~ archived since 2018 ~

How Is This Acceptable?

Infinity499

December 30, 2016

32 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	How Is This Acceptable?
Author	Infinity499
Upvotes	32
Comments	40
Date	December 30, 2016 6:23 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5l4wxi/how_is_this_acceptable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-is-this-acceptable.934888 https://theredarchive.com/post/934888

Comments

[–]William__F0ster 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Infinity499 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]William__F0ster 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]jimmywiddle 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]William__F0ster 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

What do you expect from the Everyday sexism project ?

Now there's a question!

Actually, serious now, have you ever been on there and read any of the posts? I know she closed it down - once, you know, it gave her the professional media career she presumably had in mind when she started it - but for a while you could read through the comments that were there.

It was pretty incredible - all anonymous, not a single one substantiated so impossible to tell which were fabrications or not (and no effort made to find out).

I only managed to read the first few pages/screens, but I remember being startled by a woman complaining that a waitress had come to her table and set down the plate with a steak at her husband's place, but the bowl with the salad at hers - she was furious at the waitress because the order was the reverse (i.e. hers was the steak, his the salad).

And next to that was a long, rambling tale from a student in a student house who - as far as I could gather - seemed to be alleging that her ex-boyfriend who lived in the same house had raped her - which is obviously a serious criminal allegation, and not even remotely an example of 'Everyday sexism.'

Anyway ...

[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]William__F0ster 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

"Everyday Whining"

Ha ha ha that's brilliant. Also, accurate.

Everyday sexism really is just a demonstration of the special snowflake syndrome that feminists so desperately get off on.

Hmm, I don't know though ... While there are many Tumblerinas out there for sure, I think it should always be remembered that there are an awful lot of highly intelligent, very articulate women out there who are committed to feminism with a passion that is quite unquenchable.

As a friend of mine remarked of Lenin once, intelligence is not only no bar to believing in mumbo jumbo, but actually facilitates it - because after all, the more intelligent you are the more able you are to rationalise and theorise your beliefs - however irrational what you believe in is.

What I mean is, Everyday Sexism is actually a very cunning way of appearing to provide evidence for the existence of an all pervasive rape culture (i.e. it's the idea that all the little 'micro-aggressions' are what normalises the idea that women are unimportant and from there, that men are entitled to their bodies as and when they want them).

I mean, it's nonsense - something which becomes apparent as soon as you delve into what was written their - but she/they were using the fallacy of the 'weight of numbers' to overwhelm critics (i.e. "Look! There are over a 100,000/1,000,000 comments left by ordinary women! That proves it!").

The fact that like with any petition of that sort that none of the stories are verifiable, but taken on trust and that any number of those messages could have been written as jokes and signed by M. Mouse or whatever requires someone to plough through them all to discover whether or not it's true - a truly Augean task which, in any case, is rendered futile because by the time you can expose the bullshit the narrative that it spins has since passed into common knowledge of the kind 'everyone knows'.

[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

"an awful lot of highly intelligent, very articulate women out there who are committed to feminism"

There really aren't.

"What I mean is, Everyday Sexism is actually a very cunning way of appearing to provide evidence for the existence of an all pervasive rape culture"

There is no such thing as "rape culture" and it doesn't prove that a non-existent entity exists. It just demonstrates the stupidity of feminists and from what I saw women who walk around in a constant state of being offended by just about everybody and everything.

Everyone that I have ever spoken to that has seen the every day sexism site has without any prompting told me its ridiculous. It has achieved nothing but demonstrate the ridiculousness of modern day feminism.

Anyone with half a brain does not take statistics or figures at face value and uses critical thinking to dig into the studies or material used to come to that figure. Saying that just because there is a number, that it is all powerful is something which is gladly becoming a thing of the past as people wake up to the fraudulent and blatantly biased studies that have been done.

[–]William__F0ster 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

There really aren't.

I beg to differ. I think if you want to present a cogent challenge to feminist politics, it is worth starting from the position that many of them - at the top I mean - are really quite intelligent indeed.

I agree that they generally wrong on almost every level that it's possible to be wrong on, but that does not make them less intelligent.

I would never confuse the regurgitating foot soldiers who've learned the feminist political catechisms which they spout endlessly on Tumblr with the folk higher up who wrote the catechism.

There is no such thing as "rape culture"

I think you'll find the comment I made after the one you quoted was:

... a very cunning way of appearing to provide evidence ... I mean, it's nonsense

So ... yes, I know. I even explained how it was nonsense:

... she/they were using the fallacy of the 'weight of numbers' to overwhelm critics (i.e. "Look! There are over a 100,000/1,000,000 comments left by ordinary women! That proves it!") [but] by the time you can expose the bullshit the narrative that it spins has since passed into common knowledge of the kind 'everyone knows'.

My point being that the energy required to create bullshit is in almost inverse proportion to the amount of effort to demonstrate how and why it's bullshit.

Bullshit expressed with fervour and passion gives it the patina of truth - or if not truth at least plausibility - that is very hard to untangle and leads the critic down the rabbit hole of complex details - by which time the audience may well have moved on and moved on in favour of the bullshitter.

Anyone with half a brain does not take statistics or figures at face value and uses critical thinking to dig into the studies or material used to come to that figure

Sure.

But being cunning is not the same as being intelligent; or not precisely so.

[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

My point being that the energy required to create bullshit is in almost inverse proportion to the amount of effort to demonstrate how and why it's bullshit.

I take your point on that, dumb people will believe dumb articles and sometimes its not worth the time to explain to said dumb people why the article is incorrect. However thats a very slippery slope and can lead to the "why bother trying at all" methodology which is dangerous and is why we are in the position we are in where feminist hysteria and lies now dominate the press and media and people lack the maturity and intellect to challenge it at all instead they gobble it up.

More people need to take the time and prove their lies to be false and to stand up to it, regardless of how long it takes and regardless of how many people may have moved on by that point. Slowly and surely when their articles and blogs are constantly debunked people will eventually wake up and realise the truth.

"I beg to differ. I think if you want to present a cogent challenge to feminist politics, it is worth starting from the position that many of them - at the top I mean - are really quite intelligent indeed."

And how exactly do you go about identifying the top of feminism ? They have no hierarchy, they have no leadership, and every feminist just makes up their own definition based on their own beliefs. That does not sound very intelligent to me. In fact over the last 10 years I have yet to meet an intelligent feminist, I have talked to and debated a lot both in real life and online and nearly all of them have resorted to petty labels and childish tit for tat politics and their ridiculous approach to solving issues which only solves half the problem for half the people just because one group suffers from something slightly more. The vast majority of them also appear to be suffering from mental health conditions and seem to be either incredibly narcissistic and or are suffering from depression. And before you come back with a NAFALT response, in my experience which I believe to be quite extensive compared to a lot of people they are. The only one that has broken that rule is Christina Hoff Summers and I would call her an egalitarian not a feminist.

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

However thats a very slippery slope ...

That's an extrapolation. The reason for describing that fallacy of weight of numbers in the first place was to simply to explain why I believe Everyday Sexism was cunning - not to explain why it was right (it's not) - and why it cannot simply by casually dismissed (well, I mean it can - but the point is that it is not easy to get other people to see it that way).

dumb people will believe dumb articles

I realise I'm taking your comments out of order, but anyway - if there are any slippery slopes here, it is the one that starts from the assumption that other people are idiots and that your (i.e. 'one's') opinion is naturally superior.

There are far fewer 'dumb people' than most of us would like to imagine or admit to - to readily dismiss people who disagree with us as being dumb is not really much better than to label someone a misogynist as a way of dismissing disagreements without having to engage with why they disagree.

... why we are in the position we are in where feminist hysteria and lies now dominate the press and media ...

I do not think it is because people are apathetic that feminist politics has such a strong influence on the MSM and government. I think it is because although feminist politics is actually not so popular overall, it is hugely popular within the most educated and wealthiest segments of society.

More people need to take the time and prove their lies to be false and to stand up to it, regardless of how long it takes and regardless of how many people may have moved on by that point.

Well, yes, I'm sure you're right - but this takes time - a long time - and you have to remember that every person that does stand up will not only have to deal with presenting new ideas but will also have to do so while being surrounded by large numbers of influential people (the MSM, academia, politicians, business leaders, celebrities etc.) continually deriding them, knocking them down, drowning out their voices.

It is not simply a matter of standing up to to be counted when you know that your head will get shot off the moment you do stand up - which does neither you nor the message you are trying to promote any good.

This is not an argument for doing or saying nothing - it is an argument, however, not to be naive about just how difficult that task is to do right.

And how exactly do you go about identifying the top of feminism ?

It's much easier than you think.

There is the top layer, usually based in academia, that produce the language, the jargon such as "White Cisnormative Heteropatriarchy" and so on.

Then there is the secondary layer that they are usually in close contact with - these tend to be leading journalists and other media figures - your Clementine Fords, your Laurie Pennys and so on - who are usually the first to popularise the jargon such as "White Cisnormative Heteropatriarchy" and so on (incidentally, people like that don't need intelligence - just a popular audience. They are 'femagogues')

Those are the top layers - regardless of what disagreements they have among themselves and regardless of the fact, as you point out, that there is no 'Pope' of feminism - there is, nevertheless, a remarkable degree of consistency in the messages they put out.

every feminist just makes up their own definition based on their own beliefs. That does not sound very intelligent to me.

I may be wrong, but as I pointed out earlier ITT, you should never confuse the regurgitating foot soldiers - the Tumblerinas and so on - with the people who supply the message to be regurgitated.

I have been clear from the outset - the intelligence is at the top - not at the kind of 17 year-old girls that Youtubers like Bearing or Undoomed regularly take pot shots at.

The vast majority of them also appear to be suffering from mental health conditions ...

Well, this is true - but you have to bear in mind that whether the useful idiots you have been conversing with IRL or online are aware of it or not, the mental health issues thing has been very much turned into a strategy in feminist politics.

A good example is femagogue Laurie Penny - she continually implies or even outright states that her brushes with mental health in the past (and perhaps the present) would not have happened if not for the pressures of having to live under Patriarchy.

Talking about anorexia appears to have fallen of the frontline of feminist politics in recent years for some reason - but it's still there, and it is still being used as 'evidence' to support the feminist political position that the society we live in destroys women, makes them ill, physically and mentally though the pressures it brings to bear on them.

The only one that has broken that rule is Christina Hoff Summers and I would call her an egalitarian not a feminist.

But you know she calls herself a feminist, right? She even has a book called Freedom Feminism in which she tries to rescue feminism from the kind of destructive feminist politics she feels has taken it over.

How does that make you feel?

[–]jimmywiddle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I realise I'm taking your comments out of order, but anyway - if there are any slippery slopes here, it is the one that starts from the assumption that other people are idiots and that your (i.e. 'one's') opinion is naturally superior."

My opinions are based on fact and quantifiable evidence. Facts and evidence can be verified. Therefore my fact / evidence based opinion vs a feminist who has based her opinions on her feelings means that my opinion is far more accurate representation of the truth. Its common sense. Logic, intelligence and facts are what I base my views on. If someone "feels" that x = y or "believes" that J = G then that is utterly meaningless. Where as if I can categorically prove that x = b with peer reviewed studies that have been carried out by an unbiased organisation that view of mine is more accurate than their feelings based conclusion.

"Well, yes, I'm sure you're right - but this takes time - a long time - and you have to remember that every person that does stand up will not only have to deal with presenting new ideas but will also have to do so while being surrounded by large numbers of influential people (the MSM, academia, politicians, business leaders, celebrities etc.) continually deriding them, knocking them down, drowning out their voices. It is not simply a matter of standing up to to be counted when you know that your head will get shot off the moment you do stand up - which does neither you nor the message you are trying to promote any good."

No one said what we do is easy. However if we don't do it, who will ?

"But you know she calls herself a feminist, right? She even has a book called Freedom Feminism in which she tries to rescue feminism from the kind of destructive feminist politics she feels has taken it over. How does that make you feel?"

My feelings are irrelevant, what matters is the evidence. She has been on tour with Milo Yiannopoulos and supported him. Milo is about as anti-feminist as you can get and has constantly stated his feelings for the left and feminist rhetoric. She has tried to desperately cling on to the label of feminist in some kind of desperate attempt to save it. She has failed. She has been attacked by feminists repeatedly when she tries to speak at universities and colleges she is no friend to them. She has also produced a lot of youtube videos debunking feminists and appeared on other shows that regularly debunk feminist hysteria. Oh and she also stood up against the SJWs that were attacking gamers during gamer gate.

In regards to Bearing and Undoomed, I believe their efforts are valuable also. They regularly enlighten a lot of people to the ridiculousness of feminism and that is not a bad thing.

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm responding to this not to be antagonistic, but because I find it interesting, for one thing, but for another because I think it's important to grasp the difficulties and challenges inherent in some of what you are saying.

My opinions are based on fact and quantifiable evidence ... if I can categorically prove that x = b with peer reviewed studies that have been carried out by an unbiased organisation

So just out interest, how do you respond to facts and figures that come out of an organisation such as NOW or the Fabian Women's Network or the Counting Dead Women projects?

Each one of those organisations produce figures derived from quantitative methods of analysis and they have frequently (but not always - e.g. the Counting Dead Women project figures) been subjected to peer review and so on.

Now obviously, someone could object that NOW or the Fabian Women's Network are biased organisations - but is Hoff-Sommers's American Enterprise Institute politically neutral? Of course not.

The UK's ONS (Office of National Statistics) or e.g. the US Bureau of Labor Statistics are probably the nearest you could get to a 'non-biased' or neutral body, but in the case of both they are continually hampered by political lobbying, complaints and criticism from all sides and they often have to take this into account - especially when producing statistics on hot topics such as evidence for whether or not a gender-discriminatory wage gap exists.

Facts and evidence can be verified.

Well, yes indeed they can - and this was my point about Everyday Sexism and why it was 'cunning'. Consciously or otherwise, it is an attempt to overwhelm critics by sheer weight of numbers of the submissions of complaints to that site.

In order to verify whether or not the complaints submitted to Everyday Sexism are valid examples of 'sexism' would take someone a great deal of time and effort - they would first have to find a working definition of sexism; they would likely then have to create a typology of sexist behaviours; they would then need to painstakingly comb through every comment left on the Everyday Sexism site - which I believe is over a million or something like that - and categorise them; and finally, they would also of course have to take a significant random sample from all those million comments and investigate each one of them to find out whether they were fake or not - a near impossible task given that the site was set up to allow anonymous commenters to submit their examples of Everyday Sexism.

And that - the fact that it would take a great deal of time, effort and money to unpick that - was the point I am getting at - Bates successfully made her political point using Everyday Sexism and made it loud enough that she has since given talks at TEDx Women, the Oxford University Union, the British Academy - and these things have no doubt helped to give her a regular column in The Guardian and Hay Levels.

It would not be completely futile at this point to complete a critical review of Bates's Everyday Sexism - but there is a point at which you have to ask 'How effective would such a critical evaluation be, considering how long it would take to do, how many people would need to be involved, how much it would cost to undertake given that the impact of the outcome of such a review would be rather feeble at best?'.

For example, Bane666 has spent several years now detailing the egregious lies and blatant falsehoods that explicitly attempted to tie Elliot Rogers killing spree to the MRM. As cathartic as those videos have been to watch, nevertheless, you do have to consider how much impact all that work Bane666 put into those videos has actually been.

To my knowledge at least, it has had a very modest effect, which has really only been of use to the small number of people already sympathetic to the message he was producing - and you would after all have to be sympathetic in the first place to take seriously anything produced by a single anonymous individual on the internet who presents himself via a talking skull in a jug of kool aid.

Compare the impact of the latter image - of the skull in the jug of kool aid on a Youtube channel - in terms of social status and credibility to being invited to speak at the Oxford Union (Laura Bates) or to give evidence at the United Nations (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn) or to be interviewed widely in the press following a best selling paperback (Caitlyn Moran) or as a professor emeritus of English Literature at the University of Cambridge (Germaine Greer) or as an elected politician (Jess Phillips MP).

Every one of those people - Bates, Sarkeesian & Quinn, Moran and Greer - will at some point draw on statistical data to support their claims.

So for you to claim that:

My opinions are based on fact and quantifiable evidence. Facts and evidence can be verified. Therefore my fact / evidence based opinion vs a feminist who has based her opinions on her feelings means that my opinion is far more accurate representation of the truth. Its common sense. Logic, intelligence and facts are what I base my views on. If someone "feels" that x = y or "believes" that J = G then that is utterly meaningless. Where as if I can categorically prove that x = b with peer reviewed studies that have been carried out by an unbiased organisation that view of mine is more accurate than their feelings based conclusion.

They can, do and will make exactly the same claims, with likely even more justification than even you do. (By the way, it seems odd to refer to your opinions being based on fact - if they are facts, then they are not your opinions; likewise 'common sense' is usually thought to be the antithesis of data-based evidence).

The point, which I come back to again, is that the criticism has to focus on whether or not their conclusions follow from the evidence they present and in some (many?) cases how weak the methodology is that has led them to those conclusions in the first place.

Again, the point is also that what makes that a strategic action on the part of feminist politics is precisely that a message such as "1 in 3 women will experience sexual assault at some point in their lives" is pithy and has emotional force in a way that taking half an hour to explain why that factoid might be complete bullshit absolutely does not.

My feelings are irrelevant, what matters is the evidence.

Actually, I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong there. Your feelings are not irrelevant - if you had no feelings about feminist politics what would have prompted you to query their claims on e.g. the wage gap or on campus rape statistics in the first place?

If feelings were truly irrelevant, you would surely have simply accepted the first person to declare - apparently using facts and quantifiable evidence - that a woman earns 77c to every dollar a man earns. But instead, at some point your mind rebelled against that claim - probably because it seemed to be a gross contradiction of your lived reality. And that likely prompted you to look closer at the details of those claims and at that point you found them wanting. But in any event, your feelings were not irrelevant.

And also, besides that, what about Hoff-Sommers's feelings? She is confirmed in her belief that feminism is a force for good in the world - or at least its potential for that.

In fact, watch the Triggly Puff video again - you will see that shortly after Milo says that feminism is "cancer", Hoff-Sommers jumps in and says something like "I'm sure what Milo meant to say was that feminism is a powerful idea that has been corrupted" (those are not the actual words she uses, but she says something to that effect).

So if what matters to you is not your feelings, but evidence, than the black and white evidence shows quite clearly that Hoff-Sommers identifies herself as a feminist - why else would she name her Youtube channel The Factual Feminist otherwise?

[–]jimmywiddle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And that - the fact that it would take a great deal of time, effort and money to unpick that - was the point I am getting at - Bates successfully made her political point using Everyday Sexism and made it loud enough that she has since given talks at TEDx Women, the Oxford University Union, the British Academy - and these things have no doubt helped to give her a regular column in The Guardian and Hay Levels.

Who cares ? The Guardian is in financial difficulty and is desperately trying to gain revenue any way it can. Damage has been done to its reputation and it has been widely accepted to be down to the divisive efforts of their articles and the failing in general of printed media in a digital age where a lot of publications are seeing massive drops in sales.

It doesn't matter where these nut jobs speak, or where they present when people hear what they have to say they will immediately identify the type of person they are and the agenda they have. We have had Anita Sarkisian speaking at the UN, along with the other Gamer-gate crazies but no one really paid any attention. These people can piss and moan all they like, but one look at them or one quick scan through what they write or say and it's clear they have a very skewed view on the world. TEDx, TED, TEDx Women, have all become a laughing stock just look at the comments when they are posted. The fat acceptance video that was posted where a woman stood up and said that fat wasn't bad, had its comments section shut down and so many dislikes it was embarrassing. Considering their motto is "Spread Ideas" it demonstrated how they are failing. All the other feminist like videos are being shot down quickly as well.

It would not be completely futile at this point to complete a critical review of Bates's Everyday Sexism - but there is a point at which you have to ask 'How effective would such a critical evaluation be, considering how long it would take to do, how many people would need to be involved, how much it would cost to undertake given that the impact of the outcome of such a review would be rather feeble at best?'.

You seem to be missing the point here, the stories and snippets that people post to that site are anecdotal. Therefore by their very nature they are not going to be proven to be true. When the stories are so petty and trivial they carry no weight, and when they include such terrible stories such as "I was on my bike and the man next to me on his bike turned around and smiled at me. I felt violated" It really is pointless trying to prove he looked at her or not. You might have an example where CCTV footage may have caught him smiling at her if it was in an urban area but otherwise probably 90% of these stories are just unprovable nonsense made up by overly sensitive idiots who are desperate to be a victim. So just to summarise, I don't care about Laura Bates she is a loon, her site is full of idiots complaining about non-issues and I expect her job at the Guardian to be short lived as they start to realise that pumping out divisive garbage is not helping them financially and people are waking up to their nonsense.

So for you to claim that: My opinions are based on fact and quantifiable evidence. Facts and evidence can be verified. Therefore my fact / evidence based opinion vs a feminist who has based her opinions on her feelings means that my opinion is far more accurate representation of the truth. Its common sense. Logic, intelligence and facts are what I base my views on. If someone "feels" that x = y or "believes" that J = G then that is utterly meaningless. Where as if I can categorically prove that x = b with peer reviewed studies that have been carried out by an unbiased organisation that view of mine is more accurate than their feelings based conclusion. They can, do and will make exactly the same claims, with likely even more justification than even you do.

How the hell can you possibly know that, thats bullshit to make such an unsubstantiated statement, you don't even know what my arguments are, yet you sit there and have the arrogance to claim that they would have more justification.

My feelings are irrelevant, what matters is the evidence. Actually, I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong there. Your feelings are not irrelevant - if you had no feelings about feminist politics what would have prompted you to query their claims on e.g. the wage gap or on campus rape statistics in the first place?

Facts and evidence to the contrary to what was being presented compelled me to look into it. Not "my feelings", not an emotional response but a scientific curiosity to identify and prove the truth. So no like I said my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

So if what matters to you is not your feelings, but evidence, than the black and white evidence shows quite clearly that Hoff-Sommers identifies herself as a feminist - why else would she name her Youtube channel The Factual Feminist otherwise?

Again you miss the point. I don't go on what people say, I go on what people do. If someone came up to you and said they were a deep believer in peace and goodwill and then pulls out an axe and goes on a killing spree. According to your analogy you would still call them a peaceful person with goodwill. I would call them an axe murderer because the evidence exists to demonstrate that is what they are.

Compare the impact of the latter image - of the skull in the jug of kool aid on a Youtube channel - in terms of social status and credibility to being invited to speak at the Oxford Union (Laura Bates) or to give evidence at the United Nations (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn) or to be interviewed widely in the press following a best selling paperback (Caitlyn Moran) or as a professor emeritus of English Literature at the University of Cambridge (Germaine Greer) or as an elected politician (Jess Phillips MP).

Right so Jess Phillips who is now largely known as a nut job feminist after she was broadcast laughing at male suicide rates and trying to stop them from being discussed in parliament. Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn who went to the UN to produce a report on gaming violence and then massively cocked it up and had to have the report they produced retracted

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/un-agency-backtracks-expresses-regret-over-cyberviolence-report/

http://theralphretort.com/too-little-too-late-un-apologizes-for-discredited-cyberviolence-report-1007015/

Germaine Greer who is now disliked by current generation feminists who attempted to no platform her.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-34613148

Anita Sarkeesian

Who has been proven to have lied in her videos, created false accounts to attack herself, regularly blocks comments so no one can say bad things about her arguments and has even been accused of sending herself bomb threats.

Yeah these people have wonderful reputations.... We should all cower that they have gone somewhere and been allowed to speak....

And don't get me started on how shabby the UN's reputation is. For years now it has been pumping out resolutions that have been deeply sexist and biased in favour of women. The UN supports MGM while it regards FGM as harmful. No one takes them at all seriously when you look at initiatives they have setup such as the HeForShe campaign which they claimed to be about helping everyone, yet they gave it a sexist name and then continued to pump out sexist feminist garbage all over their Facebook page. Most people that went to that page were leaving comments along the lines of "oh I thought this was for everyone but I see its just the same sexist feminist content" and then leaving. So no the UN is not highly regarded by default which appear to be implying. Most people have not even heard of the Oxford Union, or some crappy so called "best selling paperback".

I have to stop at this point and make a note of your tone throughout these replies. You seem very defeatist in nature, you sound very negative about those who spend a lot of time and energy into raising awareness of issues. This is definitely not something I agree with whatsoever, people in the MRM are making significant strides forward , feminist backlash has been growing increasingly over the years and now their usual bullshit is called out much much quicker than it has done previously. People are now considering male victims of domestic violence more, sexual assault and other crimes. People are beginning to feel more comfortable about talking about mens issues and this is all positive. Articles Sexist against men that appear on MTV, The Guardian, Buzzfeed, etc etc are being met with more and more negative attention. People are no longer sitting by and accepting it. Mens issues are now being raised on national television and are being discussed openly and gaining momentum. We have MPs raising these issues in Parliament and this year we had discussions about mens suicide rates etc. These are all massively positive changes and moves which do make a difference. We have people who have started websites and channels on youtube who have gained massive gatherings and are doing great jobs at educating younger people about the damaging affects of the feminist ideology and debunking the lies that misinformation that feminists regularly spread.

So I have to wonder why are you even on this sub ? If you don't agree with it, and you don't agree with the people who put the effort in here. Why exactly are you here ? Just to troll ? Just to sow seeds of doubt into what we do ? Anyway I have wasted enough time discussing this with you. You clearly have very different views on the subject of mens rights to those that are putting in the effort in now. Thats not a bad thing per-say, however when you yourself from what I can see, have achieved nothing on the issues we discuss here. You really are in no place to have anyone pay any attention to your criticisms.

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[1/2]

Who cares ? The Guardian is in financial difficulty and is desperately trying to gain revenue any way it can. Damage has been done to its reputation and it has been widely accepted to be down to the divisive efforts of their articles ...

Then there’s no need for you to worry then or for anyone on this to sub complain about Jessica Valenti, Clementine Ford, Laura Bates, etc. etc.

It doesn't matter where these nut jobs speak ...

Well, I would say that to a lot of people it does make a difference. It gives their opinions the weight of authority.

You can call them nut jobs and you can dismiss the platforms they speak from as irrelevant, but the fact of the matter is plenty of other people do not.

I don’t know why you are finding it hard to grasp that, for example, my citing an anonymous Youtuber’s comments in support of an argument I’m making is not likely to carry much weight compared to someone citing the US government or the British parliament etc. in support of theirs.

We have had Anita Sarkisian speaking at the UN, along with the other Gamer-gate crazies but no one really paid any attention.

I’m not sure that is true, but if what you say is correct then there is no need to worry then, is there?

If such people as Sarkeesian appearing in the UN are genuinely of so little consequence, then surely you have even less reason to be on this sub than I do.

These people can piss and moan all they like, but one look at them or one quick scan through what they write or say and it's clear they have a very skewed view on the world.

Well, to you, maybe. But you only have to see the impact on politics and policy that this pissing and moaning as you call it has had over the last few decades to see that, actually, their pissing and moaning is having a transformative effect on society.

If it didn’t, you would have no reason to complain. But as you are quite hostile to their ideas I can only assume it’s because you do in fact feel that they are influential.

TEDx, TED, TEDx Women, have all become a laughing stock ... All the other feminist like videos are being shot down quickly as well.

To you, maybe – but not to everyone.

And remember, the very fact that “The fat acceptance video ... had its comments section shut down and so many dislikes it was embarrassing” played as much into the hands of the woman promoting the video as the people hating on it.

Why else do you think there are loud calls from feminist commentators that women’s voices are being silenced and not taken seriously? I think you are being incredibly naïve if you think there is no strategy at work there.

The British government has taken note and the Labour Party has even attempted to launch a campaign called Reclaim the Internet in response to exactly the kind of laughter and dislikes you are claiming make such videos trivial and unimportant.

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[2/2]

You seem to be missing the point here, the stories and snippets that people post to that site are anecdotal.

How do you work that out? I have been completely clear from the very first message ITT that Everyday Sexism is a ragbag collection of unverifiable anonymous anecdotes. I have made that repeatedly clear in every comment/reply made to you.

So just to summarise, I don't care about Laura Bates she is a loon, her site is full of idiots complaining about non-issues and I expect her job at the Guardian to be short lived as they start to realise that pumping out divisive garbage is not helping them financially and people are waking up to their nonsense.

Well, again, if that’s how you feel about feminist political activism – that it’s basically fizzling out and is of no political consequence in our society then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

How the hell can you possibly know that ...

You’ll have to explain how my quoting your own comment back to you makes me arrogant. I don’t really get what your point is there, but apologise if you felt offended.

Facts and evidence to the contrary to what was being presented compelled me to look into it.

So ... you’re saying that you already knew that there was evidence that contradicted e.g. the wage gap before you heard the arguments for there being one?

Then how have I misrepresented you when I said: “at some point your mind rebelled against that claim - probably because it seemed to be a gross contradiction of your lived reality. And that likely prompted you to look closer at the details of those claims and at that point you found them wanting.”

Again you miss the point. I don't go on what people say, I go on what people do.

Absolutely not. You declared that Hoff-Sommers was not a feminist, but an egalitarian. You also say that you go on facts and quantifiable evidence.

Well, the fact is – Hoff-Sommers self-describes as a feminist , has written a book called Freedom Feminism outlining her concept of what feminism should be, and runs a channel which she calls The Factual Feminist. The woman could not be more clear where she stands on the subject.

But now here you are declaring: “I don't go on what people say, I go on what people do.” But that is not fact – that is your interpretation of what Hoff-Sommers does and in that it is surely no more or less evidence-based than the woman who perceived herself to be violated based on the man on the bike who turned to smile at her.

If someone came up to you and said they were a deep believer in peace and goodwill and then pulls out an axe and goes on a killing spree. According to your analogy you would still call them a peaceful person with goodwill.

Well, no. That person would clearly be deranged.

Also, I’ve never suggested that hypocrites don’t exist as they certainly do. But I don’t believe that Hoff-Sommers is a hypocrite simply because you feel she is “really” an egalitarian when she sees herself as a feminist.

Right so Jess Phillips who is now largely known as a nut job feminist ...

Well certainly she is a nut job to me and also to you, but I am still prepared to believe that that is not at all how she is perceived by large numbers of people in the general public.

Again, if you disagree then you have nothing to worry about.

Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn who went to the UN to produce a report on gaming violence and then massively cocked it up ... Germaine Greer who is now disliked by current generation feminists ... Anita Sarkeesian who has been proven to have lied in her videos

Everything you say there is true – but has the UN closed its doors or has it gone on to promote HeforShe? Has Greer disappeared from Mainstream Media or is she still invited to speak on TV, radio and at conferences? Has Sarkeesian’s Feminist Frequency had to close down or is she still putting out content?

I think you know the answer to all of those questions.

No one takes [the UN] at all seriously ...

Once again, if you really believe this is all trivial nonsense and that feminism is just a trendy fad that is rapidly fizzling out and that no governments or other institutions take it seriously then I fail to see what you are so worried about or why you would pay them any mind at all.

Most people that went to that page were leaving comments along the lines of "oh I thought this was for everyone but I see its just the same sexist feminist content" and then leaving. “Most people”? Like what percentage? You’ve told me you don’t deal in feelings, but in facts and quantifiable data so exactly how are defining “Most people”?

I have to stop at this point and make a note of your tone throughout these replies.

I wondered how long it would take for you to start accusing me of impurity. You’ll be calling me a troll next.

I disagree with you because I think you are wrong in that you apparently believe that:

all feminists are stupid
nobody likes feminism
facts and data in unbiased peer reviewed journals prove feminism is stupid
(and slightly contradictory to the previous points) feminism doesn’t really matter as no one really believes in it anyway

I have many issues with feminism, but at least I have the sense to understand that:

while some people calling themselves feminists may be stupid, they certainly are not all that way and to imagine that they are will soon backfire on you
that it is anything but trendy fad that will soon blow over and nobody really cares about it anyway
it actually has had and continues to have a huge impact on the justice system, on education, research and politics

Therefore calling their ideas dumb and anyone who believes in them also dumb is entirely self-defeating. It’s also incredibly naïve.

... feminist backlash has been growing increasingly over the years ...

This is actually true – but it is very naïve to believe that feminist activists have not also taken note of this and are working very hard to fight a rear guard action.

You can’t tell me you haven’t noticed over the last year or so an increase in the number of articles and other feminist platforms devoted to men’s issues such as fatherhood, suicide, academic achievement and so on?

People are now considering male victims of domestic violence more, sexual assault and other crimes.

Yes, this is also true – but you do have to acknowledge the backlash against such commentators and also the way that feminist activists are working hard to wrestle control of this back into their own ‘camp’ as it were.

So I have to wonder why are you even on this sub ? If you don't agree with it, and you don't agree with the people who put the effort in here. Why exactly are you here ? Just to troll ?

Oh, look I was right! You did eventually accuse me of being a troll.

Just to sow seeds of doubt into what we do ?

No.

Not at all.

My point ITT is to try to show you that while yes, there have been huge changes over the last few years in the visibility of the conversation about Men’s issues – Martin Daubney and Phillip Davis MP for instance – but also that the backlash has been just as loud in response the other way.

You seem to think it is all really rather simple and straightforward and all I’m trying to do is say that it is not – it is incredibly complex.

I am rather pessimistic by nature, it is true. But pessimism has its uses, especially when it comes to feeling out the scale of the project ahead.

Anyway I have wasted enough time discussing this with you.

Well, it’s a shame you feel that way as it was not my intention. But I understand why you would feel this way.

[–]Mens-Advocate2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Parody has it's place, but you reckon without Poe's Law:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

You also reckon without the fate of Daryush "Roosh V" Valizadeh of Return of Kings fame. His defence that his infamous 'How to Stop Rape' blog post was actually "a satirical thought experiment" has always struck me as highly unconvincing. Certainly, if it really was an attempt at satire then it was a poorly conceived one and - as above - fell foul of Poe's Law.

Those kind of satires / parodies (if indeed, that's what they are) do far more harm to the satirist/parodist than to the intended target - which kind of defeats the object.

If you want to produce something for people to read, I think a better path would be the one taken by Aesop or Orwell - you write an allegory, preferably in the guise of a children's story.

They are remarkably powerful vehicles for conveying a clear message within earshot of people with censorious leanings and even when they do detect the intended meaning they run the risk of looking incredibly stupid trying to spell out the message they are trying to conceal.

[–]jimmywiddle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your replies are full of inaccurate assumptions, conspiracy theories, straw man arguments, factual inaccuracies, wild claims and massive niavity. The sheer amount of the above make discussing anything with you a waste of time. The sheer amount of the above makes you sound exactly like you are concern trolling, your seeming respect for feminism and the nut jobs that represent also doesn't help your cause.

BTW I am fully aware of the Reclaim the Internet project that was launched and the forum that was subsequently setup and was then taken down again when many people went on there and complained about the sexism in the stance it took by trying to blame all men for abuse online when even one of its own studies showed that it was women that carried out more of the online abuse. All it proved was that people were not prepared to put up with feminist garbage being spread by the government. It was another failed project attempted by a left wing socialist party that is not even in power and (is not likely to be for a long time). It has achieved very little.

If you really feel the way you do and you sound very depressed, I suggest you get some counselling as it sounds like you are suffering from depression and could do with some help. Your attitude does not help anyone here or you and you are likely to just get more depressed if you do not seek assistance.

All the best.

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jimmywiddle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]William__F0ster1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]arkindal 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jimmywiddle 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats not entirely accurate. The above is a UK business and such has to abide by UK law. The Equalities act in the UK specifies that you can not discriminate unless you can prove that the reason you are providing services to a specific group is valid and fits into a very specific and narrow category.

As such as a man, if you walked into Curves (another female only gym but this time specifically for fat women) and asked to join they could not legally refuse you. If they did you could sue them because unless they can prove that by allowing men to use the facilities its going to degrade the service to women they really do not have a leg to stand on.

Contact the EASS (Equalities Assistance Support Service) in the UK and explain the case to them, they can check to see if they do or do not meet the requirements and they themselves can contact them and warn them they are in breach of the act.

I have used the EASS previously when UK gyms have offered cheaper packages to women than men for the same facilities. Be persistent with them and they will provide you with exactly the piece of the act they have breached.

[–]arkindal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeff_the_nurse 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sampatri 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, there's nothing wrong with the idea in principle. The issue is that if you suggest that maybe men need male-only spaces, well, that's sexist and misogynistic and regressive and yada, yada, yada...

When I was a kid not that long ago (full disclosure, I'm 41) there were still places men could go just to be men without women around. Nowadays that's sexism, apparently. Women also had women-only spaces but it was all more traditional so you couldn't advance up the career ladder at a girl guides outing or whatever. Nowadays, it's sexist for girls not to be allowed on a boy's hockey team yet somehow totally not sexist to deny the boys who get pushed out a space in a female roster somewhere. It's all quite ridiculous. The point is the hypocrisy.

There's nothing wrong with them. In fact, I encourage it as I believe that men and women both need segregated spaces. Nevertheless, it's completely blatantly sexist to say that spaces can exist just for women but not for men.

[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sampatri 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaneWhitman 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]devious29 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Swinship 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AssAssIn46 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eydude1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Infinity499 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eydude1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoNoNoMrKyle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]superduperdudertudor 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]8thling 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link