Quote from: Will;792589Also, 'MRA' itself is generally internet-heavy posturing and a relatively small group, while 'feminist' includes easily 1/3 of the US.

I'm honestly curious where you're getting that number.

Quote from: Nexus;792595I'm honestly curious where you're getting that number.

Same where he got the bloodthirsty legions of MRAs willing to apparently wage campaign of terror and mass murders.

Quote from: Will;792589I don't know about GamerGate, but with MRA? I have yet to see a single long-term MRA type who didn't turn out to be a misogynist.

That's pretty unfortunate. I've met quite a few people that are interested in legitimate issues that effect men primarily that aren't misogynists ( I guess they could be extraordinarily well?). Actually they'd probably hold allot of common ground with some feminists except there's this reflexive "Attack on sight" thing going on between the two groups, at least online.

I like to think there are allot of people that interested in improving social issues but want to avoid the gender based lines both MRA and Feminism draw.

Will don't believe the Huffington Post.  It is full of biased bullshit.  So please get your head out of your ass.

So I attempt to find some hard numbers, use them even when they somewhat undermine my point (since you could say that '1/5 isn't 1/3', or argue the notion that feminism is actually about equality).

And Snowman decides that the best way to show that my post isn't reasonable is to offer no material or counterargument beyond 'yer stupid.'

Nexus:
1/3 was a guesstimate, which is why I attempted to find a more solid number. But there is also a potential debate of what should be properly called 'feminism.' Is it 'everyone who believes in gender equity'? Is it only folks who call themselves feminists and ascribe to various theories/waves?

I, and others, have noted that there are a lot of potentially useful male-perspective approaches to social issues. MRA is hopelessly tainted at this point, so the challenge would be how to actually do something else without getting infested by misogyny.

Some folks have pointed out that the most productive groups working on 'men's issues' are focused on specific issues, and doing that, rather than slacktivist theorizing and posturing on the internet. So there's that. (Like shelters and food, legal aid, etc.)

Similarly, I believe privilege is a very important and real thing, but that 'privilege' has unproductive kneejerk reactions due to what it sounds like.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that 'privilege' ACTUALLY means something else, but communication is about producing the reaction you want, and, well.
This affects not just people who are new to the idea but 'advocates' who start acting like everyone who has privilege is Scrooge McDuck.
Frankly, even the term 'has privilege' is a mistake, IMO.

I have yet to find a good word to use, though. 'perceptive screening' and other stuff is cumbersome.

Quote from: Iosue;792543Pretty much this.  Whatever it's origins, right now it looks like to me like you have two groups talking right past each other.  One's going "Yeah, there are a lot of misogynist assholes out there, but forget that right now, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!"  While the other is saying, "Yeah, there's a lot of game journalism corruption out there, but forget that right now, look at all the MISOGYNY!"

From a pro-GG perspective, that isn't how it feels (someone else can make the counter-argument from the anti-GG side). It feels more like:
"One's going "Yeah, there are misogynist assholes out there, and we condemn them on either side of the debate, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!"  While the other is saying, "Yeah, I don't have to address your argument because of the MISOGYNY!"

The article posted earlier above is really dead on, in it's point: at this point, I think neither side believes the other is acting in good faith. And I really don't know how to start a dialogue with someone, who's pushing an agenda, and yet denying me mine.

If folks really want to rail against journalistic corruption, I'd suggest starting something else up and not use Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn as examples. And don't talk about women/feminism.

I mean, game journalism is _absurdly_ corrupt. Why do you even need to bring these up? There are plenty of examples to use.

For the sake of argument, let's say anti-GG folks are engaged in pure propaganda. Whether or not you think it's fair, when you slide over into 'those damned feminists' or whatnot... you are confirming to the confused audience that the propaganda is valid.

Stuff like this doesn't help:


Yeah, maybe his misogyny is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to GG. But that argument wears thin after a while.

Quote from: Will;792589I don't know about GamerGate, but with MRA? I have yet to see a single long-term MRA type who didn't turn out to be a misogynist.

Honey Badger Radio? Or I guess in your world-view the anti-feminist ladies there are self-hating misogynists by definition?

Quote from: Will;792593http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

Ok, so 1 in 5 US folks identify as feminist, the vast majority actually believe in equity, and you can argue just where the line should be drawn between those two points.

http://www.livescience.com/21216-americans-ufo-belief.html

QuoteA new survey finds that 80 million Americans, or 36 percent of the population, believe UFOs are real. One in 10 respondents say they have personally witnessed an alien spaceship.

One in three Americans also believe in aliens. Get two Feminists together, and one of them will tell you about the time they saw an alien spacecraft.

And honestly, only 1 in 5 Americans believe women are equal to men? 62% of women in the US, believe they're inferior/superior to men?

Once again, definitions are important, when you start citing statistics.

Quote from: Mark Twain"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Quote from: Daztur;792576I think this is about all that needs to be said about the issue. I like how this seems to be ylthe only thread on the internet were people can discuss this in a civil way.

Hey, Will called me a whiny bitch. I found that problematic, and triggering.

S'mon, are you saying the women there are MRA? Or anti-feminists? MRA is a subset of anti-feminism, not synonymous.

Quote from: Novastar;792608And honestly, only 1 in 5 Americans believe women are equal to men? 62% of women in the US, believe they're inferior/superior to men?

Once again, definitions are important, when you start citing statistics.

(rubs his head) You know what's also important? Reading the fucking posts and links you are going to weigh in on.

1 in 5 people in the US identify as feminists.
76-86% of people in the US believe in equity between the sexes.

So, this rather depends on how you define 'feminism.'

If you see it as a specific intellectual movement, then the number is at ~20%. If you see it as a belief, then it's much higher.

And then there is the interesting point about WHY most US folks refuse the label despite ostensibly believing in feminism.

Will, anti-GG is not without sin, as well:


One person's analysis (anecdotal, I will admit):

Quote from: Will;792610S'mon, are you saying the women there are MRA? Or anti-feminists? MRA is a subset of anti-feminism, not synonymous.

Wait, when did MRA immediately equate to anti-feminism?
I will admit a lot of Real World MRA's come off that way; but being an advocate for Men's Rights is closer to classical Feminism (everyone's equal), than a lot of Feminism being preached today.

I quite seriously think most of the folks who have tweeted or gotten 'involved' in GG should unplug for a week and go do some woodworking or talking to people or something.

In Thomas More's Utopia, there was an idea that when something was proposed in their legislature, everyone was forbidden to make any statement about the proposal for at least... a day? A week? I forget.

Because people tend to weigh in, then dig in their heels and go nuts trying to save face.

500 years old, but the principle remains.

(And yes, I include myself in this)