C*ckblock is a highly sexist, misogynistic term

Marmara·Feb 9, 2015·3 votes·3,899 views

I can easily complain about other common LoL terms players love to use like "you have downs", "cancer", "rape", "gay", etc. but I want to pay specific attention to the word "c*ckblock" because the amount of sexism being peppered in that word couldn't be any more obvious.

Take for instance a common phrase that someone has used in the past: "Janna is such a c*ckblock because she prevents our assassins from killing their ADC's"

You see the problem with using that sentence? When you say "c*ckblock", you are referring to the act of a woman refusing to have sex with a man, and you are using it in a highly negative tone. And by applying it to Janna's case, you are basically saying that the act of Janna preventing an assassin from killing an ADC is just as bad as a woman refusing to have sex with a man. A woman should NEVER be forced to sleep with a man and likewise, a man should NEVER feel entitled to sleep with a woman he desires. Otherwise, you are promoting rape culture, and such a thing should never be promoted in a community where a large amount of people who play it are women and girls.

You can use other phrases or words like "Janna is too anti-aggressive" or "Janna is boring to play against", etc. But please, don't use misogyny to describe a negative situation.

45 Comments

SincarnationFeb 9, 201513 votes

You are too baised
C*ckblock is a gender neutral word used primarily by males but it is also used by females in the same context
Cckblocking is not having a woman turn you down, it is having some other outside source interfere with your attempt for sexual relations. Notice the neutrality? Men, women, animals, or even objects can be cckblocks, stop trying to falsely make it out to be rape language.
As a feminist myself, what you are doing is why people hate feminists. Stop trying to distort stupid shit to push the agenda, if you want to talk about rape culture look towards "rape" being a term for dominating people among gamers;a starcraft pro recently was DQ'd from a tourney for saying he was going to rape his opponent and she happened to be female. Look towards why it is acceptable practice for males to attempt liquor a woman up for easy sex. That is rape culture, a gamer using the word c*ckblock for a contextually accurate and similar situation is not "promoting rape culture".

danmargeFeb 9, 20151 votes

You took the words right out of my mouth with point 4. Does this generation forget useful tools like urbandictionary. People should atleast be informed on the subject that they're posting on. And I also agree, this is why I used to hate feminists cause the only feminists I knew were like this than I started meeting the real deal and respect the hell out of them sans the posers

PryotraFeb 9, 20152 votes

I think you should consider labeling yourself a "civil rights activist," or "equalist," not a "feminist". It seems your head is on your shoulders enough to simply want equality between genders, and I am all for supporting that.

I don't give 2 shits about women wanting superiority, which is what true feminism is. Looking to better the lives of women is the definition there, and quite frankly doesn't include any "until they are equal to men" clause.

Astral ZephyroroFeb 9, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I think you should consider labeling yourself a "civil rights activist," or "equalist," not a "feminist". It seems your head is on your shoulders enough to simply want equality between genders, and I am all for supporting that.

I don't give 2 shits about women wanting superiority, which is what true feminism is. Looking to better the lives of women is the definition there, and quite frankly doesn't include any "until they are equal to men" clause.

True feminism? Please, explain to me what is true feminism is because I have apparently had it wrong for quite a while...

PryotraFeb 9, 20155 votes

There is a misconception that feminism = civil rights activist for women. In reality, Feminism purely looks out for the interests of women, with no regards to equality or any other party. In laymens terms, this means that "true feminism" only cares about bettering women's standing politically, economically, socially, etc, and literally nothing else.

For example, it's obvious that the OP is an actual feminist. In that, I mean they purely care about improving on the rights, privilages, and freedoms of women without any concern for any other party. By definition, that is feminism.

Another example is the age old debate about wages. Personally, I am 100% ok with women getting the same shake as men when it comes to wages. That said, I don't feel that they should be allowed better perks than men if this is the case. One such perk may be the paid leave for children. In most jobs, women get incredibly reasonable allowed time off for taking care of their newborn. Fathers, on the other hand, rarely get any, and when they do it is usually shorter.

This means that I would be OK with women getting the same paycheck as a male in the same job, but only if they give up the perks men don't have access to OR allow men to the same perks. A true feminist would never go for this, as there is a piece that either is a drawback for women or a piece that helps males, neither of which helps females. An equalist/civil rights activist would be more open to that. And that right there is all the difference.

Civil rights activists literally only strive to bring a perceived "less privilaged party" to equal footing, while an equalist is more about evening the entire playing field for all groups big and small. Both are more sensitive to the standing of other groups, and therefore tend to be more reasonable.

JubbinautFeb 9, 20153 votes

I'm sorry. I really don't want to start an argument or anything, but I find it fascinating that you managed a post that long in order to say something that summarizes as "I don't like your arbitrary label for a thing, so I'm going to tell you it should be this other arbitrary label instead."

Because, I guess, people aren't allowed to select and define their own labels?

PryotraFeb 9, 20153 votes

You did ask for an explanation of something I explained in a single sentence. If you didn't want in depth, why ask?

Also, I just suggested considering terms that don't imply that you are self centered. I never said you had to label yourself in any other way. Feel free to call yourself what you want, but don't get upset if the label you choose has a negative connotation.

JubbinautFeb 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

You did ask for an explanation of something I explained in a single sentence. If you didn't want in depth, why ask?

I didn't ask you for anything. The post you responded to above was literally my first post in this entire thread.

Also, I just suggested considering terms that don't imply that you are self centered. I never said you had to label yourself in any other way. Feel free to call yourself what you want, but don't get upset if the label you choose has a negative connotation.

You mean I shouldn't get upset if you assign a negative connotation to a term that has far wider usage - and a completely different usage and meaning than that which you assign to it?

Don't worry, I won't. Mostly because I personally don't really like labels. Which was rather the point I was making. From my perspective, there's exactly zero difference between the arbitrarily chosen word "feminist" and the arbitrarily chosen word "equalist" beyond that which common parlance has assigned them. After all, the only use I have for them is to understand what other people are trying to say to me.

PryotraFeb 9, 20151 votes

[deleted]

OnegarionFeb 9, 20152 votes

You do realized you are quoting 3 different people in all of these. The original poster is different than the person asking who is different than the last person. Plz its not hard to read names.

PryotraFeb 9, 20151 votes

Wow, my bad. Didn't realize it. Please disregard stupidity of last post. =P

PryotraFeb 9, 20152 votes

My apologies, didn't realize you were a different poster.

That said I did get asked to explain something already explained in a single sentence. Hence why I went into detail. Clearly, I needed supporting evidence and examples, as a single definition wasn't sufficient.

As for the labeling thing, if you self label as whatever, that is your prerogative. That said if you self label as something, you shouldn't be upset if people treat you as such, especially if there is a negative connotation associated with it. However, those "arbitrary terms" do indeed have different definitions, and whether they matter to you or not is up for you to decide. That doesn't change the fact that different definitions, while possibly similar, mean different things. Arbitrary or not, the difference is not only there, it is noticeably so.

JubbinautFeb 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

My apologies, didn't realize you were a different poster.

Hey, you recognized it. Step ahead of many. No sweat.

That said I did get asked to explain something already explained in a single sentence. Hence why I went into detail. Clearly, I needed supporting evidence and examples, as a single definition wasn't sufficient.

I believe that the point of the poster who asked you that was simply this: Your definition of "feminism" does not fit with the actual definition of the word - nor with its use in common parlance. Specifically, the definition of "feminism" - according to dictionary.com is:

noun

the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

According to the OED:

Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this.

According to Merriam-Webster:

the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

To contrast, you earlier defined "feminist" as:

Looking to better the lives of women is the definition [of feminism], and quite frankly doesn't include any "until they are equal to men" clause.

You might see why there's a bit of confusion, there, as the actual definition of the word and your claimed definition of the word are not the same.

So while, yes, the etymological meaning of the word is more in line with your definition, the actual usage meaning of the word is not. And while etymology is fascinating and incredibly useful in offering decent short-hand understandings of new words, the actual usage is far more important in terms of fuller comprehension and effective communication.

PryotraFeb 10, 20151 votes

Interesting, but not entirely accurate.

According to Merriam Webster(using your link):

: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

According to Dictionary.com(your link again) there is a very similar definition that backs the notion that it is for women, not neccessarily for equality.

I can't view your OED link, as I don't own an account. Sorry.

You see there are two definitions; one of them backs your view and one backs mine. So what kind of definition is being used today? I propose using nontraditional sources to show nowadays context in relation to how Feminism is defined today. Keep in mind that dictionaries tend to be slow in changing their definition, so I will not use dictionaries but other real world today examples discussing the topic.

According to this Wiki article:, we see that not everyone agrees on the idea that equality is the goal, including feminists themselves. In fact, there is several sections of this article dedicated to that ambiguity and a section dedicated to the fact that no one agrees on a definition. Admittedly, this is wikipedia, but that doesn't make it false. Just not enough to justify my point. However, there is more.

According to Emma Watson in an address to the UN, She stated that she **"realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating." ** She goes on to state her experiences with using the word as a self label while clarifying her intent.

According to Laura Walters, Scientist, shows that while she does believe that there should be more women in higher positions of society, she also goes on to state that she is "an 'equalist'. I believe that all scientific outputs should be judged on their content rather than on the fact the author was a female or male scientist. Regardless of gender, ethnicity or any other factor, what matters most is achieving the results by having the best person for the job – male or female."

According to this debate, we see that the grander majority, at least in that community, feels like this definition has indeed shifted to a more women focused Ideal.

#In Conclusion

This honestly seems to be a definition beginning to evolve, with more and more people believing that Feminism means "Pro-Woman" and nothing else. While the definition including equality is ultimately still recognized, it is not necessarily implied when the term is used. This means that while not everyone agrees that equality is still in the definition, it still contains the "pro-woman" aspects according to the large majority.

While you can choose either definitions, you must be mindful of how your audience or potential audience may interpret the word. Otherwise, I could say "I'm going to go smoke a f@g" and mean "smoke a cigarrette" when everyone else would read... something else entirely.

JubbinautFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

According to Dictionary.com(your link again) there is a very similar definition that backs the notion that it is for women, not neccessarily for equality.

Re: your Merriam comment, I think you're walking a thin line in assuming that a single definition that - given context - doesn't bear the depth of meaning you assign it.

Regarding the Dictionary.com comment, I'd appreciate if you could actually quote that definition, since I just took a quick glance over the page linked, and I couldn't find anything resembling it (outside of the etymological reference, which isn't really a definition.

I can't view your OED link, as I don't own an account. Sorry.

I don't, either. I made the link (and can view it now) without signing in for anything. Not sure what may be preventing you from seeing it, but that's pretty weird.

You see there are two definitions; one of them backs your view and one backs mine. So what kind of definition is being used today?

There's really not, though. There may be a slowly-evolving view of that word - particularly among MRA groups - as you state it, and an attempted movement to adjust that definition in favor of more neutral terminology. So far, I see that movement gaining no more general traction than the movement to shift towards the term "African American," which never did manage to make common parlance.

According to this Wiki article:, we see that not everyone agrees on the idea that equality is the goal, including feminists themselves. In fact, there is several sections of this article dedicated to that ambiguity and a section dedicated to the fact that no one agrees on a definition. Admittedly, this is wikipedia, but that doesn't make it false. Just not enough to justify my point. However, there is more.

This is true, but I don't find it particularly useful, or meaningful. A minority mis-representing the term should not require a change in definition of the general term. Rather, it's more common for a sub-group that bears strongly differing ideals to be isolated from the main group by terminology (see basically every Religious schism ever) - until this recent attempt to redefine the word feminism, those "feminists" were commonly referred to as "femi-nazis" or "militant feminists" or "feminine supremists," and other such terms.

In short: they can believe what they want - that should neither be considered reflective of the beliefs of the larger group, nor of the more general label.

According to Emma Watson in an address to the UN, She stated that she **"realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating." ** She goes on to state her experiences with using the word as a self label while clarifying her intent.

Without a strong definition of "too often," it's difficult to accept that statement as meaningful in this context. It is true that there are those who self-label as feminists who are, genuinely, man-haters. But the question must be asked: are they genuinely representative of the label, or are they something else?

I - and the last few decades - would argue that they are something else (see previous comment).

According to Laura Walters, Scientist, shows that while she does believe that there should be more women in higher positions of society, she also goes on to state that she is "an 'equalist'. I believe that all scientific outputs should be judged on their content rather than on the fact the author was a female or male scientist. Regardless of gender, ethnicity or any other factor, what matters most is achieving the results by having the best person for the job – male or female."

While I appreciate her usage of the term, I'm not entirely certain that her choice is meaningful in terms of the validity or definition of the term feminist. I can choose to call myself an infidel, for example, but that is meaningless when discussing the validity or definition of the term "atheist."

According to this debate, we see that the grander majority, at least in that community, feels like this definition has indeed shifted to a more women focused Ideal.

I'm unconvinced that the opinions of a self-selected group like that are meaningful in this context. It's certainly true that things have been claimed and done in the name of feminism that are not feminist. Of course, it's also true that things have been claimed and done in the name of Christianity that are not Christian. Should we also demand that that label be changed?

Or should we recognize that sometimes people do things that are not in line with a particular set of ideals while claiming to do so on behalf of those ideals?

This honestly seems to be a definition beginning to evolve, with more and more people believing that Feminism means "Pro-Woman" and nothing else. While the definition including equality is ultimately still recognized, it is not necessarily implied when the term is used. This means that while not everyone agrees that equality is still in the definition, it still contains the "pro-woman" aspects according to the large majority.

To the extent that you are correct - and it certainly is a newer shift of definition - it is still a position held by a minority, relating to and building from the actions and claims of a separate minority. As yet, I see no reason to believe this early shift to be meaningful or valuable in any sense.

While you can choose either definitions, you must be mindful of how your audience or potential audience may interpret the word. Otherwise, I could say "I'm going to go smoke a f@g" and mean "smoke a cigarrette" when everyone else would read... something else entirely.

We call that context. Forced to label myself in a group of Men's Rights Advocates, I'd call myself an equalist or something similar, because that audience would recognize my meaning by that, when they wouldn't with the term feminist due to prior biases. Forced to label myself in a group of SJWs or militant feminists, I'd use the same term - and for the same reason.

But for casual, everyday usage, amongst a general audience (or even an unknown audience)? I'd use feminist. Because the common parlance still recognizes that meaning in the same way I do.

PryotraFeb 10, 20152 votes

I'm unconvinced that the opinions of a self-selected group like that are meaningful in this context. It's certainly true that things have been claimed and done in the name of feminism that are not feminist. Of course, it's also true that things have been claimed and done in the name of Christianity that are not Christian. Should we also demand that that label be changed?

Well, How about a source that attempts to be a non biased poll? According to the Huffington Post, most people see Feminist as a negative term, while an even greater majority believed in the pursuit of equality between genders. This indicates that a good majority feel that feminism doesn't include equality. By the way, this particular poll is 2 years old, which means that this isn't exactly a new evolution of the definition, but one that simply is downplayed.

We call that context. Forced to label myself in a group of Men's Rights Advocates, I'd call myself an equalist or something similar, because that audience would recognize my meaning by that, when they wouldn't with the term feminist due to prior biases. Forced to label myself in a group of SJWs or militant feminists, I'd use the same term - and for the same reason.

But for casual, everyday usage, amongst a general audience (or even an unknown audience)? I'd use feminist. Because the common parlance still recognizes that meaning in the same way I do.

Is it ironic to speak about another group's biases with bias?

Regardless, In an address to an unknown audience, as is any post on a public forum, the speaker must either define the words or allow the words to be defined by any and all definitions that fit the context. While I realize that is a pretty big burden on the speaker, realize that the listener cannot read your mind, and therefore the burden must lie on the speaker to make the message clear.

So casual, everyday usage, sure, use what feels comfortable. But if you are suddenly making an address to an unknown party, either define or expect there to be some mis-communication. For example, lets pretend Obama tweets that he "loves gay men." He could very possibly mean happy men, but just how many people do you honestly believe will get that message.

JubbinautFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Well, How about a source that attempts to be a non biased poll? According to the Huffington Post, most people see Feminist as a negative term, while an even greater majority believed in the pursuit of equality between genders. This indicates that a good majority feel that feminism doesn't include equality. By the way, this particular poll is 2 years old, which means that this isn't exactly a new evolution of the definition, but one that simply is downplayed.

Alternatively - something neither of us have genuinely addressed - it may be hold-over definition. Or a genuine issue stemming from - again - misappropriation of the term.

EDIT: A little further examination leads me to believe it may be part of the backlash that spawned the post-feminist movement. There's probably a lot of interesting history in all of that.

Is it ironic to speak about another group's biases with bias?

Not entirely sure what you're referring to, here. MRA groups are known to be anti-feminist, and are among those who protest the usage of the term. They are - almost definitively - biased against the word feminist.

Is it wrong, then, to speak about how I would choose to avoid associating myself with that unnecessary bias?

Regardless, In an address to an unknown audience, as is any post on a public forum, the speaker must either define the words or allow the words to be defined by any and all definitions that fit the context. While I realize that is a pretty big burden on the speaker, realize that the listener cannot read your mind, and therefore the burden must lie on the speaker to make the message clear.

Are you saying, then, that the person you responded to was not clear enough in his usage of the term? Was "As a feminist myself, what you are doing is why people hate feminists. Stop trying to distort stupid shit to push the agenda," not a clear enough indicator of the definition that poster uses?

Because, to be blunt, here: I don't give a shit about labels. I really don't. In point of fact, I find labels to be divisive and destructive.

What concerns me - and the reason I posted initially - is the way you attempted to shove your labels on Sincarnation, and dismissed their labels as false. Because, to my mind, they have just as much right to their labels as you do to yours.

PryotraFeb 10, 20151 votes

Alternatively - something neither of us have genuinely addressed - it may be hold-over definition. Or a genuine issue stemming from - again - misappropriation of the term.

I'm not familiar with "hold-over definition". Please define.

And misappropriation of a term by a majority is how definitions change.

Not entirely sure what you're referring to, here. MRA groups are known to be anti-feminist, and are among those who protest the usage of the term. They are - almost definitively - biased against the word feminist.

Is it wrong, then, to speak about how I would choose to avoid associating myself with that unnecessary bias?

Another common misconception, MRA is technically only pro male. It is effectively the polar opposite of what they perceive Feminism is, which they see as pro female. While that may seem naturally at odds, the fact of the matter is that the MRA only cares about how men stand in the world. If the females move upwards, the MRA won't care so long as the males are moving up as well in equal or greater fashion.

IMO, the MRA is a knee-jerk reaction community reacting to feminists. Basically, they feel if it's okay for women to be misogynistic in the name of equality, why can't they? Both groups IMO are equally counterproductive.

That said, it isn't wrong to speak about your biases. You wouldn't be human if you didn't have them. Just realize it for what it is.

Are you saying, then, that the person you responded to was not clear enough in his usage of the term? Was "As a feminist myself, what you are doing is why people hate feminists. Stop trying to distort stupid shit to push the agenda," not a clear enough indicator of the definition that poster uses?

Yeah, that was kinda my initial point. Amazing how far this has traveled.

And no, actually, technically I could see both definitions applying here. Either it's a feminist who feels this idiot(OP) is simply giving feminists everywhere a bad name, or it's an equalist who simply feels that feminism is the same thing and the whole movement looks bad because of this idiot(OP). I used my best contextual clues to hazard a guess at the latter, but I could see either definition. This is why it's important to define.

Because, to be blunt, here: I don't give a shit about labels. I really don't. In point of fact, I find labels to be divisive and destructive.

You're catching on.

What concerns me - and the reason I posted initially - is the way you attempted to shove your labels on Sincarnation, and dismissed their labels as false. Because, to my mind, they have just as much right to their labels as you do to yours.

Well, that's just it. Sincarnation never really proposed their labels, and honestly probably didn't even read my full post. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't have asked. I'm certain they weren't really expecting a full synopsis of my definition with supporting evidence, but hey, they asked.

So, shortly, I dismissed a grand total of nothing from Sincarnation, and infact took them far more seriously than they were likely taking me. Sincarnation put forth a question. I answered thoroughly. There was nothing to dismiss in terms of labels.

JubbinautFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I'm not familiar with "hold-over definition". Please define.

Remnants of an older definition, held onto despite the general lingual shift. You've used a pretty solid example yourself in referencing "lighting a f@g," though it's not entirely fitting, since that term is still used somewhat commonly in parts of England.

And misappropriation of a term by a majority is how definitions change.

Sorry, my mistake. I was attempting to refer to those whose actions do not fit the definition of feminist, but who claim the label anyway, thereby misappropriating it.

I'm personally a strong believer that that form of lingual shift is pretty harmful to useful discussion, and should therefore be fought and challenged whenever possible.

Another common misconception, MRA is technically only pro male. It is effectively the polar opposite of what they perceive Feminism is, which they see as pro female. While that may seem naturally at odds, the fact of the matter is that the MRA only cares about how men stand in the world. If the females move upwards, the MRA won't care so long as the males are moving up as well in equal or greater fashion.

That's been rather the exact opposite of what I've seen of them. Perhaps my bias towards that movement and yours towards feminism stem from similar places.

And no, actually, technically I could see both definitions applying here. Either it's a feminist who feels this idiot(OP) is simply giving feminists everywhere a bad name, or it's an equalist who simply feels that feminism is the same thing and the whole movement looks bad because of this idiot(OP). I used my best contextual clues to hazard a guess at the latter, but I could see either definition. This is why it's important to define.

I'm not sure that I agree. Again, though, I suspect that my lack of agreement comes from my general distaste for labels. Rather than attempting to determine where he fits, I chose to take the statement as it sat, and assign value according only to that.

The strength of that approach, in my mind, is the mutability it allows. I can applaud that comment because I agree with it, but just as quickly shift my view based on a later post that offers new understanding. I feel that - among other issues - labels restrict that capacity.

You're catching on.

No need to be quite so patronizing. I actually stated the same thing quite early in our discussion, though I did expand on it here.

Well, that's just it. Sincarnation never really proposed their labels, and honestly probably didn't even read my full post. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't have asked.

Except Sincarnation didn't ask. That was Astral Zephyroro. Frankly, the early part of this discussion was a mess of random people.

So, shortly, I dismissed a grand total of nothing from Sincarnation, and infact took them far more seriously than they were likely taking me.

I suppose that's not an unreasonable view. I don't share it, but it's fair, I suppose.

PryotraFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

It appears that we have reached the nesting limit. In order for this not to get confusing, if you want to continue this conversation, please reply to an earlier comment of mine. That way I can get an update in the morning after I wake up. By the way, this has been a rare and wonderful conversation. Thank you for that.

Remnants of an older definition, held onto despite the general lingual shift. You've used a pretty solid example yourself in referencing "lighting a f@g," though it's not entirely fitting, since that term is still used somewhat commonly in parts of England.

Ah, well that makes sense. Alot of the bigger dictionaries are purposefully slow in adding new words, and even slower in editting them. This allows the times to shift breifly, while if a newer definition is maintained for long enough it will eventually get editted.

I feel that this particular word is an interesting case as far as words go, as in the west feminism no longer includes the equality clause by general consensus, but I know that certain other countries may still have great use for it.

Sorry, my mistake. I was attempting to refer to those whose actions do not fit the definition of feminist, but who claim the label anyway, thereby misappropriating it.

I'm personally a strong believer that that form of lingual shift is pretty harmful to useful discussion, and should therefore be fought and challenged whenever possible.

Well, it's a form of lingual shift no different from how the word for a bundle of sticks became the derogatory term for old people, and from there...

Generally, when words start classifying people/groups of people, it tends to be pretty harmful.

That's been rather the exact opposite of what I've seen of them. Perhaps my bias towards that movement and yours towards feminism stem from similar places.

Some of the things I've seen from the feminist movement mirror their actions. For example, prominent feminist Jessica Valentii's "I bathe in male tears" T-shirt. IMO, both sides are basically ankle weights for humanity. As if we didn't have enough of those.

I'm not sure that I agree. Again, though, I suspect that my lack of agreement comes from my general distaste for labels. Rather than attempting to determine where he fits, I chose to take the statement as it sat, and assign value according only to that.

The strength of that approach, in my mind, is the mutability it allows. I can applaud that comment because I agree with it, but just as quickly shift my view based on a later post that offers new understanding. I feel that - among other issues - labels restrict that capacity.

Labels in general don't fit people. That said, it can help summarize the general direct of where someone is coming from.

For example, I could say "As a Heimerdinger player, I feel that Morellonomicon needs nerfs." This would give people who don't know me a general idea of where I'm coming from. Does it encompass who I am or all of my opinions? No. Does it give a clue to those who have none to go off of? It can. Taken with a grain of salt, they can be helpful.

The real problem is when labels are applied incorrectly, or when labels have multiple meanings/connotations, or when people make judgements entirely off of them. All of which happens... almost always, usually in tandem. How humans tend to use them in a very general sense is poor, and as a result they tend to do more harm than good.

Except Sincarnation didn't ask. That was Astral Zephyroro. Frankly, the early part of this discussion was a mess of random people. Yeah... I'm sorry about that. I must be more tired than I thought.

Ok, I'm off to bed, but I will reply in the morning if you want to continue.

Scuttler SlayerFeb 10, 20151 votes

Yo dumbass, instead of meaninglessly saying

"Nah. Whatevah. You ain't right."

How about you PROVE that it is indeed a "minority" that believes your version of the word "feminist"?

In my experience, the word "feminist" is seen very negatively. I agree with Pryotra and all of his SOURCES.

He's arguing with research; you opened with (minimal and simply useless) research before proceeding to say "I don't like what you're telling me."

[Why is your research "useless"? Y'all are talking about how your average person views the term - connotations heavily influence how your average person will define a word. Dictionaries, sources you quoted, do not include connotations in their definitions.]

JubbinautFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Yo dumbass, instead of meaninglessly saying

"Nah. Whatevah. You ain't right."

How about you PROVE that it is indeed a "minority" that believes your version of the word "feminist"?

I didn't really say that. And it was never really my point. But... okay?

Additionally, the position I held was that a majority held my version. In choosing to no longer argue that point, I've conceded it. He's right - at least in the U.S. - that for whatever reason "feminist" has become a dirty word.

Of course, you may have missed the post where I actually said that. Perhaps the most recent two posts weren't visible when you began your post?

Notably, though, I didn't say he wasn't right. I said that his sources were not indicative of what he claimed. They're small-scale commentary. He posted a later source that offered a much stronger case.

In my experience, the word "feminist" is seen very negatively. I agree with Pryotra and all of his SOURCES.

Your experience - and mine - are both effectively irrelevant (though, since you mention it, it's my experience that the word "feminist" is generally seen in a positive light - that, however, is almost certainly due to a self-selection bias, much like your own).

He's arguing with research; you opened with (minimal and simply useless) research before proceeding to say "I don't like what you're telling me."

Follow me for a second on the chronology of this:

He states in two posts before I said anything at all that the definition of feminism was, and I'm quoting here, "Looking to better the lives of women is the definition [of feminism], and quite frankly doesn't include any 'until they are equal to men' clause," and "they purely care about improving on the rights, privilages, and freedoms of women without any concern for any other party. By definition, that is feminism."

There's no commentary in those about connotations or current usage. He's - falsely - stating the definition of the word to be something other than what it's actually defined as.

Honestly, if he hadn't claimed it was the definition of the word, I would never have bothered looking up the actual definitions.

So that's where it began. It has since shifted away from that specific aspect and into other examinations.

Please, try to understand what's going on in a discussion before you impose yourself on it, especially if you're going to open with direct - and unnecessary - insults.

I can't say for certain about Pryotra, but I have found this to be a fairly interesting discussion, and both fascinating and illuminating - enough so that I may adjust the label I use for myself when forced to do so (among other reasons, it's far more generally applicable to me). It's been - until now - both reasonable and respectful, and I'm hopeful it will continue along that vein.

SincarnationFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

There is a misconception that feminism = civil rights activist for women. In reality, Feminism purely looks out for the interests of women, with no regards to equality or any other party. In laymens terms, this means that "true feminism" only cares about bettering women's standing politically, economically, socially, etc, and literally nothing else.

For example, it's obvious that the OP is an actual feminist. In that, I mean they purely care about improving on the rights, privilages, and freedoms of women without any concern for any other party. By definition, that is feminism.

Another example is the age old debate about wages. Personally, I am 100% ok with women getting the same shake as men when it comes to wages. That said, I don't feel that they should be allowed better perks than men if this is the case. One such perk may be the paid leave for children. In most jobs, women get incredibly reasonable allowed time off for taking care of their newborn. Fathers, on the other hand, rarely get any, and when they do it is usually shorter.

This means that I would be OK with women getting the same paycheck as a male in the same job, but only if they give up the perks men don't have access to OR allow men to the same perks. A true feminist would never go for this, as there is a piece that either is a drawback for women or a piece that helps males, neither of which helps females. An equalist/civil rights activist would be more open to that. And that right there is all the difference.

Civil rights activists literally only strive to bring a perceived "less privilaged party" to equal footing, while an equalist is more about evening the entire playing field for all groups big and small. Both are more sensitive to the standing of other groups, and therefore tend to be more reasonable.

What you are referring to is "internet feminism" where every moron without an education can claim they are a feminist and poison the perceptions of others. Actual feminists support maternity AND paternity leave, no actual feminist is going to say they want men to work while the woman is on maternity leave to take care of the newborn on her own. Parenting is best with both parties.

That being said the actual original feminists need to break off from the idiots and rename themselves something different, Equalist sounds to Legend of Korra-y but Equal Rights Activist works.

edit: uhhh very briefly when i was looking through the massive essays above I noticed my name mentioned, but uhhhh yeah not gonna lie tl;dr Anyone mind enlightening me on why im involved? In summary form preferably

edit#2: Feminism originally set out with the goal of getting equality between the sexes, but years of slander campaigns, in-fighting, and general ignorance have distorted the perception of the party. Yes there are many loud idiots that only advocate women's superiority, yes their are the "angry man-hating lesbians" and yes even though they are rare there are still a few that hold true to the original goal. There are so many different sects and ideas within this new poisoned well of "feminism" that half the time we can't even agree among ourselves. Show the Miley Cyrus twerking thing to a group of feminists; some will say she is being objectified, some will say she is being dominated by her sexuality, and others will say she is being empowered by her sexuality. The group has gotten too big despite all the hate it gets, and the more rational reasonable parts need to break off. But that's my perspective as cisgender college educated middle class black man, so some "feminist" out there is probably going to disregard everything I said because of that. Sorry I didn't check my privilege before posting the truth.

PryotraFeb 10, 20151 votes

uhhh very briefly when i was looking through the massive essays above I noticed my name mentioned, but uhhhh yeah not gonna lie tl;dr Anyone mind enlightening me on why im involved? In summary form preferably

I'll start with this one. You were mentioned because my reply to you was how this all began. That's purely it.

What you are referring to is "internet feminism" where every moron without an education can claim they are a feminist and poison the perceptions of others. Actual feminists support maternity AND paternity leave, no actual feminist is going to say they want men to work while the woman is on maternity leave to take care of the newborn on her own. Parenting is best with both parties.

Well, that seems to be against what the majoriy thinks.

According to the Huffington Post, The majority dislike the term feminism, but are for Equality between genders. This indicates the majority does indeed feel the two are different. This means that the ones this poll is supposed to represent, I.E. western culture, are using a different definition.

Also, there has been an internet movement called Women against Feminism, where females renounce the feminist label due to modern feminism meaning something different than it once did. While it may seem that they are Pro Kitchen jokes, in reality they simply seek equality, and don't feel feminism represents that anymore. Again, I feel this is a primarily western/european thing, as some other countries still have atrocious standards for gender equality.

That being said the actual original feminists need to break off from the idiots and rename themselves something different, Equalist sounds to Legend of Korra-y but Equal Rights Activist works.

I'll admit that I have never seen the show, so forgive me. That said I have heard the terms Humanist, Equalist, and even something that hasn't really been used since the days of Martin Luther King: Civil Rights Activist, all springing up as of late. All of which mean extremely similar or sometimes the same thing. Basically, Equality for all.

As a Humanist myself, I do feel Feminism in modern times no longer holds the same meaning it once did. As you said, it grew too big, and has too many conflicting views within itself. I agree with the idea of a split, and it would seem that you and I aren't alone in that.

SincarnationFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Anyone mind enlightening me on why im involved? In summary form preferably

I'll start with this one. You were mentioned because my reply to you was how this all began. That's purely it.

Well, that seems to be against what the majoriy thinks.

According to the Huffington Post, The majority dislike the term feminism, but are for Equality between genders. This indicates the majority does indeed feel the two are different. This means that the ones this poll is supposed to represent, I.E. western culture, are using a different definition.

Also, there has been an internet movement called Women against Feminism, where females renounce the feminist label due to modern feminism meaning something different than it once did. While it may seem that they are Pro Kitchen jokes, in reality they simply seek equality, and don't feel feminism represents that anymore. Again, I feel this is a primarily western/european thing, as some other countries still have atrocious standards for gender equality.

Uhhh how is that against what I said? I didn't say it directly, but the poisoned perceptions of people cause by those vocal idiot "feminists" is the reason why the average person has negative ideas about "feminism". So it comes to no surprise that many people hold the same values as the original feminists but wouldn't identify themselves with the group because of the negative perception of the word.

What you posted is in line with my train of thought, and the other group of women against feminism sounds like the rationals splittling off but idk enough about the group to comment on them.

PryotraFeb 10, 20151 votes

It's only against what you said in that the greater majority feels that the definition has changed. This very well may be attributed to what you called "internet feminism", but at the end of the day a word means what everyone agrees it means. And while everyone agrees that feminists support female power, not everyone agrees anymore whether equality is what they stand for.

I would check it out. No telling if it's for you, but that's generally what that movement seems to be, the rationals splitting off so as not to be associated with some of the feminist parties "antics".

Pretty DhiziFeb 10, 20151 votes

{quoted}

You are too baised

C*ckblock is a gender neutral word used primarily by males but it is also used by females in the same context

Cckblocking is not having a woman turn you down, it is having some other outside source interfere with your attempt for sexual relations. Notice the neutrality? Men, women, animals, or even objects can be cckblocks, stop trying to falsely make it out to be rape language.

As a feminist myself, what you are doing is why people hate feminists. Stop trying to distort stupid shit to push the agenda, if you want to talk about rape culture look towards "rape" being a term for dominating people among gamers;a starcraft pro recently was DQ'd from a tourney for saying he was going to rape his opponent and she happened to be female. Look towards why it is acceptable practice for males to attempt liquor a woman up for easy sex. That is rape culture, a gamer using the word c*ckblock for a contextually accurate and similar situation is not "promoting rape culture".

Yay, a feminist with a brain! I love you for that. But someone clubbed the OP'er with the stupid stick really hard, and quite often.

CenturosFeb 9, 201511 votes

Actually, the term describes ANYONE preventing a man from having sex, be it man, woman, or other.

That aside... people actually use this term?

Yulen XoshxiusFeb 9, 20154 votes

I am surprised you are not targetting the "rape" term. Also men can cockblock other men as well.

Drunk RummateFeb 9, 20153 votes

the term is generally used regarding people who prevent a guy from chatting up and/or leaving with another person with the intention of sex

in no way does that imply that the person being chatted up is a victim. they may very well have been hoping for the opportunity. get your bullshit out of here.

PryotraFeb 9, 20153 votes

lol, so a couple things

A) I have litterally seen a grand total of 0 people use it in league to describe what you are talking about. 1 if we include your OP.

B) Actually, cockblock simply means to deny one sexual intimacy. It is gender neutral, and both from the blocker and the blocked's standpoint. Heck, it doesn't even need to be a person. I personally believe that a tornado ripping half of my house away would kill any and all boners I may or may not have. In that sense, the tornado could cockblock me.

In conclusion, kindly stop being retarded and making up issues that LITERALLY have no bearing in reality whatsoever. That, or just don't breed. I can live with the latter.

KinjishiFeb 9, 20152 votes

"A woman should NEVER be forced to sleep with a man and likewise, a man should NEVER feel entitled to sleep with a woman he desires" The way you presented this, it's still sexist and biased - in that only women are the victims. Here, let's actually make your statement equal and balanced on both terms "forced" and "entitled". Also, caps lock is not needed - we know how to read the word never.

A woman should never be forced to sleep with a man and likewise, a man should never be forced to sleep with a woman. A woman should never feel entitled to sleep with a man she desires and likewise, a man should never feel entitled to sleep with a woman he desires.

MarmaraFeb 9, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Yasu Yoru,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=wQEUA7GH,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2015-02-09T01:38:54.345+0000)

"A woman should NEVER be forced to sleep with a man and likewise, a man should NEVER feel entitled to sleep with a woman he desires" The way you presented this, it's still sexist and biased - in that only women are the victims. Here, let's actually make your statement equal and balanced on both terms "forced" and "entitled". Also, caps lock is not needed - we know how to read the word never.

A woman should never be forced to sleep with a man and likewise, a man should never be forced to sleep with a woman. A woman should never feel entitled to sleep with a man she desires and likewise, a man should never feel entitled to sleep with a woman he desires.

I would say that as well, if people use "v * ginablock" as much as "c * ckblock".

Deep Terror NamiFeb 9, 20151 votes

And you'd be making no more sense either way. There is nothing misogynistic about a phrase used in a context that has nothing to do with sex/gender.

Context is extremely important; ignoring it in order to further your own agenda just makes you dishonest.

MarmaraFeb 9, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Valkyrie Witch,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=wQEUA7GH,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2015-02-09T01:51:47.555+0000)

And you'd be making no more sense either way. There is nothing misogynistic about a phrase used in a context that has nothing to do with sex/gender.

Context is extremely important; ignoring it in order to further your own agenda just makes you dishonest.

Yeah but you see, the origin of the word "cckblock" is sexist. Otherwise, people would be using "cckblock" just as much as armblock or legblock.

Deep Terror NamiFeb 9, 20153 votes

The origin of a lot of words and phrases aren't that nice but are perfectly acceptable depending on the context.

Also, cockblock is not sexist. It just means "getting in the way of sex". That's it. It doesn't mean "getting in the way of rape" or anything like that. I think you're just upset over anything that has to do with sex, and it's kind of sad.

danmargeFeb 9, 20151 votes

Honestly c*ckblock can be used by anyone man or female relating to men or females. Cause if you block either of the two the penis or the vag no sex is happening. It just so happens that this synonym for roster rhymes with block and that's why its used. My female friends use this all the time when someone gets in the way of them achieving their goals at the bars

Luna Loves LuluFeb 9, 20151 votes

While your argument against the term is true, Janna is in no way preventing anything. Janna is fairly average.

SurakaiFeb 9, 20151 votes

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! you can't get any more unproductive than crying about stupid shit like this.

pleepFeb 9, 20151 votes

ROFL i wish someone with just gass all the feminists. They are such a cancer on society

When will you people grow up from this never-ending victim complex? Its not even nearly about equality at this point.... its about being a damsel in distress

McAllisterFeb 9, 20151 votes

u have downs

Spooky SpookerFeb 9, 20151 votes

how does a word used everywhere affect all of league?

steelblackskyFeb 10, 20151 votes

okay so proposed solution vectors by op do not create a neutral result, instead they deflect totally away from the meaning.

if you have an issue with the male gender reference in the term, the apropo suggestion would have been something along the lines of o-block or "org asm" block, as opposed to the male centric "co ck" block.

however, you went two steps too far attempting to remove all context in efforts to push an agenda, ultimately resulting in something not in line with stated goals of movement alignment proposed.

your proposals completely change the meaning and intent from " prevention of gratification or reward" to "this is dull".

desexualization is fine and all but not feminism. period end of story.

you also need to grasp that you cannot change meaning this way or you solved nothing. saying work is boring will never be a valid replacement for saying you are frustrated because you worked all week and your paycheck never got printed due to a toner delivery delay.

and that is exactly what you have proposed.

bottom line saying a term or meaning is inappropriate for use in a context is fine, you do not remove the word from use where it applies however. saying that the word can be modified to be neutral without altering meaning and application is fine, but you failed to do so.

just remember equality of rights can happen multiple ways. the rights of one group can increase, or the rights of another can decrease.

i might also suggest you reflect on something presented as part of multiple theosophies.

in my example i will use a biblical reference paraphrased(as given language, region and topic of choice, this is a better than random chance odds of applying directly, statistically speaking): "anger is the death of good judgement". think about it. meditate on it. consider its' occurence in multiple religions philosophies and axiomatics. then try this again as you seem to be good intentioned in spite of yourself.

lastly and as an addendum, the reference involves a part of male anatomy allowed to be modified without consent of the individual, through circumcision, in this country.

no equivalent modification is allowed for females in this country without consent.

taken in that context reference to a involuntarily mutilated male specific body part might be a little different as well, although this is not the common perception.

or do you want such mutilations without consent permitted equally for females? no?

to paraphrase one of the co-emperors reigning after hadrian " all we hear is opinion, all we see is perception", meaning it takes effort to understand that what is immediately apparent isn't the truth, just the way it strikes us at the time and requires digging deeper to really get at. it also demonstrates that failure to do so is an extremely easy and longstanding human folly, made easier as per my theosophical meditation above.

thank you for your consideration, please have a fair day.

yellowbricksFeb 10, 20151 votes

Why are we giving this whiner the time of day? Who is this person to cockblock our language? Fuck that, and fuck anyone looking to take offense to every little word, trying to censor people with anemic message board posts telling people to check their privilege. Guess what? I checked, I still got it! Suck it down.