Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

realityhack wrote:

Why do so many people feel the need to be so vile to women. WTF.

Because being a self-congratulatory asshole feels good?

??

realityhack wrote:

Read too many things today that I can't un-see. Why do so many people feel the need to be so vile to women. WTF.

I think people feel the pull of their culture to act out certain roles, roles they see themselves and their victims assigned to in a power structure. I think they dehumanize both their victims and themselves to do so.

Jonman wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Why do so many people feel the need to be so vile to women. WTF.

Because being a self-congratulatory asshole feels good?

Edit: deleted tangent.

What I actually wanted to say: Wander Dead, that was a great post.

Hope this belongs here. Kick-starter showing the right way to apologize.

http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/we-w...

I've been thinking about posting this for a while now - a couple months. Now feels like a right time. I'm not painting Mitchell as a bigot or anything. I do NOT want to do that. I think he's normal and wants to be open and welcoming to everyone. I think all the sentiments he uses in this segment is fairly mainstream; which is exactly why the part where he says "like a girl" with obvious contempt is a problem, IMO.

Am I reading that wrong?

LarryC wrote:

Am I reading that wrong?

I think so. That's just dry humour, which Brits are famous for perfecting. See also, everyone taking Yahtzee entirely too seriously.

Even when it's a joke, I think saying "like a girl" with contempt is a very dangerous sexist cultural element. Ain't nothing wrong with a man wishing to be effeminate. It's not that I take Mitchell or Yahtzee "too seriously." I'm not taking them at all. I'm examining this cultural element on display and wondering whether it's too dangerously sexist to allow in any form whatsoever.

LarryC wrote:

Even when it's a joke, I think saying "like a girl" with contempt is a very dangerous sexist cultural element. Ain't nothing wrong with a man wishing to be effeminate. It's not that I take Mitchell or Yahtzee "too seriously." I'm not taking them at all. I'm examining this cultural element on display and wondering whether it's too dangerously sexist to allow in any form whatsoever.

That's my point, it's not contempt. It's satire.

It doesn't matter what it is, is my point. It's that it's there at all.

LarryC wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is, is my point. It's that it's there at all.

It definitely matters, because satire highlights a point through irony and exaggerating a point to absurdity. There is sarcasm dripping from every syllable of that sentence.

Let's put that a different way. I'm making the point. You can't engage that if you're trying to make a different point or argue a different point. I mean, you can make another point, but that's tangential to what I'm pointing out, so it's not like you have to reply to me or anything.

My point is, is it legitimate and useful for "like a girl" as a idea to exist at all (in whatever form) more than it is harmful and should just be aggressively expunged with extreme prejudice? I think you're saying that it is.

Redwing wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is, is my point. It's that it's there at all.

It definitely matters, because satire highlights a point through irony and exaggerating a point to absurdity. There is sarcasm dripping from every syllable of that sentence.

Some people have serious issues identifying satire. Poe's Law in full effect.

LarryC wrote:

Let's put that a different way. I'm making the point. You can't engage that if you're trying to make a different point or argue a different point. I mean, you can make another point, but that's tangential to what I'm pointing out, so it's not like you have to reply to me or anything.

I have no idea what that means.

Jayhawker wrote:
Redwing wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is, is my point. It's that it's there at all.

It definitely matters, because satire highlights a point through irony and exaggerating a point to absurdity. There is sarcasm dripping from every syllable of that sentence.

Some people have serious issues identifying satire. Poe's Law in full effect.

Fair point, although I think the satire is pretty clear in this particular case, especially when you've seen his other videos for comparison.

Redwing:

It means that you're engaging a point I was not making.

LarryC wrote:

Redwing:

It means that you're engaging a point I was not making.

Redwing wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Am I reading that wrong?

I think so.

That was point I was engaging. I don't think you understood the intent of the video, and intent counts for a lot when it comes to judging the worth of comedy.

Oh right. But see response thereafter. Whatever the joke is or how it is meant, is actually rather beside the point, do you see?

LarryC wrote:

Oh right. But see response thereafter. Whatever the joke is or how it is meant, is actually rather beside the point, do you see?

No, it's not beside the point. Context matters.

It's beside the main point I was trying to make, not the one you were responding to. Ah, screw it. NVM. My English is godawful.

LarryC wrote:

It's beside the main point I was trying to make, not the one you were responding to. Ah, screw it. NVM. My English is godawful.

We understand the point you are making. The reason you are struggling is that we think you are wrong. The logical endgame with the point you are making is that satire is politically incorrect. Satire can be done poorly, but it is a legitimate form f rhetoric that uses offensive views or statements of those you are mocking in order to create humor that resonates with others.

It really is hard for some people to detect, they struggle with that form of humor. In this case, he is mocking people that hold views like "Don't be girl," by pointing out that grooming products remove facial hair that makes them more like a girl.

And yes, your constant wading into topics that you continually fail to recognize the nuance of the arguments means you are a likely candidate to misunderstand satire.

Larry, could you chill out on posting for a bit? You're stomping all over multiple threads here.

No worries. Done here.

Regarding kickstarter, it seems like they need some way to freeze a campaign that is under review. I like their apology, but I can't help feeling like they shouldn't have gotten painted into that particular corner in the first place.

complexmath wrote:

Regarding kickstarter, it seems like they need some way to freeze a campaign that is under review. I like their apology, but I can't help feeling like they shouldn't have gotten painted into that particular corner in the first place.

Maybe that is something they will look at along with the other changes they already implemented. As a system change it would take a lot more time to change than the policy of not allowing similar kickstarters. They might not have mentioned such a thing because it would need a real development review and possibly a legal review before they embarked on it.

Apparently the backlash may have had more of an impact than just getting the book a bunch of positive/negative attention -

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...

“Ben Kassoy of DoSomething.Org, a non-profit that encourages social change, reached out to me,” he says, “...to provide alternate opinions and insights to help remove all of the potentially harmful advice.”

Hoinsky realizes he needed to “seriously evaluate every last word of my writing to make sure I wasn't encouraging sexual assault in any way, shape, or form.”

“I am proud to say that his was the first of many meetings I will be having with anti-rape and anti-abuse organizations and experts to make sure that the advice I am offering is free of any tinge of sexual assault or rape vibes,” he added. “I will be rewriting Above The Game under their guidance and insight.”

On one hand, I like to see someone who is willing to step back and say, in effect, "I was wrong and I need to change my perspective."

On the other hand, it's exceptionally difficult for me to feel like someone could write that outline and those chapter abstracts and have no idea what they were contributing to - or, with such an attitude, care. And, as people might have noted on previous threads on this and other topics here, I am usually [/b]very[/b] willing to give people the benefit of the doubt in the "I didn't really fathom what I was doing" category. So I'm optimistic but also worried he's going to screw up everyone's sense of goodwill over this.

I have a reserve of goodwill this week, so I am rooting for this.

The concept of " no means yes" is pervasive enough that I do think many people think if it as reality, even now.

And let's not forget, this is a dumbfoundingly complicated area. We have a sexuality thread going on right now about women's hidden fantasies, and one of those fantasies does sometimes include "no means yes."

Getting the nuance between fantasy and reality is a journey we as a species continue to explore.

Seth wrote:

I have a reserve of goodwill this week, so I am rooting for this.

The concept of " no means yes" is pervasive enough that I do think many people think if it as reality, even now.

And let's not forget, this is a dumbfoundingly complicated area. We have a sexuality thread going on right now about women's hidden fantasies, and one of those fantasies does sometimes include "no means yes."

Getting the nuance between fantasy and reality is a journey we as a species continue to explore.

Right, and I'm definitely willing to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases. But this guy's writing and attitude were so blatant in their aggression and objectification, I'm more willing to accept, "Yes I'm aware and don't give a damn," than "oh man I never saw it." While there's definitely people out there who just don't realize the damage they're doing (and I think this is the case more often than not), there are plenty of folks who just embrace the idea of treating women as objects. As I said, I'm perfectly willing to be wrong here, but goddamn.

Ron Lindsay Apologizes (Skepchick)

After a month and a half of officially looking into its and non-apology apologies and the like, resulting eventually in some prominent people publicly pulling their support from CFI, the CEO finally apologized.

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

NSMike wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

It's why the good Lord saw fit to create safe words.