Davis Aurini admits he never actually watched any of Anita Sarkeesian’s videos

@ Mike:

I feel like I’ve seen a lot of GG/freeze peach/anti-feminist/etc. types insisting that there should realistically be some single piece of scientific evidence that succinctly shows all the potential relationships between art/media and real-world actions, and then insisting that without this single piece of research, we should all just assume that art and media actually have no effect on peoples’ actions. This is A) an intellectually-lazy deferral to the status quo;

I am not sure if it is a deferral to the status quo, or defaulting to the negative position being true (instead of saying “it is an unknown and more research is required”). Either way it is intellectually lazy and fallacious

B) an example of misapplied quasi-religious faith in the omniscience of scientific research (as if an incredibly complex subject – the relationship between art and life – which has occupied countless thinkers for thousands of years could be easily wrapped-up with just a bit of research)

Another issue is that there is also a view that the social sciences aren’t a “real science”, so any of the results can be dismissed. It happens enough that I have seen a few feminists on YouTube spend time defending the social sciences.

I don’t really get the male disposability thing. Yes, men are more likely to fight in a war. But women have always been expected to risk death to have babies. We’re expected to do the majority of unpaid labor in the household, even when we also have full time paid jobs. We’re expected to provide emotional support for men without asking for the same emotional support in return. Movie actresses are churned out and replaced once they hit thirty while male actors have decades long careers as leading men. Women are treated as background props without names or personalities, often as sex workers and/or victims of violence all across popular culture. Hobbies and interests coded female are derided as shallow and frivolous despite being no more so than many male coded pursuits. We’re more likely to be pressured into starvation or plastic surgery because our perfectly healthy and normal flesh is considered diseased and abhorrent if it doesn’t meet beauty standards. Suffering for beauty is often considered the price of womanhood.

I could go on, but my bus stop is coming.

Found the Warren Farrell stuff I mentioned. TW for statutory rape and general ewww.

the writer happened to be at his beach house alone with his attractive fifteen-year-old daughter […] His wife’s appendix operation had curtailed his sex for the previous five months […] the women on the beach and a few beers had led him into special temptation. When the daughter emerged from the bathroom in a towel, he greeted her in the nude and erect. Although he had never consciously desired incest before, he told his daughter he missed sex. Without further prompting, she fellated him […]Two weeks later the daughter walked around the house naked until the father approached her. That day he deflowered her to their mutual satisfaction. But the father was careful not to push things. He did not want to hurt his daughter, who seemed to have an active sex life with boys her own age. Several weeks later, the daughter took the initiative again

It’s also so fucking stupid, on top of being gross and terrible. How exactly was the daughter taking the initiative, when he “greeted her in the nude and erect”? That sounds like the father taking the initiative to do something horrible. Also, he “deflowered” her even though she was already having “an active sex life”. Okay. I guess that’s technically possible, but seems incompatible with what MRAs would usually consider sex. And he was “careful not to push things”, yet he raped his own daughter. That’s not pushing things at all.

All the ewws in the world. Ewwwww.

WeirwoodTreeHugger:
And male disposability is only an important issue unless feminists are trying to get women allowed in combat roles in the military, then women just aren’t capable. Or if we point out jobs like mining and construction in modern times in western culture actively exclude women with harassment if they’re even hired, then men deserve places that are just theirs. Those are jobs where men can be men.

How exactly was the daughter taking the initiative, when he “greeted her in the nude and erect”? That sounds like the father taking the initiative to do something horrible.

It sounds to me like the he was grooming his daughter or molesting her but hadn’t worked his way up to rape quite yet. Then, when caught he spun a Lolita tale. There’s just no way in hell a 15 year old would offer sex to a parent out of nowhere. If it was offered at all, it’s because some form of incest or grooming is already occurring.

Not enough shudders in the world.

Yeah, sorry folks, but I’m going to bow out of this thread. That Warren Farell stuff isn’t doing me any good and is actually making me really sick to my stomach and I’m pushing down flashbacks.

I’m gonna go play Minecraft until I stop freaking out.

(Not your fault, IP, you did put a trigger warning on it, but I still read it. So, mea culpa.)

I mean, yes it does make sense that someone whose combat style seems to involve dives and slides and speed would wear skintight pants

No, this actually doesn’t make sense, as hundred of thousands of martial artists will tell you. When practicing martial arts, you want clothes that fit but are not tight, let alone clothes that are skintight. Unless you’re wearing actual spandex you are restricting your freedom of movement, not improving it, and you’re risking a torn seam and a wardrobe malfunction. There is nothing there that “makes sense” when loose-fitting pants exist.

I have literally never in my life heard the argument that some male action character that was clothed from neck to toes is breaking the laws of logic for having clothes on, because OBVIOUSLY someone who is going to move around a lot should be practically naked. Literally, I have never heard that argument made. I’ve heard the reverse, that half-naked women are logical because: freedom of movement, a bazillion times, but never, never that fully-clothed men are illogical for the same reason.

@PoM et al, re: Tracer:

I always took it to be like an Olympic speed skater. Very much fits her style and how she behaves, her goggles and clothing match it. Of all the women in the game, I find Tracer’s outfit (one of the) the most reasonable.

The egyptian security chief with massive armour that includes shoulders that make her wider than she is tall, a skinny waist and an *armoured thong*, though? That can go right to hell.

As for Galt and that… i might comment in a bit, though everyone’s already said most everything interesting. Brony, you are an analytical machine!

I always took it to be like an Olympic speed skater.

Olympic speed skaters wear actual spandex. I suppose it’s plausible if someone started out as a speed skater (or a competitive biker, or some other sport with a similar spandex uniform) in our real world and then somehow moved into being an action hero. It’s not really plausible for someone who doesn’t have that kind of sporting background to just alight on the idea of hey, today I’ll wear spandex that shows off everything! Because that’s what came to mind before martial arts pants did! However …

Very much fits her style and how she behaves, her goggles and clothing match it. Of all the women in the game, I find Tracer’s outfit (one of the) the most reasonable.

I’m also not a fan of sexualization by backstory. You could, in theory, kit out your curvy female character with spandex and say that she was an Olympic speed skater before X happened to her and forced her into action heroism. Then you’d have a rationale that makes sense, but what still doesn’t make sense is why you, as a creator, elected to give your character that backstory, when you could have given her literally any other backstory that would come with sensible clothes.

womens work has always been dangerous, ie little girls died from pollutants in textile mills.

Dissection #2, ” Once You Go Galt, You Can’t Default” on page 2.

While responding to OoglyBoggles who was rationally pointing out that a 100+ year old social movement is going to have more individual diversity than one around a year old Galt displays some rather interesting defaults of their own.

Lol, you mean like Valeri Solanas? Yeah, she was definitely just one of the bad ones; she wasn’t a more honest adherent of your warped ideology or anything.

It’s like OoglyBoogles was predicting the future when they mentioned people having trouble separating people who want the power dynamic flipped versus eliminated (and I would still want to see a source on that one).

The fact is, is that you people are hardly any different from other established hate-groups when you get down to it, think about it; the KKK thinks that black people are oppressing them, they talk about black crime rates and everything else, why does feminism get off scot-free when they all talk about how men are the cause of everything bad in the world, and talk about rates of rape and violent crimes amongst men?

Note how they simultaneously portray the idea of being bigoted against a group as bad while they are bigoted against the posters here? Using concepts important to social justice against people who care about social justice is pretty common, but fortunately the misuse of the concepts is pretty much standard in the minds of people for whom they were developed.

*Because it is true that groups do oppress other groups the idea of group oppression itself needs to be attacked by people that don’t want to see others eliminate social power imbalances. So because the KKK uses psychological projection to fantasize about black people being responsible for oppressing them, it’s bad to point out when a group of people really is responsible for a majority percentage of a social problem.

*Feminism does not say that “…men are the cause of everything bad in the world…”. It’s more like “As a historically dominant class of people men have historically established social advantages that people take advantage of and use to do bad things and defend themselves from facing consequences for doing bad things.”

And then you try to play the whole “we care about men too” card, bu t when men try to discuss their issues, you show up in real-time and do shit like pull fire alarms, then have the nerve to whine about “sea lions” and shit.

That fire alarm should not have been pulled.
That being said this is Galt acting like we are all responsible for that pulled fire alarm because they have data showing that feminists are responsible for suppression of discussion of men’s issues like there is data showing that men are responsible for most rapes./s

Meanwhile it’s still very common to see the comments sections of articles on the internet talking about women’s problems get attention from people that fill the space with lots of information about men’s problems.

It’s all so convenient; you insist that anti-feminists are all terrible people and use the worst of us as examples (and then do everything in your power to make the best of us look like bigots, by taking everything we say out of context), but whenever someone does it to you, you’re all “NO that person is nut a feminist!”

*It’s pretty easy to portray anti-feminists badly because because feminism is about elimination of power imbalances so every example of an anti-feminist that I have seen has ended up being a person with legitimately messed up values, beliefs and actions, like someone who de facto defends rapists by referencing the fantasies of KKK members because they can’t stand that someone is pointing out that men do most of the raping. If you define yourself by what you are not you better make sure you do a good job of knowing what that thing is. But if you have an example of someone damaged by anti-feminist bigotry I’ll consider it.
*I don’t see people saying that Valeri Solanas was not a feminist. I see people criticizing her feminism and some of what they wanted feminism to be about, but I don’t see them saying they are not a feminist.

Big TW: description of grooming, victim blaming

Yeah, it totally sounds like he’d been grooming his daughter for sex and gradually increased the severity of the abuse over time.

The abuser will usually tell the story like the first sex act happened “out of the blue.” It’s more likely he started touching her and it got progressively worse until he could get her to do what he expects her to do. Then he can rationalize that “she wanted it” etc.

@Galt

In regards to male suicides, you say, and I quote: “Feminists have done far more to help male suicide rates.”
I’d just like to respond with another quotes someone has posted on this page: “Yeah if you’re going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up.”
You’re not at all interested in stopping male suicides, you’re interested in CAUSING them; you fail to account for men’s educational needs, leaving them at the mercy of a society that has increasingly come to value education and technological competence as technological advances render men’s labor obsolete.

You left out:
1) The part where you show that Moocow was not interested in stopping male suicides.
2) In the unlikely event that Moocow was not interested in stopping male suicides you neglect the logic that shows how a lack of political focus demonstrates an intention to actively increase male suicide.

Instead, you focus almost EXCLUSIVELY on women’s educational “needs” like you trying to force them to take in interest in the STEM fields and such.

Where is Moocow trying to force people into STEM?

You support a corrupt family court system and no-fault divorces which leave men at the mercy of capricious women and the courts that cater to their every whim, by forcibly extracting hard-earned money from the pockets of men and dropping it into the pockets of parasites and their dead-beat boyfriends.

Where Moocow supporting a system that discriminates based on sex in divorce?

You support a system that can force a man and ONLY a man to fight or die for his country at any time, and care little about the problems that these men face when they come home, because you’re too busy giving psychiatric resources to undeserving women.

Where is Moocow supporting a military that only wants to enlist men?
Where is Moocow arguing for unwise distribution of medical resources?

Don’t piss on my lawn and tell me you’re a sprinkler.

If you become better at showing where someone has been pissing I’ll consider spreading the word about the problem of sprinkler disguises.