Maybe People Should Not Look Up To YouTube Atheist

[pineapplebunnybounce]

In a lot of communities the idea that women are worth less is so ingrained culturally for so long that it has to be the first thing to go to make any real progress. And it's not just religions, for example in chinese communities women have been taught to be less valuable for centuries because we don't pass on the family name, so in China, orphans are almost exclusively female because of one child policy, people do not want their one and only child to be male. So much so that the government no longer allows them to screen for sex when doing ultrasound, something that many westerners enjoy and delight in because it's a great surprise to find out the sex of your child, but in china it's used as family planning. And if I'm not mistaken the same thing is done in India, you are allowed to know the sex of your child but a lot of people abort if they know it's a girl. And China can hardly be considered 3rd world, people there are educated and women enjoy equal rights but the cultural idea of female worth is still so strong. I don't know, the world's a mess. But yea I definitely agree that a lot of religious clerics and teachings are not at all helping the cause.

[TaraJo]

So I definitely agree that custody shouldn't favour one side over the other so strongly just because of cultural "norms". But I'm not sure what this has to do with feminism. If we were to point out all the places where women are shortchanged and say men's rights group aren't doing shit for that, that wouldn't really be fair, would it?

In this case, the criticism of feminism that I have is that whenever I mention these topics, I get told "feminism covers that!" but whenever I actually try to talk about those issues in a feminist context, I'm told I'm derailing. You can't have your cake and eat it, too: either feminists are going to have to stop saying they actually talk about mens issues or they're going to have to stop accusing people of derailing when they actually try to talk about them.

The mens groups, for their credit, don't claim to cover womens issues. I can't say I'd know how the guys in those groups would react to someone trying to discuss womens issues, but I'm willing to bet none of them would say "we cover that!"

---

Just curious, who else here thinks there's something frustratingly ironic about a bunch of upper-middle class, college educated, white, able-bodied, traditionally attractive white girls complaining about how their class is so oppressed and checking everyone else's privilege?

[Lemonvariable72]

In a lot of communities the idea that women are worth less is so ingrained culturally for so long that it has to be the first thing to go to make any real progress. And it's not just religions, for example in chinese communities women have been taught to be less valuable for centuries because we don't pass on the family name, so in China, orphans are almost exclusively female because of one child policy, people do not want their one and only child to be male. So much so that the government no longer allows them to screen for sex when doing ultrasound, something that many westerners enjoy and delight in because it's a great surprise to find out the sex of your child, but in china it's used as family planning. And if I'm not mistaken the same thing is done in India, you are allowed to know the sex of your child but a lot of people abort if they know it's a girl. And China can hardly be considered 3rd world, people there are educated and women enjoy equal rights but the cultural idea of female worth is still so strong. I don't know, the world's a mess. But yea I definitely agree that a lot of religious clerics and teachings are not at all helping the cause.

Mhm and Chinese culture is deeply racist too, they take what westerns say and often throw it out. Of course is true of a lot of the far east. needless to say the world is a mess, and the problems are complex multifaceted and can manifest in surprising ways. Still we need people thinking up and at least trying solutions.

[MindForgedManacle]

Adequate for what? Discussing issues of inequity? You seem to be saying that women specifically are guilty of wanting rights but not wanting the responsibilities- a condition that all human beings are occasionally prone to. You have given no example of this. Feminism is a mindset that encourages thought and activism about gender inequities. I really have no idea what you're arguing.

Adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women. After all, it's a human problem, as you said, so it'll be better addressed as tackling it as not the absurd "Man bad, women oppressed" mantra.

I'm sorry, but pointing out that people are prone to something is not an excuse for people engaging in that. And as I've said repeatedly (with you responding with constant straw men) is that I'm not talking about women specifically, but rather about the run of the mill feminist, which obviously can be men.

Given no example? Okay, are you lying. I brought up the 1940s tax evasion thing, but more importantly the situation in Afganistan with women's education and work, which thanks to Islamic law (defended and enthusiasticly accepted by men and women there alike) has some aspects of female priviledge and male responsibility, which make it detrimental for families if women do so.

So you're belittling feminism, not hating it. Gotcha.

Okay, now you're being nonsensical and dishonest. Where did I say or imply I was belittling feminism? Go on. I specifically said I was taking to task the often simplistic everyday feminist who make simplistic and flawed arguments. No need for you to throw further straw men in there.

Bold by me, because I still have no idea what "this" is. Why are the 40s relevant? Why are the Taliban relevant?

So you haven't actually been following my posts then and decided to critique what you could easily have learned by going back a page? As noted earlier, I was talking of an instance wherein women were in the workforce (because of WW2) and could vote, yet the laws were such (and no apparent feminist outcry against it) that men were still responsible legally for, say, tax evasion if the (working) woman failed to pay her taxes.

That Taliban stuff was about Afganistan which as I noted earlier had certain aspects of female privilege backfire on women in a bad way, as I detailed a bit above.

MFM, I confess I have no idea what you're saying here either. I think WHAT is the right thing to do? Report rape? Not report rape?

Please at least follow your own responses. When I brought up what I hoped was only an extremist view held by some feminists that reports of rape should assume the legal guilt of the reported man until proven innocent, to which you hand-waivingly responded that people do that with all crimes. Hence my response that you made no sense there.

Still no idea what you're talking about or why it's relevant.

Maybe if you bothered to follow the conversation...

So "some" feminists do this, therefore feminism is bad? Since I'm pretty sure you don't think that, what's the point? As I said in an earlier post, there are assholes everywhere, and I hardly think women, or feminists, are the only ones assuming guilt for rapists. Here in Texas, the good ol' boys (who are assuredly not feminists) will string your ass up if their little sisters accuse you of rape. It's NOT a feminist mindset or a female mindset. It's human nature. It doesn't make it right to assume guilt before it's proven, but it has nothing to do with feminism. Hear me on this.

So you'll just conveniently ignore the several posts in this thread where I specifically noted I was arguing against the nonsensical arguments put forth by some feminists, gotcha. My point was that such is unfortunately a ridiculous position that mainstream feminism seems to have little trouble accomodating to a fair extent.

WHAT extremist view? Assuming guilt before it's proven- which human beings tend to do? No, I don't see how that's feminists trying to have it both ways, since you haven't proven that feminists do this as a matter of course, or that it's related to the ideals of feminism in any way. You have stated- accurately- that SOME PEOPLE do this. That is neither here nor there with feminism, the majority of feminists, or me personally. It's a BS argument, as I said before.

Do you really not realize I'm talking about in legal proceedings? I've said that constantly, so please at least read the posts in the thread.

How is it "wanting legal favoritism" to try rapists in court- even on only the word of a victim? Again, you're making no sense.

Not about trying them in court, I'm talking the (hopefully extremist) position that accused men should be presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent. It self-evidently makes sense to be wary of nonsense like that.

Show me where I did that. Right now.

I was actually wrong here, sorry 'bout that.

Your position is so nuanced that I can make no sense of it.

That's because you repeatedly don't pay attention to context, and seemingly skip words that are necessary to understand what I'm saying.

---

While I don't always agree with her (and in the following video I have a few small disagreements), I've generally found this lady insightful on this topic and others:

When Femal Privilege Backfires...

---

---

[Lemonvariable72]

So I definitely agree that custody shouldn't favour one side over the other so strongly just because of cultural "norms". But I'm not sure what this has to do with feminism. If we were to point out all the places where women are shortchanged and say men's rights group aren't doing shit for that, that wouldn't really be fair, would it?

In this case, the criticism of feminism that I have is that whenever I mention these topics, I get told "feminism covers that!" but whenever I actually try to talk about those issues in a feminist context, I'm told I'm derailing. You can't have your cake and eat it, too: either feminists are going to have to stop saying they actually talk about mens issues or they're going to have to stop accusing people of derailing when they actually try to talk about them.

The mens groups, for their credit, don't claim to cover womens issues. I can't say I'd know how the guys in those groups would react to someone trying to discuss womens issues, but I'm willing to bet none of them would say "we cover that!"

---

Just curious, who else here thinks there's something frustratingly ironic about a bunch of upper-middle class, college educated, white, able-bodied, traditionally attractive white girls complaining about how their class is so oppressed and checking everyone else's privilege?

Too agree with you last statement yes. But thats because people like that don't know what tough is like.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

When you find a feminist who cares about equality, tell me.

I find feminists only care about equality when women need to be made equal to men.

Well, Vinny, feminism is the movement that seeks equality for women. Do you expect the United Negro College Fund to provide scholarships for white kids? Does this mean the ANCF doesn't care about education for all children?

I sit on the board of a nonprofit that provides scholarships to minority girls. White girls, or boys of any race, will not benefit from this organization. This does not meant that I do not care about the education of white girls, or of boys, or that the founders of the nonprofit don't. But their specific mission is to help minority girls, which is good.

It's AMAZING how much so many men here- atheist and theist alike- disdain feminism. A pity.

UNCF won't deny racism against Whites, Asians or Hispanics. But feminists do.

That's my problem.

[Zazzy]

Adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women. After all, it's a human problem, as you said, so it'll be better addressed as tackling it as not the absurd "Man bad, women oppressed" mantra.

So I think you're saying that feminism has not been adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women? In which case I disagree. It's done a great deal with both. And although some feminists do take the "man bad, women oppressed" mantra, that doesn't make them them right, or indicative of feminism in general- it makes them loud. So I STILL don't know what you're arguing- it really seems that you're saying that because a few loud angry asshats say stupid shit, feminism is a bad or inadequate tool for improving the lot of women?

I'm sorry, but pointing out that people are prone to something is not an excuse for people engaging in that.

No. But it isn't specific to feminism, or women, and I don't see women generally crying about the responsibilities of being a citizen any more than men do.

And as I've said repeatedly (with you responding with constant straw men) is that I'm not talking about women specifically, but rather about the run of the mill feminist, which obviously can be men.

I can't construct straw men when I don't understand your point, and I don't understand your point because you aren't making it well.

And yes, many awesome feminists are men. Your point?

Given no example? Okay, are you lying. I brought up the 1940s tax evasion thing, but more importantly the situation in Afganistan with women's education and work, which thanks to Islamic law (defended and enthusiasticly accepted by men and women there alike) has some aspects of female priviledge and male responsibility, which make it detrimental for families if women do so.

When did you make this point to me? Do I need to sift back several pages or to another thread to find it? MFM, I don't read every post you make like it's the word of God. If you made this point to someone else, I missed it. Please don't accuse me of lying.

Okay, now you're being nonsensical and dishonest. Where did I say or imply I was belittling feminism? Go on. I specifically said I was taking to task the often simplistic everyday feminist who make simplistic and flawed arguments. No need for you to throw further straw men in there.

Bold really says it. Because THAT'S indicative of the feminists here, or anywhere. But of course, there's nothing condescending or belittling in your phrasing- it would be dishonest of me to think so.

So you haven't actually been following my posts then and decided to critique what you could easily have learned by going back a page?

Nope, haven't been specifically following your posts in a long thread with many respondents. Sorry.

As noted earlier, I was talking of an instance wherein women were in the workforce (because of WW2) and could vote, yet the laws were such (and no apparent feminist outcry against it) that men were still responsible legally for, say, tax evasion if the (working) woman failed to pay her taxes.

So women made these rules, right? If this was unfair, it was because women worked hard for this legislation to screw men, right? Because the feminist movement was so huge in the 40s, right?

I don't know anything about this, although it's interesting, so I'll look it up when I have time. It may be that this was unfair to men, what with all those women earning huge salaries at great jobs in the 40s.

That Taliban stuff was about Afganistan which as I noted earlier had certain aspects of female privilege backfire on women in a bad way, as I detailed a bit above.

Again, I am unsure as to what a few female privileges in an earlier, heavily sexist time have to do with feminists now crying double standard.

Please at least follow your own responses.

Jaysus. Whatever.

When I brought up what I hoped was only an extremist view held by some feminists that reports of rape should assume the legal guilt of the reported man until proven innocent, to which you hand-waivingly responded that people do that with all crimes. Hence my response that you made no sense there.

And again, you say SOME feminists (who?) think that we should assume rapists guilty until proven innocent (in complete disregard for the entire basis of our legal system). How does this reflect badly on ALL feminists, since you apparently know this a loud minority?
SOME men think women need to obey them. They're getting to be a minority. Because of some vocal asshats, are all men bad?

Maybe if you bothered to follow the conversation...

Because what you post is always so riveting. I'll get right on that.

So you'll just conveniently ignore the several posts in this thread where I specifically noted I was arguing against the nonsensical arguments put forth by some feminists, gotcha. My point was that such is unfortunately a ridiculous position that mainstream feminism seems to have little trouble accomodating to a fair extent.

If you're going to call this "mainstream feminism", you're going to have to provide significant evidence for that.

Do you really not realize I'm talking about in legal proceedings? I've said that constantly, so please at least read the posts in the thread.

I'm sure you've consistently and accurately remembered every post by every person in this thread... except... oh, wait. See your apology below. You didn't do this, either.

Not about trying them in court, I'm talking the (hopefully extremist) position that accused men should be presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent. It self-evidently makes sense to be wary of nonsense like that.

You have certainly not shown that this is a mainstream position.

I was actually wrong here, sorry 'bout that.

Yes, you were. You are also wrong in assuming that I should be on point with every post you've made in this thread. You certainly know that these threads get long and are tangled with many discussions, so your accusations of lying and dishonesty, when I doubt you've read every word every poster has made in this thread, and can accurately attribute all viewpoints, is clearly a problem. Since you clearly have as much trouble as I do with who said what in this thread, perhaps you should abandon that less than useful tactic.

That's because you repeatedly don't pay attention to context,

Untrue. I have repeatedly not remebered posts you made to someone else pages back.

and seemingly skip words that are necessary to understand what I'm saying.

Funny, since you skipped over whole parts of my last post that didn't fit with your argument.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me; I mind you calling me a liar, dishonest, and a poor reader, when none of these things are true.

Here's what your position honestly looks like to me:

Mainstream feminists think all accused rapists should be presumed guilty by everyone, including the court system. And this proves that feminists want equal rights but don't like the responsibilities of those rights. And stuff happened 70 years ago in the US, and other stuff happened in other countries, and all this a lso proves my point And you're a lying dumbass, Zazzy.

If this isn't what you're saying (and I hope it isn't), then take a breath and try to say it better.

*edited for effed up quote tags

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Zazzy, ask yourself if you care about women because you care about people as a group, and women are people.

Or do you care about women because you are a woman and you're looking out for your own to the exclusion of others.

[Lemonvariable72]

*deleted

[MindForgedManacle]

So I think you're saying that feminism has not been adequate for discussing and improving the condition of women? In which case I disagree. It's done a great deal with both. And although some feminists do take the "man bad, women oppressed" mantra, that doesn't make them them right, or indicative of feminism in general- it makes them loud. So I STILL don't know what you're arguing- it really seems that you're saying that because a few loud angry asshats say stupid shit, feminism is a bad or inadequate tool for improving the lot of women?

And here is another of your constant straw men. Have I not (I know you've seen me post it) say I'm referring to a particular strain of simplistic argumentation among some feminists? I've done so repeatedly (in fact, bot my first and second post in this thread state this as well).

And no, my reasoning for why the aforementioned simple argumentation (which I'm rather certain every one of my responses to you specified) of certain feminists is inadequate is because of their simplicity. The only way you can't have gotten this is by not paying enough attention, because I've stated it explicitly repeatedly, including here.

No. But it isn't specific to feminism, or women, and I don't see women generally crying about the responsibilities of being a citizen any more than men do.

I didn't say it was. I mean really, do you go out of your way to warp other's positions? I didn't even bring this up (simplistic argumentation) in regards to women or even feminism in general, but to - again - the feminists who make said arguments.

I can't construct straw men when I don't understand your point, and I don't understand your point because you aren't making it well.

If you can't understand me (in every post directed to you) specifically saying that I'm addressing the simplistic nature of certain feminist arguments, then we're just not speaking the same language.

And yes, many awesome feminists are men. Your point?

Because you keep (irrelevantly) drawing women into this as if I'm denigrating or insulting women, when I've constantly told you my ire was directed at some pretty common nonsense feminist arguments.

When did you make this point to me? Do I need to sift back several pages or to another thread to find it? MFM, I don't read every post you make like it's the word of God. If you made this point to someone else, I missed it. Please don't accuse me of lying.

I made it on the previous page, the first post of mine to which you responded. You accused me of some nonsense and not knowing what I as talking about. Goodness me, I didn't realize my assumption that you'd actually read my posts you were responding to before claiming them to be unclear or not having said something. I don't ask you to read them as such, but if you're going to respond to them, and I even point you to where they're at and even repeat myself, I don't see how it's unfair to ask you to actually read them.

Bold really says it. Because THAT'S indicative of the feminists here, or anywhere. But of course, there's nothing condescending or belittling in our phrasing- it would be dishonest of me to think so.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm referring to simple argumentation. What is dishonest of you is to inability to actually stick to your criticism. Your inital complaint was that I was belittling women and feminism, when I've constantly been referring to arguments (how many times have I said 'simplistic argumentation'?), and now you're saying that because I find the arguments of everyday feminists more simplistic I'm belittling people here? Okay, I'm an everyday atheist, and my arguments are rarely complex. I think I do decent, but wait, I think I've just belittled myself...

Nope, haven't been specifically following your posts in a long thread with many respondents. Sorry.

Then perhaps you shouldn't say I haven't made particular points, no?

So women made these rules, right? If this was unfair, it was because women worked hard for this legislation to screw men, right? Because the feminist movement was so huge in the 40s, right?

Ah, taking quotes out of the context of the conversation, surprising. No, as I've already said this was in a time where women were steadily gaining rights. However, it was also the case that they still bore some of the advantages of female priviledge. It wasn't legislation crafted to screw men, it was existing legislation that the then (to some extent) nascent feminist movement sort of failed to fight for changing. Again, you keep acting like I'm talking about women, I'm talking about a nonsensical expression of feminism that tries to have it both ways.

I don't know anything about this, although it's interesting, so I'll look it up when I have time. It may be that this was unfair to men, what with all those women earning huge salaries at great jobs in the 40s.

I can do sarcasm as well... Not that yours really was applicable...

Again, I am unsure as to what a few female privileges in an earlier, heavily sexist time have to do with feminists now crying double standard.

The Afganistan thing is modern day, it's not the thing in the 40s I was talking about.
Unsure? How about them not being legally responsible for their own well-being? Inelligible for serving in war (certainly not on the frontlines, which IIR persists even today sadly) or being drafted? Now, you may (rightly) say that women didn't expressly ask for those priviledges, but did men? Was it the case that women were totally against those?

And again, you say SOME feminists (who?) think that we should assume rapists guilty until proven innocent (in complete disregard for the entire basis of our legal system). How does this reflect badly on ALL feminists, since you apparently know this a loud minority?
SOME men think women need to obey them. They're getting to be a minority. Because of some vocal asshats, are all men bad?

Excuse me, but I have I not repeatedly said I hoped this was an extremist position? Given that I have, I have no clue how you could see me as saying this reflects badly on all feminists, especially given my repeated qualifications of talking about a particular brand of simple argumentation.

Because what you post is always so riveting. I'll get right on that.

Well, it tends to be a good idea to read what your critiquing...

So you'll just conveniently ignore the several posts in this thread where I specifically noted I was arguing against the nonsensical arguments put forth by some feminists, gotcha. My point was that such is unfortunately a ridiculous position that mainstream feminism seems to have little trouble accomodating to a fair extent.

If you're going to call this "mainstream feminism", you're going to have to provide significant evidence for that.

Oh boy, more not reading my post properly. Did I say that it was a mainstream feminist position? No, try reading the underlined bit again.

I'm sure you've consistently and accurately remembered every post by every person in this thread... except... oh, wait. See your apology below. You didn't do this, either.

Except I, you know, realized my mistake and actually had the courtesy to go and check if what I thought I remebered actually happened.

You have certainly not shown that this is a mainstream position.

That's because I haven't once said it was. Unless you're going to say all feminist arguments are simplistic? I certainly haven't said so, otherwise I would have specifically called out feminism, and not qualified where my criticism was aimed in every post, including my responses to you.

Yes, you were. You are also wrong in assuming that I should be on point with every post you've made in this thread. You certainly know that these threads get long and are tangled with many discussions, so your accusations of lying and dishonesty, when I doubt you've read every word every poster has made in this thread, and can accurately attribute all viewpoints, is clearly a problem. Since you clearly have as much trouble as I do with who said what in this thread, perhaps you should abandon that less than useful tactic.

The clear difference is that half of these are in response to YOU, and not other people. The only other user I've responded to in this thread directly was a single post (or maybe 2) to Esquilax. You responded to my response to him, wherein I actually mention the things you kept saying you didn't know what I was referring to.

My claims of your dishonesty were in response to your repeated straw men that I was talking about mainstream feminism, despite qualifiers such as "...directed a simplistic feminist arguments" and "hopefully this is an extremist position among feminists". Given all my responses to you, as far as I see, use these and you continued to assert that, dishonesty seemed like a plausible explanation.

Untrue. I have repeatedly not remebered posts you made to someone else pages back.

True, but I was actually talking about context of things that were said to you.

Funny, since you skipped over whole parts of my last post that didn't fit with your argument.

Such as? As far as I can tell, I responded to each part of your posts.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me; I mind you calling me a liar, dishonest, and a poor reader, when none of these things are true.

Seemed reasonable given the repeated and blatant misrepresentations. After all, referring to a particular expression of a position as 'extremist for feminists' is hardly saying it's mainstream.

Here's what your position honestly looks like to me:

Mainstream feminists think all accused rapists should be presumed guilty by everyone, including the court system. And this proves that feminists want equal rights but don't like the responsibilities of those rights. And stuff happened 70 years ago in the US, and other stuff happened in other countries, and all this a lso proves my point And you're a lying dumbass, Zazzy.

Nope, not even close. Again, did I not refer to this as "hopefully an extremist feminist position"? How can a position of an ideology be mainstream and still extremist for that ideology?
The 40s stuff was a historical context of how female priviledge is evident in some cases and not fought against (at least until much later when brought up), even if the crazy feminists will just shout 'patriarchy!' at them. I also gave a modern day example with Afganistan, where cases of female privilege in Islamic law (supported by both sexes, mind you) backfired on women who tried to better the social status of their sex.


So in other words, I already expressed my position fairly succinctly:

I don't think there's anything wrong with feminism itself, just feminism as such, i.e how many feminists present themselves and their position. Raging against the patriarchy and priviledge like a maniac will only be tolerable for so long before I just give up.