So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Losty]

"I wasn't trying to offend you"

I was only teasing you :p

[Tonus]

Well, don't try to make him feel uncomfortable, Losty. Tease me, instead.

[Violet]

- Schrodinger's rapist isn't what you think it means. It doesn't mean all men are potential rapists - Only about 5-6% men will rape during their lives. Schrodinger's rapist tells us that upon meeting an unknown man a woman has zero way of knowing if he is a rapist or not, therefore he is a potential rapist until she knows more about him - And since the damage of rape is higher than trusting a good man (it depends) women should be careful. This is not offensive to me - If I was a woman, I'd think exactly the same - And mind you - Rapists are from all backgrounds so you can't identify one simply by the look or clothes. Schrodinger's rapist tells us that "this is wrong and it needs to be changed" - It is a critique to how rape is more frequent than people may think (and how it can happen to any kind of girl not just attractive ones) and that needs to be changed trough educating people.

It means exactly what I think it means, and it is utterly useless for rape-prevention. By this same reasoning, one should apply similarly the dangers of murder, mugging, theft, and kidnapping... what you're left with is a distrustful and skittish society, the depiction of which upon one's face increasing likelihood that one is perceived as 'weak'.... which ultimately leads to more predatory opportunism. Fear culture and blanket distrust of people is one of the most damaging features of our society... it turns out that most people aren't out to get you, and the ones who are have aggressor's advantage/your trust, so you're probably screwed to begin with.

Know what's a better idea than 'this person hasn't proven that they're not a rapist'? Always having an exit strategy if things get bad. Let people you trust know where you are, utilize the buddy system, and other general safety things. These are rational things to do, and they serve as actually effective defenses. Schrodinger's rapist is fearmongering only... the majority of rapes that occur in a male-on-female sense are from known persons. Another effective method? Trust nobody at all, because of what they 'can' do.

- As a white cis male, yeah our lives revolve a lot around sex at least until we hit 40. That is not a myth (but it revolves around other things) - But it is a problem because we give too much importance to sex as men, at least more than we should

Men aren't all built the same, and it does not do so to the exclusion of everything else a person ('even a guy') might find important.

There is nothing wrong with liking sex, wanting to have sex, or with having sex.

- If you think white men still don't have it easier you need to revise your standards. I wouldn't switch being a white man with anyone because I know my life has been easier and I like easy mode (unless it's for stealth games)

I have it much easier for my being a woman because of how I live my life, and what matters to me. Some white straight guys would much rather be at home with the kids, cleaning up, and doing some needlework to pass the time... but they tend to have a very hard time being socially accepted doing such.

'Privilege' is an irrelevant statement. All people have differing advantages between their socioeconomic class, cultural heritage, sex, physical stature, attractiveness, etc etc ad infinitum.

I'm gonna need more explanation. It's impossible to control everyone who gets in the movement and there are branches of feminism, some more aggressive others more passive - There's no way to foresee what will happen

Sure... but say you have a forum, right? You can moderate said forum... and you're a moderate of whatever group you're a part of (lets use islam). When someone threatens terrorism in your thread: what should you, being a 'moderator', do?

Aggressively threatening forms of feminism do not belong on moderated forums, especially ones for the purpose of discussion.

I'm curious - Why do you think a whole movement fixes everything? This is unreasonable - Cancer groups exist.. Well, for cancer, not for auto immune diseases. My government has around 30 ministries because the government itself cannot handle anything (the prime minister), specialization is need. A movement called egalitarianism would have to divide itself between many branches to hit all people's problems, and that would lead us to the division we have today.

I didn't say 'fixes everything'... I say 'consolidation of power base'. There's a reason 'governments' are quite a step up from 'organizations', and why 'organizations' are quite a step up from 'the guys you have coffee with every other Tuesday'.

There's no reason that there cannot be a unified movement with the intent of improving the most egregious pains of our society... cancer groups and autoimmune disease groups are NOT enemies... and they lose nothing in supporting each other, and they stand to gain in the forms of legislation, medical backing, and spreading of 'awareness' of the issues. Right now... breast cancer, which is quite possibly the easiest cancer to 'cure', is also the best 'advertised' cancer.

The sufferers of cancers that cannot be eliminated suffer more for the incredible societal focus upon a cancer for which the treatments are rarely fatal... it pulls people's attentions away just as easily as a McDonald's next to a salad bar with an unpronounceable name.

Your proposal is not bad, but it needs further explanation. I don't see why individuals can't specialize. Some feminists are LGBT as well, black feminists are probably black activists, etc.

There's no reason people can't 'specialize' in issues that matter to them personally... my only concern with specializing is what has been happening and what still appears to be happening, which is this:

On this I agree but I think people dwell too much on the "my problems are bigger" and that's wrong. A group should address some issues and refrain from minimizing other group's issues.

Yeah... people in africa need help, definitely... but that doesn't mean there isn't starvation occurring in America, or people who aren't suffering from piss-poor healthcare.

Many people dislike the UN. Human rights groups are not enough since HR are a worldwide conception to be applied everywhere and every nation should enable measures to fulfil those rights - With specializations. The same way we don't have One law ruling over all, we have over 1000+ laws regulating different aspects of social life

I dislike the wars that gave the UN a reason to exist. We have so many laws of such contradictory magnitude in the USA that we cannot not break laws in some places. Tens upon tens of thousands of utterly pointlessly trivial, woefully outdated, and impressively misguided laws... WE HAVE A 97% CONVICTION RATE. And that's just a quick look a how bad it is... in many more ways than one: we need our legal system utterly shredded and built back up from scratch.

The common man should be able to understand the rules of his society, and the introduction of 'legalese' into the mix neither prevents loopholes from occurring, nor allows the common man to even understand what it is he is being charged with.

I disagree with you on that but we've probably had different experiences. In my country feminism is seen as being empowering and an answer to sexist conducts (that still happen, a good example is firing pregnant women and prohibiting women from getting pregnant after getting the job), I don't see a lot of problems with it. America has it's fair share of nutjobs but America is a bad example (sorry) for the rest of the world, in feminism and any other issue.

Feminism used to be both of those things here... it's not near so much anymore. We're ahead of yall You'll get here sooner or later~

People who remain quiet like me dislike social networks because they are annoying. they make me sick and are full of retarded boring monotonous people everywhere. In my dictionary it says primarily support and belief in gender quality (which extends to men and trans* folks by definition) - Culturally and historically it has always been that, but even in the 70s, 60s, 50s and 1920s there were women who hated men and their voices were felt at the moment. Do you know that back in the day people were having the same reaction to feminism we are having right now (by calling them radicals)? It's curious don't you think?

Well, there you go... social networking (and the internet in general) is a pretty big thing (and it's just getting bigger)... and it's honestly not so different from attending events in the fleshworld (lots of annoying shit when you're not the one speaking).

Yes... but this is a considerably more 'liberal' society than 1920s america... and 2015 amercia is finding only 'radical feminism' to be extremist. Not very many are concerned about women having jobs, or wearing jeans... but our current society tends to draw the line around 'bullying' and 'threatening'.

Alice, I identify primarily as an egalitarian - But in this context I think it's cool to dislike or hate feminism because of Rebecca Watson and so on; and I don't line up with the cool crowd (I like being controversial) - I've also witnessed scenes of violence and sexism against women (yesterday I saw domestic violence in public street) and it's too disturbing for me to say that women already have it equal. I also like my feminine side so, I don't have much to lose. If it wasn't for feminism, men wouldn't be have it easier displaying feminine traits (still frowned upon, but a little more acceptable)

* Violet doesn't care whether it's 'cool' or not... she dislikes it for her own reasons, which are laid out above.

I have seen abuse from every angle, and have likely given if from every angle. Men are physically stronger, sure... but there's plenty of damage that women do to men socially, psychologically, emotionally, and financially. There's more than one type of abuse... and the reality is that there's lots of abuse in many relationships, both from men and from women. There's plenty of it to go around.

Historically, feminism has done great things... it's only in the modern (and likely american/english) sense that its continued usefulness has to vie with the backsteps that appear to have absorbed the movement (privilege in particular), and with the toxic people shouting over the top of the rest of the movement.

---

Trans* identities are one of the most important social issues in society. In my opinion, trans* people are the most discriminated against group next to poor people. I identify as a male and I'm comfortable as such, but that's just me.

Heh... maybe. The most hilarious part about trans* discrimination is that we do a damn fine bit of it ourselves xD

You'll never find a more utterly divided and bitterly fighting community that everyone and their brother just wants to get out of

[GrandizerII]

To this day, I have yet to meet such a feminazi that you guys keep referring to, whether in person or online or in the media. Where can I spot one?

I'd recommend trans meetings. Barring that, it's fairly prevalent amongst the greater LGBT community.

Atheism+ (origin of this thread, I guess)... is a great example.

I understand that a lot of you guys take issue with that group (I have no idea what they are about exactly), but I still haven't seen any justification for the negative attitude towards them. I checked the link Cato posted, but I didn't see any direct quotes from the offenders themselves in there, just hearsay (and some of it wasn't even as bad as you guys make it out to be).

And Losty, you said Tumblr. Did you ever post any direct quotes here or links to them in this thread? I'm not saying that it can't be true, but I'd rather not take anyone's word for it and just see for myself.

[bennyboy]

To this day, I have yet to meet such a feminazi that you guys keep referring to, whether in person or online or in the media. Where can I spot one?

Every women's studies class in every college campus all over the Western world, methinks-- though I admit these classes could be very different in tone than they were 20 years ago when I was in college.

[Pyrrho]

Maybe the term is relevant here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/...51442.html

Edit: If it's true, which I'm not really sure about that.

The correct response is (from your link):

• Jenni @lifeofjennibeck
  
  Misandry means hatred of men. Feminism means equality of genders. "Feminist Has Abortion Because Child Was a Boy" NO. She is a misandrist

The two ideas of feminism and misandry are separate and distinct, as well as being independent of each other (i.e., neither entails the other, nor does either entail the negation of the other). The same is true of "atheist" and "misandrist," "white" and "misandrist," "tall" and "misandrist," and etc. In all of these cases, it would be a mistake to try to put them together as if they were somehow connected. And that is what is wrong with the term "feminazi," as it attempts to put together two unrelated things as if they were connected.

People should expand their vocabulary, so that they can use the correct word, rather than use a word that stupidly associates feminism with nazis.

I'm not really sure I see how you can be a feminist and a misandrist.

Viewed in a certain way, I can understand why someone might think that. However, they are fundamentally different ideas. One is about rights, and the other is about feelings. Granted, some people hate groups of people such that they do not want those group to have any rights, but that need not be the case. And with feminism, the focus is on female rights anyway, but we need not worry too much about that, as I have an example of this basic concept that works even without that.

Now, I do not personally know any feminists who are misandrists, but, being a man (and white, which may be relevant to the story I will tell in a moment), a misandrist would likely avoid me, so it should be no surprise that I have none among my acquaintances. I do know feminists, and even (*gasp*!) lesbian feminists. I have dined with them in my home. None of them are misandrist (despite the fact that some idiots imagine that lesbian feminists must be misandrists; they are idiots, and so you need not concern yourself with their beliefs). One of these lesbian feminists has even said that I am her second favorite person (What an insult! Only second to favorite!).

However, I have an example of someone who was in favor of rights to a group, and yet was bigoted against that group. (I say "was," because he is now dead.) He was a white man who was in favor of rights for black people, but was nevertheless a racist. He was so much in favor of rights for black people, that he was active in the civil rights movement in the 1960's and took part in furthering rights for black people. However, he—how shall I state this?—would have been less than pleased had his daughter married a black man. (That is an understatement, but I do not wish to say more on that.) I somehow doubt that he was the only white man who felt as he did, who also acted as he did, in promoting the cause of black people. So, a racist against black people can be in favor of equal rights for black people.

With this example I think you will be able to understand how it is possible to be both in favor of equal rights and yet be bigoted against one of the groups for which one favors equal rights.

But, again, I do not personally know any feminist misandrists, nor any misandrists, for that matter. But the concepts are clear and distinct enough, that they could theoretically exist in one person somewhere. From what I have seen in real life, typically, the women who men accuse of being misandrists are really just not doormats, and the men making the accusations are typically misogynists. Misogyny seems far more common than misandry. Of course, that is just personal observation, and not the result of any scientific study on the matter. But I suspect that a study of measurable things, like who is more likely to violently abuse who, would tend to support my merely anecdotal observations.

[Losty]

And Losty, you said Tumblr. Did you ever post any direct quotes here or links to them in this thread? I'm not saying that it can't be true, but I'd rather not take anyone's word for it and just see for myself.

No. I hate tumblr specifically because of that. You could try googling social justice warriors on tumblr or feminazis on tumblr or perhaps if Vosur is the mood he will post some screenshots. He thinks the social justice warriors are hilarious. And they are...I'm a sad way.

[Dystopia]

It means exactly what I think it means, and it is utterly useless for rape-prevention. By this same reasoning, one should apply similarly the dangers of murder, mugging, theft, and kidnapping... what you're left with is a distrustful and skittish society, the depiction of which upon one's face increasing likelihood that one is perceived as 'weak'.... which ultimately leads to more predatory opportunism. Fear culture and blanket distrust of people is one of the most damaging features of our society... it turns out that most people aren't out to get you, and the ones who are have aggressor's advantage/your trust, so you're probably screwed to begin with.

Of course we should - I see many people in my daily life as 'potential' criminals - I don't trust anyone.

Know what's a better idea than 'this person hasn't proven that they're not a rapist'? Always having an exit strategy if things get bad. Let people you trust know where you are, utilize the buddy system, and other general safety things. These are rational things to do, and they serve as actually effective defenses. Schrodinger's rapist is fearmongering only... the majority of rapes that occur in a male-on-female sense are from known persons. Another effective method? Trust nobody at all, because of what they 'can' do.

I don't see how your reasoning applies - This isn't about fear - It's about saying that the fact women suspect with such frequency means it's completely urgent to educate people on rape, the only solution (IMO) to reduce rape rates given that most rapists (men) are not mentally ill, just poorly educated on consent on how to treat people. It's from someone you know, but curiously Schrodinger's rapist applies much more to the way you react to people and signs. Alice, check out this - It has a brief explanation and I can't put it any better.

Oh and Schrodinger's rapist isn't even the most pressing concern in women's issues or feminist literature.

Men aren't all built the same, and it does not do so to the exclusion of everything else a person ('even a guy') might find important.

There is nothing wrong with liking sex, wanting to have sex, or with having sex.

I agree. But yeah we think about sex too much and our culture plays a part (media)

I have it much easier for my being a woman because of how I live my life, and what matters to me. Some white straight guys would much rather be at home with the kids, cleaning up, and doing some needlework to pass the time... but they tend to have a very hard time being socially accepted doing such.

In specific cases yeah, you can have it easier. But in terms of freedom and accounting for everything it is possible to do, being white and male has almost no downsides

'Privilege' is an irrelevant statement. All people have differing advantages between their socioeconomic class, cultural heritage, sex, physical stature, attractiveness, etc etc ad infinitum.

True, but some advantages are unjustified and just because others have it it doesn't mean we shouldn't address ours. The advantages whites get in the west are 1000x larger than disadvantages other people get. You can start by checking out who's in power and who controls everything

Sure... but say you have a forum, right? You can moderate said forum... and you're a moderate of whatever group you're a part of (lets use islam). When someone threatens terrorism in your thread: what should you, being a 'moderator', do?

Aggressively threatening forms of feminism do not belong on moderated forums, especially ones for the purpose of discussion.

True, but feminism probably exists everywhere around the world in many forms. It's not like I can go to tumblr and stop people from expressing idiotic opinions or stop another woman in the far end of the world to voice her opinion.

Alice, I have seen people dislike animal rights because of PETA. Do you honestly think that PETA are that relevant to animal rights, even with all the vocal opinions? (I truly hate their pokemon parody!)

I didn't say 'fixes everything'... I say 'consolidation of power base'. There's a reason 'governments' are quite a step up from 'organizations', and why 'organizations' are quite a step up from 'the guys you have coffee with every other Tuesday'.

In this sense I agree with you

There's no reason that there cannot be a unified movement with the intent of improving the most egregious pains of our society... cancer groups and autoimmune disease groups are NOT enemies... and they lose nothing in supporting each other, and they stand to gain in the forms of legislation, medical backing, and spreading of 'awareness' of the issues. Right now... breast cancer, which is quite possibly the easiest cancer to 'cure', is also the best 'advertised' cancer.

Agree

The sufferers of cancers that cannot be eliminated suffer more for the incredible societal focus upon a cancer for which the treatments are rarely fatal... it pulls people's attentions away just as easily as a McDonald's next to a salad bar with an unpronounceable name.

Then we should address other cancers - But regardless, you are entitled to fight for the specific cancer you wish too, as long as you don't say your cancer is more important. If I want to focus solely on discrimination in the workplace against pregnant woman, that's my prerogative, it's not an excuse for people to call me out because I'm letting bigger issues aside. For any problem there's a larger one, it's possible to find a superior problem for every problem out there

There's no reason people can't 'specialize' in issues that matter to them personally... my only concern with specializing is what has been happening and what still appears to be happening, which is this:

Not everyone will campaign rationally and not everyone will enjoy your ideas. That's part of the game. LGBT folks who tried to physical assault conservatives (I think this was in Spain, dunno) are seen badly but I don't think LGBT sucks because of that.

Yeah... people in africa need help, definitely... but that doesn't mean there isn't starvation occurring in America, or people who aren't suffering from piss-poor healthcare.

Precisely. And helping ourselves helps the 3rd world since we have an influence over them

I dislike the wars that gave the UN a reason to exist. We have so many laws of such contradictory magnitude in the USA that we cannot not break laws in some places. Tens upon tens of thousands of utterly pointlessly trivial, woefully outdated, and impressively misguided laws... WE HAVE A 97% CONVICTION RATE. And that's just a quick look a how bad it is... in many more ways than one: we need our legal system utterly shredded and built back up from scratch.

Good luck guys

The common man should be able to understand the rules of his society, and the introduction of 'legalese' into the mix neither prevents loopholes from occurring, nor allows the common man to even understand what it is he is being charged with.

Lawyers

Feminism used to be both of those things here... it's not near so much anymore. We're ahead of yall You'll get here sooner or later~

I don't think so, I'm fine the way I am. I doubt your assertion is true given that there are a lot of feminists around the world (America is not even representative) and you have good examples of celebrities or activists. I'm thinking about Emma Watson as a good example (and Daniel Radcliffe) - There's also Tony Porter who cares about men's problems and is a feminist (he talks about the toxic masculinity that harms boys, etc.)

Well, there you go... social networking (and the internet in general) is a pretty big thing (and it's just getting bigger)... and it's honestly not so different from attending events in the fleshworld (lots of annoying shit when you're not the one speaking).

And that's why most of what you read there, including on social networks, is either not true or bullshit. I don't trust anyone on the internet apart from AF and a few other forums.

Yes... but this is a considerably more 'liberal' society than 1920s america... and 2015 amercia is finding only 'radical feminism' to be extremist. Not very many are concerned about women having jobs, or wearing jeans... but our current society tends to draw the line around 'bullying' and 'threatening'.

In the 1950's people were saying that this is "a more liberal society than in the 1920's" (I wonder how the world will look like in 2050 and what things will be outdated that we don't even realize today). Fems are concerned about women in the workplace, quite a lot, specially in male dominated fields (we still label some jobs as feminine or masculine - Curiously women's jobs are usually related to children) - And higher level/power jobs like politicians, CEO's, etc that are mostly male (I think we still think of those jobs as associated with men and cultural rules + gender roles don't help in defining what jobs you will most likely want or not)

I have seen abuse from every angle, and have likely given if from every angle. Men are physically stronger, sure... but there's plenty of damage that women do to men socially, psychologically, emotionally, and financially. There's more than one type of abuse... and the reality is that there's lots of abuse in many relationships, both from men and from women. There's plenty of it to go around.

Financially it's highly unlikely - In fact one of the greatest problems in domestic violence is economic dependence on the abuser. Men make more money than women (regardless if you think it's justified or not)
I agree with you with the abuse part, I had a suicide threatening ex-girlfriend, I suffered because of it - But society can perfectly address those issues (and create groups for it by the way) while keeping groups that address women's issues. Your argument here is basically "there's other angles so feminism is not logic"

Historically, feminism has done great things... it's only in the modern (and likely american/english) sense that its continued usefulness has to vie with the backsteps that appear to have absorbed the movement (privilege in particular), and with the toxic people shouting over the top of the rest of the movement.

On the toxic people I agree. I think you should genuinely pick up a book by a 2nd wave feminist and check priorities. Most goals of feminism are pretty legit, and include, for example, redefining/erasing gender roles, a higher education for rape purposes (victim-blaming) which would benefit men as well, domestic violence (I know men suffer from it too, but it's not plausible to compare both), wage-gap (the feminine + masculine labels on jobs + the fact it exists even on female dominated fields), media representation (people think this is not important but I don't see how it's bad)...

Heh... maybe. The most hilarious part about trans* discrimination is that we do a damn fine bit of it ourselves xD

You'll never find a more utterly divided and bitterly fighting community that everyone and their brother just wants to get out of

I see

[GrandizerII]

To this day, I have yet to meet such a feminazi that you guys keep referring to, whether in person or online or in the media. Where can I spot one?

Every women's studies class in every college campus all over the Western world, methinks-- though I admit these classes could be very different in tone than they were 20 years ago when I was in college.

Youthinks. Ok, but I wanted something beyond just hearsay.

[Pyrrho]

Yes, "nazi" is a meaningful linguistic term, as is the term "feminazi." "Feminazi" has been used by Rush Limbaugh, who "popularized" the term, for women who wanted equality with men, and had the temerity to not quietly accept second-class status. You know, like those uppity blacks who did not quietly accept their place in "separate but equal" bits of America.

I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says or does. However, trying to demonize a word because of who you say made it is just an ad hominem argument.

Your narrative about poor, abused women who just want to be treated equally sounds pretty compelling-- except that's not the kind of feminists the word is talking about. I've been on the receiving end of plenty of feminists who demand equality, who refuse to let men define them, and who expect themselves to be accepted, unconditionally, with loving arms from all of society. And they immediately go on to tell men what real men should be, to call men pigs because they like pretty women, to call them misogynists if they don't want to be the "bottom." They refuse to engage in any argument about gender unless it's understood from the top that men have fucked up the world, and that no matter what the issue, it must be assumed to be a man's fault.

I'm not saying that's all, most, or even many feminists. But they are there, they are disproportionately vocal, and they are fucking annoying bitches. Being born with a penis does not mean I have to eat shit and pretend to like it.

You conveniently omit the rest of my post that explains the matter. Here it is again:

I'm not commenting on the "feminazis," or the people who call them that. I'm commenting on the linguistic use of the term "nazi." Clearly, it is a meaningful linguistic term, with an intent of drawing analogy.

Yes, "nazi" is a meaningful linguistic term, as is the term "feminazi." "Feminazi" has been used by Rush Limbaugh, who "popularized" the term, for women who wanted equality with men, and had the temerity to not quietly accept second-class status. You know, like those uppity blacks who did not quietly accept their place in "separate but equal" bits of America. The term "feminazi" is used against those who do not quietly accept being mistreated. It is, in fact, a misuse of the term "nazi," as it has no relevance at all to what is being described. It would be like calling black civil rights activists (like Martin Luther King, Jr.), who did not quietly accept "separate but equal" accommodations, as "blacknazis" or "nigganazis." Neither of these groups have any connection whatsoever to nazis. Limbaugh has much more in common with Nazis than feminists do. But it is, as you say, used to try to draw an analogy. Since the analogy is not appropriate, it is really an example of the fallacy known as poisoning the well. Its purpose is to prejudice the audience into disregarding whatever the accused has to say, and to ridicule the accused, all without bothering with dealing with any actual facts relevant to what the accused has stated, nor with discussing the real objectives of the accused. It is an effective device with many people; otherwise, the fallacy would not be so common, and would not have a name.

The problem with the term "feminazi" is that it associates feminism with nazism. I clearly stated that before, as anyone can see by reading the post I quote above, yet you ignore it and pretend that my problem is simply that the term was popularized by Limbaugh. So your accusation of an argumentum ad hominem is either due to a careless error on your part, or dishonesty. Please try to do a better job next time.