Topic: The feminist hate machine rolls on. Feminists against gay men.
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 started this discussion 12 years ago #33,375
http://jezebel.com/the-myth-of-the-fag-hag-and-dirty-secrets-of-the-gay-ma-1506868402
> When we talk about gay male privilege, it's important that as gay men, we understand any of us could've been–or currently are–perpetrators of this culture, simply by being.
> gay male privilege
Ahahahahahhaha. Feminists are now pissed at gay guys. Holy shit, are libs in some sort of race to claim they're in the smallest sub-group and all other groups above them are privileged and discriminating against them?
Hopefully they all eat each other.
> When we talk about gay male privilege, it's important that as gay men, we understand any of us could've been–or currently are–perpetrators of this culture, simply by being.
> gay male privilege
Ahahahahahhaha. Feminists are now pissed at gay guys. Holy shit, are libs in some sort of race to claim they're in the smallest sub-group and all other groups above them are privileged and discriminating against them?
Hopefully they all eat each other.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 18 hours later[^] [v] #462,259
Are you Dr. Autphag?
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 47 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,262
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 34 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,263
@previous (ShitArse !saAqdaazn2)
Is your long-running virginity the source of your unending butthurt?
Is your long-running virginity the source of your unending butthurt?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 51 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,266
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,276
This picture is far too accurate.Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,321
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,331
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,637
Well no fucking shit they're taking a fucking critical look at us! We've been getting a total pass on misogyny for decades, even in places where straight guys would get shut down for doing the same thing. Also, being gay doesn't erase any sort of racial, gender, gender identity, ability, or class privilege.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,638
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Make a tumblr post about it, you fucking screeching faggot.
Make a tumblr post about it, you fucking screeching faggot.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,648
OP needs to get laid
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,682
obviously bcaus gay men take dick away from them
Meta joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,686
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,693
@previous (Meta)
Yeah, but we mustn't talk about that because it's the fountainhead of female privilege.
Yeah, but we mustn't talk about that because it's the fountainhead of female privilege.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,698
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 53 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,705
@previous (Meta)
> "women and children first"
> patriarch-eeeee!
Classic Orwellian doublethink. Protip: this is how real propaganda works.
> "women and children first"
> patriarch-eeeee!
Classic Orwellian doublethink. Protip: this is how real propaganda works.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #462,843
@462,638 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
I will legit fucking throw you into the var. The same one that Luke Akehurst will eventually succumb to. The var. The var.
@462,686 (Meta)
I never got that impression, really. It just points out a phenomenon specific to white cis gay men - or, at least, that's how I interpreted it.
@previous (L)
"Women and children first" is more of a matter of dickwaving about who's more chivalrous and honourable than any kind of higher valuation of non-men.
I will legit fucking throw you into the var. The same one that Luke Akehurst will eventually succumb to. The var. The var.
@462,686 (Meta)
I never got that impression, really. It just points out a phenomenon specific to white cis gay men - or, at least, that's how I interpreted it.
@previous (L)
"Women and children first" is more of a matter of dickwaving about who's more chivalrous and honourable than any kind of higher valuation of non-men.
Anonymous L replied with this 12 years ago, 2 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,144
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
> "Women and children first" is more of a matter of dickwaving about who's more chivalrous and honourable than any kind of higher valuation of non-men.
God damn that's a stupid argument. The actions emanating from 'women and children first' explicitly and intentionally benefit women to the detriment of men.
> "Women and children first" is more of a matter of dickwaving about who's more chivalrous and honourable than any kind of higher valuation of non-men.
God damn that's a stupid argument. The actions emanating from 'women and children first' explicitly and intentionally benefit women to the detriment of men.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,146
@462,637 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
> Well no fucking shit they're taking a fucking critical look at us! We've been getting a total pass on misogyny for decades, even in places where straight guys would get shut down for doing the same thing.
Wouldn't this cut both ways though? Have lesbian women been getting a pass on misandry?
> Well no fucking shit they're taking a fucking critical look at us! We've been getting a total pass on misogyny for decades, even in places where straight guys would get shut down for doing the same thing.
Wouldn't this cut both ways though? Have lesbian women been getting a pass on misandry?
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,162
@previous (Meta)
The context to the distrust of men among some lesbian women is highly different from that of the disdain for women found in far too many gay men, really. "A lot of these guys are literally physically dangerous tools to us" is quite different from "I don't want to stick my dick in there".
@463,144 (L)
You say that like I'm not aware of that--
--I'm suggesting that its origin is in ideology that positions men as the only people with agency, let alone meaningful ability to change things.
The context to the distrust of men among some lesbian women is highly different from that of the disdain for women found in far too many gay men, really. "A lot of these guys are literally physically dangerous tools to us" is quite different from "I don't want to stick my dick in there".
@463,144 (L)
You say that like I'm not aware of that--
--I'm suggesting that its origin is in ideology that positions men as the only people with agency, let alone meaningful ability to change things.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,175
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
So prejudice against others is acceptable if you can produce statistics saying X% of Y group does action Z?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying lesbian misogyny is okay because most rapists are men. Gay misogyny is not, though, because gay men aren't in any physical danger from women.
So prejudice against others is acceptable if you can produce statistics saying X% of Y group does action Z?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying lesbian misogyny is okay because most rapists are men. Gay misogyny is not, though, because gay men aren't in any physical danger from women.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,177
@previous (Meta)
Prejudice running contrary to an oppressive structure isn't as harmful on the societal scale, and generally doesn't compare even on the scale of individual aggressions and microaggressions.
Prejudice running contrary to an oppressive structure isn't as harmful on the societal scale, and generally doesn't compare even on the scale of individual aggressions and microaggressions.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,178
@463,175 (Meta)
I'm saying that fear of men outright doesn't have the same catastrophically damaging effects or massive reach as institutionalised devaluation of women sustained through individual hatred and disdain.
I'm saying that fear of men outright doesn't have the same catastrophically damaging effects or massive reach as institutionalised devaluation of women sustained through individual hatred and disdain.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,185
@463,177 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Prejudice breeds more prejudice, though. Even if it's "good" prejudice. Now, of course this doesn't apply to individuals. If a man rapes a woman the woman has every right to hate him and (in my view at least) castrate him with a pair of wire cutters if she wishes. But to fear and despise all men because some men do rape is nonsensical to me. It would be like being anti-German because some of them are Neo-Nazis (hell, some were real Nazis). It's fine not to associate with Nazis and skinheads, but to fear and loathe all Germans would just be absurd and frankly no better than antisemitism.
Prejudice breeds more prejudice, though. Even if it's "good" prejudice. Now, of course this doesn't apply to individuals. If a man rapes a woman the woman has every right to hate him and (in my view at least) castrate him with a pair of wire cutters if she wishes. But to fear and despise all men because some men do rape is nonsensical to me. It would be like being anti-German because some of them are Neo-Nazis (hell, some were real Nazis). It's fine not to associate with Nazis and skinheads, but to fear and loathe all Germans would just be absurd and frankly no better than antisemitism.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,190
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I don't feel qualified, as a man, to tell women what an appropriate response to systematic misogyny is - if someone's terrified of men, I don't think it's my place to "correct" them.
I don't feel qualified, as a man, to tell women what an appropriate response to systematic misogyny is - if someone's terrified of men, I don't think it's my place to "correct" them.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,197
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
That's fine. I just don't believe broad brush prejudice and stereotyping is right.
That's fine. I just don't believe broad brush prejudice and stereotyping is right.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,199
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Which is understandable! Ideally, it'd never happen anywhere, but where it does, I feel that it's much more important to dismantle the structurally powerful types - the ones formed in response to power-backed prejudice should quickly fall out of prominence due to lack of utility.
Which is understandable! Ideally, it'd never happen anywhere, but where it does, I feel that it's much more important to dismantle the structurally powerful types - the ones formed in response to power-backed prejudice should quickly fall out of prominence due to lack of utility.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,216
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
At what point would you define the old power-backed prejudices as being dismantled?
At what point would you define the old power-backed prejudices as being dismantled?
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,219
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
That's hard to define, beyond "we'd know". I don't currently know how one would judge.
That's hard to define, beyond "we'd know". I don't currently know how one would judge.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,223
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
At any rate, would the "reverse" prejudices stop existing once the power-backed prejudices were curbed?
At any rate, would the "reverse" prejudices stop existing once the power-backed prejudices were curbed?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,280
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 12 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,281
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 57 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,282
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Misandry, anti-white racism, stuff like that (that is, prejudice which is the reverse of most prejudice).
Misandry, anti-white racism, stuff like that (that is, prejudice which is the reverse of most prejudice).
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,283
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,286
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,288
@463,283 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Perhaps that's the wrong term. I'm not sure what the proper/official name for it is.
And yes, it is just prejudice but some people don't like calling it that because that marginalizes what they view as real prejudice.
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Perhaps that's the wrong term. I'm not sure what the proper/official name for it is.
And yes, it is just prejudice but some people don't like calling it that because that marginalizes what they view as real prejudice.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,290
@463,286 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
What is sociological power in terms of prejudice? I only took intro to sociology and that was like three years ago so I'm not entirely fluent in all the minutiae.
What is sociological power in terms of prejudice? I only took intro to sociology and that was like three years ago so I'm not entirely fluent in all the minutiae.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,308
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
It's really just a matter of the position of someone in the power structures surrounding them — essentially an issue of how much social force someone's actions and speech can have.
It's really just a matter of the position of someone in the power structures surrounding them — essentially an issue of how much social force someone's actions and speech can have.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,377
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
So, lets say we have an internet nazi neckbeard basement life loser who posts all day on Stormfront about white nationalism. How much sociological power does he have?
So, lets say we have an internet nazi neckbeard basement life loser who posts all day on Stormfront about white nationalism. How much sociological power does he have?
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,385
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
The forfeiture of any pretense of respectability by means of openly associating with ideology which is declared by the modern liberal consensus, rather dishonestly, to be utterly in the past, does put a check on their level of direct influence, to some extent - but terrible ideology bred in shitholes like Stormfront can be propagated outwards from its periphery by more respectable members of that online community, so on so forth. It's also important to note that Stormfront Dude will probably have an easier time creating a pretense of objectivity than, say, a Black person getting rightfully enraged over the violently racist rhetoric being put out by our fairly calm Stormfront dudebro.
The forfeiture of any pretense of respectability by means of openly associating with ideology which is declared by the modern liberal consensus, rather dishonestly, to be utterly in the past, does put a check on their level of direct influence, to some extent - but terrible ideology bred in shitholes like Stormfront can be propagated outwards from its periphery by more respectable members of that online community, so on so forth. It's also important to note that Stormfront Dude will probably have an easier time creating a pretense of objectivity than, say, a Black person getting rightfully enraged over the violently racist rhetoric being put out by our fairly calm Stormfront dudebro.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,394
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
But who has more sociological power: the Stormfront basement neckbeard, or a black supremacist in the Nation of Islam?*
*Recognized as a racist and antisemitic organization by the SPLC, just like Stormfront.
But who has more sociological power: the Stormfront basement neckbeard, or a black supremacist in the Nation of Islam?*
*Recognized as a racist and antisemitic organization by the SPLC, just like Stormfront.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 57 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,399
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Probably the Stormfront dude, in usual fields of discourse - he has all sorts of racist narratives that he can pull out that tons of fellow white people will often be receptive to.
Probably the Stormfront dude, in usual fields of discourse - he has all sorts of racist narratives that he can pull out that tons of fellow white people will often be receptive to.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,400
@463,162 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
> --I'm suggesting that its origin is in ideology that positions men as the only people with agency, let alone meaningful ability to change things.
If you honestly believe that you are hopelessly brainwashed. Hypo-agency is far more powerful than simple agency is. It's the very reason men only ever enjoy real power in war and crisis.
> --I'm suggesting that its origin is in ideology that positions men as the only people with agency, let alone meaningful ability to change things.
If you honestly believe that you are hopelessly brainwashed. Hypo-agency is far more powerful than simple agency is. It's the very reason men only ever enjoy real power in war and crisis.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,407
@463,399 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Outside of places like Stormfront, though, most people would be repulsed. Do you seriously believe an open neo-nazi would get very far in today's society? They'd have to keep their racism deeply closeted and confined to online groups and perhaps a few very trusted friends in real life.
Wearing a "white pride world wide" badge would quickly make you into an untouchable, to put it mildly.
Outside of places like Stormfront, though, most people would be repulsed. Do you seriously believe an open neo-nazi would get very far in today's society? They'd have to keep their racism deeply closeted and confined to online groups and perhaps a few very trusted friends in real life.
Wearing a "white pride world wide" badge would quickly make you into an untouchable, to put it mildly.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,408
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I fantasize about beating the shit out of White power racists and fascists.
I fantasize about beating the shit out of White power racists and fascists.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,409
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,410
@463,394 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
All races have the right to self-preservation and self-determination. Any suggestion to the contrary is racist in and of itself.
All races have the right to self-preservation and self-determination. Any suggestion to the contrary is racist in and of itself.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,411
@463,408 (O)
This is a healthy worldview. See how their narratives and sociological power hold up to a steel toed boot in the teeth. Racism may be power+prejudice, but justice is 2x4+roofing nails.
This is a healthy worldview. See how their narratives and sociological power hold up to a steel toed boot in the teeth. Racism may be power+prejudice, but justice is 2x4+roofing nails.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,413
Op, you do realize that a gay male wrote this article, right?
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,414
@463,411 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> Beating the shit out of someone
> Healthy world view
Orwellian doublethink. Enjoy your time in the FEMA camps.
> Beating the shit out of someone
> Healthy world view
Orwellian doublethink. Enjoy your time in the FEMA camps.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,415
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 12 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,424
@463,407 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I still hear of that stuff being tolerated quite a lot in many parts of the US - and overt racism against First Nations people, even to the point of Residential School apologism or making excuses for genocidal policies, is widely tolerated in Canada. So yes, someone who openly presented themselves as being a Stormfront person would get shut down quickly, but the mere presence of that ideology anywhere in society is too much.
I still hear of that stuff being tolerated quite a lot in many parts of the US - and overt racism against First Nations people, even to the point of Residential School apologism or making excuses for genocidal policies, is widely tolerated in Canada. So yes, someone who openly presented themselves as being a Stormfront person would get shut down quickly, but the mere presence of that ideology anywhere in society is too much.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,427
@463,415 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
> 2014
> not recognizing the western world is slipping into totalitarianism.
Get informed. The west is the 3rd world of the future.
> 2014
> not recognizing the western world is slipping into totalitarianism.
Get informed. The west is the 3rd world of the future.
ShitArse !saAqdaazn2 (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,434
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,437
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 12 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,442
@463,424 (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
Trailer trash and backwoods hicks still put confederate flags on the back of their trucks, yes, but it's only done by the lowest sort of people, and even then hardly common. I can't remember the last time I saw someone fly a confederate flag or display one.
Theres a lot of pressure for the Washington Redskins to have their team name changed to something ethnically neutral. It does nothing of course to change the 200+ year discrimination/near-genocide of Native Americans, but it shows how far we've come. Likewise, there's pressure to remove the book Huckleberry Finn, because it has a couple hundred instances of what is now considered an ethnic slur in it even though the book was very progressive for its time and Twain wasn't a racist.
As far as the presence of the ideology, can any ideology be removed? How would this even be done?
Trailer trash and backwoods hicks still put confederate flags on the back of their trucks, yes, but it's only done by the lowest sort of people, and even then hardly common. I can't remember the last time I saw someone fly a confederate flag or display one.
Theres a lot of pressure for the Washington Redskins to have their team name changed to something ethnically neutral. It does nothing of course to change the 200+ year discrimination/near-genocide of Native Americans, but it shows how far we've come. Likewise, there's pressure to remove the book Huckleberry Finn, because it has a couple hundred instances of what is now considered an ethnic slur in it even though the book was very progressive for its time and Twain wasn't a racist.
As far as the presence of the ideology, can any ideology be removed? How would this even be done?