When did feminism go completely crazy?

[jackelgull]

ah...I take my certainty back. He seems to be serious.

 

[JollyRoger]

I thought it was satire at first too. Here he is on video:



Link to video.

 

[Commodore]

Is the rest of his site satire?

I don't know. I'm skimming a few of the other articles on his site and it seems like satire, but you never know in this age of any lunatic being able to have their own website.

 

[Senethro]

Satire is when you suggest the poor sell their children for meat to the rich as a way to highlight that the rich have run out of things to take.

I have no idea what satirical reading could be made of rooshv, but I'm sure it wouldn't be intended.

 

[Commodore]

Satire is when you suggest the poor sell their children for meat to the rich as a way to highlight that the rich have run out of things to take.

I have no idea what satirical reading could be made of rooshv, but I'm sure it wouldn't be intended.

Yeah I have to agree with you on this after reading this article from his site:

The Endgame of Feminism

This is clearly not satire and it seems this guy is 100% serious. This is the kind of guy that keeps me from supporting the MRA movement as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

I surrender. I'm not a level at which I can debate with you properly. Maybe in another decade or so. All I can offer is that the connection seemed quite clear in my head.

What? What are you talking about?

My original comment was that if men want to discuss men's issues, they should start spaces for discussing men's issues. You responded with some left-field analogy about anti-racism, I pointed out the analogy didn't really work, you defended the analogy by... talking about something that had no apparent connection to either my original comment or your original reply, I expressed confusion, and now you respond as if I'm being condescending.

Whatever exchange you think we've been having, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not following it!

 

[Farm Boy]

It wasn't an editorial piece as much a satire piece. Regardless, the gist is that manspreading is a courtesy issue, not a battle of the sexes issue. The show pokes fun at how MRAs have taken up the banner that it is a sex issue.

Spreading out on public transit isn't a battle of the sexes issue and anyone who presents it as such is dead wrong. Men are just as inconvenienced by manspreading as women and women are put out just as much by other women placing their purses on an adjacent seat at men.

I want to tell everyone who frames the issue as a battle of the sexes to stuff it regardless of their broader political and social ideologies. If a feminist things this is an issue of male privilege then she's wrong just as a man is wrong for thinking this is a mainstream feminist position.

It's still a stupid thing to call crowding people on transit. I mock you BvBPL. I mock you and your habit of using stupid terms as well as watching an offensively and belligerently stupid television show. If you care about the quality of your speaking and viewing habits, you would upgrade to Fox News as a transitory step between your current and respectable dialect and programming.))

 

[caketastydelish]

What I don't understand is why the "other side" of this debate continues to group "my side" with the likes of Roosh V, Paul Elam, and whatever that stupid story or videogame thingy that Jollyroger links that no one gives a (censored) about.

(Ok, I do know why they put words out of our mouth and lump us with groups we're in no way associated with, pardon the rhetoric).

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it's more like pissing in a circle than it is along battle lines, but I was under the impression it was going alright until the last couple pages when harrumphing over people being off script and indignity over the thread and the forum in general started getting louder.

 

[caketastydelish]

Even the OP (probably the most obnoxious person on "my side"), isn't as bad as Roosh or Elam and these other garbages they continue to lump us with. If you want to combat the specific, individual posters that disagree with you then do so. If you want to combat misogynistic internet celebrities I applaud your efforts but in that case you're debating them, not us.

 

[JollyRoger]

What I don't understand is why the "other side" of this debate continues to group "my side" with the likes of Roosh V, Paul Elam, and whatever that stupid story or videogame thingy that Jollyroger links that no one gives a (censored) about.

(Ok, I do know why they put words out of our mouth and lump us with groups we're in no way associated with, pardon the rhetoric).

It's not my fault that one side's ace in the hole is manspreading.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't feel lumped and you probably shouldn't either, I think. I know I'm not supportive of anything as berserk as these youtube videos. If anyone here is bluntbutt enough to think that I am because of my posts in this thread, which I doubt, they're intentionally deciding to be that way. At which point, WTH do I care what they think? They're going to believe whatever stupid thing they want to.

 

[caketastydelish]

I can easily link some feminist "extremist" sites/sources that make cheap overgeneralizations about men. I don't because I want to debate the issues with members of the forum, not someone else that isn't here.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is the game that was called to be played in the OP.

 

[jackelgull]

What? What are you talking about?

My original comment was that if men want to discuss men's issues, they should start spaces for discussing men's issues. You responded with some left-field analogy about anti-racism, I pointed out the analogy didn't really work, you defended the analogy by... talking about something that had no apparent connection to either my original comment or your original reply, I expressed confusion, and now you respond as if I'm being condescending.

Whatever exchange you think we've been having, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not following it!

My post was responding to your black and white views of male privilege, female under privilege, which isn't that simple. Which is why I pointed out that a rich white women is not underprivileged compared to a poor black male. And that the privilege of the black man's maleness is that he is suspected to be a rapist/ thug by respectable whites due to the over representation of black males in the prison population due to convict leasing and prison labor.

I felt I had made the connection clear, though I admit it is possible that I rambled on somewhere in there and lost people. I reacted so huffily because I was sure you understood because you come off as extremely bright and a really good scholar, so I was sure you got what i was getting at and thought it not worthy of replying to so you ended the conversation. I apologize for reacting badly.

 

[Traitorfish]

On "manspreading",

It's definitely a real behaviour, and it's definitely definitely a gendered behaviour, the term "manspreading" is not incorrect, it's just that it's not a case of inequality. Most men don't sit like that; most men are inconvenienced by men who sit like that. I'm not even sure it's widely considered normal or acceptable for men, the sort of casual machismo it expresses really hinges on an image of young guy insurgency, works precisely because it's a mild transgression of etiquette. I'm not even sure if it's directed against other passengers, really, so much as against the institutions under whose power which the guy finds himself, in this case a transit authority or company. (It might not be a coincidence that this seems to be more of a Thing in the US, where car ownership seems to be more strongly tied to masculine status than other countries?) I think it's maybe true that some more socially privileged and perhaps isolated feminists have worked themselves to a point of confusion were anything identifiably masculine is normatively masculine, but it's not really "crazy feminists on the war path" so much as a cultural mis-reading, which if you've been exposed to ten minutes of mainstream cultural commentary in your life you will realise is supremely mundane.

Also, if you google "manspreading", the leading hits are all hostile or neutral towards the concept- you have to get halfway down the second page before you find a supportive hit, an article from (almost inevitably) the Huffington Post. So, I think there's a case to be made that this was never so much a feminist outrage as an anti-feminist outrage that hinged on a prior, semi-invented feminist outrage.

My post was responding to your black and white views of male privilege, female under privilege, which isn't that simple. Which is why I pointed out that a rich white women is not underprivileged compared to a poor black male. And that the privilege of the black man's maleness is that he is suspected to be a rapist/ thug by respectable whites due to the over representation of black males in the prison population due to convict leasing and prison labor.

I felt I had made the connection clear, though I admit it is possible that I rambled on somewhere in there and lost people. I reacted so huffily because I was sure you understood because you come off as extremely bright and a really good scholar, so I was sure you got what i was getting at and thought it not worthy of replying to so you ended the conversation. I apologize for reacting badly.

Well, for what it's worth, I think you had a point when you compared a rich white lady to a poor black dude, and highlighted the question of exactly how "privilege" works out between the two. Even though "intersectionality" is a buzz-word, a lot of mainstream feminism still has quite a loose grasp on race, and even looser on class. (Especially in the US, where class is often folded into race.) I just wasn't sure how it tied to the point I was making about a need for progressive male spaces, which I think is really its own issue.

 

[caketastydelish]

It is the game that was called to be played in the OP.

The OP is probably the worst "anti-feminist" we've had in a long time. But in that case ridicule him, not some other people that aren't even here to debate with you, and have a 99% chance that they aren't even reading this.

 

[JollyRoger]

Have I specifically ridiculed anyone?

 

[Farm Boy]

On "manspreading",

It's definitely a real behaviour, and it's definitely definitely a gendered behaviour, the term "manspreading" is not incorrect, it's just that it's not a case of inequality. Most men don't sit like that; most men are inconvenienced by men who sit like that. I'm not even sure it's widely considered normal or acceptable for men, the sort of casual machismo it expresses really hinges on an image of young guy insurgency, works precisely because it's a mild transgression of etiquette. I'm not even sure if it's directed against other passengers, really, so much as against the institutions under whose power which the guy finds himself, in this case a transit authority or company. (It might not be a coincidence that this seems to be more of a Thing in the US, where car ownership seems to be more strongly tied to masculine status than other countries?) I think it's maybe true that some more socially privileged and perhaps isolated feminists have worked themselves to a point of confusion were anything identifiably masculine is normatively masculine, but it's not really "crazy feminists on the war path" so much as a mis-reading , which if you've been exposed to ten minutes of mainstream cultural commentary in your life you will realise is supremely mundane.

Also, if you google "manspreading", the leading hits are all hostile or neutral towards the concept- you have to get halfway down the second page before you find a supportive hit, an article from (almost inevitably) the Huffington Post. So, I think there's a case to be made that this was never so much a feminist outrage as an anti-feminist outrage that hinged on a prior, semi-invented feminist outrage.

You can join BvBPL in this mini hall of shame.

 

[Arwon]

It's still a stupid thing to call crowding people on transit. I mock you BvBPL. I mock you and your habit of using stupid terms as well as watching an offensively and belligerently stupid television show. If you care about the quality of your speaking and viewing habits, you would upgrade to Fox News as a transitory step between your current and respectable dialect and programming.))

Is it though? It's... generally men who spread out and take heaps of room on a bus or train, rather than women. Seems like a reasonable portmanteau for a tumblring about commuting annoyances.