I don't read it as 'pushing' in the books. Just author bias. Of course they write what they believe, every author does. I wish it was a little less strong in places, but so it goes.

Alkahest: what you're putting forth is basically a slippery slope argument: "If we start banning hateful ideologies, we're at risk of eventually banning all non-approved ideologies", which is really not the case. Banning an extremist hate group from being allowed to voice their hatreds does not necessarily lead to a blanket ban on every ideology Rob & co. don't believe in, and doesn't really point in that direction either. It is fully possibly to ban hate speech and similar opinions without undermining the arguments towards a general freedom to express one's opinion.

Calling the MRM a "hate group" devalues the term. You can't compare the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam with a loose collection of people united by little more than a critical attitude towards feminism. Before you declare some kind of holy crusade on me, let me point out that I'm a postgenderist who has been attacked, on this forum, merely for using gender-neutral pronouns. I absolutely loathe any attempt to constrain people's freedom based on gender or sex, and I have yet to encounter an MRA argument I find appealing in any way. The vast majority of MRAs I've seen have been reactionary troglodytes longing for an imaginary utopia as harmful to their welfare as to the welfare of the sex they seem to consider the lesser. But - I also know that not every group I dislike is an "extremist hate group". I hold myself to a fairly strict moral system, but that doesn't mean I would ban everyone who failed to live up to my standards, if I ran a forum. Now. Let me repeat, that I understand why Posthuman Studios felt the need to ban MRAs. MRAs have been deemed a problem around here. If radical communists or Hindu nationalists or some other group had caused similar amounts of discord, I hope they would have received the same treatment. But labeling the MRM a "hate group" is simply myopic. As for the broader echo chamber issue, I stand by the concerns I raised. Many people already have a hard time taking the setting seriously as a result of its blatant political agenda, which is presented with varying amounts of grace and subtlety. If Posthuman Studios has decided to cast out members of certain ideologies from not only the forum but the fandom in general, based not on their individual behavior but on their opinions and beliefs, it reinforces the idea of the company being a bunch of American leftists trying to push an obscure, ridiculed ideology via their products. Of course, they will also draw support from those already on their side of the American political spectrum, who might spread the word of the company's adherence to orthodoxy using the tumblr grapevine. I sincerely hope that's not the goal, as I dislike that kind of manipulative marketing. (To be honest, I have no idea if Posthuman Studios is American. They just feel very American to me.)

Alkahest wrote:

Calling the MRM a "hate group" devalues the term. You can't compare the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam with a loose collection of people united by little more than a critical attitude towards feminism.

Well, one thing some MRAs push for is that spousal rape shouldn't get punished, which is horrible. I think that most would agree that the MRA isn't as evil as the KKK, but really the KKK doesn't set the minimum bar for being labeled a hate group.

I fully admit to not having extensive knowledge about the MRM, and I have a hard time knowing if a given loud-mouthed asshat is a typical MRA or as indicative of the MRM as Valerie Solanas or Andrea Dworkin is of the feminist movement. Every movement has extremists and idiots. (I hope we can all agree that Solanas and Dworkin belong in that category.) Opposing the concept of marital rape is clearly wicked, insane and downright stupid. Opposing compulsory military service for one gender/sex but not the other is an opinion I consider moral, sane and sensible. I doubt the former opinion is necessary to be considered an MRA, just as I doubt the second opinion is sufficient to be considered an MRA. Where is the line drawn?

I'll make myself mostly unuseable as a mod by taking part in this discussion because I feel that I want to. Hope you don't mind. To Alkahest: I really don't think you need to fear this place becoming an echo chamber. PS+ [i]could[/i] have gone with the easy road that basically most other not-specialised-for-that forum do and completely ban all topics concerning politics and religion. They didn't. In fact, when they hired me as a moderator they specifically said that they [b]do[/b] want discussion on those topics. Polite and civil discussion mind you, but discussion nontheless. The first and foremost reason why the MRAs were banned is because they make a large group of people feel unwelcome. If two kids comes into your party and stirs up trouble that makes twenty other guests leave what are you going to do? I know what I would do and I'm not going to be ashamed of that. Working for optimal inclusion sometimes mean giving some people the boot, that's just the harsh reality of things. It's easy to fall for [url=http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html]Geek Social Fallacy #1[/url] but sometimes kicking people out is the best thing to do for the "group" (I put this in quotation marks because it's not an us-vs.-them thing). We want lots of people active here on the forum and the MRAs were keeping people away. Secondly, at least that's what I interpreted from the PS+ message, they feel very strongly that the MRM is not very constructive and is based on a false premise (many actually). They (the MRAs) make the claim (here on this forum) that feminism is not an ideology based on equality but that something called [i]Men's[/i] Rights Movement is. They also state that you can't be a member of both, that they are mutually exclusive (essentially either creating a false dichotomy or stating that the movement is [i]not[/i] about equal rights at all). Unfortunately logic hasn't seemed to work with these people and so they get tired of hearing their arguments that are based on a world view that is simply wrong. There are a few personal feelings I have regarding the MRM but I really don't want to delve into that here. If you're interested, send me a PM. ---- As for author bias, well if that's keeping you away from playing Eclipse Phase that's really your loss. I found it very refreshing with a setting that states that anarchism (in various forms) can work under some circumstances. It's an ideology that hasn't really been tried in any large scale (as far as I'm aware) and today most people feel that it's a naive impossibility. More than that, almost every political system and ideology [i]is present[/i] in Eclipse Phase, making it by far the most diverse setting I have ever seen. I haven't read everything of every source book but for the most part I feel that many of the factions are quite logical extensions of the current-day world. Besides, there's plenty of opportunity to interpret things however you want in your own games. There is no Eclipse Phase police that will come and put you in jail if you portray the Autonomist Alliance as morally bankrupt and evil and hypercorps as caring employers that would rather go financially bankrupt that do something morally wrong. Most of the Eclipse Phase setting is painted in various shades of grey, which makes it more realistic than many other settings I have seen. Suffice to say that considering how few of the political discussion PS+ is taking part in, they are NOT trying to push an agenda. I am a bit curious as to how anyone would have gotten that message.

Also, I really should get something else to whine about. Even I annoy myself.

Yes I have, and I understand that the working class was utterly discounted during the worst period of capitalism's excesses. I just feel like an informed, transhuman populace wouldn't stand for that, and that it's somewhat unbalanced to present that side of the argument in terms of their worst failings.

Pyrite wrote:

I think the problem isn't just that Anarchists are portrayed too well, but that the PC is portrayed with baby-eating levels of evil. All of the stories of indenture contracts being reset with backups and all the indentures working rediculously dangerous jobs without backup insurance just push it over the top, honestly.

The anarchists are portrayed as happy-perfect Mary Sues living in perfect flawless suetopia where nothing ever goes wrong. They survived the Fall better than anyone else, they're more free than everyone else, they have more and better sex than everyone else, less bigotry, more culture, more freedoms, etc., to the point where they have magical radiation-free fusion power just to justify how they can live in space and be better than everyone else. [i]Rimward[/i]'s anarchist chapter has a section talking about the problems of anarchism, but all it actually does is say "sometimes capitalists are mean to us by exploiting our goodwill" and "some people are assholes but our reputation economy makes that a self-solving problem". Combined with the fact that the Planetary Consortium are slave-owning capitalists with secret police and a tendency to stick Exurgent viruses inside morphs for profit while letting Exurgent Viagra-bugs gnaw on their brain stems out of sheer decadence, while the Jovian Republic are literally Nazis who don't evacuate their own people from bomb threats, it's a really egregious black-and-white portrayal that really doesn't match the themes of horror and conspiracy that the game advertises on the front cover. It's very hard to take the anarchist faction seriously when they're portrayed as "so beautiful, it's a curse" with their freedoms and niceness. (Gatecrashing, admittedly, has a somewhat more nuanced portrayal of anarchists, but it has a few offhand lines compared to the some 20 pages of furious anarchist masturbation that [i]Rimward[/i] engages in.) ---- That said, I'm extremely happy that Posthuman Studios has taken such a determined approach to stopping people from hating on other members of the community. As a lesbian female trans person, I felt that it was quite uncomfortable to participate on a forum where I there was a real and present danger people would harass me for those facts, or otherwise shame me for trying to speak out against injustices against me. And really, I feel that it is entirely right of PHS to kick out MRAs for being a hate group. It makes just as much sense as banning White Power groups from participating in order to allow the forum to be open and welcoming to non-white people, or kicking out NOM-supporters in order to make the forum open to LGB fans. Letting a hate-group be allowed to have influence on a board and be allowed to spread their toxic bile is [i]de facto[/i] excluding the target of their hate from the forums. In this case, actual women (as in several of them) were discourged from joining and participating because MRAs were allowed to regurgitate their hatred. This is no longer the case, which will hopefully allow more women to participate, just as banning homophobe groups (if that should become necessary) would make LGBT people feel more welcome. Yay PHS! Go you!

Alkahest wrote:

Opposing the concept of marital rape is clearly wicked, insane and downright stupid. Opposing compulsory military service for one gender/sex but not the other is an opinion I consider moral, sane and sensible. I doubt the former opinion is necessary to be considered an MRA, just as I doubt the second opinion is sufficient to be considered an MRA. Where is the line drawn?

I don't think there's a hard line as such, and the problem is more that the MRA and MRM names have been tainted. It's a bit like how the Tea Party gave libertarianism a bad name (and got it associated with pretty much the opposite of what it stood for for many people). Even if you felt that you'd want to actively challenge the male only draft, and that might literally make you a "men's rights activist", you probably don't want to call yourself a Men's Rights Activist. There's just a lot of baggage that comes with it. You mentioned two issues from both ends of the spectrum. Something that falls straight in the middle of the MRA is the idea that in domestic violence cases where the woman gets beaten, the woman was often the real aggressor because she initiated the violence by provoking her partner. Now, my idea of a regular man is someone that when he gets into an argument with a women and she says something hurtful, he says something back, or walks out - maybe even slams the door. He doesn't punch her in the face. That's what domestic abusers do. I dont' know what these people are thinking, that it is only domestic abuse if you hit her for using the wrong mustard in your sandwich? That women should avoid getting into arguments at home or suffer the consequences? There's just so much stuff like that coming from MRAs that you should steer clear of it. I'm willing to accept that some who call themselves MRAs might actually be reasonable people who really just wants equality and only agrees with a small part of the typical MRA agenda, but I'll never understand why they want to call themselves MRAs in that case.

LatwPIAT wrote:

That said, I'm extremely happy that Posthuman Studios has taken such a determined approach to stopping people from hating on other members of the community. As a lesbian female trans person, I felt that it was quite uncomfortable to participate on a forum where I there was a real and present danger people would harass me for those facts, or otherwise shame me for trying to speak out against injustices against me. And really, I feel that it is entirely right of PHS to kick out MRAs for being a hate group. It makes just as much sense as banning White Power groups from participating in order to allow the forum to be open and welcoming to non-white people, or kicking out NOM-supporters in order to make the forum open to LGB fans. Letting a hate-group be allowed to have influence on a board and be allowed to spread their toxic bile is [i]de facto[/i] excluding the target of their hate from the forums. In this case, actual women (as in several of them) were discourged from joining and participating because MRAs were allowed to regurgitate their hatred. This is no longer the case, which will hopefully allow more women to participate, just as banning homophobe groups (if that should become necessary) would make LGBT people feel more welcome. Yay PHS! Go you!

I felt the same discomfort (and the same relief/joy) as you on this issue, for similar reasons. Being trans is shitty enough without dealing with MRAs everywhere you turn on the net.

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't think there's a hard line as such, and the problem is more that the MRA and MRM names have been tainted. It's a bit like how the Tea Party gave libertarianism a bad name (and got it associated with pretty much the opposite of what it stood for for many people). Even if you felt that you'd want to actively challenge the male only draft, and that might literally make you a "men's rights activist", you probably don't want to call yourself a Men's Rights Activist. There's just a lot of baggage that comes with it.

But should we really allow idiots to hijack terms like that? Let's take feminism as an example. My main beef with many feminists, from a personal perspective, is their hostile attitude towards sex. My wife is a pornographic actress, and she's sick and tired of feminists telling her that she's a broken victim of the patriarchy, a traitor to all women, a manipulated moron, a mentally ill self-hating misogynist or all the other things they accuse women involved in the porn industry of being. Should we therefore give up on feminism as a movement? Or should we try to help sex-positive feminism and other forms of non-fucktarded feminism grow stronger, eventually eclipsing, in strength and influence, the sexophobic assholes who think they know what's best for all women? You tell me. I don't know if it's worth the effort. But if we're supposed to abandon the term men's rights activist because of idiots, why shouldn't we similarly abandon the term feminist?

Smokeskin wrote:

You mentioned two issues from both ends of the spectrum. Something that falls straight in the middle of the MRA is the idea that in domestic violence cases where the woman gets beaten, the woman was often the real aggressor because she initiated the violence by provoking her partner. Now, my idea of a regular man is someone that when he gets into an argument with a women and she says something hurtful, he says something back, or walks out - maybe even slams the door. He doesn't punch her in the face. That's what domestic abusers do. I dont' know what these people are thinking, that it is only domestic abuse if you hit her for using the wrong mustard in your sandwich? That women should avoid getting into arguments at home or suffer the consequences?

There's a reason "sure, I punched his teeth out, but in my defense the guy was a total dick" doesn't fly as an excuse in court. It's the same reason a woman who slaps a guy for being a creep in a bar gets punished, even if all common decency tells us that the creep had it coming. You don't hit people in a civilized society. Especially not people who are forced to live with you. Now, I do think some MRAs have a point when they say that men who are abused by women are often treated with derision by the police and society in general. But that is as much a problem caused by patriarchal norms as anything else normal feminists fight against - the idea that women are weak and men are strong, and that a man who is abused by a woman has failed some kind of masculinity test. Still, it's a question about the rights of men. If you're an activist for that, doesn't that make you a men's rights activist?

Smokeskin wrote:

There's just so much stuff like that coming from MRAs that you should steer clear of it. I'm willing to accept that some who call themselves MRAs might actually be reasonable people who really just wants equality and only agrees with a small part of the typical MRA agenda, but I'll never understand why they want to call themselves MRAs in that case.

To put it this way: Do you think a porn actress should want to call herself a feminist, if she believes in everyone's right to make their own choices in life?

But sex-positive feminism is a sinister tool of the patriarchy meant to brainwash women into being sex slaves for misogynists! Haven't you been reading the Internet? This is why I call myself a postgenderist. It sounds cool, no-one knows what it means and no idiots have co-opted it. Yet. I don't want gender equality, I want the complete and utter obliteration of all gender roles and norms until nothing remains but madness and a churning chaos where people may claim the right to dress however they want, fuck however they want, look however they want and think however they want. With cyborg tits.

I guess it depends a lot on where you live and in which circles you move. Swedes, contrary to popular belief, tend to be prudes, in my experience. This goes doubly for Swedish feminists, but I'm not sure if I should blame their ideology or our shared national culture. Of course, this is all based on my limited experiences and stereotypes about other groups. For example, many Swedes assume Danes are sexually liberated, fat, jolly, slightly racist drunks, which is a portrayal I'm sure Smokeskin has a few things to say about. In any case, me declaring myself a non-feminist because of bad experiences with feminists doesn't really make more sense than me declaring myself a non-Swede because of bad experiences with my countrymen. Assuming a given definition of feminism, I either am or am not a feminist - and using most reasonably sensible definitions I have seen, I definitely am. That doesn't mean I have to want to be involved with the larger movement. I can see a similar situation arising for people concerned with men's rights. You can be an activist for men's rights without wanting to be involved with the MRM, and such apprehensions seem more grounded than a desire to not associate yourself with the feminist movement - the MRM is clearly far more dominated by their asshats than the feminist movement is. That said. I dislike any inclination to judge people based on ideological labels rather than their actual beliefs and actions. It creates an us-against-them mentality that is harmful to clear thinking. Ideology is the mind-killer, and choosing an "enemy" ideology kills your mind twice - first you limit yourself, then you attempt to limit others. Of course, in a discussion like this one, it's easy to see where everyone is coming from. We can reach real conclusions and gain knowledge and insight from each other. If you just start a thread saying "All members of this ideology are henceforth BANNED, you fail as human beings and as fans!", that kind of progress is impossible. I believe in the power of discourse and openness. It enlightens the ignorant, it erects bridges of understanding, it exposes true wickedness when such is to be found (surprisingly seldom, in my opinion). Yes, I'm a filthy hippie. Suggested listening.

Alkahest wrote:

[Edit: Thinking a bit more about it, I'm not sure what I think about the MRA issue anymore. So I retracted the part of my answer to Lorsa dealing with that. Sorry, I have a bad habit of editing my posts.]

*offers cookies and a hug* This - doing this in public can be hard to do - and gutsy and pretty much standup awesome. I'm glad we seem to be getting back to a place where conversations that impact those in them can be held. :)

sysop wrote:

Alkahest wrote:

[Edit: Thinking a bit more about it, I'm not sure what I think about the MRA issue anymore. So I retracted the part of my answer to Lorsa dealing with that. Sorry, I have a bad habit of editing my posts.]

*offers cookies and a hug* This - doing this in public can be hard to do - and gutsy and pretty much standup awesome. I'm glad we seem to be getting back to a place where conversations that impact those in them can be held. :)

This thread needs to be frozen and put in a museum. Someone [i]actually paid attention to what other people were saying and reconsidered their viewpoints, [b]on the internet[/b][/i]. Good for you Alkahest. May you be a model to us all.

Alkahest wrote:

Of course, in a discussion like this one, it's easy to see where everyone is coming from. We can reach real conclusions and gain knowledge and insight from each other. If you just start a thread saying "All members of this ideology are henceforth BANNED, you fail as human beings and as fans!", that kind of progress is impossible. I believe in the power of discourse and openness. It enlightens the ignorant, it erects bridges of understanding, it exposes true wickedness when such is to be found (surprisingly seldom, in my opinion).

Eh. I myself am more sorry that it got to the point that the ban was necessary than that it actually happened. I would have loved for the MRAs to stick around if they were capable of having discussions in a reasonable manner. But that wasn't happening, and given how generally toxic they were being I'm glad to see their backs. I don't think the intention was ever "All members with a men's rights ideology are BANNED" as much as "If you willfully choose to associate yourself (By self-identifying as an MRA) with a group that has shown itself to be intensely misogynist, toxic to this forum, and generally harmful, please leave, we don't want you." It's like the difference between saying "All catholics are banned" and "Please do not participate if you are a card-carrying member of the Spanish Inquisition." It was not the (purported) ideology of supporting men that got the MRM banned from the forums so much as the way they went about supporting it. If we were to ban the Inquisition, it wouldn't be because of their (purported) goal of spreading Catholicism as much as their way of going about it (Dragging people away in the night to be tortured for heresy or heathenism).

Leng Plateau wrote:

Bravo all. I think this discussion has turned out well. But that said... perhaps this thread has served its purpose And we should put it to bed with a shovel.

I am sorry but there are some more things I would like to say.

Alkahest wrote:

[Edit: Thinking a bit more about it, I'm not sure what I think about the MRA issue anymore. So I retracted the part of my answer to Lorsa dealing with that. Sorry, I have a bad habit of editing my posts.]

Since I don't know what you wrote before the edit, I don't know in which direction you are not sure, or if it's just general uncertainty. I am well aware that it's bad form to offer advice when it isn't asked for but I want to point out that a forum discussion is not a race where you have to get heard NOW. Sometimes it is better to take your time and think, maybe a few days, before posting. I know I do.

Alkahest wrote:

There's a difference between an ideology being portrayed in an even-handed manner and an ideology being The Best for little reason other than the political beliefs of the authors.

That is true. I don't see it as The Best when reading the setting though, I see it as a working model among others. Then again I haven't delved deep into Rimward but is it possible that part of it is [i]your[/i] (or others) bias showing when interpreting what is written and thus inferring things that aren't there? Then again I don't think it's possible to write a science fiction society without any bias showing. So I guess you can be upset with what [i]type[/i] of bias it is but not the fact that it is there. But now we're getting into opinion again.

Alkahest wrote:

I'm not arguing that ideologies other than anarchism aren't present, just that they are presented as obviously inferior to anarchism. The only non-anarchist ideology not portrayed as either evil, moronic or both is Titanian "technosocialism" - another ideology of the far left. Even that is too statist for the totally awesome and badass anarchists, and probably controlled by some evil rich dudes after all. Anything to the right of Che Guevara is portrayed as fundamentally corrupt, immoral, inefficient and in general shittier than the extreme left.

I live in Lund, so if you're coming by Skåne sometime I'd be happy to delve into this day long discussion face-to-face.

Alkahest wrote:

Really? Because I don't see Americans renaming moons "Bush" and "Pinochet" anytime soon (Jovian Republic), or antitrust agencies being turned into Space Gestapo (Oversight).

I don't really think Oversight can be compared with Gestapo and I'm not sure the Jovian Republic can be summed up with "Americans". Maybe they can? The way I see it, the Planetary Consortium is a governing entity composed by hypercorporations that thought the democratically imposed rules on them were too strict so they moved their enterprises into space to get rid of it. It wasn't [i]all[/i] corporations that moved, but those that remained on Earth to play according to the democratic rules got lost during the Fall. Looking at the world today, there are plenty of corporations that are trying to get away with just about anything in order to maximise their profits. They move their businesses and production to countries that have lower wages, they use child labor, they refuse to continue research on potentially extremely beneficial medicine because they can't patent it etc etc. Is it really such a strech, considering both the past of the industrial revolution and the present that the worst of the worst of these corporations (being the ones that moved into space first) would end up forming a government that has absolutely no regard for human life and only for their own profit? I don't think so (that it's a strech). If that makes them evil or not is entirely up to you, I don't think PS+ has ever mentioned any objective moral code in their books so supposed morality has to be inferred by the reader. They are saying "many of these corporations have no regard for the intrinsic value of human life". If you think that makes them evil, that's on you. I think it makes them human. Similarly, is it such a strech, considering both the history of the world [i]and[/i] the current day situation that in the wake of a large war, there'd be a military coup and a formation of a totalitarian state? I certainly don't think so. The world and our history is full of those. You shouldn't read it as "the bio-conservatives of the solar system has formed a totalitarian state, therefore the authors imply that being bio-conservatist are evil". That's really the wrong way. What you should read is "a couple of military officers decided to form a totalitarian state and in order to keep their people in line they adopted a bio-conservatist agenda". There's plenty of bio-conservatist out there in the system that [i]aren't[/i] Jovians, probably living in deep fear of how fast the world changes around them. The point is that in order to control people in an authoritarian state you need to limit both their knowledge and their growth. Most certainly their ability to leave (which gets easier with transhuman modifcations). I don't see the Jovians as bio-conservatives forming the last beacon of humanity in a crazy world, I see them as a totalitarian militaristic state trying to do everything in it's power to keep things that way. As for naming moons one thing or the other well, you can nit-pick in any setting. I don't know enough of the motivations behind that choice to explain the reasonings.

Alkahest wrote:

The "you can do whatever you want at your table and ignore the books"-argument is not really an argument that does any favors to the books. There is, technically, no FATAL police forcing me to roll for anal circumference. That doesn't make FATAL a good game.

True enough. However, I have always found it easier to change settings a bit than change entire rule systems and have always seen settings as more of a suggestion and help than anything. But yeah, I see your point. Also, did you just compare EP with FATAL? Ewwwwww.....

Alkahest wrote:

Let me make one thing clear: I goddamn love Eclipse Phase. It's my favorite RPG of all time. It's fucking amazing. But I will criticize what I see as flaws.

Sure, no problem. And I will defend things I [i]don't[/i] see as flaws. Is that okay?

Alkahest wrote:

Also, I really should get something else to whine about. Even I annoy myself.

Do you have to whine about anything at all? I've always found the quality of life for both myself and the people around me increases as a function of decreased whining.

Undocking wrote:

Transhuman outlines in the indenture section that most indenture contracts are pretty kosher. I will say that how the PC handles Mars is portrayed in a way that moderate-Barsoomians are definitely more sympathetic.

I think this is an important point too. The horrible atrocities mentioned are in the book because they're interesting and potential adventure seeds. Normal run-of-the-mill indenture contracts aren't very interesting all things considered. The Eclipse Phase setting is also based on horror and I think the authors wants to tell us "yes, there are some horrible things that you can do in a transhuman future". They want us to explore these themes, which is why they get mentioned in the book.

LatwPIAT wrote:

That said, I'm extremely happy that Posthuman Studios has taken such a determined approach to stopping people from hating on other members of the community. As a lesbian female trans person, I felt that it was quite uncomfortable to participate on a forum where I there was a real and present danger people would harass me for those facts, or otherwise shame me for trying to speak out against injustices against me.

I really hope you will feel more comfortable now. Suffice to say that harassement, for any reason, is not something we want on this forum.

Smokeskin wrote:

Now, my idea of a regular man is someone that when he gets into an argument with a women and she says something hurtful, he says something back, or walks out - maybe even slams the door. He doesn't punch her in the face.

Sorry for snipping your quote, hope you forgive me. My idea of a regular person, man or woman, is someone who when their partner says something hurtful they explain how that statement makes them feel (hurt) and if the partner continues to say hurtful things leaves them. Don't be in abusive relationships, whether they be verbal or physical. But maybe I just have weird ideas.

Alkahest wrote:

But should we really allow idiots to hijack terms like that? Let's take feminism as an example. My main beef with many feminists, from a personal perspective, is their hostile attitude towards sex. My wife is a pornographic actress, and she's sick and tired of feminists telling her that she's a broken victim of the patriarchy, a traitor to all women, a manipulated moron, a mentally ill self-hating misogynist or all the other things they accuse women involved in the porn industry of being. Should we therefore give up on feminism as a movement? Or should we try to help sex-positive feminism and other forms of non-fucktarded feminism grow stronger, eventually eclipsing, in strength and influence, the sexophobic assholes who think they know what's best for all women? You tell me. I don't know if it's worth the effort. But if we're supposed to abandon the term men's rights activist because of idiots, why shouldn't we similarly abandon the term feminist?

The issues aren't identical though and while it is true that there might be feminists out there who are both horrible people, obnoxious in discussions and otherwise bigoted in one way or another (tell me one ideology that doesn't have those kinds of people), the basis for feminism and the MRM are very different. First off, feminism is based on the idea that all humans, regardless of sex (or gender) hold equal value and should be able to have equal amounts of power and influence in society. It was formed in an age when it was very evidently [b]not so[/b] and it [i]still[/i] isn't so, although less evidently. However, there is large disagreement on how this equality is to happen or what the cause of it is. This is why you have feminists arguing against pornography or other parts of the sex industry for example (more on that later). If you study the rethoric of the Men's Rights Movement however, you will find that it is indeed NOT based on the premise of equality. In fact, even the name suggests that it cares little for women, something that might be okay if men were actually the gender with least rights and influence in society. I mean, that's how the name feminism was adopted for an equal rights movement in the first place. However, men are indeed [i]not[/i] the ones with least rights and power in our society. While there may be some points to some of the issues they raise (if it wasn't then noone would listen at all), their focus is completely off. Believing the MRM, all the few "rights" that women have over men are the fault of feminism (and in turn women). They're the ones that force us men to live in an unequal society where our "rights" are being diminished. This falls flat for a few reasons. First, as has been pointed out several times, many of these issues are things that [i]feminism[/i] is trying to change, such as the draft and (as is evident in Sweden), custody rights and parental leaves. Who are the people that are usually voting [i]against[/i] these things? Conserative white men, the very people the MRM consists of. Secondly, many of these problems are not imposed by the matriarchy (remember Extrasolar Angel''s signature?) but by men. Even to this date, men have the most economic and legislative power in the world and it was unquestionably true 60 years ago. Who decided that women weren't welcome in the military [i]at all[/i]? Men! Who are the judges that gives different sentences? Men! Who are the ones that decided that women should take care of the children in terms of divorce? Men, men, men! (and when you think about it, it's probably just a way to discourage the women of seeking divorce as then they'd be left with less financial securtiy AND have kids to care for on her own) All the problems that the MRM is trying to attribute to the evil feminists who are taking away their rights are [i]actually[/i] problems caused by other men. In fact, when you follow their rethoric, it doesn't seem like they're at all interesting in making society more equal and better for men, they're just trying to discredit feminism, an ideology based on equal value. The "rights" that they are truly fighting for is the right to stay the most influental gender in society. I mean, just look at when they take up the fact that there aren't any shelters for abused men whereas there are several for women. Seriously, what is to stop them, the MRM, to [i]open[/i] such shelters? Nothing! But are they? I really doubt that Nicknumbers is out there looking for a place to open up a shelter for abused men and I don't think any other MRAs are as well (although that is just hyberbole). I don't think they're very interested in actually [i]doing[/i] anything to change this problem, which is NOT a legislative problem mind you as there's no law stopping them, rather they like it this way because it gives them an issue to point out. "Look, we men don't have any shelters to care for abused men, if there aren't any of those, why are you complaining that abused women aren't cared for enough?" In truth, abuse of all kinds, regardless of whom it's directed against is horrible and well deserving of society's time and effort to help mitigate. However, I can bet you anything you want that it is more common with women being abused by their spouse than it is with men. Now on to feminism (and feminists): Feminism is based on equal rights. Historically speaking, women have gotten the shorter end of the stick (understatement?) as far as economic, political and social rights go. While some have trouble with the name (even I did once), it is still a matter of fact that masculinity is the ideal whereas femininity is seen as worth less and many women have found that in order to be taken seriously they have be [i]like men[/i]. That being said, feminism as a movement typically strive to make things equal between genders (as much as possible of course, there are some sex-based physiological differences and it would make no sense to call in males for breast cancer examination). However, individual feminists don't always agree on how this is to be achieved or what the problem was. I would be a fool to proclaim that there isn't a problem with objectification of women in society. It isn't exclusive to women but it's all the more larger problem for them. So, some feminists believe pornography and the sex trade to be sources of this cultural objetification of women and as such are trying to take measures to remove it in order to achieve their goal (which I believe to be a worthwhile goal). This is the reason they are attacking people that work for the sex industry, because they see them as perpetrating one of the causes of the problem. It is possible, as I am sure you will agree, that people can be wrong and misguided even if their intentions are well-meaning. I don't think it's all that far-fetched to reach the conclusion that one of the causes of objetification of women lies in pornography having become the "sex education" of many youths. Does that mean it should all be banned? Probably not. But we do need to do [i]something[/i]. I don't think pornography is inherently hurtful to a person's views on either men or women, just like I don't think watching violent movies or playing video games is inherently hurtful to a person's view on violence. A person with good values that already respect people's lives and women as people can enjoy all those things without it being a problem. However, if violent videos is something you are raised with and being the only source for teaching you values [i]then[/i] it can be a problem. Just so I believe pornography can lead to problems if it's the only education a person gets into the sexual interactions between men and women. You're right. Sweden is a rather prude country in general (I'm making a generalisation! Shoot me!). This comes with the unfortunate side effect that teenagers aren't really being tought how to treat women sexually or even how to treat their own sexuality. Some fathers go a step further and show [i]their[/i] out-dated and objectifying view of women which then gets soaked up by the sons. What we really need, I think, is honest-to-God good sex education (as in actual sex education, not how-babies-are-made education) [i]and[/i] good male role models so that we can all grow up to be decent adults that view women like people first AND enjoy pornography at the same time. That's why sites like "make love not porn" are such great initiatives. As for prostitution, what most people are actually against is slavery. In order to get rid of the slavery, they believe the best thing is to target prostitution as a whole. I honestly don't know if that's the best way or not, but if removing my ability to buy sex is the price I have to pay to get rid of human trafficking and slavery I'll gladly pay it! Add to that the fact that some people make the mistake of thinking that if they believe very strongly that they would [b]never[/b] want to do something (like sell sex) then obviously noone else in their right mind would want to do it either and it's easy to see why people dislike prostitution so much. It's a wrong assumption of course, but it's common in every ideology out there and certainly not something you can blame feminism for. The story is the same as for pornography. If we were all well balanced adults with good values then the selling of sexual services wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately not everyone is like that (yet). How do we get there? Hell if I know. I'm just trying to be as decent a human being as I can and hope it rubs off on people.

Alkahest wrote:

Still, it's a question about the rights of men. If you're an activist for that, doesn't that make you a men's rights activist?

If you're [i]only[/i] for the rights of men, yes. If you're for the rights of men [b]and[/b] women, then it makes you a feminist. It's quite possible to be an activist for the rights of men and be a feminist. In fact, I think most feminists are just that (given that they want to give men the right to spend more time with their newborn babies for example).

Alkahest wrote:

To put it this way: Do you think a porn actress should want to call herself a feminist, if she believes in everyone's right to make their own choices in life?

Since belief in everyone's right to make their own choices in life isn't the defining basis for the feminist ideology I would say that if that's the only thing she believes in then no, she shouldn't call herself a feminist. However, if she believes that women should have [b]equal[/b] rights to men, then YES, she should call herself a feminist. There is nothing in the feminist core that says believing in everyone's right to make their own choices in life is mutually exclusive to equal social and economic rights. Rather the opposite? So yeah, if she believes men and women should have equal rights, go right ahead and stamp a big F in her forehead, porn actress or not.

Alkahest wrote:

I don't want gender equality, I want the complete and utter obliteration of all gender roles and norms until nothing remains but madness and a churning chaos where people may claim the right to dress however they want, fuck however they want, look however they want and think however they want. With cyborg tits.

Funnily enough, this is close to what I want myself. I've always thought that the best way to get rid of all the gender inequalities was to stop thinking in terms of gender at all. Don't make divisions and it's hard to create inequality based on it. However, I think my naive idea was a bit misguided for a couple of reasons. First, it is easy to become "blinded" and thinking that things are fine. Just because I don't divide people based on gender right off the bat, doesn't mean others don't and it can make me blind towards inequalities that do exist and are being perpetrated by others. Secondly, I have come to understand that the concept of gender is extremely important to some people. Myself I don't care one way or the other if people assume I'm a man or woman when they interact with me over the internet or call me he or she or whatever, as long as they consider me a [i]person[/i]. Unfortunately it would be a bit expensive to find out, but I doubt my view of myself would change very much if my sex was different. For some people though, gender identity is [i]extremely[/i] important. Transsexuals, for example, fight with theirs every day and telling them that "gender is not important" is sort of diminishing their struggle. Also, for many transsexuals, gender coded things are [b]good[/b]. By dressing (or acting) in certain ways, they can get people to read them they way they want and be adressed with the proper pronouns. Maybe some day we will ask people how they want to be adressed when first we meet them but we really aren't there yet. Gender is also very important for many cis-gendered people, that will feel both uncomfotable and insulted if adressed as the opposite gender (this goes for both men and women).¨ So yeah, maybe some day we can all wear whatever or act however we want without us being put into gender boxes and the only thing that matters is how a person identifies themselves and wishes to be adressed. God knows I loathe stereotypes with a passion. But we're not there yet, so we have to work with the world we have.

Alkahest wrote:

For example, many Swedes assume Danes are sexually liberated, fat, jolly, slightly racist drunks, which is a portrayal I'm sure Smokeskin has a few things to say about.

Most Danes I have met (as in, actually talked to for an extended period of time, not just passed by on the street) have been tall, thin and homosexual. Not sure if that says more about Danes or the people I like to hang out with.

Alkahest wrote:

In any case, me declaring myself a non-feminist because of bad experiences with feminists doesn't really make more sense than me declaring myself a non-Swede because of bad experiences with my countrymen. Assuming a given definition of feminism, I either am or am not a feminist - and using most reasonably sensible definitions I have seen, I definitely am. That doesn't mean I have to want to be involved with the larger movement. I can see a similar situation arising for people concerned with men's rights. You can be an activist for men's rights without wanting to be involved with the MRM, and such apprehensions seem more grounded than a desire to not associate yourself with the feminist movement - the MRM is clearly far more dominated by their asshats than the feminist movement is.

Yes, I hope that I have managed to show you why feminism and the MRM [i]isn't[/i] equal in this regard. The reason you shouldn't associate yourself with the MRM has not only to do with the individual members but the core of the ideology and the problems in its rethoric. The reason you shouldn't associate yourself with feminism is if you're not interested in women having equal rights as men.

Alkahest wrote:

That said. I dislike any inclination to judge people based on ideological labels rather than their actual beliefs and actions. It creates an us-against-them mentality that is harmful to clear thinking. Ideology is the mind-killer, and choosing an "enemy" ideology kills your mind twice - first you limit yourself, then you attempt to limit others.

I dislike any inclination to judge people [i]at all[/i]. We should judge behavior, not people. I don't think ideology is the mind-killer though. Apathy is. Ideology is good, it means you've at least made an effort of thinking. It's called [b]idea[/b]ology after all.

Alkahest wrote:

Of course, in a discussion like this one, it's easy to see where everyone is coming from. We can reach real conclusions and gain knowledge and insight from each other. If you just start a thread saying "All members of this ideology are henceforth BANNED, you fail as human beings and as fans!", that kind of progress is impossible. I believe in the power of discourse and openness. It enlightens the ignorant, it erects bridges of understanding, it exposes true wickedness when such is to be found (surprisingly seldom, in my opinion).

I believe in discourse and openness as well. However, it was evident from the actions of the MRAs we had here that they were in fact [i]not[/i] interested in that. They were more interested in spreading ideas such as rape victim blaming and otherwise making women feel unwelcome here. We want to create an air of openness, but if some people come join the party that are provably [b]not[/b] interested in being open but rather to push people out, that threatens the very climate we want to build. You can't have a group that is accepting and open that features people who aren't. I'm sorry, but it isn't possible.

Alkahest wrote:

Yes, I'm a filthy hippie.

Take a bath. Nobody likes people who are filthy. P.S. I am curious, what sort of porn actress is your wife and does she feature in any movies I can get a hold of? We're all adults here right? P.P.S. As a moderator I have to inform you that I am not going to let you post any links to pornographic material on the forum.

Lorsa wrote:

I mean, just look at when they take up the fact that there aren't any shelters for abused men whereas there are several for women. Seriously, what is to stop them, the MRM, to [i]open[/i] such shelters? Nothing! But are they? I really doubt that Nicknumbers is out there looking for a place to open up a shelter for abused men and I don't think any other MRAs are as well (although that is just hyberbole).

The whole shelter issue is bogus anyway. They treat it like shelters are some sort of compensation for getting battered that men are getting cheated of. But that's not why there are women's shelters. Women's shelters are there because they sometimes need to flee an abusive partner they can't protect themselves from. There's a big difference in men being being violent to women and women being violent towards men, and that is in 99% of the cases it will happen on the man's terms. He's typically much stronger so he decides when it stops, regardless of who initiated it. Even if she's the abuser she's not going to rape him, and she's not going to hospitalize him if she flies into a rage.

Axiomatic wrote:

He's typically much stronger so he decides when it stops, regardless of who initiated it. Uh, yeah, that's not how abusive relationships work, dude. The violence doesn't happen on the man's terms, it happens on the abuser's terms.

I don't know if we're perhaps talking about different things - I'm talking about the physical altercation itself, nothing else. If we're dealing with a psychopath who is willing to plan and use surprise and weapons, I agree with you. But it is my impression that most domestic violence is not of that nature. It happens during heated arguments, when an approach is rejected or other situations like that. And in those cases, the man will typically have an enormeous advantage due to superior strength and size. He can walk away, pin her down or punch her face in, regardless of what she wants to happen and even if she is the abuser. I am aware that many abusers have a psychological upper hand that may have little to do with the actual capability to inflict violence, but in that case the victim isn't leaving for a shelter anyway. Shelters are for people who have decided to leave and who are at physical risk, and that just strikes me as a situation that men rarely find themselves in when they leave their partner. [as a relevant side note, here in Denmark we have outplacement programmes for when typically male gang members try to leave their gang, a risky situation not unlike what women face when they leave an abusive partner.]