Feminists request use of "jazz hands" rather than clapping to avoid triggering "anxiety" [OP UPD

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Krazysh0t

STILL have to deal with life as I choose it. 'MY responsability which is a DIRTY word to you apparently the argument is still not at all vald.

Wouldn't it be nice if you were given the tools and then accommodated by others to assist you in achieving an almost full or full recovery?

a reply to: InTheLight

You won't do it.
I have lost all trust in my fellow man because of war.
No cure just treatmen and an alteration of my life.
STRENGTH is important as well it is a strength to overcome and get better by ones self without the crutches.
I'M not a superman.

a reply to: ketsuko

You know we've had influential feminists here in Sweden calling for special parks where men would be banned.

You really can't make this stuff up, and every year they're nudging the public narrative further and further to their dystopian utopia.

They also suggested a ban on alcohol for men, banning men from the subway after dark, and boyfriends only being allowed to meet their girlfriends in public places(don't ask me how that would work).

I am so incredibly sick of it all.. it's gotten to the point where I'm starting to see it as some kind of sickness, it really is pathological in it's separation from reality. In many cases it's such a severe delusion that it boggles the mind that they can even tentatively advance some of these ideas without being immediately shot down - that's what would happen in a sane world. Yet what's actually happening is that they are steadily gaining ground and they're increasingly losing touch with reality.

The other practical effect of it all is the most important one. It's a highly polarizing movement. It creates problems where there were none before. Just in these last few years we've seen the MRA movement really take off. Great, now we're even more divided along gender lines.

It's almost too much: the cognitive dissonance; the never ending list of blatant fallacies; the playing into the hands of TPTB; the embodiment of intellectual decline - appealing to the lowest common denominator; the self-righteousness of it; the arrogance; the misandry; the delusion of fighting against some kind of oppressor establishment that has and is in all actuality letting feminism run wild; the victim mentality; the psychological projections; the inconsistencies; the relativism; the coining of silly new words and definitions to steer the debate; the barely hidden totalitarian streak; the externalized locus of control - the problem is always outside of themselves and they are always the victims; the bullying and the shaming; the ironic intolerance towards all ideological opponents; the nurturing of weakness; the entitlement..
This list could get really, really long but I think that is more than enough.

It's too crazy.. it's just a big ol' pile of crazy.. I love strong women, but I don't feel that a strong woman in the Western world will be held back for long in modern society. Most legit grievances have already been addressed and a lot of the usual talking points and facts are distorted and manipulated, their only merit to have been repeated enough times. A strong woman would have been a strong women in the 1600's, and a strong woman in the Western world today has as many - if not more - opportunities than men. The movement is also suffering from a total lack of insight or awareness about problems facing the male gender, in fact, it is categorically denied and viciously attacked.. perhaps because some of those same problems were caused by the machinations of feminism in the first place.

It doesn't surprise me at all when Aaron Russo says a Rockefeller told him they funded women's lib. Their benefit seems pretty clear by now. Just another dog and pony show to divide and conquer. Work and tax the whole population instead of just the males, sow chaos and discord, break up the family unit, confuse the gender roles and destabilize society.

Surely they imagine themselves to be bold and daring revolutionaries yet they are nothing but useful puppets filling a long planned function. So eager in their fervour, to serve their hidden masters.

I can't respect it. Not even if I tried.

Don't be misled by the stupidity of the OP. The OP missed the context of the linked article, OK. One just has to put the "jazz hands" issue aside, as it's practically a separate issue. The OP probably has thought of feminism before, so sometimes sees it where it doesn't exist. YOu just have to forgive that.

But anyway I do think the concerns matter. Should the individual heed society or should society heed hte individual? If I have social anxieties around people with pony tails, do pony tails have to be restricted in school? Seems like a stupid suggestion? If I have peanut allergies, do peanuts have to be restricted in school? In the case of peanut allergies, it can be life threatening. Some (or many?) schools have implemented plans to deal with food allergies. That's not really all that different from pony tails, if such a thing exists. Just replace "food allergies" with any problem people have, of which there're many.

Dealing with all of hte problems people have does make doing business and public gatherings MUCH more difficult. In the case of food allergies, they have to identify the students who have them and the school AT LEAST needs a full-time nurse who knows how to handle it. The student has to be watched. The cafeteria has to be cleaned routinely and special places set apart for those with food allergies.

Just imagine all the problems which can threaten a student's safety and all the money and government which is require to institute these things. Cops are roaming our schools now to protect us from students who want to shoot up the school. Just one example.

Back to the original question.... Should society heed the individual or shuld the individual heed society? I thnk it goes both ways. The person with the peanut allergies has to be vigilant when going out into daily life. Not eveyr place is going to be as heavily controlled as public or private schools. People do bear a lot of the burden. But I do think the ratio of society to individual can vary. It could be the society has most of the burden, or vice versa.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

But you are a warrior, fighting, that much is clear.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with you as doing jazz hands also means it doesn't interrupt the flow of the speech or have people clapping too early and disrupting the thought process - however the calls aren't just for that.

Banning men from attending speeches, workshops, demonstrations, voting and political rallies is just as bad as women not being allowed t vote in the past. I completely understand why someone may have some form of trauma that can cause panic attacks and similar when around men, but the focus should be on treating and helping the individual; not enabling and reinforcing their mental illness/learned behaviours.

It also plays into the hands of those who want to mock feminism by being so illogical, one sided and anti-feminist.

Feminism today is not what feminism in the past was. Feminism today is (at least the most vocal feminists) blatant misandry disguised as progress by people with a perpetual victim complex.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Krazysh0t

STILL have to deal with life as I choose it. 'MY responsability which is a DIRTY word to you apparently the argument is still not at all vald.

I never claimed they weren't dealing with their issues. Clearly the women were dealing with their issues enough to be out in public to attend the meeting. They just needed a bit of further assistance to make it through the meeting. Why is that such a bad thing to you? You excuse your wife from keeping you off the streets (a FAR tougher commitment), but some women asking a favor to alter the way people show applause at a meeting is somehow people using their mental handicaps to be overly needy. You are a picture of hypocrisy.

a reply to: bastion

I saw no mention of men being banned from anywhere. Did you?

Someone saying they need a safe space from me because i was born with a penis is insulting and intolerant. AND it's slanderous, in the most offensive and disgusting way, it implies that i and all men are dangerous to women just by existing near them.

a reply to: InTheLight

originally posted by: KAOStheory
Someone saying they need a safe space from me because i was born with a penis is insulting and intolerant. AND it's slanderous, in the most offensive and disgusting way, it implies that i and all men are dangerous to women just by existing near them.

a reply to: InTheLight

You are looking only at your needs, try empathy, compassion and understanding their situation. Also, how it bother you if their safe spot was located near an exit?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Feminism today is not what feminism in the past was. Feminism today is (at least the most vocal feminists) blatant misandry disguised as progress by people with a perpetual victim complex.

Do you honestly feel that EVERYONE that identifies themselves as FEMINIST today is a man-hater with a victim complex?

Who do you refer to, specifically when you mention "the most vocal feminists"?

Wouldn't it be a fair measure to actually discuss what it is about these individuals that meets your criteria? Rather than painting perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with a broad brush like for example the members of NOW (National Organization for Women)? NOW - Who we are:

I'm asking because I'm curious ... which feminists are you reading/listening to that you've formed these opinions about?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Well said.
Here's a small but indicative example about how it works here:
I called the Small Business Administration for help. They referred me to 3 places. There are two more, but not for men. They only help women.
The one who IS actually helping me, primarily works with the Latino community.
I am not Latino. They don't care, they believe in me and my work.
What do you think would happen if I called the women-only ones?
Not saying the orgs aren't good and helpful, but why do i only get 3 opportunities not 5?
Does anyone really believe there are 40% more women in Illinois trying to run a small business than there are men?
NO, it's something else - they need something special somehow, that men do not, apparently.
None of these orgs are men-only. Can you imagine?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Feminism today is not what feminism in the past was. Feminism today is (at least the most vocal feminists) blatant misandry disguised as progress by people with a perpetual victim complex.

Do you honestly feel that EVERYONE that identifies themselves as FEMINIST today is a man-hater with a victim complex?

Who do you refer to, specifically when you mention "the most vocal feminists"?

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The media isn't going to put "normal" people on TV, only the handful from each "group" or whatever with the craziest ideas. They said "the most vocal" - doubt it, probably more like the most PUBLICIZED.

a reply to: KAOStheory

You know, equating feminist overreach with what is occurring in the OP is a HUGE stretch and creates a strawman. This whole issue was a request, not a demand. NUS agreed to the request and asked (again a request) the meeting members to oblige.

There aren't new laws being drafted to ban clapping. All those people who attended that meeting were more than welcome to leave and go clap at other meetings.

The origin of the request was to assist a group of women that were suffering from anxiety attacks due to past trauma who had every right to be there and gain from the presentation as anyone else. There was no HUGE inconvenience here. Just a request not to clap and use a different expression to show applause. Everyone else, including you and your feminist overreach examples, are blowing it WAY out of proportion because you can't empathize with these women.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Ironically, while calling me "stupid," you're one of the few in this thread who actually hit at the primary point of the thread to begin with. (We think alike! Roll those apples around your barrel for a while now that you managed to agree with the very person you were insulting. )

My #1 issue, an the one I hit on first and foremost in the OP, centered around the ideology of "some of our members cannot bear to be in the same space as men out of fear." Now, I understand people who have been victimized will often harbor those feelings, and often direct them at wide swaths of those similar to their attackers. My problem with that is as simple as asking "where's the dividing line between the PTSD response flight vs fight and blunt bigotry?" Why is it that it is socially allowable for these women to vocalize "we cannot bear to be in the presence of men because they threaten us" yet it would instantly create wide spread outrage if any modifier was placed in the sentence?
Imagine:
"we cannot bear to be in the presence of homosexual men because they threaten us"
"we cannot bear to be in the presence of black men because they threaten us"
"we cannot bear to be in the presence of transgendered men because they threaten us"
"we cannot bear to be in the presence of mentally retarded men because they threaten us"
"we cannot bear to be in the presence of Muslim men because they threaten us"
"we cannot bear to be in the presence of Women because they threaten us"

The outrage would be EPIC and has been epic. Augusta National Golf Club, a private club, disallowed female membership for decades because their male members didn't want to play golf around women. They were UNCOMFORTABLE and felt their relaxation would be THREATENED by female presences as members. You could smell the ether emanating from the outrage that caused from 2002 until 2012 when the Club finally capitulated and allowed a couple of women to join. The Club was accused of everything from misogyny to discrimination to bigotry by many people and organizations. The flipping manufactured outrage lead to calls for the PGA to strip ANGC of their Master's tournament, cost them all their corporate sponsorships, and may very well have been the nail in the coffin in the discussion of adding golf to the Olympics. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Jazz hands vs clapping is a throw away example of plain old stupidity. It was the catch the article used to get people to raise their eyebrows and roll their eyes. The real gems are located in the rest of the article and center around a very clear pattern of discrimination by women against men in general being perfectly acceptable while society lambasts any other form of discrimination with great prejudice.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

beautiful post, I see this losing touch with reality spilling over into every segment of society, something is wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I am, in fact, an overly-empathic person, especially to women, a Cancer born on a full moon, raised by mom with sister.
I'm one of those guys mentioned regarding "growing a pair" - and i have.

The part of the OP most here are referring to is that of exclusivity of the lecture, the apparent need for a "safe space" from me based on my physical makeup alone, and the implication that i am somehow dangerous by merely existing.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nice of you to rejoin us, but it has already been pointed out ad nausem that the article you posted in the OP was overly sensationalized to paint feminists in a nasty light.

It has further been pointed out that this entire thing was just a singular request so that these women could attend the meeting without having an anxiety attack. In fact the ONLY request made was to not clap. The sectioning off of the women with anxiety doesn't even show up in other articles reporting on this incident.

See

Here's the response from the people who made the request in the first place.
Jazz Hands, Clapping & Twitter Trolls: The Unsuccessful Derailing of NUS Women’s Conference

Still no mention of roping women off from men so they can be at ease.

a reply to: KAOStheory

That "safe place" thing was made up by Breitbart. That is why I've been saying this article and therefore the thread has been flawed from the beginning. It was sensationalized to make everyone mad at feminists and blow a non-issue WAY out of proportion.

If you truly mean what you just said, then I'd work on your source vetting skills in the future.