I'm sorry, I need to blow off steam.

[BANZAI!!!!]

I can be rude to who I want, when I want.  I am entitled to act in whichever manner I do so desire.  If you don't like my choice of words, then by all means, please ignore me.  My calling Shard foolish for paying mind to a senseless lynch mob of people who don't even matter is justified because I can say it, and because I feel right in saying it.  I do not have to hold back my words to avoid hurting people's feelings.

 

Hate to break it to you hon, but you do in fact have to behave. "Because I can say it and feel right in saying it" is the same mentality people use to justify hate speech. Calm the funk down, please and thankyou.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

One very important point, not to anyone in specific but to EVERYone. Read the last paragraph.

 More importantly, it's bad for the real Feminists. The true ones that want equality, and nothing more. These fake Feminists give the real ones a bad name, and I'm honestly saddened by the fact we call this Feminism. Real Feminists tend to understand certain things should be divided by sex, after all, sexist or not, there are minor differences between us. Much less things than what currently appear to be divided by sex, mind you, but certain things. I have a large amount of respect for real rights activists who are just trying to make the world a better place. I have nothing but contempt for these fake men-hating clowns.
 

[Simping For Hina]

One very important point, not to anyone in specific but to EVERYone. Read the last paragraph.

The best definition put forward, actually. But, the way you went about it was wrong as well. It provides no means of continuing the conversation. Just a statement and a quote from something already part of it.

 

As I believe, there should be a conversation started here where instead of trying to rid of every negative conversation and positive conversation be without growth, we need to present a proper idea of what should be done and try to do so. I actually have the desire to write a piece to begin a conversation of actual individualism, now. As that is what I see most groups trying to achieve, without a realistic means or proper end game in mind. There is always a group within an entire organization that puts a bad connotation toward such organization, or use a name in vain for personal goals or group goals that don't parallel with properly desired and deserving ones.

[bury the year]

First of all, to say "this isn't feminism" is disingenuous. The problem with modern feminism, or "third wave feminism" as it's more commonly called, is that it's been increasingly radicalized as people see the plights of others worldwide. Skin color, income level and other factors are being introduced as the movement becomes internationalized, and that's causing a ton of schisms. This is in contrast to first wave feminism, which was "we want the right to vote," and second wave feminism, which was "end legal/workplace discrimination." Both of those were primarily for white, affluent Western women. Third wave feminism is all just "okay, so now what? Where do we all stand?" And I'm asserting that's why we have this moral hijacking of the feminist label by obvious misandrists.

 

Now, I'm not going to cherry pick parts of the feminist movement, because I feel like that undermines it as a whole. Instead, I subscribe the label "egalitarianism" to talk about the type of gender/racial equality that I'm sure many people can get behind. It carries none of the baggage that the word "feminism" does and thus makes it easier to talk about my social ideals. I'm not saying feminism is bad - feminism's done a lot of great things in the developing world - but I'm saying it's been overwhelmed by negative perceptions. We may want to also raise another banner.

 

Hope this makes sense. P:

 

EDIT: For clarifications and a word.

[Simping For Hina]

First of all, to say "this isn't feminism" is disingenuous. The problem with what modern feminism, or "third wave feminism" as it's more commonly called, is that it's been increasingly radicalized as people see the plights of others worldwide. Skin color, income level and other factors are being introduced as the movement becomes internationalized, and that's causing a ton of schisms. This is in contrast to first wave feminism, which was "we want the right to vote," and second wave feminism, which was "end legal/workplace discrimination." Third wave feminism is all just "okay, so now what?" And I'm asserting that's why we have this moral hijacking of the feminist label by obvious misandrists.

 

Now, I'm not going to cherry pick parts of the feminist movement, because I feel like that undermines it as a whole. Instead, I subscribe the label "egalitarianism" to talk about the type of gender/racial equality that I'm sure many people can get behind. It carries none of the baggage that the word "feminism" does and thus makes it easier to talk about my social ideals. I'm not saying feminism is bad, but I'm saying it's already been overwhelmed by negative perceptions to the point that it may be time to raise another banner.

 

Hope this makes sense. P:

I appreciate this. And this is as much spam as CowCow's post was. I am a hypocrite now.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The best definition put forward, actually. But, the way you went about it was wrong as well. It provides no means of continuing the conversation. Just a statement and a quote from something already part of it.

 

As I believe, there should be a conversation started here where instead of trying to rid of every negative conversation and positive conversation be without growth, we need to present a proper idea of what should be done and try to do so. I actually have the desire to write a piece to begin a conversation of actual individualism, now. As that is what I see most groups trying to achieve, without a realistic means or proper end game in mind. There is always a group within an entire organization that puts a bad connotation toward such organization, or use a name in vain for personal goals or group goals that don't parallel with properly desired and deserving ones.

 

I understand that but I felt it was important to keep in mind it's not as though the OP is intentionally trying to attack the idea as a whole, but is simply not understanding the connotations fully. I thought that was a good thing to remember, especially as we reach the second page.

That and you can probably tell (And I hope, understand) I am not in the correct state of mind to have the most proper conversation about it, just thought it important to keep in mind.

 

Actually mine was less spam, Daeby since at least mine's from a different page. :3

[Sethera]

Really cool stuff

 

See, I understand this. I do. Feminism gets a bad rap nowadays and it does have baggage. And it's heavy. Heck, just by calling myself a "feminist" I instantly have to deal with a wave of prejudice resulting from that word alone. It discourages me, and makes it hard for me to want to admit that, because I don't want to have to be yelled at just because that's how I call myself.

 

But I also feel like, if I give up the usage of that word, and use egalitarianism instead, while it shakes off the negative connotations, it also shakes off the good ones. Of what it used to mean, back when it was a purely good thing. I don't want to give up that term to those that use it to further hate. I want it to be restored to what it was meant to be originally.

 

But the English language especially is an evolving one, and maybe it's time to let go. Idk. I just know, feminism or egalitarianism, whatever you call it, what I agree is treating people with equal respect no matter what they were born as. And that's what we should be striving for, not hate or special treatment or all these other crappy things.

[bury the year]

But I also feel like, if I give up the usage of that word, and use egalitarianism instead, while it shakes off the negative connotations, it also shakes off the good ones. Of what it used to mean, back when it was a purely good thing. I don't want to give up that term to those that use it to further hate. I want it to be restored to what it was meant to be originally.

 

I can understand where you're coming from with this. Egalitarianism in its modern iteration did seem to evolve in direct opposition to feminism, or at least that's how I've observed it.

 

But yes, treat people how you wish to be treated. It's the Golden Rule, guys. Doesn't take a ton of brains.

[Tentacruel]

There's a bit of a problem with just writing it off as a vocal minority.  When someone disagrees with such opinions, a lot of times what happens [on the internet] is it's interpreted as disagreeing with feminism in general, which if you ask most people, even such "extremists," is equality for women and/or equality for everybody.  

 

Feminists, believe it or not, are human beings.  Human beings have opinions that can stretch beyond simplicity like equality for everyone all the time.  Human beings can be bastards.  Someone isn't no longer a feminist if they act like a dick on the internet.  

 

That being said, I've seen people quite often confuse being a "strong independent woman" (for lack of a better term) with being a funking jabroni.  And don't get me wrong, this is funking America and you have the right to be an jabroni, but if people don't like your assholeishness it's not ​necessarily because they're a raging misogynist. 

 

 

 

Anyway.  At the end of the day, I just think we should treat people with respect and be nice and sheet.

 

 

edit:

But yes, treat people how you wish to be treated. It's the Golden Rule, guys. Doesn't take a ton of brains.

Basically this.

[Icy]

I wouldnt necessary categorize it as modern feminism at all. More...

 

Sarkeesian Feminism = Blame Everyone with no basis for argument beyond cherry picking what can be observed.

Social Justice Feminism = Well thought out self-defensive self-interest activism (yes activism not feminism).

Feminism = You know, the standard definition for global equality.

[Flame Dragon]

I know very little about this topic, but I will try to respond to some of the things brought up by the TC (just that since I honestly don't have the time to read through this all) that I feel I know a enough about to qualify to respond to.

 

In the mean time, just going to post this here

 

http://atopfourthwall.tumblr.com/post/122027521833

 

 

modern Feminism isn't about equality, it's about discrimination.

Incorrect. The core tenant of feminism (from what I'e observed) is to look at and examine the patriarchal structure of society and how it adversely affects it. Your going to have a WIDE range of things going on in this space but this is, again from what I've seen most feminist talk about, the core ideology.

 

Not only do they make light of real victims who have experienced the horrors of rape, they incorrectly assume every rape victim is a female being raped by a male. It's selective protection at best, disgusting sexism at worst.

This is wrong of them to do. As said, the core tenant of Feminism looks at how the Patriarchy adversely affects society and this applies to both women and men. The fact that when a man is rapped it isn't given any where near the same level of seriousness is exactly the kind of thing most feminist are trying to combat. It is just a part of rap culture as blaming the woman for being in a position to be rapped. Other examples of issue feminism tackles that directly affect males is stuff like toxic masculinity, the idea that a man needs to be loud, powerful, and aren't allowed to cry. The idea that a man should be able to be a house husband if that is what he so wishes.

 

Modern Feminism seems to assume every man will grow up into a snarling woman hating, raping monster if he is not told he is trash because he has a penis, how dare he.

This is a "not all men" argument and doesn't add anything to the discourse. No one seriously believes all men are evil. If they do I'd be more concerned with the life experiences that caused them to believe that than that they are seriously saying that.

 

More importantly, it's bad for the real Feminists.

As said in the above link, what exactly is "real Feminism"? The word has loads of meanings so saying that one is real and another isn't isn't healthy discourse. Again, as said in link many feminists I know would strongly object to what some of the things your talking about.

 

Real Feminists tend to understand certain things should be divided by sex, after all, sexist or not, there are minor differences between us.

What exactly do you feel should be divid by sex? And I honestly doubt most Feminists would agree with that kind of blanket statement. Yes in things like athletics it makes sense since men do have an advantage thanks to their physiology, but in most things in life a persons gender isn't going to have any significant bearing on their ability to preform it. Even in physically demanding jobs (first that comes to mind would be fire fighter) a woman is just as qualified to be able to perform it as a man after both groups receive the proper training. We also have the realty that the sciences and the tech industry are VERY heavily male and I see no biological base to assume that a women wouldn't be able to excel in those areas. What we do however have is a culture that still supports that notion women aren't skilled in those areas and it bleeds in academia which then continues to reproduce it. While you could argue that this idea isn't present anymore it CERTAINLY was in the past and these kinds of ideas reproduce themselves overtime (even from mother to daughter unknowingly) so I'd disagree with that assertion.

 

 

I'll leave with this, don't mistake a loud minority for a majority and actually look for people you can talk to who identify as feminist and listen to what they have to say. Personally, I follow Linkara on tumblr and whenever he talks about feminist issues I've never found anything with which I strongly disagreed.

 

 

 

Anyway, this topic is a powder keg, so please be civil and don't play with fire in this area.

[Resident Fascist]

 

What exactly do you feel should be divid by sex? And I honestly doubt most Feminists would agree with that kind of blanket statement. Yes in things like athletics it makes sense since men do have an advantage thanks to their physiology, but in most things in life a persons gender isn't going to have any significant bearing on their ability to preform it.

 

Yes, I was referring to athletics and other areas where the minor differences actually matter.

[Flame Dragon]

Yes, I was referring to athletics and other areas where the minor differences actually matter.

To my knowledge thats never been a major point of contention for feminists. Since every opinion is had I'm sure some people do believe it, but I've never known this to be a issue. The issue feminists care about is female representation in the sciences, tech, film, and so on.

[epicmemesbro]

New wave feminism is a joke because they want to be equal in some aspects by keeping many double standards they have grown accustomed to. They claim women should stop being portrayed as victims in the media yet when they get criticized they play the victim. And what sickens me more is that they exploit tragedies such as people who are going through relationship issues just to promote their claims of inequality when those people wanted them to respect their privacy.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Reading a collection of cringe posts made me finally blow my lid with this

 

Modern feminism is not at fault for your use of "cringe posts" as a sample for modern feminism.

 

 

And semantics. My point is they aren't saying that feminism is bad, they're saying that specific thing, no matter how it's called, is wrong.

 

You were referring to misandry as a "type of feminism". The word "semantics" is not carte blanche to call a spade a horse. 

 

 

Anyone ever notice how "those" types of feminists are usually fat? Most likely self-esteem issues is what causes it. Guys generally won't go near them because of it, so they s*** on them in return.

 

Hey CowCow, would you consider this above quote from Dyson more or less "polite" than the ones you chastised Moonlight for? I'm curious. Maybe you missed it while doing your peacekeeping rounds? 

 

Hey Morgan, here's one for your "cringe compilation" courtesy of Mr. Slinky. I look forward to the next rant.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Hey CowCow, would you consider this above quote from Dyson more or less "polite" than the ones you chastised Moonlight for? I'm curious. Maybe you missed it while doing your peacekeeping rounds?

At that point I was mostly just replying to direct quotes, and others were already telling him what was wrong with what he said, I'm usually not a big fan of saying the same thing to someone that they've already been told in the same thread.

I will let you know I'm not in the mood for sass in regards to this though, just gonna say that. And it doesn't help your case any.

 

You're saying me saying semantics was wrong, because of semantics, is that correct?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm saying you're actually confusing one thing (misandry) for another (feminism) and dismissing it as trivial semantics when it's actually a question of a lack of comprehension on your part that they are entirely different things. 

 

 

I will let you know I'm not in the mood for sass in regards to this though, just gonna say that. And it doesn't help your case any.

 

In a just world your blatant posturing wouldn't do any more for yours. Alas, you're a better politician. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm saying you're actually confusing one thing (misandry) for another (feminism) and dismissing it as trivial semantics when it's actually a question of a lack of comprehension on your part that they are entirely different things. 

 

 

 

In a just world your blatant posturing wouldn't do any more for yours. Alas, you're a better politician. 

But the simple fact remains that the intent of the words were clear. That intent which was "I dislike this kind of thing, which is a thing that makes feminism look bad unfairly". Getting angry over the word choice is not the answer.

 

Though I do agree that the right word choice would've been better. Obviously.

 

Posturing you say? Who am I trying to impress and how is it misleading? I'm just being blunt with my feelings about it. I'm not sure how politicians have anything to do with this. I feel like you're trying to prove some sort of point but I'm unsure what it is.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

 

That intent which was "I dislike this kind of thing, which is a thing that makes feminism look bad unfairly"

 

See, therein lies the disconnect. He seemed much more of an assailant of feminism than an upholder of its image to me, with a shoddy disclaimer at the end. 

 

 

I will let you know I'm not in the mood for sass in regards to this though, just gonna say that. And it doesn't help your case any.

 

This is a threat, which is posturing. I don't know where you came to the understanding that I was on trial and at the mercy of your mood, but since you did I have to take it seriously, all the moreso because I know you're justified in thinking you can have me punished. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

The problem is that misandry is what so many refer to as feminism. When misandry is prominent to the point it prevents actual feministic work from getting done, sheerly by association, it is a huge issue, which is what it is clear Shard is getting at.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

See, therein lies the disconnect. He seemed much more of an assailant of feminism than an upholder of its image to me, with a shoddy disclaimer at the end. 

 

 

 

This is a threat, which is posturing. I don't know where you came to the understanding that I was on trial and at the mercy of your mood, but since you did I have to take it seriously, all the moreso because I know you're justified in thinking you can have me punished. 

That's the thing then, you interpreted it in a more negative way then I. All I'm saying really is that it's best not to jump on an incorrect wording. Or at least explain the issue in a polite manner if possible.

 

It wasn't a threat, I was just letting you know that I'd prefer any discussion of this to not include things like that. Because I already felt crappy about things regarding this and didn't know if I could handle too much more. I never said anything about trial or mercy of my mood, was just letting you know how I felt. All cards on the table and what-not. I don't know what punishment you would receive unless you were especially....nasty which I doubt you would be.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

The problem is that misandry is what so many refer to as feminism. When misandry is prominent to the point it prevents actual feministic work from getting done, sheerly by association, it is a huge issue, which is what it is clear Shard is getting at.

 

Noble sentiments, but not what Shard was getting at.

 

 

I hate modern "Feminism". It's morphed from wanting equal rights to something completely toxic and cancerous, when any insane person on the internet can claim they are a feminist and spew some false statistics, simultaneously victimize themself and a large percentage of women in the process, and demonize the rest of the human population. Then any attempt to criticize their supposed research is met with screams of misogyny and perpetuating rape culture, whatever that means. 

 

Reading a collection of cringe posts made me finally blow my lid with this and I need to get s*** off my chest before I implode. modern Feminism isn't about equality, it's about discrimination. I fail to see any other way otherwise. These hypocrites state we should be accepting women for how they are, stop forcing unreal ideals onto them, and accept varying identities and sexualities, yet then call men basically every profanity in the book. All because they can hide behind a barrier of anything you say being sexist. If we are to be accepting of everyone for how they are, then that includes men, you f***ing idiots. It seems to have devolved into a massive shitf*** of buzzwords, someone doesn't like you because they criticize your sexist thesis and agenda? It must be the fault of those damn patriarchy perpetuating rapists! Because that doesn't make light of rape victims at all. In fact, Feminists love to spew the words rape wherever they feel like it is more disgusting than anything else they spew. Not only do they make light of real victims who have experienced the horrors of rape, they incorrectly assume every rape victim is a female being raped by a male. It's selective protection at best, disgusting sexism at worst.

 

 Modern Feminism seems to assume every man will grow up into a snarling woman hating, raping monster if he is not told he is trash because he has a penis, how dare he. Similar to the treatment of women being told they exist only to make babies and cook in the middle ages. Assuming every man will commit rape is essentially assuming that every Muslim is a terrorist, every German is a Neo-Nazi, it's guilty until proven innocent thinking, only to a Feminist, you are never innocent if you are male. It's always your fault. The fact people are paid money and supported by places to speak this perturbs me. They speak of ending perpetuation of hatred, yet spew equal amounts of opposite hatred with nearly every sentence they speak. It's upsetting. Is this truly the face of activism? A face of victimizing yourself, selling yourself out to publicity and claiming sexism when you are trying to end sexism?

 

I'm not sure if you guys're familiar with "cringe posts", but they're meant to show off the worst of the internet. If someone is actually looking for "cringe posts" with feminism as the subject, they're looking for fodder and confirmation of a pre-existing bias.

 

Also note the collection of straw-man arguments. Who would actually say, in earnest, "every man will commit rape", "you are never innocent if you are male", "it's the fault of those damn patriarchy perpetuating rapists that someone doesn't like me", "every rape victim is a female being raped by a male", "every man will grow into a snarling, woman hating, raping monster if he is not told he is trash because he has a penis"?

 

If there are people out there who'd employ such arguments, in earnest, they don't come anywhere near representing feminism as a whole, modern or not. That's what makes this rant a rant, and it's one that resonates with YCM's core demographic of frustrated teenage boys with chronic awkwardness around women. Call a spade a spade.  

[Agro]

The biggest problem I have at the moment is trying to discuss feminist issues (without even talking about feminism) without getting the entire argument thrown out because it gets twisted by whomever I'm talking with into being about the feminism their imagination has invented. Especially when it comes to video games, which is where I tend to read critical literature on a lot.
 
For example, Jose Otero– someone who has never been related to feminism to my knowledge– recently ran an interview on IGN where he asked the director of the new 3DS Zelda title about why they chose to only make the playable character only be Link, even though the premise of the game is that a great number of different people claiming to be the "hero" have come to try to solve the Kingdom's problem. Specifically, he asked why– seeing as the option is widespread in most games these days– they would not allow players to play as a female (fem!Link or otherwise). The answer itself, while clearly limited as they likely didn't really think about it and have no intention of changing it, involved the statement that basically said that a "hero" had to be male. Though to be more specific:
 

The story calls for this sort of legend/prophecy where heroes will come together to help solve a problem. And in that, they are male characters. So, because the game is set with that as the story background, you cannot choose a gender; you are a male character. 

 

He says that the legend/prophecy says that heroes will come together and in that prophecy the characters are male. Which is kind of a dumb response since they made the prophecy up.

 

Anyway, the question was asked with the thought process of "If who you play as doesn't matter and there is clear room within the role you've created for it, why not offer the ability to customize your character?" (past the clothes you wear). Obviously, "Because we don't feel like it" or "We didn't think of that and don't feel like going back" are acceptable answers since this is their game. But the response he gave pretty clearly missed the point.

 

Anyway, that's not exactly my focus, my focus is the sheet comment section (like most comment sections!) which does reflect the opinions I see virtually everywhere, where because he's asking about the room the game seems to have to allow for a female protagonist, what the goal of his interview was gets ignored and instead responded to with people complaining about "feminism" and dumb sheet like "I thought I was on IGN, not Polygon or Kotaku"

 

That's the kind of stuff I find frustrating. You can't even talk about the issues if it sounds like a feminist issue.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

stuff

1.) Wow, WTF, guy that sounds misogynistic as funk

2.) I honestly would have been ok with "Because Link is a guy" as an answer. Would you have?

3.) Comment sections are always cancer.

[Agro]

2.) I honestly would have been ok with "Because Link is a guy" as an answer. Would you have?

I mean I'm okay with "we don't feel like it."

 

If I had gotten that answer, though, I probably would have followed that up immediately with "Then who are those other two people and why do they look exactly like Link?" lol

 

Not to mention Link is a different person in virtually every single game. If reincarnation is constantly happening, it makes sense that at least once, Link would be reincarnated as a woman. The only reason I can think that it wouldn't is if you're following classical Buddhism where being reincarnated as a woman means that you've moved a peg down away from enlightenment, but I don't think that's necessarily the smartest explanation to give unless you feel like telling women that they are inferior life forms.