Glitch City Laboratories Archives

Glitch City Laboratories closed on 1 September 2020 (announcement). This is an archived copy of a thread from Glitch City Laboratories Forums.

You can join Glitch City Research Institute to ask questions or discuss current developments.

You may also download the archive of this forum in .tar.gz, .sql.gz, or .sqlite.gz formats.

Debate Wars

Feminism (originally Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)) - Page 1

Feminism (originally Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3))

Posted by: Torchickens
Date: 2019-04-17 07:08:54
I feel more comfortable in my gender identity right now.

I'm also a feminist. I don't like it when some of us (in fact both men and counter-intuitively other women according to studies) may have a subconscious bias, for instance that the perception that 'women are worse at science', its far from true; for instance Marie Curie was a great notable figure in radiology. At the same time, (don't get me wrong) I relate with traditionally 'feminine' (but I feel the words should be changed, gentleness, faithfulness and compassion are not exclusive to women and I get the impression nature knows cases where the opposite can be true; in fact in female hyenas) characteristics and feel at home in my gender identity, while proud to be a scientist; but its like I also believe we are who we are. There are some people in philosophy who say 'essence' requires 'existence'. While that's not necessarily false, I believe it can lead to a covert sexism; for instance if I was born a 'male' even if I transition to physically look more like a traditional 'woman' then in my identity (not describer) I have a greater sense of womanhood; and if it was possible for someone to wave a magic wand to instantly have the physiological traits of a woman I'd do it.

Re: Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)

Posted by: Parzival
Date: 2019-04-17 07:23:52
There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad", so i'd advise you to think carefully about how far down that path you wanna go, but I can't really stop you or anything. Just trying to be helpful.

Re: Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)

Posted by: Sherkel
Date: 2019-04-17 11:44:08

There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad", so i'd advise you to think carefully about how far down that path you wanna go, but I can't really stop you or anything. Just trying to be helpful.
Yeah, this is still what I think when hearing the word. Any label that gains that level of popularity inevitably develops a reputation based on the behavior of those who identify with it, and this is a notoriously bad case. It's unfortunate for those who truly want to address women's issues. I tend to avoid those who describe themselves with it, but there are exceptions.

In any case, it's good to hear you're more comfortable with yourself!

That out of the way, @Parzival, you played VLR?! Please tell me you're going to try ZTD next. Also, @Quirky Flower Chicken, I can confidently recommend the entire trilogy to you based on your interest in philosophy.

Re: Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)

Posted by: Couldntthinkofaname
Date: 2019-04-18 11:20:06

There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad", so i'd advise you to think carefully about how far down that path you wanna go, but I can't really stop you or anything. Just trying to be helpful.



There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad"


Got a source for that?

Really, if you take a gander down sites and channels (Shaun,Contrapoints,Philosophy Tube…) that reflect their values, you'll find that the actual opinion of feminists is verrrrrryyyy dissimilar from what internet shitlords like Sargon Of Akkad would like you to believe.

Don't fall down the "anti-feminist" rabbit hole.


I feel more comfortable in my gender identity right now.


Good for you!


THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL I AM INTERESTED IN THIS BOOTLEG FLASH GAME SHIT


my god what is that

Re: Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)

Posted by: Parzival
Date: 2019-04-18 13:45:46


There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad", so i'd advise you to think carefully about how far down that path you wanna go, but I can't really stop you or anything. Just trying to be helpful.



There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad"


Got a source for that?
Tumblr.

Re: Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)

Posted by: Sherkel
Date: 2019-04-18 14:57:28
Assuming him and I got our overall impression from sensationalized internet sources is already further than I'd like to have seen this go outside of Debate Wars, but I'll throw in another two cents before splitting the topic if it continues. With the monstrous shadow of the third wave continuing to hang and things like this still happening, I think the "actual opinion of feminists" is virtually impossible to define when both the egalitarian and the fanatical stances are lumped under the same label. Hence I don't use it or its negatory prefix and instantly draw my guard to some degree when someone does, as I do with political labels.

Anyway, what's Pokémon Mega like?

Re: Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3)

Posted by: Torchickens
Date: 2019-04-19 11:06:15
(Have moved this to debate wars after Sherkel's suggestion.)


There's a very large percentage of feminists who think "men = bad", so i'd advise you to think carefully about how far down that path you wanna go, but I can't really stop you or anything. Just trying to be helpful.


Thanks for your concern. Yes, I personally don't like to associate with radical feminists (if I use a label I am more liberal feminist in arguments of equality, not privilege (I wrote a lot more than I thought I'd write though, maybe because of my culture)) and personally believe we should be treated all the same (based on who we are not our gender/sex). On the other hand I feel everyone should have a say to not be ignored, to be considered in a wider argument (At the same time the theme that pronouns are a dignity thing so we use them to be polite out of humility (we are against for instance being rude to ethnic minorities), and where culture and dogma can interfere; e.g. with religion (even lexicology, maybe 'logic' but to illustrate a theme without respecting the other's dignity (even if we just said "I don't believe gender exists but appreciate you want to be called by a certain pronoun but I won't call you that if that's OK with you, then if the transgender person was aggressive against them avoid them but if they were still polite at the least say 'I acknowledge that but sorry, no' and get out of there) (also known as something regarded as 'meeting in the middle')" and without passive aggression either (something covert in the style/connotations that imply you are not validated)), and science) like "she does not have female anatomy so is therefore a man" out of respect at least why don't we say nothing at all; do we hurt someone just because their views may or may not seem to make logical sense to us?) (however, it's also not that simple because of the very real effect of dysphoria many transgender people have and how they may not be able to escape oppression from their family; and if they want to, why don't we call them that for their happiness (their preferred pronouns and how they want to express themselves) if we love them because it means the most to them; it shouldn't matter what the media's views are on it), this is a serious concern too, and could be masked away from an argument from the same source that appears to be of a different side (e.g. in religion) in which it 'makes sense' but doesn't eliminate the original oppressor. (e.g. https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm as contrasted with  https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm ; . It's maybe not that we can't have our own beliefs, but if someone has a different view I feel we should always treat them with respect and dignity, but cognitive bias (Biblical term: "weakness of the flesh") makes it hard. It may be traditional but what if the idea of the truth is to change. Jesus may not be the only Messiah. https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-8.htm yet at the same time I feel those with 'stereotypical' oppressive views may need to be disciplined in a gentle way and if it leads to violence and a threat to our well-being then consider putting them in jail, but not regarded as 'evil' (not sure how to explain), as there may always be a covert love that lead to fear that lead to hate, but we have the right to speak our voice just a little bit sometimes so we don't get abused (i.e. if we feel oppressed no matter who we are, say it but assertively not aggressively).

However, also there is this argument too, in the very foundation of "feminist", I agree with some of the pinned comment but there are patterns like in a social experiment video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GccCWo_eZdw but I feel personally women nor men are the root issue, the beliefs that lead up to it do). At the very time, it's like something is labelled as a problem, so those who do feel like they have to e.g. hurt women (and men) may be criminalised (in a label of being 'bad'), and I believe with the argument that the only true way to get rid of hate is to love (e.g. there's also the "blaming the victim" argument, if a woman wants to be gentle we shouldn't pressurise her at the same time we should acknowledge she may be oppressed if in an undesirable relationship) - however, if we can 'get out of there' as Sonic says, maybe at least with online trolls and friends we can get out of there, but not necessarily for those you can't avoid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7KGe2UnmE


Just trying to be helpful.


I appreciate that.  :)

RE Epsilon: Yes, I think sometimes the subject is trivialised (e.g. domestic violence based on sex), also the notion of the "sad, mad, or bad" argument that women cannot be rational actors. On another hand there are arguments that support the notion that it can lead to oppression against men too ( https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/rethinking-men/201010/why-some-people-have-issues-men-misandry ) ; e.g. if a woman did not like a man she could accuse him of something even if s/he both gave consent in word (and vice versa as well because I feel it shouldn't be about just men themselves as an issue) and that women may have a hidden cognitive bias against men, and what was once about equality is reinforced as men being "bad" (which could be argued as misandry), hence leading to elements of the opposite (women being oppressed by men), which for psycho-social reasons may be ignored. (I think this video is interesting, in which the people are protective of the woman even if she is the offender https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GccCWo_eZdw )

It can also happen between the same gender (e.g. women as more likely to promote men in jobs and not other competing women), which may be regarded as misogyny against themselves. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/valley-girl-brain/201610/are-female-misogynists-the-rise

Women also have traits of aggression just like men, sometimes this manifests as micro-aggressions and passive aggressiveness, which I feel shouldn't be ignored.



Good for you!


Thanks Epsilon! :)


Assuming him and I got our overall impression from sensationalized internet sources is already further than I'd like to have seen this go outside of Debate Wars, but I'll throw in another two cents before splitting the topic if it continues. With the monstrous shadow of the third wave continuing to hang and things like this still happening, I think the "actual opinion of feminists" is virtually impossible to define when both the egalitarian and the fanatical stances are lumped under the same label. Hence I don't use it or its negatory prefix and instantly draw my guard to some degree when someone does, as I do with political labels.


I relate with this, and there are different branches of feminism; such as liberal feminism, radical feminism and Marxist feminism, but these also imply in some way we all follow the same philosophies when it may vary from person to person. I don't relate with stereotypical radical feminist arguments that men are the 'problem', I don't think they are the 'problem' when they're not just part of a complex issue and it can create segregation (i.e. this 'bad' associated with bad, the other 'good' associated with good; hence eliminate the 'bad'), and everyone is different, many men are faithful, kind and compassionate (stereotypically associated with homosexual men but I believe it's broader than this; for instance when I first grew up as male there was brotherhood and still is), and it feels like society wants to change but because of like a self-fulfilling prophecy women may look down on men as if they were all like that (leading to what is called the network effect(?) not sure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect) and then society does not appear to change as easily (also I feel we shouldn't ignore 'moral panic': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic it's very true this is serious but due to sensationalism by the media the subject shouldn't be ignored either (not regarded as the issue but part of it; intersectionality).

However, as hard as society tries I don't think we can wipe out sexism (or racism still for that matter, which is still there sometimes in coverted ways) easily. Even when we try to be impartial, hidden biases we were not aware of could emerge. (kind of like programming; how many times have we thought 'this is probably how the program works' and be confident about it, only to be proven completely wrong (that it's not exactly like that) through analysis later, this is also relevant to fields like physics and naturally how the brain looks for patterns and ignores things it seems is 'not relevant' ( http://people.sunyit.edu/~steve/sync/idt585-fall2011/data/20110711200400/ ) but very well might be and how our belief systems may affect what is of value to us, and also the concept of "cognitive ease"; because of how the mind may work, we may for instance be unfairly judging someone by their appearance, tone of voice, background, anything that is a descriptor about us, without realising it (yet I believe there's a solution for everyone, even though often it's super tough at first).

(Also like this user's comment personally:)

daniel67248
2 weeks ago

"There's no such thing as sexism against men."
By that logic,
- Serial killers are immortal.
- Chefs and cooks can't eat.
- Artists can't view their own or other people's art.
- Teachers can never learn anything.
etc

(addition: and against women as oppressed too, and the oppressed in subjects of racism, classism, other oppressions, I feel there can be an us/them mentality, which originates because we want justice, paradoxically it may lead to social injustice as we are doing the same thing as them (like the woman as victim of abuse, and the man may be too), both sides may be stereotyping or dehumanizing the other).

Its just, I don't know, but feel we shouldn't ignore the fact that evidence that women are oppressed exists, likewise evidence that men are oppressed too however if we were to side with the serial killers being oppressed, its hurting one side of people and can be insulting to the other group (like saying to someone a receiver of the pain "he is nice really you're fine" (in the context of abuse) or on the other side to the person arrested by the state "you're an awful person you'll never get another chance at a career") and its noteworthy and should be considered, but doesn't mean to say serial killers aren't oppressive either because I don't think a problem can be resolved by romanticising them or one side, instead of also acknowledging both sides. (there may be a bias for men's liberty/justice/equality amongst masculinists, and a bias for women's liberty/justice/equality amongst feminists) when really it should be about both).

Not sure about what I wrote though. Happy to see more ideas if someone wants to.

Re: Feminism (originally Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3))

Posted by: Sherkel
Date: 2019-04-19 20:31:53
To be honest, I haven't engaged with this topic in a while (well before Sargon's channel started) and don't have anything more to add other than that the word simply gives a bitter taste for me. I don't have ammunition for a proper debate on it, but feel that unlike defending other oppressed groups it tries to address an entire half of the population, leading to some sort of consequences for the other half, which won't tend to be favorable when they're not the half being defended and can easily backfire onto the former half.

Re: Feminism (originally Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3))

Posted by: Torchickens
Date: 2019-04-20 13:44:06

To be honest, I haven't engaged with this topic in a while (well before Sargon's channel started) and don't have anything more to add other than that the word simply gives a bitter taste for me. I don't have ammunition for a proper debate on it, but feel that unlike defending other oppressed groups it tries to address an entire half of the population, leading to some sort of consequences for the other half, which won't tend to be favorable when they're not the half being defended and can easily backfire onto the former half.


Yes. You know, I reconsider something now maybe I don't consider myself as a feminist but more like someone who just values dignity to be validated regardless of what you are without just letting the suffering get ignored (though I don't know much about politics and social rights movements, I feel sometimes I get too deep for my own health) I like to listen to people in general, but don't always know what to say in fear of saying the wrong things as the little things can have a big effect.

Re: Feminism (originally Re: The Glitchy Thread of Topiclessness (#3))

Posted by: Sherkel
Date: 2019-04-21 19:33:46
I like to listen to people in general, but don't always know what to say in fear of saying the wrong things as the little things can have a big effect.

That's essentially this thread summed up for me, and I'd imagine the same for the various other members who viewed it too. Overall we seem to be of similar opinions though, yet again. Words are quite empty in and of themselves, so as soon as someone's led to see one as "bad" or have any particular reaction to it, that's a very tough thing to undo.