Women's rights

[BloatedGuppy]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

People over analyse art all the time.

All that is really there is what the artist intended. Just because it's 'art' and not some factoid doesn't give you free reign to read what you want into it.

Also, nice of you to just skip everything else I said. You seemed to be working under the assumption that I didn't believe in misogyny or something equally ludicrous. Simply reading my actual discussion with cat for context would have put that notion to bed many, many moons ago.

Art is free to be analyzed. At which point has it been OVER analyzed? Oh shit, I know when that point is reached. It's the point where you no longer agree with the conclusions formed, right? See? I'm learning.

I'm sorry I skipped past your stream of insults and justifications and accusations of pendatry. I figured you'd just be happier if I acknowledged your authority on this subject and moved along.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It was nice of you to make room for the possibility that she was *possibly* crazy.

Whether or not she was crazy doesn't detract from the fact that she was a feminist. Which was my point. I only brought it up because she was a bit mad. Valerie Solanos was more than likely off her fucking rocker. She called for the gendercide of all males and tried to assassinate Andy Warhole. Doesn't mean she isn't a valid candidate for my point. Just like bringing up Hitler in a debate about why Nazism is wring wouldn't be uncalled for because he was clearly a fucking loon. You need to get a grasp of basic logic my friend. You're failing hard.

Anyone have that "feminism: just like invading Poland" image? Maybe you oughta tone down the sophistry, O Melodramatic One, before you start getting accused of overreacting. Your comparison is so, so bad on several levels.

Not really, it was a perfectly adequate parallel. I simply chose Hitler because it's impossible to argue that he isn't part of the context of nazism.

I think you need to re-read what I said. Because you took it the wrong way.

Hitler was the leader of the nazis, and nazism was based on his ideals. Are you saying that feminism is based on the ideals of Solanos and led by Solanos? If not, why bring him up when you could have used other, more appropriate examples? You're in no position to lecture others on using basic logic in discussions if you can't make better comparisons. Please make a comparison that is not apples-to-oranges in its nature. I mean really. Hitler. Could you pick a more melodramatic example?

Do they have to occupy the same position in each movement to have the same effect? Where does it say that? I was just pointing out that because someone was a nutcase doesn't moot the effect they had on the movement. If you want me to bring up someone who wasn't the leader or initiator but was still of their rocker and had an effect on the movement. How about Himler or Mengele?

Both work just as well, but because they're not as famous, I risk people not knowing who they are.

Again, is pedantry the only ammunition you people have?

"Do they have to occupy the same position in each movement to have the same effect?"
How is this even a question? Gee, do leaders of a movement have the same effect on a movement as some minor member of? Let's all give serious thought to this. Or do you mean "the same effect" on your argument? Gee, is the leader of a movement based on that leader's ideas the same as a minor figure in a highly heterogenous movement? Would two people in two very different roles in two very different movements make for an appropriate comparison? Oh, and did you give any consideration as to what leaping immediately from "feminist" to "nazi" might say about your thought process and what you think of the former?

And as for "I was just pointing out that because someone was a nutcase doesn't moot the effect they had on the movement," why did you feel the need to choose nazis? Every time?

And you're correct! I wouldn't know who "Himler" is

Also, and just a thought here, you could not compare feminism to nazism. Just, you know, a suggestion. Pick a less melodramatic example, something that people can take seriousl.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It wasn't a direct flouting of Godwins law. I wasn't comparing feminism to nazism. I was saying that just because someone was a nut doesn't remove their influence.

...By comparing a "feminist" to a nazi. Hrm.

Again, you either completely misunderstand the parallel or you're pretending to misunderstand it for effect.

It wasn't a comparison to Nazism. But how much of an effect each individual lunatic had on their movement. The Nazism is irrelevant. I'm only using it because it's hard for people to argue that they weren't lunatics and that they still had an effect.

Just like there were many crazy misandrists who had an effect on feminism.

If this isn't clear to you after that explanation, you need to go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.

So what you're saying, then, is that nazism was just a completely innocent pro-German movement that was hijacked by some nutcase who claimed to identify as one of them...ooookay then.

Or are you saying that feminism is an inherently oppressive group dedicated to killing millions of people in a war of extermination and that Solanos is representative of them?

Because Hitler is representative of nazism, not some bizarre crazy who latched onto them. Bit of a difference.

 

[Feralbreed]

Basically, feminism was cool 40 years ago when these bitches were first pushing the idea through and actually changing opinions and shit.

Now it just fucking sucks, feminisms goals are achieved, there's nothing left, now it's just a tumor in society that eats away from everyone's happiness, both men and women.

Just look at how even the mass media has been cleverly turned against men in recent decades. Back in the 30's and 50's men were these douchebag gentlemen that frankly my dear couldn't give a damn. Now women on men violence and all around ballbusting is considered comedy gold. And it's not fucking funny when I have to live through this bullshit decade as a guy.

But oh, I won't complain. Because men aren't allowed to complain.

 

[Imperium9990]

Your mistaking Misandrinism for Feminism

 

[Hagi]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

And as I already said earlier: of course it can be interpreted as misogynistic. It's a picture, it can be interpreted as whatever you want. I can interpret it as a direct grievous insult to the noble heritage of sheep...

That doesn't mean you actually have a valid point when complaining about it and judging it. That picture isn't horrible and evil and insulting. It's just a picture, no moral charge. It's neutral. As I said countless times: it's just a cartoon.

Once you have more then anecdotal evidence you can attach a moral charge to that picture, not before.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It wasn't a direct flouting of Godwins law. I wasn't comparing feminism to nazism. I was saying that just because someone was a nut doesn't remove their influence.

...By comparing a "feminist" to a nazi. Hrm.

Again, you either completely misunderstand the parallel or you're pretending to misunderstand it for effect.

It wasn't a comparison to Nazism. But how much of an effect each individual lunatic had on their movement. The Nazism is irrelevant. I'm only using it because it's hard for people to argue that they weren't lunatics and that they still had an effect.

Just like there were many crazy misandrists who had an effect on feminism.

If this isn't clear to you after that explanation, you need to go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.

So what you're saying, then, is that nazism was just a completely innocent pro-German movement that was hijacked by some nutcase who claimed to identify as one of them...ooookay then.

Or are you saying that feminism is an inherently oppressive group dedicated to killing millions of people in a war of extermination and that Solanos is representative of them?

Because Hitler is representative of nazism, not some bizarre crazy who latched onto them. Bit of a difference.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Go back and read what I said. Anyone with reading comprehension above that of a toddler would not have made that conclusion.

That's the only way that your "parallels" are parallel. But please explain to me how your parallel works otherwise. And why, for your example, you leapt immediately to "nazism"?

 

[KirbyKrackle]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

And as I already said earlier: of course it can be interpreted as misogynistic. It's a picture, it can be interpreted as whatever you want. I can interpret it as a direct grievous insult to the noble heritage of sheep...

That doesn't mean you actually have a valid point when complaining about it and judging it. That picture isn't horrible and evil and insulting. It's just a picture, no moral charge. It's neutral. As I said countless times: it's just a cartoon.

Once you have more then anecdotal evidence you can attach a moral charge to that picture, not before.

Where did you learn that pictures are neutral? Why does the media matter to the message? Are you saying that if it was a novel it would be mysoginistic? Why is it "just" a cartoon? Can cartoons not contain sexist messages? If so, why not?

Also, what do you have besides anecdotal evidence that the cartoon is anything other than poorly thought out, stupid, and sexist? What do you consider other than anecdotal evidence?

 

[Hagi]

And as long as you continue to provide only anecdotal evidence I'll call you silly. Because that's one thing silly people do, they think their own point of view is representative for a larger group without any backing that this is the case.

When did I say my point of view was representative for a larger group?

I said there's room to interpret the picture as misogynist. I can. Cat did. Whether it's anecdotal or not is irrelevant. The question was whether the possibility for that interpretation was there, or whether the problem was an adult human being didn't know what "idiom" meant, even though they'd already plainly demonstrated that they did. The argument was never which one of our opinions was "THE TRUTH", since it's been aptly demonstrated in this thread that Abandon4093 is the sole arbiter of truth, and if he ever says anything even faintly ridiculous the problem doesn't lie with him, it's with other people being pedantic.

And as I already said earlier: of course it can be interpreted as misogynistic. It's a picture, it can be interpreted as whatever you want. I can interpret it as a direct grievous insult to the noble heritage of sheep...

That doesn't mean you actually have a valid point when complaining about it and judging it. That picture isn't horrible and evil and insulting. It's just a picture, no moral charge. It's neutral. As I said countless times: it's just a cartoon.

Once you have more then anecdotal evidence you can attach a moral charge to that picture, not before.

Where did you learn that pictures are neutral? Why does the media matter to the message? Are you saying that if it was a novel it would be mysoginistic? Why is it "just" a cartoon? Can cartoons not contain sexist messages? If so, why not?

Also, what do you have besides anecdotal evidence that the cartoon is anything other than poorly thought out, stupid, and sexist? What do you consider other than anecdotal evidence?

I'm saying it requires more then just anecdotal evidence from a single internet thread before a picture (or a novel or whatever) can be claimed sexist, racist or anything.

If there was an actual minor protest against this picture by activist groups? Big chance it could be sexist.
If there was an actual news story in a somewhat reputable newspaper or website? Big chance it could be sexist.
If there was evidence that a statistically significant group found this picture offensive? Big chance it could be sexist.

If a dozen people on a random internet forum find it misogynistic? That's nothing to go on, I can find a dozen people on fora supporting just about anything at all.

And that's why, for now, it's just a cartoon. Because we don't have any significant information to suggest it seriously is anything else.

 

[BRex21]

[

How on earth was she a feminist? Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal. Killing a score of men because you have deep seated issues with them does not permit inclusion in that demographic.

Have you not pretty much decided that Feminism is only what you and people like you want it to be? Can we just define what the members of our social or political groups believe in now?

What this boils down to is that Alerie Solanas, a woman who, while inside the International feminist movement NOW, called for the extinction of men and even after trying to murder someone was praised as an important member of the feminist movement, Her book The SCUM manifesto (thats the "Society for Cutting Up Men") is still distributed as course material in many colleges and universities across the western world. My issue isn't Alerie Solanas being a feminist but rather the reactions of major players to Alerie Solanas speeches, writings and actions.

I might even argue this is a good thing, but generally when people say "well those aren't real feminists" that's its more about bucking guilt than actually show disdain for them, most women who identify as feminists simply seem to pretend the "femi-nazi" movement does not exist. I also strongly suggest that women who claim they aren't feminists would fit your definition closer than those who claim they are. For example the artist of that comic that sparked so much debate here points to exactly this problem. Not that there is anything wrong with feminism, but rather that there is a problem with the ones who hide inside to movement in order to spread a hateful dogma. However you an cat, seem to be focusing on the fact that the sheep is pink and cute. I want to point something out here EVERYTHING SHE DRAWS IS CUTEZIE AND FEMINIZED, look at her profile, look at her art that is what she draws like, nothing is overly masculine even when she draws burly men. I suppose referring to feminists as sheep could be insulting, but would you really be happier if the "Men and women should be equal" sheep were in fact a puma? I mean it would still make sense I guess, but fewer people would get the reference, I guess she could have gone with orca in seals clothing? or would those things be too cutezie for you? I can't think of a lot of carnivores who eat other carnivores or particularly aggressive herbivores, although as it has been pointed out earlier this would not be a common idiom.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Such feminists are exceedingly rare.

The only reason people think they're common, is because every time someone finds an example, the post it all over, initiating a knee jerk reaction.

*Gets up on soap box*
Sexism is still quite prevalent in the first world. It's simply gone underground, to the subconscious. I'm a female in a male dominated field. There is an overwhelming assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, even by people who you would never think to be sexist.
EDIT: I'm referring to after you've gotten to know them, and have proved yourself capable.
...Even though no group should have to 'prove' themselves to anyone. Just have to roll with the punches, in some cases...

That's usually more of a minor annoyance, though. Typically, I just politely say something to the effect of "Yeah, I did *insert basic practice* a bunch last summer at work."

The real issue is the princessification of young girls. Practically from birth, we drill into their heads, "You're better than everyone else in the world, and they should treat you that way. You don't need to be self sufficient, or study in school, just keep acting helpless and pretty, and your prince will take care of you. If he doesn't give up all of his wants, needs, and aspirations, he doesn't really love you. Remember, relationships are about being served, not an equal partnership. All you can ever bring to the table is sex appeal, anyways."

What I don't get is that this is bad for both genders. It makes men miserable (watch any episode of Bridezillas. You'll see extreme examples of what I'm talking about.) And it teaches females that the only attribute they should strive to work on in themselves is appearance.

I just... I don't get it.

*steps off of soap box*

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I've never had the pleasure of encountering an extreme feminist.

I think they do more harm than good. I know one used to drink in my sisters local until she got into a heated debate with my sister over her letting my brother in law pay for everything (it was my sisters birthday, he took her out for a drink) so my sister beat the shit out of her.

Thats as close as i've come to one.

Thats about as close as i'd like to ever get.

Oh hold on, I tell a lie.

I read an article from some feminist that claimed all men support rape.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Now that is a woman with clear issues.

According to that, I support rape too. Woman has issues

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If there was an actual minor protest against this picture by activist groups? Big chance it could be sexist.

If there was an actual news story in a somewhat reputable newspaper or website? Big chance it could be sexist.

If there was evidence that a statistically significant group found this picture offensive? Big chance it could be sexist.

If a dozen people on a random internet forum find it misogynistic? That's nothing to go on, I can find a dozen people on fora supporting just about anything at all.

So at which point is an opinion valid, and worthy of consideration, and not just silly? Is there an official "crossing over" point? Clearly "a dozen" is insufficient according to Hagi's rules of deductive reasoning. So how many is acceptable? 100? 500? How minor could the protest be? Could it be any activist group? Who determines if the newspaper or website is reputable? How reputable is "somewhat" reputable? What is statistically significant? Who is polled? Who does the polling? What would the questions be?

I mean, if you're going to present yourself as the authority on when viewpoints become legitimate, you really need to give us some hard data. These nebulous terms simply won't do.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Have you not pretty much decided that Feminism is only what you and people like you want it to be? Can we just define what the members of our social or political groups believe in now?

Actually I try to go by the commonly accepted definition of feminism, which she does not fall under. If the sole criteria for membership in a group was announcing yourself a member of said group, then I guess I could say I'm a Black Panther and voila! It would be so.

What this boils down to is that Alerie Solanas, a woman who, while inside the International feminist movement NOW, called for the extinction of men and even after trying to murder someone was praised as an important member of the feminist movement, Her book The SCUM manifesto (thats the "Society for Cutting Up Men") is still distributed as course material in many colleges and universities across the western world. My issue isn't Alerie Solanas being a feminist but rather the reactions of major players to Alerie Solanas speeches, writings and actions.

Whoa, I get it. When did this discussion ever boil down to Alerie Solanas? She sounds like a lunatic. I fully support your Solanas hatred, based on what little I know of her from this thread. I'm not sure at which point this was "people for and against Alerie Solanas".

I might even argue this is a good thing, but generally when people say "well those aren't real feminists" that's its more about bucking guilt than actually show disdain for them, most women who identify as feminists simply seem to pretend the "femi-nazi" movement does not exist.

It's not a question of "do misandrists exist" or "can radical feminism be taken too far", because clearly they do, and clearly it can, and there's plenty of evidence in the world to support whatever confirmation biases we choose to hold dear. The point I got involved in this useless, circular argument was the point at which someone found a picture misogynist, and a second party suggested the ONLY reason she found it misogynist was because she (he, I don't even know) didn't know what an idiom was. There's the original crux of the argument. Either the picture is open to interpretation, or the picture is ONLY open to interpretation if "you don't know what an idiom is".

 

[finalguy]

I feel the reason for this:

Sexism is still quite prevalent in the first world. It's simply gone underground, to the subconscious. I'm a female in a male dominated field. There is an overwhelming assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, even by people who you would never think to be sexist.

Is this:

The real issue is the princessification of young girls. Practically from birth, we drill into their heads, "You're better than everyone else in the world, and they should treat you that way. You don't need to be self sufficient, or study in school, just keep acting helpless and pretty, and your prince will take care of you. If he doesn't give up all of his wants, needs, and aspirations, he doesn't really love you. Remember, relationships are about being served, not an equal partnership. All you can ever bring to the table is sex appeal, anyways."

I assume alot of times in my work(tech) environment that alot of women get/expect a pass just for being women when it comes to technical knowledge. now this isnt a dig on women. my wife is a tier 5 NOC tech with M$. im more refering to Jen Barber from The IT Crowd

 

[Hagi]

If there was an actual minor protest against this picture by activist groups? Big chance it could be sexist.

If there was an actual news story in a somewhat reputable newspaper or website? Big chance it could be sexist.

If there was evidence that a statistically significant group found this picture offensive? Big chance it could be sexist.

If a dozen people on a random internet forum find it misogynistic? That's nothing to go on, I can find a dozen people on fora supporting just about anything at all.

So at which point is an opinion valid, and worthy of consideration, and not just silly? Is there an official "crossing over" point? Clearly "a dozen" is insufficient according to Hagi's rules of deductive reasoning. So how many is acceptable? 100? 500? How minor could the protest be? Could it be any activist group? Who determines if the newspaper or website is reputable? How reputable is "somewhat" reputable? What is statistically significant? Who is polled? Who does the polling? What would the questions be?

I mean, if you're going to present yourself as the authority on when viewpoints become legitimate, you really need to give us some hard data. These nebulous terms simply won't do.

Your mistake lies in seeing me as the authority. I'm not.

In the end it's your own judgement on how much makes enough.

However, if you put your judgement at a dozen people in a forum thread then you should expect people like me to call you out on it. I can't give you straight numbers, they don't exist. However I can implore you to use logical thought.

If a dozen people on an internet forum is enough then that means that basically every viewpoint in existence is a reasonable one. From this picture being misogynistic to video games being corruptive to the youth.

So I'd advise you to put your judgement a bit higher then that.

But in the end you have your judgement and I have mine. If I don't agree with yours and I feel the need I'll tell you so on these forums. You're free to do the same with me.

We don't have to come to agreement after all. I'm pretty sure me thinking your judgement lousy or you thinking mine lousy isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse.

But yeah, if you think the anecdotal evidence provided in this thread is enough? I think your judgement is lousy.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

It wasn't a direct flouting of Godwins law. I wasn't comparing feminism to nazism. I was saying that just because someone was a nut doesn't remove their influence.

...By comparing a "feminist" to a nazi. Hrm.

Again, you either completely misunderstand the parallel or you're pretending to misunderstand it for effect.

It wasn't a comparison to Nazism. But how much of an effect each individual lunatic had on their movement. The Nazism is irrelevant. I'm only using it because it's hard for people to argue that they weren't lunatics and that they still had an effect.

Just like there were many crazy misandrists who had an effect on feminism.

If this isn't clear to you after that explanation, you need to go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.

So what you're saying, then, is that nazism was just a completely innocent pro-German movement that was hijacked by some nutcase who claimed to identify as one of them...ooookay then.

Or are you saying that feminism is an inherently oppressive group dedicated to killing millions of people in a war of extermination and that Solanos is representative of them?

Because Hitler is representative of nazism, not some bizarre crazy who latched onto them. Bit of a difference.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Go back and read what I said. Anyone with reading comprehension above that of a toddler would not have made that conclusion.

That's the only way that your "parallels" are parallel. But please explain to me how your parallel works otherwise. And why, for your example, you leapt immediately to "nazism"?

This will be what? The 8th time I've explained it now. Are you not reading? Or do you just enjoy making me repeat myself in new and ever more creative fashions?

First, I leapt immediately to Nazism because because it's hard for someone to argue that it's major figures (the ones I was looking at) were to some degree... insane.

It's got nothing to do with comparing the ideal that is Nazism to Feminism or something equally retarded.

And the parallel simply relies on the fact that both my examples of misandrists and Hitler/Himler/Mengele were crazy yet still were still important figures. Just because Solanos was crazy doesn't moot the fact that she was influential.

No one would argue that Mengele wasn't an influential Nazi figure because he was a lunatic. So why should we say that Solanos wasn't influential because she was equally insane?

My parallel doesn't rely on them occupying the same position or even having the same amount of effect in each influence. Simply that they were both insane yet influential.

I'm not going to reply to any pedantic takes on this again, if you feel the need to yell 'Herp Derp feminism is nazism? Is that what you're sayin?' or something equally stupid. I'm just going to ignore you.

Hmm, a derail caused by invoking nazism. You'd think there'd be a name for it. Maybe with a little explanation of why it's hazardous to haphazardly invoke nazism and nazis for the sake of a silly "parallel".

You've yet to explain how they have had an influence or effect that is in any way parallel. Simply saying, "My parallel doesn't rely on them occupying the same position or even having the same amount of effect in each influence. Simply that they were both insane yet influential" doesn't make it a good parallel. Especially since nazism was a largely homogeneous movement while feminism is a largely heterogeneous one. It is disingenuous to pretend they are alike or that the influence of Hitler on nazism and the influence of Solanos are in any way alike.

 

[finalguy]

I'm saying it requires more then just anecdotal evidence from a single internet thread before a picture (or a novel or whatever) can be claimed sexist, racist or anything.

If there was an actual minor protest against this picture by activist groups? Big chance it could be sexist.
If there was an actual news story in a somewhat reputable newspaper or website? Big chance it could be sexist.
If there was evidence that a statistically significant group found this picture offensive? Big chance it could be sexist.

If a dozen people on a random internet forum find it misogynistic? That's nothing to go on, I can find a dozen people on fora supporting just about anything at all.

And that's why, for now, it's just a cartoon. Because we don't have any significant information to suggest it seriously is anything else.

So everything that fox news says is true?
because they are the news and alot of people agree with/watch them. you sir, have very faulty logic.
next you will be saying the earth is flat just because people believed it at one point.
let me just cut you off at the pass, before you say" well that was a long time ago,etc. i can show you quite a few ads, articles,pictures,cartoon,tc that were NOT considered rasist,sexist,elitest, that now would be shamefully so

 

[Mikkaddo]

Before I start, I am a guy and also not in the least sexist but do you think the feminists of today have more of a bad reputation than they did a hundred years ago? I mean before women had a right to vote they worked through blood, sweat and tears to get equality and now you have some women who insult you for kindly opening the door for them. This has rarely happened to me but post opinions, experiences etc on feminism.

The thing to remember is there's a difference between an feminist and what you're talking about which is known by slang as a "feminazi" the difference being thusly:

Feminists believe in equal rights for women to men. That women should be treated as exact equals to men, and in no way be seen as lesser than men or second class citizens. These are the ones that fight for equal pay, equality in all things.

Feminazis believe men are second class citizens who are not capable of anything of worth or value and are the source of all the evils in the world. These are the ones that are seen claiming a man should have his eyes gouged out for daring to look at a girl AT ALL. Usually this is the one that says playboy is objectifying of women. The problem THERE being Playboy was not truly started by Hugh Heffner, it was him AND a group of feminists. The man had a $1000 loan from his family, and even back then you could only do so much . . . the feminist group choosing to help him make it a national magazine on the promise that they have creative control over how the women are shown, meaning that the women are shown as having full control of their attractiveness, and what it does to men.


I hope this has helped you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Your mistake lies in seeing me as the authority. I'm not.

In the end it's your own judgement on how much makes enough.

However, if you put your judgement at a dozen people in a forum thread then you should expect people like me to call you out on it. I can't give you straight numbers, they don't exist. However I can implore you to use logical thought.

If a dozen people on an internet forum is enough then that means that basically every viewpoint in existence is a reasonable one. From this picture being misogynistic to video games being corruptive to the youth.

So I'd advise you to put your judgement a bit higher then that.

But in the end you have your judgement and I have mine. If I don't agree with yours and I feel the need I'll tell you so on these forums. You're free to do the same with me.

We don't have to come to agreement after all. I'm pretty sure me thinking your judgement lousy or you thinking mine lousy isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse.

But yeah, if you think the anecdotal evidence provided in this threat is enough? I think your judgement is lousy.

But I don't create all my opinions by seeking consensus, in internet forums or otherwise. There are number of factors that go into anyone's decision making process, or the procedure by which they form judgments on the things they see. When you see a film, do you wait until you have a consensus of 50 people before you decide you enjoyed it? When you eat a meal, do you wait until the Zagat is in before you decide whether or not it tasted good?

If you saw a man beating a child without provocation on the street, would you be able to decide for yourself whether the act you saw was ethical? Or would you need a consensus, or intervention by a protest group, before you could decide whether or not your initial reaction was valid?