Feminism Thread

[notorious bum]

Sorry for not recognizing true journalism when I see it.


Jeezus, what a bunch of knobs.

[hey]

Yeah, I'll have to come back to it later. I appreciate the response you gave, though
It's like I know and can explain it in my world.. but then transcending that idea into privilege, the unprivileged, and the rest of that kind of language is really difficult for me. I really wanna get this down. I think what I've got in my head is a universal truth and it doesn't work if I can't convince you

Gimmie some time, I'll go over what I know and still keep reading the thread/other things to get better acclimated to feminism idealogy and maybe next time I'll be able to marry the two

It's fine, i am glad you're spending the time to think about it more.

[Priran]

Feminism is increasingly antagonistic to gay men, particularly white cis ones

Gay, Inc actually relies on violence against poor people and people of color.

In point of fact: Two of the top three drone manufacturers lobbying in DC are also major corporate donors to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest and most visible gay rights organization.

...

The Matthew Shephard Act is harmful for two major reasons: First, it uses the name and experience of a white cisgender man to exemplify queerphobic hate violence, whereas 89% of folks killed in LGBT hate violence are people of color, and three-in-four are transgender women.

The brunt of this violence, then, is not directed at white cis men, but at folks who are further marginalized within the LGBT community.

...

The Gay Agenda™ doesn’t exist outside of the US war machine, but totally within it.

[Teryu]

What a bunch of assholes lol.

It's good to see that they rather have the worst kind of violence happen to minority trans people so they can feel more comfortable with their name on a law.

[Koul]

Oppression Olympics, everyone. Where no one wins.

[Blubbartron]

My favorite part of that article is the complete lack of comprehension of how lawmaking works in our country. The amount of ignorance it takes to think that attaching a rider on a bill means the two things are linked at a moral or interest-based level is astounding.

[tyven]

Feminism is increasingly antagonistic to gay men, particularly white cis ones

Fuck that. Jfc

[hey]

Feminism is increasingly antagonistic to gay men, particularly white cis ones

Well, some of these points seem kind of weird to me, but there is definitely at least a bit of truth to it. When people think of lgbt, they usually just think gay, forgetting that there's also the b and t there. This is a problem because when people think of lgbt rights, they see that for gay people, things are definitely improving. Maybe it's not great, but it's not nearly as bad as it once was, and things are still getting better. Which is a very good thing, but it makes people lose sight of the other half of lgbt.

[Priran]

Is that how it works in feminism blogging? You start with a completely unreasonable premise ("Naming the hate crimes law for a cis white gay man is harmful and benefits the military industrial complex!") and the rest of you go "well most of that is crazy, but I can live with 'gay men are less oppressed than everybody else in LGBT'" without examining the validity of that claim or the claim that LGBT rights should be about feminism and race politics?

Is feminism written the same way as South Park?

[hey]

I don't think it's really an unreasonable premise. The only thing that really seemed wrong to me was this

The prison system is not a place where justice happens; it’s the opposite.
The prison system is how the United States continues to dispose of poor people and people of color. 41% of Black and Latina trans women report being incarcerated, more than 13 times the national average. Queer and trans people are also far more likely to be raped in prisons and detention centers, as well as face violence at the hands of police.
Handing more power to the police and prison systems will not make our communities safer, but actually make them more susceptible to sexual violence and criminalization.
Hate crimes legislation ends up hurting even the people it’s professing to protect.

But uh yeah, not all feminists are the same. Sometimes we disagree. Expecting otherwise would be like expecting all democrats to agree on everything. That's really silly.

[NynJa]

Bear in mind, a couple pages ago, Hey was saying how if a man is walking behind a woman at 2am, he should either cross the street or announce "hi, im not going to rape you", otherwise its harassment to the girl because of irrational fears that all men are potential rapists (the 1:10 poisoned M&M rule). Hey eventually turned that to "be careful and protect yourself".

It seems to be what they go for. Ask for fucking ridiculously ridiculous bullshit, then "settle" for something thats not ridiculous, and bitch about it because they're settling.

[hey]

None of that is true, but okay.

[NynJa]

2014-12-05 03:02

For example, if you're walking behind a girl at 2 am on a dark street, there's a pretty good chance, even if you're not doing anything wrong, that she will be scared or nervous because of this. Therefore, you could simply walk to the other side of the street, and that will put them at ease. There's nothing wrong, per se, with walking behind someone on a dark street at 2 am, but nonetheless, it's going to scare people, so if you don't want to scare people, you should avoid doing it. I don't think that's such a crazy idea.

Yesterday 00:48

That is the lesson you are supposed to take from it. Be careful around people you don't know. That doesn't mean never trust them ever, or think of them as terrible people. It means be careful, because assuming they are perfect angels can get you killed. Once you actually know someone, you can then make an informed decision. But until then, you have no idea, so be careful.

How many times do i have to say this?

GOT ME FOOLED

[hey]

Second post was what i was saying from the start. The first, which says nothing about announcing your presence, i still stand by. You should avoid doing things that are likely to scare people. These are two entirely separate ideas though, i don't know why you drew a connection between them.

[Lyall]

When you say walking in the same direction as someone (aka, "behind someone") how far are you talking here? Obviously it's going to be creepy if you're within ten or twenty feet, but if I'm half a block away and it's dark, is someone going to think I'm following them despite the long distance there? Should I be worried that the person I can't even tell the gender of in front of me thinks I'm a mugger with rape on the menu?

As has been stated, existing should not be "likely to scare people." Existing is still not a crime.

[tyven]

Bear in mind, a couple pages ago, Hey was saying how if a man is walking behind a woman at 2am, he should either cross the street or announce "hi, im not going to rape you", otherwise its harassment to the girl because of irrational fears that all men are potential rapists (the 1:10 poisoned M&M rule). Hey eventually turned that to "be careful and protect yourself".

It seems to be what they go for. Ask for fucking ridiculously ridiculous bullshit, then "settle" for something thats not ridiculous, and bitch about it because they're settling.

John Mulaney does a good bit on this

[hey]

When you say walking in the same direction as someone (aka, "behind someone") how far are you talking here? Obviously it's going to be creepy if you're within ten or twenty feet, but if I'm half a block away and it's dark, is someone going to think I'm following them despite the long distance there? Should I be worried that the person I can't even tell the gender of in front of me thinks I'm a mugger with rape on the menu?

Idk, use your judgement? Half a block away is fine, imo.

As has been stated, existing should not be "likely to scare people." Existing is still not a crime.

It's not about it being a crime, it's about being a decent person.

[Melena]

Sorry, but if being 30 feet or less than a half a block away is going to spook you, you got bigger problems to think about. I am not going to go out of my way cause a paranoid bitch thinks <30' away means i'm a potential rapist. If she's that uncomfortable, she can cross the street herself to be on the other side.

[kuronosan]

A decent person would go "man, I'm uncomfortable. I think I'll cross here to get away".

[Lyall]

Idk, use your judgement? Half a block away is fine, imo.

It's not about it being a crime, it's about being a decent person.

Yeah. Sorry. I'm a cis white male, I'd never be able to go anywhere without making someone uncomfortable and I got shit to do.

Post-thought edit:

It's ridiculous to me that the person with the problem is expected to be catered to here. The problem is proximity and the solution seems to be there being "enough" of it, but I don't understand how it's the role of the potentially-offensive party to cater to the potentially-imaginary needs of the potentially-offended. It doesn't make sense. If you don't like how close someone might be because you fear for your life, move away from them maybe? Step into a store and let them pass? I'm sure I'll get called on something about this being wrong, what with all my privilege and all, but if the strawperson in this situation's got a problem, they should provide the solution. Expecting the entire population of men to be aware that others might be afraid they're a rapist doesn't seem correct to me.