Vorg
Banned
How about allowing threads like this one to be made in the first place? What is there to discuss here?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Because Feminism is about Equality....
- Thread starter Zog
- Start date
How about allowing threads like this one to be made in the first place? What is there to discuss here?
The title was stupid sure but the topic actually was controversial and interesting. But also through the title chice it went into a total different direction.
Zog
Banned
Is it that you don't think Feminism should ever be criticized?
Tumle
Member
Uhm so your blaming feminism for dropping birth rate in first world countries and immigration???
Sounds reasonable..
Given this is page 5 with only three warnings, I would say evidently there is something to discuss. You may not personally have anything to contribute, in which case you are free to leave the thread and not post. I'd suggest that if you are going to complain about moderation, you base that complaint on reality, not whatever you decide at the time. Each warning in this thread is legitimate and nothing to do with what we do or do not like to hear, which given your own complaint is quite ironic.
Doesn't that say more about our culture than anything? Why are there so many unwanted kids? Were there as many unwanted kids in the 1950's? What changed?
Last edited:
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Uhm so your blaming feminism for dropping birth rate in first world countries and immigration???
Sounds reasonable..
It's a multi faceted and non simple conundrum for sure, but feminism is certainly one of the key components of it. Society has turned on it's head in the last 50 years and I would argue it isn't and won't be sustainable.
The early days of feminism made good progress in balancing out a few societal disadvantages for women. But now it's pushing into completely unnatural boundaries and making obscene demands. Most of it doesn't align with nature or reason, and therefore will never work long term. If you pull on the pendulum of stability too hard you eventually lose grip and it swings back hard the other way.
As exampleUhm so your blaming feminism for dropping birth rate in first world countries and immigration???
Sounds reasonable..
by society you can insert feminism done.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-jordan-peterson-has-to-say-about-motherhood-might-surprise-you
Last edited:
Tumle
Member
See I don’t by that, that is too simplistic a picture to draw..
the sexual revolution plus the introduction of the pill, plus the faling need for children to support there parents in old age because of the rising middle class are all part of the equation.. blaming it solely on feminism is too short sighted.. yes people get children at an older age today, but the do still get children, just a lot less than what they usually did
It is not putting all blame on modern feminism but a huge part of it in my opinion. Also capitalism when it is impossible for a family without two jobs to survive there is not much left to be honest. You work more or maybe even these same for less money or less you can afford. I just think telling a women or a person in general that they have to run after some career while the instead could they be happy with a simple life is not the way to go.See I don’t by that, that is too simplistic a picture to draw..
the sexual revolution plus the introduction of the pill, plus the faling need for children to support there parents in old age because of the rising middle class are all part of the equation.. blaming it solely on feminism is too short sighted.. yes people get children at an older age today, but the do still get children, just a lot less than what they usually did
Who cares about gender gap as long people do what they want to do on their own accord and not getting pushed into some direction they mostly have not chosen alone.
Last edited:
llien
Member
1) Judicial system already heavily favors women, why do we need to skew it even more in the name of equality?
2) What does feminism do to address issues of men and boys?
Did you check postshowergate gaf political compass thread? Majority of users is left leaning.
I'm wondering, whom you are addressing.
Last edited:
Tumle
Member
I agree as far as notion that you have to earn lots of money to be Happy is a fallacy.. but having two jobs just to get by is mostly an American problem because of there weak unions..
But giving a huge blame to modern feminism for the low birth rate, is just not true.. the birth rate in modern 1st world countries have been on a decline for a long time.. I understand that you hate everything to do with modern feminism.. but trying to jump to the conclusion that they are the reason for the decline.. is more wishful thinking than anything based in reality.. you are welcome to prove me wrong.. but I need more proof than a hypothesis, even if i agree to some of the things he brings forward in the discussion..
Last edited:
We have the same problem here in Germany. Hell even if you have 2 people in the family work with children you are mostly in the need of welfare here these days. ITs fucking insane that young people have to give up to 45% taxes form their wage. Then taxes for wares is 19% as well. You basically have to have 2 jobs these days to be able to support a family.I agree as far as notion that you have to earn lots of money to be Happy is a fallacy.. but having two jobs just to get by is mostly an American problem because of there weak unions..
But giving a huge blame to modern feminism for the low birth rate, is just not true.. the birth rate in modern 1st world countries have been on a decline for a long time.. I understand that you hate everything to do with modern feminism.. but trying to jump to the conclusion that they are the reason for the decline.. is more wishful thinking than anything based in reality.. you are welcome to prove me wrong.. but I need more proof than a hypothesis, even if i agree to some of the things he brings forward in the discussion..
And I blame feminism and yes I also may be a bit biased but feminism is really pushing young girls into careers pushing them into STEM just to fight their gender gap. they do not even care about the actual people but rather the gender gap to have something they can complain about. Meanwhile in Germany for example. 50k girls n Germany are being send away on a vacation to get a genital mutilation because of their religion. I just think we need to stop focus on things that are more natural outcomes and focus on parts that really count. This is what I personally blame feminism mostly for. To fight stupid fights while ignoring the real ones.
RokkanStoned
Member
Generally it's best to avoid the term "feminism", because it can be referring to a group that's completely different from your own values, more so there's institutional power in academia and other organizations that have vested interest in the term being adopted, as means of power. There are great examples of this, particularly in Norway, where left-wing feminists are generally shutting out right-wing feminists. A lot of harassment tends to face right-wing women when they attend a women's march as an example.When people use the term "feminism", they tend to be co-opting you into accepting their form of feminism. There's no reason for there not to be a pro-life feminist, but they'd easily be shunned and branded as non-feminist because its actual implications by those who use the term is to dedicate yourself to a set of political beliefs that's not entailed by the general definition they use to claim everyone's a feminist.
In general, feminism is itself in an identity crisis and there's numerous problems plaguing it in my field as well, with women's history being a part of female empowerment, but equally a sign of female insecurity. Because of its role in a historical context of bringing women a degree of self-empowerment, through focusing on great female actors in history, it's heavily under attack with the pressure of transgenderism and multiple genders. I've done some history subjects on female history and gender history, and it's a field with a purpose, but it's often a very insular field and it can at times try to work more as a subject for collective resentment and political signaling. It could be my university and its literature that's skewing things here, but at least that was the overall experience I had with some of it. Gender history is interesting though and has its merits as I mentioned earlier, it's just that it has an awkward role due to being a tool for female empowerment.
Feminists theories and models do have a place though in all of academia, just not the grand one they tend to imagine.
Some feminists also see nothing wrong in unequal treatment of men, viewing it as either repayment or as the basis of destroying the patriarchal construct of society. They shouldn't be dismissed and instead listened to and challenged on where you view them as being wrong. It's ok if it ends up in people of completely different fundamental values, as long as discussion is had.
In general, feminism is itself in an identity crisis and there's numerous problems plaguing it in my field as well, with women's history being a part of female empowerment, but equally a sign of female insecurity. Because of its role in a historical context of bringing women a degree of self-empowerment, through focusing on great female actors in history, it's heavily under attack with the pressure of transgenderism and multiple genders. I've done some history subjects on female history and gender history, and it's a field with a purpose, but it's often a very insular field and it can at times try to work more as a subject for collective resentment and political signaling. It could be my university and its literature that's skewing things here, but at least that was the overall experience I had with some of it. Gender history is interesting though and has its merits as I mentioned earlier, it's just that it has an awkward role due to being a tool for female empowerment.
Feminists theories and models do have a place though in all of academia, just not the grand one they tend to imagine.
Some feminists also see nothing wrong in unequal treatment of men, viewing it as either repayment or as the basis of destroying the patriarchal construct of society. They shouldn't be dismissed and instead listened to and challenged on where you view them as being wrong. It's ok if it ends up in people of completely different fundamental values, as long as discussion is had.
Last edited:
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Vorg
Banned
Is it now. So what you're saying is, it's now ok for me to say whatever I want on neogaf as long as it sparks "discussion"? Because a thread like this one would never fly before. I understand you need these people to keep the place alive right now, but it will drive away the good posters and leave you with a cesspool of colorful individuals that would have already been banned on any other place not called 4chan.
Last edited:
Tumle
Member
Please grow up..
if you are too scared to have your believes challenged, even if it’s by the most moronic person In the world, trying to make an argument, then You should move along and stop derailing things.. I know your sad that your echo chamber is gone.. that you don’t have thread after thread, 1000 of pages long with Almost no substance..
I know it sucks, but keep your chin up.. there is a place just for you
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
What is your opinion? Is feminism untouchable? Should women be treated more lenient than men by the criminal justice system?
Last edited:
No. Not at all. You are free to have an opinion on any subject not in breach of the rules and articulate it here in a reasonable and hopefully polite manner. There are rules you can view in the TOS or address with moderators via PM if you wish, but they do not included banning your political opponent from discussion. They do not include banning views that do not conform with the majority one while staying otherwise within those TOS. They do not include banning members or topics you do not much personally care for.
Ask yourself who is more problematic in a thread on a discussion website. The person who made a topic you completely disagree with that has over 6000 views and 5 pages? Or the person who questions the validity of allowing the discussion at all and has made no other contribution to it? You can counter the points of the topic with reasoned and informed discussion, potentially altering the thing you vehemently disagree with. Or you can whine about other peoples right to share views that differ from your own, while making no counter points yourself, and change nothing at all.
Snoopycat
Banned
That's nothing to do with my question. Who is going to adopt all these unwanted children when there already thousands in the care system?
Mahadev
Member
Please read what libertarian actually means in political science and everywhere else except the US. Your claim couldn't be more wrong.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
You really don’t see how forcing a particular agenda is bad?
Zog
Banned
Last edited:
lachesis
Member
I don't think feminism only is to be blamed for the low birth rates in developed countries. Just like pay gap issue, as I do believe a gender is a factor, but not THE only factor - same goes to the low birth rates. It's multi-fragmented issue combining culture, economic system, religion, politics, biology and most of all - human nature. But since feminism pretty much cover all the areas mentioned there, such broad spectrum it has - so it just cannot be excluded from the current status - or to say, what we are seeing is partially, I stress "partially" a repercussion of feminism.
I've researched many times on this subject, reflecting my own divorce and effect of feminism - trying to be as level headed as possible, as it was difficult to undermine my own belief that I thought was right - whether feminism is pro-family or not... and some seems to say that promoting maternal leave, for flexible job sharing or daycare expansion is why feminism is pro family. It did look like that on the surface - but underlying premise is to push ALL women into workforce by default, rather than being a choice. Hell, I would LOVE to have a choice if I could. Now, that leads down to another can of warm of gender roles and all - and I'm up for a discussion for that - but all I can say is that It's not really about making family life easier, but it's more to do with the work life easier, like flip side of a coin - it really depends on how you look at it, and more importantly where you put your priority first. Work or family?
One could say "Why not both?" Only if work-life balance can be found so easily in this competitive society... I have to wonder. In my case, it's always the family first. I'm good at what I do at work, making good salary over six figures for past 15 years or so. But I will drop my work if push comes to shove to take care of my family. (I'm also a great cook and house keeper too - and kids adore me because I'm the cool adult that they can relate to) I do accept that my paternal instinct of being a provider is quite strong - but anyhow... In my ex's case - I assume it's work first. It's not the first time she has abandoned family when I think about it. She abandoned her parents, and never really socialized with my side of family any willingly either. Plus, having had to abort my 2nd child against my wishes, not because financial hardships but due to my ex's career ambition (which the thought of my unborn child still makes me sad often - and no, I'm not a religious person. She's from Catholic family, ironically.) - maybe such thing is clouding my judgement, but to say the least - it's really really up to individual level, making this thing so damn hard.
Then, there is family court issue that's severely outdated, no matter how you cut it. Society has progressed quite a bit since 1960s - yet rejecting default joint shared custody (by NOW, no less - while it's becoming more common in Nordic countries as far as I know), as well as no amendment on the practice of no-fault divorce - in my case, that leaves men like me, who are on "their" side, supporting equality in both rights and responsibility, practically defenseless once initiated. All you have to say is "I'm not happy" - to dissolve the marriage. My opinion of the situation didn't matter nor had any say to it. I do believe that one doesn't need to stay in bad marriage, especially in abusive relationship - and no-fault divorce in its ideal, isn't a bad thing. However in practice - considering women initiate almost 65% of divorce to begin with - there's a lot of room for a well meaning men, who would do anything to keep the family intact, like me get squashed. During the course, even though ex had much higher education level, and higher earning potential, higher job title and all - I've been threatened to settle against my will with many things by my ex citing well known judicial tendency to favor mothers with alimony and all - to accept terms that I couldn't accept in right mind yet alone to break up the family. Feminism may not break the family and marriage directly (although many famous feminist leaders preached to do so, let's just say they are the minority) - but it's effect does seem to make much much easier to destroy a marriage and family, from my personal experience.
Then perhaps, the concept of "family" should be changed one can argue. Rather than blood related, it should be more of relation by thoughts or ideology or sharing residency or what not... That, as open minded as I try to be - it's something I just cannot accept. There's a term called "friends" for relationship like that. Perhaps I'm a traditional patriarchal family Nazi - but with anything that ends with "-ism", everything has downside, and I am totally fine with to be called one.
I've researched many times on this subject, reflecting my own divorce and effect of feminism - trying to be as level headed as possible, as it was difficult to undermine my own belief that I thought was right - whether feminism is pro-family or not... and some seems to say that promoting maternal leave, for flexible job sharing or daycare expansion is why feminism is pro family. It did look like that on the surface - but underlying premise is to push ALL women into workforce by default, rather than being a choice. Hell, I would LOVE to have a choice if I could. Now, that leads down to another can of warm of gender roles and all - and I'm up for a discussion for that - but all I can say is that It's not really about making family life easier, but it's more to do with the work life easier, like flip side of a coin - it really depends on how you look at it, and more importantly where you put your priority first. Work or family?
One could say "Why not both?" Only if work-life balance can be found so easily in this competitive society... I have to wonder. In my case, it's always the family first. I'm good at what I do at work, making good salary over six figures for past 15 years or so. But I will drop my work if push comes to shove to take care of my family. (I'm also a great cook and house keeper too - and kids adore me because I'm the cool adult that they can relate to) I do accept that my paternal instinct of being a provider is quite strong - but anyhow... In my ex's case - I assume it's work first. It's not the first time she has abandoned family when I think about it. She abandoned her parents, and never really socialized with my side of family any willingly either. Plus, having had to abort my 2nd child against my wishes, not because financial hardships but due to my ex's career ambition (which the thought of my unborn child still makes me sad often - and no, I'm not a religious person. She's from Catholic family, ironically.) - maybe such thing is clouding my judgement, but to say the least - it's really really up to individual level, making this thing so damn hard.
Then, there is family court issue that's severely outdated, no matter how you cut it. Society has progressed quite a bit since 1960s - yet rejecting default joint shared custody (by NOW, no less - while it's becoming more common in Nordic countries as far as I know), as well as no amendment on the practice of no-fault divorce - in my case, that leaves men like me, who are on "their" side, supporting equality in both rights and responsibility, practically defenseless once initiated. All you have to say is "I'm not happy" - to dissolve the marriage. My opinion of the situation didn't matter nor had any say to it. I do believe that one doesn't need to stay in bad marriage, especially in abusive relationship - and no-fault divorce in its ideal, isn't a bad thing. However in practice - considering women initiate almost 65% of divorce to begin with - there's a lot of room for a well meaning men, who would do anything to keep the family intact, like me get squashed. During the course, even though ex had much higher education level, and higher earning potential, higher job title and all - I've been threatened to settle against my will with many things by my ex citing well known judicial tendency to favor mothers with alimony and all - to accept terms that I couldn't accept in right mind yet alone to break up the family. Feminism may not break the family and marriage directly (although many famous feminist leaders preached to do so, let's just say they are the minority) - but it's effect does seem to make much much easier to destroy a marriage and family, from my personal experience.
Then perhaps, the concept of "family" should be changed one can argue. Rather than blood related, it should be more of relation by thoughts or ideology or sharing residency or what not... That, as open minded as I try to be - it's something I just cannot accept. There's a term called "friends" for relationship like that. Perhaps I'm a traditional patriarchal family Nazi - but with anything that ends with "-ism", everything has downside, and I am totally fine with to be called one.
Zog
Banned
Fantastic post. It is a problem that society just ignores the enormous advantages women have where children and family is concerned. Not only do women get the 100% legal right to decide if a child is born or not (deciding for the father as well) but they are the most likely to break up the family by initiating divorce. A man need not have done anything wrong to lose his family. Historically men have worked themselves to death to provide for and protect their families but today men are checking out of those gender roles and rightfully so. People ask 'where are all the good men?' and 'why are men checking out of the workforce?'.
natjjohn
Member
I think the general idea that less people should be in prison overall is great, but don't think that should apply to just women. Also, creates an entirely unfair system to where the punishment isn't based on what you did, but who you are.
That definitely exists right now, unfortunately, but don't think creating more disparities is the way to go. Better to curb down the use of the prison system no matter who you are. Too many people are being incarcerated when there'd better ways to rehabilitate then throwing people in jails/prison.
That definitely exists right now, unfortunately, but don't think creating more disparities is the way to go. Better to curb down the use of the prison system no matter who you are. Too many people are being incarcerated when there'd better ways to rehabilitate then throwing people in jails/prison.
Solomeena
Banned
I know that i might get banned but you need to take this shit out of here. All you are trying to do is shut down conversation by accusing people of being alt-right and misogynists aka the old GAF playbook of how to shut down conversations and get easy bans from those old shitty mods. This needs to stop, if you want to read an echo chamber, go to the other forum.
The Sane Psycho
Banned
I agree with this completely. I like people being allowed to have different views without being banned in the echo chamber, even if I disagree with said views.
Zog
Banned
You asked WHO is going to adopt all these kids and you already scolded someone for not DIRECTLY answering that question. There is no way for anyone to know the answer to that. Not that they won't be adopted but that no one can tell you WHO will adopt them.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Don’t worry many here agree with you. Shutting down conversation and getting said people banned is basically the internet’s version of a tolerance camp.
llien
Member
Huh? This is how it looks for the majority of posters:
please elaborate, how real "left leaning" looks like.
Snoopycat
Banned
The point, (which is obvious,) is that when you pro-lifers post nonsense like forcing women to give birth to unwanted children just to put them up for adoption you have no solution for what happens to them. Where are the thousands and thousands of foster parents that would be necessary for your silly fantasy?
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
As always with me, my problem lies with the double standards. I am not a pro-lifer but I want men to be able to legally opt out of parenthood too.
I think he is talking about payment for these kids even you were tricked, never wanted it etc. That is also why before abortions happen involved people should talk with each other in front of a special list.
Zog
Banned
A time period for men to legally opt out of parenthood. A simple form for a man to file with the government that eliminates all legal rights and responsibilities if the mother decides not to abort. Obviously a man would have to make his decision a few weeks before the abortion time limit runs out so the mother can decide if she wants to raise the child on her own or not.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
I could create a thread on the merits of Young Earth, Flat Earth, Phrenology, behaviorism based on body types (somototypes), and other topics of a similar caliber which would generate discussion, but you still have to ask yourself if they are fruitful, because sensible intellectuals before us have already established the flaws in those past practices, which is why we no longer take them seriously.
Tyler himself stepped in and closed the "Gamer Gate Isn't Actually Evil" thread. It had 41 replies and 3,000 reviews, if that is a metric you value. Can its closure be attributed to the fact that he was personally victimized by GGers and NeoGaf is his personal website, so that closure is an outlier? Or is it because, as I said on the first page here, the OP was never really interested in arguing in good faith, and advocating for a cause that did more harm than good?
I have yet to see anyone up in here actually present the ideological underpinnings of a single noteworthy feminist. To get back to the OP specifically, there have been scholars writing on the Prison Industrial Complex from Angela Davis to Michelle Alexander for reference, who cite issues in their ongoing work that feminine products are infrequent budgetary investments, so women prisoners bleed themselves like lepers; supplies for nursing mothers to relieve themselves of lactation are hardly entertained. Unsavory interactions between corrections officers of either sex and female inmates, and the like.
All I've seen here are anecdotes. Few have addressed the actual articles. People are presenting their ideas, which are hardly more evolved than their personal feelings towards feminism. Yet that counts as "discussion." The implications of
Vorg
's dissent that a topic like this actually discourages active conversation is valid. As you can see, I do have a vested interest in the thread, but the overall tone of OT, and an earlier post I made demonstrated that some folks are just being reactionary for the sake of it.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above considering if I should post it. I decided I shall, but with some addendums.
So when I say something like:
In a thread about feminism, and get this in response:
(emphasis added is mine)
I get not only a whataboutism logical fallacy, but a response that demonstrates that the user didn't even read the class material. Straight from the guardian article in the OP:
And in the next paragraph:
I'm very much not interested in "discussion" with folks who obfuscate, omit, or feign ignorance; question topics that have been long-established as sensible; demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to make deductions; and (most annoyingly to me) beg the question. Especially if they don't bring anything of substance to the table, when their "contributions" have been long-relegated as marginal for good reason (see the intro to this long post).
So yes, if you wanna engage with me on my high horse, the elevator is that way, llien. And I'm gonna keep sitting here unless the pretentiousness on this message board fades and people start posting in good faith.
Last edited:
So and now we could turn this as well. how about Rape Victims mostly get raped by relatives and close friends. According to RAIIN its over 80%. But does this count? No instead you now have to take "do not rape classes" in some Universities. These kind of excuses should never work. Who cares if they are not random victims? It is even more cruel when your own mother tries or even kills you
Last edited:
AnimalFather
Banned
feminism/sjw movement is not about equality its about equity.
If you now cut off the legs of the tall one then you actually have what feminism is about.feminism/sjw movement is not about equality its about equity.
Last edited:
AnimalFather
Banned
yes. the end result is that. nobody gets to see the game.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
That's another way of saying that Feminism/The SJW Movement is about 'Equality of Outcome' and not about 'Equality of Opportunity'.feminism/sjw movement is not about equality its about equity.
Last edited: