Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[TalkingDog]

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/

That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”


snip

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. The most frequently mentioned traits describing “typical feminists” included “man-hating” and “unhygienic;” for “typical environmentalists,” they included “tree-hugger” and “hippie.”

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes. It further found participants were less interested in befriending activists who participated in stereotypical behavior (such as staging protest rallies), but could easily envision hanging out with those who use “nonabrasive and mainstream methods” such as raising money or organizing social events.


Humph... imagine that. You mean pedantic screeds belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think they ought to backfires?

[LWolf]

1. No.

The use of the term "everyone" automatically disqualifies the statement.

I love environmentalists and feminists. I can, in some part, fit those categories myself, and I don't hate myself.

[bettyellen]

2. "pedantic little screeds" about preserving our earth and supporting civil rights got you down?

Really, tell us more about how much you dislike hearing about progressive issues.

[Decaffeinated]

26. In the end you have to decide what your goal is...

Is it to..

a) Affect change of some sort in people behavior

or

b) Forego option A to skip to the warm fuzzy of telling people off for not living up to your personal standards

[Democracyinkind]

81. Lol. The horrors of activism, I tell you...

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE KIDS!!!

[Decaffeinated]

87. K...

[bettyellen]

110. if you find yourself personally insulted by who are working for a better world...

you need to figure out why. Are you so self centered that you think they are only talking to or about you? Or do you think they are right @ issues- but should have better messaging, and feel like a bit of an ass because you are not doing jack shit about that?

[KT2000]

135. I think he/she has a point

I do environmental work and I wish there was a discussion of how messages are delivered and received. Too often the environmental message comes from a position of elitism that turns people off. Have seen it far too many times.
I think we have to be open to criticism like anyone else. If the message is failing - as it often does, then we need to rethink it and improve it.

[ElboRuum]

446. Of course, that's the rub.

Activism draws the people most passionate about the cause, those who feel so strongly about it that they take personal responsibility for it. People that impassioned about a cause are certainly the least likely to bear even the slightest criticism of it. But I do agree that the whole "vinegar" vs. "honey" argument applies here. Encouragement to adopt a view in fair view of the facts is certainly much more effective than boxing people about the ears with some moral cudgel. It is a turn off and I don't blame anyone for being turned off by it.

[KT2000]

134. You got it in a nutshell

I do environmental work and am often upset by the way the message is delivered. "I know better - I am smarter than you" comes across as class wars and has been easy for the powers that be to stereotype and ridicule.

There is a sense of arrogance that defeats the purpose of getting people to see their own interests are served through environmental efforts.

[NYC_SKP]

61. That little add-on is fucked up is what that little add-on is.

I hope a jury hides it.

[NightWatcher]

3. Canadians don't like overplayed stereotypes of "feminists" and "enviros"

I hate the stereotypes of "environmentalists" because I don't fit most of them but I'd dare you to say that I'm not environmental.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. One of the most depressing days of my life.

I was about 26 and after a completely random, unprovoked attack, I realized that adolescence never ends, at least not in America.

[Dash87]

85. The world is full of adults that are still mentally teenagers.

They're all around us.

[Fumesucker]

5. Oddly enough, religion is still popular in the USA despite thousands of years of pedantic screeds

Screeds belittling others (never oneself) for not behaving the way you think they ought to.

[FrodosPet]

23. Is that what church was all about?

I always picked up that we are all flawed, imperfect, and in need of cosmic and personal forgiveness. That we should be grateful for the gift of life. And that we should be generous towards others.

There was some supernatural life-after-death hooey in there as well, but that hasn't really stuck a chord with me.

Boy howdy they sure fucked up bad if their goal was teaching me to hate and belittle people.

[Fumesucker]

34. I don't know, you could ask the Canaanites n/t

[dawg]

67. Sounds like you went to a good church.

I did too, and it is part of the reason I am so liberal today. (Do unto others and all that ...)

[PassingFair]

260. You need a church to tell you how flawed, imperfect and in need of forgiveness you are?

Shucks, I could have told you that!

[quaker bill]

77. So is it the product or the salesman?

blaming the customer takes you nowhere. I see artists doing this all the time. But, you never get to fix the customer. You have to make the work interesting to them.

Remember, churches that do pedantic screeds (not all do) generally are doing pedantic screeds against folks who aren't in the pews. (it improves sales to avoid that sort of thing)

I think the product in this case is inherently fine, so I go with the salesmen.

[Fumesucker]

88. I just find it odd that one group offering "pedantic screeds" is popular while others are not

It would seem that it's not really the "pedantic screeds" that make the difference in popularity.

[quaker bill]

104. Presentation is everything

and apparently not just on cooking shows.

The example you bring forward is good evidence that pedantic screeds can be sold, at least within limits, as churches do occasionally fail.

The environmental movement has the facts on its side, but fails to grow....

I think it is the salesman not the customer.

[Fumesucker]

115. Eh, one group tells people what they want to hear, they are special..

The other tells people things they definitely don't want to hear, they have to change their ways.

Not the salesman so much as the product.

[quaker bill]

131. Have you ever tuned in?

Most mega churches make their way calling people sinners and telling them they have to change their ways.... Then they ask them to part with money for the privilege of listening... and largely it still works.

It is the salesman, not the product, said as an environmental scientist... I have been to the meetings.

Preaching death doom and destruction ever more stridently to the dwindling choir is not a sales pitch.

[Fumesucker]

188. Meetings?

Megachurches are preaching death and destruction too, End Times, Armageddon, Rapture but they offer a (false) chance of escaping the fate of all those sinners.

That's the difference, the environmentalists say everyone's fucked and none of us escape it unless we all escape it, the megachurch crowd say everyone's fucked but you can get out of it with a special "get out of hell" card and then get to watch in utter bliss while everyone who doesn't have that special card screams in agony for eternity.

Oh and by the way, your "get out of hell" card will cost you a weekly donation and regular attendance in our unconsciousness raising sessions.

[quaker bill]

189. It is actually false on both ends

Being saved from an Armageddon that is not going to happen is pretty simple. Heaven and hell are places we build in the here and now, in our own lives.

---

but I think you are on to something here.

The essential difference in marketing is that while the problem in both cases is presented as a screed, in one case, the solution is attainable and simple, "believe" and "contribute". Things people can do, if they choose to.

The other is not "believe" and "contribute" but more "change the world". A thing people cannot imagine doing, even if they choose to.

People recycle, because they can and think it does good. It is a human scale endeavor. "changing the world" isn't human scale.

"If we do not change the world, we are doomed" is an impossible sell.

[seabeyond]

132. i am pretty sure you have not only hit the nail on the head, but hammered it in and thru.

but then, i think it is pretty obvious to you, also.

[99Forever]

6. Seem...

... to have touched a nerve or two.

So defensive that they can't see what the point really is nor will they.

[Niceguy1]

60. yup, some

Posters are even proving the op's point

[seabeyond]

66. niceguy, are you suggesting no one is allowed to challenge the OP or they prove why a handful of men

have a dislike for feminists, women or men that support women?

silly women. to dare to challenge.

k... hate away.

[Niceguy1]

69. my take on it is that you don't change they way people

Think, or bring them to your side by being confrontational or rude.

And that is what people remember.......

[seabeyond]

72. merely challenge what is being said is defined by others as rude. how much coddling, how low do i

bow my head and lower my eyes must i be before i can challenge what this OP or you say?

show me, how i can speak out against what this OP says in snark and rude, that i say kindly enough for you to listen.

give me an example niceguy, how nice i have to be.

[NCTraveler]

209. One of the most difficult parts of going through life as a woman.

If a man challenges or questions something they are seen as strong and decisive. When a woman does it we are seen as rude, stepping out of line, or worse. It is ingrained in society, especially with the older generations. It is a dynamic we have to deal with that most men simply don't understand.

Side Note: Not everything is black and white. I used generalizations to make my point.

[seabeyond]

213. that is what this whole thread is about. this man and others can be rude, snarky and nasty as they

point the finger toward women. women, who are speaking out demanding the simple right to be able to fuckin speak out.

you notice niceguy could not tell me just how fuckin nice i have to make my speech so it is accommodating to the male ear. he cannot. because there is not a damn thing wrong with me speaking straight. giving my opinion. there is no way i can be "nice enough". we ALL know this. as you say, we have been living a lifetime coddling male ego.

i have listen to men whine about how women goes in all directions of a subject before getting to a point. why do we do this? because men need all that, to listen to what we finally have to say. i cut all that shit out. get to the point. i took men to heart, that they do not like all that. they can not handle it. i am now abrasive. i may say exactly the same as a man. with no emotion. but, because i did not do all the stroking first, a man hear hysteria, anger, anxiety.

nope. merely words and to the point. that is so admired in men.

[MADem]

362. And more than some posters don't realize one key thing, because they didn't read the article,

or click on the links in the articles--the lead researcher on this study is a WOMAN.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983/abstract

In fact, MOST of the researchers on this project were ..... WOMEN!

Those awful "sexist" researchers:
Nadia Y. Bashir1,*, Penelope Lockwood1, Alison L. Chasteen1, Daniel Nadolny2, Indra Noyes1

And the original title of their work?

The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence



I fear the "irony" is lost on some of them. Some might have trouble with the written word, but others, I think, might have a problem with bothering to click links and read contextually.

[seabeyond]

363. please link where the term "sexist researcher" was used. anywhere?

[MADem]

366. Says the poster who directed personal insults at me, indicating that I was "sexist"

and wanted women to "bow down" (ad nauseum) for agreeing with these "horrible" researchers' conclusions.

All I said was "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" and that's all you needed to march up and rip my head off.

As you do.

So often.

Oooops--but all but one of these researchers are....WOMEN!! Sexist women, apparently--according to your excoriation of me, downthread. After all, all I did was agree with these women, and you painted me with a very nasty sexist brush, now, didn't you? I am coming to the conclusion that you consider it sport to personally attack me, based on your behavior.

Gee....you're a "hoot"--to quote you. You're also trying desperately to back pedal with a device known as "nitpicking"--sorry, no sale. You went over the line when you started insulting me.

And because I've seen how you operate, I memorialized that rude post of yours.

[seabeyond]

368. making stuff up. so, i am not allowed to express myself in this manner either. you will tell me

what i am allowed to say and how i am allowed to say it, right?
]
so. the bottom line. you do not have a link where anyone said anything about "sexist researchers" right? or am i not using enough sugar?

[MADem]

372. No, I'm not "making stuff up."

Anyone who cares to read your rant downthread is free to do so. I saved a copy in case you decided to delete it, as you know.

I think I'll save a copy of this one, too, just in case:

seabeyond (86,832 posts)
368. making stuff up. so, i am not allowed to express myself in this manner either. you will tell me

what i am allowed to say and how i am allowed to say it, right?
]
so. the bottom line. you do not have a link where anyone said anything about "sexist researchers" right? or am i not using enough sugar?

You can say whatever you'd like. In fact, DO go on if that floats your boat.

So far, you are doing a very good job of illustrating the thesis of these four women and one man who prepared this research paper, IMO.

Again, the title of their work: The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence

[seabeyond]

374. rant? isnt that a little, oh, i dont know, vingar'ish. any more insults. really, maybe, but i

stopped reading at the accusation of a rant.

see a hoot. you just are. you cant deny it.

[MADem]

383. ......

seabeyond (86,842 posts)
374. rant? isnt that a little, oh, i dont know, vingar'ish. any more insults. really, maybe, but i

stopped reading at the accusation of a rant.

see a hoot. you just are. you cant deny it.

[NuclearDem]

375. And of course, it's entirely the activists' fault.

Nope, not the culture that reinforces the gender norm that says women shouldn't be too brash or uppity (if one does, she's an icy bitch who just needs to relax) so as to not offend members of the patriarchy.

And I hate to point this out, but not all women are feminists, and in fact, a lot of women have bought into the same tactics and arguments used by chauvinists to silence feminists. Claiming something isn't sexist by simply attaching women to it is the equivalent of something not being racist because you have a black friend.

Women are going to brash and aggressive when it comes to fighting a culture that enables sexual assault, rape, and a lack of any sort of control of a woman over her own affairs.

Been to an anti-war demonstration where veterans and people with family in the military get loud and angry? Or an Occupy protest where people getting screwed out of a future by the 1% get a little flustered? It's not the activists' job to make you feel comfortable and all warm and fuzzy inside. It's supposed to offend and make you think about what might be driving some people to get so goddamn angry over these things.

If you're offended by how that happens, then the feminists aren't the ones with the problem.

[MADem]

380. All I can suggest is that you read the article carefully (pay no attention to the headline, that's

not the headline of the research article, which is The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence), then go look at the abstract, and if you can access that publication via your library portal, I urge you to go for it.

You say you don't think all women are feminists. I say I don't think all feminists are women--some people here on DU will argue that point, but that's never been my belief.

This research project--by four women and one man in Canada (so they're all neanderthals up there, all of a sudden? Except when they are not? All four of those women, scientists, researchers, are "anti-feminism?" I mean, really? Ya think?) dealt with "brash" and "uppity" and "aggressive" environmentalists, too--surely you aren't suggesting that all environmentalists are women? How does one explain their reception, save that when people (regardless of gender) are brash, rude, nasty, didactic, offensive, outrageous, insulting, belittling, and in-your-face, people tend to want to tell them to STFU. It's human nature. People don't LIKE mean people. Mean men, OR mean women. That's not rocket science.

I'm offended, too, by the way everyone jumped on the bandwagon when they thought some moke named Tom Jacobs was the architect of this piece--he was just the SALON reporter, repeating what he'd learned from a vetted psychological journal.

I will say that a lot of biases came to the fore in this thread after some folks here "skimmed" the OP and were ready to go to town. When you dig down, though, and see who did the research and how it was presented, it's not one of these "Let's put the women down" things at all.

It's basic Dale Carnegie, using two vibrant "activist" areas of interest as the petri dish for this experiment. Nothing more.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

A simple, non-gender specific axiom.

For that, I was excoriated as wanting women to "bow down" in a fact-free rant by one of our more vocal members. I don't want women to "bow down," or men to "bow down" either.

I think I'm like most people--I don't want to be insulted, I don't want people to be rude or nasty or condescending, and I prefer conversations to orders and demands.

[bettyellen]

388. most of the posters were troubled by the OP posters snarky put down .....

and they were quite clear in saying so- much more than saying anything about the survey- except maybe people were more speaking to their reactions of feminists or environmentalists *as portrayed* in the media.

I didn't see any single person say the survey designers were sexist? Where did that happen?

[MADem]

392. The put down caused people to not even look at the actual study

abstract, never mind the article, which bears no relation to the snarky put down or the headline.

The OP comment was shit stirring and mindless, but the study is interesting and has value. No one wanted to focus on that, though. I think a lot of people didn't even read it.

Shame.

I was told that I, because I agreed with the researchers' assessments, wanted women to be submissive and "bow down." If that's not calling me--and the survey designers--sexist I don't know what it is. Certainly false and certainly rude, nasty, etc.

[bettyellen]

394. it is nigh impossible to discuss serious issues without bringing people down in some sense.

and many many people who whine about this just want people to STFU. They have no interest, except self interest.
No point in pandering to the completely hopeless.

[MADem]

397. It's a pity that confrontation is considered equivalent to conversation.

I should think that this kind of research would be helpful in being more effective as an activist, no matter what cause one was championing. The conclusions are really common sense, but sometimes the whole "We've gotta shake up the system" attitude prevails a bit too much.

It's one thing to shake up the system, where the business goes wobbly is when people aren't preaching to, but shitting on, the choir...! That kind of thing turns people into contrarians.

Dale Carnegie taught "effective activism" years before it was called that.

Everything old is new again...?

[bettyellen]

399. conversation is perceived as twice as confrontational when it's a woman who disagrees.

3X so if she dares to converse by expressing opposition to a man.
I don;t know how many men here completely imagined I was angry - when at best, I pitied the fools from a very considerable emotional distance. Often the listener is wrong- not the speaker.

And if you want to effect change, it's because you do disagree with the status quo. Not a load of wiggle room there. I truly think it's not workable to aim to coddle people.

[MADem]

451. If you look at the abstract of the research project, you will see that they took two

"activist" areas (the other one being environmentalism) and I don't think they were focusing exclusively on the "female" issue.

People are reading a lot into this study that just isn't there. No doubt the off-the-cuff and entirely unimportant editorializing on the part of the poster of the article have managed to completely put people off the good work of this team. A pity, that. I think they've uncovered an inconvenient--but useful, in the big picture--truth.

If folks want to effect change, the smart people figure out what works to actually effect that change. That's what these researchers are teasing out of this research. You don't keep banging your head against a brick wall because that's the way you've always done it and to do it any other way is to condescend to "the man" or what-have-you.

Is the goal to yell and be negative, or is the goal to change minds? If the goal is to yell and be negative, that sounds like Primal Scream Therapy to me. If the goal is to change minds, that sounds like the Civil Rights movement. I'd rather spend my time on a change-effecting project that resembled the latter, but that's just me I suppose.

These are four of the five researchers, the fifth is a woman who is not at a university now but working environmental issues:

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spa/faculty/chasteen.php


http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spa/faculty/lockwood.php


http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spa/students/bashir.php

http://uwaterloo.academia.edu/DanielNadolny

Their CVs don't read like they are a bunch of dismissive, sexist lightweights to me.

[seabeyond]

455. No. People are pissed at what talking dog added. But you knew that and have known that and are going

On about what others do not give a shit about. You may. Fine. But that was not the issue with many on this thread. We talked about what we had issue with. Not what you decided we need to address.

[MADem]

474. No, I didn't "know" that. You aren't a very good mind reader.

I looked at the academic aspects of the piece, and barely noticed the commentary by the thread starter, who didn't stick around to participate in the thread.

That's pretty evident from EVERYTHING I've said on this thread.

seabeyond
455. No. People are pissed at what talking dog added. But you knew that and have known that and are going
View profile
On about what others do not give a shit about. You may. Fine. But that was not the issue with many on this thread. We talked about what we had issue with. Not what you decided we need to address.

[bettyellen]

479. we discussed this just a few hours ago... and you seemed to agree. *shrug*

[seabeyond]

482. I am thinking. Thinking I read it on three maybe four posts. See, a hoot. Lol. Nt

[MADem]

486. You are easily amused.

seabeyond
482. I am thinking. Thinking I read it on three maybe four posts. See, a hoot. Lol. Nt

[seabeyond]

488. as are you. i dont read your post. in a sentence or two, want to tell me why you are copying my post

Seems to be amusing you also.

Not interested in one of your circular drawn out posts. Just a sentence or two

[MADem]

492. I don't find you "amusing" in the slightest.

seabeyond (86,916 posts)
488. as are you. i dont read your post. in a sentence or two, want to tell me why you are copying my post

Seems to be amusing you also.

Not interested in one of your circular drawn out posts. Just a sentence or two

[MADem]

485. My initial posts were about the content of the study.

It was only when I started getting some grief about assuming that four Canadian women doing a study about perceptions were NOT sexist that my conversations went in the other, less productive, and no doubt the point of the snark in the OP, direction.

Of course, it would seem that most people in this thread would much prefer to discuss the snark of one disruptor, and direct their ire about it at ME, rather than the published research of five academics from the Universities of Toronto and Waterloo.

Isn't that odd?

[bettyellen]

489. not really odd. the comment in the OP was crappy flame bait....

and the poll, a small sample push poll, it seems- even less important. I didn't see a single post questioning that the people who conducted the study were sexist- just that the study itself could be flawed. Seems like BS trying to reinforce stereotypes to lots of us here. That is all.

[MADem]

491. Push poll?

As I said earlier, I was told that agreeing with the STUDY (it was more than a poll) meant that I wanted women to "bow down." That's one degree of separation in the "the researchers are sexist" follies. This same poster is still following me around this thread, inserting herself into subthreads solely to engage in goading and baiting me repeatedly with "hoot" comments.

I looked up the CVs of the researchers. They're teachers and post-grads at two respected CA universities. One woman has a postgrad degree and is now working as an environmental activist (that's probably what sparked some of the work--the one male who worked on the study also had environmental interests and was a professor at Waterloo). It's earnest work--published work--by serious academics. It's not a push poll. That point has been lost in typical DU garbage flinging.

This forum, I guess, isn't the place for these kinds of conversations. It's either advocacy, outrage, and agreement, or a pile-on. Absolutely no nuance.

It's unfortunate.

[bettyellen]

493. so... no one here said the researchers are sexist, yet you keep posting about it?

really? Come ON.

[MADem]

503. Read the study. It doesn't "reinforce stereotypes." Not the focus or the goal. nt

[seabeyond]

481. No mind reader here. Just reading your post that said exactly that. But wtf, right?

[bettyellen]

478. if you read responses carefully- you'll see that most had an issue with the editorial added at the

end of the OP, more than the study.

What I said about it being twice as confrontational is from personal experience. Mine and approximately 80-100 other women I know who work in academia and activism the last 25 years. A majority of men do not like being told that anything is ever wrong- unless they happen to notice it first. And when you explain things calmly, many perceive it as angry because THEY are having an emotional reaction. They would be preferred to be agreed with, and perceive any issues raised as competition or confrontational when it is merely discussion.
Kind of impossible to actually "do" any activism when you accommodate this and pretend to agree with everything they say- or bend over backward instead of making the point you need to.

Most men have been evolving to deal with the great strides feminists have made in the last couple of generations. They do not hit their wives for talking up anymore. They do not expect us all to be barefoot and pregnant and shielded from the world we share. You can thank mouthy women for giving you all of that. All this noise about the failures of feminism is largely wishful thinking from those who do not know history.

They will get used to the expectation of listening and dealing with us with respect. But not if we shut up to please them. If things need to be done, it is a waste of time pretending otherwise to placate those less socially evolved. Society will progress with or without them, norms will continue to change. And that is good for all of us.

[MADem]

494. You didn't read the article very carefully, or the abstract.

They aren't telling people to "agree with" people. The study, in one segment, provided three approaches by differing "types" (as described by a brief biography of their activities) and tested to see which approaches motivated people to increase their recycling.

If you are going to reduce the conversation to a discussion about "mouthy women" and "they will get used to it or else" you just aren't taking their point at all.

There's no point in going on, here. Have a good night.

[bettyellen]

500. So no one here called the researchers sexist, but you dislike us all discussing a phenomenon

we have all experienced in our lives as activists that does relate to the OP. And the snarkniess of the OP as being problematic on a liberal site.
Got it. Thanks.

[MADem]

502. "US?"

Thanks for clearing that up.

I "dislike" NO ONE--not even tag teamers. Nice "us against you" framing, there, though. And I certainly don't "dislike" people for engaging in activism, having done my share myself. Further, this research isn't about "personal stories," it's about how to get more bang for your buck, how to bring people to support a given cause.

I do feel sorry for people who are set in their ways, and don't see how change can be a good thing, particularly when change brings the desired result.

I've addressed the OP's snark. I dismissed it. I am a person who doesn't let one jerk ruin a conversation. The study is a piece of decent theorizing, it's a foundation for further work, and it has been published. To my POV, allowing one thoughtless comment to derail discussion of the issue that is important is a "shiny object fixation." I won't indulge in that kind of thing.

Apparently, not everyone has that skill.

I was called, in effect, sexist (you would say that anyone who wants women to "bow down" is a sexist, I assume?) solely for agreeing that the researchers might have a point. If I'm sexist, then so are the researchers. See how that works?

So....yeah. Got it, thanks....INDEED. I'm afraid I "got it" only too well. Par for the course, I guess.

And you have a good day, too. As I said before, no point in going on. You want a fight, I want a discussion of a research paper. Never the twain shall meet.

[bettyellen]

507. so, neither you or the researchers were actually called sexists but you fixated on that idea, shiny

object indeed.
Loads of women discussed what this means in terms of their own activism- there are no teams, this is many womens' experience here. Loads of posts about it.
Dismiss it all you want, and fixate on imaginary slights to the researchers that never happened. Good luck with that.

[MADem]

510. If you are told "I'll bet you shoot people dead every day" they don't have to call you a murderer

for you to take the point that this IS what they are saying to you.

Play the "Willfully Obtuse" card if you'd like.

This one's a keeper.

bettyellen
507. so, neither you or the researchers were actually called sexists but you fixated on that idea, shiny
View profile
object indeed.
Loads of women discussed what this means in terms of their own activism- there are no teams, this is many womens' experience here. Loads of posts about it.
Dismiss it all you want, and fixate on imaginary slights to the researchers that never happened. Good luck with that.

[bettyellen]

511. not really. there's a BIG difference between saying you expressed an idea that is sexist and

actually calling a person a sexist. I have no idea why you need to play the martyr card here- or claim people tossed around labels that they did not, but whatever.

[MADem]

512. No, there isn't. I'm not playing the martyr, but interesting characterization.

One can only be a martyr if one is being persecuted.

Funny how that works.

[bettyellen]

513. that's why I said playing. ... nuance.

[seabeyond]

514. oh, buck up man. geez. no one called you a sexist. it is a discussion. you said, so i said. here,

i will do the damn copy and paste for you

I think anyone reading the study would take the essential conclusions to heart--IF they wanted to

actually make progress on causes near and dear to their heart.

I don't think I am unusual in that I tend to listen to people who are approachable, friendly and positive, and I tend to not listen to people who deride me or call me names if I don't immediately agree with the points they make.

I think this study is just validating the obvious.

you are saying that you think the feminist ought to take this to heart which is the tone argument. so i say....

everyone hates liberals also. you want a softer stick MAdem, cause that is not gonna fly on du.

you want feminists to bow down, lower eye, speak oh so gently and coddle the egos. and you suggest that will work, which i know you are full of it. but then, you MUST demand that ALL liberals do the same while talking to the nation

got it.

talking about the poor, the hungry, the needy, the environment, our children. you know, if we want any support at all, must coddle the greedy's ego.

you state your "tone" argument as "approachable, friendly and positive". i define your "tone" argument as "bow down, lower eye, speak oh so gently and coddle the egos".

that is all it fuckin is. geez..... a little cheese with the whine. how many posts going on about this?

[MADem]

515. YOUR words---YOUR words, directed AT and ABOUT ME....

you want feminists to bow down, lower eye, speak oh so gently and coddle the egos. and you suggest that will work, which i know you are full of it.

None of that is true.

That didn't stop you from saying it. Your goal was to be insulting and hurtful.

You say things that aren't true, I'm calling you on it.

Dismissing it as "geez....a little cheeze with the whine" doesn't cut it.

I'm sure if I said something equally vile about you, and then called YOUR complaints "cheese and whine," you'd be rallying your minions and doing a lot more than pointing out misstatements.

How many posts? Every time you or one of your friends tries to pretend that nothing painting me as a sexist was said in this thread, I'm going to point it out.

YOU said it. YOU own it.

[seabeyond]

516. i think copy and pasting and saying.... I SAID, is pretty much owning it. and no, i have no issue.

what you are all about, i am clueless. you see it as being whatever, friendly yada yada. i am telling you, how we see it is just that. lowering the eyes, coddling the ego. we have been doing it a fuckin lifetime. you may not like it. FINE. who the fuck cares. but it is how i feel and other women feel when ONE tells a woman that she needs to talk gently, femininely, nicely, approachable and the likes.

you can listen to all the women on here who are actually fucking experiencing it and saying it and OWNING what we say, or you can have your feelings hurt for god only knows what reason.

[MADem]

518. Your post was rude, hurtful and condescending. It was also untrue.

You didn't even bother to read the study. I did. It doesn't say what you claim it says, and you were directing those comments right at ME. At ME, personally.

I didn't alert. I probably should have. That was some nasty shit, and you said it, and you have yet to apologize for it. I don't hold my breath, though, you are so sensitive when it comes to yourself, far less so when you fling hateful words at others and call it "whining" if they object.

I think your nasty comments reflect on you. Poorly.

seabeyond (86,947 posts)
516. i think copy and pasting and saying.... I SAID, is pretty much owning it. and no, i have no issue.

what you are all about, i am clueless. you see it as being whatever, friendly yada yada. i am telling you, how we see it is just that. lowering the eyes, coddling the ego. we have been doing it a fuckin lifetime. you may not like it. FINE. who the fuck cares. but it is how i feel and other women feel when ONE tells a woman that she needs to talk gently, femininely, nicely, approachable and the likes.

you can listen to all the women on here who are actually fucking experiencing it and saying it and OWNING what we say, or you can have your feelings hurt for god only knows what reason.

[seabeyond]

519. i do not care about the study. nor does most on this thread. why will you not let that go. alert.

i am fine with it. my post makes a very good point. people feel the exact same about the word liberal. you should make the same demands from liberals. you will not. and it would be a fail to make that suggestion on du.

if that is fuckin hurtful to you, it really is not my issue.

the purpose of me copy and pasting was not to waste more time with a person that has to look for an insult in a post and is unwilling to allow differing opinion, but the purpose of me copying and pasting your post, and my post is your misrepresentation. now they are together. with your whine. and people can judge for themselves. i am good with that. as should you be.

see, i am a problem solver, i am

edit... and i am DONE

[MADem]

523. So, not only do you refuse to apologize, you double down and insist that it is "OK" to

wrongfully and untruthfully characterize me as someone who wants women to bow down.

Wow.

Your post does not 'make a very good point.' Your post directly and personally insults me, in a rude and unfair manner. It's very clear who used the rude, accusatory and insulting language, and it wasn't me.

And now you've got the nerve to "whine" that I won't "let that go" when the OP was ABOUT the study.

I'm pleased that you're showing your true colors, though--not that they're much of a secret.

Of course you're "done"--until you start up again.

seabeyond (86,949 posts)
519. i do not care about the study. nor does most on this thread. why will you not let that go. alert.

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 01:00 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

i am fine with it. my post makes a very good point. people feel the exact same about the word liberal. you should make the same demands from liberals. you will not. and it would be a fail to make that suggestion on du.

if that is fuckin hurtful to you, it really is not my issue.

the purpose of me copy and pasting was not to waste more time with a person that has to look for an insult in a post and is unwilling to allow differing opinion, but the purpose of me copying and pasting your post, and my post is your misrepresentation. now they are together. with your whine. and people can judge for themselves. i am good with that. as should you be.

see, i am a problem solver, i am

edit... and i am DONE

[seabeyond]

517. and btw. if i am all that in hateful, wtf are you doing listening to me. cause you ONLY listen to

a person who is nice and friendly and approachable. remember? so why in the world do you have 5 or more posts about my post.

[MADem]

521. Way to PROVE you didn't read the study!

Why do you keep trying to justify your hateful and rude words? Hyperposting about it doesn't make it right.

Gee, could that be construed as "whining" because I didn't just "put my head down," and get over your nasty comments directed at me?

You keep trying to mitigate what you said, and I'll keep pointing out that what you did was rude, nasty and wrong. That's "why in the world" I reply to your word salads trying to excuse your own bad behavior. You unfairly and untruthfully characterized me, without any evidence, based on your blatant lack of understanding of the study's contents. And that, to lift a word from the study title, is enormously IRONIC.

You said those words and you OWN them. They're disreputable and untrue. You should be ashamed of yourself.

seabeyond
517. and btw. if i am all that in hateful, wtf are you doing listening to me. cause you ONLY listen to
View profile
a person who is nice and friendly and approachable. remember? so why in the world do you have 5 or more posts about my post.

[seabeyond]

522. seriously? you are still on the study that i told you I. DO. NOT. CARE. ABOUT.

and you bring it up fuckin again. you wonder why i say you are a hoot. really, done here dude.

[MADem]

524. I thought you were "DONE?" Ahhh, now you're "really, done here dude."

I don't care what you care about. You aren't the arbiter, here. This isn't your thread. This thread is about a study you didn't bother to read.

You insulted me, wrongfully, and made accusations about my character that were not true.

Every time you push or derail, I will keep bringing it up "fuckin again"--to quote you.

And you can keep goading me with the "hoot" comments, too--because every time you do, I'll memorialize your words, so that you can't make them go away, either.

Your dismissive attitude doesn't distract from your rude comments. You behaved badly, and I am noting it.

seabeyond
522. seriously? you are still on the study that i told you I. DO. NOT. CARE. ABOUT.
View profile
and you bring it up fuckin again. you wonder why i say you are a hoot. really, done here dude.

[Squinch]

7. "pedantic screed belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think"

You mean those pedantic screeds about giving people control over their own bodies, equal pay, and a world that they can pass on to their grandchildren?

Gosh. I hope no one is bothering you too much with those pesky things. Cause then 200 people who use Mechanical Turk might not want to be friends.

People who want to breathe and have civil rights are so pedantic.

[Duppers]

185. ^^ this ^^

Well put! Thanks.


Edited to add relevant link I came across some weeks ago:
http://www.shsoutherner.net/opinion/2013/01/16/negative-stigma-hinders-feminism/

[Squinch]

225. Good link.

But I have to say, I treat the word as a badge of honor. I think we all should. People calling our ideas "screeds" only means that they are finally grasping the radical implications of real equality for women. They are finally getting the fact that they no longer have an unearned primacy over half the population, and they are deathly afraid that it will reduce their economic and social possibilities.

And they are right. It will. And it is happening, though slowly and in fits and starts, and there is nothing they can do about it.

[seabeyond]

234. i had never used the word feminist. i have a father and brother that watch fox. i used the term on

myself to both of them. the reaction was hilarious.

both claimed immediately.... i never called you that.

i laughed. no, you didnt. i called me that. and it is ok being a feminist. i do not see that i am insulting me.

was truly lmao at their independent reaction to me calling myself a feminist. like i thought i was insulting me.

i do the same calling myself a flaming liberal. i am not. but, i am taking ownership of the word in this area.

i ask, do you love me anyway. cause this is it. what you are looking at. a flaming liberal feminist.

ya, but you are different they say.

nope. no i am not. this is it in all my glory.

[Squinch]

238. With my conservative relatives, it got

easier when they had daughters. You just have to say, "do you want your daughter to earn the same as your son for the same work?" Of course they do, at which point I always say, "welcome to the dark side, you're a feminist. Have a cookie."

It makes them think. All but a female in-law, who thinks women should be paid less. Some just aren't worth arguing with.

[seabeyond]

243. ha ha. well, i have always held my own with my testosterone driven men, lol. i am the grounding

and have been for about 15 or more years now. they do not mess with me much, hardly at all. ok, they may try periodically but it does not go well for them. when the argument is all stupid, how can they win?

"welcome to the dark side, you're a feminist. Have a cookie."

love it.

break out the wine whenever SIL comes over. the only way i could get thru that visit.

the funny with my men is they have always regarded me as a person. never holding gender expectation with me. so it is a hoot when they have the world view yet do not live it.

[NCTraveler]

210. +1 nt

[LittleBlue]

8. Their behavior taints their movement

Issues like environmental preservation and equal pay can be supported without toxic labels. Most people don't want to be branded with an "ism".

[ljm2002]

19. What?

Whose behavior are you talking about? Environmentalists and feminists? Really?

So please explain to us all, what the liberals did to "taint" their movement? Because liberals suffer from the same negative perceptions.

And toxic labels? You mean like "feminazis", "eco-terrorists", and "limousine liberals"? Because those toxic labels were all supplied by the rabid right.

"Most people don't want to be branded with an ism". Who is doing the branding? I don't remember many feminists trying to brand others with the label; same goes for environmentalists and for that matter, liberals. Those are generally self-labels when they are used at all; or more often, they are used as a shorthand to describe a group of people sharing similar views.

Some days DU can be very surprising. This is one of those days. It makes my shake my head and wonder, what the hell has gone wrong.

[BainsBane]

48. Maintaining ideas they dislike

and having the nerve to articulate them in public rather than keep our mouths shut. The ideas themselves are the taint. The common refrain is "it's not our problem," or "We don't care," whether it's gun violence, rape, etc. . .

Some people see their interests as tied to the status quo and resent any efforts to change it.
Mind you, no one approaches such people. They have to enter a thread to tell you why your concern, like taking action to prevent unnecessary homicide--is meaningless. I think it really comes down to the fact the concept that giving a fuck about anyone on this planet other than themselves is offensive to some people.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. No, YOUR behavior taints our movement.

The insufferable whining by anti-feminists inevitably snowballs into a mountain of shit and people start to believe that the reason why they hate feminists is the behavior of feminists when it couldn't be further from the truth.

[davidn3600]

24. Quite true, but feminism doesnt do itself any favors

[Gravitycollapse]

25. what exactly does that mean?

[Decaffeinated]

29. Is it difficult to think of examples...

... of when a group has alienated more people than they have convinced to support them?

[leftynyc]

47. Care to give some examples of that?

Are you referring to those with penises being upset with having to compete in the job market and pay women the same as a man doing the same job. Or is it having to help out around the house and help raise their children. Are those the kinds of things these people are talking about? Are you against those things?

[Decaffeinated]

54. You seem awfully anxious for a gotcha moment...

I am for equal rights and sometimes advocates for a specific group can turn off people they should want to get on their side through an insensitive or poorly thought out action...

IOW, they prefer the warm feeling they get in feeling superior and berating others than choosing a strategy that results in positive change.

[leftynyc]

58. I asked three questions

You call that anxious? I'm still waiting for those examples of how supporting feminists is turning people off. Got any? Because I suspect it's only the men who feel that way and it's because they don't like to have to compete in the job market with those they consider lessor than they.

[Decaffeinated]

59. I calls em like I sees em...

So I'll stick with my choice of the word anxious...

I think this conversation would fall neatly in what the OP was talking about....

The slightest hint of reproach and out comes the broad brush attacks...

[davidn3600]

65. No one even knows what feminism means anymore....

And who is the enemy? Who's fighting the "war on women?" Men? Are men the enemy? Or how about the 45% of women who voted for Mitt Romney last year? Or the 80% of Americans who refuse to refer to themselves as a "feminist?"

The problem feminism has is it's not considered an equal rights movement anymore. Part of the reason for that is the right-wing has vilified it. But it's also because feminism has failed to mold itself to the modern era. Feminism needs to start taking a more egalitarian approach to gender equality. Today, we are not dealing with very many massive issues that are easy to get behind and change (like the right for women to vote). Now we are dealing with complex social issues that deal with gender roles and stereotypes. These are difficult things to change. And you can only make progress on these things when you approach them from both sides of the coin. If you are going to relax gender roles for women, then you need to relax gender roles for men too. The goal of this type of approach is to slowly bring things that are out of balance, into balance. That includes the weakening of advantages that both men and women have through different areas of society.

This isn't about competition. This is about telling men that it's OK if the wife makes just as much money, or is even the breadwinner. AND...it's also about telling women that it's OK for them to take that role. Because what's blocking women in the workforce is the fact that women are still expected to put their careers on hold for their family. And men are still expected to provide and bring home the bacon. Men, even today, have pressure to make more money than their wife. When they don't, they may start to feel inadequate. They may be get made fun of by their peers. And the wife's family may even look down on him. And that right there is an area feminism needs to start working on....not just pushing the women.

[geek tragedy]

97. Apparently you haven' talked to a real feminist in decades if you think what you

described is even remotely incompatible with feminism or what feminists believe.

[niyad]

358. feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people--rebecca west.

or, as she also said,
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.”
― Rebecca West, Young Rebecca: Writings, 1911-1917

[bettyellen]

387. no, it is obviously you who does not understand what Feminism is.

none of your smart new ideas are at all new to feminists, LOL. they actually already do, much to your surprise work to those ends.
it's just that helping men feel better about themselves is not going to be the top priority. I know that probably hurts you feelings. Perhaps you could start a group yourself to do outreach to men- maybe that would make you feel better.

[davidn3600]

393. It has nothing to do with men's feelings...

That wasn't my point. What Im trying to say put in a broader sense is that feminism really hasn't done a great job changing the way society thinks about gender and about roles we play in society. And that there should be other ways to look at it.

Feminism needs to be re-invented more as a gender equality movement. Because right now, a lot of people don't believe that it is and that's what is keeping people away from it.

If feminism could either be branded a women's rights movement, or an equal rights movement.... which do you think would be more successful? We are a country that wants to pride itself on moving towards equality. We have a ways to go in a number of areas...but this is what the goal is.

[bettyellen]

398. a full 1/3 of your post was about coddling men. and now you'd like feminists to work on men's

issues while working on women's issues less. Wow, that would be nice of us, wouldn't it?

I have an idea- why don't men do some work on this? Actually it's more of a question- why don't men bother- and why should women help men when they are largely not doing this work themselves? Do you think we are here to coddle and save you all while you sit in barcaloungers and watch the game. Get to work, buddy. We promise to support. But it's ultimately your job.

[davidn3600]

400. Well then, enjoy a movement that will remain in the fringe

Im not talking about supporting mens issues. Im talking about supporting equality. Which you just admitted that feminism right now is not about.

You won't get very far when you claim to support equality while at the same time completely ignore inequalities that favor women.

Only 20% of Americans consider themselves feminist. Only 1/3rd of the Democratic party considers themselves feminist. If you are comfortable working with that....more power to you. I won't stand in your way. But don't expect a parade of men (or women even) to help you put women first.

[chervilant]

404. You might start with your own sexism.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

[davidn3600]

407. Oh, So Im the sexist one?

Im preaching equality here, and then Im called sexist... Whatever...

And you wonder why so few Americans want to be a feminist? Take a look around.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabs_gender_0411122013.pdf

[chervilant]

409. Sad that you refuse to see... n/t

[chervilant]

410. Here...

Chew on this for a bit of enlightenment:

"A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone. This is also sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar, a particular variant of the tone argument.

The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down."

[bettyellen]

436. I admitted no such thing. We are trying to rectify injustices, it's really quite simple.

And we have gone further in the last three generations than anyone would ever have imagined. The failure here is that you don;t know that, or care that more needs to be done. And that you are unwilling to do your part. Probably because you are seeing it all as a competition- putting women first? WTF, you really have no idea, do you? No wonder you feel so threatened and hostile.

But when you are so steeped in ignorance of feminist history, perhaps you could refrain from advising others? That would be a nice start.

[davidn3600]

439. Obviously we have different opinions so we will have to leave it at that.

Progress is being made because 80% of Americans support gender equality. Everyone supports feminism up to that point. Beyond that though....people don't agree. A lot of women are pro-life. A lot of women choose to stay at home. And a lot of people think feminism wants a lot more than equality. It is what it is and arguing here won't change anyone's minds. So I'll leave it at that.

[bettyellen]

440. You continue to ignore history to bolster your inaccurate theory. We continue to try to educate

those who are ignorant, as yourself, that women want "more than equality". That is some sad ass RW MRA bullshit, and most here already know better. Sounds like you have some catching up to do so you can let go of the stereotypes and misinformation you have been fed. Good luck.

[Squinch]

415. Let's see. The women's movement has taken women from a condition where they could

not vote, or own their own property, or engage in any meaningful way in the financial arena, or make choices about their lives, or independently feed their children or put a roof over their heads, where they were allowed to be subjected to physical, sexual and financial abuse in their own homes without recourse, and where they had no choice but to submit to whatever emotional subjugation the "man of the family" chose to dish out to them, because they could not survive on their own. These conditions were built in the fabric of society and were believed by all to be the "natural order" and unchangeable.

The women's movement has taken women to a condition where they are no longer subject to physical, sexual and financial abuse in their homes because they are able to survive economically without a husband.

The women's movement achieved this astonishing feat in fewer than 80 years.

I'd say that we are doing pretty well, with or without the approval of the guys who "just wish we'd be sweeter" or who "just wish we'd work for rights for men too." (The latter, by the way, is really ridiculous. Even you must see that.)

Feminism doesn't need to be re-invented into anything other than what it is.

[treestar]

297. That is true

And those few people end up getting the attention and the mass of voters ends up making them the stereotype.

[niyad]

350. please be good enough to give specific examples of that last sentence of yours. and I do mean,

specific, otherwise, you are just repeating the hate and memes of the woman-hating right.

[joeglow3]

57. My frustrations is comments like "pay women the same as a man doing the same job."

Read the studies. I mean, TRULY read the studies. You would see that women DO get the same as a man doing the SAME job. The issue is women are over-represented in fields with lower pay (teaching, nursing, etc.). Now, there are issues to address, sure. However, bullshit like pay women the same as a man doing the same job is INTENTIONALLY ignoring the root issue in favor of having a nice slogan so you can feel superior to others (just like you did with that post there). THAT is why people develop negative stereotypes of these groups - many of their members are more interested in feeling superior and less interested in creating any meaningful change.

[seabeyond]

64. do look at studies. even in same position, same experience, fresh out of college, men are paid more

Yes, men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities. Take a look at what PayScale has discovered about the gender pay gap.



Percent Growth in Pay: To determine the percent growth in pay, we first found the median, annual pay for both male and female college graduates at the age of 22. These pay values were different for men and women, but served as a baseline for relative pay growth. At each age specified in the chart, the "Wage Growth" indicates the increase in annual pay compared to the baseline pay values found for 22 year old men and women.

For example, at age 30, both men and women have experienced a wage growth of almost exactly 60 percent, meaning the typical man would be earning $65,300 (compared to their baseline of $40,800) and the typical woman would be earning $51,000 (compared to their baseline of $31,900).

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

[joeglow3]

68. When you cherry pick certain fields, you get those results

All of those percentages are within a reasonable range and the studies of said they are NOT explainable. People just like to assume it is gender discrimination.

There are also fields where the opposite is true (women make a couple percentages more). One that comes to mind is accounting.

All that said, your post basically affirms what I stated: the true issue is being ignored in favor of having a catchy slogan allowing people to feel superior to others.

[seabeyond]

74. i cherry picked, because you cherry picked an EXCUSE why women make less gravitating

to certain professions. so i got exact professions, with same years of experience, and everything the like. and still women are paid less.

yet, you find it acceptable.

if i were to go into IT, the science fields, you will see a much larger difference in pay, with all things being equal, at the entry level.

[hfojvt]

83. everything in that example was "college educated"

and how many in this society are college educated?

A much larger percentage than before.

Yet, when the chart says that a "typical" man's salary at age 48 is $95,000 a year, that seems pretty astounding to me, since median HOUSEHOLD income is less than $55,000 a year. So $95,000 a year for ONE person does not seem very TYPICAL at all. 50% of households - often meaning TWO incomes, makes almost less than half of that amount.

And all things are not necessarily equal even at the entry level. I got paid more than a guy who got hired at the same time I did - because I had better grades in college.

[davidn3600]

118. Single women under age 30 make more money than single men of the same age and qualifications

The problem seems to occur when she gets married and has a child. Then her career takes a blow and her earning potential seems damaged. She'll struggle to keep up with men the rest of her professional life.

But that's where the discrepancy begins...between ages 30 and 40.

Why? I don't know. Do employers discriminate against women who have kids and women who don't? Do women begin to work less hours because of the children and therefore appear less attractive to raises and promotions...therefore men squeeze ahead? Do women willingly or feel forced to sacrifice their career ambitions because the man won't? It's probably a combination of different things.

But I dont think you have a company that between a male employee and a female employee and says.."That's a man so I'm going to pay him more..." I don't think it's that simple.

[seabeyond]

119. bullshit. link.or isnt happening. i provided a good source that calls you opinion as wrong. simple

Female industry the man starts higher. Male industry the man starts MUCH higher

[davidn3600]

122. Well I dont have any recent stats on hand at the moment, but this was a few years ago...

From 2010...

But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).

Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. "These women haven't just caught up with the guys," says Chung. "In many cities, they're clocking them."

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

[seabeyond]

123. wow. apples and oranges dude. college degree vs the men that are not getting a degree.

little wonder. but then, that really has nothing to do about what we were discussing.

[davidn3600]

129. So you are suggesting that it is just full blown sexism?

That companies are purposely paying male new-hires more money than female new-hires just based on their gender and nothing else?

OK...lets assume that's true. And you are correct.. Why would they do that? What social agenda does a corporation have for such blatant sexism?

I agree with you that if that is going on, that is very wrong. But instead of just throwing out labor statistics and census data, it'd be much more helpful to identify which specific companies are engaging in that kind of practice.

And that goes back to my criticism with how feminists act. Ultimately...what's the solution? What do we have to do to fix the inequalities that exist?

We are fighting over semantics and statistics instead of solutions. And that's why nothing ever gets done in this country.

[bettyellen]

318. I know it is true of every firm I ever worked for.

[leftynyc]

73. No - you are wrong

It's better - much better - among younger women but for the rest, they're not even close. As far as feeling superior - I have no idea what you're babbling about.

[Gravitycollapse]

112. False. Women make less than 100% of their male counterparts in the same positions...

They are also less likely to advance up the hierarchy.

[Texasgal]

120. Oh dear...

You really believe that don't you?

[stevenleser]

167. No, RWers like Rush calling Feminists 'feminazis' and using lies to describe them did that. Not the

feminists themselves.

[Decaffeinated]

184. That must be it...

[stevenleser]

198. You're right, it is. nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

525. Exhibit A.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

527. Exhibit D.

[chervilant]

32. Your comment richly illustrates

what's wrong, and it's NOT Feminism.

[CTyankee]

42. Please, david, tell us feminists here how we can improve! Do you have suggestions

on how we dress that can make our image come across more attractively? Perhaps it is the way we speak, do you think? Do you think we should be more careful of showing any anger?

Your assistance is very much needed for our movement to succeed!

[jberryhill]

228. It's difficult to explain...

[CTyankee]

267. wow, I wonder what in god's name was wrong with her...

a "womanly offense" sure sounds bad. Maybe it's "breathing."

[jberryhill]

273. Hmmm....

[CTyankee]

274. I never did understand this crap...

[BainsBane]

445. I seem to recall one complaint

had to do with our unreasonable insistence on cluttering up jails with rapists with multiple offenses, including one who had reoffended on the very day he was released from prison.

[MADem]

373. Nothing wrong with feminism. Feminism is a valued construct.

This is the actual title of the research paper:
The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence


It was written by four WOMEN and one man.

It's not the message that is a problem, but sometimes, it's some (not all) of the messengers.

[joeglow3]

53. There is a modicum of truth

In my life, I rarely run into feminists. Frankly, the extent of my exposure to feminists is from my college days. Sadly, many of these people in college try hard to fit whatever stereotype applies to their group. Honestly, the feminists I knew there were very much like the women in PCU.

The problem is that these, for the most part, are NOT real feminists. However, to many people, these are the only interactions they have. While I am not excusing the behavior, we need to recognize what the root cause of the problem is and educate people. Comments like yours just start a pissing match, throw in the towel and ensure NOTHING changes (but you can feel a temporary good and superiority, so all is good....).

[seabeyond]

70. how many men have come on this thread, that are well known for dissing womens issues, tell us

that we are proving the OPs point of view, simply for disagreeing with the OP or challenging the OP, or calling out the snarky of the OP statement?

basically what we are being told is we say nothing, or we get labeled and have proven the OPs point.

i cannot say it with any less emotion, no anger, no accusation, merely an observation. but... merely speaking out puts me in the target of "one of those" feminists.

[joeglow3]

95. I agree completely with you

[seabeyond]

99. thank you so much...

even in disagreeing in some places. acknowledging this. thank you.

[LittleBlue]

92. Not at all

You wanted examples. Sex-negative feminism and ecotage (read the Monkey Wrench Gang). Please don't bother justifying either of these, you wanted examples.

The movements have tainted themselves.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. You often can find whatever results you are looking for

by the way you frame a poll and the questions.

I suggest that if these same people were asked if they believe in paying less money to women who do the same job as a man, few would agree with that statement. I further suggest that if you were asked if you prefer clean water and air over rivers on fire from chemicals and smog, it would be overwhelmingly for clean water and air.

Stereotyping sucks, and a poll that encouraging stereotyping sucks.

[Squinch]

10. And an OPer that uses polls encouraging stereotyping as an excuse to insult groups of people

sucks.

This is kind of like "The green grass grew all around and round and round."

Personally, I'm proud to be both a feminist and an environmentalist. That sentence, by the way, will be interpreted by some to be a screed.

[Curmudgeoness]

113. I am not afraid of labels either

and I don't even understand why people have problems with "feminists" or "environmentalist" or "liberals". I cannot imagine the world without people willing to fight for rights, even in the face of hatred from others.

Think about it----without screeds, blacks and women would still not be able to vote. Without screeds, our air would be toxic, and we would have no wild areas. Hell, we would still have slavery. And it is doubtful that we would have this nation.

Just call me a proud screed. Like I said, I don't run from unpleasant labels if that is what my actions will cause people to call me.

[Squinch]

130. The concept of equal rights is very threatening to many people.

The diminishing of their unearned privilege makes some folks bat shit crazy, so I'm not surprised that there would be real fear of feminists and those who push for equal rights. I am also not surprised in the least that there are those who would characterize those pushes as being "too pushy" or "too shrill" or whatever. If someone wanted to take away all of my unearned advantages I probably wouldn't like it either.

Though I don't agree with it, I can see why those who stubbornly cling to their delusions of superiority see all the efforts to shatter those delusions as being "screeds." We have all seen the mindset behind the OP's nasty little coda at work for years, and I think we can both understand where the opposition to feminism comes from. I almost feel that that kind of opposition is just a sign that feminist principles continue to gain ground, because otherwise no one would fear them and perceive the voicing of them as screeds.

The environmentalists having a bad name, though, doesn't seem to make any sense. People must be aware of the fact that the weather is changing, they must be aware that they or their children are likely to be fundamentally hurt by environmental irresponsibility. Are people really so angry at those who simply state the facts of what is right in front of their faces? Unless they are on a steady diet of Fox News, it just doesn't make sense.

People certainly are strange.

[Curmudgeoness]

137. I don't get it myself.

Giving rights to one does not take rights away from you. When women got the right to vote, men did not lose the right to vote. It must be more a matter of enjoying being "better than" others. Too bad that people can only feel good about themselves when they degrade others.

I am old enough to remember what the environment was like prior to people who cares enough to fight to clean it up. We had to wash down the porch ever day because of black soot. And everyone was breathing that all day, every day. The rivers had sheens of god knows what on them, and some actually caught on fire. Maybe if people would remember what it was like before, they would not be so critical.

BTW, if I could change my "name", I think I would like to use "screed".

[Squinch]

139. Oh, that's a great idea for a name.

I disagree on one point: women in the workforce does create competition for men that was not there before. I think men feel that acutely, especially a certain kind of man, and especially if a woman is higher up the ladder than he is. I think this accounts for a good part of the anger.

And I remember that too. I remember parts of the Hudson being a neon yellow froth.

[Curmudgeoness]

148. That may be true, I hadn't considered competition,

however, women in the workplace has also definitely benefited men as well. Now, they are not the only breadwinner in a household. Before women could get jobs, or jobs that paid a living wage, men had to support the family. Now, they have some of that burden shared. But I am sure that they don't see it that way.

[redqueen]

193. Speaking of voting...

I remember reading that single women overwhelmingly vote democratic - however once they get married, then they start following the man's lead, and voting republican.

An interesting phenomenon imo.

[Curmudgeoness]

218. Another excellent reason to stay single.

Actually, there is no way that I would consider marrying a man who was a conservative gas bag, since I could not respect someone with those attitudes. And respect is the most important thing in a relationship. So....would I be following my husband's lead, or would he be following mine? Or would neither of us be leading and following because we were already walking side by side?

[seabeyond]

220. my hubby followed mine. start of marriage, he voted bush. by 2004, he voted kerry

then obama twice. so....

[ljm2002]

20. Very true...

...just as poll after poll shows most Americans support liberal issues, when the issues are presented one by one; yet polls also show that many Americans recoil at the label "liberal" and claim (a) they are not themselves liberal and (b) they do not support liberalism.

Weird.

[niyad]

483. speaking of polls-- I remember reading about one years ago, where sections of the declaration of

independence were presented with a question something like "do you agree or disagree with these statements?" appalling how many disagreed--and that was before we ever heard of teabaggers.

[LadyHawkAZ]

11. Movements that are at cross purposes to the corporate status quo

somehow wind up being defined in the media by the stereotype of their extremists. I'm sure if we all thought about it long enough we could figure out why and how that happens.

[Squinch]

276. That is very true.

[fishwax]

390. yup -- and of course "mainstream" activities like "fundraising" are much more easily tolerated

[seabeyond]

12. diss two progressive groups with some popcorn. ya. that says a lot.

[geek tragedy]

96. No sexism on the left, no siree bob.

Now only if those nagging harpies and termagants would stop whining about sexism . . .

(for the inevitable alert, the above was )

[seabeyond]

100. ya know... any more in the face? lol. gonna do

some sweet meditating, sending ripples of waves, of love and light.

i am going back to the peaceful me.

[geek tragedy]

101. may the serenity embrace you back nt

[seabeyond]

102. ahhh. lol. i think it will. thank you. nt

[etherealtruth]

13. oh jeeze I am a feminist with a degree in Environmental Science

my grandmother was also an illegal alien that crossed over from Ontario into Michigan

I am screwed

[BainsBane]

142. You really are

Amazing that reactionary drivel like this gets currency here. Well, no it isn't. But I'll pretend I'm surprised for appearances sake.

[seabeyond]

143. see, being on du for a while we all walk away from the surprise. we want to say we are surprised,

but, we really are not surprised, we expect it adn even know where it is going to come from... talking dog. and others.

[etherealtruth]

200. I was not suprised

I am a feminist, I do have a an environmental degree and I do not care what ignorant jack asses think.

I am proud of who I am and what I believe

[demmiblue]

14. Unrec for your attempt to flamebait. n/t

[MH1]

15. "pedantic screeds"? More like tons of money spent to caricature those terms and turn people against

the caricature.

Kind of like what they've done to words like "liberal" and "socialism".

But I don't suppose you know anything about that.

[ljm2002]

16. The study is interesting if a bit depressing...

...but your own comments are pure flamebait:

"You mean pedantic screeds belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think they ought to backfires?"

Sooo, given that surveys indicate that many Americans don't like "liberals", to what would you attribute that? Are liberals also guilty of "belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way (they) think"?

Me, I think Americans have these attitudes because of a concerted effort by right wing hate radio, right wing so-called think tanks, and conservatives in general, over the last 30 years at least, to make "liberal" a dirty word. I think the same is true for feminists and environmentalists. The right wing and its echo chamber have successfully caricatured and demonized feminists (Limbaugh's favorite epithet being "feminazis&quot and environmentalists (aka "eco-terrorists&quot , along with liberals.

[hatrack]

17. Wow, surveys involving a whopping 62 respondents in one case, and 228 in another . . .

. . . discovered an overwhelming bias towards delivering overwhelming bias towards stereotypical images of "someone else".

[LisaLynne]

18. Huge, massive studies these are...

or not.

[davidn3600]

21. Recent poll showed similar results on feminism

Only 20% of Americans call themselves feminists....only 1/3rd of the Democratic party.
Yet, 82% of Americans say they support equal rights between men and women.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabs_gender_0411122013.pdf

So most people support equal rights, but they don't support feminism. That's pretty odd...

Feminism needs to change its public relations image. Most people do seem to view it as a man-hating and women-entitlement movement. Something has to be done to change the perception. Otherwise the divide will prevent any real social progress with gender issues going forward.

Feminism needs to get out of this men vs women crap. This needs to become a movement for equality. The vast majority of Americans support equality of the genders. But obviously the vast majority of Americans also don't think the current feminist movement is in favor of gender equality.

[LisaLynne]

30. That's not really odd.

The right has done a terrific PR job against feminism and turning it into a bad word. It's not the fault of the feminists, IMHO, who are standing up for their rights - it's the massive PR campaign that's been being fought against the movement by those who want women to remain as second class citizens.

However, my original comments stands: the studies quoted by the OP are not really the huge massive condemnation the OPer seems to think they are due to small sample size.

[Demo_Chris]

89. The right did no more than vocalize a common sentiment

Setting aside that the vocal militant feminist rarely offers a clear picture of what they are fighting for, or who her true allies are, and devotes her time instead towards what she is fighting against -- that would be pretty much everyone and everything -- and results like this are predictable. Where Dr. King climbed to the mountaintop, showed us the promised land, and invited us to enter, the modern feminist one so often sees today has no vision, no promised land, and offers only rejection and (often misplaced and incoherent) self-righteous anger. She is Fred Phelps in a pants-suit.

It's not appealing and uninspiring. It does not invite participation or discussion. So if 80% of the public at large reject her and those like her, it's no wonder -- she rejected them first.

The environmentalist thing is somewhat different. Most people are, I suspect, concerned about the environment, and if asked would label themselves as such. They don't reject the environment, they reject the often goofy public face of the movement -- much in the way people support the overall message of the Occupy movement (wealth inequality / bankers suck) while cringing at drum circles and "mic checks".

Just my opinion.

[ljm2002]

275. "the modern feminist (...) She is Fred Phelps in a pants-suit"

And Demo_Chris is Glenn Beck with a DU account.

What a load of crap.

[Squinch]

277. Let's just review some of Demo Chris's proudest moments in that comment:

the "vocal militant feminist" is fighting against "pretty much everyone and everything..."

"the modern feminist...offers only rejection and (often misplaced and incoherent) self-righteous anger."

"She is Fred Phelps in a pants-suit."

"It's not appealing..."


I think Demo Chris needs to be put in charge of the "How to be a Gal that Guys Like" training films. Because, hey, he needs to be appealed to! Or it doesn't count!

[redqueen]

279. Those kinda posts are so very revealing. nt

[Squinch]

288. It's got me thinking, though. That post is an illustration of the reasons why there is no end

to my gratitude for the feminists who have come before me.

Forty years ago, only the tiniest fraction of women could make a decent living without a man. You had to find a man who would support you and keep a roof over your head and food in your children's bellies. Women were absolutely dependent on men for survival in a very real way, and even if they were twice as smart, it was their man's word that carried the day. The women HAD to be "appealing" to men in order to survive.

If some husband spouted the odious nonsense in that post, his wife would have to sit and smile and nod, or she was screwed.

I think a measure of how far we have come is that we have become aware of the fact that we don't need to appeal any more in order to survive. Once we would have been utterly vulnerable if we didn't have some man's approval. But now, for the first time possibly in history, we can bestow our appeal only on those men we deem worthy of it. And if they stop being worthy of it, we can withdraw it and move on, and continue to live very well by our own merits.

That just makes me happy. (Though I think it has made men like that very angry.)

I kind of love it that people like that find feminism unappealing. And that we can say in response: pfffffft.

[seabeyond]

299. "we don't need to appeal" i like your post. i really really like it. thank you. nt

[Squinch]

306. Thinking about it, I was totally stunned to realize that it has only been 35, maybe 40 years

since things were a world of different, and you and I probably wouldn't even be "allowed" by our spouses to participate in a conversation like this.

And I'd be married to that guy who I narrowly escaped when I was 24.

Good god! The scariest alternate reality ever!

But here we are and I am totally comfortable saying, "You don't like it? That's nice, dear. You can go scratch for all I care."

[seabeyond]

308. couldnt even get a cr card or a bank acct. and that was acceptable. though by the time i came to

age, that one was being taken care of. growing up though, it was there.

i had a mom that didnt put up with shit from anyone though. there was never a "whatever you say, dear"

[MadrasT]

413. I love this whole comment.

Right there with ya.

[Squinch]

416. Isn't it great to step back and realize that all this silliness these guys are spewing

just doesn't matter?

[bettyellen]

322. wow, it's amazing how much ill you are happy to spew when knowing nothing about the topic.

ignorant stereotypes and willful ignorance.

just an FYI, we really don't give a shit what you like. Reading this post, I'd guess you probably won't ever give a shit about women's problems till you have a daughter facing them. But she probably won't tell you if she picks up the anti woman vibe you put out.

[Demo_Chris]

332. I do, in fact, have a daughter. She considers herself feminist...

As it happens, this morning I mentioned this survey to both her and my wife. Their comments could be summarized to say that public opinion is generally founded upon the words and actions of the most vocal and outrageous fringe. I tend to agree.

In the case of this survey, it suggests that 80% or so find that fringe to be poor messengers for this cause -- a cause, I might add, that most of that 80% likely support. You might attempt to understand WHY so many feel that way -- this being a good idea if you want people on your side -- or you can ignore the results.

On the plus side, congratulations, the approval rating of the feminist label is about as good as that of the US Congress.

[seabeyond]

339. i call bullshit. what vocal feminist is out there that you are hearing that is so damn outrageous

for you.... your daughter... and your wife. cause i gotta tell you, in main stream anything i am hearing NO feminist, let alone a vocal one that is so damn offensive. i thing your line is full of crap. i think it is a stereotype that you hype cause you have issue with anyone that brings up womens issue.

what feminist out and about is offending you and yours just oh so fuckin much.

[chervilant]

328. This thread, your response, and

the myriad other sexist remarks herein above suggest that we "radical feminists" have our work cut out for us...

[Demo_Chris]

335. If you care about an 80% disapproval rating, yes you do...

I would begin by dropping the pejorative labels and personal attacks.

In any case, I posted this comment sometime yesterday and got no response... until now, when I have gotten a cluster in short order. This more than suggests coordination, and that's unimpressive. I will leave you to it.

[seabeyond]

340. so your personal attacks and pejoratives are dandy and must be listened to, but no one is allowed

to address them. and that will make a "good" feminist for you.

shit is getting damn high in this thread.

ya, be a part of the 80% like you werent for your own pathetic reasons 2 minutes ago.

[Demo_Chris]

348. As you are undoubtedly aware I have made no personal attacks...

Though something tells me that you wish I would. I will leave that, and this thread, to you.

[seabeyond]

349. nah. you worked hard to put a whole lot of insult in each and every post. and something can tell

you whatever the fuck you want it to. doesnt make any of it a reality, just another of your made up stories.

[seabeyond]

351. now, tell me who this big bad feminist is that is so damn vocal to have turned your whole family off

feminists. cause i have yet to hear one name.

[bettyellen]

443. I remember someone hear saying it was someone who said "no thank you, I can open the door myself"

and this man was scarred for life. Still talking about it, years later. And making the idiotic assumption that all women did not deserve support of their rights because one told him something he didn't want to hear. You can't help people who are that wrapped up in their own egos. They need professional help.

[chervilant]

402. Coordination?!?

That's a novel approach to dismissing feminism. And, it's patently absurd.

Do you have any close female friends? Perhaps you can ask them to read this thread, and help you understand --and address -- your sexism.

Of course, I presume that you WANT to address your ism. I fully recognize that you're not likely to acknowledge it, much less address it.

[Squinch]

411. Seems to be inflating his importance just a tad, doesn't he? In his mind he's fighting the

good fight. Bless his little heart.

[redqueen]

194. These men on DU who are strongly agreeing with the right's message are a clear indication...

that it's not just the right demonizing feminists.

It's anti-feminists, and there are more on the right, but we have more than enough on the left as well.

[Blue_Tires]

75. exactly...

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. like the proverbial school teacher nun who might slap you on your hands with a wooden ruler

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

if you say or do the wrong thing. I'm not denying the validity of their work, of course - I'm just imagining why they can rub some people the wrong way. More than other activist they can be the ones that remind people to watch what they are doing and watch what they are saying - I suspect environmentalist and feminist can sound a bit preachy and puritanical to a lot of people

[BainsBane]

141. People don't like to give up privilege and profit

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

It's as simple as that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

168. even ordinary people - including some working class people who are not in any particular position

of privilege or profiteering sometimes see many liberal crusaders in general and environmentalist and feminist in particular as a bit lecturing and scolding . Movements whether led by nuns or Sunday school teachers or progressive do-gooders, however benevolent and however necessary that tell people that the way they are living is wrong and that they should change their behavior and live a better way tend to irritate many people.

[BainsBane]

170. So it's wrong to oppose war?

because it's telling people how to behave? Or does that just apply to us wimenz?

[seabeyond]

171. so, the option is what? stay silent? say nothing? the reality is... people that speak up and out

will irritate those that do not want to hear. ntohing to be done. but to keep speaking up. cause there are those listening too. and they are the ones we are talking to. not those that want to keep their head buried in the sand.

and staying quiet is not an option.

[BainsBane]

172. Those same people also prefer Rush Limbaugh

To Nobel prize winning scientists. Are you going to wag your finger at the scientists too?

The majority preferred slavery to abolitionists for most of the antebellum period? So what? That didn't make slavery legitimate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

174. I'm just stating the obvious - and I am not talking specifically about government policy

I'm not saying that one should not speak up - It is just reality that people who tell others that they should wash their hand before dinner or watch the words the are using or stopping using so and so product or quit smoking or stop buying the toys you are buying children or making their living the way they are making it - even if they are 100% right on these matters it still sounds like sanctimonious to many ordinary people and not just those who listen to Rush Limbaugh.

[seabeyond]

177. you are right. and as i said, those are not the people that any of us, regardless of the issue, are

talking to. the person not willing to listen, can not be forced. so they will remain irritated. and we will continue to educate (as skinner says) those that are open minded and prefer not to be bigots or hurt the environment they live in.

[Heidi]

28. "Pedantic screeds" like the last paragraph of your OP, for example?

Frankly, given the DU terms of service ("Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people...&quot , it's interesting that you feel comfortable posting such crap here.

From your OP:
Humph... imagine that. You mean pedantic screeds belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think they ought to backfires?

[BainsBane]

50. Oh, but if it's in favor of the status quo, it's not pedantic

[Starry Messenger]

62. +1000

[cali]

33. that's the title of the article.

not that I don't agree with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Only the one Salon used; Pacific Standard had "Environmentalism? Perhaps. Environmentalists? Ewww!"

http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/feminism-maybe-feminists-ewww-66918/

And the Pacific Standard HTML title is "What's Stopping More of Us From Being Environmentalists and Feminists?"

The trouble is that titles are chosen as click-bait.

The research article is titled "the ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence"

Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by examining individuals' perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants' willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983/abstract

[Laelth]

35. Interesting comments following the article. n/t

-Laelth

[theHandpuppet]

36. Flamebait

I can't imagine anything more truly offensive in this thread than the last paragraph of your OP.

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. The OP is expressing their feelings.

And you yours, tis a wonderful thing!

[LanternWaste]

45. Both obvious and irrelevant.

Both obvious and irrelevant. Another wonderful thing...

[Squinch]

412. Wouldn't the "pedantic screeds" also count as expressions of feelings? And yet, there are those

who feel it is important to silence them....

...interesting... I believe there is a word for that!

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. When you type "pedantic screed", it looks like you've been proven wrong by someone

and so you've had to resort to calling their use of facts 'pedantic'.

Looking at the replies to you, your comment has backfired on you. How appropraite.

[Puzzledtraveller]

38. I can see that.

To a degree, as much a broad generalizations goes.

[G_j]

41. so who says "Tree Hugger" and "hippie" are negative terms?

kind of describes my favorite types of people..


...or do they prefer Tree Haters?

[ismnotwasm]

43. I'm going to cry

Everyone hates me times two

Boohoo.

[niyad]

356. I don't hate you--but then, I am one of those evil enviro feminists, who, frankly, does not give

a DAMN what those stupid polls claim. my many decades of life have proved otherwise.

[Skittles]

528. you want I should kick your boo-hooing ass, ismnowasm?

LEMME AT YOU!!!

[Sheldon Cooper]

44. And studies show that nearly everyone in this thread thinks you are full of it.

So, munch on that.

[LanternWaste]

46. I imagine many people require the ethical convenience...

"You mean pedantic screeds belittling people..."

I imagine many people require the ethical convenience in believing that "don't rape women and don't rape the earth" are pedantic to better rationalize their own behaviors.

[ismnotwasm]

49. Also, you know

NOBODY expresses those sentiments without a pedantic screed, in fact one must be an ivory towered intellectual to even articulate such thoughts.

Like Fracking--shee-it if you don't have a masters degree you might as well keep your mouth shut. And rape? No opinion until you've written a book or two on the topic...

(BTW That was sarcasm for those less pedantic...)

[Capt. Obvious]

51. Oh, you saw PCU too? Imagine that.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. ***

[Capt. Obvious]

498. That was on last night

I'm prophetic

[geek tragedy]

52. No, only a small group of assholes selected for this study hate feminists and environmentalists nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

55. but what of feminist environmentalists?

Does the double negative cancel itself out?

[BlueJazz]

56. This study is truly depressing to me. My friends, myself and other people of like minded thoughts..

...have put a lot of time in trying to straighten out some of the horrible laws that have been written regarding
Women's rights and "taking care of earth".

...and most people don't like us. I've never tried to force my thoughts down someone's throat or expected a massive change of action just because I said it was the fair and nice thing to do.

Rats...Well..I'm going to keep trying anyway to make life more fair.
I hope I know what I'm doing.

[Squinch]

476. I think you do know what you're doing! And I think you will happily survive and thrive

even though 200 Mechanical Turk users don't like what you are doing.

Hell, hundreds of thousands of republicans and most of the middle east don't like what we're fighting for. And here we are living with that and having happy lives.

We are a brave lot, aren't we?

[intaglio]

63. What a shame you do not see the irony in your comment

because although you are not being pedantic, just snarky, you are,

belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think they ought to

[dawg]

71. People tend to hate truth-tellers.

Before you tell someone an uncomfortable truth, you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Because that way, when he hears what you have to say, he'll be a mile away from you. And you will have his shoes.

[seabeyond]

76. you're funny. nt

[dawg]

79. Thanks.

Sadly, that was not original. I would give credit, but I forgot where I originally read it.

[villager]

78. Ah, so you're one of the successfully conditioned "reactives" the study was talking about

n/t

[seabeyond]

80. i havent seen you forever

have things mellowed out, and are things good for you....

have been thinking of you on and off, and hoping all is well.

[villager]

91. Well, I don't know about "mellowed out," but things have kind of... culminated, recently

So I'm post wave-crashing-on-the-shore, I think.

Maybe.

But yes, things generally well. Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

84. You win the thread nt

[Democracyinkind]

82. I love it when people pretend to take the high road by taking the low road.

How is this OP not guilty of the very thing that it condems? FAIL.

The study itself is interesting, though disheartenibg. Reminds me of the things that were written about abolitionists 150 years ago. There's certainly truth in noting that that mindset exists.

[Heidi]

108. +1,000,000

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[Warpy]

133. You win the internets today

The postscript in the OP is disgusting.

[raouldukelives]

86. I don't know you how you tell people about colony collapse disorder.

Or sudden oak disease, ocean acidification and changing jet streams without sounding alarmist. I know it certainly turns people off when they start having to feel like they are part of the problem.
Maybe we could come up with a kind, gentle way to tell them. Maybe a book? Big print and happy words about a maladjusted, twerking teenage vampire who wants to be a beekeeper?

[G_j]

176. ha!

they put those environmental messages on
the Pocahontas Happy cups at McDonald's.
The corporations have the money, so let them teach us about the environment.
..choke

[quinnox]

90. often times, feminists seem to be their own worst enemy

and no wonder so many don't like them. They often seem to be lecturing like an old school marm, and no one likes that.

[CTyankee]

114. Yeah, telling the truth is really awful!

"Old school marm" , sexist label from WAY back! Got that, too...

Really, buddy, you are SO old school it ain't even interesting...

[BainsBane]

145. It's hard to keep up with the full list of what he doesn't like

feminists
African-American women who don't straighten their hair
what else?

What is most repulsive is that kind of blatant sexism is given a pass. When juries vote to keep something like that, it tells me they are not committed to equal rights.

[chervilant]

403. It tells me

that they think they can fly their sexism flag high in the relative anonymity of the jury system...

[BainsBane]

405. If there were consequences for bigotry against women

on this site, they wouldn't feel so free about displaying these attitudes and voting that way on juries. It's not just men either. Some women seem perfectly happy accepting second class citizenship. If they refuse to stand up for themselves and other women, they can hardly be surprised when our rights, even basic reproductive rights, aren't respected. I've seen women on this site actively argue against enforcement of EEOC laws. They think women aren't supposed to make a fuss or make men feel bad by insisting they act like civilized adults, ether in the workplace or online. All of these things are interrelated. Bigots should be shunned, not catered to and fawned over.

[chervilant]

408. Consequences, indeed.

I wonder if the personal attack in the following alert had anything to do with the recent change re: hidden posts --

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

At Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:09 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

His description was pretty straightforward and non-inflammatory. http://www.democraticundergroun…

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/? com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Perverse, disgusting description of this rape as "consensual sex."

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:16 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rape apologists have no place on DU. Rape is Rape Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rape, dude. A child cannot consent. How difficult is that? Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Give it a fucking rest, alerter. Not everybody agrees with your definitions. That doesn't make that person "perverted" or "disgusting." Make an argument, and cut it out with these frivolous, mean-spirited, and fascistic little alerts. Asshole. Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rape is rape. Paying a 14yo for sex would constitute as 'consensual' in a way, too, doesn't mean the girl really had maturity or the control one would have in true consensual sex.

Thank you.

[BainsBane]

417. I can't see the post itself

Would you provide the link or PM it to me?

I seriously doubt it that was the reason for the change. That person should have been tombsoned. Imagine what kind of vile excuse for a human being considers raping a 14 yr old child as anything other than "perverted" or "disgusting"?

[chervilant]

430. okay...

Go here for the thread in which this occurred.

I alerted on that person's vile attack, and got no response. I guess that kind of behavior is acceptable...

[Curmudgeoness]

117. Just like any movement, there are all kinds.

You are just focusing on one type of feminist. Stereotyping. In every movement, there are those who will rub people the wrong way, but if you think that these people are the only feminists, you have bought into the same meme that the OP is talking about.

Many of us are not man-haters, nor are we in-your-face, and we don't wear it on our sleeve....but don't start with me on the issues that feminism espouses. I will tear anyone a new one.

[Throd]

126. Similar to atheists. A small amount taint the term for the rest of us in the public's eyes.

I would bet there are a hell of a lot more feminists out there, but they don't fit the boisterous stereotype, so they go unnoticed.

[Curmudgeoness]

128. It does take all kinds.

Just like with organizations I support.....they run from the extreme to the ones who work within the system. We need them all.

I don't remember seeing you in A&A...or are we the atheists you prefer to avoid? Again, all kinds.

[BainsBane]

146. Yeah, even in the Democratic party

There are people who oppose equal rights and fight relentlessly to maintain white male privilege.

What are you trying to convince someone like that you are a "good feminist"?

[Curmudgeoness]

151. Hey, if I don't announce that I am a good feminist,

who will know???? I really don't worry about if one individual's mind gets changed or not, it is about all the other people who read the threads as well.

And yes, I have seen that sentiment here as well. And it saddens me.

[BainsBane]

161. I have no interest in becoming the kind of feminist people like that consider acceptable

That would mean conceding my right to equality. It's clear that some simply do not see women as worthy of full and equal treatment. Gaining their approval would mean that I would have to relinquish efforts to challenge white, male privilege. Some people are just bigots. The difference is when it comes to sexism, they feel entitled expressing that bigotry. The advantage is we see what they are. Since I know basic human equality is something they oppose, I write them off.

[quinnox]

147. I'll concede that point

And thanks for not attacking me (like some other replies did) I definitely was not referring to feminists of your stripe.

[seabeyond]

150. but you know, using "old school marm" was a dig that feminist have endured for decades, right?

generally spinsters. you know, too ugly to get a man.

[Curmudgeoness]

152. Oh hell,

am I too ugly to get a man????? OH NO! Well, that must explain it. It can't be that I enjoy my life the way it is, can it? And I am so grateful to the women who came before me who have made it possible for me to support myself without being dependent.

Funny how I didn't even pay attention to the wording.

[quinnox]

154. As I said, you are not the feminists I had in mind

I bet you are a very pretty woman.

[redqueen]

195. !

Is this an act? Tell me this is an act.... please... cause damn, son...

[BainsBane]

249. sadly not

Ask him about black women's hair.

[redqueen]

282. Something tells me I won't be getting an answer. nt

[BainsBane]

324. I can help you out with that

This subthread will tell you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023452557#post10

[kcr]

224. Oh, wow.

But it's the feminists that ruin their reputations. Unbelievable.

[redqueen]

281. OK now I'm curious...

What is your opinion of black women's hair?

Do you imagine she has "good hair" along with a very pretty face? Do you?

[seabeyond]

155. i really did not either until he made another comment about being attacked by others. reading again,

i realized the old, stale jab. the diss to a woman is always her sexuality. either a school marm/spinster/prude/frigid on and on, or a ho.

nothing new and used consistently on du.

Oh hell,
am I too ugly to get a man????? OH NO! Well, that must explain it.

[quinnox]

153. I don't know the history of that term, it just came to me

These things just come to me, maybe I read it in a book at some time. I have read a lot of English mystery books, apparently it is a British term.

[seabeyond]

158. but, you do get the jab that we on du get here consistently enough, right?

we have a couple guy posters that like to put really unattractive women up to our replies since they can not really get away just calling us frigid or jealous or anti sex. though we still had a poster in this thread tell us we were sex negative. that goes along with the oh so popular sex positive feminist. then of course, there must be those sex negative feminist. WTF? you know all the adjectives.

anyway... ok.

[quinnox]

160. You would never see me do something like that

I can see why that would be offensive.

[Curmudgeoness]

156. But, you see, that it the point about stereotypes

and everyone here should know that. Whatever it is that you believe in, there is a stereotype. Think of the Occupy movement and how the reputation is that they are dirty hippies. Or think of hippies.

And I make an effort to not attack, but to just present a contradictory opinion....but there are times that doesn't work. I still try.

[quinnox]

157. you make a good point

[The Straight Story]

294. That applies to so many other topics here on DU

Stereotyping seems to be the in thing on some topics (and accepted as a legit way to criticize whole groups of people based on the very very few).

[Curmudgeoness]

296. Yes, I have seen it too often as well.

The world would be easy to navigate if it was possible to put people into little boxes.

[BainsBane]

144. What they need to do is make sure only white men can talk in public

Since those are the only one's whose views some seem to feel have credence.

I can tell you quite surely that no self respecting woman in the universe likes anyone who diminishes equal rights as you have done here.

[Iggo]

93. Apparent flamebait is apparent.

Hide thread.

[Zorra]

94. Just more unfortunate confirmation that all the fact and truth in the universe can't fix stupid.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/fukushima

[Sissyk]

98. This could have been a good discussion. Could have.

But, your snarky, belittling pedantic screed was over the top. With popcorn and all.

Tell me, what do you have against feminist and environmentalist?

Could it be you've tangled with one or two radicals (not meant in a bad way) ON A MESSAGE BOARD and got your draws in a wad?

Interesting to see the recs for this post. Think I'll copy and paste them here so further mentions of this post down the line will at least point the finger at the correct people. 6 whopping recs. You go, boy!

[MADem]

386. You are absolutely right.

The article (except for the clickbait headline) wasn't bad. The research abstract tells us even more. It's obvious that the lead researcher (female professor at U of Toronto) and her three female and one male associates who produced this study aren't "looking to put women down" or being "sexist" in any way. That's not what the research project was about. It was a study about human nature; how people react--not about how "women are supposed to behave."

Unfortunately, an offhand (?) and intemperate bit of editorializing by the OP at the end of the snippet caused, I suspect, a fair number of people to not bother to do the detail work associated with learning what this topic was all about. It's pretty obvious that a lot of people didn't even bother to read the article, never mind click on any of the links in the article.

Oh well. Opportunity squandered!

[Arugula Latte]

103. Too bad they don't hate inequality and environmental destruction, huh?

[Squinch]

291. ^^^^^There ya go! That's the right answer!

[upaloopa]

105. I would not be offended by being called a tree hugger

or hippie or feminist. You have to consider the source of the name calling and the karma tree huggers, hippies and feminists try to make.
No meaningful social change came from bake sales. If it weren't for activists nothing would get done. Love them or hate them you need them so you can remain firmly seated on your ass.

[zazen]

106. as w/ every movement for social change, it takes all types of feminists n/t

[stevenleser]

169. After his hit and run OP he is nowhere to be found or heard.

There ought to be some kind of severe sanction for a hit and run flamebait OP like this.

[Notafraidtoo]

111. It wouldn't matter how nice they are.

They are a threat to big business there for money is spent to tell people they are slime. Only a fool lives life thinking in stereotypes, these polls just tell me that people will continue to vote against their own best interest because corporations tell them to through media and advertising.

Two minutes of thought on the subject would show most rational people they are being primed.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. I've also heard that everybody loves Raymond.

I dont buy it.

[Orrex]

149. That's a dirty lie.

[jberryhill]

230. Yeah, and you loved Raymond too, please check with your doctor

[JVS]

463. I don't give a fuck about Raymond.

[Warren DeMontague]

465. Best. Spinoff. Ever.

[alarimer]

121. Telling people what they don't want to hear is not popular, go figure.

Yes, you white guy, you are not the be-all, end-all of existence. Women are, in fact, people with wants, desires, needs and a need to be treated equally. They don't exist to make you sandwiches or have sex with you.

And, you human beings, you are fucking up the planet royally with your new iPhone every year and your gas-guzzling vehicle, etc.

So, yeah, they're unpopular because they tell some very inconvenient truths about ourselves. The world IS a raging cesspool of misogyny and a total disaster because of us humans.

Most people, I think, prefer to bury their heads in the sand about all of this, rather than admit their complicity.

[CTyankee]

124. Yep! Right on, alarimer!

Truth hurts, big time!

[seabeyond]

125. OMG... i donna think that you were "nice enough" when saying this. you are a

bad.... girl.

[99Forever]

138. What's truly funny...

... is that anyone is dense enough to actually think this is an effective way to reach anyone.

I bet I could predict exactly what the targets of your screed would respond to you, and it damn sure isn't, "Tell me more."

Carry on.

[Decaffeinated]

159. They aren't interested in change...

... because then who could they feel superior to?

They care about their issue enough to get riled about it but not enough to come up with a plan that works.

[seabeyond]

163. you have been here a week and a half and this is how you feel about women. do you know how ignorant

you sound on the issue.

you might want to think twice about who it was that got obama elected. certainly wasnt the white male.

a week and a half. and this is what you have to offer du?

[Decaffeinated]

183. I haven't talked much about how I feel about women...

This conversation was about advocates for specific issues causing more harm than good. One of those issues was feminism, another was environmentalism...

Personally I think women should be treated with respect until they do something to lose it. The same standard I hold men to as well.. Hope that clears things up for you.

[Starry Messenger]

165. Best.

[Vashta Nerada]

173. Great post.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

175. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

180. this. nt

[redqueen]

196. this this this this this

[aquart]

127. People also hate Obamacare but love the ACA.

Stigmatized terms get kneejerk reactions.

[riderinthestorm]

136. So is FEMEN in or out?

Feminists NOT acting like they "should".

And definitely challenging the status quo in pursuit of empowering women.

I'm finding the comments from my feminist sisters defending the past use of unorthodox historic techniques in this thread very enlightening...

[BainsBane]

140. You haven't keep up on FEMEN, have you?

Turned out it was run by the Larry Flint of Russia. The probably explains the part about no chubby chicks or women over 30.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/femen-men-feminism-victor-svyatski

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=femen&oq=femen&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i53.1636.2735.0.4742.5.4.0.1.1.0.214.541.1j2j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.XEs0mQSPPjg#authuser=0&gl=us&hl=en&q=femen+svyatski&tbm=nws

[stevenleser]

162. If you want the truth about Femen, I can give it to you

Femen has been around for 4-5 years. For 8-12 months of that period, they allowed a male supporter to worm his way to control of the organization. That ended over a year ago. I personally interviewed one of the Femen leaders about this and the full 18 minute interview (it says edited because I edit out things like the phone ringing and her saying "hello&quot can be heard here http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/09/full-interview-with-inna-shevchenko-of.html

The situation was depicted in a movie about Femen called "Ukraine is not a brothel".

Unfortunately, this episode in the history of Femen was jumped on by people who have been criticizing them all along to try to discredit them including several media folks who omitted what happened at the end of the movie which shows Inna and the rest of Femen ejecting Viktor Svyatski from the organization. The links the other person who responded to you gave are from some of those dishonest folks.

[kcr]

178. Hmm. Articles about Femen still mention him

Articles about Femen currently as the leader of the orginization. Other members themselves mention him as a current member. I can't find anything about him no longer being involved with the group.

[stevenleser]

199. I can give you two folks, one of the leaders in her own words in the interview I did and the person

who actually produced the movie, with Femen's permission I would add, would happily tell you that Viktor has not been involved in Femen for over a year.

I would place as much credence in Rush Limbaughs opinion of Feminism as I would with the majority of the articles written about Femen since the release of the movie.

[bettyellen]

203. but you must have seen them publicize Viktor's attack on their web site in July naming him as

a member/ consultant? And the articles people gave you linked to explaining Viktor went to Kiev with the purpose of starting the group?
So their web site and older interviews were full of lies? Or did you just not realize you were being handed a BS story because you didn't do any research?

[stevenleser]

206. Kitty Green herself, the movie producer, agrees with me. You believe what you want to believe

in spite of the facts.

[bettyellen]

208. I'll believe what I SAW. Viktor being touted on their website. And the interviews detailing the

formation of Femen from years ago, before they figured out it was embarrassing that a guy put their group together.
Honestly Steve- there are so many inconsistencies in their stories- someone is lying. You knew that going in. Or should have if you did any reading- but you did not call them on a single one. Interview was a puff piece, and she still comes off as a moron.

[stevenleser]

211. Of course, you disregard all first person accounts and believe what you want to believe. nt

[seabeyond]

216. she dismisses a woman, trying to keep the flow of money, with her very own words contradicting

her stories.

your conclusion is amazing. so amazing that it defies even nativity.

[bettyellen]

229. When the person tells two different stories? Yeah Steve, I will deduce that one story's a lie.

And possibly both. I don't eat bullshit for lunch and pretend it's steak.

[stevenleser]

231. No, not person, people. Everyone personally involved agrees with me including the outside observer

who made the movie.

The only people who agree with you are those who did not live it, don't know the people involved, have never met them and who had a bone to pick with Femen before these latest revelations. Including you.

[bettyellen]

235. Oh gosh, you have no idea, do you? Ignore the history and swallow the bullshit.

Pretend to talk knowledgeably about a film you have never seen, LOL.
What a fucking joke.

[seabeyond]

236. but but but... the

boobs. there were boobs.

[bettyellen]

251. hilarious to see someone speak of w/ such authority @ movie they have never seen!

kind of like people who have never actually delved into feminist issues telling women who have, what they should be doing. I guess some don't feel they actually need knowledge or experience to spew off as know it alls.

Must be why they admire Femen- imagine forming a feminist group and not know what they wanted to do,or what the patriarchy is- for years! The only thing funnier than that, is that some think that is not only plausible, but somehow laudable! Maybe I'm a bit of a hardass, but I think that is moronic, and pretty embarrassing even for a cover story.

[stevenleser]

240. Your grasp of only accounts that support you discredits your viewpoint completely.

You had an agenda to begin with, and you only take into account those accounts that support that agenda.

[bettyellen]

242. I take into account the recorded history of the group, while you totally ignored it.

Like I said, you should have done some backround. I know people here gave you great sources.

And credibility- why are you touting a movie you have never seen? I am embarrassed for you.

[stevenleser]

286. You ignore everything that doesnt support your hatred of these fellow 2nd wave feminists.

Why is that, really?

[bettyellen]

381. I actually like them much more than I do the suckers who believe their bullshit.

they are fucking hilarious. Especially in this interview:
http://www.zeit.de/sport/2012-06/interview-femen-ukraine-protest

The suckers who can't put two and two together, and realize they have been had, ... well they are pathetic.

Viktor co created Femen:
http://pineapplesandcaviar.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/anna-hutsol-and-vitaly-svyatsky-femen-kiev/

The new *since the movie came out* story, similar to what Steve heard claiming Viktor did not help form group and has been out of the group for over a year!! :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/victory-svyatski-femen-man

Except Viktor is named as an important member and consultant for Femen (on their own site) 11 months after they claim he was gone:
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-femen-activist-beaten/25056646.html

A new story claiming the documentary shows a fictional conflict with Viktor for drama's sake:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-femen-mastermind-victor-svyatski-on-fleeing-ukraine-a-924524.html

One story about them in the woods where they are driven to the border:

http://article.wn.com/view/2013/08/31/Founders_Of_Topless_Protest_Group_Femen_Flee_Ukraine_Fearing/#/related_news

A different story about them in the woods, where they had to go on foot- (there is a third version where they get a lift from strangers- can't find it) :

http://rt.com/news/lukashenko-kgb-femen-missing-235/

One story about them leaving Kiev in fear (but they had already moved out many months prior to open foreign offices)
http://news.yahoo.com/femen-founders-leave-ukraine-fearing-lives-172000650.html

Another story with different why and where of leaving Kiev, in fear again:

http://joed205.blogspot.com/2012/11/femen-opens-first-office-abroad.html

Why they actually left Kiev:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/naked-march-in-paris-to-open-new-office-of-femen-feminist-group-a-856780.html

How Femen does't want protesters with hips, but does want the skinny gals to shut up and make money for them:
http://www.brasildefato.com.br/node/13101

[seabeyond]

384. wow betty. that is awesome research. maybe you can do an interview? nt

[bettyellen]

385. Actually, it took five minutes- most of that was fed to Steve so he could prepare for his interview

I guess he "preferred not to". Sucker!!

[kcr]

221. The facts point to Viktor still being a member of Femen

[stevenleser]

222. No, they don't. The movie illustrates that. nt

[kcr]

223. Well, that settles it.

Because no movie has ever, in the history of time, ever portrayed facts inaccurately.

[stevenleser]

226. Seeing as how the movie is the reason people know about Victor at all...

its a bit disengenuous to now claim that the movie "is wrong".

[kcr]

250. Maybe

But pointing at a movie and claiming it is evidence that all the that other evidence is wrong is just not that convincing. Sorry.

[bettyellen]

255. And pointing at a movie you have never seen- PRICELESS.

[bettyellen]

241. The kicker is, he has NOT seen the movie, LOL.

It has not been distributed in the states.
He is relying on a known habitual liar to tell him what the movie portrays. Gotta love that.

[stevenleser]

246. The kicker is, neither have you. Yet you repeat information from the movie, just like I do. nt

[bettyellen]

254. Nope- repeated what I saw on Femen's website. And read some older interviews on their founding.

I have been very clear abot that. I never pretended to be an authority on the film without seeing it- that was you.

Apparently, I have done more research in five minutes than you did preparing for the interview. Oooops.

[stevenleser]

257. See my #256 nt

[bettyellen]

232. LOL, you hadn't even SEEN the movie LOL. WTF? You just repeated whatever that

airhead told you like it was gospel. Ignoring the many conflicting statements from that group- and everything that was currently on their website. Yeah- great job, LOL.

[stevenleser]

247. Neither have you. But you repeat information from the movie others have imparted to you.

The difference is, the folks who imparted that info to me? They are actually the ones the movie is about.

Kinda like going to Hillary Clinton to get her opinion on a movie about her rather than listening to what Rush Limbaugh says about the movie and about her.

Yes, in case you are wondering, you are the one listening to the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh on Hillary here.

[bettyellen]

252. No Steve, I read interviews with Femen's founders and looked at their website. Keep up!

I did some back round reading, and apparently you didn't. Otherwise you would have realized what a pile of horse shit you were being fed.
What an embarrassment.

[stevenleser]

256. LMAO. You mean you cherry picked the parts to attack them. As usual.

At some point, you are going to have to acknowledge what is obvious to almost everyone reading this.

You have a huge bias against Femen, they violate some orthodoxy of yours as to what is a legitimate feminist so you want to destroy them. You will ignore any information that portrays them in any kind of favorable light and magnify, to the point of altering if necessary, any potentially damaging piece of information.

You keep running into the problem that actual discussions, the full discussions, with the people involved completely contradict your viewpoint, but you ignore that in your hatred for these women.

[bettyellen]

259. Reading articles that describe how Viktor and another woman cofounded Femen years ago is cherry

picking? LOL, no Steve- it is research. Try it before going out on a limb next time.
You had NO idea they still had Viktor featured on their website at the time of the interview, on that very day- yet you let her spew lies that he'd been gone for a year. Shameful. Embarrassing.

[stevenleser]

262. And immediately you are wrong. Victor came along several years after Femen was founded.

And that is just the latest of errors and misconceptions you have posted.

[bettyellen]

264. Not according to many articles, the film maker who you tout here.... basically everyone until she

made up this new story.
Not as entertaining as her "escape from Kiev" stories, but still hilarious. You have been duped, fella.

[stevenleser]

265. LOL. And once again, I have the full interview with the person involved. You keep running into that

problem don't you? Again, your bias is showing.

[bettyellen]

269. Your bias showed when you did not bring up ANY of the many conflicts between her new story...

and what is on their own website, or past interviews.
Also, that she claimed to found Femen when she had no idea what feminism or the patriarchy is? Ypu behaved as if that was a GOOD thing. It's not Steve, it's a moronic thing. You'd have to be delusional to believe that swill.

[stevenleser]

284. I have no bias. Your hatred of Femen for reasons you wont admit to is evident in every post.

How about it. At what point are you going to admit the real reason?

[bettyellen]

316. you displayed tons of bias in that interview- perhaps you need to run it by a colleague

so you can stop kidding yourself. No research, not backround- high schoolers put more work in their book reports.
It was a puff piece where you did the subject a favor of restating her gibberish into something sort of resembling thoughts. Shallow thoughts, full of circular reason and buzz words, and you tried to make her sound intelligent and credible, but she really didn't despite your help.

There's no hatred, you just dislike me calmly disagreeing.

Femen is all just a stupid PR stunt. They make no investment in any particular social or political outcomes and have no knowledge of the needs of women they pretend to fight for. It was always pretty transparent they are in it for press coverage and money. And to get the hell out of Kiev, instead of work to improve things there.

[stevenleser]

426. Again, if you continue to hate these women so much, you are eventually going to have to say why.

And it has nothing to do with Victor Svyatsky. You hated them long before that.

[bettyellen]

437. You persist in making shit up. And deflecting completely that you did no backround research for the

interview at all. There's no hatred. No anti nude sentiment. That is all your fevered imagination. Please stop repeating lies- it's irresponsible.

There is, however huge amusement at the arrogance of people who were duped.
It's much less about Femen, than the fools who followed them off the pier. Grifters will grift, and they are fun to watch.

You have yet to address any of the conflicting reports regarding the birth of Femen and continued involvement of Viktor. Your silence is deafening. Reports taken from quoting the founders themselves in reputable publications and their own website indicate Ina lied to you- or everyone else has lied for years- yet you care not.

Too bad you blew the chance to sort that out. It could have been an interesting interview.

[bettyellen]

227. LOL. Steve would like us to forget the big stink they made @ Viktor on their website this July....

another press release about the endless persecution they endured in Kiev (some, even after they had moved to Paris and Berlin, LOL) which they removed from their site just as they went onto denial mode about his role.

Journalism, it ain't.

[stevenleser]

233. No, I dont want anyone to forget anything. I want all facts considered. Its you who doesnt.

It's you who needs to ignore facts to support your argument, particularly the first person accounts of what transpired, and the accounts of an impartial observer who made the movie.

And what is interesting about that is, you depend on the movie and the person who made it to get some of your information, then you turn around and dispute part of that persons account because it conflicts with your agenda.

[bettyellen]

237. the movie doesn't cover the biggest lies told at all- that's found in their interviews and website

too bad you didn't do any backround before the interview- you'd know that.
And why are you going on about a movie you haven't seen? This is getting embarrassing.

[stevenleser]

258. See my #256 nt

[bettyellen]

261. you call doing basic research "cherry picking", LOL. That's not journalism, it's toilet paper.

It' s repeating what one person (with huge self interest- her career at stake) told you and ignoring all additional sources, and that is fucking sad.
Funny to see your credibility fly out the window over such a worthless piece.

[stevenleser]

263. See my #256 nt

[Warren DeMontague]

278. What is it about Femen that causes such profound angst, makes it so important to discredit them?

What could it be? I wonder.

[stevenleser]

280. It's bizarre. See Seabeyond's #244 below. The folks here who attack Femen

will go out of their way to justify bizarre writings and behavior from any other feminists. Try and reconcile Seabeyond's statement in #244 with her attack on Femen just a few messages up.

And here is the rub. Femen are 2nd wave feminists. They believe the same things exactly that Seabeyond believes, that BettyEllen believes, etc. Down the line. Completely anti-porn, anti-prostitution, etc.

They insist it's not about the half nakedness, but they can't articulate another reason why, in your words, Femen causes such profound angst among them.

Maybe we should tell them that Femen's half naked acts are just satire?

[Warren DeMontague]

285. My satire meter is horribly out of whack these days. I just can't tell anymore.

Still, for all the protestations about what a big tent certain things are.... yeah, it doesn't make sense.

I've given up on certain topics around here because I approach things like labels from a perspective of at least mild familiarity with the ideas of Korzybski and general semantics..

So I understand that, say, "Rarglangrolism" is a label, nothing more- and Rarglangrolism[font size=1]1[/font] may not be the same as Rarglangrolism[font size=1]2[/font] and furthermore, not just the general public but the Rarglangrolists themselves may not and probably won't agree on what constitutes "real" Rarglangrolism.

[stevenleser]

289. Its an interesting dichotomy if you think about it

Feminist A: Is a second wave feminist who pens an essay from the safety of her home that suggests that sex with men is horrible, is akin to rape, etc. in all circumstances because women dont really have the power to consent.

Feminist B: Is a second wave feminist who pens a, what is later called satirical, book talking about the murder of every man on the planet.

Feminist C: Is a second wave feminist who decides to get attention for her beliefs by going topless and shouting at prominent people with whom she disagrees and gets arrested and beat up but in the process does grab worldwide headlines for her positions.

Now, I disagree with Feminist A regarding some of her writing, but it doesnt mean she has no business being in feminism or being called a feminist. I think she made other very important contributions. Feminist B I simply feel sorry for since she was clearly mentally ill and was a diagnosed Schizophrenic. But I certainly do wonder about people who enjoy genocidal satire and that is the most generous interpretation of it. Feminist C, while I disagree with 10% of her beliefs, is someone who I admire because I certainly dont have the guts to go out and protest naked on the street for my beliefs. Maybe if I could be guaranteed that world peace would permanently ensue, you might get me outside naked, that's about it.

On the other side of things, the people who I have been arguing with re: Femen don't hold Feminist A or B accountable for anything and they have excuses for all of their writing and beliefs including the violent imagery and other over the top pronouncements. But they hate Feminist C with a blind passion and want them blotted out of existence as far as feminism is concerned... oh yes, all the while supposedly defending all feminists in posts in this OP.

If you have an explanation, you are a smarter man than I.

[Warren DeMontague]

295. It's like anything else-"Christian" can encompass everything from 'love thy neighbor' to Fred Phelps

I probably shouldn't try on the specifics of "Feminism", for obvious reasons, except to reiterate that I identify as one, and for what I believe are the most broadly, commonly accepted goals and definitions of that label, namely things like reproductive freedom, equal pay, equal rights, etc. I do think there is broad support.

It's a real question, and not so easily answered; are these perceived "pr problems"- are they the fault of reactionary propaganda? Are they the fault of extreme ideological hard-liners inside the movement? Both? Neither?

Let's take environmentalism, since that's probably an easier one for me to opine on without setting off "alarm bells" with some here, and certainly when i self-identify as an environmentalist one would think it wont, at least, trigger a fusillade of eyerolls.

Broadly, one could say environmentalism encompasses wanting to protect the Earth, keep the environment clean. Broad goals which most support. Do the actions of, say, the people who blow up SUV dealerships speak for all "environmentalists"? I dont think they do, but interestingly enough it is those sorts of extremists who are most invested in keeping the label "environmentalist" or real environmentalist, to themselves.

I strongly support action on global warming, but Ive also held that real change is going to come primarily through technological breakthroughs in finding clean ways to power our shit. That's the hail mary pass. Telling people they need to give up their cars- it is just not going to sell, and anyone who claims it is, is deluded. Good, bad, it's just a fact. Maybe that means there is no hope for the planet, but the human animal, I think. Is always going to break in the direction of freedom. Long term.

This is why civil rights has succeeded, why LGBT rights are succeeding. People want to be free, they want to run their own lives, they want to make their own decisions. They simply don't like scolds and authoritarians, much to the perpetual chagrin of the scolds and authoritarians.

[seabeyond]

300. there we go. you two, of all people pattering on about feminism. what a truly fuckin hoot. and no

i have no interest in reading you twos critique of feminism or me or anyone else.

that is all.

thanks for the smile.

[Warren DeMontague]

301. then why do it?

ever heard the expression "it's not about you"?

[stevenleser]

424. You're making the mistake of thinking that DU is the world, it's not.

I have good relationships with prominent feminists all around the country. They know me and my beliefs and so my feminist bona fides are not in question. How I have covered feminism on my show and in other high profile media appearances makes it clear what my beliefs are. That an anonymous poster on DU thinks they are a better feminist than I am, well, I am sure you can figure out how little that matters.

At some point, you and others here who hate Femen as much as you do are going to have to answer the question of why it is that you hate these women so much. And its not about Victor Svyatski and the latest revelations. You hated them long before that.

[seabeyond]

431. ewll there you go steven. another assumption. thank you for correcting me on something you made up

wasnt it fun being all condescending to me for a made up assumption on your part? i think du is the whole world. do tell me where i said i think du is the whole world. i gotta tell you, hwen the same ole people start with the same ole made up story, or hyperbole in the first sentence of a post... i stop. and i read no mo.

[PassingFair]

505. Ha ha....SERIOUSLY!!

Don't these men have their OWN "Feminist" room for their male feminism now?

[BainsBane]

421. Guess who cares what you think about feminism?

Exactly no one.

But by all means, let's get the Pope to organize atheist groups and tell them how they ought to conduct themselves. That makes as much sense as you and Victor Svatski sitting back deciding what feminism is. Guess what? None of it is up to you. As much as you feel entitled to tell women what to think and what they should care about, I seriously doubt any woman actually buys your bullshit. I must marvel at the colossal arrogance. "Be quiet deary. Let me tell you what your rights should be. Take your clothes off but don't speak because that irritates us men."

Would you sit back and lecture gay men what there rights should be? If The Christian Right organized gay protests would you tell gay members of this site they had no business being irritated? Perhaps you would. Or perhaps you simply view women as uniquely so unworthy of basic respect that you have the nerve to lecture us on what we choose to support or fight for. One thing is for sure, you are anything but a supporter but women's rights. Your attitude in this thread shows that perfectly.

If you wonder why some feminists on this site have a problem with FEMEN, look in the mirror.

Remdi95

[stevenleser]

422. LOL, this isnt about me, its about you and others whose vitriol against Femen is beyond bizarre.

You and others are pretending that it began with the revelations about Svyatsky. That is dishonest and we all know that. You hated these women long before these latest revelations. There is something else to it, something that you desperately do not want to admit.

You attempt to attack anyone and anything that points out that your anger, defensiveness and yes vitriol against these women is pathological.

If you are going to continue this mission against Femen here, at some point, you are going to need to own up to what the real reason is that you hate them so much.

[BainsBane]

432. NO, we don't all know that

The press has reported Svyatski organized the women he refers to as "bitches." http://www.policymic.com/articles/62167/victor-svyatski-man-behind-femen-picks-prettiest-girls-calls-them-bitches
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/130904/victor-svyatski-outed-founder-and-mastermind-feminist-group-femen


And WTF do you think you are to pigeon hole women into some categories you looked up on Wikipedia? Just mind your own business and don't tell me what rights I'm allowed to fight for. I'm not going to keep my demands to three words slogans just because it's hard for you to follow anything more complicated.

I have nothing against the women in FEMEN, anymore than I do the women at the local strip club or Hooters. Whatever they want to do is their business. What bothers me is sexists proclaiming it to be feminism and letting them pretending their typical opposition to women's rights is okay because they like to look at naked breasts. Look at breasts to your hearts content. Just don't pretend it's anything other than voyeurism.

[bettyellen]

441. Ha ha, a little Wiki is a dangerous thing. A B and C are all belittling stereotypes....

and that pretty much says it all about your POV.

Your ignorance on the topic of feminism and it's history is astounding. As are the stupid assumptions you make about people here. What a foolish post.

[boston bean]

497. Yes, You men are so smart.

I thought you agreed to stop attacking feminists? Guess not.

You smart men who are smarter than some, by your own words, and maybe some MEN smarter than you (man). You go along with Warren D, in bringing up past bullshit to try to win some faux argument you two have decided to wage, you two wonderful feminists, telling feminists what sucks and what doesn't suck about them....

Cognitive dissonance much?

Feminists don't need your criticisms. You aren't helping a fucking soul.

Please leave it alone.

[bettyellen]

379. I can and have articulated reasons- they are a fraud. I am not anti porn- I am anti mornonic

scam artists who do not help better women's lives. You should have done some research before believing the nonsense about Viktor not founding Femen, or leaving a year ago - you have been played for a sucker:


Viktor co created Femen:
http://pineapplesandcaviar.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/anna-hutsol-and-vitaly-svyatsky-femen-kiev/

The new *since the movie came out* story, similar to what Steve heard claiming Viktor did not help form group and has been out of the group for over a year!! :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/victory-svyatski-femen-man

Except Viktor is named as an important member and consultant for Femen (on their own site) 11 months after they claim he was gone:
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-femen-activist-beaten/25056646.html

A new story claiming the documentary shows a fictional conflict with Viktor for drama's sake:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-femen-mastermind-victor-svyatski-on-fleeing-ukraine-a-924524.html


One story about them leaving Kiev in fear (but they had already moved out many months prior to open foreign offices)
http://news.yahoo.com/femen-founders-leave-ukraine-fearing-lives-172000650.html

Another story with different why and where of leaving Kiev, in fear again:

http://joed205.blogspot.com/2012/11/femen-opens-first-office-abroad.html

Why they actually left Kiev:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/naked-march-in-paris-to-open-new-office-of-femen-feminist-group-a-856780.html

I'd love to hear you and Warren make sense of this crazy ass interview, which you SHOULD have known about, had you done your homework:
http://www.zeit.de/sport/2012-06/interview-femen-ukraine-protest

And please, stop putting words in my mouth. I am fine with porn. You are just very very confused and spewing nonsense.

[Warren DeMontague]

395. "you and Warren"... I actually haven't offered an opinion one way or the other on FEMEN, actually

...I just asked a question about em.

In fact, my main statement throughout this thread has pertained to the inherent limitations of labels and how that might (in an ideal universe) be informed by Korzybski and general semantics, but fuck if anyone has heard a god-damn word of it. Rinse. Repeat.

As for the "crazy-ass interview", is there a version in English perchance? Because there's not much chance of me making sense of it as is.

[stevenleser]

428. Here is the full interview I did with Inna Schevchenko, one of the main leaders of Femen

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/09/full-interview-with-inna-shevchenko-of.html

Of course, the backdrop of all of this is that the folks here who hate Femen hated them long before these latest allegations. And they desperately want the focus off of the reasons why they might hate them.

[BainsBane]

419. There is something truly astouding about male entitlement

that you think you have a right to tell women what feminism is. So by all means, go to the Playboy mansion and pretend you're a big defender of women's rights. What a bunch of bullshit.

I know the idea that the group was handpicked an orchestrated by a man who refers to women as "bitches" is ideal for some. And keeping "chubby chicks" out of sight is a misogynists dream come true. But you don't have any fucking right to sit back and tell us what feminism is. No one is stopping you from looking at girly magazines to your hearts content, but when guys like you think you have a right to order women around and tell them what they should care about and fight for, it makes clear you stand for the opposite of women's rights. The best thing you can do for women is keep your mouth shut on the subject. Not that I would hope for anything so sensitive. It's pretty obvious the desire to put women in their place is too much for you to resist. Well I'm letting you know your game is a transparent one.

[stevenleser]

425. I understand why you attempt to divert the focus from yourself, but I'm not buying the tactic.

What is really at issue here is why you hate these women.

[BainsBane]

418. They are run by the Larry Flint of Russia, for one

Last edited Sun Sep 29, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

They were handpicked and run a group orchestrated by a man who insisted only "hot bitches" could participate. "Chubby chicks" were kicked out because they didn't fit the image. So for the person whose idea of feminism is limited to the Playboy Mansion, then they are ideal. But for those of us concerned with women's rights, we don't like the pretense. They didn't work for women's rights. They indulged a Russian oligarch's fantasy of topless hot chicks running around the street--sort of like the live version of the threads in the men's group. Whatever that is, it sure as hell isn't about women's rights.

Do some reading for Christ's sake. It's been all over the papers. http://www.policymic.com/articles/62167/victor-svyatski-man-behind-femen-picks-prettiest-girls-calls-them-bitches
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/130904/victor-svyatski-outed-founder-and-mastermind-feminist-group-femen

This of course came as a shock to anyone who observed the fact that men who are the most vocal opponents of women's rights were fawning all over FEMEN.

[stevenleser]

427. That's B.S. You hated them long before the Svyatski allegations. nt

[BainsBane]

433. I had my suspicions with good reasons

and that Svyatski info confirmed it. Telling the Brazilian women that they were too fat to participate might work for you, but not for women's rights. Telling Muslim women that there problem was Islam itself rather than patriarchy is perfect for Western men unwilling to question or relinquish their own privilege, but demonstrated utter hatred for Muslim women themselves.
When the criteria for participating in a so-called feminist movement is the same as working at a strip club, something is wrong. When men who show their absolute opposition to virtually every aspect of women's rights--from equal pay for equal work, to campaigns against domestic violence and rape--fawned all over FEMEN, anyone with a functioning brain stem knew something was wrong. It's obvious why men like you liked them. It required nothing of you and gave you a club to beat on women working for equal rights. Plus, you didn't have to look at any old or fat women, and that's really what's important. Pretty fucking transparent.

FEMEN was the misogynists favorite group. That's why some of us dislike FEMEN, not the women themselves but the motley crew supporting them. And when a man thinks he has the fucking nerve to lecture women about what feminism is, that tells me he has no respect for women's rights at all. More that that, he obviously doesn't like women enough to bother listening to them.

Next we'll be hearing about how sex trafficking of 12 year olds empowers young girls.
There really is no low that some won't sink to in an effort to deny half of the world equal rights.

[seabeyond]

434. thank you for taking the time to spell it out from dot to dot to dot. not like this has not been

said many of times and obviously ignored that many times.

but for those that might actually be open minded, they have an opportunity to look at the real issue. what we have been saying. not a created and made up battle from the men that well hey... you identify in your post.

[Warren DeMontague]

453. I do notice that some people- speaking of observation- sure enjoy ridiculous caricatures.

And I have certainly observed that some people engage in consistent misrepresentation- deliberate or not- of the words of others on this board.

So to be perfectly honest, no, I'm not going to just take your word for it.

My observations; limited as they are- about FEMEN are that they've engaged in some fairly silly protests, which have nonetheless garnered a lot of media attention. Which puts them in the same company with many other activist groups, like PETA.

As for "the men who are the most vocal opponents of women's rights"- would you lump me in with that group? I am 100% certain others here would, particularly those who have convinced themselves that I'm some sort of MRA Batman when I'm not posting on DU.

What appears to me- as the "idea of Feminism is limited to the Playboy Mansion" illustrates- there seems to be some confusion/conflation between people who are not sufficiently outraged over sexy bodies and naked breasts, and people -if they exist- who think activism is ONLY about sexy bodies and naked breasts.

They're not the same thing. I flew 3,000 miles to march in DC in April of 2004, for reproductive rights. That wasn't about Larry Flynt, the Playboy Mansion or nekkid boobiez, NOR was it just me trying "make sure" I wouldn't personally be "stuck with a kid". It was because for me, reproductive rights is a core lynchpin of what I consider equal rights, freedom AND Feminism, although my saying that of course leaves the door open to me being accused of trying to "define feminsim".

So: Let's cut to the chase; do you consider me one of these "most vocal opponents of women's rights"? Honestly?

And if so, what specific women's rights have you actually heard me oppose?

[BainsBane]

460. Jesus Christ

Actually I wouldn't lump you in there, but you do seem to want to tempt me to start.


What I actually think about you, I think you say one thing to me and something quite different with your pals. I do think you aren't interested in what feminists here say and prefer to create caricatures, and do so with great frequency. I do find it rather odd that you think everything I write is about you. I really can't help you out with that particular problem. That's far above my skill set.

[Warren DeMontague]

464. If that's the case, that I "think everything is about me" I'm DEFINITELY not the only one.

As for I "say one thing to you and something different to my pals"- no, actually, I don't.

I'm pretty consistent. If you have an example of me doing that, shoot- you're welcome to do so in PM if you don't want to here- but I really don't believe I've done that.

[BainsBane]

466. Okay, I'll take your word for it

and assume you mean what you say in the men's group. Well, I did anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

467. Without specifics, I don't know what yr. talking about.

But again I'm cool with a PM if you don't want to get into it here.

[BainsBane]

469. I'm not going back over there to go through specifics

I've got that place in the trash and plan on keeping it there.

[Warren DeMontague]

470. Okay, well, I've been consistent.

I do not believe that anything I've said there contradicts in any way the conversations you and I have had, or anything I've said elsewhere.

You may be doing what you just suggested I was doing, i.e. imagining some statement is about something or someone it isn't.

[BainsBane]

461. As for FEMEN, which was the actual subject of my post

and not you. Their version of feminism was limited to running around topless. That is all they have done. Sure, they mixed it with some insults against Islam and admonitions against chubby chicks, but when the entire shtick has to fit across a very thin 20 somethings breasts, there's not much room anything over 3 words. So we had a group of "hot chicks" picked by a Russian oligarch who purposefully excluded "chubby chicks" and women who were not very young. A group that did't question or denounce patriarchy but instead Islam. A group that refused to listen to or accommodate any of the concerns--and not even the bodies--of women in member chapters outside Europe. So topless hot chicks with three word slogans that didn't force European and American men to question their own privilege or inconvenience themselves in any modest way. Plus it was all limited to three word slogans. Perfect for the audience hearing about women's concerns. Hence the applause here, particularly among those who oppose women's rights.

The subjects I included above should clue you into who that is. When someone tells me I don't have a right to speak about violence against women and rape, they don't support women's rights. They obviously have their own reasons for wanting to make women shut up about rape and abuse, but whatever those are, they are not on my side. When they don't support the application of EEOC laws in the work place, that puts them to the right of Ronald Reagan on women's rights and therefore not my ally. I don't care how much it pisses you off that I make that point. I assure you it pisses me off far more to have every thread I post about those issues invaded by characters telling me I have no right to post such information.

[Warren DeMontague]

468. It doesn't piss me off.

The thing about the "chubby chicks" wasn't actually part of the protest, AFAIUI, though, but rather was in the back and forth about who was running FEMEN. Correct?

Did someone tell you you didn't have the right to speak about violence and rape? I agree, that's not cool. I don't remember that exchange. I do remember an exchange involving the DOJ's statistics which show a decline in rape rates since 1970 (along with other violent crime) and questioning whether mentioning those statistics was appropriate or "MRA propaganda", my point being I didn't quite understand how statistics straight from the DOJ could be construed as MRA propaganda.

But gun violence is down, and gun control is still a very relevant and legitimate topic, certainly the same would apply to rape, and I would earnestly hope that everyone on the board agrees that one is too many.

[BainsBane]

471. Yes, every time I post about violence against women

Last edited Sun Sep 29, 2013, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

At least one member of your group is famous for it. Another was part of the pile on but has since been tomb stoned. You can go back a couple of months in my journal if you are interested in seeing that crap in action. It so happens it is the same person who calls rape education "haranguing" and had the fucking nerve to argue rape wasn't a problem because he falsely claimed a woman's chances of being raped were limited to his miscalculation of reported rape cases (ones the police could bother to report) within a single year. It's pretty obvious they don't think we don't have a right to be concerned about rape because it's so inconsequential. What really matters is the evil women who falsely claim men have raped them.

Oh yes, and if I post about gun violence against women I get inundated with the same bullshit. Mind you the same people ignore all my threads on gun violence generally, but mention women and they are all over it declaring it a misandrist travesty. If anyone posts about the World Health Organization's report on violence against women, we are sexist for even caring about our own lives. If I post about the serial killings in Juarez, I'm sexist because the only crimes that matter are those against men. Note you will never see these individuals complaining that a thread about a killer targeting men doesn't focus on women. That would require seeing women's lives as worth anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

472. Just do me one favor, okay? It's not "my" group, and I'm not responsible for anyone's words but mine

Nor do I keep a list of who said what on what topic.

If someone actually said "rape isn't a problem" in a thread that I was in, I would vigorously dispute that. It's obviously a problem, as long as it occurs, anywhere, in any capacity or frequency.

[BainsBane]

325. LOL

Right. Because we wimenz are just not smart enough to run our own organizations. We need a big strong man to do it for us. I mean,we might let "chubby chicks" in.

[longship]

164. I wonder where atheists placed?

Probably would do better in Canada than here in the good ol' boy USA.

R&K

[seabeyond]

166. how about liberal. i am sure the few men that are applauding this so stupid study, could be

thrilled where a person titled "liberal" would be placed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

179. people dont like assertive women, men especially do not like assertive women

it has nothing to do with "pedantic screeds belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think they ought to"

it has to do with violations of gender stereotypes.

people and men especially do not like feminists because feminists violate gender stereotypes


for reference see Heilman, 1983; Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick 1999; 2001 etc.

[davidn3600]

187. And most of society doesn't like men doing things that are designated "feminine."

Most of the gender roles is social programming. Go to Wal-Mart and walk down the toy aisles. Walk down the boys and then walk down the girls. What do you notice? Gender roles....everywhere.

And then look at our movies. What do you notice in those movies? Gender roles. Probably 90% of our movies have male heroes. (i dont know if that 90% is true...im just guessing). And Disney in the old days was REAL bad with the gender stuff.

I remember this neighbor I once had 5-6 years ago... she was upset because her son liked to play with his sister's dolls and other girl toys. It just irritated that mother like crazy.

Although you feel that society hates the idea of a woman being assertive, it also hates the idea of a man doing activities that are considered "feminine." This extends even into the workplace, not just the house. It's not abnormal now, but remember like 20 years ago how people would make fun of male nurses?

It's conservatives that are trying to maintain these gender roles. They feel feminism will destroy the family unit. Yes, some of them are scared men that are afraid of losing their status. But most of them are just operating under the belief that this is just the way God/nature intended it to be. It's the same reason they are against homosexuality. They think it goes against nature.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

202. i agree with you. violation of gender norms are punished

however women have more need to violate the norms because workplaces are inherently masculine

[bettyellen]

245. you made me think about this- what "angry" protesters are not a big "turn off"

(which, to me, is what this reaction is all about, the messenger you don't want to listen to)
And I came up with labor strikers. Somehow it's okay for them to angry or tough. Interesting to think about.

[bettyellen]

207. Yep, you nailed it. They LOVE and reward assertive men, and it's interesting to watch.

As long as a guy has "the balls" to be assertive, it usually doesn't matter to his peer group if he's a moron.
But with women, you see the same people wince. Yeah, it's nothing to be proud of.
Thankfully, there is a large minority who can actually cope with women who have something to say.

[seabeyond]

181. hey talking dog. why did you walk away from your thread. you flamebait, you insult the majority of

people on the board, and you walk away, without the guts to address the crap you threw up in your OP.

how come? why not address, at the least, a few of the many posts that called you out.

edit... i forgot my and

[lunasun]

182. Yep that's who turns me off feminists and environmentalists who are active in their cause

and you are right they should just sell candy bars or hold a 5K run; that's how things change!

[Duppers]

186. here's a screed for you

http://www.shsoutherner.net/opinion/2013/01/16/negative-stigma-hinders-feminism/


Racial hostility, homophobia and misogyny are braided together like strands of the same rope. When we fight one, we fight them all.
- Charles M. Blow, New York Times columnist

[badtoworse]

192. Ever look at the way gun owners are frequently described on this board?

Just as bad

[Squinch]

290. Yes. That's true. Because gun owners are fighting for their economic survival, and

an end to the physical, emotional and sexual abuse they can be subject to just for walking down the street in a skirt, and they are fighting for the right of their grandchildren to be able to breathe the air. Yes. It's just the same.

Oh, wait...

[badtoworse]

499. Environmental extremists oppose literally everything

They'd be happy to have your grandchildren living in a cave reading by candle light (assuming they were unsuccessful in banning candles)

[MadrasT]

197. This has it all backwards (as do many of the folks commenting on this thread).

Individuals own their reactions to a message.

The reaction is on the shoulders of the individual reacting, not on the messenger.

People don't "cause" other people to react a certain way.

It's convenient to point the finger of blame at the messenger, but it's a deflection of responsibility.

[UtahLib]

204. Right to the heart of it.

What better way to reject an inconvenient, uncomfortable message than to reject the messenger.

[Harmony Blue]

201. I think I can shed some light as to why

environmentalists and feminists are viewed in a negative light.

Most people feel like environmentalists overall goals of a cleaner environment are noble and just. However, many environmentalists suggest that government has to use a heavy hand to enforce this with more regulations and more taxes. I oppose ideas like a carbon tax for example, because carbon dioxide isn't the only green house gas that humans are putting in the atmosphere that is influencing global climate change. The new IPCC report outlines this explicitly and has a lot of interesting information on this subject. In addition, deforestation/loss of wetlands is a bigger problem with the cause of the change in carbon sequestration. And the lack of vegetation means that a lot of water vapor doesn't have to go the process of transpiration but evaporation. And wetlands are being lost at an outstanding rate, and it is the most important sink that the earth has. The Montreal Protocol was a situation where everyone was on board and the governments of the world acted swiftly because the data was clear and concise. Even with the new IPCC report where there is more proof that anthropogenic global climate change is far more pronounced than we all realized it still isn't as clear as to how?

Before addressing Feminism I have to address the ideas and movements that have sprang up from the other side the coin. The MRA movement is interesting because they argue the pendulum has swung far the other way when it comes to parental custody battles, divorce, alimony,etc from a legal perspective. The misogyny isn't as high in the MRA movement as the MGTOW movement. The MGTOW movement has a lot of anger and misogyny entrenched but they choose not to direct it at anyone rather they vent it out. But unlike MRA's that directly oppose Feminism, MGTOW are saying they refuse to participate in the marriage system all together to avoid lopsided laws they feel are unfavorable to men. They also refuse to have children just because society says so bluntly and basically their goals are not to oppose Feminism but they refuse to participate with the structure set up. That is why they use blue/red pill references and often cite how woman are more often to initiate divorces now in most countries of the world.

Feminism takes a lot of unwarranted flack for a lot of the sentiment the MRA/MGTOW express. The traditional family unit/hypergamy and where alimony comes in to play is where a lot of conservative women support. It was conservative women that struck down the possibility that women would have to register for the draft not Feminists. And yet MRA and MGTOW will blame Feminists because they are openly vocal. While the conservative women of the 70's that opposed women being registered for the draft are not here any more.

In a twist of irony, Feminists, MRA, and MGTOW all oppose the traditional family set up that conservatives support and yet they all can't cooperate with one another. When both sides call it a battle or war no wonder so many ordinary Americans are weary of such terminology. They are beaten down enough as it is.

It is a struggle not a battle or a war because that is what being an activist is about. A struggle to change the hears of minds of the people that support the status quo.

[DanTex]

214. What are you talking about?

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2013, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not sure which IPCC report you read. Because your post reeks of climate-denialist nonsense:
-- Deny and/or downplay the fact that carbon emissions are the single largest contributor to global warming.
-- Toss in some Heritage Foundation buzzwords like "heavy handed government regulation and taxation."
-- Claim that "it still isn't clear as to how" global warming is caused (seriously, if this isn't straight out of the Petroleum Instutute playbook...)
-- Oppose things like the carbon tax by pointing at "other causes" but offer absolutely no potential solutions.

Even if you actually believed that it was land-use or whatever else causing most of the global warming (which is false: land use only accounts for about 10% of net CO2 emissions), how do you expect that to change without "heavy-handed" government regulation or taxation? People aren't going to stop deforestation without government action any more then they are going to stop burning fossil fuels.

You can find information about the IPCC report here.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/

Start out with the headlines document, that puts it pretty clearly:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WG1AR5_Headlines.pdf

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.

Then move on to the executive summary, where they explicitly recommend reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

In case you don't know what "greenhouse gas emissions" are, you can turn to the part where they break down the specific causes of anthropogenic radiative forcing (i.e. the effect on global temperatures from human activities). Almost all of anthropogenic radiative forcing is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.

The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m?2 (see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF best estimate for 2011 is 43% higher than that reported in AR4 for the year 2005. This is caused by a combination of continued growth in most greenhouse gas concentrations and improved estimates of RF by aerosols indicating a weaker net cooling effect (negative RF). {8.5}

• The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). The RF from changes in concentrations in these gases is 2.83 [2.26 to 3.40] W m–2.{8.5}

• Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). Including emissions of other carbon-containing gases, which also contributed to the increase in CO2 concentrations, the RF of CO2 is 1.82 [1.46 to 2.18] W m–2. {8.3, 8.5}

• Emissions of CH4 alone have caused an RF of 0.97 [0.74 to 1.20] W m?2 (see Figure SPM.5). This is much larger than the concentration-based estimate of 0.48 [0.38 to 0.58] Wm?2 (unchanged from AR4). This difference in estimates is caused by concentration changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to CH4 emissions and other emissions indirectly affecting CH4. {8.3, 8.5}

And here's a passage on land use change.

Annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production were 8.3 [7.6 to 9.0] GtC12 yr–1 averaged over 2002–2011 (high confidence) and were 9.5 [8.7 to 10.3] GtC yr–1 in 2011, 54% above the 1990 level. Annual net CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land use change were 0.9 [0.1 to 1.7] GtC yr–1 on average during 2002 to 2011 (medium confidence). {6.3}

[seabeyond]

217. are you wagging the finger. tsk tsk. or was the poster you replied to, wagging the finger. hm....

something to think about.

btw, sarcasm.

you provided info that contradicts what you replied to. conversation. discussion. disagreement.

[Harmony Blue]

248. This type of knee jerk response

is why most people don't take environmentalists seriously.

"I'm not sure which IPCC report you read. Because your post reeks of climate-denialist nonsense"

The one that my colleague has.

"-- Deny and/or downplay the fact that carbon emissions are the single largest contributor to global warming."

Water vapor is the largest contributor to global warming. There is a feedback system though which leads to increased Co2 being released from sequestration that leads to increased water vapor as a result.

"Toss in some Heritage Foundation buzzwords like "heavy handed government regulation and taxation."

A carbon tax is heavy handed and clumsy. Not all nations of the world will agree to such a tax, and pollution/global warming doesn't recognize man made boundaries and divisions. Furthermore, mitigating deforestation and protection of wetlands will do more to address/mitigate global climate change.

"Claim that "it still isn't clear as to how" global warming is caused (seriously, if this isn't straight out of the Petroleum Instutute playbook...)"

It isn't certain and that is how science works. Science isn't about a yes or no answer that the masses yearn for, and more importantly just like the last IPCC report there is nothing definitive in this report. The difference with this report from the previous is that there is more evidence of anthropogenic influences then we had known.


"Oppose things like the carbon tax by pointing at "other causes" but offer absolutely no potential solutions."

I already did offer a solution and that is find ways to mitigate deforestation and protect remaining wetlands. Like the previous IPCC report, this new one also lays out some ideas of how to reduce/mitigate global climate change.

"Even if you actually believed that it was land-use or whatever else causing most of the global warming (which is false: land use only accounts for about 10% of net CO2 emissions), how do you expect that to change without "heavy-handed" government regulation or taxation? People aren't going to stop deforestation without government action any more then they are going to stop burning fossil fuels. "

I mentioned no where about land use so you are in essence arguing with yourself. This fixation on Co2 with global climate change is dangerous and myopic because water vapor and methane must be taken into consideration. For effective mitigation approaches all green house gases must be discussed and how they are interrelated. Anything less than that is intellectual dishonesty which is why people look down on environmentalists so much lately.

There has to be economic incentives generated to mitigate deforestation, but not all countries of the world agree on that. Some countries are LDCs so they are obviously mortgaging their futures for the short term gains. The MDCs will have to lead the way but don;t expect full cooperation from the LDCs.

[DanTex]

266. Sorry, I don't have much of a soft spot for climate deniers...

Water vapor is the largest contributor to global warming. There is a feedback system though which leads to increased Co2 being released from sequestration that leads to increased water vapor as a result.

Yes, but the greatest human contribution to global warming is CO2 emissions, not water vapor emissions. The fact that water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism makes reducing CO2 emissions more important, not less, because water vapour makes the climate even more sensitive to CO2.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Read on...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

A carbon tax is heavy handed and clumsy. Not all nations of the world will agree to such a tax, and pollution/global warming doesn't recognize man made boundaries and divisions. Furthermore, deforestation and protection of wetlands will do more to address/mitigate global climate change.

Taxing a harmful externality such as pollution is textbook economics. Sure, there are other ways to do it, like cap-and-trade, but I notice that you don't seem to be interested in providing any solutions, you are just repeating talking points. As for deforestation, as I mentioned in my last post, changes in land use only account for 10% of net CO2 emissions. There's no way to address climate change without reducing emissions.

It isn't certain and that is how science works. Science isn't about a yes or now answer that the masses yearn for, and more importantly just like the last IPCC report there is nothing definitive in this report. The difference with this report from the previous is that there is more evidence of anthropogenic influences then we had known.

More denialist nonsense. Yes, there is always some uncertainty in science, but there are also some things that scientists have a high degree of confidence in. Trying to pretend that things like anthropogenic global warming and evolution are "just theories" or that "the science isn't settled" is pure propaganda. The fact that greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming is settled, and the IPCC report, which I quoted in my last post, is quite clear on that.

I already did offer a solution and that is find ways to mitigate deforestation and protect remaining wetlands. Like the previous IPCC report, this new one also lays out some ideas of how to reduce/mitigate global climate change.

"Find ways" is not a solution. How do we mitigate deforestation without "heavy handed" government intervention? And more importantly, a proposed solution that does not address emissions is avoiding the heart of the issue.

I mentioned no where about land use so you are in essence arguing with yourself. This fixation on Co2 with global climate change is dangerous and myopic because water vapor and methane must be taken into consideration. For effective mitigation approaches all green house gases must be discussed and how they are interrelated. Anything less than that is intellectual dishonesty which is why people look down on environmentalists so much lately.

"Land use change" is a term used to describe the effect on climate change from things like deforestation, livestock, destruction of carbon sinks, etc -- exactly what you are claiming is more important than CO2 emissions. Yes, these things are important, but limiting CO2 emissions is more important.

As far as the "fixation" on CO2, whether you like it or not, it is the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are the single most important cause of global warming. Yes, methane must be taken into consideration, although it is not as significant a factor as CO2. Water vapor is a feedback mechanism, it is not directly affected by "water vapor emissions", which is why water vapor appears nowhere on the IPCC's breakdown of anthropogenic radiative forcings. But none of this is a reason to ignore carbon emissions, which, as the IPCC report clearly states, are the key factor driving up temperatures.

I noticed that you ignored all of the excerpts from the IPCC report that I cited which directly contradict everything you are claiming. Why would that be?

[Harmony Blue]

310. I am not a climate denier. The problem is you can't accept opposing view points

In the field of science opposing view points are accepted but also questioned. You fail to understand how science truly works. The IPCC report was a collaboration and was vetted and will be vetted by many other scientists for many months and years to come.

"Yes, but the greatest human contribution to global warming is CO2 emissions, not water vapor emissions. The fact that water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism makes reducing CO2 emissions more important, not less, because water vapour makes the climate even more sensitive to CO2. "

We don't know for certain because we can't accurately measure evaporation rates or transpiration rates (deforestation may heavily influence this) on a global scale because of a variety of factors. We can make educated models regarding the hydrological cycle. The CO2 emissions currently measured are almost as high as it was during the Eocene and there was no anthropogenic influences back then (Are you still certain?). We know this because of the cores retrieved from Antartica and looking at the diatomic oxygen isotope ratios present that were trapped compared to the modern day.

"Taxing a harmful externality such as pollution is textbook economics. Sure, there are other ways to do it, like cap-and-trade, but I notice that you don't seem to be interested in providing any solutions, you are just repeating talking points. As for deforestation, as I mentioned in my last post, changes in land use only account for 10% of net CO2 emissions. There's no way to address climate change without reducing emissions. "

Pollution doesn't recognize boundaries as I stated previously. That was, and still, the biggest obstacle with enforcing the Clean Water/Air acts and the squabbles that arise between states in the Union. Many times watersheds are shared by states and when it comes to air pollution it is worse because you can't build man made structures to influence the direction of a watershed that is fluvial ( river )for example. So you propose a tax that does more harm for one nation but a neighboring nation refuses to cooperate. That pollution still comes into the neighboring nation and they are taxed on top of it. Brilliant and that is something you can't really sell to the general public. That is the thing with public policy and taxation it requires public support. It is not so simple as you state it is.

My solutions I have provided and that is that mitigating deforestation (not just slowing down the cutting down of forest but also rebuilding forests) and protecting wetlands (biggest carbon sink and integral to carbon sequestration).

"More denialist nonsense. Yes, there is always some uncertainty in science, but there are also some things that scientists have a high degree of confidence in. Trying to pretend that things like anthropogenic global warming and evolution are "just theories" or that "the science isn't settled" is pure propaganda. The fact that greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming is settled, and the IPCC report, which I quoted in my last post, is quite clear on that. "

No one said green house gasses doesn't influence global climate change. We have evidence it does so currently but also in the distant geologic past. What isn't certain is how much anthropogenic influences have now on this cycle as we are in an interglacial period afterall. The evidence is increasing but that still isn't definitive. On the subject of evolution it isn't settled either if we are talking about gradualism or punctualism when it comes to species diversity if they are isolated.

"Find ways" is not a solution. How do we mitigate deforestation without "heavy handed" government intervention? And more importantly, a proposed solution that does not address emissions is avoiding the heart of the issue. "

We honestly don't need more laws and regulations. We need to currently enforce the laws we have far more efficiently and right now we are failing at that. It isn't heavy handed to do a better job enforcing currently environment law by the government. It is to add more laws and regulation without enforcing the current ones in place though. In countries of the world that promote deforestation, they often are LDCs. We have to promote and assist them to shift their efforts to a sustainable economy instead based on finite raw materials. The US is a MDC, and has the power, wealth, and sway to make that type of impact but it requires someone to walk through that door to make it happen.

" "Land use change" is a term used to describe the effect on climate change from things like deforestation, livestock, destruction of carbon sinks, etc -- exactly what you are claiming is more important than CO2 emissions. Yes, these things are important, but limiting CO2 emissions is more important. "

Wetlands is considered an ecotone so it is not necessarily land or fluvial/lacustrine environment. Thus, it is an integral part of carbon sequestration due to the anoxic conditions that wetlands can generate in short periods of of the year or year round. This is why peat deposits typical accumulate in such areas often due to this unique environment. Wetlands are integral in cleaning water that flows into that environment, reducing the energy of a stream or river,carbon sequestration, and acting as a sink for heavy metals that are toxic to multi cellular organisms.

"As far as the "fixation" on CO2, whether you like it or not, it is the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are the single most important cause of global warming. Yes, methane must be taken into consideration, although it is not as significant a factor as CO2. Water vapor is a feedback mechanism, it is not directly affected by "water vapor emissions", which is why water vapor appears nowhere on the IPCC's breakdown of anthropogenic radiative forcings. But none of this is a reason to ignore carbon emissions, which, as the IPCC report clearly states, are the key factor driving up temperatures."

The reason why water vapor isn't part of the IPCC breakdown is because not only is it harder to measure due to difficult to measure evapotranspiration but also because we are not able to measure how much of the glaciers are melting underneath. We know the glaciers of the world are retreating at a faster rate due to the global warming. But this glacier retreat means the increased water being released into the oceans of the world is influencing weather and climate cycles. Fortunately water has a high heat capacity so it is slowing down global climate change fluxuations. But the dynamic changes of temperatures are starting to be more noticeable on contintental cratons above sea level.

"I noticed that you ignored all of the excerpts from the IPCC report that I cited which directly contradict everything you are claiming. Why would that be? "

I didn't ignore anything because the IPCC report is extensive and it covers everything that you and I have discussed thus far.

[DanTex]

313. Opposing points of view are great provided they are informed and intelligent. Yours is neither.

As Paul Krugman would put it, you are arguing that "views differ on shape of planet".

I have no idea where you get your strange ideas, but they certainly don't come from the IPCC report of from any reputable climate scientists. Your refusal not only to cite the parts of the IPCC upon which your fantasy view of climate science is supposedly based, but even to cite any kind of scientifically credible source makes me think that you really are getting this stuff from the Heritage Foundation (and no, Bjorn Lomborg doesn't count...). Between "we don't know for certain" and "we don't need more laws and regulations", what you are saying is straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook.

You certainly aren't going find many climate scientists that agree that "What isn't certain is how much anthropogenic influences have now on this cycle" (of greenhouse gasses). That is pure denialism. And your claim that the IPCC didn't include water vapor in their list of anthropogenic forcings because "it is harder to measure" is simply preposterous. As I pointed out, water vapor does not behave as anthropogenic forcing, it is a feedback mechanism. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is not determined by "water vapor emissions". If the IPCC wanted, they could easily have said that water vapor is a significant forcing, but it's hard to measure. They didn't say that.

And so on. I wonder, are you even aware that what you are saying runs in conflict to the IPCC and the consensus of climate scientists? Again, opposing views are great, but in this case you are simply ignore the scientific evidence and weaving together a narrative that doesn't square with the observable reality.

[Harmony Blue]

420. I believe in global climate change that is influenced by anthropogenic sources

but I disagree with your ability to evaluate what is presented in the IPCC report. I never accused you of not being intelligent or misinformed, so the fact that you have resorted to this shows you can't present arguments towards what I have pointed out. This is a big reason why environmentalists are losing the message with the general public.

These ideas are the principles of the previous, and current IPCC report. The IPCC report is a collaborative effort that has data, models (data and models are not the same!), and observations and what can be extrapolated from all of it. The IPCC report also outlines strategies to mitigate anthropogenic and/or geological cycles of impact on human civilizations. The IPCC report is very important in trying to plan for a future where sea levels rise as most of the population centers/cities of the world are near coast lines (eg US. Seaboard, China, Europe, Africa, etc).

"You certainly aren't going find many climate scientists that agree that "What isn't certain is how much anthropogenic influences have now on this cycle" (of greenhouse gasses). That is pure denialism. And your claim that the IPCC didn't include water vapor in their list of anthropogenic forcings because "it is harder to measure" is simply preposterous. As I pointed out, water vapor does not behave as anthropogenic forcing, it is a feedback mechanism. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is not determined by "water vapor emissions". If the IPCC wanted, they could easily have said that water vapor is a significant forcing, but it's hard to measure. They didn't say that."

We have more evidence of anthropogenic influences on green house gasses but not of great degree of certainty. The fundamental problem is that the geologic past has had periods of high CO2 well before anthropogenic influences were part of the equation. We are on a trajectory to surpass CO2 emissions even during the Eocene but with that said we don't know for sure how the carbon cycle works or the hydrological cycle. At best we use models in conjunction with data but the models are simply that. Scaled down, simplified versions of what is really taking place.


"And so on. I wonder, are you even aware that what you are saying runs in conflict to the IPCC and the consensus of climate scientists? Again, opposing views are great, but in this case you are simply ignore the scientific evidence and weaving together a narrative that doesn't square with the observable reality"

I did not disagree with the current IPCC report that there is more evidence of increasing anthropogenic influences on global climate change. I did not also disagree with the data showing increased CO2. The problem is that in your haste to discredit what I have stated you failed to realize that I agree with everything in the current IPCC report. I am merely pointing out what is in the rest of the report. or was not included Scientists looks at everything and question everything while a environmentalist tries to myopically look at one segment of the data or models and try to create a slogan out of it. That is not the way to have the general public embrace the message. The key is to be honest and show all the information, which is the entire point of the IPCC report. The fixation on CO2 is myopic and does nothing to promote the environmental movement.

[DanTex]

423. Again, the things you are saying do not square with the IPCC report, or the opinion of

the consensus of climate scientists. You may personally believe that we do not have "a great degree of certainty" about anthropogenic influences on greenhouse gases, but this is not what scientists who study the climate believe.

Being honest does not mean pretending that there is significant uncertainty in areas where there really is next to none. The IPCC report is pretty clear that the evidence that increased CO2 levels are due to human activities is overwhelming. I've cited parts of the report that that state this in no uncertain terms. You, on the other hand have produced nothing of the sort. I'll ask again, probably for the last time, whether you can actually cite any parts of the report that support some of the claims and hypotheses you've tossed out such as:
-- water vapor was not included by the IPCC as an anthropogenic forcing only because it is "hard to measure"
-- CO2 levels during the Eocene cast doubt on whether the current CO2 rise is due to human activities
-- deforestation and destruction of carbon sinks are equally/more important than direct greenhouse gas emissions
-- the impact of CO2 emissions is overstated and focus on CO2 is "myopic"
-- "We honestly don't need more laws and regulations."
-- "We have more evidence of anthropogenic influences on green house gasses but not of great degree of certainty"
If not, then the only possible conclusion is that you are making this all up.

In short, you are producing scientific-sounding rhetoric that doesn't square with reality. You are poking around for ways to try and manufacture some uncertainty by conjuring up plausible-sounding omissions that the scientists may have made. But in fact, none of what you are saying stands up to any kind of scientific scrutiny, which is why it doesn't show up in the IPCC report or in the scientific literature.

[NCTraveler]

212. Freerepublic polled and every member hates environmentalists and feminists.

As one freeper puts it: "Humph... imagine that. You mean pedantic screeds belittling people for not behaving and thinking exactly the way you think they ought to backfires?"

Ohhh how I wish freepers where the only ones who were sexist. Would be much easier to confront if it didn't come from those around us who should be more enlightened and educated.

[Squinch]

293. Wait, seriously? That is a quote from Freeperville?

[NuclearDem]

215. I'm sorry, are the privileged men having a sad over women refusing to just be submissive eye candy?

[Gormy Cuss]

219. "recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk" = unlikely to be a scientific sampling.

The self-selection bias may be enormous, but the research link site is down at the moment so I can't read the methodology report.

[Warren DeMontague]

287. Amazon has a "Mechanical Turk"?

Good Christ, is that what Jeff Bezos has been building out there in the desert?

[liberal_at_heart]

239. that is a stereotype. Not all environmentalists and feminists are confrontational and aggressive.

[seabeyond]

244. and what if they are confrontational and aggressive? all types are needed to be heard. raidical

may be the most irritating, but they are also the ones that have accomplished the most. everyone in the progression of good cause is needed. we all have roles.

[stevenleser]

268. All types, unless they are Femen, right? They're somehow doing it wrong according to you.

So you keep saying.

[seabeyond]

302. per the womans own words, they are clueless what feminism is and need a man to tell them. wink.

[stevenleser]

304. What woman's own words? Link please. Also, you are now changing what you wrote above?

So all women feminists should be supported except Femen?

[Violet_Crumble]

315. Show me the link where a woman said Femen are clueless and need a man to tell them what to do n/t

[bettyellen]

317. it was in Steve's interview w/ one of their leaders. It's mind numbingly foolish.

She's rewriting the birth of Femen (and the end of Viktor's involvement) with stories that conflict with previous interviews.
Because she needs excuses for them being ordered around and called lazy dumb bitches (which she does admit, but only because it was filmed) by one of their founders.
Her excuse? They wanted to start a feminist group, but had no idea what they wanted the group to be about or to do, what the patriarchy is, or even basic organizational stuff. So they needed a dude to help tell them what to do.
And that is supposed to make some kind of sense. and we are supposed to look up to them as examples or something, yikes.

Nice to see you!

[redqueen]

321. OMFG... did she actually say that?

Her excuse? They wanted to start a feminist group, but had no idea what they wanted the group to be about or to do, what the patriarchy is, or even basic organizational stuff. So they needed a dude to help tell them what to do.

I swear this shit just gets worse and worse.

[bettyellen]

323. yep, they didn't understand the whole patriarchy thing till several years in, LOL.....

and only because Viktor had "taken over" and started bossing them around. Then they realized what the organization they founded was for! So, OMG- they have actual experience dealing with the patriarchy- and so this gives them credibility, bwaaaaah. Pretty effing funny.

[Violet_Crumble]

326. Thanks. I'll go listen and see what was said...

I'm trying to listen to it now. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what she's saying coz of her accent. From the little bits that I'm getting, they're every bit legitimate feminists as anyone else, imo...

I wish Steve provided transcripts of his shows

Good to see you again too!

[bettyellen]

327. she gives out the same story in her newest interviews....

my issue is that if you read up, her stories keep changing. Some are bizarre. So there are big credibility issues there.
To me it looks like a scam for money, there doesn't seem to be any interest in actually helping women in any particular community.

[Violet_Crumble]

330. Have you got links to anything I could read?

I gave up on the listening thing after a few minutes coz I just couldn't make out much of what she was saying. I struggle with Eastern European accents

[bettyellen]

341. I have do do a search and will PM you.

Rather than bump this crap thread. I need to dig a bit tomorrow.
Have a great day!

[Violet_Crumble]

342. That sounds good.

I'm off to have some lunch and clean up the house but I'll check my inbox later today...

btw, I agree. It is a pretty crap thread. I might bail out of it now

[bettyellen]

378. Here is an assortment of links, enjoy the contradictions!

Viktor co created Femen:
http://pineapplesandcaviar.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/anna-hutsol-and-vitaly-svyatsky-femen-kiev/

The new *since the movie came out* story, similar to what Steve heard claiming Viktor did not help form group and has been out of the group for over a year!! :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/victory-svyatski-femen-man

Except Viktor is named as an important member and consultant for Femen (on their own site) 11 months after they claim he was gone:
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-femen-activist-beaten/25056646.html

A new story claiming the documentary shows a fictional conflict with Viktor for drama's sake:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-femen-mastermind-victor-svyatski-on-fleeing-ukraine-a-924524.html

One story about them in the woods where they are driven to the border:

http://article.wn.com/view/2013/08/31/Founders_Of_Topless_Protest_Group_Femen_Flee_Ukraine_Fearing/#/related_news

A different story about them in the woods, where they had to go on foot- (there is a third version where they get a lift from strangers- can't find it) :

http://rt.com/news/lukashenko-kgb-femen-missing-235/

One story about them leaving Kiev in fear (but they had already moved out many months prior to open foreign offices)
http://news.yahoo.com/femen-founders-leave-ukraine-fearing-lives-172000650.html

Another story with different why and where of leaving Kiev, in fear again:

http://joed205.blogspot.com/2012/11/femen-opens-first-office-abroad.html

Why they actually left Kiev:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/naked-march-in-paris-to-open-new-office-of-femen-feminist-group-a-856780.html

How Femen does't want protesters with hips, but does want the skinny gals to shut up and make money for them:
http://www.brasildefato.com.br/node/13101

Crazy amusing that anyone takes this crap seriously:
http://www.zeit.de/sport/2012-06/interview-femen-ukraine-protest

[redqueen]

337. "if you read up, her stories keep changing"

This was obvious long ago.

Then again, if one is invested pushing in a certain spin, due diligence kinda flies right out the window.

[bettyellen]

344. I agree that is why Steve did not research. He pretends he wasn't handed links on a silver platter.

[stevenleser]

429. Violet, if you want, PM me and I will put you in touch with them so you can hear from Inna

what the context is of all of those statements. It's not what others here are saying.

[redqueen]

314. They're doing it wrong according to everyone who isn't obsessed with boobs.

They're completely discredited. Due to being a fraud of a feminist organization, set up and run by a man to appeal to the male gaze, due to Islamophobia, due to running roughshod over non-western women in true imperialist fashion...

Just give it up already. Femen is over.

[Violet_Crumble]

329. I'm not obsessed with boobs, and I don't think they're doing feminism wrong...

It gets a bit tiring to see feminists in the US attacking feminists in other countries and lecturing about how they really aren't feminists coz they take a different approach than that which the American feminists would dictate to them...

[redqueen]

331. Hey, if racist, imperialist feminism which capitalizes on ibjectification is yoir definition of

actual feminism, have at it.

I'll be over here with the ones who don't pandering to the male gaze to get attention for their racist, Islamophobic bullshit.

[Violet_Crumble]

333. It's not racist, imperialist feminism, though...

And there's nothing Islamophobic about trying to gain attention about the treatment of women in some of those Islamic countries.

[redqueen]

334. Oh it's racist as hell, but I'm not surprised you don't notice.

As for Islamophobia, I'll defer to Muslim feminists on that point.

Then again she did delete those tweets... not sure if she ever apologized. But then Islamophobia is so not a thing that anyone in the West needs to be at all concerned with appealing to, so whatevs, amirite?

[Violet_Crumble]

338. Are you accusing me of being blind to racism??

If so, yr very wrong.

I guess I'm blind to Islamophobia too? That'd be, uh, amusing...

Just so you know, I think yr giving a great example of the bad things about feminism (note that there's bad things about all causes). The exclusion of all who don't meet the purist and absolutist views of those who call themselves 'real' advocates of a cause and the hostility to anyone who doesn't see things exactly how they see them

[redqueen]

357. That's rich. nt

[bettyellen]

346. One of their "aims" is to destroy Islam. There's also some crazy crap about taking over the world..

part of the reason it's surprising anyone takes it as anything more than a joke.

[seabeyond]

352. dont they want to cut of mens, you know, or is it rip out their heart? what was it? but, hey, show

boobs and even a feminist spouting that shit is good to go.

lmfao

[bettyellen]

355. It is pretty funny that their defenders ignored all the crazy talk.

but then again, no one knows WTF they actually do except for getting pics in the paper.

[JI7]

389. FEMEN’s Painfully Inappropriate Japan "Tribute"

<Ukrainian activist troupe FEMEN erred in judgment before, but this is just strange. Here’s their latest topless antic on the streets of Kiev honoring the strength of the Japanese people in crisis. It involves a “Shake Boobs Not Earth” sign and said boobs resting on samurai swords. NSFW.

For an extra element of uncomfortable, here’s FEMEN’s action description, reluctantly translated:

FEMEN conducts an action in support of the Japanese people. “Praise those who defeat the dragon!” FEMEN are earnestly inspired by the Japanese people who were able to overcome this disaster. Their strength, their samurai self-control, their heroic actions in time of crisis should serve as examples for all of us. Japan has proved their ability to rise from the ashes before and we believe they will defeat the Dragon before the cherry blossoms bloom.

Right. This does not explain why they’re sitting in seppuku positions… among other whys, in light of the latest confirmed statistics: 4,255 dead and 8,194 missing.>

http://animalnewyork.com/2011/femens-painfully-inappropriate-tribute-to-japan/

[Warren DeMontague]

396. That is a strange protest

no question.

[JI7]

391. “What can be more stupid than Ramadan? What can be more uglier then this religion?”

quote from Inna Schevchenko of FEMEN.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/femen-leader-slams-ramadan-and-islam.aspx?pageID=238&nID=50890&NewsCatID=351

and this stereotype

[The Straight Story]

298. Same with folks who open carry to bring awareness to their rights as well I guess

They may be irritating but they get the discussion going

[seabeyond]

303. human equality = carry a gun. whatever. nt

[The Straight Story]

307. Was referring to tactics used in promoting a message (nt)

[seabeyond]

309. wtf... why dont you compare feminis/conservationists to phelps.

[Warren DeMontague]

311. Ah, Is that going to be -today's- ridiculous misinterpretation of something I said?

Here's the original post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3744608

It's like anything else-"Christian" can encompass everything from 'love thy neighbor' to Fred Phelps

The larger point has to do with labels, but, whatever.

[seabeyond]

347. and wtf are you doing linking me to one of your posts. i was addressing another poster using gun

control. i took it to phelps.

gonna accuse me of making up shit, while you fuckin make up shit. surreal.

whatever dude.

[Warren DeMontague]

370. yeah, surreal.

okay, I guess it was just one of them coincidences. My bad.

[LittleBlue]

253. Agreed. Most are normal

It's the vocal minority who taint the majority. Similar to Islam or really any philosophy/religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. I've sort of given up on making this point, but I'll reiterate it anyway.

[redqueen]

283. The fact is, the 'calm down and say it nicely' song and dance is routinely performed by those

who have no intention of listening to anything that's being said, nicely or not.

It is nothing but a justification for continuing to ignore things one would rather not hear.

Tone policing has one goal, and one goal only - silencing unpopular opinions.

[Warren DeMontague]

305. So you would say that the European Journal of Social Psychology has an agenda, then?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983/abstract

[Gormy Cuss]

270. And everyone used to hate civil rights activists.

Face it. some people find it more comfortable to blame the messengers rather than listen to the message
For example, look at this reaction to people who just wanted integrated schools.

[Rex]

271. Social engineering works.

nt.

[Squinch]

292. No. You are NOT stupid. Sadly, even social engineering by Rush Limbaugh works.

[Rex]

457. And since Hate Radio is an ongoing thing, decades old

nobody should be surprised by what we see today in America.

[xmas74]

312. Mechanical Turk?

I'd consider this flawed, to say the least. I post regularly on WAH forums and the only people who seem to work on Turk are those who are usually the worst of the bunch. Turk pays very little compared to other things you can find online, lots of penny and nickel jobs. Most of the posters on the WAH forums who have an ounce of sense tend to stay clear of MT and can find something more stable or something that pays better.

[Quantess]

319. "everyone" is a douchebag, in that case.

I give all of those miscreants a middle finger waving in their direction.

Nothin' like a little "hey fuck you feminists and fuck you people who care about the environment" to get everyone feeling like it's gonna be a good day.

Hey, thanks a lot for the feel good message! (sarcasm)

[MADem]

320. I think the lesson of this study is something I learned at my great grandmother's knee:

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Nobody likes someone with their finger in your face, telling you that you are an asshole, no matter WHAT the topic.

It may get your attention, but it won't win your heart. I've said this kind of thing down the years on this board, and have been mocked as an out-of-step fogey for suggesting that people apply a certain measure of seriousness to their protests. It's interesting to see my intuition expressed in a study from, not "evil" America, but "perfect in every way" (yes, I am snarking) Canada:

This is, needless to say, frustrating news for activists, and not just the ones mentioned here. The researchers suggest this dynamic may very well apply across the board, such as to activities advocating gay rights or Wall Street reform.

“Unfortunately,” they write, “the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping. By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.”

“Furthermore, this tendency to associate activists with negative stereotypes and perceive them as people with whom it would be unpleasant to affiliate reduces individuals’ motivation to adopt the pro-change behaviors that activists advocate.”

So the message to advocates is clear: Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist. Realize that if people find you off-putting, they’re not going to listen to your message. As Bashir and her colleagues note, potential converts to your cause “may be more receptive to advocates who defy stereotypes by coming across as pleasant and approachable.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/

[Quantess]

336. Yes, AND, there will always be a--holes who use this trite "meme" to their advantage.

The fact is that the USA is behind the times when it comes to womens rights, or regarding women and children.

The USA is also behind the curve regarding environmental policies.

[MADem]

343. I think anyone reading the study would take the essential conclusions to heart--IF they wanted to

actually make progress on causes near and dear to their heart.

I don't think I am unusual in that I tend to listen to people who are approachable, friendly and positive, and I tend to not listen to people who deride me or call me names if I don't immediately agree with the points they make.

I think this study is just validating the obvious.

[seabeyond]

353. everyone hates liberals also. you want a softer stick MAdem, cause that is not gonna fly on du.

you want feminists to bow down, lower eye, speak oh so gently and coddle the egos. and you suggest that will work, which i know you are full of it. but then, you MUST demand that ALL liberals do the same while talking to the nation

got it.

talking about the poor, the hungry, the needy, the environment, our children. you know, if we want any support at all, must coddle the geedy's ego.

[MADem]

359. Posts like yours are what don't "fly on DU." Maybe you need to reread this thread.

And maybe you should start by CAREFULLY reading the SALON article in the OP. The whole thing, not just the snippets. Read what the Canadians are actually saying. For once, put your preconceived biases to the side.

And maybe you should stop wrongfully characterizing what people believe, or what they say.

You think you could do that? I have my doubts.

Where did you find this pile of excrement?

you want feminists to bow down, lower eye, speak oh so gently and coddle the egos. and you suggest that will work, which i know you are full of it. but then, you MUST demand that ALL liberals do the same while talking to the nation


Show me where I said that. Come on--I dare ya. You can't, because I never said a damn thing anywhere near that load of crap. Never, ever, not once.

You have maligned and impugned me--and what does that say about YOU?

I have no idea what a "geedy" is, but I guess that is yet another one of your malapropisms.

In any event, you should be ashamed of falsely accusing me of "wanting feminists to bow down, etc."

You've hit a low point--that's a pretty disgraceful and ham handed accusation, even for you.

I'm gonna save your nasty little post, because I know you sometimes like to make stuff disappear when you put your foot too far over the line.

seabeyond
353. everyone hates liberals also. you want a softer stick MAdem, cause that is not gonna fly on du.
View profile
you want feminists to bow down, lower eye, speak oh so gently and coddle the egos. and you suggest that will work, which i know you are full of it. but then, you MUST demand that ALL liberals do the same while talking to the nation

got it.

talking about the poor, the hungry, the needy, the environment, our children. you know, if we want any support at all, must coddle the geedy's ego.

You should work on your contextual reading, so you don't wrongfully insult people quite so often, or so eagerly.

[seabeyond]

361. you are a hoot. nt

[MADem]

364. No, I am not a "hoot." I read the thread, I read the OP, and I even clicked the links to find

out who these horrible awful right wing Canadian "sexist" researchers were.

If you want to find out, you'll do the same.

I think you might be a bit surprised, because your "thesis" goes straight to hell if you actually take the time to do that work.

If that's too difficult, here's a shortcut--go read post 362.

You should be embarrassed.

[seabeyond]

365. really? i am not allowed to think you are a hoot? cause i thought you were a hoot? but i guess,

if you tell me you are not a hoot, then i must submissively accept you are not a hoot, so that i am all that in nice and maybe at some point you will allowed me a moment to speak where you will actually listen to me. i know, i know, i have just not been endearing enough to reach that point. hence, you not allowing me to think that you are a hoot. but one can always hope that the time will arrive where i can have the freedom to feel that you are a hoot.

[MADem]

369. I think I will save this one, too.

You are doing a very good job of validating the (four female/one male) researchers' thesis as described in the article.

seabeyond (86,829 posts)
365. really? i am not allowed to think you are a hoot? cause i thought you were a hoot? but i guess,

if you tell me you are not a hoot, then i must submissively accept you are not a hoot, so that i am all that in nice and maybe at some point you will allowed me a moment to speak where you will actually listen to me. i know, i know, i have just not been endearing enough to reach that point. hence, you not allowing me to think that you are a hoot. but one can always hope that the time will arrive where i can have the freedom to feel that you are a hoot.

Again, the actual title of the research paper:

The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence


The authors:

Nadia Y. Bashir1,*, Penelope Lockwood1, Alison L. Chasteen1, Daniel Nadolny2, Indra Noyes1

The publication: European Journal of Social Psychology

The Abstract:

Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by examining individuals' perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants' willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983/abstract

Some people, I'm sure, can read the full text via their library's portal.

I'm glad you aren't the person who taught me about these issues. I don't think you would have been very effective in that role.

[seabeyond]

371. not enough sugar here either. lmfao. all this joy i am passing to you and you are totally rejectin

me. my heart hurts.

[MADem]

376. Once more, into the breach.

seabeyond (86,834 posts)
371. not enough sugar here either. lmfao. all this joy i am passing to you and you are totally rejectin

me. my heart hurts.

[seabeyond]

377. just a gigglin. you have made my night. you take care now. and bless that little heart of yours.

see, i am all over that sugah, i am.

[MADem]

382. Fine with me.

seabeyond (86,842 posts)
377. just a gigglin. you have made my night. you take care now. and bless that little heart of yours.

see, i am all over that sugah, i am.

[DanTex]

414. Actually, vinegar works better than honey for catching flies.

Flies are more attracted by the fermented scents given off by vinegar than just sugar.

[MADem]

447. Flies LOVE grapes. Balsamic vinegar is cooked wine, in actual fact.

Notice how the cartoonist inserts--quite out of the blue--the condition that the vinegar used be BALSAMIC. Balsamic vinegar is a relatively recent conceit of the American palate.

Balsamic vinegar is made from grapes, and flies are suckers for anything made from grapes.

My great grandmother wasn't raised with fancy balsamic vinegars; it was the plain stuff that she used for everything, including cleaning. That plain vinegar is NOT an attractant, because it doesn't have any of that tasty grape juice or wine in it.

The term "distilled vinegar" is something of a misnomer, because it is not produced by the distillation of vinegar, but rather, by the fermentation of distilled alcohol. The fermentate is then diluted to produce a colorless solution of about 5% to 8% acetic acid in water, with a pH of about 2.4. This is variously known as distilled spirit or "virgin" vinegar,[6] or white vinegar, and is used for medicinal, laboratory, and cleaning purposes, as well as in cooking, baking, meat preservation, and pickling.[7] The most common starting material in some regions, because of its low cost, is malt. In the United States, corn (maize) is the usual starting ingredient for most distilled vinegars, such as the Heinz brand.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar#Distilled_vinegar


A bit about balsamic "vinegar:"

Balsamic vinegar (Italian: aceto balsamico) is a condiment originating from Italy.

The original traditional product (Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale), made from a reduction of cooked white Trebbiano grape juice and not a vinegar in the usual sense, has been made in Modena and Reggio Emilia[1] since the Middle Ages: the production of the balsamic vinegar is mentioned in a document dated 1046. During the Renaissance, it was appreciated in the House of Este.[2] Today, the traditional balsamic vinegar is highly valued by chefs and gourmet food lovers.

The names "Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena" (Traditional Balsamic Vinegar of Modena) and "Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Reggio Emilia" (Traditional Balsamic Vinegar of Reggio Emilia) are protected by both the Italian Denominazione di origine protetta and the European Union's Protected Designation of Origin.

Balsamic Vinegar of Modena (Aceto Balsamico di Modena), a less expensive imitation of the traditional product, is today widely available and much better known, but received IGP label. This is the kind commonly used for salad dressing together with oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsamic_vinegar


You can drink good balsamic vinegar--try doing that with white vinegar. I promise you, the flies will go to the honey before they hit the white vinegar, and plain vinegar was the basis for the proverb, not scented, designer or chef's vinegars.

You could also say that you catch more flies with wine than with vinegar, or you catch more flies with grape juice than vinegar, too. If you've ever hung around vineyards (and I lived near one in Italy) you know that you can't survive without those fly strips, because...like I said....flies love grapes!

[seabeyond]

448. I contend flies like shit better than vinegar, grapes, honey or wine

[DanTex]

462. I've tried it with regular red wine vinegar, and it works great, but again that's grapes.

I've heard it also works well with apple cider vinegar. I think it's the fermentation that attracts the fruit flies, rather than the particular kind of fruit -- that's why they are less attracted to fresh fruit as opposed to old fruit that has begun to decompose and ferment.

[MADem]

473. Well, flies love fruit, so they're going to be happy with funky apple, too!

They even have a fly that is named for its affection for fruit....that old fruit fly!

I've never seen a fly go after bourbon, or whiskey or rye...not that we have a lot of that lying around on any given day. When I think about it, I haven't even seen 'em go for beer (full disclosure--not a lot of that around these parts, either).

It's the fruity, funky stuff they seem to like....

[DanTex]

475. Yeah I think it's a fruit thing. Haven't seem them go after whiskey or beer either.

[bettyellen]

480. now slugs- they LOVE beer! you can dig little swimming pools and sink cups of beer @ ground level

and overnight, they will fill up with slugs. If they are in your garden that is. And it's disgusting!!

[Warren DeMontague]

504. wine works, too

...just sayin'

[bettyellen]

506. the biggest problem is removing the cup of slugs in beer without spilling it, or vomiting, LOL.

[Warren DeMontague]

508. Actually I have been quite pleased with this product, since I live in slug country

it is (allegedly) eco-friendly.

[niyad]

345. what a load of codswallop. just like that whacked "professor" who refuses to use any women's

writings in his oh-so-perfect lit classes. of course, this study does not seem to take into consideration just how much of the "image" of enviros and feminists is driven down people's unthinking little throats by the likes of limpballs, o'lielly' robertson, and others. noooo, it HAS to be the way the enviros and feminists present themselves.

amazingly enough, I am both an enviro and a feminist, as are many of my friends (please note that last word) Seems plenty of people like us.

but, thank you for the laugh--sorely needed today.

[Tien1985]

354. Trashing the thread.

I'll pick an environmentalist and/or feminist over some I'll-do-anything-to-keep-the-peace coward every time.

[MADem]

360. That is not what the OP says.

The OP avers that if activists are positive, enthusiastic, and upbeat, instead of scolding, negative and angry, that they get better results. People will listen to them.

That's not rocket science. Dale Carnegie taught those same lessons nearly a hundred years ago.

Draw a line through the title of the article, ignore it. That's just an attention grabber.

Read the text of the article.

The money piece:

So the message to advocates is clear: Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist. Realize that if people find you off-putting, they’re not going to listen to your message. As Bashir and her colleagues note, potential converts to your cause “may be more receptive to advocates who defy stereotypes by coming across as pleasant and approachable.”

[mattclearing]

406. People who believe those stereotypes don't deserve to be pandered to. n/t

[bettyellen]

438. exactly- slowly those around them will be educated, and they will catch up to the new norms....

that is how things evolve. No reason to sweeten and dumb down the message for the laggards.

[MADem]

449. Well, that's not what the researchers are saying.

The four women and one man who did this research aren't telling anyone to "pander."

That's obvious if you read the abstract, ignore the fake headline of the article, and pay no attention to the snide remark at the end of the snippet by the poster of the article.

[mattclearing]

450. The snide remark is mostly what prompted my response.

I'm obviously not responding to the researchers, who presumably aren't here to hear it anyway.

[MADem]

452. That's understandable.

It's a pity, though, that the throw-away snark in the OP took over the thread, because the article is interesting, the study has something to say, the scholarship appears to be quite respectable, and it would seem this crew did some useful work that might actually be helpful to activists in achieving their goals.

Oh well. Typical DU, I guess...!

[mattclearing]

367. Nice hit and run job there.

Noted.

[nolabels]

444. Seems like that poster has done that a few times now

I just thought i would chime in here to help the post count also

[gtar100]

401. I don’t. So I guess I'm not in the "everybody" group.

Can't deny that a lot of people hold negative attitudes about environmentalists and feminists but my own conclusive study finds that these sort of people are ignorant and often fall into the category of "asshole".

[life long demo]

435. I'll take a "tree-hugger" or "hippy" any day over a

conservative, who ironically doesn't believe in conserving but money.

[Ash_F]

442. Thank the propaganda on TV.

I bet most Americans still think the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi too.

[Warren DeMontague]

454. Just FYI

This study was done in Canada.

[Ash_F]

456. OK, but the participants were American

At least, every mention of the participants in the article said they were American.

[Warren DeMontague]

458. Ah, yes, you are correct.

I'm still confused about this "Mechanical Turk", though. Sounds ominous.

[Ash_F]

459. Sounds like a place to do grunt work online, for pay.

In this case, fill out a survey. It doesn't sound like the most scientific way to poll people.

[Jasana]

484. Proud to be a Feminist and an Environmentalist...

and even a Liberal and yes I:

1) Fight against people who think science is a fairy tale.
2) Fight against people who think a woman is nothing more than a breeding slave.
3) Fight against wars and people who think poor people are trash.

And, talkingdog, if you think any of the above are "pedantic screeds" why are you on this forum?

[bettyellen]

490. thank you and welcome aboard!

[Jasana]

495. Hey bettyellen, thank you for the welcome!

[bettyellen]

501. ;-) , Love your bird, BTW.

[LeftyMom]

487. I think you missed a turn somewhere on the series of tubes.

[steve2470]

496. 100% flamebait nt

[6000eliot]

520. What part of "pervasive stereotypes" did you not understand?

[Skittles]

526. righwing assholes did a good job demonizing these groups