The state of Feminism, the good the bad

[BruceVC]

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

 

 

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific  then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say  "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

In my experience SJW refers exclusively to the belligerant online activists and not the legitimate IRL activists, so there's really no need to specify

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

....

 

Comparing dislike of internet activists to racism is stoopid. And being lectured on racism by a White South African is funny.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

In my experience SJW refers exclusively to the belligerant online activists and not the legitimate IRL activists, so there's really no need to specify

Yeah, I've never heard SJW applied in any other situation.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

In my experience SJW refers exclusively to the belligerant online activists and not the legitimate IRL activists, so there's really no need to specify

 

 

Okay fair enough because lately the general criticism and "dislike" from some people  hasn't just been about SJW but people who are concerned about SJ issues. But I'm glad you can differentiate between the two groups because there is a difference

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

....

 

Comparing dislike of internet activists to racism is stoopid. And being lectured on racism by a White South African is funny.

 

 

Well I would think my opinion of these matters carries more credibility because of my countries past  and Apartheid, I believe I emphasize more with people who are victims of discrimination on numerous levels exactly because I am a South African who does believe in a multi-racial and free society where no one is a victim of any kind of discrimination

[HoonDing]

Are you a Boer, Bruce?

[BruceVC]

Are you a Boer, Bruce?

 

No, I'm an English South African

[Volourn]

Feminists are evil. This has been proven time and time again. Just as evil as masculinists are. Scumbags every single last one of them.

[BruceVC]

Feminists are evil. This has been proven time and time again. Just as evil as masculinists are. Scumbags every single last one of them.

 

 

Volo to be honest you are generalizing now, remember we discussed this and there are different definitions of feminists. The more militant type of personality, like Anita, has perhaps hijacked the normal definition of a feminist which just wants gender equality in  society and in the eyes of the law  

[Shallow]

The word feminism inherently implies favoring women, it is also the obvious word female supremecists would brand themselves with, you might say "No its not, feminism is an important way to ensure gender equality." and that is how the majority of feminists view themselves, but crazy sexists like Valerie Solanas also view themselves as feminists, and based on the simple structure of the word, I'd say it makes more sense to give it to the crazies and get yourself a new word that actually implies equality.

 

Minority quotas are simply horrible.

There are obviously several cases were women are less likely to be hired due to being women, but there are also an extraordinary amount of cases were women are less likely to be hired because there are less women interested in that line of work, odds are there are also several lines of work more interested in hiring women than men.

There are also other valid while horrible reasons not to hire women, if you go from having no women to having one woman, you may have a risk of lower employees crossing some lines that maybe shouldn't be crossed, or a chick being overly offended, and you getting a sexual harassment suit on your hands. If you really don't want to deal with that kinda stuf maybe you'll try paying for some sensitivity training, again, money out of your pocket. As sad as it is, the fact that pregnancy leads to lengthy paid vacation in most if not all western countries is another reason hiring women might just not be as good an idea. Whilst most people will agree that not hiring someone because their pregnancy might cost you a bit makes you a ****ty person, it still is quite a bit of money, both paying an employee for being at home with her kid, and entroducing a substitute to her job and then paying him/her to do it. For the record, I personally believe it is unfair that women in many countries get free time off to be with their baby while men don't.

Quotas are unnecesarry government regulation.

Finally, and most importantly, the people who want quotas often don't just want them on normal labor, they also want them on art.

 

A big issue with SJWs is, as others said somewhere else on the forum, that they don't do anything to distance themselves from the physchos who are under the same "FEMINISM" banner, but not only that, they'll actively protect said physchos from basic, honest, and fair critiscm. You guys (only referring to the SJWs actively doing this, not all of them) are no better than the people who label all feminists as wanting to castrate men and outlaw masculinity when you oftentimes label anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints, or even attacks certain women validly for bad things they've done as the absolute worst people on the antifeminist side, just because there are people crying for women to be enslaved doesn't mean it is fair to claim that everyone who dislike feminism hold such a view, the same way I doubt Bruce intends to systematically exterminate all men.

 

Quite frankly, Anita deserves a lot of vocal abuse, deaththreats and the like obviously aren't called for, but just because some people may or may not have made such threats, doesn't mean people should stop calling her a pathetic piece of ****, and if SJWs were willing to openly come out against her and join the moderate antifeminists and regular people in disliking her (while still strongly condemning any potential actual threats on her person), it'd be a lot harder to not find SJWs and whiteknights pathetic.

 

edit: If anything, I'd also say it is the more moderate feminists who highjacked the word, however the movement has continually evolved, (from what I'm aware) initially starting out as a movement considering traditional feminine aspects and women superior to traditional masculine aspects and men, then it got driven into physchos calling for mass executions of men, then it got driven into mostly moderates when it became cool for every women and their dog to call themselves a feminist.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Shallow

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

....

 

Comparing dislike of internet activists to racism is stoopid. And being lectured on racism by a White South African is funny.

Well I would think my opinion of these matters carries more credibility because of my countries past and Apartheid, I believe I emphasize more with people who are victims of discrimination on numerous levels exactly because I am a South African who does believe in a multi-racial and free society where no one is a victim of any kind of discrimination

That's nice. I bet some of your best friends are Black too.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

But you obviously realize the SJ movement and campaigns consist of millions of people throughout the world. You've only experienced the views of a few small percentage of the total number of people who support SJ causes. How can you make such a generalized statement about such a diverse group, surly you can see what is wrong with that type of blanket statement?

*Sigh*

 

Suggesting that the "Ban Bossy" and Anita 'n' Kotaku brands of activism belongs in the same category as human rights groups is a bit delduded, and frankly a bit insulting to the latter. I would wager most of us who show distaste towards SJWs are referring to the highly antagonistic folks who subscribe to the former groups mentioned in the previous sentence.

I'm don't mean to lecture you but maybe you should be more specific then when you make statements about groups of people you dislike , for example if I say "I don't like Chinese people " because of the rude Chinese people who run my local take-away it makes me sound silly and uninformed because I'm allowing a personal dislike of a small representation of an entire nation to shape my overall opinion of that nation. Even if I didn't mean it the perception that gets created about me isn't great.

 

Just something for you to consider

....

 

Comparing dislike of internet activists to racism is stoopid. And being lectured on racism by a White South African is funny.

Well I would think my opinion of these matters carries more credibility because of my countries past and Apartheid, I believe I emphasize more with people who are victims of discrimination on numerous levels exactly because I am a South African who does believe in a multi-racial and free society where no one is a victim of any kind of discrimination

That's nice. I bet some of your best friends are Black too.

 

 

Not  my best friends but I do have black friends and work colleagues.

[Volourn]

"Volo to be honest you are generalizing now, remember we discussed this and there are different definitions of feminists. The more militant type of personality, like Anita, has perhaps hijacked the normal definition of a feminist which just wants gender equality in  society and in the eyes of the law "

 

By very definition, feminism is sexist. It is not generalizing to say it is sexist.

 

It explicitly states that to believe in equality one must be female or feminim. That equality is a female trait. That is very much sexist. I have a **** between my legs and I believe in equality. Damnit.

[Zoraptor]

Are you a Boer, Bruce?

Obviously not or he'd be WikusVC, JannieVC, FannieVC, JoostVC, ReubenVC, FrancoisVC, FafVC, AndreVC, PikVC, RuanVC, GerhardusVC, HendrickVC etc, not BruceVC.

 

And that has exhausted my 20s trawl through every afrikaans movie character, rugby player, cricketer or politician I can remember.

[BruceVC]

"Volo to be honest you are generalizing now, remember we discussed this and there are different definitions of feminists. The more militant type of personality, like Anita, has perhaps hijacked the normal definition of a feminist which just wants gender equality in  society and in the eyes of the law "

 

By very definition, feminism is sexist. It is not generalizing to say it is sexist.

 

It explicitly states that to believe in equality one must be female or feminim. That equality is a female trait. That is very much sexist. I have a **** between my legs and I believe in equality. Damnit.

 

I'm going to say this one more time and then I'll leave it, in the beginning of this thread I gave you guys the official and proper definitions of the word feminism from two different English dictionaries. I'll repeat them for convenient sake

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

 

I do accept that the interpretation  of the  word due to a modern  negative perception has changed and it now has a negative connotation but that doesn't change the fact that the proper meaning has nothing to do with sexism or saying women are now better than men

[Volourn]

Yes, it does. It says so right in the word itself: FEMINISM.

 

I believe in true equality. Feminists do not.

[Chaz]

Yes, it does. It says so right in the word itself: FEMINISM.

 

I believe in true equality. Feminists do not.

 

That would make you a gender egalitarian.

[sorophx]

In Sweden

you know what else they do in Sweden?

 

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

 

Listen in my last post I left this out cause it's irrelevant to the feminism cause, but the woman is dishonest and opportunistic. She's lied about her past and has - on multiple occassions - used misleading representations of games to promote her agenda. Obsidian's very own Fallout New Vegas got targeted by her as an example of "using women as decoration and not as characters." It doesn't get a long explanation mind you, but you'll find female hookers from the game appearing in a montage of "guilty parties," along with a claim that using violence against women or such sexually objectified characters isn't discouraged and in some cases rewarded. Nevermind that you can walk in the Gomorrah and quickly discover male prostitutes aswell, nevermind that the very example clip she showed CONVENIENTLY cuts off before Freeside blows her head off for killing a hooker, and doesn't even address the bad karma alert.

Ok, that's what I call a goddamn liar, anyone who played FNV knows this is bull****, and any obsidian fan should be pissed about this.

 

I'm sorry but she's a bad person, a liar and manipulator, I have no sympathy for her at all and I don't care about the alleged threats, I don't belive a word from her without hard evidence, period.

Wait, what? Fallout New Vegas got called out as treating women as decoration? The game with 3 very fleshed out female companions, many well written female NPCs, and that lets you play as a female character? Wow, that is ****. Not only is it lazy, but it is a lie.

 

When someone spreads false information like this, they need to be called out on their Bull****. Calling someone a liar when they have lied is the just course of action.

 

 

 

A little late (been hella busy lately) but just thought I'd clarify:

 

Anita has a video for "women as backround decoration." In it, Anita goes on a monologue on how women are treated merely as objects to lust after rather than characters with any depth, and later how violence against women in such games has little to no negative reprocussions and is sometimes often encouraged as a warped male power fantasy. During these monologues, she tends to show little montages of games exhibiting these problems. Amongst the games shown, Fallout New Vegas makes an appearance with her citing Gomorrah hookers as being an example of women being treated as nothing beyond backround decoration, while another clip showing her killing the Crier for the Atomic Wrangler is shown as an example of there being no reprocussions or minimal punishment for harming such sexualized women. (here, the clip CONVENIENTLY cuts off just around the moment that the Kings take notice and go red on the radar)

 

  I also recall Hitman Absolution was included in the montage and their fans were pretty pissed about it too. Supposedly there's an assassination level where you can sneak in through the women's dressing room at a club where all the strippers are, but that method of sneaking in is considered one of the worst and riskiest ways because you're so likely to get spotted. Likewise, Anita shows the protagonist killing every stripper in there and saying it serves no punishment and is "encouraged" while the reality is that the punishments are incredibly severe for doing that.

 

 

 

So yeah, as I said. The woman's a liar and an opportunist. And I for one find it rather sad that she's being considered a "voice" for gamers solely because mainstream news networks pick up on her stuff and take it seriously.

 

  The other day I was actually hypothesizing I could probably make a fairly convincing series of videos where I say gaming needs more disabled characters (born with one leg myself) and that gamers as a culture and as a community are particularly hateful and spiteful towards the disabled, citing any negative comments I receive on my videos. Pro-tip: I would definitely get some form of comment threatening to kill me and calling me a sick crippled loser or something like that. Not because gamers hate the disabled or anything, but because that's the internet.

  The reality is it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ****ing easy to find just one negative comment on the internet and claim it represents the face of an entire culture. All Anita has proven is the internet culture is ornery as ****; I think it's poor methodology to try and attribute sexism to gamers over comments made. Mind you, I'm not saying there AREN'T sexist gamers, I merely mean she seems to be drastically inflating the issue (for personal benefit) with very poor reasoning. Sadly, the media plays into it. Google her name and you'll find countless articles reporting on her recent little claims of some guy sending all those threatening tweets or whatever, eating up every word of it.

[Chaz]

I found this on the internet, but it reflects a point that I have been making for years. Gamers of all walks of life have banded together to defend their hobby, the thing that many of us love, against baseless claims like turning people violent and psychopathic criminals, and we laughed together when religious folks say our games are satanic.

But when anita "Not a Gamer" sarkeesian said that games make people sexist or reinforce mysogynistic ideas about women, she got overwhelming support, I have asked tons of times, where's the evidence of all of this? and her supporters even in this forum were never able to answer me. Personally I think people are just following her blindly because of Ideology (feminism)

Edited August 31, 2014 by Chaz

[Elerond]

What I would call double standard is to accuse person taking things out of context and even lying and then do that itself in efforts to make that person look bad.

[NWN_babaYaga]

Doesnt matter what Anita is in reality. She is just an agent of the new age religion of the social engeniers which agenda is so out in the open and everyone seems to be in bed with them. you can compare all that BS with her to real politics because everywhere in the west this so called feminist movement and gender is only there to destroy the family, the culture and freedom. See the results only and dont listen to all that nice talk about equality and nonsense. It´s about censorship and government controll. And these muppets all agree with this new way of thinking. Yes to censorship and no to freedom of creativity.

 

Like i said, you dont have to have any skills you just have to be choosen by some very clever people to do the dirty work for the people behind all of that.

 

It will be funny to see things hit the fan when they crawl into the porn biz. Social justice in the porn industry will be very funny... heh.

 

Or they try to silence rap music... political correct rap music for the street from the street....lol

 

Just think about what the future will be when everything one single person is offended by will be a redline for anyone else to talk about.

Most conversations are like that:

 

trigger warning.

trigger warning

trigger warning.

 

wow... great future. thanks to all the empty heads!

 

When i think about that. I wish that everyone just dies right now who supports that. It´s a dangerous thing and it will destroy freedom. Seriously, just shoot yourself and let the people alone with your sad mental problems.

Edited August 31, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[BruceVC]

Doesnt matter what Anita is in reality. She is just an agent of the new age religion of the social engeniers which agenda is so out in the open and everyone seems to be in bed with them. you can compare all that BS with her to real politics because everywhere in the west this so called feminist movement and gender is only there to destroy the family, the culture and freedom. See the results only and dont listen to all that nice talk about equality and nonsense. It´s about censorship and government controll. And these muppets all agree with this new way of thinking. Yes to censorship and no to freedom of creativity.

 

Like i said, you dont have to have any skills you just have to be choosen by some very clever people to do the dirty work for the people behind all of that.

 

It will be funny to see things hit the fan when they crawl into the porn biz. Social justice in the porn industry will be very funny... heh.

 

Or they try to silence rap music... political correct rap music for the street from the street....lol

 

Just think about what the future will be when everything one single person is offended by will be a redline for anyone else to talk about.

Most conversations are like that:

 

trigger warning.

trigger warning

trigger warning.

 

wow... great future. thanks to all the empty heads!

 

When i think about that. I wish that everyone just dies right now who supports that. It´s a dangerous thing and it will destroy freedom. Seriously, just shoot yourself and let the people alone with your sad mental problems.

 

Wow....but I'm wearing my tinfoil hat...surly I won't be effected?

[Orogun01]

What I would call double standard is to accuse person taking things out of context and even lying and then do that itself in efforts to make that person look bad.

Not really, both had a premise based on the fact that  games are violent/sexist and both ended up with the conclusion that games make people violent/sexist.