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

I wonder, when one makes statements like "Western Culture itself is sick and dying" what possible reasonable comparison is being made? What is meant by "cultural sickness" or "cultural death"?

World cultures are vibrant and changing and productive ... perhaps more rapidly than ever before in our history. How can that not be the definition of life and health?

a reply to: Sparky63

Don't forget the constant erection. We're just a penis with legs according to them.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Just when the world could get no stranger... along comes this:
www.breitbart.com...

NUS Women are meeting in Solihull for their annual get together. The message read: “Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it’s triggering anxiety. Please be mindful!” The original request is said to have come from Oxford University, and despite being widely ridiculed on Twitter, the NUS was standing by the plan.

South-Eastern women’s officer Gee Linford-Grayson told the Daily Express: “Loud clapping and whooping can be intimidating and distracting when you’re speaking on stage.” A spokesperson added: “The request was made by some delegates attending the conference. We strive to make NUS events accessible and enjoyable for all, so each request is considered.”

The NUS has already taken a number of steps to protect its vulnerable women in the past. At their main conference they operate a “women-only safe space” where delegates who feel unable to be near men can hang around together.

There's so freaking many wrong things with this article I almost thought it was a farcical Onion piece when I first saw it.

First of all, I can't help but be amused at that last line in the above quote. In what other ass-end of society is it socially acceptable to smear an entire demographic of humanity in that way? "We need female only zones because some of our members just don't feel safe around me." When Bernie flippin' Goetz said essentially the same goddamn thing about black people in New York, after being mugged multiple times, he was rightfully crucified by the public. When people have said the same thing about Muslims in the wake of 9/11, they have been openly brutalized in the media. When a man has grown up to be mysoginistic due to living in a home with an abusive mother or matriarchal and anti-male structure, he's told to grow a pair and STFU... Why is the same not being said to these women? I thought feminists were the paragon of female strength, not shrinking, quaking violets too afraid of men to be in their presence?

And clapping? Clapping? We gonna talk about clapping?

From my experience with family members suffering from PTSD, one thing I have learned is that the sufferer bears the responsibility to change, NOT those around the sufferer (assuming it isn't a personal space issue at fault.) Yet here we are, once again, seeing suggested behavior changes directed at those who don't have the problem, to accommodate the sufferers. Yet again these particular feminists are left looking pretty weak, frail, and whiney.

I have a 7 year old daughter. As a dad who doesn't want to see her victimized, I'm raising her to be a true feminist... IN CONTROL of her own destiny and IN CONTROL of her own lot in life. Strong, clever, and stubborn, not weak, needy, and whiney. What we're seeing here isn't even remotely feminism. It's actually the opposite of feminism because it requires the world to change to suit you, rather than giving the woman the power to change themselves to conquer the world. If my daughter were to grow up and join this "victim cult," I'd feel like I had failed her and raised a young lady with no self esteem and no empowerment who jumped on the first female doomsday train that stopped at the station.

UPDATE
This was just discovered online:
s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com...
This is the list of and explanation of all the motions going into the conference. This document may well challenge some arguments in this thread and is some significant grist for the mill in discussing exactly what the NUS Women's Conference is trying to accomplish. It also verifies that the "Women-Only Safe Zones" mentioned in the OP Breitbart article are absolutely real and condoned, defended, and approved by the NUS Women's section.

As you noted, there is REAL feminism versus many movements that have grown too extreme or lost the way, just like social justice.

Real feminism, just like real social justice, is for true equality amongst all people, genders, races, etc.

The moment that "feminists" or "social justice warriors" accept negative or biased statements about white people or men generally (not specific topics, historical problems, or specific actions by some), then I know that they are not applying feminist or social justice theories with a single standard and have lost the way.

I started giving up on being involved in what passes for "social Justice" now days because of the extremities.

For example, one cannot even disagree (as a white male i.e. me) with anything in social justice without three things happening: 1) "you are uneducated on history or racism/sexism/etc" 2) "You are blinded by white/male privilege" 3) "you are a closet sexist/racist."

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That's a very logical and clear commentary on the way to "know the difference."

One is either for equality or one is not.

There is no half-way.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That's a very logical and clear commentary on the way to "know the difference."

One is either for equality or one is not.

There is no half-way.

Exactly. Supposedly social justice theory generally states that essentializing/stereotyping/showing prejudice against any group of any kind is wrong.

I see far too many social justice people, and ironically many of the most involved, following that dictum when it comes to minorities or women but the moment people say or do something negating that principle towards males or whites, it's all good and stfu if you have a problem with it.

Again, not all, but too many.

My view is that if someone really and truly understands why stereotyping or prejudicial actions are negative, they cannot support it towards anyone.

a reply to: windword

So, you are agreeing with me? The two terms not only are not mutually exclusive; when it comes to modern feminism, they are virtually inseparable. Attempting to separate them is like attempting to separate blood drinking from vampires.

I'd love to star what you said more than once, but it won't let me! Very well stated! Women indeed have all the same rights as men, and modern feminism is indeed NOT about equal rights. Much of it is about hate. Some is, as you stated, a mental issue. It's permeated every layer of our society to the point that it's a poison to our children, and a serious threat to societal stability.

I'd like to ask an honest question.

Those of you who are weighing in so vociferiously on what Feminism is and isn't ... what Feminist writers have you read?

What is your source for your understanding of what most Feminists believe?

Because MOST of what I'm hearing is just warmed over Rush Limbaugh. If fact, some of what you've said would probably show up as a Limbaugh quote.

So ... be honest ... where has your expertise on Feminism come from? Who are you reading? What lectures have you attended? Are you members of NOW?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

originally posted by: Wookiep
THANK YOU. This was an excellent post, full of more honesty than we may ever witness again on ATS. There are too many disingenuous groups out there right now slanting things to fit their own selfish, un-realistic, unfair, and even dangerous to society "demands". But YOU hit the nail on the head.

Equality is equality, if this is what ANY group seeks, then that group has the right idea. I'm ALL for equality for every human being. The sad reality is however, many groups within the last several decades that started out with the ideal of being "equal" all to often have now ended up taking it too far. A large portion of these "groups" or "causes" end up being groups seeking an un-balanced set of demands, calling for special treatment. It snowballs into the eventual support of segregation. That's right, self-appointed segregation, to be a separate and "special" part of society of which, no-one outside their choosing can be involved with OR receive equally the kind of treatment they are calling for.

This isn't just happening within the "feminist" movement. Right now we are seeing it in the black community and in the gay communities etc. We will see this trend continue from other "causes" as well, because right now, people are buying this pure nonsense hook line and sinker.

Anyway, I really just wanted to thank you for your comment. Spot on. I wish I could applaud you, but I can merely star you. It's well deserved!!

You are welcome! You are correct as well; this trend is seen in a LOT of groups these days! Much of it is because many in said groups do in fact want special treatment, and they use their group membership as an excuse to get it. Some is fostered by various politicians and others, in order to separate various groups and weaken society. It works, too, because people rightfully resent being told that they have to treat some group or other as more important than other groups. Modern feminism has done more harm to men/women relationships than many care to admit.

Appreciate the thumbs and beers! Nice to be appreciated.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wookiep

You didn't provide any examples of anything except things you don't personally like.

Specific examples were listed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I demonstrated that there are no special rights for blacks or gays exhibited in college grants, tv shows, or special riots.

No, you claimed that there were no special rights, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. A college grant based on race or sexual preference is a special right. A television station based on one race, when other races would not be allowed the same, is a special right. You can deny this all day, but your denial will not change the facts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Religious freedom does not mean that a special religious class is set up that gets to ignore the laws. I know you haven't bothered to actually read or research these laws, and that your own belief is enough to sustain your inflated agenda ... but that doesn't cut it for others.

The highest law of the land allows for religious freedom, and no health care law should be allowed to go against that. It isn't a "special right" to protect Christian-run businesses from having to violate their rights by forcing them to provide abortifacient forms of birth control. Trying to compare that to special grants and privileges based on race or preference doesn't fly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If you think I'm getting into the cake debate you're insane; it's off topic.

Yet the Hobby Lobby debate isn't?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

In the basic order of your comments:

Examples can be specific and still erroneous. Your point?

"All evidence to the contrary" is meaningless. You're waving at the air and saying "I Have Proven It."

Topical cable channels and requirements for college grants and scholarships are not special rights.

Again, does the Golf Channel argue that golfers have special rights? Answer that.

You can state all day that your opinions are facts; that doesn't make it so.

You aren't providing FACTS you're merely repeating an irrational opinion. Prove that topical channels bestow special rights.

Further, what's your list of special rights? Why are you just borrowing from another poster? Surely you have original thoughts?

Allowing any entity to ignore the laws of the land for whatever justification bestows special rights.

Religious rights means that government doesn't establish a religion, nor does it impede the free exercise of same.

However, jurisprudence has clearly demonstrated (until recent reversals that will be reversed themselves in time) that individuals can't claim any and everything in their lives as an aspect of religion.

I didn't quote Hobby Lobby ... I quoted variations on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Address that and we have something to discuss.

Modern feminists are just idiots, and I'm sure the original feminists would say exactly the same thing if they saw what an atrocity this movement has become. Know who really needs feminism? Women/girls in the Middle East. These whiny western bitches have no idea how easy their lives are.

I also hate to bring this up, but most of these extremist radical feminists are just ugly and/or fat sea monsters. You might ask why this is relevant. It's relevant because I can't help but think there's some psychological component at play here, almost like these really extreme unreasonable feminists are just embittered and angry at men because they've been turned down by them time and time again. And angry at attractive women because either (A) Jealousy - or - (B) Got bullied by the attractive girls in school.

Yeah yeah, go ahead and say I'm generalizing or labeling or whatever. But take note that I specified the extremist radical feminists. The super angry ones. And be honest with yourself. How often do you see a really angry attractive feminist?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'd like to ask an honest question.

Those of you who are weighing in so vociferiously on what Feminism is and isn't ... what Feminist writers have you read?

What is your source for your understanding of what most Feminists believe?

Because MOST of what I'm hearing is just warmed over Rush Limbaugh. If fact, some of what you've said would probably show up as a Limbaugh quote.

So ... be honest ... where has your expertise on Feminism come from? Who are you reading? What lectures have you attended? Are you members of NOW?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

My desire for female equality comes from experience and a continual fight for equality...starting with my first encounter with inequality by joining the "Boys" club in my neighbourhood and being kicked out of the birdhouse making class by being escorted out by the male instructor.

Thereafter, I have simply understood feminism to be "not being treated as a doormat" nor "being treated any different from anyone else".

a reply to: InTheLight

Well, if that's your education, I'd say you saved yourself a lot of reading.

Of course it's about equality. For those with whom it is a political agenda to discredit Feminism, they focus on the most extreme. Many of them don't even know why they are "against" Feminism ... they just know that "bein' agin' it" is part of the package. Everyone from Phyllis Schlafly to Rush Limbaugh has told them so.


Vindication of the Rights of Women - Mary Wollstonecraft

"Ain't I a Woman" Sojourner Truth

Start there. Then try on these: 10 Essential Feminist Texts that Everyone Should Read

List of Feminist Literature

a reply to: Xaphan

Care to post a picture of your own face so we can determine whether to take you seriously or not?

Because, you know, no reason to listen to someone we don't think is attractive.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xaphan

Care to post a picture of your own face so we can determine whether to take you seriously or not?

Because, you know, no reason to listen to someone we don't think is attractive.

I see you enjoy using the old tu quoque fallacy.

Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented.[2] It is a special case of ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Xaphan

So no picture then?

Indeed, you don't "practice what you preach," eh? (Poor Man's version of tu quo que)

Then I guess your argument will have to be dismissed because:

1. Your post is both overtly and rather ignorantly dishonest: "Modern feminists are idiots" / "I specified the extremist radical feminists."

2. Speaking of logical fallacies, let's mention "appeal to emotion," "fallacy of composition," "false equivalence" and just plain old red herring and strawman, or in your casting "strawwoman-that-isn't-attractive-enough-for-me."

3. You've proven most Feminist claims in every word you posted.

4. What an arrogant, vapid, self-satisfied ass you are portraying in your post!

Are you for real, or are you providing a caricature of male stupidity?

Surely you're putting on an act.

Surely.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: InTheLight

Well, if that's your education, I'd say you saved yourself a lot of reading.

Of course it's about equality. For those with whom it is a political agenda to discredit Feminism, they focus on the most extreme. Many of them don't even know why they are "against" Feminism ... they just know that "bein' agin' it" is part of the package. Everyone from Phyllis Schlafly to Rush Limbaugh has told them so.


Vindication of the Rights of Women - Mary Wollstonecraft

"Ain't I a Woman" Sojourner Truth

Start there. Then try on these: 10 Essential Feminist Texts that Everyone Should Read

List of Feminist Literature

Yes, it is and it is what it is...reality.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

In the basic order of your comments:

Examples can be specific and still erroneous. Your point?

The examples given are not erroneous. They are accurate and real. You offered no evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"All evidence to the contrary" is meaningless. You're waving at the air and saying "I Have Proven It."[/quote]

No, the evidence is real. The hand waving is basically what you are doing. You claimed you proved the examples wrong, but you didn't offer anything but opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Topical cable channels and requirements for college grants and scholarships are not special rights.[/qoute]

Channels set up for a specific RACE are not topical; they are race-based. Unless you are willing to support White Entertainment Network, all for whites, then you cannot claim BET isn't a special right.

College grants and scholarships set up ONLY for one race are a special right. College admission quotas requiring certain numbers of students from this or that race, regardless of merit, are a special right. You do understand, do you not, that a scholarship should be, by definition, based on merit? On, you know, scholarship?? On that same note, teachers that alter th grades of students from certain races, so that their statistics look better, is also a special right.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Again, does the Golf Channel argue that golfers have special rights? Answer that.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that a race and a sport are interchangeable? Honestly?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You can state all day that your opinions are facts; that doesn't make it so.

You aren't providing FACTS you're merely repeating an irrational opinion. Prove that topical channels bestow special rights.

No, again, that's what you did. Someone else posted facts, and you claimed they ere not facts,a nd then claimed to have disproved them, when all you did was make the claim.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Further, what's your list of special rights? Why are you just borrowing from another poster? Surely you have original thoughts?

I didn't offer a list. I commented on one offered, and your claims about it. The list was pretty good, and doesn't need additions from me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Allowing any entity to ignore the laws of the land for whatever justification bestows special rights.

Religious rights means that government doesn't establish a religion, nor does it impede the free exercise of same.

It's already been established that protecting the Constitutional rights of business owners, based on their religion, isn't breaking the laws of the land. Again, too, this is as off topic as the cake issue you claimed was off topic.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes, evidence was offered to the contrary in both examples, would you like it again?

Cable channels are evidence of special treatment: Movie channels, sports channels, shopping channels, educational channels, etc. There are specialty channels in almost all of those areas. The argument you're parroting claims that Black Entertainment Television proves that blacks are given "special treatment" or "special rights" ... and I assume (because no actual citation was made to any real channels) that LOGO TV proves the same thing for "the gays."

If so, then as repeated, the Golf Channel proves that golfers are being given special rights, the BBC in America proves that Brits are given special rights, the Cartoon Network proves that cartoons are ... get the picture? It's an absolutely absurd claim.

Grants and scholarships are proof of special treatment: If so, then scholarships based on financial need are giving "special rights' to the poor, and grants based on Grade Point Average are favoring good students, or requirements for graduate scholarships based on having an undergraduate degree unfairly discriminates against those who didn't graduate.

How much ad absurdum is needed?