The expectations of Feminism and the poison of identity politics?

[SomeRandom]

Okay, so I guess I've been a bit confused as of late.
Still kind of am.

I guess coming from two different backgrounds I was always a little confused when confronted with the feminism movement.
On the one hand, in Indian culture, gender roles are still somewhat concrete. There are very specific cultural aspects of masculinity that are celebrated, as there are very specific cultural aspects of femininity that are celebrated. And this is mostly benign tradition. Not evil, not patriarchy specifically, just sort of exists.
On the other hand I was born and raised in the modern West. Australia, specifically. And I am far more Western than Eastern.
The lines of masculinity and femininity are somewhat muddled in modern West and I feel they're still being ironed out a bit. And often are in direct conflict with my heritage, so to speak.
And the feminist movement in both cultures are very different indeed. (Which is probably why I'm so confused.)

But this third wave intersectional feminism, (which seems to go hand in hand with the SJW movement and even identity politics) confuses me the most. Particularly what I've seen on the internet.

On the one hand I identify Western Feminism with very strong, very independent women. The types who would laugh off slights against them and more likely to throw a drink in the face of the forward man speaking inappropriately to you in a bar. I know and look up to at least several women like this in real life.
But the most prominent (on the internet at least) Feminists I have encountered are not that at all.
They build up this world of oppression, of power structures and seem to whine about perceived slights and are offended at even the most benign convo starters. The Laci Greens of the world, basically.
They whine about getting hate from the internet, despite being adults and specifically choosing to be public outspoken figures. Which in my mind, as a person who grew up ON the internet, is just a normal every day hazard of the job.

It's like Feminism preaches to me, to be strong, to be myself and be independent. But what I encounter, the SJW feminism seems to be this perpetual victim.
"Oh help, the patriarchy is oppressing me. Please help me white knight men."
It's like, ***** please.

And then this identity politics. This movement does nothing for people caught in the middle like myself. I'm in two very drastically different cultures, I have all these eclectic tastes, both feminine and masculine (traditionally speaking.) And it's like they just speak in generalities without any nuance or thought for those who don't fit into these perfect little boxes the movement sets up for you.

I see feminists decry society for not allowing men to cry. And then when men do voice their concerns I've seen these very same feminists mock them for their "Cis Male tears."

And it's kind of like, make up your minds. Do you want me to be strong independent and myself despite the haters?
Or do want me to feel ashamed for liking traditional masculine traits as attractive?
Do you want me to be strong or a perpetual victim of the "patriarchy?"
Am I supposed to be strong and independent? Or am I supposed to be weak and reliant on male feminists to protect me from society?

It's like feminism has essentially placed these two conflicting ideologies upon me and expects me to live up to them both as a feminist.
But what if I fit into both and neither? Where does that leave me?

Okay I guess this was more of a rant than an actual question. But still..... Thoughts? Concerns? Help?!

 

[SomeRandom]

I recommend paying the fringe crazies less attention.
They don't represent the whole.

I know that. But since they're often the loudest voices in my hobbies (gaming specifically) how can I not? It's like they are representing me as a woman in the hobby, even if they are a minority.
They can even influence the interaction I get as a female gamer in some scenarios. These fringe groups can actually affect you, a neutral even, in a lot of ways believe it or not.

 

[Terese]

They are crybabies. Obviously the ones who want women to be valued as much as men are not in the wrong, but SJWs are pathetic. They are extreme leftists. no good can come out of extremists. They are easily angered, and throw tantrums. Wear earmuffs if they are too loud. Respect everyone, not just women. Feminism is really botched right now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Am I supposed to be strong and independent? Or am I supposed to be weak and reliant on male feminists to protect me from society?

Progress is called 'Feminism' in context of situations where society is held back from improvement due to slights against females. The way I see it, women are usually unable to improve society in their own generation and usually can only improve it for the next generation, not their for own. It often seems no one listens, because often no one listens. I think the primary feminist responsibilities of women are: 1. Be free as they are allowed to be -- in other words exercise freedoms they have to keep them typical. 2. Try to stretch freedoms a little. 3. Obtain a good level of education 4. Educate the next generation. 5. Then many good changes come as a result of that. 'Sudden' changes are merely an appearance that has been made possible by the past efforts of giants. For example Women's Suffrage I would assume was in the works for a long time and was not a spur of the moment thing, the result of social progress overall and the result of increasing education for both men and women.

I do not see feminism as exclusively benefiting women. Its really about social progress for all and is just called 'Feminism', because inequalities and subjugation of women is an endemic cause of social dysfunction. We have seen that when women are 'Allowed' to vote and 'Allowed' to work and 'Allowed' to go about their business that it benefits society. That is feminism's core value, so it isn't a movement exclusively benefiting women.

 

[SomeRandom]

Progress is called 'Feminism' in context of situations where society is held back from improvement due to slights against females. The way I see it, women are usually unable to improve society in their own generation and usually can only improve it for the next generation, not their for own. It often seems no one listens, because often no one listens. I think the primary feminist responsibilities of women are: 1. Be free as they are allowed to be -- in other words exercise freedoms they have to keep them typical. 2. Try to stretch freedoms a little. 3. Obtain a good level of education 4. Educate the next generation. 5. Then many good changes come as a result of that. 'Sudden' changes are merely an appearance that has been made possible by the past efforts of giants. For example Women's Suffrage I would assume was in the works for a long time and was not a spur of the moment thing, the result of social progress overall and the result of increasing education for both men and women.

I do not see feminism as exclusively benefiting women. Its really about social progress for all and is just called 'Feminism', because inequalities and subjugation of women is an endemic cause of social dysfunction. We have seen that when women are 'Allowed' to vote and 'Allowed' to work and 'Allowed' to go about their business that it benefits society. That is feminism's core value, so it isn't a movement exclusively benefiting women.

I can see that. But at the same time, it's like history disillusions me to the cause. Like in the past affluent women were allowed to vote, despite feminism telling me otherwise. Or that wife beating wasn't actually that well looked upon even in the past.

It's like they (feminism) have set up this narrative for me, as a woman. As this oppressed chattel, seen as unworthy. But on the other hand it's like History doesn't always mesh well with this message and even if it did, I have seen the current climate bend over backwards for women at the same time.
Like I could probably walk to my nearest battered women's shelter. But ask me to name a battered men's shelter in my area and I'd be stumped. For example.

It's like this story I've been told by feminism doesn't quite add up anymore. If that makes sense?
And when I bring this sort of thing up, instead of explaining the nuances to me like a rational adult conversation, all I've gotten is some knee jerk reaction about the "patriarchy," And how I'm just being oppressed or experiencing "internalized misogyny."
The movement has essentially left me in the lurch, so to speak.

 

[Kirran]

What can you say, if anything, about your experience of the Indian feminist movement?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can see that. But at the same time, it's like history disillusions me to the cause. Like in the past affluent women were allowed to vote, despite feminism telling me otherwise. Or that wife beating wasn't actually that well looked upon even in the past.

It's like they (feminism) have set up this narrative for me, as a woman. As this oppressed chattel, seen as unworthy. But on the other hand it's like History doesn't always mesh well with this message and even if it did, I have seen the current climate bend over backwards for women at the same time.
Like I could probably walk to my nearest battered women's shelter. But ask me to name a battered men's shelter in my area and I'd be stumped. For example.

It's like this story I've been told by feminism doesn't quite add up anymore. If that makes sense?
And when I bring this sort of thing up, instead of explaining the nuances to me like a rational adult conversation, all I've gotten is some knee jerk reaction about the "patriarchy," And how I'm just being oppressed or experiencing "internalized misogyny."
The movement has essentially left me in the lurch, so to speak.

Feminism should not be limited to particular outlets (or narratives). Suppose you decide you aren't pro choice. That doesn't mean automatically you aren't feminist. It means that you aren't pro choice. I am pro choice. Does that make me progressive? Its doesn't necessarily make me progressive. What makes me progressive is that I enable women to be educated and free, and I encourage that.

To be feminist just means that I believe progress is hindered by hindering the freedom and education of women. All other arguments about details such as pro-divorce, pro-life, pro-dating, pro-dancing, voting for particular political causes...are all just details that are less important to the overall idea of a feminist, which is actually a grass roots and personal agenda. There is no 'Feminist' political party. There is no 'Feminist' Bible. Feminists do not have to agree about everything for there to be progress.

The ideal of 'The woman staying at home and ruling the roost' was once actually quite progressive relative to her being a slave, and it was an idea that took time to gain respectability! It was progressive in its time and still is relative to some alternatives. I think that we should view patriarchal marriage as a feminist accomplishment that replaces something previous to itself, but not view it as the ultimate end of feminism. What matters is enabling the future generations to have compassion and to make smart decisions, and it means trying to retain the benefits of past lessons without worshipping past innovations.

If your idea of feminism is telling women that feminist never get married, then you don't know what feminism is. Likewise if your idea about feminism is that all women must get married, then you still don't know what feminism is. It is not about particular practices.

 

[SomeRandom]

Feminism should not be limited to particular outlets (or narratives). Suppose you decide you aren't pro choice. That doesn't mean automatically you aren't feminist. It means that you aren't pro choice. I am pro choice. Does that make me progressive? Its doesn't necessarily make me progressive. What makes me progressive is that I enable women to be educated and free, and I encourage that.

To be feminist just means that I believe progress is hindered by hindering the freedom and education of women. All other arguments about details such as pro-divorce, pro-life, pro-dating, pro-dancing, voting for particular political causes...are all just details that are less important to the overall idea of a feminist, which is actually a grass roots and personal agenda. There is no 'Feminist' political party. There is no 'Feminist' Bible. Feminists do not have to agree about everything for there to be progress.

The ideal of 'The woman staying at home and ruling the roost' was once actually quite progressive relative to her being a slave, and it was an idea that took time to gain respectability! It was progressive in its time and still is relative to some alternatives. I think that we should view patriarchal marriage as a feminist accomplishment that replaces something previous to itself, but not view it as the ultimate end of feminism. What matters is enabling the future generations to have compassion and to make smart decisions, and it means trying to retain the benefits of past lessons without worshipping past innovations.

If your idea of feminism is telling women that feminist never get married, then you don't know what feminism is. Likewise if your idea about feminism is that all women must get married, then you still don't know what feminism is. It is not about particular practices.

I understand that. And I like the principles of it. But it's like I'm constantly being criticise by all these different subgroups of feminism. And as they say, actions speak louder than word, right? I support women who choose to be homemakers. Suddenly I'm not a "real" feminist. I support women who choose to go into the sex trade in one form or another. Suddenly I support sexism.
I ignore identity politics when I play video games. Suddenly I'm part of the "boys club" and support the harassment of women in gaming.
I'm told to celebrate my body and be sexually liberated by the sex positives. Whom I prefer. Then I'm accused of promoting the male gaze and it's inherent sexism by the sex negatives.
It's like all this conflicting data and dare I say propaganda is always levied at me.
How the hell do you sort this **** out? I mean it's one thing to proclaim you support women and equality. Lots of people from all different movements tend to these days. But what I encounter lately seems to throw that out of the window, in favour of victim hood and cries of life being unfair. Again I know it's not all, but it's hard not to be confused or even embarrassed by the movement. Especially in some of the online circles I wander around in.

 

[SomeRandom]

What can you say, if anything, about your experience of the Indian feminist movement?

Well in Indian culture the most respected and prestigious role for a woman is motherhood and grandmother er hood.
Feminism in the West, at least the "combative type" seems to reject the notion that that is all a woman should or could be. Indian Feminists, even some of the "combative types" don't basically. They instead celebrate it.

I guess it can be summed up with the view of Kali. The Indian Hindus (particularly those from Bengal) venerate her softer side. Even minimising her more "ferocious aspects."
Whilst the West is fascinated by these very aspects and even minimise her softer side.
The view of Kali standing atop Shiva is one of Ying Yang in Hinduism. Even across multiple schools of thought. Kali is literally the life force of Shiva. In the West however, Kali is seen as liberated. She stands atop Shiva to signify strength and even dominance. She has cast off her shackles put upon her by men and came out on top. Both figuratively and literally. She is seen as a rock and roll sex goddess.
Whereas the Hindus celebrate her motherhood and many view that as her strongest aspect. (Except maybe the Tantrics. But you know, what I mean.) She is the "Ultimate Mother."

In other words the Indian Feminists often seem to highly value their "chosen role" and at the same time demand equal opportunity of the men.
My experience of Western Feminists are the opposite. They reject or otherwise minimise this "role" or they rebel against the idea that that is supposed to be what society sees as the ultimate value of femininity. Not to say Western Feminists reject motherhood or anything like that. Just that they often stress that it's not the only worthwhile role of a woman.
I guess you could say Western Feminists focus more on individuality of women and the Indian Feminists focus more on the collective of women. If that makes sense?

I suppose it's a bit hard to explain all the various nuances. Especially since I am somewhat cut off to them myself. And I realise this is generalising to the max. And probably far too oversimplified to paint an accurate picture of either movement. But that's been my experience at least.

 

[Kirran]

Well in Indian culture the most respected and prestigious role for a woman is motherhood and grandmother er hood.
Feminism in the West, at least the "combative type" seems to reject the notion that that is all a woman should or could be. Indian Feminists, even some of the "combative types" don't basically. They instead celebrate it.

I guess it can be summed up with the view of Kali. The Indian Hindus (particularly those from Bengal) venerate her softer side. Even minimising her more "ferocious aspects."
Whilst the West is fascinated by these very aspects and even minimise her softer side.
The view of Kali standing atop Shiva is one of Ying Yang in Hinduism. Even across multiple schools of thought. Kali is literally the life force of Shiva. In the West however, Kali is seen as liberated. She stands atop Shiva to signify strength and even dominance. She has cast off her shackles put upon her by men and came out on top. Both figuratively and literally. She is seen as a rock and roll sex goddess.
Whereas the Hindus celebrate her motherhood and many view that as her strongest aspect. (Except maybe the Tantrics. But you know, what I mean.) She is the "Ultimate Mother."

In other words the Indian Feminists often seem to highly value their "chosen role" and at the same time demand equal opportunity of the men.
My experience of Western Feminists are the opposite. They reject or otherwise minimise this "role" or they rebel against the idea that that is supposed to be what society sees as the ultimate value of femininity. Not to say Western Feminists reject motherhood or anything like that. Just that they often stress that it's not the only worthwhile role of a woman.
I guess you could say Western Feminists focus more on individuality of women and the Indian Feminists focus more on the collective of women. If that makes sense?

I suppose it's a bit hard to explain all the various nuances. Especially since I am somewhat cut off to them myself. And I realise this is generalising to the max. And probably far too oversimplified to paint an accurate picture of either movement. But that's been my experience at least.

OK, interesting, thanks SomeRandom. Especially your thoughts on perceptions of Kali Ma, I find rather bizarre some of the Western perceptions of her.

 

[SomeRandom]

OK, interesting, thanks SomeRandom. Especially your thoughts on perceptions of Kali Ma, I find rather bizarre some of the Western perceptions of her.

No worries.
Yes, the Western perception is a bit odd to me too. But that is because we already know the established (Hindu) paradigm. This is usually ignored in favor of interpretation. Whilst I don't begrudge others for having a different interpretation, I do find it interesting that in order to have this perception of her, they basically had to ignore every iota of context surrounding the iconography.

 

[Kirran]

No worries.
Yes, the Western perception is a bit odd to me too. But that is because we already know the established (Hindu) paradigm. This is usually ignored in favor of interpretation. Whilst I don't begrudge others for having a different interpretation, I do find it interesting that in order to have this perception of her, they basically had to ignore every iota of context surrounding the iconography.

Yeah, well it's kind of 'Here's this picture, what can we interpret from this?' without looking at what the picture was designed as and where it comes from. Interpretations do change, of course, among the Hindus too. But this is quite a step change!

 

[SomeRandom]

Yeah, well it's kind of 'Here's this picture, what can we interpret from this?' without looking at what the picture was designed as and where it comes from. Interpretations do change, of course, among the Hindus too. But this is quite a step change!

Indeed it is. But people are free to interpret things how they want, I suppose

 

[dust1n]

Well in Indian culture the most respected and prestigious role for a woman is motherhood and grandmother er hood.
Feminism in the West, at least the "combative type" seems to reject the notion that that is all a woman should or could be. Indian Feminists, even some of the "combative types" don't basically. They instead celebrate it.

In the West, the most respected and prestigious role is to free and self-made, to accomplish what one chooses to accomplish with their life, whether they are or men in women. So perhaps that general underlying theme lends credence to an idea that a woman should be able to live her life without having children, if she so chooses, or to have children, if she so chooses.

 

[SomeRandom]

In the West, the most respected and prestigious role is to free and self-made, to accomplish what one chooses to accomplish with their life, whether they are or men in women. So perhaps that general underlying theme lends credence to an idea that a woman should be able to live her life without having children, if she so chooses, or to have children, if she so chooses.

And I have no real problem with that. A woman can have kids or reject the idea. I mean that's what feminism is supposed to be about, right? Celebrating a woman's right to choose, just like we allow men to. Equality.

But then you have the severe backlash, from feminists no less, when a woman publicly says she is either not really super keen on feminism (which should be celebrated, right? Her choice is her choice.) But then you have articles on HuffPo even a video, of these feminists or maybe more accurately feminazis deriding these women, calling them crazy and straw manning the hell out of them. I mean this is literally the first forum that hasn't straight up told me that I'm still a feminist regardless of my feelings simply for supporting equality between the sexes. So perhaps there's still hope.
Or when celebrities like Miss Cuoco say something like "I appreciate feminism but like doing traditional housekeeping jobs for my man." Or whatever. I mean omg the backlash from online feminists was a bit much, even for the internet.
Then freedom of tweets thing, caused by a feminist, or all these harrowing stories of feminists getting people god damned fired for innocuous ****.
On paper the movement is great. In practice I haven't seen that much good. Except maybe from a few of the older feminists. It's like the third wave are increasingly becoming almost cult like and I have witnessed their hypocrisy.

(Also I don't understand feminist critique of storytelling. Looks too I don't know biased to me. But whatever.)

 

[dust1n]

And I have no real problem with that. A woman can have kids or reject the idea. I mean that's what feminism is supposed to be about, right? Celebrating a woman's right to choose, just like we allow men to. Equality.

Right.

But then you have the severe backlash, from feminists no less, when a woman publicly says she is either not really super keen on feminism (which should be celebrated, right? Her choice is her choice.) But then you have articles on HuffPo even a video, of these feminists or maybe more accurately feminazis deriding these women, calling them crazy and straw manning the hell out of them. I mean this is literally the first forum that hasn't straight up told me that I'm still a feminist regardless of my feelings simply for supporting equality between the sexes. So perhaps there's still hope. Or when celebrities like Miss Cuoco say something like "I appreciate feminism but like doing traditional housekeeping jobs for my man." Or whatever. I mean omg the backlash from online feminists was a bit much, even for the internet.
Then freedom of tweets thing, caused by a feminist, or all these harrowing stories of feminists getting people god damned fired for innocuous ****.
On paper the movement is great. In practice I haven't seen that much good. Except maybe from a few of the older feminists. It's like the third wave are increasingly becoming almost cult like and I have witnessed their hypocrisy.

I be only half familiar with the stupidity of media, so I don't realize what the "freedom of tweets things" refer to. For whatever reason, there is some sort of force at work on the internet where people feel like they have to come to some sort of binary conclusion about any given political sentiment, in which every gets lumped into a demographic that is routinely criticized, and that criticism in general spawns a defensiveness. If someone comes up to me and starts talking **** about this or that, it's not immediately clear if I'm being trolled, or if the criticism is serious, how much emotional emphasis is actually behind the criticism. So a lot people go into full defense mode, when perhaps the situation actually calls for cool, collected discussion. But at the same time, you are going to deal with trolls on a continuous basis as well. It's just the internet man. I mean, just the number of death threats alone on given topic. Personally, I don't care what other people do. It doesn't defy my belief system. No matter how one identifies, your going to deal with a slew of idiots who also identify as such. It's always annoying.

(Also I don't understand feminist critique of storytelling. Looks too I don't know biased to me. But whatever.)

No one understands literary criticism of any kind.

 

[SomeRandom]

I be only half familiar with the stupidity of media, so I don't realize what the "freedom of tweets things" refer to. For whatever reason, there is some sort of force at work on the internet where people feel like they have to come to some sort of binary conclusion about any given political sentiment, in which every gets lumped into a demographic that is routinely criticized, and that criticism in general spawns a defensiveness. If someone comes up to me and starts talking **** about this or that, it's not immediately clear if I'm being trolled, or if the criticism is serious, how much emotional emphasis is actually behind the criticism. So a lot people go into full defense mode, when perhaps the situation actually calls for cool, collected discussion. But at the same time, you are going to deal with trolls on a continuous basis as well. It's just the internet man. I mean, just the number of death threats alone on given topic. Personally, I don't care what other people do. It doesn't defy my belief system. No matter how one identifies, your going to deal with a slew of idiots who also identify as such. It's always annoying.

Ahh. Well I'm no millennial, (in fact I had an honest to god Myspace page when it was big) but I did grow up on social media.
I know the difference between trolls and legitimate criticism. Poe's law can be a tad confusing these days, though.
The internet basically encourages people to get everything and anything off their chest. It also semi rewards highly emotive actions and indulges the **** stirring tendencies of troublemakers and pranksters alike.
The anonymity plays a large part, I think, as well as just sheer boredom really. It's amusing to get into heated arguments on YouTube. It's more fun to annoy the "Twihards" on the Potter vs Twilight boards than it is to do your homework. It's funny to rile random people up to see their online reactions.

Freedom of tweets is a campaign running behind a guy called Gregory Allen Elliot in Canada who was banned from the internet by a court because he was accused of "harassing" a professional feminist online. Called Stephenie Guthrie.
What essentially happened was this professional feminist (wtf is a professional feminist?) basically instigated an online hate mob to go after this guy Bendilin Spur because he created some flash game where you beat up Anita Sarkeesian. (To be fair he also made a game where you beat up Jack Thompson.) I mean, that's one thing. But I think she or at least is alleged to have encouraged her followers to report such actions to the newspapers and relevant real life people in this Spur guy's life.
Mr Elliot stepped in, basically calling her out on her hypocrisy (she went on the TedX show/function whatever to lament the lack of consequences for online harassment.) She blocked him. He shadowed her because she was saying **** about him, he called her out. Back and forth idiot shenanigans. And then the guy is dragged in front of court, charged with..........I assume harassment of some kind and was banned from using the internet, which is how he makes a sizable amount of his income. So a movement started to fund the guy's legal expenses and to essentially help him fight the arguably ridiculous court ruling.
I mean I don't know all the particulars. It's sort of the latest storm. Maybe he was stalking her. Maybe she isn't a complete tosser. But like really, to be banned from the internet? Wtf?
It's one of those internet soap operas that had real world consequences, thing. Like internet dust ups might be inane beyond all doubt. But before they were at least relegated to the online world alone. So spectators could just watch, chewing on popcorn, at the stupidity unfold and not have to worry that this would hurt anyone in real life. These days it seems people are losing their livelihoods over them. And many of them happen to involve vocal feminists doing the damage. Like last year I could reasonably argue that it was just a coincidence. Now, I'm not too sure anymore.
Also that whole thing with Anita and Zoe going to the UN (who already don't like the wild wild web) basically suggesting that "mean things said on the internet" should have restrictions put upon them. Kind of got many people on the defensive. (Personally I found it stupid, but that's just me.) So that's another contributing factor to the movement. Defending free speech or whatever.

I know all movements will have their crazies or their idiots. But often it's the moderates (or at least self proclaimed moderates) on my case for defending the other perspective. Or even my perspective. Whilst in the exact breath claiming "third wave feminism is the most inclusive of all." Usually using the dictionary definition, which is just that. A definition. To me a creed might sound good on paper, but if you don't live it, then it's basically useless.

Again, actions speak louder than words. And right now they're telling me that perhaps egalitarianism is a more suitable movement for my inclinations.

No one understands literary criticism of any kind.

Lol, fair point.
I'm no art critic. But at the same time I feel like a lot of feminist critique on art looks an awful lot like cherry picking.

 

[dust1n]

Ahh. Well I'm no millennial, (in fact I had an honest to god Myspace page when it was big) but I did grow up on social media.
I know the difference between trolls and legitimate criticism. Poe's law can be a tad confusing these days, though.
The internet basically encourages people to get everything and anything off their chest. It also semi rewards highly emotive actions and indulges the **** stirring tendencies of troublemakers and pranksters alike.

More or less. I mean, it's just really the start of it. When you start throwing in human dynamics, things get complicated fast. It's one thing to "prank." It's a different matter to "swat" someone or something.

The anonymity plays a large part, I think, as well as just sheer boredom really. It's amusing to get into heated arguments on YouTube. It's more fun to annoy the "Twihards" on the Potter vs Twilight boards than it is to do your homework. It's funny to rile random people up to see their online reactions.

I guess for some. Probably a lot more productive ways to live.

Freedom of tweets is a campaign running behind a guy called Gregory Allen Elliot in Canada who was banned from the internet by a court because he was accused of "harassing" a professional feminist online. Called Stephenie Guthrie.
What essentially happened was this professional feminist (wtf is a professional feminist?) basically instigated an online hate mob to go after this guy Bendilin Spur because he created some flash game where you beat up Anita Sarkeesian. (To be fair he also made a game where you beat up Jack Thompson.) I mean, that's one thing. But I think she or at least is alleged to have encouraged her followers to report such actions to the newspapers and relevant real life people in this Spur guy's life.
Mr Elliot stepped in, basically calling her out on her hypocrisy (she went on the TedX show/function whatever to lament the lack of consequences for online harassment.) She blocked him. He shadowed her because she was saying **** about him, he called her out. Back and forth idiot shenanigans. And then the guy is dragged in front of court, charged with..........I assume harassment of some kind and was banned from using the internet, which is how he makes a sizable amount of his income. So a movement started to fund the guy's legal expenses and to essentially help him fight the arguably ridiculous court ruling.
I mean I don't know all the particulars. It's sort of the latest storm. Maybe he was stalking her. Maybe she isn't a complete tosser. But like really, to be banned from the internet? Wtf?

Thanks, I had a little time to look it up. Seems to me the Freedom of Tweet thing started when someone made a joke about blowing up an airport because it was running late, which resulted in him getting in trouble, at which people come to there defense. As far as how this extends to the Canadian court case, I'm not sure how that extends. From what I could find, it seems like convoluted mess of two way harassment. I don't think most people realize that when you post on social media, you are publishing something, tantamount of writing an article for a newspaper. Slander and malice apply. It's neither acceptable in mind to target individuals and harass them on the internet on a daily basis, nor is it ever okay to insinuate that someone is a child molester out of spite. It appears that it's a pretty murky case, since there appears to be a two way avenue of publicly attacking one another.

As far as the video game, if you are going to make a game that involves punching a specific person and then claiming, "Anita Sarkeesian has not only scammed thousands of people out of over $160,000, but also uses the excuse that she is a woman to get away with whatever she damn well pleases. Any form of constructive criticism, even from fellow women, is either ignored or labelled to be sexist against her. She claims to want gender equality in video games, but in reality, she just wants to use the fact that she was born with a vagina to get free money and sympathy from everyone who crosses her path," then what are you expecting to happen. For people not to react and engage in the same slanderous activity. I'm not saying it's right to have 1000 people to mob up on the guy, just like I don't think it's right to punch a guy who is talking ****. But I'm not sure how you keep people from responding to personal attacks online.

The girl in question receives hundreds of death threats a day? Are you upset about that as well? It seems crazy to me to ignore one issue and protest about the other.

It's one of those internet soap operas that had real world consequences, thing. Like internet dust ups might be inane beyond all doubt. But before they were at least relegated to the online world alone. So spectators could just watch, chewing on popcorn, at the stupidity unfold and not have to worry that this would hurt anyone in real life. These days it seems people are losing their livelihoods over them. And many of them happen to involve vocal feminists doing the damage. Like last year I could reasonably argue that it was just a coincidence. Now, I'm not too sure anymore.

Why, is there any evidence other than anecdotal evidence? Is there a data-set showing what common identity is the most common among people who start active campaigns of harassment? Either way, those actions have little do with my any conception I have of feminism, much like pro-lifers most have little do with any conception of bombing abortion clinics, or I guess shaming women online, or whatever.

Also that whole thing with Anita and Zoe going to the UN (who already don't like the wild wild web) basically suggesting that "mean things said on the internet" should have restrictions put upon them. Kind of got many people on the defensive. (Personally I found it stupid, but that's just me.) So that's another contributing factor to the movement. Defending free speech or whatever.

I'm not familiar with this, but yea, there should be ramifications for sending death and rape threats to people on the internet, in my opinion, or at least a means of recourse.

I know all movements will have their crazies or their idiots. But often it's the moderates (or at least self proclaimed moderates) on my case for defending the other perspective. Or even my perspective. Whilst in the exact breath claiming "third wave feminism is the most inclusive of all." Usually using the dictionary definition, which is just that. A definition. To me a creed might sound good on paper, but if you don't live it, then it's basically useless.

Again, actions speak louder than words. And right now they're telling me that perhaps egalitarianism is a more suitable movement for my inclinations.

The only problem is that there is no movement referred to as egalitarianism. Most of these issues have far more to do with identity politics and peer pressure, then they do movements.

Lol, fair point.
I'm no art critic. But at the same time I feel like a lot of feminist critique on art looks an awful lot like cherry picking.

I mean, if I write a book report, I have to quote the book multiple times in order to make a compelling case from what I am saying. Cherry picking is the act of just quoting selectively to cast shadow on the remainder of the material. I'm sure people do this all the time, but it would be a common issue for most people who try to write, as most people are not good at it, let alone at writing about literature.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I only speak for myself and own my feminism. If I can administer a local feminist group of nearly 1000 members who likely identify as the SJW-type that irritates you, and still walk my own path regardless of the criticisms I hear from them about how I'm failing feminism, then you can too. I still am counted on to ban trolls, to write op-ed pieces, to handle in-house disagreements, and to provide resources for members for info and representation and legal recourse. I also own the website for our organization.

My thoughts are that we need diversity in our own ranks. Challenge and support each other and fight systems, not people. I prohibit bullying in my studio, my home, and if I'm leading a feminist meeting, I prohibit it there too. My opinion is gaming ought not to allow bullying on its playground either, since I have heard from fellow Nerd Culture gamers who are also close friends of mine that they suffered from bullying IRL as kids, and I feel it wrong to support similar behavior toward anyone inside or outside of one's circle.

I've also received death threats and rape threats. Not for any of the times I've spoken, lectured, or performed as an artist. Only when I've made appearances or written on sexism. So being a public figure does not preclude an expectation of multiple threats. However, my experiences on expressing my thoughts to the public about feminism has resulted in being targeted. SR, it is not cute, infantile, or simple stirring of the pot. It is not whining that I report to local law enforcement that my family has been threatened. I am not being a professional victim when I highlight these threats made to me and my family.

None of the threats have come from SJW's who are very critical of my handling of feminism. They have all come from self-described MRA's and egalitarians who claim they want to "expose feminism for what it is". They tend to show up claiming to be feminists and then the personal messages would begin followed by revealing to me their rage, their disgust, how they want to see me gagged while watching my husband bludgeoned to death and my daughter raped in front of me, and how they want to have me tortured and raped over weeks of time while slowly dying the entire time.

As one example. The infiltrations have occurred about a dozen times. Whining might be irritating, but I'll take that any day over anti-feminist rage. The latter has resulted in actual threats to me and my family as human beings. Shall I challenge MRA's and egalitarians to take responsibility for the crazies in their midst? Shall I return the rage and direct it to people or movements that **** me off? Of course not. That would be pointless at best and destructive at worst.

If you see yourself as a feminist, then own it. Simple as that. There are far more feminists who do that than otherwise.

 

[SomeRandom]

More or less. I mean, it's just really the start of it. When you start throwing in human dynamics, things get complicated fast. It's one thing to "prank." It's a different matter to "swat" someone or something.

I think even most trolls draw the line at swatting.

I guess for some. Probably a lot more productive ways to live.

Oh no one said they're anything more important than time wasters or something to amuse you when you're sick. They're like a dose of morbid entertainment when you feel like procrastinating. Like when you happen to pass by a train wreck on your way to work or something. You stop and watch despite yourself. Which makes it all the more sad when you hear of this stupidity having real world consequences. They shouldn't. They're not worth it. Latest one I witnessed (because I was home with the flu) was Laughing Witch Vs Thunderf00t. Which oddly started when I watched one of those fail compilations and then played the Suggestion game. I mean the events that took place, you couldn't make this **** up if you tried, mate. Made soap opera writing look sane. And it was hilarious.

Thanks, I had a little time to look it up. Seems to me the Freedom of Tweet thing started when someone made a joke about blowing up an airport because it was running late, which resulted in him getting in trouble, at which people come to there defense. As far as how this extends to the Canadian court case, I'm not sure how that extends. From what I could find, it seems like convoluted mess of two way harassment. I don't think most people realize that when you post on social media, you are publishing something, tantamount of writing an article for a newspaper. Slander and malice apply. It's neither acceptable in mind to target individuals and harass them on the internet on a daily basis, nor is it ever okay to insinuate that someone is a child molester out of spite. It appears that it's a pretty murky case, since there appears to be a two way avenue of publicly attacking one another.

Unless you happen to view this **** from day one, I say good luck getting any truthful information about anything. I mean I sort of followed GamerGate off and on just indirectly and I still couldn't begin to untangle that mess.

As far as the video game, if you are going to make a game that involves punching a specific person and then claiming, "Anita Sarkeesian has not only scammed thousands of people out of over $160,000, but also uses the excuse that she is a woman to get away with whatever she damn well pleases. Any form of constructive criticism, even from fellow women, is either ignored or labelled to be sexist against her. She claims to want gender equality in video games, but in reality, she just wants to use the fact that she was born with a vagina to get free money and sympathy from everyone who crosses her path," then what are you expecting to happen. For people not to react and engage in the same slanderous activity. I'm not saying it's right to have 1000 people to mob up on the guy, just like I don't think it's right to punch a guy who is talking ****. But I'm not sure how you keep people from responding to personal attacks online.

But those are all very valid points. Anita is a professional victim, she can't stand any criticism of any kind and ignores it. Her own video games that she has produced prove her hypocrisy when it comes to critiquing video games. (Also, irrelevant but I find Mcintosh quite creepy.)
The game itself is a reaction. One of frustration and incredulity.
I'm not justifying the game by any means, but I find it telling that no one really gave a **** when it was that ******* Jack Thompson on the receiving end of the same game. Whatever happened to the idea of equality? That's not even the most distasteful game you can find about a public figure.

The girl in question receives hundreds of death threats a day? Are you upset about that as well? It seems crazy to me to ignore one issue and protest about the other.

Of course. That is totally unacceptable.

It's just becoming a bit of a tired cliche from these sorts of feminists. And usually used to deflect any criticism of their own antics or arguments. They don't seem to give a **** about doxxing other people *cough* Zoe Quinn *cough* (allegedly.) Even support people getting fired from their jobs for their online "harassment" or rather critique of Anita *cough* Jenny Mcdermott *cough* (though to be fair she might just be a troll.) And Kevin "Potato" Logan. But when the internet reacts and calls out their ****, or offers some sort of criticism of their arguments, suddenly we need to feel bad for their received harassment. No doubt they face some awful messages online. But from what I've seen, what the likes of these people label harassment is an insult to those who are legitimately harassed. Like I want to defend their right not to receive this sort of thing, but the hypocrisy, their awful antics and the #killallwhitemen and the #ciswhitemaletears makes it a bit hard for me to sympathize.
I want to find middle ground, but this is the internet.

Why, is there any evidence other than anecdotal evidence? Is there a data-set showing what common identity is the most common among people who start active campaigns of harassment? Either way, those actions have little do with my any conception I have of feminism, much like pro-lifers most have little do with any conception of bombing abortion clinics, or I guess shaming women online, or whatever.

Top of my head?
Tim Hunt? http://www.theguardian.com/science/...storm-reignited-scientist-quits-writers-group

the "Dongle incident" http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/

The ****storm surrounding Thunderf00t?

What you need more?
Baha Mustafa?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...en-campaigner-bahar-mustafa-to-pamela-gellar/
(I was on board with supporting her until that was brought up. Like wow. That's a bit ****ed. And not the first accusation against her apparently.)

I'm not familiar with this, but yea, there should be ramifications for sending death and rape threats to people on the internet, in my opinion, or at least a means of recourse.

Recourse? Yeah. But one of the complaints was that she was receiving messages like "you suck." Christ, primary school children would tell her to get over stuff like that. And really? The UN has to protect people from mean things said online? Some places already have laws against that, we don't need the UN who is begging for an excuse to try to meddle with the internet, to come into this equation.
At the same time, I don't know. In some spheres rape and death threats are just jokes. Stuff people say to get off their chest or to reveal their noobness. I mean in the realm of online gaming. On YouTube. Ehh, there's a certain level of accepted mean spirited actions.
If that happens on someone's email specifically or Facebook or something. Then yeah, sure.
But if you are a public figure, male female, both, doesn't matter. You will get all sorts of that **** just by default. That is why people are calling out the likes of Anita. She's not some random commentor getting harassed for accidentally stepping into a heated debate, she's a god damned public figure. She made herself one. That's part of the job she CHOSE. I mean to vent about it is one thing. Very understandable even. To report it is again, very understandable. Recommended even.
But to use that specifically as your platform and just constantly use it to try to prove some sort of illusive sexist conspiracy? Prepare to face criticism for it.
You actions will be scrutinized. That's just how the internet works. Short of a concerted campaign baying for your blood (and I have seen at best some trolls and that's it) I don't know man. I can see why she's called a professional damsel in distress.

Cont.