Tropes vs Women

Feministfrequency on youtube is doing a great series about videogames (and other forms of media) and how they perceive women.. I would recommend checking it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

 

I'm familiar with Feminist Frequency. I would respect her a lot more if she would devote any of her time to examining how men are portrayed in the media. She is very partisan.

 

Her focus is clearly feminine. Why would Feminist Frequency address male issues.
I think that if there is a male who desires to focus on male issues then he should do that on his own platform.

 

Yes, her focus is clearly feminine. That's my point. Why would she address male issues? To be relevant, fair, and unbiased.

You're in favor of segregation and partisan gender politics. Not news to me.

 

So you're really in favor of twisting someone's words to mean something they didn't come close to saying. Not surprising to me.

 

Could you explain how my characterization of what Aerianne said in any way differs from what she said?

 

It's okay, Blondie. Like I've said many times, I embrace diversity. It's what gives our world color. I'd hate to see everything mixed together into an ugly shade of gray.

 

You support diversity, as long as it's segregated into one platform that talks about men and one platform that talks about women.

Do you support the idea of one platform discussing both?

 

Maybe you should bring this up in "Men's Issues"

 

I'm trying to figure out if you're really that oblivious or if you're being deliberately ironic.

All I did was point out that Feminist Frequency is partisan and that therefor I have little respect for her. To respond to that by suggesting that I be equally partisan in the other direction is misunderstanding my point.

 

Of course. If someone wants to create that platform, then by all means.

 

Do you think that such a platform would be more or less useful for the purpose of creating holistic understanding than segregated partisan platforms?

 

I think both are helpful and have their place.

 

You should be more careful when you say what people should do (post #3) to make sure that it actually aligns with what you think people should do.

We have a disagreement. I think that segregated platforms are based on and perpetuate false and harmful ideas.

 

In my mind, there is a time and a place for both.

Otherwise, it would be like telling Christians that every time they met to discuss Christianity they must do it in the company of Non-Christians and that they must hear Non-Christian discussion equally.

Most other examples would work the same. It would be like Afro-Americans can discuss issues of concern to them as Afro-Americans but always in the company of Non-Afro-Americans who must be given the same time to discuss their issues. Gays would be able to meet and discuss issues about being Gay but only along with Non-Gays present and the Non-Gays being given equal platform there. The examples could go on and on.

That's why I say that their is a time and a place for both, when the participants feel the need to have it so. Otherwise, if we demand these co-meetings, always, then you are stepping into territory of denying people the right to meet and discuss what they feel they'd like to and dictating the format of every group meeting.

 

Thank you! Well said. I would have thought this was pretty much common sense, but I guess it's no so much to some people.

 

Blondie, I edited and continued the post after you quoted - in case you want to continue reading it.

 

I've said nothing to contradict myself, David.

 

Aside : Who the hell says afro-americans?

I suppose that if there were any solidarity taking place in gender politics, I wouldn't consider it such an issue. But there is no solidarity. It's a battle of the sexes.

You say that there is a time and place for both. But they do not both exist. If you want to examine gender politics from a holistic viewpoint, there are no nonsegregated platforms to go to. It's either feminists complaining about women's problems, or MRAs complaining about men's problems. There's nothing but animosity between the two sides. Very unfruitful.

 

Your aside is leaning toward a personal attack and is pulling the thread off topic. There is no call for that. Consider this your warning, David.