, in which case I really should put you on ignore because life's too short to deal with shits like you. Or you don't know you're completely failing to engage in reasonable and open dialogue, in which case why should I care what you think, and again ignore seems like a good option.

dempsey_k wrote:What you're saying is that people should ignore Laura Bush and Jay Leno's wife campaigning trying to give freedims to Muslim women, or that Sheryl Sandberg reaching a compromise with the boys club so that elite wealthy women can have it good at the expense of all other women should be given a pass, or that Nick Kristof going on midnight raids embedded with police to put prostitutes in prison or deport them against their will mostly so local Police departments can get more tax dollars is cool and should also be given a pass.


Woah. An actual substantive response.

Those all seem like positions and actions that should be criticized. But the original article didn't talk much about that, and in my response I acknowledged that well-intentioned but ignorant people exist and should be informed of their ignorance. If after doing so they still persist then they're making an active choice to ignore those they are "helping". That's not just ignorance at that point.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 28 times
Received rep: 34 times

Post #470 by RTWAP » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:21 pm

dempsey_k wrote:I don't go for anything substantive with you because I know it's pointless, it's just how the brain works. If you ever stop feeling threatened by equality it'll be on your own emotional logic, not any argument here. , but it's still fun to point out that you walk into cliches other supporters of structural racism and sexism know better than to fail to conceal.


Ad hominem attacks? I didn't think you were that lame. You haven't engaged me on my observations or opinions. Which is too bad because I could probably learn something from you if you did. But whatever.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 18664
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 34 times
Received rep: 474 times

Post #471 by Craig » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:52 pm

RTWAP wrote:Ad hominem attacks? I didn't think you were that lame. You haven't engaged me on my observations or opinions. Which is too bad because I could probably learn something from you if you did. But whatever.


Welcome to discussing politics with Dempsey. It's either this or him telling you to read a bunch of articles. The guy hasn't actually elaborated on an opinion since 2007.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 23957
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 612 times
Received rep: 715 times

Post #472 by AD » Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:11 am

For the record, I loved Full House.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 10747
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 262 times
Received rep: 493 times

Post #473 by senate » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:59 am

AD wrote:For the record, I loved Full House.


Even knowing how Uncle Joey treated Alanis? Misogynist.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 23957
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 612 times
Received rep: 715 times

Post #474 by AD » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:12 pm

I would forgive anything for that hair.

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest