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

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: ~Lucidity



You find my "by proxy...broadbrushing of women and feminism" offensive? I am a woman. The statements I made are about this group and feminists, not about women in general. Not all women are feminists. Not all women feel intimidated by men. Not all women feel that anything that doesn't go well in their lives is because of their sex. Not all women feel that men must be put down to make women look better. Many, many feminists do, however, and that permeates our society. It's in television shows and movies. It's also ridiculous, and the end result is resentment and a poor reflection on all women.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

We can post definitions all day long, but the modern feminist movement isn't about equality at all; it's about putting down men, and claiming that anything that happens to a member of the group is because she's female.

That's Misandry, not Feminism

You can try to slander a cause by redefining it as something wicked all day long! But as a woman, I find the broad brush in which you're painting feminism, demonizing the avocation of equal rights for women as if it's hateful to men, dishonest, disrespectful and offensive!

That's a common characteristic of modern feminists. It isn't slander if it's true, and there are countless examples of this all over the internet.

Equal rights are one thing. Equal pay for equal work is fine, for example, but equal pay for women that can't do the same work isn't equality; it's favoritism. That happens all over, even in the military. I have seen this first hand. Equal treatment is fine, but when all-male clubs are condemned, bt all-female groups are allowed, that isn't equal. When all men are blamed for the actions of some, that isn't equal. Claiming that the women would be threatened by the mere presence of men, because they might have been abused or assaulted is painting all men with the same broad brush, now isn't it?

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!!

I approve this thread

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It seems like the twitter request was just a twitter request. It doesn't seem out of line with what I would expect them to do. Cats meow, dogs bark, and touchy-feely groups do touchy-feely things. It's not like they're asking football fans to use jazz hands during the big game. They requested that people that are part of their group, probably largely inclined to be receptive to sensitivities anyway, consider using jazz hands.

Do I think it's stupid? Doesn't matter because I'm not part of their group. I think it really boils down to their membership. If their membership feels strongly about this they can stop being members or can clap in spite of the request. Problem solved.

I did find the picture they posted in the article unnecessary, but they have all the right in the world to post whatever inflammatory crap they want.

Much ado about nothing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why is everyone here so "highly charged" over something that doesn't affect them in any way?

So you are the arbiter of social norms, and for some reason you want to complain about the extremist views of a group of people who are simply getting together to support each other? It's none of my business what kind of zones they set up, or what they decide to do. I believe in freedom and individual rights.

And as far as extremism and anti-social behavior goes, these folks would be eclipsed, any day, by virtually any religious group ... but what would happen, I wonder, if someone posted a thread openly ridiculing what does go on say in the average church? Talk about "waving one's hands in the air" like fools. Talk about hatred of fellow human beings ... of BOTH sexes ... of anyone that doesn't agree with their very strange beliefs.

Ah, but that's okay, and any similar thread would be shouted down in minutes as abusive of the religious right to be more than a little crazy, to be extremist, to be odd and in most cases, dress and act "outside the norms of society."

I'm saying that this thread demonstrates the rampant double-dealing hypocrisy that many people hold.

I'm saying that this kind of discussion, that you were weighing in on for some inexplicable reason when it doesn't affect you in any way according to your own statement, shows just how much you and others are NOT in favor of individual freedom and liberty.

Do you get that? Good.

a reply to: Wookiep

Can you provide a concrete example of just exactly how anyone in the "black or gay communities" are asking for or have been provided with "special rights"?

I'd say a much better example of being granted "special rights" comes from the current movement to provide the religious with the right to exempt themselves from any laws they suddenly don't agree with, setting themselves up as a superior class with rights that the non-religious, for example, would not have ...

... but I'm interested in your examples of gays and blacks asking for or being provided with "special rights."

Thank you for any answer you care to provide.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, just for starters, how about special college grants based on nothing more than race or sexual preference? Can you point to any grants solely for say, a white (straight) male in his 20s? I'll bet you can't because they don't exist, yet it's "equal" to have have special grants based on race and sexual preference? (And by sexual preference, I mean gays because straights do not get special college grants)

How about the many "rallies" recently (Ferguson rallies all over the place) where the black community very clearly pointed out rules in which whites were not allowed to participate by "playing dead", simply because they aren't black?

How about special T.V. channels geared toward only one race? It would be a real hoot if there was a proclaimed "White Entertainment Television" channel. This would implicate KKK backing.

I might as well insert "affirmative action", are you familiar with that? Do you understand how that works?

Blah blah blah, I could go on for a long time, but I doubt you will understand the reality of the double-standards and NON equality due to these groups that I am pointing out.

You wanted examples, there's a few real ones for you. I'll bet you'll come up with some sort of excuse how these things aren't "special" nor warrant any talk of "special treatment". So I won't sit here and debate this much longer with you, but it is what it is.

I didn't even mention religion, but it seems you have a real hatred for religious groups. Interesting.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'd say a much better example of being granted "special rights" comes from the current movement to provide the religious with the right to exempt themselves from any laws they suddenly don't agree with, setting themselves up as a superior class with rights that the non-religious, for example, would not have ...

I am not totally sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it has something to do with tax exemptions? Churches are non-profit organizations and rely solely on donations. Any non-profit organization has this right to assemble without intervention from government, and it doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or not..

I think maybe you are fabricating the part about them being exempt by ANY laws, or being a superior class etc. I think you're making things up! You just hate churches and religion, that's your problem.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In what other ass-end of society is it socially acceptable to smear an entire demographic of humanity in that way?

Most of the world.

Ahhh.. the pedestrian self-conscious and self-deceiving 'strong women' of feminism, intimidated by the masculine oppressiveness of clapping.

Sometimes one doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry. In this case I wanna do both, then mock, but I'm afraid one of them will find this thread and perhaps suffer a stroke.

Joking aside, part of this seems to be a transparent and sanctimonious attempt to seem and be highly sensitive. They want to appear sensitive and caring to all those suffering from the most minute of "oppression", in this case the oppressive microaggression of clapping. Actively striving to have as thin skin as possible, such fragile flowers; the irony is almost sublime. This is truly a wider doctrine of top-down inculcation of weakness disguised as morals. You think this is bad? Wait til you see the kids being raised right now, they haven't even been allowed to win at sports.. What a sorry generation that will be. But who knows, maybe they'll react to the madness and rebel, here's hoping that happens.

In the end this is just another one of those increasingly more common and increasingly more bizarre moments where leftist ideology becomes an absurd caricature of itself. It wouldn't be all too unfair to suggest that even the mainstream current of leftist ideology now has escaped reality and wandered into its own cuckoo land. The signs were all there...

Feminist is code for man hater. Look at these quotes.

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

Says a lot really. All these women are (as far as I know) middle aged, Middle to upper class and more than likely single. Haha. Imagine living with one of them. Get a hard enough time from my own wife over my way of doing housework nevermind one of these crazy's.

a reply to: High5Ghost

Wow. That's basically all I have to say about that. I have never seen those quotes. I guess those chicks are angry at dudes! I would never, in my wildest dreams touch any of them with a ten foot pole. LOL. Good luck to them!

originally posted by: Wookiep

I am not totally sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it has something to do with tax exemptions? Churches are non-profit organizations and rely solely on donations. Any non-profit organization has this right to assemble without intervention from government, and it doesn't matter if it's a religious organization or not..

I think maybe you are fabricating the part about them being exempt by ANY laws, or being a superior class etc. I think you're making things up! You just hate churches and religion, that's your problem.

Unlike you I can provide you with very specific examples:

Religious "Freedom" Bill Headed to Indiana Gov's Desk

The proposal is modeled on a 22-year-old federal law known as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. That law played a key role in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that allowed Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations with religious objections to opt out of an Affordable Care Act requirement that they cover certain contraceptives for women.

Nineteen other states have adopted similar "religious freedom" laws, and several others are considering legislation.

So, your "thinking" is simply wrong on this issue. Every one of these measures provides special exemption for religious beliefs to set aside the laws of the land. No fabrication here. Facts provided above. Do you need me to look up all 19 states where this kind of crap is on the table?

As to hating religion? You've got that right. I make no bones about it. Atheist, anti-theist and anti-religionist to the core. So?

You're not biased against someone whose heart-felt beliefs are different than yours ... are you?

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, just for starters, how about special college grants based on nothing more than race or sexual preference? Can you point to any grants solely for say, a white (straight) male in his 20s? I'll bet you can't because they don't exist, yet it's "equal" to have have special grants based on race and sexual preference? (And by sexual preference, I mean gays because straights do not get special college grants)

Good grief. I asked for specific examples of "special rights" lobbied for an bestowed and this is what you come back with?

College grants are usually set up with donated funds that have very specific requirements. Sometimes it's age, sometimes it's background, sometimes it's some other determinant. I'm sorry you didn't get a "white man grant" if that's what you were looking for.

Ferguson, really? I thought you said special rights, not special riots.

Affirmative Action does not assist gays and quite honestly, there's real doubt as to whether it's helped Black Americans.

(Provide a specific reference to what you're referring to ... cite a news article or anything else factual.)

TV channels? You think TV channels are a signal of discrimination and special rights? So, the channels devoted to sport, to history to art are also discriminatory? There's shopping channels and science channels and Spanish channels. It's called differing interests. What do you want, one official government channel?

As I suspected, you have no concrete examples for special rights, and you're desperately waving at anything.

/shrug

a reply to: High5Ghost

All those folks were in attendence at the meeting under discussion? Really?

Did you have a guest list or something?

Oh, wait ... you're still just trying to slam feminists at large, not the topic under discussion.

My mistake.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ha ha ha... I provided FOUR specific examples of "special treatment" even within the colleges. It's not my fault you can't look up any one of my examples due to your very clear agenda here. Oh, they weren't good enough for you? Well, I don't care! At least be honest, do a Google search sometime. The things I listed are VERY real and VERY specific. Go ahead, ignore them though, I suspected you would anyway.

As far as your link goes...LOL... You have a problem with "religious freedom??" Hmm?? So Hobby Lobby decides to act within their rights as a company to do whatever they want, (religious or not!) and THAT is your example to counter my argument?

So you're saying that if you owned a business that say, made cakes, and didn't want to make cakes for religious people regarding GOD on those cakes, that the government has the right to tell you what to do??

Businesses should be ran however they want to be ran, that includes a black owner refusing to serve whites. Yep, I believe that is their right. They may be boycotted by many whites, but that is within their rights as business owners. Although, now days, there are laws in place that say no to that.

As far as your religious ranting goes-

As to hating religion? You've got that right. I make no bones about it.

Well, hey, at least you are being honest. It does show your agenda however, just FYI.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Ugghhhhh.. Are you for REAL????? Yeah ok, I don't need to continue this. Buh-bye. Enjoy your special hate whenever it suits your agenda. Wow! I didn't really think people like you really existed.. but these are crazy times!

a reply to: Wookiep

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

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

What a hypocritical statement ... you provide no facts, no evidence, and empty examples of your point, and now you want to try to put it off on me to do your research for you. No thanks, I knew you didn't have any basis for your comments when you made them

And I see you're now trying to slide "special rights" to "special treatment" ... overtly and simply dishonest.

Blather about agendas all you want. You're pursuing your own agendas.

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.

If you think I'm getting into the cake debate you're insane; it's off topic. If you know anything about it, you would know you're talking about public accommodation laws which go all the way back into the English Common Law.

These proposed laws allow the religious to claim that whatever law they don't like is "against their religious beliefs" which sets up two classes of citizens, one who obeys the laws, and one to which the laws don't apply.

Agendas? That's funny. Yours reads like a fortune cookie.

So, to summarize ... you provide no evidence for your claims, you expect others to do your work for you, and the only thing you have left is blathering about "agendas."

Yeah, I think we're done here.

This is funny another thread made on the back of a tweet about a group no one outside the UK has ever heard of. This right here is manufactured outrage if ever I've seen it. An excuse for a bunch of guys to come out and whine about how hard done by they are in society. There's some proper insecurity issues on ATS right now. That seem to come from men who are questioning their status in society. Anyone who is secure in their sexuality, race religion and gender certainly wouldn't be displaying such insecurities

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
This is funny another thread made on the back of a tweet about a group no one outside the UK has ever heard of. This right here is manufactured outrage if ever I've seen it. An excuse for a bunch of guys to come out and whine about how hard done by they are in society. There's some proper insecurity issues on ATS right now. That seem to come from men who are questioning their status in society. Anyone who is secure in their sexuality, race religion and gender certainly wouldn't be displaying such insecurities

When you've been affected by, or know someone that has been affect by, these social just warrior types then maybe you would understand. I'm from the UK and my previous statement applies to me, so do I qualify to have an opinion, pretty please?

And the vast majority of women I know, including my wife, who are professional people in male orientated environments seem to be of the same consensus that these types of people are pathetic, weak people that just seek to bully and change society to suit them instead of dealing with their own issues.
Women like my wife have got to their positions through hard work, good character and by being strong people. It hasn't been without their own share of problems though, but instead of whimpering about it they get on with it.

Men also are subject to bullying and intimidation from both women and other men, including sexual harassment and violence. But if it happens to a man it doesn't matter as much right?
So women are allowed to whine all day about how hard done by they are and this is strong and acceptable, etc - but if a man says anything then :

There's some proper insecurity issues on ATS right now. That seem to come from men who are questioning their status in society. Anyone who is secure in their sexuality, race religion and gender certainly wouldn't be displaying such insecurities

What a joker.

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

Oh really? Show me where you did this, smarty pants? On the contrary, I pointed out where there are special grants allocated FOR blacks and gays, not for the 20+yr old whiteys that I'm now suspecting that you hate. So BET doesn't exist huh?? Good luck proving that one! Where did you dis-prove the racist policies of the black community concerning the Ferguson riots? Are you telling me that there AREN'T special college grants for gays and blacks, and basically anyone but a whitey male in their 20s?? BS, you haven't proven #!

What a hypocritical statement ... you provide no facts, no evidence, and empty examples of your point, and now you want to try to put it off on me to do your research for you. No thanks, I knew you didn't have any basis for your comments when you made them

I didn't? Have you looked up all the college grants available? You showed PROOF of this?? WHERE?? If you did any semblance of research, you would find nothing but the PELL grant, which 20-yr old white males MAY also qualify for, but this does NOT include the countless other race/gender based grants they would not qualify for. You asked me for an example of other races/genders being treated "specially", well THIS IS IT PAL. Look it up, I'm not your nanny!

And I see you're now trying to slide "special rights" to "special treatment" ... overtly and simply dishonest.

So you're honestly telling me that "Affirmative Action" does not fall within the guidelines of "special rights" ?? Really? Regardless of talent/qualifications, you're telling me that a black man with less education than his competitor, perhaps a white man being considered for a job being denied to him and given to the black man simply due to race "quotas" has nothing to do with special "rights" ?? I would tell you that you are full of #.

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.

Your hatred is simply blinding you and distorting you to the facts of this matter. You used "Hobby Lobby" as an excuse for this hatred, but still proved nothing regarding the laws or the laws being biased toward religion.

If you think I'm getting into the cake debate you're insane; it's off topic.

Oh, ok. So the cake thing is off topic, unless it subscribes to your own hatred toward religion and churches, do I have that right? Yes, I think I do!

These proposed laws allow the religious to claim that whatever law they don't like is "against their religious beliefs" which sets up two classes of citizens, one who obeys the laws, and one to which the laws don't apply.

What the hell are you even talking about? Really? Knock it off...

So, to summarize ... you provide no evidence for your claims, you expect others to do your work for you, and the only thing you have left is blathering about "agendas."

I never provided "evidence"? So you are saying that Affirmative Action doesn't exist because I didn't provide a link for you? Are you saying that there AREN'T special college grants for gays and blacks/minorities, while none are provided for your straight 21 yr old white guy (other than PELL)?? You know how *I* know this isn't a lie? Because *I* have been denied special grants when I was in my mid 20's. You don't believe me? Google it, clown, I owe NOTHING to you.