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 130
    More: Obvious, self-portraits, feminists  
•       •       •

24400 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2013 at 6:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-10 03:18:33 PM  
13 votes:
One thing everyone I know agrees on, is to not take Jezebel seriously.
2013-03-10 07:08:46 PM  
8 votes:
The problem with Jez is they're not as intelligent as their student loans indicate.
2013-03-10 07:13:47 PM  
7 votes:
www.overarts.com
Ceci n'est pas une selfie
2013-03-10 06:52:34 PM  
6 votes:
Yes, we know feminists... You think everything men do is wrong.
2013-03-10 06:11:17 PM  
6 votes:

BKITU: ... "empowerful" ?


It's a perfectly cromulent word.
2013-03-10 07:14:57 PM  
5 votes:
Women don't like men who are as vain as they are. News at 11.
2013-03-10 06:55:30 PM  
5 votes:
macaxeirageral.net.br
2013-03-10 06:38:42 PM  
5 votes:
"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 09:31:59 PM  
4 votes:
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 08:56:34 PM  
4 votes:
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 08:33:41 PM  
4 votes:

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 08:12:31 PM  
4 votes:
Everything you need to know about feminism can be learned from reading Millie Tant in Viz.

img136.imageshack.us
2013-03-10 07:24:51 PM  
4 votes:
www.rounds.com

Empowerment?
2013-03-10 07:03:23 PM  
4 votes:
i.imgur.com

Neofeminism is bullshiat- who would have guessed?
They're creating more resistance against genuine goals.
2013-03-10 04:21:36 PM  
4 votes:
Ooooh, pictures.

I thought the title had to do with masturbation, and "selfie" was some new hipster term.
2013-03-11 02:36:11 PM  
3 votes:

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."
2013-03-10 11:56:21 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:00:40 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:23:10 PM  
3 votes:
i50.tinypic.com
2013-03-10 08:02:34 PM  
3 votes:
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 06:57:23 PM  
3 votes:
Jezebel is to feminists as Justin Bieber is to good, quality music.
2013-03-10 06:05:40 PM  
3 votes:
... "empowerful" ?
2013-03-13 08:11:24 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-12 11:09:17 AM  
2 votes:

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?
2013-03-11 07:49:35 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:34:34 AM  
2 votes:
 

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 04:22:23 AM  
2 votes:
"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.
TWX
2013-03-11 01:33:33 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:33:15 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-11 12:01:09 AM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-10 11:56:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:25:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:14:58 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:14:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:30:19 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:23:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:02:08 PM  
2 votes:
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 09:58:11 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:18:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:58:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:55:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:49:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:19:33 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:46:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:43:15 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:41:52 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:39:30 PM  
2 votes:
Everyone wants to see tits.
No one wants to see dicks.

/dnrtfa
2013-03-10 07:18:29 PM  
2 votes:
Lotta angry c*nts over there.
2013-03-10 07:18:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:05:34 PM  
2 votes:
Wow. Jump from "self portrait" to "penis photo" between title and first sentence? Mind the gap! Whole lotta crazy here?
2013-03-10 07:01:23 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:00:52 PM  
2 votes:

BKITU: ... "empowerful" ?


It's no dumber a word than "selfie."
2013-03-10 06:58:36 PM  
2 votes:
If a man takes a "Selfie" he's gay. (NTTAWWT)
2013-03-10 06:58:00 PM  
2 votes:
I still don't see how a feminist can respect vanity in anybody. Confidence? Sure. Vanity?
2013-03-13 04:07:56 AM  
1 votes:
www.filmbuffonline.com
2013-03-12 06:19:54 PM  
1 votes:
Dude.. relax.. you're arguing with a woman.
2013-03-12 04:15:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:15:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:48:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:27:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:14:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:51 AM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Almost all of them? Or a rare handful that are, in reality, marginalized?


SHE SAYS WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY.
2013-03-11 11:48:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:35:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:21:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:33:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:26:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:40:22 PM  
1 votes:
"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 01:11:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:15:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:47:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:45:41 AM  
1 votes:
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 05:41:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:42:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:57:48 AM  
1 votes:

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I just don't suffer foolishness gladly


Doctor heal thyself.
2013-03-11 01:04:37 AM  
1 votes:
www.ormsconnect.co.za
annawu.com
2013-03-11 12:38:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:30:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:45 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-10 11:56:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:43:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:41:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:27:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:01:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:58:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:45:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:39:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:12:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:35:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:28:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:18:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:14:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:11:11 PM  
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-03-10 09:05:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:03:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:00:11 PM  
1 votes:
A female sexist is not a feminist.
2013-03-10 08:57:54 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Bohener


I think you're thinking of Mitch McConnell.
2013-03-10 08:55:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:42:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:36:25 PM  
1 votes:
these Jezebel biatches be getting truculent
2013-03-10 08:32:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:28:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:26:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:12:17 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:02:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:58:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:57:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:55:55 PM  
1 votes:
Men seldom look at a potential hot date and think "Wow, I hope she has a good job!"
2013-03-10 07:50:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:48:37 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:47:56 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:46:26 PM  
1 votes:
Women like pretty boys for one-night stands. They just don't respect them. Pigs.
2013-03-10 07:32:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:25:40 PM  
1 votes:
Sounds like someone needs to get laid.
2013-03-10 07:22:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:04:29 PM  
1 votes:

kmmontandon: Ooooh, pictures.

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


this
2013-03-10 06:57:54 PM  
1 votes:
"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 06:55:40 PM  
1 votes:

fusillade762: This is about masturbation, right?


Isn't everything?
2013-03-10 06:53:40 PM  
1 votes:
Hugo Schwyzer?  *clicks link*  yep
2013-03-10 06:51:51 PM  
1 votes:
I have learned to type with one hand and use a trackball with my foot.
2013-03-10 06:50:22 PM  
1 votes:
This is about masturbation, right?
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-10 05:08:57 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:53:20 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-10 04:14:49 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report