Thunderf00t vs. Feminism

[Natachan]

Meh.

As a female gamer I can't sympathize with Anita S. Is there objectification in games? Yeah, but far far less than in movies or tv. Her examples (as TF points out) are fallacious and just bad. Are there more male protagonists than female? Yeah, but many of the games I like (assassins creed, for example) this simply makes sense. So as to video games and women, while there are some issues there (why is my armor so skimpy while the same stuff on a male avatar looks heavy and bulky?!?) I don't think it's something that needs to be vilified. Not to mention the medium has enough trouble being recognized as a valid method of storytelling without more shit being thrown at it.

TF and feminism, I tend to agree with his points, to an extent. He made a video on a few ads on YouTube and I found he missed the point. But he does point out, very well, why I don't call myself a feminist. The word has been hijacked by radicals to the point where it has this really nasty feel to it. And women like that need to be taken down. They ARE poison.

[DramaQueen]

Why do we need labels?

[Bad Wolf]

Can anyone blame any woman for not also championing the rights of men as well as their own. For fuck's sake, women do not have the same equality of life as men.
The problem is in the men's brains and how they think. But women don't want to wait for another hundred years for men to become enlightened on a grand scale, which most of us are nowhere near.
So that's where the laws come in because it won't happen any other way.
It's funny how no one talks about radical male chauvinists because that's the majority of men the world.
And don't anyone ask me to cite anything at all.
Go to any feminist website and have a look.
The most radical of feminist aren't taken very seriously, but Tf is by a lot of people.
Good on him for being correct about everything and in the process damaging a movement that is important and good for both men and women alike.
And I don't fucking care what anyone else thinks, this is what I think.

Please go back to tumblr, also tell your women's studies professor how rude and sexist all men are.

---

I don't think repeating the fallacious argument makes it any better. Interest groups specialize, they are allowed to, and the mere fact that they opt to do so rather than spreading themselves thin by addressing every tangentially related issue does not invalidate their central tenets.

In this case, feminism finds its roots in a time and place where there were very real inequalities for women that needed to be addressed, and the movement was established to do so. It is a gender equality movement with a specific focus on those areas where things are unequal for women; having that particular focus does not entail an automatic lack of care for inequality toward men. It's just not germane to this particular group.

So feminists don't have to address all inequality, just that of women, ok. Then who is addressing inequality men face? I'm confused because the constant feminist chant is 'equal rights for all' p.s. lets only focus on women though. I don't think there should be a feminist movement or the opposite for men (whatever that is). There should just be one movement.

Earlier this year, I think? I wish I could find the article, but right now even the correct search terms elude me. The point is, as I've pointed out numerous times- and I'm not the only one to do this in feminist media, so your inability to see it does not reflect the paucity of reference material- that addressing widely held thinking regarding gender roles the way feminism seeks to also has positive knock-on effects for men. Really think about it: what causes custody inequality for men? At it's root, what's the reasoning that leads to this?

Right, so everything is mens fault. The reason that women get more custody is down to men. See this is why I don't like feminism, everything seems to be mans fault.

Could it be that women are supposed to be nurturing, motherly, child-rearing figures, while men are supposed to be distant providers, and can't they do that equally well through alimony? And gee, doesn't that seem like a piece of that "women's work" crap that feminism seeks to erase?

That view really doesn't exist that much in the western world any more.

It's the same with the prison time thing: why would it be that women get lighter sentencing? I would bet it has a lot to do with how our culture traditionally views male and female agency, and also their respective abilities to handle harsh environments like prison. Seems like feminism is trying to correct that sort of imbalance too.

Yep and its mens fault again for the way our culture is.

Do you seriously think that this is a problem in modern society? I mean, do you actually think that this is a widespread issue, rather than this just being a grasping-at-straws kind of thing?

No I don't think it is a problem, the same as I don't think objectification of women is a problem and yet that is all Sarkeesian can seem to talk about.

Which, in itself, isn't even really an issue. Sexual content isn't the same as sexual objectification, even if the idea of men's bodies being displayed for a female gaze might make you uncomfortable. That said, no, I haven't seen Magic Mike; my point here is that "it's a movie about male strippers," is not a point of objectification in isolation.

I was pointing out hypocrisy.

Uh... do you... I mean... Do you know just how many movies there are exactly about female strippers to this one about male strippers? Surely you can see that this is something of a reach, to make this seem like it's any kind of pressing or widespread issue?

Just pointing out hypocrisy.

---

Bullshit. Activist X says "such and such is a problem", and all the people who previously didn't care squat about any of these issues suddenly throw a tantrum about what X should rather be worrying about. It's just a dishonest+lazy diversion to avoid having to think about issues and in this case to put these Women in their place because they make you uncomfortable.
When does Greenpeace do to help Ebola victims? What do Doctors without Borders do for the endangered Woodpeckers of China?

Do we really need this kind of hysteria? 'to put these women in their place because they make you uncomfortable' Really?

You've made the very common mistake of assuming i'm a misogynist because I don't agree with how feminism is working at the moment. In truth, I agree 100% with their message.

[Alex K]

Do we really need this kind of hysteria? 'to put these women in their place because they make you uncomfortable' Really?

You've made the very common mistake of assuming i'm a misogynist because I don't agree with how feminism is working at the moment. In truth, I agree 100% with their message.

Hysteria, really? But no, I don't think that you are a misogynist.

[Esquilax]

So feminists don't have to address all inequality, just that of women, ok. Then who is addressing inequality men face?

Did you just... not read the rest of my post?

I'm confused because the constant feminist chant is 'equal rights for all' p.s. lets only focus on women though. I don't think there should be a feminist movement or the opposite for men (whatever that is). There should just be one movement.

I believe the "pro-men's rights" specific gender equality movement is just kinda called "western society." I know and fully acknowledge that things aren't perfect for men, but don't you think it's a bit silly to be sitting here acting as though the two sets of problems are remotely equal, even if the feminist side weren't also attempting changes that would benefit men too?

The problem here is that you're approaching this kind of societal change as a zero sum game, and it isn't.

Right, so everything is mens fault. The reason that women get more custody is down to men. See this is why I don't like feminism, everything seems to be mans fault.

Oh, you're just going to strawman me? That's disappointing.

I never even attributed what I found to be the cause of this exclusively to men, nor am I going to now. Hell, depending on where you want to take the conversation I'd probably even agree that at one point in time the "women as nurturer, men as provider," gender roles had some legitimacy in a pragmatic sense. But things have changed and, unfortunately, some of our thinking hasn't: you say below that this kind of thinking doesn't really exist in the western world anymore, and I'd say that's true, it doesn't exist overtly anymore. But memes don't need to be totally present at surface level to still have hooks in the mind. All I know is that, logically speaking, there's no reason why men shouldn't have an equal shot at custody of their kids, without factoring in some form of preconception tampering with the reasoning process. And it sure as hell isn't overt favoritism toward women, I'll tell you that much.

Yep and its mens fault again for the way our culture is.

It's actually really disappointing watching you being this childish.

No I don't think it is a problem, the same as I don't think objectification of women is a problem and yet that is all Sarkeesian can seem to talk about.

Who gives a fuck about Anita Sarkeesian? Since when was she the entirety of feminism? And also, who cares if it is what she talks about? Again, why is specializing bad? If that's the topic she wants to cover, then that's the topic she's going to cover: regardless of the quality of her arguments (personally I think she's a mixed bag there) it's an absurd overreach to take one series of videos that one person is doing as their next project, and then extrapolating that as the singular work of an entire movement she happens to be identified with.

It'd be roughly the same as me taking your username and the picture of Groot you're using as an avatar and deciding because of those two things that all Doctor Who fans are completely obsessed with Groot.

I was pointing out hypocrisy.

No, you're manufacturing hypocrisy to point out, mostly by willfully misinterpreting the actual objection to sexual content.

[Bad Wolf]

I believe the "pro-men's rights" specific gender equality movement is just kinda called "western society." I know and fully acknowledge that things aren't perfect for men, but don't you think it's a bit silly to be sitting here acting as though the two sets of problems are remotely equal, even if the feminist side weren't also attempting changes that would benefit men too?

In the western world, I don't think women are oppressed at all and all I have seen them do is complain about video games. So yes I do think the two sets of problems are equal.

The problem here is that you're approaching this kind of societal change as a zero sum game, and it isn't.

Well I think it is. A woman can do anything a man can do and actually get special treatment in certain situations.

Right, so everything is mens fault. The reason that women get more custody is down to men. See this is why I don't like feminism, everything seems to be mans fault.

Oh, you're just going to strawman me? That's disappointing.

I'm not strawmanning you, that is exactly what you were implying. Unless you were suggesting that it was societies fault that women get more custody? Oh and don't talk down to me like that, is that ok dad?

I never even attributed what I found to be the cause of this exclusively to men, nor am I going to now.

So there is a cause, you just don't want to say it.

Hell, depending on where you want to take the conversation I'd probably even agree that at one point in time the "women as nurturer, men as provider," gender roles had some legitimacy in a pragmatic sense. But things have changed and, unfortunately, some of our thinking hasn't: you say below that this kind of thinking doesn't really exist in the western world anymore, and I'd say that's true, it doesn't exist overtly anymore. But memes don't need to be totally present at surface level to still have hooks in the mind.

I agree with this.

All I know is that, logically speaking, there's no reason why men shouldn't have an equal shot at custody of their kids, without factoring in some form of preconception tampering with the reasoning process. And it sure as hell isn't overt favoritism toward women, I'll tell you that much.

Then what is if not favouritism?

It's actually really disappointing watching you being this childish.

And again, sorry dad.

Who gives a fuck about Anita Sarkeesian? Since when was she the entirety of feminism? And also, who cares if it is what she talks about? Again, why is specializing bad? If that's the topic she wants to cover, then that's the topic she's going to cover: regardless of the quality of her arguments (personally I think she's a mixed bag there) it's an absurd overreach to take one series of videos that one person is doing as their next project, and then extrapolating that as the singular work of an entire movement she happens to be identified with.

This whole thread started because everyone is saying that TF is somehow wrong to pick on Sarkeesian. And I never said I think all of feminism is like her. But she is the only voice you hear when feminism is involved. The only thing I've heard recently that wasn't her or some other fanatic was Emma Watson, and all that was was a speech about how men and women should be working together, which I agree with.

No, you're manufacturing hypocrisy to point out, mostly by willfully misinterpreting the actual objection to sexual content.

What is the actual objection to sexual content?

---

Hysteria, really? But no, I don't think that you are a misogynist.

I'm sorry that I thought that you thought that I was a misogynist. This is going to get confusing in a minute.

[Lemonvariable72]

Esq, get your head out of the sand, what your arguing doesn't reflect reality. It does not because if these people were a tiny fringe like you think then were was the swift condemnation of their words and actions by the majority? You know I have seen reasonable feminists speak, and I think sexism is disgusting, but when I see these moderate feminists speak it seems that they are more marginalized then these rad fem whackos. The fact is that these rad fems say they are in favor of gender equality, butyet actively try to silence any dissent to their views. In fact you have more reason to argue against them then I do seeing has how every time you argue like you have been here they make you out to be a lair. Also thinking about it doesn't even matter if radicals are the majority are not for even of they are they seem to pack far more political influence then the more moderates brands. Saying this as a objective outsider looking in it really doesn't look like moderates run the show.

[Esquilax]

In the western world, I don't think women are oppressed at all and all I have seen them do is complain about video games. So yes I do think the two sets of problems are equal.

There are more insidious forms of inequality than just outright oppression, like, say, the wage gap between men and women, for one. Or the fact that harassment is still commonplace in many areas. In fact, what I find particularly interesting is that I'm sitting here watching you fall into the same kind of logical fallacies you'd be chastising a christian for using, like the argument from ignorance: "I haven't seen it, therefore it doesn't exist," or the deeply simplistic view of oppression you're espousing.

Well I think it is. A woman can do anything a man can do and actually get special treatment in certain situations.

A woman can do anything a man can do... while getting paid less, in a society that in many ways commoditizes her looks, keeps her body open for public comment at all times, and can treat her in ways that we wouldn't think of treating a man. It always surprises me when men designate themselves the arbiter of what women's experiences are, while at the same time dismissing the complaints they actually have from their own lived experiences to do it. Why would you know better than them, especially when you're discarding data in the process?

I'm not strawmanning you, that is exactly what you were implying. Unless you were suggesting that it was societies fault that women get more custody? Oh and don't talk down to me like that, is that ok dad?

I am exactly saying that it's society's fault: social constructs like gender roles are built within societies, and they are built from both the interactions of the individual members and the circumstances they find themselves in. The origins of this can't be drawn to a single gender, or even a single time period, and when you leap from the observation that such gender roles exist to a strong statement that it's "men's fault" based on nothing within my post that would hint at that, then I'm sorry, but you are being ridiculous.

So there is a cause, you just don't want to say it.

The cause is cultural, not gendered. It was probably even factual at one time; human progress is a continual straight line, not a stratified set of eras where we instantly forget the past the moment we enter a new one. No doubt there was a time in the past where it was beneficial for women to take on that nurturing role, and I'm willing to bet that this gender role finds its origins in that simple practical observation. But somewhere along the way it got ingrained and became "the way it is," even when the reality no longer necessarily fitted that. We're all human, we're conditioned to accept social norms that we're brought up with as static, and changing them is hard. This isn't about apportioning blame, just about recognizing that ancestral thinking can really get soaked into us without us realizing it.

But I'm interested, now: what do you think is the origin of women getting preferential treatment in custody hearings?

Then what is if not favouritism?

Subconscious reinforcement of antiquated gender roles. Hell, sometimes even just conscious reinforcement; we've got a lot of religious people out there for whom "traditional" womanly roles are appealing, and if they're judges they're sure as hell going to decide their cases based on their personal opinions.

But the other question that comes to mind, for me, is why would it be favoritism? What sequence of events or thinking would lead to this kind of widespread favoritism for women in this specific section of the legal system? Seriously, if you've got an answer for that I'd like to hear it, as I suspect our positions might not even be that far off, just phrased differently.

And again, sorry dad.

No, I'm sorry. Regardless of the content of your argument there was no reason to be condescending. That's my bad.

What is the actual objection to sexual content?

Objectification. Just having sexual content, or sexual characters, isn't bad on its own. It's when that content is demeaning or reduces the characters to nothing but body parts posing for the male/female gaze that it becomes problematic.

Esq, get your head out of the sand, what your arguing doesn't reflect reality. It does not because if these people were a tiny fringe like you think then were was the swift condemnation of their words and actions by the majority? You know I have seen reasonable feminists speak, and I think sexism is disgusting, but when I see these moderate feminists speak it seems that they are more marginalized then these rad fem whackos. The fact is that these rad fems say they are in favor of gender equality, butyet actively try to silence any dissent to their views. In fact you have more reason to argue against them then I do seeing has how every time you argue like you have been here they make you out to be a lair. Also thinking about it doesn't even matter if radicals are the majority are not for even of they are they seem to pack far more political influence then the more moderates brands. Saying this as a objective outsider looking in it really doesn't look like moderates run the show.

I agree: the radfem movement is ridiculous, aggressive, overbearing and often transphobic. I dislike them, they do not represent my opinions, nor should their movement be given the oxygen of public discourse. But I can't stop them from saying stupid shit, and there are better things to do than waste time dealing with them; christians don't need to spend all their time dealing with the Westboro guys, why should any other group have to devote the majority of their energies fighting with the extremist ends of their own spectrum when that time could be better spent attempting to build a better representation of the movement through positive action? The former path leaves you looking like a group of insular, infighting children, while the latter at least gives you some form of good example to point to, and it gets your work done in the meantime.

The loudest voices aren't necessarily the most numerous, and my head certainly isn't in the sand: feminism can be a shitshow at times, there are a whole bunch of idiots that I'd really rather would calm the fuck down, but I hope you can see why just doing what I think is right would be more appealing than sticking my head in that tank full of rabid voles time and again just to clean up individual flecks of vole shit, right?

[Bob Kelso]

Who do you think is right in Thunderf00t's ongoing war against feminism, him or the feminists he criticizes?

Personally I think 'f00t has taken this feminist foray from what should have been a few refutation videos into a long winded obsession. Sarkeesian is appalling, and this Gamergate shit really irritates me when it comes to the integrity of journalism bits, but is it really worth all this attention? Not in my opinion.

As to who is in the right of things; 'f00t paints with a broad brush, and truthfully, for someone as intelligent as this guy seems to be I would say it's intentionally done for YouTube flash. The edgier, and the more contentious points that are made can bring in the views and spark discussion. He's totally on the mark, in my opinion, when it comes to reducing Sarkeesian's balderdash to rubble, but some of his other videos can be rather off base with presenting the feminists as being almost entirely comprised of these Tumblr, shrill shit wads that we typically see in the online limelight.

[MJ the Skeptical]

This is a stupid position to take; you wouldn't blame any other group for focusing on one thing, after all. You're not dismissing cancer researchers because they aren't dealing with HIV. Sometimes, interest groups specialize. It's kinda what makes human culture so strong.

You've been misrepresenting what I'm saying, that's probably why you didn't respond to my last reply, because I clarified things. Look, I don't care if they only want focus to on women, that's their business to be a misandrist group that masquerades for gender equality while doing nothing when men are oppressed. That's fine, it's their right, but, they can't pretend that they are for equality of the genders or gender egalitarian then when they don't help men and claims that men are not oppressed or shift the blame to men somehow by getting rid of gender roles when you don't need feminism for that. No feminist seems to want to answer why they don't seem to care about women in oppressed nations. Where are the campaigns for women in the middle east...

Moreover, one could easily argue that the gender equality that moderate feminism fights for also redresses inequality toward men via removing all manner of harmful thinking regarding gender roles.

Here we go again, the superfluous ideology of feminism trying to take credit for Egalitarianism again. Why do you need feminism when there's Egalitarianism, no feminist or MRA has been able to answer that yet. Strange...

As to your other questions, that's kind of mystifying; I've seen plenty of coverage of transgender issues in the feminist media I frequent, and I don't think anyone is advocating for gender-based oppression of either men or women here. Seems like you're kinda spinning issues out of wholecloth to be mad at here.

It's just men that they don't care about eh? Feminism is gender egalitarian, except when men are oppressed, fuck men, right? lol, gender equality may be what they want but their motives are extremely skewed and like I said before, superfluous. So you've found plenty of nebulous coverage that feminists will defend transgendered people, even if that was true, so what, that doesn't change the fact that feminism is gender inclusive (like the MRA) and not actually for equality when it comes down to helping the men when they are oppressed, they are mysteriously absent or blame men somehow.

---

Idiocy directed her way? maybe she's doing the directing...


But it's not gender egalitarian, it's gender inclusive. An MRA member could say the same you are, but both ideologies are gender inclusive.

And where are these feminists marching for men who are oppressed? or transgendered people? or women who are actually oppressed in actual patriarchies. Gender equality my ass.

Now, step back and go and see what they've been saying about her and what she actually said.

Until you do so we're done in our discussion.

I'm sure she can make a valid point or two, but, I don't care to watch Rebecca Watson complain about her 1st world bullshit or to claim being hit on on an Elevator is just like rape. And almost everything I've seen from her is fallacious and offensive nonsense. I mean, she thinks that intellectual men who believe that feminism is distasteful is worse than a rape threat. Fuck her, if she had any intellectual integrity she would address them in debate (or just with civility) not go for character assassination.