|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 1, 2015 23:15:18 GMT
I just noticed I got a like. I had no idea about that either. As you can probably tell, this forum really is a massive leap compared to the old one.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 1, 2015 23:20:05 GMT
Definitely some major differences.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 2, 2015 2:04:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 2, 2015 2:17:43 GMT
Oh Dawkins. So smart in some ways, so dumb in others. In other news, here is one for all you firefly fans...
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 2, 2015 4:36:15 GMT
Except, in that article... Dawkins is the good guy. He says "men's rights movement? Never heard of it. It sounds, uh, silly." And he was defending feminism for once.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 2, 2015 15:35:22 GMT
I wouldn't say he was defending feminism, but he was dismissing the men's rights movement.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 2, 2015 19:08:50 GMT
The article claims that he was giving a kind of basic defense of feminism at the time...
But yeah, mostly you're right.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 2, 2015 19:14:58 GMT
Not attacking feminism and dismissing the men's rights movement isn't quite the same as defending feminism.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 2, 2015 19:37:43 GMT
I think the idea is that is why the question of the mens rights movement came up, because he was talking about feminism.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 2, 2015 19:41:28 GMT
Okay.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 2, 2015 20:26:31 GMT
The Men's Right Movement is so fucking stupid that anyone who isn't a freak would dismiss them. Yes its good that he dismisses them, but I can't give him too many mad props for such a baseline decent behaviour.
Richard Hitchens had the same blind spot on gender issues, where he had a patronising, out dated view of women.
The sexism of the MRA's and the more recent brand of appalling sexist atheists on youtube is far more aggressive, angry and hateful. It's a genuine bitterness and rage towards females.
Dawkins and Hitchen talk shit on gender, but they are ignorant rather than evil or insane about it.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 2, 2015 20:27:56 GMT
At least there is hope for them!
Well. Hitchens is dead. But Dawkins might be coming round, slowly.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Jan 2, 2015 23:57:48 GMT
Nice article on G_G. My favourite is #2. I'd say gaming is more diverse! Have you ever seen feminists stand for a dragon? I ain't ever!
Now, as for Vivian James, it's not (I think) that they'd like female gamers to shut up, it's just how the see "politics". For example, Bioware is making more gay romance options? Stop bringing politics into gaming! As with any imbecile, they see their own organic viewpoint as "rational/neutral" and any other as "enemy propaganda".
Also, fun fact about MRA: I once wanted to give them the benefit of doubt and actually see what they're standing for. But alas, I found literally nothing. All they do is hound feminists and shout "men have it bad too, shut up already!"
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 3, 2015 3:37:04 GMT
Huh. Of course.
The thing that I find ironic is that if MRA types were serious, they wouldn't have a problem with most feminists. They complain about a problem, you think that they'd want to change it. Feminists complain about a problem and want to change it. And arguably both cases have the same cause. But the MRA types, generally, seem to say "we've got it bad too, so shut up and lets keep the status quo." Which is strange if they really care about the problems.
Really, it seems that they don't care about the actual problems. They just don't want to give up certain privileges. This can easily be seen with their talk of "Alphas" and "Betas". They really like the status quo and aren't interested in improving it.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 3, 2015 3:43:09 GMT
Of course not, most of them would like to take certain rights from women if they could.
|
|