Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 321 to 360 of 408

Thread: The wage gap is a lie

  1. #321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marie View Post
    I think he meant war on men.

    Because you know, we want to castrate them and all.
    Canada gives far more funding to women than men, ain't that sexist?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  2. #322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Mountain oysters anyone?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marie View Post
    Did not know what that was. Had to look it up.

    We call them Amourettes in French. Ain't that cute.
    Have you gone so far in actually forming a discussion of what to call the testicles of the castratos. Of course not all eunichs are castratos but all castratos are eunichs.

  3. #323
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Canada gives far more funding to women than men, ain't that sexist?
    Sap you, of all people should get of that lame hobby horse. LGBTIQ groups get special funding too. However, I don't actually think that makes them evil or powerful, or even at war with the straight/cis community. So grow a pair.

    There, is THAT the bite you've been hanging out for with your silly baits?

    Hold on while I fry my sons testicles gently in some butter. That's sure to make me feel much better.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  4. #324

    Default

    Does the IQ mean we're smarter than you breeders.

    Btw, I believe the new, unnecessary inclusion into the acronym is LGBTIQQAA.

    Or Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender IQ (Smarter) Quasi-sexual (wtf?) Asexual (Not sure how they're facing discrimination) and Anti-sexual (I'd clump them in with Asexual, unless they wanna be a hate group?).
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  5. #325
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Does the IQ mean we're smarter than you breeders..
    What's with the "we"? Are you lesbian too?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  6. #326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Canada gives far more funding to women than men, ain't that sexist?
    wow, big whoop.

    But really, it's better to create a society that allows for greater financial independence for women. It's more in tune with the nature of a society where people can live according to how they choose.

    It just seems ridiculous that one would complain about movements that wish to advance the status of people in society. But, this is just a troll thread of course.

  7. #327
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Here ya go Wodey. Another chunk of equality delight from the STEM world.

    Sexism in science: Peer editor tells female researchers their study needs a male author

    Last edited by Rokchick; 05-20-2015 at 12:45 AM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  8. #328

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default


  9. #329
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    pic
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time. Right?

    Might be better if you addresses the post. But, meh, you would have to put your hands up then.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  10. #330

  11. #331

    Default

    Woden, do you ever give up on fixing stupid?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  12. #332

    Default

    Lets talk about something fun and youthful like boysenberries

  13. #333
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Ah, there's my boy. Responds to post about him using silly opinion pieces to refute studies with more silly opinion pieces! It's getting cute now.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/9/752...-internet-stem
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  14. #334
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    Lets talk about something fun and youthful like Hilary Clinton
    Fix'd.

  15. #335

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...r-four-decades

    Quote Originally Posted by 3. The gender pay gap begins at 30(ish)
    The gender gap has reduced quite a lot since the 1970s even though there's no age except 16 when women earn more than men. The ONS describes it as "relatively close to zero"; well, up until women reach their early 30s that is. For older people though, it's a different story: women's earnings peak at 34, while men's keep rising until they are 50. This means that at 49 there is a 45% gap between males and females average earnings. Although part of this might be down to younger generations feeling the benefit of changes to attitudes, the economy and legislation but it's not hard to guess another big explanation for the gap: babies - or, more specifically, shifting working hours as a result of them.

  16. #336

  17. #337
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Gosh even MORE silly opinion pieces. Please note, I haven't even bothered to delve into the feminist writings to refute your stuff because
    1. That might legitimize your waffle
    2. Even without it, your argument looks weak and pathetic.

    But please clarify. Are you saying there is no gender gap? Or that it is a very small number? If so, what? In STEM (since that seems to be where you place yourself - god help us) are you saying the studies are wrong? Or that it is ONLY STEM that is sexist?

    Or do you just want to continue with your confirmational bias? It's a bit sad, because I used to read what you said with some tiny degree of respect, now I find myself wondering if you are just as biased in everything.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  18. #338

    Default

    So this is a bit embarrassing that I have to do this, but in order to speed up this whole conversation and so that I don't have to reread the same hashed out stuff again, the claim has been (for quite a while now) that the gender gap is small enough that it's non existent. The details of this have been posted several times, you can find them probably by the 10th page of this.

  19. #339

  20. #340
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Gauss View Post
    So this is a bit embarrassing that I have to do this, but in order to speed up this whole conversation and so that I don't have to reread the same hashed out stuff again, the claim has been (for quite a while now) that the gender gap is small enough that it's non existent. The details of this have been posted several times, you can find them probably by the 10th page of this.
    Sure, why not just close down one of the very few threads still getting posts?

    If you are going to be so blatant in your bias, you should probably not use the mod ID to do it. There have been more refutations of that claim than any reasonable support for it. In fact EVERY blind or unbiased study shows the same thing. There is still a gap, and a lot of it is explained by sexism and bias. It's not just STEM, it's many other places as well.

    If you are going to be using the mod ID, perhaps you should chastise little wodey for constant reference to troll sites?

    To put this that context for you, if I was standing up against racism, and every second response referenced something from: http://www.foxnews.com/ would that prove to you that blacks, hispanics and asians should accept there are no race issues left in the world (or even america)?
    Last edited by Ex Mod; 05-21-2015 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Inappropriate Site, replaced with a similar site.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  21. #341

    Default

    I don't know why you think I'm here to argue with you. You asked a question about something you've spent a good deal of time arguing about, I gave you a place to start looking.

  22. #342
    Senator Cisalpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunshine state
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Sure, why not just close down one of the very few threads still getting posts?

    If you are going to be so blatant in your bias, you should probably not use the mod ID to do it. There have been more refutations of that claim than any reasonable support for it. In fact EVERY blind or unbiased study shows the same thing. There is still a gap, and a lot of it is explained by sexism and bias. It's not just STEM, it's many other places as well.

    If you are going to be using the mod ID, perhaps you should chastise little wodey for constant reference to troll sites?

    To put this that context for you, if I was standing up against racism, and every second response referenced something from: https://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/ would that prove to you that blacks, hispanics and asians should accept there are no race issues left in the world (or even america)?
    Wow. Tone down the National Order of Witches there a bit. Don't let the sarcastic title of "Forum Queen" go to your head. Also...how can you possibly compare racism to "equal pay"? Seriously? You've gone off the deep end and I think you owe the Mod who said absolutely NOTHING about shutting down the thread an apology. But gee, that would mean you'd have to admit to being wrong to something.

    **back on ignore until I see some quoted sensiblity again.

  23. #343

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    If you are going to be so blatant in your bias, you should probably not use the mod ID to do it. There have been more refutations of that claim than any reasonable support for it. In fact EVERY blind or unbiased study shows the same thing. There is still a gap, and a lot of it is explained by sexism and bias. It's not just STEM, it's many other places as well.
    He never took a position on it, he just answered your question about what the claim was.

    But of course, your permanent victim complex won't let you see things that way, will it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    If you are going to be using the mod ID, perhaps you should chastise little wodey for constant reference to troll sites?
    And why would he do that? It's within the forum rules. There is no rule that makes your feelings so important to protect that people can't link to disagreeing websites.

    Also, none of the sites that I just linked are "troll sites". 1 of the 7 is an article from a British news site, 3 are the opinion sections of well-known news sites, two were personal blogs that were actually rather neutral about feminism other than criticizing one specific aspect each, one picture and link were from a grassroots Tumblr movement against internet feminism, and the other picture was a captioned excerpt from an interview with a French feminist, IIRC.

    But, again, your victim complex doesn't let you see disagreement as anything but trolling, does it?

    (Hell, I think a stronger case could be made that Jezebel is a troll site than any of the places I linked.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cisalpine View Post
    **back on ignore until I see some quoted sensiblity again.
    Wait, you mean that you've ever seen sensibility from Rok?
    Last edited by Woden; 05-21-2015 at 03:36 PM. Reason: Accidentally claimed all of the news ones were opinion pieces, when one is an editorial article.

  24. #344
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Gauss View Post
    I don't know why you think I'm here to argue with you. You asked a question about something you've spent a good deal of time arguing about, I gave you a place to start looking.
    No, I was asking little wodey about his actual position of the magnitude of the gap, in the light of him posting nothing but silly opinion pieces. It's pretty much the only topic where he ignores the results of blind studies, and goes with obvious trolls and fools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cisalpine View Post
    Wow. Tone down the National Order of Witches there a bit. Don't let the sarcastic title of "Forum Queen" go to your head. Also...how can you possibly compare racism to "equal pay"? Seriously? You've gone off the deep end and I think you owe the Mod who said absolutely NOTHING about shutting down the thread an apology. But gee, that would mean you'd have to admit to being wrong to something.

    **back on ignore until I see some quoted sensiblity again.
    First, thanks for the compliment. National level huh? Oh wait, you think witch is derogatory? /winches Cis past the 80s'/

    Do you know what a comparison is? Why can't I put something in context by comparing it to something someone is more familiar with? I doubt he's too dense to see the point, even if you are pretending you are. BTW, in some places sexism probably IS worse than racism. There are not a lot of people being burned or stoned to death for being non-white any more.

    By close down I didn't mean locked, I meant close the discussion down. It was hurting no one, and even if it was just wodey making a bit of a **** of himself with his posts, and me being me and scratching his sore spot, so what? It was a thread with posts that wasn't breaking any rules. Neither of us need protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Also, none of the sites that I just linked are "troll sites". 1 of the 7 is an article from a British news site, 3 are the opinion sections of well-known news sites, two were personal blogs that were actually rather neutral about feminism other than criticizing one specific aspect each, one picture and link were from a grassroots Tumblr movement against internet feminism, and the other picture was a captioned excerpt from an interview with a French feminist, IIRC.

    But, again, your victim complex doesn't let you see disagreement as anything but trolling, does it?

    (Hell, I think a stronger case could be made that Jezebel is a troll site than any of the places I linked.)
    Oh come on, you are trolling. I'm sure you aren't really that shallow. I don't mind it, but tumblr womenagainstfeminism? In context of post order it was even mildly funny. You should own that part. But hey, I'll restrict myself to wehuntedthemammoth and play on your terms if you like.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  25. #345

    Default

    So I'm going actually stick my nose in here a little bit more, because apparently there is all sorts of confusion from what you post to what you actually want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    No, I was asking little wodey about his actual position of the magnitude of the gap, in the light of him posting nothing but silly opinion pieces. It's pretty much the only topic where he ignores the results of blind studies, and goes with obvious trolls and fools.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    But please clarify. Are you saying there is no gender gap? Or that it is a very small number? If so, what? In STEM (since that seems to be where you place yourself - god help us) are you saying the studies are wrong? Or that it is ONLY STEM that is sexist?
    Your question asks Woden if there is or is not a gender gap. I answer that this has been stated several times over the course of the thread and point you to where you might find this information. You then proceed to post this gem, in which you demonstrate that you didn't read my actual post. The reason I'm assuming you think I'm here to argue with you is that you start talking about bias (like I'm taking a position here) and give me a site to counter the claim that the wage gap isn't non existent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Sure, why not just close down one of the very few threads still getting posts?

    If you are going to be so blatant in your bias, you should probably not use the mod ID to do it. There have been more refutations of that claim than any reasonable support for it. In fact EVERY blind or unbiased study shows the same thing. There is still a gap, and a lot of it is explained by sexism and bias. It's not just STEM, it's many other places as well.

    If you are going to be using the mod ID, perhaps you should chastise little wodey for constant reference to troll sites?

    To put this that context for you, if I was standing up against racism, and every second response referenced something from: obviously biased site would that prove to you that blacks, hispanics and asians should accept there are no race issues left in the world (or even america)?
    Also to address your poke at how I mod, I do not care what sites you link into discussions however they do have to follow forum rules. For example if I go to a site you post that has uncensored words in it, I am going to remove that link.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    By close down I didn't mean locked, I meant close the discussion down. It was hurting no one, and even if it was just wodey making a bit of a **** of himself with his posts, and me being me and scratching his sore spot, so what? It was a thread with posts that wasn't breaking any rules. Neither of us need protection.
    It's like my first comment before saying anything wasn't "In order to speed up the discussion...." but hey I could see how that sentence or me pointing you to information could totally be me shutting down a discussion.

  26. #346
    Senator Cisalpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sunshine state
    Posts
    3,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Wait, you mean that you've ever seen sensibility from Rok?
    Once or twice. One time was when she agreed with me on something, but then I realized she misunderstood what I was saying.

  27. #347

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Oh come on, you are trolling.
    An intent to troll does not translate into the sites being linked being trolls sites. Once again, you fail at logic.


    Though I will say, all trolling aside, that the "It's time to break up feminism" blog article I linked makes a very solid point: So long as feminists continue to not police the term "feminism" and simply refer to themselves as "feminists", without any further nuance about what specifically they believe, they have no justification for taking offense at people who get the wrong impression about what feminism is about, nor any justification for talking down to such people for being "misinformed". It is the duty of a movement to inform people about its ideals, not for bystanders to research the various schools of thought within the movement and try to guess which one an individual belongs to. With feminism having become such a "big pavilion" ideology (where there are some pairs of feminist groups that have little to no specific parts of their ideology in common), it is unreasonable to expect any bystander to get the correct idea of what your beliefs are by simply saying "I'm a feminist".

    The really stupid part about it is that there are existing terms for some of the schools of thought (e.g., lipstick feminism), but they are almost never used when talking with non-feminists.

  28. #348
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    An intent to troll does not translate into the sites being linked being trolls sites. Once again, you fail at logic.


    Though I will say, all trolling aside, that the "It's time to break up feminism" blog article I linked makes a very solid point: So long as feminists continue to not police the term "feminism" and simply refer to themselves as "feminists", without any further nuance about what specifically they believe, they have no justification for taking offense at people who get the wrong impression about what feminism is about, nor any justification for talking down to such people for being "misinformed". It is the duty of a movement to inform people about its ideals, not for bystanders to research the various schools of thought within the movement and try to guess which one an individual belongs to. With feminism having become such a "big pavilion" ideology (where there are some pairs of feminist groups that have little to no specific parts of their ideology in common), it is unreasonable to expect any bystander to get the correct idea of what your beliefs are by simply saying "I'm a feminist".

    The really stupid part about it is that there are existing terms for some of the schools of thought (e.g., lipstick feminism), but they are almost never used when talking with non-feminists.
    To what extent can academic feminists be held accountable for random Tumblr troll-esque "feminists", the vocal minority, taking over the label of "feminism" in the public eye? Everybody has the option to go read the works of actual feminists so that they can figure out that the more rabid brand of feminism are not representative of the entire movement.

  29. #349
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    An intent to troll does not translate into the sites being linked being trolls sites. Once again, you fail at logic.


    Though I will say, all trolling aside, that the "It's time to break up feminism" blog article I linked makes a very solid point: So long as feminists continue to not police the term "feminism" and simply refer to themselves as "feminists", without any further nuance about what specifically they believe, they have no justification for taking offense at people who get the wrong impression about what feminism is about, nor any justification for talking down to such people for being "misinformed". It is the duty of a movement to inform people about its ideals, not for bystanders to research the various schools of thought within the movement and try to guess which one an individual belongs to. With feminism having become such a "big pavilion" ideology (where there are some pairs of feminist groups that have little to no specific parts of their ideology in common), it is unreasonable to expect any bystander to get the correct idea of what your beliefs are by simply saying "I'm a feminist".

    The really stupid part about it is that there are existing terms for some of the schools of thought (e.g., lipstick feminism), but they are almost never used when talking with non-feminists.
    Leaving aside Pap and his whining (yes, you did try to close the discussion down, and it was biased). One side is posting blind study results on the topic of sexism, that are not answered, the other is posting loose opinion pieces. But if you are saying that it's reasonable for someone like wodey to ignore all evidence and hold his ground regardless, then I could put him in the Luisss bucket. I don't think that is likely or reasonable, so let the discussion continue!

    That blog article makes the same tired old points the MRA uses constantly. You do NOT get to determine how tightly feminism is defined. This sits on a par with some good ole boy from down south determining that anti racist groups are responsible for policing the black panthers activities, and must define themselves as non violent anti-racists. Feminism can be expressed in different ways. And just like I don't ask you to take on the responsibility of defining yourself specifically as a non-racist atheist, you don't get to make me narrow the definition every time. That's a political agenda of the radical MRA, and I'm not biting.

    If someone identifies as a feminist, it is reasonable to assume that they are using the term in the most common definition of equality. Your problem (yes, I'm telling you now) is that you don't think there is any inequality, so therefore feminism is un-necessary. But you are demonstrably wrong. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cisalpine View Post
    Once or twice. One time was when she agreed with me on something, but then I realized she misunderstood what I was saying.
    And that time will go down as one of the most memorable. I thought you were making the opposite point by posting pointedly ignorant rhetoric. Instead, it turns out you were just posting ignorant rhetoric. Damn I laughed when it was pointed out. Don't change Cis. Just like my old Dad we need people like you around to remind us of how things could have been...
    Last edited by Rokchick; 05-22-2015 at 01:22 AM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  30. #350

    Default

    Hey not my fault if you can't read, or manage to clearly state what you're trying to say when you post. As always if you truly believe my actions are not to the benefit of the forums, I strongly encourage you to talk with Slip about it.

  31. #351
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Gauss View Post
    Hey not my fault if you can't read, or manage to clearly state what you're trying to say when you post. As always if you truly believe my actions are not to the benefit of the forums, I strongly encourage you to talk with Slip about it.
    No, no, a post is a post. Even one from Cis! Carry on. I'm just going to keep reminding you that just because I say it, doesn't make it wrong. Besides, if I can't poke a mod, and wodey is turning into Luisss, what fun is left?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  32. #352

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    If someone identifies as a feminist, it is reasonable to assume that they are using the term in the most common definition of equality.
    Bullcrap. It's reasonable to assume that they mean what other people you have interacted with who have used the same label mean. That's the way the human psyche works (and, also, the way language works), and if you don't like it, too damn bad for you -- your personal preference does not warp reality to suit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    You do NOT get to determine how tightly feminism is defined.
    That's not even the argument. The argument is that, if feminists make no effort to either tightly define feminism or to define themselves by more specific subsets of feminism, they have no basis for getting upset or condescending when people misinterpret what they mean by "feminist". If you are creating or perpetuating a situation where you are claiming an identical label as another group with entirely different beliefs and behavior, then you have no moral high ground for indignation when your group gets conflated with theirs.

    Also, keep in mind, this isn't just about me. 72% of people (including 62% of women) do not identify with feminism, and this definitional problem definitely plays a role in that. Of course, you can assume that the majority of women in all age groups are suffering from "internalized misogyny", or are not "reasonable" enough to just know what feminism properly means... but I rather suspect that would be alienating to them rather than drawing them in. But by all means, continue your idiotic campaign to help drive feminism into an early grave of insignificance; I'll be cheering from the sidelines, as it will clear space for more reasonable groups to replace it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    This sits on a par with some good ole boy from down south determining that anti racist groups are responsible for policing the black panthers activities, and must define themselves as non violent anti-racists.
    Sure, except that it lacks the issue of the usage of the exact same name for highly different groups. If all of the anti-racist groups were calling themselves "The Black Panthers", then yes, that would be a valid comparison (and I'd even agree with it: if your group has the same name as a separate group of people that are acting in hateful ways that you disagree with, the onus is on your group to either change its name or otherwise distance itself from the hate group, not on bystanders to just magically know which group is being referred to).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    And just like I don't ask you to take on the responsibility of defining yourself specifically as a non-racist atheist
    If there were a problem with racists in atheism to the extent that many non-atheists perceived atheism as a racist group, then I would be quick to find ways to announce myself as a non-racist atheist. Of course, that's because I'm at least slightly rational about such things, instead of expecting everybody to be able to read my damn mind for the exact definition intended of hundreds of possible ones when I use a single-word descriptor.


    Let me reiterate this for you: You have real, living, extremely vocal people who are espousing misandry and female supremacy across the internet and in quite a few areas in the real world under the guise of feminism. Even disregarding that group of "not true feminists", who you seem to think everybody should just automatically know aren't "real" feminists even if they've never interacted with any other type of feminist, there's still the issue that there are so many wildly different feminist schools of thought that just saying "I'm a feminist" says very little about what your position on any given issue actually is. At best, saying nothing more than "I'm a feminist" is so vague as to be useless, and at worst, it conflates you with groups that share very little of your ideology and which you probably would rather not be associated with.

    Of course, given that you still have not given any reason why you feel that the burden of deciphering what school of thought a given self-professed "I'm a feminist" is should fall on the non-feminists rather than the person claiming the belief, and have yet to note anything beneficial to continuing to use the vague umbrella term "feminist" rather than anything more informative, it seems clear that you simply prefer the vagueness as a shield to hide behind. As I have previously said with you on this topic, I strongly suspect that the reason you are so vehemently and irrationally opposed to people using more nuanced categories of feminism is that you fear it would expose you for the hateful, illogical, radical bigot that you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Your problem (yes, I'm telling you now) is that you don't think there is any inequality,
    No, that's just more of your half-baked us-versus-them assumptions. I actually agree quite strongly with action on a lot of gender-equality issues (e.g., access to birth control, pro-choice abortion laws, gender equality in laws, etc.). However, I do not agree with the manufactured issues feminism has created by distorting statistics and definitions, and agree with action on a number of gender-equality issues that you probably disagree exist (because you seem to have this prejudiced idea that anything MRAs talk about is automatically invalid, no matter whether there is actual evidence in favor of what they are saying; this has also been evidenced in you openly admitting to having not bothered to read peer-reviewed studies that have been linked because you assumed beforehand that they were biased or wrong).

  33. #353

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    To what extent can academic feminists be held accountable for random Tumblr troll-esque "feminists", the vocal minority, taking over the label of "feminism" in the public eye? Everybody has the option to go read the works of actual feminists so that they can figure out that the more rabid brand of feminism are not representative of the entire movement.
    I'd actually hold (certain) academic feminists highly accountable for them, mostly the ones that adopted/adapted critical race theory into feminist thought. CRT is a hateful, illogical, anti-evidence academic framework, and the derivative critical gender theory is the source for a very large share of the buzzwords and misandrist thought patterns used by the "Tumblr troll-esque feminists". While you can argue that the Tumblrettes are simply misquoting poorly-understood fragments of academic discussions, the fact remains that there are serious issues with the original academic sources to begin with.

    And, as I stated in my response to Rokchick, I feel that the blame for any confusion by non-feminists lies principally with any feminist who remains vague about the specifics of their position. It is their duty to make their position clear, not the duty of bystanders to research which of multiple conflated viewpoints a person holds.

  34. #354
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    So you are this version of atheist then Wodey?
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dayligh...s-mra-problem/
    Or are you a zionist atheist?
    Or maybe a communist? Because, you know, atheists are usually communists, and a lot of communist talking points are... atheist based.
    Or maybe a you are terrorist atheist?
    http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/29/r...icide-bombing/
    I mean seriously, are you a secularist? A naturist? Just which of the dozens of atheists are you? Now I really don't know what you believe, since you openly call yourself an atheist, but now I have to ask if you are one of those who is an animal rights activist!

    I surely can't assume you are just an atheist in the general global definition of the word (like I am) because you do speak a lot of anti-woman rot, so you are actually the MRA version of atheist, which I definitely am not. But maybe you are a communist/terrorist/zionist version as well. Please articulate which group you are pontificating on because, god forbid, I should align myself with the wrong one! Oh hang on. How about I assume when you call yourself an atheist, that the only thing I assume we have in common is not believing in god? And then you could be all outrageous and assume that a feminist is aligned with equality for women. Any other beliefs and alignments they have might influence how they express feminism (like your mates agitating for zionism) but are not fundamental to the feminism itself. So again, the definition is a problem YOU have, not me.

    Posting stats about how marginalized the word feminism has become is just showing how powerful your leaders are, nothing else. Wonder how that came about? Hmmm...

    CRT... integrated into feminism? LOL. So every atheist that comes out in support of.. anything is integrating it into atheism? You need to think before you spout rot. Sure some feminists believe various things. Outrageous thought that it is. Or should I assign the entire belief system of Nietzsche and Marx to all atheists?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  35. #355

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So you are this version of atheist then Wodey?
    And now you're descending into the stupidly ridiculous again. It increasingly seems like you wouldn't recognize a suitable analogy of anything if it were to lift itself from a textbook and flash in front of your eyes.

    Atheism is a negative grouping; people are getting put into the group because they do not share a belief. Unless someone belongs to an atheist group which holds additional beliefs (which I, and the vast majority [>99%] of other atheists, do not), then being an atheist says nothing about their views other than that they don't believe in any gods. It's not supposed to say anything beyond that.

    Feminism, on the other hand, is a positive grouping; people join the groups because they do share a related set beliefs. It is an entire ideology which one agrees with, which does say many things about what the person thinks. The problem is that it says highly different things depending on which specific group of feminism one belongs to, which gets obfuscated when they all just say "I'm a feminist" and act like they speak for every feminist ever.


    Also, I can't help but notice that you've still, once again, sidestepped the issue of naming even one benefit that sticking with just the umbrella term has, or naming even one problem that adding more nuance causes, or explain why you think that non-feminists should have a burden of researching the sea of information on the multitude of schools of feminist thoughts instead of the feminists having the oh-so-terrible burden of just saying which one they identify with. Gee, once again, this makes it look like my hypothesis about you being worried about the increased transparency are rather correct, seeing as you continue to not give any basis for opposition to it (other than childish "No, I don't wanna!" statements that don't address any points).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Posting stats about how marginalized the word feminism has become is just showing how powerful your leaders are, nothing else.
    Pfft. In case you haven't noticed, there are quite a lot of anti-feminist women who cite their interactions with feminists or the feminists they've seen as the problem they have with feminism. You can bury your head in the sand about that all you want, but it does nothing to change the reality: There is a toxic segment of feminism, which the movement makes little to no effort to distance itself from and vehemently resists adopting more specific labels to make it easier for outsiders to tell the two apart.

    But it's so much easier to blame nebulous external causes, isn't it? After all, that's why patriarchy has turned into the sole explanation required for every single problem ever among so many feminists, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    CRT... integrated into feminism? LOL. So every atheist that comes out in support of.. anything is integrating it into atheism?
    I never said it was incorporated into the entirety of feminism, but you can bet your hindquarters that it has been incorporated into the subsets (including academic subsets) that the Tumblr misandrists are getting their Cliffnotes versions from.

  36. #356
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Feminism, on the other hand, is a positive grouping;
    Yes, it is a group of people who believe in gender equality. The various forms of it are just like the various forms of those who believe in racial equality. Or those who believe in supporting all sorts of other things that are against something. It essentially means anti-gender discrimination. It has it's own word. But use anti gender discriminationist if you prefer. Then it will fit better inside your narrow world view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    The problem is that it says highly different things depending on which specific group of feminism one belongs to, which gets obfuscated when they all just say "I'm a feminist" and act like they speak for every feminist ever.
    No, that's you and your MRA mates making it look like that. Feminism is just feminism. Different people reflect it in different ways. Just like anti racists, or anti theists, anti gender discriminationists are not, never were, and never will be homogeneous. Thank goodness. It's not a political party or a religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Also, I can't help but notice that you've still, once again, sidestepped the issue of naming even one benefit that sticking with just the umbrella term has, or naming even one problem that adding more nuance causes,
    By implication (sorry, I assumed you weren't ACTUALLY a cofc) the political agenda of the MRA anti-women stance to splinter support for feminism by any means, including terminology, has very obvious implications for discrimination against women. If there is no broad support for feminism, discrimination is harder to see or prevent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    .... instead of the feminists having the oh-so-terrible burden of just saying which one they identify with.
    I identify with the real one, not one of the various splinters that YOU want to assign to me. I am a feminist of the very basic kind. Just like you want to describe yourself as an antitheist of the basic sort, I am an anti gender discriminationist of the basic sort. It's not hard, unless you subscribe to idiotic websites.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Pfft. In case you haven't noticed, there are quite a lot of anti-feminist women who cite their interactions with feminists or the feminists they've seen as the problem they have with feminism. You can bury your head in the sand about that all you want, but it does nothing to change the reality: There is a toxic segment of feminism, which the movement makes little to no effort to distance itself from and vehemently resists adopting more specific labels to make it easier for outsiders to tell the two apart.
    There are toxic versions of everything. Atheists, feminists, anti-racists, racists, zionists, etc. etc. There are a lot of vested power interests who really, really want to see feminism sidelined for very obvious reasons. They get all sorts of people on side by the usual means. You get conned by the media telling you it's islam, feminism, communism, whatever the current bogey man is. Think a bit more critically about where it comes from and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    After all, that's why patriarchy has turned into the sole explanation required for every single problem ever among so many feminists, eh?
    The basic reason for gender inequality and discrimination is historical patriarchy. Lots of different social levers, but basically a society run by men (or whites, or capitalists) has a power base that doesn't want to lose it's power. Eventually humanity will out (I hope) but constantly denying everything except "the evil feminatzi agenda" is just idiotic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    I never said it was incorporated into the entirety of feminism, but you can bet your hindquarters that it has been incorporated into the subsets (including academic subsets) that the Tumblr misandrists are getting their Cliffnotes versions from.
    The tumblr misandrists? LOL, I thought you had a problem with feminism, not misandry. They are NOT the same thing. Just like islam and terrorism are not the same thing. Don't be simplistic. I don't know any misandrists at all. I know a few women who have hated a few men after divorces, rapes or beatings. Sometimes it's enough to colour the view of the entire gender for a while. But It's not nearly as prevalent among feminists as you seem to imagine. Most of us are sisters, mothers and daughters of men. We don't hate them or other men at all. We want their lives to be better and more fulfilled as well.

    You need to get off reddit and tumblr. Apart from a suntan, you might also get an education. Possibly even a girlfriend.
    Last edited by Rokchick; 05-22-2015 at 03:32 PM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  37. #357

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    No, that's you and your MRA mates making it look like that. Feminism is just feminism.
    Oh, so you're denying that sex-negative and sex-positive feminism are real distinctions? That there are divides in whether traditional concepts of femininity are viewed as harmful (predominantly some 2nd wave feminists) or not (lipstick feminists)? That there are disagreements in whether trans-gender individuals still benefit from male privilege (hint: TERFs are really a thing, and not all feminists agree with them)? That there is dispute about whether the goal of feminism should be gender neutrality or reverse discrimination to bring women back to an equal footing with men?

    This is transparently just revisionist bullcrap on your part, and it's disgustingly dishonest.

    Also, feminist article on the topic that you should probably read:
    http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/...sm-good-thing/

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I identify with the real one, not one of the various splinters that YOU want to assign to me.
    With "the real one"... despite the fact that the different schools of feminist thought were created and named by feminists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    There are toxic versions of everything. [...] You get conned by the media telling you it's islam, feminism, communism, whatever the current bogey man is.
    And, again, in other cases of toxicity giving a group a bad name, there is either a strong effort to distance themselves from the toxic individuals, or else similar issues of the whole group ending up tarred with the toxic subgroup's behavior and beliefs because they didn't try to distance themselves. Not claims of "There's just the real Islam. All of those divides are just Christians trying to give us a bad name!" and the like.


    And, at this point, I'm done with dealing with your idiotic twisting of reality to suit your "there's just one feminism" nonsense, when even other feminists don't agree with you about it (see: "We are not a monolith").
    Last edited by Woden; 05-22-2015 at 04:15 PM.

  38. #358
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Oh, so you're denying that sex-negative and sex-positive feminism are real distinctions? That there are divides in whether traditional concepts of femininity are viewed as harmful (predominantly some 2nd wave feminists) or not (lipstick feminists)? That there are disagreements in whether trans-gender individuals still benefit from male privilege (hint: TERFs are really a thing, and not all feminists agree with them)? That there is dispute about whether the goal of feminism should be gender neutrality or reverse discrimination to bring women back to an equal footing with men?
    So are you an atheist who believes religion should be left alone to those who "need" it, or one who thinks religious organisations should have their power structures dismantled? One who thinks those who believe in the christian god should be able to inflict biblical precepts that fit with humanism, or one who thinks they should be separated out completely?

    There is no dishonesty at all. Not all feminists think the same way or believe in the same remedies, just like anything else. Once again, it is NOT a religion or a political party! There is a fundamental belief (that gender should not cause discrimination). YOU have a problem with some feminist actions or ideas. Whoop dee doo. I am not in the business of determining what is appropriate for all feminists to think or do. Neither are you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Also, feminist article on the topic that you should probably read:
    http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/...sm-good-thing/
    And? It agrees with me, not you. Feminists are not little buckets of definitions. We are feminists who don't all read from a bible (unlike you, it seems). Just like anti-racists don't have to all agree on methods or remedies, anti gender discriminationists don't either. Wodey dear, it's not hard to get to grips with for most of us. Why are you having so much trouble? Is it because it undermines your sense of self? DO you NEED there to be some evil attribute attached to "feminism"? I don't have any trouble hearing someone say "I'm anti-racist" and not needing them to delve into how in detail they think it should be fixed. If I WANT to know their particular bent on it, I would ask. But I wouldn't assume they might be bomb makers by default, or need it to be specifically excluded. I wouldn't even assume they were activists. Just like when I meet a muslim, I don't assume they are wearing an explosive vest either (I know you probably do).


    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    With "the real one"... despite the fact that the different schools of feminist thought were created and named by feminists.
    Oh dear. Are you having trouble with simple things again? Sure there are multiple schools of thought (named even!) in almost any schools of thought. BTW, I am probably a secular humanist version of atheist. Sometimes taking bits from new atheism, some not (Harris can also be a ****** sometimes). I'm not really into objectivism though. Do you need to know that when I claim atheism? Or can I be an atheist?


    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    And, again, in other cases of toxicity giving a group a bad name, there is either a strong effort to distance themselves from the toxic individuals, or else similar issues of the whole group ending up tarred with the toxic subgroup's behavior and beliefs because they didn't try to distance themselves. Not claims of "There's just the real Islam. All of those divides are just Christians trying to give us a bad name!" and the like.
    You really do have trouble with simple things. Sure there are different schools of thought. In lots of things. I DON'T Agree with militant atheism. That doesn't stop me being an atheist. I DON'T agree with everything every social humanist ever said, although I would probably tag myself a social humanist too. Stop being so simplistic. How often do I have to say that? You are being simplistic, and rather than me being dishonest, you are being self serving by trying to make me splinter into a small definition of something that is NOT small.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    And, at this point, I'm done with dealing with your idiotic twisting of reality to suit your "there's just one feminism" nonsense, when even other feminists don't agree with you about it (see: "We are not a monolith").
    The link didn't work, but based on the words, it probably agrees with me, not you.
    Last edited by Rokchick; 05-23-2015 at 05:11 AM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  39. #359
    Senator cheddar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    OSU
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    I kind of agree with Woden here. It's never the often silent majority that is proclaiming their feminism to the world. They often have no need to do so. It's the vocal minority that are the ones loudly proclaiming their cause in the name of feminism. And as is often the case, the vocal minority is the only side people sometimes hear. So, yeah, I think it's the job of the silent majority to make themselves heard and distinguish themselves from any misrepresentation that tarnishes their name.

    It's the same issue that pretty much any organized group deals with and has the need to fight.

    Expecting any layman, without previously knowing who they've interacted with, to know what defines "real" feminism is expecting too much of them just as it would be too much of me to expect any layman to know what defines "real" Christianity. The vocal minority muddles all.
    Live Life, Love Others.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeLink View Post
    Cheddar is one of the popular, energetic guys.
    "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult." - Proverbs 12:16

    "Comparison is the thief of joy." - Theodore Roosevelt

    Dethy Analysis Helper

  40. #360
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheddar View Post
    I kind of agree with Woden here. It's never the often silent majority that is proclaiming their feminism to the world. They often have no need to do so. It's the vocal minority that are the ones loudly proclaiming their cause in the name of feminism. And as is often the case, the vocal minority is the only side people sometimes hear. So, yeah, I think it's the job of the silent majority to make themselves heard and distinguish themselves from any misrepresentation that tarnishes their name.

    It's the same issue that pretty much any organized group deals with and has the need to fight.

    Expecting any layman, without previously knowing who they've interacted with, to know what defines "real" feminism is expecting too much of them just as it would be too much of me to expect any layman to know what defines "real" Christianity. The vocal minority muddles all.
    No, I disagree. I think ALL women and men need to reclaim "feminist" from the MRA imposed definitions. There is no movement or group-think of any sort that is not beset by the same issues. WHY do I need to explain that I'm not an xxx feminist or a yyy feminist? They are definitions that are specialist, not general. By default, feminists are and always have been for gender equality. Within that there will always be some individuals and even groups who are right wing, left wing, radical, conservative, liberal, racist, jewish, whatever else. Even misandrist. Just like within any group there will be same thing. It is an ANTI-FEMINIST of the basic sort who wants to force me to define what sort of feminist I am, thereby making me accept that feminism has been somehow "corrupted" by some participants. It hasn't.

    If I want to define my ideas in the context of a specific argument, I will. But by default, feminism is and always was about gender equality. The vocal minority are NOT all proclaiming anything like what you are told they are. Go google feminist websites. Most are nowhere near as bad as you seem to think. Many are now more about debunking MRA rhetoric than actual feminism, and that is just what the MRA want. I will not help them push women back, or corrupt a new generation.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •