[Aptorian]

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Gamer Gate does address real issues within the industry. Men's rights advocates do address real injustices that men face.

No it doesn't, and no they don't. These are hate/abuse movements with very transparent costumes.

Gamer Gate, the less insane part of it anyway, is supposed to be about the lack of transparency in the media. The issue revolves around incestuous relationships between "journalists", publishers, developers, etc. It's not really about that any longer of course, now it's a sort of war about the media dismissing everything that Gamer Gate says and Gamer Gate instead raging about being suppressed and the media being "in on it". The feminist angle comes from Quinn being in the middle of it and misogyny being the explanation used to defend the dismissal of the movement.

How ever shitty the most vocal people in the Gamer Gate movement are, it does not change that there are some really iffy relationships among the peoples in the video game industry. That includes Zoe Quinn who by switches back and forth between acting the victim and the bully.

As for Men's rights. Are you completely dismissing the idea that men also suffer inequality? Are you going to categorically ignore issues like men being less likely to get custody over their children? Being forced to pay child support they can't even afford? Getting much harder punishments in the legal system? Not getting the same maternity leave options? Having to do military service while women don't? (That's a Danish issue anyway) Not to mention societies expectations of how a man should act and behave that can be every bit as soul crushing and objectifying as the issues women face.

If men and women are equal, why are the issues men face not as important as women's issues?

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

However I find it sort of worrying that the article is able to simply sweep every "opposing sentiment" in under a red pill label.

[snip]

I'm not saying they all interact constantly, but they are sibling (at furthest, cousin) ideologies, and any degree of paying attention evidences cross-group interests and activities. It didn't require any tremendous leap.

And I am saying what you're talking about is extremism. The Red Pill is, I hope anyway, a fringe movement. They are the worst case scenario of a gender debate. The article singles out a bunch of horrible people, but I suspect that if I go hunt through the Red Pills archives of terrible injustices against men I will probably find a list of feminist movements that are just as rabid and extremist as the people in this boing boing article comes of as. At least that will be the angle the Red Pill puts on it.

I don't know these people but I do become sceptical of your list, Worry, when you mention Total Biscuit.

Quote

"GG's biggest heroes include the misogynist, racist vloggers Thunderf00t, MundaneMatt, and TotalBiscuit;

I follow Total Biscuit relatively closely, not so much now that he's become the figurehead of "The PC Master Race" but I have seen his footage on the GG movement. TotalBiscuit has to my knowledge never made any comment or video that is in any way or form racist or misogynist. He's had issues with the people who are against GG that's true but that does not make him a misogynist I hope we can agree. He's tried to invite both sides of the issue to do a debate. He did an in depth interview with Stephen Totilo from Kotaku, where he raised all the GG complaints and Totilo was giving room to address and refute pretty much every argument.

The reason why I object to this article is that I think that, within the context of this thread, women in videogames, it's an extreme example used to demonize people who sympathize with the GG movement or Men's rights in general.

This post has been edited by Apt: 30 January 2015 - 09:27 AM

[Gorefest]

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Men's rights advocates do address real injustices that men face.

Injustices that men face? What? This is a thing?

[Aptorian]

Gorefest, on 30 January 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Men's rights advocates do address real injustices that men face.

Injustices that men face? What? This is a thing?

The fact that you ask if this is a thing probably says a lot about our society.

http://en.wikipedia....rights_movement

EDIT: Keep in mind that a bunch of the issues raised in this article is certain groups trolling feminists. It's simple counterarguments to feminist requests, made more to slight the other, than an actual perceived need.

Like when one half-jokingly demands that if there should be a Women's rights day, then men should have one to. Or how if there's a black history month, then there should be a white history month.

This post has been edited by Apt: 30 January 2015 - 09:32 AM

[Studlock]

I have yet to speak to an MRA that is honestly wants to speak about men issues (the insane rate of successful suicides, men on men violence, violence in general, alcoholism, the nature of toxic masculinity, etc) and how it's mostly other men that enforce and police these behaviours. Most them seem content with suching down feminist discourse because it threatens there own sense of identity (and thus privilege) or just straight up being apart of a hate group. These issues aren't anti-feminist, indeed many feminist are interested in these issues because that paint gender as something binary and essential. MRA's are on a whole not in it to speak about men issues but to fight against there eroding privilege, it's not only disingenuous to paint it some kind of social rights movement, it does more harm than good to actual men issues because how clearly to any sane individual that general MRAs are just being misogynist assholes.

[Gorefest]

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

The fact that you ask if this is a thing probably says a lot about our society.

http://en.wikipedia....rights_movement

EDIT: Keep in mind that a bunch of the issues raised in this article is certain groups trolling feminists. It's simple counterarguments to feminist requests, made more to slight the other, than an actual perceived need.

Like when one half-jokingly demands that if there should be a Women's rights day, then men should have one to. Or how if there's a black history month, then there should be a white history month.

But surely that's a load of bollocks? The whole point about having civil rights movements is because the chosen position is a minority or suppressed sector of the general society. Historically and culturally, most Judeo-Christian and Muslim societies are heavily patriarchal. The men have been at the top for centuries. Denying that echoes of that situation still reverberate through in today's society is quite blinkered in my opinion. Sure, some civil rights movements can tend to verge on the extreme with their demands, but to have a reactionary movement by the empowered majority to reinstate the structural imbalance is just farcical and petty.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 30 January 2015 - 12:16 PM

[Illuyankas]

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

Gorefest, on 30 January 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Men's rights advocates do address real injustices that men face.

Injustices that men face? What? This is a thing?

The fact that you ask if this is a thing probably says a lot about our society.

http://en.wikipedia....rights_movement

EDIT: Keep in mind that a bunch of the issues raised in this article is certain groups trolling feminists. It's simple counterarguments to feminist requests, made more to slight the other, than an actual perceived need.

Like when one half-jokingly demands that if there should be a Women's rights day, then men should have one to. Or how if there's a black history month, then there should be a white history month.

[standard disclaimer that dude get Men's rights 364 days and White History 11 months as events]

Also, what an article to promote the MRA position.

Quote

Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group and believe that society and state have been "feminized" by the women's movement.

Men's rights organizations such as Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) state that men are subject to dowry harassment when women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings.

Critics argue that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men[63] and that men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it.

...contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents.

Some critics have rejected the research cited by men's rights activists and dispute their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical, arguing that the focus on women's violence stems from a political agenda to minimize the issue of men's violence against women and to undermine services to abused women.[79][92] Donileen Loseke, Mary Cavanaugh and Richard Gelles cite as an example the challenge to the Minnesota Battered Woman's Act by the Men's Defense Association claiming that it was discriminatory because it protected women but not men.

...the "feminization" of education...

Quoting research including that by Eugene Kanin and the U.S. Air Force they assert that 40–50% or more of rape allegations may be false. They state that false accusations are a form of psychological rape. They assert that the naming of the accused while providing the accuser with anonymity encourages abuse. Robert O'Hara of A Voice for Men stated in a June 2014 interview that "this is one of those issues that it's so easy to draw so much hysteria about because we have this natural inclination to want to protect women, especially from rape, that this whole rape thing has been used by feminists to garner political power, lots of it, and money. The whole thing has been used as a scam".

Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by some Men's rights groups in the United Kingdom, the United States and India. The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings, the belief that sex within marriage is part of the institution of marriage, and in India anxiety about relationships and the future of marriage as such laws give women "grossly disproportional rights". Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a men's rights organization, has opposed recent efforts to criminalize marital rape in India, arguing that "no relationship will work if these rules are enforced."

Men's rights activists note American statistics showing that fewer couples are marrying, and that fewer men see marriage as an important life goal. They assert that men are consciously or unconsciously opting out of marriage and engaging in a "marriage strike" as a result of the lack of benefits in marriage and the emotional and financial consequences of divorce, including alimony and child custody and support.

They hold biological views of fatherhood, emphasizing the imperative of the genetic foundation of paternity rather than social aspects of fatherhood.

...men's and fathers' rights groups have called for compulsory paternity testing of all children.

And this is from an article that could be edited by MRAs but apparently they're perfectly happy with the views listed here? Man no wonder the SPLC labelled them a hate group. Even the things that are legit issues they want to deal with they're blaming on the wrong people and from the wrong direction, and they're pretty much all things women want to fix too.

[worry]

TotalBiscuit minimized the very real threats against Anita by saying they weren't credible because "she's still breathing" and consistently derides the concerns of feminist-friendly gamers. He has his followers swarm SJWs or anti-GG people or whatever you want to call them to do his dirty work while keeping his own hands clean. He also consistently interacts in a friendly way with GG's harrassers (such as serial harassers RogueStar and Internet Aristocrat). He's a scumbag (IMO) who pretends he's above the fray.

GamerGate started with the persecution of Quinn, period (Adam Baldwin even named it within that context). The more general "ethics in game journalism" issue was the pretext, not the other way around. Any argument to the contrary is false. You start there, or you're wrong. Quinn is a "bully" in the same sense that fighting off your attackers is, technically, "violence."

Re: men's rights arguments. Short answer: No, I do not ignore them. Yes, I do dismiss many of them. Men can cry me a river on the child support issue. The custody thing is a myth built on misinterpreting stats and avoiding nuance (high rates of domestic abuse, for instance). But hey, don't take my word for it, take it from the American Bar Association: http://www.americanb...uthcheckdam.pdf

Issues like men-only military service, lack of paternity leave, social pressures of masculinity: all results of patriarchy. Exactly the thing most "SJW"s/feminists are concerned with (also, one neat thing announced recently with Feminist Frequency's financial disclosure report is that they will be starting another series on depictions of masculinity in gaming this year).

[Illuyankas]

Man I followed a link from that wiki page and saw the article on ~*violence against women*~! Check out that taskbar!

Quote

Acid throwing
Breast ironing
Bride burning
Dating abuse
---Date rape
Domestic violence
---Marital rape
---Domestic violence and pregnancy
Dowry death
Honor killing
Female genital mutilation
---Gishiri cutting
---Infibulation
Female infanticide
Femicide
Foot binding
Forced abortion
Forced marriage
Forced pregnancy
Forced prostitution
Genocidal rape
Human trafficking
Murder of pregnant women
Rape
---In campus
---Corrective
---Prison
Pregnancy from rape
Sati
Sexual slavery
Sexual violence
Violence against prostitutes

But you're right, guys have it so much worse.

e: holy shit this is gruelling reading

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 30 January 2015 - 12:48 PM

[Aptorian]

Gorefest, on 30 January 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

Apt, on 30 January 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

The fact that you ask if this is a thing probably says a lot about our society.

http://en.wikipedia....rights_movement

EDIT: Keep in mind that a bunch of the issues raised in this article is certain groups trolling feminists. It's simple counterarguments to feminist requests, made more to slight the other, than an actual perceived need.

Like when one half-jokingly demands that if there should be a Women's rights day, then men should have one to. Or how if there's a black history month, then there should be a white history month.

But surely that's a load of bollocks? The whole point about having civil rights movements is because the chosen position is a minority or suppressed sector of the general society. Historically and culturally, most Judeo-Christian and Muslim societies are heavily patriarchal. The men have been at the top for centuries. Denying that echoes of that situation still reverberate through in today's society is quite blinkered in my opinion. Sure, some civil rights movements can tend to verge on the extreme with their demands, but to have a reactionary movement by the empowered majority to reinstate the structural imbalance is just farcical and petty.

Just because the scales of equality are imbalanced does not mean you should ignore the bigger picture. If you want equality, if you want political correctness, then you can't just turn a blind eye to the things you care less about.

Why should men as a social group care about equality, if the part of the system that favors women, is not also criticized?

If your argument in the case of custody for example, is "because women are obviously better parents" then you might as well throw the whole debate out the window, "because obviously men are better workers", therefore women should stay at home in the kitchen. 

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

List of bad things that happens or happened to women

But you're right, guys have it so much worse.

Now first of all, I NEVER said men have it worse. That was the illogical, outraged typically self-righteous conclusion that you jumped to as usual Illy, please stop that.

Second of all your logic here is that because, perceivable, statistically, women get more shit than men, men as a whole should just eat their shit and be happy about it?

What kind of shitty self-deprecating bullshit is that?

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

TotalBiscuit minimized the very real threats against Anita by saying they weren't credible because "she's still breathing" and consistently derides the concerns of feminist-friendly gamers. He has his followers swarm SJWs or anti-GG people or whatever you want to call them to do his dirty work while keeping his own hands clean. He also consistently interacts in a friendly way with GG's harrassers (such as serial harassers RogueStar and Internet Aristocrat). He's a scumbag (IMO) who pretends he's above the fray.

You could say the same thing about Zoe Quinn, Sarkeesian and lots of other people associated with the anti-GG side of this debate. Zoe Quinn has, and I have seen the Tweets, more than once singled out individual people on her Twitter that she disagreed with and the internet has descended upon them. Most notable was the "Fine Young Capitalist" fiasco where she torpedoed a project for women entrepreneurs simply because she didn't agree with their approach. I'll come back to that below.

Quinn uses her role in the industry to say and do stupid shit but she is of course beyond approach because she is the heroine in this tale.

I have seen TotalBiscuit single out the people in the media who were most definitely full of shit. Like for example the "gamers are dead" people, who instead of siding with their fanbase, decided to turn against it. TotalBiscuit is allowed to disagree with the writers of Kotaku, Polygon, etc. He is also allowed to associate with people on both sides of the fence. That does not make him a racist and a misogynist.

Am I a misogynist because I argue against Sarkeesian and Quinn? Are we going to get into some kind of "degree's of free speech" debate here?

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

GamerGate started with the persecution of Quinn, period (Adam Baldwin even named it within that context). The more general "ethics in game journalism" issue was the pretext, not the other way around. Any argument to the contrary is false. You start there, or you're wrong. Quinn is a "bully" in the same sense that fighting off your attackers is, technically, "violence."

Listen to how dug in you are on this topic. Any argument to the contrary is false?

Here we go:
From this article which criticizes both sides but is arguably is in favor of GamerGate.

http://reason.com/ar...-and-gender-gam

Quote

Last February, Quinn learned about a women's videogame contest sponsored by a charity called The Fine Young Capitalists, or TFYC—artists and entrepreneurs who seek to encourage the creation of videos and videogames by women and minorities. Women were invited to submit ideas for videogames; the winner was to work with TFYC's designers and programmers to develop her concept into a game and get a cut from its sales. Quinn was outraged by what she felt was the contestants' "unpaid labor"—but even more so by the rule requiring transgender participants to publicly identify as female prior to the start of the contest. In dozens of angry tweets, Quinn accused TFYC of exploiting women and "policing transwomen's transition points," then gloated over accidentally crashing their website with her Twitter storm. (In August, Quinn claimed that she had only "posted 4 tweets saying I didn't know how I felt about their approach.") In a recent interview, a TFYC spokesman said that Quinn later continued to publicly attack the contest as "exploitative" and "transphobic," resulting in online harassment toward the group, loss of financial backing, and the cancelation of several planned articles about the project. Quinn and her supporters have cited a conciliatory statement TFYC issued in late August as a rebuttal of those accusations; but that statement was a "peace treaty" TFYC withdrew a few days later, saying that Quinn had not held up her end of the bargain.

Here's her Tweets in a spoiler box because of the size:

Spoiler

Look at the shit she is posting there. Is this a woman protecting herself or is it an angry feminist, using her following to ruin somebody else's life? Notice how much fucking fun she is having here. I will remind you that the head of this project was doxxed and threatened just like Quinn has been.

I will repeat what I have said every time Zoe Quinn has come up in this thread. It's really fucking awful the shit she'd been subjected to but she is not a victim. Zoe Quinn has power. Like TotalBiscuit, when she says or does something it has a ripple effect.

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Re: men's rights arguments. Short answer: No, I do not ignore them. Yes, I do dismiss many of them. Men can cry me a river on the child support issue. The custody thing is a myth built on misinterpreting stats and avoiding nuance (high rates of domestic abuse, for instance). But hey, don't take my word for it, take it from the American Bar Association: http://www.americanb...uthcheckdam.pdf

You're going to have to explain the significance of these myths. None of the 10 examples listed have anything directly to do with men vs women custody issues, unless you factor in an abusive relationship.

But you did make me do a bit of googling. Various searches does indicate that for example custody issues have become much more fair over the past 40 years. I will give you that.

But seeing as I have some kind of pathological need to win my arguments I went on reddit and searched for statistics and rights and other good stuff. There's this thread among many others:

http://www.reddit.co...male_oppression

Are these issues worse or somehow more important than the issues women face daily in the Western world? Of course not but they are real. They are problematic, And stating that ”men can cry you a river” is incredibly unproductive. I might even say that you are marginalizing men and making me feel oppressed, if I hadn't suppressed my emotions decades ago to better fit societies image of how a man should behave and express himself.

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Issues like men-only military service, lack of paternity leave, social pressures of masculinity: all results of patriarchy. Exactly the thing most "SJW"s/feminists are concerned with (also, one neat thing announced recently with Feminist Frequency's financial disclosure report is that they will be starting another series on depictions of masculinity in gaming this year).

But just so we are clear. This is an issue. It is infringing upon men's rights. So there is an equality. This isn't some sub-subject that can only be solved after we smash the patriarch-machine it should be addressed head on. Not as a part of a feminist movement but as a broader, societal reform.

This post has been edited by Apt: 30 January 2015 - 03:02 PM

[Illuyankas]

Well man, if you're so determined to shut down discussion of issues women face to continue the overwhelming focus on dude problems, why shouldn't I assume that?

[LinearPhilosopher]

within apt's reddit post, i found the following
http://www.reddit.co...n_women/c07omtc

Given the above, i don't think issues of men's rights (or lack thereof) in certain respects is something that can easily be brushed aside. If we're to have a constructive discussion about equality may as well throw in the fact that legislation across the board isn't equal and needs some sort of a change.

Im glad worrywort brought up youtubers thunderfoot and tb. The former i find to be a rather insightful creator of of SCIENCE related content. Things like his critique of solar roads or the hoverboards. Outside of that... He's quite small minded. I really don't care for his anti- sarkeesian stuff, though i do think he did make a good point that an accusation of a crime should never be the proof of the crime. (ofc he goes on this long anti feminst rant where i just stopped listening all together)

Im Regards to TB,
https://www.youtube....DavidPakmanShow
I ended up watching this discussion, and found it quite enlightening as to the presence of conflicts of interest within the industry (also explains why game reviews are useless) Though i do find worryworst accusation that he is " misogynist, racist " to be rather unsubstantiated at the moment (you're free to prove me wrong here)

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 30 January 2015 - 04:35 PM

[Illuyankas]

When it comes to change, how about an increase in education, for one! How fucking evil does he think women are? I guarantee his hypothetical spermjacking situation is, like, under a percent of all child custody cases.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 30 January 2015 - 04:34 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

When it comes to change, how about an increase in education, for one! How fucking evil does he think women are? I guarantee his hypothetical spermjacking situation is, like, under a percent of all child custody cases.

Yet, that it exists at all is not at all worrying? that he has no legal recourse not at all worrying? That the laws in place so obviously favour ONE gender is not at all worrying?

Noo not at all, female equality best equality, we cant be having no male equality. Female equality master race.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 30 January 2015 - 04:47 PM

[Illuyankas]

I agree, laws that favour one gender are clearly unfair. That's why we need reform of rape, sexual assault, normal assault, murder, employment, political, healthcare, education and all the other laws that flat out favour and are manipulated to favour guys over gals as well. Which is the point.

You keep taking 'women are severely prejudiced against while men suffer as well but to a lesser extent and here's what would help both genders' as 'women want to be on top now instead of men' and as an attack on you specifically. Is the fact that men aren't allowed to sit next to unaccompanied minors on plane journeys as serious an issue for you as the fact that the concept 'corrective rape' exists? Should we stop talking about the latter and focus solely on the former?

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 30 January 2015 - 05:00 PM

[Grief]

worry, on 30 January 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Issues like men-only military service, lack of paternity leave, social pressures of masculinity: all results of patriarchy. Exactly the thing most "SJW"s/feminists are concerned with (also, one neat thing announced recently with Feminist Frequency's financial disclosure report is that they will be starting another series on depictions of masculinity in gaming this year).

MRA is a tricky topic. While most of what I've seen of the movement itself has been extremely toxic, I do think there are gender inequalities facing men. As Worry says, I think mostly these stem from the same roots as gender inequalities facing women. The construction of gender stereotypes is relative, and mostly operates on a binary. I think the core issues are essentially the same, it's just that the particular symptoms are different (which is in part why I'm not sure that "patriarchy" is a really great term, and I'm not super sold on "feminism" either, since I think it isn't ideal for representing what the movement is about).

I also wonder if the general tone of the discourse, such as Worry telling men who feel discriminated against to "cry me a river" isn't actually a product of the same gender stereotypes; that it's essentially saying men should "man up" and not complain. The argument that "other people have it worse" is not usually a legitimate way of silencing a complaint, and would be shouted down in other circumstances.

There is of course a fine line here -- I think the causes of inequalities facing men is at heart the same thing that cause the inequalities faced by women, so the idea that fixing areas where men are discriminated against would happen somehow at the expense of women's rights just doesn't seem right to me; it isn't some sort of tug of war. I think it would be good to see more men trying to address gender inequality (because I think in part the reason I don't see this is because of gender stereotyping), but that this should be done as one movement. I think that MRA movements do highlight some of the specific problems of gender inequality as it affects men (which I'm not sure the feminist movement always does a great job of doing), but mostly these seem used to justify attacking the feminist movement, which to me seems counterproductive, and mostly the movement seems to call for "more rights for men" instead of "equal rights for everyone".

[amphibian]

I volunteered at my local family court for a couple months last year.

The experiences I had there was brutal at some points for me as an outsider and volunteer. They were much worse for the people who directly experienced them.

The ratio of cases that involve abusive men and/or non-paying men to cases involving abusive women and/or non-paying women are something like 40:1. Not only that, the cases where the abusive men and non-paying men were present were almost always of greater magnitude in terms of harm suffered by the children and by the spouse. Some of the stories were/are horrifying.

There is an actual problem with saying things like "well, women beat men too" or "men get shafted in custody cases". It is a moving of the focus off the huge issues of abuse caused by men and the well-being of the children involved. It is a problem in the same way that people who say "Well, what about white history month?" when black history month comes up. To borrow a sort-of-workable analogy from Toure, fish don't notice water. The privilege conferred upon men in terms of jobs, earning power, personal safety, social attention/policing, legal/judicial system and so on is massively larger in comparison to those conferred upon women.

Yes, some judges have a bias towards granting women custody of the children when both parents are poor. That's not great, but it's somewhat rooted in the slightly outdated statistics showing that men in poverty are less reliable in terms of job steadiness and care-taking than women in poverty and the sheer number of arrests/run in with the law that men in poverty have (particularly black men).

There is also a process called "adjustment" in the US family court system - in which the parent paying child support or the ex-spouse paying alimony petitions the court to lower the amount required to be paid. The court often grants adjustment because they're interested in a system that works for the children at the core of the issues. Guess which gender reliably comes in to ask for adjustment and which one doesn't - and then goes on to complain publicly about getting shafted by an uncaring court system?

The GamerGate cesspool has some people saying "It didn't start with Zoe Quinn's harassment" and so on. Yes, it did. Even them saying differently or pointing out Zoe's bad behavior doesn't mean that the same concerns every area of journalism have are unique to video gaming or that they mask the harassment and the abysmal and often criminal behavior going on.

Empathizing with concerns over journalistic integrity should be divorced entirely from any harassing behavior or anti-feminist talk. But they're not doing that because having the power/capacity to do the latter is more important than actually dealing with journalistic ethics.

[amphibian]

There is no structured system oppressing men as there are for women (feminism), skin-color-based minorities (racism), place of origin (xenophobia).

Yes, the scattered mistreatment of certain men is a bad thing. However, it doesn't add up to a system of oppression.

The "meninist/MRA" movement is misguided, dismissive of movements for real change and misogynist/hateful at its core.

These are the sayings of men who fear losing what they have. Not people who genuinely want change for the better.

[Aptorian]

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

Well man, if you're so determined to shut down discussion of issues women face to continue the overwhelming focus on dude problems, why shouldn't I assume that?

Because that is not the context in which I made my earlier posts. Worrywort posted a boing boing article that paints a picture of, among others Gamer Gate, as a group of if you want to be extreme: fascists, racists, misogynist and quite possibly the children of the devil.

Like I have suggested in earlier discussions, there is tendency of associating any opposition to the feminist movement within videogames, with the worst human beings in existance. As though the only person who would in his right mind object to Sarkeesians arguments, is some kind neo-fascist hate monger and not just some guy who thinks she is a hack.

Continuing this line of thought, the boing boing article goes on to suggest, that's my interpretation, that most men's rights movements are hate groups who's only purpose is to return us to the good old days before women's suffrage was introduced.

I said Men's rights is a real societal issue. Worrywort disagrees. And here we are.

I am sorry if I continue to sound like the crazy person in the room shouting "INJUSTICA!" every time some pro-feminist article is posted, but this is the discussion forum, not an ecco chamber. By all means, tell me when I am being dumb but consider that there is usually two sides to an argument.

Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

I agree, laws that favour one gender are clearly unfair. That's why we need reform of rape, sexual assault, normal assault, murder, employment, political, healthcare, education and all the other laws that flat out favour and are manipulated to favour guys over gals as well. Which is the point.

You keep taking 'women are severely prejudiced against while men suffer as well but to a lesser extent and here's what would help both genders' as 'women want to be on top now instead of men' and as an attack on you specifically. Is the fact that men aren't allowed to sit next to unaccompanied minors on plane journeys as serious an issue for you as the fact that the concept 'corrective rape' exists? Should we stop talking about the latter and focus solely on the former?

Why is everything either or with you. Why do we have to ignore men because women have it worse? Why do immediately jump the craziest third world example of bad things happening to women, when it has litterally nothing to do with stranger danger?

Why are you interpreting what Balrog and I are saying as "ignore bad women things" focus only on "bad men things"? The justice system is complex. They have a lot of employees. Surely, somebody can write a bill that says stop fucking over men, even as in the other office somebody is writing a "Women are awesome" bill?

Porque no los doz?

This post has been edited by Apt: 30 January 2015 - 05:56 PM

[Grief]

amphibian, on 30 January 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

Yes, some judges have a bias towards granting women custody of the children when both parents are poor. That's not great, but it's somewhat rooted in the slightly outdated statistics showing that men in poverty are less reliable in terms of job steadiness and care-taking than women in poverty and the sheer number of arrests/run in with the law that men in poverty have (particularly black men).

I also think that in situations like these, MRA movements don't really seem to consider where the unequal treatment arises from. Pretty sure that the feminist movement tries to fight stereotypes about women and care-taking. I haven't ever heard a feminist say "Stop stereotyping women as care-takers, except in custody battles please".

Similarly with inequality in courts, I think a lot of the different treatment people recieve is a result of stereotypes about how emotional different genders are, and how much agency different genders have.

[QuickTidal]

Re: The court system with regards to divorce.

I lived through this and watched my mother (whom I love) allow her anger at my father for divorcing her fuel every portion of the court fights. She fought for custody...won...and used the support money for my sister and I in irresponsible ways (including giving a portion of the house settlement ($28,000) to her asshole boyfriend to settle his gambling debts) and basically making us live well above a wealth line her salary could not accommodate. The court essentially told my dad that he had no say in how the support for my sister and I was used...he was not allowed to give money directly to us to make sure it was used properly...and he wasn't allowed to direct any of our parenting at all. My mother allowed her emotion to get the better of her in every instance of her divorce...and my dad repeatedly got the raw end of the stick and the judges just kept shafting him with every request he made. He requested that a reasonable percentage of the support be noted and put away for our schooling...and it wasn't...and the court said as long as we were fed, housed, and taken care of...his hands were tied and that my mother was doing nothing wrong. This is something that upsets me to this day because it resulted in a planned education fund for both my sister and I being spent (unbeknownst to us) on living in a big house we should not have been renting. I went to local college for one year because I paid for it myself from a part time job. The student loan center would not give me a big enough loan to cover the tuition because the money my dad provided my mom was deemed enough to support us attending school if properly spent. I was stuck and my mom's emotion is the reason and though I don't hold it against her and have forgiven her...I've not forgotten it.

Not saying it's oppressive across the board with regards to one gender or another...but there was obviously a clear bias at work too that shouldn't be ignored either.