AronRa said:Yes, I've seen MANY videos hating on Anita Sarkeesian for getting more money than she asked for. I've seen several more grossly misrepresenting Rebecca Watson. Yes I saw a lot of dishonesty in the videos made about them. Don't tell me coffee = rape. I was at that conference, and I rode that elevator. So I know better. There was nothing wrong with what Watson did there, and others have severely distorted that story, making it into something it never was.
People were not simply hating on Anita because he got more money than what she requested, that would have been fine, but she got more money that she asked for, and the videos she promised her donators she would produce have taken two years longer to create than scheduled, and only half of the promised videos have came out. What Rebecca Watson did was over react. Some guy asks her if she wants to go get some coffee at his room, and she declined. Any other person would not have made a video about this incredible (in the literal sense of that word) event, they would have let it blow over.
Easiest answer: (Last Week Tonight video)
So I assume that you mean to say the wage gap is 77 cents on the dollar. You raised me Oliver, I raise you Maddox
I've seen some of his videos, and I can only shake my head. I don't even want to talk about them; they're so disappointing. Reactions from the feminist community has only been laughter at his expense. Every time he posted a new one, I'd watch it and be embarrassed for him. I don't even subscribe to him anymore. I told you, I have never ever heard a good argument against feminism, but I've heard some really amazingly bad ones
Address the arguments he presents, specifically about Anita. It isn't too much watch time, maybe 17 minutes or so.
Youtube]WuRSaLZidWI[/Youtube]
The feminist community hasn't just laughed at him as you suggest, but they have monitored or shut down their comment sections and hid their ratings. Personal attacks may have been present in those comments, but neither you nor Anita has addressed Phil's criticism of the videos. Instead, you say that it is just wrong or hate mongering. Saying such things will not convince me that Phil's arguments were wrong, videos like Ashely Paramour's will. And that one has convinced me that Phil was wrong in his rape video.
Maybe you can. I can too, but it's because it takes a lot to scare me. A lot of other people can't be sure if someone is bluffing. If I threaten to kill you or harm someone in your family, how should you respond to that? Because I'll tell you, I had this conversation with Thunder. He said no one should take rape threats seriously, because it's just like when you tell someone, "I'm gonna kill you"; everyone knows you're just saying that. I told him that I don't say things like that, because I don't say things I don't mean. If I ever say I'm going to kill you, you'd better take that as a genuine threat, because it means that I seriously literally intend to forcibly terminate your life. If someone posts things like that about me or my family, my family demands that I take that seriously.
Well Aron, I personally think your idea of speech is misguided. People, in general, say things that they do not mean to say, especially in reaction to other things. Generally, someone willing to kill you won't give you the heads up. It isn't the ones who comment that you have to be scared of, its the ones who don't. Furthermore, I take freedom of speech very seriously, and I believe that anybody should have the right to say anything no matter how offensive, and we all have the right to either ignore them or criticize them. I would be willing to support someone's right to freedom of speech even if they threatened me, because freedom of speech is that important. If I felt threatened, I would changed my house, attempt to change my place of occupation, and find out if these threats are serious. But the second someone raises their knife at me, or points a gun, I expect that person to be detained for the action they have committed, even if its too late for me. I highly recommend Christopher Hitchens talk on Free Speech.
We met Lzzy Hale back in May and my wife asked her if she was a feminist. Lzzy said no, because she thought that that word meant 'misandrist'. How sad is that? Because she would be an excellent representative of what feminism really is. That's what would happen to lessons on Susan B Anthony if we pretend that feminsim means what its critics want it to mean rather than what it really does mean.
Aron, the reason people believe feminism means the same has misandrist is because of the what the fringe does, and how loud and well funded the fringe, and, based on your words on Anita, seemingly the actual feminists as well. The points they make poison the word and suggest that everything is sexist or has sexist roots and must be uprooted, and replaced. Not everything is sexist, and when people point that out, like TF00t has, it isn't called criticism, but harassment.
But you haven't even given me reason to believe that the word really has been 'poisoned', and you dodged my question above, highlighted in yellow. Like I told you before, if you have an issue concerning gender equality, even if it is an issue of men's rights, you can bring it to feminists to advocate on your behalf, because that's what they do, and they're the only movement to have ever advocated for gender equality. So what is the issue?
Well, I hope I have given you reason enough now to believe it is poisoned, but if not, lets look at another few examples. This is why I don't accept the label of feminism. Historically it has done good, even in recent times, but when you are willing to lie to make a problem seem worse than what it actually is, you poison the word. And yes, their is still a pay gap, and it needs to be fixed. But lying about the pay gap, or lying about the amount of rape on campuses only puts people like me off from the word and the movement. I have not ignored your question, I proposed a somewhat uncatchy alternative to the word feminism, equalism, or equalist, and you refuted egalitarianism. I realize egalitarian is a word poisoned by its relevance in the communist movement, but "equalist" or another movement would not be poisoned by the extremists, at least not immediately.
I often say that feminism can only be corrected from within. We've seen countless demonstrations showing how critics of feminism completely fail either to actually advocate men's rights or correct any of the issues which arise within the feminist movement. So the only way to fix this isn't to make up some other movement no one really cares about, and which won't actually do anything, but to constantly right the movement from within, so that it can be more successful where it is most needed. Because the middle east isn't going to respond to 'equalists'. That's one of those situations which especially need real feminist activists.
I speak only of the modern first world when I speak of "equalists" I realize the middle east needs feminism, but it needs the first two waves of feminism experienced in the US and other countries. We shouldn't abandon the word feminism in places like the middle east, but we ought to do it in the west, because it is a poisoned term.
It always come down to this, the antifeminist claims to fit the one-and-only and still applicable definition of feminism, but simply objects to the name, as if that means anything, as if changing the name would make it alright, which we've already seen isn't true. For example, I am not a feminist activist myself. All I did was admit that that definition applies, which it does, and because of that, I have since had to invest more time arguing against anti-feminists than I have creationists, (tonight being no exception). Why? What fucking difference does it make, whether you accept that label or not? Why do you care if I do?
I have no doubt but that Christopher Hitchens was a feminist, because he eloquently expressed feminist ideals, but he never made the mistake of identifying by that label, because THEN you'd see where most of this "poison" is really coming from.
Aron, one point that I wanted to stress is that definitions aren't always the best way to describe things. The definition of feminism is not specific enough. It fails to take into account what feminists have been doing. Its fine as a basic concept (the definition you assert) but in discussions like these it must be more specific. Some modern feminists have poisoned the word by lying through their teeth, sometimes for money.
In regards to Hitchens, the reality of the situation is actually quite comically contrary to what you suggest that it is. and depict Hitchens as a man who endorses gender roles, something quite thoroughly denounced by modern feminists. Had he lived but a few more years, we cannot say which side he would be on. But in light of these two videos, do you really think he would support this third wave?
Sorry this post took a while. I have been procrastinating. Hope to talk to you again soon.