Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But, despite all this, games still cause sexism, right?

 LordofHats wrote:
*And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official

So you're just going to insult her huh? I presume you have something to show that she's not a feminist? Perhaps that she writes for a conservative youtube channel (/spooky voice).

Really Hat, let Hybrid be the person posting nonsense. Don't take his role in this thread.

Agreed, hoff summers has actually had plenty to say that's been pretty much right on the mark.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.

After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.

Hell no. How would you be able to work with such a relationship? You will get a sizeable amount of money and then have to look for another job. There's only so much the law can do. You can't force people to trust.

I was replying to your statement that people can sue to be reemployed. You said that was a component to prevent reprisal. I basically asked if that was so, and you just scoffed and said get real. So, what was your point? It sounds like you are claiming the German system works in ways that others don't, except that it doesn't work.

Someone who studied to be a surgeon for years and years is hardly going to be able to leave the field and find a career at the same status in a new field. Whistleblowers in Germany still seem to face a huge drop in their expected quality of life.

 LordofHats wrote:
And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official

I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

Is it Scottish descent?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:


Is it Scottish descent?

I don't think people who've built their entire careers around criticizing (read demonizing) feminism, should be able to go around calling themselves feminists with a straight face That's the joke Hybrid and I are making. We're talking about two people who've basically built careers as contrarians. It isn't even close to NTS to call someone who wrote a book that basically amounts to "everything Feminists believe and do is wrong" not a feminist, even if they add a line at the beginning of the same book that says they are.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Agreed, hoff summers has actually had plenty to say that's been pretty much right on the mark.

No one is saying she is always wrong, but both her main books (Who Stole Feminism, and The War Against Boys) are pretty much just high class trolling. It be like me walking around saying "I am a Libertarian and support the Tea Party" which makes no sense, because I spend a fair deal of time trying to explain why I don't think Libertarianism works and suggesting the Tea Party is crazy

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

Is it Scottish descent?

It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think people who've built their entire careers around criticizing (read demonizing) feminism, should be able to go around calling themselves feminists with a straight face That's the joke Hybrid and I are making. We're talking about two people who've basically built careers as contrarians. It isn't even close to NTS to call someone who wrote a book that basically amounts to "everything Feminists believe and do is wrong" not a feminist, even if they add a line at the beginning of the same book that says they are.

So you guys have decided that feminists can't criticise feminism, and can decide what a feminist is? Have you read her book?

Sounds dangerously close to mansplaining to me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).

Some clouds can form agressively masculine shapes

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official

I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

I am keen to see the criteria for being a Republican or a duly elected official

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
So you guys have decided that feminists can't criticise feminism

No. Just pointing that criticizing/demonizing feminism is all she ever do. Kind of like Milo. Does Milo fits your definition of a feminist then ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am keen to see the criteria for being a Republican or a duly elected official

I'd say the criteria for being a duly elected official is. . . to be elected?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

No. Just pointing that criticizing/demonizing feminism is all she ever do. Kind of like Milo. Does Milo fits your definition of a feminist then ?

Going to need proof that that's all she ever do

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'd say the criteria for being a duly elected official is. . . to be elected?

So Putin is a duly elected official, then. Right?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Going to need proof that that's all she ever do

Her two main books are all about that. Maybe once, when she was alone in the middle of a forest, she said something different and actually feminist. But then again, maybe Milo did so too! So, tell me again, does Milo fits your definition of a feminist ?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

Is it Scottish descent?

It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).

What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So Putin is a duly elected official, then. Right?

Was he duly elected? I'm serious, I don't follow Russian politics. I'm a very poor 'Gotcha!' unfortunately.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Her two main books are all about that. Maybe once, when she was alone in the middle of a forest, she said something different and actually feminist. But then again, maybe Milo did so too! So, tell me again, does Milo fits your definition of a feminist ?

So what is the criteria for being a feminist, Hybrid? I'm not the one making the claim to know what a feminist truly is

As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Was he duly elected? I'm serious, I don't follow Russian politics.

I guess so. Not sure exactly if there was any rigging or not, but he certainly was elected a number of times.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
So what is the criteria for being a feminist, Hybrid?

Trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm not the one making the claim to know what a feminist truly is

Yeah, you sure look the part of the humble question asker when you add “Is it Scottish descent?”.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

Is it Scottish descent?

It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).

What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?

Feminazis.

 Ashiraya wrote:
As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.

Feminists are typically only concerned with Women's rights, so no. It is not an adequate catch all term for everyone who thinks the sexes should be equal.

Would you call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers, a Feminist? An egalitarian? Or would you scoff and deride them as a Mens Rights Activist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

Is it Scottish descent?

It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).

What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?

The fact that the vocal extreme fringes of feminism have seemingly hijacked the movement and become the mainstream?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Feminists are typically only concerned with Women's rights, so no. It is not an adequate catch all term for everyone who thinks the sexes should be equal.

Would you call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers, a Feminist? An egalitarian? Or would you scoff and deride them as a Mens Rights Activist?

When you're a feminist, you don't have to be that to the exclusion of everything else.

I can certainly see the merit of focusing on women's rights in the status quo - as I have previously said, everything I have seen indicates that things need to go more in one direction than the other before it actually becomes equal. Obviously I am not arguing that this is what everyone should do, but it has merits.

Not saying this custody debacle should be ignored either, but forcing it in everywhere seems to be the quotaism that people here so vehemently dislike? 'When debating equality, bring up custody rights X times otherwise you're feminazi'?

I would call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights different things depending on their other opinions and actions.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The fact that the vocal extreme fringes of feminism have seemingly hijacked the movement and become the mainstream?

I dunno, I have not seen any real indications of this in the mainstream outside of blogs and forumites trying to outdo each other in sensationalism.

Other than internet attention-seeking, I have not encountered evidence of ''''''''''''''''''feminazis'''''''''''''''' in real life. Sure, newspapers - again, sensationalism.

 Ashiraya wrote:
As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.

By that logic, would you call anyone who wants effective law enforcement a fascist?
One of the tenets of fascism is desire for a strong police force.

Or those who wants their government to regulate education a communist?
One of the characteristics of communism is government controlled education.

I disagree with the notion that merely agreeing that women should have rights automatically makes one a feminist.
It does not appear to add up.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women.

Such as Christina Sommers, who advocates equal legal rights for men and women?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Yeah, you sure look the part of the humble question asker when you add “Is it Scottish descent?”.

It does reek of the No True Scotsman fallacy. "She's not a real feminist!" according to you? Who made you guys the gatekeepers to feminism?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.

By that logic, would you call anyone who wants effective law enforcement a fascist?
One of the tenets of fascism is desire for a strong police force.

No, and in the same way I would not call someone who is entirely apathetic in terms of wanting social equality except wanting equality in some petty and irrelevant thing a feminist.

Because honestly, a strong police force is one of the least defining parts of fascism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It does not appear to add up.

It's because you're presenting minor side factors of X belief as equivalent to the very core of Y belief.

I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that feminism is about 'misandry' and 'oppressing men'; only paranoia and sensationalism. (And agendas? )

 Ashiraya wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist

Is it Scottish descent?

It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).

What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?

That its been hijacked by fanatics, id reckon?

Then the answer should not be to demonise feminism, but to denounce those who would corrupt it.

If not feminism, what would you call the belief of wanting to promote women's rights to equality but not further?

Egalitarianism?
Isn't that the promotion of equality?

That would be the feminists' job, I imagine. If you can't reign in the idiots who are making your cause look bad, then how credible is your cause?

It isn't just feminism that has this issue. Every time Kanye West opens his mouth, the black community looks a little bit dumber. The Occupy movement in San Francisco was more or less killed by the fact that people who didn't even care about the movement were associating with it just for the opportunity to act crazy, and it made the entire movement look crazy, etc.

It's human nature for people to pay attention to the loudest, flashiest representatives for a cause or organization, and the loudest ones tend to be the dumbest ones. Rational feminists would benefit from publicly denouncing the radical ones, but they won't do it because feminism has such an "us vs. them" quality to it that solidarity at all costs is idealized, and to concede anything at all is perceived as conceding the concept of gender equality altogether.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That would be the feminists' job, I imagine. If you can't reign in the idiots who are making your cause look bad, how credible is your cause?

How do you do that, exactly?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Egalitarianism?
Isn't that the promotion of equality?

I dunno, to me it sounds like it implies both sides have equal problems. Like trying to 'de-fang' feminism and rationalise it away, implying that women's rights aren't necessary as both have equal problems anyway. Or maybe that's too strong an expression, but you know what I mean, I'm sure.

Also, I was asking specifically for the belief that women's rights need to be improved to equality and no further. Nothing else. What would you call that?

See my edit. I type slow as dirt, sorry.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Feminazis.

Mysogynists .

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Feminists are typically only concerned with Women's rights

Not in my experience, so I am going to ask you for any reference on that. A very few are, but the relevant one are not, for the reasons I mention below.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Would you call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers, a Feminist?

Did you miss what she wrote? “As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.”
No, arguing for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers alone does not make you a feminist. However, you can be a feminist and also campaign for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers. However, it will very likely then be part of a greater effort to destroy gender roles, that assigns women to care-taking and home-keeping tasks, and men to money-bringing jobs.
If you just stop short at “equal custody”, and miss the big picture, that will make you quite short-sighted. But certainly one cannot advocate that women should be able to be active and dedicate a lot of time to their careers while arguing against men becoming house-husband and taking care of the kids, which means directly combating the mindset that makes women get custody most of the time. Gender expectations tend to hurt women more, because their roles are usually worse, but really, they hurt anyone that does not fit into the assigned role. See Billy Elliot, for instance.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The fact that the vocal extreme fringes of feminism have seemingly hijacked the movement and become the mainstream?

I would be more convinced if I did not know you would likely consider me part of the “vocal extreme fringue” .

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I disagree with the notion that merely agreeing that women should have rights automatically makes one a feminist.
It does not appear to add up.

So what would be your definition?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women.

Such as Christina Sommers, who advocates equal legal rights for men and women?

Are you reading what I wrote? Everything I ever heard about or from her is that there are already equal rights or that men have it worse. So, she is not “trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women”. Address that.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
It does reek of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

How can you tell if you admittedly do not know what a feminist is?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It isn't just feminism that has this issue. Every time Kanye West opens his mouth, the black community looks a little bit dumber. The Occupy movement in San Francisco was more or less killed by the fact that people who didn't even care about the movement were associating with it just for the opportunity to act crazy, and it made the entire movement look crazy, etc.

It's human nature for people to pay attention to the loudest, flashiest representatives for a cause or organization, and the loudest ones tend to be the dumbest ones. Rational feminists would benefit from publicly denouncing the radical ones, but they won't do it because feminism has such an "us vs. them" quality to it that solidarity at all costs is idealized, and to concede anything at all is perceived as conceding the concept of gender equality altogether.

Where do all these radicals even come from?

I have spent a not-insignificant part of my life arguing for feminism, demonstrating, debating in various groups and organisations, talking with representatives from more organisations and the whole damn shebang you'd expect from an activist, and I have never in my entire life encountered a 'feminazi'.

Are they really such a big problem? It seems absurd that something so obscure and so absent from where things actually happen would get to represent the movement.

It's like letting my neighbour Klas represent the movie industry as a whole because he made a home movie.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Where do all these radicals even come from?

The problem is not the radical. The problem is people telling them there is a problem, and that they may be part of it. That is what they cannot tolerate. Because, you know, they have no problem, they are perfectly non-sexists, and they cannot suffer anyone saying otherwise. The non-radical is either people that only focus on issues that happens abroad, or those that tell them they are perfect, like Christina Sommers .

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
So you guys have decided that feminists can't criticise feminism, and can decide what a feminist is?

They can and they do, but given how much time Summers dedicates to attacking feminism at every point her claims to be a feminist become absurdly hollow. It is literally her career to argue with feminists about everything, from the basic premise of feminism to its goals. I could probably cut her slack if she could actually produce a model of what she thinks feminism should be but all she's done up to this point is attack what feminism is and provide no cohesive alternative argument or premise. Her work is more akin to an attack ad than criticism.

Again. I can say "I'm a Libertarian" but just saying that doesn't make the statement true when I don't agree with Libertarians on anything.

EDIT: Well to be fair here, she does have this thing she calls "equality feminism" which she pretends is an alternative to vanilla Feminism. The problem with her premise is that when you boil down her idea of equality feminism, you're basically left with nothing. Equality Feminism is nothing more than a denial that sexism or gender discrimination exists in modern America, and that there's nothing to do. It's just 'nothing wrong here shut up and go away' masquerading as an argument of substance. SO when I say I want a "cohesive alternative" I mean something that she actually expects feminism to be, because arguing for it to stop existing isn't really striking me as something for feminism to aspire to. EDIT: because I'm really trying to make the point here; Equality Feminism is not Feminism. It is in fact Feminism's Nihilistic Mirror Universe Counterpart demanding that Feminism should cease to exist.

Have you read her book?

About half of the first, only about 20 pages of the second. The first was pretty bad (about 50% attack ad against feminism, 50%... Something. She's one of those authors who runs around pretending she has an overarching point but never seemed to get around to explaining what the point is and it all just becomes a jumbled blob of nothing speak). I tossed the second because it seemed to be the first book all over again. I usually only give an author five pages to lay down their point, so I was went above and beyond on that one

I'm not the one making the claim to know what a feminist truly is

Someone did?

Was he duly elected? I'm serious, I don't follow Russian politics. I'm a very poor 'Gotcha!' unfortunately.

No. Again, that's the joke. Russian elections are rigged (to the point that everyone knew Putin would be President in 2012 in 2008, since the only reason he allowed Medvedev to be president was to appease internal party politics and to adhere to the Constitution, which didn't allow 3 consecutive terms).

It does reek of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Only if you completely miss the point of the fallacy, but then it's kind of a thing in OT to misapply logical fallacies so *shrug* I never once claimed "No feminist would Y." I claimed "X calling herself a feminist is meaningless because X doesn't agree with feminism." And it is blatantly obvious she doesn't agree with Feminism simply from the fact she wrote an entire book about how she disagreed with Feminism. I'm not even the one making the claim she disagrees. She did that all on her own.