Aelinsaar said:
Deckard Kain said:
Watching 3rd wave feminist, I think we need MRA to even out the odds.
Man, I'd hate to hear what you think we should do in response to ISIS.
We have the all female peushmega corps. (sp? Somehow I only remember their pronunciation and not their spelling ><), and to be fair, they rock.
(and wow, someone agreed with my long ass rant ><)
thaluikhain said:
insaninater said:
Does mosts feminists really want to get rid of gender roles though? I mean i've seen a lot of shit flung at stay-at-home moms for wanting to be a homemaker, so i question whether it's about eliminating gender roles so much as it is trading them.
I mean, naturally you'll get a different perspective depending on who you talk too, but i don't see too many feminist saying that it's OK for women to stay at home, and men to work, where this would be an option if eliminating gender roles were the goal. I mean it might just be that people are vilinizing the 'traditional' roles to try and even things out, but even still it feels a bit disingenuous.
Now, I can't say what most feminists think about that, but yeah, that's a serious problem. However, while I can't say which is in the majority, there are large numbers on each side of that argument.
Look at it in the mainstream media, quite a few of them BBC feminist featured/permanent commentators on their shows actively shit on stay-at-home moms, to the point that there is now an actual organization for stay-at-home moms. I won't discard the chance that there's the possibility of a silent majority, but that's why I often use the term "mainstream feminist".
insaninater said:
Anyway, at the moment there isn't really much mainstream recognition that men sometimes get the short end of the stick too, so i think there's definitely call for a group that focuses specifically on men's rights, especially in an environment where press is overall so hostile towards the notion that maybe men don't always have perfect lives just because they're men. Until domestic violence is recognized as something any gender or sex can do to any other gender or sex, and isn't just always men against women, and there's less stigma against men 'showing weakness' by speaking up about being victims, and less assuming men = perps women = victims, there's work to be done, and somebody has to do it, and i doubt this could ever really be resolved by "feminists", even those that are more in line with 1st or 2nd wave feminism, and would be supportive of men's rights as a concept, since even if they do agree that it's a bad attitude for people to have, i doubt it's very high on their to-do list.
Well, getting rid of gender roles entirely is something necessary for feminism's goals, but yeah, there is a serious lack of interest in a lot of male issues. Prison rape, for example, is something many, many people see as hilarious, or an important part of the judicial system.
There's actually a bunch of different things going on here that's facepalming (mainly at the situation, but even your issue with the "hilarious part", but I will get to that). The old 2nd wave feminism goal of removing gender role was to promoting empowerment to women(bring women's opportunity in professional career up to be on par with men) and on the flip side, allow men to become a carer should they wish to (now you've claims that men are naturally inferior carers~). The idea was equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal OUTCOME. The emphasis from the 2nd wave was 'Freedom to choose', while the 3rd wave is about the outcome ignoring choice (look at the so called wage gap with mainstream feminists interpretation that completely ignore the choice done BY women).
Let's get to the "hilarious" perception of prison rape. Often time people (and I'm not talking about teenagers and kids, they say stupid shit all the time to get attention) laugh as a 'coping mechanism', why do you think that many of these insightful comedians are some of the best critics? Because they aren't judging, they can mix it up, everyone is free game and they can tell it like it is. You've a mexican american aka "Fluffy" that got invited by a prince in the middle east to host some shows there (and for the self-righteous SJWs, they accused him for "punching down" in the states, despite being the fact he's immensely popular amongst the group he targeted regardless of where he hosted the shows). Seriously, how many adults gives off happy laughter talking about prison rape? There will be some, but certainly not many. You WILL get uncomfortable laughter, but even that you've people complaining about. This is why there's the term "nothing is sacred", otherwise you are NOT going to get people talking if you can't get past their guard (get a job doing a mall survey or a census worker, it's hard to explain it aside first hand experience, or I'm just not articulate enough). Laughter is one of the best way aside from polite professionalism.
To put an emphasis on how important this coping mechanism is, refer to psychologists that work with PTSD victims (not the tumblerina "I'm triggered", actual PTSD sufferers with doctors and shit). Generally speaking, PTSD occurs because a traumatic event that an individual's psyche couldn't process it properly, loses its ability to cope with the event and become stuck in a loop. So instead of "this event happened, and it's in the past", it becomes "trigger" -> "this event is happening NOW" -> "panic". In a lot of cases, treatment can be summed up as "making a coping mechanism that can process the trigger", this could be done through medication (a derivative from cannabis is looking really promising), exposure therapy (low magnitude exposure to triggers until it reaches a manageable level) or through active exposure(? sorry, I can't really remember the actual name of it at the moment) when appropriate, ie. VR reenactment of how the soldier got shot.
So on one hand, psychologists are trying their damnest to get coping mechanism working for sufferers, when on the other hand, you have people actively trying to remove a HEALTHY coping mechanism from the population. Ever seen people laughing immediately after a neardeath experience? Same shit, different scope. Saying "don't laugh, it isn't funny" automatically put people on guard and try to remove one of their coping mechanism for the subject at hand. People NOT familiar with a horrible subject will cringe, laugh, etc... when talking about something uncomfortable, without a coping mechanism, some will just turn off their brain and don't listen. Don't believe me? Try talking about the 'penis fish' (the one that swims into urethra and then anchor itself into place with its spines), you will get a bunch of different reactions. Now tell them that they can't laugh or cringe, let's see how they will react.
Why is it that people were more willing to talk about issues in regards to prisoners in the late 90's and early 00s and not now? It's pretty simple, the PC police were laughed out while the mainstream talked about anything and everything. Someone "laughing" doesn't necessary mean something is "hilarious", which quite a few people seems to misconstrue. If anything, using laughter to open a difficult subject is a lot better than "this is serious, sit straight and listen".