[Nevyn]

On the costume thing, the ban was a rule by a university resulting from complaints they received from people offended.

So it is disingenuous to argue that either there are no people of other cultures there to be offended, nor that it doesn't promote racism.

Take a look at the flip side for a second. How big of a problem do you really feel it is that a person can't wear a particular costume at a function at a particular university? Even if you think the ban is silly, what exactly is the slippery slope here?

[Itwæs Nom]

Nevyn, on 21 November 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

On the costume thing, the ban was a rule by a university resulting from complaints they received from people offended.

So it is disingenuous to argue that either there are no people of other cultures there to be offended, nor that it doesn't promote racism.

Take a look at the flip side for a second. How big of a problem do you really feel it is that a person can't wear a particular costume at a function at a particular university? Even if you think the ban is silly, what exactly is the slippery slope here?

Phone died in the midst of answering so this will be a short version

I don't think that in particular is a problem at all

It's the principle, the forceful banning

I get that some people wouldn't like it, but maybe a public reminder that there is a significant amount of people who find it offensive would have sufficed? We're not talking about swastika, I don't think the costume in itself promotes any hate or violence against mexicans. Making fun of the stereotype? I guess it does that, but... as an eastern european, should I be offended if someone dresses as a gopnik for halloween? Should I be offended more because from what I know eastern europeans tend to do the inferior work in Britain? If so, well I'm not. But admittedly I think pretty much everything should be made fun of, and I love a good joke on behalf of me or my habits. If I shouldn't be offended, why should the Mexicans be then? Finally, should it be a crime (even if it's not a state law of any kind, it still makes it a crime in a way to wear the costume) if someone offends me in such a non-hateful and non-violent way?

If you agree this is a legitimate law at a local level, then you'd also agree it'd be a legitimate law on the state/federal/whatever it's supposed to be called level?

[worry]

Itwæs Nom, on 21 November 2018 - 08:48 PM, said:

The banning of Mexican costumes for example, it doesn't change anything about how mexicans are viewed by people does it?

I know this is phrased as a question, but it seems at least somewhat like it's making an argument, so I'll just say it seems like a pretty big assumption is being made there. For one thing, 'stereotype threat' is a real phenomenon that affects people's health and performance. For another, reinforcing stereotypes does in turn reinforce various prejudices and even oppression. Here's a quick rundown on costumes in particular: http://www.lspirg.org/costumes/

In terms of whether you "should" or "shouldn't" be offended by something, that's up to you to decide for you. But it's not up to you to decide for others, especially those who are living through oppression and violence as we speak, let alone historically. And I will also say that something that doesn't overtly promote hate or violence can still contribute and reinforce hate and violence, even if it's in a death by a thousand cuts kind of way. And to be frank, conceptions of violence solely as acts of physical harm are limited and inadequate. Erasure, dehumanization, exclusion, and other nebulous phenomena can all be very violent.

[Primateus]

Alternative Goose, on 21 November 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

Maybe Primateus wants to cut in and tell me I am full of shit but Denmark is not a rape culture and I can't think of a right men have that women don't.

Nah, I'm much too big of an idiot to really say anything remotely sensible about heavy topics such as these.

[Nevyn]

Itwæs Nom, on 21 November 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 21 November 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

On the costume thing, the ban was a rule by a university resulting from complaints they received from people offended.

So it is disingenuous to argue that either there are no people of other cultures there to be offended, nor that it doesn't promote racism.

Take a look at the flip side for a second. How big of a problem do you really feel it is that a person can't wear a particular costume at a function at a particular university? Even if you think the ban is silly, what exactly is the slippery slope here?

Phone died in the midst of answering so this will be a short version

I don't think that in particular is a problem at all

It's the principle, the forceful banning

I get that some people wouldn't like it, but maybe a public reminder that there is a significant amount of people who find it offensive would have sufficed? We're not talking about swastika, I don't think the costume in itself promotes any hate or violence against mexicans. Making fun of the stereotype? I guess it does that, but... as an eastern european, should I be offended if someone dresses as a gopnik for halloween? Should I be offended more because from what I know eastern europeans tend to do the inferior work in Britain? If so, well I'm not. But admittedly I think pretty much everything should be made fun of, and I love a good joke on behalf of me or my habits. If I shouldn't be offended, why should the Mexicans be then? Finally, should it be a crime (even if it's not a state law of any kind, it still makes it a crime in a way to wear the costume) if someone offends me in such a non-hateful and non-violent way?

If you agree this is a legitimate law at a local level, then you'd also agree it'd be a legitimate law on the state/federal/whatever it's supposed to be called level?

It's not law at a local level. It is university policy regarding costumes at what I believe were a university event.

[Macros]

Regarding the porn actress.

Her name was August Ames, she refused to work with the actor because he was an actor she knew did not get regularly tested.
She drained this and that it was her body. She got abused so much for it online that she killed herself.
Its probably an example (correct me if wrong) of what apt means about people waiting to be outraged over something that doesn't actually affect them, and being outraged without the full information. Alas the internet now also gives such a wonderful way to broadcast your ill informed and massively disproportionate outrage directly into people's faces from a world away.

I'm only throwing in a typically fence sitting opinion, I see what apt means about this stuff on the internet being OTT a lot as people now get their rocks off being outraged.
On the other hand, no matter what he tells himself inequality and discrimination still exists, regardless of rights on offer men still get picked for jobs over women etc

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I will just point out (reading through the last few posts) that someone being offended due to an experience you do not share =/= being outraged at anything and everything for fun. I'm not saying the two never cross over but I suspect the proportion of times they do is a lot smaller than you might think.

[Maark Abbott]

I think that some form of term to detach the vocal and outraged minority who want to stir trouble from the ones who want genuine progress is required. We settled on 'nutters' before, right?

And before anyone looks too much into that, it's really so we can say 'here are the ones who use a label but are entirely unreasonable and whose arguments are not arguments, and then here are the ones we should listen to'. And the ones who you don't want to listen to are the ones who label you for trying to understand a point, i.e. querying something to better understand it automatically makes you a misogynist, the enemy, etc. Because those sorts are out there - the internet just makes it seem like there are more of them than is actually true.

[Aptorian]

Macros, on 22 November 2018 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'm only throwing in a typically fence sitting opinion, I see what apt means about this stuff on the internet being OTT a lot as people now get their rocks off being outraged.
On the other hand, no matter what he tells himself inequality and discrimination still exists, regardless of rights on offer men still get picked for jobs over women etc

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 22 November 2018 - 06:42 AM, said:

I will just point out (reading through the last few posts) that someone being offended due to an experience you do not share =/= being outraged at anything and everything for fun. I'm not saying the two never cross over but I suspect the proportion of times they do is a lot smaller than you might think.

Maark Abbott, on 22 November 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

I think that some form of term to detach the vocal and outraged minority who want to stir trouble from the ones who want genuine progress is required. We settled on 'nutters' before, right?

And before anyone looks too much into that, it's really so we can say 'here are the ones who use a label but are entirely unreasonable and whose arguments are not arguments, and then here are the ones we should listen to'. And the ones who you don't want to listen to are the ones who label you for trying to understand a point, i.e. querying something to better understand it automatically makes you a misogynist, the enemy, etc. Because those sorts are out there - the internet just makes it seem like there are more of them than is actually true.

Rereading my scathing rant yesterday I feel like I should probably walk my stance back a little and expand a bit.

While it may come off that way, I don't think feminists are bad people. I don't have any real animosity towards well meaning feminists. I certainly wouldn't want to deride other forum members who may identify strongly as feminists. Well, maybe Studlock. He's always so mean.

There are real world gender issues that can't be hand waved. Both in Denmark and the countries other members are in. God knows, the USA have issues. There are serious problems that feminists have exposed and continue to sacrifice not just time and emotion into but also personal well being and security. That can't be ignored and should applauded.

I just think that a lot of issues are not really applicable to patriarchal issues and often they're problems of the feminists own making. Instead of expecting feminism to save the day I'd rather look to broader movements and other 'isms, like socialism, globalism or even capitalism.

[Nevyn]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 22 November 2018 - 06:42 AM, said:

I will just point out (reading through the last few posts) that someone being offended due to an experience you do not share =/= being outraged at anything and everything for fun. I'm not saying the two never cross over but I suspect the proportion of times they do is a lot smaller than you might think.

But that is where you get into first wave and second wave reactions.

You get a first wave who could be genuinely offended, but it may even be fairly low level offense. Then it starts to get viral and you get a massive pile-on of people on social media who don't have a thing to do with it or grounds for personal offense. It just makes for a wonderful platform for expressing and validating your moral superiority.

And somewhere in that rush, perspective on the initial complaint gets lost.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Nevyn, on 22 November 2018 - 03:04 PM, said:

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 22 November 2018 - 06:42 AM, said:

I will just point out (reading through the last few posts) that someone being offended due to an experience you do not share =/= being outraged at anything and everything for fun. I'm not saying the two never cross over but I suspect the proportion of times they do is a lot smaller than you might think.

But that is where you get into first wave and second wave reactions.

You get a first wave who could be genuinely offended, but it may even be fairly low level offense. Then it starts to get viral and you get a massive pile-on of people on social media who don't have a thing to do with it or grounds for personal offense. It just makes for a wonderful platform for expressing and validating your moral superiority.

And somewhere in that rush, perspective on the initial complaint gets lost.

Fair - and therein the second wave dwell the people for whom outrage is a hobby. Sadly I don't think they're usually the self reflective type who could ever understand the damage they're probably doing to the original argument by eclipsing the opinion of the people who actually do have something relevant to say.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 22 November 2018 - 03:07 PM

[worry]

I think the exaggeration of that proportion is pretty toxic in itself though. In the same way people thinking "all politicians are snakes" or "all government is corrupt" leaves them open to even bigger exploitation by people like Donald Trump or Nigel Farage, the notion that there's a sizable portion of feminists who are "anti-men" leaves people open to real vampires like Jordan Peterson or the MRA crowd, etc.


For every progressive movement there is always going to be a tiny portion of 'extremists' (for lack of a better term) that the reactionary right points to and explodes into a stereotype of the entire progressive side, and the grifters reap their rewards. And because conservatism at its core is a grift, there's so much invested in doing this that we're steeped in its point of view. A clear example of this would be guns in America: how many American progressives with any influence whatsoever are actually arguing for banning all guns? It's probably closer to 0% than it is even 1%. And yet...(though I personally think this is one grift that is on the edge of bursting).

[Macros]

I think a core part of the problem is people, for lack of a better term, hashtagging on an issue on the social media platforms, despite not knowing the entire problem or actually being connected to anyone affected. Couple that with the echo chamber effect and YouTube's algorithm and you end up with massive waves of outraged pros who don't really have any business being outraged (per say) other than they want to join in with the cool and once they've gone down the rabbit hole of clickable links they can't get out

[worry]

It's easier to recognize when you're being manipulated by an overt special interest group -- the NRA or the oil industry -- than it is when it's social norms that have been and are being conditioned to privilege a select group. That is why we think of civil rights activism (for racial minorities, for women, for lgbtq people, etc.) as "identity politics" but not the resistance to those things -- the maintenance of the status quo, the everything-is-fine-as-it-is take -- as "identity politics". It's why people can think "I agree with the principles of feminism, and I see that inequality is a real issue, but darned if some man-hating feminazis just don't ruin it for everybody!"


People need to recognize that these outsized responses to extremely minor caustic subsections of bigger movements are being primed by profiteers. You're being manipulated. The same way FOX News scares people with photos of the "New Black Panther Party" at polling places. It's the same reaction you're having. And it doesn't take a secret cabal like the Illuminati to do this. All it takes is a pencil pusher doing calculations on what's most profitable for a corporation becoming a culture of pencil pushers doing the same thing across industries, and the power brokers of those industries shaping culture to suit those needs. The status quo is a special interest, I'd imagine the biggest one there is. A lot of its resources go into maintaining itself, and it's not above collaborating with monsters to get its way.


And I'm not saying it's all nurture, zero nature. But obviously we're aware that our lizard brains -- particularly the fear response -- can be manipulated pretty easily. Just be mindful that if your response to trivial things starts to undermine a much bigger issue that you've generally been on the progressive side of, at least in principle, that amplification effect might be the result of the long term, in many ways subconscious psyops campaign that is maintaining the status quo. Happy Thanksgiving!

This post has been edited by worry: 22 November 2018 - 09:00 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Alternative Goose, on 22 November 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:

Macros, on 22 November 2018 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'm only throwing in a typically fence sitting opinion, I see what apt means about this stuff on the internet being OTT a lot as people now get their rocks off being outraged.
On the other hand, no matter what he tells himself inequality and discrimination still exists, regardless of rights on offer men still get picked for jobs over women etc

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 22 November 2018 - 06:42 AM, said:

I will just point out (reading through the last few posts) that someone being offended due to an experience you do not share =/= being outraged at anything and everything for fun. I'm not saying the two never cross over but I suspect the proportion of times they do is a lot smaller than you might think.

Maark Abbott, on 22 November 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

I think that some form of term to detach the vocal and outraged minority who want to stir trouble from the ones who want genuine progress is required. We settled on 'nutters' before, right?

And before anyone looks too much into that, it's really so we can say 'here are the ones who use a label but are entirely unreasonable and whose arguments are not arguments, and then here are the ones we should listen to'. And the ones who you don't want to listen to are the ones who label you for trying to understand a point, i.e. querying something to better understand it automatically makes you a misogynist, the enemy, etc. Because those sorts are out there - the internet just makes it seem like there are more of them than is actually true.

Rereading my scathing rant yesterday I feel like I should probably walk my stance back a little and expand a bit.

While it may come off that way, I don't think feminists are bad people. I don't have any real animosity towards well meaning feminists. I certainly wouldn't want to deride other forum members who may identify strongly as feminists. Well, maybe Studlock. He's always so mean.

There are real world gender issues that can't be hand waved. Both in Denmark and the countries other members are in. God knows, the USA have issues. There are serious problems that feminists have exposed and continue to sacrifice not just time and emotion into but also personal well being and security. That can't be ignored and should applauded.

I just think that a lot of issues are not really applicable to patriarchal issues and often they're problems of the feminists own making. Instead of expecting feminism to save the day I'd rather look to broader movements and other 'isms, like socialism, globalism or even capitalism.

My thoughts aren't accusatory at all - more something we've touched on before in discussion. Using the same tag for the nutters as the sensible people with reasoned points is maybe counterproductive - so just call the nutters nutters, so as not to automatically sully the others by association. It's along the 'not all Muslims are terrorists' track, if I'm making sense in my caffeine deprived state.

[Studlock]

Alternative Goose, on 21 November 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

Now I know that feminist waves is actually a misnomer and there's counter movements within their sphere but I'm just going to generalize this and address this like all feminists are fourth wave and beyond.

I don't believe that modern fourth or fifth wave feminism is pro-men, nor am I actually sure that they're pro-women. I think they believe some people are more equal than others. I think they're a splintered group of confused and angry people who lack a grasp on their own identity so they spend their time telling other people how to be a human being. They spend as much time fighting one another as they do fighting for one another.

They attack men for sexualizing women. But they also attack women for wanting to be sexualized. They hate the way we're programmed biologically, so they make up socio-constructivistic windmills they can fight.

They act like social justice warriors picking fights on the internet but they get upset when the internet punches back. They consider social media an open forum but please don't speak back to them because that kind of micro-aggression triggers them.

They create their own language that they select from feminist theory and other sociological, ethnological academia, which they use to quantify the world they live in. They then get angry and confused when other people don't know what patriarchy, cisgender, rape culture, hegemonic masculinity, etc. means. It's suddenly problematic when other people dont check their privilege or the white, male, straight guilt they were born with as an original sin.

Which leads me to my original gripe. I don't think feminism at its end point stops with equality. I think it will, and in some way already does, erode men's rights. I think that for some feminists this is a real culture and gender war, with real hatred for men underneath that justice for women they crave.

Kill all male babies is not said in jest.

... I'll just let that hang for a second.

... And then I'll say that's pretty far fetched. That's just baseless fearmongering. Of course I don't think that the vast majority of people who identity as feminists think this way. But I do believe that there's erosion of trust and understanding that comes from putting labels on yourself and others.

I find the idea of a man calling himself feminist to be preposterous. It's like a sheep dressing up as a wolf.

So no, I don't consider myself feminist. Equalitarian? Egalitarian? More like but I think the meninist have already tainted these terms. Maybe I'm a gender centrist then?

If anything I'd be a second-wave feminist. We already won which leads me to the other problem you guys had. Calling Denmark Post-feminist.

We're definitely post-feminist. The goal posts are just shifting. The bigger issues are conquered, now we're sanding off edges.

Is there a wage gap, yes. Is there a disparity between the distribution of genders between job types? Yes. But I think most of us know that debate and the counter arguments.

The wage gap on a wider scale is affected by the types of jobs women and men take. That's not patriarchy that's picking the jobs we're suited for and economic realism. A male construction worker doesn't necessarily work harder than a female kindergarten teacher but the employer is able to pay differently. Maternity leave delays career paths but what do you want an employer to do? Promote you for taking time off? In Denmark this is alleviated by men beginning to have the same maternity rights as women, just as an example.

As for the whole misogyny issue, I don't know what to say. This post is already a mile long. Maybe Primateus wants to cut in and tell me I am full of shit but Denmark is not a rape culture and I can't think of a right men have that women don't.

If I am always so mean, it precisely because of posts like this Apt. This isn't a well argued post, but you seem to think it is. You make a bunch of claims, support none of them, and then get made when this is point out as if it is incredulous thing. I'll go point-by-point in the most neutral language possible.

1. correct, so your generalization here of '4th-wave' feminism is, from the outset, a mostly rhetorical and flawed endeavor which more concerned with pushing a political feeling (feminism has gone too far) and not with attending to the reality of the situation.

2. fifth-wave feminism doesn't exist--it's not a thing. '4th-wave' feminism, in-so-much it exists is concerned primarily with sexual violence acted towards both men and women, with women taking up the majority of the screen time because the majority of sexual violence happens to women. If it seems to be 'anti-men' it is only because the vast majority of sexual violence is conducted by men onto women, or children. That you can look at a huge movement like Metoo and come away with idea that '4th-wave' feminism is anti-men is telling me about your underlining motivated reasoning.

3. the attack men for objectifying women. This is wholly different from 'sexualizing' people in general. The act of dehumanizing someone, of turning that person into a thing to be used is not 'biologically' programmed in us in anyway--because to construct humans as wholly biological is not only incorrect, empirically (population genetics, biological anthropology, and so on have all demonstrated that we fundamentally biocultural beings, that their exists in a complex and interweaving relationship between our culture and our biology, so much that is doesn't make sense to separate them), it is gross, in my opinion, ideological justification to excuse the actions of rapists. We, for the most post, as all sexual beings--denying that is silly, by trying to conflate that with how we, as a society, treat women is horrible and the text book definition of rape culture. Have you never had an actual passionate sexual relationship with someone based in emotional desire as well as physical attraction?

4. lmao says the guy who is willing to vote from a far-right party because its less 'politically incorrect'--its amazing the amount of cognitive dissonance is possible when you set your mind to it

5. this is true of literally every single academic culture in existence--by necessity. Specialized language decided useful by experts in their field to describe something, but that isn't the issue here. When I use the term 'hegemonic masculinity', even in a neutral context, you'll get a number of people angrily disagreeing with it on simply fact that it is examining something that they believe shouldn't be examined, not because it is being examined in a way they disagree with it. MRAs don't care that men use more violent means to conduct self-harm, and thus kill themselves more often when doing so unless its used to tell women that they don't have it as bad as men (which isn't true, women actually attempt suicide more often, just in less destructive ways, and men do because hegemonic masculinity). I've explain these terms as much as I possible could in any setting thought possible, and it doesn't really matter, because the underlining complaint isn't the language, by the study, the critique. If you want a glossary I will provide one is neutral language explaining in way that is plain exactly what those words mean.

6. men's right are eroded, but not by feminists, but by other men. This is what I don't get--men are constantly abused by other men because they are genderized to act that way, and yet somehow its the feminists fault for point this out? Its an absurdity. Who hurts men the most, empirically? Other fucking men. Men rape other men more often than women rape men. Men violently hurt other men far more often than men. Judges who are men are more likely to favour women in child custody cases because of stereotypical ideal of who raises children and who doesn't. And we only know this because feminism--which from the last 3 decades have been pretty much the only group of who give a shit about what masculinity does to men.

7. so you've just made this horrible thing up, placed it at the feet of feminists, and followed it up 'well there comes an erosion of trust with certain labels' without a lick of self-awareness. Wild.

8. which speaks greatly to your view of gender relations, and exactly why men need feminism just as much as women. As I've said before, proudly declaring yourself a egalitarianist without first understanding why we are unequal is claptrap. I understand that you think we are already equal, but as was point out in this very thread, Denmark has some of the worst gender relations in Europe according to the UN. The reality of situation is punching you in face and your response is 'why am I bleeding, weird, must be nothing of note'. Denmark isn't 'post-feminist', its not even feminists by any coherent definition of that.

9. love this justification crap, at the end of the day, you're all the same, with the same excuses. We are socialized into different roles in our society--and this isn't just on issues of gender, though its much more obvious there. This is class and race and religion even. It isn't a mistake them roles women are socialized into pay less, and that they are activately punished getting pregnant--not accepted as a fact of life, but punished. I mean it doesn't surprise me that you're also a bootlicker on top of everything else, but no, the employer shouldn't punish you because of who you are, in fact that is engraved in so many 'liberal' states that it should be an obvious conclusion. Allowing men to take time off (a product of feminism) is a start, but it isn't enough.

10. well, of course you don't, that has been made clear. Rape culture is pretty much universal, and that you actively deny that rape isn't a problem in Denmark, despite it having some of the worse in Europe, is a product of that, because what you're essentially doing is running apologia for the current states of affair despite them being bad for women.

[Aptorian]

Could you edit your post and attach the numbers you use, to the paragraphs in my post you're quoting. I think I know what parts you're replying to but I'm not quite clear from the way you start the rebuke.

[Grief]

Could we also tone down the personal comments. Calling someone a bootlicker does absolutely nothing to further the discussion, for example.

[Aptorian]

In Studlocks defense, I did call him mean.

[Grief]

Also to chime in on the pay-gap point specifically:

I don't think it's a very good argument to write it off by saying "it's because of people's choices". Choices aren't made in a vacuum. If women are more likely to choose lower paying jobs then we should ask why that is, and whether we're pressuring men to care more about wages for example. And we also have to question why some jobs pay less than othes; especially given research showing that jobs start to devalue after women start doing them. That is, it doesn't appear to simply be a case of women choosing professions that pay less well.

On top of this, there is a huge discrepancy in the impact of children on wages. I do think that is something we can and should work to address: by encouaging paternity leaves, working against certain gender norms, and more fundamentally altering how we view and treat labour. And just to show the extent this has not been alleviated by current policies:



Source: Kleven, Landais and Søgaard, Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Denmark (2018).