Total Posts:226|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminism

APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 12:59:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Witionary defines "feminism" as:

"A social theory or political movement arguing that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life. "

In simple terms: "Women's Rights"/"Women's Interests".

Also brings us "Women's Studies".

What are your thoughts on Feminism? Is it good or bad? Does it really help women? Does it hurt men? Do we need it? At point will it have achieved its goals?

And can you do it without calling each other dirty words?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 1:09:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think feminism will be a success when women are empowered to dictate their own terms for womanhood; when society grants without hesitation an opportunity for every woman to pursue their perceived purpose/dream in this world.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 1:41:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 1:09:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think feminism will be a success when women are empowered to dictate their own terms for womanhood; when society grants without hesitation an opportunity for every woman to pursue their perceived purpose/dream in this world.

1. How do you reconcile the statistical certainty that there will at least some bigoted people in any given society?

2. What about women who want to stay at home and let their husband be the boss? Or who despise other women? Or who otherwise disagree with the aims of the feminist movement?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Feminism has transformed from "Give us rights" to "Make us better than men."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:36:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:35:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism has transformed from "Give us rights" to "Make us better than men."

So true.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:38:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like, unions, it used to neccsary. Now that we're almost completely equal, it isn't required.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:39:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:35:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism has transformed from "Give us rights" to "Make us better than men."

They're actually two separate, co-existing movements, the latter of which has gained dominance in the third and fourth generations after the initial women's rights movement. Look up Liberal Feminism and Radical Feminism.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:48:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:39:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:35:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism has transformed from "Give us rights" to "Make us better than men."

They're actually two separate, co-existing movements, the latter of which has gained dominance in the third and fourth generations after the initial women's rights movement. Look up Liberal Feminism and Radical Feminism.

Liberal feminism has already accomplished all of its goals. Any attempt at furthering liberal feminism is, currently, just a subtle way of promoting radical feminism.

Although, that distinction is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:56:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
funny how all of the ones saying that feminism is done are all guys....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 4:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.

What makes you think anita is sex-negative? I've watcheda great deal of her videos and haven't seen any evidence that she is either sex-positive or sex-negative.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 4:08:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:48:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:39:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:35:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism has transformed from "Give us rights" to "Make us better than men."

They're actually two separate, co-existing movements, the latter of which has gained dominance in the third and fourth generations after the initial women's rights movement. Look up Liberal Feminism and Radical Feminism.

Liberal feminism has already accomplished all of its goals. Any attempt at furthering liberal feminism is, currently, just a subtle way of promoting radical feminism.

Although, that distinction is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

I disagree that Liberal Feminism has no more ground to cover, though it has considerably less than before.

Let's put it this way. This will seem semantic, but it's fairly important.

A Liberal Feminist wants her rights to match that of the "ideal male" (i.e. no criminal record, etc). This is similar to how liberals in black civil rights movement wanted their legal status/rights to match that of the "ideal white male." You get stuff like Lily Ledbetter and women-worker-equality actions, where there's always the ability to challenge what looks like violations of equal rights.

A Radical Feminist wants to challenge the concept that the "ideal male" is a legitimate figure on which to base rights. There should also be an "ideal female." Under this view, a woman has a "right" to time off on pregnancy even though men would not. This is where you get women talking about the evils of the "male patriarchy." In the black civil rights movement, the analog to radical feminists would be along the lines of Malcom X. MLK would be a liberal.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 4:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 4:08:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:48:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:39:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:35:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Feminism has transformed from "Give us rights" to "Make us better than men."

They're actually two separate, co-existing movements, the latter of which has gained dominance in the third and fourth generations after the initial women's rights movement. Look up Liberal Feminism and Radical Feminism.

Liberal feminism has already accomplished all of its goals. Any attempt at furthering liberal feminism is, currently, just a subtle way of promoting radical feminism.

Although, that distinction is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

I disagree that Liberal Feminism has no more ground to cover, though it has considerably less than before.

Let's put it this way. This will seem semantic, but it's fairly important.

A Liberal Feminist wants her rights to match that of the "ideal male" (i.e. no criminal record, etc). This is similar to how liberals in black civil rights movement wanted their legal status/rights to match that of the "ideal white male." You get stuff like Lily Ledbetter and women-worker-equality actions, where there's always the ability to challenge what looks like violations of equal rights.

A Radical Feminist wants to challenge the concept that the "ideal male" is a legitimate figure on which to base rights. There should also be an "ideal female." Under this view, a woman has a "right" to time off on pregnancy even though men would not. This is where you get women talking about the evils of the "male patriarchy." In the black civil rights movement, the analog to radical feminists would be along the lines of Malcom X. MLK would be a liberal.

Omg, more than one male has given an informed opinion on feminism in a single thread on ddo which has not been subjected to outright vitriol as of this posting?

I might die.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 4:46:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 4:03:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.

What makes you think anita is sex-negative? I've watcheda great deal of her videos and haven't seen any evidence that she is either sex-positive or sex-negative.

That's odd. Most of the videos I've seen of her are almost entirely against the sexualization of women in pop-culture. I've yet to see her make a video in support of things like prostitution.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 4:55:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 4:46:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/4/2013 4:03:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.

What makes you think anita is sex-negative? I've watcheda great deal of her videos and haven't seen any evidence that she is either sex-positive or sex-negative.

That's odd. Most of the videos I've seen of her are almost entirely against the sexualization of women in pop-culture. I've yet to see her make a video in support of things like prostitution.

What defines a sex-negative feminist is the idea that virtually all sexual portrayals of women are inherently offensive and demeaning.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 5:01:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hope someday for an "equalism" movement. I fear that while there are many issues which need addressing and which feminism can address, and the overwhelming majority of feminists are reasonable, the very framework of "feminism" encourages the existence of the type of radical feminism that makes statements like:

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"

"Pornography is the theory, and rape is the practice."

"Rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman."

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

"Marriage constitutes slavery for women."

Again, it's not to say these aren't extreme positions, and that these aren't statements the vast majority of feminists would repudiate. Obviously, they are and they are. I think the vast majority of rank-and-file feminists are actually equalists. But these comments fall under the umbrella of "feminism" all the same, which tarnishes the concept. There's an etymological problem here, which is funny considering it was one of the biggest parts of early feminism's "consciousness-raising" to point out how our language had inherent sexism in it that colored perception; that same inherent sexism in the word "feminism" allows for these extreme positions to be legitimately in the same room as non-crazy feminism, albeit perhaps in the coat closet wearing a tinfoil hat.

If a movement were truly focused on simple equality, in all reasonable respects, such comments would definitionally be unreasonable, prima facie outside the bounds of the movement, as opposed to having to be philosophically unreasonable, simply another end of a spectrum.

Part of the problem of that spectrum as it stands is that, while women's inequalities are pretty much universally worse than any inequalities against men and I am in no way trying to diminish them, nonetheless the feminism movement as a whole seems to ignore that the latter ever occurs. (South Park lampooned a specific gender issue fairly successfully in "Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy")
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 8:28:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 4:46:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/4/2013 4:03:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.

What makes you think anita is sex-negative? I've watcheda great deal of her videos and haven't seen any evidence that she is either sex-positive or sex-negative.

That's odd. Most of the videos I've seen of her are almost entirely against the sexualization of women in pop-culture. I've yet to see her make a video in support of things like prostitution.

It wouldn't make sense for her to make a video about prostitution at all really because she specifically is a cultural media critic, hence the reason why she talks about video games, shows, and movies so often. She even did her thesis in college on strong female characters in sci-fi.

She doesn't have a problem with women being portrayed in a sexual manner due to it being inherently wrong or something. In her opinion the problem lies elsewhere. For example, in video games, women are overwhelmingly portrayed in an almost exclusively sexual fashion often as prizes to be won by male protagonists instead of autonomous heroines with their own goals and motives and powers. They could easily be portrayed as individuals in their own right, but typically aren't. I mean, these are entirely made-up worlds! They could write literally anything. But they write this same old theme over and over again. And she criticizes them not because she is so anti-sex, but because she is so pro-videogames.

Honestly, I feel her on that. I'm without a doubt a sex-positive feminist and there is nothing she has ever said which has conflicted with the fact that I think women should be allowed, norm/culture-wise, to be openly sexual if they so choose. And if I took it even further than her analysis, I'd say that it does women a disservice to assume that if they are sexual, then that's all they can be. That's the very assumption behind the whole sex-negative thing in the first place- if you're sexual, or portray yourself sexually, then that's all you can be seen as. I reject that. But that's how most video games pigeon hole women characters- they're more often than not just T&A prizes. I'd like to see more well-rounded female characters- ones who can be sexual but still hold their own. Or if we want to get really daring, ones that don't need to be sexual at all to be liked by the allegedly one-track-mind young, male fanbase- like Chell or Samus.

I think you should re-check her out. She's really pretty bad@ss... and boy does she take a heap of sh1t from stupid people XD
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 8:28:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 4:55:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/4/2013 4:46:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/4/2013 4:03:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.

What makes you think anita is sex-negative? I've watcheda great deal of her videos and haven't seen any evidence that she is either sex-positive or sex-negative.

That's odd. Most of the videos I've seen of her are almost entirely against the sexualization of women in pop-culture. I've yet to see her make a video in support of things like prostitution.

What defines a sex-negative feminist is the idea that virtually all sexual portrayals of women are inherently offensive and demeaning.

just saw this. I think I responded to this idea in my other response.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:17:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally, I don't like the Feminist Movement (any of them). Here are the reasons:

1. They're all about victimhood and blame games, which makes conversation destructive.

2. They almost always have their facts wrong, or cite their facts without understanding the context.

3. They dictate what is "offensive", ignoring the fact that offence is subjective.

4. They dictate how women should think and act, despite their disapproval when anybody else does it.

5. They talk about sex, rape, abortion, etc, even when it's not appropriate.

6. They claim to promote women's interests, even when their actions negatively affect women.

7. Women who aren't feminists "must have something wrong with them".
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:25:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:17:23 PM, APB wrote:
Personally, I don't like the humans (any of them). Here are the reasons:

1. They're all about victimhood and blame games, which makes conversation destructive.

2. They almost always have their facts wrong, or cite their facts without understanding the context.

3. They dictate what is "offensive", ignoring the fact that offence is subjective.

4. They dictate how humans should think and act, despite their disapproval when anybody else does it.

5. They talk about sex, rape, abortion, etc, even when it's not appropriate.

6. They claim to promote human's interests, even when their actions negatively affect humans.

7. Humans who aren't humanists "must have something wrong with them".

In other words....

....bold assertion central........
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:25:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 8:28:09 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 4:46:23 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/4/2013 4:03:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:50:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
In modern times, feminism has experienced a heavy divide splitting it into two distinct movements who have come to be called "sex-positive" and "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-negative feminists are what I'm sure most people think of when they think of feminists -- they oppose pornography, prostitution, sexualization of women in video games, etc. An example of this kind of feminist is Anita Sarkeesian (youtube handle: feministfrequency). The other kind, as the name suggests, stands for the opposite. They are pro-sexual liberation and so they encourage a woman's right to be sexually open and engage in such acts as stripping, prostitution, etc. << This, in my opinion, is where the real social battle for feminism is.

Sex-negative feminism is largely confined to semi-imaginary "first-world problems"
(i.e. women in video games are too sexy-looking, which makes me feel insecure), which is why it irritates everyone so much. Sex-positive feminists have a much more comprehensive agenda in terms of what sort of policy changes they are pushing for. This kind of feminism has my support.

What makes you think anita is sex-negative? I've watcheda great deal of her videos and haven't seen any evidence that she is either sex-positive or sex-negative.

That's odd. Most of the videos I've seen of her are almost entirely against the sexualization of women in pop-culture. I've yet to see her make a video in support of things like prostitution.

It wouldn't make sense for her to make a video about prostitution at all really because she specifically is a cultural media critic, hence the reason why she talks about video games, shows, and movies so often. She even did her thesis in college on strong female characters in sci-fi.

She doesn't have a problem with women being portrayed in a sexual manner due to it being inherently wrong or something. In her opinion the problem lies elsewhere. For example, in video games, women are overwhelmingly portrayed in an almost exclusively sexual fashion often as prizes to be won by male protagonists instead of autonomous heroines with their own goals and motives and powers. They could easily be portrayed as individuals in their own right, but typically aren't. I mean, these are entirely made-up worlds! They could write literally anything. But they write this same old theme over and over again. And she criticizes them not because she is so anti-sex, but because she is so pro-videogames.

Honestly, I feel her on that. I'm without a doubt a sex-positive feminist and there is nothing she has ever said which has conflicted with the fact that I think women should be allowed, norm/culture-wise, to be openly sexual if they so choose. And if I took it even further than her analysis, I'd say that it does women a disservice to assume that if they are sexual, then that's all they can be. That's the very assumption behind the whole sex-negative thing in the first place- if you're sexual, or portray yourself sexually, then that's all you can be seen as. I reject that. But that's how most video games pigeon hole women characters- they're more often than not just T&A prizes. I'd like to see more well-rounded female characters- ones who can be sexual but still hold their own. Or if we want to get really daring, ones that don't need to be sexual at all to be liked by the allegedly one-track-mind young, male fanbase- like Chell or Samus.

I think you should re-check her out. She's really pretty bad@ss... and boy does she take a heap of sh1t from stupid people XD

This is getting dangerously close to a "forum debate", a practice I strongly try to avoid. If you'd like, you can challenge me to a debate on whether or not Anita fits the definition of a sex-negative feminist.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:25:36 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
This is getting dangerously close to a "forum debate", a practice I strongly try to avoid. If you'd like, you can challenge me to a debate on whether or not Anita fits the definition of a sex-negative feminist.

Doing the research and writing up rounds for a debate on whether Anita Sarkeesian is a sex-negative feminist seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. Really, basically any debate seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. They are time-consuming and I reap no concrete benefits from them whatsoever that I don't already gain from taking classes.

I saw this as a conversation and I was genuinely interested in why you thought so. I thought maybe you had seen something of hers that I hadn't.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:34:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:25:36 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
This is getting dangerously close to a "forum debate", a practice I strongly try to avoid. If you'd like, you can challenge me to a debate on whether or not Anita fits the definition of a sex-negative feminist.

Doing the research and writing up rounds for a debate on whether Anita Sarkeesian is a sex-negative feminist seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. Really, basically any debate seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. They are time-consuming and I reap no concrete benefits from them whatsoever that I don't already gain from taking classes.

I saw this as a conversation and I was genuinely interested in why you thought so. I thought maybe you had seen something of hers that I hadn't.

Lol I'm the same way with forum discussions. I can never bring myself to put the work in to take them anywhere unless I know there's a time-limit for me to do so and a predetermined end point. It's not that I don't want to discus this topic with you, it's just too much effort for me to put together a well researched argument on why Anita's ideology fits the definition of a sex-negative feminist unless something is at stake for me to do so.

It's not you, it's me =p
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:45:11 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:34:18 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:25:36 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
This is getting dangerously close to a "forum debate", a practice I strongly try to avoid. If you'd like, you can challenge me to a debate on whether or not Anita fits the definition of a sex-negative feminist.

Doing the research and writing up rounds for a debate on whether Anita Sarkeesian is a sex-negative feminist seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. Really, basically any debate seems like a huge waste of time and effort to me. They are time-consuming and I reap no concrete benefits from them whatsoever that I don't already gain from taking classes.

I saw this as a conversation and I was genuinely interested in why you thought so. I thought maybe you had seen something of hers that I hadn't.

Lol I'm the same way with forum discussions. I can never bring myself to put the work in to take them anywhere unless I know there's a time-limit for me to do so and a predetermined end point. It's not that I don't want to discus this topic with you, it's just too much effort for me to put together a well researched argument on why Anita's ideology fits the definition of a sex-negative feminist unless something is at stake for me to do so.

It's not you, it's me =p

haha That's interesting...

No worries though. On the unlikely occasion that I see that debate as worth my time, I'll hit ya up. :P
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:59:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 5:01:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Well done!

I'm proud of you guys ^_^

I feel like ten months ago, this thread probably would have been a heap of comments no smarter and nuanced than, basically: "feminists hate men and want them to feel bad."
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:27:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:25:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:17:23 PM, APB wrote:
Personally, I don't like the humans (any of them). Here are the reasons:

1. They're all about victimhood and blame games, which makes conversation destructive.

2. They almost always have their facts wrong, or cite their facts without understanding the context.

3. They dictate what is "offensive", ignoring the fact that offence is subjective.

4. They dictate how humans should think and act, despite their disapproval when anybody else does it.

5. They talk about sex, rape, abortion, etc, even when it's not appropriate.

6. They claim to promote human's interests, even when their actions negatively affect humans.

7. Humans who aren't humanists "must have something wrong with them".

In other words....

....bold assertion central........

Is there a reason you substituted "women"/"feminists" with "humans"/"humanists" in the quote section, where it would be presented as my words instead of yours?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 1:58:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:27:01 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:25:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:17:23 PM, APB wrote:
Personally, I don't like the humans (any of them). Here are the reasons:

1. They're all about victimhood and blame games, which makes conversation destructive.

2. They almost always have their facts wrong, or cite their facts without understanding the context.

3. They dictate what is "offensive", ignoring the fact that offence is subjective.

4. They dictate how humans should think and act, despite their disapproval when anybody else does it.

5. They talk about sex, rape, abortion, etc, even when it's not appropriate.

6. They claim to promote human's interests, even when their actions negatively affect humans.

7. Humans who aren't humanists "must have something wrong with them".

In other words....

....bold assertion central........

Is there a reason you substituted "women"/"feminists" with "humans"/"humanists" in the quote section, where it would be presented as my words instead of yours?

Yes. I was poking fun at the generalizations. Many of your statements are necessarily false as many sects of feminists have, as others have pointed out, views and goals so different that they are polar opposites. You cannot simply say *all* feminists believe and advocate for this or that. You need to be more specific.

As for the claim that *all of them almost always* have their facts wrong and cite incorrectly/don't understand context, well I think you would be hard-pressed to show that's actually true. Thats a fairly extreme claim and it seems unlikely.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 3:37:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 1:58:25 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/5/2013 12:27:01 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:25:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:17:23 PM, APB wrote:
Personally, I don't like the humans (any of them). Here are the reasons:

1. They're all about victimhood and blame games, which makes conversation destructive.

2. They almost always have their facts wrong, or cite their facts without understanding the context.

3. They dictate what is "offensive", ignoring the fact that offence is subjective.

4. They dictate how humans should think and act, despite their disapproval when anybody else does it.

5. They talk about sex, rape, abortion, etc, even when it's not appropriate.

6. They claim to promote human's interests, even when their actions negatively affect humans.

7. Humans who aren't humanists "must have something wrong with them".

In other words....

....bold assertion central........

Is there a reason you substituted "women"/"feminists" with "humans"/"humanists" in the quote section, where it would be presented as my words instead of yours?

Yes. I was poking fun at the generalizations. Many of your statements are necessarily false as many sects of feminists have, as others have pointed out, views and goals so different that they are polar opposites. You cannot simply say *all* feminists believe and advocate for this or that. You need to be more specific.

As for the claim that *all of them almost always* have their facts wrong and cite incorrectly/don't understand context, well I think you would be hard-pressed to show that's actually true. Thats a fairly extreme claim and it seems unlikely.

Next time, please copy and paste out of the quote section, THEN change the words around to mock me. Otherwise it looks as though I'm saying something that I'm not, and that can become really annoying/confusing for all who read it (they won't check it against the original comment).

And you're right, I can't prove any of these generalisations because they're just that: generalisations. So I'm going to change tactic.

I want you to convince me that feminism is good, or at least harmless. I'm not close-minded, if you provide the appropriate evidence then I will admit that you're right and I'm wrong. And I'm not a misogynist either, so that's one less battle to fight.

Go ahead, give it your best shot.