Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

I promise you, people who are openly female online face a lot of things you never see.  There's such a thing as PMs, for starters.  And yes, being 'skeptical' is part of the problem, not part of the solution (see https://xkcd.com/322/ for a pithy take on the issue).   

The business about 4Chan is very simple; you won't have problems based on whether you're female or not, you'll have problems based on whether you're thin skinned/easily offended or not. I mean, on the occasions I go over there, I regularly see my ethnicity mocked and get insulted plenty, but I'm so used to it that it barely registers (and generally speaking, I'd say everyone should get a pretty thick skin when it comes to people on the internet). It's much the same for most women there, for whom their gender really isn't relevant to most topics anyway.

Anyhow, the part I actually quoted is sounding very close to something along the lines of "Check your privilege", which is to say that it's a bit of a cheap non-argument used to shut people down rather than make a point. I have opinions on this topic, but they aren't incredibly strong and I'm open to a decent discussion so long as the person I'm talking to is making points in good faith.

Regardless, women may have to deal with different things than men do on the internet, but I'd say it's pretty clear that they tend to have as many advantages as disadvantages.

To go back to my previous example, there were a very few number of women on the Minecraft server I played on.
One was in my faction, but her being female only came up once, and by and large we treated her the same as we treated anyone else. Most of the rest benefited greatly from being more open about the fact; I recall about 8 somewhat well known women on the server, of whom 3 held staff positions (for reference, the server had anywhere between 300-400 people on at any one time and had maybe 15 staff members) and all of whom had positions of relative status and power.

One of these "known" women was in our faction at one point, and the only time I can think of where she had any problems was when a member of an enemy faction hit on her in teamspeak and generally acted like a creep. Except he was generally an asshole to all of us, we pointed out that he was a creepy fuck, laughed it off, and life went on. She was not traumatized by the event because she wasn't a fragile flower and because most men on the internet are by and large not misogynistic creeps.

[lijacote]

I promise you, people who are openly female online face a lot of things you never see.  There's such a thing as PMs, for starters.  And yes, being 'skeptical' is part of the problem, not part of the solution (see https://xkcd.com/322/ for a pithy take on the issue).   

The business about 4Chan is very simple; you won't have problems based on whether you're female or not, you'll have problems based on whether you're thin skinned/easily offended or not. I mean, on the occasions I go over there, I regularly see my ethnicity mocked and get insulted plenty, but I'm so used to it that it barely registers (and generally speaking, I'd say everyone should get a pretty thick skin when it comes to people on the internet). It's much the same for most women there, for whom their gender really isn't relevant to most topics anyway.

So you agree that there's a hostile environment, but refuse to do anything about it. No, you resist attempts to do anything about it.

Anyhow, the part I actually quoted is sounding very close to something along the lines of "Check your privilege", which is to say that it's a bit of a cheap non-argument used to shut people down rather than make a point.

No, privileged people shout the oppressed down. When you are told to check your privilege, the point is to say that you don't experience that form of oppression. When people insist that there is no sexism, racism or transfobia,  yes, they should check their privilege. Internalised oppression is another matter.

I have opinions on this topic, but they aren't incredibly strong and I'm open to a decent discussion so long as the person I'm talking to is making points in good faith.

We'll see about that.

Regardless, women may have to deal with different things than men do on the internet, but I'd say it's pretty clear that they tend to have as many advantages as disadvantages.

Nope. False equivalency. While there might be so-called advantage in being lifted to a pedestal and then being attacked by this alleged throng of people that supposedly take advantage of this, I question its value and necessity.

Nobody has said that all men are creeps or misogynists -- but I'll one-up you and say that EVERYONE is a misogynist... in that we live in a misogynist culture and keep reproducing it. I know I'm a hardcore feminist, but even I catch myself having misogynist thoughts, doing misogynist things. Outside of that rather academic and less personal idea, no, not everyone is a misogynist. Not even all men.

This seems like a huge problem here. We point out a tendency, a trend, and make no big deal about the individual -- we know this is bigger than us. The individual is not that important in considering cultural discourse. Stop taking cultural critique personally, then we might be able to move on.

[Ogdibus]

Stop taking cultural critique personally, then we might be able to move on.

This is what worked for me, but I was able to do it for unusual reasons.

[Phmcw]

Edit : Nah, too inflamatory.

[GreatJustice]

I promise you, people who are openly female online face a lot of things you never see.  There's such a thing as PMs, for starters.  And yes, being 'skeptical' is part of the problem, not part of the solution (see https://xkcd.com/322/ for a pithy take on the issue).   

The business about 4Chan is very simple; you won't have problems based on whether you're female or not, you'll have problems based on whether you're thin skinned/easily offended or not. I mean, on the occasions I go over there, I regularly see my ethnicity mocked and get insulted plenty, but I'm so used to it that it barely registers (and generally speaking, I'd say everyone should get a pretty thick skin when it comes to people on the internet). It's much the same for most women there, for whom their gender really isn't relevant to most topics anyway.

So you agree that there's a hostile environment, but refuse to do anything about it. No, you resist attempts to do anything about it.

It's a "hostile environment" to some degree for nearly everyone, but it's also fairly honest and you can get a decent discussion and maybe learn a thing or two regardless of who you are. It's a nice break from other websites with discussion boards where people substitute actual arguments for making personal complaints and they aren't immediately derided or ignored.

Anyhow, the part I actually quoted is sounding very close to something along the lines of "Check your privilege", which is to say that it's a bit of a cheap non-argument used to shut people down rather than make a point.

No, privileged people shout the oppressed down. When you are told to check your privilege, the point is to say that you don't experience that form of oppression. When people insist that there is no sexism, racism or transfobia,  yes, they should check their privilege. Internalised oppression is another matter.

Except the answer to "there is no sexism etc" is "You're an idiot, obviously sexism exists to some degree, *examples here*". That's also a very, very limited situation for it to be used it compared to when it is actually used.

Regardless, women may have to deal with different things than men do on the internet, but I'd say it's pretty clear that they tend to have as many advantages as disadvantages.

Nope. False equivalency. While there might be so-called advantage in being lifted to a pedestal and then being attacked by this alleged throng of people that supposedly take advantage of this, I question its value and necessity.

Non-argument. I have plenty of examples of women getting benefits from being female online, and I know for a fact that they aren't harassed substantially more than any person there. Further, unlike if some idiot is attacking me on the forums, people actually care if one of those women is attacked and will go out of their way to protect them.

It seems to me like you have a complex social theory and are determining that it must always be true, overriding the facts and complexities of reality.

Nobody has said that all men are creeps or misogynists -- but I'll one-up you and say that EVERYONE is a misogynist... in that we live in a misogynist culture and keep reproducing it. I know I'm a hardcore feminist, but even I catch myself having misogynist thoughts, doing misogynist things. Outside of that rather academic and less personal idea, no, not everyone is a misogynist. Not even all men.

Phooey. Nonsense. Balderdash.

An MRA might possibly say "I'll one-up you and say EVERYONE is a misandrist...in that we live in a misandrist culture and keep reproducing it", and an MRA ostensibly has the same "goals" as feminists do (gender equality, apparently). Yeah, I understand that this isn't saying "YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST", but the premise of the argument is still a bit lacking.

[Phmcw]

in that we live in a misogynist culture and keep reproducing it.

You know, this is the crux of the problem. 50 years go, the rights of men and women were different, and women had significantly less autonomy than men. For instance, a married women couldn't open a bank account without her husband permission.

Today, women and men have equal rights, so that fight is over, and the remaining feminist turned into moral guardians. The fight is now about dogma, and is going just as well as any other moral crusade.

[alexandertnt]

Why do people interpret "equality" as "same legal status"?

[Neonivek]

An MRA might possibly say "I'll one-up you and say EVERYONE is a misandrist...in that we live in a misandrist culture and keep reproducing it", and an MRA ostensibly has the same "goals" as feminists do (gender equality, apparently). Yeah, I understand that this isn't saying "YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST", but the premise of the argument is still a bit lacking

It is actually pretty hard to argue that everyone is misogynist without stretching the definition to suit your needs. Given you have to prove that EVERYONE (and lets be fair and say most people... since honestly that is usually what people mean when they say everyone) dislikes or hates women.

Let me just say something... If someone thinks women are utterly helpless, that they need to be cared for, that they cannot do anything for themselves... but carries no malice to them... That isn't Misogyny... That is just flat out sexism.

I COULD see an argument that society is Misogynistic, It is a fair critique but I wouldn't agree with it, since society is a more vague notion of how society works...

Today, women and men have equal rights, so that fight is over, and the remaining feminist turned into moral guardians. The fight is now about dogma, and is going just as well as any other moral crusade

You know when I said that the Emancipation did very little to change the lives of the slaves because it just meant they had to go back to the slave owners for work, and often shelter, anyway?

Remember that just because someone is given a legalistic equal rights it doesn't mean they can use it or that it improves their lives.

The reason why Feminism still exists other then as a sort of mental discipline is because YES Women have equal (actually they have the law biased towards favoring them SLIGHTLY! but the law is catching up) legal rights... But that doesn't translate directly into life. It doesn't translate into the security a woman feels at home or in the work place.

Note: Favoring women is actually a point of contention oddly enough. Most forms of Feminism do not like women getting special treatment where it is undeserved. As well I am saying that in PURELY "law as written", how cases end up going is another matter altogether. Mind you the law will always slightly favor women mostly because women have a few more issues that men do not have to deal with, excluding Trans... So there is no need for a male post pardem depression law.

Edit Note: I should state that... There are still legal rights some forms of Feminism asks for >_> But I think what I said so far is technically fair even with that info. I don't know what these are, but I do not claim that women have all the legal rights they need, since HECK even men, children, minorities, natives, and what have you don't.

Why do people interpret "equality" as "same legal status"?

Because some people do picture it like that. Suffrage was for the legal right to vote after all.

OR they view it as the only valid method of fighting for equality. As in you can't change people's minds, but you can change the law.

[lijacote]

See, GreatJustice, what your post boils down is "you're stupid and wrong". Forgive me for trying to seriously argue with you, clearly my complex social theory (yeah sure) is too damned simple or something.

I'm done. There is no point talking with you. Like a god damned wall of denial. Have it, then: there is no sexism,  no racism, no homophobia, it's all equal and people being too damned sensitive. Equality has been achieved, yay!

If there's anything that looks like racism or whatever, then, well, we'll just have to construct such scientific hypotheses as "people are stupid", "people are sensitive" -- damn history, hundreds of years of slavery are nothing! Legal rape in marriage? Pffft. A minor oversight surely. The claim that women are dismissed? A lie! Ferguson? Just a bunch of stupid and oversensitive people.

Screw you. You replace analysis with nothing. I am not going to engage you, since NOTHING will convince you. Keep your cozy delusion.

Mindmaker, this is what I mean. When your starting line is "there is no social injustice", that's plain denial and/or ignorance. When you've spent years being harassed for being feminine, gay or whatever, and some asshole decides that's nothing... well. Well.

[Baffler]

An MRA might possibly say "I'll one-up you and say EVERYONE is a misandrist...in that we live in a misandrist culture and keep reproducing it", and an MRA ostensibly has the same "goals" as feminists do (gender equality, apparently). Yeah, I understand that this isn't saying "YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST", but the premise of the argument is still a bit lacking

It is actually pretty hard to argue that everyone is misogynist without stretching the definition to suit your needs. Given you have to prove that EVERYONE (and lets be fair and say most people... since honestly that is usually what people mean when they say everyone) dislikes or hates women.

Let me just say something... If someone thinks women are utterly helpless, that they need to be cared for, that they cannot do anything for themselves... but carries no malice to them... That isn't Misogyny... That is just flat out sexism.

I COULD see an argument that society is Misogynistic, It is a fair critique but I wouldn't agree with it, since society is a more vague notion of how society works...

Indeed, but it would be just as trivial to find examples of misandrism as well. Women are not required, for example, to sign up for selective service. Men are far more likely to be the victim of almost every crime that isn't sexual in nature. Men are expendable. You may say these aren't as serious, but my point is that "society" is kind of a dick to everyone.

[lijacote]

Why are women exempt? Because they are deemed unfit, or that they have a DUTY to give birth or raise children. Such privilege.

Society is a dick to everyone,  but not equally so. If you are white, you are better off. If you are rich, you are better off. If you are cisgendered and straight, you are better off. If you are a man, yes, you are better off.

Even white, rich men will have some trouble, but a lot less.

But no. Everyone is equal. The law says so!

Ugh. Sorry.

Why do people interpret "equality" as "same legal status"?

Because they don't understand what struggle is

[Phmcw]

Because they don't understand what struggle is

Hey recognized minority representing. Pure product of Italian immigration in south Belgium, and both my grandfather died of industrial diseases.

Because they are deemed unfit, or that they have a DUTY to give birth or raise children. Such privilege.

Tell that to my great-grandfather, he was at the Battle of the Somme, then worked itself to death. Yeah, by that standard raising children is a better fate.
The man "privilege" is very discutable within the working class, and lot of it is simply the fact that men were stronger and controlled the money. If a man wanted to make his wife's life hell he could. But in a "normal" relationship, his life would be shorter, harsher and more violent.

But no. Everyone is equal. The law says so!

Yes, everyone is equal before the law. That is the most important thing, have no doubt about it.

Then everyone should have equal access to education, healthcare, police and culture. Your racism and sexism problems would disapear in two generation. But then, how would college educated membres of the intelligiencia berate everyone else? It's so much more efficient to try to police the minds and manners /s...

[DJ]

If you are rich, none of those things matter, people will treat you with respect. If you are poor, being straight, white and male won't stop people from treating you like shit.

[Lyeos]

If you are rich, none of those things matter, people will treat you with respect. If you are poor, being straight, white and male won't stop people from treating you like shit.

True.

Forgot what I was going to say.
PTW if I haven't already.
I didn't see it in the new replies.

[lijacote]

I didn't say men have no problems.  Address what I say, not what you think would be nice to respond to.

Yes, men are worked to death. That is what being poor is like. Our socio-economical relations are exploitative, with those at the top reaping all the benefits. Doesn't mean there's no sexism, doesn't mean men aren't relatively privileged. Note: relatively. To women. Not saying every man everywhere is always enjoying everything -- like GreatJustice said, this is some damned complex social theory.

Things are perfect for no one. No one. Things are better for some. Those some includes mostly the rich. Doesn't mean there aren't sexist attitudes.

Really tiring of arguing this. If you don't know the basics, that is fine. Learning is good. Ignorance is not a sin. But for Khorne's sake, stop pontificating if you have no clue