females, feminists and femininity.

Fangirl getting compared to the Klan or called manipulative and so on is an attack. Addressing your points is not an attack.

If you honestly mean the first, then you can not honestly mean the second. If you do not care about cold hard facts that disagree with what you want to believe then you can't really be willing to consider different points of view.

This topic started a few pages ago when several peoplewere put off by a sexist slur against men, and the original attacker took offense that people dared challenge it and escalated quickly to direct hostility and attacks. I stand by my contention that this is a direct symptom of a toxic and destructive cultural ideal for females, femininity, and feminism.

If you want to force the split as staff you're welcome to do so though I remind you that will be the second time blatant sexism and so-motivated personal attacks have been defended and excused, from the same member no less, and that other members (who have contacted me privately) felt driven from the thread by that openly prejudicial hostility.

 

So I'm supposed to take the bait and accuse you of calling me a liar? No. I think what you've cited is nonsense. It's ranty, masculinist poop. (See what I did there?)

@Shadowex3, it might be a good idea for you to start a new thread rather than diverting the intention of the original post.

 

As I am involved in this and don't see things the way you see them, I am *not* going reply to you as staff. I have referred it to other staff for their review.

Frankly, I didn't see the "sexist slur against men". I also didn't see any direct attacks on you. What I did see was heated discussion that addressed the post and not the poster (which is the house rule). I still see you, and others as being overly defensive.

I am open to being found wrong on this.

As for your facts, I don't find them relevant. Sorry. Perhaps I am myopic in my approach to this, but my experience runs counter to yours. Perhaps it is colouring my interpretation of events, I don't believe it is.

 

I guess we have entirely different takes on this based on our requirements for respect. Unlike many Westerners, I see no reason a person should be respected from the onset. Discourse, however, should always be respectful as long as the situation warrants it.

Respect is, in my view, something that has to be earned before one can demand it.

As such, from my perspective it seems entirely workable for a society to conduct patterns of behavior and interaction based on single facets of other individuals/groups. Societal interaction, after all, is mostly about "routine" actions, where we dish out niceties such as "Hello, how are you?" and "How has X been? How is your work/are your studies going?" and all of their respective responses. Most will converse with people they have no respect or liking for, and still conduct the niceties.

It has been working so far, no?

I don't get it. Your dates in the past three months are similar situations to what I described, yet they are more relevant to the big picture than the situation I described?

Is it the number of these situations that makes the difference? Because if yes, then I have a lot more stories (often rinse and repeat of the same thing, but a large quantity nonetheless).

Either way, obviously what you do in response to my comments is your business. We're almost all busy people, have stuff going on and have seen heavy shit.
--- merged: Nov 23, 2013 at 2:09 AM ---

We all love the ad hominems, but really mate? Jezebel?

Nobody takes them seriously.

It's like the other side citing AVoiceForMen.

Neither have any credibility to fall back on.

--- merged: Nov 23, 2013 at 2:15 AM ---

Entirely disagree with you.

If you seriously believe misandry is not worth to be discussed as more than a mere acknowledgment of its existence within gender debates, then your perspective is horribly skewed and includes a massive favoritism of one side.

Or you could actually elaborate on how misogyny and misandry are not comparable. Maybe make a new thread about it, if the current one is being hijacked.

 

It's being hijacked. Someone, who really wants that thread to exist, should start it.

 

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Ok, everyone take a deep breath and remember to keep this thread on topic. If you wish to start another thread that's fine but this thread is about females, feminists and femininity. If members would like to start a thread on men and men's issues that's fine, let me know if you need help and be glad to assist. But let's keep this thread on topic. Also several posts are stepping up to the line of nothing more then personal attacks. Some may have crossed that line, admittedly I haven't read every post this morning. Wanted to get this message posted before the situation became more hostile. We're all adults here and everyone should know by now personal attacks are not allowed here. We want to encourage members to discuss the issues and it's fine to disagree with another member. It's not fine to attack any member. Let's all remember that. Staff will be discussing this and this warning may not be the only action taken. It might well be, again I don't have time to read every post at the moment. In summary- As staff discuss this remember to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Thank-you for your time

 

You don't get it because at no time did I ever say they were more relevant. Just that I have insights that would allow me to expand a little more on my original thought if I were so inclined.

 

Understood.

 

I wanted to revisit this. I touched on it a bit earlier but not with any detail.

With regards to Madison Avenue/advertising in general, I don't want to suggest that there is a situation where we are mindless automatons. Rather I would suggest that the ways in which we are shaped and moulded is much more insidious. We are mediated and shaped at every turn. It's subtle and constant... to quote Madge, "Relax, you're soaking in it."

The number of impressions made upon us daily are massive. We cannot escape it. This is not suggest that we have no agency in the matter but I would say that much of the shaping is sub-conscious. We are all subject to this, without exception.

It's broader than just ads. It's everything. There is no escaping it. It's not a bad thing, it just is. It's what makes our society what it is.

 

Or it's like quoting a website that's been known to mock domestic violence victims and behave so outrageously as to provoke the entire female staff of one of their targets to publically rebuke them, and then acting not only like it's not an inflammatory tabloid but like it's the gospel truth.

Which brings us to the point, which I still maintain is directly relevant to females, feminism, and femininity: Anything that disagrees with your pre-existing prejudices is by default considered to be wrong based solely and wholly on the fact it disagrees. Neither you nor charlatan are rebutting any of the facts OR arguments I've brought up, you're simply ignoring them outright and repeating that I'm wrong because you don't agree with me. And that's not even getting into how ridiculous dismissing something solely because it was written by an individual and not a professional media outlet is.

Just look at your own language. "Intellectually dishonest anti-feminist prattle". Right from the start any position that disagrees with you is presumed to be wrong by default and personally attacked as being intellectually dishonest. Even the attack you chose, intellectual dishonesty, assumes by default that it's impossible for anyone who's intellectually honest to disagree with you. It's assuming that your position is unchallengeable, that anyone claiming anything that disagrees must not only be wrong but intellectually dishonest, and then wrapping that all in insults which dismiss someone's position, arguments, and sources out of hand.

A dismissal which, like I previously noted with charlatan, is the modern equivalent of accusing someone of being a witch. Instead of actually having a discussion where each side defends their position and rebutts the opposing position one person simply says "You're a witch" and then anything the accused says or does can be ignored and dismissed.

Or because fangirl felt it necessary to insult me* for not speaking simply enough:

A. "I am right."
B. "Here is a wealth of hard facts and several logical arguments which disagree, and an argument of how your position relies on a set of cultural assumptions"
A. "You are wrong because I am right. Because you disagree that means you must be wrong, because I am right."
B. "Here are more facts and further arguments which state why that is circular and relies on special semantics that are impossible to disprove"
A. "[Compares B to an ostracised group, discrediting B by the inflammatory association]You are wrong. I am right. I don't agree with you, so you must be wrong."
B. "That is ad hominem, you have not rebutted any of my facts or arguments."
C. "[Second modern witch-hunt tactic] I am right. You are wrong. Your sources are invalid because they do not agree with my position [ad hominem about sources]"

This thread, per the title and original post, is about Females, Feminists, and Femininity. This current subject was directly the result of posts by the original poster, and peoples' responses to those posts. My entire point was that the sexist posts which started all of this, and the subsequent escalating hostility to people's disagreement, is a direct result of a toxic and destructive cultural ideal of femaleness, femininity, and feminism.

The only reason men's issues were even brought up is because people rebutted the idea of toxic femininity by claiming Patriarchy. Patriarchy, as traditionally defined, claims that only men are privileged and only women are the victims of sexism (benevolent or otherwise). The rebuttal to that assertion is to prove that men are also the victims of institutional and systemic prejudice.

If you want to claim that is a hijack then you are literally claiming that responding with odd numbers is a hijack when responding to people who insist all numbers are evenly divisible by 2. If this were a political thread and someone said "socialist healthcare is impossible and destroys economies" you would never claim that it's hijacking to post facts about european and especially scandinavian economies and healthcare systems, it's the evidence which disproves the argument made.

------------------
Now, the mods are here and aside from this,which was more summary than response, I won't be responding to anything on this particular subject until they've made their call.

Before that happens though I'd like to remind everyone (especially the moderators) that the way people have been acting, how hostile they get, how easily they resort to insults, and most importantly of all how nobody sees a problem with this behavior is an example of exactly what I've been talking about the whole time. More importantly that prejudicial hostility has actively driven people away from the discussion.

Let me repeat that for emphasis: There are people afraid to post in this thread because of the backlash they are watching me get. Not everyone is willing to get "torn apart", as it was described, for daring to disagree.

Think about whether that's what you want for TFP.

 

Let me take a moment to enlighten you, hun. This is my thread. And I am "afraid" to post in my own thread. Yet, I am not here whining about how I'm being attacked in the middle of another 1000-word post. Just let that soak in for a moment. You can have this thread. I'm sure as hell not coming back.

 

My 2 cents @ Shadowex3


The women's rights or feminist movement in the US is no more anti-male than the civil rights movement was anti-white.

Both are about acknowledging and addressing decades or centuries of inequality...that still exists (to a much lesser extent). They are not out to victimize males (or whites) and they dont. Pay equity or breaking the glass ceiling are examples of simply asking for an equal chance to succeed.

On the other hand, the men's rights movement seems to me to be all about attacking and turning back women's right rather that addressing any legitimate concerns they may have.

Issues raised like male versus female workplace deaths or incidents of homelessness are not male v female issues. The former is a worker v management issue and the later is a growing income disparity issue. You're not making the case with such examples..

I just see the men's rights movement as a bunch of angry, insecure, (predominantly white) men, who want to turn back time.

 

@ Shadowex3: I've blocked so you can no longer speak to me here (or, if you do, I won't see nor respond) or send me any more PM's.
I'm not afraid of you but you are engaging in bullying behaviour, which I despise.

 

1. Well, I already talked a little about females who repress other females. I think it's very real, it's wrong and it's depressingly disappointing behavior.

2. I think women who repress themselves must have very dull, limited lives. I really don't know what to say about it, though. I mean, people repress themselves in all sorts of ways whether it is because of religion, a relationship, their upbringing - there any number of things that compel people to deny themselves full personal expression. And I think it's kind of sad.

3. I think women dress revealingly because they want to attract men or they just like the way they look in revealing clothing. Of course, the emphasis is always placed on the former because, of course, why would a woman display herself at all if she were not trying to attract a male, am I right? When I was younger I had a great body, I was into fashion and lycra clothing was all the rage. I used to wear short, tight dresses with heels all the time. And I can tell you, I never stood in front of a mirror thinking, 'boy, I'm gonna get me a man tonight.' I was thinking, 'hey, I look hot as hell.' I think people discount the fact that women dress in sexy clothing for themselves as much as for anyone else. The public display of a woman's sexual potential bothers a lot of people and women who do it, whether they know it are not, are relinquishing a little bit of their autonomy. I could go on about that a little more, but I would have to think about it.

 

Somewhat relevant:
Colonel Lynette Arnhart 'steps down' for opinions on ugly female soldiers | Mail Online

 

Nice. Can't say that is surprising.