Why feminism is wrong

[Maineiacs]

Is the wage gap even a thing anymore?

I know that it once was, previously, and it would be easy to show how it has affected gender division, before, in the recent past. But is that criticism of society even applicable now? As in, literally, right now? And is it necessarily down to 'gender' as a solitary factor?

By that I imply that just because someone is male, doesn't mean they automatically get paid more. And not all woman get paid less, just because they happen to be female.

Not that it doesn't happen, but gender wouldn't be the sole factor (arguably not even a factor at all). But people always like to default on 'wage gap' as a safety net in discussions like this.

Did you seriously just argue that, in effect, "I'm not saying there is no pay gap, but there's no pay gap"? Allow me to illuminate you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... ted_States

It's less than it used to be, but it's still there.

[Natapoc]

I agree, but expect to be viciously attacked by the regular MRA & GG filth that still tries to pretend their vile misanthropy is actually respectable.

And the radical TERFs who believe that trans-men are traitors to their gender and that trans-women are still men even after HRT and surgery.

TERFS are typically ostracized and excluded from most feminist spaces. Actual feminists protest events where TERFS are present. What more do you expect feminists do do to distance themselves from TERFS seeing as most feminists do not consider TERFS feminists?

This actually goes more to the point of one of the more sexist aspects of our culture. The idea that if a woman does something it represents all women. If a woman is bad at math she is made to feel like she has to be good at math otherwise her whole gender will be stereotyped as bad at math.

Men are under no such pressure. If a random man holds harmful beliefs or says something inappropriate, he is a person who is inappropriate.

But when a woman, for example a TERF, says or does something shameful it's somehow a reflection of the whole movement for equality between the sexes.

TERFS are bad. Most feminist groups that I participate in exclude terfs from even participating.

So what more do you want feminists to do?

[Tahar Joblis]

Is the wage gap even a thing anymore?

I know that it once was, previously, and it would be easy to show how it has affected gender division, before, in the recent past. But is that criticism of society even applicable now? As in, literally, right now? And is it necessarily down to 'gender' as a solitary factor?

By that I imply that just because someone is male, doesn't mean they automatically get paid more. And not all woman get paid less, just because they happen to be female.

Not that it doesn't happen, but gender wouldn't be the sole factor (arguably not even a factor at all). But people always like to default on 'wage gap' as a safety net in discussions like this.

Yes and no.

Once you control for education, occupation, hours worked, et cetera, the discriminatory component of the gender wage gap tends to shrink to being very near statistical insignificance, on aggregate. However, that's on aggregate. Within a specific industry or job, there may be a stronger gender wage gap (just not necessarily one favoring men - in some jobs, the gender wage gap favors women) and it is very likely that we have a discriminatory component in many specific industries or jobs that favors one or the other sex.

It's also the case that the attractiveness/income interaction, height/income interaction, etc are dependent on sex. Strong discrimination against tall men in favor of short men, while paying very little attention to women's height, is a form of sexism, but one that is difficult to characterize as being "against" men or "against" women.

So people are still getting paid sexist wages. Not by as much as before, but it's out there, and you should keep an eye out for it and sue when practical. On the other hand, what doesn't exist is a systematic patriarchal oppression of female wages.

[Tahar Joblis]

Just too many fucked up and totally unreasonable people everywhere. In reality those people do not mean shit, but on the internet they scream with their multitude of drone accounts as if they are Legion.

Robin Morgan directs radical feminists into violence against a transwoman, as a TERF.

Robin Morgan means so little that she appears with some regularity on MSNBC. Read here about her. She was in charge of Ms. Magazine for a number of years; she is probably one of the most powerful professional feminists in the country at present. She is certainly prominent:

The Feminist Majority Foundation named her "Woman of the Year" in 1990. In 1992 she was given the Warrior Woman Award for Promoting Racial Understanding from Asian American Women's National Organization. She was also given a Lifetime Achievement in Human Rights from Equality Now in 2002. In 2003 The Feminist Press gave her a "Femmy" Award for "service to literature,"[5] and she received the Humanist Heroine Award from The American Humanist Association in 2007.

TERFs are at present unfashionable in the main stream of the feminist movement. That does not mean they do not have power and influence within the movement, nor that they are not a significant faction.

TERFS are typically ostracized and excluded from most feminist spaces.

What would qualify as a group to you? If you mean one of those large NPO's, I really honestly have no idea because I don't pay a lot of attention to organizations.

I don't think you can get away with claiming to know about "most feminist spaces" while claiming ignorance about feminist organizations.

[Natapoc]

Robin Morgan directs radical feminists into violence against a transwoman, as a TERF.

Robin Morgan means so little that she appears with some regularity on MSNBC. Read here about her. She was in charge of Ms. Magazine for a number of years; she is probably one of the most powerful professional feminists in the country at present. She is certainly prominent:


TERFs are at present unfashionable in the main stream of the feminist movement. That does not mean they do not have power and influence within the movement, nor that they are not a significant faction.

TERFS are typically ostracized and excluded from most feminist spaces.

What would qualify as a group to you? If you mean one of those large NPO's, I really honestly have no idea because I don't pay a lot of attention to organizations.

I don't think you can get away with claiming to know about "most feminist spaces" while claiming ignorance about feminist organizations.

It's easy: Feminist spaces are spaces where feminists congregate to communicate about things. I have a lot of experience with these.

Feminist organizations... Well I don't even know what you mean by that to be honest. I'm assuming you mean the big NGO's which, although I have nothing against, I don't really know a lot about.

So yeah I know more about feminist philosophy and dealing with feminists than I do about the workings of big NGO's.

Does that, somehow in your mind, mean I have nothing to say on the matter?

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think you can get away with claiming to know about "most feminist spaces" while claiming ignorance about feminist organizations.

It's easy: Feminist spaces are spaces where feminists congregate to communicate about things. I have a lot of experience with these.

Feminist organizations... Well I don't even know what you mean by that to be honest. I'm assuming you mean the big NGO's which, although I have nothing against, I don't really know a lot about.

So yeah I know more about feminist philosophy and dealing with feminists than I do about the workings of big NGO's.

Does that, somehow in your mind, mean I have nothing to say on the matter?

I would say that maybe if you found out that you've been running round wearing white pointy bedsheets over your head that maybe yeh, you should find out why we think you're either a bigot or weird for doing it.
You should probably have looked up before now why people think that when you introduce yourself as a feminist, you're confessing to being a sexist.
Because the big NGO's are the ones most people have experience with.

Maybe once you do, you'll realize why I think people should stop calling themselves feminist and legitimizing them.
Like a bunch of lovey dovey moderate christians who insist they are members of the KKK over and over, very publically, and say it's about love and tolerance.
No. You aren't. Stop pretending you are, and go and look at what they actually do.

[Natapoc]

This is the problem with comparing mainstream feminists to MRA's. The vast majority of feminists acknowledge that men are opposed. Hell, even a lot of the patriarchists argue men are oppressed by the system just as much as women.

The MRA narrative is very dissimilar. While some, most notably the good men foundation, recognise women face injustice as well, more and more seem to believe theirs is a singular struggle against female oppression.

It is very easy to engage in oppression olympics. Partisanship, grouping, psychological biases, et cetera. I would disagree that "a lot of" feminists, let alone specifically "patriarchists," argue men are oppressed just as much as women. I am also dubious of the your claim about more and more MRAs believing in a "single struggle against female oppression."

IME, the clear majority of feminists who acknowledge that there is some form of oppression of men make a point out of saying that women are more oppressed.

For a recent example, a professor at MIT opened up about his experiences growing up as a man and how he had been driven to the point of asking a psychiatrist to prescribe him drugs that would chemically castrate him. The more sympathetic feminist responses acknowledged that he had suffered but still worked to underline that women suffer more. The less sympathetic responses simply denied he had experienced any legitimate suffering at all.

That was a great article by the way. The author got right to the point when she said:
"Feminism, however, is not to blame for making life hell for "shy, nerdy men". Patriarchy is to blame for that. "

The truth is, nothing would have helped this MIT professor more than a world without patriarchy. Nothing would have been better for him growing up than true feminism.

I think the article is very well written and a tactful explanation of the feminist viewpoint. What do you think about it?

[Ostroeuropa]

It is very easy to engage in oppression olympics. Partisanship, grouping, psychological biases, et cetera. I would disagree that "a lot of" feminists, let alone specifically "patriarchists," argue men are oppressed just as much as women. I am also dubious of the your claim about more and more MRAs believing in a "single struggle against female oppression."

IME, the clear majority of feminists who acknowledge that there is some form of oppression of men make a point out of saying that women are more oppressed.

For a recent example, a professor at MIT opened up about his experiences growing up as a man and how he had been driven to the point of asking a psychiatrist to prescribe him drugs that would chemically castrate him. The more sympathetic feminist responses acknowledged that he had suffered but still worked to underline that women suffer more. The less sympathetic responses simply denied he had experienced any legitimate suffering at all.

That was a great article by the way. The author got right to the point when she said:
"Feminism, however, is not to blame for making life hell for "shy, nerdy men". Patriarchy is to blame for that. "

The truth is, nothing would have helped this MIT professor more than a world without patriarchy. Nothing would have been better for him growing up than true feminism.

I think the article is very well written and a tactful explanation of the feminist viewpoint. What do you think about it?

It straight up claims it isn't structural oppression when it happens to men.
It's a gynocentrist rant that only appeals to people who already buy into the bullshit.
It isn't an argument, it's an affirmation. There is no argument, just assertions.

She straight up ignores unsuccessful nerds and essentially asserts that while their childhood sucked for them, its ok now, because ALL OF THEM HAVE POWER AND MONEYZ.
It's complete drivel.
Read it again, and actually think "is this provable? Is it actually fucking true?" Because it clearly isn't.
It's a bunch of feminist rhetoric around a bunch of unprovable assertions, straight up factual errors or lies depending, and then derailing to talk about the wimminz.

[Natapoc]

That was a great article by the way. The author got right to the point when she said:
"Feminism, however, is not to blame for making life hell for "shy, nerdy men". Patriarchy is to blame for that. "

The truth is, nothing would have helped this MIT professor more than a world without patriarchy. Nothing would have been better for him growing up than true feminism.

I think the article is very well written and a tactful explanation of the feminist viewpoint. What do you think about it?

She straight up ignores unsuccessful nerds and essentially asserts that while their childhood sucked for them, its ok now, because ALL OF THEM HAVE POWER AND MONEYZ.
It's complete drivel.
Read it again, and actually think "is this provable? Is it actually fucking true?"

Where did she say that? I must have missed it? Where did it say that having been harmed as children is okay because all of them have money and power now?

Where did she even say that all of them have money and power now?

Also, I've never seen any evidence that there is structural oppression against men. This is not to say that some men are not harmed by patriarchy: Many are.

[Ostroeuropa]

She straight up ignores unsuccessful nerds and essentially asserts that while their childhood sucked for them, its ok now, because ALL OF THEM HAVE POWER AND MONEYZ.
It's complete drivel.
Read it again, and actually think "is this provable? Is it actually fucking true?"

Where did she say that? I must have missed it? Where did it say that having been harmed as children is okay because all of them have money and power now?

Where did she even say that all of them have money and power now?

Also, I've never seen any evidence that there is structural oppression against men. This is not to say that some men are not harmed by patriarchy: Many are.

These are curious times. Gender and privilege and power and technology are changing and changing each other. We've also had a major and specific reversal of social fortunes in the past 30 years. Two generations of boys who grew up at the lower end of the violent hierarchy of toxic masculinity - the losers, the nerds, the ones who were afraid of being creeps - have reached adulthood and found the polarity reversed. Suddenly they're the ones with the power and the social status.

Pretty much. I'd say the money thing is covered under power. She's essentially asserting that nerds end up on top after school, and the others on the bottom. That's patently ridiculous and a stereotype to boot.

As for structural, how about the fact that het males are more likely to be arrested for reporting their abusive partner than she is?
DESPITE, the fact that women more often initiate violence in domestic disputes than men do?
Because of the institutionalized and culturally pervasive meme that violence against women is UNIQUELY awful. Something feminists routinely signal boost. (Which implies violence against men is more acceptable.)
Or that education in the anglosphere is biased towards females?

How about the prison gap.
Circumcision?
You know, the usual stuff.

[Shaggai]

She straight up ignores unsuccessful nerds and essentially asserts that while their childhood sucked for them, its ok now, because ALL OF THEM HAVE POWER AND MONEYZ.
It's complete drivel.
Read it again, and actually think "is this provable? Is it actually fucking true?"

Where did she say that? I must have missed it? Where did it say that having been harmed as children is okay because all of them have money and power now?

Where did she even say that all of them have money and power now?

Also, I've never seen any evidence that there is structural oppression against men. This is not to say that some men are not harmed by patriarchy: Many are.

The problem is that the privilege/oppression model of society doesn't work when it comes to gender. Read this. To summarize: Men, especially poor men, and especially poor black men, get arrested more. The majority of hate crimes around sexual orientation are about the criminal's hatred of gay men, specifically. There are other things that the essay doesn't mention, too. Trans women, who are often perceived as men, are the victims of most transphobic violence. Furthermore, on a smaller scale, both men and women are harmed by gender roles. The only people privileged there are those who naturally fit the prescribed gender role.

[Natapoc]

Where did she say that? I must have missed it? Where did it say that having been harmed as children is okay because all of them have money and power now?

Where did she even say that all of them have money and power now?

Also, I've never seen any evidence that there is structural oppression against men. This is not to say that some men are not harmed by patriarchy: Many are.

These are curious times. Gender and privilege and power and technology are changing and changing each other. We've also had a major and specific reversal of social fortunes in the past 30 years. Two generations of boys who grew up at the lower end of the violent hierarchy of toxic masculinity - the losers, the nerds, the ones who were afraid of being creeps - have reached adulthood and found the polarity reversed. Suddenly they're the ones with the power and the social status.

Pretty much. I'd say the money thing is covered under power. She's essentially asserting that nerds end up on top after school, and the others on the bottom. That's patently ridiculous and a stereotype to boot.

As for structural, how about the fact that het males are more likely to be arrested for reporting their abusive partner than she is?
DESPITE, the fact that women more often initiate violence in domestic disputes than men do?
BECAUSE of the institutionalized and culturally pervasive meme that violence against women is UNIQUELY awful. Something feminists routinely signal boost. (Which implies violence against men is more acceptable.)
Or that education in the anglosphere is biased towards females?

How about the prison gap.
Circumcision?
You know, the usual stuff.

By the way, I'm loving Scott Aaronson's articles on quantum computing.

Back on topic:

Circumcision is a surgical procedure that has a solid basis in patriarchy. Actually I can't think of many traditions that are more deeply connected to patriarchy than circumcision. I'm assuming you mean male Circumcision (ignoring that it happens to women too in many places with greater severity)

The popularity of modern male Circumcision can be easily traced back to patriarchal abrahamic religions and further back than that in other patriarchal societies for similar means (including rights of passage)
.
The covenant of circumcision and the meanings attached to it are not systematic oppression of men. It's systematic oppression by men: Unfortunately little boys are powerless to stop this patriarchal tradition. Remember, patriarchy is not about giving all men equal power. It's very hierarchical and feminists have written at length about how patriarchy attempts to control sexuality (including male sexuality) in many ways.

Which is probably why most vocal feminists are against circumcision of any kind.

All the other things you mention are also part of patriarchy and feminists are working to try to end them. Feminists still have very little power in society and although that power is growing, it's going to take a while before we can get rid of all the bad things patriarchy has done to everyone.

Tell me, is it feminists who are putting men in jail for longer than women? Or is it male dominated institutions that have been behaving this way since before feminism was even a word?

All the things you are talking about are actually oppression by men.

[Geilinor]

All the things you are talking about are actually oppression by men.

Oppression by the same sex is no better.

[Natapoc]

All the things you are talking about are actually oppression by men.

Oppression by the same sex is no better.

You are absolutely right. A person can have male privilege and still be oppressed for any number of reasons. Male privilege does not mean that everything is perfect for men and that no men have any challenges. It also does not mean that all men have an equal amount of privilege. It probably does mean that you (if you are a man), at least theoretically, have more privilege than a woman in a similar circumstance.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oppression by the same sex is no better.

You are absolutely right. A person can have male privilege and still be oppressed for any number of reasons. Male privilege does not mean that everything is perfect for men and that no men have any challenges. It also does not mean that all men have an equal amount of privilege. It probably does mean that you (if you are a man), at least theoretically, have more privilege than a woman in a similar circumstance.

So a man is privileged in a courtroom compared to a woman... because he'll get a longer sentence, or in spite of it?
How so? In what way does this supposed privilege manifest itself in this situation?
But it's just a theoretical thing you say.
Well, then, doesn't this somewhat debunk the theory?

And you claim feminists fight to end this stuff.
I say that that isn't so.
You talk about ending it a lot.
And the ones of you that organize seem to completely fuck it up and end up being misandrist, or being painfully tone deaf to how sexist they are despite clearly trying.
But as you said, you don't take part in the organizations.

I suppose I can sum this up in a way that might appeal to you.
Feminism is insufficiently feminist. I maintain this is because of the gynocentric narrative. All (Ok, most. Though I can't think of any that dont) attempts to put it into practice at the state level have produced sexist results because of this.
This can be rectified by jettisonning much of the theory, and basically all the language.
Some concepts can be rebranded.
Some arguments and such can be retained in structure and given a new paint job as well as being tweaked to fix the errors caused by gynocentricity.
And then that will be the movement that ends up fixing the issue. There is no point in identifying as a feminist.
We're in a post-feminist stage of the gender dialogue.
Much as newtonian mechanics was put aside when it was no longer fit for purpose, so does the feminist theory of gender inequality.
Its bunk.
It simply doesn't match up with what we're seeing.
What we see is two groups of people rigidly held by eachother and by themselves into gender roles that cause all sorts of fuck ups for everybody.
In this sense, there is no privilege. There's just people being fucked over and having their right to agency and person decisions and stuff taken away by bullshit. Not having your rights trampled over isn't a privilege, it's what's supposed to happen.
The way to fix it is to make sure everyone is aware that when someone pulls the genderization stuff, they're talking bollocks, and revealing themselves to be a sexist, or having said something they don't understand the meaning of.
The solution is a kind of atheism, but toward sexism.
It's just nonsense.
It's assertions that have no basis in reality, and you can point it out to them whenever they say something sexist.
That's all that really needs to be done.
"Be a real wo/man and-"
"No true scotsman, so that's clearly bollocks."
etc.
You don't need an entire religious doctrine about it like feminism has.

[Shaggai]

Where did she say that? I must have missed it? Where did it say that having been harmed as children is okay because all of them have money and power now?

Where did she even say that all of them have money and power now?

Also, I've never seen any evidence that there is structural oppression against men. This is not to say that some men are not harmed by patriarchy: Many are.

The problem is that the privilege/oppression model of society doesn't work when it comes to gender. Read this. To summarize: Men, especially poor men, and especially poor black men, get arrested more. The majority of hate crimes around sexual orientation are about the criminal's hatred of gay men, specifically. There are other things that the essay doesn't mention, too. Trans women, who are often perceived as men, are the victims of most transphobic violence. Furthermore, on a smaller scale, both men and women are harmed by gender roles. The only people privileged there are those who naturally fit the prescribed gender role.

Oppression by the same sex is no better.

You are absolutely right. A person can have male privilege and still be oppressed for any number of reasons. Male privilege does not mean that everything is perfect for men and that no men have any challenges. It also does not mean that all men have an equal amount of privilege. It probably does mean that you (if you are a man), at least theoretically, have more privilege than a woman in a similar circumstance.

[Tahar Joblis]

I don't think you can get away with claiming to know about "most feminist spaces" while claiming ignorance about feminist organizations.

It's easy: Feminist spaces are spaces where feminists congregate to communicate about things. I have a lot of experience with these.

I'm familiar enough with those and feminist organizations and feminist leaders and feminist history to suggest that you really cannot be truly expert on feminist spaces as a whole while somehow maintaining ignorance of the feminist movement on an organizational level... because feminist groups, on the organizational level, are intimately tied with the creation and maintenance of an array of feminist spaces. What are NOW's conferences, but feminist spaces?

Yes, your local club, mailing list, or discussion group may have sorted itself out to be TERF-free. (Or perhaps the TERFs and TERF-leaning types just don't talk to you about TERFy things.) TERFs are a less fashionable branch of feminism.

Feminist organizations... Well I don't even know what you mean by that to be honest. I'm assuming you mean the big NGO's which, although I have nothing against, I don't really know a lot about.

So yeah I know more about feminist philosophy and dealing with feminists than I do about the workings of big NGO's.

Does that, somehow in your mind, mean I have nothing to say on the matter?

No. It means, however, that you're presenting yourself as an authority when you aren't. (Ost might say "femsplaining.")

You make bold pronouncements about what most feminist spaces are like. Guess what? You haven't been in most feminist spaces. I haven't personally been in most feminist spaces either (possibly more than you, ironically; possibly less; but it doesn't really matter, it's a small biased sample of a very large set either way). On the other hand, I know feminist philosophy very well; I know feminist history very well; I know feminist leadership fairly well; and I know that there's a lot to the movement beyond my personal face-to-face experience with feminists.

I also can tell you a lot about feminist policy activity, because I - unlike you - actually pay attention to what the organizations do. And what those organizations do tells me a lot about what's happening in diverse feminist spaces I'm not a part of. Feminist organizations, like NOW or FMF, don't operate as top-down dictatorships. They act with the support of their donor base and volunteer base. NOW's conference resolutions go through a binding democratic process; the resolutions that NOW passes at those annual conferences reflect an approximation of the average US feminist's views on policy - and are (at least theoretically) binding directives on its lobbying activities.

I am not a final authority on feminism. However, I can back up what I claim - in particular, here, that "feminist" is a word that is consistently used to describe TERFs, misandrists, et cetera even when used within the movement, and that most feminists (and experts on feminism) will protest the application of the label "feminist" to some people who genuinely believe in gender equality.

I believe very firmly in gender equality, for example, but I haven't seen you call me a feminist lately. People here mostly stopped calling me a feminist well before I decided to let the label go, too, and not because I had started to become highly critical of the movement - but rather, because I had started to highlight iniquities perpetrated on men for being men.

I used to love the idea that feminism = equality. It was a nice little tidbit of rhetoric that framed the conversation as definitional. The problem is, we live in a world where the idea that feminism = equality simply is not a correct descriptive definition. Feminism is not defined by gender egalitarianism, and gender egalitarianism is not defined by feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's easy: Feminist spaces are spaces where feminists congregate to communicate about things. I have a lot of experience with these.

I'm familiar enough with those and feminist organizations and feminist leaders and feminist history to suggest that you really cannot be truly expert on feminist spaces as a whole while somehow maintaining ignorance of the feminist movement on an organizational level... because feminist groups, on the organizational level, are intimately tied with the creation and maintenance of an array of feminist spaces. What are NOW's conferences, but feminist spaces?

Yes, your local club, mailing list, or discussion group may have sorted itself out to be TERF-free. (Or perhaps the TERFs and TERF-leaning types just don't talk to you about TERFy things.) TERFs are a less fashionable branch of feminism.

Feminist organizations... Well I don't even know what you mean by that to be honest. I'm assuming you mean the big NGO's which, although I have nothing against, I don't really know a lot about.

So yeah I know more about feminist philosophy and dealing with feminists than I do about the workings of big NGO's.

Does that, somehow in your mind, mean I have nothing to say on the matter?

No. It means, however, that you're presenting yourself as an authority when you aren't. (Ost might say "femsplaining.")

You make bold pronouncements about what most feminist spaces are like. Guess what? You haven't been in most feminist spaces. I haven't personally been in most feminist spaces either (possibly more than you, ironically; possibly less; but it doesn't really matter, it's a small biased sample of a very large set either way). On the other hand, I know feminist philosophy very well; I know feminist history very well; I know feminist leadership fairly well; and I know that there's a lot to the movement beyond my personal face-to-face experience with feminists.

I also can tell you a lot about feminist policy activity, because I - unlike you - actually pay attention to what the organizations do. And what those organizations do tells me a lot about what's happening in diverse feminist spaces I'm not a part of. Feminist organizations, like NOW or FMF, don't operate as top-down dictatorships. They act with the support of their donor base and volunteer base. NOW's conference resolutions go through a binding democratic process; the resolutions that NOW passes at those annual conferences reflect an approximation of the average US feminist's views on policy - and are (at least theoretically) binding directives on its lobbying activities.

I am not a final authority on feminism. However, I can back up what I claim - in particular, here, that "feminist" is a word that is consistently used to describe TERFs, misandrists, et cetera even when used within the movement, and that most feminists (and experts on feminism) will protest the application of the label "feminist" to some people who genuinely believe in gender equality.

I believe very firmly in gender equality, for example, but I haven't seen you call me a feminist lately. People here mostly stopped calling me a feminist well before I decided to let the label go, too, and not because I had started to become highly critical of the movement - but rather, because I had started to highlight iniquities perpetrated on men for being men.

I used to love the idea that feminism = equality. It was a nice little tidbit of rhetoric that framed the conversation as definitional. The problem is, we live in a world where the idea that feminism = equality simply is not a correct descriptive definition. Feminism is not defined by gender egalitarianism, and gender egalitarianism is not defined by feminism.

This pretty much sums my thoughts up too. I used to be a feminist in terms most people would associate with one. I got over it. The lingo is too corrupted, along with the institutions. The core concept is worth looking into, and it's fascinating as a historical movement, but as an active political force?
It's pretty malevolant and backward a lot of the time, or at the very best of times it's completely gynocentric and just ignores males.
I'd recommend people learn about feminism so they can strip out all the bullshit and walk away with some of the concepts. The labels applied to those concepts are usually fucking terrible though.

[Natapoc]

It's easy: Feminist spaces are spaces where feminists congregate to communicate about things. I have a lot of experience with these.

I'm familiar enough with those and feminist organizations and feminist leaders and feminist history to suggest that you really cannot be truly expert on feminist spaces as a whole while somehow maintaining ignorance of the feminist movement on an organizational level... because feminist groups, on the organizational level, are intimately tied with the creation and maintenance of an array of feminist spaces. What are NOW's conferences, but feminist spaces?

Yes, your local club, mailing list, or discussion group may have sorted itself out to be TERF-free. (Or perhaps the TERFs and TERF-leaning types just don't talk to you about TERFy things.) TERFs are a less fashionable branch of feminism.

Feminist organizations... Well I don't even know what you mean by that to be honest. I'm assuming you mean the big NGO's which, although I have nothing against, I don't really know a lot about.

So yeah I know more about feminist philosophy and dealing with feminists than I do about the workings of big NGO's.

Does that, somehow in your mind, mean I have nothing to say on the matter?

No. It means, however, that you're presenting yourself as an authority when you aren't. (Ost might say "femsplaining.")

You make bold pronouncements about what most feminist spaces are like. Guess what? You haven't been in most feminist spaces. I haven't personally been in most feminist spaces either (possibly more than you, ironically; possibly less; but it doesn't really matter, it's a small biased sample of a very large set either way). On the other hand, I know feminist philosophy very well; I know feminist history very well; I know feminist leadership fairly well; and I know that there's a lot to the movement beyond my personal face-to-face experience with feminists.

I also can tell you a lot about feminist policy activity, because I - unlike you - actually pay attention to what the organizations do. And what those organizations do tells me a lot about what's happening in diverse feminist spaces I'm not a part of. Feminist organizations, like NOW or FMF, don't operate as top-down dictatorships. They act with the support of their donor base and volunteer base. NOW's conference resolutions go through a binding democratic process; the resolutions that NOW passes at those annual conferences reflect an approximation of the average US feminist's views on policy - and are (at least theoretically) binding directives on its lobbying activities.

I am not a final authority on feminism. However, I can back up what I claim - in particular, here, that "feminist" is a word that is consistently used to describe TERFs, misandrists, et cetera even when used within the movement, and that most feminists (and experts on feminism) will protest the application of the label "feminist" to some people who genuinely believe in gender equality.

I believe very firmly in gender equality, for example, but I haven't seen you call me a feminist lately. People here mostly stopped calling me a feminist well before I decided to let the label go, too, and not because I had started to become highly critical of the movement - but rather, because I had started to highlight iniquities perpetrated on men for being men.

I used to love the idea that feminism = equality. It was a nice little tidbit of rhetoric that framed the conversation as definitional. The problem is, we live in a world where the idea that feminism = equality simply is not a correct descriptive definition. Feminism is not defined by gender egalitarianism, and gender egalitarianism is not defined by feminism.

Okay so you're upset with NOW. What did they do to you? Why do you not like them? I looked more into NOW and FMF and they both seem like good, reasonable organizations from what I can see (if a little too traditional for my tastes). What exactly do you have against them?


edit:

"NOW’s official priorities are pressing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; achieving economic equality for women; championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women’s health issues; supporting civil rights for all and opposing racism; opposing bigotry against lesbians and gays; and ending violence against women."

That all sounds pretty good to me.

Looking at feminist majority:


"The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) was created to develop bold, new strategies and programs to advance women's equality, non-violence, economic development, and, most importantly, empowerment of women and girls in all sectors of society. All programs of the FMF endeavor to include a global perspective and activities to promote leadership development, especially among young women. Along with reproductive rights and access to reproductive technology, the FMF's programs have focused on the empowerment of women in law, business, medicine, academia, sports, and the Internet.

Principles
FMF promotes equality between women and men and girls and boys, and supports constitutional and statutory measures to gain full equality locally, statewide, nationally, and globally.
FMF supports safe, legal and accessible abortion, contraception, and family planning, including Medicaid funding and access for minors.
FMF is dedicated to achieving civil rights for all people, including affirmative action programs for women and people of color.
FMF supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.
FMF does not permit discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, national origin, or disability.
FMF promotes non-violence and works to eliminate violence against women.
FMF encourages programs directed at the preservation of the environment, clean air and water, the elimination of smog, toxic and hazardous waste, chemical and nuclear weaponry.
FMF supports workers' collective bargaining, pay equity, and the end of sweatshops."

That sounds even better! What exactly do you have against these groups?

[Susurruses]

I just thought i'd highlight this right here in big fucking letters so that hopefully susurruses will have an epiphany about why I think they are a gynocentrist.
You just accept the first two as read, then immediately enter a reductionist phase for something that harms males.

Similarly, I can play that game.

Women are paid less because men are expected to shoulder the burden of most financial transactions. Women have more money spent on them than men do, because they get shit bought for them. Because of this, men are paid more.
(See how it's arguably true but utterly unprovable as the source of the issue? Do you get it yet?)
So we don't need to raise womens wages, women need to stop being so demanding. Then their wages will increase.

Women are in the minority of leadership roles because Rule Through And By The Natives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state
So if women want more women in government, stop electing males to oppress males.

But yes, you're totally right that they get custody easier.

See how fucking ridiculously biased that sounds?
Well, now you know why I can't take you seriously. because you are a gynocentrist. And thus a sexist. Shape up and stop being a problem for society.

I think you'll find that is in fact a direct result of gender roles wherein men are more likely to be aggressive risk-takers.

You mean that thing that gets them higher wages too?
Well gosh, I guess it's not a problem then.

You're such a typical feminist, honestly.
With womens problems, you demand solutions.
With mens problems, you supply rationalizations for why its not something we need to do anything about, unless that something benefits women and sidesteps the mens issue.
Get over your sexism and join the 21st century for fucks sake.

(I might also point at STEM and sexism within STEM, and general bullshit focusing on young girls and not young boys such as outrage over bra straps or skirts or whatever nonsense.)

Why are you always talking about white racism?
I want to talk about south africa, all the time, 24/7.
Every time you point out racism against blacks is more prevelant, i'll point to one specific place it isn't true and act as though it's an argument.

So women dont get into STEM.
Sucks for them.
They get it easier in basically every other field. But apparently you think the problem is STEM, not, you know, the entire education system.
Tell you what, maybe women will get into STEM easier when other fields stop specifically catering to them and the potential scientists don't get snapped up by sociology and womens studies and poorly educated on how to properly run a study. Maybe STEM will take women seriously when the most female dominated "Scientific" field acts like a science, and not like an ideological wankfest.
Perhaps female scientists are seen as incompetent, because the field with the most female "Scientists" in it, is full of fucking incompetence, unprofessional behaviour, and bias.
Ever consider that?
God forbid that societies impression of women might be based on their behaviour.

I mean sure, it's not nice to judge someone by the behaviour of others their demographic. I agree it's irrational.
Nonetheless, people do it. So maybe women could, i dunno, have some fucking agency and not put out this image of being weak, terrified, hysterical idiots who need to be protected from evil menz?
(And nevermind tackling the ones who actively play up the idea that women are irresponsible and childish to get out of trouble or stay out of jail or something.)
The main propogater of a sexist view of women in the modern day is women and the feminist movement. (More specifically the victimz feminists, and sexist women.)
I'm shocked I have to continually point this out to people.

My primary response to this is "Damn, Ostro. Chill."
My secondary response is "Ouch, all that vitriolic misogyny creeping in."
(Oh, & I bolded the things you should probably avoid saying in case a moderator wanders past.)

For a tertiary response, let's break it down!

"With womens problems, you demand solutions.
With mens problems, you supply rationalizations for why its not something we need to do anything about, unless that something benefits women and sidesteps the mens issue."

Actually, if you paid attention (you know, read what I actually wrote) then you might potentially have been able to comprehend the possibility that when I mention someone acknowledging problems as problems then I expect them to actually understand that breaking down sexism would benefit everyone that is not an asshole.
Like, the solution for "women's problems" is the same one as "men's problems" (and other genders' problems). I wasn't ignoring men (as much as that might make life easier); I was expecting anyone with an ounce of reasoning capability to understand that the vast majority of people would benefit from a more fair society.
Including men.
That is to say, men are encompassed by that.
The men are not excluded. The men are not left out.
To be perfectly clear: men are involved when I mention desires for fairer systems.
(One might readily apply this to everything you said there tbh: https://twitter.com/probirdrights/statu ... 8897372161 )

Also, I mean, seriously.
You were horribly selective with exactly which fragments you wanted to pick out.
Cherry-picking much?
(What on earth was your 'white racism' rambling about?? Do boys get told off for their bra straps showing or something? Do girls dominate class discussions? Those are rhetorical questions because you were being bloody silly.)

"You mean that thing that gets them higher wages too?"

Yes, for some men it does lead to higher wages. They get lucky.
So if people are willing to embrace aggressive risk-taking behaviour then they should wholeheartedly accept the consequences of increased risk and increased insurance costs.
The point there was "It's not some feminist conspiracy; it is a logical function of current behaviour and gender roles".
The implication being that breaking that down (ie: lowered aggression) would logically lead to statistics that indicate lower risk and that would logically lead to reduced insurance costs.
(Like, really. That's one of the fragments you chose to take out of context?)

"See how it's arguably true but utterly unprovable as the source of the issue? "

Except it blatantly isn't.
In fact it's glaringly obvious misogynistic BS, as I'm sure you should know.
It doesn't even work as rhetoric, unless you're trying to appeal to asshole MRAs.

"men are expected to shoulder the burden of most financial transactions."

Nope, not with literally anyone I know.
(Anecdotal sure, but amongst literally everyone I know that is not the case and no non-male I know would ever want it to be. Some of them because that sort of imbalance is what abusers have used in the past.)
In fact, it's either equal or a woman is financially supporting a male partner.

"apparently you think the problem is STEM, not, you know, the entire education system."

That's... a really wild assumption.
One that is.. so very very wrong.
The educational system, particularly within the USA, is.. well, fucked.
The whole system is just.. there are a lot of problems, and sexism is one of several big ones.
(On that note, women [esp' non-white women] also get ignored when asking professors for help. In fact, the group most likely to receive help when asking is heterosexual white cis men. Regardless of the professor's gender/race/sexuality/whatever.)

Although the rest of your frothy ranting on STEM and women even includes air-quoting (presumably to indicate derision/dismissal) "scientists", because everyone knows women aren't REALLY scientists, right?
(That last clause there is sarcasm, so we're clear. Intended to highlight significant disapproval of the nonsense in that section.)
Maybe you should like.. meditate or something.

"being weak, terrified, hysterical idiots who need to be protected from evil"

Well, is it weak to be scared of violence?
Like, is everyone with anxiety or depression or PTSD just "weak" ?
Is anyone that's ever nervous or uncomfortable around a group that has repeatedly been the source of abuse just an "idiot" ?
(Ahaha, and "hysterical" is like.. historically misogynistic. I can't believe you honestly chose that word out of everything you had available.)
What're the statistics on campus sexual assault and rape again?
I mean, if people are being idiots then presumably it's an irrational fear.
If it's an irrational fear, they won't have any evidence supporting the presence of a threat or any past experiences with abuse that might trigger a fear response... right?
(Honestly I reckon most people would like to be protected from evil. Regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Not sure what your Straw Woman with the Shrinking Violet personality and panic disorder has to do with that.)

"The main propagator of a sexist view of women in the modern day is women and the feminist movement."

You can definitely source this, right..?
Because on the contrary, every feminist I know personally hates that shit because they view it as contrary to feminist ideals.
So whilst I might be willing to entertain the possibility of people being complicit in their own oppression (because that is definitely shit that happens), I'm not so open to the palpably false claim that feminists hate equality...

Might wanna take a breather next time you want to go on a searing ramble about how feminism is evil, and see if there isn't a better way to convey whatever it is you want to actually communicate.
_{(I will thank you for not assuming gender and for using gender-neutral terms though.)}

[Revanchism]

Mansplaining at its finest.

[Condunum]

Is the wage gap even a thing anymore?

I know that it once was, previously, and it would be easy to show how it has affected gender division, before, in the recent past. But is that criticism of society even applicable now? As in, literally, right now? And is it necessarily down to 'gender' as a solitary factor?

By that I imply that just because someone is male, doesn't mean they automatically get paid more. And not all woman get paid less, just because they happen to be female.

Not that it doesn't happen, but gender wouldn't be the sole factor (arguably not even a factor at all). But people always like to default on 'wage gap' as a safety net in discussions like this.

Did you seriously just argue that, in effect, "I'm not saying there is no pay gap, but there's no pay gap"? Allow me to illuminate you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80 ... ted_States

It's less than it used to be, but it's still there.

I think if anything is concerning about the focus on the pay gap, it would be the absurd level of focus the gender aspect gets compared to the worse by tenfold racial income disparity. Specifically, Latina women make only a little more than half what white women make.

[Sarigen]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

The thread basically ended here for me, as this is correct.

[Gradea]

Hold your horses. I know there are a lot of feminists here, but please, read what I have to say before going off and condemning me. I am not a misogynist and I do not advocate the discrimination of women (or any kind of discrimination at all). I completely agree with you that women are being discriminated against and I fully support the idea of equal rights and status for all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. My issue is that you're doing it wrong.

Let's think of society as a living organism and look at this issue as a social disease. When you get a disease, what do you do? Do you treat the symptoms, or the cause? Because, if you don't eliminate the cause, those symptoms are just going to come back and social inequality (as well as racial inequality and every other kind of inequality) is a symptom, which you pit so many resources against, without ever considering the bigger picture and what is causing the disease.

The fact is (and I recommend you take this very seriously), gender discrimination goes both ways. Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect. What you do not realize is that the discrimination of women is equally damaging to the male gender. How so? Because of the rigid social conventions on "gender roles" which we are all forced to abide by. While women are expected to "stay in the kitchen", men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful. In modern society, a man who displays affection, respect and loyalty to a woman, is considered a "pussy" and rejected as weak (and usually end up on the losing end). These gender conventions demand that men assert their dominance in a relationship and act the way we often do. In other words, we're just as conditioned and restricted by these conventions, as you are.

Social conventions such as gender roles, racial and ethnic status, etc, are all just another excuse for the people with a very high social status, to restrict access to their position and eliminate potential competition, thus increasing their offspring's chances of inheriting that position of power. The cause of all these issues is heredity. To prove my point, we're seeing a whole bunch of problems, like racism, slowly being eliminated, while other forms of discrimination, such as classism (discrimination against the poor), are taking their place.

I imagine that, at some point in the distant past, there was a struggle for social status and resources, in primitive human culture. At some point, that struggle was won by a group of males, for a some unknown reasons (it is possible that the opposite might have happened and females could have won, which would have resulted in a completely reversed scenario with women on top). Ever since then, that winning group has done everything in its power to not only consolidate its grip on the position which they have acquired, but to expand their power even further. Nowadays, we call these people "the 1%" and they're the ones who control the media, finances, etc, thus they're in a position to dictate which conventions should the society follow. In fact, all of these social conventions are the result of people playing by the rules of the privileged few, due to a misguided belief that thus, they are able to climb the social ladder just one step further. What you do not realize, is that the game is rigged. The people who make the rules will only seek to further their own interest and eliminate any and all potential competition, by making it impossible for people to compete in the first place. Thus, you have issues such as discrimination, which cause social frictions, malcontent, disappointment and stagnation and are invariably leading the human race towards its own destruction.

Try going through a mental exercise with me. Imagine a world without inheritance. A world without an elite which has that position of power, merely because they inherited their advantage. If power and wealth were not hereditary, we could have a world where one had to earn his or her place, through their own merit. In my opinion, the only way to solve society's issue is through making people in power have more responsibilities, while eliminating heredity in its entirety (100% inheritance tax and the abolition of aristocracy). All those taxes could then go towards making the world a place where every person has the chance to succeed in life on his/her own. Think of it this way. What would you rather leave your children? Material assets like money and social position, thus very little motivation for self-improvement? Or a world which offers your children the possibility to start in the same position as everyone else (by eliminating the concept of pole position), thus stimulating them to grow and evolve? Leveling the playing field would only increase competition, thus promoting an accelerated improvement of society and the human race as a whole.

What I propose, is that you stop looking at this issue from such a narrow angle. Its not just about women's rights, its about humanity as a whole. Why not try to point out the negative effects that discrimination against women, has on men? Instead of addressing just one of the symptoms, why not seek to promote a world in which everyone starts off with the same chances and has an equal amount of support, to succeed in life?

I'm really looking forward to reading your responses to this.

What a load of bullshit. Even though I'm a male, I believe that women should get the same opportunities as men which is what feminism is all about. Equal opportunities.

[Tahar Joblis]

Okay so you're upset with NOW.

My concerns are not nearly so narrow as NOW alone.

What did they do to you? Why do you not like them?

You're making false assumptions. Stop.

I looked more into NOW and FMF and they both seem like good, reasonable organizations from what I can see (if a little too traditional for my tastes). What exactly do you have against them?

What's wrong with them, you should ask. They are, exactly as Ost has pointed out, gynocentric.

Take the 2013 conference resolution on sexual assault in the military. Reading it, you'd have absolutely no idea that most victims of sexual assault in the military are male. In fact, there are even some lines where it implies, though does not directly say, that the victims of sexual assault are women.

Now, where does this sort of attitude go into inequality? Well, in divorce, to give one example... divorce.

NOW opposed reforms that would presume joint custody, over the existence maternal preference. (Starting back in the 1970s.) When explicit maternal preference was dead [in name], they lobbied for the reinstatement of a "primary caregiver" presumption and against joint custody. They have lobbied against anything that looks likely to grant men sole, shared, or joint custody more often, typically on the grounds that it will grant custody to abusers by granting more men custody (never mind that mothers are no less likely to be abusive than fathers, and that sexist presumptions will mean that nearly any abusive mother can get sole custody - this is a specious argument at best).

This is not unique to NOW; most other feminist organizations have aimed their discussions of divorce along similar lines, give or take a degree of radicality: Simply work in women's interests. For example, some feminists complain that primary caregiver standards simply do not go far enough to favor women. (As that article points out, the "best interests of the child[ren]" standard fundamentally conflicts with a primary caregiver presumption.)

We had a thoroughly sexist explicit maternal preference because first-wave feminists fought for it (and won it). The early first-wave feminists were dealing with a status quo ante in which women couldn't be assigned custody legally in divorce even if a judge wanted to; at the time custody law had been largely reversed, the result was similar to the "separate but equal" situation resulting from 19th century civil rights activism, where women gained superior rights over the private sphere while having inferior rights within the public sphere. (Later on, women would gain the vote, but the ERA would stall over the issue of protective legislation designed to specifically protect women.)

There is a very obvious egalitarian approach to child custody in divorce: A presumption of joint physical custody, which a judge has discretion to deviate from given appropriate grounds. NOW, along with most feminists, has opposed that approach, on grounds that are ultimately sexist, and further holds (contrary to most evidence) that the family court system is somehow biased against women in spite of the incredibly lopsided awards of custody (which more or less match what they were during the time of explicit maternal presumption).

NOW has done very good things for women. Some of these have even been good for equality. But NOW will not fix men's problems, and will, in fact, tend to oppose the formation of groups that will fix men's problems, just like the rest of the movement, and this is a problem.

As far as the FMF, I will take a moment to point back upwards to the conversation on TERFs:

Robin Morgan directs radical feminists into violence against a transwoman, as a TERF.

The Feminist Majority Foundation named her "Woman of the Year" in 1990.

Funny how someone who incited anti-trans violence in person back in the 1970s is still the darling of a now-explicitly-trans-"friendly" organization, huh?

Mostly, she carefully avoids talking about trans issues directly these days. She's still a powerful and influential figure... and still plugs all her old books, written back in the days when she could be very openly anti-trans. (Maybe she's changed her mind, as Gloria Steinem has, but I couldn't find any signs of that. So maybe she's changed her mind, but wants to still sell books to TERFs. Who knows?)