I hate feminazis

Post Reply New Topic

i don't think that example is a problem for intersectional feminism at all. I've never heard an intersectional feminist say or imply that gender trumps every other category, or even that it's an important factor in every situation.

It doesn't quite happen that way. Say for instance the make a claim that women have a harder time getting recruited after graduation than men, whether it is true or not. Then then make a claim that black women have an even harder time getting recruited to bolster those cliams (I have heard this on WP). What is being overlook in black men or black people in general, which can have tougher time still and can be statistically slight harder for black men. So what you have there is more of an ethic minority issue an less of a women's issues. So that cause has been appropriated by the intersexuality, it been watered down.

Obviously be being feminists they are going see thing in terms of feminism, that is unavoidable. Even when it is an issue that doesn't involve women, they have in the past genderised the issue an seen in terms of the patriarchy, becuase that is popular catch-all theory for everything.

Then we had the university protest where quite privilege student of colour (in comparison to poorer un educated ethic minorities an whites), were demanding something not unlike the segregation that used to exist in education an public life. I sure they didn't intend way but that is what in affect they were arguing for in order to feel "safe". I'm afraid those concept have their origin in section of the feminist movement. They are an affront to basic rights and freedoms. So this is how intersectionality can back fire.

Some ideas are just bad all round an are worthy of criticism whoever is pushing them.

Apparently air conditioners are sexist.

Do you purposely go looking for this stuff? Is it like when you have a sore tooth and can't stop pushing?

Anyway. Some study found the (apparently common) complaint from women that office temperatures were set too low to be true. Something to do with body temperatures, so its proper sciencey s**t, and that the temperatures of office spaces are set to make men comfortable at the expense of women's comfort.

The news cycle, looking for attention like the spoilt brat it is, labels this issue and genuine matter of interest as 'sexist air conditioning'. And then morons go 'duuuuuh lol feminazi duuuuh misandry duuuuh air conditioners aren't sexist lol thats stoopid duuuh', and the s**t show continues.

So an air conditioner is a sexist invention? Also dont forget Rad fem logic https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12 ... s-rape-ok/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 11 Jan 2016, 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rad fem logic https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12 ... s-rape-ok/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen

Do you seriously think that's what they're saying? You're not really that dense, are you? Come on.



You do it to yourself.

How about this, we ban all air conditioners world wide so that way all lads and lasses have to work in 45 degree celsius weather with no ventilation and sweat like crazy and suffer heat stroke equally because air conditioners are sexist, as for the Piv thing yes these rad fems take it seriously so if your a heterosexual man having consensual sex with a woman its rape.

No-one has said either the use or invention of air conditioners is sexist. The matter is about the room temperature of offices where IIRC a study found 1) women were more likely to feel the cold and 2) thermostats were more likely to be set at a temperature comfortable to men than to women. This is actually an interesting point - to me, anyway - and a problem to be solved.

It's not unlike the way some cinemas have 'autistic friendly' screenings where they keep the lights up and sound low.

Why would I give two hoots for what rad fems think? There's far more concerning batshit ideas already in popular political circulation in society that have a detrimental effect on my life. A few feminists who think consensual piv sex is rape and want a separatist arrangement - that's not going to happen, is it? I may as well give my thought to what the flat earthers want.

You seem to enjoy being outraged by this stuff. There's a common criticism nowadays about people being addicted to outrage - the cliche of the 'social justice warrior'. By my reckoning, the people addicted to being outraged at this outrage outnumber the SJWs.

It must be late where you are. Go to bed.

There's a danger to trigger warnings I don't think has been mentioned yet. Maybe it has. Having your strongly held beliefs challenged by new information is always somewhat painful. Folks who are mainly concerned with pain avoidance might use trigger warnings to buffer themselves against challenging information. The disposition to do this would give incorrect beliefs more of a tendency to linger. I personally don't think that price is worth it for the gain of simple pain avoidance; not when the pain is this trivial.

Another reason why trigger warnings might not be a good idea. I think that the degree to which we feel anxiety about something depends a lot on social cues. For example, when an authority figure demonstrates anxiety when he's talking about a certain issue, it communicates to us that the issue might pose a real threat somehow, so we feel anxiety in response to his response, where we might feel less anxiety if he took a more soothing tone. Trigger warnings are also social cues which indicate threats, and so their presence probably also amplify our anxieties about a given issue.

Nebogipfel I touched on the second point

You point about living in an echo chamber applies beyond just trigger warning, but the general closed attitude.

I'm actually going to put a trigger warning at the beginning of this post, because I am going to discuss a circumstance in which I have seen trigger warnings used, and my description will include talk of sexual violence against a child.

The only context I have seen or heard trigger warnings used is in regards to discussions involving sexual assault/sexual abuse victims. For example, a while back I was reading a blog by a woman writer who was going through the process of talk-therapy for the first time dealing with her childhood sexual abuse by a male relative. She decided to write about it to share her story because she is a writer anyway and writing about trauma can be therapeutic, especially if it is used to share with and reach out to other victims. So she wrote in her blog about her appointments with her therapist and what they talked about when she had challenging days or when she experienced a breakthrough. One blog session began with a trigger warning, because included in it were graphic descriptions of what it feels like to be choked with a penis when you are 7 years old, the panicky feeling of thinking you're going to die and not being able to breathe and not understanding what is happening to you or why this man (a relative who is supposed to care for you and protect you) is trying to kill you by putting his penis in your mouth so you can't breathe.

In this sort of context, because what is being discussed is so graphic and disturbing (and she knew that much of her audience was people who had similar traumatic childhood experiences), but the level of honesty and frankness was necessary for her recovery and healing, I think a trigger warning is a perfectly reasonable in this situation. I think most psychologists would agree with that.

I don't understand the context in which you guys are describing trigger warnings being used. I have not seen them used that way myself, but I think that goes back to the context: I am not an academic feminist--my experience with feminists is limited to group therapy sessions and women's shelters and my reading and discussions online, so maybe I would be more familiar with the kind of uses of trigger warnings that you guys are talking about if I experienced feminism or met feminists in an academic context.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... g-rape-law

wilburforce the context we talkign about, is pretty much like Wolfram87 described e.g. language and concept being triggering. Also specific people being triggering becuase they have views they don't like.

I would advise against anyone using the term "trigger warning".

"The following involves a detailed account of childhood sexual abuse" would be a better way.

Well that's the phrase I was taught to use by women working in those settings with people dealing with histories of trauma, so that is the phrase that I will continue to use in those contexts. In that setting it is useful, and I have personally witnessed and experienced the benefits of its use in that context. If I am ever in an academic environment and I hear it used there, I will examine the context of its usage before I decide whether I think it is appropriate in that setting or not. In the article Wolfram cited it seemed unnecessary: if I were there at that school I would have disregarded it as inappropriate usage for the term. I think it is only appropriate in therapeutic setting or in settings where it is known that the audience is one with a history of trauma of the sort being discussed and the sort of trauma being discussed is graphic and disturbing like what I described in my last comment. I think banning teachers from using random words like "violate" and calling that somehow a trigger warning is just incorrect usage of the term trigger warning as I understand the term in the therapeutic setting.

It is not just incorrect use of a term it is an incorrect use of a concept. This is isn't always accidental IMO.