Gamer Girl Jayd3Fox Bullied off web by Feminist

[DementedSheep]

Why is it significant that she's a feminist? Or allegedly one?

Because that kind of bullying has been happening since always. Boys calling girls names, Girls calling other girls names. This isnt some new form of feminist based issue. People have bullied others for always, especially in roles which can be linked with a sexual nature, however loosely.


For comparison, this would be like a news article based on a school shooting, where the headline was 'Gamer shoots up school'. What relevance does the title given to the wrong doer have other than to confirm or encourage bias?


Then again, if you drain away the bias of the title, this boils down to 'Streamer bullied into giving up streaming', which I guess doesnt make quite the splash you're looking for?

The issue I think is the hypocrisy of someone who fits the SJW narrative doing something like that.

So your issue is that someone who partakes in an group or ideal, can still be an asshole? Because thats what this was. Someone being an asshole to another person. Their belief system is only relevant for stirring the pot.

Well, when the entire aim of the group is "don't be assholes", I'd say it's relevant, yes.

So...do you know anything else about the harrassers?
"fits the SJW narrative"
1) There is no restriction on who can call themselves a feminist and was the harassers even calling themselves that or are people assuming?
2) there are many types of feminist and groups that fight between themselves and has it fair share of hypocrites and idiots like basically every group based on an ideology in existence.
3) feminism is not "don't be assholes", it's wanting women's rights equal to men's rights. It doesn't even necessarily mean a women should be able to do whatever without judgement or scorn. That's one interpretation of feminism. It doesn't mean pacifist or nice non judgemental person and doesn't automatically make you a social justice activist in the broader sense. You can be a feminist and against gay rights for example. All the different social justice and rights groups are not a big happy family.

So yeah, as usual it's people being shit heads.

 

[This is re-great-table]

I think it's understandable that she'd lash out. She sounded about to be in tears and very hurt. I dunno how honest that is but if it really is how she felt I think we can afford her some extra understanding due to mental strain/anger.


Honestly, the core issue here is that someone called her and told her she's a slut and that they were a feminist, not what she may or may not think about feminists.

I still stand by my statement about using insults, but yeah, you make a good point. Perhaps I shouldn't have completely dismissed her without taking into account her mental state at the time.

I'm just so fed up with people being so hateful lately, that it's gotten to me as well.

It's conversations like these that restore my faith in humanity.. A bit.

Originally, I was going to reply to you in very much the same matter but alas I am far too slow..
After reading weeks of the other nonsenses, I'm glad there are still many conversations to be had like this to combat all the hatefulness. That, for the most part, often seems to be drowned out.. (It isn't)
Just gotta have a bit of faith that everyone isn't as blind or whatever as we are first made out to be.
_________________________________

As for the topic: It is unfortunate she's been turned into a martyr of sorts for this event.. I feel rather uncomfortable about it and hope that when she returns, that she won't have to deal with the hundreds of "sympathizers" or angry mobs that will be after her cause of this.
Then again it could be lucrative, she doesn't seem like the type to revel in it but it's been pretty much confirmed this is very much beneficial.

Amusing, the capcha was "Save the day!"

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

People do come forth with more serious accusations that lack proof, but no one raised the question when Zoe Quinn said she was getting harassing phone calls from 4chan or Wizardchan, yet outlets reported on it just the same without further digging.

Nobody except literally thousands of forum dwellers who are now taking this instance as gospel.

That's the real problem. This isn't about evidence. It's about validating "your side." And the fact of the matter is, if everyone hadn't accused teh evul faminists of lying for attention, virtually nobody would have said anything about Jayd3dfox. My first thought was "Oh, that's horrible." Then I start to see rabid defenses by the same folks who just days ago were willing to construct elaborate conspiracy theories to insist that everyone who's claimed to have been threatened on the other side of the coin is lying. The problem is, when MRM shits decided to go down that road, they made it the acceptable standard.

Anyone who has a problem with questioning Jayd3dfox should have said something earlier when people were flat out accusing everyone who said something they didn't like with making it up for attention. Now? Well, there's an old saying: sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

In short:

If one is going to utilize the same brutal level of scrutiny for both sides, she actually does. Her channel, after all, is monetized.

I think the problem is that some people are trying to play by the worst of the other side's rules to prove a point or something, like saying "Zoe did the exact same thing, why aren't you defending this person as well", which is an arguement that has it's merits but some people are going to the point where they're also Jay the same way the other side believed Zoe, which is the original problem in the first place. It's like a maze and everyone has gotten lost.

As for the quote you posted, I think it's missing a bit of context as I can't seem to understand what it says, could you perhaps provide some for me?

P.S. What's an MRM?

 

[Something Amyss]

I think the problem is that some people are trying to play by the worst of the other side's rules to prove a point or something, like saying "Zoe did the exact same thing, why aren't you defending this person as well", which is an arguement that has it's merits but some people are going to the point where they're also Jay the same way the other side believed Zoe, which is the original problem in the first place.

The "worst" of the other side in this case being an oveerwhelming number of people who were "skeptical" when it was convenient and now expect people to take their case as gospel. It's in no way unreasonable to expect a single standard. "We" have been told hundreds of times not to take Zoe's claims seriously because she faked it or it's a conspiracy or because ponies, and now "we" are being told we should accept this with the same blind faith we were supposed to accept her boyfriend's angry rants as fact.

It doesn't particularly help that you specifically are saying "nobody" questioned Quinn. A week ago, gaming journalists were being called corrupt for taking Quinn as gospel, but now everyone's being asked to do the same to people where the same standards should apply. Hell,m if you thought it was bad that they did it before, why would you want them to repeat it after getting yelled at? Some phony "fair and balanced" angle? If this is actually about the truth, as so many of the conspiracy theorists claim, then flipping the narrative from "where's the evidence" to "we don't need evidence, you shouldn't doubt us" isn't the way to go. And pretending that Quinn was let to slide is just plain absurd.

Holding this woman to the same standards as the people bringing her up held Quinn would mean we operate from the default position that she's lying for money/attention, and work backwards from that. I won't go there[footnote]And I haven't gone there, in fact: despite the attempts people have made to demonstrate a double standard on my end, I've only condemned her within the hypotheticals of posts like this, supposing that if we are to apply equal standards, Jayd3d must be a liar[/footnote], but I find it absolutely farcical that the skeptics are suddenly all willing to believe again. Like they were in the first place.

And you know, you're part of this. Looking at your history, you were one of the people questioning the "other side." So you don't get to take umbrage at people using the same standards you did when it was Anita Sarkeesian.

 

[Quadocky]

Oh wow, that woman is rather insufferable at first glance. I can't take it. She takes the whole "I'm one of the good ones!" thing waaaay too far.

Also it was most likely a random troller lookin' to stir up trouble who insulted her by posing as whatever flavor of the month. Just like the guy who hacked up Phil Fish's and Zoe Quinn's stuff.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I think the problem is that some people are trying to play by the worst of the other side's rules to prove a point or something, like saying "Zoe did the exact same thing, why aren't you defending this person as well", which is an arguement that has it's merits but some people are going to the point where they're also Jay the same way the other side believed Zoe, which is the original problem in the first place.

The "worst" of the other side in this case being an oveerwhelming number of people who were "skeptical" when it was convenient and now expect people to take their case as gospel. It's in no way unreasonable to expect a single standard. "We" have been told hundreds of times not to take Zoe's claims seriously because she faked it or it's a conspiracy or because ponies, and now "we" are being told we should accept this with the same blind faith we were supposed to accept her boyfriend's angry rants as fact.

It doesn't particularly help that you specifically are saying "nobody" questioned Quinn. A week ago, gaming journalists were being called corrupt for taking Quinn as gospel, but now everyone's being asked to do the same to people where the same standards should apply. Hell,m if you thought it was bad that they did it before, why would you want them to repeat it after getting yelled at? Some phony "fair and balanced" angle? If this is actually about the truth, as so many of the conspiracy theorists claim, then flipping the narrative from "where's the evidence" to "we don't need evidence, you shouldn't doubt us" isn't the way to go. And pretending that Quinn was let to slide is just plain absurd.

Holding this woman to the same standards as the people bringing her up held Quinn would mean we operate from the default position that she's lying for money/attention, and work backwards from that. I won't go there[footnote]And I haven't gone there, in fact: despite the attempts people have made to demonstrate a double standard on my end, I've only condemned her within the hypotheticals of posts like this, supposing that if we are to apply equal standards, Jayd3d must be a liar[/footnote], but I find it absolutely farcical that the skeptics are suddenly all willing to believe again. Like they were in the first place.

And you know, you're part of this. Looking at your history, you were one of the people questioning the "other side." So you don't get to take umbrage at people using the same standards you did when it was Anita Sarkeesian.

I try to take a step back from the clusterfuck and look from the outside in, but sometimes poor decision making gets the better of me and I jump into the middle of it. I know I'm definitely not perfect.

The point i'm trying to get across at this moment though, is exactly the same as yours (I think). The people yelling at the Quinn camp for taking her word on everything are now taking the word of Jayd3d, which is a very unwise thing to do. I theorize that some people were trying to make a point of "why aren't you taking her side now huh?" but now a shit tonne of people against Zoe are taking her side as gospel. This is what I meant when I said "I think the problem is that some people are trying to play by the worst of the other side's rules to prove a point or something".

 

[Something Amyss]

I try to take a step back from the clusterfuck and look from the outside in, but sometimes poor decision making gets the better of me and I jump into the middle of it. I know I'm definitely not perfect.

Regardless, why should we do as you say, and not as you do?

And do keep in mind I mean "we" in the general sense. I still haven't attacked or attempted to discredit Jayd3d and I have no plans to.

How, for that matter, are you not "the worst" of one side for contributing?

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I try to take a step back from the clusterfuck and look from the outside in, but sometimes poor decision making gets the better of me and I jump into the middle of it. I know I'm definitely not perfect.

Regardless, why should we do as you say, and not as you do?

And do keep in mind I mean "we" in the general sense. I still haven't attacked or attempted to discredit Jayd3d and I have no plans to.

How, for that matter, are you not "the worst" of one side for contributing?

I said some really stupid shit. Some. I'm now trying to step back and look at this more reasonably. I haven't told anyone to do anything in our discussion, besides asking if media outlets could maybe not report on every case of internet trolling and claims of phone calls and other things void of proof. What do you want, an apology? Delete my account?

And was the other three quarters of my post wrong?

 

[Something Amyss]

I said some really stupid shit. Some. I'm now trying to step back and look at this more reasonably.

Which looks exactly like any political pundit's justification for switching sides when the shoe's on the other foot. So far, your behaviour is completely suspect, yet you're complaining about others doing what you did. Yes, you have the right to change your mind, but you changed your mind conveniently when virtually every other Sarkeesian/Quinn "skeptic" did, and I have more reason to doubt your sincerity than Quinn, Jayd3d, or anyone else of note.

Barring additional evidence, your stance is indistinguishable from the people you're complaining about. On both sides. I expect a similar call to reason from Fox News the next time a Republican wins the Presidency.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I said some really stupid shit. Some. I'm now trying to step back and look at this more reasonably.

Which looks exactly like any political pundit's justification for switching sides when the shoe's on the other foot. So far, your behaviour is completely suspect, yet you're complaining about others doing what you did. Yes, you have the right to change your mind, but you changed your mind conveniently when virtually every other Sarkeesian/Quinn "skeptic" did, and I have more reason to doubt your sincerity than Quinn, Jayd3d, or anyone else of note.

Barring additional evidence, your stance is indistinguishable from the people you're complaining about. On both sides. I expect a similar call to reason from Fox News the next time a Republican wins the Presidency.

I think you've been vastly misinterpreting me. I still think Sarkeesian at the very least is full of 90% crap and 10% obvious facts. I'm not switching from one side to the other, I'm trying to be more civil and look at things rationally, rather than making a comment (as I previously have) calling Anita's supporters all idiots. I have stated that making such comments is a very bad and stupid thing which brings us nowhere, and I'm saying that making similar comments is also bad, stupid, and gets us no where. And nowhere have I complained about other people making shitty comments. Condemning the act is not complaining.

Just because I think one side of this shitstorm are the source of most of the shit, does not mean I'm on the other "side". I'm not on a bloody "side" and nor do I want to be, I just want everyone (including myself) to come out of this as more reasonable and rational people. A little bit older, and a little bit wiser (and more civil).

As for this:

you changed your mind conveniently when virtually every other Sarkeesian/Quinn "skeptic" did

I haven't seen anyone changing their minds. On either side.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think you've been vastly misinterpreting me. I still think Sarkeesian at the very least is full of 90% crap and 10% obvious facts. I'm not switching from one side to the other, I'm trying to be more civil and look at things rationally, rather than making a comment (as I previously have) calling Anita's supporters all idiots.

Sounds like you're still questioning her, but then, that would be exactly what I'm talking about. You had no problem with "skepticism" up until it was used against someone not fitting your narrative. Then how am I misrepresenting you? And let's not forget, the reason I quoted you in the first place is you claimed "nobody" questioned any of this when it was going the other way. And that was false. Hell, you did.

If you're not on a "side," you're doing a terrible job. You're basically saying your skepticism is justified, but others' isn't.

Well fair's fair. If we should scrutinise Quinn and Sarkeesian and Fish, we should scrutinise Jayd3d as well. And anyone else who claims they were doxed, harassed or bullied. And you know what? I'm fine with either standard but I am not fine with this double standard (whether you are on a "side" or not).

I haven't seen anyone changing their minds. On either side.

With the numerous examples just given, you had to have known exactly what I meant (that the people crying for skepticism are not crying for reason and so forth). Now you're misrepresenting me.

And to be absolutely clear, I am not now, nor was I ever talking about calling anyone an idiot. I wasn't aware you had done that, for that matter. However, I support a single standard there, too. Name calling is either okay, or it isn't. And given the TOU here, it shouldn't be okay, so I'm universally on the side of "don't call anyone an idiot." That seems to be a shift in argument, though. Previously, we were talking about taking things as gospel and such. Remember, this is the bit I quoted at the beginning:

People do come forth with more serious accusations that lack proof, but no one raised the question when Zoe Quinn said she was getting harassing phone calls from 4chan or Wizardchan, yet outlets reported on it just the same without further digging.

Stop trying to shift the issue.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I think you've been vastly misinterpreting me. I still think Sarkeesian at the very least is full of 90% crap and 10% obvious facts. I'm not switching from one side to the other, I'm trying to be more civil and look at things rationally, rather than making a comment (as I previously have) calling Anita's supporters all idiots.

Sounds like you're still questioning her, but then, that would be exactly what I'm talking about. You had no problem with "skepticism" up until it was used against someone not fitting your narrative. Then how am I misrepresenting you? And let's not forget, the reason I quoted you in the first place is you claimed "nobody" questioned any of this when it was going the other way. And that was false. Hell, you did.

If you're not on a "side," you're doing a terrible job. You're basically saying your skepticism is justified, but others' isn't.

Well fair's fair. If we should scrutinise Quinn and Sarkeesian and Fish, we should scrutinise Jayd3d as well. And anyone else who claims they were doxed, harassed or bullied. And you know what? I'm fine with either standard but I am not fine with this double standard (whether you are on a "side" or not).

I haven't seen anyone changing their minds. On either side.

With the numerous examples just given, you had to have known exactly what I meant (that the people crying for skepticism are not crying for reason and so forth). Now you're misrepresenting me.

And to be absolutely clear, I am not now, nor was I ever talking about calling anyone an idiot. I wasn't aware you had done that, for that matter. However, I support a single standard there, too. Name calling is either okay, or it isn't. And given the TOU here, it shouldn't be okay, so I'm universally on the side of "don't call anyone an idiot." That seems to be a shift in argument, though. Previously, we were talking about taking things as gospel and such. Remember, this is the bit I quoted at the beginning:

People do come forth with more serious accusations that lack proof, but no one raised the question when Zoe Quinn said she was getting harassing phone calls from 4chan or Wizardchan, yet outlets reported on it just the same without further digging.

Stop trying to shift the issue.

First of all SHIFTING THE ISSUE? AHEM. I WONDER WHEN THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

I try to take a step back from the clusterfuck and look from the outside in, but sometimes poor decision making gets the better of me and I jump into the middle of it. I know I'm definitely not perfect.

Regardless, why should we do as you say, and not as you do?

And do keep in mind I mean "we" in the general sense. I still haven't attacked or attempted to discredit Jayd3d and I have no plans to.

How, for that matter, are you not "the worst" of one side for contributing?

The issue shifted when you took 1/4 of my reply and focused completely on that, the comment where the other 3/4 was me trying to explain that I agree with you that double standards are a bad thing.

(the other 3/4)
The point i'm trying to get across at this moment though, is exactly the same as yours (I think). The people yelling at the Quinn camp for taking her word on everything are now taking the word of Jayd3d, which is a very unwise thing to do. I theorize that some people were trying to make a point of "why aren't you taking her side now huh?" but now a shit tonne of people against Zoe are taking her side as gospel. This is what I meant when I said "I think the problem is that some people are trying to play by the worst of the other side's rules to prove a point or something".

(more of me trying to say double standards are bad)
I think the problem is that some people are trying to play by the worst of the other side's rules to prove a point or something, like saying "Zoe did the exact same thing, why aren't you defending this person as well", which is an arguement that has it's merits but some people are going to the point where they're also Jay the same way the other side believed Zoe, which is the original problem in the first place. It's like a maze and everyone has gotten lost.

But no. By all means. It was me. Totes

And it's "misinterpreting, not misrepresenting because that would imply willfully trying to misconstrue another person's arguement for your own ends which is a stupid thing to do on a forum and in general. And I'm bloody well hoping you're misinterpreting what's happened instead of misrepresenting it.

 

[BadNewDingus]

The fact is that she was targeted by a bunch of lowlifes. Just like Anita was with the death threats and such. This is why no one group should be called out because of a few bad apples.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think it's understandable that she'd lash out. She sounded about to be in tears and very hurt. I dunno how honest that is but if it really is how she felt I think we can afford her some extra understanding due to mental strain/anger.


Honestly, the core issue here is that someone called her and told her she's a slut and that they were a feminist, not what she may or may not think about feminists.

I still stand by my statement about using insults, but yeah, you make a good point. Perhaps I shouldn't have completely dismissed her without taking into account her mental state at the time.

I'm just so fed up with people being so hateful lately, that it's gotten to me as well.

It's conversations like these that restore my faith in humanity.. A bit.

Originally, I was going to reply to you in very much the same matter but alas I am far too slow..
After reading weeks of the other nonsenses, I'm glad there are still many conversations to be had like this to combat all the hatefulness. That, for the most part, often seems to be drowned out.. (It isn't)
Just gotta have a bit of faith that everyone isn't as blind or whatever as we are first made out to be.
_________________________________

As for the topic: It is unfortunate she's been turned into a martyr of sorts for this event.. I feel rather uncomfortable about it and hope that when she returns, that she won't have to deal with the hundreds of "sympathizers" or angry mobs that will be after her cause of this.
Then again it could be lucrative, she doesn't seem like the type to revel in it but it's been pretty much confirmed this is very much beneficial.

Amusing, the capcha was "Save the day!"

The people who are mad (most of us at least, not the shitheads) are mad cause of love. Love of gaming, specifically. We love it and want to safeguard it from people who'd take advantage of it for their own selfish agendas, politics, etc. While there's a lot of arguing and negative stuff, I still think there's a lot of positive that's motivating it all.



As for her, she made a new video and redirected all her future donations to the fine young capitalist kickstarter thingy. She seems like an honest girl who likes to do what she does simply cause it's fun and isn't in it to become rich. Here's the new vid if you've not seen it yet:

http://youtu.be/tyscI9wZ8Bk?list=UUfj3x-aTqioG8cwCI-NF2mg

 

[AkaDad]

I think it's understandable that she'd lash out. She sounded about to be in tears and very hurt. I dunno how honest that is but if it really is how she felt I think we can afford her some extra understanding due to mental strain/anger.


Honestly, the core issue here is that someone called her and told her she's a slut and that they were a feminist, not what she may or may not think about feminists.

I still stand by my statement about using insults, but yeah, you make a good point. Perhaps I shouldn't have completely dismissed her without taking into account her mental state at the time.

I'm just so fed up with people being so hateful lately, that it's gotten to me as well.

It's conversations like these that restore my faith in humanity.. A bit.

Originally, I was going to reply to you in very much the same matter but alas I am far too slow..
After reading weeks of the other nonsenses, I'm glad there are still many conversations to be had like this to combat all the hatefulness. That, for the most part, often seems to be drowned out.. (It isn't)
Just gotta have a bit of faith that everyone isn't as blind or whatever as we are first made out to be.
_________________________________

As for the topic: It is unfortunate she's been turned into a martyr of sorts for this event.. I feel rather uncomfortable about it and hope that when she returns, that she won't have to deal with the hundreds of "sympathizers" or angry mobs that will be after her cause of this.
Then again it could be lucrative, she doesn't seem like the type to revel in it but it's been pretty much confirmed this is very much beneficial.

Amusing, the capcha was "Save the day!"

The people who are mad (most of us at least, not the shitheads) are mad cause of love. Love of gaming, specifically. We love it and want to safeguard it from people who'd take advantage of it for their own selfish agendas, politics, etc. While there's a lot of arguing and negative stuff, I still think there's a lot of positive that's motivating it all.



As for her, she made a new video and redirected all her future donations to the fine young capitalist kickstarter thingy. She seems like an honest girl who likes to do what she does simply cause it's fun and isn't in it to become rich. Here's the new vid if you've not seen it yet:

http://youtu.be/tyscI9wZ8Bk?list=UUfj3x-aTqioG8cwCI-NF2mg

I just watched her video and my first instincts about her was correct.

She apologizes for her first rant and then goes off on another rant. She says people like me, who have been fighting against the verbal abuse and sexual harassment towards women, don't really care about that.

She's says Anita is a professional victim who used her victim hood to raise money when in fact Anita got death threats because she raised money.

I think anti-feminist women are precious. They don't even make me mad. It's so absurd I just have to laugh. They remind me of gay Republicans who vote for the politicians who think their an abomination and should be treated like second-class citizens.

 

[Netrigan]

I think anti-feminist women are precious. They don't even make me mad. It's so absurd I just have to laugh. They remind me of gay Republicans who vote for the politicians who think their an abomination and should be treated like second-class citizens.

I'm bisexual and voted Republican up until a couple of elections ago. Neither me nor my former lesbian roommate had a problem with voting for Republicans because... well, they never could get any political juice to do anything about it. Pretty much the entire social plank of their Party is a losing proposition. They lose ground every year.

As for anti-feminist women.

I say Margaret Thatcher to you.

Stay with me here, because I'm going off-road on this one, so it's going to be messy and filled with holes... but hopefully I can communicate a part of incomplete idea swirling around in my head.

I think Margaret Thatcher should be hailed as a Feminist Icon. Partially because this would have pissed her off to no end and that kind of thing amuses me greatly, but mostly because she brought the idea of female equality to Conservatives. She inspired a great many women to enter politics on the Right side of the aisle. Men not only accept these women, but they often revere them, holding them up as among the best their political parties offer.

This in the most hostile of environments. Yes, Thatcher did nothing to advance the various political causes of feminism, but she without even trying inspired women to take their rightful place in the political arena. That's an amazing accomplishment no matter how much you despise the woman and her politics.

So if Margaret Thatcher isn't welcome (and she's not), then you're leaving out a pretty substantial number of women who fall on the political right, women who embrace on a personal level the idea they're the equal of men and demand to be treated as such. Meaning, feminism is political in a way that always gets conveniently forgotten when chastising some young lady who dares to say "I'm not a feminist, but...", because maybe those women just don't see eye-to-eye with the prevailing politics they see as central to the movement.

Because no matter how much you say "it's about equality", people have very different ideas about what equality means. These Conservative women may, in their own way, believe in equality, but an equality which they see at odds with feminism. And if I were a woman, I think I'd object just on the principle that I'm ridiculed if I don't declare myself one.

I'm not trying to argue against feminism here. I respect feminism greatly and I've had my mind changed on a great number of subjects because of feminist critics... most recently with the celebrity nude picture leak where I was successfully shamed into recognizing my complicity in the on-going invasion of privacy... just because I wanted to look at some famous boobs. That Feminists have had such a great influence on the public debate speaks volumes to how successfully they presented their ideas.

 

[AkaDad]

I think anti-feminist women are precious. They don't even make me mad. It's so absurd I just have to laugh. They remind me of gay Republicans who vote for the politicians who think their an abomination and should be treated like second-class citizens.

I'm bisexual and voted Republican up until a couple of elections ago. Neither me nor my former lesbian roommate had a problem with voting for Republicans because... well, they never could get any political juice to do anything about it. Pretty much the entire social plank of their Party is a losing proposition. They lose ground every year.

As for anti-feminist women.

I say Margaret Thatcher to you.

Stay with me here, because I'm going off-road on this one, so it's going to be messy and filled with holes... but hopefully I can communicate a part of incomplete idea swirling around in my head.

I think Margaret Thatcher should be hailed as a Feminist Icon. Partially because this would have pissed her off to no end and that kind of thing amuses me greatly, but mostly because she brought the idea of female equality to Conservatives. She inspired a great many women to enter politics on the Right side of the aisle. Men not only accept these women, but they often revere them, holding them up as among the best their political parties offer.

This in the most hostile of environments. Yes, Thatcher did nothing to advance the various political causes of feminism, but she without even trying inspired women to take their rightful place in the political arena. That's an amazing accomplishment no matter how much you despise the woman and her politics.

So if Margaret Thatcher isn't welcome (and she's not), then you're leaving out a pretty substantial number of women who fall on the political right, women who embrace on a personal level the idea they're the equal of men and demand to be treated as such. Meaning, feminism is political in a way that always gets conveniently forgotten when chastising some young lady who dares to say "I'm not a feminist, but...", because maybe those women just don't see eye-to-eye with the prevailing politics they see as central to the movement.

Because no matter how much you say "it's about equality", people have very different ideas about what equality means. These Conservative women may, in their own way, believe in equality, but an equality which they see at odds with feminism. And if I were a woman, I think I'd object just on the principle that I'm ridiculed if I don't declare myself one.

I'm not trying to argue against feminism here. I respect feminism greatly and I've had my mind changed on a great number of subjects because of feminist critics... most recently with the celebrity nude picture leak where I was successfully shamed into recognizing my complicity in the on-going invasion of privacy... just because I wanted to look at some famous boobs. That Feminists have had such a great influence on the public debate speaks volumes to how successfully they presented their ideas.

That's the thing about equality, it doesn't have different meanings. Equal is equal. Men and women getting paid the same for the same job. Straight and gay marriage, and so forth.

I think it was the very conservative Anne Coulter who once said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. How can you not laugh at people like that?

 

[carnex]

That's the thing about equality, it doesn't have different meanings. Equal is equal. Men and women getting paid the same for the same job. Straight and gay marriage, and so forth.

Not to be rude but I do have one important fact to state here.

There are at least 3 ways to view equality when it comes to genders. And that is simpler case since we predominantly deal with binary division (based either on gender or sex).

Equality of opportunity
Equality of chance
Equality of outcome

First states standard and whoever satisfies the standard, is OK. Second sets different standards based of averages of different groups to give equal chances of participation and third doesn't care about standards but equal number of participants. I think you can see yourself how these are fundamentally different.

 

[AkaDad]

That's the thing about equality, it doesn't have different meanings. Equal is equal. Men and women getting paid the same for the same job. Straight and gay marriage, and so forth.

Not to be rude but I do have one important fact to state here.

There are at least 3 ways to view equality when it comes to genders. And that is simpler case since we predominantly deal with binary division (based either on gender or sex).

Equality of opportunity
Equality of chance
Equality of results

First states standard and whoever satisfies the standard, is OK. Second sets different standards based of averages of different groups to give equal chances of participation and third doesn't care about standards but equal participation. I think you can see yourself how these are fundamentally different.

Equality

noun, plural equalities.
1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.


Why don't you give examples of what you're talking about.

 

[Caostotale]

I think it was the very conservative Anne Coulter who once said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. How can you not laugh at people like that?

Indeed, the purpose of most cartoon characters is to create laughter.