|
I'm gettin' the distinct impression that Enrico Furby reads a lot of Ayn Rand, and as usual considers themselves as John Galt as opposed to railway construction worker #1693
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
deranged rants and responses to same aside, "third-wave feminism" is a good sign the speaker learned the bulk of what they know about feminism from anti-feminists. there isn't much of a coherent "third wave" within feminism - it's mostly a vague term for post-second-wave feminism. there are third wave movements and ideologies: intersectionality, transfeminism, sex-work-inclusive feminism, choice feminism (admittedly a term used different ways by different groups), queer theory, CRT applied to feminism, etc. not everyone subscribes to all of these, and some of them are actively contradictory. anti-feminists use "third-wave feminism" as a dogwhistle for the "new feminism that goes too far". the implication is that feminism has done enough and should stop now, not that the speaker is a big fan of dworkin and mackinnon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
I always used it as a big catchall for the various attempts to expand feminism to near universality. Always seemed like a pretty good idea to me as it forms a good basis for critical social analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I always used it as a big catchall for the various attempts to expand feminism to near universality. Always seemed like a pretty good idea to me as it forms a good basis for critical social analysis. Same, I see no reason to let regressives own it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:everyone is stupid except me 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Cease to Hope posted:deranged rants and responses to same aside, "third-wave feminism" is a good sign the speaker learned the bulk of what they know about feminism from anti-feminists. there isn't much of a coherent "third wave" within feminism - it's mostly a vague term for post-second-wave feminism. there are third wave movements and ideologies: intersectionality, transfeminism, sex-work-inclusive feminism, choice feminism (admittedly a term used different ways by different groups), queer theory, CRT applied to feminism, etc. not everyone subscribes to all of these, and some of them are actively contradictory. And by "new feminism that goes too far" they usually mean "feminism that hurts my feelings because they criticize video games and comic books".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:It is. It assumes that the default thing men do is rape, and that only via some sort of seminar can that issue be fixed. This reads a lot like the crazy things anti-racists say about how they get labeled as racists and their lives are ruined and that's why we shouldn't call their racism out on dead gay comedy forums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
for example, "toxic masculinity" is a third-wave idea much caricatured by anti-feminists as the second-wave idea it itself criticizes. toxic masculinity is the idea that men and boys are trained with a set of anti-social and self-destructive ideas as a part of male social acculturation. the third wave concept of toxic masculinity holds that these specific toxic ideas can be isolated, undone, and prevented or neutralized. they are not inherent to male biology, nor would neutralizing them require the abolition of maleness as a gender. neutralizing them is not only a matter of justice, but also a matter of self-interest for men, as they're still destructive when applied by men to themselves, by men to other men, or by women to men. (the essential book on this is Masculinities, by Connell.) the anti-feminist caricature of toxic masculinity is that merely being a man or being masculine is inherently destructive - which is an actual second-wave position! i am phrasing it a bit uncharitably because i don't subscribe to it, but this is the thesis of Intercourse, and a running theme in a great deal of the feminist thought flowing from Second Sex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
The way nerds have been describing third wave feminism in general is like, bizarro waves, where somehow third wave feminism is actually everything bad about late second wave feminism (bourgie, white, anti-sex, anti sex workers, anti queer, prone to working with the religious right, etc) rather than the effective end result of trying to build intersectional feminism that tried to integrate ethnic and sexual minorities, the poor and especially sex workers and was largely initiated by said women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Enrico Furby posted:I agree somewhat, but sadly this happens all too often in D&D. There are a million places to circlejerk over why third wave feminism is the best thing to ever happen, but someone sets up a thread to critique and it is instantly overrun with trolls who run it into the ground. Typical and, laughably enough, the kind of thing I'd expect way more from alt-right assholes a mere decade ago. Rather than complain about websites like Buzzfeed and Huffington Post dictating third-wave feminism, tell us what your complaints are specifically to third-wave feminism. If you can in good faith list critiques instead of blaming the nebulous  liberal media I'm sure many people would try to debate you in a serious manner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
"We hate third wave feminism because of things done by second wavers during the second wave", says person who only cares about feminism because a milquetoast feminist posted a dumb intro-level critique of their favorite videogame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:for example, "toxic masculinity" is a third-wave idea much caricatured by anti-feminists as the second-wave idea it itself criticizes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Most of the things that I dislike are only tangentially associated with feminism but have at er and tell me how im wrong! How colleges deal with sexual assault How society at large handles sexual assault cases (Ghomeshi case) How small issues seem to blow up due to certain political ideas taking sides (See Gregory Elliot vs Stephanie Guthrie) How critique on feminism gets overtaken by extremists who think SJW's are out to get them How critiquing feminism or anything related to it gets you branded as a racist/sexist. I think my problem is more about how society and the circles around feminism/anti-feminism act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
stone cold posted:"You broads get all hysterical, I like that you're such a caricature that I can write posts like the above an set you off. I assure you, it is very intentional. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Most of the things that I dislike are only tangentially associated with feminism but have at er and tell me how im wrong! Society at large handles sexual assault as an excuse to do a trial of the victim, so you should be angry. quote:I like that you're such a caricature that I can write posts like the above an set you off. I assure you, it is very intentional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The logical next point is a male-focused Fourth Wave that's all about focusing on how you can excise only the parts of masculinity that hurts men specifically. you've got the order backwards on this one. toxic masculinity is drawing from queer theory, which itself draws heavily from feminist thought. Sethex posted:I like that you're such a caricature that I can write posts like the above an set you off. I assure you, it is very intentional. dance puppets dance, only pretending to be stupid, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Society at large handles sexual assault as an excuse to do a trial of the victim, so you should be angry. Ill expand on this. Sexual assault cases suck. Immediately the victim and accussed are examined and society starts forming their own stories. Society starts dictating what they deem is "Justice" just off of opinion. Ghomeshi case is a good example as nobody involved was innocent and yet nobody gets punished (Criminally at least). I'd much rather the identity of the accused and victim remain secret.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Society at large handles sexual assault as an excuse to do a trial of the victim, so you should be angry. I think his point was the relatively popular chorus of "hey guys, maybe we should rethink this whole presumption of innocence thing" based on the Ghomeshi case. Absolutely there was some degree of the victims being put on trial in that case too, to some degree in the court. While Canada is pretty strict on calling someone's sexual history into question, there were for sure questions about the victim's actions after the alleged assault (texting him the day after, etc.). I think there was some pretty vocal and simplistic stuff from both sides during the aftermath of that case. It's reckless to say we should abandon the presumption of innocence because the results of a court case didn't go as you wanted. And frankly, there was no way there could legitimately be any other verdict from that case based on what happened in court. But there are absolutely things that we can do to make the legal system work better for cases like these - like having someone that represents the victim's interest, rather than just the Crown's, or switching focus over to civil cases vs. criminal in cases like these.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you've got the order backwards on this one. toxic masculinity is drawing from queer theory, which itself draws heavily from feminist thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I'd much rather the identity of the accused and victim remain secret. This wouldn't really work for cases like the Ghomeshi case though (at least in terms of keeping the accused a secret). There were multiple public accusations made independent of the criminal case before any charges were laid - and what's more - those public accusations are essential when you're dealing with influential people - one person reporting rape brings other cases to light as well. Same deal as with Bill Cosby. If the accused is never named, people stay silent. Keeping the victim secret I could get behind though. Are there constitutional issues with that? (I honestly have no idea, some kind of "face your accuser" or public trial sort of thing?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:??? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Toxic masculinity is not the same as a movement that deals with excising only the parts of it that hurt men specifically? feminist ideas on toxic masculinity are already based on queer theory ideas about how (particularly gay) men could reconstruct masculinity to be less self-destructive. it's up to you if you want to call Sedgwick a feminist or not, but much of Between Men is about how male homosexuality exposes heteronormative aspects of masculinity which are self-destructive for men in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
How is a famous rape case any different than a famous murder case? The court of opinion didn't not exist in something like the OJ simpson trial. Why is it always treated like "people might think things" is a unique issue with rape only?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
This is kind of a silly place to use that thought terminating cliche. It's a biotruth to say that women love pink because evolution, it's not really one to say that half the population is basically taking steroids and the other half has a cycle of mood changing drugs going through their body monthly, and it's hard to say how this affects employment. Given how dimorphic men and women are it would be kind of surprising if they had similar statistics in everything across the board. Biotruths are not the same as true statements about biology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:This is kind of a silly place to use that thought terminating cliche. It's a biotruth to say that women love pink because evolution, it's not really one to say that half the population is basically taking steroids and the other half has a cycle of mood changing drugs going through their body monthly, and it's hard to say how this affects employment. Given how dimorphic men and women are it would be kind of surprising if they had similar statistics in everything across the board. Periods actually vary tremendously based on the environment (monthly periods are a modern phenomenon due to how bad modern diets are and how much girls are encouraged to be sedentary; cultural pressures against women also contribute to a lot of developmental differences and I could unironically argue that most women have stunted growth and largely be right*) and men actually do have mood swinging effects from testosterone. Sexual dimorphism is also extremely variable based on environmental conditions. Hominids have low sexual dimorphism in general compared to literally every other mammalian species. *A biology thesis at the University of Paris made the same case not too long ago actually Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:it's hard to say how this affects employment. Nah, it's super easy, just do what everyone else does when they start talking about this: say that it justifies exactly the makeup of american society specifically in 2017 (but even only the parts you like of that, the parts that don't fit also don't count).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Nah, it's super easy, just do what everyone else does when they start talking about this: say that it justifies exactly the makeup of american society specifically in 2017 (but even only the parts you like of that, the parts that don't fit also don't count). That's the thing though, Stone Cold's post was responding to someone just saying that the confounding factors haven't been taken into account. I don't really care either way, for all I know the actual cause is the giant invisible robot patriarchy shoving every woman out of office. I just don't like the stupid use of thought terminating cliches like *biotruths*
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:That's the thing though, Stone Cold's post was responding to someone just saying that the confounding factors haven't been taken into account. I don't really care either way, for all I know the actual cause is the giant invisible robot patriarchy shoving every woman out of office. I just don't like the stupid use of thought terminating cliches like *biotruths* Confounding factors don't work with loving maths, where the student population is rapidly getting to near gender parity in like half the first world already. They also don't work when talking about CEOs or SV hiring practices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Confounding factors don't work with loving maths, where the student population is rapidly getting to near gender parity in like half the first world already. Of course confounding factors are there. It doesn't meant that the hypothesis that it's sexism is wrong, but it's good to demonstrate that it's not something like men being more indoctrinated to sacrifice to feed the capitalist machine (see Karoshi) while women are taught to value their own well being and happiness. You can think up any number of possible explanations, they're all potentially confounding factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
enki42 posted:This wouldn't really work for cases like the Ghomeshi case though (at least in terms of keeping the accused a secret). There were multiple public accusations made independent of the criminal case before any charges were laid - and what's more - those public accusations are essential when you're dealing with influential people - one person reporting rape brings other cases to light as well. Same deal as with Bill Cosby. If the accused is never named, people stay silent. Like keep the victim's identity a secret from the public? I'm not a lawyer but I can't think of any reason not, given we already protect the identity of even the accused in certain cases (Youth Criminal Justice Act). Plus not sure how it's in the public's interest to have to know who is accusing someone of a crime anyway. From the accused though? I don't see how that would be possible given it would be pretty impossible to mount a defence if the accused doesn't even know who is accusing them. That probably would violate the right to a fair trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This part is not that controversial. The more controversial idea, which is one that many but not all feminists have, is that it is not good enough that we treat them as equals under the law. In order for women to actually achieve parity with men in society, the law must favor them in order to counteract the in-practice prejudice that many women face. Pulling back from a few pages but the thread moved pretty darn fast. This is the rub in pretty much every movement to address historical systemic injustice. Be it regarding race, gender, religion, class or what ever injustice one is addressing. The reality is that the existing injustice was the result of generations of weighting the scales in favor of one group to the detriment of the other and that those weightings have real lasting ongoing effects. That even though the laws of today may be "fair" a level playing field is not possible because the privileged group retains a favorable starting position. And to paraphrase the late great Molly Ivins, "there is no defense more rigorous than that of an unearned privilege". I'm not a racist says the Caucasian, I wasn't even born when slavery was a thing so why should I suffer to give minorities a leg up, why should they get special consideration? I'm no sexist says the man, I support equality of the sexes , I wasn't even alive when women couldn't vote and were considered property, I'm not rapist and I fully support choice but why should I get passed up for a promotion to support my family because some academic says that there should be parity in leadership? I'm no capitalist says the limousine liberal, I believe in the rights of all to equal opportunity , but why shouldn't I be able to leave the profits of my work to my children rather than letting the state tax it and redistribute it to promote wealth equality? The reality is that those historical inequities have inertia like a massive ship the structure of society will continue along the course of injustice without any further steering and the course can only changed be by a firm corrective application of force to the rudder. That force will by necessity rock the boat and some will inevitably lose their footing. A privilege is invisible to most until it is threatened or removed. Even then it's difficult for the benefactor to recognize that the advantage was unfairly gained at the expense of others particularly when the connection isn't immediately apparent. People also tend to be myopic and only see past their own immediate orbit with great difficulty, if at all. Activists for any cause have a very hard sell to make. They have to convince people (very often those with power) to act against their own short term interests. One would think that feminism is an easy sell to women at least right? Well no , not necessarily many women are mothers of boys and will and that will set them against changes and actions that they perceive as hostile to men. So even seemingly no easy sells are often far more difficult than one would think. Feminists also faces the same problem that all progressive movements do, The regressive arguments are short, pithy and fit on a bumper sticker. Those arguments may be wrong but it takes longer to explain why they are wrong than it does for the opposition to spew 20 other wrong things that sound like "common sense" and can fit on a bumper sticker. And after explaining it 1000 different times to 1000 different people patience wanes and snark and contempt win out and the biting sarcastic responses then serve to reinforce the regressive's arguments that the activists are just a bunch of man hating bitter spinsters. I don't know the answer to that conundrum. But when someone figures it out a new era of peace and prosperity will be ushered in for all humankind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:monthly periods are a modern phenomenon due to how bad modern diets are and how much girls are encouraged to be sedentary quote:I could unironically argue that most women have stunted growth and largely be right Not questioning just curious, but do you have articles / the paper you mentioned? I've never heard these before and they're kinda blowing my mind. I tried googling but it's a hard thing to come up with a search term for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Not questioning just curious, but do you have articles / the paper you mentioned? I've never heard these before and they're kinda blowing my mind. I tried googling but it's a hard thing to come up with a search term for. I could probably dig up the title of the specific PhD thesis but that would be buried in old college notebooks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I could probably dig up the title of the specific PhD thesis but that would be buried in old college notebooks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:Particularly for this thread, I feel like if people are going to make biological claims about women, they need significantly better evidence than "a PhD thesis, somewhere, agrees with me, maybe". It's not like  posters are doing more than screaming "but women have periods and hit like girls" without really supporting their arguments.
Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:What on earth are you talking about? You responded with "Poe's Law" to an accurate assessment of Lena Dunham, who was (I think) uniroincally called a leader of Feminism in the thread. That's not responding at all to his assertion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Periods actually vary tremendously based on the environment (monthly periods are a modern phenomenon due to how bad modern diets are and how much girls are encouraged to be sedentary; cultural pressures against women also contribute to a lot of developmental differences and I could unironically argue that most women have stunted growth and largely be right*) and men actually do have mood swinging effects from testosterone. Yeah I'd like to see some actual research on this as well. As far as I'm aware there is ethnographical data on indigenous tribes that suggest that women in those societies have fewer periods, but I heard the explanation for that was malnutrition. (Which makes sense because we already know that malnutrition fucks with your menstrual cycle in any society. You can see this in female athletes who overtrain and keep their bodyfat extremely low. They often develop irregular menstrual cycles.) You seem to be making the argument that those societies are actually "normal" and monthly periods today are a result of bad nutrition, which seems extremely implausible to me, given that health nuts who do meet their nutritional requirements and work out sensibly still have monthly periods. So yeah, unless I completely misunderstood your point, "monthly periods are a modern phenomenon due to how bad modern diets are and how much girls are encouraged to be sedentary" seems to be bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
There aren't even anti-feminists on this forum, this place is almost 100% SJW hugbox. I posted a link to an actual anti-feminist website, and as predicted, completely ignored. What does the OP even want, then? The OP comes off as "wow, there are actually people who DISLIKE feminism? Good heavens! What could be going on in those utterly alien brains?" I don't think anyone in here is interested in anything but actually defending feminism and I expect to get banned for even talking about realsexism.com again on this hilarious virtue signaling forum. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:There aren't even anti-feminists on this forum, this place is almost 100% SJW hugbox. There's an insufficient amount of empty right-wing buzzwords in this post to establish your independent thinking I'm-above-it-all cred, try harder and make that ten bucks worth it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
botany posted:Yeah I'd like to see some actual research on this as well. As far as I'm aware there is ethnographical data on indigenous tribes that suggest that women in those societies have fewer periods, but I heard the explanation for that was malnutrition. (Which makes sense because we already know that malnutrition fucks with your menstrual cycle in any society. You can see this in female athletes who overtrain and keep their bodyfat extremely low. They often develop irregular menstrual cycles.) You seem to be making the argument that those societies are actually "normal" and monthly periods today are a result of bad nutrition, which seems extremely implausible to me, given that health nuts who do meet their nutritional requirements and work out sensibly still have monthly periods. So yeah, unless I completely misunderstood your point, "monthly periods are a modern phenomenon due to how bad modern diets are and how much girls are encouraged to be sedentary" seems to be bullshit. Another big change is that contemporary women in modern western society have access to birth control and aren't expected to marry young to manufacture babies by default. One reason women in the past or in less developed ares of the world had fewer periods was because they were likely to more or less constantly be pregnant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
botany posted:Yeah I'd like to see some actual research on this as well. As far as I'm aware there is ethnographical data on indigenous tribes that suggest that women in those societies have fewer periods, but I heard the explanation for that was malnutrition. (Which makes sense because we already know that malnutrition fucks with your menstrual cycle in any society. You can see this in female athletes who overtrain and keep their bodyfat extremely low. They often develop irregular menstrual cycles.) You seem to be making the argument that those societies are actually "normal" and monthly periods today are a result of bad nutrition, which seems extremely implausible to me, given that health nuts who do meet their nutritional requirements and work out sensibly still have monthly periods. So yeah, unless I completely misunderstood your point, "monthly periods are a modern phenomenon due to how bad modern diets are and how much girls are encouraged to be sedentary" seems to be bullshit. Low body fat isn't necessarily malnutrition though, and nomadic societies were actually rarely malnourished compared to early sedentarization's impact on lifespan and health in general. Humans aren't really made to be sedentary, it's just something we have to work around because of the way societies evolved over time. The decreasing age for puberty is also not necessarily healthy as it tends to lead to growth ending far younger than normal. Admittedly my interpretation is also probably biased, but it was mostly a heat of the moment reaction to biotruths arguments, that women tend on average to be more likely to be malnourished growing up, for example. quote:because they were likely to more or less constantly be pregnant. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:23
|
|