I saw something on twitter recently. A girl who likes basketball had gotten a subscription to some basketball magazine (I forget what it's title was). She noticed that the entire magazine was filled with only mens basketball, and the only women in the magazine were cheerleaders. She wrote a subtly hostile letter to the company, essentially complaining about how womens basketball isn't popular because it isn't publicized enough, and stating how men are favored too much in sports while women are ignored due to the "immoral misogynistic bastards" who shun them just because of gender (that's an exaggeration, not a quote), then eventually claiming that she would shop and get her magazines somewhere else.
I found this letter to be annoying. She could have easily just written a non-hateful paper containing realistic requests to fulfill her own preference for basketball. Something like "Hello, I like womens basketball, and a lot of other people do too. Maybe you could include women in your magazines to appeal to us as well." Instead she decides to bitch about an incorrect understanding of the motives for printing magazines about only mens basketball, as if there was some type of sexist conspiracy to keep them (women) out of public view.
This type of behavior seems to be a trend among (or a defining characteristic of) social justice warriors. Instead of "the team name 'redskins' bothers me, so I will ignore it or not watch the team" it's "change the name you racist fuckers!" Rather than "ray rice hit his girlfriend, and we don't want to see him play anymore because he is no longer impressive to us" it's "how the hell can you just let him do that without punishment!" (amount of sports related issues is coincidental).
On top of that, they care way too much about mundane issues.
Do you dislike social justice warriors (or, the pissy ones)?
Sign In
Social justice warriors | Forum
rigosantana3
Oct 9 '14
This is a classic case of feminism at it's worst. women complain that they dont have fair treatment when in fact they do. The problem is, women want to be treated like men but dont want to let go of the privileges of being a woman. For example...the age-old "cant hit a woman" and "be treated like a lady". You want the position...you take the good AND the bad. This woman could have easily subscribed to a magazine for womens basketball (there are plenty). The magazine she was reading was likely FOR men's basketball (they are separate associations).
Chapter Head johnnywatts
Oct 9 '14
This is a classic case of feminism at it's worst. women complain that they dont have fair treatment when in fact they do. The problem is, women want to be treated like men but dont want to let go of the privileges of being a woman. For example...the age-old "cant hit a woman" and "be treated like a lady". You want the position...you take the good AND the bad. This woman could have easily subscribed to a magazine for womens basketball (there are plenty). The magazine she was reading was likely FOR men's basketball (they are separate associations).
I think you're clearly confused about the difference between feminism and its ideals, and individual feminists. Within any group, there will always been the extremists who want more.
In fact, I was rather surprised to see this failure to recognize the individual from the masses on a Satanic forum. You'd think those who champion individual sovereignty would recognize it.
Let's turn this around: We, as men, don't like it either when certain feminists characterize men as mindless violent beasts. Why then do we make the same mistake?
It's a failure of the brain I tell ya.
Chapter Head
rigosantana3
Oct 9 '14
Johnny, you make a valid point. My opinion does have a few flaws in it. Perhaps i should specify im referring to the extremist feminist. Which, from what OP describes may be what the story is about. Your thoughts?
nith
Oct 10 '14
Very few real judgements can be made on the limited information the opening post states.
Taking a moment to think of possible sides to an action where motives are only assumed is often a pit fall. Many magazines are business based and are more likely to react to the loss of subscribers than someone placing an idea to add content. Then again a magazine that targets men and already has a client base will take little notice of a single case.
As for social warriors, activists or what ever people want to label them this season, I find it depends on what and how they are doing it. I have met many feminists that are darn right annoying and yet others I have high respect for. If a person was just mouthing off and attention gathering I would shun or just dismiss them. Then again if a person was demanding a right or defending one I may even back them.
I find topic and the application of a topic can be totally different things, or at least different directions of that topic. I find the fundamentalist religious person just as annoying as a militant atheist. The idea someone wants things their way and think that they have to change the ways of others is an illusionary construct. Basically wanting to change others is a simple control topic.
Member Berardo Rodriguez
Oct 10 '14
When men invent something for men, women always find a way to get into it, that's good for them, let them enjoy it. When women invent something for women, please let men enjoy it without prejudice, when anybody invents something for everybody, let's enjoy it, let's leave the warriors punch to the air in their imaginary fight.
Chapter Head johnnywatts
Oct 10 '14
Johnny, you make a valid point. My opinion does have a few flaws in it. Perhaps i should specify im referring to the extremist feminist. Which, from what OP describes may be what the story is about. Your thoughts?
Extremism of any kind is non-conducive to a good life, and should be opposed wherever it may be found. Extremism, as defined by yours truly, refers to an attitude or mode of thought that gives no room for other people to live their lives as they wish without impeding on yours.
Extreme feminism falls in this category. They want all men to behave and think in a certain way, regardless of whether it affects women or not. e.g., rape is obviously something to be discouraged. However, certain feminists also want all men to like fat chicks (body positive). The stimulus that makes my penis erect has zero bearing on your life, so please kindly fuck off.
I think the question that needs to be asked in regards to any social justice cause is this: Does it affect the SJW's life if others do/do not change their opinion/behavior?
Yes? Then it's a worthy cause, because the opinion/behavior of others clearly impacts your own life, and it is only Satanic to want to change it.
No? Then it's none of your goddamn business. Please fuck off.
e.g., despite being a minority, I have no issues with the Redskins name. It's a fucking name, and I don't even watch or like football. It has no bearing on my life, and I have no right on step on the team owner's wishes to name his team. The naming of his team does not deny me any rights or opportunities in life.
If I took issue with the Redskins name, then I should also take issue with names like The Oriental Express and Oriental Garden, etc. Otherwise, I'd be a hypocrite. Shit, I went to Walmart the other day, and the word "NEGRO" was front and center on a box for a black table. Where are the picket lines?
Chapter Head johnnywatts
Oct 10 '14
Do you dislike social justice warriors (or, the pissy ones)?I don't.
When I am not given the level of education and opportunities that my male/other-ethnicity/other-economic-background/etc peers get then it is a war against me. What should I do. Politely ignore the fact that because of my gender, native language, socio-economic status or whatever I make 1/5 of what my college classmates do.
It's war and I have not started it. Why on Earth should I accept defeat and be polite about it?
---
So I don't feel bad on a personal level that a team is named Redskins, but what if they were called something like The Tartar Bulgarians? Should I be polite about the insult and ignore it? Or would be be cool if I am upset alright but the others around me are not and think I am too touchy...
What's insulting about The Tartar Bulgarians? I for one would like an NFL team named "THE YELLOW CHINKS" (in your armor).
Member sonofject
Oct 11 '14
I don't dislike SJWs as people, what I do dislike is what they represent and how they represent it. I live in California, land of the fruitcakes and nutbars, so this movement is old hat to me. I'm kind of inured to these types of activists, and whatever political force they have often dissolves or is overturned during a typical political cycle or media blitz. They constantly reinvent social movements to fit the issue of the day, and aren't above selling themselves out to advance their personal agendas.
What is amusing is the current trend of hypersensitivity to issues, and hijacking of traditional social movements by radical groups that have political or economic motivations for changing established norms. Many are notorious for shifting their narrative to a more militant and extremist cause, while not engaging the real people affected by the issue. It's like oppressing something that wasn't oppressed to begin with, then acting like some sort of moral crusader trying to fix what you broke in the first place.
The three major agendas that get the most attention by the SJWs where I live focus on gender equality (feminism, same sex marriage rights), race equality (affirmative action, equal opportunity and education rights), and social equality (diversity/class struggle and sensitivity to the handicapped or the disenfranchised). Out of these agendas come the SJW buzzwords and phrases like 'oppression scale', 'culture of misogyny', 'check your privilege', and 'weaponized minorities'. It's gotten to the point where the political correctness begins to affect people's perceptions of themselves and their lifestyles.
It's rather counterproductive to put a social justice label on such things as entertainment, athletics, cultural iconoclasts and forms of art and personal expression. Diversity in society does not mean equality in society. I feel this is where most SJWs misrepresent their stance time and again, and makes it difficult for them to be taken seriously on any issues they raise awareness about.
What is amusing is the current trend of hypersensitivity to issues, and hijacking of traditional social movements by radical groups that have political or economic motivations for changing established norms. Many are notorious for shifting their narrative to a more militant and extremist cause, while not engaging the real people affected by the issue. It's like oppressing something that wasn't oppressed to begin with, then acting like some sort of moral crusader trying to fix what you broke in the first place.
The three major agendas that get the most attention by the SJWs where I live focus on gender equality (feminism, same sex marriage rights), race equality (affirmative action, equal opportunity and education rights), and social equality (diversity/class struggle and sensitivity to the handicapped or the disenfranchised). Out of these agendas come the SJW buzzwords and phrases like 'oppression scale', 'culture of misogyny', 'check your privilege', and 'weaponized minorities'. It's gotten to the point where the political correctness begins to affect people's perceptions of themselves and their lifestyles.
It's rather counterproductive to put a social justice label on such things as entertainment, athletics, cultural iconoclasts and forms of art and personal expression. Diversity in society does not mean equality in society. I feel this is where most SJWs misrepresent their stance time and again, and makes it difficult for them to be taken seriously on any issues they raise awareness about.
Member Khandnalie
Oct 12 '14
My whole issue with SJW's is that they tend to be incredibly sanctimonious and try to consider themselves immune from criticism or examination. While they are couched in generally solid ideas, they tend to take them past the point of defensibility, and then get all pissy when you call them on it. Somewhere between sensible person, calling for needed reform, they stop thinking. They stop examining and questioning their own position, and solidify that position into an absolute, and then begin pushing that absolute further and further away from reality. Then, when you try to wage a legitimate criticism on one of their points, or suggest something that is in any way deviant from their absolute, instead of responding with a logical defense, they accuse you of racism/sexism/etc and try to censor you.
The end result of this is that in fighting for their cause, they end up hurting it. People wouldn't make fun if feminism if not for tumblr feminists, wouldn't make fun of atheism if not for ultra-militant atheists, etc. - or at least, they wouldn't mock them nearly as much, and with much less legitimate reason to do so. They end up souring feminism, etc, on the tongue of those who would elsewise be open to it.
So yeah, I dislike SJW's. They hurt feminism, race relations, religious issues, class issues, pretty much any cause they try to champion.
Jorōgumo
Jul 21 '15
Never had a run in with SJW's until I had one try to bait me into a keyboard fight after I tweeted a reminder about how rape in GoT wasn't the worst thing to happen in the show, now I'm a self hating slave to the patriarchy. I think the extreme feminists of today are yesterdays Christian fundamentalists, spouting absolute bollocks that's doesn't deserve to be taken seriously or respected in any way.
The only correct way to deal with sjw's is to laugh and move on.
The only correct way to deal with sjw's is to laugh and move on.
