Feminists today: are they doing it wrong?

[Conserative Morality]

Didn't you hear, it's now our responsibility to drag everyone else into the 21st century. For some reason.

Did you miss the Enlightenment? Universal brotherhood of man and all that? Foundation of modern Western civilization?

[Olivaero]

They could certainly be doing better and present a more united front on certain issues. If a lot more feminists worked hard to distance themselves from mysandrists That'd probably help too. Understand I'm not saying they are responsible for what mysandrists say I'm saying it would help their public image if they did. Also if they stopped bickering with MRA's and worked to address some of their more reasonable concerns it would help. But I have a feeling a lot of them would see that as submitting to the patriarchy rather than working together like sensible adults.

Likewise, if left-wingers worked harder to distance themselves from communism and Stalin, it'd help. I'm not saying Stalinists are their fault, but they should be required to explicitly draw a line. What's the alternative? People concede that there are different kind of left-wingers, and most of them are perfectly reasonable? No, they're all communists, or something. The left wing has been tainted and now everyone must self-classify as part of the free-market capitalist libertarian region of socioeconomic policy. This makes perfect sense.

This is exactly what the left wing did in the UK... and won a election by a massive landslide.
EDIT: to clarify not to the absurd level you've taken it to but they realized that they weren't making head way against the conservative consensus so they changed up and disavowed the former more radical left.

[Narthakka]

Didn't you hear, it's now our responsibility to drag everyone else into the 21st century. For some reason.

Did you miss the Enlightenment? Universal brotherhood of man and all that? Foundation of modern Western civilization?

Universal brotherhood of man, has a nice ring to it. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Lordieth]

Feminism claims to be a movement that is pro-women's rights, but it's more and more becoming anti-men. I have nothing against the ideals of feminism, but the claims being made are vastly over-played, often misconstrued, and twisted into a form of "check your privilege". Often the issues raised are selfishly motivated, rather than in a group effort to eradicate genuine issues women uniquely face.

Then again, there are issues men face. Other ethnicities face. Even women in the middle-east, where there really is a massive equality gap, and yet this is never the focus of feminism.

I don't like feminism. I don't think you have to call yourself a feminist to want better things for your gender, however like Religion, you're going to get your faithful, your zealots, and your extremists. Feminism is no different.

[Dyakovo]

Feminism claims to be a movement that is pro-women's rights, but it's more and more becoming anti-men.

[Tubbsalot]

Likewise, if left-wingers worked harder to distance themselves from communism and Stalin, it'd help. I'm not saying Stalinists are their fault, but they should be required to explicitly draw a line. What's the alternative? People concede that there are different kind of left-wingers, and most of them are perfectly reasonable? No, they're all communists, or something. The left wing has been tainted and now everyone must self-classify as part of the free-market capitalist libertarian region of socioeconomic policy. This makes perfect sense.

This is exactly what the left wing did in the UK... and won a election by a massive landslide.

Sorry, are you agreeing with my idiotic hyperbole? Would you say that's how it should be?

(Leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what you're talking about, given the sorry state of the left in British politics right now - since it is, after all, largely irrelevant...)

[Narthakka]

Even women in the middle-east, where there really is a massive equality gap, and yet this is never the focus of feminism.

Funny how western feminists turn a blind eye to some atrocities.

[Tubbsalot]

Even women in the middle-east, where there really is a massive equality gap, and yet this is never the focus of feminism.

Funny how western feminists turn a blind eye to some atrocities.

I don't see you doing anything about the plight of the Ebola victims, or the civilians suffering in Gaza, or the poor living in slums in Brazil, or the population living in fear of extreme crime in Mexico. In fact you haven't even mentioned it, which is the least I would have thought you could do. Is it because you can't fight every battle in the world, and many of these issues can't really be resolved by a single person, or even a single movement? No. The only possible conclusion is that you hate these people.

[Dumb Ideologies]

(with the exception of some of the trendy gender-abolitionism queer hipsterism).

Whats wrong with Gender Abolitionism?

It is a position founded fundamentally on an un-nuanced and under-developed theory of what "gender" is. It is rooted in two particular sets of experiences depending on the version being articulated (confusingly, coming from the opposite sides making very different arguments) - either the experiences of a very small group of non-gender identified queer activists who privilege their own stories over those of everyone else or sex-essentialist feminists hostile to transgender and genderqueer identities.

Kate Bornstein is probably the best author to have explored this. Within gender there are a lot of different things: gender assignment, gender attribution, gender roles, gender identity, etc. The gender binary is coercive - and it's important to try and loosen gender assignment, attribution and roles to create the most tolerant society possible and reduce the penalties for identities that fall out of the standard "heterosexual matrix".

Gender identity is about personal identity and sense of self - seeking to "abolish" that is necessarily authoritarian and is hugely dismissive of the lived experiences of huge groups of people, cis, transgender and genderqueer. The error that some radical queer activists make is actually ironically very similar to those with unthinking cis-privilege - x isn't my experience, therefore x doesn't "really" exist and my identity is the only one that is valid.

Being "agender" is a valid position, but it isn't the only valid one - there's a huge spectrum and we should be fighting for greater acknowledgement and respct of these positions rather than trying to abolish the "idea of gender" and trying to erase people's deeply held identities. As well as disrespectful, that would be a hugely reactionary step as it would remove the means to criticize gendered discrimination and reinvigorate sex-essentialist ideas by removing the key vocabulary that's being used to challenge it.

[Olivaero]

This is exactly what the left wing did in the UK... and won a election by a massive landslide.

Sorry, are you agreeing with my idiotic hyperbole? Would you say that's how it should be?

(Leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what you're talking about, given the sorry state of the left in British politics right now - since it is, after all, largely irrelevant...)

Not to the level you've taken it but recognizing they were too far to the left to actually get anything done and moving towards the center was exactly the tactic that got them a massive victory and allowed them to push through several policy changes which improved the lives of the poor. I'm not saying it's how it should be but compromise is basically the way things get done. You can rant and rave about your principles and how the word bossy is unfair and such but society changes gradually no matter how compelling your logic. Disavowing the radicals and taking a more moderate stance with a view to actually getting things done is much more helpful to actual people.

[Lordieth]

Feminism claims to be a movement that is pro-women's rights, but it's more and more becoming anti-men.

If you disagree, then I'm more than happy to discuss it. Maybe I should have inserted a "outwardly" in there, because the majority of exposure feminism has is progressively becoming more negative. This isn't from criticism of genuine feminist-related issues, but a seemingly bigger increase in vitriol and spite.

Unless you think it's a global media and internet conspiracy.

[Narthakka]

I don't see you doing anything about the plight of the Ebola victims, or the civilians suffering in Gaza, or the poor living in slums in Brazil, or the population living in fear of extreme crime in Mexico. In fact you haven't even mentioned it, which is the least I would have thought you could do. Is it because you can't fight every battle in the world, and many of these issues can't really be resolved by a single person, or even a single movement? No. The only possible conclusion is that you hate these people.

Is this more of your idiotic hyperbole you mentioned earlier?

[Lordieth]

Funny how western feminists turn a blind eye to some atrocities.

I don't see you doing anything about the plight of the Ebola victims, or the civilians suffering in Gaza, or the poor living in slums in Brazil, or the population living in fear of extreme crime in Mexico. In fact you haven't even mentioned it, which is the least I would have thought you could do. Is it because you can't fight every battle in the world, and many of these issues can't really be resolved by a single person, or even a single movement? No. The only possible conclusion is that you hate these people.

Narthakka, as far as I'm aware, isn't claiming to be part of a movement dedicating to eradicating poverty and pestilence. If he/she was, and only concentrating on the plights of the western world, then you could accuse him/her of hypocrisy.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I really enjoyed this article by Robert Webb in the New Statesman about men talking up about feminism.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/robert-webb-roll-roll-see-man-talking-about-feminism-what-could-possibly-go-wrong

[Olivaero]

Whats wrong with Gender Abolitionism?

It is a position founded fundamentally on an un-nuanced and under-developed theory of what "gender" is. It is rooted in two particular sets of experiences depending on the version being articulated (confusingly, coming from the opposite sides making very different arguments) - either the experiences of a very small group of non-gender identified queer activists who privilege their own stories over those of everyone else or sex-essentialist feminists hostile to transgender and genderqueer identities.

Kate Bornstein is probably the best author to have explored this. Within gender there are a lot of different things: gender assignment, gender attribution, gender roles, gender identity, etc. The gender binary is coercive - and it's important to try and loosen gender assignment, attribution and roles to create the most tolerant society possible and reduce the penalties for identities that fall out of the standard "heterosexual matrix".

Gender identity is about personal identity and sense of self - seeking to "abolish" that is necessarily authoritarian and is hugely dismissive of the lived experiences of huge groups of people, cis, transgender and genderqueer. The error that some radical queer activists make is actually ironically very similar to those with unthinking cis-privilege - x isn't my experience, therefore x doesn't "really" exist and my identity is the only one that is valid.

Being "agender" is a valid position, but it isn't the only valid one - there's a huge spectrum and we should be fighting for greater acknowledgement and respct of these positions rather than trying to abolish the "idea of gender" and trying to erase people's deeply held identities. As well as disrespectful, that would be a hugely reactionary step as it would remove the means to criticize gendered discrimination and reinvigorate sex-essentialist ideas by removing the key vocabulary that's being used to challenge it.

The way I understood Gender Abolitionism, or at least the type I espouse is abolishing it from society leaving the inside of peoples head untouched I mean I myself have gender but I probably belong in the first of your categories. So would you essentially agree with getting rid of the idea of gender from society?

[Narthakka]

Narthakka, as far as I'm aware, isn't claiming to be part of a movement dedicating to eradicating poverty and pestilence. If he/she was, and only concentrating on the plights of the western world, then you could accuse him/her of hypocrisy.

He knows this. He's just twisting my words around, either unknowingly or not.

[Sklavinia]

The vocal point of the modern Feminist movement has been hijacked by Misandrists masquerading as Feminists, and pretending to believe in "equal rights" while systematically claiming women are "being oppressed by the male, misogynist, patriarchy" and believe men are all sexists who objectify them and see them as sex objects while having a "tendency to rape". These women, who claim that the world is some oppressive patriarchy, and that men are all perverted rapists who do nothing but objectify them, are nothing but sexists in themselves and are often times given the attention they crave by the media, sometimes leading to them getting their misguided way, as people refuse to call them out on their own sexist views for fear of being labelled a sexist themselves. They're nothing but man-haters who want to establish a global matriarchy where women are treated better than men. They're Feminazis and they are responsible for the modern Feminist movement becoming ridiculed and believed to be nothing but man-hatred disguised as civil rights, leading the entire movement to be discredited.

The word Feminist itself has become a negative word. The best thing any real Feminists left who haven't been tainted by the man-haters could do is call themselves gender egalitarians instead.

[Tubbsalot]

Sorry, are you agreeing with my idiotic hyperbole? Would you say that's how it should be?

Not to the level you've taken it but recognizing they were too far to the left to actually get anything done and moving towards the center was exactly the tactic that got them a massive victory and allowed them to push through several policy changes which improved the lives of the poor. I'm not saying it's how it should be but compromise is basically the way things get done. You can rant and rave about your principles and how the word bossy is unfair and such but society changes gradually no matter how compelling your logic. Disavowing the radicals and taking a more moderate stance with a view to actually getting things done is much more helpful to actual people.

It's one thing to suggest that a single, united entity - a political party - is too extreme to win an election, and should become more moderate. It's something else to suggest that hundreds of millions of individuals should all suddenly decide to present a "united front" and distance themselves from fringe lunatics, as though those lunatics actually represent them.

Rather than advocating for an inexplicable global shift where everyone says "yeah we were all insane I guess, nevermind, we're not insane now, take us seriously" - wouldn't it make more sense to advocate for people not being so dumb in the first place, and making the distinction between feminists and misandrists?

I don't see you doing anything about the plight of the Ebola victims, or the civilians suffering in Gaza, or the poor living in slums in Brazil, or the population living in fear of extreme crime in Mexico. In fact you haven't even mentioned it, which is the least I would have thought you could do. Is it because you can't fight every battle in the world, and many of these issues can't really be resolved by a single person, or even a single movement? No. The only possible conclusion is that you hate these people.

Is this more of your idiotic hyperbole you mentioned earlier?

Yes. Of course, like last time, it's the equivalent of your own views as you've described them. The point being that what you've described is ridiculous, and you need to rephrase it - or if you actually hold those views, you need to change them.

Narthakka, as far as I'm aware, isn't claiming to be part of a movement dedicating to eradicating poverty and pestilence. If he/she was, and only concentrating on the plights of the western world, then you could accuse him/her of hypocrisy.

I'd sort of hope they were against poverty and pestilence, though. Obviously if they're fine with those, I'll happily concede that my post is inapplicable.

[Lordieth]

Narthakka, as far as I'm aware, isn't claiming to be part of a movement dedicating to eradicating poverty and pestilence. If he/she was, and only concentrating on the plights of the western world, then you could accuse him/her of hypocrisy.

I'd sort of hope they were against poverty and pestilence, though. Obviously if they're fine with those, I'll happily concede that my post is inapplicable.

That's not really the point. If you claim to be for a global movement against something, and then only focus on the patch you reside in, that's hypocrisy. Nobody against such things would be "for" them, but conveniently ignoring issues that don't personally affect you is an act of selfishness.

[Narthakka]

I don't see you doing anything about the plight of the Ebola victims, or the civilians suffering in Gaza, or the poor living in slums in Brazil, or the population living in fear of extreme crime in Mexico. In fact you haven't even mentioned it, which is the least I would have thought you could do. Is it because you can't fight every battle in the world, and many of these issues can't really be resolved by a single person, or even a single movement? No. The only possible conclusion is that you hate these people.

Strawman

[Dyakovo]

I'd sort of hope they were against poverty and pestilence, though. Obviously if they're fine with those, I'll happily concede that my post is inapplicable.

That's not really the point. If you claim to be for a global movement against something, and then only focus on the patch you reside in, that's hypocrisy. Nobody against such things would be "for" them, but conveniently ignoring issues that don't personally affect you is an act of selfishness.

And your evidence that major feminist organizations are ignoring the plight of women in 3rd world countries is?

[Lordieth]

That's not really the point. If you claim to be for a global movement against something, and then only focus on the patch you reside in, that's hypocrisy. Nobody against such things would be "for" them, but conveniently ignoring issues that don't personally affect you is an act of selfishness.

And your evidence that major feminist organizations are ignoring the plight of women in 3rd world countries is?

I didn't say major feminist organizations. I said feminists. I'm sure there are feminist organizations that do great things for women in 3rd world countries. I am speaking on a completely personal level. I apologise for not stressing that point.

[Tubbsalot]

I'd sort of hope they were against poverty and pestilence, though. Obviously if they're fine with those, I'll happily concede that my post is inapplicable.

That's not really the point. If you claim to be for a global movement against something, and then only focus on the patch you reside in, that's hypocrisy.

No it's not. The fact is that a feminist in France can do precisely fuck-all about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. What is hypocritical about acknowledging that fact? I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that they don't care about those women - even really awful humans usually feel some compassion - so why do you think they're not doing anything about it (leaving aside the fact there are almost certainly many feminist groups attempting to change that situation and you just haven't heard of them)?

Strawman

No, it isn't. Perhaps I should rephrase.

You said: "Funny how western feminists turn a blind eye to some atrocities." And here you are - as far as anyone here can tell, turning a blind eye to some atrocities. A lot of atrocities, in fact. Are you as terrible as them, or is there another explanation for this apparent blindness?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It is a position founded fundamentally on an un-nuanced and under-developed theory of what "gender" is. It is rooted in two particular sets of experiences depending on the version being articulated (confusingly, coming from the opposite sides making very different arguments) - either the experiences of a very small group of non-gender identified queer activists who privilege their own stories over those of everyone else or sex-essentialist feminists hostile to transgender and genderqueer identities.

Kate Bornstein is probably the best author to have explored this. Within gender there are a lot of different things: gender assignment, gender attribution, gender roles, gender identity, etc. The gender binary is coercive - and it's important to try and loosen gender assignment, attribution and roles to create the most tolerant society possible and reduce the penalties for identities that fall out of the standard "heterosexual matrix".

Gender identity is about personal identity and sense of self - seeking to "abolish" that is necessarily authoritarian and is hugely dismissive of the lived experiences of huge groups of people, cis, transgender and genderqueer. The error that some radical queer activists make is actually ironically very similar to those with unthinking cis-privilege - x isn't my experience, therefore x doesn't "really" exist and my identity is the only one that is valid.

Being "agender" is a valid position, but it isn't the only valid one - there's a huge spectrum and we should be fighting for greater acknowledgement and respct of these positions rather than trying to abolish the "idea of gender" and trying to erase people's deeply held identities. As well as disrespectful, that would be a hugely reactionary step as it would remove the means to criticize gendered discrimination and reinvigorate sex-essentialist ideas by removing the key vocabulary that's being used to challenge it.

The way I understood Gender Abolitionism, or at least the type I espouse is abolishing it from society leaving the inside of peoples head untouched I mean I myself have gender but I probably belong in the first of your categories. So would you essentially agree with getting rid of the idea of gender from society?

You can't campaign for abolishing "gender" like it's as a monolithic structure like that without the campaign careering into seeking the repression of people's gender identities due to people's lack of understanding of how complex a beast gender is. If you want to exclude the abolition of gender identity you need to change the language and be very clear about what you're proposing and win the argument about defining gender before you even start. In the current cultural context, an abolitionist program is a regressive program.

[Olivaero]

Not to the level you've taken it but recognizing they were too far to the left to actually get anything done and moving towards the center was exactly the tactic that got them a massive victory and allowed them to push through several policy changes which improved the lives of the poor. I'm not saying it's how it should be but compromise is basically the way things get done. You can rant and rave about your principles and how the word bossy is unfair and such but society changes gradually no matter how compelling your logic. Disavowing the radicals and taking a more moderate stance with a view to actually getting things done is much more helpful to actual people.

It's one thing to suggest that a single, united entity - a political party - is too extreme to win an election, and should become more moderate. It's something else to suggest that hundreds of millions of individuals should all suddenly decide to present a "united front" and distance themselves from fringe lunatics, as though those lunatics actually represent them.

Rather than advocating for an inexplicable global shift where everyone says "yeah we were all insane I guess, nevermind, we're not insane now, take us seriously" - wouldn't it make more sense to advocate for people not being so dumb in the first place, and making the distinction between feminists and misandrists?

The thing is in a decentralized structure those lunatics DO represent you to the general public at least. Have a look at the civil rights movement and now imagine it without MLK but still with the Black Panthers. There needs to be a moderate feminist organization which is moderately skilled at PR.

You can sure try advocating people not be dumb but I don't think it's ever worked before. I'm not saying every feminist in the entire world needs to simultaneously agree but some one in some place somewhere needs to start a push.