I'll just skip reading this and scream at my penis for making me a bad person instead.

The fine trans womyn at /r/ShitRedditSays thank you, and remind you that ALL men are evil rapists, especially white men.

Even though I know you're joking, the fact that some people actually agree with with that statement makes me want to vomit with rage.

It really is disgusting that they exist and somehow convince other women, and men to follow them.

Thanks for posting. The word "groupthink" in the title seems fitting.

I notice the youtube video embedded in this article now has a new pro-Lindy top comment, and the previous comment explaining how her views are from mainstream sociology 101 classes has now been downvoted to only net 4 points.

I am taking a gender course right now and my teacher told me that we were all feminists or would be by the end of the course. Then later she read a quote from a male feminist saying that the only way we could solve violence against women was through men, and that we needed to redefine masculine behavior. I challenged her because what she was really saying is that we need to train men. She refuted saying that only a man could stop another man from assaulting a women, because he was physically strong enough, and that men accounted for nearly 80% of violent crime in our nation. Unfortunately I was taken aback by this and said nothing. But I have since thought about it and realized I have never seen a woman having violence brought upon her and just walked away, and neither have any of the men I asked. Also the majority of victims from male violence are other men and not women. If they truly cared about equality they would care about the disproportionate amount of males being affected by violent crime and not the small minority of women. It would be like me taking the statistic that women are more likely to abuse their children, and saying that we need to teach women how not to abuse, because it is inherent in their nature. But we don't because it is not inherent in their nature, and we instead look to what causes these things such as single parenthood and increased stress. But feminists wont do that for men. They wont look to the causes of violence and instead focus on the gender of the perpetrator. This is exactly what these women are doing with the idea of rape culture. They never mention that men account for 19% percent of all rapes and out of those 19% of rapes we account for 54% of out of the bushes rape (source:my gender book). So we are actually are statistically more likely to be raped when walking home from the bar. But that doesn't fit the narrative that is "rape culture". Needless to say I will be addressing my professor tomorrow in a calm and collected way just like Lil' Jimmy. I know a long post but this shit pisses me off.

If you are a man in a gender studies class, the best thing you can do is simply acknowledge that you can't be a feminist, only an ally. As an ally, all you need to do is sit there and be supportive. You can't argue gender politics in that environment, you can't make witty points or quote statistics, and you certainly can't dispute abstract concepts like "rape culture". You'll only end up with a bruised ego and a poor grade.

My grade is based mainly upon multiple choice tests so I am not worried.

"Hmmm, i KNOW the REAL answer is A. But the teacher wants it to be C."

Ace the test!

Just to add to this, if you happen to think that a lot of the arguments you're hearing in class seem more emotion-based than logic- or fact-based, I wouldn't mention it. Couldn't see that going over well at all.

I understand this and that is why I didn't respond in the first place. Wait until I have a good argument then approach with civility. I want to see her answer to my questions of logic. It is not often that I get to have a debate about issues that is not derailed by fallacies. I do not despise her. I think that through our discussions about other things, such as the representation of males in media, she is unaware of the impact that feminism has upon males.

Wait until I have a good argument then approach with civility. I want to see her answer to my questions of logic. It is not often that I get to have a debate about issues that is not derailed by fallacies.

Is this your first exposure to this sort of material? Its not a logic class, and if you try to make it one you're gonna have a bad time ;)

she is unaware of the impact that feminism has upon males

Feminism is not concerned with how it impacts males, it is concerned with how it impacts females.

It is not her that I am trying to convince. It is my fellow students that know nothing about the topic. Yes I may fail, but if I do not learn to argue in a public forum with the pressure on me, than I can not articulate my opinion effectively in the future. If I am to challenge the feminist thought process I must figure out a way to do so in public. That is why Jimmy kicked himself for not arguing how he should have in the situation he was presented with.

Not only how it impacts females, but how it can reduce men to the equivalent of household pets.

Yeah, I'm just kidding around.

I'm on board with the concept of equality, so long as it isn't simply disguising the oppression of a different group of innocents because they're currently considered to be part of a class that is "privileged." Hooray pro-woman feminism; boo anti-man feminism.

Is Steinem taught in the class, or is she a footnote these days?

Steinem isn't taught by name, it really is just the waves with no names attached. I agree with you about equality but I can't find it in feminism. Today we watched the Kayne West music video Monster after our test, and had to discuss how this impacted women. Our teacher talked about how many triggers it had in it for women who faced sexual abuse or rape. My question with the idea of triggers is, how can you pretend to know what your audience has experienced before you speak to them? I have dealt with suicide in my family, should I object to anything that has to do with suicide if it is not to my liking?

"Triggers", "gendered insults", "privilege", and "rape culture" are part of this new wave of social networking feminism that I just don't get.

Help girls get educated in nations that won't let them go to school, finally achieve equal pay for equal work, end female genital mutilation, promote women in STEM fields -- fantastic. Challenge the patriarchal norms and subtle stereotypical thinking held amongst both men and women to restore opportunities that prejudice has taken away -- I guess that sounds alright.

But are these new feminists actively working to marginalize themselves? I watched one (self-proclaimed) throw a verbal punch online immediately followed up with a "oh, and don't bother mansplaining yourself" and realized, for a handful at least, they don't want agreement or understanding, but to continue relishing an aggressive offensiveness enabled by their self-perceived victimhood. I just roll my eyes at that, but I can't imagine how aggravating that's got to be for other feminists that are trying to move things forward.

I did tend to do more thinking and outside reading in the classes where I didn't totally agree with the perspectives of the teacher, though, so there's definitely something to be said for colleges keeping a healthy mix of opinions among professors.

Its not just the bloggers who use these terms, as OP says they are concepts lifted directly from academia (specifically the highly isolated realms of social justice studies and gender studies). The problem is that they are being highjacked and completely misused by these bottom feeding internet warriors to exclude voices from debate (see mansplaining, which is just a convenient way of shutting out any male contribution to any given issue, whether it concerns males in general or any individual males in particular).

All the concepts you mentioned are valid ones with real purposes, its just a shame to see what gets done with them these days in a mostly anonymous, highly troll-oriented blogosphere.

Why would you sign up for that class? Did you think it would get you laid? Because you're throwing that away by speaking up to the loony professor.

Men are violent towards other men because society has told men violence is an acceptable solution. That to defend your honor means showing that you can dominate your challenger. That backing down from a fight is cowardly. The causes for violence is already known, feminism cares more about bringing that down altogether.

You are angry that she told you we need to redefine masculine behavior, yet you don't understand that redefining masculine behavior would also fix the male victim problem you're complaining about?

That to defend your honor means showing that you can dominate your challenger. That backing down from a fight is cowardly.

This is found throughout the animal kingdom, it has nothing to do with society. Those violent tendencies are inherent and instinctual... they are part of our DNA. Society tries to limit and restrict those tendencies. Men are naturally violent, but society and civilization play a major role in balancing out those instincts.

Men are naturally violent, but society and civilization play a major role in balancing out those instincts.

I agree, with both halves of this sentence. The second half serves to confirm the point you are arguing against, though. "Society" is a word people love to use generally and abstractly, but it includes stuff like gender norms, femininities and masculinities, and social facts. Things which are normalized for us, but not entirely set in stone if one looks across time and geographic space. Feminists argue these things can change and I agree with them. Whether they should change, or how they should change, is another story.

Are you actually a biologist or are you getting your info from pop evo-psych? Regardless, what is your solution then to jimmyjon's complaint that men are the majority victims of male violence?

Are you actually a biologist or are you getting your info from pop evo-psych?

Excellent counter-argument.

Regardless, what is your solution then to jimmyjon's complaint that men are the majority victims of male violence?

I wasn't aware that the onus is on me to provide that solution. I don't have one.

There's no counter-argument to evo-psych, other than "the whole thing is bunk and without merit." If you don't have a solution then your comment was mostly irrelevant. Society is merely an expression of biology and we are not "naturally" anything anymore than another as all behaviors are "natural" (a big mistake made by people espousing evo-psych is that there is this magical, metaphysical divide between higher order thinking and what is seen as base carnal behavior). We are also "naturally" empathetic, we have hardware specifically suited to that task. Changing gender roles would simply mean preferring to use our empathy over anti-social and aggressive behavior. We're capable for both.

So, perhaps it's more accurate to say that humans are biologically predisposed to being capable of violence, rather than 'humans are naturally violent'. But if society is merely an expression and reflection of biology, then isn't a violent society the expression of that biological predisposition to be violent? And if that is so, then how am I wrong (other than semantically) when I say that the reason (or a major reason) men are violent towards each other is based on biology?

I am not arguing that we as men don't need to evolve and adapt to the world that we now live in. My issue with training men is that it promotes the idea that all men will act a certain way if given the chance. It does not address the individual but rather links an entire gender to these bad behaviors. And it allows for women to view all males they encounter as on the verge of assaulting them when in reality very few men do. It is the same labeling that feminism supposedly tries to fight against.

You keep using the word "training." It's not a program, it's a shift in paradigm. Yes, it links an entire gender to bad behaviors but we've already established that male roles in society encourage violence as a solution. The blame isn't being put on every individual male, it's being put on that set of cultural values. How women view the results of those gender roles is a seperate discussion, really.

When I raise my voice to a woman and she says that she feels threatened, it is because of this mindset. I have never attacked a woman but it is assumed that I will. How can I still be me if women are consistently told that when a man raises his voice he is one step away from being violent? Am I not able to get agitated when discussing problems without being blamed for being threatening to their safety? And yes it is a program in many forms. Have you heard about http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/ . There site may look nice offering a 24 week coarse to men on how not be violent to women. But here is one of their original posts about the definition of domestic violence, I am sorry for the long comment but they took it down so I don't have a URL. Pay attention to the line about using logic against a woman. This group's keynote speaker was Ashley Judd who was considering a run for the Senate. How can a man not be abusive with this list of questions?

Instructions: Use this checklist to inventory your behaviors. The more honest you are with yourself the more beneficial this exercise will be. Think back throughout your relationships. Which of these behaviors have you used? Circle all that apply and note the pattern that you created. What do you think the impact of this pattern of abuse has been on your partner or past partners? If you would like to enroll in a MSV class or talk with a facilitator more about your behavior, please call 404-270-9894 x24.

Psychological and Economic Abuse

 Yelling, swearing, being lewd, raising your voice, using angry expressions or gestures.

 Criticism (name-calling, swearing, mocking, put-downs, ridicule, accusations, blaming, use of trivializing words or gestures).

 Pressure tactics (rushing her to make decisions, using guilt or accusations, sulking, threatening to withhold financial support, manipulating children, abusing feelings).

 Interrupting, changing topics, not listening, not responding, twisting her words.

 Economic coercion (withholding money, the car or other resources; sabotaging her attempts to work).

 Claiming “the truth,” being the authority, defining her behavior, using “logic.”

 Lying, withholding information, infidelity (having sex with others).

 Using pornography.

 Withholding help on childcare/housework (not doing your share or following through on your agreements).

 Emotional withholding (not expressing feelings, not giving support, validation, attention, compliments, respect for her feelings, rights and opinions).

 Not taking care of yourself (not asking for help or support from friends, abusing drugs or alcohol, being a “people pleaser”).

 Other forms of abuse (please list below). o ___________________________________________________________________

Physical violence

 Slap, punch, grab, kick, choke, push, restrain, pull hair, pinch, bite.

 Rape (use of force and/or threats to get sex).

 Use of weapons, throwing things, keeping weapons around that scare her.

 Abuse of furniture, things in the home, pets, destroying her things.

 Intimidation (standing in the doorway during arguments, angry or threatening gestures, use of size to intimidate, standing over her, out-shouting, driving recklessly).

 Uninvited touching.

 Threats (verbal or nonverbal, direct or indirect).

 Harassment (unwanted visits or calls, following her around, “checking up” on her, embarrassing her in public, not leaving when asked).

 Isolation (preventing or making it hard for her to see/talk to friends, relatives, others).

[deleted]

[deleted]

You could have a thousand feminists telling clubs to ban a topic and it'd go nowhere, but shit like this may well cause comedians to self-censor.

Look what happened to Ari with his ages-old "Amazing Racist" Latino episode. Some Mexican-Canadian complained, and he got the boot from a show somewhere in Canadialand.

REALLY! Where did he mention it?

His Skeptic Tank podcast. The recent (second, if that helps) heroin episode. It was really close to the beginning. Within the first ten minutes.

BTW, that AR bit is still a classic...

Thanks. Will check out. Allthingscomedy.com

They are invading the video I uploaded of Li'l Jimmy explaining things with negative O&A comments haha.

We have the manpower to stop them, right?

Please rephrase that in a gender-neutral sentence you chauvinist pig.

We'll also accept gender-queer.

trans-gender-queer you cis-normal shitlord whiteknight™!

/s

We do but I think they have a lot of accounts to like comments with. I wouldn't be surprised if each feminist has 3-5 YouTube accounts to our 1 per person.

Damn, well, everyone here should do what they can.

Probably because they're so fat that they think they need as many accounts as they need chairs.

[deleted]

enough

I particularly liked this comment thread.

This chick knows what she's talking about:

They would never say this about a joke about killing black people.

followed by:

Their reasoning in defense of a rape joke, does imply that, yes they would support any kind of joke (including racist ones). But, from their tone of conversation I'm going to call bullshit. I DO NOT think they would stand up for racist shit because they don't have the backbone to take that kind of backlash. They are obviously catering to a perceived shared-view of their audience that "bitches be crazy" and "feminists want to ruin everything" so they can and do get away with offhandedly saying that "it's okay BECAUSE its funny." I am definitely willing to eat my words if someday they come out with a podcast supporting KKK jokes

Na, I definitely think they would stand behind racist jokes.

Every comic worth their weight would stand behind another comic that makes any type of joke. For an example of comics that aren't worth their weight, check out self-confirmed vegan feminist Jamie Kilstein. He's a legit faggot, and literally malnutritioned at about 75 pounds.

That guy is such a neutered little worm. I think he was on Rogan's podcast bashing Tosh or something and Rogan took him to task. By the way, he said nothing funny in the 2 or 3 hours of that podcast. He stinks.

Oh God, I fucking hate him. I hated him even before I heard him on Rogan's podcast. I saw him on The Green Room with Paul Provenza and the only time he contributed anything was when Paul set him up to do a part of his act. Which was a completely fucking forced angry rant about conservatives that had no new points or perspective at all. I actually agreed with it, too, but there was just nothing comedic about it at all. Also, his Wikipedia is so obviously autobiographical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Kilstein

[deleted]

I don't really mind West, it's her fucking overly-reactive swarm of feminists that I despise. I would hate to see what they think is 'funny'.

I've been wondering for a while now when the social justice warrior locust swarm is going to catch up to Jim and his comedy. This whole situation very well might continue to escalate, which is why I'm glad it's Jim in the focus. On the one hand you have the SJW tendency to censor any and all dissenting thought behind a veil of anonymity, and on the other hand you have a comedian who strongly believes in the medium of stand-up and isn't afraid of attaching his name to his opinions...

This may get interesting.

This bitch is loving the attention & milking it for everything it's worth. Ew.

[deleted]

I cant keep up with this "he said, she said" stuff.

[deleted]

I actually disagree with Jimmy in the video in that link.

He was saying that Lindy wasn't debating free speech or it wasn't her argument that comedians shouldn't be able to make certain jokes.

But what she said in that debate was that rape jokes cause rape.

If that isn't an attempt to subvert free speech then what is?

Even though I know you're joking, the fact that some people actually agree with with that statement makes me want to vomit with rage.

When I raise my voice to a woman and she says that she feels threatened, it is because of this mindset. I have never attacked a woman but it is assumed that I will. How can I still be me if women are consistently told that when a man raises his voice he is one step away from being violent? Am I not able to get agitated when discussing problems without being blamed for being threatening to their safety? And yes it is a program in many forms. Have you heard about http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/ . There site may look nice offering a 24 week coarse to men on how not be violent to women. But here is one of their original posts about the definition of domestic violence, I am sorry for the long comment but they took it down so I don't have a URL. Pay attention to the line about using logic against a woman. This group's keynote speaker was Ashley Judd who was considering a run for the Senate. How can a man not be abusive with this list of questions?

Instructions: Use this checklist to inventory your behaviors. The more honest you are with yourself the more beneficial this exercise will be. Think back throughout your relationships. Which of these behaviors have you used? Circle all that apply and note the pattern that you created. What do you think the impact of this pattern of abuse has been on your partner or past partners? If you would like to enroll in a MSV class or talk with a facilitator more about your behavior, please call 404-270-9894 x24.

Psychological and Economic Abuse

 Yelling, swearing, being lewd, raising your voice, using angry expressions or gestures.

 Criticism (name-calling, swearing, mocking, put-downs, ridicule, accusations, blaming, use of trivializing words or gestures).

 Pressure tactics (rushing her to make decisions, using guilt or accusations, sulking, threatening to withhold financial support, manipulating children, abusing feelings).

 Interrupting, changing topics, not listening, not responding, twisting her words.

 Economic coercion (withholding money, the car or other resources; sabotaging her attempts to work).

 Claiming “the truth,” being the authority, defining her behavior, using “logic.”

 Lying, withholding information, infidelity (having sex with others).

 Using pornography.

 Withholding help on childcare/housework (not doing your share or following through on your agreements).

 Emotional withholding (not expressing feelings, not giving support, validation, attention, compliments, respect for her feelings, rights and opinions).

 Not taking care of yourself (not asking for help or support from friends, abusing drugs or alcohol, being a “people pleaser”).

 Other forms of abuse (please list below). o ___________________________________________________________________

Physical violence

 Slap, punch, grab, kick, choke, push, restrain, pull hair, pinch, bite.

 Rape (use of force and/or threats to get sex).

 Use of weapons, throwing things, keeping weapons around that scare her.

 Abuse of furniture, things in the home, pets, destroying her things.

 Intimidation (standing in the doorway during arguments, angry or threatening gestures, use of size to intimidate, standing over her, out-shouting, driving recklessly).

 Uninvited touching.

 Threats (verbal or nonverbal, direct or indirect).

 Harassment (unwanted visits or calls, following her around, “checking up” on her, embarrassing her in public, not leaving when asked).

 Isolation (preventing or making it hard for her to see/talk to friends, relatives, others).

[deleted]