Is feminism in media out of hand?

[Shu]

Pretty much what the title says. Do you think people have to walk on egg shells in today's age when talking about gender issues in Movie/Television shows that are current? What is your take? Do you think feminism is taken to an extreme at times or do you think it is just right?

 

[Verum Vitae]

Thank you, Shu.
I wanted to start with that because I'm going to take some flak for this from somewhere.

I think everything is out of hand.
People throw around the word "Misogyny" and "Anti-feminist" anytime someone disagrees with their point of view. It's horrible, but these same people can then turn around and say, "I need feminism because everyone is equal!"
No, they aren't, and you're proving that. The right to an opinion is basic, I would think, not even covered by free speech or any such thing/provision.

No one can control another's thoughts (MK Ultra is another matter lmao)

Modern feminism is nothing more than a witch-hunt. For example, let's take tumblr. Tumblr is a blogging platform that truly did revolutionize /how/ things are shared, not necessarily the content. It's become a haven for the downtrodden to find like-minded individuals who simply parrot bullshit at each other all the time (Pardon my language.) This is where we find the true "modern feminist" movement. The modern feminism of today's age has reduced the male to nothing more than an animal, who's sole purpose in life is to avoid rape.

I think that's ridiculous. These are the same people who will sit there and say, "I slept with someone last night and regretted it this morning. Was I raped?" and one of their friends will say something along the lines of "You may not want to admit it because it's tragic, but yes."

The word "abuse" is thrown around pretty freely, too. That and "identity".

I had a point to all this, which is essentially, that I have no issue with feminism at it's core, but when it becomes a mudslinging campaign designed to make me feel guilty for shit I've never done, then I have a problem.

Yes, "modern" feminism is a problem, because it's turned everything into one-upmanship over the other gender (which according to tumblr there's something like a billion genders now?)

 

[Six]

It's become a haven for the downtrodden to find like-minded individuals who simply parrot bullshit at each other all the time

Couldn't agree more with you.

However, I do not think "feminism" is the problem. People are the problem. I've said this time and time again, people take every single thing they get their hands, eyes (whatever) on out of context. You're not fighting for equality if you bash the heads in of the opposite sex to get where you want to be.

I personally hate this topic with a passion, so I do not think I'll be responding here much.

It's not just feminism, people ruin everything, and I mean everything.

 

[ZaXo Ken'Ichi]

Couldn't agree more with you.

However, I do not think "feminism" is the problem. People are the problem. I've said this time and time again, people take every single thing they get their hands, eyes (whatever) on out of context. You're not fighting for equality if you bash the heads in of the opposite sex to get where you want to be.

I personally hate this topic with a passion, so I do not think I'll be responding here much.

It's not just feminism, people ruin everything, and I mean everything.

This is actually what I was going to say, is that it's more of a problem with people, and the modern ease they have of finding like-minded individuals. There's nothing wrong with finding people who agree with you. But today it's so easy that people just stay there, warping their perceptions of the world until they don't see reality for what it is anymore. When that happens, things get far too confusing for everyone else, because actions no longer have a grounded context in the minds of those who've enveloped themselves in that subject. It's why people will say that things like FFXV being action-oriented is guaranteed to ruin the series. It's why people will see a single trailer for a movie, and run to Rotten Tomatoes to give it perfect ratings (or perfect zeroes). It's why there is a seemingly large group of civil rights activists who will get mad if you call black people black, but also if you call them African American (arguing that this term isolates them from 'normal' America); they cry "cultural appropriation" if you decide you enjoy rap or want dreadlocks, but you're also trying to stifle their culture if you don't celebrate such things. It turns into a no-win situation, because the expectations are insanely high. Those people are missing the forest for the trees.

If a women is proud of her sexuality, she's praised for being strong. But if she acts on that sexuality by choosing to be in porn, or even just wear some sexy clothing for a picture, she's slut-shamed into oblivion by these same people. She goes from being strong, to being a construct of the patriarchy who's bowing to the demands of men. Every action a women takes is simultaneously her showing that she's the only ruler of herself, and also an effect of her patriarchal manipulation that she needs to get over. It creates huge, sweeping contradictions. Women should expect men to be willing to do things for them in a relationship, but when they do, they're 'obviously' trying to reinforce gender roles; they can't just be trying to do nice things like one does in a healthy relationship... they have to be trying to suppress the woman's ability to do things for herself. Women deserve to be in combat roles in the US military... but they shouldn't have to do the same training. Women should demand more female lead characters in things like games. But they simultaneously tear apart more nuanced characters as 'sexist', while offering up painfully simple, boring, and frankly shitty replacements. Bayonetta as a character is sexist, but the terribly over-dramatic, "prize for doing good" sex scenes with absolutely flawless looking women in the Witcher are honest, beautiful, and positive for women. Feminism in the mainstream is no longer a cry for equality, but a push for superiority. It's why many women have chosen to vote for Hillary solely based on the fact that she's a women, ignoring the fact that that's no different from a man voting for Trump because he's a man. If a man said that, they'd be crucified by the media, as they should be. But a women? Nah, that's feminism doing a good job. For feminism's sake, it's somehow a smart decision for a women to ignore the vast array of qualities a women possesses in making such decisions, and focus solely on one quality... kind of like they argue men do all the time.

I personally cannot subscribe to feminism. I subscribe to the idea of equality and respect for all. I understand that the argument is, that the focus things like feminism offer is the best way to get the problems of that individual group noticed, rather than just lumping them in with the problems of every other group of people. But at the same time, all I ever see from these more focused groups is a push for superiority. All I ever see is a warped perception of reality. It always ends up favoring that one group over others, which is the exact opposite of equality.

 

[Shu]

Wow, ya'll did surprise me. Here's the deal with me, and I think I'll get off my little tree of Admin-ship for a second (watches for @Mitsuki).

I think feminism is definitely needed. Though I think the words "Feminism" and "Masculinity" are words now looked on as completely degrading by the opposite sexes.

I used to frequent the bar with a couple of girls and my good buddy. It wouldn't register sometime, but I'd sometimes say.. "Well that's was an over the top thing to say"; when they had completely massacred a dude's details. Then all the sudden I'm in it like world war 3 trying to defend a point, that no longer has a point. I mean, I get the term "Fem Nazi" has been thrown around, but thankfully these two ladies knew when to yield due to our friendships.

I think letting them banter now a days without getting involved is the easier thing to do. The issue though is, they don't want a man's feedback and that to me is a little ignorant. Equality is supposed to be seeing from both sides in my opinion.

I know I might come off an ass to some of you members, but that's only because life is waaaaay too serious. Though when it comes to feminism, I am super restrained about talking about it because it's now become to the point you can't talk about four things at a bar without agreeing.

1) Religion
2) Politics
3) Racism

So for the media, my take is this. If you think men are angry about Ghostbusters because of women, they aren't. It's because they type casted three women, who are usually great apart. Though in my opinion they were so role oriented that it was prejudice in itself. That and trying to put a story around three big names in Hollywood, it was like trying to come out with a Hangover 2. Everything after the first was bad.

So stepping on toes and giving good ratings out of fear of being chastised is a bit much. The last thing a big name critic is willing to do is commit social suicide on calling a movie a failure if there is more than one big female protagonist.

 

[ZaXo Ken'Ichi]

And you know, I think that's sort of the biggest problem when talking about inclusion in entertainment and such in the first place. Everyone rushes to want characters of a certain gender, or race, or sexuality in their entertainment. And I am 110% for it. Heck, I spent like almost fifteen minutes on my YouTube channel, purely talking about how/why I tend to pick female protagonists over male when given the option in games. But if you're going to make that a point of interest for that character, make sure that isn't the sole major characteristic of that character. I've spoken to quite a few transgendered, gay, and bi people about whether they like their portrayals in media, and nearly all of them say no. Why? Because the characters they get that represent them, are nothing but that one trope. They're 'the gay character', or 'the trans character'. It's not a single aspect of that character; it's their entire being. Gay male characters almost always have to act like flamboyant, selfish divas in media for example, and their character focus is always on them being gay. To a lot of people that feels not only like a lazy attempt at inclusion, but also a step backwards because it fortifies stereotypes. It's even worse when they end up the comedic relief.

The same thing here. We shouldn't be pushing for female protagonists everywhere; we should be pushing for good female protagonists. We should put them in roles where it makes sense, rather than just swapping them out for dudes and calling it 'all good'. If their gender is a focus of that piece of entertainment, then it should only be a part of what makes them who they are, rather than the whole. The lack of listening from some feminists has ended in them being surrounded by a bunch of 'yes men', hence why just having a female protagonist equals a good product somehow now. Meanwhile, that same lack of listening has given the impression that it's okay to make these characters one-note and poorly written.

Not talking about Ghostbusters specifically, mind you. I haven't seen it. But honestly, I'm not really interested for those exact reasons. From everything I've seen, the problem with it is that they did nothing but swap the previous characters out with women 'just because', and then wrote these women into the characters they're always typecast as. That's unfair to such great actresses, it's unfair to the audience, it's unfair to the source material, and it's also extremely unfair to women as a whole.

 

[Harlequin]

I would say it's a media problem, if only because every sociopolitical movement becomes far too overbearing the moment the media have a stranglehold on the narrative and can use the movement to consolidate their power and influence over the masses. What we're experiencing today is essentially soft censorship, where the media allow for a counter argument which legitimises the premise of the original argument, but create a blackout around the counter narrative which flips it on it's head. It creates the illusion of fair representation when in fact all you're getting is their argument followed by either an easily defeated position or one which reflects the same underlying pretenses and principles.

A good example in keeping with the feminist theme would be the supposed wage gap.

According to most feminist idealogues in both politics and the media today the disparity (whether actual or imagined) between the sexes with regards to pay is proof of institutional sexism. The counter argument presented by the media tends to be that of patsies who entertain their dogmas and pretenses, rather than challenging them at a fundamental level. Arguments that suggest if there is a disparity it's simply indicative of the lifestyle choices women make in contrast to men, but the pretense that a wage gap is somehow still an issue that needs to be addressed and that the state must still mediate somehow, or we should put pressure on industries as a society because equality of outcome is required in order to 'correct' the imbalance. Neither argument matters, they're both the same angle, each one legitimises the pretense of government involvement at the expense of individual self determination.

A real counter narrative is one that might suggest that no, imbalance isn't inherently bad, I am not my demographic, the state doesn't get to determine how much my labour is worth either on my or my employer's behalf (it's my sweat and blood, it belongs to me!!) and there is more to payment than two faceless human beings working the same role (performance, professionalism, negotiation skills, reputation, willingness, loyalty, etc). Why should we surrender our individual freedoms? Because the government/media demand we adhere to their particular brand of dogma?

The real question is why the media throughout history have constantly sought to maneuver themselves into a position where their integrity is no longer questioned and they can dictate right and wrong to the population. Is it because of what they stand to gain from influencing the wider public opinion? Election results? Government policy?

Whatever your opinion on feminism, it's the media that we should be worried about.

 

[Verum Vitae]

Well, I stand by my original point that feminism itself as it is today is essentially a social tumor.
I'm not saying that it's not needed, but like anything else, it should be moderated. The issue is that it's a grassroots movement, and there is no real figurehead, nobody who can step in and say, "Now hang on" and try to basically de-escalate. The problem is that the escalation doesn't ever come down, the stakes keep getting raised.

There was a happening on twitter recently when it was announced that women might have to sign up for the draft.
I can't find any references to this, but there were a great deal of complaints with regard to women joining the military under the Selective Services Act.

My main issue with all this, really and truly, was introduced in the novel 1984.

It's doublethink, which is the ability to accept two contrary ideas as both being true at the same time; it's different from hypocrisy, which is acting against one's beliefs.
Don't ask for something, and then in the same breath say, "But we want it different."

 

[Shaissa]

I will say that it isn't the media versus people/social media. Media plays off the social media that people hashtag or whatever they want. So the question about if Feminism is becoming out of hand in the media is not really the problem. It is that media shows what overall people are attracted to seeing which they get off social media which everyone involved has created. I think feminism is needed, and really I think that social media is the bigger problem... So I think this is all I am going say on the topic.

 

[ZaXo Ken'Ichi]

I will say that it isn't the media versus people/social media. Media plays off the social media that people hashtag or whatever they want. So the question about if Feminism is becoming out of hand in the media is not really the problem. It is that media shows what overall people are attracted to seeing which they get off social media which everyone involved has created. I think feminism is needed, and really I think that social media is the bigger problem... So I think this is all I am going say on the topic.

Not really expecting a reply, since you said that's all you want to say on the subject, but I have to ask... If the media truly just jumped to whatever side seemed the most successful at the time, how does that explain the difference between liberal media outlets and conservative media outlets? One would assume that if jumping on the biggest bandwagon was the goal in terms of politically motivated movements like feminism, then nearly every major outlet would have the same stance.

 

[Shaissa]

Not really expecting a reply, since you said that's all you want to say on the subject, but I have to ask... If the media truly just jumped to whatever side seemed the most successful at the time, how does that explain the difference between liberal media outlets and conservative media outlets? One would assume that if jumping on the biggest bandwagon was the goal in terms of politically motivated movements like feminism, then nearly every major outlet would have the same stance.

This will get a little off topic from Feminism but, there are always two sides to the debate and the social media sides even with Feminism. Some will say it has gone too far and some will say it hasn't gone far enough. Now depending on what side the media wants to take (whether it is more liberal or conservative) the media will tell the story that way to please the views that they want to please. I remember a story not too long ago (not about feminism) that first was taking off on social media and people were taking sides, and funny thing Fox said the story one way and CNN said it another way...

 

[FinalxxSin]

The next time a female in the US wants to talk about the wage gap, you can show them this video:

Hmm...the Oppression Olympics....still true today:

The points of feminism being needed in the east part of the world and not in the west, along with the fact that a good number of current "feminists" are actually pushing for superiority and power have already been made so no need for me to repeat it.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

A few points:

1. Feminism is imperialist. See, when we're talking about the history of the West, social progressives generally enjoy pointing out the flaws of the major world powers, of how Britain or France or the U.S. or the Netherlands forced their culture and way of life upon indigenous peoples. Entire movies are produced to make us feel sad about this point--Avatar being the foremost example. Yet when it comes to feminism, all that sympathy for technologically or numerically superior powers destroying culture evaporates. Conservatives of Western countries are seen as inbred rubes who ignorantly persist in barbaric beliefs and practices. But this is never seen for the hypocrisy it is because of the magic of rationalist politics. Equality before the law has been abstracted into just "equality," and so imperialism becomes redefined, not as a denial of equality before the law, but as any social force which brings about disequilibrium. Thus, it can never be "sexism" if a female is doing it, because she is acting in a way to bring about "equality."
2. Feminism misunderstands the motivating operations of human beings. Human beings desire and pursue what they lack, not what they have. This is adaptive for human beings, because it keeps us constantly seeking what we need to maintain biological equilibrium with our environment. It is one thing to demand equality before the law, equality of status as "human," for women. But it is quite another thing to try to eliminate everything which, socially, makes women distinct from men. For when you do that, and you reduce all human beings to one-size atoms, you take away from each sex things that the other lacks. You thereby destroy the very qualities that make each sex valuable to the other.
3. Feminism is to society what self-consciousness is to psychology. When a system is able to modify itself via feedback, this is often useful. This is how our human brains, in typically developing individuals, keep our dopamine reward pathways from jetting us into the realm of schizophrenia. However, when the regulatory mechanism of a system becomes too closely identified with elements that it regulates, breakdown is the inevitable result. Imagine a thermostat for which the upper and lower limits are identical. The environmental control begins switching rapidly on and off, since both conditions are the same, until it wears out its own mechanism. It is the same with psychology and society. Feminism has us walking such a thin line about what we can say that stress--breakdown--is the result, a condition from which we cannot, as a society, grow in response to our environment.

 

[Dionysos]

You’re not alone in these opinions. Wow, FFF. I wasn’t expecting so many to think similarly. I guess more people are getting brave enough to speak up against the dark side of (some) feminists now. The danger has always been being mislabeled and misunderstood as a misogynist for disagreeing with certain branches of feminism.

I think we can largely agree that we aren't woman-haters for having legitimate issues with a movement. Yet we risk being interpreted as such by criticising the direction it is taking.

The media’s slant is a big issue where feminism is concerned, but it is not the only issue I have with feminism now. Another worrying thing for me would be the angles taught in some colleges, universities and in other educational contexts. With educational endorsement some of the myths of the new-age of feminism are taught as if they are fact, and since it is within an academic context it self-perpetuates itself as ‘factual’ and awards itself a legitimacy. Instead of encouraging students to seek opposing opinions and learn and develop as human beings, there are some I’m made aware of who are discouraged from engaging with the ‘other view’ in debate (be it at all, or efficiently or rationally). Welcome to the age of no-platforming and censorship. The communication isn't there and the conversation (although called for) cannot happen in this context.

Imagine being a student in this environment… Is this healthy? Shouldn’t we prefer to get to the reasoned and argued truth of the matter and help fix the problems of the world instead of creating a new one? We're going to be left with a generation who doesn't know how to debate properly or doesn't care about an opposing view if we aren't careful.

There are some feminist academics of a previous generation (or who hold different views) who are shocked by the 'madness' of what modern ‘feminism’ has become (and other branches of 'social justice'), and some of them are even no-platformed themselves for not holding the new ‘correct’ opinion of feminism.

Note: Not all feminism. You see this is a problem which we have: the term. There are many feminists who genuinely seek egalitarian or humanitarian principles of fairness, etc. But then there are the feminists who are out to tip the scales so that women are on top and men are the dogs on chains yelping apologetically.

The ‘bad’ feminists have a way of shutting debate by saying that any man who disagrees with them is a misogynist, or any woman who disagrees with them is a pawn of the patriarchy. They hold the idea that being anti-feminist (when meaning the ‘bad’ sort of feminism) is the same as anti-woman, and when the media covers it this card is sometimes played before the guy (or woman) even gets a chance to sensibly word his argument.

Once a person is labelled an anti-woman he’s already been shut down. Conversation over.

People are a problem, but not the only problem. The ideology itself is the problem (or rather, the spin). Not to use something as dangerous as Islamic State as a comparison, but the main problem with IS is not the many heads of the hydra which continue to spawn and infest the world… The ideology which the members follow is the thing which if destroyed could end it all. Defeating an ideology is difficult (nigh impossible and improbable) so we settle with cutting as many of the heads off as possible (even if this leads to more heads sprouting filled with rage and out for revenge). Containment is the best we can hope for.

The ‘Bad-Feminist’ Hydra is a little more tangible, and it can be slayed with logic and reason, so long as there is still free speech and a room filled with people willing to listen and learn together. No ideology should be immune to criticism. All matters should be debated. ‘Bad-Feminists’ need to open their doors and let people debate them. Stop blocking people on twitter who only want to debate them; debate them. Consider their views. Grow and improve as individuals. Many feminists might find that they agree on more matters than they think they will if they actually listen to others too. We can all converse and engage with the a closer understanding of the truth if we discuss facts honestly together.

NOTE – I hate using the word ‘Bad-Feminist’ etc, but I felt emphasis was needed to differentiate the feminists of principles I can support from feminists of those I cannot for hopes of peace in our time.

I had a point to all this, which is essentially, that I have no issue with feminism at it's core, but when it becomes a mudslinging campaign designed to make me feel guilty for shit I've never done, then I have a problem.

This.

 

[Harlequin]

I'm going to continue focusing on the media's role because whatever your opinion may be on feminism, it would be relatively harmless were it not for the insidious influence the media can have in pushing harmful ideas, false narratives and obscuring dissent when playing their role as overlords of our opinion.

A great example would be wolf whistling.

Here in the UK the police in Nottinghamshire recently expanded their definition of hate crime to include instances of perceived misogyny. In short, if a woman decides a man has transgressed, police in Nottingham will treat it as a hate crime. According to the Guardian (left wing, pro-feminist) the Police admitted as much in the following article:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...mshire-police-count-wolf-whistling-hate-crime

The Nottinghamshire force defines a hate crime as “any incident which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred”.

A statement which roughly translates as: "Anything, whether a crime or not, which anyone witnessing it decides is a crime".

The government owned BBC (left wing, ought to be neutral) have also decided to push feminist dogma in lieu of socially responsible analysis on what the legal impact will be on men who approach women in public spaces under romantic pretenses. Notice they seem to be absolutely fine with the characterisation of women as victims and men as potential sex offenders who "target" these women because they're women (as though straight men would "target" any other demographic). There is of course no equivalent offense for any other demographic as a result of these changes, only straight males are the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

The following video is also from the BBC, showing women complaining of grabbing, stalking and other such misdeeds, implying these weren't crimes before this adjustment of the law based on feminist interpretations of misogyny came into effect.

"Staring at her breasts isn't a crime per se, but it is an offense". This would all be funny if it wasn't so draconian. The change is all about how women feel. Even if a crime hasn't been committed it will still be recorded as a hate incident. You couldn't make it up!!

For the record, I find wolf whistling tasteless, but that doesn't make the people who do it hateful. In my opinion, uninvited advances make up the vast majority of initial male-female romantic interactions, women seem to expect men to approach them. If you're a straight male in Nottinghamshire you're either going to have to be 100% certain an approach, text or physical contact is well received or you might just be reported for a hate crime.

For anyone in the US who might be reading this: you want to know why Europe has such a terrible history of extreme politics? Because we insist on being institutionalised. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is the norm here, where we voluntarily sign over our freedom of speech, thought and self determination to stop the latest deliberately manufactured outrage by politicians and the media who in turn are fed power from the feckless. This time the Reichstag fire is misogyny, but the media's role is always the same: manipulate the genuine concerns of the masses to push an underlying agenda and obliterate political opponents. Wolves in sheep's clothing.