Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Chamale wrote:
I've stirred up a fair controversy here. I want to thank Dada and Enterim for having more experience with feminism than me and defending it well.
I want to say that the key point is still to treat people equally and promote feminism to ensure equality. Some posters expressed that they feel sexism is no longer a problem, or that feminism is a joke. This sadly isn't true. If a man wants to know how sexism affects women, I suggest he asks his sister, or a girl friend, about her experiences. Most women have a lot of stories to tell.
This brings me to a point about generalization. A key point of feminism is that the psychological differences between men and women are caused by upbringing, and that if fundamental differences exist they are much smaller by comparison. When feminists talk about men having privilege in matters of sexism, it doesn't mean that the men are naturally bad. The point is that some people are favoured by society, and understanding this privilege is useful when it comes to understanding feminism. Everyone has some degree of privilege (especially me!) but it can be overcome with empathy.
+1.
Oh, and its been rather interesting seeing the community, er, fragment like this.
Oh, and hi Chamale!
Renting this space for rent.
Trying to fix image on this site. Please cut slack.
As of April 6th, 2012:
After a long absence, here we go again?
Finally, as icing on the cake, we get a response from our own William F. Buckley, Warp. The same person who also believes Islamophobia is a hoax has come out of the woodworks not only to dismiss the patriarchy as propaganda (even though the evidence for it is overwhelming and unequivocally supported as very real by the social sciences), but also to redefine feminism. Not based on any evidence, mind you, but based on his personal reading of the term itself. In other words, forget about all of feminist theory and the tons of authors that have written on the topic and the nature of the movement itself; the term itself sounds like females and therefore it can't possibly be about gender equality, according to Warp.
At this point I'm not at all surprised that ad hominems, personal attacks, lies and straw men are being hurled. You see, when someone with a strong dogmatic view gets cornered and doesn't have any actual arguments, the most usual response is to attack the other person (rather than his arguments), distort his position, lie about what he has said and call him names. Actual rational discussion and understanding what the other person is saying is thrown out of the window. I think it's sad.
You see, it's exactly because of this kind of dogmatic attitude why so many people detest feminism. If they try to discuss it, and do not immediately agree with the most extreme views, they get attacked and insulted with almost religious fervor. Do you really think that you are putting feminism in a positive light by acting like this?
Incidentally, "Dickwolves" was about MEN being raped. By wolves with dicks on their hands. In a fantasy MMO setting.
This doesn't really help your argument. In fact, it demonstrates his point fairly well. Men getting raped are treated even worse by society than women. The rape of a man is just as bad as the rape of a woman.
Agreed.
However, the impression I got was that Dada was making a statement specifically about women being raped, not rape in general.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
moozooh wrote:
The gender difference comes into play when, in majority of cases nearly independent of the culture, when a male has sex with a lot of different females, it's either not given a lot of attention, or considered a good thing by his peers. When a woman sleeps around similarly, she's more likely to be considered a whore by everyone alike, and that is not a good thing. So how do you go about that conundrum?
From a few pages back, but there is actually a very reasonable explanation for this:
The only way a child can be sure who his father is is if his mother was monogamous at the time of this child's conception. (note that the monogamy of the child's father is not required)
Our society (like most throughout history) places a lot of value on the role of fathers, so monogamy of women is similarly valued. Right or wrong, there is a good reason for this apparent double standard. It can never go away as long as people still care who their fathers are. We could make it fair by ragging on men who screw around, but their behavior does not effect questions of lineage, so there is little reason to do so. Nature was not fair in this one, and society only reacted in kind.
lol as a gigantic victim of friendzoning, i feel the necessity to contribute here by saying that i treated women as humans but never showed any kind of interest at all,so it seemed like a natural result to get a friend zone.More than that,i enjoy the company of a few girls much more than men sometimes,even though they are not sex material for me,which either i wouldn't fuck them or they wouldn't fuck me(specially because if you know them,they become a lot less magical).But i had girls i was head over heels for,and just felt really bad not being able to conquer those legs and spread them wide open.
Thing is girls who don't really know me feel very attracted to me in mystical ways i have never been able to reproduce at all,i just take the advantage when i can or screw up sometimes.The social order book is pretty good except for trying to victimise men... if you are emasculated by the culture,you just are prone to being influenciated by powers in general.you were a lil bitch to begin with.
i don't blame my lack of knowledge on dealing with women on feminism,it might be the cause but it makes no sense discussing this BECAUSE IT IS A CAUSE.Causes like this are on the past and can't be messed with...it's improvement of the actual state of the "friendzoned" that should be a more healthy matter.
BTW,girls are not just humans and not just for sex.They're both.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
I told myself I wouldn't post again because some of the shit posted is literally too ridiculous to even argue with, but I think part of the problem is that you're seeing sex as a conquest. You have a very warped view of women if it's your goal to "conquer those legs and spread them wide open." Again, maybe the reason women don't go for you is because you creep them out with such a cavalier attitude?
And in response to "hurr durr I read misogynistic literature so I know more about gender equality than you do", are you familiar with a "false sense of objectivity", particularly the parts about feeling the need to give equal weight to both sides when one is clearly truthful and the other is false (usually applies to discussions of evolution v. creationism or climate science).
Again, maybe the reason women don't go for you is because you creep them out with such a cavalier attitude?
But this thread was started because the whole phenomenon of friend zone is about women not going for men because of certain attitudes and other mistakes of the latter... at which point you started claiming that such a standpoint denies their agency. Man, I don't have enough faces to palm. When you said you wouldn't post again you should have followed your word.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
I'm confused about what you're arguing. I'm claiming the concept of the friend zone is misogynistic because it revolves around men feeling let down because their sense of entitlement over women. The friend zone is based on the idea that women are investments that you put time into in exchange for dividends (sex). This is demeaning, objectifying, and misogynistic.
Please tell me what about this you have a problem with, if you can separate your hands from face long enough to type out a response. I would also appreciate it if you answer my question directly without any bizarre attacks on my character.
I told myself I wouldn't post again because some of the shit posted is literally too ridiculous to even argue with, but I think part of the problem is that you're seeing sex as a conquest. You have a very warped view of women if it's your goal to "conquer those legs and spread them wide open." Again, maybe the reason women don't go for you is because you creep them out with such a cavalier attitude?
And in response to "hurr durr I read misogynistic literature so I know more about gender equality than you do", are you familiar with a "false sense of objectivity", particularly the parts about feeling the need to give equal weight to both sides when one is clearly truthful and the other is false (usually applies to discussions of evolution v. creationism or climate science).
lol you might be right,cuz i do want it for the conquer,otherwise i would've paid a bitch to do the well-done job...hahahahah that's why i never get laid then
Enterim seems to have grasped it all,friend zone is based on the idea that being nice to a girl should get you laid,as if it's a contract.AND IT'S NOT,BITCHEEEEEESSSSS!Example:You are nice to your friends but you sure don't want them to be attracted to you,it's because you like them and want to remain friends!!
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Please tell me what about this you have a problem with
Yes, several problems actually.
1. Nobody here, at least up to the point where you first chimed in, seriously insisted the entitlement thing was clever or right, or that it makes sense to complain about it. Nobody were demonizing women, either.
2. What we, or at least I, have been discussing is how not to get one's sexual advancements thwarted by one's own incompetence. This applies to men and women equally, in fact. There are girls who get friendzoned just as well because they're too shy and indecisive, and make no mistake, they're frustrated about it just as well.
3. I don't know what you consider sex to be, but for me, it's a part of a fulfilling, intimate, responsible relationship in the first place. It is not an end goal, but an important sign of mutual trust and affection. There are women—and I have known several of them personally—who are manipulative to an extent where they attempt using men enamored by them, pretending to invest as much in such relationship as their partner, and demanding affection they are not ready to show themselves—and yes, that is most easily illustrated by lack of sex. This is not friendship I'm talking about—not even close—but it is a part of the "friend zone" problem, and this part is not misogynistic in the least: some women just happen to be shameless, for various reasons. And the topic of the discussion in such case is how to recognize such patterns of behavior and avoid them, not how all womenz r evul. The world is not black and white, there are many facets to every problem, and you can't say it's always only one side who is always at fault. That kind of attitude denies the other side's agency, or any other kind of involvement, in making things how they are.
Does that answer your question, and does that change anything for you?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
And in response to "hurr durr I read misogynistic literature so I know more about gender equality than you do", are you familiar with a "false sense of objectivity", particularly the parts about feeling the need to give equal weight to both sides when one is clearly truthful and the other is false (usually applies to discussions of evolution v. creationism or climate science).
I don't give "equal weight to both". I have read both feminist literature and anti-feminist literature, and then made up my own mind after fairly considering both sides. Based on personal life experience, I then came to the conclusion that much of modern feminism is bigoted, irrational, misandrist bullshit.
You and Dada have never read anything anti-feminist, though; you avoid it like a deadly plague. As mentioned before, that's extreme bias and self-brainwashing; you will not even honestly and logically consider the other side of the debate.
Anyways, all this nonsense is besides the point. Here is what I wanted to ask you;
You started this whole foolishness by stating that a man inquiring on how to make a woman see him romantically instead of just as a Platonic friend is asking something "incredibly misogynistic". Can you explain yourself, especially since there are many women who suffer from the "friend zone" in interactions with men, and ask the same question?
moozooh wrote:
Does that answer your question, and does that change anything for you?
Of course it won't; Enterim has shown multiple times in this topic that he is allergic to logical reasoning and objective facts.
And in response to "hurr durr I read misogynistic literature so I know more about gender equality than you do", are you familiar with a "false sense of objectivity", particularly the parts about feeling the need to give equal weight to both sides when one is clearly truthful and the other is false (usually applies to discussions of evolution v. creationism or climate science).
Not sure why you think everyone against feminism is a misogynist.
I mean, even by your definition of feminism, you can't rule out that they don't just want to discriminate against men. That you assume someone who is against feminism hates women makes it very clear you do not actually think feminism is simply about gender equality.
Which brings us to the real reason people are against feminism.
I don't give "equal weight to both". I have read both feminist literature and anti-feminist literature, and then made up my own mind after fairly considering both sides. Based on personal life experience, I then came to the conclusion that much of modern feminism is bigoted, irrational, misandrist bullshit.
You and Dada have never read anything anti-feminist, though; you avoid it like a deadly plague. As mentioned before, that's extreme bias and self-brainwashing; you will not even honestly and logically consider the other side of the debate.
Anyways, all this nonsense is besides the point.
Bahahaha, one of the best posts in this thread, and I agree so much.
1) Friend zoning is explained early on in this topic as something that may be reduced by altering your attitude/behavior when approaching potential mates
2) Enterim and others freak out because we're a bunch of puerile misogynists. Women are agents.
3) grassini claims to get frequently friend zoned and explains his attitudes and behavior towards women.
4) Enterim suggests changing attitude/behavior to avoid being friend zoned/improve likeliness that a woman will "go for you".
5) Enterim is a puerile misogynist?
Please explain to me why I'm wrong, because wow.
particularly the parts about feeling the need to give equal weight to both sides when one is clearly truthful and the other is false
It's equal consideration, not equal weight. Once you have considered two mutually exclusive views, you can then choose that one is better than the other, and give it more weight. At this point you no longer need to bother with equal consideration, either. Also, it is a simple matter to claim that your perspective is objective truth and your opponents is false, I'm sure even nfq can do this.
I'm claiming the concept of the friend zone is misogynistic because it revolves around men feeling let down because their sense of entitlement over women.
For some people this is probably true. They feel any girl they want should have sex with them. I think these people objectify women and want to think they aren't agents. They approach many women and (in their view) too many of the approaches fail to have the desired result: sex. Instead they get something they may or may not want: a friend. They are upset because their expectations have not been met, and complain that they have been friend zoned. They believe there is some way they can change their behavior to increase the success rate closer to 100%. This person is complaining that they have (any) female friends who do not have sex with them. I agree that this person is a misogynist.
Some people are not conquerors, but wish instead to have a mutually affectionate romantic partner, and usually they are content to have one at a time. It is not imperative that a particular woman fulfill that roll, and when they approach women looking for someone to have a mutually affectionate romantic relationship with, it's not a huge deal if after a while they are friend zoned. They try again. After many attempts, and gaining many female friends, they do not complain that they have female friends. They do complain that they have not yet found a mutually affectionate romantic partner, and believe that their repeated failure in doing so must be a result of their methods and there is some way they can change it to increase their success rate to at least n=1 in the next several attempts. I do not consider this person a misogynist, therefore I do not believe the concept of friend zone is misogynistic. If you want to claim that a person seeking a mutually affectionate romantic relationship is a misogynist, go ahead, but I think it would be unhealthy for a person who wants a mutually affectionate romantic relationship to not actively seek one.
I'm claiming the concept of the friend zone is misogynistic because it revolves around men feeling let down because their sense of entitlement over women. The friend zone is based on the idea that women are investments that you put time into in exchange for dividends (sex). This is demeaning, objectifying, and misogynistic.
I really think you are over-analyzing this. When the majority of people talk about the "friend zone", it's humorous. No ill intention is meant.
What would you call it when a girl you are interested in rejects you? (Or is it "too politically incorrect" to call that situation anything? Are we resorting to newspeak now?)
If a man wants to know how sexism affects women, I suggest he asks his sister, or a girl friend, about her experiences. Most women have a lot of stories to tell.
So I have shown this thread and the IRC quotes accompanying it to several women I know who can read English, including a girl I had intimate relationship with, a couple gamer girls I know, and my mother. None of them saw anything inherently misogynistic in the concept of friend zone; moreover, all of them were familiar with the experience firsthand. None of them who played games thought male gamers were driving them out of the hobby by any means; rather, the opposite took place—boy gamers that were their friends or romantic interests invited them to play some, although in these cases boys didn't make a significant difference.
All of women I asked, however, expressed dissatisfaction with feminists' behavior here in this thread, calling it unnecessary and purposefully rowdy, as well as hypocritical. One of them said (verbatim), "the only thing worse than a feminist is a male feminist". My mom had even more to say: "even if the idea of rape culture will go away at some point, it will be substituted by a similarly inflated concept, as drama queens and people with inferiority complex who instigate stupid events like SlutWalks will continue seeing "rape" everywhere, including completely harmless things, and victimize themselves. Like bulimics, they are simply insatiable; they enjoy wallowing in the attention and hysteria that helps them find a blame target for mishaps they can't take personal responsibility for." This opinion was very illuminative to me.
It appears, dear feminists, that not every woman agrees with your position. You might want to think what exactly you're representing.
Can we still expect that you address this or this post, or at the very least apologize to the community for your unnecessarily aggressive and juvenile behavior? Or is it very mature to start a drama and run away as soon as the rhetoric pool dries up?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In my experience, feminists are to gender equality what terrorists are to religion; a good thing taken way too far.
I highly doubt anyone here is against gender equality. But feminists just take the cake in crying "wolf". They bring up so much bullshit points that whenever they're actually on to something, it's hard to take them serious.
So yeah, as far as the concept of gender equality being considered a joke is concerned, the blame (with irony fit for the gods) lies with the feminists.
Okay so I browsed through the thread and thought I'd give my eighty cents.
What really annoys me about feminism is how feminists say that a woman's dollar is 80 cents and how institutionalized discrimination is everywhere and how the glass ceiling of this patriarchal society prevents women from progressing in society without ever backing up their claims. They base these claims of institutionalized discrimination in the workplace on for example showing figures about how only 10% or 20% or whatever of CEOs in large companies are women, even though that doesn't prove anything at all.
For a long time I thought that "a woman's euro is 80 cents" actually meant that a woman and a man working side by side in the same job had different salaries, which would of course be wrong. When I found out it actually meant that the combined income of all women in the society was only 80% of the combined income of all men in the society, I felt betrayed. I mean it's obvious that women earn less in total because they work less hours and spend more time taking care of children. This is a choice made by individual women, is it not? If a woman really wants to earn the same salary as a man, she just needs to dedicate herself to her work. No one has been able to indicate a mechanism which would prevent women from doing this. All talk about glass ceilings is just empty words if it can't be backed up.
And please don't say that "all feminist scholars agree that...". I've taken my share of women's studies and the main thing I learned about academic feminism is that you can't really trust most of the studies that come out of the department of women's studies, because a) most of the "science" isn't empirical at all but argumentative (like literature studies) and b) because their basic premises are often completely ideologically coloured and not based on empirical science. If you show me some good clean data on for example how more competent women are systematically being passed over and less competent men being hired in their stead, I'll be ready to admit that this institutionalized discrimination exists. Same thing goes for institutionalized racism. For example in Finland, Kenyans have a better employment rate than native Finnish people. Still this talk of institutionalized racism never seems to stop. Feminists just will not admit that perhaps most women don't want to be CEOs and have huge responsibilities at work (I'm not saying the women couldn't handle it, just that they might appreciate other things in life besides work).
What also pisses me off is feminists claiming that they are striving not for improving just women's rights, but for equality. What a complete load. At least in Finland, easily the biggest equality issue is the six to twelve month compulsory military service that applies only to men, but the Ombudsman for Equality has never even touched on the issue, but rather concentrates on the discrimination of, for example, transgendered people. While it is important that transgendered people are taken into account as well, they are still a very small minority compared to the half of the population that men represent. All talk about compulsory military service as an equality issue is belittled and not taken seriously.
So yeah, I guess you could say I'm a bit anti-feminist. But you will not find anyone who is more appreciative of women than me. I'm convinced the world would be a better place if all our leaders were women. As for the friend zone: if you really see talking about being friend zoned as misogynistic, you really must be looking at the world through some pretty funky glasses. And rape jokes? The dirtier the better. Same thing goes for holocaust jokes, pedophilia jokes and incest jokes. I'm also sure the world would be a better place if people learned to laugh at serious issues when it's not hurting anyone. PEACE! AND LOVE!
Feminists just will not admit that perhaps most women don't want to be CEOs and have huge responsibilities at work (I'm not saying the women couldn't handle it, just that they might appreciate other things in life besides work).
It is indeed much more likely that women are underrepresented as CEOs because of personal choices than because men discriminate against women. Does that mean that discrimination in this sector never happens? Of course not. There are always individual men who are a**holes. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they were only a very small reason for the disparity and if they were the only reason, they would account for nearly no difference in CEO gender statistics.
Let's face it, most women want to be mothers, especially after a certain age (nearing 30 or the like). Not all of them, of course, but a quite significant portion. While being a mother and a CEO is not mutually exclusive, one would certainly take time from the other, and most women would prefer spending time with their children rather than with a corporation. (Also, this certain age probably coincides roughly with the average age of a new CEO, or happens earlier. In other words, most women become moms before they become CEOs, which kind of decides the life path they are going to take.)
Most men do not feel such a strong pressure to put family before work. On the contrary, many men work hard to sustain their families, which is why the aspire to better-paying jobs (such as being a CEO). The gender roles could be reversed in this, and a few couples do it exactly like that (daddy stays home with children, mommy leads big megacorporation all day long), but this is rare. And the rarity of this has nothing to do with discrimination. Women just want to be with their children instead of running a company. There's nothing wrong with that.
