The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Pete Svarrior on June 21, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
-
This is primarily a response to Tausami's posts in "Party Membership", but since it doesn't have much to do with the original subject, I thought I'd give it a new thread.
Oh, come on. Quoting a tumblog that's either a) satirical or b) run by a 13 year old girl who doesn't entirely understand the concepts she's angry about isn't fair. Even most of tumblr makes fun of people like that.
You pretending that there isn't a significant proportion of real tumblr crazies (be that feminists, stormfronters, communists, paedophiles, or a combination of those) is something we probably shouldn't waste our time on. So, instead, let's jump to more "serious" media. I'm going to relax the constraints a little bit here, since this particular, vocal branch of mainstream feminism does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather part of a larger authoritarian movement.
Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian:
- We tend to empathize with our online avatars. So let's get rid of white emojis - The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/25/lets-get-rid-of-white-emojis)
- White men should never hold elected positions in British universities again - The Telegraph (https://archive.today/zW7i5) [article since removed due to public outrage]
- Kamila Shamsie: let’s have a year of publishing only women – a provocation - The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/05/kamila-shamsie-2018-year-publishing-women-no-new-books-men) (already linked by Parsifal, but worth re-emphasising)
- The only people who need to fear an affirmative consent standard for rape are rapists - The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/20/sex-consent-sexual-assault-campus-rape-laws)
- The entire UVA non-rape saga, as delivered by the Rolling Stone:
- A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA - The Rolling Stone (http://web.archive.org/web/20141120205928/http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119) [article since removed due to the entire story being completely false] - Listen and believe, indeed!
- The Rolling Stone Retraction - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/04/rolling-stone-retracts-explosive-university-of-virginia-rape-article/389712/) - a debrief on the whole fiasco.
- Goldsmith's Student Diversity Officer Bahar Mustafa Investigated By Police After She Tweeted 'Kill All White Men' - The Huffington Post UK (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/26/bahar-mustafa-goldsmiths-investigated-police-kill-all-white-men_n_7440740.html) - Bahar is an interesting lady altogether, and I'd wholeheartedly recommend anyone wondering why some people don't like SJWs to research her in depth.
- What’s Wrong with Cultural Appropriation? These 9 Answers Reveal Its Harm - Everyday Feminism (http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/) (Also, the concept of "cultural appropriation" as a whole.)
- If you're a man, your clothes are sexist and you should instead wear the clothes we approve of:
- I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing - The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress)
- Mark Zuckerberg's Simple Defense of His Clothes Reinforces a Sexist Double Standard - Mic.com (http://mic.com/articles/103962/mark-zuckerberg-s-simple-defense-of-his-clothes-reinforces-a-sexist-double-standard)
- Why are my feminist friends still taking their husbands' surnames? - The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/marriage-feminism-weddings)
Let's throw in a few opinion pieces about "social justice":
- Women’s lib no longer on agenda of today’s authoritarian feminists - The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/womens-lib-no-longer-on-agenda-of-todays-authoritarian-feminists/story-e6frg6zo-1227123570743)
- Sorry, Emma Watson, but HeForShe Is Rotten for Men - TIME (http://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/) (This article also makes a good case for why, even if we accept that "kill all men" is just a hilarious joke, it does more harm than good to feminism's original cause)
- The Pecking Disorder: Social Justice Warriors Gone Wild - Observer (http://observer.com/2015/06/the-pecking-disorder-social-justice-warriors-gone-wild/)
- Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People (And That’s A Good Thing) - Thought Catalog (https://web.archive.org/web/20150526163404/http://thoughtcatalog.com/emily-goldstein/2015/05/get-rid-of-white-people/) [article since removed due to "hateful or abusive content"] [content warning: may contain trace amounts of satire]
Also, the tags 'male tears' and 'kill all men' generally represent someone who is being tongue-in-cheek. There might be people who actually believe that shit, but mostly they're not. The hardcore feminists I know are usually just trying to get a rise out of men's rights activists with shit like that.
This is a response that many people won't accept easily. In a society where both sexes and all races have pressing issues, it's simply not acceptable to ostracise and marginalise one group. Yes, even if it's the big bad evil white man. In the mainstream, we (rightly, in my view) criticise people wearing t-shirts like "w0w babe make me a sandwich", but simultaneously glorify people at the verge of quoting the SCUM manifesto. That's simply not on, and the growing opposition to movements which were once considered "progressive" should be evidence enough.
-
Generally it all comes down to context. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all men," then you can be pretty sure they're going to be kidding. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all women," they might just be Elliott Rodgers or George Hennard. The majority of cases people get mad at are outright satire.
I'm not too well-educated on cultural appropriation, and not convinced by several arguments, but a lot of what it comes down to is that, well, take religious motifs. Many people are discriminated against and actively hated for having and displaying their religion: but as soon as it becomes a fashion statement, it's a-ok. Hard to deny the injustice there.
The majority of social justice is born of frustration, more than anything. They're mad, and they've a right to be. Maybe some go a bit too far, but they're allowed to, for the simple fact they don't have the same kind of power as what they're fighting against. When the movement becomes a majority who take to actually killing and maiming, let me know. Otherwise the only reason to be annoyed with them is ego, and that's just a bit pathetic.
-
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
-
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
I'll take your point, even if I'm not immediately convinced by it. I'm obviously biased. However, to me, this article reads as very explicit in its intent ('I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.', 'Why not have a Year of Publishing Women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.').
I also find it interesting that the author herself chooses to put "provocation" in quotation marks further down the article: 'Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too.'
Frankly, to me this reads more as an authoritarian and sexist proposal, which someone then noticed might be a bit too out there even for The Guardian's standards, and so they put a little red "provocation" stamp on it to suddenly make it all fine. "This is just a provocation, but..." is the new "I'm not racist, but..."
Generally it all comes down to context. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all men," then you can be pretty sure they're going to be kidding. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all women," they might just be Elliott Rodgers or George Hennard. The majority of cases people get mad at are outright satire.
Oh, yeah, because the roles are never reversed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25669206). The fact that one side gets disproportionately more media exposure and is taken more seriously than the other is part of the problem, not evidence against it.
-
Oh, yeah, because the roles are never reversed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25669206). The fact that one side gets disproportionately more media exposure and is taken more seriously than the other is part of the problem, not evidence against it.
Isolated incidents do not a social problem make.
Plus plenty of feminists do happily argue against that underreporting. There's the stereotype that women are weak/unable to harm/that no ones cares about it when they do, which is exactly what many fight against. The problem is social problems are and will always be complex, so a lot of people involved aren't educated in any depth: and it's very hard to become educated in any depth when people call for shutting the whole social justice thing down, and there are oceans of misinformation out there.
-
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
I'll take your point, even if I'm not immediately convinced by it. I'm obviously biased. However, to me, this article reads as very explicit in its intent ('I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.', 'Why not have a Year of Publishing Women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.').
I also find it interesting that the author herself chooses to put "provocation" in quotation marks further down the article: 'Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too.'
I've got a couple of short stories that I'm tempted to try to get published somewhere so I've been checking out a few literary websites lately. Quite a few of them seem to have some kind of positive discrimination policy in place already, particularly American sites. They vary from an insistance on female protagonists, to requests for submissions from female writers or writers from under represented groups.
-
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
I'll take your point, even if I'm not immediately convinced by it. I'm obviously biased. However, to me, this article reads as very explicit in its intent ('I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.', 'Why not have a Year of Publishing Women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.').
I also find it interesting that the author herself chooses to put "provocation" in quotation marks further down the article: 'Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too.'
Frankly, to me this reads more as an authoritarian and sexist proposal, which someone then noticed might be a bit too out there even for The Guardian's standards, and so they put a little red "provocation" stamp on it to suddenly make it all fine. "This is just a provocation, but..." is the new "I'm not racist, but..."
Maybe the "provocation" part was a fiat by the editor to tone the piece down or something I can't say that is impossible. I also found the arguments themselves to be very unpersuasive. For the most part she was talking about 40-46% representation which is awfully close to 50%, so close that you could likely correct for a bunch of non-gender related factors and get damn ode to true equality. Many of the commenters had some sound rebuttal too, like when you get out of the very small world of the book prize and in to pulpit fare, women often dominate. 3 of the top 4 selling authors in history are women for example.
-
Isolated incidents do not a social problem make.
They're as much isolated incidents as male-on-female murders (which is to say, they're not isolated at all). The same applies to other issues, like domestic violence, which is (surprisingly, to many) fairly evenly distributed between the sexes (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence).
I also found the arguments themselves to be very unpersuasive. For the most part she was talking about 40-46% representation which is awfully close to 50%, so close that you could likely correct for a bunch of non-gender related factors and get damn ode to true equality. Many of the commenters had some sound rebuttal too, like when you get out of the very small world of the book prize and in to pulpit fare, women often dominate. 3 of the top 4 selling authors in history are women for example.
Sadly, this is a common thread. Manufactured outrage and exaggerating gender gaps has been the name of the game for years now.
-
Is the underlying argument of the OP closer to "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted," or "Feminism is inherently authoritarian and should rejected entirely"?
For instance, I consider myself a feminist because I believe that men and women ought to have equal opportunity of access to civic society. My political proclivities are already Libertarian, so I tend to view that proposition though a Libertarian lens. People with more authoritarian bents might come up with entirely different sets of public policy based on the same proposition. Why am I as a feminist responsible for that? And in what sense is it fair to say that feminism is to blame?
Your overall negative bias toward feminism is to me no different than if one were to reject Libertarianism because its dominant ideologues are Tea Partiers (gross). Even if that were true (and of course it isn't), it wouldn't be a very good reason to roundly reject the really excellent ideas coming from the minority of entirely reasonable and intelligent Libertarians.
I also just don't think that a smattering of opinion columns from a narrowly restrained set of sources is very convincing evidence that the idea you say is endemic is indeed endemic. It's just some opinion articles produced by firms that have a negative incentive to write about people being reasonable. "Reasonable Feminist Holds Exceedingly Reasonable Beliefs" just isn't ever going to be written by a news outlet.
-
Your position is not feminism since you are advocating for a zero-sum gender gap. That is just humanism as far as I can tell. I do not like terms that are inherently adversarial; try and advocate for the ideology that encapsulates gender equality: meritocracy in the workplace, humanism in the arts, etc...
-
Is the underlying argument of the OP closer to "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted," or "Feminism is inherently authoritarian and should rejected entirely"?
I specifically used the term "mainstream feminism" to avoid this doubt. There exist some feminists who are pretty cool. They're currently not in the mainstream. As such, the underlying argument is "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted, are not resisted, and they're currently the dominant faction within the 'progressive' movement".
For instance, I consider myself a feminist because I believe that men and women ought to have equal opportunity of access to civic society. My political proclivities are already Libertarian, so I tend to view that proposition though a Libertarian lens. People with more authoritarian bents might come up with entirely different sets of public policy based on the same proposition. Why am I as a feminist responsible for that? And in what sense is it fair to say that feminism is to blame?
You, as a feminist, are responsible, because you allowed your movement to be co-opted by ideologues and warped beyond all recognition. As with any other movement, you're responsible for your own PR. As far as I can tell, you now have few options: either try and reclaim your movement (quite difficult; you're going to have to somehow talk over the kinds of Emma Watson), jump ship and embrace one of the many other egalitarian labels (or don't embrace a label at all - do you need one?), or continue doing nothing about it (which, to me, seems not to be conducive to your cause).
That said, I do feel for you. I used to identify as a feminist and jumped ship when the mainstream started representing the very opposite of my views.
Your overall negative bias toward feminism is to me no different than if one were to reject Libertarianism because its dominant ideologues are Tea Partiers (gross). Even if that were true (and of course it isn't), it wouldn't be a very good reason to roundly reject the really excellent ideas coming from the minority of entirely reasonable and intelligent Libertarians.
Again, hence my specific focus on mainstream feminism. I'm not attacking libertarians, I'm attacking the Tea Party.
I also just don't think that a smattering of opinion columns from a narrowly restrained set of sources is very convincing evidence that the idea you say is endemic is indeed endemic. It's just some opinion articles produced by firms that have a negative incentive to write about people being reasonable. "Reasonable Feminist Holds Exceedingly Reasonable Beliefs" just isn't ever going to be written by a news outlet.
I take a massive issue with you considering my set of sources to be narrowly restrained. I deliberately provided a cross-section of sources from all sides of the discussion and several countries. I deliberately chose to not restrict myself to either opinion pieces or news stories. It baffles me that you'd suggest that TIME, the Guardian, and the Telegraph have a "negative incentive to write about people being reasonable", given that them writing about people being reasonable and having level-headed discussions about things is the majority of their opinion pieces altogether. I don't really know what else I could say. Given our past discussions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not doing this out of dishonesty, but I must say that I'm baffled.
-
Your position is not feminism since you are advocating for a zero-sum gender gap. That is just humanism as far as I can tell. I do not like terms that are inherently adversarial; try and advocate for the ideology that encapsulates gender equality: meritocracy in the workplace, humanism in the arts, etc...
That's feminism. Humanism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) (and egalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism)) are different ideologies, and while they don't necessarily conflict with feminism, they don't focus on gender - and more specifically the treatment of women by largely male-dominated societies. That's the central theme of feminism, and it gets diluted by trying to rebrand it as something else, as if to imply that, oh, everybody discriminates against everybody else equally, there's no need to focus on any one group in particular, which just isn't true. Societal discrimination isn't going to go away by simply pretending that it doesn't exist.
-
They're as much isolated incidents as male-on-female murders (which is to say, they're not isolated at all). The same applies to other issues, like domestic violence, which is (surprisingly, to many) fairly evenly distributed between the sexes.
You need to actually provide justification when you make claims like that. I tried to find female killers who targeted men, and your example was the only one. Maybe you can argue under-reporting, but that would be circular.
As for domestic violence, I'm aware. That's also something feminism cares about changing.
Your position is not feminism since you are advocating for a zero-sum gender gap. That is just humanism as far as I can tell.
Feminism is often the same thing: the gender-based issues we face today are a direct result of the fact that, throughout history, women were discriminated against. The unrealistic standards men are held to, for example, are a result of not wanting to be seen as womanly. Get wome to be seen as equal, you'll have sorted out every issue.
Feel free to give any examples you think disprove this. I promise they all tie back to good old fashioned misogyny.
I specifically used the term "mainstream feminism" to avoid this doubt. There exist some feminists who are pretty cool. They're currently not in the mainstream.
That's rather murky. Mainstream depends on where you frequent: and mainstream anything is always a drastic oversimplification. Mainstream in feminist discourse (which should be the important thing) is not the same as mainstream for most people, because people who don't pursue a subject only get a basic, incomplete outline: that's true for everything, social movements like feminism included.
-
You need to actually provide justification when you make claims like that. I tried to find female killers who targeted men, and your example was the only one. Maybe you can argue under-reporting, but that would be circular.
Funny, that, you didn't need to provide justification when you dismissed the threat of someone saying "kill all men" actually being serious. You also didn't need evidence to claim that male-on-female murders are not isolated incidents, but female-on-male are.
But hey, I do have some evidence archived, so I might as well dump it here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600488/Sex-crazed-Angelina-Jolie-lookalike-given-suspended-sentence-forcing-taxi-driver-sex-twice-stabbing-not-manage-time.html
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-killed-cheating-husband-with-overdose-of-heroin-1.576435
http://shanghaiist.com/2013/09/27/woman_stabs_boyfriend_31_times_after_he_says_womans_name_in_sleep.php
http://archive.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=53403 (note: this guy survived, he "only" took 5 bullets to his body)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/jealous-woman-20-years-jagermeister-murder/story?id=19546701
http://nypost.com/2013/08/27/rejected-minn-woman-kills-boyfriend-hides-body-in-freezer/
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_25549887/east-palo-alto-woman-who-killed-boyfriend-steak
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205067/Woman-stabbed-man-refused-sex-threatened-rape-went-hospital-treatment.html (also survived, but what a wonderful story!)
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Cops-Woman-shot-killed-boyfriend-in-Pine-Hills-over-cheating/16814162
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-woman-stabs-cheating-husband-death-article-1.1386046
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/us/24brfs-002.html
http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/woman-gets-25-to-life-for-killing-husband-then-hiring-hitman-to-kill-her-lover
This one is unrelated, but I can't help myself: http://myfox8.com/2014/10/23/woman-sets-roommate-on-fire-because-he-threw-away-her-meatballs/
I have more. If you need more, just ask. However, you saying that you tried to find examples of women murdering men and failed only tells me not to trust your research in the future. Isolated incidents my arse.
As for domestic violence, I'm aware. That's also something feminism cares about changing.
You're doing a much better job at showing why mainstream feminism is authoritarian than I ever could. You really need to have a monopoly on equality, don't you?
That's rather murky. Mainstream depends on where you frequent: and mainstream anything is always a drastic oversimplification. Mainstream in feminist discourse (which should be the important thing) is not the same as mainstream for most people, because people who don't pursue a subject only get a basic, incomplete outline: that's true for everything, social movements like feminism included.
Can you show me that level-headed feminist discourse you're hinting at so much? I've been exposed to political feminism and academic feminism, which, as far as I can see, are the only two forms of it which actually stand a chance at having some impact. Where is this "other mainstream"? Does it manifest itself somewhere, or is it a theoretical concept?
-
Funny, that, you didn't need to provide justification when you dismissed the threat of someone saying "kill all men" actually being serious. You also didn't need evidence to claim that male-on-female murders are not isolated incidents, but female-on-male are.
It's very hard to prove a negative, especially in this case: your examples are a perfect illustration. None of those people were motivated by hatred of men, just personal grievances. Completely different to the multitude of killers who actively say that they hate all women. Are you paying any attention to context at all?
A woman can kill a man without being motivated by hatred of men. A man can kill a oman without being motivated by hatred of men.
However, men who kill women because they hate men exist. You've provided one isolated incident of the opposite so far, and that's it. It just doesn't happen on anywhere near the scale of men with a hatred of women. George Hennard, Elliott Rodgers... (http://www.newsweek.com/misogyny-and-mass-murder-paired-yet-again-252567)
You're doing a much better job at showing why mainstream feminism is authoritarian than I ever could. You really need to have a monopoly on equality, don't you?
How exactly is describing what feminism is insisting that it has to have a monopoly?
Can you show me that level-headed feminist discourse you're hinting at so much? I've been exposed to political feminism and academic feminism, which, as far as I can see, are the only two forms of it which actually stand a chance at having some impact. Where is this "other mainstream"? Does it manifest itself somewhere, or is it a theoretical concept?
Academic feminism, generally. Political feminism is, like most politics, style over substance. Or, of course, you could actually talk to feminists.
But to be honest, you've made my point. See the bold. If something is unlikely to have an impact, minor disagreements don't matter.
-
It's very hard to prove a negative
Agreed, but if you're going to demand it of me, you should be ready to provide the same.
None of those people were motivated by hatred of men, just personal grievances. Completely different to the multitude of killers who actively say that they hate all women. Are you paying any attention to context at all?
Ah, so you're asking specifically about cases like Elliot Rodger. Okay, I readily have one to your multitude (two). I'll call that close enough to even. Here are a couple more which didn't happen over "personal grievances", too:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_25268807/el-paso-woman-previously-convicted-common-law-husbands
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article1112110.html
And here's one with a clear theme of entitlement:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548417/Florida-woman-pulled-knife-boyfriend-refused-CUDDLE-not-face-criminal-charges.html
How exactly is describing what feminism is insisting that it has to have a monopoly?
Sorry, that's not what you're doing. You're responding with "Oh, yeah, of course, heh heh, feminism has that too..." whenever an issue that doesn't fit within the (academic) definition of "feminism" is brought up to you.
Academic feminism, generally. Political feminism is, like most politics, style over substance. Or, of course, you could actually talk to feminists.
Right, so it doesn't actually exist. Can't say I'm surprised. Your assumption that I never "actually talked to feminists" is something I'm not going to waste my time with.
But to be honest, you've made my point. See the bold. If something is unlikely to have an impact, minor disagreements don't matter.
Right, except I'm complaining about the only types of feminism which do stand a chance at having some impact. Political and academic - the two most authoritarian and warped types. Didn't you say something about paying attention to context just now?
-
Not that I think it's a particularly good argument, but there are plenty of murderers beyond Rodger and Hennard who were motivated at least in part by their misogyny. George Sodini, Marc Lépine, Benjamin Atkins, and Levi Bellfield made no secret of their hatred of women, and a strong argument could be made that other serial killers who preyed exclusively on women, like Peter Sutcliffe, Ted Bundy, or Steve Wright were almost by definition misogynistic, even if they didn't spell out their beliefs to the extent that other murderers have.
As for the OP, the only thing I really have to say is that simply being a feminist is no barrier to being dumb or having dumb ideas. I don't feel the need to treat any of them as somehow being representative of my own beliefs, nor that the movement itself has somehow been co-opted or corrupted. Dumb people gonna dumb. Let them. The marketplace of ideas will separate the worthwhile ones from the crap.
-
Pizza (or Sexy or whatever we're calling you now), I'm a little confused by your position. You're arguing with feminists about what feminism is. First you get around this by defining the argument as about 'mainstream' feminism, but only refer to the most extreme examples you can find. Then, when they tell you that what you're describing isn't really mainstream feminism and that feminism as serious, 3rd wave feminists tend to describe it is about combating gender bias, which (for example) includes making women part of the draft (if the draft must exist) and combating the belief that men can't get raped, you change the conversation again to be about extremist wings of feminism that you've pre-defined as authoritarian.
I guess my answer to you is: if we're defining feminism as only being the authoritarian sects of feminism, then yes. Feminism is authoritarian.
Your assumption that I never "actually talked to feminists" is something I'm not going to waste my time with.
Given how open-minded you are talking to feminists right now, at this very moment, I don't deny that you've done it but I somehow suspect your mind was made up before you entered the conversation.
-
You're arguing with feminists about what feminism is.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about mainstream feminism. Gary asked me for clarification, and I gave it - we are talking about a specific subset of the group.
First you get around this by defining the argument as about 'mainstream' feminism, but only refer to the most extreme examples you can find.
Believe me, I'm very far from referring to anything extreme. I'm focusing on the mainstream, i.e. what gets published and what gets a sizeable audience. I already said that I'd like to see this other feminism. Will you be the one to show it to me?
Then, when they tell you that what you're describing isn't really mainstream feminism and that feminism as serious, 3rd wave feminists tend to describe it is about combating gender bias, which (for example) includes making women part of the draft (if the draft must exist) and combating the belief that men can't get raped, you change the conversation again to be about extremist wings of feminism that you've pre-defined as authoritarian.
I never changed the subject. I started this thread with a very specific set of articles, in response to a very specific series of posts in another thread. If you thought it was about something else than that, that's on you.
To give you a brief reminder: In the original thread (which I explicitly pointed out this is a response to in the OP) you asked how feminism is authoritarian. Parsifal responded with Its original ideals are not. However, a lot of modern feminists like to propose ridiculous rules that silence men in order to achieve gender "balance".' Vindictus then quoted an example of an authoritarian feminist which you dismissed due to it being from Tumblr. I then started the thread and posted a large amount of other examples.
Let me emphasise Parsifal's post, since it's crucial to your misunderstanding here: we all agree that the original ideas of feminism are not authoritarian. We're talking about the actual people who represent the movement, not the ideology as it's written down on paper.
That said, I'm glad that classify the likes of Watson, Valenti and Holman are extremists.
I guess my answer to you is: if we're defining feminism as only being the authoritarian sects of feminism, then yes. Feminism is authoritarian.
Again: I'm defining mainstream feminism as feminism with prominence in the mainstream. If you'd like to show me alternative examples, I'll happily consider them. Talking about hypothetical constructs is completely pointless here. Show me some articles. Show me recent, prominent feminists with considerable public exposure who do not subscribe to authoritarian views.
Given how open-minded you are talking to feminists right now, at this very moment, I don't deny that you've done it but I somehow suspect your mind was made up before you entered the conversation.
You're welcome to assume whatever you want. If you choose to judge me by the tone of my words while ignoring their merit, to misrepresent said words, or to value words over actions, that's entirely your choice. I can't say I'm surprised, given that these sort of strategies are commonly used by authoritarian ideologues.
-
As for the OP, the only thing I really have to say is that simply being a feminist is no barrier to being dumb or having dumb ideas. I don't feel the need to treat any of them as somehow being representative of my own beliefs, nor that the movement itself has somehow been co-opted or corrupted. Dumb people gonna dumb. Let them. The marketplace of ideas will separate the worthwhile ones from the crap.
A fair stance, even if one I disagree with. While I agree that, in theory, ideas should operate under a free-market model, this is practically impossible with the current state of our media and politics. With so many ridiculous laws being passed worldwide, I don't think you can really argue that good ideas magically separate themselves from the shit ones.
-
Mainstream feminism isn't that far off from tumblr feminism, actually. We're starting to see all kinds of non-normal groups using it as a platform to try and gain validity.
I remember I was at a friend's house once and he texted me saying he was coming home with a girl. My first thought was that he had met someone to get it on with, since that's usually how things work. But then my friend came in, and there, standing next to him, was a person who was as male as can be. He had a semi-full beard, a massive pot belly with a tuft of chest hair sticking out of his shirt, and a deep voice. I said "oh hey" in the stoniest of faces, and my friend then referred to his new friend as Natalie, or something like that. Then he said to me, "We're gonna play some Xbox. She wants to play the new Mass Effect".
This is the world we live in.
-
ITT: Cishet white males discuss feminism.
-
>het
I am offended, and that makes you wrong.
-
Both the strength and weakness of feminism is the anger within it. On one hand, that gives it the energy and drive to force change, on the other hand, it can sometimes generate more heat than light and will tend to amplify unreasonable voices.
Also, it must be noted that the mainstream media will always prefer to give a platform to the most provocative, strident and blustering voices whilst the reasonable majority go relatively unknown.
As it happens, I identify with feminism because there are problems with society which are predicated on women or femininity in general being considered 'lesser' than masculine traits (For instance, there are plenty of parents who are proud to say that their daughter doesn't care for pink and dolls and prefers playing with monster trucks and action-figures, but there are far fewer parents who would be happy with their son combing the hair of his Barbie doll.)
-
Agreed, but if you're going to demand it of me, you should be ready to provide the same.
How is askign you to prove that women do kill men out of hatred for men askign you to prove a negative? At all?
Ah, so you're asking specifically about cases like Elliot Rodger. Okay, I readily have one to your multitude (two). I'll call that close enough to even. Here are a couple more which didn't happen over "personal grievances", too...
I assumed you could pay attention to context. I apologize. I also thought you were aware that misogyny existed. Apparently not. Saddam gave further examples, anyway: the poin tis just that hatred of women is actually a motive, while hatred of men?
You gave two examples, and I have no idea whatsoever how any compare. The thrid is entitlement, but no reason to see hatred of men, and the first two are exactly personal grievances, so...
Sorry, that's not what you're doing. You're responding with "Oh, yeah, of course, heh heh, feminism has that too..." whenever an issue that doesn't fit within the (academic) definition of "feminism" is brought up to you.
What, exactly, do you think feminism is? You seem to be of the opinion that it's something other than wanting men and women to be treated and viewed with equal value.
Right, except I'm complaining about the only types of feminism which do stand a chance at having some impact. Political and academic - the two most authoritarian and warped types. Didn't you say something about paying attention to context just now?
Except, note that you're specifying "Stand a chance." Are you paying attention to context? If it was a given that it was going to make a huge change, you wouldn't need to specify that.
Feminism is the same as literally every movement that has ever occurred. The loudest, angriest people are those you hear the most. The initial reaction is dislike because it goes against what you're assumed is/should be the norm. It does ot immediately have any ability to make a series impact no matter how widely it's heard. Each wave starts off with anger because seriously, if people are facing oppression, they have no need or desire to be gentle with dealing with it.
The only way it could be authoritarian would be if it had enough of a substantial influence to actively limit certain actions. Instead, what we get is complaints after something major takes place, often with little overall effect. To be authoritarian, it actually needs to have power: and what you're referring to as mainstream feminism typically does not have that, especially not compared to its opposite.
-
How is askign you to prove that women do kill men out of hatred for men askign you to prove a negative? At all?
Well, gee, mister, let's have a look-see.
I said "they're not isolated incidents". You said "prove it". Where, oh where is the negative? Hmm.
Also, I don't understand why you insist so hard on shifting the goalpost towards killing men out of misandry. It's almost as if you thought it can't manifest itself in other ways (encouraging others to fabricate rape statistics, systematically fighting the establishment of male domestic abuse victim shelters, vocally advocating for men to have harsher jail sentences than women, or assaults which don't quite lead to death). You seem to assume that the only options here are "women harm men exactly in the same way!" or "we can assume women are just joking about harming men, since that would never happen!", entirely ignoring the fact that the reality will actually be somewhere in a spectrum between the two.
I assumed you could pay attention to context. I apologize. I also thought you were aware that misogyny existed. Apparently not. Saddam gave further examples, anyway: the poin tis just that hatred of women is actually a motive, while hatred of men?
I'm not exactly sure how you can conclude that. Most of the cases I presented don't have a motive stated, and you seem to automatically file them under "personal grievances". It's poor form, to say the least.
What, exactly, do you think feminism is? You seem to be of the opinion that it's something other than wanting men and women to be treated and viewed with equal value.
The academic definition of feminism usually goes along the lines of "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."[1 (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism)]
Except, note that you're specifying "Stand a chance." Are you paying attention to context? If it was a given that it was going to make a huge change, you wouldn't need to specify that.
...what? I can't even guess what you're trying to say here. Who the fuck are you to determine which words I would and wouldn't use depending on the current situation? Anyway, what a silly claim to make. Feminism is already making a huge change. That's what started this discussion. Did you even read the thread that prompted me to start this one? ("w0w I assumed you can pay attention to context!").
Here are a few examples of recent changes that feminism caused which are authoritarian in nature:
- Compulsory gender quotas
- Gender-specific (female-only) internships in STEM fields
- The wonderful divide between female domestic abuse hotlines and male domestic abuse hotlines. Example:
(http://i.imgur.com/NgqKJ3Y.png)
Feminism is the same as literally every movement that has ever occurred. The loudest, angriest people are those you hear the most. The initial reaction is dislike because it goes against what you're assumed is/should be the norm.
"Initial reaction". Hoo boy, your assumptions are showing. I won't let you drag this discussion down to ad hominems.
It does ot immediately have any ability to make a series impact no matter how widely it's heard.
Right, I guess we'll just ignore facts and current events. That's one way to do it.
Each wave starts off with anger because seriously, if people are facing oppression, they have no need or desire to be gentle with dealing with it.
Please substantiate the claim that women are "facing oppression". Before you do so, please define "oppression".
The only way it could be authoritarian would be if it had enough of a substantial influence to actively limit certain actions. Instead, what we get is complaints after something major takes place, often with little overall effect. To be authoritarian, it actually needs to have power: and what you're referring to as mainstream feminism typically does not have that, especially not compared to its opposite.
Authoritarian views do not require you to currently be the authority. It's just a question of where you stand on the obedience vs freedom spectrum, and mainstream feminists sure as heck are not advocating for personal freedoms. You'd think you'd at least look up the word before trying to argue the subject.
As it happens, I identify with feminism because there are problems with society which are predicated on women or femininity in general being considered 'lesser' than masculine traits (For instance, there are plenty of parents who are proud to say that their daughter doesn't care for pink and dolls and prefers playing with monster trucks and action-figures, but there are far fewer parents who would be happy with their son combing the hair of his Barbie doll.)
Would you say that these problems are "greater" than those which discriminate against men or masculinity? For example, the stereotypical expectations of boys in school leading to their overall worse performance? [2 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9862473/Boys-worse-at-school-due-to-stereotypes.html)]
Personally, I don't think we need to make these comparisons at all. We need to address issues where and when they appear. Because of that, I can't identify with a one-sided movement.
-
The problems facing men and boys are largely the after-effects of the treatment of women and femininity in society. Men wouldn't have the problems they currently do seeking help for things like rape or domestic violence if not for the overall cultural assumption that women are weak and incapable, and that men are inherently stronger and dominant over them in every way. It's not a "one-sided movement," just one that goes to the root of the problem.
-
I also just don't think that a smattering of opinion columns from a narrowly restrained set of sources is very convincing evidence that the idea you say is endemic is indeed endemic. It's just some opinion articles produced by firms that have a negative incentive to write about people being reasonable. "Reasonable Feminist Holds Exceedingly Reasonable Beliefs" just isn't ever going to be written by a news outlet.
I take a massive issue with you considering my set of sources to be narrowly restrained. I deliberately provided a cross-section of sources from all sides of the discussion and several countries. I deliberately chose to not restrict myself to either opinion pieces or news stories. It baffles me that you'd suggest that TIME, the Guardian, and the Telegraph have a "negative incentive to write about people being reasonable", given that them writing about people being reasonable and having level-headed discussions about things is the majority of their opinion pieces altogether. I don't really know what else I could say. Given our past discussions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not doing this out of dishonesty, but I must say that I'm baffled.
lol how magnanimous of you.1 This is simply an instance of brevity intersecting poor word choice. I think your set of articles is narrowly restrained because it's a tiny and non-random sample of the population of feminist thought. There is not very much diversity of source material. 26% of the links in the OP come the Guardian alone. The rest are also news/opinion sources. You don't consider academic works, literature, public policy research and writing, art, polling data, etc. I'm sure you would agree that the population of feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership.
Using TIME as an example, I did a search of their opinion pieces for the term "feminism." Sorted by relevance, here are a bunch of headlines that come up:
Sorry, Camille Paglia: Feminism Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Men
Flawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé
Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be
How Feminism Begat Intensive Mothering
Let’s Face It: Michelle Obama Is a Feminist Cop Out
All of the opinion pieces definitely have the quality of generating interest through forceful opinions on controversial topics, not meek thoughts on topics of general agreement. That's what I mean about sample bias/selection bias/constrained sources. I don't think a handful of opinion pieces represents an adequate sample of the population of feminist thought (or people who call themselves feminists).
But the biggest selection bias is in the literal selection of articles. Looking at the TIME search of "feminism," I'm seeing lots of opinion pieces that take the view that feminism is authoritarian/unnecessary/whathaveyou. The OP is, literally, a list of opinion pieces that support your argument culled from a larger list of opinion pieces with many that don't.
Another good example of this is the first link in the OP about white emojis. You have to take at face value that she's being completely genuine and not just trying to advocate an intentionally controversial position because that gets more readers. She doesn't have to be making it up, just sensationalizing it. For instance, maybe she is of the totally reasonable opinion that if more white people voluntarily chose to represent themselves with black emoji, then it would be beneficial to their overall outlook on whatever blah blah. Nothing authoritarian about that. But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?
Is the underlying argument of the OP closer to "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted," or "Feminism is inherently authoritarian and should rejected entirely"?
I specifically used the term "mainstream feminism" to avoid this doubt. There exist some feminists who are pretty cool. They're currently not in the mainstream. As such, the underlying argument is "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted, are not resisted, and they're currently the dominant faction within the 'progressive' movement".
Whether or not it's mainstream is what's at issue. I'm still not seeing good evidence that what you're describing is the mainstream opinion among people who call themselves feminists. You've established beyond a doubt that such radicals exist, but not that their ideology is dominant.
I also take issue with your use of the word 'authoritarian.' Most of the opinion pieces you posted describe private actors and private actions. Only a couple of them are even about matters of public policy. Emma Watson tweeting things you think are annoying isn't authoritarianism.
1Ok for real you do the exact same thing all the time. I'll give you an example from the OP: the article from Thought Catalog is obviously satire. Like really really obviously satire. It's actually making fun of Bahar Mustafa. And yet you chose to use it as an example as a genuine belief. Why? Because you are.....intellectually dishonest?!?!?!?! *gasp*. No. It's probably just that it's really terrible satire, and it would be easy to think that it was genuine if you just read the headline/nut graph and moved on.
-
Mainstream feminism isn't that far off from tumblr feminism, actually. We're starting to see all kinds of non-normal groups using it as a platform to try and gain validity.
I remember I was at a friend's house once and he texted me saying he was coming home with a girl. My first thought was that he had met someone to get it on with, since that's usually how things work. But then my friend came in, and there, standing next to him, was a person who was as male as can be. He had a semi-full beard, a massive pot belly with a tuft of chest hair sticking out of his shirt, and a deep voice. I said "oh hey" in the stoniest of faces, and my friend then referred to his new friend as Natalie, or something like that. Then he said to me, "We're gonna play some Xbox. She wants to play the new Mass Effect".
This is the world we live in.
Sorry to break this to you, but your friend is a homosexual with some type of severe brain injury.
-
Would you say that these problems are "greater" than those which discriminate against men or masculinity? For example, the stereotypical expectations of boys in school leading to their overall worse performance? [2
That's precisely what I'm talking about. We teach boys that showing emotion is un-manly, that asking for help is 'weak,' that if they're facing problems they should just 'man up,' that if you're physically weak in any area then you "[throw/kick/punch/drive/whatever] like a girl." We applaud girls who go into traditionally masculine roles, but we mock and deride men who go into traditionally female roles. This expectation on men to be masculine results in violence, substance abuse, and suicide when they can't live up to these ideals.
Part of feminism is about saying that there's nothing weak about being a woman, that femininity isn't lesser than masculinity. A feminist movement that lets women into work accepts stay-at-home dads and house-husbands, it accepts women who "wear the trousers in a relationship."
-
lol how magnanimous of you.1
Okay. I guess that's that for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're obviously not interested in that.
1Ok for real you do the exact same thing all the time. I'll give you an example from the OP: the article from Thought Catalog is obviously satire. Like really really obviously satire. It's actually making fun of Bahar Mustafa. And yet you chose to use it as an example as a genuine belief. Why? Because you are.....intellectually dishonest?!?!?!?! *gasp*. No. It's probably just that it's really terrible satire, and it would be easy to think that it was genuine if you just read the headline/nut graph and moved on.
The Thought Catalog article is indeed satirical, but that doesn't make it less relevant in any way. It illustrates the point I'm trying to make rather well. You seem to grill me for restricting my set of examples too strongly while simultaneously advocating that I restrict it more. Could you please choose one façade to hide behind and stick to it?
This is simply an instance of brevity intersecting poor word choice. I think your set of articles is narrowly restrained because it's a tiny and non-random sample of the population of feminist thought.
Of course it's non-random. As specified previously, I'm targeting a specific sub-group of feminists. If you think it's 2small4u, I can happily keep posting links.
There is not very much diversity of source material. 26% of the links in the OP come the Guardian alone.
And most of them come from independent contributors who don't have a long-standing connection with the Guardian. Your point? How does the choice of platform affect the validity and diversity of their claims?
Also, part of the reason I chose the Guardian as one of my more prominent examples is because it's a feminist source. I thought it would be better to take the mainstream feminists' word for what mainstream feminism is instead of linking you to a bunch of Daily Mail articles. I'm happy to diversify it even more if that's what you're after.
The rest are also news/opinion sources. You don't consider academic works, literature, public policy research and writing, art, polling data, etc.
Yes, I don't consider things which are out of scope for this discussion. If you'd like to bring them in, please, provide examples. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but shouting in my ear about how I'm terrible and wrong won't do that. Show me the evidence you'd like me to see. Show, don't tell.
I'm sure you would agree that the population of feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership.
Yes, hence my continuous insistence on differentiating between mainstream feminism (or your Tea Party) and feminism as a whole (or libertarians as a whole). No matter how hard you try to ignore it, I'll keep correcting you on that.
Using TIME as an example, I did a search of their opinion pieces for the term "feminism." Sorted by relevance, here are a bunch of headlines that come up:
Sorry, Camille Paglia: Feminism Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Men
Flawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé
Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be
How Feminism Begat Intensive Mothering
Let’s Face It: Michelle Obama Is a Feminist Cop Out
Yes, it's a very diverse set of opinions about one subject. I'd count that as an asset rather than a negative factor. From my view, a platform that's willing to discuss all points of view is far superior to an echo chamber.
All of the opinion pieces definitely have the quality of generating interest through forceful opinions on controversial topics, not meek thoughts on topics of general agreement. That's what I mean about sample bias/selection bias/constrained sources.
Could you name some examples of those "meek thoughts or topics of general agreement"?
I don't think a handful of opinion pieces represents an adequate sample of the population of feminist thought (or people who call themselves feminists).
Mainstream feminists - those with an actual impact on the political debate. But okay, if this is not an adequate sample, then what is? Again, show me the evidence you'd like me to see, don't just whine about it.
But the biggest selection bias is in the literal selection of articles. Looking at the TIME search of "feminism," I'm seeing lots of opinion pieces that take the view that feminism is authoritarian/unnecessary/whathaveyou. The OP is, literally, a list of opinion pieces that support your argument culled from a larger list of opinion pieces with many that don't.
Right, it seems that you misunderstood my intent. These opinion pieces aren't about feminism. They're opinion pieces by feminists about what should be done. They're not authoritarian because they said "we're (not) authoritarian", but because they directly and explicitly propose or engage in actions which are authoritarian.
Articles where feminists talk about how feminism is great are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What actually matters here is their actions, not words. What they advocate for and what they do is what will ultimately determine how outsiders see them.
Another good example of this is the first link in the OP about white emojis. You have to take at face value that she's being completely genuine and not just trying to advocate an intentionally controversial position because that gets more readers. She doesn't have to be making it up, just sensationalizing it. For instance, maybe she is of the totally reasonable opinion that if more white people voluntarily chose to represent themselves with black emoji, then it would be beneficial to their overall outlook on whatever blah blah. Nothing authoritarian about that. But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?
I agree that modern media have a lot of problems of their own. Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to believe that they're suddenly not serious about this when they were serious about things like: giving money to women in academia because they're women, offering preferential entry requirements to women willing to enter academia, or institutionalising the relevance of one's genitals when being elected to positions. With that precedent in place: yes, it's possible that everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or a provocation. It's just very unlikely when you consider reality.
Whether or not it's mainstream is what's at issue. I'm still not seeing good evidence that what you're describing is the mainstream opinion among people who call themselves feminists. You've established beyond a doubt that such radicals exist, but not that their ideology is dominant.
Okay, that's fine. If you have a counter-argument, please present it. I asked multiple times now to be shown this "other" feminism. I'm really eager to see it, because if it does exist, I might get involved again. If you think expecting to be able to see this "other" feminism is an unfair expectation, could you please explain why that is? How can I believe in something if I can't experience it?
I also take issue with your use of the word 'authoritarian.' Most of the opinion pieces you posted describe private actors and private actions. Only a couple of them are even about matters of public policy.
That's entirely irrelevant. A person can express left-wing or right-wing views without discussing public policy. A person can also express libertarian or authoritarian views without discussing public policy.
Emma Watson tweeting things you think are annoying isn't authoritarianism.
I didn't know the United Nations is now Twitter. But yes, her expressing authoritarian views on Twitter (I don't know if she did - you seem to be of the opinion that she did) would imply that she holds authoritarian views. Either that or she's part of your "literally everyone is joking!" dream.
-
That's precisely what I'm talking about. We teach boys that showing emotion is un-manly, that asking for help is 'weak,' that if they're facing problems they should just 'man up,' that if you're physically weak in any area then you "[throw/kick/punch/drive/whatever] like a girl." We applaud girls who go into traditionally masculine roles, but we mock and deride men who go into traditionally female roles. This expectation on men to be masculine results in violence, substance abuse, and suicide when they can't live up to these ideals.
That's not what the article I linked to is talking about. This is talking about boys being told over and over again that they're dumber than girls, which eventually leads to them performing worse since they stop trying to compete.
Part of feminism is about saying that there's nothing weak about being a woman, that femininity isn't lesser than masculinity. A feminist movement that lets women into work accepts stay-at-home dads and house-husbands, it accepts women who "wear the trousers in a relationship."
That's all cool, but it has nothing to do with the boys' issue I asked about. Really, I'm quite happy about the good parts of feminism. It's great that at least some of the inequalities between genders are being looked at. It's just that it's so extremely one-sided. Your response exemplifies that well.
-
That's all cool, but it has nothing to do with the boys' issue I asked about
You asked whether feminist issues were "greater" than those which discriminate against men or masculinity?"
My argument was that they're two sides o the same coin. A lot of the problems with men could be alleviated, if not solved entirely, by ditching this idea that men must always be seen to be 'strong' and hypermasculine.
As for the specific example of boys' education in that Torygraph article, it mentions that "In the first stage of the study researchers presented 238 boys and girls aged four to 10 with a range of scenarios related to behaviour or performance, such as “this child really wants to learn and do well at school”. " but we're not told what the other scenarios were (nor does it give us a means to find the study.) I'll bet my bottom dollar that some of the other scenarios were along the lines of 'this child wants to be sporty', 'this child wants to be artistic', 'this child wants to be naughty' it would be interesting to see whether those expectations also fell along traditional gender lines.
-
My argument was that they're two sides o the same coin. A lot of the problems with men could be alleviated, if not solved entirely, by ditching this idea that men must always be seen to be 'strong' and hypermasculine.
Agreed, but that's such a small part of it.
As for the specific example of boys' education in that Torygraph article, it mentions that "In the first stage of the study researchers presented 238 boys and girls aged four to 10 with a range of scenarios related to behaviour or performance, such as “this child really wants to learn and do well at school”. " but we're not told what the other scenarios were (nor does it give us a means to find the study.) I'll bet my bottom dollar that some of the other scenarios were along the lines of 'this child wants to be sporty', 'this child wants to be artistic', 'this child wants to be naughty' it would be interesting to see whether those expectations also fell along traditional gender lines.
Instead of answering my question of whether or not the issue is "less" important, you went out of your way to do your best to dismiss it. This answers my question better than any "yes" ever could.
-
Because I don't accept the premise of the question. It isn't 'more' or 'less'important, they're two facets of the same problem - gender inequality and rigid gender roles that feminism tries to tackle.
-
Because I don't accept the premise of the question. It isn't 'more' or 'less'important, they're two facets of the same problem - gender inequality and rigid gender roles that feminism tries to tackle.
You don't accept the premise of the questions and yet you restate the premise as your actual belief right after saying that...
Are you sure you read my post before replying?
-
You asked which is more important, feminist issues or those which discriminate against masculinity. I answered that I don't accept either is more important because they're not separate issues.
If I've misunderstood your question, perhaps you'd better rephrase it because clearly I can't understand it in its current form. I make no comment about whether that's down to your inability to communicate it effectively or my stupidity.
-
I'll add my two cents.
I don't think feminism as an idea is authoritarian.
But I do think this SJW PC movement in general is pretty authoritarian. It's all part of a larger problem where people think that the way to correct social injustices is by forcing others how to behave, think, and talk. But I also think this might just be a natural swaying effect where in order to correct past injustices, the progressives have to be extreme and vocal. I hope it evens out eventually, because all this is really doing is creating a more divisive environment.
-
Okay. I guess that's that for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're obviously not interested in that.
The Thought Catalog article is indeed satirical, but that doesn't make it less relevant in any way. It illustrates the point I'm trying to make rather well. You seem to grill me for restricting my set of examples too strongly while simultaneously advocating that I restrict it more. Could you please choose one façade to hide behind and stick to it?
You included the satire piece in a list with the heading, "Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian." That is it in fact satire seems pretty relevant since this particular piece is a satire piece mocking "social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian." How does a piece that is intended to satirize and mock Bahar Mustafa and her ideology support your claim that Mustafa's brand of feminism is the mainstream view?
Of course it's non-random. As specified previously, I'm targeting a specific sub-group of feminists. If you think it's 2small4u, I can happily keep posting links.
And most of them come from independent contributors who don't have a long-standing connection with the Guardian. Your point? How does the choice of platform affect the validity and diversity of their claims?
Also, part of the reason I chose the Guardian as one of my more prominent examples is because it's a feminist source. I thought it would be better to take the mainstream feminists' word for what mainstream feminism is instead of linking you to a bunch of Daily Mail articles. I'm happy to diversify it even more if that's what you're after.
Yes, I don't consider things which are out of scope for this discussion. If you'd like to bring them in, please, provide examples. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but shouting in my ear about how I'm terrible and wrong won't do that. Show me the evidence you'd like me to see. Show, don't tell.
Yes, hence my continuous insistence on differentiating between mainstream feminism (or your Tea Party) and feminism as a whole (or libertarians as a whole). No matter how hard you try to ignore it, I'll keep correcting you on that.
Mainstream feminists - those with an actual impact on the political debate. But okay, if this is not an adequate sample, then what is? Again, show me the evidence you'd like me to see, don't just whine about it.
I agree that modern media have a lot of problems of their own. Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to believe that they're suddenly not serious about this when they were serious about things like: giving money to women in academia because they're women, offering preferential entry requirements to women willing to enter academia, or institutionalising the relevance of one's genitals when being elected to positions. With that precedent in place: yes, it's possible that everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or a provocation. It's just very unlikely when you consider reality.
I should have been clearer and said that the population of mainstream feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership. My point is that I think it extends far beyond the readership of news and opinion outlets. News and opinion outlets don't accurately summarize the beliefs of the population of feminists who have influence or leverage over culture and public policy, like those writing literature, making laws, lobbying, creating art, publishing journals, composing songs, etc.
As you described, you're advancing the argument that, "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted, are not resisted, and they're currently the dominant faction within the 'progressive' movement." I'm expressing skepticism of your methodology. I think it's important to consider a much wider diversity of sources beyond news/opinion because I think news outlets are neither especially representative of the people with political leverage who identify with the 'progressive' movement.
I didn't suggest that "everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or provocation." I suggested that, in general, news outlets have a positive incentive to publish things that attract attention and readership. To me that makes it a necessarily inaccurate representation of the opinions of even its own opinion writers. Like all media personalities, opinions writers have a positive incentive to exaggerate their opinions, and news outlets have a positive incentive to hire people who do that naturally/well.
Yes, it's a very diverse set of opinions about one subject. I'd count that as an asset rather than a negative factor. From my view, a platform that's willing to discuss all points of view is far superior to an echo chamber.
Could you name some examples of those "meek thoughts or topics of general agreement"?
I already have: "But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?" An example of the 'literally anything else' could be, "Using Black Emoji Could Be Beneficial." It just wouldn't surprise me at all that someone whose job depends on readership would express the former opinion while genuinely believing the latter.
I didn't suggest that there was anything 'negative' about the diversity of opinions published by TIME. I was offering its diversity of opinions as a demonstration that TIME, for instance, publishes many opinions about feminism (and by feminists), and only a small number of them expresses "authoritarianism." Only selecting the ones that do and ignoring the many counter-examples is a selection bias.
Right, it seems that you misunderstood my intent. These opinion pieces aren't about feminism. They're opinion pieces by feminists about what should be done. They're not authoritarian because they said "we're (not) authoritarian", but because they directly and explicitly propose or engage in actions which are authoritarian. Articles where feminists talk about how feminism is great are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What actually matters here is their actions, not words. What they advocate for and what they do is what will ultimately determine how outsiders see them.
A person can express left-wing or right-wing views without discussing public policy. A person can also express libertarian or authoritarian views without discussing public policy.
We definitely have a big disagreement over what authoritarianism is. I don't think private actors can be authoritarian (towards one another, that is). Surely they can support authoritarian action by the state, but expressing opinions about voluntary actions by private folks isn't what I understand as authoritarianism. To keep using the emoji example, advocating a legal ban on white emoji would be an authoritarian position. Advocating that people stop using white emoji, or even advocating that emoji makers (is that a thing?) stop making them, isn't an authoritarian position to me. Any advocacy that people act or be or think a certain way isn't authoritarianism to me unless you're advocating the use of force against them.
I don't think libertarianism or authoritarianism make much sense outside of the context of state action.
-
You included the satire piece in a list with the heading, "Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian." That is it in fact satire seems pretty relevant since this particular piece is a satire piece mocking "social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian." How does a piece that is intended to satirize and mock Bahar Mustafa and her ideology support your claim that Mustafa's brand of feminism is the mainstream view?
Ah, I see, I accidentally put it in the wrong list. Fair enough. I'll fix that.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Only selecting the ones that do and ignoring the many counter-examples is a selection bias.
Show, don't tell. Show me those non-authoritarian opinion pieces (or whatever else you think is relevant here) by feminists. Give me links. Don't talk about how they totally exist or about how you totally already showed them to me. Just give me the links. Show. Don't tell. To clarify: I'd like to be shown and not told. I'd like to see the evidence rather than be told that it certainly exists. For the avoidance of doubt: my request here is that you show me some evidence rather than talk about how it exists.
We definitely have a big disagreement over what authoritarianism is. I don't think private actors can be authoritarian (towards one another, that is).
Yes, we clearly do have a disagreement here. I'm going with the definition of the word as described by Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster. You're trying to use something else which is currently unspecified.
For convenience, the definitions I'm referencing are as follows:
1. Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:
the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime
1.1 Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial:
he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner
: expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws
: not allowing personal freedom
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
demanding that people obey completely and refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish:
an authoritarian regime/government/ruler
His manner is extremely authoritarian.
In particular, our disagreement appears to stem from the fact that you (needlessly, in my view) restrict the definition of authoritarian beliefs to require an underlying regime and/or the need for enforcement of authority. The words doesn't necessarily mean that, and any belief that others should submit to a particular group's views are generally authoritarian regardless of their power to actually realise those beliefs.
Surely they can support authoritarian action by the state, but expressing opinions about voluntary actions by private folks isn't what I understand as authoritarianism. To keep using the emoji example, advocating a legal ban on white emoji would be an authoritarian position. Advocating that people stop using white emoji, or even advocating that emoji makers (is that a thing?) stop making them, isn't an authoritarian position to me. Any advocacy that people act or be or think a certain way isn't authoritarianism to me unless you're advocating the use of force against them.
I do believe you're misusing the word here, but at least now I understand why you'd disagree with my assessment.
I don't think libertarianism or authoritarianism make much sense outside of the context of state action.
Well, again, the definitions of "libertarian" from the three dictionaries I picked1 include things like "someone who believes that people should have complete freedom of thought and action", and "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action". It's entirely your prerogative to choose which meanings of words you'll acknowledge and/or use, but it's probably worth knowing that many will use these words differently to you.
1 - before you accuse me of selective bias or what-not again: I picked the three dictionaries that I consider to be the most reputable. I did also have a quick glance at Collins, thefreedictionary.com and dictionary.com and found them more or less in agreement with what I'm saying, but I didn't think they're quite as worthy of bringing up at length because they're generally less used. I'm sure if you look hard enough you might find a dictionary that does disagree with me, but I failed to produce one. As such, I'm not claiming that this is proof of a consensus, but it is at the very least some fairly strong evidence.
-
I'm going with the definition of the word as described by Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster. You're trying to use something else which is currently unspecified.
In particular, our disagreement appears to stem from the fact that you (needlessly, in my view) restrict the definition of authoritarian beliefs to require an underlying regime and/or the need for enforcement of authority. The words doesn't necessarily mean that, and any belief that others should submit to a particular group's views are generally authoritarian regardless of their power to actually realise those beliefs.
I do believe you're misusing the word here, but at least now I understand why you'd disagree with my assessment.
I would tend to agree with you in another context, like literature, where authoritarian can have a looser definition for the purposes of narrative and metaphor.1 In the context of public policy, however, I think your definition is much too broad to be of any practical use. If we don't include in the definition the use of force to achieve compliance of obedience to a viewpoint, then any and every "ought" claim is authoritarian by definition. All of ethics and all of public policy is authoritarian on your view because they all assert actions and behaviors that some or all people "should" do. I think it's important to be able to differentiate between "Actor x should (voluntarily) choose action y," and "Actor x should be forced to choose action y." I think that this distinction literally is the difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism. I think you've demonstrated more examples of libertarian feminism than authoritarianism.
Here are some examples of what I mean:
http://kotaku.com/stop-preordering-video-games-1713802537 This article expresses the belief that others (people who like preordering video games) should submit to his viewpoint of not preordering video games. And he's definitely aligning himself as a member of the group of people who decry early release/preorders/shitty video game sales practices/etc. "But when it comes down to it, preorders suck. They’re a shitty practice, and they exist not to serve you, but to serve the people who sell video games. Participating in a shitty practice helps propagate that shitty practice. So stop participating." Is this an authoritarian position?
When Parsifal tells me in IRC that I should ditch Windows and use OpenBSD, is he being authoritarian? He's a member of a group of opensource enthusiasts, and he's advocating that I (voluntarily) submit to their views about the benefits of its customization, security features, and unique learning opportunities. I don't know this for a fact, but I bet Parsifal would agree that his motivation for even bringing it up is that he thinks everyone (or everyone who can) should switch to OpenBSD for their OS because [reasons]. Not by force, obviously, but voluntarily. Doesn't that make a difference?
Going back to the emoji example: how is it authoritarian to advocate for private firms (the people who create emoji) to take a private, voluntary action (make all of them black)? Is such a position really indistinguishable to you from advocating that obedience to it should be mandatory?
Most importantly, your claim that "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted..." is then necessarily authoritarian according to your understanding of the word. Aren't you and other like-minded anti-mainstream-feminists of the belief that feminists should change their behavior according to your viewpoint? How is that not "[a] belief that others should submit to a particular group's views"?
: Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom: the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime
: Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial: he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner
: expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws
: not allowing personal freedom
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
: demanding that people obey completely and refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish: an authoritarian regime/government/ruler
You posted these as if they support your definition of "any belief that others should submit to a particular group's views are generally authoritarian regardless of their power to actually realise those beliefs." I don't think that they do. They all describe "obedience to authority," "requiring," "not allowing," "submission to authority," "power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people," "refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish." To me, advocating voluntary action does not meet those definitions. "Expecting...people to obey rules..." is the closest, but it's a secondary definition, and I think it has much more value as a description of personality than public policy. All public policy involves rules, and your definitions specifically distinguishes between authoritarian and democratic regimes of making rules.
Show, don't tell. Show me those non-authoritarian opinion pieces (or whatever else you think is relevant here) by feminists. Give me links. Don't talk about how they totally exist or about how you totally already showed them to me. Just give me the links. Show. Don't tell. To clarify: I'd like to be shown and not told. I'd like to see the evidence rather than be told that it certainly exists. For the avoidance of doubt: my request here is that you show me some evidence rather than talk about how it exists.
As I've said before, I'm arguing that you haven't proven yourself right in the first place. You're the one who posted the proposition. It's as if you posted a bag of marbles in the OP and declared that you're certain that there are precisely 73 marbles in the bag, and you're sure of it because you eyeballed it. I don't need to count the marbles myself to have good reason to be skeptical of your claim. The methodological flaw is enough to make your argument unpersuasive.
That said, I'll genuinely try and oblige. You remarked that The Guardian counts as a feminist source, so I'll go on that for now. I did a search of their opinion pieces for the word "feminism" and found the following headlines on the first page of results sorted by relevance:
"Feminism is for everyone – even men and Tories: The F-word describes anyone who believes men and women are equals. It’s a shame David Cameron doesn’t get it." (literally the number one result)
"Feminism is in danger of becoming toxic: Instead of worrying about the Rosetta scientist wearing an ‘offensive’ shirt, or Dapper Laughs, or Julien Blanc, we should be tackling the root causes of inequality."
"The biggest threat to feminism? It’s not just the patriarchy: Of course, we have to combat a power structure based on male supremacy. But more insidious is ‘choice feminism’ – applying the language of liberation to dating or makeup."
"Ten things feminism has ruined for me: Bras, bikes and Thomas the Tank Engine... Emer O’Toole mourns some of life’s simpler pleasures."
"Feminists don't care if you like hot pink, eat salads or shave your crotch: There is no grand feminist overlord policing women’s personal choices. But if you need to declare yourself a “hot feminist”, you might be stuck in the past."
"'Feminism lite' is letting down the women who need it the most: I’ve hesitated to write about gender, worried that I’ll be slammed for daring to speak out. But we all benefit from gender equality, and therefore must give feminism some tough love"
"When everyone is a feminist, is anyone?: It’s suddenly cool to be a feminist. But what does that mean for feminism as a movement?"
"Why do we never worry about men's childlessness and infertility?: Older dads are more likely to have children with mental health and developmental problems. Yet they rarely face the scare tactics women do."
This looks to me a solid list of opinions from a broad range of perspectives on, by, and about feminism. Some of it is critical. Some of it is praising. Some say feminism demands and costs too much. Some of it even says that feminism isn't demanding enough. The positions are nuanced and robust. They're far from identical. I have a hard time seeing the authoritarianism in these pieces, latent or otherwise.
To me, advocating social change via voluntary action and persuasion is a libertarian methodology toward problems. It's the opposite of authoritarian, at least so far as we have a definition of authoritarian that allows us to distinguish between figures like Vladimir Lenin and Martin Luther King Jr. They both advocated for a set rules. Only one of them was an authoritarian.
1If you genuinely mean to describe feminists as authoritarian in the narrative/personality descriptor/metaphorical sense (like describing someone's personality as "bossy," for instance), then we can certainly end the discussion on agreement. It's undoubtedly true that many feminist figures in popular news media have assertive personalities that could be described in this manner.