Does this include oral sex? Because, like Bill Clinton, many women don't see oral sex as proper sex. At least us men can be happy that gay sex isn't anal rape.
Man-bashing has become so pervasive that some blow-back is appearing. Women are saying "I like fucking men" and rejecting feminist policies.
feminism
noun \fe-m-ni-zm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities [Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Just curious, where exactly is the part about heterosexual sex?
It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female. Less than 1/5 are under the age 18. The stereotypical teenage boy gamer is a small component of the "gamer" culture.
I doubt this is "Misogyny In Gamer Culture". I think instead this is just a few vocal idiots.
This is exactly the point. Vocal idiots can be vocal idiots all they want. The problem is that it's not cool (and in many cases, illegal too) to threaten others with violence. Those who make such threats should be shamed, ostracized and, if appropriate, prosecuted.
Absolutely. You can call someone a "stupid bitch" or a "teabagging whore" or all manner of other things as much as you like. What you may not do is threaten violence. That's not about not being offended. Do you get the difference?
"Because, really, death threats? Threats to rape her? The crap I've seen in the coverage about this pretty much means this isn't hand-wringing and moralizing... this is a sign of some pretty terrible (if not criminal) behavior."
But that only matters when it happens to a woman. It's only credible when it happens to a woman. It only gets coverage when it happens to a woman.
Do you even multiplayer, dude? I've had prepubescent boys threaten death in the most gruesome of ways from stomping them at CoD. And what about Blizzard's WoW dev team? Ever seen the shit slung at them when they make a big change that someone doesn't like? Gruesome, empty, threats are part and parcel with game dev, and everyone either deals with it as such, or cracks and quits. That is, unless it happens to a woman, then the massive MSM spin machine fires up, starts doxxing people on twitter, deletes posts and bans users on reddit, and a whole host of other bullshit to UTTERLY BURY the truth.
Misandry and leftoid politicism will destroy video games. And you'll be there cheerleading it, apparently.
I suspect that if the majority didn't tolerate such behavior, it would greatly diminish. Just sayin'.
Regardless of the actual number of individuals, those who threaten and/or abuse others are worthless scum.
Women on the Internet (gamers or otherwise) generally don't consent to being threatened with violence. That sort of behavior is completely inappropriate and should be shouted down by everyone.
It seems to me that those who are acting as apologists for such abusive jerks, should look at their motivations. It's one thing to advocate for free speech (I support it wholeheartedly), but another thing entirely to defend the content of hateful, abusive speech and threats of violence, whether such threats are credible or not.
Does that attitude make me a misandrist? I like me, and I'm male.
By the way, compare the definition of "Police" to what police are doing in Ferguson. Maybe using dictionary definitions is kind of a stupid argument and needs to be retired.
Absolutely! Why should anyone agree on what words mean? I mean it's not like that allows us to have a common frame of reference or anything. Let's have at it! I say bagels are a form of ancestor worship practiced in Borneo. And hospital is the sensation you get when you bite into a York Peppermint Patty.
It is not reasonable to focus on people who are being treated in an egalitarian fashion, because they belong to the same group as someone who isn't being treated in that fashion, unless, of course, everyone in that group suffers the same mistreatment. I don't believe this is the case with gender.
Okay. I just want to make sure I understand your point. By your logic, because Christians are treated as at least equals to everyone else in the United States, no one should be concerned about the treatment of Christians in, say, Northern Iraq?
feel strongly that women have been treated unfairly for far too long.
You point out that you believe that women are being treated unfairly as proof you're a feminist when being a feminist by the dictionary definition you quoted is "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", not "the belief that women have been treated unfairly".
Please explain how those two beliefs are mutually exclusive, or are in some way incompatible?
I prefer the term egalitarianism, or, specifically, gender-egalitarianism w.r.t. gender. My rule of thumb is that any statement that can't be made without reference to a particular gender is discriminatory and/or sexist.
A reasonable point. I agree. At the same time, I still feel its reasonable to focus on specific groups who are not treated in an egalitarian fashion. Call it what you like, but everyone should be treated equally and have and equal shake in life, IMHO.
Yes. You think a dictionary has insight. It doesn't.
Insight isn't the point. The point is that I believe that we should all be treated equally and have equal opportunities. That's the definition of feminism. Words have meanings. They don't mean whatever you decide they mean to support your particular bias. I suggest you study a little epistemology, friend.
No, it's called individual rights when you think that everyone should have equal rights regardless of sex, race, physical traits, or anything besides the mere fact you're human.
It's called feminism when you believe women should have the same rights as men, and not necessarily the other way around - an obsolete position at best, an appalling contradiction at worst.
An interesting construction. Yes, I believe in equal rights for all. However, women have been (and in many places, still are) treated as second-class people and even property. That, IMNSHO, needs to change. Which is why I also believe that it's reasonable to give that particular area of human rights its own -ism. Feel free to disagree. I'm not so insecure that I need your (or anyone else's) validation.
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
--Robert A. Heinlein
I love Robert Heinlein, but that quote makes it look like he either doesn't understand the concept of human rights, or he's deliberately obfuscating the topic. I'll have to assume the latter.
Check out the context for yourself. The quote is from Starship Troopers.
It's not that Heinlein doesn't understand or is deliberately obfuscating, he's simply using a perspective different from your own, IMHO. The way I interpret Heinlein here is that rhetoric and flowery prose doesn't *give* us freedom, and that freedom is something that needs to be fought for, to get, and to retain. Read (or re-read) the novel -- I think you might learn something.
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
Actually, you can throw that word out. Ask 10 feminists what a feminist is and you'll get 10 different ideological answers. However, the end result is basically the same - not equality of the sexes but female superiority of the sexes.
Says you. I'm a feminist and that's how I define feminism (along with Merriam-Webster, of course). Now get over yourself. I guess you're an insecure male, huh? Well, I'm a secure, middle-aged male and feel strongly that women have been treated unfairly for far too long. You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but don't try to tell me what I believe.
That would be the motte in the motte-and-bailey doctrine. If you define feminism like that, it's extremely defensible.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Retreating to the defensible but useless definition whenever your ideas are criticized, is dishonest.
My Ideas? WTF are you talking about? I am a feminist in exactly the sense of the definition posted. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just you projecting.
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
Well (1) we had been talking to them from beside their boat for a while before; (2) I couldn't believe it either; (3a) we were not in the lock, we were in the canal waiting area waiting to go into the lock; (3b) this lock in question was being filled up, not drained, reducing the risk of being sucked under; and (3c) in any case it's moot because I didn't get into the water, I got into their boat, at emergency speed, and the phone fell out of my pocket into the water at the bottom of their boat, not into the canal.
Now, (4) what if we mitigated the cost to the store by (a) only requiring them to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model that you have (as I wrote elsewhere, I hate anything that doesn't have a slide-out keyboard, but I'd live) and (b) only requiring the loaner phones to be available from some store in the area, not necessarily the one where you bought your phone?
How about you do us all (not least of whom, you) a favor and go back to hounding spammers, rather than exposing us to the mindless drivel you keep spewing? Nobody except you cares about how dumb you are, nor is anyone interested in reading your inane, puerile rants. Go fuck yourself.
Why do progressives feel that more regulation solves every problem or inconvenience? As if the attitudes of businesses towards their customers can be mandated from the omnipotent government.
The real solution to this problem is heavy competition. Phone stores that treat their customers better win out.
Who says Bennett Haselton is a progressive? From what I've seen, he's a semi-literate, narcissistic, moron who couldn't formulate reasonable argument to save his life. The real solution is that there is no problem. Bennett Haselton is just whining about how he doesn't like the terms of the insurance contract he signed. End of story. Anything else is just you trying to shoehorn his moronic drivel into your ideological pigeonhole. Get a grip.
Prolexic is using a real vulnerability to enhance their contacts DB and increase the surface area of their sales efforts. Disgusting.
This is why the Internet invented things like 10 Minute Mail
Thanks for sharing the link. It's much appreciated. But that doesn't change the fact that the fine folks at Prolexic are acting like douchebags. Which was my point.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this include oral sex? Because, like Bill Clinton, many women don't see oral sex as proper sex. At least us men can be happy that gay sex isn't anal rape.
Man-bashing has become so pervasive that some blow-back is appearing. Women are saying "I like fucking men" and rejecting feminist policies.
feminism
noun \fe-m-ni-zm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities [Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Just curious, where exactly is the part about heterosexual sex?
It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female. Less than 1/5 are under the age 18. The stereotypical teenage boy gamer is a small component of the "gamer" culture.
I doubt this is "Misogyny In Gamer Culture". I think instead this is just a few vocal idiots.
This is exactly the point. Vocal idiots can be vocal idiots all they want. The problem is that it's not cool (and in many cases, illegal too) to threaten others with violence. Those who make such threats should be shamed, ostracized and, if appropriate, prosecuted.
>tort law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
as a public figure, she is open to criticism.
Absolutely. You can call someone a "stupid bitch" or a "teabagging whore" or all manner of other things as much as you like. What you may not do is threaten violence. That's not about not being offended. Do you get the difference?
"Because, really, death threats? Threats to rape her? The crap I've seen in the coverage about this pretty much means this isn't hand-wringing and moralizing ... this is a sign of some pretty terrible (if not criminal) behavior."
But that only matters when it happens to a woman. It's only credible when it happens to a woman. It only gets coverage when it happens to a woman.
Do you even multiplayer, dude? I've had prepubescent boys threaten death in the most gruesome of ways from stomping them at CoD. And what about Blizzard's WoW dev team? Ever seen the shit slung at them when they make a big change that someone doesn't like? Gruesome, empty, threats are part and parcel with game dev, and everyone either deals with it as such, or cracks and quits. That is, unless it happens to a woman, then the massive MSM spin machine fires up, starts doxxing people on twitter, deletes posts and bans users on reddit, and a whole host of other bullshit to UTTERLY BURY the truth. Misandry and leftoid politicism will destroy video games. And you'll be there cheerleading it, apparently.
I suspect that if the majority didn't tolerate such behavior, it would greatly diminish. Just sayin'.
Regardless of the actual number of individuals, those who threaten and/or abuse others are worthless scum.
Women on the Internet (gamers or otherwise) generally don't consent to being threatened with violence. That sort of behavior is completely inappropriate and should be shouted down by everyone.
It seems to me that those who are acting as apologists for such abusive jerks, should look at their motivations. It's one thing to advocate for free speech (I support it wholeheartedly), but another thing entirely to defend the content of hateful, abusive speech and threats of violence, whether such threats are credible or not.
Does that attitude make me a misandrist? I like me, and I'm male.
By the way, compare the definition of "Police" to what police are doing in Ferguson. Maybe using dictionary definitions is kind of a stupid argument and needs to be retired.
Absolutely! Why should anyone agree on what words mean? I mean it's not like that allows us to have a common frame of reference or anything. Let's have at it! I say bagels are a form of ancestor worship practiced in Borneo. And hospital is the sensation you get when you bite into a York Peppermint Patty.
Yeah. That'll work. Moron.
It is not reasonable to focus on people who are being treated in an egalitarian fashion, because they belong to the same group as someone who isn't being treated in that fashion, unless, of course, everyone in that group suffers the same mistreatment. I don't believe this is the case with gender.
Okay. I just want to make sure I understand your point. By your logic, because Christians are treated as at least equals to everyone else in the United States, no one should be concerned about the treatment of Christians in, say, Northern Iraq?
Or am I missing something here?
You point out that you believe that women are being treated unfairly as proof you're a feminist when being a feminist by the dictionary definition you quoted is "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", not "the belief that women have been treated unfairly".
Please explain how those two beliefs are mutually exclusive, or are in some way incompatible?
I prefer the term egalitarianism, or, specifically, gender-egalitarianism w.r.t. gender. My rule of thumb is that any statement that can't be made without reference to a particular gender is discriminatory and/or sexist.
A reasonable point. I agree. At the same time, I still feel its reasonable to focus on specific groups who are not treated in an egalitarian fashion. Call it what you like, but everyone should be treated equally and have and equal shake in life, IMHO.
Yes. You think a dictionary has insight. It doesn't.
Insight isn't the point. The point is that I believe that we should all be treated equally and have equal opportunities. That's the definition of feminism. Words have meanings. They don't mean whatever you decide they mean to support your particular bias. I suggest you study a little epistemology, friend.
Modern feminism doesn't mean that: http://womenagainstfeminism.tu...
It's interesting that you use a biased (womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com) link to define feminism. I used a dictionary. Do you get the difference?
No, it's called individual rights when you think that everyone should have equal rights regardless of sex, race, physical traits, or anything besides the mere fact you're human.
It's called feminism when you believe women should have the same rights as men, and not necessarily the other way around - an obsolete position at best, an appalling contradiction at worst.
An interesting construction. Yes, I believe in equal rights for all. However, women have been (and in many places, still are) treated as second-class people and even property. That, IMNSHO, needs to change. Which is why I also believe that it's reasonable to give that particular area of human rights its own -ism. Feel free to disagree. I'm not so insecure that I need your (or anyone else's) validation.
Which in the realm of gaming women have. So hooray! Feminism can leave gaming alone now?
I'm not a gamer, so I really don't care. I'm not into drama in general, so I won't start.
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
--Robert A. Heinlein
I love Robert Heinlein, but that quote makes it look like he either doesn't understand the concept of human rights, or he's deliberately obfuscating the topic. I'll have to assume the latter.
Check out the context for yourself. The quote is from Starship Troopers.
It's not that Heinlein doesn't understand or is deliberately obfuscating, he's simply using a perspective different from your own, IMHO. The way I interpret Heinlein here is that rhetoric and flowery prose doesn't *give* us freedom, and that freedom is something that needs to be fought for, to get, and to retain. Read (or re-read) the novel -- I think you might learn something.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Feminism (n)
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
Actually, you can throw that word out. Ask 10 feminists what a feminist is and you'll get 10 different ideological answers. However, the end result is basically the same - not equality of the sexes but female superiority of the sexes.
Says you. I'm a feminist and that's how I define feminism (along with Merriam-Webster, of course). Now get over yourself. I guess you're an insecure male, huh? Well, I'm a secure, middle-aged male and feel strongly that women have been treated unfairly for far too long. You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but don't try to tell me what I believe.
That would be the motte in the motte-and-bailey doctrine. If you define feminism like that, it's extremely defensible.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Retreating to the defensible but useless definition whenever your ideas are criticized, is dishonest.
My Ideas? WTF are you talking about? I am a feminist in exactly the sense of the definition posted. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just you projecting.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Feminism (n)
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
Stephen Hawking drives *everywhere*. No wonder he lost the bet about information in black holes...
Actually, he doesn't drive anywhere. He is driven by others.
The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
--Robert A. Heinlein
Well (1) we had been talking to them from beside their boat for a while before; (2) I couldn't believe it either; (3a) we were not in the lock, we were in the canal waiting area waiting to go into the lock; (3b) this lock in question was being filled up, not drained, reducing the risk of being sucked under; and (3c) in any case it's moot because I didn't get into the water, I got into their boat, at emergency speed, and the phone fell out of my pocket into the water at the bottom of their boat, not into the canal. Now, (4) what if we mitigated the cost to the store by (a) only requiring them to give out a loaner phone, not necessarily the same model that you have (as I wrote elsewhere, I hate anything that doesn't have a slide-out keyboard, but I'd live) and (b) only requiring the loaner phones to be available from some store in the area, not necessarily the one where you bought your phone?
How about you do us all (not least of whom, you) a favor and go back to hounding spammers, rather than exposing us to the mindless drivel you keep spewing? Nobody except you cares about how dumb you are, nor is anyone interested in reading your inane, puerile rants. Go fuck yourself.
Why do progressives feel that more regulation solves every problem or inconvenience? As if the attitudes of businesses towards their customers can be mandated from the omnipotent government.
The real solution to this problem is heavy competition. Phone stores that treat their customers better win out.
Who says Bennett Haselton is a progressive? From what I've seen, he's a semi-literate, narcissistic, moron who couldn't formulate reasonable argument to save his life. The real solution is that there is no problem. Bennett Haselton is just whining about how he doesn't like the terms of the insurance contract he signed. End of story. Anything else is just you trying to shoehorn his moronic drivel into your ideological pigeonhole. Get a grip.
...On the gripping hand...
Thanks for that, Galaga88! I think I'll go back and re-read The Mote In God's Eye and The Gripping Hand again. Good stuff!
Bennett Haselton to leave us /.ers alone, so we don't have to see his useless crap.
Prolexic is using a real vulnerability to enhance their contacts DB and increase the surface area of their sales efforts. Disgusting.
This is why the Internet invented things like 10 Minute Mail
Thanks for sharing the link. It's much appreciated. But that doesn't change the fact that the fine folks at Prolexic are acting like douchebags. Which was my point.