Why feminism is wrong

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you understand what is meant by the term "by definition"? It means that because feminists are defined as believing in equality between genders

You and Cobalt are arguing from theoretical perspective, I am arguing reality. We could look at dictionary definitions all day, but that wouldn't be reflected in real life. Human beings as a whole are not rational creatures who look at a definitions to decide if a label in a book does or does not fit their cognitive bias.

Not to mention that there is a difference between common usage and technical usage.
If anything, the dictionary definition is out of date.

[Forsher]

Damn this thread. It just doesn't show up in my ego search.

Ha, nice try. Except my definition made it clear it was EQUALITY, and the so called feminists I discounted I specifically mentioned wanted MORE than that. I made it clear what feminism was and was not, based on a legitimate definition. Don't jump to conclusions just because I didn't go into extensive, unneeded detail.

Except they call themselves feminists and justify what they do and say with feminism. You can say there's one true feminism but if that worked branches, sects, and splinters of religions wouldn't be a thing.

So? Whether or not the core of their ideology is compatible with feminism is what matters. It's probably more accurate to consider feminism as Christianity than Catholicism or Presbyterianism.

You have no point. Neither or those articles say anything about the definition of feminism or present any valid point about a different meaning of feminism.

The point is that feminists of different stripes have different opinions. It is not the universal bloc operating under a single definition you'd suggest.

Because you fundamentally misunderstand the point. What makes someone a feminist is their belief in a particular goal. What exactly that means, the particulars, is where you find differences. They have the same destination but there is disagreement over what exactly that destination looks like. For some the grass may be really green while others are expecting sandy beaches.

Do you understand what is meant by the term "by definition"? It means that because feminists are defined as believing in equality between genders

You and Cobalt are arguing from a theoretical perspective, I am arguing reality. We could look at dictionary definitions all day, but that wouldn't be reflected in real life. Human beings as a whole are not rational creatures who look at a definitions to decide if a label in a book does or does not fit their cognitive bias.

That definition is reflective of how feminism is used in reality. It isn't if you're inclined to see the likes of your articles as being evidence against that. It is not a problem for any other group when the specifics are different, why should feminism be a special case? Where disagreement over the particular ways of achieving the "mission" means that the "missions" are incompatible?

Ideologically, when the mission or message or, simply, the core is the same, it's a shared ideology. That you can identify subsets doesn't, not for one second, imply that there isn't a bigger set. And that's the perspective of someone who would definitely prefer to not be labelled a feminist because I don't believe its perspective is helping.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm gonna just throw Tahars post up.
He gets the credit for the research on these, though I prompted him with:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/06 ... rch-finds/

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111526
This is a paper from 1993. The introduction starts off hitting quite hard by saying that voters cannot be blamed for the sparsity of female candidates. This paper used male / female names rather than male / female faces, and produced results that are surprisingly similar given the passage of some 20 years of time. The only trait that the hypothetical male candidate scored better on was competence with military issues - by a small margin, and the rating was low for all versions of their candidates. (Some of this has to be entangled with the Democrat / Republican identification - US study.)
http://apr.sagepub.com/content/19/2/248.short
Similar 1991 study. Note that in this study, oddly enough, lower numbers correspond to better ratings - that may be confusing on first reading.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748826
Early 1982 study looking at a small number of elections and concluding female candidates are not at a disadvantage (and possibly at an advantage).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-9137-6
2010 study showing that when it comes to pre-election polls, they tend to (if anything) understate support for female candidates. This is a bit odd, you might want to think about what that might really mean - I still am, personally.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002238160708005X
2008 study looking at actual outcomes of *primary* elections. See in particular Table 2. Essentially no difference in victory rates for male and female candidates within the primary stage.
http://home.gwu.edu/~dwh/nongendered.pdf
Follow-up paper from the same author of the above 2008 study supports your points #2-3, actually - coverage of purported bias against women discourages women from running:
"Ultimately, we would highlight two takeaways from our study. Based on our extensive analysis, it is quite possible that the electoral landscape is far more favorable to women than it was even just two decades ago, when the study of gender stereotyping was in its heyday. In this sense, the story is hopeful for those concerned about the small number of women holding elective office in the United States today. The media and voters may not be the obstacles for female candidates that they once were. In fact, reduced media and voter bias have likely contributed to the small increases in women’s numeric representation that have occurred in the last decade."

So for all the feminists whine about Patriarchy, it's bollocks.
Utter bollocks.
They and others like them are causing there to be more men in government, by convincing women it's not worth trying.
They then use their demoralization of women to justify gynocentric focuses which discriminate against men.
I consider this the coup de grace on feminism. They aren't only talking shit, they're actively causing the problem they purport to care so much about, and then using that to attack men.
When you add their institutional power and media control, it becomes quite apparent to me that this is precisely what I talked about earlier.

Imperialist Matriarchy.
It's feminists who cause men to be in government more than women, and this results in a smoke and mirrors situation whereby policies which benefit women can be pushed for over and over again.
Similar to installing a native so you can get away with imperial policies that would be too blatantly toxic to get away with if it weren't a native doing it.
Is it a clusterfuck instead of a conspiracy? Almost certainly. But it doesn't make it any less obnoxious or dangerous.
For these reasons and others, feminism has to be culled from our culture. If you hate patriarchy, you should hate feminism.

[Khorsun]

Feminism is right, women should be able to do whatever men can, and there should be no judging.

Ive seen feminists judge women for what they wear , the way they behave , and how they feel about feminism

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

[Hanchu]

Ive seen feminists judge women for what they wear , the way they behave , and how they feel about feminism

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

Oh and of course Which gender they're attracted to

[Des-Bal]

So? Whether or not the core of their ideology is compatible with feminism is what matters. It's probably more accurate to consider feminism as Christianity than Catholicism or Presbyterianism.

So you don't get to say "they're not real feminists" and then they go away. They are there and they are carrying the banner of feminism, when they speak, vote, and act they are doing so in the name of feminism regardless of whether or not you consider them to be under the doctrine.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Ha, nice try. Except my definition made it clear it was EQUALITY, and the so called feminists I discounted I specifically mentioned wanted MORE than that. I made it clear what feminism was and was not, based on a legitimate definition. Don't jump to conclusions just because I didn't go into extensive, unneeded detail.

Except they call themselves feminists and justify what they do and say with feminism.

It's clear in the definition of feminism that what they want isn't feminism, it's female superiority. They might think they're justified in doing so, but they aren't and they are very far from actually being feminists.

You can say there's one true feminism but if that worked branches, sects, and splinters of religions wouldn't be a thing.

On its face that seems right, but when you really dig deeper, that's not the case.

"23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." Exodus 33:23
I am a true Christian because I show my butt to people like God did to Moses. I do nothing else the Bible tells me to do, but my faith is completely justified and I am a true Christian.

It doesn't sit right, does it? The actions were supposed to be justified by the Bible, but not really. At all. And nothing else about the Bible was practiced or maybe even believed.

[Des-Bal]

It's clear in the definition of feminism that what they want isn't feminism,

When you can say that and they stop existing it will matter.

[The Cobalt Sky]

It's clear in the definition of feminism that what they want isn't feminism,

When you can say that and they stop existing it will matter.

I can call myself a potato but that doesn't mean I'm a potato.

[Des-Bal]

I can call myself a potato but that doesn't mean I'm a potato.

You're comparing vegetables and political movements. Those who act under the banner are part of the movement.

[Hirota]

Not to mention that there is a difference between common usage and technical usage.

You know that, Das-Bal knows that, and I know that. I'm not sure there is much point trying to enlighten the two recent posters who don't.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I can call myself a potato but that doesn't mean I'm a potato.

You're comparing vegetables and political movements. Those who act under the banner are part of the movement.

Unless you're naïve enough to actually validate them by calling them feminists, that's not the case at all. Why do you think the term crypto-fascist exists? Because some political movements aren't actually about freedom, and shouldn't be classified as such, even if they claim otherwise. Female supremacists aren't feminists, because they want women to be above men and not just equal. They are not part of the feminist movement, even if they think they are, because they aren't feminists, and you shouldn't call them feminists because a real feminist is someone who wants men and women to be equal. No more, no less.

[Hanchu]

Was Lena "Sister Molester" Dunham already mentioned?

[Tahar Joblis]

You're comparing vegetables and political movements. Those who act under the banner are part of the movement.

Unless you're naïve enough to actually validate them by calling them feminists, that's not the case at all. Why do you think the term crypto-fascist exists? Because some political movements aren't actually about freedom, and shouldn't be classified as such, even if they claim otherwise. Female supremacists aren't feminists, because they want women to be above men and not just equal. They are not part of the feminist movement, even if they think they are, because they aren't feminists, and you shouldn't call them feminists because a real feminist is someone who wants men and women to be equal. No more, no less.

(Emphasis added.)

The "dictionary" definition has varied - sometimes subtly and sometimes quite significantly, we have unfolded some of those dictionary definitions very carefully here on NSG - and its present form is as much a consequence of political pressure as good lexicography.

feminism

[From Latin femina: woman.]

(politics) A movement of 20-century politics holding that the rights of women are equal to those of men. Feminism is sometimes extended to assert that women are superior to men in ethics (e.g., more sensitive or altruistic) or even in epistemology (e.g., more wise or insightful).

Here we have an explicit acknowledgement that feminists - yes, actual feminists - sometimes assert the superiority of women, as well as acknowledging that the claim of equal rights is central.

feminism
Commitment to the abolition of male domination in human society. Feminists differ widely in their accounts of the origins of patriarchy, their analyses of its most common consequences, and their concrete proposals for overcoming it, but all share in the recognition that the subordination of women to men in our culture is indefensible and eliminable. Many feminist philosophers oppose Cartesian dualism, scientific objectivity, and traditional theories of moral obligation as instances of masculine over-reliance on reason. Serious attention to the experiences of women would offer a more adequate account of human life.

Recommended Reading: The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy, ed. by Miranda Fricker and Jennifer Hornsby (Cambridge, 2000); The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory, ed. by Linda Nicholson (Routledge, 1997); A Companion to Feminist Philosphy, ed. by Alison M. Jaggar and Iris Marion Young (Blackwell, 1999); Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, Nancy Fraser, and Linda J. Nicholson, Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange (Routledge, 1995); Feminist Theory and the Body, ed. by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (Routledge, 1999); Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives (Cornell, 1991); and Eva Feder Kittay, Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (Routledge, 1998).

Also see EB, SEP on feminist topics, epistemology and philosophy of science, social epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, history of philosophy, perspectives on the self, and approaches to the intersection of pragmatism and continental philosophy, Kristin Switala, Judit Hell, IEP, Krishna Mallick, and Olga Voronina.

Gender equality didn't make it into this one at all.

fem·i·nism (fĕmə-nĭz′əm)
Share:
n.
1. Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Note "equality" is shoe-horned in under the clause "especially with regard to." It's not actually necessary, in meeting this definition, to believe in equality of the sexes, it simply happens to be a common justification for advocacy on behalf of women's social, political, and economic rights.

feminism
Syllabification: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: /ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Definition of feminism in English:
noun

The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood.

I have emphasized an important group of four words. You do not need to believe in gender equality to be a feminist per this definition, either; this definition says that feminists invoke equality as the justification for advocacy of women's rights. You can do this independent of actually believing in gender equality, or advocating for men's rights in the cases where they are inferior to women's rights. (E.g., parental rights.)

feminism (ˈfɛmɪˌnɪzəm Pronunciation for feminism )

Definitions
noun

a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women

Closest match so far for you - but feminism refers to doctrine or movement. Which is to say that simply being a movement explicitly advocating equal rights for women suffices, even if (as with the "Ism Book" definition above at the start) some of its members assert, implicitly or explicitly, female superiority.

feminism

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] feminism pronunciation in American English /ˈfemɪˌnɪzəm/
the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men

Same rights and opportunities. Note, by the way, we have a lot of significant variation in terms of the scope of "equality." The Collins version didn't refer to opportunities (just rights) while the MacMillian version includes opportunities. (We can, historically, identify people in both camps as feminist ... or not feminist.)

feminism
noun fem·i·nism \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Mirriam-Webster. First definition refers back to a theory - the ideology described in the philosophical dictionary, really - while the second refers to a movement acting for women's interests (as well as rights). We've gone from "rights" to "rights and opportunities" to "rights and interests." Interesting, no?

feminism
noun [U] /ˈfem·əˌnɪz·əm/ US
› world history an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men

Here feminism refers to the effort - again, to the movement.

So what we see in the meta-analysis of these different definitions is that there are several distinct things that are being lumped under the term "feminism." Descriptively, the word is used to refer to movements that have typically (but not always, historically speaking) used the rhetoric of equality to justify advocacy on behalf of women's interests, but which includes people who appear to think that women are in some ways superior to men. Descriptively, Valerie Solanas was a feminist (at least until she was committed to a mental institution for criminal insanity), even though her beliefs were very far from gender equality. She was an intimate of the movement and her work resided inside of the radical branch of feminism. Descriptively, Warren Farrell is no longer a feminist (having lost most of his ties to the movement and concentrated his attention on men and boys), even though he firmly believes in gender equality.

Feminism also refers to the ideologies associated with this movement. The Oxford definition is in some way the most insightful: Equality is the justification for advocacy on behalf of women. Use of this justification for action on behalf of women's interests more or less requires the belief that that women are disadvantaged. Pursuit of these ideologies may end up with the assertion that women are in some sense superior to men.

As you can see, though, "the" definition of feminism is not universally held by experts to be what you claim it is - and what you are objecting to, the description of feminism in terms of being a movement, which is to say identifiable group, with its members (defined by their presence within the movement in spite of whatever their beliefs might be) being called feminists, is actually not at all unusual.

EDIT: Had the wrong post to reply clicked. References to position I'm responding to should make more sense now.
EDIT2: Fixed link. >.>

[Tahar Joblis]

Was Lena "Sister Molester" Dunham already mentioned?

There is a very useful "search this topic" box you might note between the thread title and the first post of each page in this thread.

(The answer is "no.")

[Hanchu]

Was Lena "Sister Molester" Dunham already mentioned?

There is a very useful "search this topic" box you might note between the thread title and the first post of each page in this thread.

(The answer is "no.")

Ok , well given how she admitted to sexually coercing her younger sister , and is still viewed as feminist , this should tell you something about how far the movement has sunk

[Susurruses]

There is a very useful "search this topic" box you might note between the thread title and the first post of each page in this thread.

(The answer is "no.")

Ok , well given how she admitted to sexually coercing her younger sister , and is still viewed as feminist , this should tell you something about how far the movement has sunk

She ain't viewed as a feminist by literally any feminist I know, so... there y' go.
I mean, child sexual abuse is not generally looked upon kindly by those that have experienced it (or any other form of sexual abuse) so maybe the subset of feminists I know are out of the norm, but even those without such experiences harbour a distinct distaste for Lena Dunham and her bullshit excuses and attempts to backpedal.

[Hirota]

She ain't viewed as a feminist by literally any feminist I know, so... there y' go.

More anecdotal fallacies from the perpetually fallacious. If you google Lena Dunham Feminist you get plenty of hits.

literally any feminist I know

I'm wondering if you actually know any feminists.

[American California]

If women were truly paid less, then wouldn't corporations be hiring them en masse in order to cut costs?

Or is it just that they are so "sexist", that they'd rather keep women in their place than make a bunch of money (which is their primary objective).

Which sounds more believable?

[Shigiel]

There is a very useful "search this topic" box you might note between the thread title and the first post of each page in this thread.

(The answer is "no.")

Ok , well given how she admitted to sexually coercing her younger sister , and is still viewed as feminist , this should tell you something about how far the movement has sunk

Not every action she performs is representative of the feminist movement. She can behave like an arsehole and be totally hypocritical, but that doesn't disqualify her from being feminist (as someone in this thread said) or mean that all feminists are like this.

[Ostroeuropa]

So, what.
Did my post about Patriarchy get hidden behind a perception filter or something?

[Desperate Measures]

If women were truly paid less, then wouldn't corporations be hiring them en masse in order to cut costs?

Or is it just that they are so "sexist", that they'd rather keep women in their place than make a bunch of money (which is their primary objective).

Which sounds more believable?

It's super easy to look up the facts about that.

[Ostroeuropa]

If women were truly paid less, then wouldn't corporations be hiring them en masse in order to cut costs?

Or is it just that they are so "sexist", that they'd rather keep women in their place than make a bunch of money (which is their primary objective).

Which sounds more believable?

It's super easy to look up the facts about that.

Kind of like the patriarchy, right?

[Desperate Measures]

It's super easy to look up the facts about that.

Kind of like the patriarchy, right?

Also super easy. Yeah.

[Ostroeuropa]

Kind of like the patriarchy, right?

Also super easy. Yeah.

I'm gonna just throw Tahars post up.
He gets the credit for the research on these, though I prompted him with:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/06 ... rch-finds/

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111526
This is a paper from 1993. The introduction starts off hitting quite hard by saying that voters cannot be blamed for the sparsity of female candidates. This paper used male / female names rather than male / female faces, and produced results that are surprisingly similar given the passage of some 20 years of time. The only trait that the hypothetical male candidate scored better on was competence with military issues - by a small margin, and the rating was low for all versions of their candidates. (Some of this has to be entangled with the Democrat / Republican identification - US study.)
http://apr.sagepub.com/content/19/2/248.short
Similar 1991 study. Note that in this study, oddly enough, lower numbers correspond to better ratings - that may be confusing on first reading.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748826
Early 1982 study looking at a small number of elections and concluding female candidates are not at a disadvantage (and possibly at an advantage).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-9137-6
2010 study showing that when it comes to pre-election polls, they tend to (if anything) understate support for female candidates. This is a bit odd, you might want to think about what that might really mean - I still am, personally.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002238160708005X
2008 study looking at actual outcomes of *primary* elections. See in particular Table 2. Essentially no difference in victory rates for male and female candidates within the primary stage.
http://home.gwu.edu/~dwh/nongendered.pdf
Follow-up paper from the same author of the above 2008 study supports your points #2-3, actually - coverage of purported bias against women discourages women from running:
"Ultimately, we would highlight two takeaways from our study. Based on our extensive analysis, it is quite possible that the electoral landscape is far more favorable to women than it was even just two decades ago, when the study of gender stereotyping was in its heyday. In this sense, the story is hopeful for those concerned about the small number of women holding elective office in the United States today. The media and voters may not be the obstacles for female candidates that they once were. In fact, reduced media and voter bias have likely contributed to the small increases in women’s numeric representation that have occurred in the last decade."

So for all the feminists whine about Patriarchy, it's bollocks.
Utter bollocks.
They and others like them are causing there to be more men in government, by convincing women it's not worth trying.
They then use their demoralization of women to justify gynocentric focuses which discriminate against men.
I consider this the coup de grace on feminism. They aren't only talking shit, they're actively causing the problem they purport to care so much about, and then using that to attack men.
When you add their institutional power and media control, it becomes quite apparent to me that this is precisely what I talked about earlier.

Imperialist Matriarchy.
It's feminists who cause men to be in government more than women, and this results in a smoke and mirrors situation whereby policies which benefit women can be pushed for over and over again.
Similar to installing a native so you can get away with imperial policies that would be too blatantly toxic to get away with if it weren't a native doing it.
Is it a clusterfuck instead of a conspiracy? Almost certainly. But it doesn't make it any less obnoxious or dangerous.
For these reasons and others, feminism has to be culled from our culture. If you hate patriarchy, you should hate feminism.

You're right.
That was easy.