Canadian feminist activist receives death threats and other abuse after being targeted by Men’s Rights Activists

I’m sure several things I will say has already been said and discussed in this thread. “red” along with her fellow protestors had every right to protest that MRA sponsored leture just as much as they would have to protest a feminist groups. Yes she was rather rude, stubborn, disruptive and so on but that’s how protests go. the aftermath that followed the video being posted on YouTube is completely despicable and unjust; “red” or anyone else for that fact shouldn’t receive the harassment and threats she did for voicing her opinion and fighting for what she believed in.

I equally support both men’s rights and women’s rights. Men along with women in current society are both not equally benefited from privileges that the other sex has. no doubt some womens rights are more pressing then mens and need to achieved sooner. Each being just as important as the other.

So…

We have an aggressive feminazi shouting at some “MRAs” on the street, a feminazi who then get targeted by Internet-threats (the usual Internet Tough Guy crap), coming from a bunch of sexists (“men’s rights are in peril !”) people hiding behind a false claim of equality (just like the feminazis).

Basically, both sides of the same coin of “let’s hijack anti-sexism to fully externalize our anger/frustration/desire for violence”, each side vomiting its bile at the other.

Relevant webcomic ! => http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic

In my opinion, we should set up a boxing ring for them, and get us some nice tables with tea and crumpets a few meters away, so we can discuss about complex issues (stuff like social stigmas, social exclusion, social roles, how we’re dealing with the definition of feminity and masculinity, who’s carrying/transmitting/defending these elements (men/women, media/families) and who should do what instead, etc – and what/where should we focus our effort into shaping a new balanced, fair and simple system)
(= complex subjects, where the manichaeism of feminazis/MRAs fails to provide any possibility for thoughts, ideas, discussion).

While at the same time, the barking extremists just shout and punch themselves on the ring. Arnarcho-communists and fascists are doing that for a few decades now, meeting up in a street/a parking lot, beating each others with blunt weapons (and some blades), until the cops arrive, ending the battle. Both sides then go home, with a few getting a few weeks/months of prison, all thinking their action mattered and saved the country from imminent destruction. Let the stupid extremists neutralize each others, none of us need them.

He he, xkcd – ’nuff said 😛

More seriously, it’s funny to see these extremists being in the same “victory/defeat”, “win/lose”, “superior/inferior” mindset – there is no alternative, you’re either for or against them, you’re either inferior or superior to them – like there is only bad people against them, and they’re the “good guys”.

Everything is in binary, everything is a conflict, the whole world suddenly becomes manichaean, the very idea of having your own complex opinions, made of several different elements, coming from different sources and “sides”, is forbidden.

You pull the xkcd comic about atheists/fundamentalists, but have you ever had to endure these people for hours, or deal with them regarding public policies/lawmaking ? Fundamentalists will threaten to death doctors doing abortions (and kill some of them), while “atheists” will constantly try to shove down everyone’s throat that “believing in God is stupid, your imaginary friend makes you sound a like a mentally-challenged idiot”, insulting people’s beliefs and cultures “because they are not scientifically proven !” – tolerance is.

Not liking them is not being “superior” or any other conflictual term – it is simply not liking people forcing everyone else to endure their personnal problems.

Pretending that not enjoying obnoxious people is just a way to feel “superior”, is insinuating that we’re playing the same game of forcing other people to endure our behaviour, so we can feel better/superior/in the right.

But I’m sorry, no, not everyone wants to “show everyone I am in the perfect right and you’re in the complete wrong”, not everyone wants to feel superior to people around them, not everyone want to hatefully shout their opinions at random strangers, not everyone need to harass, verbally attack people with different opinions to feel confidence.

But I’m sorry, no, not everyone wants to “show everyone I am in the perfect right and you’re in the complete wrong”, not everyone wants to feel superior to people around them, not everyone want to hatefully shout their opinions at random strangers, not everyone need to harass, verbally attack people with different opinions to feel confidence.

Is there a word for the phenomenon of making yourself feel superior to “extremists” by huffing and puffing about how you don’t care about making yourself feel superior, oh no, you’re just so moderate?

Oh yeah, the golden mean fallacy. Or, as I like to call it, “David Brooks syndrome.”

“David Brooks syndrome”, that’s a good one.

Um, isn’t threatening people an inherent part of fundies? Whereas plenty of atheists want fuck all to do with “you’re a mentally challenged idiot”?

And yes, I have had plenty of experience with both, calling someone stupid // an idiot =/= encouraging murder and actually killing people.

You pull the xkcd comic about atheists/fundamentalists, but have you ever had to endure these people for hours, or deal with them regarding public policies/lawmaking ? Fundamentalists will threaten to death doctors doing abortions (and kill some of them), while “atheists” will constantly try to shove down everyone’s throat that “believing in God is stupid, your imaginary friend makes you sound a like a mentally-challenged idiot”, insulting people’s beliefs and cultures “because they are not scientifically proven !” – tolerance is.

Well, I’m sure the important thing is that you’ve found way to feel superior to both.
—

I mean, you’re right. It’s obvious. But there’s not much more to it than that, and, well, mate…

Why did you decide to say all this instead of taking the time to write about the complex, interesting issues which are infinitely more interesting to for all of us to talk about? 🙂

It’s true that plenty of atheists don’t say such things. On the other hand, I’ve heard “religion is a mental illness” more times than I can count. You’re right, though, that I’ve yet to hear an atheist threaten people for being religious, and the whole “militant atheists are just as bad” meme does get old after a while.

QFT. Best you could say is “asshole fundies and asshole atheists are equally annoying on the internet” but in physical space I’ve never had an atheist come to my door or waylay me in public (thank you Mormon kiddywinks) trying to shove their ideas down my throat, let alone make/imply any threats about now or the hereafter if I didn’t adhere to their beliefs.

Alex, read the whole thread if you have a large chunk of time to kill. The justifications and pretzel logic on display are museum quality.

Herp Derp, Hur Dur ! =O

…

[Part A: you’re nice people]

I’m positively surprised by the friendliness and the humour that followed my previous post 😀

It seems Internet activists can be nice when they’re not doing their duty for the Cause. Even the canadian activist mentionned in the article might be a nice and friendly person, letting the most timid and introverted people talk (no matter what is their gender or opinions) – as long as it’s not about feminism or sexism. The video footage surely doesn’t show that and that’s a shame :s

…

[Part B: ego vs cause]

On the one hand, doing a lot of research on a societal problem and getting deeply involved with a movement (trying to fix that problem) will surely makes the problem a very personal one, and every signal, point of view, that is going against yours, will be perceived as a threat, a direct “attack” at an important of yourself.

But on the other hand, another effort is demanded to activists : they have to control and hold back their “gut” feelings, they have to endure and resist to the attacks and keep being friendly, listening and open-minded people – or they might miss something vital to their Cause, when they’re busy “defending” themselves against all these “attacks” (*1).

To participate to a movement, you have to give away some of your time (and money), but mostly, a lot of your emotional capacity, to the point of binding your ego to the cause, to co-exist with it : every attack on it hurts you like a personal attack, every victory for the movement makes you so happy – the success of the movement greatly influences your self-esteem.

But there’s another price to pay, another burden to carry : you have to suffer for the Cause, to not make the Cause suffer for you instead. Your ego will take all the hits, the movement will take all the glory. That’s disgustingly unfair (for your ego), but that’s how it works.

When you *feel* like punching that bastard in the face, don’t, and focus on staying a friendly, open-minded person, because that bastard isn’t going to change EVER, you don’t even need to interact with him at all. Meanwhile, you truly need to convince people, and punching the bastard in the face isn’t going to work.

The canadian activist mentionned in the article fell for it, (counter-)attacked the MRAs, and looked like a feminazi to the whole world. A few feminists enjoyed the sight, but the vast majority just saw the cold “facts” : an angry person shouting in the face of a small group of people, not listening to them, being rude and verbally violent in front of the cameras. I don’t think feminism needs or wants that, nor that it will contribute to fighting sexism.

(*1) The goal of these attacks is not changing (convincing) common people, it is changing the targeted activists, at least how they look to the common people. People don’t know the context, don’t know the history, don’t know the topic, they only see the current “facts” : if you punch back an enemy who previously beat you up, people only saw your punch and you become the aggressor. Trying to explain the context isn’t going to fix it (people don’t listen, and the first impression stays), the damage is done.

…

[Part C: the superiority question]

“Is there a word for the phenomenon of making yourself feel superior to “extremists” by huffing and puffing about how you don’t care about making yourself feel superior, oh no, you’re just so moderate?

Oh yeah, the golden mean fallacy. Or, as I like to call it, “David Brooks syndrome.”
”

Again, so much focus on the ego (superior/inferior), that everyone in the discussion “must be trying to be superior”. Feminists “trying to be superior” with their arguments, statistics and facts, MRAs “trying to be superior” with their arguments, statistics and facts – whatever the reason you joined the discussion, whatever your opinion, you’re trying to feel superior, obviously.

And that game never stops:
“Ha ! quoting the golden mean fallacy, using some humour on the side… Your whole post is only there to make you feel superior: it doesn’t contribute to the discussion at all.

So, now that you feel the smartest person on earth with your meta-wit, can we get back on topic ? this is a serious discussion, not the place for you to show off your superior intelligence”

-> there, your turn ! :V

(nb: I’m kidding)

[Part C bis: what are the “inferior” opinions ?]

Also, if you were wondering, my opinion is not “the perfect one”, let alone the “middle one”, it is only my own:

I’m for a proactive intervention of the state in these matters, not using more fines/punishment (keeping that system for proven harassment and discrimination), but instead by setting up a system of incentives (certifications + no additional tax) and showing an example with the public services and the government.

= Maybe it would be the most efficient approach, maybe not – some people don’t want the state to intervene there, as the problem resides in the people first and foremost, so only the people can work it out (according to these opinions). I think the state has to step in. Who’s right ? Who’s the best ? It is not possible to know, and actually heavily depends on the situation (I guess).

I’m also in favour of mirrored equality between men and women, only using positive discrimination in very few, specific cases (where the discrimination is de facto way too important to be reduced by setting up an equal system) and for a limited period of time (that can be extended, if the situation didn’t change or worsened).

= Again, I have no idea if it would actually be the best approach. Some people don’t think that a mirrored equality is the right way to go (= we should keep *some* differences, especially with parenting, or physical capacity), some people think positive discrimination is THE solution, while some people really hate the very concept of discrimination (= I used to be one of these people, but finally accepted some cases justify positive discrimination).

But if you really want my very personal opinion, yes, I think that “men are all assholes and should be castrated, they’re a threat to humanity” (feminazis) and “women are noisy bitches who only need to shut the fuck up and make an effort” (MRAs) opinions are inferior to all the opinions:
– approaching the problem with full respect for both men and women,
– keeping an open-mind and open-ears : accepting that different opinions exist and might be right on some elements
– not seeing the problem as a conflict between men and women
=> basically all opinions trying to find solutions, rather than trying to find reasons to divide.

That’s thousands, hell, millions of different opinions, coming from billions of people around the world. The fact that I do believe that my opinion is part of that group, doesn’t make it any better than all the other ones belonging to that group.

I perfectly know some people out there have much better solutions to sexism (hopefully they do !), and love to find out about them (I stop counting the times I was fascinated by the sheer genius of some human rights activists).

Like when some professors changed the name of the courses at their university (doesn’t seem to be that important, right ?), dodging the social stigma associated with the previous terms – suddenly, more or less unconsciously, plenty of students (female students) could choose these courses and fulfill themselves, proving once again that they’re just as capable as men regarding intellectual activities (the discussion now being the way scientists work – it seems that there’s slight differences between genders, regarding the methods/logics – one more reason to have both genders on board).

…

[Part D: so, what are these interesting issues ?]

“Why did you decide to say all this instead of taking the time to write about the complex, interesting issues which are infinitely more interesting to for all of us to talk about?”

1. Because this is the comment of an article, so readers are expected to comment on the subject of the article.

The article is about a canadian feminist activist being harassed and threatened online, after a video of an altercation she had with MRAs was released on Youtube.

2. Because it is a much bigger debate, and directly engaging the discussion on one of its aspect*² will be tainted by the article’s subject (harassment of a feminist activist), because people read that article and scroll through the comments (most about the incident/subject), so they’ll get into the discussion with these elements in mind.

It doesn’t provide the perfect setting for a calm and intelligent discussion of a subject (= some people will bring out the death threats every time someone criticize feminism, some people will pretend feminists are all angrily shouting at people’s faces, etc).

*² from the original post: “[…] (stuff like social stigmas, social exclusion, social roles, how we’re dealing with the definition of feminity and masculinity, who’s carrying/transmitting/defending these elements (men/women, media/families) and who should do what instead, etc – and what/where should we focus our effort into shaping a new balanced, fair and simple system) […]”

To be more precise, let’s take an example : What is the current (global, undetailled) definition of feminity in our western societies and how it collides with the working environment system ?

Especially regarding promotions/raises, where aggressivity and direct confrontation are valued over pure performance/non-visible efforts (= passive elements), and how much of that phenomenon is responsible of the pay gap (which is a complex problem, not just “the Men keeping the women down – Fight The Men Sista !” ; don’t get me wrong, sexism still weighs in, the question is how much), in each sector/type of job ?
And finally, what could we do to change the corporate culture so it takes into account the overall less active-aggressive behaviour of women employees ?

We can also later move to “Are women favoring quality of life over raw pay (more than men) ?”, debating what constitutes QoL: is parenting part of QoL ? (*insert joke about unruly kids here*), then branching off to equality in parenting (parenting being a negative and positive element at the same time), especially since we now have families and kids with non-heterosexual parents (= both genders can fully be parents, there’s no denying that).

But such discussions are much less “sexy” ( The equivalent of the “lesbian fantasy”, butt [sic] with male characters, for people attracted to male characters. Usually more focused on emotions/relationships than sex (nb: some lesbian fantasy media focus on emotions, some yaoi have an awful lot of sex), mostly enjoyed by young female individuals (but not only).

Missing from the western culture (the so-called “porn for women” is pretty inexistent, the only erotic materials available are mostly text-based = not much visual erotica for women)(nb: there’s gay porn, but it’s targeted at a gay audience, not women).

It comes from the asian/japanese culture, where homosexuality is treated differently – taboo nonetheless, but not associated with filth as much as in the western societies, where religion played a big role in shaping the intolerance to non-heterosexual relationship, calling it disgusting, unholy, etc.

It’s a more-than-healthy form of media, representing homosexual relationships and their sexuality as humane, with all kind of emotions, slowly but surely reinstating their normality and social acceptability – directly among the female (or gay) readers, indirectly among the entire western societies.

…

ps: for the sake of clarity, I think it is preferable to mention to which [Part A/B/C/D/E] you’re answering to (if your post comments on something I wrote in this post).

ps²: Thanks for taking the time to read that post, ‘Herp Derp’ out ! :V

Holy shit, tl;dr! Also, I didn’t actually want your thoughts on yaoi, let alone a fucking master’s thesis in it. It’s a meme.

That is the weirdest comment I have ever seen on Man Boobz.