Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   One thing feminists agree on, when a woman takes a "selfie" it is empowerful, when a man takes one, it is vanity, repulsive and a sure sign of infidelity and neediness   (jezebel.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, self-portraits, feminists  
•       •       •

24418 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2013 at 6:49 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-10 03:18:33 PM  
One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.
 
2013-03-10 04:14:49 PM  

St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.


She's just not the same since she broke up with Gene.
 
2013-03-10 04:21:36 PM  
Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.
 
2013-03-10 04:25:50 PM  

kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.


That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.
 
2013-03-10 04:53:20 PM  

doyner: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.


Likewise.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-10 05:08:57 PM  
I also figured masturbation. Then I figured self-portrait. Then I was curious enough to give Jezebel a page view and discovered they meant naughty self-portraits.
 
2013-03-10 05:33:17 PM  
This thread appears to be full of old people.
 
2013-03-10 06:05:40 PM  
... "empowerful" ?
 
2013-03-10 06:11:17 PM  

BKITU: ... "empowerful" ?


It's a perfectly cromulent word.
 
2013-03-10 06:38:42 PM  
"The more selfies a guy has, the more obvious it is he craves validation," my friend Lindsay said. "The more validation he needs, the less likely it is that any one woman will be able to give it to him."

I think that actually works for both sexes. Vainglorious people with a constant need for attention are emotionally high maintenance as a rule and it doesn't matter really if they are a guy or a gal.

That noted, I've often heard women say that they have no interest in spending time with a man with whom they would have to compete with for the bathroom mirror. So there's that.
 
2013-03-10 06:40:01 PM  
!/1/13: learn a new word every day.

3/10/13: check.
 
2013-03-10 06:50:22 PM  
This is about masturbation, right?
 
2013-03-10 06:51:51 PM  
I have learned to type with one hand and use a trackball with my foot.
 
2013-03-10 06:52:34 PM  
Yes, we know feminists... You think everything men do is wrong.
 
IP
2013-03-10 06:53:24 PM  
wat.
 
2013-03-10 06:53:40 PM  
Hugo Schwyzer?  *clicks link*  yep
 
2013-03-10 06:54:19 PM  
Just because I like to look at pictures of pretty girls does not mean I don't think many of them are vapid skanks. I don't really find it endearing for anyone to be so in-love with themselves. Regardless of gender.
 
2013-03-10 06:55:14 PM  
So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?
 
2013-03-10 06:55:30 PM  
macaxeirageral.net.br
 
2013-03-10 06:55:40 PM  

BKITU: ... "empowerful" ?


em powerful words Ellie May....
 
2013-03-10 06:55:40 PM  

fusillade762: This is about masturbation, right?


Isn't everything?
 
2013-03-10 06:55:47 PM  

mudpants: I have learned to type with one hand and use a trackball with my foot.


A hot chick at works uses a trackball.  I may giggle at work tomorrow.
 
2013-03-10 06:56:51 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


Worthy of a medal, possibly a parade for heroism.
 
2013-03-10 06:57:23 PM  
Jezebel is to feminists as Justin Bieber is to good, quality music.
 
2013-03-10 06:57:29 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: doyner: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.

Likewise.


Ditto
 
2013-03-10 06:57:54 PM  
"I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is.

i'm laying on the couch drunk and smelling like tacos with my beer belly hanging out while watching sports on the tv and thinking how pretty you are. happy? sex after the game[s] end?
 
2013-03-10 06:58:00 PM  
I still don't see how a feminist can respect vanity in anybody. Confidence? Sure. Vanity?
 
2013-03-10 06:58:36 PM  
If a man takes a "Selfie" he's gay. (NTTAWWT)
 
2013-03-10 07:00:52 PM  

BKITU: ... "empowerful" ?


It's no dumber a word than "selfie."
 
2013-03-10 07:00:52 PM  

quatchi: "The more selfies a guy has, the more obvious it is he craves validation," my friend Lindsay said. "The more validation he needs, the less likely it is that any one woman will be able to give it to him."

I think that actually works for both sexes. Vainglorious people with a constant need for attention are emotionally high maintenance as a rule and it doesn't matter really if they are a guy or a gal.

That noted, I've often heard women say that they have no interest in spending time with a man with whom they would have to compete with for the bathroom mirror. So there's that.


Bathrooms have mirrors? Who knew?
 
2013-03-10 07:01:23 PM  
Men care about what women look like, so women care about what women look like.

Women don't care what men look like* so when a man cares what he looks like he's vain.

*to a point, grooming goes both ways

It's what a man does that matters. Not how pretty he is.
  /nothing like good, old, ageless sexism
 
2013-03-10 07:02:49 PM  
To be a Jezebel reader is to suffer the existential misery of choosing between a narrative which states "ANTHONY WEINER WRONGED WOMYN!!!1one!" and a narrative which states "OMG TEH RETHUGLICANS SWIFTBLOATED ANTHONY WEINER!!1one!".
 
2013-03-10 07:03:23 PM  
i.imgur.com

Neofeminism is bullshiat- who would have guessed?
They're creating more resistance against genuine goals.
 
2013-03-10 07:03:29 PM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2013-03-10 07:04:20 PM  

rkiller1: mudpants: I have learned to type with one hand and use a trackball with my foot.

A hot chick at works uses a trackball.  I may giggle at work tomorrow.


I inherited the only marble mouse in my office from a fresh-out-of-college girl that demanded it for "ergonomic" reasons about a month before she quit.  I'm going to have the thing fumigated first thing Monday, now.

/I took a beautiful selfie yesterday morning, thanks to some bran muffins
 
2013-03-10 07:04:29 PM  

kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.


this
 
2013-03-10 07:05:34 PM  
Wow. Jump from "self portrait" to "penis photo" between title and first sentence? Mind the gap! Whole lotta crazy here?
 
2013-03-10 07:08:46 PM  
The problem with Jez is they're not as intelligent as their student loans indicate.
 
2013-03-10 07:09:23 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


A day ending in 'y'?
 
2013-03-10 07:09:39 PM  
I thought a selfie was masturbating to bum fights.

/ I can't be the only one
 
2013-03-10 07:10:43 PM  
That broad only needs a good dose of teh cock. amirite?
 
2013-03-10 07:11:33 PM  

Tanukis_Parachute: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

this


That.

Narcissus wasn't a hero, or someone to emulate.
 
2013-03-10 07:13:30 PM  
yeah, put me down for thinking this was about going solo

/nudge, nudge, wink, wink
 
2013-03-10 07:13:47 PM  
www.overarts.com
Ceci n'est pas une selfie
 
2013-03-10 07:14:57 PM  
Women don't like men who are as vain as they are. News at 11.
 
2013-03-10 07:15:19 PM  
Feminists turned me into a newt
 
2013-03-10 07:15:22 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


There are so many ways to answer this and almost all of them would be funny.
 
2013-03-10 07:17:07 PM  

Mrbogey: The problem with Jez is they're not as intelligent as their student loans indicate.


lol
oh snap
 
2013-03-10 07:18:03 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Neofeminism is bullshiat- who would have guessed?


...there was already a word for "neofeminism". It's called "misandry".
 
2013-03-10 07:18:29 PM  
Lotta angry c*nts over there.
 
2013-03-10 07:18:33 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: doyner: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.

Likewise.


Yup.
 
2013-03-10 07:22:22 PM  
If by "selfie" the asshole writer means me taking a photo of my vag, it will never happen. I am not that stupid and besides if I guy I want to be with wants to see it (or touch it or lick it or f*ck it) he has to do it in person -- no digital devices allowed.

/Get off my f*cking emerald lawn
 
2013-03-10 07:22:48 PM  

23FPB23: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: doyner: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.

Likewise.

Yup.


Ah, there's my group.  Hey guys.
 
2013-03-10 07:24:01 PM  

SBinRR: 23FPB23: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: doyner: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.

Likewise.

Yup.

Ah, there's my group.  Hey guys.


Hey guys, I brought cake! I baked it in the shape of a penis.
 
2013-03-10 07:24:51 PM  
www.rounds.com

Empowerment?
 
2013-03-10 07:25:08 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.


You said rape twice.
 
2013-03-10 07:25:38 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: philandering, watching porn, drinking, cheating, fighting, risky non-committal sex, rape, murder, throwing recyclables in the garbage, driving too fast, farting, eating too much, peeing on things, animal abuse, infanticide, matricide, patricide, smoking, rape, spousal abuse, cruelty to animals, voyeurism, exhibitionism, shyness, gregariousness, hermetic-ism, being a gadfly, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, having sexuality, enjoying sports, reading books, playing video games, going out doors, staying in doors, and looking out the window.

are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.


That was a menu, right?  I have highlighted my preferences, and look forward to receiving the finished product in 6-8 weeks.
 
2013-03-10 07:25:40 PM  
Sounds like someone needs to get laid.
 
2013-03-10 07:29:03 PM  
I always thought a "Selfie" was a mythological creature found in Faroese, Icelandic, Irish, and Scottish folklore.
What the hell was my Nana talking about???
 
2013-03-10 07:32:40 PM  

swankywanky: yeah, put me down for thinking this was about going solo

/nudge, nudge, wink, wink


/fapfap

selfies ARE a form of masturbation! it just happens to be a bit more widely acceptable, and a bit less messy.
 
2013-03-10 07:34:26 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: When it all comes down to it, the writers (and commenters) at Jezebel are among the most stereotypically  fashion-obsessed, shallow, vain, emotional, hysterical, irrational, catty, and, ultimately "female" people on the internet


totally agree, although I just went back and checked and it was a guy who wrote this

/and I'm using "guy" in the sense that the writer used the "he" pronoun in his byline
//not sure how that got by the Jezebel editors
 
2013-03-10 07:34:31 PM  

Rich Cream: Men care about what women look like, so women care about what women look like.

Women don't care what men look like* so when a man cares what he looks like he's vain.

*to a point, grooming goes both ways

It's what a man does that matters. Not how pretty he is.
  /nothing like good, old, ageless sexism



Actually I do care what a man looks like. Always wondered why men have so little interest in their own appearance, so it seems it is because they mistakenly think we don't care. Some people get it though - see  starlost's comment above about  laying on the couch drunk and smelling like tacos with my beer belly hanging out while watching sports- that is really not a good look, and yet some men either don't realise or don't care. The problem is so few men trouble themselves with their appearance at all that women don't have a lot to choose from, which is why you often see the good looking woman with a slob. Sometimes it's because he is rich though, that's true.

Also thought this was going to be about masturbation, and that 'empowerful' was a word used by people who don't realise it should be 'empowering'. I guess I must be old.
 
2013-03-10 07:39:23 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


It's hot. Very, very hot.
 
2013-03-10 07:39:30 PM  
Everyone wants to see tits.
No one wants to see dicks.

/dnrtfa
 
2013-03-10 07:40:31 PM  

swankywanky: not sure how that got by the Jezebel editors


Easy.  Womyn good, men bad.
 
2013-03-10 07:41:52 PM  

Nidiot: Rich Cream: Men care about what women look like, so women care about what women look like.

Women don't care what men look like* so when a man cares what he looks like he's vain.

*to a point, grooming goes both ways

It's what a man does that matters. Not how pretty he is.
  /nothing like good, old, ageless sexism


Actually I do care what a man looks like. Always wondered why men have so little interest in their own appearance, so it seems it is because they mistakenly think we don't care. Some people get it though - see  starlost's comment above about  laying on the couch drunk and smelling like tacos with my beer belly hanging out while watching sports- that is really not a good look, and yet some men either don't realise or don't care. The problem is so few men trouble themselves with their appearance at all that women don't have a lot to choose from, which is why you often see the good looking woman with a slob. Sometimes it's because he is rich though, that's true.

Also thought this was going to be about masturbation, and that 'empowerful' was a word used by people who don't realise it should be 'empowering'. I guess I must be old.


I was hanging out at the beach yesterday.  I saw two or three absolutely stunning girls in string bikinis... tossing around a frisbee with their boyfriends, a bunch of hairy, balding former fratboys with potbellies and five o'clock shadows.

I can't imagine those girls were dating those guys for their looks.
 
2013-03-10 07:43:11 PM  

doyner: swankywanky: not sure how that got by the Jezebel editors

Easy.  Womyn good, men bad.


no, the fact that it was a man who wrote the piece.  I honestly thought Jezebel was a womynist's only site

/stop the pennis party!
 
2013-03-10 07:43:15 PM  
FTFA: "I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is.

Which makes you a self-indulgent, vain c00nt.  The double standard amongst many self-proclaimed feminists is striking.
 
2013-03-10 07:44:21 PM  

unfarkingbelievable: see it (or touch it or lick it or f*ck it)


Go on ....
 
2013-03-10 07:45:01 PM  
Was I the only one who thought the article was pointing out the double standard rather than relishing in it?
 
2013-03-10 07:46:26 PM  
Women like pretty boys for one-night stands. They just don't respect them. Pigs.
 
2013-03-10 07:46:35 PM  

Baryogenesis: Was I the only one who thought the article was pointing out the double standard rather than relishing in it?


On Jezebel? Have you gone completely insane?
 
2013-03-10 07:47:56 PM  
FTFA:
The Repulsive Vanity of the Male Self-Portrait
by: Hugo Schwyzer

So let me get this straight... an author with a dude name writes an article that makes fark boys yell about biatches and coonts. way to go subby
 
2013-03-10 07:48:37 PM  
Did any of you actually read the article?

My reading is he is not condoning this at all, Even the "self-indulgent, vain c00nt" that OgreMagi (stay classy, dude) quoted above admits that she is "ashamed" that she thinks this way. The article also mentions that body dismorphia is rising in young men and that this is not a good thing.

This article really is not as man-bashing as you all seem to think.

My conclusion: you men-folk are too sensitive to internet criticism, you need thicker skins.
 
2013-03-10 07:49:06 PM  

wedun: FTFA:
The Repulsive Vanity of the Male Self-Portrait
by: Hugo Schwyzer

So let me get this straight... an author with a dude name writes an article that makes fark boys yell about biatches and coonts. way to go subby


What's your point? Are you better than us?
 
2013-03-10 07:50:32 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: swankywanky: Oh_Enough_Already: When it all comes down to it, the writers (and commenters) at Jezebel are among the most stereotypically  fashion-obsessed, shallow, vain, emotional, hysterical, irrational, catty, and, ultimately "female" people on the internet

totally agree, although I just went back and checked and it was a guy who wrote this

/and I'm using "guy" in the sense that the writer used the "he" pronoun in his byline
//not sure how that got by the Jezebel editors

This is a guy hated by many Jezzie commentors as he's a former self-confessed "kinda' guy we hate" (i.e. straight white alpha male)  who, while he was a college teacher admitted to regularly bedding his students, including three of them while on a trip one weekend, etc, (basically the kinda' person doing the kinda' things Jezebel loves to harp on as part of the "rape culture of the misogynistic patriarchy whargarble, etc) but, since he had his "come to Jesus moment" some years back, they've embraced him and sanctified him as the bright shining  example of a "man who's come to his senses" as he's one of the few penis-owners in America willing to write routine anti-male invectives as often as he does.

(Something which I have no doubt he's doing only to get into the panties of the Jezebel staff, and something which I also have no doubt they let happen, and enjoy the hell out of, but would be loathe to admit to anyone as it would undermine the very bedrock of their position and mission.)

   
Thanks!  Makes sense now that I have perused the comments. What's the Woody Allen joke,"I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member."
 
2013-03-10 07:50:39 PM  
Can you take a selfie while you take a selfie?
 
2013-03-10 07:50:40 PM  

swankywanky: doyner: swankywanky: not sure how that got by the Jezebel editors

Easy.  Womyn good, men bad.

no, the fact that it was a man who wrote the piece.  I honestly thought Jezebel was a womynist's only site

/stop the pennis party!


I'm saying that they'll print an article by a man if the message is that men suck.
 
2013-03-10 07:52:40 PM  
female vanity is pretty normal as women are so often judged on their appearance. a lifetime filled with commercials and advertisements shoving it down their throats doesn't help either.

guys that have to constantly check their look in the mirror i cannot be around. male blatant public self-love is too much to take.

few weeks ago a guy in a SUV was driving right at me in my lane well after he made a turn. he was thoroughly engrossed in checking himself out in the rear view. dooshbag.
 
2013-03-10 07:53:27 PM  
So Jezebel is the female version of Fark? Got it.
 
2013-03-10 07:54:40 PM  
I want to break into a feminist's house, tighten every lid on every jar, and then put all of the jars on the top shelf with a lone spider standing guard.

You know, just to test their mettle.
 
2013-03-10 07:54:49 PM  
When you stick your thumb in your butt and press forward, then its a shelfie
 
2013-03-10 07:55:00 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Everyone wants to see tits.
No one wants to see dicks.


If women wanted to see tits and not want dicks, then they wouldn't date men.

/eip, wie, and all that
 
2013-03-10 07:55:55 PM  
Men seldom look at a potential hot date and think "Wow, I hope she has a good job!"
 
2013-03-10 07:56:19 PM  
Whats the big deal - selfies have been round for decades

Link
 
2013-03-10 07:57:43 PM  

swankywanky: What's the Woody Allen joke,"I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member."


No, the Woody Allen joke is "I'm a neurotic nerdwho likes to sleep with little girls."


/you suck McBain!
 
2013-03-10 07:58:53 PM  

swankywanky: Thanks! Makes sense now that I have perused the comments. What's the Woody Allen joke,"I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member."


Groucho actually.
 
2013-03-10 08:01:08 PM  
You would have thought this was empowering. That men are just as prone to being self-conscious about their image as women. That men are adopting coping techniques to feel big and strong and impressive to deal with their self-doubt and feelings of inadequcy. Just because you're in the patriarchy doesn't mean you're not fragile.
 
2013-03-10 08:02:05 PM  
Leave her alone, women are naturally so weak that any self guided action without the help of a man is empowering.

/not helping makes the man an asshole
 
2013-03-10 08:02:34 PM  
Hugo Schwyzer? Isn't he that guy that feminists hate for being an attempted murderer or something? Then again, Jezebel were the people who published that "HAHA DOMETIC VIOLENCE IS TOTES HILARIOUS WHEN WE DO IT" a few years ago, so perhaps they're made for each other.
 
2013-03-10 08:02:43 PM  

thisispete: You would have thought this was empowering. That men are just as prone to being self-conscious about their image as women. That men are adopting coping techniques to feel big and strong and impressive to deal with their self-doubt and feelings of inadequcy. Just because you're in the patriarchy doesn't mean you're not fragile.


The Patriarchy Hurts Men 2: Electric Boogaloo
 
2013-03-10 08:02:47 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: bedrock of their position and mission


I totally read that as rock the bed in missionary position.
 
2013-03-10 08:02:53 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Just selfies?

After reading Jezebel, one can come to the conclusion that any and all of the endless number of behaviors which women hate men for engaging in, including, but not limited to:

philandering, watching porn, drinking, cheating, fighting, risky non-committal sex, rape, murder, throwing recyclables in the garbage, driving too fast, farting, eating too much, peeing on things, animal abuse, infanticide, matricide, patricide, smoking, rape, spousal abuse, cruelty to animals, voyeurism, exhibitionism, shyness, gregariousness, hermetic-ism, being a gadfly, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, having sexuality, enjoying sports, reading books, playing video games, going out doors, staying in doors, and looking out the window.

are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.


You said rape twice.
 
2013-03-10 08:03:28 PM  

FloydA: St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.

She's just not the same since she broke up with Gene.


I lol'd.


Also, as a man, I don't understand why any of us dudes are willingly reading Jezebel in the first place. It's not FOR us in the same way Justin Bieber isn't for people who like music.
 
2013-03-10 08:04:21 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


Confusing.

But incredibly hot.
 
2013-03-10 08:04:29 PM  

threefiveohonetwofivego: FloydA: St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.

She's just not the same since she broke up with Gene.

I lol'd.


Also, as a man, I don't understand why any of us dudes are willingly reading Jezebel in the first place. It's not FOR us in the same way Justin Bieber isn't for people who like music.


For the laughs, of course.
 
2013-03-10 08:12:17 PM  
Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...
 
2013-03-10 08:12:31 PM  
Everything you need to know about feminism can be learned from reading Millie Tant in Viz.

img136.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-10 08:17:40 PM  

kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.


In a way, I'd say you're completely right.
 
2013-03-10 08:19:33 PM  
Is it so wrong for a man to occasionally desire compliments from others on his appearance?

Or to want others to click the smart button on his comments to let him know that he is insightful and well endowed?
 
2013-03-10 08:21:42 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: The #1 reason women hate vain men is because the more time men spend looking at themselves, the less often women can complain about being ogled and "eye raped" and such, especially considering the amount of time they spend at the gym, the hair salon, etc making themselves as ogglable and eye rapable as possible. If they can't get outraged by the attention they set out to generate, where's the payoff? Whar?


I always giggle a bit when fatties get manicures, pedicures, and hairdo-s.  Want to look pretty? RUN A LAP!
 
2013-03-10 08:22:41 PM  

PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...


They also have to understand that the popularization and turnabout of certain aspects of feminism is a detriment.  That feminists don't want more rights than men, they want a fair starting place, and those that who do want more rights aren't into equality.  They believe feminazis just want to flip the gender roles: have one gender dominate the other unfairly, and then lash out at the dominant force.  Maybe some do, and maybe that's the track feminism has taken right now.  But it's not the original belief, that - to paraphrase you - what benefits women also benefits men.  Let's try to get back to that.
 
2013-03-10 08:23:10 PM  
i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-10 08:23:16 PM  

Yogimus: Oh_Enough_Already: The #1 reason women hate vain men is because the more time men spend looking at themselves, the less often women can complain about being ogled and "eye raped" and such, especially considering the amount of time they spend at the gym, the hair salon, etc making themselves as ogglable and eye rapable as possible. If they can't get outraged by the attention they set out to generate, where's the payoff? Whar?

I always giggle a bit when fatties get manicures, pedicures, and hairdo-s.  Want to look pretty? RUN A LAP!


And what's the deal with those stupid glasses they wear nowadays? Ooh! You're making such a bold statement!
 
2013-03-10 08:26:23 PM  

WhippingBoy: Yogimus: Oh_Enough_Already: The #1 reason women hate vain men is because the more time men spend looking at themselves, the less often women can complain about being ogled and "eye raped" and such, especially considering the amount of time they spend at the gym, the hair salon, etc making themselves as ogglable and eye rapable as possible. If they can't get outraged by the attention they set out to generate, where's the payoff? Whar?

I always giggle a bit when fatties get manicures, pedicures, and hairdo-s.  Want to look pretty? RUN A LAP!

And what's the deal with those stupid glasses they wear nowadays? Ooh! You're making such a bold statement!


And lip piercings on deucers. Looks like you have a tick hanging off your jowl.
 
2013-03-10 08:26:43 PM  
I consider myself a feminist, but Hugo Swyzer can EABOD.
 
2013-03-10 08:28:30 PM  

PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...


Yeah, it's not like this is a forum who's mascot is a squirrel with giant testicles. I expect more from you Fark. Algonquin Round Table more.
 
2013-03-10 08:30:47 PM  

Duck_of_Doom: PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...

They also have to understand that the popularization and turnabout of certain aspects of feminism is a detriment.  That feminists don't want more rights than men, they want a fair starting place, and those that who do want more rights aren't into equality.  They believe feminazis just want to flip the gender roles: have one gender dominate the other unfairly, and then lash out at the dominant force.  Maybe some do, and maybe that's the track feminism has taken right now.  But it's not the original belief, that - to paraphrase you - what benefits women also benefits men.  Let's try to get back to that.


It's not the track feminism has taken even remotely, actually, most feminists are focusing on things like the ME or getting a sane number of women\minorities\generally non-turtle people in our government. It's starting to become the  economic trend for low-income areas--girls are more likely to be breadwinners, try to be superwoman, guys are more likely to live off girlfriends--but that's not actually an application of any sort of feminism.

Part of the problem is people like this:

Oh_Enough_Already: The #1 reason women hate vain men is because the more time men spend looking at themselves, the less often women can complain about being ogled and "eye raped" and such, especially considering the amount of time they spend at the gym, the hair salon, etc making themselves as ogglable and eye rapable as possible. If they can't get outraged by the attention they set out to generate, where's the payoff? Whar?


Who really have no idea how the world works anyway and want to blame women for their own sexual urges.
 
2013-03-10 08:31:10 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Everything you need to know about feminism can be learned from reading Millie Tant in Viz.

[img136.imageshack.us image 850x473]


Mid-term in Progress Captures it pretty well.
 
2013-03-10 08:31:44 PM  
I just love the logic of Empowered™ neurotics...

/Beaucoups de lulz
 
2013-03-10 08:32:11 PM  

PsiChick: Duck_of_Doom: PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...

They also have to understand that the popularization and turnabout of certain aspects of feminism is a detriment.  That feminists don't want more rights than men, they want a fair starting place, and those that who do want more rights aren't into equality.  They believe feminazis just want to flip the gender roles: have one gender dominate the other unfairly, and then lash out at the dominant force.  Maybe some do, and maybe that's the track feminism has taken right now.  But it's not the original belief, that - to paraphrase you - what benefits women also benefits men.  Let's try to get back to that.

It's not the track feminism has taken even remotely, actually, most feminists are focusing on things like the ME or getting a sane number of women\minorities\generally non-turtle people in our government. It's starting to become the  economic trend for low-income areas--girls are more likely to be breadwinners, try to be superwoman, guys are more likely to live off girlfriends--but that's not actually an application of any sort of feminism.

Part of the problem is people like this:

Oh_Enough_Already: The #1 reason women hate vain men is because the more time men spend looking at themselves, the less often women can complain about being ogled and "eye raped" and such, especially considering the amount of time they spend at the gym, the hair salon, etc making themselves as ogglable and eye rapable as possible. If they can't get outraged by the attention they set out to generate, where's the payoff? Whar?

Who really have no idea how the world works anyway and want t ...


You do realize you're the laughing stock of Fark, don't you? I applaud your efforts, but every time I see you post, I feel bad for you.
 
2013-03-10 08:33:41 PM  

PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women



TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.
 
2013-03-10 08:36:25 PM  
these Jezebel biatches be getting truculent
 
2013-03-10 08:36:58 PM  

SBinRR: 23FPB23: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: doyner: kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.

That's what I thought.

Thanks, Judgeabel.

Likewise.

Yup.

Ah, there's my group.  Hey guys.


Hey back at ya and funding the Social Security trust fund since Johnson.
 
2013-03-10 08:38:13 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women


TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.


I don't know how anyone can argue Jezebel is anything other than a knee jerk soapbox for a few angry individuals. I just can't take them seriously, and that is an excellent example of why.
 
2013-03-10 08:38:30 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women


TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.


Well, that's very special, but  reading the article would have helped you realize that, no, in this case they  are actually promoting 'all humans are equal' feminism, so...

WhippingBoy: You do realize you're the laughing stock of Fark, don't you? I applaud your efforts, but every time I see you post, I feel bad for you.


Bless your heart.
 
2013-03-10 08:40:25 PM  

PsiChick: generally non-turtle people


What the hell does this mean?
 
2013-03-10 08:42:16 PM  

JohnnyC: Yes, we know feminists... You think everything men do is wrong.


The complete histrionic overreaction to Seth MacFarlane's job hosting the Oscars was proof positive of this fact. And the sad thing is that the overreaction still continues whenever a man points out how stupid (or utterly schadenfreudily* hilarious) the overreaction has been.

/*'empowerful', 'selfie'
 
2013-03-10 08:44:04 PM  

ph0rk: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women


TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.

I don't know how anyone can argue Jezebel is anything other than a knee jerk soapbox for a few angry individuals. I just can't take them seriously, and that is an excellent example of why.


Nobody takes Jezebel seriously. I'm a charter member of the He-Man Women Hater's Club, and not even I would deign to quote them as indicative of  "what feminists actually believe".
 
2013-03-10 08:45:20 PM  

PsiChick: Well, that's very special, but  reading the article would have helped you realize that, no, in this case they  are actually promoting 'all humans are equal' feminism, so...



Jezebel is to gender-equality what Fox News is to political compromise.

Both have the capability of being factually accurate, but more often than not they give a higher precedence to promoting their agenda.
 
2013-03-10 08:46:51 PM  

spamdog: What the hell does this mean?


Oh, derogatory name for people with penises. I see. How clever.
 
2013-03-10 08:49:26 PM  

spamdog: spamdog: What the hell does this mean?

Oh, derogatory name for people with penises. I see. How clever.


No. This is a turtle people:

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-10 08:49:50 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women


TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.


As a woman, I have a hard time dealing with angry feminists who think that all men are out to get them.

Men just aren't that smart.
 
2013-03-10 08:52:19 PM  

Gyrfalcon: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women


TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.

As a woman, I have a hard time dealing with angry feminists who think that all men are out to get them.

Men just aren't that smart.


Shhh... don't tell everyone. You'll ruin it for us.
 
2013-03-10 08:55:04 PM  

spamdog: PsiChick: generally non-turtle people

What the hell does this mean?


Go look at a picture of Bohener. Not sure how you spell his name, but the dude's been pretty influential in determining Republican policy, and Republican policy's been pissing off almost everyone, including feminists.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: Well, that's very special, but  reading the article would have helped you realize that, no, in this case they  are actually promoting 'all humans are equal' feminism, so...


Jezebel is to gender-equality what Fox News is to political compromise.

Both have the capability of being factually accurate, but more often than not they give a higher precedence to promoting their agenda.


And when Fox News actually manages to report things accurately, then we discuss the actual content of the article, not imaginary content based off a quote given in the article. Maybe one or two people go 'Faux News herpa derp', but this is a thread where nothing is happening except the Nice Guy Brigade storming out screaming at clouds because they can't seem to comprehend that this is one article where Jezebel is  agreeing with them.
 
2013-03-10 08:55:57 PM  

JohnnyC: Yes, we know feminists... You think everything men do is wrong.


Yes, we know,  antifeminists... You constantly misrepresent what feminists say.
 
2013-03-10 08:56:04 PM  

PsiChick: spamdog: PsiChick: generally non-turtle people

What the hell does this mean?

Go look at a picture of Bohener. Not sure how you spell his name, but the dude's been pretty influential in determining Republican policy, and Republican policy's been pissing off almost everyone, including feminists.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: Well, that's very special, but  reading the article would have helped you realize that, no, in this case they  are actually promoting 'all humans are equal' feminism, so...


Jezebel is to gender-equality what Fox News is to political compromise.

Both have the capability of being factually accurate, but more often than not they give a higher precedence to promoting their agenda.

And when Fox News actually manages to report things accurately, then we discuss the actual content of the article, not imaginary content based off a quote given in the article. Maybe one or two people go 'Faux News herpa derp', but this is a thread where nothing is happening except the Nice Guy Brigade storming out screaming at clouds because they can't seem to comprehend that this is one article where Jezebel is  agreeing with them.


You don't quite get it so I'll spell it out for you: It's Jezebel. NOBODY CARES!!!
 
2013-03-10 08:56:34 PM  
It's probably worth mentioning that Jezebel's particular brand of feminism - this culture-warring kind of feminism - is fueling a backlash from a lot of men. Some places on the web now are just crawling with so-called MRA's (men's rights advocates) who read this kind of stuff and get whipped into a paranoid frenzy.
I find it tiresome and the domain of very insecure men, but I still take their side over bullshiatty misandry that Jezebel and the tumblr set pimps out.

I really don't think we are going to be ushered into an age of gender enlightenment by the efforts of people who use terms like "turtle-people" to refer the the opposite sex. If it's a fight you want, you'll get it, but don't try to dress it up as intellectual or clever or enlightened. It's not.
 
2013-03-10 08:57:54 PM  

PsiChick: Bohener


I think you're thinking of Mitch McConnell.
 
2013-03-10 08:58:50 PM  

spamdog: It's probably worth mentioning that Jezebel's particular brand of feminism - this culture-warring kind of feminism - is fueling a backlash from a lot of men. Some places on the web now are just crawling with so-called MRA's (men's rights advocates) who read this kind of stuff and get whipped into a paranoid frenzy.
I find it tiresome and the domain of very insecure men, but I still take their side over bullshiatty misandry that Jezebel and the tumblr set pimps out.

I really don't think we are going to be ushered into an age of gender enlightenment by the efforts of people who use terms like "turtle-people" to refer the the opposite sex. If it's a fight you want, you'll get it, but don't try to dress it up as intellectual or clever or enlightened. It's not.


Yeah. It's all pretty farked up. This constant "us vs them" attitude helps no one.
 
2013-03-10 09:00:11 PM  
A female sexist is not a feminist.
 
2013-03-10 09:03:55 PM  
Is it me, or has there been a real surge of feminazi behavior of late going on lately. Smack talk about how video games are sexist, and even the EU wants to ban all porn because they say porn=female objectification. What sort of event went on that triggered every diesel dyke out there to go into a buttrage?

comedysmack.com

Is this going to be an ongoing thing, or should we just wait a week for them to stop overloading their tampons and return to sanity?
 
2013-03-10 09:05:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Is it me, or has there been a real surge of feminazi behavior of late going on lately. Smack talk about how video games are sexist, and even the EU wants to ban all porn because they say porn=female objectification. What sort of event went on that triggered every diesel dyke out there to go into a buttrage?

[comedysmack.com image 500x363]

Is this going to be an ongoing thing, or should we just wait a week for them to stop overloading their tampons and return to sanity?


Every woman in the world's "cycle" has finally synced up. Just as Nostradomas predicted.
 
2013-03-10 09:05:13 PM  

fusillade762: Can you take a selfie while you take a selfie?


that's not like dividing by zero, is it?
 
2013-03-10 09:09:00 PM  

jso2897: A female sexist is not a feminist.


Pretty much this. But sometimes it's fun to have to be disciplined by your mistress because you've been a bad boy and you know it.
 
2013-03-10 09:09:58 PM  

doglover: jso2897: A female sexist is not a feminist.

Pretty much this. But sometimes it's fun to have to be disciplined by your mistress because you've been a bad boy and you know it.


Women can't be sexist because they're the oppressed, not the oppressor.
 
2013-03-10 09:11:11 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-10 09:12:03 PM  

Tak the Hideous New Girl: Did any of you actually read the article?

My reading is he is not condoning this at all, Even the "self-indulgent, vain c00nt" that OgreMagi (stay classy, dude) quoted above admits that she is "ashamed" that she thinks this way. The article also mentions that body dismorphia is rising in young men and that this is not a good thing.

This article really is not as man-bashing as you all seem to think.

My conclusion: you men-folk are too sensitive to internet criticism, you need thicker skins.



You may be new to Fark misogyny threads.  I wish you luck.
 
2013-03-10 09:14:03 PM  

WhippingBoy: doglover: jso2897: A female sexist is not a feminist.

Pretty much this. But sometimes it's fun to have to be disciplined by your mistress because you've been a bad boy and you know it.

Women can't be sexist because they're the oppressed, not the oppressor.


They're totally the oppressor as soon as they get the upper hand. Plenty of abused husbands out there.

Hell, even in Asia, where women traditionally get the shaft by Western standards and workforce integration is still difficult the traditional marriage paradigm is very similar to Chris Rock's comedy bit about divorce.

Chris Rock's joke: biatch get half

Asian Marriage: wife get all
 
2013-03-10 09:15:09 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-10 09:16:13 PM  
robotdarwin.com
 
2013-03-10 09:17:59 PM  
Seems like she needs a massive influx of WIE just to keep her honest.

I'll be happy to recieve a massive influx of BIE just to make it even
 
2013-03-10 09:18:00 PM  
"I am ashamed as a feminist to admit that while I champion vanity in women, I find it kind of off-putting in men," Emily told me in an email. "I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is. I don't dislike vain men as people, but I wouldn't want to date one."


Awww, isn't a double standard SO cute??

Fark you, lady. I don't even LIKE pictures of myself(Ever), but I'd send you 1,000 a day just to send your hypocritical ass into hysterics.
 
2013-03-10 09:18:06 PM  

PsiChick: And when Fox News actually manages to report things accurately, then we discuss the actual content of the article, not imaginary content based off a quote given in the article.



Accurate reporting implies that facts are being reported accurately. TFA being discussed has no such facts , it is an opinion piece on a second opinion piece.

If this were a report about some peer-reviewed scientific study, then yes, it would be a bit rude to ignore the content and attack the messenger. But TFA is nothing but opinions, so I do feel that other opinions held by the same source are completely within the context of the discussion.
 
2013-03-10 09:18:11 PM  
i122.photobucket.com
Got the male, female shells wrong. Male turtles and tortoises have concave chest plates so they can mate.
 
2013-03-10 09:18:14 PM  
If I meet someone in real life who uses the word "selfie" in earnest, I am going to tell them they are dead to me and never speak to them again.
 
2013-03-10 09:20:41 PM  

spamdog: PsiChick: Bohener

I think you're thinking of Mitch McConnell.


Possibly. I have no idea why, but I am actually clinically bad at names\faces. Like, probably face-blind, and that screws over some other areas of my brain. So yes, it may well be someone else.

spamdog: It's probably worth mentioning that Jezebel's particular brand of feminism - this culture-warring kind of feminism - is fueling a backlash from a lot of men. Some places on the web now are just crawling with so-called MRA's (men's rights advocates) who read this kind of stuff and get whipped into a paranoid frenzy.
I find it tiresome and the domain of very insecure men, but I still take their side over bullshiatty misandry that Jezebel and the tumblr set pimps out.

I really don't think we are going to be ushered into an age of gender enlightenment by the efforts of people who use terms like "turtle-people" to refer the the opposite sex. If it's a fight you want, you'll get it, but don't try to dress it up as intellectual or clever or enlightened. It's not.


Well, that's a great way of proving you misunderstood just about everything. That, or you think the Republican Party is somehow representative of all men everywhere.

WhippingBoy: You don't quite get it so I'll spell it out for you: It's Jezebel. NOBODY CARES!!!


Funny, there's a lot of people replying to me. You, for one. Apparently  you must care a lot...
 
2013-03-10 09:21:50 PM  
Who cares?
 
2013-03-10 09:23:14 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Is this going to be an ongoing thing, or should we just wait a week for them to stop overloading their tampons and return to sanity?


You want to wait a week to see if they will learn to wipe from front to back?

Or learn to drive in the snow?

Or learn to cook?

Or learn how to shut their yaps when everything is going fine, otherwise?

//Didn't think so.
 
2013-03-10 09:28:54 PM  

WhippingBoy: Women can't be sexist because they're the oppressed, not the oppressor.


I know you're joking (you charming rogue you), but sadly there are many people out there who sincerely believe that society is comprised of permanently fixed oppressor vs. oppressed groups -- when they should be recognizing the obvious fact that anyone (regardless of their sex, race, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) who oppresses someone else is an "oppressor" in that particular situation, and that anyone (again regardless of their sex, race, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) who is "oppressed" by someone else is oppressed in that particular situation. --This is merely common sense, but God knows there are people out there who would claim that common sense is a tool of oppression as well.
 
2013-03-10 09:29:05 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And when Fox News actually manages to report things accurately, then we discuss the actual content of the article, not imaginary content based off a quote given in the article.


Accurate reporting implies that facts are being reported accurately. TFA being discussed has no such facts , it is an opinion piece on a second opinion piece.

If this were a report about some peer-reviewed scientific study, then yes, it would be a bit rude to ignore the content and attack the messenger. But TFA is nothing but opinions, so I do feel that other opinions held by the same source are completely within the context of the discussion.


When TFA is the exact opposite of the opinions you're citing, that puts a damper on it. That's what we call 'invalid sourcing'. For example, if I wrote a paper stating that ancient Egyptian women had no freedom because of an opinion piece stating the exact opposite, I would deserve the F grade it got.
 
2013-03-10 09:29:10 PM  

PsiChick: spamdog: PsiChick: Bohener

I think you're thinking of Mitch McConnell.

Possibly. I have no idea why, but I am actually clinically bad at names\faces. Like, probably face-blind, and that screws over some other areas of my brain. So yes, it may well be someone else.

spamdog: It's probably worth mentioning that Jezebel's particular brand of feminism - this culture-warring kind of feminism - is fueling a backlash from a lot of men. Some places on the web now are just crawling with so-called MRA's (men's rights advocates) who read this kind of stuff and get whipped into a paranoid frenzy.
I find it tiresome and the domain of very insecure men, but I still take their side over bullshiatty misandry that Jezebel and the tumblr set pimps out.

I really don't think we are going to be ushered into an age of gender enlightenment by the efforts of people who use terms like "turtle-people" to refer the the opposite sex. If it's a fight you want, you'll get it, but don't try to dress it up as intellectual or clever or enlightened. It's not.

Well, that's a great way of proving you misunderstood just about everything. That, or you think the Republican Party is somehow representative of all men everywhere.

WhippingBoy: You don't quite get it so I'll spell it out for you: It's Jezebel. NOBODY CARES!!!

Funny, there's a lot of people replying to me. You, for one. Apparently  you must care a lot...


Oh, I care, baby. I care too much.
 
2013-03-10 09:29:19 PM  
Turtle people? Sounds like some people have dropped acid.
 
2013-03-10 09:31:59 PM  
Heh. I think it's cute that modern feminism can't seem to grasp the idea that you don't need to tear down men to elevate women.

Women: having a thousand duck faced pictures taken at extreme angles to hide my body shape is strengthening my body image and embracing womaninity. But don't you guys dare take an unambiguous body shot in the interest of honesty-in-pictures.

Lame.
 
2013-03-10 09:33:21 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


Just an average day in the life?
 
2013-03-10 09:35:03 PM  
PsiChick
WhippingBoy:
You don't quite get it so I'll spell it out for you: It's Jezebel. NOBODY CARES!!!

Funny, there's a lot of people replying to me.


..to you, who complains herself about people not paying attention to the content of the article.
 
2013-03-10 09:36:09 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Just selfies?

After reading Jezebel, one can come to the conclusion that any and all of the endless number of behaviors which women hate men for engaging in, including, but not limited to:

philandering, watching porn, drinking, cheating, fighting, risky non-committal sex, rape, murder, throwing recyclables in the garbage, driving too fast, farting, eating too much, peeing on things, animal abuse, infanticide, matricide, patricide, smoking, rape, spousal abuse, cruelty to animals, voyeurism, exhibitionism, shyness, gregariousness, hermetic-ism, being a gadfly, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, having sexuality, enjoying sports, reading books, playing video games, going out doors, staying in doors, and looking out the window.

are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.


You said rape twice.

/come on, you know you want to...
 
2013-03-10 09:38:41 PM  

PsiChick: When TFA is the exact opposite of the opinions you're citing, that puts a damper on it. That's what we call 'invalid sourcing'. For example, if I wrote a paper stating that ancient Egyptian women had no freedom because of an opinion piece stating the exact opposite, I would deserve the F grade it got.



No, this is more like reading a pro-choice speech from a Republican Senator. While the speech may match our own opinions, that doesn't negate the fact that the same speaker has openly campaigned against equality for women.
 
2013-03-10 09:44:29 PM  
I don't want to see a million self portraits of anyone. Show me photos of you doing things, or photos you've taken of interesting places or things, but I don't need to know what you look like in every bathroom in Vegas.
 
2013-03-10 09:44:40 PM  

fariasrv: Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?

Just an average day in the life?


A obligation for Ghastly as to not disappoint the public.
 
2013-03-10 09:46:02 PM  
PsiChick: (RE: Turtle People) Well, that's a great way of proving you misunderstood just about everything.

I was actually going off the urban dictionary definition of the phrase, which is about male genitals. But it doesn't matter now anyway.
 
2013-03-10 09:48:52 PM  
the ha ha guy: No, this is more like reading a pro-choice speech from a Republican Senator. While the speech may match our own opinions, that doesn't negate the fact that the same speaker has openly campaigned against equality for women.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any particular person's views on abortion -- whether they are for it or against it -- would have any bearing on whether or not they also consider women to be inferior, superior, or equal to men in various respects.
 
2013-03-10 09:49:15 PM  

spamdog: PsiChick: (RE: Turtle People) Well, that's a great way of proving you misunderstood just about everything.

I was actually going off the urban dictionary definition of the phrase, which is about male genitals. But it doesn't matter now anyway.


80% of the urban dictionary definitions are about genitals.
 
2013-03-10 09:49:39 PM  

PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...


It's pretty obvious that most of the posters in this thread have probably never read an actual article from Jezebel.
 
2013-03-10 09:52:19 PM  

valar_morghulis: Lotta angry c*nts over there.


Broads don't like to be called c*nts.
 
2013-03-10 09:55:22 PM  

neongoats: But don't you guys dare take an unambiguous body shot in the interest of honesty-in-pictures.


That's what I got out of the article.

And honestly, I enjoy reading Jezebel articles on occasion. I realize there is a severe sexist slant against my gender, but they also have more moderate articles at times that aren't as hateful towards straight men.

As for me and "selfies"? I have one I use on Gravatar, and another on Twitter. Facebook pics (including my profile pic) are pretty much of my fiancée and I. I don't feel gay/straight/empowered/powerless/introverted/extroverted/shy/bold or whatever. It was a picture of me or a picture of Lurch, and I was afraid of being sued by Paramount.
 
2013-03-10 09:57:45 PM  

WhippingBoy: threefiveohonetwofivego: FloydA: St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.

She's just not the same since she broke up with Gene.

I lol'd.


Also, as a man, I don't understand why any of us dudes are willingly reading Jezebel in the first place. It's not FOR us in the same way Justin Bieber isn't for people who like music.

For the laughs, of course.


Yup.  I was reading Lifehacker this morning and saw  this linked at the bottom of the page and I clicked. I wasn't expecting to be enlightened or to get enraged, not even to get turned on -- I clicked for the laughs. I did laugh but also left a little confused.

I feel sorry for the people who read this shiat for insight
 
2013-03-10 09:58:11 PM  

Tak the Hideous New Girl: This article really is not as man-bashing as you all seem to think.

My conclusion: you men-folk are too sensitive to internet criticism


You'll have to cut us (and some of the women commenting) some slack. After the umpteenth some article that got posted by Jezebel in a row that contained nothing but "men are evil" people have been conditioned accordingly. It's gotten so bad that some of their writers (like Hugo) are known here by name.

To put this in perspective, it would be like having the Westboro Baptist church come out with an article that talked about wasn't vehemently anti-gay. People would start pouncing before reading because almost every other thing they have other written has been militantly anti-gay.

All things considered I can't think of any site that has consistently trolled Fark as well over the years as Jezebel has. Their a hate site that spews hate like Westboro Baptist Church, what else do you expect after several years of exposure?
 
2013-03-10 09:58:30 PM  
Hugo Schwyzer is a rapist and a vapid nurnie. fark anything he has to say.
 
2013-03-10 10:00:40 PM  

ciberido: JohnnyC: Yes, we know feminists... You think everything men do is wrong.

Yes, we know,  antifeminists... You constantly misrepresent what feminists say.


See what I mean? Thanks for proving my point.
 
2013-03-10 10:02:08 PM  
The biggest problem that I see with many feminists (not most, just many, both "paleo" and "neo") is that they cannot grasp the concept that equality is NOT a zero-sum game.  You see the same sort of thinking among religious fundamentalists in regard to gay rights.
 
2013-03-10 10:02:59 PM  
I know a smokin hot bisexual chick that showed me her tits once and she uses that whole 'womyn' with a y thing.  It is just so infantile and screams of control issues.
 
2013-03-10 10:03:14 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: When TFA is the exact opposite of the opinions you're citing, that puts a damper on it. That's what we call 'invalid sourcing'. For example, if I wrote a paper stating that ancient Egyptian women had no freedom because of an opinion piece stating the exact opposite, I would deserve the F grade it got.


No, this is more like reading a pro-choice speech from a Republican Senator. While the speech may match our own opinions, that doesn't negate the fact that the same speaker has openly campaigned against equality for women.


Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA  actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.

spamdog: PsiChick: (RE: Turtle People) Well, that's a great way of proving you misunderstood just about everything.

I was actually going off the urban dictionary definition of the phrase, which is about male genitals. But it doesn't matter now anyway.


Well, that's kind of an odd argument, since the feminist mainstream doesn't tend to use Urban Dictionary definitions...

The Voice of Doom: PsiChick
WhippingBoy: You don't quite get it so I'll spell it out for you: It's Jezebel. NOBODY CARES!!!

Funny, there's a lot of people replying to me.

..to you, who complains herself about people not paying attention to the content of the article.


Well, I'm actually complaining about the classic Nice Guy Brigade, who have had multiple incidents of not realizing when people are agreeing with them, showing up.
 
2013-03-10 10:05:54 PM  

PsiChick: Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.


YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO'S READ IT!

Everyone else stopped reading when they realized "selfie" wasn't about masturbation.
 
2013-03-10 10:08:56 PM  

lewismarktwo: I know a smokin hot bisexual chick that showed me her tits once and she uses that whole 'womyn' with a y thing.  It is just so infantile and screams of control issues.


They get past that by thier mid twenties. Guys to this sort of thing, too.  Trying on off-the-shelf personas and usually picking an extreme version to seem interesting.
 
2013-03-10 10:10:48 PM  

threefiveohonetwofivego: FloydA: St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.

She's just not the same since she broke up with Gene.

I lol'd.


Know how I know you're old?  ;-)
 
2013-03-10 10:12:25 PM  

vudukungfu: TV's Vinnie: Is this going to be an ongoing thing, or should we just wait a week for them to stop overloading their tampons and return to sanity?

You want to wait a week to see if they will learn to wipe from front to back?

Or learn to drive in the snow?

Or learn to cook?

Or learn how to shut their yaps when everything is going fine, otherwise?

//Didn't think so.


I see that someone still has a few days left to go.
 
2013-03-10 10:12:59 PM  

arashinogarou: neongoats: But don't you guys dare take an unambiguous body shot in the interest of honesty-in-pictures.

That's what I got out of the article.

And honestly, I enjoy reading Jezebel articles on occasion. I realize there is a severe sexist slant against my gender, but they also have more moderate articles at times that aren't as hateful towards straight men.

As for me and "selfies"? I have one I use on Gravatar, and another on Twitter. Facebook pics (including my profile pic) are pretty much of my fiancée and I. I don't feel gay/straight/empowered/powerless/introverted/extroverted/shy/bold or whatever. It was a picture of me or a picture of Lurch, and I was afraid of being sued by Paramount.


I've read PLENTY of good articles on Jezebel. But despite what someone else in this thread is championing, I don't see the article calling out this double standard as "bad" at all. It points out the double standard, it talks about where it comes from, it talks about a growing segment of men with body image issues. And basically concludes that, "shrug, it's still good for the girls, and still bad when men do it".
 
2013-03-10 10:13:04 PM  
I think it's great that the thread can get this far without anyone noticing that the headline has nothing to do with TFA.
 
2013-03-10 10:14:17 PM  

PsiChick: Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA  actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.



You're right that TFA did not directly uphold the double standard, but they didn't directly strike it down either. I read it more as "this is reality, get used to it".
 
2013-03-10 10:16:53 PM  

jso2897: A female sexist is not a feminist.


Your absolutely right, they are a chauvinist.
 
2013-03-10 10:19:10 PM  

wedun: I think it's great that the thread can get this far without anyone noticing that the headline has nothing to do with TFA.


Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown Fark.com.
 
2013-03-10 10:22:24 PM  

El Dudereno: valar_morghulis: Lotta angry c*nts over there.

Broads don't like to be called c*nts.


i36.photobucket.com
Never call chics broads!!
 
2013-03-10 10:23:09 PM  

FunkOut: fariasrv: Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?

Just an average day in the life?

A obligation for Ghastly as to not disappoint the public.


sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-10 10:24:12 PM  

PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...


Jezebel needs basic literacy first, to be understood.  Worst writing on the Web, including American Stinker.
 
2013-03-10 10:24:27 PM  

doglover: PsiChick: Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO'S READ IT!

Everyone else stopped reading when they realized "selfie" wasn't about masturbation.


In a thread where everyone's agreeing with the Nice Guy Brigade, 'I didn't even read it!' might not be the greatest argument there.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA  actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.


You're right that TFA did not directly uphold the double standard, but they didn't directly strike it down either. I read it more as "this is reality, get used to it".


I actually read it as calling attention to it, which is something feminists  do actually do a lot--call attention to a problem to get people thinking about it. That's not usually upholding the problem; it's the first step to confronting it.
 
2013-03-10 10:25:29 PM  
I still want to know what turtle-people means
 
2013-03-10 10:27:20 PM  

CWeinerWV: I still want to know what turtle-people means


www.adolescentadulthood.com
 
2013-03-10 10:27:53 PM  

PsiChick: doglover: PsiChick: Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO'S READ IT!

Everyone else stopped reading when they realized "selfie" wasn't about masturbation.

In a thread where everyone's agreeing with the Nice Guy Brigade, 'I didn't even read it!' might not be the greatest argument there.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: Except everyone's opinion isn't that TFA is hypocritical, it's that TFA  actually upheld the double standard, which was never said.


You're right that TFA did not directly uphold the double standard, but they didn't directly strike it down either. I read it more as "this is reality, get used to it".

I actually read it as calling attention to it, which is something feminists  do actually do a lot--call attention to a problem to get people thinking about it. That's not usually upholding the problem; it's the first step to confronting it.


Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".
 
2013-03-10 10:28:34 PM  

Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?


My lucky day and a bull market for the hand lotion industry?
 
2013-03-10 10:30:08 PM  

Ghastly: FunkOut: fariasrv: Ghastly: So what is it when I take a selfie in drag?

Just an average day in the life?

A obligation for Ghastly as to not disappoint the public.

[sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net image 573x960]


No, no, no. You're supposed to put your left hand in the photo so that we can see if you are married or not.
 
2013-03-10 10:30:19 PM  

PsiChick: In a thread where everyone's agreeing with the Nice Guy Brigade


The gimmicks of the charlatans may seem quaint today, but there are thousands of charlatans among us still, using the same tried-and-true methods their predecessors refined centuries ago, only changing the names of their elixirs and modernizing the look of their cults. We find these latterday charlatans in all arenas of life-business, fashion, politics, art. Many of them, perhaps, are following in the charlatan tradition without having any knowledge of its history, but you can be more systematic and deliberate.

Simply follow the five steps of cultmaking that our charlatan ancestors perfected over the years.

Step I: Keep It Vague; Keep It Simple. To create a cult you must first attract attention. This you should do not through actions, which are too clear and readable, but through words, which are hazy and deceptive. Your initial speeches, conversations, and interviews must include two elements: on the one hand the promise of something great and transformative, and on the other a total vagueness. This combination will stimulate all kinds of hazy dreams in your listeners, who will make their own connections and see what they want to see.

To make your vagueness attractive, use words of great resonance but cloudy meaning, words full of heat and enthusiasm. Fancy titles for simple things are helpful, as are the use of numbers and the creation of new words for vague concepts. All of these create the impression of specialized knowledge, giving you a veneer of profundity. By the same token, try to make the subject of your cult new and fresh, so that few will understand it. Done right, the combination of vague promises, cloudy but alluring concepts, and fiery enthusiasm will stir people's souls and a group will form around you.

Talk too vaguely and you have no credibility. But it is more dangerous to be specific. If you explain in detail the benefits people will gain by following your cult, you will be expected to satisfy them.

As a corollary to its vagueness your appeal should also be simple. Most people's problems have complex causes: deep-rooted neurosis, interconnected social factors, roots that go way back in time and are exceed ingly hard to unravel. Few, however, have the patience to deal with this:most people want to hear that a simple solution will cure their problems.

The ability to offer this kind of solution will give you great power and build you a following. Instead of the complicated explanations of real life, return to the primitive solutions of our ancestors, to good old country remedies, to mysterious panaceas.

Step 2: Emphasize the Visual and the Sensual over the Intellectual. Once people have begun to gather around you, two dangers will present themselves: boredom and skepticism. Boredom will make people go elsewhere; skepticism will allow them the distance to think rationally about whatever it is you are offering, blowing away the mist you have artfully created and revealing your ideas for what they are. You need to amuse the bored, then, and ward off the cynics. The best way to do this is through theater, or other devices of its kind.

Surround yourself with luxury, dazzle your followers with visual splendor, fill their eyes with spectacle. Not only will this keep them from seeing the ridiculousness of your ideas, the holes in your belief system, it will also attract more attention, more followers.

Appeal to all the senses: Use incense for scent, soothing music for hearing, colorful charts and graphs for the eye. You might even tickle the mind, perhaps by using new technological gadgets to give your cult a pseudo-scientific veneer-as long as you do not make anyone really think. Use the exotic-distant cultures, strange customs-to create theatrical effects, and to make the most banal ordinary affairs seem signs of something extraordinary.

Step 3: Borrow the Forms of Organized Religion to Structure the Group. Your cultlike following is growing; it is time to organize it. Find a way both elevating and comforting. Organized religions have long held unquestioned authority for large numbers of people, and continue to do so in our supposedly secular age. And even if the religion itself has faded some, its forms still resonate with power. The lofty and holy associations of organized religion can be endlesslv exploited. (Does not apply to a certain online group) Create rituals for your followers: organize organize them into a hierarchy, ranking then in grades of sanctity, and giving them names and tides that resound with religious overtones; ask them for sacrifices that will fill your coffers and increase your power. To emphasize your gathering's quasi-religious nature, talk and act like a prophet. You are not a dictator, after all; you are a priest, a guru, a sage, a shaman, or any other word that hides your real power in the mist of religion.

Step 4: Disguise Your Source of Income. Your group has grown, and you have structured it in a churchlike form. Your coffers are beginning to fill with your followers' money. Yet you must never be seen as hungry for money and the power it brings. It is at this moment that you must disguise the source of your income.

Your followers want to believe that if they follow you all sorts of good things will fall into their lap. By surrounding yourself with luxury you become living proof of the soundness of your belief system. Never reveal that your wealth actually comes from your followers' pockets; instead, make it seem to come from the truth of your methods. Followers will copy your each and every move in the belief that it will bring them the same results, and their imitative enthusiasm will blind them to the charlatan nature of your wealth.

Step 5: Set Up an Us-Versus-Them Dynamic. The group is now large and thriving, a magnet attracting more and more particles. If you are not careful, though, inertia will set in, and time and boredom will demagnetize the group. To keep your followers united, you must now do what all religions and belief systems have done: create an us-versus-them dynamic.

First, make sure your followers believe they are part of an exclusive club unified by a bond of common goals. Then to stregthen this bond, manufactre the notion of a devious enemy out to ruin you. There is a force of nonbelievers that will do anything to stop you. Any outsider who tries to reveal the charlatan nature of your belief system can now be described as member of this devious force.

If you have no enemies, invent one. Given a straw man to react against your, your followers will tighten and cohere. They have your cause to believe in and infidels to destroy.
 
2013-03-10 10:31:35 PM  

CWeinerWV: I still want to know what turtle-people means


If you allow gays to marry, pretty soon you'll have to let men marry turtles, and then who knows what kind of messed up weirdos will come out!

i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-10 10:34:49 PM  
It's still cool to text penis pics around though, right?
 
2013-03-10 10:35:32 PM  

FloydA: CWeinerWV: I still want to know what turtle-people means

If you allow gays to marry, pretty soon you'll have to let men marry turtles, and then who knows what kind of messed up weirdos will come out!

[i105.photobucket.com image 260x190]


copiousnotes.bloginky.com
 
2013-03-10 10:36:22 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...

Jezebel needs basic literacy first, to be understood.  Worst writing on the Web, including American Stinker.


Yeah...again: You really wanna go with that? 'I was supporting the Nice Guy Brigade because I couldn't be arsed to read the article'? Not sure I'd go with that one myself.

neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".


Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.

doglover: PsiChick: In a thread where everyone's agreeing with the Nice Guy Brigade

The gimmicks of the charlatans may seem quaint today, but there are thousands of charlatans among us still, using the same tried-and-true methods their predecessors refined centuries ago, only changing the names of their elixirs and modernizing the look of their cults. We find these latterday charlatans in all arenas of life-business, fashion, politics, art. Many of them, perhaps, are following in the charlatan tradition without having any knowledge of its history, but you can be more systematic and deliberate.

Simply follow the five steps of cultmaking that our charlatan ancestors perfected over the years.

Step I: Keep It Vague; Keep It Simple. To create a cult you must first attract attention. This you should do not through actions, which are too clear and readable, but through words, which are hazy and deceptive. Your initial speeches, conversations, and interviews must include two elements: on the one hand the promise of something great and transformative, and on the other a total vagueness. This combination will stimulate all kinds of hazy dreams in your listeners, who will make their own connections and see what they want to see.

To make your vagueness attractive, use words of great resonance but cloudy meaning, words full of heat and enthusiasm. Fancy titles for simple things are helpful, as are the use of numbers and the creation of new words for vague concepts. All of these create the impression of specialized knowledge, giving you a veneer of profundity. By the same token, try to make the subject of your cult new and fresh, so that few will understand it. Done right, the combination of vague promises, cloudy but alluring concepts, and fiery enthusiasm will stir people's souls and a group will form around you.

Talk too vaguely and you have no credibility. But it is more dangerous to be specific. If you explain in detail the benefits people will gain by following your cult, you w ...


Eh, I don't know that I'd say that applies to either side. It's a social problem stemming from one knee-jerk reaction that got spread by idiots. Nothing very complex there.
 
2013-03-10 10:36:24 PM  
The second generation.

static.metanorn.net
 
2013-03-10 10:37:46 PM  

FloydA: CWeinerWV: I still want to know what turtle-people means

If you allow gays to marry, pretty soon you'll have to let men marry turtles, and then who knows what kind of messed up weirdos will come out!

[i105.photobucket.com image 260x190]


This only tells me that man has thought about giving it to an alligator snapping turtle more than once.
 
2013-03-10 10:39:53 PM  

PsiChick: BarkingUnicorn: PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...

Jezebel needs basic literacy first, to be understood.  Worst writing on the Web, including American Stinker.

Yeah...again: You really wanna go with that? 'I was supporting the Nice Guy Brigade because I couldn't be arsed to read the article'? Not sure I'd go with that one myself.

neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".

Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.


Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.
 
2013-03-10 10:40:30 PM  

WhippingBoy: doglover: jso2897: A female sexist is not a feminist.

Pretty much this. But sometimes it's fun to have to be disciplined by your mistress because you've been a bad boy and you know it.

Women can't be sexist because they're the oppressed, not the oppressor.


I can be anything I want, you chauvinist pig.
 
2013-03-10 10:45:11 PM  
From the article: Emily recently wrote an ode to selfies, noting the role they play in her own fight to maintain high self-esteem.

"I am ashamed as a feminist to admit that while I champion vanity in women, I find it kind of off-putting in men," Emily told me in an email. "I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is."


"That's some good feminism right there, Lou."
"But Chief, don't you know, certain holes can only be filled by a man."
"Easy for you to say, Lou. You're black."
 
2013-03-10 10:45:36 PM  

neongoats: PsiChick: BarkingUnicorn: PsiChick: Has  anyone read the article? Anyone? It's the one at the top of the page, where they  actually say it's a double standard and wrong, because, stunningly enough, feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women, which TFA has a  great example of.

/Of course, for the average person in this thread to understand feminism, they'd need basic literacy first...

Jezebel needs basic literacy first, to be understood.  Worst writing on the Web, including American Stinker.

Yeah...again: You really wanna go with that? 'I was supporting the Nice Guy Brigade because I couldn't be arsed to read the article'? Not sure I'd go with that one myself.

neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".

Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.


Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.


I'm pretty sure PsiChick is an MRA advocate masquerading as a feminist. (S)he(?) basically embodies the whole concept of "you're not helping". If I were going to attempt to discredit feminism, I'd pretty much take the same tack that she does.
 
2013-03-10 10:48:08 PM  

neongoats: Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.


It's the Fark double standard on these things. It's like how every time you hear about MRA they are 'so called', or some other diminishing term for talking about Men's rights. The whole idea is to avoid egalitarianism and degrade anyone who would dare stand against the status quo.
 
2013-03-10 10:50:21 PM  
And here I thought MRA was some kind of horrible hospital germ that gets your limbs amputated.
 
2013-03-10 10:53:27 PM  

St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.


I seriously think that most news and opinion sites are now just blatantly trolling full time to bring in the page hits.
 
2013-03-10 10:55:41 PM  

wedun: I think it's great that the thread can get this far without anyone noticing that the headline has nothing to do with TFA.


And really, we need to get back to arguing about "empowerful" as the newest most awful word on the planet.
 
2013-03-10 10:56:13 PM  

neongoats: neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".

Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.


Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.


...Except nothing I used was  gendered. I mean, I don't know if there's female 'Nice Guys', but there probably are. Are you confused about the 'turtle people' comment? Because that was referring to Republicans, not the Urban Dictionary definition.

WhippingBoy: I'm pretty sure PsiChick is an MRA advocate masquerading as a feminist. (S)he(?) basically embodies the whole concept of "you're not helping". If I were going to attempt to discredit feminism, I'd pretty much take the same tack that she does.


K, this is the fourth time you've come into the thread to biatch about me (by my count, I might have missed others). If I'm causing you this much mental agony, can you just use the damn ignore button already? Seriously, I'm not going to change my opinions for you, thank you for pointing your dislike out anyway. Give up.
 
2013-03-10 10:56:30 PM  

PsiChick: I actually read it as calling attention to it, which is something feminists  do actually do a lot--call attention to a problem to get people thinking about it. That's not usually upholding the problem; it's the first step to confronting it.



If feminists consider "men can't post self portraits without being judged" to be a problem worth drawing attention to, I'd say they are either 1, wasting time and resources better spent on real problems, or 2, have won the fight against every other real problem and are just looking for any slight injustice in the world to support their continued existence.

Either way, the "problem" in TFA was invented for the sake of an article, not the other way around.
 
2013-03-10 10:58:09 PM  

gibbon1: St_Francis_P: One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.

I seriously think that most news and opinion sites are now just blatantly trolling full time to bring in the page hits.


I work for a reasonably large news and opinion type site. I don't think we do this, but the business is all about unique views. There are definitely some big sites out their employing personalities to say some stuff to get people riled up.
 
2013-03-10 11:00:20 PM  

PsiChick: I don't know if there's female 'Nice Guys', but there probably are.


That's horribly racist. I know the French are a bit effeminate, but really.

inanutshell.ca
 
2013-03-10 11:01:47 PM  

onyxruby: It's the Fark double standard on these things. It's like how every time you hear about MRA they are 'so called', or some other diminishing term for talking about Men's rights. The whole idea is to avoid egalitarianism and degrade anyone who would dare stand against the status quo.


Heh, I don't really give a shiat about the MRA thing. But as someone that worked low end jobs so his wife could go to college, as someone practically raised by an extremely progressive and feminist grandmother, as someone who was raised around openly gay folks and never hardly noticed(as it was so normal to me), who has supported gender and sexual equality my entire life, I get really really tired of being told what a farking misogynist asshole I am for chafing at the hypocritical double standards directly encouraged by some subsets of modern feminism.
 
2013-03-10 11:01:52 PM  

onyxruby: neongoats: Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

It's the Fark double standard on these things. It's like how every time you hear about MRA they are 'so called', or some other diminishing term for talking about Men's rights. The whole idea is to avoid egalitarianism and degrade anyone who would dare stand against the status quo.


Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a double-standard like that, too.
 
2013-03-10 11:04:48 PM  

the ha ha guy: Either way, the "problem" in TFA was invented for the sake of an article, not the other way around.


The turtle people are a clear and present danger.
 
2013-03-10 11:05:15 PM  

PsiChick: neongoats: neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".

Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.


Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

...Except nothing I used was  gendered. I mean, I don't know if there's female 'Nice Guys', but there probably are.


Ill give you "turtle people" then. But trying to claim "nice guys brigade" isn't a gender targeted pejorative is kind if ridiculous.
 
2013-03-10 11:08:40 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: I actually read it as calling attention to it, which is something feminists  do actually do a lot--call attention to a problem to get people thinking about it. That's not usually upholding the problem; it's the first step to confronting it.


If feminists consider "men can't post self portraits without being judged" to be a problem worth drawing attention to, I'd say they are either 1, wasting time and resources better spent on real problems, or 2, have won the fight against every other real problem and are just looking for any slight injustice in the world to support their continued existence.

Either way, the "problem" in TFA was invented for the sake of an article, not the other way around.


Well, yes, but that's half of modern journalism, and really has nothing to do with what TFA even says in the first place.

neongoats: PsiChick: neongoats: neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".

Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.


Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

...Except nothing I used was  gendered. I mean, I don't know if there's female 'Nice Guys', but there probably are.

Ill give you "turtle people" then. But trying to claim "nice guys brigade" isn't a gender targeted pejorative is kind if ridiculous.


So name the female version, we'll come up with its own name. And if you're annoyed because 'guys' is in the title, well, a) it's named for what they say in the first place, the "I'm a nice guy but..." rant, and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.
 
2013-03-10 11:09:16 PM  

PsiChick: neongoats: neongoats: Maybe if you stop using terms like "turtle people" and "nice guy brigade", people will actually farking pay attention to shiat you have to say. But right now you are acting like the girl version of people that say shiat like "fartbongo".

Let me introduce you to the concept of 'slang terms'. They're a great way to condense multiple ideas into one phrase instead of using an entire sentence.


Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

...Except nothing I used was  gendered. I mean, I don't know if there's female 'Nice Guys', but there probably are. Are you confused about the 'turtle people' comment? Because that was referring to Republicans, not the Urban Dictionary definition.

WhippingBoy: I'm pretty sure PsiChick is an MRA advocate masquerading as a feminist. (S)he(?) basically embodies the whole concept of "you're not helping". If I were going to attempt to discredit feminism, I'd pretty much take the same tack that she does.

K, this is the fourth time you've come into the thread to biatch about me (by my count, I might have missed others). If I'm causing you this much mental agony, can you just use the damn ignore button already? Seriously, I'm not going to change my opinions for you, thank you for pointing your dislike out anyway. Give up.


See. That's the ironic beauty of it all. I'm accomplishing exactly the same thing that you are. Which is absolutely nothing. But at least I realize that and I'm having fun doing it. You're under the delusion that what you say might make some sort of difference, when, in reality, it's all just masturbation.
 
2013-03-10 11:12:21 PM  

PsiChick: b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.


I say they, usually. But I do default to gendered words for large groups, although it's usually "guys" for groups that need to quiet down and "ladies" for groups that are being too quiet.
 
2013-03-10 11:12:53 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-10 11:14:20 PM  

PsiChick: Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a double-standard like that, too.


A quick debunking of your post on domestic violence. This is a research study that completely debunks your SPLC nonsense.

http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111 13 7

Here's a fresh article from today talking about how rape statistics can be knowingly over reported for /years/ and not reported at all for Men. I'm not even getting into false accusations and so on.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/196794231.html

Point being that there are many, many double standards about these things. When Men's rights are being trampled than you seem to think it's okay to mock men for wanting equality. The idea that their is something to shameful for wanting equality for men has been the latest thing to come out of militant feminist movement. Reactions like yours are typical and predictable, and they all focus on one thing - avoiding equality.
 
2013-03-10 11:14:58 PM  

PsiChick: Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a double-standard like that, too.


You have to marvel at the spectacle of the SPLC with their multi- hundred million dollar war chest chasing after pick-up artists on the Internet; they really are the Witchfinders-General of the modern era. And yet amazingly these same charlatans are continually being sought after by government officials and the media to offer their opinions as to what constitutes "hate"! Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-po ve rty-law-center/
 
2013-03-10 11:19:41 PM  

WhippingBoy: [25.media.tumblr.com image 266x393]


Oh gawd. I remember that.
 
2013-03-10 11:23:31 PM  

PsiChick: onyxruby: neongoats: Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

It's the Fark double standard on these things. It's like how every time you hear about MRA they are 'so called', or some other diminishing term for talking about Men's rights. The whole idea is to avoid egalitarianism and degrade anyone who would dare stand against the status quo.

Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a double-standard like that, too.



So when a few anti-equality women who call themselves feminists lie to promote their cause, they're not really feminists. But when a few anti-equality men who call themselves MRAs lie to promote their cause, they represent every MRA.

Nope, no double standards there...
 
2013-03-10 11:25:25 PM  

PsiChick:

So name the female version, we'll come up with its own name. And if you're annoyed because 'guys' is in the title, well, a) it's named for what they say in the first place, the "I'm a nice guy but..." rant, and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don' ...


That's some pretty circular rationalization there. We have non gendered words to describe groups of people in the English language. If you had meant "nice people brigade" you would have said it. But you meant "men" and said what you meant. That's fine, but recognize that that's not neither nice, nor being honestly against gender bias. It's just swinging the bias in the other direction. And maybe you feel justified in that, *shrug*.
 
2013-03-10 11:27:11 PM  

neongoats: Heh, I don't really give a shiat about the MRA thing. But as someone that worked low end jobs so his wife could go to college, as someone practically raised by an extremely progressive and feminist grandmother


You know your background isn't that different than mine. I had a feminist grandmother that put herself through college during WW2 for a degree in Psychiatry just because she wanted to. My mother was a feminist and my father was very progressive, to the point that for a couple years my parents even tried the whole gender swapped toy thing when we were young children.

A funny thing happened to that, with years and years of seeing boys and men actively discriminated against my eyes started opening up. My worldviews were challenged and I started researching the mythology that I was raised on. Than I went through the family court system and witnessed just how sexist things really are first hand.

What I've seen over the years is that most MRA don't set out to be MRA, they fall into it after years of being abused and experiencing first hand double standards and sexism. One of the better known MRA is Warren Farrel, a former leader in the NOW. Being a MRA is fundamentally no different than being a feminist, either one simply means you are concerned about the rights of a given gender. Either one can just as easily become a chauvinist.
 
2013-03-10 11:32:18 PM  

the ha ha guy: So when a few anti-equality women who call themselves feminists lie to promote their cause, they're not really feminists. But when a few anti-equality men who call themselves MRAs lie to promote their cause, they represent every MRA


Being a feminist or an MRA if fundamentally the same thing, it simply means you concerned about the rights of a given gender. Where some people cross the line is when they stop focusing on rights and start using dishonesty or hate to advance what they perceive as their cause. These people become liars or immune to inconvenient truths and go from being rights activists to chauvinists in their zeal. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it on either side.
 
2013-03-10 11:36:17 PM  
I'm glad I clicked on this thread.  That is all.
 
2013-03-10 11:41:22 PM  

onyxruby: the ha ha guy: So when a few anti-equality women who call themselves feminists lie to promote their cause, they're not really feminists. But when a few anti-equality men who call themselves MRAs lie to promote their cause, they represent every MRA

Being a feminist or an MRA if fundamentally the same thing, it simply means you concerned about the rights of a given gender. Where some people cross the line is when they stop focusing on rights and start using dishonesty or hate to advance what they perceive as their cause. These people become liars or immune to inconvenient truths and go from being rights activists to chauvinists in their zeal. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it on either side.


It's a sad world we live in when standing up for your rights is vilified, no matter who you are.
 
2013-03-10 11:42:25 PM  

lelio: I thought a selfie was masturbating to bum fights.

/ I can't be the only one


*raises hand shamefully*
 
2013-03-10 11:43:28 PM  

PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.


I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h
 
2013-03-10 11:46:20 PM  

onyxruby: the ha ha guy: So when a few anti-equality women who call themselves feminists lie to promote their cause, they're not really feminists. But when a few anti-equality men who call themselves MRAs lie to promote their cause, they represent every MRA

Being a feminist or an MRA if fundamentally the same thing, it simply means you concerned about the rights of a given gender. Where some people cross the line is when they stop focusing on rights and start using dishonesty or hate to advance what they perceive as their cause. These people become liars or immune to inconvenient truths and go from being rights activists to chauvinists in their zeal. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it on either side.



I agree completely, I was just pointing out how she cites an article stating that all MRAs are liars because the fringe group lies, but in the same thread dismisses the female-equivalent fringe group as not really feminists.

No real point, just thought the double standard was amusing, especially coming from someone who has been arguing so vehemently against double standards.
 
2013-03-10 11:47:53 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: onyxruby: neongoats: Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

It's the Fark double standard on these things. It's like how every time you hear about MRA they are 'so called', or some other diminishing term for talking about Men's rights. The whole idea is to avoid egalitarianism and degrade anyone who would dare stand against the status quo.

Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a double-standard like that, too.


So when a few anti-equality women who call themselves feminists lie to promote their cause, they're not really feminists. But when a few anti-equality men who call themselves MRAs lie to promote their cause, they represent every MRA.

Nope, no double standards there...


So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.

neongoats: PsiChick:

So name the female version, we'll come up with its own name. And if you're annoyed because 'guys' is in the title, well, a) it's named for what they say in the first place, the "I'm a nice guy but..." rant, and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don' ...

That's some pretty circular rationalization there. We have non gendered words to describe groups of people in the English language. If you had meant "nice people brigade" you would have said it. But you meant "men" and said what you meant. That's fine, but recognize that that's not neither nice, nor being honestly against gender bias. It's just swinging the bias in the other direction. And maybe you feel justified in that, *shrug*.


The fallacy of circular reasoning is when you say 'ice floats in water because it's ice', not 'it's named X because it is X'. It's called the 'Nice Guy Brigade', as I said, because  they start the rant by defining themselves as male. So unless you want to argue that they don't know their own gender...
 
2013-03-10 11:50:32 PM  

arashinogarou: PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.

I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h


Well, I was going off what I was taught as a child, but okay, fine, it was a fairly secondary point anyway. My main point remains: Nice Guys are so-called because that's what they self-identify as--i.e. 'I'm a nice guy but'.
 
2013-03-10 11:56:21 PM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: onyxruby: neongoats: Is this another double standard you are going to be unapologetic about? If anyone here used similarly charged female targeted "slang terms", you would be(rightly) indignant about it.

It's the Fark double standard on these things. It's like how every time you hear about MRA they are 'so called', or some other diminishing term for talking about Men's rights. The whole idea is to avoid egalitarianism and degrade anyone who would dare stand against the status quo.

Yeah, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a double-standard like that, too.


So when a few anti-equality women who call themselves feminists lie to promote their cause, they're not really feminists. But when a few anti-equality men who call themselves MRAs lie to promote their cause, they represent every MRA.

Nope, no double standards there...

So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.

neongoats: PsiChick:

So name the female version, we'll come up with its own name. And if you're annoyed because 'guys' is in the title, well, a) it's named for what they say in the first place, the "I'm a nice guy but..." rant, and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don' ...

That's some pretty circular rationalization there. We have non gendered words to describe groups of people in the English language. If you had meant "nice people brigade" you would have said it. But you meant "men" and said what you meant. That's fine, but recognize that that's not neither nice, nor being honestly against gender bias. It's just swinging the bias in the other direction. And maybe you feel justified in that, *shrug*.

The fallacy of circular reasoning is when you say 'ice floats in water because it's ice', not 'it's named X because it is X'. It's called the 'Nice Guy Brigade', as I sai ...


"They start the rants that way"

Who?

"The nice guys brigade"

Who are they?

"Men who start off rants about women by starting off saying they are nice"

So only men do it?

"No, I suppose maybe women do it too"

So why don't we call it "nice people's brigade"

"Because men start off their anti women rants by saying how nice they are"

And you are honestly not calling your logic circular and biased? Holy shiat.
 
2013-03-10 11:56:44 PM  

arashinogarou: I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general.


This always struck me as a double standard, i.e. that those who objected to the use of male pronouns to refer to all of mankind very often resorted to using female pronouns for the same purpose instead. (Why, it's almost as if feminists weren't actually interested in equality at all, but in female supremacy... surely not.) At least the male metonymy in English could appeal to the precedent of more than a thousand years of literary history.
 
2013-03-10 11:56:46 PM  

PsiChick: So unless you want to argue that they don't know their own gender...


A lot of people don't. I have a friend who physically is female and identifies as female, but tries to look male. She is bisexual, though mostly into women. She has said more than once that she doesn't see a distinction between the sexes in her own life. Interestingly, she has no patience for either feminists or chauvinists. I also have an acquaintance who wishes he was born female but has said many times in the past he has no idea what he is.

Those are just two of a handful of people I know, work with or associate with who are confused about their own gender. For you to supposedly champion equality earlier in this thread, then openly poke fun at the gender-confused just to make a point, only proves what you are truly all about.
 
2013-03-10 11:59:42 PM  

PsiChick: So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.



I could say the same about every mainstream feminist group I've seen.
 
2013-03-11 12:01:08 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: arashinogarou: I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general.

This always struck me as a double standard, i.e. that those who objected to the use of male pronouns to refer to all of mankind very often resorted to using female pronouns for the same purpose instead. (Why, it's almost as if feminists weren't actually interested in equality at all, but in female supremacy... surely not.) At least the male metonymy in English could appeal to the precedent of more than a thousand years of literary history.


Honestly, I don't care either way. I've always tried to follow what the grammar books say because I'd like to be reasonably good at something besides repairing electronics. I write the way I was taught growing up, and when a change in the rules is brought to my attention I try to stick with it. But I distinctly remember using "she" as the unknown pronoun all the way back to primary school.
 
2013-03-11 12:01:09 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-11 12:01:47 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: arashinogarou: I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general.

This always struck me as a double standard, i.e. that those who objected to the use of male pronouns to refer to all of mankind very often resorted to using female pronouns for the same purpose instead. (Why, it's almost as if feminists weren't actually interested in equality at all, but in female supremacy... surely not.) At least the male metonymy in English could appeal to the precedent of more than a thousand years of literary history.


It gets worse. The more you get mired in neofeminist philosophy, the more you'll see the term "ze" (as in "ze said, ze said") used as an inoffensive, gender-neutral pronoun.
 
2013-03-11 12:03:48 AM  

WhippingBoy: It gets worse. The more you get mired in neofeminist philosophy, the more you'll see the term "ze" (as in "ze said, ze said") used as an inoffensive, gender-neutral pronoun.


Interesting, I've never heard that one! Well, apart from bad Nazi SS officer impressions.
 
2013-03-11 12:04:55 AM  

arashinogarou: But I distinctly remember using "she" as the unknown pronoun all the way back to primary school.



And I distinctly remember using "he" as the gender neutral pronoun in every school, the most recent being in college in the early 2000's.
 
2013-03-11 12:09:51 AM  

the ha ha guy: arashinogarou: But I distinctly remember using "she" as the unknown pronoun all the way back to primary school.


And I distinctly remember using "he" as the gender neutral pronoun in every school, the most recent being in college in the early 2000's.


That's interesting. Where are you from/did you go to school, if I may ask? I was born and mostly raised in the Southeast US, though a lot of my primary education was in Arizona and California.
 
2013-03-11 12:11:05 AM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.


I could say the same about every mainstream feminist group I've seen.


But that's different.
 
2013-03-11 12:14:45 AM  

neongoats: "They start the rants that way"

Who?

"The nice guys brigade"

Who are they?

"Men who start off rants about women by starting off saying they are nice"

So only men do it?

"No, I suppose maybe women do it too"

So why don't we call it "nice people's brigade"

"Because men start off their anti women rants by saying how nice they are"

And you are honestly not calling your logic circular and biased? Holy shiat.


*sigh* I don't see behind a keyboard. It's entirely possible there are women who post those things. But since they self-identify as guys, it's pretty damn hard to claim they're women.

You still have not proven that calling nice guys 'Nice Guys' is any sort of misnomer.

arashinogarou: PsiChick: So unless you want to argue that they don't know their own gender...

A lot of people don't. I have a friend who physically is female and identifies as female, but tries to look male. She is bisexual, though mostly into women. She has said more than once that she doesn't see a distinction between the sexes in her own life. Interestingly, she has no patience for either feminists or chauvinists. I also have an acquaintance who wishes he was born female but has said many times in the past he has no idea what he is.

Those are just two of a handful of people I know, work with or associate with who are confused about their own gender. For you to supposedly champion equality earlier in this thread, then openly poke fun at the gender-confused just to make a point, only proves what you are truly all about.


...Well, I  wasn't poking fun at the gender-confused, and I actually have repeatedly pointed out on Fark that it's rude to call people by the wrong gender if they're trans. I was  actually poking fun at the people who pretend they know what gender other people are. But yeah, sure, let's pretend I was poking fun at the gender-confused despite years of taking the exact opposite of that position.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.


I could say the same about every mainstream feminist group I've seen.


Here, have the dictionary definition of what feminism is. Don't think it gets more 'mainstream' than that.
 
2013-03-11 12:17:42 AM  

WhippingBoy: It gets worse. The more you get mired in neofeminist philosophy, the more you'll see the term "ze" (as in "ze said, ze said") used as an inoffensive, gender-neutral pronoun.


It's even more mainstream in Europe: "Gender-neutral "hen" makes its legal debut" in Sweden:

http://www.thelocal.se/45070/20121214/#.UT1YfFe7eko

"Sweden's gender-neutral pre-school":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419

As usual, the ancients had a better grasp on human nature than we do: as the Roman poet Horace said, "you may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she will always return." Attempts to extinguish or confuse biological sex differences in the name of some mythical ideal of egalitarianism are inevitably doomed to failure.
 
2013-03-11 12:18:16 AM  

arashinogarou: the ha ha guy: arashinogarou: But I distinctly remember using "she" as the unknown pronoun all the way back to primary school.


And I distinctly remember using "he" as the gender neutral pronoun in every school, the most recent being in college in the early 2000's.

That's interesting. Where are you from/did you go to school, if I may ask? I was born and mostly raised in the Southeast US, though a lot of my primary education was in Arizona and California.



College was in the Northeast US, primary school was SE US in the 80's. I'm guessing it's based more on local teacher/administrator preferences than any nationwide movement to use the word "she".
 
2013-03-11 12:19:13 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: WhippingBoy: It gets worse. The more you get mired in neofeminist philosophy, the more you'll see the term "ze" (as in "ze said, ze said") used as an inoffensive, gender-neutral pronoun.

It's even more mainstream in Europe: "Gender-neutral "hen" makes its legal debut" in Sweden:

http://www.thelocal.se/45070/20121214/#.UT1YfFe7eko

"Sweden's gender-neutral pre-school":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419

As usual, the ancients had a better grasp on human nature than we do: as the Roman poet Horace said, "you may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she will always return." Attempts to extinguish or confuse biological sex differences in the name of some mythical ideal of egalitarianism are inevitably doomed to failure.


Agreed. Feminism is basically repackaged Marxism. And we all know how well that worked out.
 
2013-03-11 12:19:31 AM  
Came for NSFW female duckface selfies. Leaving extremely dissapointed. Boooo.
 
2013-03-11 12:21:45 AM  

PsiChick: despite years of taking the exact opposite of that position.


I don't know you any more than you know me. I took issue with what you said specifically in the post I quoted, and more generally with your overt hatred of men. You have made it crystal clear in this thread that the very concept of men and women being equal and getting along is alien to you. Since it is futile to try to have a discussion with a person so obviously unbalanced and bigoted, I'm afraid I'll have to bow out. The floor is yours.
 
2013-03-11 12:21:45 AM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.


I could say the same about every mainstream feminist group I've seen.

Here, have the dictionary definition of what feminism is. Don't think it gets more 'mainstream' than that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
 
2013-03-11 12:24:34 AM  

WhippingBoy: ph0rk: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women


TFA comes from a site where one of their editors slapped a man who told her he had cancer, because she assumed that his type of cancer was made-up.

Somehow, I'm not so sure these people are advocating the "all humans are equal" form of feminism.

I don't know how anyone can argue Jezebel is anything other than a knee jerk soapbox for a few angry individuals. I just can't take them seriously, and that is an excellent example of why.

Nobody takes Jezebel seriously. I'm a charter member of the He-Man Women Hater's Club, and not even I would deign to quote them as indicative of  "what feminists actually believe".


I just got coffee on my monitor because of you.
 
2013-03-11 12:25:53 AM  

the ha ha guy: I'm guessing it's based more on local teacher/administrator preferences than any nationwide movement to use the word "she".


You're probably right. I do see "she" used more often (and sometimes exclusively in certain genres) in modern writing though.
 
2013-03-11 12:29:16 AM  

arashinogarou: PsiChick: despite years of taking the exact opposite of that position.

I don't know you any more than you know me. I took issue with what you said specifically in the post I quoted, and more generally with your overt hatred of men. You have made it crystal clear in this thread that the very concept of men and women being equal and getting along is alien to you. Since it is futile to try to have a discussion with a person so obviously unbalanced and bigoted, I'm afraid I'll have to bow out. The floor is yours.


...Erm, except I  never once advocated that anywhere in the thread, yeah...o.O

Who the hell are you reading?

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: So would you care to provide the name of the mainstream groups that  don't support this? Because in five or so years of having MRA groups try to jump down my throat (usually when I'm agreeing with them), I've seen exactly one.


I could say the same about every mainstream feminist group I've seen.

Here, have the dictionary definition of what feminism is. Don't think it gets more 'mainstream' than that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


You disagree that the dictionary definition of a word is the most likely used definition? Care to explain why?
 
2013-03-11 12:29:37 AM  

WhippingBoy: Agreed. Feminism is basically repackaged Marxism. And we all know how well that worked out.


B-b-but Marxism works in theory!!1!
 
2013-03-11 12:30:00 AM  

PsiChick: neongoats: "They start the rants that way"

Who?

"The nice guys brigade"

Who are they?

"Men who start off rants about women by starting off saying they are nice"

So only men do it?

"No, I suppose maybe women do it too"

So why don't we call it "nice people's brigade"

"Because men start off their anti women rants by saying how nice they are"

And you are honestly not calling your logic circular and biased? Holy shiat.

*sigh* I don't see behind a keyboard. It's entirely possible there are women who post those things. But since they self-identify as guys, it's pretty damn hard to claim they're women.

You still have not proven that calling nice guys 'Nice Guys' is any sort of misnomer


You are arguing both sides of the argument and yet proving my point precisely.

Earlier you said that "nice guys brigade" was not a gender specific pejorative. Then you said basically "it's fine to say guys because in English guys means mixed gender groups too". But then it became "THEY self identify themselves as guys". Who? The nice guy brigade. Circular still.

THEY might self identify as "nice guys", but they damn sure DON'T self identify as "the nice guys brigade". "The Nice Guys Brigade" is very farking specifically an insulting little nickname used to denigrate a subset of people.
 
2013-03-11 12:32:39 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: WhippingBoy: Agreed. Feminism is basically repackaged Marxism. And we all know how well that worked out.

B-b-but Marxism works in theory!!1!


So does "capitalism" , for that matter, Hell - worm farming works, in theory..
 
2013-03-11 12:34:20 AM  

neongoats: "The Nice Guys Brigade" is very farking specifically an insulting little nickname used to denigrate a subset of people.


A people she accuses of what? Denigrating a subset of people.

It's hilarious. She's a pirate complaining about highwaymen.
 
2013-03-11 12:34:34 AM  

PsiChick: You disagree that the dictionary definition of a word is the most likely used definition? Care to explain why?



No, I disagree that the dictionary definition of a word actively prevents self-proclaimed feminist groups from using lies to promote their agenda.
 
2013-03-11 12:34:54 AM  

PsiChick: Who the hell are you reading?


Just to clear up that point: Your entire conversation with neongoats. You've been called out several times as the sexist you are in that conversation, and in your defense you spout more sexism. It's like watching you shoot the person who accuses you of being a murderer, then you shoot the witnesses as well.

Pretty damned pathetic actually.
 
2013-03-11 12:36:36 AM  

thorthor: Came for NSFW female duckface selfies. Leaving extremely dissapointed. Boooo.


Don't let the door hit ya on the way oot.

thechive.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-11 12:38:08 AM  

jso2897: So does "capitalism" , for that matter


Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time. If it didn't, neither you nor I would have the leisure or the technological means to carry on this conversation.
 
2013-03-11 12:39:35 AM  
Yeeeeeeaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, whatever.  I'd like my 11 seconds back, please.
 
2013-03-11 12:40:29 AM  
didn't read all the article or any of the thread just wanted to ask this question:

WHAT THE fark IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

do we really need a doctoral dissertation on why folks take multiple pictures for dating sites? and why did they assume that women who do that have body image problems? has the author never heard of my space angles?

there are starving children in America who went to bed hungry and we spent time of this? really?

yeah i did too but i condemned it so i'm better than you.
 
2013-03-11 12:42:14 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time


If my "most of the time" you mean "depending on how mush money you do or do not have", yeah.
 
2013-03-11 12:42:48 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time.


Truly free markets NEVER work in practice.

It takes maybe a day for theft and monopoly to sink in. Pretty soon it's the wild west, only much much worse because most towns in the wild west had fairly civilized laws and people mostly obeyed them.
 
2013-03-11 12:45:09 AM  
I really need to get a Mavis Beacon DVD.   :  /
 
2013-03-11 12:49:35 AM  

doglover: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time.

Truly free markets NEVER work in practice.

It takes maybe a day for theft and monopoly to sink in. Pretty soon it's the wild west, only much much worse because most towns in the wild west had fairly civilized laws and people mostly obeyed them.


Nothing ever works. Everything is poop.
 
2013-03-11 12:51:12 AM  

bunner: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time

If my "most of the time" you mean "depending on how mush money you do or do not have", yeah.


If you're impoverished, how is it you have the time or means to be posting here? Just curious.
 
2013-03-11 12:54:30 AM  

FunkOut: doglover: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time.

Truly free markets NEVER work in practice.

It takes maybe a day for theft and monopoly to sink in. Pretty soon it's the wild west, only much much worse because most towns in the wild west had fairly civilized laws and people mostly obeyed them.

Nothing ever works. Everything is poop.


Correction. You must learn from Paracelsus: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
 
2013-03-11 12:55:27 AM  

doglover: Truly free markets NEVER work in practice. It takes maybe a day for theft and monopoly to sink in.


Questions: 1) How is actual "theft" possible in the presence of the rule of law? (Or are you confusing the free market system with anarchy, where the strongest survives through the use of superior force?) 2) How can a monopoly exist unless the government prevents new competitors from entering the market to undercut that monopoly?
 
2013-03-11 01:04:37 AM  
www.ormsconnect.co.za
annawu.com
 
2013-03-11 01:06:37 AM  

neongoats: You still have not proven that calling nice guys 'Nice Guys' is any sort of misnomer

You are arguing both sides of the argument and yet proving my point precisely.

Earlier you said that "nice guys brigade" was not a gender specific pejorative. Then you said basically "it's fine to say guys because in English guys means mixed gender groups too". But then it became "THEY self identify themselves as guys". Who? The nice guy brigade. Circular still.

THEY might self identify as "nice guys", but they damn sure DON'T self identify as "the nice guys brigade". "The Nice Guys Brigade" is very farking specifically an insulting little nickname used to denigrate a subset of people.


Yes, you're right, I originally was unclear. The Nice Guys Brigade earned their Fark slang nickname by what they said. There are other points to be made--that sure, they might be women and we wouldn't know because of how English works--but ultimately, they are called the Nice Guys because of their own self-identification, and 'Brigade' came as part of Fark slang. Satisfied?

arashinogarou: PsiChick: Who the hell are you reading?

Just to clear up that point: Your entire conversation with neongoats. You've been called out several times as the sexist you are in that conversation, and in your defense you spout more sexism. It's like watching you shoot the person who accuses you of being a murderer, then you shoot the witnesses as well.

Pretty damned pathetic actually.


Could you give me an example of this 'sexism'? I'm sorry, but I do not see it. The 'turtle people' comment? As I said, Republicans. Nice guys? As I said--they call themselves that, so they can hardly complain about their Fark nickname. Me being unclear? Yeah, I do that, and sorry about that. But none of those are sexist.

doglover: neongoats: "The Nice Guys Brigade" is very farking specifically an insulting little nickname used to denigrate a subset of people.

A people she accuses of what? Denigrating a subset of people.

It's hilarious. She's a pirate complaining about highwaymen.


Using a slang term is  exactly the same as pseudo-stalking someone and biatching when they don't give you sex. Yup. Exactly.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: You disagree that the dictionary definition of a word is the most likely used definition? Care to explain why?


No, I disagree that the dictionary definition of a word actively prevents self-proclaimed feminist groups from using lies to promote their agenda.


No, anyone can spout off whatever they like, it's the internet. My position is that MRAs are not actually about men's rights in mainstream, and that feminism is about equality in their own mainstream. If you disagree with that, you need to explain why.
 
2013-03-11 01:06:47 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: bunner: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time

If my "most of the time" you mean "depending on how mush money you do or do not have", yeah.

If you're impoverished, how is it you have the time or means to be posting here? Just curious.


If your projector is broken, why are you pointing it at me?  Just curious.  The whole notion of "well, if I'M doing fine then THE SYSTEM WORKS!™ is the precise flavor of bullsh*t that is turning America into third world lite with cheeseburgers and 70 channels.  No "ism", in and of itself, is a one size fits all monothematic to cultural management. They are all, at best, components of what mostly works when stewarded by honest men.  As you can see, that last bit has left the pooch's ass quite sore.  I feel it only fair to warn you that the diatribe of dime store harrumphing and "oh my dear boy you simply don't understand" malarkey thet is likely to ensue will be dismissed at face value.
 
2013-03-11 01:12:28 AM  
they seemed to think, but perhaps, they thought, I had a new take on why so many dudes love to send photos of their penises to the eager and the horrified alike.
The assumption makes sense - we're used to the idea that many men are hungry to show off their erections.


I still wonder about that.

Having perused many a dating site, I've noticed the tendency for guys to proudly display images of their schlongs. Personally, I find it repulsive, but then again, being male and heterosexual, such a response is not unusual.

Actually, some I've observed should send the desired woman running in horror at the deformed member or make them call their friends so they can laugh and point at the pathetic little thing.

Then I considered some things. Guys get steamed up over shots of woman's boobs, vaginas and butts. Few have any real concept of what image of what part of the male body steams up a woman. So, naturally, they'd send images of something they figure will make the lady swoon with desire.

(Any FARKETTE's out there, feel free to voice your opinion.)

Again, vanity or 'head shots' are common for women. Men will gift women they love with blown up head shots or paintings of the woman's face and she will hang it on the wall for all to enjoy.

Guys do that and they get suspicious looks. An interesting dichotomy. Yet, go into an all male strip club for the ladies and the 'pretty boys' are being mobbed by the 'demure' members of the opposite sex. (Sometimes, it can be like feeding time for half starved lions.)

It's common for women to get face lifts, but if a guy gets one, he's kind of looked down on. Only two types of plastic surgery that I know of are accepted readily for males: man-boob reduction and liposuction of the beer gut.

The consensus is still out concerning any form of voluntary surgical penis enhancement. Yet vaginal cosmetic surgery is catching on.

It's a confusing world, isn't it?
 
2013-03-11 01:14:57 AM  
gregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.comgregscott.artistwebsites.com
 
2013-03-11 01:15:00 AM  
Find somebody yo like to hang out with.  The rest is the wrapping paper and it will end up wadded up on the floor next to the gift, eventually
 
2013-03-11 01:20:57 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: doglover: Truly free markets NEVER work in practice. It takes maybe a day for theft and monopoly to sink in.

Questions: 1) How is actual "theft" possible in the presence of the rule of law? (Or are you confusing the free market system with anarchy, where the strongest survives through the use of superior force?) 2) How can a monopoly exist unless the government prevents new competitors from entering the market to undercut that monopoly?


1) If it's a totally free market, there are no laws.

2) Even assuming laws, you can make a monopoly easy enough with evil business practices.

Do you not remember standard oil?
 
2013-03-11 01:22:16 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: jso2897: So does "capitalism" , for that matter

Unlike Marxism, the free market works in practice most of the time. If it didn't, neither you nor I would have the leisure or the technological means to carry on this conversation.


It's a matter of interpretation and application. Capitalism, as a way of making money and creating material progress, is a beautiful thing. It's one of man's greatest creations. As a social system, it sucks - much in the way that a hammer sucks as a screwdriver.
Socialism, as a tool to smooth out the bumps, scrapes, and inequities of the world is the "shock absorber" that makes human life workable, decent, and acceptable on a human scale. As a social system, it becomes a draconian nightmare that subsumes and denigrates the human spirit.
Do you understand the small, yet crucial distinction I am making? Because there is little point in my going further if you don't.
Social tools don't make good social systems, any more than carrots make good airplanes.
 
2013-03-11 01:23:55 AM  

kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.


I thought that to.But then I tend to think everything has something to do with masturbating my awesome penis
 
2013-03-11 01:25:22 AM  
PsiChick:
Could you give me an example of this 'sexism'? I'm sorry, but I do not see it. The 'turtle people' comment? As I said, Republicans. Nice guys? As I said--they call themselves that, so they can hardly complain about their Fark nickname. Me being unclear? Yeah, I do that, and sorry about that. But none of those are sexist.

I just came for the entertainment of this cluster of a thread but I digress.  That's fine to think a lot of Republicans are this way but in my eyes progress can't be made when you label an entire group, just closes off any potential dialogue and promotes the partisan crap that's so rampant today.

/not Republican.  Just find people labeling entire groups counterproductive and distasteful.  Probably same thing we're seeing here today.
 
2013-03-11 01:28:33 AM  
I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is

I take it that Emily McCombs is one fugly woman.
 
2013-03-11 01:29:04 AM  
bunner:  If your projector is broken, why are you pointing it at me?  Just curious.  The whole notion of "well, if I'M doing fine then THE SYSTEM WORKS!™ is the precise flavor of bullsh*t that is turning America into third world lite with cheeseburgers and 70 channels.

Look pal, I asked you a reasonable question. If the free- market system -- as mitigated by ordinary human imperfection as it is -- is so terrible, why has it offered us a material standard of living far above that of our forebears? Why does it attract immigrants to our society from all over the world, when there is no flow in the opposite direction? Why does it offer the people that live under it a historically unprecedented opportunity to use its very benefits to denounce those same benefits to a potentially worldwide audience on the Internet? The honest truth is that you only dislike the free market system because you've been indoctrinated to do so, not because it has oppressed you personally. And you have no feasible alternative system to offer.

 No "ism", in and of itself, is a one size fits all monothematic to cultural management. They are all, at best, components of what mostly works when stewarded by honest men.  As you can see, that last bit has left the pooch's ass quite sore.  I feel it only fair to warn you that the diatribe of dime store harrumphing and "oh my dear boy you simply don't understand" malarkey thet is likely to ensue will be dismissed at face value.

This sub-Joycean stream of consciousness is actually pretty hilarious... you seem to be writing this as if there is some grad student at Cornell monitoring the posts on Fark and looking out for some kind of neglected genius like yours.
 
2013-03-11 01:33:15 AM  

PsiChick: Using a slang term


You got moxy, kid, but you're the pot callin' the kettle black to react against sexism by talking about the Nice Guy BrigadeTM.

Reverse hate is not equality. it's just oppression the other way. Not that there's not a time and place for offensive maneuvers, but like I posted earlier and you dismissed out of hand, humans are very easily manipulated. One of the best ways to unite a disparate group is to provide them a common enemy, real or imagined. It seems you've chosen men. You can accept it, or not. It still spins just the same.
 
TWX
2013-03-11 01:33:33 AM  

arashinogarou: PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.

I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h


I read your citation, and I did not find strong support for your argument in your citation.

I was taught in the eighties and nineties that since English generally lacks a neuter, when the gender was not known, it was convention to use the masculine. This is important in legal doctrine because, "...all men are created equal," and other statements using, "he," "his," and such refer to both genders in all but very specific cases.

I was taught to avoid using the singular they in writing, that it was slang and inappropriate. If there was a desire to avoid using the masculine when referring to possibly either gender, to use expressions like, "his or her," or to use, "one," as a pronoun, such as, "...to boldly go where no one has gone before," as a replacement for, "...to boldly go where no man has gone before." In the context of mankind, "man," does not describe just males, but apparently this was found objectionable enough that by the 1980s it was deemed necessary to make that change.

When I see some authors use the feminine to refer to all people, such as how David Weber does in the Honor Harrington works, it tends to give me pause as I read.

I'm not saying that there aren't real issues with the use of the masculine to refer to all, but it's my experience that those that would choose to use the convention as such are narrow minded and if convention changed, would simply find some other way to attempt to engage in similar behaviors.
 
2013-03-11 01:34:52 AM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: You disagree that the dictionary definition of a word is the most likely used definition? Care to explain why?


No, I disagree that the dictionary definition of a word actively prevents self-proclaimed feminist groups from using lies to promote their agenda.

No, anyone can spout off whatever they like, it's the internet. My position is that MRAs are not actually about men's rights in mainstream, and that feminism is about equality in their own mainstream. If you disagree with that, you need to explain why.



I'm not talking about nutjobs on the internet, I'm talking about the real-world organizations that send out mailers with blatantly false information.

And on the topic of MRA, my opinion is that if a woman assaults a man, and the man calls the police to report the assault, the man should not be automatically arrested and charged with assault.
 
2013-03-11 01:36:56 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: And you have no feasible alternative system to offer.


The not quite free market system.

The marketplace where freedom of competition is ensured by law and things like ponzi schemes and predatory loans are thoroughly punished. Not laissez faire, but just fair.
 
2013-03-11 01:40:58 AM  

doglover: EvilRacistNaziFascist: And you have no feasible alternative system to offer.

The not quite free market system.

The marketplace where freedom of competition is ensured by law and things like ponzi schemes and predatory loans are thoroughly punished. Not laissez faire, but just fair.


You can't reason with an ideologue. Beware the man who has only one book.
 
2013-03-11 01:41:56 AM  
doglover:  1) If it's a totally free market, there are no laws.

Again, you are assuming that capitalism is the same as anarchy. No capitalist would agree, for the simple reason that for a free market to exist some authority has to be present to enforce contracts and defend property rights. I realize that there are some very stupid people (even on Fark, sadly) who like to go about saying that the highest aspiration of right- wingers is to turn the US into a replica of Somalia, but I sincerely hope you're not one of them.

2) Even assuming laws, you can make a monopoly easy enough with evil business practices.

Please explain how these "evil" business practices prevent new entrants to the market.

Do you not remember standard oil?

I wasn't alive during the heyday of Standard Oil, but since you ask that company was merely targetted by over- zealous prosecutors for being too large -- rather like Microsoft in our own day. Due to increasing competition, Standard Oil's share of the market was already decreasing prior to its pursuit by the Department of Justice.
 
2013-03-11 01:47:32 AM  

doglover: The marketplace where freedom of competition is ensured by law and things like ponzi schemes and predatory loans are thoroughly punished. Not laissez faire, but just fair.


Well again, you're setting up the strawman that people who prefer the free market want to have no regulations of any kind at all -- whereas pyramid schemes and other financial shenanigans were recognized and prosecuted even during the allegedly social- Darwinist business climate of the 19th century, as portrayed in novels such as Dickens's "Martin Chuzzlewit" or Trollope's "The Way We Live Now". After all, investors are aspiring capitalists too, and none of them want to lose their shirts.
 
2013-03-11 01:48:17 AM  
Sorry. Forgot one. Did you notice a dearth of turtles? I had a green collared lizard, though. I hope that makes up for it.
gregscott.artistwebsites.com
 
2013-03-11 01:53:31 AM  

jso2897: You can't reason with an ideologue. Beware the man who has only one book.


Oooh, could you tell me what my "only book" might be? You see, since I never mentioned any book at all in this discussion I'd be really amazed if you could come up with an answer -- and besides, I've always wanted to see somebody pretend to be able to read the mind of a complete stranger on the Internet and make a complete arsehole of himself in doing so.
 
2013-03-11 02:01:11 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Oooh, could you tell me what my "only book" might be?


If ya can only have one book, pick it well.
 
2013-03-11 02:03:54 AM  

doglover: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Oooh, could you tell me what my "only book" might be?

If ya can only have one book, pick it well.


No serious answer, then? Thought not. I do apologize for having taken you seriously to begin with, though.
 
2013-03-11 02:05:52 AM  
...and another contender in the endless circular argument Olympics appears on the horizon..can we go back to the more entertaining one and save that for the politics tab?
 
2013-03-11 02:07:10 AM  

CWeinerWV: ...and another contender in the endless circular argument Olympics appears on the horizon..can we go back to the more entertaining one and save that for the politics tab?


Yes.
 
2013-03-11 02:10:09 AM  
Seriously though, what's the deal with airline food.
 
2013-03-11 02:14:43 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: jso2897: You can't reason with an ideologue. Beware the man who has only one book.

Oooh, could you tell me what my "only book" might be? You see, since I never mentioned any book at all in this discussion I'd be really amazed if you could come up with an answer -- and besides, I've always wanted to see somebody pretend to be able to read the mind of a complete stranger on the Internet and make a complete arsehole of himself in doing so.


The next post you made clarified things somewhat - but you ought to be cognizant of how someone might become confused when you issue a challenge to someone to name a "system" that works "better" than capitalism, when , in fact , you claim to be aware that capitalism itself, as a system, is just as inadequate as any other "system" that has been concocted from one single good idea. If you don't want people to think that you think that one small component of a successful society can answer all human needs, don't say things that make it appear so. Anyway - you might read more than one of my posts in this thread before you start calling me names. I don't mind being called an asshole, but it conveys no information other than that you seem to be unable to deal with an opposing opinion without losing your temper - not something than characterizes a person who is secure or confident in the worth of his own beliefs.
Put bluntly - "capitalism" is not sufficient to create a worthwhile society - neither is "socialism", or any other "ism". They are , in and of themselves, of equal value - which is to say, none at all on their own.
At any rate - don't be angry with me - if the information I am giving you makes you angry, your problem is with reality - not with me. I'm just some guy on the internet.
In and of itself, capitalism is no better than prostitution - it's just a way of making money. And it is likewise true that, in and of itself, socialism is no better than heroin - it's just a way of masking pain.
Above all, I would counsel you against anger - it makes men small, impotent, and silly - and the rhetoric of name calling only serves to make possibly intelligent men appear to be fools.
 
2013-03-11 02:24:05 AM  

www.cs.uic.edu
RIP SELFIE

 
2013-03-11 02:35:06 AM  

jso2897: The next post you made clarified things somewhat - but you ought to be cognizant of how someone might become confused when you issue a challenge to someone to name a "system" that works "better" than capitalism, when , in fact , you claim to be aware that capitalism itself, as a system, is just as inadequate as any other "system"


I didn't say anything of the kind. I believe that capitalism is superior to its alternatives within the constraints of fallible human nature, i.e. that same human nature that is inevitably going to lead people to try to grab an unfair advantage whatever the prevailing economic system might be. The decentralized nature of the free market however does minimize the destructive impact of people who are basically sociopaths (which is why for example it was communism rather than capitalism that killed more than a hundred million innocent people over the past century).

that has been concocted from one single good idea. If you don't want people to think that you think that one small component of a successful society can answer all human needs, don't say things that make it appear so.

I never said that capitalism was perfect; you merely assumed this because you were looking for a strawman to contend with.

Anyway - you might read more than one of my posts in this thread before you start calling me names. I don't mind being called an asshole, but it conveys no information other than that you seem to be unable to deal with an opposing opinion without losing your temper - not something than characterizes a person who is secure or confident in the worth of his own beliefs.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which one book I'm in thrall to... after all, your implication that I was mostly unread (apart from the "one book") was in itself a rather nasty insult, don't you think? If you're not actually an arsehole then I apologize, but by the same token you ought not to go about belittling strangers online for no reason -- while carefully avoiding dealing with their actual arguments -- and then whining when they answer you according to your foolishness.

Put bluntly - "capitalism" is not sufficient to create a worthwhile society - neither is "socialism", or any other "ism". They are , in and of themselves, of equal value - which is to say, none at all on their own.

You don't have it quite right. Economic systems are tools, and like tools they are either more or less efficient when it comes to a particular task at hand. As a tool, capitalism is vastly more efficient than socialism; this is merely a fact. At the same time, this does not mean that we have to venerate capitalism or be blind to its drawbacks, nor that we have to resist regulating capitalism when (and only when!) it is found necessary to do so. After all, any economic system exists for the service of man -- not vice-versa.

In and of itself, capitalism is no better than prostitution - it's just a way of making money.

Now this is just silly. Prostitution is degradation. How does this equate to my wanting to sell the potatoes I've grown on my own field to a willing buyer?

Above all, I would counsel you against anger - it makes men small, impotent, and silly - and the rhetoric of name calling only serves to make possibly intelligent men appear to be fools.

I'm not angry, I just don't suffer foolishness gladly -- nor should I. Apart from that, your advice is excellent; I only hope that in the future you make an effort to follow it yourself.
 
2013-03-11 02:42:02 AM  

Rik01: Then I considered some things. Guys get steamed up over shots of woman's boobs, vaginas and butts. Few have any real concept of what image of what part of the male body steams up a woman. So, naturally, they'd send images of something they figure will make the lady swoon with desire.

(Any FARKETTE's out there, feel free to voice your opinion.)


Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same.  I think that for the majority of women this is not true.  I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot.  I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

For men there's really three things that they're supposed to like - legs, butt, tits.  I think men probably get weird looks if they like, say, the back of the neck (although a lot of men do seem to like that, especially watching a woman put her hair up).

The most common body parts  I can think of  that - alone - turn women on are thighs, butt, hips, back, shoulders, hands, prominent veins (hands, arms, and neck), collarbones, neck, lips, and voice.  And that that part of the body doesn't need to be naked for it to be a turn on.  When you think about it, those are all erogenous zones or erotic, but they're not genitalia.  They imply something sexual rather than being explicitly sexual.

/And most women will be turned on by a man in a good suit
//google "suit porn"
///but not "suit fetish" unless you're looking for gay porn
////NTTAWWT
 
2013-03-11 02:57:48 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I just don't suffer foolishness gladly


Doctor heal thyself.
 
2013-03-11 03:05:08 AM  

spamdog: Oh_Enough_Already: are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.

You said rape twice.


Bravo.
 
2013-03-11 04:16:22 AM  

Shmopee: [www.rounds.com image 400x283]

Empowerment?


Stupidity?
 
2013-03-11 04:22:23 AM  
"I AM EMPOWERED!"

"Okey dokey."

"NO, I MEAN IT I AM EMPOWERED!!1!!!1!"

"Yeah, great.  Sounds nice."

"I MEAN IT YOU PATRIARCHAL SWINE!!!1  I AM EMPOWERED!"

"Yes, you mentioned.  Thanks."

Rinse.

Repeat.

Make up bumper sticker.

The stated objectives of feminism were long overdue and useful ideas.  And if anybody sees feminism, give it a blanket and a hot meal and a bath and try and get it back on it's feet.  It looks terrible.
 
2013-03-11 04:37:25 AM  
I came in here hoping to see various images alluding to men masturbating. Which confuses me. Why would I want that?I need to go think.
 
2013-03-11 04:39:37 AM  
FTFA: Jezebel columnist Hugo Schwyzer teaches history and gender studies at Pasadena City College

I wonder if it is possible to sink lower, academically, without carrying a bucket of fish to throw to your students when they learn something?
 
2013-03-11 04:42:55 AM  

Oh_Enough_Already: The amount of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance coursing through their offices on a daily basis is likely enough to keep a legion of psychiatrists wealthier beyond their wildest dreams for a lifetime.


Ever read Cosmo or Marie Claire? Typical contents are three pages on why women are strong and don't need men plus two hundred pages on how to find and keep a man.
 
2013-03-11 04:52:25 AM  
"Equality" is a word most often seeking to become the new oppressors.  Jezebel is a perfect example of this.
 
2013-03-11 05:41:15 AM  

arashinogarou: PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.

I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h


"He" is grammatically correct when you need a gender-neutral pronoun, although it's just as correct to use "he/she" or "he or she" or the current legalese "In the following document, the male pronoun is understood to refer to all persons of both genders, as well as transgender and gender-neutral individuals." Or you could just continue to use "he" and we could continue to understand that it doesn't mean you're maliciously excluding one-half the population simply because English lacks a gender-neutral personal pronoun.

My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.
 
2013-03-11 05:46:43 AM  

Gyrfalcon: My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.


Well, Joan, considering it's a pronoun you may have some more crusading yet to do.

But I always use it as a gender neutral pronoun, so with lowered expectations you may win sooner than you think.
 
2013-03-11 05:50:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.


That's fine "If anyone finds a fire, they is to sound the alarm" sounds a bit horrible to me. Could we do like the German "Sie" and use the same form for singular and plural?
 
2013-03-11 05:54:49 AM  

Gyrfalcon: arashinogarou: PsiChick: and b) English is a male-gender language; you say 'he' when you don't know the gender of the person, so good luck changing that one.

I find that interesting. I was taught growing up to use "she" when gender is unknown or the subject refers to a person in general. And I'm not some millennium kid, I was born in the 70s. Are you sure you're not just making that up to validate your earlier comment?

I just found this, by the way: "The use of "he" to refer to a person of unknown gender was prescribed by manuals of style and school textbooks from the early 18th century until around the 1960s"1

So you are definitely trying to deceive, or else you have no clue how the English language has progressed in the past half century.


1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_Englis h

"He" is grammatically correct when you need a gender-neutral pronoun, although it's just as correct to use "he/she" or "he or she" or the current legalese "In the following document, the male pronoun is understood to refer to all persons of both genders, as well as transgender and gender-neutral individuals." Or you could just continue to use "he" and we could continue to understand that it doesn't mean you're maliciously excluding one-half the population simply because English lacks a gender-neutral personal pronoun.

My one-woman crusade to have "they" become a singular noun continues apace.


One woman crusade? Kate Bornstein would like a word with you.
 
2013-03-11 05:57:21 AM  

orbister: Could we do like the German


No! Those bastards bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-03-11 06:31:40 AM  

CWeinerWV: I still want to know what turtle-people means


People who pull their head into their metaphorical shell to ignore danger ?
Sorta like the proverbial ostrich that buries itself in the sand.

Neither approach is effective at defence it simply and futilely denies the danger.
 
2013-03-11 07:18:41 AM  

doglover: orbister: Could we do like the German

No! Those bastards bombed Pearl Harbor.


Ich werde mich nie mit Macho Grande abfinden.
 
2013-03-11 08:06:23 AM  
empowerful

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
 
2013-03-11 08:26:25 AM  
It's good to start the day with an article like this.  It reminds me how smart I am.
 
2013-03-11 08:34:34 AM  
 

PsiChick: y position is that MRAs are not actually about men's rights in mainstream, and that feminism is about equality in their own mainstream. If you disagree with that, you need to explain why.



MRA's are simply people (and I have known female MRA's just as I have known male feminists) that are concerned about the rights of men. Chauvinists are the ones that see one sex as superior to the other and feel the need to tear the other down (I right pissed off a radical feminist professor once by proving in class that she was a chauvinist).

MRA's tend to be people who have seen the real life consequences of things like family court, education, reproductive issues, work, health and death rates. If those issues aren't mainstream issues than I'm not sure what you consider mainstream?

You may have been misled by your feminist source into what a MRA even is, which I've learned is fairly common. The radical feminist movement in an effort to avoid having a like movement for men has tried to hijack the very definition of MRA. I cite as an example this definition from urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

"MRA means "Men's Rights Activist". No seriously. There are actually people who are so stupid they think that men are oppressed anywhere in the world." The example of the user submitted definition is intended to make a joke of anyone in the movement and degrade them. The same thing happened in the early days of feminism and every other group that had rights activists that fought for it.

You don't strike me as one of Fark's man-haters, more as a feminist with an unchallenged education. Sometimes you even show hints of supporting egalitarianism, I'm curious if you'll move beyond the propaganda or become an egalitarian in the end after all.
 
2013-03-11 08:45:41 AM  
The problem with Jezebel is that while they are adept at identifying "mansplaining", they have no such indicators for "womansplaining" even though that happens just as often. This is because it's not a man-thing, or a woman-thing, it's a person-thing. (I know, I'm mansplaining)

I guess nobody ever told them that the internet is a platform that furthers equality when it comes to exposure to different viewpoints. An author is genderless until the author wishes to discuss his/her gender. The idea he or she espouses is weighed for its merits alone and without prejudice. And still, articles like this appear without the slightest hint of self-consciousness. The author sees that the average woman's viewpoint on this issue is unfair to men, and shrugs and tells the guys they better be aware of it if they want to get with these "modern, educated" women who clearly aren't as introspective as they might be.
 
2013-03-11 09:04:44 AM  

if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.


Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?
 
2013-03-11 10:45:09 AM  

heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?


never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.
 
2013-03-11 10:47:12 AM  

heili skrimsli: My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?


Such is the inscrutable mystery that is Woman. Is she faking it? She says "why would I fake it, it only encourages you to keep doing the wrong thing."

But she fears if she tells you what you really need to facilitate her climax, you'll find it dull and tedious, so she fakes it and denies faking, exclaiming that you're King fark Puma and the best she's ever had.

Or are you? Or does she really enjoy it as much as she says. Hmmmm. Is she repressed? Is she repressed but claiming liberation and enlightenment to gain acceptance? Or is she really liberated and enlightened?

Or is she rightly disgusted by the sloppy, messy, mutant-delicatessen freakshow that is human genitalia and sexuality and the rest of us are revolting perverts for claiming it is natural and wonderful and What Not.
 
2013-03-11 11:30:12 AM  

johnny queso: heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?

never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.


It doesn't make sense to me why people are so horrified by actually looking at the body parts that they're having sex with. Get all up close to it, look at it, touch it, lick it, and enjoy it. Why people are so repressed about body parts is farking baffling to me. No wonder there's so much stankycrotch out there though, with all these people who are so freaking horrified by genitals that they most certainly would never actually touch them in the shower to keep them clean.

I could pick my vadge out of a lineup. I know what it looks like, feels like, smells like and tastes like (no, I'm not that flexible...) and I really think everybody should have that level of familiarity with their genitals.

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Such is the inscrutable mystery that is Woman. Is she faking it? She says "why would I fake it, it only encourages you to keep doing the wrong thing."


Don't understand this either. Sex is supposed to be fun for all (the consenting adults) involved in the activity. Faking it makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone won't take direction as to what really makes your toes curl, don't fark them. The best way I have found to ensure that sex is really good is to actually communicate what makes it really good. Tell your partner. Show your partner. It goes both ways. Listen to what they want. Let them guide you.

People who don't do this must be the people who think that sex is the biannual chore that they have to do because they're married and they owe their spouse something. Those poor souls. It doesn't have to be that way.
 
2013-03-11 12:15:03 PM  
Very soon, Photobucket will be implementing a grand re-design, effectively eliminating their "view recent uploads" feature. Up until then, you are able to see what users have recently uploaded, often with a link back to their public albums. I can not tell you how many times I have perused the albums of girls/women only to find page after page after page of self-shot pictures, sometimes in identical clothes and poses, other times varying wildly from location to clothing choice to duckface/kissyface. No matter their age, race, upbringing, whatever, the vain will exploit any platform they can to show the world just how beautiful they think they are.
 
2013-03-11 01:11:29 PM  

heili skrimsli: People who don't do this must be the people who think that sex is the biannual chore that they have to do because they're married and they owe their spouse something. Those poor souls. It doesn't have to be that way.


It does when your marriage is a financial arrangement instead of about love.

/Marriage today is far more about the tax benefits then love.
 
2013-03-11 01:19:54 PM  

doglover: PsiChick: Using a slang term

You got moxy, kid, but you're the pot callin' the kettle black to react against sexism by talking about the Nice Guy BrigadeTM.

Reverse hate is not equality. it's just oppression the other way. Not that there's not a time and place for offensive maneuvers, but like I posted earlier and you dismissed out of hand, humans are very easily manipulated. One of the best ways to unite a disparate group is to provide them a common enemy, real or imagined. It seems you've chosen men. You can accept it, or not. It still spins just the same.


Your position is that it's 'reverse hate' and 'oppression' to call people by...a name they literally self-identify as?

Never go outside your house. There's  mean people out there. They might actually show you an example of  real discrimination.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: You disagree that the dictionary definition of a word is the most likely used definition? Care to explain why?


No, I disagree that the dictionary definition of a word actively prevents self-proclaimed feminist groups from using lies to promote their agenda.

No, anyone can spout off whatever they like, it's the internet. My position is that MRAs are not actually about men's rights in mainstream, and that feminism is about equality in their own mainstream. If you disagree with that, you need to explain why.


I'm not talking about nutjobs on the internet, I'm talking about the real-world organizations that send out mailers with blatantly false information.

And on the topic of MRA, my opinion is that if a woman assaults a man, and the man calls the police to report the assault, the man should not be automatically arrested and charged with assault.


What real-world organizations are you talking about, then? And yes, you're right, that is wrong. MRA groups do not address that in anything resembling a sane manner--the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist. That's my big problem with MRA groups--there  are very real men's rights issues out there, but MRA groups, instead of addressing them, just fall back onto misogyny. That's not addressing the problem, that's being an idiot, and you should not demand the same treatment as a real civil rights group if you're just a conspiracy group.

onyxrubyMRA's are simply people (and I have known female MRA's just as I have known male feminists) that are concerned about the rights of men. Chauvinists are the ones that see one sex as superior to the other and feel the need to tear the other down (I right pissed off a radical feminist professor once by proving in class that she was a chauvinist).

MRA's tend to be people who have seen the real life consequences of things like family court, education, reproductive issues, work, health and death rates. If those issues aren't mainstream issues than I'm not sure what you consider mainstream?

You may have been misled by your feminist source into what a MRA even is, which I've learned is fairly common. The radical feminist movement in an effort to avoid having a like movement for men has tried to hijack the very definition of MRA. I cite as an example this definition from urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(61, 61, 255); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 17px;">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

"MRA means "Men's Rights Activist". No seriously. There are actually people who are so stupid they think that men are oppressed anywhere in the world." The example of the user submitted definition is intended to make a joke of anyone in the movement and degrade them. The same thing happened in the early days of feminism and every other group that had rights activists that fought for it.

You don't strike me as one of Fark's man-haters, more as a feminist with an unchallenged education. Sometimes you even show hints of supporting egalitarianism, I'm curious if you'll move beyond the propaganda or become an egalitarian in the end after all.


My 'feminist source' was reading MRA articles and dealing with MRA groups. So unless you're trying to claim the MRA is feminist now...

And as far as my  actual source, Mirriam-Webster is not affiliated with any group other than Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

/Gotta say, the nice thing about a 'feminist education' is that I can distinguish 'real sources' from 'UrbanDictionary'.
 
2013-03-11 01:40:22 PM  
"I am ashamed as a feminist to admit that while I champion vanity in women, I find it kind of off-putting in men," Emily told me in an email. "I'd rather a man be thinking about how pretty I am than worrying about how pretty he is."

that's "feminism" folks!
 
2013-03-11 01:43:07 PM  

heili skrimsli: johnny queso: heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?

never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.

It doesn't make sense to me why people are so horrified by actually looking at the body parts that they're having sex with. Get all up close to it, look at it, touch it, lick it, and enjoy it. Why people are so repressed about body parts is farking baffling to me. No wonder there's so much stankycrotch out there though, with all these people who are so freaking horrified by genitals that they most certainly would never actua ...


i have become very knowledgable about the feel of my genitals through vigorous and prolonged workshops and get acquainted sessions.  regarding picking it out of a lineup, it was only that one time and it was been proven to be a case of mistaken identity.  i would like to put that behind me and ask that you not bring it up in mixed company.
 
2013-03-11 02:36:11 PM  

PsiChick: What real-world organizations are you talking about, then? And yes, you're right, that is wrong.


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-05-08/news/1993128032_1_potent ia l-rapists-campus-feminist-art

COLLEGE PARK -- Are nearly all male students at the University of Maryland "potential rapists"?
Women in a feminist art class here apparently believe so. About 10 of them plastered the campus with fliers last week listing the names of virtually every male student under the heading, "NOTICE: THESE MEN ARE POTENTIAL RAPISTS."

PsiChick: MRA groups do not address that in anything resembling a sane manner


There are a few that do. But you're lumping in the good with the bad, the exact thing you say that shouldn't be done when men refer to the self-proclaimed "feminist" groups that promote an anti-male agenda.

PsiChick: the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist.


Nice strawman. I never blamed feminist groups for the idiotic laws, I only pointed out an example of where men are systematically discriminated against by the legal system.

Bringing up "us versus them" arguments isn't going to help your cause, especially when the person you're arguing with already supports the non-crazypants version of feminism.

PsiChick: That's not addressing the problem, that's being an idiot, and you should not demand the same treatment as a real civil rights group if you're just a conspiracy group.


If I said that no feminist group should be recognized under the law due to the fact that a few loudmouth nutjobs promote hatred under the banner of feminism, you would rightfully call me a misogynist.

But when you say that no men's rights group should be recognized under the law due to the fact that a few loudmouth nutjobs promote hatred under the banner of MRA, it's completely acceptable.

Yup. No double standards there. "Equality for everyone. Except men."
 
2013-03-11 03:20:21 PM  
What about the other possibility...you want to take a picture of yourself in some place you are visiting and there is no-one else around to take a picture (of your cawk).
 
2013-03-11 03:36:39 PM  

doglover: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Oooh, could you tell me what my "only book" might be?

If ya can only have one book two, pick it them well.



Smart, Sane, Pretty
 
2013-03-11 05:26:52 PM  

PsiChick: -the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist.


Let me introduce you to something called the Violence against woman act, I do believe you'll concede that feminists were very much involved with it's passage. I assume you are aware that the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 explicitly endorsed a mandatory arrest policy, right? When too many woman started getting arrested the standard was changed to 'predominant aggressor'.

Predominant aggressor arrest policies have led to single only party arrests where previously two parties were often at fault.

www.saveservices.org/downloads/Predominant-Aggressor-Policies

Criteria for determining who was the 'predominant aggressor' were typically based on the following:

Age, height & weight of the parties
• Criminal history
• Domestic violence probation
• Corroboration
• Presence of fear
• Offensive/defensive injuries
• Seriousness of injuries
• Motive to lie
• Strength and skill
• Use of alcohol or drugs
• 911 reporting party
• Timing of citizen's arrest
• Demeanor of parties
• Existing protective orders
• Detail of statement
• Self defense, defense of others/property

The criteria are vague and open to interpretation except for a few factors, and those factors strongly dictate who gets arrested. You'll note that actual self defense is out number by factors that the typical male will lose on simply by being male. Now, feminists can be insulted and offended all day long on this, but it doesn't change the fact that blatantly sexist laws have been passed on the matter. You'll note that these laws directly contribute to 'the reason men get arrested' and with just a touch of research you will see that in 70% of the cases it has everything to do with feminism and nothing to with violence or guilt.
 
2013-03-11 05:56:25 PM  

doglover: Chris Rock's joke: biatch get half


I can't say that Chris Rock never did a joke like this, but the original "HALF!" bit was from Eddie Murphy in Raw. Sure you weren't thinking of that?
 
2013-03-11 07:05:05 PM  

onyxruby: PsiChick: -the reason men get arrested has nothing to do with feminism, and feminists actually find that insulting and sexist.

Let me introduce you to something called the Violence against woman act, I do believe you'll concede that feminists were very much involved with it's passage. I assume you are aware that the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 explicitly endorsed a mandatory arrest policy, right? When too many woman started getting arrested the standard was changed to 'predominant aggressor'.

Predominant aggressor arrest policies have led to single only party arrests where previously two parties were often at fault.

www.saveservices.org/downloads/Predominant-Aggressor-Policies

Criteria for determining who was the 'predominant aggressor' were typically based on the following:

Age, height & weight of the parties
• Criminal history
• Domestic violence probation
• Corroboration
• Presence of fear
• Offensive/defensive injuries
• Seriousness of injuries
• Motive to lie
• Strength and skill
• Use of alcohol or drugs
• 911 reporting party
• Timing of citizen's arrest
• Demeanor of parties
• Existing protective orders
• Detail of statement
• Self defense, defense of others/property

The criteria are vague and open to interpretation except for a few factors, and those factors strongly dictate who gets arrested. You'll note that actual self defense is out number by factors that the typical male will lose on simply by being male. Now, feminists can be insulted and offended all day long on this, but it doesn't change the fact that blatantly sexist laws have been passed on the matter. You'll note that these laws directly contribute to 'the reason men get arrested' and with just a touch of research you will see that in 70% of the cases it has everything to do with feminism and nothing to with violence or guilt.


1) When I click your link I get a virus warning. You need better sources.

2) Actually, although there is a slight bias in that men tend to be bigger and have more fighting skill, every other criteria is actually pretty damn accurate for someone walking into a domestic violence situation with no training whatsoever. The abuse victim,  male or female, will react automatically in fear to the abuser, for example, or will have a different ratio of offensive\defensive injuries...I can't get to the link you're citing, but from just what you posted, no, that doesn't look sexist, that looks like a ham-fisted attempt at deciphering  hellishly complex power dynamics. So maybe the original VAWA had sexist language, but that is not the right example.

3) You'll also notice the  current VAWA,  heavily championed by  many feminist groups, actually addresses protections for men. I'm pretty sure the only way to miss that hullabaloo was to live under a rock, so it's a bit disengenous to claim that modern feminism supports the 1994 bill.
 
2013-03-11 07:49:35 PM  
Some fun statistics about domestic violence:

1. When the man is at fault (legitimately) the call doesn't come from inside the home, but from neighbors.
2. When the man is at fault, he always answers the door. Always.
3. When the man is at fault, the woman will deny anything happening, and can become violent.
4. When the woman is at fault, she will answer the door. Always.
5. When the woman is at fault, she will be holding a baby. (if one is available)
6. When the woman is at fault, the husband will be more than willing to get the fark out of the house. (more often than not)
7. When the woman is at fault, she will tell you EVERY. FARKING. THING. the husband ever did in their entire relationship.
8. Beaten women do >not< cry to cops. Not until after the husband has been removed. Abusive women will be weeping like pros when we knock.  You can hear em prepare themselves when we knock.
 
2013-03-11 08:01:11 PM  

PsiChick: I can't get to the link you're citing, but from just what you posted, no, that doesn't look sexist, that looks like a ham-fisted attempt at deciphering  hellishly complex power dynamics.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence- vi ctim/

Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. This is partly the result of primary aggressor laws, which encourage police to discount who initiated and committed the violence but instead look at other factors that make them likelier to arrest men. When the men in Ms. Hines' study tried calling domestic-violence hot lines, 64 percent were told the hot lines helped only women, and more than half were referred to programs for male domestic-violence perpetrators.
 
2013-03-11 08:18:32 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: I can't get to the link you're citing, but from just what you posted, no, that doesn't look sexist, that looks like a ham-fisted attempt at deciphering  hellishly complex power dynamics.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence- vi ctim/

Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. This is partly the result of primary aggressor laws, which encourage police to discount who initiated and committed the violence but instead look at other factors that make them likelier to arrest men. When the men in Ms. Hines' study tried calling domestic-violence hot lines, 64 percent were told the hot lines helped only women, and more than half were referred to programs for male domestic-violence perpetrators.


This is an opinion piece citing the same article I already pointed out was flawed, and the reason it's flawed is that the study may only reflect a temporary or changing trend--the SPCL cited Department of Justice statistics that began  pre-VAWA and showed a  long-term trend. Yes, there are abused men, no one is denying that, but a) that's not a source, that's an opinion piece, and does not have a sample I would consider a decent comparison, and b) we  do teach men and women to respond differently to all kinds of abuse scenarios, and quite often  both partners are abusing each other--that's what I mentioned with dynamics.

You'll also note that, as I pointed out, the  feminist-sponsored,  current VAWA bill addresses exactly this.
 
2013-03-11 08:35:38 PM  
Does the VAWA bill still utlize the Duluth Model?
 
2013-03-11 09:17:54 PM  

PsiChick: This is an opinion piece citing the same article I already pointed out was flawed


The article might be an opinion piece, but the part I quoted was a study by Denise Hines of Clark University.

PsiChick: You'll also note that, as I pointed out, the  feminist-sponsored,  current VAWA bill addresses exactly this.


It does? In the last revision I've read, the provisions of the 1993 law that led to men being considered the automatic aggressor are still intact. Yes, it does extend protections to other groups, but it gave no protections whatsoever to heterosexual men being abused by women.
 
2013-03-11 09:28:19 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: This is an opinion piece citing the same article I already pointed out was flawed

The article might be an opinion piece, but the part I quoted was a study by Denise Hines of Clark University.

PsiChick: You'll also note that, as I pointed out, the  feminist-sponsored,  current VAWA bill addresses exactly this.

It does? In the last revision I've read, the provisions of the 1993 law that led to men being considered the automatic aggressor are still intact. Yes, it does extend protections to other groups, but it gave no protections whatsoever to heterosexual men being abused by women.


And, once again, I already pointed out the flaw.

And yes, it  does provide provisions specifically for abused men, gay or straight--that was part of what the Republican party protested.
 
2013-03-11 09:41:34 PM  

PsiChick: And, once again, I already pointed out the flaw.


You referred to it as an opinion piece. I was clarifying that it was a university study, not some nutjob who wrote a letter to the editor.

PsiChick: And yes, it  does provide provisions specifically for abused men, gay or straight--that was part of what the Republican party protested.


Very well, I'll read the most recent revision. But as I recall, the opposition was due to provisions for gay and lesbian victims, not straight men abused by straight women.
 
2013-03-11 09:51:28 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And, once again, I already pointed out the flaw.

You referred to it as an opinion piece. I was clarifying that it was a university study, not some nutjob who wrote a letter to the editor.

PsiChick: And yes, it  does provide provisions specifically for abused men, gay or straight--that was part of what the Republican party protested.

Very well, I'll read the most recent revision. But as I recall, the opposition was due to provisions for gay and lesbian victims, not straight men abused by straight women.


Yes, but you'll notice the rest of the sentence there.

It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...
 
2013-03-11 10:00:13 PM  

PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...



Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.
 
2013-03-11 10:15:15 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.


Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.
 
2013-03-11 10:33:33 PM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.

Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.


"it fits my preconceptions so it must be true"
 
2013-03-11 10:38:53 PM  

Yogimus: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.

Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.

"it fits my preconceptions everything a certain group believes in and says, so it must be true"


FTFY.

/You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...
 
2013-03-11 11:05:06 PM  

PsiChick: Yogimus: PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: It was GLBTQ, immigrant, Native American, and male protections, actually...


Gay males, yes, but I've not seen any republican opposition to protections for straight men.

Their exact language was along the lines of "We can't support this because of how radical it is". The only new stuff involved the categories I mentioned. There have been Republican party members going on-air saying things like "Men are more easily able to handle abuse". The Republican party is fairly misogynist. It's not really a big leap.

"it fits my preconceptions everything a certain group believes in and says, so it must be true"

FTFY.

/You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...


I think you dislike republicans, and you dislike misogynists, therefore republicans must be misogynists.
 
2013-03-11 11:12:27 PM  

PsiChick: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...



There are misogynists who spread hatred under the republican banner, but that doesn't mean all republicans are misogynists.
 
2013-03-11 11:18:00 PM  

Yogimus: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...

I think you dislike republicans, and you dislike misogynists, therefore republicans must be misogynists.


the ha ha guy: PsiChick: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...


There are misogynists who spread hatred under the republican banner, but that doesn't mean all republicans are misogynists.


BAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You two have  no idea what the Republican party's been  saying the past couple of...hell, by now it's the past  decade, do you?

Tell you what, I'll wait for you to catch up. You can get at least the past twenty-four hours on Fark, but I'm sure you can go search CNN or something to get more data. Search 'GOP rape victims', 'GOP domestic violence', 'GOP abortion', to start with. That's where some of the best misogyny is.
 
2013-03-11 11:21:42 PM  

PsiChick: Yogimus: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...

I think you dislike republicans, and you dislike misogynists, therefore republicans must be misogynists.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: /You trying to argue the Republicans  aren't widely-known misogynists? I mean, when the sun comes up every day...


There are misogynists who spread hatred under the republican banner, but that doesn't mean all republicans are misogynists.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You two have  no idea what the Republican party's been  saying the past couple of...hell, by now it's the past  decade, do you?

Tell you what, I'll wait for you to catch up. You can get at least the past twenty-four hours on Fark, but I'm sure you can go search CNN or something to get more data. Search 'GOP rape victims', 'GOP domestic violence', 'GOP abortion', to start with. That's where some of the best misogyny is.


Ah, I see you're one of those folks that  assume party affiliation represents 100% of a person's belief system.  The best thing about this manner of thinking is that you can pick and choose what that party represents to YOU, and then brand everyone accordingly, reality be damned.

/Must be nice
 
2013-03-11 11:22:10 PM  

PsiChick: BAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You two have  no idea what the Republican party's been  saying the past couple of...hell, by now it's the past  decade, do you?

Tell you what, I'll wait for you to catch up. You can get at least the past twenty-four hours on Fark, but I'm sure you can go search CNN or something to get more data. Search 'GOP rape victims', 'GOP domestic violence', 'GOP abortion', to start with. That's where some of the best misogyny is.



I am completely aware of what a few prominent members of the republican party have said, but that does not mean their views are official party doctrine, or even held by the majority of republicans.
 
2013-03-11 11:33:25 PM  

Yogimus: Ah, I see you're one of those folks that  assume party affiliation represents 100% of a person's belief system.  The best thing about this manner of thinking is that you can pick and choose what that party represents to YOU, and then brand everyone accordingly, reality be damned.

/Must be nice


the ha ha guy: I am completely aware of what a few prominent members of the republican party have said, but that does not mean their views are official party doctrine, or even held by the majority of republicans.


When Rush Limbaugh, the de facto voice of the GOP, has a full nine hours total of calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in her capacity as an advocate, that  might be a hint as to what the official party doctrine actually is.

Just maybe.

/And all the  other times they've  openly said that...
//And Yogimus? Do you know what a straw man argument is? Hint: If you claim the GOP doesn't support a position, and I point out that it in fact does, I did not actually comment on anything they do when the R button isn't sitting on their lapel. I'm sure they're all nice, wonderful people who respect women and the gay couple down the road when they aren't acting as Republicans. I'm just commenting on what they do when they're not at home.
 
2013-03-11 11:35:12 PM  

PsiChick: Yogimus: Ah, I see you're one of those folks that  assume party affiliation represents 100% of a person's belief system.  The best thing about this manner of thinking is that you can pick and choose what that party represents to YOU, and then brand everyone accordingly, reality be damned.

/Must be nice

the ha ha guy: I am completely aware of what a few prominent members of the republican party have said, but that does not mean their views are official party doctrine, or even held by the majority of republicans.

When Rush Limbaugh, the de facto voice of the GOP, has a full nine hours total of calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in her capacity as an advocate, that  might be a hint as to what the official party doctrine actually is.

Just maybe.

/And all the  other times they've  openly said that...
//And Yogimus? Do you know what a straw man argument is? Hint: If you claim the GOP doesn't support a position, and I point out that it in fact does, I did not actually comment on anything they do when the R button isn't sitting on their lapel. I'm sure they're all nice, wonderful people who respect women and the gay couple down the road when they aren't acting as Republicans. I'm just commenting on what they do when they're not at home.


He says without a hint of irony...
 
2013-03-11 11:48:20 PM  

Yogimus: //And Yogimus? Do you know what a straw man argument is? Hint: If you claim the GOP doesn't support a position, and I point out that it in fact does, I did not actually comment on anything they do when the R button isn't sitting on their lapel. I'm sure they're all nice, wonderful people who respect women and the gay couple down the road when they aren't acting as Republicans. I'm just commenting on what they do when they're not at home.

He says without a hint of irony...


A) She. My name is PsiChick because I  like being a girl. Stunningly enough, supporting  real men's-rights issues does not actually give me a penis.

B) I have not actually set up a straw man anywhere. You, however, would probably flunk out of basic debate class with a note to the effect of 'you are not a human projector'.
 
2013-03-11 11:50:18 PM  

PsiChick: When Rush Limbaugh, the de facto voice of the GOP, has a full nine hours total of calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in her capacity as an advocate, that  might be a hint as to what the official party doctrine actually is.



So when a prominent member of a movement speaks, their views represent the whole?

Does that also apply to prominent members of the modern feminist movement who say things like "all men are rapists", "women can't commit rape", and other anti-male views?
 
2013-03-11 11:53:13 PM  

PsiChick: Yogimus: //And Yogimus? Do you know what a straw man argument is? Hint: If you claim the GOP doesn't support a position, and I point out that it in fact does, I did not actually comment on anything they do when the R button isn't sitting on their lapel. I'm sure they're all nice, wonderful people who respect women and the gay couple down the road when they aren't acting as Republicans. I'm just commenting on what they do when they're not at home.

He says without a hint of irony...

A) She. My name is PsiChick because I  like being a girl. Stunningly enough, supporting  real men's-rights issues does not actually give me a penis.

B) I have not actually set up a straw man anywhere. You, however, would probably flunk out of basic debate class with a note to the effect of 'you are not a human projector'.


She says without a hint of irony...
 
2013-03-11 11:58:23 PM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: When Rush Limbaugh, the de facto voice of the GOP, has a full nine hours total of calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in her capacity as an advocate, that  might be a hint as to what the official party doctrine actually is.


So when a prominent member of a movement speaks, their views represent the whole?

Does that also apply to prominent members of the modern feminist movement who say things like "all men are rapists", "women can't commit rape", and other anti-male views?


That would imply it's just  one member. Instead of, say, almost all of them. When the Daily Show had a 'Days Without A GOP Rape Mention' because you were trying to attack abortion by going after  pregnant rape victims, it's either misogyny or some sort of well-hidden sociopathy.

Yogimus: PsiChick: Yogimus: //And Yogimus? Do you know what a straw man argument is? Hint: If you claim the GOP doesn't support a position, and I point out that it in fact does, I did not actually comment on anything they do when the R button isn't sitting on their lapel. I'm sure they're all nice, wonderful people who respect women and the gay couple down the road when they aren't acting as Republicans. I'm just commenting on what they do when they're not at home.

He says without a hint of irony...

A) She. My name is PsiChick because I  like being a girl. Stunningly enough, supporting  real men's-rights issues does not actually give me a penis.

B) I have not actually set up a straw man anywhere. You, however, would probably flunk out of basic debate class with a note to the effect of 'you are not a human projector'.

She says without a hint of irony...


Come up with a real argument or STFU. Resorting to repeating yourself is pathetic.
 
2013-03-12 12:01:57 AM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: When Rush Limbaugh, the de facto voice of the GOP, has a full nine hours total of calling Sandra Fluke a slut for testifying in her capacity as an advocate, that  might be a hint as to what the official party doctrine actually is.


So when a prominent member of a movement speaks, their views represent the whole?

Does that also apply to prominent members of the modern feminist movement who say things like "all men are rapists", "women can't commit rape", and other anti-male views?

That would imply it's just  one member. Instead of, say, almost all of them. When the Daily Show had a 'Days Without A GOP Rape Mention' because you were trying to attack abortion by going after  pregnant rape victims, it's either misogyny or some sort of well-hidden sociopathy.

Yogimus: PsiChick: Yogimus: //And Yogimus? Do you know what a straw man argument is? Hint: If you claim the GOP doesn't support a position, and I point out that it in fact does, I did not actually comment on anything they do when the R button isn't sitting on their lapel. I'm sure they're all nice, wonderful people who respect women and the gay couple down the road when they aren't acting as Republicans. I'm just commenting on what they do when they're not at home.

He says without a hint of irony...

A) She. My name is PsiChick because I  like being a girl. Stunningly enough, supporting  real men's-rights issues does not actually give me a penis.

B) I have not actually set up a straw man anywhere. You, however, would probably flunk out of basic debate class with a note to the effect of 'you are not a human projector'.

She says without a hint of irony...

Come up with a real argument or STFU. Resorting to repeating yourself is pathetic.


Just trying to see if it would stick.  Apparently not. Either way, I think I made my point.
 
2013-03-12 12:05:02 AM  

PsiChick: That would imply it's just  one member. Instead of, say, almost all of them.


the ha ha guy: Does that also apply to prominent members of the modern feminist movement

I can assure you that there is more than one prominent feminist spewing anti-male hatred under the banner of feminism.
 
2013-03-12 12:06:25 AM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: That would imply it's just  one member. Instead of, say, almost all of them.

the ha ha guy: Does that also apply to prominent members of the modern feminist movement
I can assure you that there is more than one prominent feminist spewing anti-male hatred under the banner of feminism.


Shh... you're arguing with a woman.

/Possibly a pretty one
 
2013-03-12 12:08:08 AM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: That would imply it's just  one member. Instead of, say, almost all of them.

the ha ha guy: Does that also apply to prominent members of the modern feminist movement
I can assure you that there is more than one prominent feminist spewing anti-male hatred under the banner of feminism.


Almost all of them? Or a rare handful that are, in reality, marginalized? Because I have to say, until I met MRA folks, I never heard of anti-male feminist hate--because I was raised by actual feminists who believed in the mainstream ideal of men and women being equal, and often pointed to sexism as a double-edged sword.

/But seriously, A) It's apples and oranges, and I think you're mistaking kumquats for oranges anyway, and B) The GOP would still be sexist even if feminists were.
 
2013-03-12 12:09:51 AM  

PsiChick: Almost all of them? Or a rare handful that are, in reality, marginalized?


SHE SAYS WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY.
 
2013-03-12 12:13:44 AM  

johnny queso: heili skrimsli: if_i_really_have_to: Willies look silly. You're right, I think men assume because they get off on out of context shots of female genitalia, that women must feel the same. I think that for the majority of women this is not true. I've never known any woman who admits to being turned on by a cock shot. I'm certain there are some out there, but it's not a sexist lie that most women aren't that kind of visual.

Now you do.

The other parts like chest and ass and legs are nice enough, but I'd rather see some cock.

My question is whether I'm unique in wanting to see cock and being turned on by cock, or just in the fact that I'll say so. Are women actually not turned on by this, or is it that they get all demure and unwilling to admit that they actually really like dick? Are the women who are saying that pictures of cock are 'icky' the same ones who would say 'Eww, I'd never touch myself. That's gross!'?

never understood straight people who are grossed out by the opposing gender's sex organs.  why are women creeped out by hard cocks?  granted they are more than mildly amusing, but at some level it seems there needs to be some sort of attraction.  on the other side, i remember seeing a comedian, i think it was martin lawrence, talk for 20 minutes about how disgusting vaginas are.  struck me as strange considering the other 40 minutes of his show was about trying to get inside as many vaginas as possible.

if i had a favorites list you would be a shade of reddish purple for "likes cock".
please don't point that at my face.


It's a biological impulse that promotes the idea of hiding said salami, I mean organ.
 
2013-03-12 12:14:36 AM  

PsiChick: Stunningly enough, supporting real men's-rights issues does not actually give me a penis.


I'd be curious as to what you consider a 'real' men's rights issue? I'll throw some down and just let me know what you think.

Education - boys and men are systemically discriminated against and college enrollment rolls are frequently around %60 female and growing.
Health - the average age that a man will live is far shorter than what a woman will live.
Injuries - men are far more likely to be injured on the job and face debilitating lifetime consequences.
Travel - men are frequently subject to travel that most women would never tolerate.
Sexual Reproduction Rights - men have no reproductive rights.
Sexual independence - men cannot get male birth control that is available in other countries beyond condoms.
Insurance - it is perfectly legal to discriminate against men and charge them more for insurance regardless of their actual driving records.
Domestic violence - Men as just as likely, if not more likely to be victims of domestic violence.
Domestic violence - Predominant aggressor arrest policies virtually assure (only) men will go to jail regardless of fault.
Will Arrest - Will arrest policies assure that someone goes to jail. Combined with predominant aggressor policies the person going to jail is typically the man regardless of guilt.
False charges - Well known and tolerated by the legal system, a significant portion of the people in jail for certain charges are there by false allegations.
Under-reporting of crimes - police routinely under report crimes against men as a matter of course or policy.
Family Court - men are routinely denied equal access or weight in family court and children are often readily placed with unfit mothers over a perfectly fit father.
Family court - men are far more likely to lose their kids, house, car(s), retirement, household goods and so on.
Child support - men have to pay taxes on the income taken by the women and it can frequently be so ruinous as to be a leading cause of homelessness for men
Alimony - men are frequently ordered to pay alimony, without reason cause or end.
Job market - it is legal to discriminate against men to fulfill a job if that job goes to a women, in fact with quotas it is often legally required.
Taxes - men pay more in taxes and receive less in benefits.
Military service - men have to sign up for the draft.
Media portrayals - men are typically shown in the media as incompetent or dangerous around children.

I could go on and on, but I'm curious to see how long it will take you to portray all of these issues as 'not real' and what think a 'real' issue is.
 
2013-03-12 12:24:10 AM  

Yogimus: PsiChick: Almost all of them? Or a rare handful that are, in reality, marginalized?

SHE SAYS WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY.


Yogimus, if you would like to claim feminist misandrists are hero-worshipped, could you provide a single farking citation instead of just going 'NU-UNH!' at me?

onyxruby: PsiChick: Stunningly enough, supporting real men's-rights issues does not actually give me a penis.

I'd be curious as to what you consider a 'real' men's rights issue? I'll throw some down and just let me know what you think.

Education - boys and men are systemically discriminated against and college enrollment rolls are frequently around %60 female and growing.
Health - the average age that a man will live is far shorter than what a woman will live.
Injuries - men are far more likely to be injured on the job and face debilitating lifetime consequences.
Travel - men are frequently subject to travel that most women would never tolerate.
Sexual Reproduction Rights - men have no reproductive rights.
Sexual independence - men cannot get male birth control that is available in other countries beyond condoms.
Insurance - it is perfectly legal to discriminate against men and charge them more for insurance regardless of their actual driving records.
Domestic violence - Men as just as likely, if not more likely to be victims of domestic violence.
Domestic violence - Predominant aggressor arrest policies virtually assure (only) men will go to jail regardless of fault.
Will Arrest - Will arrest policies assure that someone goes to jail. Combined with predominant aggressor policies the person going to jail is typically the man regardless of guilt.
False charges - Well known and tolerated by the legal system, a significant portion of the people in jail for certain charges are there by false allegations.
Under-reporting of crimes - police routinely under report crimes against men as a matter of course or policy.
Family Court - men are routinely denied equal access or weight in family court and children are often readily placed with unfit mothers over a perfectly fit father.
Family court - men are far more likely to lose their kids, house, car(s), retirement, household goods and so on.
Child support - men have to pay taxes on the income taken by the women and it can frequently b ...


Some of those are very real issues, yes, although you have either seriously misrepresented or just are ignorant about many (for example, the CDC's statistics is that, of the reported rapes, only 4-5% are shown to be false charges; men do in fact have reproductive rights, but they are not allowed to control what happens to another person's body; men paying higher taxes is because men typically have higher-paying  jobs), but overall, yes, you have many very real issues there. I've actually pointed out a good number of them myself (you forgot to mention that teen boys tend to be demonized far more than teen girls).

MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.
 
2013-03-12 12:27:48 AM  

PsiChick: Yogimus, if you would like to claim feminist misandrists are hero-worshipped, could you provide a single farking citation instead of just going 'NU-UNH!' at me?


Why bother doing all that, when you are such a valiant fighter for my point when it applies to your side?   You are absolutely correct in your statements.  You just don't seem to be able to apply them to your perceived opponent.

Again, I agree with your ideas, and thoughts. Hence the irony of you arguing them HARDER at me. And my amusement.

/this is why I don't argue with pretty women.
 
2013-03-12 12:36:44 AM  

Yogimus: PsiChick: Yogimus, if you would like to claim feminist misandrists are hero-worshipped, could you provide a single farking citation instead of just going 'NU-UNH!' at me?

Why bother doing all that, when you are such a valiant fighter for my point when it applies to your side?   You are absolutely correct in your statements.  You just don't seem to be able to apply them to your perceived opponent.

Again, I agree with your ideas, and thoughts. Hence the irony of you arguing them HARDER at me. And my amusement.

/this is why I don't argue with pretty women.


Your argument was that I was wrong because the idea of the GOP being sexist 'fit my preconceptions'. At what point in this conversation were you  agreeing with me? On  anything?
 
2013-03-12 01:22:12 AM  

PsiChick: Almost all of them? Or a rare handful that are, in reality, marginalized?



Susan Brownmiller is a well-known speaker, has written many books and newspaper articles, has won awards, and one of her books has been named one of 100 most important books of the Twentieth Century by the New York Public Library. She said:

"From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

Sally Miller Gearhart is a writer and well known feminist activist who started one of the first gender studies programs in the country. She said:

"the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race."

Robin Morgan was a leader of the international feminist movement, served as a magazine editor, and has written many popular books on feminism, and founded or co-founded many feminist organizations. She said:

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism -- the lie that there can be such a thing as "men's liberation groups." Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a "threatening" characteristic shared by the latter group -- skin color or sex or age, etc."

"In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men -- but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily."

"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
 
2013-03-12 01:34:43 AM  

PsiChick: MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.



All of them? Or is it only a handful of wingnuts (not unlike the three feminist wingnuts I just quoted) that you've chosen as being representative of the whole?
 
2013-03-12 01:38:24 AM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: Almost all of them? Or a rare handful that are, in reality, marginalized?


Susan Brownmiller is a well-known speaker, has written many books and newspaper articles, has won awards, and one of her books has been named one of 100 most important books of the Twentieth Century by the New York Public Library. She said:

"From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

Sally Miller Gearhart is a writer and well known feminist activist who started one of the first gender studies programs in the country. She said:

"the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race."

Robin Morgan was a leader of the international feminist movement, served as a magazine editor, and has written many popular books on feminism, and founded or co-founded many feminist organizations. She said:

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism -- the lie that there can be such a thing as "men's liberation groups." Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a "threatening" characteristic shared by the latter group -- skin color or sex or age, etc."

"In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men -- but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily."

"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."


Susan Brownmiller: Even Wikipedia notes that this idea is contested by most of the left wing, who is typically feminist, so no, not mainstream.

Sally Miller Gearhart: As the Wiki article  you cited notes, that's generally considered controversial. That's why it's under 'controversy'.

Robin Morgan: She is considered a radical feminist, not a mainstream feminist.

Part of your problem is that your first two women come from an era when there was  much more severe oppression against women.There were more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things. Mother Theresa did a hell of a lot of good in raising awareness about poverty and the good charity can do, but she was a psychopath who didn't even give her patients pain meds. Doesn't mean everyone involved in charity work is that evil.
 
2013-03-12 01:48:25 AM  

PsiChick: because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.


^
/This is also why I didn't bother posting links.
 
2013-03-12 01:49:31 AM  

PsiChick: There were more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.


You're absolutely right, which is why I wholeheartedly support the pro-equality branch of the modern feminist movement.


PsiChick: The GOP would still be sexist even if feminists were.


There are more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy.


PsiChick: MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.


That doesn't mean the group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.
 
2013-03-12 01:56:48 AM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.


All of them? Or is it only a handful of wingnuts (not unlike the three feminist wingnuts I just quoted) that you've chosen as being representative of the whole?


Well, here's a Top 5 list, here's a list of the top ten  sexist, nine of which are Republican, a nice video with a group of quotes, another Top 5 list...

Now, my quotes span about two years, and the only name repeated out of a good twenty-five to thirty is Rush Limbaugh's, and he's quoted in two different years. I'd say that constitutes a fairly heavy trend, wouldn't you?
 
2013-03-12 01:59:38 AM  

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: There were more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.

You're absolutely right, which is why I wholeheartedly support the pro-equality branch of the modern feminist movement.


PsiChick: The GOP would still be sexist even if feminists were.

There are more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy.


PsiChick: MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.

That doesn't mean the group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.


A) The 'pro-equality branch' is known as 'mainstream'.

B) I had twenty-five to thirty, conservative estimate, over a two-year span  during an election cycle, when they're on their best behavior. I'd say that's a trend.

C) If the mainstream MRA groups do not support misrepresentation, why can't you provide citation of that?

Yogimus: PsiChick: because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.

^
/This is also why I didn't bother posting links.


You're throwing shiat on a wall to see what sticks. Go do something productive.
 
2013-03-12 02:03:25 AM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: There were more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.

You're absolutely right, which is why I wholeheartedly support the pro-equality branch of the modern feminist movement.


PsiChick: The GOP would still be sexist even if feminists were.

There are more radical ideas floating around, because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy.


PsiChick: MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.

That doesn't mean the group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.

A) The 'pro-equality branch' is known as 'mainstream'.

B) I had twenty-five to thirty, conservative estimate, over a two-year span  during an election cycle, when they're on their best behavior. I'd say that's a trend.

C) If the mainstream MRA groups do not support misrepresentation, why can't you provide citation of that?

Yogimus: PsiChick: because when you have a large movement, you attract more crazy. That doesn't mean your group as a whole supports crazy, or that non-crazy people are the only ones doing important things.

^
/This is also why I didn't bother posting links.

You're throwing shiat on a wall to see what sticks. Go do something productive.


I am handing you the bucket, you're the one throwing it.  Shame too, since you painted such a nice fresco earlier.  Are you truly unable to take a step back and observe the situation that you are in? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
 
2013-03-12 02:07:22 AM  

PsiChick: C) If the mainstream MRA groups do not support misrepresentation, why can't you provide citation of that?


You're the one claiming the radical MRA groups are representative of everyone interested in men's rights, so why don't you provide citation of that?


PsiChick: Now, my quotes span about two years, and the only name repeated out of a good twenty-five to thirty is Rush Limbaugh's, and he's quoted in two different years. I'd say that constitutes a fairly heavy trend, wouldn't you?


Unless you're trying to imply that MRA is a subset of the GOP, I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to back up your claim that all MRA groups lie or misrepresent the issues.
 
2013-03-12 03:15:30 AM  

PsiChick: Susan Brownmiller: Even Wikipedia notes that this idea is contested by most of the left wing, who is typically feminist, so no, not mainstream.

Sally Miller Gearhart: As the Wiki article  you cited notes, that's generally considered controversial. That's why it's under 'controversy'.

Robin Morgan: She is considered a radical feminist, not a mainstream feminist.



I understand that you want to defend feminism, but you can't make up one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else.

When I cite people who spew hatred under the banner of feminism, you distance them from the mainstream movement, yet you refuse others the opportunity to do the same.

When you bring up Republicans and MRAs who spew hatred using their titles as an excuse, you say that both are representative of the entire group, based on the words of fewer than thirty people.

When I reply that larger groups attract more crazies, and that the few crazies don't represent the entire group, even using an exact copy-and-paste of your own words, you dismiss those answers as invalid, dispute the fact that those answers were perfectly valid when you had used them only twenty minutes before to defend your side of the argument.

When having a debate, it's typically bad form to dismiss your own arguments when they're used in a context you don't like. Either the logic is sound, or it is not. You cannot change the rules mid-stream. For someone who claims to be against double standards, you sure are quick to use them against others...

By the way, we're actually on the same side on more issues than you realize. I haven't been arguing against feminism, I've been arguing against your false claims. I.E, "feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women", a statement that you yourself disproved in your last few posts. If you step back and take a look at the thread, you'll see that I've posted in favor of nearly every single issue that you've spoken of, but you were too focused on the "us verses them" mentality to realize that.
 
2013-03-12 04:15:33 AM  

TV's Vinnie: even the EU wants to ban all porn because they say porn=female objectification.


What I never got about that is that, afaict, the women participating in all of these demeaning, objectifying porn shoots seem to be doing so quite voluntarily and, more often than not, having a dandy time. It's almost as if it were one huge hypocrisy
 
2013-03-12 08:17:08 AM  

the ha ha guy: By the way, we're actually on the same side on more issues than you realize. I haven't been arguing against feminism, I've been arguing against your false claims. I.E, "feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women", a statement that you yourself disproved in your last few posts.


Would that be the same feminism under which there is an assertion of male privilege that all men have because they are men? The same feminists who deny that misandry exists and then in the next breath say that they can completely understand why a woman might hate men because of their male privilege under the patriarchy?
 
2013-03-12 11:09:17 AM  

heili skrimsli: the ha ha guy: By the way, we're actually on the same side on more issues than you realize. I haven't been arguing against feminism, I've been arguing against your false claims. I.E, "feminism has always held that sexist beliefs are as damaging to men as women", a statement that you yourself disproved in your last few posts.

Would that be the same feminism under which there is an assertion of male privilege that all men have because they are men? The same feminists who deny that misandry exists and then in the next breath say that they can completely understand why a woman might hate men because of their male privilege under the patriarchy?



According to PsiChick, people who say that aren't really feminists. Sure, they use the title of feminism to spread their beliefs, they're hailed as heroes by many members of the feminist movement, scholarly resources regard them as the leaders of modern feminism, they have shaped laws regarding women's rights, etc. But someone on the internet decided to ignore reality, deny proof, and argue a definition of feminism that excludes virtually everyone who self-identifies as a feminist, so how can I argue otherwise?

In fact, I think I'll follow her example start telling felf-proclaimed feminists that if they want anything but true equality, they're not really feminists. What's the worst that could happen?
 
2013-03-12 01:38:16 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Just selfies?

After reading Jezebel, one can come to the conclusion that any and all of the endless number of behaviors which women hate men for engaging in, including, but not limited to:

philandering, watching porn, drinking, cheating, fighting, risky non-committal sex, rape, murder, throwing recyclables in the garbage, driving too fast, farting, eating too much, peeing on things, animal abuse, infanticide, matricide, patricide, smoking, rape, spousal abuse, cruelty to animals, voyeurism, exhibitionism, shyness, gregariousness, hermetic-ism, being a gadfly, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, having sexuality, enjoying sports, reading books, playing video games, going out doors, staying in doors, and looking out the window.

are, when women do them, empowering, fantastic, unique things which should not only be celebrated, but are worthy of their own cable show.


I'm so stealing that for my next "interests" list.
 
2013-03-12 01:55:38 PM  

Yogimus: I am handing you the bucket, you're the one throwing it.  Shame too, since you painted such a nice fresco earlier.  Are you truly unable to take a step back and observe the situation that you are in? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?


'Say what you're trying to say without cute phrases or STFU', actually. As I have been throughout this conversation.

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: C) If the mainstream MRA groups do not support misrepresentation, why can't you provide citation of that?

You're the one claiming the radical MRA groups are representative of everyone interested in men's rights, so why don't you provide citation of that?


PsiChick: Now, my quotes span about two years, and the only name repeated out of a good twenty-five to thirty is Rush Limbaugh's, and he's quoted in two different years. I'd say that constitutes a fairly heavy trend, wouldn't you?

Unless you're trying to imply that MRA is a subset of the GOP, I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to back up your claim that all MRA groups lie or misrepresent the issues.


A) I actually originally came on here telling people to RTFA.  You brought up MRAs, so  you need to provide the citation.

B) You have no idea what I'm talking about?

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: BAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You two have  no idea what the Republican party's been  saying the past couple of...hell, by now it's the past  decade, do you?

Tell you what, I'll wait for you to catch up. You can get at least the past twenty-four hours on Fark, but I'm sure you can go search CNN or something to get more data. Search 'GOP rape victims', 'GOP domestic violence', 'GOP abortion', to start with. That's where some of the best misogyny is.


I am completely aware of what a few prominent members of the republican party have said, but that does not mean their views are official party doctrine, or even held by the majority of republicans.


Hmm. Now why would I post proof that the GOP is de facto sexist? Gee, I wonder. Not like it was relevant at  any point in our discussion  ever.

the ha ha guy: According to PsiChick, people who say that aren't really feminists. Sure, they use the title of feminism to spread their beliefs, they're hailed as heroes by many members of the feminist movement, scholarly resources regard them as the leaders of modern feminism, they have shaped laws regarding women's rights, etc. But someone on the internet decided to ignore reality, deny proof, and argue a definition of feminism that excludes virtually everyone who self-identifies as a feminist, so how can I argue otherwise?

In fact, I think I'll follow her example start telling felf-proclaimed feminists that if they want anything but true equality, they're not really feminists. What's the worst that could happen?


'Modern' feminism here meaning feminism in 1931, of course. Among the thousand other ways you've completely ignored reality there.

/I would have so much more sympathy for you if you weren't using 'equality' to mean 'MEN MUST BE PROTECTED FROM TEH EBUL WIMMINS!'. But you are, so I don't.
 
2013-03-12 02:28:01 PM  

PsiChick: A) I actually originally came on here telling people to RTFA.  You brought up MRAs, so  you need to provide the citation.



You first said MRA are all liars at 2013-03-10 11:01:52 PM.

My first mention of MRA in any context was at 2013-03-10 11:23:31 PM.

You made the first claim, so it's your responsibility to prove that claim.


PsiChick: /I would have so much more sympathy for you if you weren't using 'equality' to mean 'MEN MUST BE PROTECTED FROM TEH EBUL WIMMINS!'. But you are, so I don't.



You're so focused on "ALL MEN THINK ALL WIMMENZ ARE TEH EBIL" that you're making up lies about me to win the argument.

Please, stop being an idiot and read the thread. When I mention those who spread hate under the label of MRA, I am not supporting them, I am calling them out for the extremists that they are, just as you rightfully call out the "all men are rapists" advocates as the extremists that they are. Both groups are wrong. Both groups are working against equality. Both groups should be treated as the hate groups that they are, not put on a pedestal and worshiped by the lawmakers.

But yet again, you're just going to misread that paragraph as "you acknowledge that inequality exist therefore you're a sexist", not unlike what the extremists on both sides do on a daily basis.
 
2013-03-12 02:36:16 PM  

PsiChick: the ha ha guy:Unless you're trying to imply that MRA is a subset of the GOP, I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to back up your claim that all MRA groups lie or misrepresent the issues.

A) I actually originally came on here telling people to RTFA.  You brought up MRAs, so  you need to provide the citation.

B) You have no idea what I'm talking about?



PsiChick: the ha ha guy: PsiChick: MRA groups do not address these. They provide severe misrepresentation and\or outright lies for many of them, and blame the existant problems on feminist conspiracies.


All of them? Or is it only a handful of wingnuts (not unlike the three feminist wingnuts I just quoted) that you've chosen as being representative of the whole?

Well, here's a Top 5 list, here's a list of the top ten  sexist, nine of which are Republican, a nice video with a group of quotes, another Top 5 list...

Now, my quotes span about two years, and the only name repeated out of a good twenty-five to thirty is Rush Limbaugh's, and he's quoted in two different years. I'd say that constitutes a fairly heavy trend, wouldn't you?



Look at the bolded words in that quote. You said that MRA groups lie to promote their goals. I asked if they all do. You replied with quotes from the GOP.

What does the GOP have to do with MRA? Why are their quotes in any way relevant to your claim that MRA groups are liars? Are you implying that one is a branch of the other, or are you just flinging whatever "all men are teh ebil" quotes you can find and hoping that I'm retarded enough to accept the quotes form a completely unaffiliated and opposing group as proof of your claims?
 
2013-03-12 06:19:54 PM  
Dude.. relax.. you're arguing with a woman.
 
2013-03-13 04:07:56 AM  
www.filmbuffonline.com
 
2013-03-13 08:11:24 AM  

Yogimus: Dude.. relax.. you're arguing with a woman.


The problem's not that she's a woman, It's that she's a female chauvanist.
 
Displayed 387 of 387 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report