Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[Lethn]

That's actually right but it's much worse than that, current feminists are people I consider to be nothing more than gold diggers without the sex, they want men to cater to them in every part of their life and just reverse the typical role of men/women and establish a matriarchy instead of patriarchy, you can see it in the way they protest for things, particularly with how they say "We want equal rights for women" women? What about everybody else? Why just women? Any other protest group or pressure group falls into this trap as well, they'll fight for their corner, but not for anyone else, this is also another reason why our democracies are pretty screwy right now because none of theses groups will ever work together and just want dominance.

The old feminists were definitely feminists compared to the ones you see today, they genuinely fought for equal rights, current feminists fight for special treatment.

[vonBerlichingen]

I don't hate feminists. Real feminists where the women that fought for their right to vote

That was the beginning of the End.

[Spendulus]

That's actually right but it's much worse than that, current feminists are people I consider to be nothing more than gold diggers without the sex, they want men to cater to them in every part of their life and just reverse the typical role of men/women and establish a matriarchy instead of patriarchy, you can see it in the way they protest for things, particularly with how they say "We want equal rights for women" women? What about everybody else? Why just women? Any other protest group or pressure group falls into this trap as well, they'll fight for their corner, but not for anyone else, this is also another reason why our democracies are pretty screwy right now because none of theses groups will ever work together and just want dominance.

The old feminists were definitely feminists compared to the ones you see today, they genuinely fought for equal rights, current feminists fight for special treatment.

I don't even given current feminists the stature that you have, as far as I can make out they are simply shills for the latest Democratic political operation.

Otherwise we'd see them other than silent or other than negative on the many conservative women and their issues.

But you never do.  

Never.  And I am not in making these comments attempting to politicize the debate; rather to point out that they politicized the debate, and that feminists who are basically shills for one political party are basically very boring, trivial and uninteresting.

Back to nerdy women now?  That was fun. 

[Kiki112]

That's actually right but it's much worse than that, current feminists are people I consider to be nothing more than gold diggers without the sex, they want men to cater to them in every part of their life and just reverse the typical role of men/women and establish a matriarchy instead of patriarchy, you can see it in the way they protest for things, particularly with how they say "We want equal rights for women" women? What about everybody else? Why just women? Any other protest group or pressure group falls into this trap as well, they'll fight for their corner, but not for anyone else, this is also another reason why our democracies are pretty screwy right now because none of theses groups will ever work together and just want dominance.

The old feminists were definitely feminists compared to the ones you see today, they genuinely fought for equal rights, current feminists fight for special treatment.

I don't even given current feminists the stature that you have, as far as I can make out they are simply shills for the latest Democratic political operation.

Otherwise we'd see them other than silent or other than negative on the many conservative women and their issues.

But you never do.  

Never.  And I am not in making these comments attempting to politicize the debate; rather to point out that they politicized the debate, and that feminists who are basically shills for one political party are basically very boring, trivial and uninteresting.

Back to nerdy women now?  That was fun. 

true, they're mostly narrow minded as they assume they're always right

[hilariousandco]

That's actually right but it's much worse than that, current feminists are people I consider to be nothing more than gold diggers without the sex, they want men to cater to them in every part of their life and just reverse the typical role of men/women and establish a matriarchy instead of patriarchy, you can see it in the way they protest for things, particularly with how they say "We want equal rights for women" women? What about everybody else? Why just women? Any other protest group or pressure group falls into this trap as well, they'll fight for their corner, but not for anyone else, this is also another reason why our democracies are pretty screwy right now because none of theses groups will ever work together and just want dominance.

The old feminists were definitely feminists compared to the ones you see today, they genuinely fought for equal rights, current feminists fight for special treatment.

No they don't. True feminism is about equality. Why do you tar everyone who calls themselves a feminist with the same brush? Is an African female feminist who protests about female circumcision and genital mutilation the same as an angry western lesbian who just hates men? No. I usually find the people who complain about feminists are just closet misogynists.

[hilariousandco]

No they don't. True feminism is about equality.

This. If you see some-one campaigning for skyscrapers to be shaped like vulvas instead of penises, or for all males to be sterilized don't think "dem feminists be crazy" - it's pretty much just that person who is crazy.

Most real feminists don't make tabloid headlines because they're too busy fighting mistreatment of women in the third world, or campaigning for better science and maths education for girls, or trying to change people's backward perceptions about parenthood and careers. They're continuing in a long tradition of fighting for equality and should be admired.

Exactly. It's like people campaigning for equal rights for being a minority. They don't want to be elite or think they're better than you, they just want to be treated fairly and the same as everyone else and so they should be. Would you take the extreme opinion of a ranting and raving black supremacist and then say all these Africans activists think they're better than us and hate white people? No. People usually complain for a good reason, and so do most feminists. Most feminists do not want to be treated like poor defenceless animals, they want to be treated as humans.

[Rassah]

Yeah, um, I was in a feminist club in my university (even though I'm a guy) and it was not at all like the "whiney self-aggrandized emo 20 somethings" described. They didn't want to be in power and bring men down, and they didn't want things to be built to look like vaginas. What they wanted and were protesting for were things like equal pay, the right to do what they want with their body, not being called sluts just for enjoying sex, and most importantly of all, they were against segregationist gender stereotypes that are still so pervasive in our culture. Starting with blue for boys / pink for girls, going through trucks and construction sets for boys / dolls and play kitchens for girls, and ending with positions of power and dominance in employment for boys / service and support positions for girls. And the cultural "norms" forced on everyone about how boys should be tough, cold, withdrawn, and unemotional, and girls have to act fragile, hyper, nosy, and overly emotional. Which is why I joined too. That whole gender stereotype thing hurts guys as well, since it doesnt allow us to let our emotions out, and we are just forced to keep it all inside and drown it all in alcohol, or slowly die inside 

I'm sort of kidding, of course, but I have seen this cultural expectation really screw with a friend of mine (think about as bad as it can get), and it wasn't something I was personally a fan of either.

[Spendulus]

....the cultural "norms" forced on everyone about how boys should be tough, cold, withdrawn, and unemotional, and girls have to act fragile, hyper, nosy, and overly emotional.....

There is of course no way a "cultural norm" could do anything but influence peoples' behavior as the vast majority of people are abject sheeple followers.  Throughout history unusual individuals, example very creative individuals, have lived without paying attention to such cultural norms.  Arguments exist and I lean somewhat in their direction that strong cultural norms general strong oppositional norms; hence greater diversity, rather than less.  Clearly this occurs in some types of societies but not others, but it's a good way to look at the matter.

Where this leads is that attempts to influence or change cultural norms from the top down, as is actually attempted by feminists groups and other "issue groups" is outright attempts at creating totalitarianism as far as that aspect of cultural mores is concerned.

Therefore, per the OP.  There are many reasons to "Hate" or ridicule or disregard groups such as feminist groups.  The worst type of "feminist"  (not the BEST, but the WORST) is of course one who sincerely believes in the principles, heads over to the "Feminist group" stays in it even after she/he realizes it's been hijacked by political operatives for political ends.

[Spendulus]

Where this leads is that attempts to influence or change cultural norms from the top down, as is actually attempted by feminists groups and other "issue groups" is outright attempts at creating totalitarianism as far as that aspect of cultural mores is concerned.

I'm not convinced this is true. Most such groups do not advocate legislation to enforce their idea of a better culture, but rather merely try to convince as many people as possible - the very definition of a "bottom-up" change. Why do you think this will lead to totalitarianism?

Because there is a hundred year old development of "Socialist feminism", this is nothing new.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=socialist+feminism

[darkmule]

Someone's saying everyone hates environmentalists?  Put up your dukes.

[Spendulus]

Someone's saying everyone hates environmentalists?  Put up your dukes.

lol....I wonder what Teddy would have thought of the current breed of them.

[Wilikon]

Feminist hero Gloria Steinem joined Joy Reid on her new MSNBC show The Reid Report Wednesday to do what she does best: shame men and insist we are fighting a “war on women.” This time, however, she came with “proof.”

The Women’s Media Center, founded by Steinem, Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan, recently released a report to determine just how bad it is for women in America. Entitled, “The Status of Women in the U.S. Media 2014,” the feminist findings concluded that females have made essentially no progress thanks to the male-dominated business.

The report begins by listing all the unacceptable statistics that can explain why women have “barely budged” and even “regressed” in the professional media world. For instance, two-thirds of newsroom staffers are men. One particular section discusses the makeup of sports journalism: “90 percent male, 90 percent white; sports editor ranks have far to go.”

Um, it’s sports. Can we not all agree this is kind of men’s forte? Is it really that surprising that more men would be pursuing careers in sports journalism than women?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/03/01/white-men-everyone-else-womens-media-centers-sexist-report-n1801539

[Spendulus]

....
The report begins by listing all the unacceptable statistics that can explain why women have “barely budged” and even “regressed” in the professional media world. For instance, two-thirds of newsroom staffers are men. One particular section discusses the makeup of sports journalism: “90 percent male, 90 percent white; sports editor ranks have far to go.”

Um, it’s sports. Can we not all agree this is kind of men’s forte? Is it really that surprising that more men would be pursuing careers in sports journalism than women?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/03/01/white-men-everyone-else-womens-media-centers-sexist-report-n1801539

I don't hear anyone bitching about men being under represented in the ranks of sales clerks in women's bikini sales sections of department stores.

[Wilikon]

....
The report begins by listing all the unacceptable statistics that can explain why women have “barely budged” and even “regressed” in the professional media world. For instance, two-thirds of newsroom staffers are men. One particular section discusses the makeup of sports journalism: “90 percent male, 90 percent white; sports editor ranks have far to go.”

Um, it’s sports. Can we not all agree this is kind of men’s forte? Is it really that surprising that more men would be pursuing careers in sports journalism than women?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/03/01/white-men-everyone-else-womens-media-centers-sexist-report-n1801539

I don't hear anyone bitching about men being under represented in the ranks of sales clerks in women's bikini sales sections of department stores.

Please! Don't give them any ideas!

[Rassah]

I don't hear anyone bitching about men being under represented in the ranks of sales clerks in women's bikini sales sections of department stores.

Can I bitch about men being severely underrepresented in the Swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated?

[Spendulus]

I don't hear anyone bitching about men being under represented in the ranks of sales clerks in women's bikini sales sections of department stores.

Can I bitch about men being severely underrepresented in the Swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated?

Sure.  Because my very point was that you can't just pick and choose which areas to gripe about one sex being under represented.   

Logical fallacy called "cherry picking".

[Wilikon]

Researchers from Oregon State University discovered that girls who play with Barbie dolls may see fewer career options for themselves than boys.

"Playing with Barbie has an effect on girls' ideas about their place in the world," said Aurora M. Sherman, an associate professor in the School of Psychological Science at OSU, via a press release. "It creates a limit on the sense of what's possible for their future. While it's not a massive effect, it is a measurable and statistically significant effect."
The study notes that Sherman's experiment was designed to better understand how Barbie might influence girl's career choices. As much of the past research involving Barbie has been primarily observational studies with children and toys in natural settings, this experiment worked with specific toy control variables in which the children involved were allowed to play with.
The experiment involved girls from the ages of 4 to 7 who were randomly assigned to play with one of three dolls: a fashion Barbie with dress and high-heeled shoes; a career Barbie with a doctor's coat and stethoscope; or a Mrs. Potato Head with accessories such as purses and shoes. Researchers used the Mrs. Potato Head doll as a neutral choice as it does not carry any sexualized characteristics, as Barbie does.
After a few minutes of plays, the girls were asked if they could do any of 10 occupations when they grew up. They were also asked if boys could do those jobs, half of which were traditionally male or female-dominated.
Findings showed that girls who played with the Barbie felt that they could do fewer jobs than those who played with the Mrs. Potato Head, who reported close to the same number of possible careers as the boys.
Girls who played with barbies dressed in different career outfits-including a doctor's uniform or party outfit-also showed no difference in choosing more career choices.
Researchers concluded that certain toys, including dolls or action figures, can influence a child's ideas regarding their future career path. However, more research is needed to better understand this complexity.



http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/13292/20140305/could-playing-with-barbies-limit-girls-career-choices-study.htm

[Wilikon]

How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?  As a lawyer who has handled rape and sexual harassment cases, I have no idea, but this radical result is what some want to happen in California.  In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.”  Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply a non-violent act that they did not consent to in advance.  Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in. [...]

The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not explicitly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”  But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex.  The Fresno Bee praised the bill because “it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.”  The Daily Californian declared that “the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967  a step in the right direction.”  Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists.  By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/09/california-activists-seek-redefine-quiet-consensual-sex-rape/#TVZrZH60qibb873V.99

[NewLiberty]

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/09/california-activists-seek-redefine-quiet-consensual-sex-rape/#TVZrZH60qibb873V.99

A ban on sexual activity for deaf and mute people?
Or does this just put them on the permanent offender that prevents them from living anywhere outside a slum or having a job?

[Schleicher]

Looks like you need a video camera or a witness if you want to kiss someone.