[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Look, your remark was misandric. If you think otherwise then you seriously need to work on your use of language, because it definitely came across that way. As I said, I don't think you're actually misandric, but I think you behave childishly in response to misogyny, which makes you look like you are.

That is one of the dudeliest, most paternalizing things I have read on this forum.

You really can't control it, huh?

Thank fucking god we have Latro to keep us all in check.

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Egalitarianism . . . . .

Proves my point, you have nothing of substance to say. You just play little games that quite frankly get to the point where they bore me to tears; all just to show off that you can type. And I think I mentioned this indirectly in other places that you are pretty clueless when it comes to actual, real life issues. So you take pride in boring people and nit picking sentences apart whose meaning escapes you. The purpose being…?

You address me in a condescending tone using all tactics you then rake me over the coals for. I think we all got it, you demand precision in language because you assume that this gives you control over the conversation. In reality it’s just boring and tedious to deal with that kind of irrelevancy. If you are really proud of your ability to bore people to death, then you do need to get out more. There might actually be a topic out there that you have some knowledge about.

As for misandry, just because you constantly bring it up does not mean i practice it. All you ever do is interpret what I posted in your skewed manner, assuming that you know what it was that I said, but lacking either knowledge or experience to actually understand any of it. This is why you resort to those petty and disruptive practices.

It seems to me that people who always ask others to be more precise in regard to language usage either lack sufficient ability to think past the confines of their limited experience or are afraid to lose control over a discourse due to lack of intellectual capacity. Their ability to respond to a topic is lacking, hence the attempt to derail said discourse with inane postings concerning matters peripheral or completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I come across that a lot with my freshmen students. They usually snap out of it though.

---------- Post added 04-04-2012 at 05:40 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is one of the dudeliest, most paternalizing things I have read on this forum. You really can't control it, huh? Thank fucking god we have Latro to keep us all in check.

I adore your succinct and pithy style. The truth of what you said is, of course, equally evident.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is one of the dudeliest, most paternalizing things I have read on this forum. You really can't control it, huh? Thank fucking god we have Latro to keep us all in check.

While Latro actually made an attempt at damage control, you - like Firebee - first resort to snarky antagonism to cut off arguments against feminism. Go ahead, throw a tantrum, you win by default, because you get the last snarky word in, yes.

Paternalizing or not, Latro recovered something that was quickly derailing into pointless lost cause. What are you doing Zibber?

[Simurgh]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While Latro actually made an attempt at damage control, you - like Firebee - first resort to snarky antagonism to cut off arguments against feminism. Go ahead, throw a tantrum, you win by default, because you get the last snarky word in, yes. Paternalizing or not, Latro recovered something that was quickly derailing into pointless lost cause. What are you doing Zibber?

You are kidding, right? Latro merely tried to practice self-aggrandizement at the cost of making a substantive contribution to the topic. And I mean tried, because he really never said anything that made his missives germane or made him look anything else but supercilious and trite. He simply interpreted what he thought he understood others to say. And then he got lost in his soliloquy.

Arguments against feminism? Which ones were those? Where he ever so condescendingly chides me for misandry? Either one of you actually read the definition of that term? Or do facts and experiences that disagree with your worldview simply not exist and can therefore not be mentioned?

And what was the lost cause you so bemoan? What did his disingenuous diatribes recover?

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are kidding, right? Latro merely tried to practice self-aggrandizement at the cost of making a substantive contribution to the topic. And I mean tried, because he really never said anything that made his missives germane or made him look anything else but supercilious and trite. He simply interpreted what he thought he understood others to say. And then he got lost in his soliloquy. Arguments against feminism? Which ones were those? Where he ever so condescendingly chides me for misandry? Either one of you actually read the definition of that term? Or do facts and experiences that disagree with your worldview simply not exist and can therefore not be mentioned? And what was the lost cause you so bemoan? What did his disingenuous diatribes recover?

I see that knee-jerk feminist hostility is making you see stuff I didn't even put into my post. This is what Latro was saying; this is why he covered his ass at every corner while trying to teach you how to reduce the vitriol in your posts. I commend him for having the patience to bother; I wouldn't, because it obviously doesn't work. Much easier to just agree that I'm a patriarchal misogynistic bastard; anything else would be greek.

[Simurgh]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I see that knee-jerk feminist hostility is making you see stuff I didn't even put into my post. This is what Latro was saying; this is why he covered his ass at every corner while trying to teach you how to reduce the vitriol in your posts. I commend him for having the patience to bother; I wouldn't, because it obviously doesn't work. Much easier to just agree that I'm a patriarchal misogynistic bastard; anything else would be greek.

Again, you have proven that you do not really read anything directed at you. You merely make assumptions as to what you think I might have meant. And really, feminist hostility? What in Hel’s realm is that supposed to mean? Why does everything you say sound like the rantings of a bitter old man who had his toys taken away by a woman and now lashes out at all those he can reach. Hey, if it makes you happy, go for it.

The cleverest thing you have done so far is calling me a Firebee. Yeah, I get it; after all it's quite obvious.

[Shadizar]

Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again, you have proven that you do not really read anything directed at you. You merely make assumptions as to what you think I might have meant. And really, feminist hostility? What in Hel’s realm is that supposed to mean? Why does everything you say sound like the rantings of a bitter old man who had his toys taken away by a woman and now lashes out at all those he can reach. Hey, if it makes you happy, go for it.

Because you want it to. Truth be told, the feminist "movement" doesn't directly affect me in any way; aside from the snark in conversation with some women who... feel the need to assert themselves, I get great pleasure from silently rejecting their superiority. I can sort of understand this need to stand on a stool to look down on someone who... well, whatever; I'm six foot one, I take issue with people who are taller than me, I've asserted my dominance over such people, this part I can understand and... sympathize; however, my assertion doesn't require belittling their height, and/or pomping up my own height as the ideal, I use them against themselves, without ever bringing up the issue of height, without standing on my toes, and without so much as looking up so as to look down my nose at them; I use tricks I observed from a man who was five foot four and had little big man syndrome.

	Originally Posted by Simurgh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The cleverest thing you have done so far is calling me a Firebee. Yeah, I get it; after all it's quite obvious.

When did I do this?

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is one of the dudeliest, most paternalizing things I have read on this forum. You really can't control it, huh? Thank fucking god we have Latro to keep us all in check.

Same language came across as misandric to me as well.

Why is the only valid opinion in the world YOURS?

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Same language came across as misandric to me as well. Why is the only valid opinion in the world YOURS?

Not all dissenting opinions are exclusionary. Yours, however, appear to not only be exclusivist but unsupported and unyielding as well.

[spock84]

I can't stand your typical marxist, misandric feminists, and I'm even further to the left than them. They definitely have some valid and noble goals, I don't question that, I even agree with a lot of it, but at a certain point they get horribly irrational, dogmatic and it's obvious that they hate and simply want to control men, despite their assurance that that's not the case. It's just so blatantly obvious and it gets on my nerves when I see or hear about it.

The struggle for equal rights is a good struggle, but I have the impression that too much of the feminist movement has already moved past that and become what I described above, while there are still real gender inequality problems that need to be solved that they now ignore. They're ruining the cause for the few that are actually sensible (and all those women that don't seem to care).

I think what they should start spending nearly all of their time on instead is the empowerment of truly repressed women in various.. uhm.. culturally challenged countries around the world.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't stand your typical marxist, misandric feminists

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They definitely have some valid and noble goals

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	but at a certain point they get horribly irrational, dogmatic and it's obvious that they hate and simply want to control men, despite their assurance that that's not the case.

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's just so blatantly obvious and it gets on my nerves when I see or hear about it.

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The struggle for equal rights is a good struggle, but I have the impression that too much of the feminist movement has already moved past that and become what I described above

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	while there are still real gender inequality problems that need to be solved that they now ignore.

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They're ruining the cause for the few that are actually sensible

Such as?

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(and all those women that don't seem to care).

Such as?




Hold on, I saw so many boogeymen in that post that I gotta go check my closets.

*goes*

*comes back*

Whew, I'm good. Okay. So. You got anything at all to back up your shit, or is this more of the same "it WAS okay but now it's just gone too far, you know what I mean, wink wink" regressive&repressive attitude? Nobody's been able to back that shit up, what have you got, Spockyboy?

[spock84]

Was that even a serious post? If so it's got a really weird tone and maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm seeing some signs of aggression and contempt, which isn't particularly healthy for any debate. I'm not even sure if it's worth dignifying with a response, but I will, just for the heck of it.

Such as? #1 Groups

There are lots of militant feminist groups with a deeply ingrained marxist ideology around. The ones I'm thinking of are Norwegian and Swedish. I think they are thus outside your frame of reference, so I doubt there would be a point in listing them.

Such as? #2 Goals

Equal pay for equal work is the main one that I'm thinking of, but I think they've taken the wrong approach to it here. The problem is structural and traditional (i.e. women often choose lines of work that are not valued particularly high in a economical sense), not because women are deliberately treated unjustly, though I'm sure that happens here and there still, which rightfully should be dealt with. I also support those that advocate free contraception and a woman's right to choose. If I gave it some more thought, I could probably make a long list.

Such as? #3 and #4 Irrational, dogmatic misandry

When they start labelling all men as potential rapists is one example and perhaps the best one. Or when they instinctively label porn as something inherently degrading to women. Or when they regard men as disposable and only useful for reproduction. While the last one is extreme, I've actually come across people like that. The first two notions are very common in the groupings I'm talking about. Another good example is how all kinds of prostitution are regarded as abuse and degrading. I could list more, but I don't see the point. I'm not making these people up. They're there and from my point of view they seem to be infiltrating mainstream feminism and equal rights movements/initiatives.

Such as? #5

I don't even understand what you mean by "Such as?" here. It's a nonsensical question in the context of what you quoted.

Such as? #6 Ignored causes

One is the above mentioned equal pay for equal work cause, that seems de-prioritized, because they want to fight porn and all the evil rapist men. The work they still do is based on the demonstrably false assumptions that the income gap between men and women is primarily due to discrimination. This might not be how things are where you live though. They also don't do nearly enough to support the women that really need help - those in countries where women are regarded as the property of the man. This is a much graver problem than any of them will ever have to deal with.

Such as? #7

Those that are able to reason and listen to reason and not act purely on emotional impulses and marxist dogmas.

Such as? #8

There's a huge percentage of women in pretty much any country that fit this description. They're doing fine, they think, and remain ignorant, some even by choice (which I've always found odd). Women like this are in my experience most predominant among those that are uneducated, become mothers at a young age or are in similar predicaments and don't feel a need to be in control of anything outside their little sphere.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hold on, I saw so many boogeymen in that post that I gotta go check my closets. *goes* *comes back* Whew, I'm good. Okay. So. You got anything at all to back up your shit, or is this more of the same "it WAS okay but now it's just gone too far, you know what I mean, wink wink" regressive&repressive attitude? Nobody's been able to back that shit up, what have you got, Spockyboy?

I don't understand what you're trying to achieve here. Is it an attempt at intimidation or ridicule? I'll answer that for you: yes, it is! You were offended by my post but you either 1) don't have anything relevant to say or 2) you're too lazy to actually type something sensible out.

That said, nothing in my previous post was anything other than my personal opinion. I wasn't making a case for myself or trying to convert anyone to my view and I would hardly call what I wrote "my stuff". As such it doesn't make any sense to ask me to "back that shit up". Who talks like that anyway? Jesus..

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are lots of militant feminist groups with a deeply ingrained marxist ideology around. The ones I'm thinking of are Norwegian and Swedish. I think they are thus outside your frame of reference, so I doubt there would be a point in listing them.

Citations needed.

Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Such as? #2 Goals Equal pay for equal work is the main one that I'm thinking of, but I think they've taken the wrong approach to it here. The problem is structural and traditional (i.e. women often choose lines of work that are not valued particularly high in a economical sense), not because women are deliberately treated unjustly, though I'm sure that happens here and there still, which rightfully should be dealt with. I also support those that advocate free contraception and a woman's right to choose. If I gave it some more thought, I could probably make a long list.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When they start labelling all men as potential rapists is one example and perhaps the best one.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or when they instinctively label porn as something inherently degrading to women.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or when they regard men as disposable and only useful for reproduction.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Another good example is how all kinds of prostitution are regarded as abuse and degrading.

Citations and refutation needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	One is the above mentioned equal pay for equal work cause, that seems de-prioritized, because they want to fight porn and all the evil rapist men.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The work they still do is based on the demonstrably false assumptions that the income gap between men and women is primarily due to discrimination.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They also don't do nearly enough to support the women that really need help - those in countries where women are regarded as the property of the man.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is a much graver problem than any of them will ever have to deal with.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those that are able to reason and listen to reason and not act purely on emotional impulses and marxist dogmas.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's a huge percentage of women in pretty much any country that fit this description.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't understand what you're trying to achieve here.

It seemed like you were the kind of poster who expected their opinions to be accepted as fact. Which, when asked for specific examples, you did again, only with more words. We've seen so many of these kinds of posts in this and so many many many other threads on here that the males who write it even try to tell others what their motivations were: mindreading, as it were.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it an attempt at intimidation or ridicule? I'll answer that for you: yes, it is!

*ahem*

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That said, nothing in my previous post was anything other than my personal opinion. I wasn't making a case for myself or trying to convert anyone to my view and I would hardly call what I wrote "my stuff". As such it doesn't make any sense to ask me to "back that shit up". Who talks like that anyway? Jesus..

We talk like that here, all the time. If a poster cannot support their assertations with facts, then they're worth exactly nothing. In the case of "Feminism was great, BUT..." posts, they're not only worth nothing, the poster's opinions would be put in the same bin as those of the rest of the ignorant, misogynistic, propaganda-swallowing, bitter, butthurt males of the species.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the case of "Feminism was great, BUT..." posts, they're not only worth nothing, the poster's opinions would be put in the same bin as those of the rest of the ignorant, misogynistic, propaganda-swallowing, bitter, butthurt males of the species.

What if you replace the "was" with "is", that is if you don't say "feminism was great but then it went down the tubes" but instead "feminism is great but could be better"? Do you look at that differently?

This is a question, not a criticism.

[zibber]

There is a big overlap between marxism and radical feminism. Just saying "they're marxist" doesn't really constitute substantial criticism.

Anti-porn/prostitution feminism is a lot more substantial than merely being "instinctive".

[spock84]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is a big overlap between marxism and radical feminism. Just saying "they're marxist" doesn't really constitute substantial criticism. Anti-porn/prostitution feminism is a lot more substantial than merely being "instinctive".

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What if you replace the "was" with "is", that is if you don't say "feminism was great but then it went down the tubes" but instead "feminism is great but could be better"? Do you look at that differently? This is a question, not a criticism.

I wonder about the same thing, because that's basically what I'm saying.

While there are certainly conclusions that may be correct in feminist thought, and I think the majority of them probably are, I'm worried that too much stems from political dogmas and emotions instead of reason, which I think should be the basis of all things (especially political movements), and I have the impression that in many cases the dogmatic voices are the ones who are most vocal and ultimately have the largest influence.

I don't find it surprising at all that a lot of people, particularly on the right have a very vocal disrespect of feminists. Maybe the US is very different, but here there's not much of an overlap between radical marxist movements and feminists, or rather there's a nearly complete overlap - they're essentially the same. As a libertarian socialist myself (and as such I am not 100% adverse to all of Marxism), I don't necessarily see feminism as an inherently socialist project, but when that's the present reality of it, it alienates a lot of women (and men) who don't identify with that political ideology. It's not good for the cause.

As for citations, I'm currently at work and can't spend much time on it, but I'll give a recent example that I find relevant. A few months ago a story turned up in the media about our Minister of Children and Equality (yes, we've got that), who is from the socialist party (which is small, but currently in a coalition government), granted a small (but in the context significant) amount of money to a party-run self-defense course for young women. This in itself was questionable, as it was obviously granted as a favor (other applicants, not politically affiliated, were ignored) and it's basically a by-the-book example of government corruption. That alone is an obvious sign of the left's hijacking of feminism, but it didn't stop at that. The people running the self-defence course agreed to be interviewed by a TV news team at their location. When the team arrived to do the interview, the leader of the course adamantly refused the reporter entrance and eventually insisted that the assistant do the interview instead. Why? Because the reporter was a man and the assistant was not.

Now that's not what most feminists are like, but it's certainly very easy to get that impression, which I suppose is what I really meant to say.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What if you replace the "was" with "is", that is if you don't say "feminism was great but then it went down the tubes" but instead "feminism is great but could be better"? Do you look at that differently? This is a question, not a criticism.

If we may change that to "the Feminist movement is great but could be better", I'd have to agree. I'd also have to agree with the same statement of the PFLAG, GLBT, Poly, Urban Farming, Permaculture, Graywater, S.O.L.E., SuperfundWatch, AgWatch, USDA's revamp of the Organic label, Unions, NRA and other movements.

If it didn't need improvement, nobody would want to work on it.

Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for citations, I'm currently at work and can't spend much time on it, but I'll give a recent example that I find relevant. A few months ago a story turned up in the media about our Minister of Children and Equality (yes, we've got that), who is from the socialist party (which is small, but currently in a coalition government), granted a small (but in the context significant) amount of money to a party-run self-defense course for young women. This in itself was questionable, as it was obviously granted as a favor (other applicants, not politically affiliated, were ignored) and it's basically a by-the-book example of government corruption. That alone is an obvious sign of the left's hijacking of feminism, but it didn't stop at that.

While this may be corruption, it does not follow that it is Feminazi Corruption. The fact that women benefitted does not mean that it is part of some evil plan to hurt men.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The people running the self-defence course agreed to be interviewed by a TV news team at their location. When the team arrived to do the interview, the leader of the course adamantly refused the reporter entrance and eventually insisted that the assistant do the interview instead. Why? Because the reporter was a man and the assistant was not.

A man shows up unannounced with a camera at a place where frightened women who were assaulted go to try to reclaim some of their self-confidence. He is turned away. Your conclusion is that she is a man-hating feminist? This seems like a snap judgement from a very sheltered perspective.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now that's not what most feminists are like, but it's certainly very easy to get that impression, which I suppose is what I really meant to say.

It's very easy for YOU to get that impression because what the TV tells you is easier to ingest than getting out there to get actual experience.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Citations still missing: 12

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we may change that to "the Feminist movement is great but could be better", I'd have to agree. I'd also have to agree with the same statement of the PFLAG, GLBT, Poly, Urban Farming, Permaculture, Graywater, S.O.L.E., SuperfundWatch, AgWatch, USDA's revamp of the Organic label, Unions, NRA and other movements. If it didn't need improvement, nobody would want to work on it.

Technically, if the movement were perfectly designed but hadn't achieved its goals yet, people would still be working on it. I assume you're not asserting that, though.

That said, what if we make it just a little stronger, to "the feminist movement was and is great, but has become less so over time, and in particular hasn't adapted to change as efficiently as it could have"? I think a lot of the criticisms that you tend to see, and in particular my criticisms, are like this.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That said, what if we make it just a little stronger, to "the feminist movement was and is great, but has become less so over time, and in particular hasn't adapted to change as efficiently as it could have"? I think a lot of the criticisms that you tend to see, and in particular my criticisms, are like this.

I disagree. I think they've adopted swimmingly to change. I love what NOW is doing for Equal Marriage, Racism, body image, International Women's Rights issues, Indigenous Women's Rights, abusive telecommunications practices, etc ec etc etc etc.

What I do see is BOOGEYMEN.

• "Feminists hate men."
• "Feminazis are out to hurt our society"
• "Feminism isn't adapting to today's needs"

Really? These boogeymen get parroted but nobody is able to back them up. They're strawmen, used in place of real knowledge and research. If you can't find real examples of your arguments, then you're spouting bullshit.

Speaking of which. Latro, where's your support of your "hasn't adapted to change as efficiently as it could have" statement?

[spock84]

This is almost becoming entertaining here..

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While this may be corruption, it does not follow that it is Feminazi Corruption. The fact that women benefitted does not mean that it is part of some evil plan to hurt men.

It IS corruption and you are putting words in my mouth. Careful. I would never use terms like that. In the case I mentioned women would have benefitted either way. I'm not opposed to that. What worries me is the way the left has hijacked feminism here (making it inaccessible to those who are not on the left), made "equal rights" synonymous with "feminism" and is using it for political and personal favors.

	A man shows up unannounced with a camera

Read again. You're just making things up as you please now.

	at a place where frightened women who were assaulted go to try to reclaim some of their self-confidence. He is turned away.

It's not a women's shelter and participants were for the most part not victims of anything. Again you're making very unfounded, ignorant assumptions and I think your misandry is shining through here. Why is it okay to you that a respected journalist, who had an appointment for an interview, is turned away because of his gender? You are basically implying that no man is to be trusted.

	Your conclusion is that she is a man-hating feminist?

Yes! When asked why, she literally answered "Because he's a man!". This is one of many such groups in this part of the world where young women are taught to see themselves as victims and all men as oppressors that are not to be trusted. Some such groups have even stated this out loud on their websites, in interviews, LTTEs and so forth. I find it offensive, extreme, and it worries me that it's become a part of mainstream feminism.

	This seems like a snap judgement from a very sheltered perspective

.

Not nearly as severely so as pretty much everything you've written in your replies to me. You're also assuming that just because I don't make an exhaustive list of specific incidents, I don't know what I'm talking about. This is very rude.

	It's very easy for YOU to get that impression because what the TV tells you is easier to ingest than getting out there to get actual experience.

I would have, but I'm either not allowed because of my gender (how's that for gender equality?) or I'm quickly too repulsed by the lack of reason and prevalence of knee-jerk emotional responses to be patient with them. I've talked to several feminists and they all share these same traits, though I'm sure that there are some that don't.

	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Citations still missing: 12

This is just silly. Really. Drop it.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Speaking of which. Latro, where's your support of your "hasn't adapted to change as efficiently as it could have" statement?

First I'd say that the negation of my statement is by far the stronger statement of the two, and so if there wasn't an issue of "you said it first", the burden of proof would be on you, not me.

Second I'd say that providing specific evidence for small criticisms is extremely difficult. In general either the supporters of the movement are reporting successes, which will inevitably be slanted, or those opposed to the movement are "reporting" blatant failures, which will inevitably be slanted even more if the facts are even there in the first place. It is not easy to find detailed examples of "this went OK but if ... had happened it would've been better".

Given these two points, I'd say it'd be fair to lighten up on the "citation needed" type of stuff, and let some reasonable hearsay slide.

That said, there was an issue that was discussed earlier in this thread which I think is a good example of what I mean. Very few women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. The usual conclusion based on this data (without detailed analysis) that this is caused by current discrimination which needs to be corrected. When you look at the details of the data (as I did earlier in the thread) it becomes a bit hard to stomach this conclusion, because the people who are current CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have been so for a very long time. In particular many of them became CEOs before feminism's significant strides towards destroying the glass ceiling were taken.

To me this means that the problem might or might not be influenced by discrimination, but that the more important factor is corporate culture itself: a culture in which leaders hold their power for decades and then pass it on to established associates. A "good old boys club", if you will. Does this mean that the problem will simply correct itself as the current leaders die off? Probably not; as I said there probably is some influence of discrimination even now. But the problem is more complicated than that, and yet the discussion of the problem that I see (which is limited, I admit) focuses on the discrimination as if it is the central factor, without considering that it might not be the central factor.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What worries me is the way the left has hijacked feminism here (making it inaccessible to those who are not on the left), made "equal rights" synonymous with "feminism" and is using it for political and personal favors.

This is your opinion. Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Read again. You're just making things up as you please now.

I'm making as many things up as you are. If you'd like to stick to facts, produce the citation.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not a women's shelter and participants were for the most part not victims of anything.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again you're making very unfounded, ignorant assumptions and I think your misandry is shining through here. Why is it okay to you that a respected journalist, who had an appointment for an interview, is turned away because of his gender?

None of these facts were clear in your 'proof'. If this is the truth, provide the citation.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are basically implying that no man is to be trusted.

No, I am saying that trauma victims deserve to feel safe when undergoing therapy. Whether that is women, soldiers or animals, the idea is the same.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes! When asked why, she literally answered "Because he's a man!".

This is still more than adequately explained by my interpretation. Unless you can prove my interpretation wrong you're just trying to yell louder.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is one of many such groups in this part of the world where young women are taught to see themselves as victims and all men as oppressors that are not to be trusted.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some such groups have even stated this out loud on their websites, in interviews, LTTEs and so forth.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find it offensive, extreme, and it worries me that it's become a part of mainstream feminism.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not nearly as severely so as pretty much everything you've written in your replies to me. You're also assuming that just because I don't make an exhaustive list of specific incidents, I don't know what I'm talking about. This is very rude.

I am giving you the opportunity to back up your opinions with facts. Unless and until you can do that, your opinions are looking like the uninformed rot that they are. Your resultant calling of names must only result from feelings of butthurt. Fix the root problem: provide citations.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would have, but I'm either not allowed because of my gender (how's that for gender equality?) or I'm quickly too repulsed by the lack of reason and prevalence of knee-jerk emotional responses to be patient with them.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've talked to several feminists and they all share these same traits, though I'm sure that there are some that don't.

Citations needed.

	Originally Posted by spock84 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is just silly. Really. Drop it.

Opinions are fine and dandy, but not worth spit unless supported by proof. You have yet to provide a single citation for any of your many, many, many opinions. This means that you and the guy with the tinfoil hat have the same amount of validity.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Citations still needed: 20

---------- Post added 04-13-2012 at 10:45 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First I'd say that the negation of my statement is by far the stronger statement of the two, and so if there wasn't an issue of "you said it first", the burden of proof would be on you, not me.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think they've adopted swimmingly to change. I love what To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is doing for Equal Marriage, Racism, body image, International Women's Rights issues, Indigenous Women's Rights, abusive telecommunications practices, etc ec etc etc etc.

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Given these two points, I'd say it'd be fair to lighten up on the "citation needed" type of stuff, and let some reasonable hearsay slide.

Okay. How much? So far all of the criticisms of Modern Feminism in this thread have been completely and totally without any citations at all (that I can recall). However much you'd like to let slide, that would still leave 100% of the remainder unsupported.

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But the problem is more complicated than that, and yet the discussion of the problem that I see (which is limited, I admit) focuses on the discrimination as if it is the central factor, without considering that it might not be the central factor.

True. Irrelevant to the current Feminist movement, but true. CEO gender is in no way a goal of any current campaigns I am aware of. It was brought up as a straw man in this thread by those who wanted to say "see? Not relevant."

Duh. That's why nobody's focussing on it but naysayers.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not all dissenting opinions are exclusionary. Yours, however, appear to not only be exclusivist but unsupported and unyielding as well.

What the fuck?

You argue that you are "for equality" but then engage in explicit attempts to silence other people by making them out to be "non-persons".

People like you are the problem, not part of the solution you seem to think you are. You aren't for equality at all. You wish to dehumanize your opponents, and bully them into silence.

It's disgusting.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What the fuck? You argue that you are "for equality" but then engage in explicit attempts to silence other people by making them out to be "non-persons".

Your statements did not allow the validity of other's views. Therefore: exclusionary.
Your statements had no support. Therefore: unsupported.
Your statements had no inclusion of other's views. Therefore: unyielding.

If you can dispute any of these, please do so.

Please explain how these obvious truths about your statements are the same as me trying to silence you and/or dehumanize you.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People like you are the problem, not part of the solution you seem to think you are. You aren't for equality at all. You wish to dehumanize your opponents, and bully them into silence. It's disgusting.

Your attacks and emotional response are noted (you may want to re-read
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
), as is the lack of cogent rebuttal.

[Ferbguy101]

I think what latro's trying to say is that the feminists currently debating on this forum are using intimidating/provoking language that could be misunderstud as hostile behavior while the points your trying to make may possibly be actually very insightful and valid and while you may be passionate and enthuthiastic about your POV you need to express it in a less personal and provoking manner otherwise its hard for people to try to hear what you feminists say