Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[Liriena]

Sounds about right. Although we're still ignoring the elephant in the room: at least some of the overlap is rooted in good old fashioned misogyny, and sometimes not even subtly so.

Actual hatred of women is quite a bit rarer than sexism. It's rare even in circles that are overtly sexist.

"Misogynist" was an insult back in the 1600s, and is still an insult today.

It's also a word that can accurately describe a lot of the rhetoric I've seen in certain spaces.

There's no elephant in the room.

The overlap between /r/TheRedPill and men going their own way is the diagnosis that there's something deeply dysfunctional about how women typically relate to men in the here and now. TRP puts this in the framework of "this is how you work with psychology to make the dysfunction work for you," but some men respond to that diagnosis by deciding not to deal with it.

Is there some sexism there? Yes. It's very easy to jump from "these are very common problems in how women treat men" to "all women are [X]." It's a tendency that is demonstrated just as clearly by feminists as redpillers.

Or how men typically relate to women, or at least how they are typically taught to relate to them? This is not a one-way street.

Also... I'm pretty sure constantly talking about "alpha men" does not actually count as "psychology".

[Tahar Joblis]

You would think, but that has been attempted multiple times (and continues to be attempted up through today by well-meaning people trying to bridge the gap, like me just a year or two ago) and all you get for your careful and considered gender neutral approach is vicious attacks.

To be fair, the problem with a gender neutral, universalist approach is that it runs the serious risk of forgetting the importance of the historical and material causes of the problems affecting all genders. This is a problem that was already observed within feminism itself by some feminist authors decades ago, particularly when it came to something as basic as who the women that feminism fights for are.

I haven't seen that the sexist, non-gender neutral approaches generally portray correctly, much less recognize and appropriately place the importance of, the historical and material causes of the problems affecting all genders.

My experience thus far is that they are quick to embrace delusion. For example, the theory of primitive matriarchy is very commonly embraced by radical feminists in spite of the fact that it has about as much favorable evidence as the theory of ancient alien design of the Pyramids - i.e., zero evidence outside of wishful speculation (albeit a less fantastical brand of wishful speculation). Most radical feminists will also claim that "patriarchy" is the cause of default maternal custody in divorce (as opposed to being the result of advocacy by first wave feminists). Many will frame the status of women as being treated like slaves in, say, pre-feminist Anglo-American legal tradition, as opposed to using the more accurate analogy of being treated like children. Many seem to completely forget that the system of alimony is rooted in patriarchy in hurrying to construct new "feminist" defenses of the institution, and fail to recognize that the various systems of greater male obligation are rooted in the patriarchal systems they object to; they simply act blindly and conservatively to prevent changes to that side of the old patriarchal system.

Many radical feminists treat "historical context" as a justification for defending female privileges that reinforce sexist ideologies and behaviors on a large scale - including anti-woman sexism as well as anti-man sexism. Very few feminists who object to the universalist approach show any signs of recognizing that special protections for women are what defeated the Equal Rights Amendment over and over again.

[Bakery Hill]

Male feminists are annoying. I agree with socialist feminism, but the movement's not for me nor about me.

But one can support the movement, no?

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

[Dorkland]

But one can support the movement, no?

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

I support equal rights but I don't see a point in supporting feminist ideology or identifying as such.

1. there's a lot more to it than the dictionary definition would imply.
2. as an egalitarian, I can sympathize with and support equal rights. My egalitarianism encompasses any feminist drive for equality, while not having to get bogged down in a lot of ideological dogma like Patriarchy Theory, Intersectionality, etc.
3. Feminism is a gendered term--by its very nature, it is impossible to claim to oppose gender roles and stereotypes whilst wearing a label that is intrinsically tied to distinctions made between genders. It is no different than calling oneself a masculinist. It will be very difficult to avoid bias and discrimination when the term one labels themself automatically carries a certain bias and preference for one perspective, one mode of thinking. It implies the feminine approach or perspective is somehow superior to the masculine. In my opinion, these two approaches are equal but different sides of the human experience.

[Galloism]

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

I support equal rights but I don't see a point in supporting feminist ideology or identifying as such.

1. there's a lot more to it than the dictionary definition would imply.
2. as an egalitarian, I can sympathize with and support equal rights. My egalitarianism encompasses any feminist drive for equality, while not having to get bogged down in a lot of ideological dogma like Patriarchy Theory, Intersectionality, etc.
3. Feminism is a gendered term--by its very nature, it is impossible to claim to oppose gender roles and stereotypes whilst wearing a label that is intrinsically tied to distinctions made between genders. It is no different than calling oneself a masculinist.

Well, I used to consider myself a feminist, but I wound up dropping the label. I now have no label.

This is because I very much want equality between the genders, and the feminist approach to gender equality is inherently anti-equality. Beyond that, feminist organizations repeatedly and continuously marginalize and mock men who are victims of rape and domestic violence - both in the gender discourse and directly when they call for help.

I can't be associated with that. Same way I can't be associated with modern conservatism.

[Bakery Hill]

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

I support equal rights but I don't see a point in supporting feminist ideology or identifying as such.

1. there's a lot more to it than the dictionary definition would imply.
2. as an egalitarian, I can sympathize with and support equal rights. My egalitarianism encompasses any feminist drive for equality, while not having to get bogged down in a lot of ideological dogma like Patriarchy Theory, Intersectionality, etc.
3. Feminism is a gendered term--by its very nature, it is impossible to claim to oppose gender roles and stereotypes whilst wearing a label that is intrinsically tied to distinctions made between genders. It is no different than calling oneself a masculinist.

I'm a socialist. I find socialist feminist ideology spot on for the most part, but I understand the feminist movement is a woman lead thing for women, so I don't play an active role. To call myself a feminist would be useless, it'd be parasitic at best.

[Bakery Hill]

I support equal rights but I don't see a point in supporting feminist ideology or identifying as such.

1. there's a lot more to it than the dictionary definition would imply.
2. as an egalitarian, I can sympathize with and support equal rights. My egalitarianism encompasses any feminist drive for equality, while not having to get bogged down in a lot of ideological dogma like Patriarchy Theory, Intersectionality, etc.
3. Feminism is a gendered term--by its very nature, it is impossible to claim to oppose gender roles and stereotypes whilst wearing a label that is intrinsically tied to distinctions made between genders. It is no different than calling oneself a masculinist.

Well, I used to consider myself a feminist, but I wound up dropping the label. I now have no label.

This is because I very much want equality between the genders, and the feminist approach to gender equality is inherently anti-equality. Beyond that, feminist organizations repeatedly and continuously marginalize and mock men who are victims of rape and domestic violence - both in the gender discourse and directly when they call for help.

I can't be associated with that. Same way I can't be associated with modern conservatism.

I've literally never seen that. You must be encountering some horrible organisations.

[Galloism]

Well, I used to consider myself a feminist, but I wound up dropping the label. I now have no label.

This is because I very much want equality between the genders, and the feminist approach to gender equality is inherently anti-equality. Beyond that, feminist organizations repeatedly and continuously marginalize and mock men who are victims of rape and domestic violence - both in the gender discourse and directly when they call for help.

I can't be associated with that. Same way I can't be associated with modern conservatism.

I've literally never seen that. You must be encountering some horrible organisations.

It's not just me. Look up the Duluth model for marginalization.

For mocking, well...

A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies. Qualitative accounts provide a more in-depth understanding of their experiences with these resources.

“They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my 6 children and care for them.” (Experience with a DV agency)

“[T]hey offered to listen if I wanted to recount what had happehed [sic], but indicated that no support services were available.” (Experience with DV hotline)

“I was mostly just doing research after the occurrence [sic] to find out what I should do. I found mostly female help sites and was turned down by several so I gave up.” (Experience using online resources)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

[Liriena]

To be fair, the problem with a gender neutral, universalist approach is that it runs the serious risk of forgetting the importance of the historical and material causes of the problems affecting all genders. This is a problem that was already observed within feminism itself by some feminist authors decades ago, particularly when it came to something as basic as who the women that feminism fights for are.

I haven't seen that the sexist, non-gender neutral approaches generally portray correctly, much less recognize and appropriately place the importance of, the historical and material causes of the problems affecting all genders.

Well, I can't speak for every single feminist theory out there, and my experience reading feminist theory is very limited, but I can say that I've seen feminist approaches that, at the very least, do a decent job of signalling a way forward that properly addresses the diverse nature of sexism. One particular example that I think has some value (if you can get past the... weird... prose) is Donna Haraway's critique of traditional feminism in A Cyborg Manifesto.

My experience thus far is that they are quick to embrace delusion. For example, the theory of primitive matriarchy is very commonly embraced by radical feminists in spite of the fact that it has about as much favorable evidence as the theory of ancient alien design of the Pyramids - i.e., zero evidence outside of wishful speculation (albeit a less fantastical brand of wishful speculation). Most radical feminists will also claim that "patriarchy" is the cause of default maternal custody in divorce (as opposed to being the result of advocacy by first wave feminists). Many will frame the status of women as being treated like slaves in, say, pre-feminist Anglo-American legal tradition, as opposed to using the more accurate analogy of being treated like children. Many seem to completely forget that the system of alimony is rooted in patriarchy in hurrying to construct new "feminist" defenses of the institution, and fail to recognize that the various systems of greater male obligation are rooted in the patriarchal systems they object to; they simply act blindly and conservatively to prevent changes to that side of the old patriarchal system.

Many radical feminists treat "historical context" as a justification for defending female privileges that reinforce sexist ideologies and behaviors on a large scale - including anti-woman sexism as well as anti-man sexism. Very few feminists who object to the universalist approach show any signs of recognizing that special protections for women are what defeated the Equal Rights Amendment over and over again.

Maybe those are not unfair criticisms, although I can't claim to speak in the name of radical feminists.

[Bakery Hill]

I've literally never seen that. You must be encountering some horrible organisations.

It's not just me. Look up the Duluth model for marginalization.

For mocking, well...

A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies. Qualitative accounts provide a more in-depth understanding of their experiences with these resources.

“They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my 6 children and care for them.” (Experience with a DV agency)

“[T]hey offered to listen if I wanted to recount what had happehed [sic], but indicated that no support services were available.” (Experience with DV hotline)

“I was mostly just doing research after the occurrence [sic] to find out what I should do. I found mostly female help sites and was turned down by several so I gave up.” (Experience using online resources)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

Sample size is very small, and I have little familiarity with the American Way, but it looks like those organisations need an overhaul.

Needless to say, I don't find myself needing to defend all of feminism here. Luckily all the self described feminists I know and work with have never displayed such attitudes. Seems pretty symptomatic of the poor structural analysis liberal and second wave radfems have tbh.

[Liriena]

But one can support the movement, no?

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

Not entirely unfair, I'll admit.

[Galloism]

It's not just me. Look up the Duluth model for marginalization.

For mocking, well...



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/

Sample size is very small, and I have little familiarity with the American Way, but it looks like those organisations need an overhaul.

Needless to say, I don't find myself needing to defend all of feminism here. Luckily all the self described feminists I know and work with have never displayed such attitudes. Seems pretty symptomatic of the poor structural analysis liberal and second wave radfems have tbh.

Let's see just how nonsexist your feminists you "know and work with" are. Just talking about them for a moment.

Do they recognize the evidence that, at least among adults, men and women suffer rape and domestic violence at very similar rates?

[Tahar Joblis]

Actual hatred of women is quite a bit rarer than sexism. It's rare even in circles that are overtly sexist.

"Misogynist" was an insult back in the 1600s, and is still an insult today.

It's also a word that can accurately describe a lot of the rhetoric I've seen in certain spaces.

It's a word that is fantastically abused if we hold it to its original definition.

If we re-define it as "sexism of a sort that frames women unfavorably," it is still frequently strained.

There's no elephant in the room.

The overlap between /r/TheRedPill and men going their own way is the diagnosis that there's something deeply dysfunctional about how women typically relate to men in the here and now. TRP puts this in the framework of "this is how you work with psychology to make the dysfunction work for you," but some men respond to that diagnosis by deciding not to deal with it.

Is there some sexism there? Yes. It's very easy to jump from "these are very common problems in how women treat men" to "all women are [X]." It's a tendency that is demonstrated just as clearly by feminists as redpillers.

Or how men typically relate to women, or at least how they are typically taught to relate to them? This is not a one-way street.

Yes, it is quite similar in how those discussions work. As I said, these sorts of discussions are by their nature very susceptible to sexism - whether we're talking about TRP's discussions of feminine psychology or feminism's discussions of masculine psychology.

Like I said, it's very easy to jump from these sorts of discussions to sexist generalizations. From there, you can go on to misogyny, misandry, androphobia, gynophobia, etc.

We don't generally tolerate fear or hatred of women. Within a feminist context, hatred of men and fear of men are tolerated - even sometimes celebrated - and so feminism, a large mainstream movement with pretensions of anti-sexism, has no less of a problem with sexist fear and hatred as TRP, a fringe community of pick-up artists with no pretensions towards being anti-sexist.

TRP, as mentioned, isn't even part of the men's rights movement.

Also... I'm pretty sure constantly talking about "alpha men" does not actually count as "psychology".

Psychology is defined - more or less - as "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context."

In practice, a lot of psychology is very bad science and pseudoscience, but usually we still refer to attempted science as still being "psychology." The fact that TRP has seized on an understanding of feminine psychology that could have been lifted right out of Mills & Boon's old guidelines for writing romance novels (which used "alphaman" as a single word) is interesting on a certain level - but not really any stranger than the discussions of masculine psychology that go on in feminism. Most theories of patriarchy have embedded theories of masculine psychology - some rather more explicitly than others - which are even stranger than the not-so-odd hypothesis that women are attracted to "alpha" characteristics, and the slightly odder hypotheses about what those characteristics are.

[Bakery Hill]

Sample size is very small, and I have little familiarity with the American Way, but it looks like those organisations need an overhaul.

Needless to say, I don't find myself needing to defend all of feminism here. Luckily all the self described feminists I know and work with have never displayed such attitudes. Seems pretty symptomatic of the poor structural analysis liberal and second wave radfems have tbh.

Let's see just how nonsexist your feminists you "know and work with" are. Just talking about them for a moment.

Do they recognize the evidence that, at least among adults, men and women suffer rape and domestic violence at very similar rates?

Send me the proofs fam.

[Maineiacs]

Oh boy. I can't for what "Misandry, what is it, and why Women should stop talking back and get in the Kitchen" to become required reading in our Schools.

Well, it's certainly what I've always hoped for for my daughter. #sarcasm #makeyourowndamnsandwich #stayawayfrommydaughteryouhorndog

[Calladan]

And whenever laws are strengthened to protect women from domestic violence (which is something that needs doing in some cases), the little boys whine and cry and say "Why is it always the girls who get all the rules made for them and why do the men never get the breaks?" suggesting that - throughout history - women have ALWAYS been given preferential treatment over men.

For the last century, women have generally received preferential treatment over men. There are some contra-indications, and I'll give you a good current day example.

Are you aware that, depending on your dataset, men make up 40-60% of domestic violence victims?

Firstly, that means, depending on your dataset, women make up 60-40% of domestic violence victims. (or 40-60%, if you phrase it another way).

Meanwhile, in the UK women over thirty who owned property were granted the right to vote in 1918 (less than 100 years ago). In the same act, all men over 21 (and men in the army over 19) were granted the right to vote. It would take another 10 years for women to get full equality.

I do understand what you're saying, and I am not saying things haven't got better, but I think that if you look through history, even recent history (100-150 years), the idea that women have not been abused and held back by the state, is a tad disingenuous.

[Galloism]

Let's see just how nonsexist your feminists you "know and work with" are. Just talking about them for a moment.

Do they recognize the evidence that, at least among adults, men and women suffer rape and domestic violence at very similar rates?

Send me the proofs fam.

You can start here and here and here.

You will have to make one correction though. Thanks to the sexist work of Mary Koss (and feminist academia in general) when a woman is passed out drunk and some man comes along and fucks her in her sleep, it's rape (as it should be). When a man is passed out drunk and some woman comes along and fucks him in his sleep, it's "made to penetrate" (which should be considered rape). You'll have to mentally make that adjustment.

For domestic violence, the 12 month numbers speak for themselves.

Now, I used the term "among adults" specifically, as there may be a discrepancy among children (you'll note the lifetime numbers and 12 month numbers don't exactly wash, but memory is more accurate in the short term, and the survey only covers adults).

Another limitation: it doesn't cover the incarcerated, so prison rape isn't counted except by release and accident.

[Tahar Joblis]

But one can support the movement, no?

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

It's not difficult to find hypocritical virtue-signalling and misbehavior among female feminists.

If you find male feminists annoying or are generally suspicious of them, but are okay with female feminists, it's probably because you are a sexist.

[Galloism]

For the last century, women have generally received preferential treatment over men. There are some contra-indications, and I'll give you a good current day example.

Are you aware that, depending on your dataset, men make up 40-60% of domestic violence victims?

Firstly, that means, depending on your dataset, women make up 60-40% of domestic violence victims. (or 40-60%, if you phrase it another way).

Yes, but men make up 85-90% of the arrests, while women are only 10-15%. Funny, isn't it?

Meanwhile, in the UK women over thirty who owned property were granted the right to vote in 1918 (less than 100 years ago). In the same act, all men over 21 (and men in the army over 19) were granted the right to vote. It would take another 10 years for women to get full equality.

Yeah, you can thank the anti-suffragettes for that. They felt that granting women the right to vote would make them subject to the draft (the draft and voting went hand in hand for almost as long as democratic republics in general). In truth, they needn't have worried they would be held to the same standards as men just because they had the right to vote.

I do understand what you're saying, and I am not saying things haven't got better, but I think that if you look through history, even recent history (100-150 years), the idea that women have not been abused and held back by the state, is a tad disingenuous.

The idea that men have not been abused and held back by the state isn't just a tad disingenuous, it's downright delusional. They are literally sent to die against their will by the state.

[Bakery Hill]

Send me the proofs fam.

You can start here and here and here.

You will have to make one correction though. Thanks to the sexist work of Mary Koss (and feminist academia in general) when a woman is passed out drunk and some man comes along and fucks her in her sleep, it's rape (as it should be). When a man is passed out drunk and some woman comes along and fucks him in his sleep, it's "made to penetrate" (which should be considered rape). You'll have to mentally make that adjustment.

For domestic violence, the 12 month numbers speak for themselves.

Now, I used the term "among adults" specifically, as there may be a discrepancy among children (you'll note the lifetime numbers and 12 month numbers don't exactly wash, but memory is more accurate in the short term, and the survey only covers adults).

Another limitation: it doesn't cover the incarcerated, so prison rape isn't counted except by release and accident.

Man that's hundreds of pages of data. It's going to take me days to get to that comprehensively.

[Outright Sadists]

The problem is that they make the classic mistake: if a man and woman are equally drunk and have sex, he raped her.

Because penis.

It's a lot harder for a man to rape a woman than it is for a woman to rape a man. Still, in that scenario the 2 people involved would just be stupid for getting that drunk. It's dumb to shout "RAAAAPE" in that scenario.

[Bakery Hill]

Also on the bit I did read.

n the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

[Bakery Hill]

Yes. But without the whole "I actually identify as a feminist sweaty????" dynamic going on. It smells of virtue signalling and wolf-in-sheeps clothing.

It's not difficult to find hypocritical virtue-signalling and misbehavior among female feminists.

If you find male feminists annoying or are generally suspicious of them, but are okay with female feminists, it's probably because you are a sexist.

I probably am a sexist, though not for that reason bucko.

[Galloism]

Also on the bit I did read.

n the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

You didn't read what I said did you? If a man is passed out drunk and mounted by a woman until he orgasms without ever waking up or giving any consent, it's not rape. It's other sexual violence - made to penetrate. This is the problem with feminist sexism - it is sufficiently well crouched to reinforce sexism among the fucking lazy.

In any case, I did an analysis of 2012 here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=411146&hilit=Galloism+CDC#p31688343

I'm sure there's 2011 and 2010 around. If you want me to dig those up, I can.

[Galloism]

The problem is that they make the classic mistake: if a man and woman are equally drunk and have sex, he raped her.

Because penis.

It's a lot harder for a man to rape a woman than it is for a woman to rape a man.

I'm not sure why it would be.

Still, in that scenario the 2 people involved would just be stupid for getting that drunk. It's dumb to shout "RAAAAPE" in that scenario.

Depends on the circumstances. Intoxication doesn't excuse committing an actual crime, but neither does it vitiate consent (unless the intoxication is severe enough to veer into incapacitation).