SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@lively said:

@4outof5 said:

I obviously can't explain why every person was turned off by all of this, I personally find it smells of people trying to push agendas that really have nothing to do with atheism and skepticism. The petty bickering between the "sides" has certainly limited my involvement in the online atheist community.

Are you suggesting that the atheist community as a whole has been unfriendly or unwelcoming to women?

I don't think the atheist community as a whole is anti-woman, but there is at least a subset that do seem to be that way. That Amazing Atheist video posted earlier is pretty damning, not because the hosts of "The View" aren't obnoxious people and deserving of criticism, but because of how he was punctuating the entire video with angrily shouted exclamations of how these women are "cunts". I don't know how much of that is just him, or if he's just playing to his fanbase but either way it's not great. Those thunderf00t videos don't inspire much confidence either.

Would you say that an even larger issue than those women making fun of a man who had his penis cut off is that they were called cunts afterward? Do you believe that an all male group of hosts would have gotten away with making fun of a woman who had her genitals mutilated? Would they have walked away from the situation with their jobs intact? Would laughing through an apology have been acceptable? Would you have been more outraged if it were males making fun of a female victim?

And as someone who always tries to see the point of view from both sides of an issue, I'm quite happy that my comments on "elevator gate" resulted in people on both sides of the issue attacking my last post. Awesome.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@lively said:

@flindip said:

@lively: Dude, you may want to read up on that Skeptic chick elevator gate stuff. Some woman(Rebecca Watson) didn't like a guy asking her to come back to his hotel room for a cup of coffee. She freaked the fuck out and went on a crusade of sexism for atheist conventions. Even many female atheists were mortified with how Rebecca Watson has handled things.

Don't even fucking go there. If you want to talk over reactionary bullshit, this is a PERFECT example. You may as well start defending "dongle gate."

She went on to describe WHY it came across as creepy

Because she didn't find him sexually attractive?

Seriously though, if a guy follows you into a private space and invites you to spend some time with him, chances are good that he didn't want to be publicly rejected if you said no, rather than he wanted to sexually assault you in a crowed hotel. Not that I'd suggest that any women go back to some random guy's hotel room, but still.

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

@spaceinsomniac:

Why allow it to bother you? Who cares? I'm not always talking as a therapist by the way and I figured my question was rhetorical. It always is in these types of threads. I'm just voicing my amazement.

Well I didn't mean anything personal by that, and I'm not really bothered by any of this. I just find the subject interesting. And even though human nature frequently isn't surprising, I suppose you could argue that it still can be amazing, even when it is predictable.

#4 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

@rebgav said:

@jasonr86: Pretty sure that Darji and Lively are bots, or near enough. Don't go blaming us humans for this mess.

It's not just them. All the videos in response to the videos, the shit this lady takes on a daily basis, all of it. It just amazes me that opinion can be such a hot button issue. It seems so unimportant to me.

This woman decides that almost every single representation of females in video games is sexist or otherwise harmful to women, her opinion continuously appears on gaming news sites and blogs for over a year, and you're surprised that people are bothered by that fact? You're a mental health specialist. How could this surprise you? It's human nature.

@rebgav said:

The part that amazes me is that the Tropes Vs Women videos are so bland, reductive and toothless yet people still manage to muster enough enthusiasm/anger to argue over them. Simply ignoring them seems like a much simpler and more productive reaction.

Go to a feminist internet forum with the most politely worded and humble points to make about issues that negatively affect men, and see how far that gets you. Again, it's human nature.

#5 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@lively said:

I'm curious what your definition of a "pro-sex" feminist is, and how Anita is some kind of extremist anti-sex feminist?

If you could provide a source that's NOT a YouTube video, that would probably make your argument more credible :)

I'm curious how you have no knowledge of sex-positive feminism, or think that a published author who has a PhD is somehow not a credible source because she appears in a you tube video.

But a few moments with google turned this up, which should hopefully satisfy your requirements:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/16/interview-with-a-sex-positive-feminist/

As a sex-positive feminist, I sometimes feel very much under attack from feminists who feel that my sexuality or my sex life are “not really feminist” or are even “harmful to women”. I’m not in porn and I’m not especially linked to porn — except inasmuch as porn is a general sex-positive issue; and I also believe that both free speech and sex workers' rights are really important.

But I am into BDSM, and that can cause no end of trouble. BDSM is a highly stigmatized sexual identity in much of society, and I’m kinda used to that stigma … but there’s something that especially hurts about other feminists attacking me for it. If some random person says I’m a broken human being because I’m into BDSM, that’s easier to bear than if another feminist says that — or even worse, if another feminist tells me that I’m a bad feminist or that I’m betraying other women or that I can’t possibly know what I want, all because of my sexual identity. (And make no mistake, other feminists do say those things. Recently, a history of the classic feminist "Ms. Magazine" quoted a co-founding editor who said that she “threatened to leave” when the magazine considered publishing an essay by a woman who identified as sexually masochistic.)

As for the present … right now, I think women are encouraged to be into sex, but we’re encouraged to be into sex in a very performative way, and we also aren’t supposed to be too excited about sex, because then we’re seen as “easy” or “slutty”. There’s nothing wrong with doing sexy things because you like looking sexy, but I think a lot of women feel as though we MUST look sexy in a certain way, and that’s really limiting and stifling. On the one hand, if we don’t seem to enjoy sex in this very performative way then we’re seen as “prudes”; at the same time, if we seem to enjoy sex too much then we’re seen as “sluts”. It’s a tightrope.

So, with this in mind, what is the difference between telling a woman how she should dress, how much skin she should show, or how she should behave when it comes to her sexuality, and criticizing a fictional character for how she has been dressed, how much skin she shows, or how she behaves when it comes to her sexuality?

Can you really criticize one without criticizing the other? If you criticize a female character for their appearance or behavior, aren't you also criticizing any woman who chooses to dress or behave in a similar fashion?

#6 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

To get off the topic of race, and back to something that at least slightly resembles the issue at hand, I allow me to present this quote that came from the comments section of the Dragon's Crown article in Patrick's weekly worth reading feature.

"Of course, the problem here... is that the exaggeration of the men tends to emphasize their power and intimidation, whereas the focus on the ladies isn't on muscles or combat prowess but rather their sexual attributes."

I think the mistake you're walking into here is in assuming that 'power and intimidation' aren't traditional sexual attributes as applied to men. In fact they absolutely are, and I have lost count of the times I have seen men, including myself, being shamed for not meeting those standards at all times in all ways.

Is this a fair point? Why or why not? Should I, as a man, not be allowed to feel at all inferior or inadequate while playing whichever "male power fantasy" that happens to be in my console at the time? Should we be protected from unrealistically or overly sexualized representations of females, while men should just suck it up and be happy that they at least get to "pretend" to be the handsome, charming, muscular hero?

@darji said:

I know people do not like him but he really speaks the truth about this. This is not ok and never should be ok.

I don't like him, as he's kind of a belligerent prick in pretty much all of his videos--including this one--but he's absolutely right. If a woman told her husband that she wanted a divorce, and the husband responded by taking a knife and cutting up her vagina, and then then the male hosts of Sports Center or something laughed at that situation, every last one of those motherfuckers would be as good as fired before the cameras stopped rolling, and you know it. That really was a massive double standard.

#7 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@therealmoot said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@therealmoot said:

Second: Yes, this new law is hell of scary. But if it will break down on stupid s*** like this from happening again I fully endorse it.

Well, you know if we just cut off the penis of every man, and sew shut every woman's vagina, we could completely eliminate rape. Yes, that would be hell of scary, but if it would stop rape from happening again, I fully endorse it.

...

On that note, here's another modest propostal that you might enjoy: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

Well that's a little extreme. And the second part? Way to extreme / insane. There's no correct answer to any of this, bullying is a constant. It will always be.

All of this is extreme, and that is my point. Just because there is a solution to a problem, that doesn't mean that the benefits of that solution will outweigh the harm it causes.

And by the way, in some awful parts of the world, women really do have their vaginas temporarily sewn shut to prevent pre-marital sex and ensure a virgin bride. But that's not an even remotely acceptable solution to teen pregnancy, just like this is not an acceptable solution to online bullying.

#8 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

Second: Yes, this new law is hell of scary. But if it will break down on stupid s*** like this from happening again I fully endorse it.

Well, you know if we just cut off the penis of every man, and sew shut every woman's vagina, we could completely eliminate rape. Yes, that would be hell of scary, but if it would stop rape from happening again, I fully endorse it.

...

On that note, here's another modest propostal that you might enjoy: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

I fucking LOVE George Michael. Even with his latest album from 2004, the man still knows how to write a damn fine pop song.

#10 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3632 posts) -

@pudge said:

I'm in no matter who Sly gets, but considering how little of a role Bruce had in both the first ones, this is no great loss, and if it means fitting in another action star, all the better!

But really now. Steven Seagal has got to get in on this at some point. That's all I really want.

I want to see him in a karaoke scene.