Criticisms of Feminism

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Sexists will gleefully interpret masculinity as serving women. It only takes a basic understanding of enlightenment ideals to note, however, that independence and equality are valued more than receiving arbitrary services. I would far rather be significantly safer from rape than have a door held open for me.

Rape victim stats are equal across genders. So that's a nonsense. Got anything else?
As for being "Valued", sure.

Those poor slave holders. Oppressed by their slaves. If only they were independent of relying on them.

I'll also note that, these days, women can be independent and have legal equality, but masculinity still serves women.
This is why there is a problem. Men need a rights movement.

Source their equality. What we see is boys sexually abused at young ages, 1 in 6 males generally, and women being assaulted at every age, 1 in 4 generally.

Insinuating slaves were independent.

The presumption that the privileging of masculinity serves women is an assumption intrinsically bound to be made by someone who is served by masculinity.

[Galloism]

Really?
Then why are men most of the victims of violence, why do they have less legal rights (in the west), why is the court stacked against them, why is the education system against them, and why do people prefer women?

Because the rest of us don't live in the fictional world where all those things are true. The rest of us live in a world where women are most of the victims of violence, where women have less legal rights.

Also... Why do people prefer women? Gender roles!

Where the shit do you live that women make up the majority of violent crime victims there?

[Ostroeuropa]

Rape victim stats are equal across genders. So that's a nonsense. Got anything else?
As for being "Valued", sure.

Those poor slave holders. Oppressed by their slaves. If only they were independent of relying on them.

I'll also note that, these days, women can be independent and have legal equality, but masculinity still serves women.
This is why there is a problem. Men need a rights movement.

Source their equality. What we see is boys sexually abused at young ages, 1 in 6 males generally, and women being assaulted at every age, 1 in 4 generally.

Insinuating slaves were independent.

The presumption that the privileging of masculinity serves women is an assumption intrinsically bound to be made by someone who is served by masculinity.

Well, if a man isn't masculine he is punished. Both by men and women. Would you say that means they are independent? I accept it's a hyperbolic comparison, but it's there.

"Serve us, or you will be punished."
The extent of the punishment differs, but the dynamic is the same.
Would slavery not be slavery anymore if slave owners made Black people beat eachother too? I'm guessing they most likely did.

It does serve women. It's why many women demand masculine displays.
Masculinity doesn't actually serve me at all, i'm a non-conforming agendered male. So you're obviously wrong on that second point.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Because the rest of us don't live in the fictional world where all those things are true. The rest of us live in a world where women are most of the victims of violence, where women have less legal rights.

Also... Why do people prefer women? Gender roles!

Where the shit do you live that women make up the majority of violent crime victims there?

That was not the claim. Claim is that most women are victims of violent crime, which is true throughout the world.

[Aidannadia]

Hold your horses. I know there are a lot of feminists here,

I seem to remember multiple people who identify as anti-feminist and those that prefer the term egalitarian, even if the *mainstream definition* of feminist is pretty much an egalitarian movement.

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.

I will not call you a misogynist or that you advocate for the discrimination of any one party in particular without just cause and I really doubt you are in favor of discrimination at all. I think you probably have the best of intentions.

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.

For a second there, I thought you were going to call feminism a disease, but you redeemed yourself towards the end.
Fro what I'm reading so far, I fundamentally disagree with your position of attacking causes because I doubt one could actively do anything about that. I understand the reasoning and in theory you are completely right, but reality doesn't always work the way that it should.

The fact is (and I recommend you take this very seriously), gender discrimination goes both ways.

As pointed out by many other people in this thread, the *mainstream definition* of feminism acknowledges this, regardless of radical movements within the movement.

Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect.

Correct. Agreed. Go on.

What you do not realize is that the discrimination of women is equally damaging to the male gender.

Whoa whoa whoa, what? I agree that social conventions also harm men, but I fail to see how discrimination of women affects men.

How so?

Do enlighten me, sir.

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.

I assume you live in the US and from my experience, you are not *forced* to abide by any gender roles. Now, you will face opposition from some who are afraid of how you express yourself, but that opposition is not on the one being oppressed but on the oppressors.
I disagree with the notion that "men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful." Faithfulness is a trait that is perpetuated throughought US culture, is it not? I realize that anecdotes are rather bad examples, but it's generally ingrained by parents/guardian to be faithful to a lover.
At the end here, you sound like you are apologizing for men asserting dominance and acting witha prejudice against women. You are your own person and following any preconditions that society places on you is a *choice*.

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.

Racism slowly being eliminated? I agree that strides in that area have and are occurring, but that isn't an excuse to stop promoting racial equality. You seem to be against classism, but you go on later to condemn the "1%" of the US. Is this not a form of classism, to generalize the actions of a group based on soci-economic factors? I agree there is a cultural stigma against the poor, and disenfranchised, but you are being a bit hypocritical, no?

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.

....What? I completely disagree with what you just said. First, I will present an alternative dialogue on the origins of sexism.
-In the early days of humanity, traditional economies often worked by way of leaving inheritance to one's children. However, there developed a problem when women, for whatever reason justified or not, slept with multiple men. It would be pretty easy to figure out who the mother of the child was, but there needed to be a way of making sure that a father's inheritance and job title could be passed down to their children, resulting in he formation of early marriage and the beginnings of mistrust and oppression/ownership of women that we would one day fight to abolish.
This timeline makes a lot more sense to me, and, quite frankly, doesn't mean shit. All of that could be bullshit. Now you seemingly jump from sexism to a conversation on income inequality and a rather conspiracy theorist-esque systematic oppression theory that I won't even give the time of day.

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.

Don't think we're going to see the breakdown of society any time soon. This is exaggeration.

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.

No. I don't want a level playing field for my children. I want to be able to give them anything I want, because it's my shit to give, not the governments.

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?

[/quote]
This really didn't have anything to with feminism.

I primarily want to address tackling the *causes of various types of prejudice* now. I don't like this approach and ideology because it usually presents no realistic alternative to the measures that are being proposed and already taken. Most of it presents some kind of social revolution that is baseless, unrealistic, and blindly idealistic. This is general how are I feel about gender abolitionist arguments as well.

I agree that gender roles are shit and that something needs to change, mostly society, but we need to not only adress the CAUSES like you said,(broadening people's perspectives in general about sex, gender, coitus, race, ethnicity, and culture through educational programs and awareness movements) but we also need to alleviate the SYMPTOMS of the now.

Nothing you said has ever even come close to closing gaps created by society. It only diverts the conversation from the problems and presents no solution to the problems themselves. In short, it's counter-productive.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where the shit do you live that women make up the majority of violent crime victims there?

That was not the claim. Claim is that most women are victims of violent crime, which is true throughout the world.

No, the claim was that the majority of victims of violent crime are men. Natapoc said the majority of the victims of violent crime were women.
Because Natapoc doesn't actually analyze reality to come to her conclusions, she uses ideology. She considered it absolutely absurd that reality be the case. But I fucking bet you we won't see one ounce of introspection and doubt as a result of this.

[Natapoc]

Because the rest of us don't live in the fictional world where all those things are true. The rest of us live in a world where women are most of the victims of violence, where women have less legal rights.

Also... Why do people prefer women? Gender roles!

Where the shit do you live that women make up the majority of violent crime victims there?

I think you are probably right. I intended to say gendered violence. Apologies. Males are the perpetrators and victims of most violence. (don't misinterpret this... there are some very wonderful peaceful men out there)

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Source their equality. What we see is boys sexually abused at young ages, 1 in 6 males generally, and women being assaulted at every age, 1 in 4 generally.

Insinuating slaves were independent.

The presumption that the privileging of masculinity serves women is an assumption intrinsically bound to be made by someone who is served by masculinity.

Well, if a man isn't masculine he is punished. Both by men and women. Would you say that means they are independent? I accept it's a hyperbolic comparison, but it's there.

"Serve us, or you will be punished."
The extent of the punishment differs, but the dynamic is the same.
Would slavery not be slavery anymore if slave owners made Black people beat eachother too? I'm guessing they most likely did.

It does serve women. It's why many women demand masculine displays.
Masculinity doesn't actually serve me at all, i'm a non-conforming agendered male. So you're obviously wrong on that second point.

You are suggesting men exclusively are slaves. You have completely turned a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face, the equivalent of hijacking a thread about issues in Britain with "well you should see what we've got in Australia." If you are agreeing that masculinity is privileged and patriarchal institutions ought to be abolished, you are arguing a moot point as I am in agreement.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where the shit do you live that women make up the majority of violent crime victims there?

I think you are right. I intended to say gendered violence. Apologies. Males are the perpetrators and victims of most violence. (don't misinterpret this... there are some very wonderful peaceful men out there)

Got a source on gendered violence that includes the definition?
Does it account for males being unlikely to report?
How does it account for authorities being less likely to arrest women for violence against men?
etc.

I'd actually wager that men are assaulted by women more often than the reverse due to the "Don't hit women" meme.
I can't prove it ofcourse. I've just seen it often enough.

[Aidannadia]

But I fucking bet you we won't see one ounce of introspection and doubt as a result of this.

I think you are right. I intended to say gendered violence. Apologies. Males are the perpetrators and victims of most violence.

I think someone just lost a bet.

[Natapoc]

I think you are right. I intended to say gendered violence. Apologies. Males are the perpetrators and victims of most violence. (don't misinterpret this... there are some very wonderful peaceful men out there)

Got a source on gendered violence that includes the definition?
Does it account for males being unlikely to report?
How does it account for authorities being less likely to arrest women for violence against men?
etc.

I'd actually wager that men are assaulted by women more often than the reverse due to the "Don't hit women" meme.
I can't prove it ofcourse. I've just seen it often enough.

Females are also very unlikely to report. Most people I know who have been raped or beaten have never reported it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, if a man isn't masculine he is punished. Both by men and women. Would you say that means they are independent? I accept it's a hyperbolic comparison, but it's there.

"Serve us, or you will be punished."
The extent of the punishment differs, but the dynamic is the same.
Would slavery not be slavery anymore if slave owners made Black people beat eachother too? I'm guessing they most likely did.

It does serve women. It's why many women demand masculine displays.
Masculinity doesn't actually serve me at all, i'm a non-conforming agendered male. So you're obviously wrong on that second point.

You are suggesting men exclusively are slaves. You have completely turned a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face, the equivalent of hijacking a thread about issues in Britain with "well you should see what we've got in Australia." If you are agreeing that masculinity is privileged and patriarchal institutions ought to be abolished, you are arguing a moot point as I am in agreement.

I would say that succeeding at masculinity compared to non-conforming privileges you as a male, but that you are still less privileged than females.
I'm suggesting that men are more oppressed by this whole set up than women are, and that women play an extremely key part in perpetuating this system. Men cannot change it, only women can. So long as a majority of women continue to support and demand this system, a minority of men will enforce it.

Yet despite this, which seems extremely obvious to me, feminism continues to focus on changing men instead of on women.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, if a man isn't masculine he is punished. Both by men and women. Would you say that means they are independent? I accept it's a hyperbolic comparison, but it's there.

"Serve us, or you will be punished."
The extent of the punishment differs, but the dynamic is the same.
Would slavery not be slavery anymore if slave owners made Black people beat eachother too? I'm guessing they most likely did.

It does serve women. It's why many women demand masculine displays.
Masculinity doesn't actually serve me at all, i'm a non-conforming agendered male. So you're obviously wrong on that second point.

You are suggesting men exclusively are slaves. You have completely turned a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face, the equivalent of hijacking a thread about issues in Britain with "well you should see what we've got in Australia." If you are agreeing that masculinity is privileged and patriarchal institutions ought to be abolished, you are arguing a moot point as I am in agreement.

Femininity is also privileged, because it can demand assistance when it is required.

You're basically asking me to accept the following:

Denmark, a country where it's citizens have a safety net and can be bailed out, but where it's rich people are slightly held back, is a more oppressed country than a libertarian shithole where the poor die in the streets but the rich are uber wealthy.

That is so antithetical to my liberal sensibilities that I can't accept it.

I don't turn a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face. It just pales in comparison to the violence and sexism men face.

[Natapoc]

Circumcision too. Men have their bodily autonomy violated there.

Blaming the circumcision on women or feminists is particularly silly. You realize that Circumcision, as performed today, started as a result of a patriarchal religion right?

Circumcision is a form of male dominance, marking the one who is circumcised as belonging to or otherwise a part of the larger group? Bodily autonomy is a feminist issue for many if not most of us.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

You are suggesting men exclusively are slaves. You have completely turned a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face, the equivalent of hijacking a thread about issues in Britain with "well you should see what we've got in Australia." If you are agreeing that masculinity is privileged and patriarchal institutions ought to be abolished, you are arguing a moot point as I am in agreement.

I would say that succeeding at masculinity compared to non-conforming privileges you as a male, but that you are still less privileged than females.
I'm suggesting that men are more oppressed by this whole set up than women are, and that women play an extremely key part in perpetuating this system. Men cannot change it, only women can. So long as a majority of women continue to support and demand this system, a minority of men will enforce it.

Yet despite this, which seems extremely obvious to me, feminism continues to focus on changing men instead of on women.

On a global scale, women are tremendously more fucked over than men. I don't know how I'm supposed to change your mind about that. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to argue that I deserve not to be murdered as a direct result of my gender.

[Ostroeuropa]

Circumcision too. Men have their bodily autonomy violated there.

Blaming the circumcision on women or feminists is particularly silly. You realize that Circumcision, as performed today, started as a result of a patriarchal religion right?

Circumcision is a form of male dominance, marking the one who is circumcised as belonging to or otherwise a part of the larger group? Bodily autonomy is a feminist issue for many if not most of us.

I didn't blame circumcision on feminists.
I pointed out that men lack a legal right which women already have to demonstrate that men lack legal rights in comparison to women.
Nowhere in that post did I blame feminists for this.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

I don't turn a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face. It just pales in comparison to the violence and sexism men face.

This is the best joke I've read on NSG in a while.

[Ostroeuropa]

I would say that succeeding at masculinity compared to non-conforming privileges you as a male, but that you are still less privileged than females.
I'm suggesting that men are more oppressed by this whole set up than women are, and that women play an extremely key part in perpetuating this system. Men cannot change it, only women can. So long as a majority of women continue to support and demand this system, a minority of men will enforce it.

Yet despite this, which seems extremely obvious to me, feminism continues to focus on changing men instead of on women.

On a global scale, women are tremendously more fucked over than men. I don't know how I'm supposed to change your mind about that. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to argue that I deserve not to be murdered as a direct result of my gender.

On a global scale?
Sure, maybe.
I might be prepared to believe that.

Problem is, I also pretty much doubt it, because of erasure of male issues and our societies gynocentric perspective.
We only zoom in on womens problems abroad and ignore the mens ones, coupled with mens problems abroad being silenced.

But let's say I buy that.
Lemme ask you this then.

if in the west it's a lot more arguable that men are more oppressed than women, do you think the feminist movement has failed men?
Before you answer, read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't turn a blind eye to the violence and sexism women face. It just pales in comparison to the violence and sexism men face.

This is the best joke I've read on NSG in a while.

Two thirds of the victims of violent crime are men.
Sexism is bidirectional, but sexism effecting men is more likely to result in their death, suicide, imprisonment, homelessness, or drug addiction, or whatever.
But yeh. Funny.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

This is the best joke I've read on NSG in a while.

Two thirds of the victims of violence are men.

And I doubt any vast amount of that violence is perpetrated as a direct result of their being men.

Sexism is bidirectional, but sexism effecting men is more likely to result in their death, suicide, imprisonment, homelessness, or drug addiction, or whatever.
But yeh. Funny.

Source. And why don't you throw one in exhibiting that women are significantly less likely to face violence as a result of sexism as well?

[Ostroeuropa]

Two thirds of the victims of violence are men.

And I doubt any vast amount of that violence is perpetrated as a direct result of their being men.

Sexism is bidirectional, but sexism effecting men is more likely to result in their death, suicide, imprisonment, homelessness, or drug addiction, or whatever.
But yeh. Funny.

Source. And why don't you throw one in exhibiting that women are significantly less likely to face violence as a result of sexism as well?

Why do you doubt that?
How else would you explain the discrepancy?

Source for which?
Well, men are most murder victims, most suicides, most prisoners, most of the homeless and most drug addicts...
Are you asking for a source that sexism causes this?
Because at that point you're basically saying feminist analyses of society are a crock of shit too.

I'd say it's a direct result of men being viewed as expendable and having less worth than women. (Hence things like the draft and violence against men being socially acceptable.) as well as men talking about their problems being heavily stigmatized, leading to drugs and suicide and such.

And why don't you throw one in exhibiting that women are significantly less likely to face violence as a result of sexism as well?

Sure. I'd agree with that. Women are less likely to face violence because of sexism. That's absolutely true.
I'd say this is one of womens primary motivators for keeping this system in place that oppresses men.

Currently, if a woman is an absolutely rude asshole to a violent person, they are fairly likely to hit her boyfriend for it.
Without sexism they'd hit her.
This doesn't condone the violence. That's one example.

Similarly, if the rude asshole hits her, they can expect most people in the area to come to her defence. Without sexism, she'd either be on her own and expected to put up a fight back, or be expected to personally evade a beating and contact the authorities.

EDIT:
Alternately, women could start jumping in and beating the shit into women who attack men.
Either way, women experience less violence because of sexism. That's absolutely true.

[New Edom]

Well here we are then. Feminists resist any criticism from outside and insist that there are no concerns their words or actions may raise, no matter what is being talked about. Critics complain and are accused of being ignorant or unrighteous. Rinse and repeat.

Humanism, folks. Those who find themselves caught between traditionalism and feminism can always stop arguing with feminists and insist on their values and position and call it humanism or whatever they want to.

Then what they can say is "Naw, this 'like a girl' ad is not something I want to support'. However they then can support educational initiatives they believe will benefit students generally. They can refuse to support 'heforshe' but can support ending discrimination in other ways that do not demonize men generally.

For example, one of my concerns is things like abuse and domestic violence. So I won't support an organization that will not acknowledge the need for men's shelters as well as women's shelters; I won't support organizations that don't acknowledge that women can be the abusers. I will not support public speakers or organizations that say things like "we need to teach women and girls that their bodies belong to them, and teach men and boys not to rape." I will not support an ideology that generally paints women as good and inherently wise and men as foolish and wicked.

[Nierra]

Really?
Then why are men most of the victims of violence, why do they have less legal rights (in the west), why is the court stacked against them, why is the education system against them, and why do people prefer women?

Because the rest of us don't live in the fictional world where all those things are true. The rest of us live in a world where women are most of the victims of violence, where women have less legal rights.

Also... Why do people prefer women? Gender roles!

Sounds like gender roles in favor of women.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

And I doubt any vast amount of that violence is perpetrated as a direct result of their being men.


Source. And why don't you throw one in exhibiting that women are significantly less likely to face violence as a result of sexism as well?

Why do you doubt that?
How else would you explain the discrepancy?

Source for which?
Well, men are most murder victims, most suicides, most prisoners, most of the homeless and most drug addicts...
Are you asking for a source that sexism causes this?
Because at that point you're basically saying feminist analyses of society are a crock of shit too.

We tend to see a legitimate correlation between the objectification and dehumanization of women relative to the oppression they face as individuals. The deliberate revocation of or refusal to grant rights to women is indicative of sexism. However we furthermore see an inextricable link between the patriarchy and the oppression of men. To suggest, however, that men are more severely oppressed than women by patriarchal values is an extraordinary claim and, on the base, merits extraordinary evidence.

[The Province of Tamriel]