Why feminism is wrong

[Dhomland]

Feminism is good, but the problem is that the feminist associations are not fighting for gender equality any more. Today, most of them are just satelites of political left.

[The Lone Alliance]

There is nothing wrong with the feminism idea and there' s nothing wrong with most feminists in general.

The problem is that a portion of feminism has become hijacked by identity politics which turn everything into an "Us versus them" system where everyone's constantly looking for a reason to feel oppressed and everyone is looking for an oppressor to blame.

I think when people declare feminism is wrong it's this form of feminism they are talking about.

https://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wm ... y_pol.html
Interesting paper on it^

[Des-Bal]

There is nothing wrong with the feminism idea and there' s nothing wrong with most feminists in general.

The problem is that a portion of feminism has become hijacked by identity politics which turn everything into an "Us versus them" system where everyone's constantly looking for a reason to feel oppressed and everyone is looking for an oppressor to blame.

I think when people declare feminism is wrong it's this form of feminism they are talking about.

https://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wm ... y_pol.html
Interesting paper on it^

That's problelmatic but that's not the problem. It's not a hijacking by radical theories , it's not a few bad apples, it's not tumblr it's the entire movement. The idea of "gender equality" championed by feminists has always been directly translated into "support women in all arenas."

[Unitaristic Regions]

I'm sure people who are fighting to have women heard by a society that they think is biased, discriminatory and oppressive against them will really care about loud voices of apparently entitled people who find it really unfair, egoistic and pathologically Otherizing to not be the focus in at least a few things that don't have to do with their bodies (the part about gender that should be least relevant).

I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of events but you've made it clear that your views on this subject are all dictated by a communist self-victimization fantasy. When coupled with your self proclaimed desire to avoid stating an opinion in an effort to avoid being criticized I am led to view you as less a participant in the discussion and more of a spectator that sometimes throws peanuts.

Throwing big words around is nice and all, but it would help your argument if you tried to prove why communist logic is a self-victimization fantasy instead of just spouting rhetoric.

[Des-Bal]

Throwing big words around is nice and all, but it would help your argument if you tried to prove why communist logic is a self-victimization fantasy instead of just spouting rhetoric.

I'd rip out my own fingernails before I got bogged down in another discussion about communism but what this boils down to is a lot of baseless accusation, willful ignorance of other viewpoints, and the assumption of a literal organized us v them struggle.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/201 ... al-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.
Until then, yeh, whatever. Patriarchy. Keep fooling yourselves.

And now realize that no one would have believed the men if they wanted to actually file a police report about having been raped.

Yehh...

[Shaggai]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.
Until then, yeh, whatever. Patriarchy. Keep fooling yourselves.

And now realize that no one would have believed the men if they wanted to actually file a police report about having been raped.

Yehh...

Oh, hey, one incident. Clearly this proves that all feminists are wrong about everything, because no feminists care about male rape!

[Ostroeuropa]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.
Until then, yeh, whatever. Patriarchy. Keep fooling yourselves.


Yehh...

Oh, hey, one incident. Clearly this proves that all feminists are wrong about everything, because no feminists care about male rape!

One incident that is descriptive of a lot of incidents.
Let's suppose a male published an article admitting they raped people.
How long til they were at least questioned, you reckon?

You're also ignoring what the article points out about societal double standards.
It's clear to me that rape isn't a womens issue. It's a mens issue that women have hijacked in order to perpetuate a sexist narrative.
Same as men often annex things to themselves and repeat over and over about how it's a uniquely male thing.

A female rape victim goes through the ordeal of the court process, as well as slut shaming and all that, if it even gets that far.
But she's still far ahead of a male victim in terms of privilege.

Pretty funny how our societies roles boil down to men claiming they are awesome, and women claiming men are shit.

[Des-Bal]

Oh, hey, one incident. Clearly this proves that all feminists are wrong about everything, because no feminists care about male rape!

Of course not. An off color joke is however definitive and incontrovertible proof that society tolerates, encourages, and finances rape to prevent women from entering STEM fields or whatever the latest conspiracy is.

[Shaggai]

Oh, hey, one incident. Clearly this proves that all feminists are wrong about everything, because no feminists care about male rape!

Of course not. An off color joke is however definitive and incontrovertible proof that society tolerates, encourages, and finances rape to prevent women from entering STEM fields or whatever the latest conspiracy is.

Of course not.

[Tahar Joblis]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.
Until then, yeh, whatever. Patriarchy. Keep fooling yourselves.


Yehh...

Oh, hey, one incident. Clearly this proves that all feminists are wrong about everything, because no feminists care about male rape!

The problem isn't that no feminists care about male rape.

The problem is that enough feminists are in denial about women victimizing men that they will obstruct research and fight against any recognition of female victimization of men.

For example, Mary Koss prefers to deny by definition the label of "rape" when it comes to women coercing men into sex, reserving "rape" only for cases where the rapist uses a penis or something vaguely resembling a penis.

The MRA talking point that TJ has embellished is that Dr. Koss has prevented the recognition of male rape victims. In the past, he has claimed (without evidence) that she has testified before Congress and lobbied to this effect.

Don't make shit up about what I've said when it's a single search away. If you are referring to this post, I am quite clearly referring to Koss publishing seminal papers. The reference to testifying in front of Congress is in regards to Dworkin.

The only proof is one and one-half sentences plucked completely out of context from one 24-page article from 1993.

I have read the paper in question. It is not out of context; and I in fact provided context. Koss is objecting to a strain of research examining male victimization.

Before turning to how the quote is being deliberately misconstrued, I should note that this "evidence" is a grain of sand onthe floor of a heavily cited ocean of work. As of January 2012, Dr. Koss (alone or with others) had authored (57p, pdf) the following publications: 7 scholarly books; 7 textbooks; 103 book chapters and monograms; and 137 refereed journal articles.

A body of work in which Koss has continued to state, over and over again, that rape should be defined in exactly such a manner as she does in that article. For example, here.

This is in addition to scores of professional presentations, congressional testimony, lay articles & new reports, etc. Among all this work by a ground-breaking scholar in the study of rape, we are to believe that one small quote evidences her view that men cannot be raped by women and that contrary views must be suppressed. This is even more of a stretch when one finds repeated references throughout Dr. Koss's work to male rape victims and she has other entire publications dedicated to male victimization.

Koss considers men the victims of rape only when they are penetrated, i.e., that is to say that Koss considers only about half of men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by other men the victims of rape, and almost none of the men subjected to non-consensual sex acts by women the victims of rape.

Anyway, the article in question -- "Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods" -- is, shockingly, an examination of methodologies used to identify the prevalence of rape. It is worth noting that Dr. Koss criticizes traditional rape definitions for excluding the rape of men (p. 199), includes studies particularly focused on the rape of men in her review (pp. 200-204), includes multiple studies that include samples of male rape victims in her review (pp. 200-204), and discusses how studies may best elicit information from men about victimization. Dr. Koss discusses at length that one problem with the literature in this field is a failure to use uniform definitions of "rape" and related terms like "sexual assault," "sexual battery," or "criminal sexual conduct." (pp. 199, 206). She notes a preference for using "the traditional term 'rape' to refer to the most highly sanctioned penetration offense." (p. 199) Note that "most highly sanctioned" refers to the legal/punitive categorization of sexual offenses, although it may also reflect her personal view.

It is worth noting that at the point in time that Koss wrote that article, there was not a clear legal consensus on the definition of rape; and in fact, the definition used by Koss to measure rape was not the same definition used by the DoJ. In fact, in the 2011 Cook et al paper linked to above (which she is a co-author of) acknowledges the continuing difficulties in reaching a uniform definition of rape; and in looking at the agenda moving forward, does not at all consider the issue of reforming definitions towards forcible envelopment.

Leading to the "gotcha" quote, Dr. Koss emphasizes that studies should stick to definitions that reflect legal statutes, but that issues remain -- including the "sex neutrality of reform statutes, which has been ignored in all but a handful of studies. Instead, focus has been restricted to female victims. This restriction makes practical sense because over 90% of the rapes identified in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) involve female victims (Jamieson & Flanagan, 1989). Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman (e.g., Struckman-Johnson, 1991)." (p. 206-207) This allegedly misandrist statement is descriptive as to the state of the law in most jurisdictions -- particularly internationally -- and only prescriptive to the extent that studies of rape should use such definitions for consistency and (at least perceived) validity.* Consistent with Dr. Koss's objection of confusing the legitimate aim of categorizing "a range of unwanted sexual experiences" with identifying the prevalence of rape as legally defined, Dr. Koss supports identifying the prevalence of various forms of rape and unwanted sexual experiences forced upon males but only within as uniform of categories as possible. (pp. 206-207, 209 (citing Ageton (1983b)), 218.) This may or may not be objectionable, but it is not suppression, not sexism, and not misandry.

At the point in time Koss was writing that, the definition used by the DoJ (that most significant judge of the legal consensus within the United States) departed very substantially from her own. As noted in the 2011 paper above, the definition of rape remains non-uniform today in a number of significant ways.

Koss wrote, in 2007, a paper which elaborates some on why she doesn't feel it's rape. She makes reference to legal statutes (which are, we note, non-uniform) and then goes on to claim that:

Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men's experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women's experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).

Given her interest in the reform of legal definitions over the years, the latter reasons are quite significant for her to supply, providing a justification for why she continues to advocate on behalf of a future uniform definition that nevertheless continues to exclude such male victims.

I have discussed these papers before. What Struckman-Johnson found in their rather lengthy series of studies on the subject is that a significant percentage of men react quite poorly to the experience. It is true that women use some particular coercive tactics less often (as little as around half as often, in the case of direct physical force); and it is true that men are less likely to report serious trauma; but it's also true that men report less follow-on trauma following all kinds of traumatic experiences, even ones which are not subject to strong gender narratives as rape is. Even for physical assault, the ratio between reported lifetime incidence and recent incidence is significantly different for men and women.

A similar argument could be provided for claiming that male victims of penetration by other males should not be counted in the same way as female victims of penetration by males. Men simply present more stoic reactions in the data for every conceivable form of victimization, higher levels of forgetting, et cetera - on the whole. There are nevertheless a significant fraction of men whose reactions to the trauma would be considered within the normal range of reactions by women; and a significant number of men victimized by women as forcefully as is typical of women victimized by men. Koss has chosen, continuously and willfully, to contribute to the invisibility of these male victims and the failure of society to provide support for them.

Koss has had ample opportunities to express the views that you suggest she has. She has not, to my knowledge, done so; and every work of hers that I have read takes steps to minimize the importance of male victims and in particular male victims of female perpetrators. (The 2011 paper above uses female gender pronouns to refer to victims, with the footnote of "The vast majority of rape victims are female. Thus, we will use gendered pronouns hereafter.")

The characterization of this sentence is particularly bizarre because Dr. Koss notes later that surveying or questioning individuals using the word "rape" is likely to result in underestimates of the prevalence of rape, including the rape of males. (pp. 207-208)

Not at all. You will underestimate the prevalence of what Koss deems rape of males by doing so.

Koss has every reason to be familiar with precisely what Struckman-Johnson's studies show, and what subsequent data has shown: When you include "made to penetrate" figures, the rate at which men are victimized by women is surprisingly close to vice versa. (Note that the CDC figures there under "rape" include attempted penetration in the count of total rapes, deeming both attempted and completed rapes as types of rape; another fine example of non-uniform definitions used by different official sources.)

Most feminists claim that rape is a problem of male-on-female violence. Most feminists acknowledge that women can rape men, but claim that it's exceptionally rare.

The problem is, the research cited by most feminists to support the claim that female-on-male rape is not an issue was conducted by people who don't believe that vaginal sex can be rape of a man. What research has been conducted on women coercing men into having sex has indicated that the rates of sexual coercion are actually very similar between men and women - surprisingly so when you consider that men's primary sexual apparatus is a notoriously unreliable piece of hydraulics; that men are, on average, considerably larger and stronger than women; and that it's far easier for [straight] women to obtain consensual partners for casual sex than [straight] men.

Women raping men is simply not recognized as such, even when it is acknowledged as a theoretical possibility; and women's victimization of men has been systematically been denied and obstructed from view - it was originally mostly obscured by sexist stereotyping independent of feminists, but feminists in positions of influence and power have been in the front ranks of obstructing women's victimization of men (and have continued to rely on sexist stereotyping to do so).

[The Lone Alliance]

That's problelmatic but that's not the problem. It's not a hijacking by radical theories , it's not a few bad apples, it's not tumblr it's the entire movement. The idea of "gender equality" championed by feminists has always been directly translated into "support women in all arenas."

First wave feminism merely wanted equal rights, that in itself is not "All arenas".
Unless you're suggesting that when first wave feminists were trying to get the right to vote they should have been trying to give men the right to vote twice.

The advent of identity politics appeared in the second wave and it's that wave that started the downward spiral.

I'm not speaking of Tumblr either, this happened long before tumblr even existed.
For example, the paper I linked to in my post was written in 1994 and it pretty much speaks about people pointing out the same problems even back then, I disagree with some of it but it does point some sources of people claiming things that are fairly accurate.

It's just gone more mainstream since then.

Throwing big words around is nice and all, but it would help your argument if you tried to prove why communist logic is a self-victimization fantasy instead of just spouting rhetoric.

I think the communist claim is the whole "Oppressed underclass" which is what edgy could have been to be implying.

I think that's too simple, race, and economic levels also play into it. I mean if we want to argue things which groups face more bias and discrimination, one could argue on who's more discriminated with in the US, white women or black men?

[Des-Bal]

First wave feminism merely wanted equal rights, that in itself is not "All arenas".
Unless you're suggesting that when first wave feminists were trying to get the right to vote they should have been trying to give men the right to vote twice.

The advent of identity politics appeared in the second wave and it's that wave that started the downward spiral.

I'm not speaking of Tumblr either, this happened long before tumblr even existed.
For example, the paper I linked to in my post was written in 1994 and it pretty much speaks about people pointing out the same problems even back then, I disagree with some of it but it does point some sources of people claiming things that are fairly accurate.

It's just gone more mainstream since then.

"All Arenas" in that instance meant every area of focus and that's completely justifiable when you're talking about giving one group a right the other already has. I'm not suggesting everything feminism has ever done has been wrong I'm saying that regardless of any stated objectives it has always been gynocentric and that's what doomed it to head in the direction it has. You may not realize your steering is fucked till you have to turn but there was a problem well before that.

[Gravlen]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.

No, you won't. You'll find another bullshit excuse instead, just like this one.

[Tel]

This thread is exactly what I thought it was going to be.

Why did I click this link?

What is life?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.
Until then, yeh, whatever. Patriarchy. Keep fooling yourselves.

And now realize that no one would have believed the men if they wanted to actually file a police report about having been raped.

Yehh...

It is a bad incident, and while it is wrong and I admit the person should go to jail, I know she won't.

After all, even murderers get away with killing their victims and never be prosecuted in America at times.

[Kelinfort]

What really disturbs me about the people so vehemently attacking feminism here is the obvious problem of it all. There are feminists who are radical, feminists who ignore male problems, feminists who are all gynocentric. But the real world equivalents, at least in the United States, are based around traditionalism. It's important to note some MRA and Feminist groups openly support traditionalism, in fact the first wave was mainly built around supporting a similar, but different status quo. My problem is, many see feminism as, "institutional," and wholly responsible for the problems facing gender equality. It's quite the opposite. While there are feminists who do not support gender equality or abolition, the main driving force has and will always be traditionalism. This philosophy has reinforced its "virtues" of the complimentary gender system for quite some time, and has actively tried to squash a woman's right to choose, prisoner rights, and paternity issues. They are the enemy of feminist and MRA. Yet, some feminists and MRA's support these people where they can make progress, namely the sex negative feminists and AVFM MRA's.

And yet, most of the people here choose to ignore this in favour of, "ebul feminism." This is precisely what the traditionalists want. And, conversely, many ignore the valid complaints of the MRA movement due to the traditionalists and PUA's within their ranks. If this continues, gender equality will never be a reality and the problems facing men and women will be swept under the rug. There is a much more powerful enemy out there and unless it is faced head on, both sides will be crushed by its mammoth size. It is time for open dialogue. There is no time to lose.

[Anglo-California]

There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a man go to great lengths to prostrate himself to prove how much of a "feminist" he really is in an attempt to win over a girl who will always view him as a pathetic pervert.

[Edgy Opinions]

There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a man go to great lengths to prostrate himself to prove how much of a "feminist" he really is in an attempt to win over a girl who will always view him as a pathetic pervert.

... exactly because politics should never be used just as an excuse to gain dating points.

Which is kind of not actually being feminist.

[Gravlen]

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

when the poster is questioned by police, i'll take feminists seriously.
Until then, yeh, whatever. Patriarchy. Keep fooling yourselves.


Yehh...

It is a bad incident, and while it is wrong and I admit the person should go to jail, I know she won't.

Of course. After all, the poster is anonymous (we don't know if it really is a she or not), the stories lack essential details (who, when, where, how), lack corroberation and is seemingly contradicted by a subsequent post. It might be completely true, completely fabricated, or somewhere in between, but either way there would be insufficient information to launch an investigation.

[Susurruses]

It is a bad incident, and while it is wrong and I admit the person should go to jail, I know she won't.

Of course. After all, the poster is anonymous (we don't know if they are really a woman or not), the stories lack essential details (who, when, where, how), lack corroboration and is seemingly contradicted by a subsequent post. It might be completely true, completely fabricated, or somewhere in between, but either way there would be insufficient information to launch an investigation.

Fixed.

[The Lone Alliance]

"All Arenas" in that instance meant every area of focus and that's completely justifiable when you're talking about giving one group a right the other already has.

So you're claiming it was completely justifiable?

There was no such thing as an effective egalitarian movement back then, therefore the only alternative back then, if feminism is wrong, is that they should have just shut up.

I'm not suggesting everything feminism has ever done has been wrong

Or you could just state that early on they weren't wrong.

I'm saying that regardless of any stated objectives it has always been gynocentric and that's what doomed it to head in the direction it has.

And religion always leads to holy wars, anti-immigration always leads to genocide and Nationalism always leads to world wars.

Every ideology can fall under sway to radicalism in time but it's not wholly inevitable.

Don't use a slippery slope argument especially when you know the environment that allowed it to get to this point is artificial. Most other ideologies would have been shredded and hacked apart by the rest of the public before reaching this point.

Another point is that feminism has been blended into other movements before, that would be impossible if the gynocentric mentality had been the only uniting factor or at least earlier feminists understood that what helps others also helps them.

You may not realize your steering is fucked till you have to turn but there was a problem well before that.

Yet your mindset would mean no one would drive.

And yet, most of the people here choose to ignore this in favour of, "ebul feminism." This is precisely what the traditionalists want. And, conversely, many ignore the valid complaints of the MRA movement due to the traditionalists and PUA's within their ranks. If this continues, gender equality will never be a reality and the problems facing men and women will be swept under the rug. There is a much more powerful enemy out there and unless it is faced head on, both sides will be crushed by its mammoth size. It is time for open dialogue. There is no time to lose.

There is no all powerful traditionalist movement out there and every side has some parts of traditionalism in it, including a large portion of feminism.

[Des-Bal]

So you're claiming it was completely justifiable?

There was no such thing as an effective egalitarian movement back then, therefore the only alternative back then, if feminism is wrong, is that they should have just shut up.


Or you could just state that early on they weren't wrong.




And religion always leads to holy wars, anti-immigration always leads to genocide and Nationalism always leads to world wars.

Every ideology can fall under sway to radicalism in time but it's not wholly inevitable.

Don't use a slippery slope argument especially when you know the environment that allowed it to get to this point is artificial. Most other ideologies would have been shredded and hacked apart by the rest of the public before reaching this point.

Another point is that feminism has been blended into other movements before, that would be impossible if the gynocentric mentality had been the only uniting factor or at least earlier feminists understood that what helps others also helps them.

Yet your mindset would mean no one would drive.

Yes, that would be the point of that sentence.

I'm not saying they were wrong I'm were never egalitarian.

There is no slippery slope. This is not a divergence or taking things too far and it is not radicalism that has somehow poisoned the movement. Feminism is and always has been gynocentric it has always been about advancing women. A truly egalitran movement would have fought for suffrage the same way feminists did and would have treated that as priority one it doesn't mean that doing that makes you egalitarian. If you walk into a bank and shoot a nazi whose robbing the place you've improved the situation. If you then begin shooting everybody in the bank it's not because of any slippery slope or radical hijacking it's because your initially bad direction IE kill everyone in the bank incidentally did a good thing early on.

's not about what it lead to it's about the

No it means un-fuck your steering.

[Tahar Joblis]

There was no such thing as an effective egalitarian movement back then, therefore the only alternative back then, if feminism is wrong, is that they should have just shut up.

We may date the first wave of the feminist movement, in the United States, as being primarily active 1848-1920. (It is convenient to bracket the movement with the Seneca Falls Convention and the passage of the 19th Amendment - that is not to say that first wave activity ended on the dot in 1920, but it certainly dropped sharply after achievement of voting rights as its last major milestone, and first wave feminists in the US were more often called "suffragettes" due to the importance of that singular issue.)

During this period, there were two or three very potent egalitarian movements underway - the abolitionist movement (which aimed to eliminate slavery and succeeded in constructing a universal right to citizenship regardless of race), the labor movement, and the socialist movement (the latter two might be considered a single movement). It is worth noting that socialists and abolitionists were generally in favor of equal rights for women (not as much so the labor movement).

As a very pointed example, the Soviet Union went further than almost any other contemporary nation in treating women as having legal rights equal to men. This is not because of pressure by feminist organizations; to the contrary, independent feminist groups, much like labor unions (and ... well, essentially any political organizations outside of the Party), were not permitted to exist; it was because such was appropriate according to the egalitarian doctrines that the Bolsheviks were attempting to put in place.

There were periodic alliances between abolitionists, socialists, labor organizers, and/or first wave feminists in various combinations. Frederick Douglass was in attendance at Seneca Falls in 1848, for example.

[Shaggai]

There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a man go to great lengths to prostrate himself to prove how much of a "feminist" he really is in an attempt to win over a girl who will always view him as a pathetic pervert.

Goddammit, when did you become a neoreactionary?