SJW Feminazi Tumblrina Land™

I don' t believe in conspiracies but I do believe in convergence of interests. That being said, I think the status quo is closer to "may the best man win" than to "may man win", more than you might realize. Here in France we' ve passed quotas, half of our politicians are women. We were told they would do things differently, be less petty than their male colleagues. My ass. Politics is politics, regardless of your gender. Be a shark or drown. The rule of the game is competition. No one is actively keeping girls from becoming IT students. No one. We already give equality of opportunity in school but divisions already appear there.

 

The problem is that the competition only would be fair if in any generation the population would suffer a soft reset, and everyone would get the same opportunity to thrive, this doesn't happen and the powerfull become more powerfull and the poor even more poor. The family that owns GM or any other major enterprise will continue to pass to their heirs their assets, people that are rich can make money by speculating on stocks, they will continue to make sure their descendents have a good life independent of merit, they will try to maintain the things that made them successful that are against the interessets of the majority of the population.


That goes deeper to politics as well, rich companies lobby their way into politics, and politicians make laws that ensure their profit akin to a monarchy system, even though the state exists to try to correct the discrepancy of classes, it does very little about it. Outsourcing is good for the rich, but bad for the poor that will have less rights and will have to accept lower incomes for crappier jobs.
The thing is that those things don't happen in a vacuum, black people were slaves in the past and when they were freed they didn't had the education nor the acceptance of society to get jobs, women wouldn't "work"(they worked at home but didn't had an income) in the past so it is more difficult for them to get jobs nowadays, many history marks enable them to have better opportunities than they had previously. Off course you can settle for what you achieved by now, or keep demanding more, but keep in mind that women could have settle in any point and that would mean that nowadays you would have less opportunities.
.... basically even though is nobody's "fault" the struggle for fairness should continue, because if it is left alone it will become even more unequal, the patriarchy is just a figure to explain the phenomenon, the same thing can be said about the "hand of the market", or even evolution that is a process that slowly happens as a by product of selection of the best traits, it is not a tangible thing.

 

I think money is pretty tangible alright. And while they do earn less women also own more, white knight syndrome I guess.

 

Money as a tangible thing is debatable as well since the gold pattern was dropped there is no money coverage, so we make transactions with "imaginary money" that can never come into reality making crisis ,"The hand of the market" that I was talking is about how the market self regulates itself, it is not possible to predict minor things, but at large scale and with the help of statistics it is possible to make predictions, but there is no real entity of the "market", even if the work and riches are real.
There are some experiments that show how money changes the perception of the possession making it more valuable than "things" (that would be the end goal at first look). But I will not digress in such theme, I was only trying to make a point about the metaphors that are made to explain real phenomenon that people start treating like a "real" thing.

Ps.: Evolution is real in the sense that it happens, it is proved, and we can see what
happened first, but it is only a phenomenon that explains how randomness work together with mutations making changes that increases the fitness, so it is first observed by posteriori and it is difficult (but not impossible) to predict things given the high number of the population + the probability associated with each allele, yet these predictions are flawed as there is the random factor in the mix, the climate may change in ways that we are not able to predict nowaday, and even the dispersion of allele(genes) can be random or not (Just saying this for nobody quote me on "evolution doesn't exist").

 

That was pretty much my definition of patriarchy. When I see feminists use the word in modern days I have no clue what they' re talking about anymore. That' s not the world I grew up in. Mine was more like ...

Spoiler

I' ve been raised to white knight women, to become the über SJW, to cut them some slack any way I can while pretending I didn' t. I highly doubt I' m the only one, few men are willing to sleep in the dog house. I' m also 35 and still not married, I definitely understand what Bill is talking about here.

Besides, even if you do look back in time, while gender roles were stricter they didn' t necessarily put all the power in men' s hands :

Spoiler

I briefly mentioned what was going on in Sweden earlier, they' re waging a war on boys in their schools. If you' ve never heard of it google it up, it' s jaw dropping. There' s a lot of public institutions running on 50 years old feminist dogmas that are simply outdated. Now might be about damn time for some feminists to wake the **** up and notice.

Spoiler

Yeah, I know, lots of lengthy videos in my posts. What can I say, I have a lot of free time on my hands lately and I can be very patient when my interest is caught.

 

Woops, I forgot to address this part. Feminists can spew bullshit on tumblr all day long and see if I care, what I do mind is to see journalists put said bullshit on their front pages just to garner clicks. Even my mum' s Le Figaro Madame has a stricter editorial line. I know journalism integrity isn' t really a thing in the US, but we have laws about that here. And it' s all the more agravating when they mess with the actual news. Four months, they' ve had four ****ing months to ask their French colleagues what the hell was Charlie Hebdo about. Apparently they couldn' t be bothered to ask. That, or they know what it' s really about but they don' t care. Either way it doesn' t look good, especially for a left wing journal. I understand why the average american would get the wrong idea when seeing these cartoons, I do. They' re easy to read wrong. I also undestand why the average american cared for three seconds total. I have a harder time understanding why journalists are still stuck on that level of the debate :

Spoiler

"The last one is a pretty bad one".
I guess it is if you don' t understand what' s written right above it (love is stronger than hate). Looks pretty tame to me.
Fluide Glacial has published that kind of stuff for decades and no one has ever given a flying **** about it. Still does.

 

I'm failing to see a connection between the Charlie Hebdo attack and my objection to your using the word (slur) "feminazi." For all it represents, the Charlie Hebdo attack has little to do with feminism in general, in my eyes -- nothing to do with issues of gender or sexuality. Unless of course you're defending "feminazi" under a similar idea logical banner as Charlie Hebdo, which from my understanding actively works to offend and incite all in the name of anti-authoritarianism.

 

Urgh. It was probably a bad idea for me to bring up Charlie Hebdo on an american forum. No they don' t work to offend and incite all in the name of anti-authorianism. Hate speech doesn' t seem to be a biggie in the US either, but we do have hate speech laws around here. And btw, I am of the mind that some of them do qualify as censorship. As I said earlier Charlie Hebdo is sort of the French Stephen Colbert. Read them at face value, without any prior knowledge to French politics or culture, and chances are you' ll read them wrong. Here, let me illustrate :

Spoiler

The caption reads "Meanwhile in Bangladesh". The character says "You guys are in are thoughts".
Yes, it is indeed a banania-style negro. But tell me, who do you think is really the butt of the joke here ?

That' s what drives me mad, that four months later a journal that has a French edition (which by the way hilariously employs Caroline Fourest, of Charlie Hebdo fame) still fail to understand the first thing about what they' re talking about. Doesn' t exactly give me trust in the rest of their insights on foreign affairs.

I don' t mind having feminists issues brought up on the first page if they are actual issues. But if your article comes from a blatantly biased and fallacious place, one too blatant for any decently cognitive journalist to overlook it, it just makes feminism look like a cheap joke, a cosmic farce. I don' t have any exemple on hand to illustrate, I don' t really store those, but I think it' s a safe bet to say anything by Anita Sarkeesian will do. Maybe there' s a cultural difference at play here, I' m not sure, but in France the magazines that mix legit news and light-hearted articles tend to separate those two more clearly, and not to put the silly stuff upfront.

 

One thought, don't think that even though you had a good upbring this is general to all women in western world. reading back your posts it seems to me like "I was raised to be a tough woman, I don't want any shortcuts", this is an anecdotal observation, When I discuss with my peers I also have the impression that most of the humanity is enlightened, but when I read the papers I see that my country is becoming a conservative almost fundamentalist country than I fear for the future and that I take things for granted.
So even though things are getting better, violence against women/gay/minorities is still strong and there is few powerful women figures in media/politics etc.. even if in france there are, in the whole statistically speaking things are very asymmetrical.

 

I' m not sure whether you just called me a woman (which ... I' m not) or whether you think I' m saying expecting shortcuts at every corner just cements women in their damsel role (which I am). I would also add that at this point feminism is running out of excuses not to care about men.

WW2 is still within living memory here, we know we shouldn' t take democracy and peace for granted. I' ve always been wary of our far right. But you know what ? Strangely this whole Charlie thing gave me some hope. We keep being told we millenials are trash, the product of moral and intellectual decline, yet here were millions of people taking to the streets to stick up together. Most of them lefty atheists (the far right somehow didn' t feel like joining). I' m not sure why they did, but they did.

Besides, I heard the story of a far right racist who had been given a key position in the French resistance. The treasury. He saw too much during the war to remain racist, but there. I am wary of our far right, but I realize the world works in shades of gray.

The French are very lucid about the fact that, for all of our enlightenment we never tired of glorifying, we' re not that far off from our old monarchy. The word was "shut up and obey", now it' s "please do keep talking and see if I care". As for the medias they' re our modern court jesters. The Charlie Hebdo victims would have laughed their asses out or died of shame on the spot had they known they' d become a sacred symbol of the freedom of speech, disputed by nearly every president on the planet. They had no sacred cows, not even themselves. It seems one of the survivors had a hard time enduring his unavoidable photo time with our president, but a pigeon chose that moment to take a dump on the presidential vest, giving our artist some much needed comic relief.

 

If that's the reasoning behind the term, then allow me to scoff. "Equalism" implies no such thing. You can make two values equal by adding to one value and/or subtracting from the other, but there are no prior assumptions to the term. It makes you wonder why a group that"s so sick and tired of being misunderstood gathers under an outdated banner that encourages misinterpretation.

Most reasonable feminists do argue that equality between genders is what they're ultimately going for, yet they continue to sweep misandric double standards under the rug. When is the last time you heard a self-proclaimed feminist speak up against men being sentenced to longer prison terms? I have yet to see most of them be anything beyond blatant opportunists.

 

I am sorry, I never looked on your stats (now I see you are a dude), Not saying that it is strange to a man trying to tell women how they should do feminism and such, is that the way you describe your upbring seemed to me that you were a woman that was sure that had her equal place in the current world, your point to be raised to be equal sounds a little hollow, when we (I am am a man as well) are already born in the "upclass" and trained to not see what we get as privileges. I don't think that men should not had a say on the matter, I wrongly assumed you were a woman (and that is my fault), but If your life struggles don't reflect the overcome of an assymetrical society , it seems to me that your point is even more anecdotal than what I previously supposed (because If you were never a woman that won in a man's world, you are just saying something really theoretical, so It is better to stay to statistics).
And by all means I believe that censorship is wrong, and what was done to Charlie lawful, but be free to speak is not the same as "not being responsable for what is said", like the another thread on this forum about "double standards in relationships", It is OK for you to say whatever you want, if you are ready for the outcome that could be legal (if it was a crime), or just ostracism (if it was hateful/stupid), not violent responses though.
So I think you are wrong in saying things like Feminazi, You can say this, but you should expect that some people may be offended by it and avoid you by this, just like in the other topic a woman could continue to engage or not the conversation after the guy asks her cup size. A minority of people will continue to converse with people that have complete diferent belife's system and that is what freedom is all about, even though I personaly try to keep the conversation open that is not the norm.

 

You don' t need to have balls to know it hurts when you kick them, if you catch my drift. You' re still stuck on prioritizing woman problems, and here I thought we were talking about humans. Which, you know, I happen to be one. I suggest we take a look at the actual, factual data, one whose methodology doesn' t look like a farce (if it can even be accessed), and then direct our few precious resources to whoever needs it most regardless of their gender. I do not care one bit what their gender is, pain is pain. I' ll take the rational approach over the dogmatic one any day, trying to praise critical thinking here.

Few Muslims are actually bothered by Mahomet depictions, especially in France. The very fact that the world is filled with different cultures, therefore different linguistic and graphic semantics, means this kind of misunderstanding is bound to happen sooner or later. There is no way to prevent that. Things can and will be taken out of context, deal with it. The people who decide to go and wave those pictures were they weren' t meant to be do it on purpose and for political reasons. There might be a few Muslims that are genuinely bothered by it but I don' t care. The pizzo always raises, give them a finger and politically motivated Muslims will soon scream for an arm. **** that. Get your adult pants on. Or sue Charlie Hebdo, it wouldn' t be the first time.

Franco-Belgian comics at large have drawn Mahomet for decades in general indifference.

I already told you what I meant by feminazi. Switch it with "rad fems" if it suits you better, that won' t change the definition.
You didn' t seem too stuck on semantics when it came to "feminism"

 

And this wouldn't be an issue if "equality" across the board wasn't the subject at hand. If feminism is SOLELY for the rights of women, then the name of the movement, and some of the priorities reflected by the actions of SOME of the "members" of said group, fit the title appropriately.

I have no problem with a movement caring solely for "x" type of person (race, sex, religion, etc). It doesn't matter, believe what you want to believe. However I do have an issue when the actions of those in 'that' movement, don't match up with the words that get thrown around. To put it bluntly, I find those feminists (not picking on the movement, its just the example of this thread so I am using it) who say they want equality for both sexes, and then only seem to care about the well being of ONE of the two (I know you can say that there are more than one "gender" but for the sake of example I am saying there is two. Please don't get offended)

tl;dr, if you only really care about one group. Don't act like you care about all of them. That is pretty much one of my only issues with any of this. And if you do care, make sure you actions and words match up (this should technically be done even if you don't care, but you get my point)

 

Wich is why I posted that vid saying feminism is in dire need of orthodoxy and transparency. It' s hard to tell what you' re really signing for.
People are of course free to start from the conclusion they want to reach, but don' t be too surprised if the people who don' t share your bias call bullshit on it.

But come on, could we not at least agree it' s just bizarre and surreal to have shelters and stuff refusing people based on what dangles between their legs ? Even though they' d treat you the exact same way anyhow ?

 

*awful (not lawful , like I said in previous post sorry!).
What I am trying to say is that we never truly know what people have been through their life, I try to feel empathy, but I will never "know" what a black person had to endure their entire life from others, nor from themselves such a strong internal belief of what they should do or should be etc.
I don't know either what is for a woman that had to live being approached by men in an almost predatory way since their puberty.
Yes, I think we have to be equals, but when we live on an asymmetrical society is part of my belief that to be neutral is to be on the side of the oppressor.
Not because the oppressor is bad, just because you are maintaining status quo. If you are ok of how society is now than by all means just continue doing your thing. If you think there is room to improve than rebel. It is simple as that: people fight for their own interest in the end.
That being said, I don't know how much trouble the women face and how big their problems is in comparison with others so I look at statistcs and not at my group of people, because people with similar system of beliefs tend to be togheter and we get the impression that most people think like we do.

As way feminism looks more to aid the woman side of the thing I think the story posted before about beasts fully ilustrates it, You may not agree with it, but surely you can see the reasoning about it.

 

The whole oppressor narrative would be part of the feminist dogma. Not sure what they mean by it but I doubt I buy it anyway.
I would be uncomfortable to know that my daughters are fed with that kind of male negative crap in school.
It' s not the focus on women I' m necessarily worried about, it' s the man hating vibe.

 

I think you can phrase or express yourself however it suits you best, the problem with movements is that all kinds of people work together giving their own interpretation and bias, and some people start to belive that abstract constructs that were made to ilustrate the big picture are "real", you don't have to describe men as oppressors if you don't want to, and it is hard to acknowledge your own flaws , or endure some because you're part of some group.
(So men are depicted as evil, even though we also suffer from gender roles).
That being said I think if an organization/country should uphold the "Feminist agenda" than by all means they should try to be more orthodox and inclusive, but as far as it goes as a free self movement it will be difficult to put standards as every people will have their own ideas about it.
People aren't at guilt of being male of female, neither being black/white, or being french/brazilian/american. Yet, even though those characteristics are random, the hardships that come with them are not, because they are already on our society by inertia, so (in my view) we should try to correct by giving opportunities for the groups that are less supported.
It is easy to imagine the picture, even something simple as being born in a rich family or a poor one is only about luck and not merit, but after you are born as a child of Bill Gates it is easy to figure your path to success is a little shortter than being born at a poor family.
The same holds truth for gender/class/country/etc... the problem is that the "meritocracy" system awards people for the merit of 8 generations ago, that is were state should intervine.

 

Oh no no no no no. I' ve been raised catholic, I know shaming tactics when I see them. Abstract is useless in my book. If you' re going to slander me you' d better be able to conjure up a little more than empty buzz words my little lady, or else an oppressor is exactly what you' re going to get. Feminists abuse shaming tactics because feminist discussions usually are a lose/lose situation for men. You just do not make a frail little girl cry. I meant a strong girl. Ever.

You don' t get it. The vagueness is intentional.
No one is actually trying to back feminism up in credible ways, especially not tumblrinas. All you' ll ever get from a direct confrontation is more smokescreens.

How the hell would you go about addressing a problem you can' t even begin to define ?

I thought that' s what my taxes were for. They clearly have loopholes, but I wasn' t exactly counting on feminists to fix that.