# Free Bleeding - New Feminist Protest Movement



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

http://modernwomandigest.com/disturbing-new-feminist-trend-free-bleeding/

Says it all. Politics? Protest? What?


----------



## User Name (Feb 5, 2014)




----------



## wheresthefbomb (Feb 5, 2014)

no, this is pure bullshit. the article has no sources and offers no evidence, did you just take their ridiculous claims at face value? a quick google search explains all, this is in fact a campaign to discredit feminism, which does much more to discredit itself when you check out the odious sexism of the forum comments. 

https://www.dailydot.com/lol/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/


----------



## Discoqueen (Feb 5, 2014)

I think more what's more interesting here, if we look into the author more we can find... this: 
https://www.facebook.com/gothsforchrist

Edit: Taken from their page


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 6, 2014)

Even reading the article made me feel...uncomfortable.

Not the free bleeding crap (most feminist endorse things like menstrual cups, and are opposed to shit like tampons and pads because in North America we bleach them. and that has nasty side effect for vaginas) but her codemning of it. Not because simply bleeding all over the place is nasty. Whatever the source. 

But because women are dirty? and we should be ashamed of our bodies? and the bible? 

..... That. Shit. That is way more ....ed up then if retards were actually, "free bleeding."


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 6, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> no, this is pure bullshit. the article has no sources and offers no evidence, did you just take their ridiculous claims at face value? a quick google search explains all, this is in fact a campaign to discredit feminism, which does much more to discredit itself when you check out the odious sexism of the forum comments.
> 
> https://www.dailydot.com/lol/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/



I tend to let feminism discredit itself


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Feb 8, 2014)

CrushingAnvil said:


> I tend to let feminism discredit itself



congratulations on missing the point, feminism is direly important to both men and women and shit like this is part of an ongoing to campaign to discredit feminism as radical man-hating insanity.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 8, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> congratulations on missing the point, feminism is direly important to both men and women and shit like this is part of an ongoing to campaign to discredit feminism as radical man-hating insanity.



Just as socialism also is directly important to all people? Or liberalism? Or conservatism?

It's a political ideology dude, and as such, it does not hold a deeper truth that non-feminists cannot access. It's just as valid being a non-feminist as being a feminist. Feminists will claim it isn't, but then, isn't that the case with all political ideologies?


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 8, 2014)

This article is simply crap reporting on a crap website. "Extreme Feminists" isn't remotely enough information. Who advocates to do this? Why do they advocate it? Do they claim there is a benefit? 

I have no comment on the subject. If you want to be taken seriously, report in a respectful manner and use quotes/sources. I'd say the same for anything.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 8, 2014)

go redwings


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 8, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> congratulations on missing the point, feminism is direly important to both men and women and shit like this is part of an ongoing to campaign to discredit feminism as radical man-hating insanity.



then please point out what feminism has done to address the problems of men in western society? its funny how we're told throughout education that feminism helps both sexes but its never demonstrated to be anything other than pure woman's advocacy (i.e. perpetuating female victimhood through a non-traditional frame).


----------



## Svava (Feb 8, 2014)

What in the furry, orange, marsupial F*CK is this SH*T?

My stages of WTF-ness










Follow by rejection

Horrible Acceptance





Then Finally, total breakdown.






May god have mercy on us all.


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 8, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> then please point out what feminism has done to address the problems of men in western society? its funny how we're told throughout education that feminism helps both sexes but its never demonstrated to be anything other than pure woman's advocacy (i.e. perpetuating female victimhood through a non-traditional frame).



One of the primary victories of the first wave feminist movement was campaigning for voting equality for women. Civil rights and gay rights activists have been pretty vocal in the past about how the tactics and methods of the women's rights activists informed them of the best way to make a push for racial and sexual equality. Even Richard Dawkins cites the feminist movement as the best possible model for atheist advocacy in _The God Delusion_, as the women's rights movement has in the past been surprisingly effective in pushing for major social change in a relatively short period of time. Women's rights contributed to a greater overall level of social inclusion, including for men.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the women's rights movement is deliberately and unselfishly attempting to advance men's rights as well as women's. But looking at the women's rights movement and saying ...



Ibanezsam4 said:


> then please point out what feminism has done to address the problems of men in western society?



... pretty heavily misses the point because it seems that you're looking for specific incidents of feminists deliberately helping only men. That's a pretty narrow view. From a broader perspective, the feminist movement's campaigns to give girls equal access to education (which wasn't the case in the past in Western society and still isn't the case in many more countries currently outside Western society), leads to a larger social benefit from having a larger pool of potential doctors, teachers, police officers, mathematicians, engineers, etc, etc. Is this a deliberate act of solving the problems of men in western society? No. Have men benefited from the contributions of women in fields from which they were traditionally locked out, such as science and medicine? Yes. 

Then again, I'd say if you equate women's advocacy with "perpetuating female victimhood" you're not actually interested in learning anything about the contributions of the women's rights movement to society and politics. 

If you're primary concern is the current level of men's rights in society, then you should do good work to campaign for those rights. Discrediting feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with men's rights, and attempting to discredit the feminist movement as a means of advancing men's rights is like political parties attempting to discredit their opponents as a means of promoting themselves: it's baseless, shallow, and fails to contribute anything positive to society. This is why I can't spend more than five minutes on that 'Voice for Men' site. It seems to be 80% insulting feminists and feminism, 15% self-promotion as a 'men's rights' movement, and 5% highlighting actual problems men have in today's society without offering any attempt at solving those problems beyond screaming "Fuck feminism!".


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 9, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> congratulations on missing the point, feminism is direly important to both men and women and shit like this is part of an ongoing to campaign to discredit feminism as radical man-hating insanity.



My own ethical thesis, called humanism (not to be confused with Humanism), values human rights. It's forward thinking, unlike feminism. What happens if and-or when feminism completes its 'mission'? People will just continue being feminists? What does that say? That females constantly need to be coddled? Whoever negged me for my post can jog right the f-ck on.


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 9, 2014)

I consider myself a feminist. 

I also am not a self-hating male, who believes women should be held up on a higher platform. As a male, I wouldn't believe in something that's supposedly so against my own interests. There's no feminist, world domination scheme, the goal of feminism is to end institutionalized sexism. Just like as an atheist I don't endorse everything Richard Dawkins, feminists don't endorse everything other feminists say. 

For me, it's about equality, if it's about domination, it's not the feminism I support.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 9, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> I consider myself a feminist.
> 
> I also am not a self-hating male, who believes women should be held up on a higher platform. As a male, I wouldn't believe in something that's supposedly so against my own interests. There's no feminist, world domination scheme, the goal of feminism is to end institutionalized sexism. Just like as an atheist I don't endorse everything Richard Dawkins, feminists don't endorse everything other feminists say.
> 
> For me, it's about equality, if it's about domination, it's not the feminism I support.





You should definitely read the post of mine above yours.


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 9, 2014)

CrushingAnvil said:


> You should definitely read the post of mine above yours.


 
My post wasn't a response to yours. Though I posted after you so it's safe to assume I read what you posted.



> What happens if and-or when feminism completes its 'mission'? People will just continue being feminists? What does that say?



If racism ceases to exist I'd still be against racism...? No? Yes? 



> That females constantly need to be coddled?



If there is no more sexism, then attempts to end sexism would logically have to stop.

Again, I understand there are feminists who are more radical then I am. I'm expressing my opinion on the issue and believe I represent a very moderate position. 



> Whoever negged me for my post can jog right the f-ck on.



This is the 1# reason I usually avoid these threads.

EDIT: I do want to make it clear that I posted what I said because I feel in discussion the middle ground is often lost. Not everyone is a man or women hater.


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 9, 2014)

CrushingAnvil said:


> My own ethical thesis, called humanism (not to be confused with Humanism), values human rights. It's forward thinking, unlike feminism. What happens if and-or when feminism completes its 'mission'? People will just continue being feminists? What does that say? That females constantly need to be coddled?



You should read Martha Nussbaum's essay 'Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements', particularly Section 3: Endorsing a list. Nussbaum studied the histories and cultures of many of Earth's nations in an attempt to understand what we as a species fundamentally believe about social justice and human rights. I really believe that her list of ten capabilities covers the human condition better than the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. It's a philosophy of genuine equality that is centred in humanity itself.

Interestingly, I first came across it in a unit at my university on global ethics, and Nussbaum was most often quoted as a 'feminist author' (my copy of the above mentioned essay is from a book called _Feminist Economics_). Much of Nussbaum's work focuses on gender equality, but attempts to tackle women's rights issues through philosophy and concepts of social justice (extensions of the concepts that Smith, Locke, and Mill used to argue in the equality of all men, helping to form democracy as we know it). 

If your impression of feminists is that they are not forward-thinking, intent primarily on being 'coddled', and insist that they have an ill-defined 'mission', then you're probably hanging out with the wrong feminists. Thankfully they don't just come in the 'stupid, with a hint of crazy' variety. Just like the major religions, the major lack of religion, and most major philosophies, good people outnumber those who want to use their philosophy as a means of controlling others; the arseholes are just easier to notice because they make a lot of noise and smell really bad (I forgot I was talking about people for a moment there, and started writing about actual arseholes. My apologies.).


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 10, 2014)

CrushingAnvil said:


> My own ethical thesis, called humanism (not to be confused with Humanism), values human rights. It's forward thinking, unlike feminism. What happens if and-or when feminism completes its 'mission'? People will just continue being feminists? What does that say? That females constantly need to be coddled? Whoever negged me for my post can jog right the f-ck on.


I negged your first post because I thought your remark was lame and showed your lack of understanding. And I don't jog, that's for wussies.

See above posts by estabon and Dukenator, I wholeheartedly agree with them. Just saying, things aren't always as black and white as you portray them here.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 12, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> One of the primary victories of the first wave feminist movement was campaigning for voting equality for women. Civil rights and gay rights activists have been pretty vocal in the past about how the tactics and methods of the women's rights activists informed them of the best way to make a push for racial and sexual equality. Even Richard Dawkins cites the feminist movement as the best possible model for atheist advocacy in _The God Delusion_, as the women's rights movement has in the past been surprisingly effective in pushing for major social change in a relatively short period of time. Women's rights contributed to a greater overall level of social inclusion, including for men.



i separate the concept of suffrage as being entirely different from an ideology (which feminism is). one is an historically documented action, the other is a theoretical frame of thought. you still avoid any direct reference of "male inclusion" when in the concept the inclusion is of the female in the political process through a-political and political means. in feminist theory (patriarchy) the men are already at the top of the ladder, thus its the women who prove through demonstration they have the right to be included. 
any advocacy movement is ultimately the process in which one party gains a seat at the dominant party's table, so to say feminism is inclusive to men without first acknowledging that all feminist theory is based off of the patriarchy (of modern western society, lets not bring the middle east into this again) is a bit of a misnomer. 

but who cares about the first and second wave of feminism? (granted the second wave gave us title ix which is bullshit but whatever) they had legitimate goals about advancing a cause, lets get to the shit show we're currently dealing with in the name of equality. 



> Now, I'm not suggesting that the women's rights movement is deliberately and unselfishly attempting to advance men's rights as well as women's. But looking at the women's rights movement and saying ...



statistically it doesn't. case in point, all the premiere feminist theorists and women's gender theorists are women (and rightly so because i trust a woman's view on being a woman more than my own), yet the most celebrated theorist on the topic of masculinity is a transgendered individual named R. Connell... do you see the bias yet?

most of the third wave has to do with maintaining a victimhood culture of women in order to maintain the feminist structure of advocacy. it states "good for men and women" but never sets out to prove it. 
take for example, i went to college and took classes based in feminist theory (so yeah i have had exposure to this on an academic scale), i was told immediately i had an unfair advantage because of my gender (despite the fact that every girl in the room received on average more financial assistance than me to attend that university), that my concept of my gender is informed largely by other men who reified my concept of masculinity to maintain the status quo (i was actually raised by my mother.... whoops). so immediately my perception of feminism is one of an ism which seeks place the blame squarely on my shoulders for the sins of my forefathers.... mature. 

feminism makes dangerous assumptions on how men supposedly operate. that we all adhere to a hegemonic masculinity (r connell) for fear of being judged by others for being emotionally open. yet it completely ignores that men have been interpreting their masculinity successfully for ages without having to be told about it. 
it assumes men cannot be raped, it assumes men cannot be abused by a female, it ignores that male education is on the decline, it ignores that men are more likely die on the job, it ignores that men are more likely to commit crimes, it ignores judicial prejudice towards men... in fact their is a laundry list of the amount of double standards men still face despite feminism existing is astonishing. even more astonishing, say what i have typed her to a feminist and watch how a challenging of ideals quickly devolves into me being insulted. feminism cant tackle the problems of gender equality, because as a political ideology it doesn't gain anything from seriously addressing gender equality. 





> From a broader perspective, the feminist movement's campaigns to give girls equal access to education (which wasn't the case in the past in Western society and still isn't the case in many more countries currently outside Western society)



not arguing historical advocacy movements, arguing current ideological practices.




> leads to a larger social benefit from having a larger pool of potential doctors, teachers, police officers, mathematicians, engineers, etc, etc. Is this a deliberate act of solving the problems of men in western society? No. Have men benefited from the contributions of women in fields from which they were traditionally locked out, such as science and medicine?



except most of careers you've mentioned have a larger percentage of male to female ratio from one profession to the other. take for example i would love to see more women in engineering but we still haven't figured out why girls dont like quantitative studies as much as boys (actually we have but that makes me an essentialist). and i would love to see more men become teachers so kids have a greater exposure to differing perspectives in education... plus it might cut down on all the buys being put on ADD meds.



> Then again, I'd say if you equate women's advocacy with "perpetuating female victimhood" you're not actually interested in learning anything about the contributions of the women's rights movement to society and politics.



i acknowledge all positive contributions to society, but reserve the right to point out the detrimental shortcomings of whatever ideology claims to be beneficial to everyone while reinforcing the status quo. i believe we can all agree with thou shalt not kill? but do we all agree with the same book which says its okay to stone homosexuals? no. the ideology is flawed. 

i went through four years of this stuff and came out with a different idea (aka didnt drink the koolaid).

[QUOTES]If you're primary concern is the current level of men's rights in society, then you should do good work to campaign for those rights[/QUOTES]

you're mistaken, we're men, we already have the rights (patriarchy remember?). but seriously rights and who has them are not the issue. anyone regardless of genitalia at this point is capable of doing whatever their heart desires if they wish to make the sacrifices to accomplish their goals. im not talking about rights, im talking about flawed and highly illogical forms of thinking being presented as wisdom to the masses. i do this by presenting evidence to counter the flawed thinking in order to create a dissonance in whomever reads this so that they too can question what is wise in society. im not trying to convince you, you are merely my sparring partner for the spectacle, my goal is for someone else to see this and start thinking "hey, yeah feminism in the modern age actually doesn't make much sense.. and it denies empirical studies and evolutionary sciences... omg, its exactly like creationism!" 

plus i started another thread on this, you commented in it alot. 



> Discrediting feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with men's rights, and attempting to discredit the feminist movement as a means of advancing men's rights is like political parties attempting to discredit their opponents as a means of promoting themselves: it's baseless, shallow, and fails to contribute anything positive to society.



im just trying to discredit shallow political philosophies; specifically ones that set out to slander one half of the population for the sake of equality. one that denies biology as essentialist, and that fails to acknowledge the harm ideologies like this do to society if unchecked. i wont say that mens rights will replace feminism or that it even should (in fact i think if you went through my other thread i repeatedly tried to get to the point where gender studies should embrace both quantitative means with qualitative study). but a system of thought that constantly teaches women are acted upon is a system of thought that is oppressive, and harmful to the growth and achievement of the individual.


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 12, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> im just trying to discredit shallow political philosophies; specifically ones that set out to slander one half of the population for the sake of equality. one that denies biology as essentialist, and that fails to acknowledge the harm ideologies like this do to society if unchecked. i wont say that mens rights will replace feminism or that it even should (in fact i think if you went through my other thread i repeatedly tried to get to the point where gender studies should embrace both quantitative means with qualitative study). but a system of thought that constantly teaches women are acted upon is a system of thought that is oppressive, and harmful to the growth and achievement of the individual.



I'd quote more sections than this, but my posts tend to be long enough as it is, so I'll just leave your last bit here and respond somewhat to the whole post.

Thanks for elaborating on your perspective. I think I'm a little hyper-sensitive to critiques of feminism at the moment because I've been a part of several conversations over the last few years (on this site, elsewhere on the net, and in person) that involve men claiming to be concerned about serious issues that men face today (as you pointed out - high workplace death rate, low results in education, etc) and then using those issues as a means of attacking feminism without making much of an attempt to explore the aforementioned issues. I've seen and heard enough of that that I think I was seeing something in your previous post that wasn't really there, so I apologise for jumping to conclusions: it's a bad habit, and I'll try to avoid it in the future.

If we limit the discussion to the current state of feminism, as you're saying that's your primary focus, then I have to say I agree that third-wave feminism has ... I guess I'll call it identity issues. The necessity of the first two waves' existence and their relative success means that there are few major issues facing women today that aren't being addressed in some capacity, and I'd say there are none that require the quasi-revolutionary public demonstrations that made the women's rights movements of the past so famous and effective. We've kind of hit a point where those who have a genuine interest in promoting gender equality have their work cut out for them, in that they have to either narrow their focus to a very specific arena (such as Anita Sarkeesian's focus on pop culture tropes), or dedicate lots of time and effort towards large projects that, while they may have been inspired by an interest in feminism, wind up contributing towards larger concepts of social justice and equality (such as Martha Nussbaum's work, which I quoted in an earlier post).

So, I think I better understand your position, and I think I understand how you arrived at that position. There's really only one point that I don't get at this stage, and it was brought up in the "Honest Gender Studies" thread:



Ibanezsam4 said:


> and i would love to see more men become teachers so kids have a greater exposure to differing perspectives in education... *plus it might cut down on all the boys being put on ADD meds.*



I think I highlighted this in the last thread, and we never got around to finishing the conversation. Where in the world is it that female teachers have a higher authority than doctors and parents in having kids medicated? How would having more male teachers cut down the amount of ADD prescriptions? I understand that teachers often play a role in identifying behaviours that lead to diagnosis, but as the linked article points out, teachers don't have special diagnostic powers, and no amount of recommendation from a teacher can convince parents or doctors who don't want their children to be medicated. If this article is accurate, then teachers are just shitty at diagnosing ADD because the symptoms tend to play out differently in girls than they do in boys, which means that heaps of girls are going undiagnosed all the way into adulthood. This suggests that what looks like an overdiagnosis of boys might in fact be an underdiagnosis of girls. Then again, girls and boys alike might be overdiagnosed with ADD. It's a controversial topic at the moment, and a lot more research needs to be done, so I don't see how the huge amount of children being diagnosed with ADD (especially in the United States) lends itself whatsoever to a conversation on the state of feminism, but it gets brought up surprisingly often. Have I missed something here? Is it one of those things like that lady that claimed autism was caused by immunisations and a bunch of people just ran with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 12, 2014)

I'm not sure every statement needs to be made...


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 12, 2014)

Misc. - Bodybuilding.com Forums


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 13, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Misc. - Bodybuilding.com Forums





Goddamn, I love this forum.


----------



## narad (Feb 13, 2014)

CrushingAnvil said:


> My own ethical thesis, called humanism (not to be confused with Humanism), values human rights. It's forward thinking, unlike feminism. What happens if and-or when feminism completes its 'mission'? People will just continue being feminists? What does that say? That females constantly need to be coddled? Whoever negged me for my post can jog right the f-ck on.



Humanism, as you define it, values human rights. But human rights fully encapsulates defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women, i.e., the definition of _feminism_.



Danukenator said:


> For me, it's about equality, if it's about domination, it's not the feminism I support.



And then kudos on separating out feminism from what poor debaters would call feminism, in an effort to establish a straw man and discredit a movement for equality. More than most!


----------



## Edika (Feb 13, 2014)

I would like to also mention that the article by the OP is coming from a site that portrays women in a most negative manner. It is not a credible source and I would lump it up as a malicious version of the onion targeted to women.

Concerning feminism and it's role I haven't followed any literature for their previous two waves or current wave. I know a lot has been done by the feminist movement to give women equal rights that didn't magically appear. However I believe the problem to be deeper than just simply differentiating between men and women. Western societies are still patriarch, to a lesser extend than a few decades ago, but they still are. Even in the 80's there were a lot of occurrences of women being discriminated and in some instances even now. I'll give some examples. I have a colleague that is a darn good experimental Physicist that actually (a bit younger than me) which comes from Hungary and she had a lot of negative attitude towards her from professors there. Even in France were she did a post doc a PhD student was being a dick because she was a woman (and better than him). In Greece (my home country) in most private employments after the age of 28 it is very hard to get employment (now it's for everybody) because a woman will want to get married and have kids or if she's already married have kids. OR if she has kids she will worry about them and not be focused in her work. That's what my wife experienced when she was working in Greece. If by any chance you are pregnant and disclose that forget being hired (again in Greece).
To take it up a notch in general worker rights are again under attack this day and age, by having the so called "free" capitalist model were corporations actually set prices between them, move production to cheaper countries, pay less in more expensive countries while the cost of life increases and going unpunished for creating economic chaos by bad decisions and what would be considered scams and actually receiving bailouts. In this climate there is now double the workforce than years ago with women claiming same pay, same health benefits in better paid jobs. The best way of not having a unified front of workers guard and claim their rights is to have them squabble between them, either by profession, race, nationality or gender.

One area that women are still oppressed is the way they are objectified in the media. Not that men aren't but it's a lot more obvious for women. Women are being photoshoped to look thinner and perfect, models are just bags of bones with skin, women's sexuality is used to sell a product and the way women are portrayed in the porn industry has very little to do with reality. Just think about what are your first thoughts when a cute girl passes by especially if she's a bit more provocatively dressed. Then think about what are your thoughts for women not in the frame of what is considered attractive and desirable in the sense we have been brought up. Think how much more you are willing to help or put up with women that are attractive and those that are not as much. Think of how much you might objectify women even in an unconscious level. In that regards I think that the feminist or women or whatever you want to name it movement has a lot of work to do.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 13, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> I'd quote more sections than this, but my posts tend to be long enough as it is, so I'll just leave your last bit here and respond somewhat to the whole post.
> 
> Thanks for elaborating on your perspective. I think I'm a little hyper-sensitive to critiques of feminism at the moment because I've been a part of several conversations over the last few years (on this site, elsewhere on the net, and in person) that involve men claiming to be concerned about serious issues that men face today (as you pointed out - high workplace death rate, low results in education, etc) and then using those issues as a means of attacking feminism without making much of an attempt to explore the aforementioned issues. I've seen and heard enough of that that I think I was seeing something in your previous post that wasn't really there, so I apologise for jumping to conclusions: it's a bad habit, and I'll try to avoid it in the future.
> 
> If we limit the discussion to the current state of feminism, as you're saying that's your primary focus, then I have to say I agree that third-wave feminism has ... I guess I'll call it identity issues. The necessity of the first two waves' existence and their relative success means that there are few major issues facing women today that aren't being addressed in some capacity, and I'd say there are none that require the quasi-revolutionary public demonstrations that made the women's rights movements of the past so famous and effective. We've kind of hit a point where those who have a genuine interest in promoting gender equality have their work cut out for them, in that they have to either narrow their focus to a very specific arena (such as Anita Sarkeesian's focus on pop culture tropes), or dedicate lots of time and effort towards large projects that, while they may have been inspired by an interest in feminism, wind up contributing towards larger concepts of social justice and equality (such as Martha Nussbaum's work, which I quoted in an earlier post).



well its not so much an identity crisis as much as its a perfect example of when post-modern academic thought crashes headlong into the realities of life works outside the walls of higher academic institutions. what i mean here is that feminism as an academic study is dependent on the neo-marxist structure of bourgeoisie oppresses proletariat. So at least on the academic side (specifically on the undergraduate level as young women are really just beginning to come into their own identity) a sense of anger and vitriol is quite easy to develop around these concepts. 

frankly, lets look at the OP, the story posted is completely made-up (not entirely as this has been a concept in "all natural" communities for ages) and an attempted by 4chan to paint the feminist movement in a bad light. But this fabrication gained a lot of traction because it easily fits the stereotype of angry, obnoxious, 20something feminist. hooray for semiotics! 

but like you said there's a bit of an identity crisis around the 3rd wave, it initially began as a movement around reproductive rights, but Roe vs. Wade, the abundance of affordable birth control, and the growing trend of women waiting longer to have children has basically rendered whatever work was done in the 90s moot. 

so what's left over currently is the academic side, which has the tendency to be a little... over the top? <-- seriously the most polite way i can put it. 
my hope is that feminism starts to move away from being a post-modern neo-marxist offshoot, into a far more inclusive gender study (call it humanism? i hate that the word was taken back in the 16th century) which includes what the mens rights people kvetch about, with what biology has contributed, and the the work on how gender is performed and constructed socially. 



> I think I highlighted this in the last thread, and we never got around to finishing the conversation. Where in the world is it that female teachers have a higher authority than doctors and parents in having kids medicated? How would having more male teachers cut down the amount of ADD prescriptions? I understand that teachers often play a role in identifying behaviours that lead to diagnosis, but as the linked article points out, teachers don't have special diagnostic powers, and no amount of recommendation from a teacher can convince parents or doctors who don't want their children to be medicated. If this article is accurate, then teachers are just shitty at diagnosing ADD because the symptoms tend to play out differently in girls than they do in boys, which means that heaps of girls are going undiagnosed all the way into adulthood. This suggests that what looks like an overdiagnosis of boys might in fact be an underdiagnosis of girls. Then again, girls and boys alike might be overdiagnosed with ADD. It's a controversial topic at the moment, and a lot more research needs to be done, so I don't see how the huge amount of children being diagnosed with ADD (especially in the United States) lends itself whatsoever to a conversation on the state of feminism, but it gets brought up surprisingly often. Have I missed something here? Is it one of those things like that lady that claimed autism was caused by immunisations and a bunch of people just ran with it?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian



this is one of those issues which mirrors a Rube Goldberg machine in that its a chain reaction of several factors. but what i mean here is that if you have more male perspective, when little jonny has a hard time sitting still in class, the problem probably isn't him suffering from a learning disorder; he just needs to run or climb something. 
on an interesting note there's already some research going into the "kids who cant sit still problem", a new response by educators in more progressive (i.e. affluent) schools are using Swiss Balls as chairs so the kids can bounce up and down and expend the excess energy while developing core strength. 

but essentially what you have is a problem of boys being prescribed medication droves, yet nobody goes "hey wait a minute..." this isn't a true statement as i just gave an example of above of schools seeking an alternative means of dealing with kids not wanting to sit still. 

but the overarching problem is one that i feel feminism never seriously addressed, which is in traditional western culture the male had to be sacrificial in order to be accepted in society (work the dangerous job, be a protector, put your ambitions aside in order to provide your family). with this comes an idea that there is an acceptable level of suffering/violence/adversity that males are expected to take and deal with it. 

so while i find it refreshing the idea of over-medicating for ADD, and the statistic of male medicating is coming more into focus; i find the years of silence on the topic indicative of a culture which still wants traditional male figures, yet also wants women to be empowered.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 13, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> refreshhing the idea of over-medicating for ADD, and the statistic of male medicating is coming more into focus; i find the years of silence on the topic indicative of a culture which still wants traditional male figures, yet also wants women to be empowered.


Quite. Modern day femenisim wants to eat their cake, and have it too.

They claim to want equality, but perputate and promote the concept of the disposable male. And the violent savage male. Gender stereotypes. The exact things they claim to be fighting against.

They claim to want to fight the system, but treat the concept of a stay at home dad like a dead beat. He needs to be out being a bread winner. 

Feminism is divisive and exclusionary. It is less about equality, and more about female empowerment. 


There are also large problems among the movement with stuff like kink shaming and otherwise looking down upon people for expressing their sexuality. Which is *real* ....ed up. ​


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 13, 2014)

Am I the only female in this thread?


----------



## Edika (Feb 13, 2014)

Majorité opprimée : quand les rôles masculins et féminins sont inversés - LIDD.fr

I'll just leave this here. It's in French but you'll get the idea. It's supposed to be a world were male and female is inverted. It seems very strange at first and while it annoyed me it also got me thinking (why it annoyed me was one of it). It's a bit NSFW (female joggers run topless in a couple of scenes) so don't open it at work. If you think it is exaggerated and that women are not recipients of this kind of behavior from man now days then you are mistaken.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 16, 2014)

Right now a major battle occurring in this wave of feminism is over the inclusion of transgender women and the chronic misgendering of trans men. 

On one side you have trans inclusive feminists and on the other side you have TERFs (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists, currently being lead by one Cathy Brennan).
While I would like to claim to be a feminist, this ridiculous battle over my gender has infuriated me to the point that I identify more as an egalitarian than anything else. I wanna rage punch both sides for trying to use my anatomy as a goddamn political talking point. I don't exist to one up the other side and I sure as hell don't like when supposed LGBT leaders team up with right wing law groups for the sole purpose of legislating against and creating hoaxes in an attempt to discredit people like me. I feel modern day feminism has become more about androgyny and less about actually helping women. My litmus test for determining who the crazy radfems are is one simple question:
"Do you think men can be feminists as well?" If the respond with no, then I stop talking to them. Sorry to run with the no true scotsman fallacy here, but it really is applicable. To me true feminism works toward the benefit of all genders. (male/female/trans/genderqueer/etc)
Thinks like gaining maternity leave for both mom AND dad to look after the bun in the oven is necessary. Addressing the notion of forced gender roles on men as well as women should be a concern. ("Hey you feel depressed, sick it up and be a man about it" pisses me off as it disses both men and women)
The minute I hear any group claim superiority over another, I get pissed and ignore them. 

(epic drunken rant is epic. My bad. )


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 17, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> on an interesting note there's already some research going into the "kids who cant sit still problem", a new response by educators in more progressive (i.e. affluent) schools are using Swiss Balls as chairs so the kids can bounce up and down and expend the excess energy while developing core strength.



Oh man. Speaking as an elementary school teacher, I hope none of the schools I teach at will ever adopt that tactic. It's hard enough to hold the attention of a student with a pencil and paper he can distract himself with, I'd hate to have to try to hold the attention of a room full of kids with balls to bounce around on . 

Hell, kids are already constantly falling over backwards and knocking their heads on desks and the floor because they can't keep all four chair legs on the ground. Giving them all large balls to sit on is just asking for injuries, haha.

Oh, and uh... feminism equality humanism something something on topic something something.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 17, 2014)

No matter what you do the majority of kids in America under a certain age are going to be harder to maintain. The majority of children's interest in learning is fairly shallow. Truth is it's only getting worse because the parents don't care enough to give them a reason to care. Punishment is completely lost on kids nowadays, especially under a certain age. If I knew something bad was going to happen when I misbehaved at school I'd be less inclined to do so.

As for ADHD, it is both under and over-diagnosed. Under-diagnosed in regards to people who don't fit the 'hyper' symptom of ADHD, the girls mentioned earlier and adults, who didn't grow up in the era of ADHD or don't believe that adults have it. Children who are just acting like the extreme end of the spectrum of being a child are being potentially wrongly diagnosed. Emphasis on potentially, some children are indeed correctly diagnosed.

As for feminism, obviously their goals are going to be a bit one sided, but who cares. There are groups for every type of person out there: Males, minorities, children, mentally ill, LGBT, etc. Guess what? They are all fairly one sided on their goals as well. Feminism is praised and supported currently because the scale from an all encompassing POV is not in their favor. Yes, their are issues affecting others as well, but not to the same extent. As such it tends to hog the limelight. That doesn't stop male advocacy groups from spreading awareness about male only problems though. It isn't as if we are only allowed to support one group/movement either. I can very easily support male and female advocacy groups without any issue.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 17, 2014)

flint757 said:


> The majority of children's interest in learning is fairly shallow.



I've found that that's only really true starting in about fourth grade. While my younger students (pre-K through 3rd grades) can be a handful, most of them do actually seem to still enjoy school and are pretty excited about learning and making Teacher happy. At that age, even the ones who AREN'T interested in school still end up learning whether they like it or not, since they're all little knowledge sponges. 

At some point towards the end of 3rd grade or the beginning of 4th grade, though, something changes and many kids start to realize they'd rather be just about anywhere else other than school or doing anything else other than schoolwork. I think I'd actually rather teach a room full of 1st graders, troublemakers included, than a room full of apathetic 6th graders who are more concerned with looking cool than with anything I have to say.

Sorry to keep going off on these tangents. I guess I just have more to say about education than feminism .


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Apr 15, 2014)

Wow. I take a hiatus for three months, come back, and apparently I started the next controversial topic in my absence?

Woah... o.o


----------



## abandonist (Apr 19, 2014)

This thread is The Worst.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 19, 2014)

I think it's funny/sad that basically, when someone repeats certain ideas about a group, those ideas are adopted as the norm.

I think the reason the fake news story from 4chan got traction is because there are people who target feminists. 

Some Limbaugh listeners I know *still* use the word "Femi-nazi" when they want to quickly dismiss any discussion of equal pay for equal education and experience. Fox News recently denied a pay gap, and then one commentator pointed out that even Obama has a pay gap with White House staff, so he can't complain about the rest of the country. Having that cake and eating it too, or just not paying attention to the conversation and inadvertently undermining a talking point?

Repeating a point to where other similar ideas sound plausible... If I understand some folks here correctly, the idea that Jews ate Christian babies wouldn't have gotten traction if all those other things said about Jews weren't true. It was believable because Jews are so despicable. Wut?

Anyway, you have a group who don't really have much interaction with women, writing a story based on ideas from other people who don't value or interact with women on an equal basis.... Really, the disappointing thing to me is whenever someone forwards me anything (left wing, right wing, product related, whatever) before they do a little search on Snopes....


----------



## Edika (Apr 19, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I've found that that's only really true starting in about fourth grade. While my younger students (pre-K through 3rd grades) can be a handful, most of them do actually seem to still enjoy school and are pretty excited about learning and making Teacher happy. At that age, even the ones who AREN'T interested in school still end up learning whether they like it or not, since they're all little knowledge sponges.
> 
> At some point towards the end of 3rd grade or the beginning of 4th grade, though, something changes and many kids start to realize they'd rather be just about anywhere else other than school or doing anything else other than schoolwork. I think I'd actually rather teach a room full of 1st graders, troublemakers included, than a room full of apathetic 6th graders who are more concerned with looking cool than with anything I have to say.
> 
> Sorry to keep going off on these tangents. I guess I just have more to say about education than feminism .



In 4th grade children are 10 and 6th grade 12. It is rather normal due to the changes starting to happen that will turn them <gasp> to TEENAGEEEEEEEEEEEEERS. Then the fun in being a parent or teacher really start hahahahahaha.


----------

