3rd wawe feminism strikes new countries!

[tovaris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYHsXwkY8Do

We have had equalety since WW2 it has been conpletly implimented by socialism freouth the 20th. And now this!!!?

[sqishy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYHsXwkY8Do

We have had equalety since WW2 it has been conpletly implimented by socialism freouth the 20th. And now this!!!?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what you mean :confused:

[Exocet]

In Sweden,men became women and women men. That is so funny. (They want to force men to pee sitting down.)
Gladly send all these feminists to muslim no-go zones to meet real men.

[Sailor Mars]

Gladly send all these feminists to muslim no-go zones to meet real men.
Not tryna sound butthurt or anything but there's a difference between "Feminist" and "Radical Feminist". Also, define "real men" because if you're saying radical islamists are "real men" than I would much rather be with a fake one lol.

[sqishy]

...meet real men.

So I'm a virtual man then.

Define a real man anyhow.

[Exocet]

I meant real men,not feminized European one. Lel

[phuckphace]

smash the patriarchy (and the Chandrasekhar limit)

[Judean Zealot]

Not tryna sound butthurt or anything but there's a difference between "Feminist" and "Radical Feminist". Also, define "real men" because if you're saying radical islamists are "real men" than I would much rather be with a fake one lol.

'Third wave feminism' is almost exclusively what we call 'radical feminism'.

[Vlerchan]

'Third wave feminism' is almost exclusively what we call 'radical feminism'.
I'd align with radical feminism and don't align [much] with third-wave feminism.

I also don't think I'm unusual - least inside my own social circles.

[Judean Zealot]

I'd align with radical feminism and don't align [much] with third-wave feminism.

I also don't think I'm unusual - least inside my own social circles.

You'll notice I identified third wave feminists as necessarily radical, but not the reverse.

[Sailor Mars]

'Third wave feminism' is almost exclusively what we call 'radical feminism'.

Ah I see. Thanks then for clearing it up. But even still, feminism isn't the same as radical feminism and I guess third wave feminism.

[Judean Zealot]

Ah I see. Thanks then for clearing it up. But even still, feminism isn't the same as radical feminism and I guess third wave feminism.

Agreed. I am myself definitely a first wave feminist, with some degree of sympathy for second wave. My views on abortion and gender fluidity, though, put me entirely out of touch with today's face of feminism.

[Stronk Serb]

Third-wave feminism is cancer, through and through. A cancer that has to be removed.

[Sailor Mars]

Third-wave feminism is cancer, through and through. A cancer that has to be removed.
Unfortunately there's no cure for cancer :(

[Jinglebottom]

Is third-wave feminism the idea that all (white, straight) men are evil rapists who only think about getting laid?

[tovaris]

https://youtu.be/JBSVhlTk81M


I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what you mean :confused:
Did you watch? Did you read subtitles?

/.../That is so funny. (They want to force men to pee sitting down.)
/.../.
Is this for real?!!!??

Is third-wave feminism the idea that all (white, straight) men are evil rapists who only think about getting laid?
Correction "who only think of raping"

Unfortunately there's no cure for cancer :frown:
Fire destroies every desis

[tovaris]

ctrl+x

[Exocet]

tovaris (Just an exemple)

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/sweden-left-party-toilet-stand_n_1590572.html

[Vlerchan]

You'll notice I identified third wave feminists as necessarily radical, but not the reverse.
Yes: I've been skim reading threads here since I don't have a huge amount of time: apologies.

I more or less agree that there's considerable overlap anyways.

But even still, feminism isn't the same as radical feminism and I guess third wave feminism.
How would you define 'radical feminism' out of curiosity.

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men
I would hope that all decent people would take a stand against those degenerate hedonists that insist on peeing standing up and endanger the public health in doing so.

Community > Individuality.

[Judean Zealot]

degenerate hedonists...

Isn't it funny that I can claim responsibility for these buzzwords becoming popular in ROTW? :D

Definitely 'hedonists', anyways.

[tovaris]

@tovaris (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=68480) (Just an exemple)

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/sweden-left-party-toilet-stand_n_1590572.html

this is sooooo stupid. What a time to be alive! (Ps could you tell me what language description you see: https://youtu.be/JBSVhlTk81M and is subtitles work)

[Judean Zealot]

Is third-wave feminism the idea that all (white, straight) men are evil rapists who only think about getting laid?

More or less. They're the sort of feminists hooked on the privilege ---> entitlement ----> oppression meme. They're pretty much just whiners, although more normal feminists can't disown them because they still need them for their causes they haven't yet achieved (such as full legality of abortion).

"I intend to scream, shout, race the engine, call when I feel like it, throw tantrums in Bloomingdale's if I feel like it and confess intimate details about my life to complete strangers. I intend to do what I want to do and be whom I want to be and answer only to myself: that is, quite simply, the bitch philosophy."
-Elizabeth Wurtzel (this woman is not a TW, but that quote is pricelessly indicative of where the self centered 'rights' culture is holding).

[Jinglebottom]

More or less. They're the sort of feminists hooked on the privilege ---> entitlement ----> oppression meme. They're pretty much just whiners, although more normal feminists can't disown them because they still need them for their causes they haven't yet achieved (such as full legality of abortion).

"I intend to scream, shout, race the engine, call when I feel like it, throw tantrums in Bloomingdale's if I feel like it and confess intimate details about my life to complete strangers. I intend to do what I want to do and be whom I want to be and answer only to myself: that is, quite simply, the bitch philosophy."
-Elizabeth Wurtzel (this woman is not a TW, but that quote is pricelessly indicative of where the self centered 'rights' culture is holding).
Their victim complex is nothing short of a psychological disorder. It's like watching a train wreck. Maybe they'd be treated more seriously if they didn't act like angsty teenage girls who have nothing better to do than sit around complaining about how "oppressed" they are. If they wanna see REAL, genuine oppression then they should take a trip to Saudi Arabia.

[Sailor Mars]

How would you define 'radical feminism' out of curiosity.
Like this:
http://i.imgur.com/RIYQNHP.jpg

[Stronk Serb]

Unfortunately there's no cure for cancer :(

There is. It's euthanasia, surgical removal and chemotherapy or radiological therapy. Now if we are going to gas, irradiate, remove segments from brain or straight up mercy kill them, it makes no difference. It cures them :D

Is third-wave feminism the idea that all (white, straight) men are evil rapists who only think about getting laid?

Correction: who only rape. Yeah, and I guess I am the scum of the earth and should hang. Like I said, it's cancerous thinking which gets you in a cancerous amount of unneccesary hate and time wasted by hating the opposite sex and trying to hinder them.

[Vlerchan]

Like this:
image (http://i.imgur.com/RIYQNHP.jpg)
Right. That's basically what I believe.

People can feel free to ask me whatever questions they want here.

They're the sort of feminists hooked on the privilege ---> entitlement ----> oppression meme.
For reference I subscribe to this to some extent. There's clearly identifiable cultural trends that systematically disadvantage woman. You don't have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth third-waver to identify that.

Here's one example that's almost certainly unconscious.

Within academia, men are tenured at higher rates than women are in most quantitative fields, including economics. Researchers have attempted to identify the source of this disparity but find that nearly 30% of the gap remains unexplained even after controlling for family commitments and differences in productivity. Using data from academic economists' CVs, I test whether coauthored and solo-authored publications matter differently for tenure for men and women. While solo-authored papers send a clear signal about one's ability, coauthored papers are noisy in that they do not provide specific information about each contributor's skills. I find that men are tenured at roughly the same rate regardless of whether they coauthor or solo-author. Women, however, suffer a significant penalty when they coauthor. The results hold after controlling for the total number of papers published, quality of papers, field of study, tenure institution, tenure year, and the number of years it took an individual to go up for tenure. The result is most pronounced for women coauthoring with only men and is less pronounced the more women there are on a paper, suggesting that some gender bias is at play. I present a model in which bias enters when workers collaborate and test its predictions in the data.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/sarsons/publications/note-gender-differences-recognition-group-work

[Judean Zealot]

For reference I subscribe to this to some extent. There's clearly identifiable cultural trends that systematically disadvantage woman. You don't have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth third-waver to identify that.

Here's one example that's almost certainly unconscious.

Within academia, men are tenured at higher rates than women are in most quantitative fields, including economics. Researchers have attempted to identify the source of this disparity but find that nearly 30% of the gap remains unexplained even after controlling for family commitments and differences in productivity. Using data from academic economists' CVs, I test whether coauthored and solo-authored publications matter differently for tenure for men and women. While solo-authored papers send a clear signal about one's ability, coauthored papers are noisy in that they do not provide specific information about each contributor's skills. I find that men are tenured at roughly the same rate regardless of whether they coauthor or solo-author. Women, however, suffer a significant penalty when they coauthor. The results hold after controlling for the total number of papers published, quality of papers, field of study, tenure institution, tenure year, and the number of years it took an individual to go up for tenure. The result is most pronounced for women coauthoring with only men and is less pronounced the more women there are on a paper, suggesting that some gender bias is at play. I present a model in which bias enters when workers collaborate and test its predictions in the data.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/sarsons/publications/note-gender-differences-recognition-group-work

That happens, I most definitely agree. But third wave has literally centered itself around attacking privilege in any form that they see it. They are so concerned about underdog identity politics that they have completely lost track of their ostensible goals. I get the impression that they don't want the struggle to end, insofar as their self-validation stems entirely from their acknowledgement and subsequent debasement of any sort of privilege (even that legitimately earned).

[sqishy]

Did you watch? Did you read subtitles?


I did, but I'm not sure what's exactly going on. Is it saying that men should go the same chores as women, and therefore balance equally (by type and amount of) work that each gender does?

[tovaris]

I did, but I'm not sure what's exactly going on. Is it saying that men should go the same chores as women, and therefore balance equally (by type and amount of) work that each gender does?

First it talks about comercials and how they are "unequal" while they are. Than it talks about destribution of work, basicly "more jobs to woman" "equality" "pigs.are more equal" Slovenia is extremly egalitarian. We cannot have more equality. Wa4ch my second video: https://youtu.be/JBSVhlTk81M
As far as to why it is wrong i thaught the original was prety selfexplanatory

[Microcosm]

People need to realize that men and women are different, at the very least on an anatomical level.

Some others don't realize that there is a difference between the feminism that supports workplace equality and the type that supports consummate equality(this meaning, for a lack of better wording, that men and women are fundamentally the same and should be treated socially in precisely the same way). I disagree with the latter because I think it is unnatural. I tend to think that men and women have different personalities(usually) and social tendencies that procure a different treatment from others. This isn't to say, though, that one should be treated as lesser or inferior to the other.

[sqishy]

First it talks about comercials and how they are "unequal" while they are. Than it talks about destribution of work, basicly "more jobs to woman" "equality" "pigs.are more equal" Slovenia is extremly egalitarian. We cannot have more equality. Wa4ch my second video: https://youtu.be/JBSVhlTk81M
As far as to why it is wrong i thaught the original was prety selfexplanatory

Alright

[DoodleSnap]

People need to realize that men and women are different, at the very least on an anatomical level.

Some others don't realize that there is a difference between the feminism that supports workplace equality and the type that supports consummate equality(this meaning, for a lack of better wording, that men and women are fundamentally the same and should be treated socially in precisely the same way). I disagree with the latter because I think it is unnatural. I tend to think that men and women have different personalities(usually) and social tendencies that procure a different treatment from others. This isn't to say, though, that one should be treated as lesser or inferior to the other.

As a firm believer of Nurture over Nature, I think that the fundamental, anatomical differences between the sexes are negligible. I think that environment and the way one is raised is far more responsible for how one behaves.

I adhere to some stereotypes of traditional masculinity, and some stereotypes of traditional femininity, but both come from my head, not my dick.

I don't believe that gender roles do anyone any good: they have only ever served to cause me pain in life, and when a society ties certain behaviours to certain chromosomes, you are bound to alienate those that differ, causing dysphoria. And that doesn't even touch on the subject of intersex people...

But basically, our Abrahamic gender roles aren't anything magic - they have just superceded other systems because of colonial history. If it were up to me, I'd just let people be exactly the way they want, and encourage them to behave the way they want, regardless of what lies between their legs. Fundamentally, I just find the whole binary gender concept really hard to get my head around.

Also, hi Dan - I'm back from the dead! :D

[Judean Zealot]

As a firm believer of Nurture over Nature, I think that the fundamental, anatomical differences between the sexes are negligible. I think that environment and the way one is raised is far more responsible for how one behaves.

I adhere to some stereotypes of traditional masculinity, and some stereotypes of traditional femininity, but both come from my head, not my dick.

I don't believe that gender roles do anyone any good: they have only ever served to cause me pain in life, and when a society ties certain behaviours to certain chromosomes, you are bound to alienate those that differ, causing dysphoria. And that doesn't even touch on the subject of intersex people...

But basically, our Abrahamic gender roles aren't anything magic - they have just superceded other systems because of colonial history. If it were up to me, I'd just let people be exactly the way they want, and encourage them to behave the way they want, regardless of what lies between their legs. Fundamentally, I just find the whole binary gender concept really hard to get my head around.

Also, hi Dan - I'm back from the dead! :D

You don't see hormones as a strong influence on human predisposition?

[DoodleSnap]

You don't see hormones as a strong influence on human predisposition?

Well, yes - but everyone is affected by their body's hormones in different ways.

I have a natural predisposition towards depression, which comes from my mother, but I use medication to all-but eliminate it.

I do not feel that I am defined by my genetics, or my autism, but by my opinions and experiences and theories, which come from my time as a sentient being.

But yes, hormones affect each and every one of us, and to diminish someone's personality based on hormones is dehumanising, in my opinion, and especially so in regards to gender.

[Syzygy]

As a firm believer of Nurture over Nature, I think that the fundamental, anatomical differences between the sexes are negligible. I think that environment and the way one is raised is far more responsible for how one behaves.

I adhere to some stereotypes of traditional masculinity, and some stereotypes of traditional femininity, but both come from my head, not my dick.

I don't believe that gender roles do anyone any good: they have only ever served to cause me pain in life, and when a society ties certain behaviours to certain chromosomes, you are bound to alienate those that differ, causing dysphoria. And that doesn't even touch on the subject of intersex people...

But basically, our Abrahamic gender roles aren't anything magic - they have just superceded other systems because of colonial history. If it were up to me, I'd just let people be exactly the way they want, and encourage them to behave the way they want, regardless of what lies between their legs. Fundamentally, I just find the whole binary gender concept really hard to get my head around.

Also, hi Dan - I'm back from the dead! :D

Well, yes - but everyone is affected by their body's hormones in different ways.

I have a natural predisposition towards depression, which comes from my mother, but I use medication to all-but eliminate it.

I do not feel that I am defined by my genetics, or my autism, but by my opinions and experiences and theories, which come from my time as a sentient being.

But yes, hormones affect each and every one of us, and to diminish someone's personality based on hormones is dehumanising, in my opinion, and especially so in regards to gender.

wtf.. hormones definitely are at least as important (if not more) than past experiences for determining personality

[Vlerchan]

Hyde, J. S. (2005) The Gender Similarities Hypothesis, American Psychologist, 60(6), pp. 581 - 592. (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-606581.pdf)
Zell, E., Krizan, Z. and Teeter, S. R. (2015) Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis, American Psychologist, 70(1), pp. 10 - 20. (https://public.psych.iastate.edu/zkrizan/pdf/Zell%20Krizan%20Teeter.pdf)
The bigger the d-score the bigger the likelihood of the trait being a biological endowment. Smaller differences indicate cultural factors. The specifics are explained best with reference to pp. 30 of Zell et al.: though the authors themselves note we're engaging in statistical inferences here - this is not direct empirical evidence. It generally support the gender similarities hypothesis.

[Judean Zealot]

Hyde, J. S. (2005) The Gender Similarities Hypothesis, American Psychologist, 60(6), pp. 581 - 592. (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-606581.pdf)
Zell, E., Krizan, Z. and Teeter, S. R. (2015) Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis, American Psychologist, 70(1), pp. 10 - 20. (https://public.psych.iastate.edu/zkrizan/pdf/Zell%20Krizan%20Teeter.pdf)
The bigger the d-score the bigger the likelihood of the trait being a biological endowment. Smaller differences indicate cultural factors. The specifics are explained best with reference to pp. 30 of Zell et al.: though the authors themselves note we're engaging in statistical inferences here - this is not direct empirical evidence. It generally support the gender similarities hypothesis.

It's unclear to what extent the GSH is relevant to the discussion of gender roles and characterisation, insofar as that can be built on psychologically minor differences.

[Vlerchan]

It's unclear to what extent the GSH is relevant to the discussion of gender roles and characterisation, insofar as that can be built on psychologically minor differences.
That's a fair point. The significant aggregate difference between men and woman is built on scores of statistically insignificant differences.

The observation had more to do with the idea that it seems like a large number of these differences are built on products of social conditioning. Microcosm's argument references the 'unnaturalness of equal treatment' when a large number of the differences that gender roles are built on might themselves be unnatural.

---

I also dislike using the term 'natural' but I presume the point makes its way across.

[DoodleSnap]

wtf.. hormones definitely are at least as important (if not more) than past experiences for determining personality

Well - let me rephrase: I tend not to notice hormones in my personal experience as being a discreet and important influence on character and morals. When those that I know have acted based on hormones, they have been able to see the irrationality in their action.

[Porpoise101]

Well - let me rephrase: I tend not to notice hormones in my personal experience as being a discreet and important influence on character and morals. When those that I know have acted based on hormones, they have been able to see the irrationality in their action.
When do you act rationally? Only when you think things through do you actually act with some sense. Most choices, in my opinion are just made without reason or thought. And that isn't necessarily a bad or good thing.

[DoodleSnap]

When do you act rationally? Only when you think things through do you actually act with some sense. Most choices, in my opinion are just made without reason or thought. And that isn't necessarily a bad or good thing.

No - every choice is made from some sort of evidence, it's just a question of how reasonable the evidence that they are making the choice from is.

For example - someone who chooses a car based on a colour is being irrational, sure, but they are still choosing based on the evidence presented to them: that the colour of this car has been more appealing to them than the other car. Yes, it is irrational that they are not acknowledging that the other car may have a better engine, better build quality, etc... - But they are still using evidence, just not very good evidence.

[Syzygy]

Well - let me rephrase: I tend not to notice hormones in my personal experience as being a discreet and important influence on character and morals. When those that I know have acted based on hormones, they have been able to see the irrationality in their action.

I don't think that's wrong. a lot of people don't realize when they act based on their hormones/instincts. for example many men do not recognize when they are acting irrationally to attract someone of the opposite sex. I think reflecting is important to do to get a better understanding of yourself.

[Vlerchan]

No - every choice is made from some sort of evidence, it's just a question of how reasonable the evidence that they are making the choice from is.
You'll find all actions involve exterior referencing of some sort. But if we're set on that definition then we're reducing the rational-descriptor to a tautology.

We've identified numerous heuristic processes that human beings engage in. It's more arguable that these don't prevail in long-run processes.

[sqishy]

When do you act rationally? Only when you think things through do you actually act with some sense. Most choices, in my opinion are just made without reason or thought. And that isn't necessarily a bad or good thing.

There is inductive reasoning, which I'm suggesting is what's responsible for the majority of actions and choices we do.
(I know this is off-topic, but just putting this in.)