Regarding your contention of MRAs: So, what you're saying is that those sexists that are holding women back in careers, that are enforcing the wage gap and are keeping women out of tech and C-suites, and squashing them at the sprout level by calling them "bossy", are you saying they haven't got that so-called "MRA mindset"?
Well the term 'MRA' is quite ill-defined and I guess people have different definitions, but by mine I would say no. The MRA mindset is quite a specific one, there are many other types of sexism out there and I don't lump all of them together as MRAs.
Because to have it explained by anyone who shouts "MRA!" at even the vaguest criticism of women/women's initiatives, it seems as if both the sexists at the top and the neckbeards at the bottom don't like it when the wimminz get their hands on the boys' toys and would very much like to shove them back into the kitchen by any means necessary.
Well there are some pretty nasty misogynists at the top of the management ladder but as I said I consider that different to the ranting MRAs you see on the internet. The MRAs can be absolutely terrifying to those they target but have little power on society at large, the more influential misogynists that can be considered respectable do far more damage.
If someone is going to whinge on about MRA-type thinking and ignore the fact that the assertion of sexism in the workplace is driven by the same mentality (at least according to feminist theory), your line of thinking is either willfully ignorant or disingenuous.
There are commonalities, but as I said I don't consider them the same. You seemed to assume I would two paragraphs ago and have predicated the rest of your argument on that. My argument was essentially that society is a very complicated and sometimes counter-intuitive thing that resists attempts to simplify it. You want me to throw all sexism and misogyny into the 'MRA' box because that would be easy, but I'm not going to do that. The MRA mindset is a recent innovation that arose because of the internet allowing for the type of organization and echo-chambering that was necessary for it. But it's only a small part of a much larger problem and while some people overly fixate on the MRA part of that problem I'm not one of them. Go find one of those people if you want to shout at them.
Regarding your second claim: yes, that happens, but keep in mind that a campaign was started last year by very famous (and, ironically, very successful) women to ban the word "bossy" because it is apparently (as the campaign itself said) a "squasher". Emma Watson also in her initial He for She speech to the UN made it clear that women (herself included) were plagued by such things. Another recent incident involved Anita Sarkeesian going to the UN Women group and said that people telling her "You Suck" online is a campaign of "cyber violence", specifically against women.
Well I did talk about doxing and outright threats of violence earlier, I think we can agree that those are distinct from just calling women 'bossy'.
Hell, more than one poster here on Slashdot has jumped to my defense if an AC decides to post "tits or gtfo" at me, claiming Slashdot isn't "safe for women".
Well given what I've seen in this comment thread, they do seem to have something of a point. There's been a lot of talk about getting rid of traditional site-based comment threads recently and I have been a staunch opponent of such efforts. Looking at Slashdot today though, I ended up wondering what I'm trying to save.
Like fuck it isn't. And anyone who claims otherwise has never been the victim of real, true violence.
That's a fantastic red herring.
So, are you going to assert that there isn't at least an idea being passed around that women get hurt by words and therefore we shouldn't use them?
There does seem to be a subtle shift here. Earlier you were talking about banning words, but here it's more about that we "shouldn't use" certain words, which moves your argument towards where I am. I'm certainly not in favour of using the law to mandate civility, but I still think we should be nice to each other. I also do think that words have the power to affect, maybe not as much as violence but that's orthogonal to the subject at hand.
(My belief is that it's one of those things a governing body is more than happy to expound upon as a means to ending privacy online..."end anonymity for the sake of women!")
I do find it rather hilarious that frequently the response to a governing body wanting to crack down on incivility is a tidal wave of incivility, giving that body exactly the evidence it was asking for that such a crack down is necessary. It doesn't make the crack down right of course, but the lack of self-awareness is quite amusing.
Point I was making is that these strawmen characterizations are often passed around, even here on Slashdot, to the point where people seem to not even mind so much that they make little sense, they're often contradictory, but yet we're more than happy to tar and feather people with them instead of judging individuals as individuals.
The top rated comments right now on this thread are talking about how SJWs are the 'real sexists', transwomen are just men in drag, and how women aren't in STEM because women are just different from men!
Somehow I think you were talking about different strawmen and different people being tarred and feathered, but hey, facts are stubborn things.
Thus my continual annoyance when people use "MRA" as an insult.
It is an insult. Honestly I think MRAs don't even like themselves.