Print

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

[Tiruin]

I...err, sorta wonder why there's no term for those kinds of people [The feminist = anti-men advocator kind] because it really strays from where I derive my meaning of it [Feminist = person fighting for equal rights in an area where rights are skewed or oriented against females...]
Or should they be called radicals instead? I don't see that...adjective being pushed around when some people mention [more due to context mentioned?] 'feminist' here. :/

[Tawa]

I...err, sorta wonder why there's no term for those kinds of people [The feminist = anti-men advocator kind] because it really strays from where I derive my meaning of it [Feminist = person fighting for equal rights in an area where rights are skewed or oriented against females...]
Or should they be called radicals instead? I don't see that...adjective being pushed around when some people mention [more due to context mentioned?] 'feminist' here. :/

Oh, I hate how those radicals are the face of the movement. I mean, I'm all for equal rights, but it bugs the heck out of me when they go overboard. It's also annoying how it's everywhere -- there's even subtle hints in TV shows where the only -- I MEAN ONLY -- intelligent or normal person on the show is a woman.

[Vector]

Oh, I hate how those radicals are the face of the movement. I mean, I'm all for equal rights, but it bugs the heck out of me when they go overboard. It's also annoying how it's everywhere -- there's even subtle hints in TV shows where the only -- I MEAN ONLY -- intelligent or normal person on the show is a woman.

Ok, so... let me know if I'm wrong, but aren't those usually written and directed by men? I mean the usual "stupid sitcom" dad, where usually the wife is intelligent but the joke is that she's an overbearing, nitpicking ballbuster.

[Tawa]

Oh, I hate how those radicals are the face of the movement. I mean, I'm all for equal rights, but it bugs the heck out of me when they go overboard. It's also annoying how it's everywhere -- there's even subtle hints in TV shows where the only -- I MEAN ONLY -- intelligent or normal person on the show is a woman.

Ok, so... let me know if I'm wrong, but aren't those usually written and directed by men? I mean the usual "stupid sitcom" dad, where usually the wife is intelligent but the joke is that she's an overbearing, nitpicking ballbuster.

Not always. You seen the crap on the Disney channel lately?

ALSO DON'T ASK ME HOW I KNOW THIS AAAA SERIOUSLY I DON'T WATCH THAT

[Vector]

Not always. You seen the crap on the Disney channel lately?

Nope. Not gonna lie, though, the only Disney thing I've ever liked was Mulan.

Also, I'm 24 ._.

[Tiruin]

I..uhh, don't think the sitcoms or shows stand as a portrayal of the general population though o-o Maybe its overthinking that while it is common, it is now becoming a belief that way?

I just think they're doing it for entertainment purposes...but I don't watch Tv that much these days because I'm glued to my pencil, paper and laptop x_x
But yeah, subtle hints aside, it doesn't seem well to dwell on the matter as if its a...limiter(?) or something that actually works as a label.
...
Bleh wording. Hope you get my point though.

Mulan is awesome
There were stereotypes back then. mhmm. *nods*
but still awesome

[GiglameshDespair]

I...err, sorta wonder why there's no term for those kinds of people [The feminist = anti-men advocator kind] because it really strays from where I derive my meaning of it [Feminist = person fighting for equal rights in an area where rights are skewed or oriented against females...]
Or should they be called radicals instead? I don't see that...adjective being pushed around when some people mention [more due to context mentioned?] 'feminist' here. :/

Some call them radical feminists, yes. They do exist, much as unpleasant segments do in any group, but they have also had an active detrimental effect, something I have not heard of MRAs actually having.

[Neonivek]

I..uhh, don't think the sitcoms or shows stand as a portrayal of the general population though o-o Maybe its overthinking that while it is common, it is now becoming a belief that way?

No you are right, you cannot look at media and INSTANTLY apply it to the society.

Anyone who has done real demographic work often sees huge differences between media framing and real life.

Mostly this is because TV is supposed to be more exaggerated and scandalous... or are trying to be fantasy material for one particular group... OR are trying to be low brow.

For example "Big Bang Theory" is nothing but a relentless assault of offensive stereotypes, but is popular to people who do not honestly believe in those very same stereotypes. Not that I don't have a few friends who can't watch it because they find it too insulting.

Many shows use excessive violence but... Canada, for example, largely doesn't believe in using violence to solve problems... and yet we do make shows about using violence to solve problems (kind of... we don't have the budget so even our cop dramas are mostly about talking crooks down)

Actually that could be the point right there

Canada and America share the vast majority of the same media... Other then the truly trashy shows (like anything the OC makes) everything ends up in Canada and has done so for the longest time. Yet Canada and the US differ when it comes to opinions. If you would like some clear examples, I can fetch my book on the subject (it is a book that tries to understand differences between countries and uses Canada and the US because on the surface they are the most similar)

[misko27]

Basically, all movements have the mob, who know talking points; leaders (or intellectuals or what have you) who can expand on talking points and defuse common arguments from the other side(s); and the nasties, who embody the stereotypes of a movement. Of course this can complicated: even pure-nutty types will have both ones that make you question your beliefs, and ones that make you question free speech. Of course these three categories have overlap, and most importantly, aren't necessarily equal in size or influence.

But they're taking a real toll on feminism. Outrageous people are the loudest, and when they, bearing the feminist label like a badge, go around being loud, people associate them in their minds with feminism. And that's partially why there is a blowback: people are upset at one wing of the movement, but they don't see them as separate from the rest.

[nenjin]

people are upset at one wing of the movement, but they don't see them as separate from the rest.

Otherwise known as modern, polemics-based politics.

[Neonivek]

people are upset at one wing of the movement, but they don't see them as separate from the rest.

Otherwise known as modern, polemics-based politics.

Just look at PETA

Anytime the news needs someone to comment on animal cruelty or animal issues who do they get? PETA, who are extremist.

Mind you I am highly biased against PETA after their commentary on the Inuit Seel Hunts and dislike them passionately now... but I'd like to think even without that bias they are still pretty far into extreme animal rights views.

[Redzephyr01]

people are upset at one wing of the movement, but they don't see them as separate from the rest.

Otherwise known as modern, polemics-based politics.

Just look at PETA

Anytime the news needs someone to comment on animal cruelty or animal issues who do they get? PETA, who are extremist.

Mind you I am highly biased against PETA after their commentary on the Inuit Seel Hunts and dislike them passionately now... but I'd like to think even without that bias they are still pretty far into extreme animal rights views.

Same. I started disregarding everything they said when they made not one, but two ludicrously violent pokemon hacks (one of which featuring McDonalds for some reason, and opening with a rant about "Nintendo releases three games that are exactly the same each time!!!!1!!!!!one!!1") to attempt to convince people that fictional violence is as bad as real life violence, and that superpowered magical monsters couldn't just easily overpower their trainers.

[Reelya]

I'm not sure about that analysis. I always thought the parody was attack animal cruelty in general and not saying "Pokemon is bad!! Don't play Pokemon". They just used the Poke-verse as an analogy for animal liberation. I don't view it as a direct attack on Pokemon itself.

[Neonivek]

I'm not sure about that analysis. I always thought the parody was attack animal cruelty in general and not saying "Pokemon is bad!! Don't play Pokemon". They just used the Poke-verse as an analogy for animal liberation. I don't view it as a direct attack on Pokemon itself.

If it was by anyone else I would agree with you. After all using Pokémon for an analogy of animal cruelty could be pretty apt, after all many people have more emotional connection to pokemon then real animals.

But this is PETA and after seeing enough of their videogame satires (Such as Tanuki suit Mario...) you realize... Yes "pokemon is bad" is exactly what they are getting at... at least in a "while we are at it" sort of way.

That and they usually have a write up telling you exactly what the game was about. So there isn't a lot of room for interpretation.

[Ogdibus]

In the context of feminism, "radical" doesn't have the same meaning that it does in other social context.  It has to do with comparing itself with Liberal Feminism, and Marxist Feminism. It's a cultural approach, rather than just a legal, or economic one.  Most of us (people under the age of fifty in western civilization) have at least some values that were formed by Radical Feminism. 

These days, the extremist fringes of feminism are mostly unheard, aren't violent, and have very little power.  Most opposition to feminism isn't even directed at them.  It's directed at "straw feminists", entities of pure speculation and slippery slope arguments.