When did feminism go completely crazy?

[Cutlass]

So in other words "best contributions" simply means everybody which agrees with your side of the story.

That is the definition of 'best', yes.

 

[caketastydelish]

Personally I think feminism is a topic should be banned on CFC, because nobody is going to change their mind.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm enjoying the conversation. :shrugs: it's boring when these guys are right yet again instead of interestingly flopping and arguing for backwards social mores like they now are. Which still might be the right answer. The social progress of jumped up apes probably has biological limits. The innate indignity of controlling penetrative penis power might be an issue where it shows through.

 

[Senethro]

Personally I think feminism is a topic should be banned on CFC, because nobody is going to change their mind.

I still find it really weird that this doesn't set off alarm bells in your head before you say it. Like, substitute anti-racism or what have you for feminism. It obviously sounds wrong, doesn't it?

And what usually happens now is manfred pops up and burbles something about them not being remotely equivalent, but they really kinda are.

The level and type of criticism that feminists get is among the best evidence that it is necessary.

 

[BvBPL]

She was overreacting like crazy, and Dawkins was certainly within the right to laugh at it. If some woman asked me for coffee at 4 in the morning I would probably laugh it off. She should have done the same... Especially because nothing happened.]

You don't get to decide what her level of discomfort was or should have been. As you mentioned, you would have handled the situation differently. Bully for you. That underscores that you are different people. It is perfectly permissible for people to have different reactions from how you believe you would have acted.

You underscore that nothing happened. That's absolutely correct, he didn't do anything other than talk. She wasn't touched. What you ignore is that she didn't do anything either. She didn't do anything but talk either.

All he did was use his voice. All she did was use her voice. And you are applying a double standard by condemning her voice while permitting his.

All she did was spend one minute on a youtube video talk about this. Just one minute.

In the video, she talks about how she was personally uncomfortable the situation because of the context. She mentioned that she found it uncomfortable because she was a single woman in a foreign country in a lift with a stranger at 4 am after giving a talk about misogyny. It was because of those specific factors that made her feel uncomfortable. Maybe if only one of those were a factor she would have a different feeling. Or if only three of them. But apparently six coinciding factors crossed the line.

So she spoke out. That's all she did.

She didn't punch him.

She didn't insult him.

She didn't run away, call the police, or shame him in front of other people.

She didn't name him.

She didn't even make fun of him.

All she did was suggest that maybe 4 am in an elevator at an atheist conference isn't the best time to try and pick her up. There wasn't any shaming or name calling. She expressed her personal opinion and feelings on the matter without condemnation towards anyone else.

It is immensely frustrating that this comes up in the context of a broader discussion that involves discussion of how some proposed men's groups have been denied recognition by colleges. I believe that was referenced in a link posted previously by Triewd previously. While I am initially skeptical of a website called "feminist brainwash," the allegations that some schools have denied recognition of (I presume argumentum) men's groups proposed in good faith. I am very distributed by this notion.


Here's a golden rule for free speech discussion: Turn about is NOT fair play. You don't get to condemn the speech of others merely because you feel others in the same group have also condemned speech.

I'm particularly frustrated by it in this context because some people don't seem to get this. They think that fairness demands that they automatically get to invalidate the speech of others simply because they feel invalidated by another. That's not the way the marketplace of ideas works.

People have to bring their ideas forward into the public theater. That means competing with other voices, sometimes contrary voices. That does not permit people to automatically condemn others just for speaking. Instead, it places the responsibility on the speaker to present his argument in the manner that is most compelling to other people.

 

[cardgame]

All I'm reading from this is that a lot of her reaction was internal, and nonspecific to anything Mr. Stranger Danger did or did not do.

Or in layman's terms, a personal problem.

 

[Triewd]

Free Speech Cuts both ways BvBPL.

people have the right to say what they like....But realize that applies to everyone else as well Including in response to what YOU say someone once said the truth is the best defense to slander

Its 3 am in the morning here so excuse me for keeping this brief. (lucky I have an appointment at 11 instead of usual 9:30)

we have spent 6 pages discussion of Rebecca Watsons elevator incident and I still don't understand or care to to be honest - Its an utter irrelevancy at best and an active derailment at worst.

Would someone on the opposite side care to post some proof please?

But I will say this on Rebecca Watson:

EDIT: youtube having some issue errh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJGZM2jtMpg

That is why I treat everything said by Rebecca Watson with extreme skepticism until someone posted better proof I will believeNOTHING SHE SAYS

"Thats right You liberal intellectual guy who has a healthy interest in science and skepticism but who finds feminism distasteful and would rather not hear about it- You are worse than rape threats!"

^^^^^This is why I will treat everything she says as false until proven true.

 

[Arwon]

What an odd couple of posts.

 

[BvBPL]

Or in layman's terms, a personal problem.

Which makes it odd that Dawkins had such a reaction to it.

 

[cardgame]

How so? She broadcast it as being a serious thing when it wasn't, naturally it's gonna get called out.

If I may borrow your format, maybe Dawkins found it uncomfortable because he's a white man on twitter with a bunch of hostile strangers after reading a post about nonsense feminism.

 

[Evie]

Everyone has personal problems. Empathy is understanding how other's personal problems affect them, and being mindful of this.

I note a great deal of lack of empathy in this thread.

 

[Arwon]

It does display a lack of empathy/theory of mind.

 

[cardgame]

As a sociopath-kin I am triggered by your mention of empathy. please be more understanding and mindful of this in the future. /s

ridiculous positions deserve ridicule.

 

[BvBPL]

How so? She broadcast it as being a serious thing....

No, she didn't.

 

[Evie]

There's nothing ridiculous about a person with her life experience feeling threatened in her situation.

There's something ridiculous about assuming that one's hypothetical reaction to a situation they never faced form the baseline for what is "reasonable" in a given situation. "I wouldn't feel threatened in that situation", when you have never been in that situation, and when you don't have the same life experiences as the person in that situation, just is not a constructive way of tackling the problem.

 

[Hygro]

It's understandable that men who want to talk about gender issues should try to address feminists, because they seem broadly sympathetic, while a lot of men would just point and laugh. But that's not a justification for intruding into feminist spaces. If men want to engage seriously with gender issues, they have to create their own spaces and start their own discussions rather than piggy-backing on the work of women.

Watch as the concept of intellectual-property moralism pollutes cultural negotiation...

Since when has scholarship or politics been served be "no, don't use our knowledge, it's ours"?

 

[jackelgull]

It's understandable that men who want to talk about gender issues should try to address feminists, because they seem broadly sympathetic, while a lot of men would just point and laugh. But that's not a justification for intruding into feminist spaces. If men want to engage seriously with gender issues, they have to create their own spaces and start their own discussions rather than piggy-backing on the work of women.

So tell me, did Asian Americans just piggy back off of the work of African Americans?

 

[Narz]

Mise, I think casual sex itself is immoral for all parties involved

What is immoral about casual sex? If the woman if wearing an evening gown & the guy a tux is it still casual?

I don't really see anything reasonable about approaching random strangers for sex

I appreciate it personally but its only happened to me once.

 

[Narz]

One would, if he was a decent guy who cared about her comfort, have walked smaller and waited for the next elevator.

This is tongue in cheek, right?

I agree that invited a total stranger to your apartment at 4am may be awkward but if some weirdo is gonna get intimidated just riding the lift we me their ass can wait for the next one. I'm going upstairs!

15 pages in 2 days, and the OP hasn't even participated after the OP. As troll threads go, this one has been quite successful.

Its kind of sad, the regular feminism thread is dead. Shrill sensationalism FTW everytime.

 

[BvBPL]

If the woman if wearing an evening gown & the guy a tux is it still casual?

No, but it is an immense faux pas before six.