So if I go to a store and pick up a copy of Sim City, I will see something to the effect of, "This game can be played as long as we continue to operate our online service" written somewhere on the box?
People generally assume that when they buy software, it will work as long as they maintain their copy of it; if EA is not being clear that that is not the case here, then they are being deceptive.
Right, because fighting the market for used games did not factor into this decision at all. Gaming companies have so much respect for their users that they would only create these sorts of draconian DRM schemes if they were desperate to do so, because of the crushing weight of piracy, right?
Get real -- this is because Maxis has no respect for SimCity players and sees nothing beyond a chance to make a little more money than they did before.
Who watches the watchers? Wikileaks, and that is why the US government has been working so hard to discredit them, attack their leaders, and to shut them down.
The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s
Really, the 1960s? How about since the 1940s, when the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was running around investigating people for being homosexuals or communists, and blatantly violating due process? It has been said that, had this been known at the time, we would have called it "Hooverism" rather than "McCarthyism."
One such place is in a corporate environment using corporation-owned equipment, where the corporation appoints the gardener (i.e. IT staff) and the gardener is accountable to the garden owner (i.e. the corporation).
Which is a completely different situation, since the people using the computers in a corporation as part of their authorized work duties are not the owners of those computers. When you buy certain computers from Sony, Apple, or Amazon, you are stuck with rules dictated by an organization that does not have any ownership of that computer; this is the common understanding of a "walled garden" in the context of this discussion.
After all, one of the reasons people choose a walled-garden community is for safety at the expense of freedom.
Except that a walled garden is not necessary, and one does not need to sacrifice freedom; the repository system used by numerous free/libre OSes is equally effective and does nothing to prevent people from using their computers in the way they see fit. The difference is the goal; companies that run walled gardens are not doing so to benefit users, they are doing so to benefit their investors, whereas repositories are run to make it easier to install software and to keep that software up-to-date.
It has an obligation to offer access OR just compensation to anyone who has already paid for the title. If the person never downloaded the title, "just compensation" is a full refund.
Except that you are ignoring what benefit a person might have received from having whatever software or entertainment was removed. In the case of a video game, this might be nothing more than an abstract issue, but for other software, or for a book (like, say, 1984, a frequent target of censorship) it could matter more. The user might want the software/etc. more than the money they paid for it, and you are basically telling them to go screw themselves (or to find some other platform).
It has an obligation to quickly review titles it pre-emptively removes and restore them within days, not weeks.
Assuming they even bother to restore such titles. Apple has no plans to restore all those pornography apps in the App Store, and they only restored one of the numerous political cartoon apps they removed after a widespread media backlash. Is there any reason to think that Sony will behave differently?
Non-walled-garden community managers do not have these obligations
Yet large distros like Fedora do submit patches upstream to fix problems in software and they do work with projects to make packaging easier. This sometimes fails or takes a long time (e.g. Chromium in Fedora, which remains problematic), yet we see little to no effort on the part of walled garden wardens^H^H^Hcurators.
One of the freedoms of "living" outside a walled garden is the freedom to run unsafe code
Likewise, one of the freedoms of living outside of a prison is the freedom to drive a car and potentially get into an accident. So why should anyone live outside of a prison?
Really though, walled gardens are dangerous for society. What happens when the government comes along and says, "Remove that anonymity software, people are using it to violate our censorship laws?" Computers are one of the most important communication tools out there, and walled gardens basically cede control of those tools to companies that have little interest in freedom of speech or democratic processes. I want to have the freedom to run cryptography software that does not have a backdoor and that does not escrow my keys (a debate which is still alive). I want to have the freedom to use communication systems that are hard to censor, which means having the software needed to connect to those systems. I do not want to have a company like Sony or Apple "curate" my experience by denying me the ability to run such software.
Guys, they're a company out to make profit, and they're going to put the game back up in time.
Kind of like how Apple still has all those pornography apps in its app store? Sometimes companies think that can realize greater profits by basically screwing their customers, and there is every reason to think that Sony is such a company.
I'm not discounting that Sony does a lot of scummy stuff, but is not one of them in my eyes.
So just hearing a rumor that a particular game might have a bug that could be exploited is now enough to pull the game? Interesting definition of "not scummy..."
How many times do we have to have locked down platforms that you do not really "own" (in the sense of being able to use your computer without first getting the permission of whoever built it) before we finally realize that the wrong thing was creating another such platform in the first place? Why do we need Sony's permission to play a game on a computer that Sony sold us?
The right thing would have been selling a system that does not need to be attacked just to use without Sony's permission.
For some reason, people defend publish-or-perish and systems that evaluate researchers based on the quantity of work or the names of journals or conferences where they have presented their work.
To be honest, I have had better experiences with home-grown systems than with prepackaged software. My alma mater got rid of their home grown system in favor of Banner (by Sunguard) and it was a complete disaster, after having flirted with Blackboard (which was less of a disaster but still terribly annoying). My current school uses Sakai, and it is just awful compared to the CGI scripts that professors sometimes write.
I have experienced three of these systems -- Blackboard, Sakai, and Banner -- and I have to say, I am not particularly impressed. Each one came with a phenomenal set of headaches, both for students and for professors/TAs.
Ugly as they were, simple CGI scripts rolled by professors worked just as well and did not induce any further headaches (and usually had fewer issues). At my alma mater, they had a less aesthetically pleasing system for entering and viewing grades, but it worked -- you never had to go more than two levels of links deep to find what you wanted. Yet schools seem to constantly get rid of these home-grown solutions in favor of Blackboard 'n pals...why?
Does what Google do with its services matter to you? If so, how?
Has it occurred to you that the interest rates on those strangling loans could be computed using data gathered by companies like Google? That you might receive a less favorable rate because of who your contacts are or what you say to them?
Privacy and empowerment go hand-in-hand; when you lose privacy, the people you lost it to gain power over you.
This is why we read things. Point one was about people who are "out" on Facebook, who might become targets of strangers who cannot see their Facebook profiles. Point two was about epople are not "out," who could be identified as gay through inferences derived through their various postings and messages (if I remember correctly, it was shown that with high propbability, just a person's friends list is enough to identify their sexual orientation); such a person might again be identified by strangers using the advertising system.
Not everyone makes their profile public. If, however, an advertisement were to be targetted only at those men who declared themselves to be gay on Facebook, and they happened to click on that ad (perhaps something seemingly innocent), then you could basically get them to identify themselves.
You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile; a person who might not want to "come out" could be identified this way. The attack described above could thus be used to "out" someone.
It really seems like the studios are using threats of various laws as tokens in negotiating favorable terms in business deals rather then as tools for actually protecting their IP.
Right, because that other reason copyrights exist (to improve the public's access to creative works) is so relevant these days. In this century, the point of copyright is to create a favorable environment for certain businesses, nothing more.
We would not want to threaten the profits of all those backscatter machine companies by pointing out how little TSA's airport security really accomplishes, now would we? What, you think that because Schneier is a prominent security researcher, he is supposed to be talking about the failures of security programs?
Use encryption to protect the privacy of their communications
Not install every trendy plugin they hear about
Not sign up for every trendy website their friends mention to them
Must be asking too much of them. The problem is not that we have too few laws, it is that most people still think about things as if they were in the mid-20th century. People have no clue how email works, so they assume it is like a faster version of postal mail. People have no idea how Facebook works, so they assume it is like a social-oriented version of email (and by extension, postal mail). Eventually, people will start to understand that there are computers out there and that those computers can record what they do, and then they will start to follow basic privacy-preserving practices.
The problem with laws that regulate websites and other Internet services is that they make it harder for people to run a server out of their garage or their dormroom. Laws assume that computer users and computer service providers are two distinct classes that can be regulated separately; on the Internet, that is not true (or at least such a view runs counter to the overarching philosophy of the Internet).
Now, I just know that someone will jump in and talk about how this is all just the natural order of things, how computers are "growing up" and becoming more organized and how we must follow the same pattern that we always follow and how people are not generally capable of figuring out how to use PGP or OTR or ABP...
Actually, patent infringement applies to someone selling or distributing the protected work. If you implement it yourself, there's no infringement whatsoever.
Or in the case of software patents, distributing certain descriptions of the covered work i.e. those which can be compiled. Hence the danger to open source projects that violate patents.
You clearly haven't heard of the glass ceiling, the 20% discount women have to take when doing a man's job,
I have heard of them, and I have also seen the studies that women are less likely to negotiate a higher salary, less likely to confront their bosses about raises, bonuses, and promotions, and more likely to take time off. Except that feminists have little to say about those studies; feminists simply assume that if there is any inequality, it is the result of discrimination. Feminists cannot admit the possibility that women themselves could have any part to play in their own salaries or career advancement: It must be the fault of men, society, or the mythical "patriarchy."
Yeah, economic advantages are, gasp! advantages.
Economic advantages are the only advantages that really matter. Feminists are only really concerned with the upper middle class, they could not care less about poor, working class people (male or female). At one time they cared (back when they were still fighting for equal access to blue collar careers), but somewhere along the way they forgot that such people even exist. Today's feminists have narrowed their focus to the upper middle class: white collar professionals who live in suburbs and who dream of climbing the ladder until they reach upper management (something which is basically impossible for blue collar workers; it takes a truly exception member of the working class to even reach middle management).
The issue is that men who grew up in working class families still have advantages over women growing up in working class families
Really? When last I checked, men from working class backgrounds had a high probability of being convicted of felonies and thrown in prison. I know of several men that went to middle school with me who were in prison while I was in college, and at least one is still in prison (he stole someone's car).
When feminists speak of "male advantage," they only mean men from the upper middle class. Feminists do not spend a lot of time fussing over the poor representation of women in blue collar work; after all, people (i.e. people with enough money to make a big contribution to a feminist organization) have trouble relating to, say, sanitation work as a success story.
Your mom worked railroads, congratulations. What are the odds that she might make management?
Again, it is hard for blue collar workers to rise to management positions, regardless of gender. My mom could have risen to the lowest levels of management if she had wanted to -- she had plenty of experience with the equipment and the operations that needed to be done -- but she never did want to, because of the added stress. The lowest levels of management do not represent much of an advance, and it is rare for low level managers to ever rise as high as mid level management (those positions are usually filled by people who went to professional schools). My mom's immediate bosses, both male and female, never rose to a higher management position (almost all had worked in some hourly position before taking on a low level management role).
Really, my mom's experience illustrates the real focus that feminists have. When I was working as a programmer, it was unthinkable to make a crude joke, or to have so much as a swimsuit calendar at one's desk. Feminists push hard to eliminate all manner of immature joking from white collar environments. My mother, on the other hand, saw or heard plenty of such jokes -- long tools held at crotch level, jokes about long hoses when the fire department showed up, jokes about tits, asses, dicks, and pussies, etc. There was a rule somewhere in the rulebook about not making such jokes, but the general environment was one in which only severe violations would be reported, because nobody wants to invite the scrutiny of upper management (indeed, if an occasional joke about the shape of a break
Finally, men and women being equals doesn't mean they're the same
Then do not use the word "equal," because it is misleading -- perhaps "equal access," "equal opportunity," "equal rights," but not simply "equal."
It just means that they shouldn't earn 20% less than a man for doing the same job
Sure, let's start by figuring out how to convince women to negotiate higher salaries -- something that men are more likely to do than women. Let's also address the various contributing factors, like the fact that women are more likely to take time off, less likely to confront their bosses about raises and bonus pay, etc. If after all that is addressed, we still find that women are earning substantially less than men, we can point to some sort of discriminatory practice.
Of course, feminists would say that I am "blaming the victim" and that therefore the entire argument is specious. Clearly, the fact that women are less likely to negotiate a higher salary is irrelevant to them getting paid 20% less.
One in which you, a white male, is a victim
Which is clearly not possible, because only women and minorities could ever be victimized, right? There is no way that white men or men in general could possibly be victims of feminism in this century...except when those white men are forced to pay alimony and/or child support to a woman who left them for the man whose children she brought into the world:
In the 80s and 90s, men were in an even worse position: thousands of men were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for...satanism. Yes, that's right, following a poorly-thought-out attempt by feminists to raise awareness about child sexual abuse, everyone panicked, men across the country were arrested for molesting children, and then somehow people conflated sexual abuse with satanic rituals and we had an all-out moral panic. Some women were also accused, but the accusations were overwhelmingly directed at men.
Now, modern feminists are not so interested in child sexual abuse, probably because of the disaster that the feminists of the 70s created. It did not help that Michelle Remembers turned out to be a complete fabrication. We are still feeling the effects of the moral panic feminism created, still having knee-jerk reactions when it comes to sex offenders and still going around doubting the intentions of men when they are around children.
So do not even try to say that men are not victims of feminism. It was, after all, feminists who pushed to create a system where women could end their marriages and still receive alimony. Feminists pushed for child support laws that have made life that much harder for working class men. Feminists created the moral panic that imprisoned thousands of men across the country for no reason whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like they're being deceptive about it
So if I go to a store and pick up a copy of Sim City, I will see something to the effect of, "This game can be played as long as we continue to operate our online service" written somewhere on the box?
People generally assume that when they buy software, it will work as long as they maintain their copy of it; if EA is not being clear that that is not the case here, then they are being deceptive.
Right, because fighting the market for used games did not factor into this decision at all. Gaming companies have so much respect for their users that they would only create these sorts of draconian DRM schemes if they were desperate to do so, because of the crushing weight of piracy, right?
Get real -- this is because Maxis has no respect for SimCity players and sees nothing beyond a chance to make a little more money than they did before.
Who watches the watchers? Wikileaks, and that is why the US government has been working so hard to discredit them, attack their leaders, and to shut them down.
The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s
Really, the 1960s? How about since the 1940s, when the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was running around investigating people for being homosexuals or communists, and blatantly violating due process? It has been said that, had this been known at the time, we would have called it "Hooverism" rather than "McCarthyism."
One such place is in a corporate environment using corporation-owned equipment, where the corporation appoints the gardener (i.e. IT staff) and the gardener is accountable to the garden owner (i.e. the corporation).
Which is a completely different situation, since the people using the computers in a corporation as part of their authorized work duties are not the owners of those computers. When you buy certain computers from Sony, Apple, or Amazon, you are stuck with rules dictated by an organization that does not have any ownership of that computer; this is the common understanding of a "walled garden" in the context of this discussion.
After all, one of the reasons people choose a walled-garden community is for safety at the expense of freedom.
Except that a walled garden is not necessary, and one does not need to sacrifice freedom; the repository system used by numerous free/libre OSes is equally effective and does nothing to prevent people from using their computers in the way they see fit. The difference is the goal; companies that run walled gardens are not doing so to benefit users, they are doing so to benefit their investors, whereas repositories are run to make it easier to install software and to keep that software up-to-date.
It has an obligation to offer access OR just compensation to anyone who has already paid for the title. If the person never downloaded the title, "just compensation" is a full refund.
Except that you are ignoring what benefit a person might have received from having whatever software or entertainment was removed. In the case of a video game, this might be nothing more than an abstract issue, but for other software, or for a book (like, say, 1984, a frequent target of censorship) it could matter more. The user might want the software/etc. more than the money they paid for it, and you are basically telling them to go screw themselves (or to find some other platform).
It has an obligation to quickly review titles it pre-emptively removes and restore them within days, not weeks.
Assuming they even bother to restore such titles. Apple has no plans to restore all those pornography apps in the App Store, and they only restored one of the numerous political cartoon apps they removed after a widespread media backlash. Is there any reason to think that Sony will behave differently?
Non-walled-garden community managers do not have these obligations
Yet large distros like Fedora do submit patches upstream to fix problems in software and they do work with projects to make packaging easier. This sometimes fails or takes a long time (e.g. Chromium in Fedora, which remains problematic), yet we see little to no effort on the part of walled garden wardens^H^H^Hcurators.
One of the freedoms of "living" outside a walled garden is the freedom to run unsafe code
Likewise, one of the freedoms of living outside of a prison is the freedom to drive a car and potentially get into an accident. So why should anyone live outside of a prison?
Really though, walled gardens are dangerous for society. What happens when the government comes along and says, "Remove that anonymity software, people are using it to violate our censorship laws?" Computers are one of the most important communication tools out there, and walled gardens basically cede control of those tools to companies that have little interest in freedom of speech or democratic processes. I want to have the freedom to run cryptography software that does not have a backdoor and that does not escrow my keys (a debate which is still alive). I want to have the freedom to use communication systems that are hard to censor, which means having the software needed to connect to those systems. I do not want to have a company like Sony or Apple "curate" my experience by denying me the ability to run such software.
Guys, they're a company out to make profit, and they're going to put the game back up in time.
Kind of like how Apple still has all those pornography apps in its app store? Sometimes companies think that can realize greater profits by basically screwing their customers, and there is every reason to think that Sony is such a company.
I'm not discounting that Sony does a lot of scummy stuff, but is not one of them in my eyes.
So just hearing a rumor that a particular game might have a bug that could be exploited is now enough to pull the game? Interesting definition of "not scummy..."
they did the right thing
How many times do we have to have locked down platforms that you do not really "own" (in the sense of being able to use your computer without first getting the permission of whoever built it) before we finally realize that the wrong thing was creating another such platform in the first place? Why do we need Sony's permission to play a game on a computer that Sony sold us?
The right thing would have been selling a system that does not need to be attacked just to use without Sony's permission.
Yeah, it is not as though the US uses its own signals intelligence agency to spy on foreign businesses and pass R&D secrets to domestic firms...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy
For some reason, people defend publish-or-perish and systems that evaluate researchers based on the quantity of work or the names of journals or conferences where they have presented their work.
To be honest, I have had better experiences with home-grown systems than with prepackaged software. My alma mater got rid of their home grown system in favor of Banner (by Sunguard) and it was a complete disaster, after having flirted with Blackboard (which was less of a disaster but still terribly annoying). My current school uses Sakai, and it is just awful compared to the CGI scripts that professors sometimes write.
I have experienced three of these systems -- Blackboard, Sakai, and Banner -- and I have to say, I am not particularly impressed. Each one came with a phenomenal set of headaches, both for students and for professors/TAs.
Ugly as they were, simple CGI scripts rolled by professors worked just as well and did not induce any further headaches (and usually had fewer issues). At my alma mater, they had a less aesthetically pleasing system for entering and viewing grades, but it worked -- you never had to go more than two levels of links deep to find what you wanted. Yet schools seem to constantly get rid of these home-grown solutions in favor of Blackboard 'n pals...why?
Does what Google do with its services matter to you? If so, how?
Has it occurred to you that the interest rates on those strangling loans could be computed using data gathered by companies like Google? That you might receive a less favorable rate because of who your contacts are or what you say to them?
Privacy and empowerment go hand-in-hand; when you lose privacy, the people you lost it to gain power over you.
This is why we read things. Point one was about people who are "out" on Facebook, who might become targets of strangers who cannot see their Facebook profiles. Point two was about epople are not "out," who could be identified as gay through inferences derived through their various postings and messages (if I remember correctly, it was shown that with high propbability, just a person's friends list is enough to identify their sexual orientation); such a person might again be identified by strangers using the advertising system.
It really seems like the studios are using threats of various laws as tokens in negotiating favorable terms in business deals rather then as tools for actually protecting their IP.
Right, because that other reason copyrights exist (to improve the public's access to creative works) is so relevant these days. In this century, the point of copyright is to create a favorable environment for certain businesses, nothing more.
Oh, so they called in another expert who has done the same analysis as Schneier, right? Or will it just be the TSA's choice of experts?
We would not want to threaten the profits of all those backscatter machine companies by pointing out how little TSA's airport security really accomplishes, now would we? What, you think that because Schneier is a prominent security researcher, he is supposed to be talking about the failures of security programs?
The rules need to be rewritten
I guess asking people to:
Must be asking too much of them. The problem is not that we have too few laws, it is that most people still think about things as if they were in the mid-20th century. People have no clue how email works, so they assume it is like a faster version of postal mail. People have no idea how Facebook works, so they assume it is like a social-oriented version of email (and by extension, postal mail). Eventually, people will start to understand that there are computers out there and that those computers can record what they do, and then they will start to follow basic privacy-preserving practices.
The problem with laws that regulate websites and other Internet services is that they make it harder for people to run a server out of their garage or their dormroom. Laws assume that computer users and computer service providers are two distinct classes that can be regulated separately; on the Internet, that is not true (or at least such a view runs counter to the overarching philosophy of the Internet).
Now, I just know that someone will jump in and talk about how this is all just the natural order of things, how computers are "growing up" and becoming more organized and how we must follow the same pattern that we always follow and how people are not generally capable of figuring out how to use PGP or OTR or ABP...
Do not have a Facebook account. If you are denied a job over that, it is probably not the sort of place you want to be working.
the actual problem
You say this as if there could only be one thing wrong with this situation. Software patents are bad, and locked down devices are bad too.
Why adapt or die, when you could just manipulate the law to keep innovation from affecting you?
Actually, patent infringement applies to someone selling or distributing the protected work. If you implement it yourself, there's no infringement whatsoever.
Or in the case of software patents, distributing certain descriptions of the covered work i.e. those which can be compiled. Hence the danger to open source projects that violate patents.
You clearly haven't heard of the glass ceiling, the 20% discount women have to take when doing a man's job,
I have heard of them, and I have also seen the studies that women are less likely to negotiate a higher salary, less likely to confront their bosses about raises, bonuses, and promotions, and more likely to take time off. Except that feminists have little to say about those studies; feminists simply assume that if there is any inequality, it is the result of discrimination. Feminists cannot admit the possibility that women themselves could have any part to play in their own salaries or career advancement: It must be the fault of men, society, or the mythical "patriarchy."
Yeah, economic advantages are, gasp! advantages.
Economic advantages are the only advantages that really matter. Feminists are only really concerned with the upper middle class, they could not care less about poor, working class people (male or female). At one time they cared (back when they were still fighting for equal access to blue collar careers), but somewhere along the way they forgot that such people even exist. Today's feminists have narrowed their focus to the upper middle class: white collar professionals who live in suburbs and who dream of climbing the ladder until they reach upper management (something which is basically impossible for blue collar workers; it takes a truly exception member of the working class to even reach middle management).
The issue is that men who grew up in working class families still have advantages over women growing up in working class families
Really? When last I checked, men from working class backgrounds had a high probability of being convicted of felonies and thrown in prison. I know of several men that went to middle school with me who were in prison while I was in college, and at least one is still in prison (he stole someone's car).
When feminists speak of "male advantage," they only mean men from the upper middle class. Feminists do not spend a lot of time fussing over the poor representation of women in blue collar work; after all, people (i.e. people with enough money to make a big contribution to a feminist organization) have trouble relating to, say, sanitation work as a success story.
Your mom worked railroads, congratulations. What are the odds that she might make management?
Again, it is hard for blue collar workers to rise to management positions, regardless of gender. My mom could have risen to the lowest levels of management if she had wanted to -- she had plenty of experience with the equipment and the operations that needed to be done -- but she never did want to, because of the added stress. The lowest levels of management do not represent much of an advance, and it is rare for low level managers to ever rise as high as mid level management (those positions are usually filled by people who went to professional schools). My mom's immediate bosses, both male and female, never rose to a higher management position (almost all had worked in some hourly position before taking on a low level management role).
Really, my mom's experience illustrates the real focus that feminists have. When I was working as a programmer, it was unthinkable to make a crude joke, or to have so much as a swimsuit calendar at one's desk. Feminists push hard to eliminate all manner of immature joking from white collar environments. My mother, on the other hand, saw or heard plenty of such jokes -- long tools held at crotch level, jokes about long hoses when the fire department showed up, jokes about tits, asses, dicks, and pussies, etc. There was a rule somewhere in the rulebook about not making such jokes, but the general environment was one in which only severe violations would be reported, because nobody wants to invite the scrutiny of upper management (indeed, if an occasional joke about the shape of a break
Finally, men and women being equals doesn't mean they're the same
Then do not use the word "equal," because it is misleading -- perhaps "equal access," "equal opportunity," "equal rights," but not simply "equal."
It just means that they shouldn't earn 20% less than a man for doing the same job
Sure, let's start by figuring out how to convince women to negotiate higher salaries -- something that men are more likely to do than women. Let's also address the various contributing factors, like the fact that women are more likely to take time off, less likely to confront their bosses about raises and bonus pay, etc. If after all that is addressed, we still find that women are earning substantially less than men, we can point to some sort of discriminatory practice.
Of course, feminists would say that I am "blaming the victim" and that therefore the entire argument is specious. Clearly, the fact that women are less likely to negotiate a higher salary is irrelevant to them getting paid 20% less.
One in which you, a white male, is a victim
Which is clearly not possible, because only women and minorities could ever be victimized, right? There is no way that white men or men in general could possibly be victims of feminism in this century...except when those white men are forced to pay alimony and/or child support to a woman who left them for the man whose children she brought into the world:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?_r=1
In the 80s and 90s, men were in an even worse position: thousands of men were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for...satanism. Yes, that's right, following a poorly-thought-out attempt by feminists to raise awareness about child sexual abuse, everyone panicked, men across the country were arrested for molesting children, and then somehow people conflated sexual abuse with satanic rituals and we had an all-out moral panic. Some women were also accused, but the accusations were overwhelmingly directed at men.
Now, modern feminists are not so interested in child sexual abuse, probably because of the disaster that the feminists of the 70s created. It did not help that Michelle Remembers turned out to be a complete fabrication. We are still feeling the effects of the moral panic feminism created, still having knee-jerk reactions when it comes to sex offenders and still going around doubting the intentions of men when they are around children.
So do not even try to say that men are not victims of feminism. It was, after all, feminists who pushed to create a system where women could end their marriages and still receive alimony. Feminists pushed for child support laws that have made life that much harder for working class men. Feminists created the moral panic that imprisoned thousands of men across the country for no reason whatsoever.