[Discussion] Do you consider all feminists bad??
- Thread starter CrimsonReaper
- Start date
Tarkatower
Active member
So I guess Raja ram Mohan Rai and vidhya sagar, Premchand, all must have been a jihadi...Reformation=/= jihad. Treating a sickness that society had developed to the point that women's life and rights in politics, in education, in economics, personal self were severely restricted or minimized if at all while not leaving much of traditional support basis was what started it.
Now people do not even want to go back to old ways of living and curb their individuality and related freedoms in favour of the greater good. But somehow they believe it should apply only to men and not women.
As for the problems with some government -Main stream politicians are to be countered by other main stream politicians.And leaders need to be less selfish and not get in to cheap politics of easy votes.
Seeing the anti abortionist getting laws passed that send a woman to jail for getting an abortion even if it's not proved if it was intentional and Rapists may have parental rights in many states of countries like USA, I doubt it's only feminists that are getting their way.
In our own country a husband can send a guy jail for having an affair with his wife. A wife cannot do the same and only option she has to divorce and walk out herself. and yet somehow they tell feminists that they are favouring the women by not sending her jail while as a wife limiting her at the same time. I laugh when I hear men complaining about this section that they can be sent a jail but not the woman- because of feminists policies. It's not damn feminist policy- it's from men who like to have a mistress on the side but not want their wife to have a BF at the same time and consider it an invasion in their territory when the situation is reversed- they are the one cheated upon. I don't have sympathy for such women who have affairs with married men. Repeal the act now and let men go or send the mistress to jail too. I am all for it. But it's how politics of fooling the masses go who do not really pay attention to exactly what's wrong with the picture.
There is little a woman can do if she is divorced in certain religious communities. Even in the groups they have enough rights, there is hardly any surety that they will get what they deserve if the other person can afford a good lawyer. And this has been an ancient story.
You wouldn't be calling all minorities bad for them playing religion card nor you would be saying that same for other classes reaping benefits of reservations or affirmative actions. You wouldn't tell people of religion X to change their name since it has gotten bad press either. Even if some of the people who oppose feminism go back and start advocating for the privileges and laws on very similar grounds and go making cries of "justice or else".
That's a double standard that makes feminists more hated group and the word itself bad since even the groups reaping benefits of extra privileges are united to not lose advantage in this regard. There always have been extremists in all groups and they fluctuate from one extreme to another.
Last edited:
HiddenSound
Active member
It's only Anita Sarkeesian and her ilk that are idiots.
Feminism in and of itself isn't bad. But, as with every other cause, there are those who take it way too far.
Feminism in and of itself isn't bad. But, as with every other cause, there are those who take it way too far.
Its like asking if all apples are bad .... definitive generalizations are stupid.
Anyway, those who seemingly hate Feminism (Western/Mainstream) ask them if they believe: Equal Pay for Equal Work, Voting Rights, Equal Treatment, No Discrimination etc .... You will find a vast majority of them agree to such concepts (But yet dislike Feminism). I wonder why? (I am sure that the fact that most of the Vocal part of the Western Feminism has become whiny bums moving on the inertia of the early movement .. is not related to problem) . :/
Tl;Dr: I think the Western Feminism is now like Great Kingdom fallen under the rule of a Unworthy Successor where the good ministers are not given much power.
2. That has more to do with Inheritance and Economic reasons than anything else, a child fathered by another man is not her husband's heir and has to be taken care of (The reverse is more of a sow and reap scenario). If true equality is to be ensured in this case ... the Government has to allow men to bring in the children by their mistresses as their legit heirs and raise them as their own without any stain on them if they want to allow women to have same extramarital rights (Sending the third party to jail one ... since both parties has the right to divorce already). But instead of that the Laws choose to treat both the sexes unfairly in different ways.
Anyway, those who seemingly hate Feminism (Western/Mainstream) ask them if they believe: Equal Pay for Equal Work, Voting Rights, Equal Treatment, No Discrimination etc .... You will find a vast majority of them agree to such concepts (But yet dislike Feminism). I wonder why? (I am sure that the fact that most of the Vocal part of the Western Feminism has become whiny bums moving on the inertia of the early movement .. is not related to problem) . :/
Tl;Dr: I think the Western Feminism is now like Great Kingdom fallen under the rule of a Unworthy Successor where the good ministers are not given much power.
1. FACT: Women are not punished for the same crime a man does. True or Not true?
2. That has more to do with Inheritance and Economic reasons than anything else, a child fathered by another man is not her husband's heir and has to be taken care of (The reverse is more of a sow and reap scenario). If true equality is to be ensured in this case ... the Government has to allow men to bring in the children by their mistresses as their legit heirs and raise them as their own without any stain on them if they want to allow women to have same extramarital rights (Sending the third party to jail one ... since both parties has the right to divorce already). But instead of that the Laws choose to treat both the sexes unfairly in different ways.
Last edited:
1. It's the man's 'honour' and 'home' that's being saved. Wife is sure to suffer the consequences either way. There have been cases where the woman wanted to leave the husband but he won't allow and lodged the case against the person who tried to help.
2. No the premise of that law is that since women are easily manipulated and exploited such a mistress is in this relationship, is someone with no fault of hers. That was the explanation given for the disparity. Your own interpretation has little to do what law makers were thinking. Why would government need to make unlawful kids of the husband, lawful except for giving validity to all such children of our dear politicians? The new laws come at the expense of the first wife. The same one who would also be resented by the hubby and his mistress for asking settlement money if she divorces. If all such children are considered true heir as good as the one from the actual wife then such children of wife could be made heir of their real father and it would work out the same. They can also inherit from their mother in similar manner her kids from the husband would, if she has income of her own.
The right to inherit was always tricky in case of unlawful kids or Karna would have been the eldest son. It's not like rest of the Pandavas had blood relation with Pandu.
Similarly premise of the law of husband having the right to make a criminal case against wife's BF is that this BF is breaking a home. As if a mistress doesn't break a home. The root of the law is hubby being allowed to remarry or take concerts before 1952 and continuation of extra marital affairs after such laws are passed against it. In fact our dear film/TV industry has always been in love with the "other" woman/second wife and systematically desensitizing us against such behaviour once again. No wonder seeing how many of them have had been involved in all kind of scandalous marriages.
The fact is _ feminists were hated and mocked when they asked for right back in 1960 and they are mocked today. US in some manners had been even more discriminating towards women than Asian countries and gave them less rights than their Asian counterparts.
Last edited:
I might be young .... But please explain HOW 'home' and 'honor' is especially saved by sending a **** to prison?
The Husband suffers consequences either way too ... nearly the same actually. Except one wld never get the advantage of legal revenge against the third wheel.
And there have been cases like Indrani Mukherjee too. Corruption in the system does not make the Penal Code itself guilty.
Quite a sexist reasoning really. Typical 'Women good Men Bad' wont u say?
As a mentioned ... quite a sexist disparity.
What they think does not change my reasoning.
Someone said something about equality .... that person may be interested.
So ... you are implying that justice might sting a Lil. Never knew 'Fair' is not 'fell good'.
If that is the choice of the property holder then why not? I think in Kerala property is passed down the female line often ... the world has not ended (In fact I prefer it).
He is the Eldest Son (Just unacknowledged). The Kshatriya lineage is counted bit differently (It leans towards the female side), thats is why the sons of Kunti were called Pandavs despite none of them being born of Pandu. Which is also why despite Parasuram destroyed the Kshatriya bloodline 7 times .. when technically he just could have destroy them only once and make them extinct (But couldnt ... because he never hurt the female Kshatriya ... and their children was Khsatriyas).
Thus you notice the superiority of the system.
If someone resorts to cheating .... I daresay it was already broken. But hey dont think like a lawmaker.
Blasphemy ... Sweet Innocent women did nuffing wrong ... she was clearly manipulated. XD
Ah ... I think the root problem lies in the fact that Indian laws happen to be too British in origin. That is why I think there are so many humpty dumpty.
Our Flim industry overemphasizes our ability to burst into song and dance in the middle of the street too. No need to point out that its retarded out there.
I will point out a fact too: In the distant past Men of the lower social ranks where not allowed to vote too. And in the past Men earned their voting rights by signing up a paper that said that they would join the national army if the government called for it aka The Draft (In the US).
No one just gives anyone power for free, you have to get it by hook or by crook ... The Feminists of the past did that and won despite the opposition. Then ask why with the monumental support (more than ever) the Feminist Movement has, it can not win even the heart of the people?
Interesting ... please mention them. Then again you tend to think 'women are too innocent dont jail them' Laws as a wrong done against women.
Last edited:
Check out the medieval reasoning sections.
Yea so why the law?
She is in jail so what's your point?
Yep. That's why I pointed it out.
I am not the one who complains about divorced wife getting settlement.
Not sure.. more like brother plays the role of family head rather than the husband in a certain community... I didn't study the details but it's northeast India which is known to be matrilineal in real sense and even ther I think there are some variations... Like I read somewhere in the tribe Garo-- they allowed a widow to inherit or have money of her own on practical grounds even though it's not matrilineal... Not sure though since the source was secondary or tertiary.
I think that was because the son born to an unmarried woman belongs to her maternal home and takes that family name according to ancient laws while the ones born after marriage get the name of the husband.
At the time of Parashuram the casts were not that rigid probably. The later vedic age problem which kept getting worse with time. Kshatriya caste always have been more inclusive with many new ones always entering the fold throughout the history.
lol only if the open mindedness had sustained but it was getting difficult even back then. Kauravas made it one of the points against their claim.
Eh they gave women rights when it suited them- a HIndu would lose property rights in joint family if he converted. It didn't suit the missionaries so it was fixed. Then a married woman couldn't convert without permission of husband either- British were all for her rights. But they didn't fix catholic woman the right to property. That law didn't seem to need any reform.
With so many TV shows on the theme it's invading your home already and gaining a different kind of acceptance and making people habitual of such relations. For myself that's the reason I rarely watch TV and more likely to be found on net. I spend money on cable and set top box only to not turn it out for weeks even.
It's a fight for power sharing. Of course it's not going to heart of the people who are in power. No one wants to lose it and seeing the personal relationship even women do not want that their son lose it. As for men- the class struggle between to groups of men will remain so. You have better connections and you already have an edge. If you are a man of not so good connections then you might find it hard to get a recommendation letter that much difficult. And people will deny you if they think you are inferior- ask the guy who was refused admission in German university because the management there heard about a rape case in India.
No I wonder why the guy is jailed for manipulating a married woman but why a woman is not jailed for doing the same to the married male. Either both are breaking a home or neither are. The most interesting part is most husbands don't use this law unless wife is already going to leave and while they are ok with divorce they want the other guy out of her life.
Last edited:
CrimsonReaper
Active member
Awards
As far as I know of such the reasoning ... The Honor was lost when he/she cheated. Sending one of the party to jail does not restore it.
Casually Sexist warning to men not to fiddle the diddle with married women? (Interestingly ... this doesn't account homosexual extramarital affairs)
Same point that you raised by mentioning certain cases.
Thus ... some people (aka men) tend to grumble at 'Man bad, Women Good' type of laws.
No one grumbles against 'fair' settlements.
Yes here are variations, but I think in Kerala the Daughter is actual heir of the property and the brother is guardian and protector (at least matters more than the husband) of his sisters children ... but he in a sense serves, not lead.
The very same laws dictate certain things about children born out of wedlock, which we dont see in the case of the Pandavs.
Also Karna was disowned by his mother. I think that might be unique case.
How do you think the caste system of fluid and inclusive then? Ans: Counting by the female line.
Open mindedness has nothing do with it ... Its simply power play, we are more susceptible to control if we keep bickering and unhappy. Why do you think we got continuously invaded?
Kauravas is a unique case mind you .... The Duryadhan should have been the king: His father was dismissed from kingship because of his disability but allowed a even worse, sickly one to reign. Then again ... everything should been fine in one old man kept it in his pants. Why does it always come that!
As I said ... The powerful dont give power for free.
We are same in that. I touch the TV only if my net is down, i dont have a book to read, am not sleepy. Plus I annoy others with my commentary on most shows, so I am not welcome XD.
I mostly agree ... But there is simple miss wording. Power is never shared. The illusion of power is only granted to control the whole chessboard (Muslim league and Congress clashes is a fine example ... The Brits did not lose anything by throwing a bone between the two).
'Womyn do nuffingg wong' XD Careful Ira ... you dont sound like a good feminist by implying that Women should be jailed.
Jokes aside: Why do you think women were not dominant in physical department since the dawn of mankind? Bilogically women are too valuable and men are expendable. So its simply 'tough love' logic.
It happens ... I loved a girl who cheated on me and went with another guy (the guy controlled her to the degree that he monitored her facebook profile and used it) .... Many incidents later, I still can not bring myself to hate her but only refraining from ambushing that bastard because she loves him. So I understand the desire and the annoyance at being denied that, but I think the Law is more of deterrent as torn families are not the most desirable thing.
Transcendence
Active member
I'm an intersectional feminist myself. The people that give feminism a bad name are the ones known as "Feminazi's". I speak out against racial, social and gender inequality, stereotypes etc. Feminazi's are as illogical as they come. They twisted the word to fit "female power" when the word itself just means equality for both.
Radical Misogyny gave birth to radical feminism. The latter is pivotal and essential in third world countries where genital mutilation, bladder tearing and death through nonconsensual *** with female children, shame from divorce, abandonment, cultural stigma associated with marriage customs, dowry and honor killings etc are common factors in the lives of women. Let's not be so iditoic in generalizing the entire movement.
However, it doesn't quite belong in the liberal countries where equality is enshrined in the law. Radical Feminism may also stem from female abuse at local level as domestic violence is quite common against women (almost) all over the world. This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed.
But, I really do not fathom this equality business. Women and men are not biologically equal. They are different. They should be treated differently. If misandry is brought into question over better performance in some areas - as men will easily outperform women where physical work is essential - then it's unfair and doesn't work as a polemic in favour of the movement. In fact, it deteriorates it, rather than making it progress and evolve at the right pace; a phase essential for all movements.
That aside, I am a radical supporter of 'naysaying' to feminism in regards to creative domains. I have the same opinion on equal racial or cultural representation. I am always shocked when people cry wolf here. Why? It's the artists' creative voice. The public doesn't have any right to force their opinions upon the creator of the piece in question. It always seems odd to me.
However, it doesn't quite belong in the liberal countries where equality is enshrined in the law. Radical Feminism may also stem from female abuse at local level as domestic violence is quite common against women (almost) all over the world. This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed.
But, I really do not fathom this equality business. Women and men are not biologically equal. They are different. They should be treated differently. If misandry is brought into question over better performance in some areas - as men will easily outperform women where physical work is essential - then it's unfair and doesn't work as a polemic in favour of the movement. In fact, it deteriorates it, rather than making it progress and evolve at the right pace; a phase essential for all movements.
That aside, I am a radical supporter of 'naysaying' to feminism in regards to creative domains. I have the same opinion on equal racial or cultural representation. I am always shocked when people cry wolf here. Why? It's the artists' creative voice. The public doesn't have any right to force their opinions upon the creator of the piece in question. It always seems odd to me.
I strongly disagree. She isn't wrong about VGs and their portrayal of women. And this is coming from someone who is a vocal supporter of arts and expression.
Last edited:
Oh man. I knew we'd get to this can of worms at some point.
I've tried not to get entrenched on one side of the whole GamerGate-Anita Sarkeesian-feminist-gamer cluster****, but, you know, I'm a human being. I have opinions. I have questions.
Everything else aside; you say there's a problem with the portrayal of women in video games. So my question to you is; how would you solve this problem? 'Cuse I've seen the lists: body image, damsel-in-distress syndrome, the works. I just can't seem to take these so-called 'ailments' seriously. Is it a Laura Croft with smaller boobs you want? More women in general? Cortana with love-handles?
Duke Nukem's ripped, and so is a lot of male pro- and antagonists in a lot of games. If I wanted to play an average-looking guy with average-like abilities I'd go live life and be myself.
We always hear about the 'problems' the video game community has. What's the solution? All I hear from Anita S and her side of the camp is lists of problems. At least the status quo is a solution.
Last edited:
Her points are legitimate and she has prasied quite a few female characters as well. So, it's not all 'take VGs down' as you are wrongly assuming. The solution to the problem is to simply 'not throw pebbles at the glass house and become a part of change'. That is how all change occurs. If women believe - and they are right on most fronts - that female representation is bad in VGs, then they should become a part of development houses to alter the mindset and not yell at it from the sidelines. That is immaturity.
Female characters are atrociously bad in representation and let's not even touch how terribly written they are in most mediums, which includes literature as well. Shocking, I know. But, as I said above, criticism alone doesn't get the job done, working towards acheiving the solutions to shortcoming does.
I'm not assuming anything. Nowhere did I say she wanted to 'take VGs down.'
I agree that those who believe that there is a problem should become part of the solution. I don't agree that having more women in the gaming industry will automatically lead to better female character. Bad writing is bad writing.
That's your opinion. I think a lot of female characters are phenomenally written, but I'm sure we could both cherry-pick to support both our stances.
You still haven't answered my question, though, and I got another one for you: what is it that makes them 'terribly written?' Is it their personalities, their actions? Can you give some examples?
Your post implied it. If you didn't mean it, then disregard it.
I never stated that more women would mean better female leads. I said it would mean that they would create characters themselves and understand the challenges that go with the development cycles. Once you get into the process, then progress begins. Shouting at developers isn't going to solve anything. That was my point.
Which ones are those? There are only (roughly about) 5 or 6 female characters that even fit that (phenomenal) domain if we go by the story-heavy games. The rest of them are insufferably bad and tropes peronified and all kinds of over-compensating terribles in-between. Contrary to the popular gamer's (or anyone's for that matter) belief, it really isn't an opinion. Every well-written character needs to have certain merits to it, which boil down to narrative and plot inconsistency that leads to dynamism (dynamic characters), narrative traction in the hands of a character, verisimilitude, moral relativism and a few other technicalities. Very few characters are dynamic, and even fewer, well-written.
No flat character is well-written. Ever. Take the examples of Final Fantasy Females. God, they are a steeple of mediocrity and terrible trope writing. Shining example of it. They never pull the plot. They don't add anything decent to it. They are flat, anime caricatures that fit manga and anime stereotypes perfectly as they never drive a plot. Tifa is literally - pardon my language - a walking pair of breasts. Aerith/Aeris, a character that is impeccably good and Yuna has a one-note Martyr complex written all over her, and like Aerith, she's so good that it's almost impossible to relate to her on any level.
They are all caricatures; characters with exaggerated qualities that go far, and absurdly and unrealistically, beyond the threshold of human psychology. That makes them terrible and insufferable as they have little or no human flaws. Their plot value is meagre at best and shallow at worst and leaves no tension, moments of catharsis or strength in challanging human perspectives - they merely are added just for the sake of addition.
FF fans' sole defense in their favour is that, 'they have charm' - and that, my friend, is not something that opens a window into the well-written domain. For a well-written character, you require flaws, human flaws, like jealously, anger, irrationality, lust, greed etc ... venial or cardinal sins even. Not merely at the surface value, but in their actuality. Any character that don't have flaws that drive them and make them commit errors won't be human, and thus, would be badly written.
Furthermore, if they are in the main seat (Lightning / Claire), they are constructed as a meagre part of the plot and not the other way around. They showcase the bad trend of females that over-compensate as men with female skins. The tough-girl syndrome plagues just about all forms of media and it's a product of lazy writing with garish, unnecessary plot devices that try hard to make such characters relevant.
I think I have given sufficient examples here. You can apply the merits and see for yourself.
Last edited: