Criticisms of Feminism

[Gauthier]

This shouldn't have to be an either/or thing. Bringing up issues men have with women is not in my opinion meant to make women's struggles irrelevant. It's really too bad that men are facing the same struggle women did in the 70s to have their issues accepted from people who benefited from that earlier struggle.

I agree that the problems facing all people need to be dealt with. Gender not involved.

The problem is that men have never dealt with the same oppression that women did throughout history. It was less than a century ago that they were given the right to vote in all states, for example.

But because the mostly male-staffed criminal justice system has a habit of favoring women in criminal and custody cases, it's proof that we live in an Amazon matriarchy where defiance is punished by castration.

[Gauthier]

Calling for the destruction of property and likening yourself to slaves is immature, at least.

Sorry are you addressing what I wrote? if so how?

Given that you went off on a monologue replying to a comment about Ostro comparing spiteful destruction of a woman's property to the struggle against slavery, you really are one to expect a direct answer from someone.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Property destruction is not the answer.

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

Because willfully going along with a social convention is just like slavery. In that case, I suspect that opening doors is just like being in a concentration camp, right?

[New Edom]

This shouldn't have to be an either/or thing. Bringing up issues men have with women is not in my opinion meant to make women's struggles irrelevant. It's really too bad that men are facing the same struggle women did in the 70s to have their issues accepted from people who benefited from that earlier struggle.

I agree that the problems facing all people need to be dealt with. Gender not involved.

The problem is that men have never dealt with the same oppression that women did throughout history. It was less than a century ago that they were given the right to vote in all states, for example.

Not the same, to be sure, but different, yes, in a number of ways.

Patrick Stewart, speaking about the importance of fighting against violence against women and girls, also talked about violence done to men. He was specifically referring to his father's PTSD. I noticed that the feminist blogs and publications who admired his speech did not mention what he said about men. I think that he said, rightly, that recognizing where his father's violence towards his mother came from did not justify that violence, but did explain its origins.

So recognizing that for instance women and girls have and do instigate violence in one way or another, whether it is through men or doing it themselves doesn't legitimize violence against women and girls--it just recognizes it as one factor. I have mentioned this before, but bell hooks mentions in her book Feminism is for Everybody that women have often perpetuated Patriarchy quite deliberately. I'm dubious about the theory but I think that she made a good point. For instance my great-grandmother had 11 sons--all determined to serve their country in war, which she was very proud of. Of those sons, three came back. One was mutilated, lost both his legs. My grandmother's first husband never returned, the second came back a bitter and cold man.

One could handwave this as feminists often do saying "oh men started those wars and led them, nothing to do with women. Women were the primary victims.' But that's not the whole story, is it?

So would it cost feminists anything to admit that women are not constantly dragged along in history by some kind of Stockholm Syndrome but have in their way benefited at different levels of society and been party to violence? No. It would be to admit that we are all human and we can all play our part. It would be far more honest and would win the support of people like me.

[Gauthier]

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

Because willfully going along with a social convention is just like slavery. In that case, I suspect that opening doors is just like being in a concentration camp, right?

And holding out a chair is a Crime Against Humanity. *nod*

[New Edom]

I agree that the problems facing all people need to be dealt with. Gender not involved.

The problem is that men have never dealt with the same oppression that women did throughout history. It was less than a century ago that they were given the right to vote in all states, for example.

But because the mostly male-staffed criminal justice system has a habit of favoring women in criminal and custody cases, it's proof that we live in an Amazon matriarchy where defiance is punished by castration.

Are you suggesting that it is alright for women to beat men up?

[Gauthier]

But because the mostly male-staffed criminal justice system has a habit of favoring women in criminal and custody cases, it's proof that we live in an Amazon matriarchy where defiance is punished by castration.

Are you suggesting that it is alright for women to beat men up?

So pointing out that a habit of (often) male judges playing a part in the criminal justice system being partial towards women in criminal and custody cases is trumpeted as proof of some matriarchal world domination is the same as saying it's okay for women to beat up men now? But hey, if holding things for a woman is the same as slavery...

[Nierra]

I agree that the problems facing all people need to be dealt with. Gender not involved.

The problem is that men have never dealt with the same oppression that women did throughout history. It was less than a century ago that they were given the right to vote in all states, for example.

But because the mostly male-staffed criminal justice system has a habit of favoring women in criminal and custody cases, it's proof that we live in an Amazon matriarchy where defiance is punished by castration.

No one is suggesting such a thing, and there are plenty of female judges it's not like law is a male dominated industry like business is. Regardless of what gender is in the judge position, they rule in favor of women. Women are liked more than men as a result of social norms that favor men at times, but also favor women at times.

Women are not being oppressed, nor are men. Rather they both suffer many passive inconveniences and some might have different setbacks in different industries is all.

That said, I still think feminism is an over the top and incredibly radical approach to a non-existential problem fueled by fake statistics and outright lies as well as hypocrisy.

[Galloism]

Property destruction is not the answer.

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

You know what, fuck it. I don't care if you're a poe or not - this particular line of reasoning needs to die a fiery death, so let me be the first to set it aflame and toss it into a fuming barrel of gasoline.

Stop suggesting that men be candy asses. Really. Every single person who has challenged social convention - feminist or otherwise - has suffered social attacks as a result. These attacks have been furious and had little recourse in the short term, and you are not fucking special. I'd prefer that, if you're going to fight social inequities, that you fight social inequities like institutional sexism against men in the justice system, in family court, in social support, adoption laws, and the like, rather than penny ante shit like "oh my god I might have to carry something I'd prefer not to! The humanity!", but if you are going to focus on penny ante shit, at least do so like a real proponent of social justice.

This means you refuse to comply with social convention, state your reasons why, and those actually interested in actual social justice will rally to your side. Those against will try to make you suffer social retribution. It has happened to everyone interested in social justice before you. Pretending to be a clumsy ass and promoting that other men pretend to be clumsy asses does not advance the cause of social justice - quite the opposite in fact. It only reinforces the already extant stereotype of men as clumsy and stupid already prevalent in our society and in every sitcom fucking ever. It only encourages more sexism against men than is already in existence.

Stop trying to candy ass your way out of facing the consequences of being a pioneer. Stand up and face your consequences like a true warrior for the cause of equality, much like those in the civil rights movement before you, and the first wave and second wave feminists before them. Stop acting like a candy ass.

[Gauthier]

I don't really see any other recourse.
How else are men supposed to get women to stop asking them to do shit, if not by purposefully fucking up when they ask?
Simple refusal opens them to social attacks for which their is no recourse.
Compliance certainly won't do anything.
So what then?

Note by the way, this is exactly what Slaves also did as a form of protest.

You know what, fuck it. I don't care if you're a poe or not - this particular line of reasoning needs to die a fiery death, so let me be the first to set it aflame and toss it into a fuming barrel of gasoline.

Stop suggesting that men be candy asses. Really. Every single person who has challenged social convention - feminist or otherwise - has suffered social attacks as a result. These attacks have been furious and had little recourse in the short term, and you are not fucking special. I'd prefer that, if you're going to fight social inequities, that you fight social inequities like institutional sexism against men in the justice system, in family court, in social support, adoption laws, and the like, rather than penny ante shit like "oh my god I might have to carry something I'd prefer not to! The humanity!", but if you are going to focus on penny ante shit, at least do so like a real proponent of social justice.

This means you refuse to comply with social convention, state your reasons why, and those actually interested in actual social justice will rally to your side. Those against will try to make you suffer social retribution. It has happened to everyone interested in social justice before you. Pretending to be a clumsy ass and promoting that other men pretend to be clumsy asses does not advance the cause of social justice - quite the opposite in fact. It only reinforces the already extant stereotype of men as clumsy and stupid already prevalent in our society and in every sitcom fucking ever. It only encourages more sexism against men than is already in existence.

Stop trying to candy ass your way out of facing the consequences of being a pioneer. Stand up and face your consequences like a true warrior for the cause of equality, much like those in the civil rights movement before you, and the first wave and second wave feminists before them. Stop acting like a candy ass.

Cue cries of Attacking Gender.

[Galloism]

You know what, fuck it. I don't care if you're a poe or not - this particular line of reasoning needs to die a fiery death, so let me be the first to set it aflame and toss it into a fuming barrel of gasoline.

Stop suggesting that men be candy asses. Really. Every single person who has challenged social convention - feminist or otherwise - has suffered social attacks as a result. These attacks have been furious and had little recourse in the short term, and you are not fucking special. I'd prefer that, if you're going to fight social inequities, that you fight social inequities like institutional sexism against men in the justice system, in family court, in social support, adoption laws, and the like, rather than penny ante shit like "oh my god I might have to carry something I'd prefer not to! The humanity!", but if you are going to focus on penny ante shit, at least do so like a real proponent of social justice.

This means you refuse to comply with social convention, state your reasons why, and those actually interested in actual social justice will rally to your side. Those against will try to make you suffer social retribution. It has happened to everyone interested in social justice before you. Pretending to be a clumsy ass and promoting that other men pretend to be clumsy asses does not advance the cause of social justice - quite the opposite in fact. It only reinforces the already extant stereotype of men as clumsy and stupid already prevalent in our society and in every sitcom fucking ever. It only encourages more sexism against men than is already in existence.

Stop trying to candy ass your way out of facing the consequences of being a pioneer. Stand up and face your consequences like a true warrior for the cause of equality, much like those in the civil rights movement before you, and the first wave and second wave feminists before them. Stop acting like a candy ass.

Cue cries of Attacking Gender.

I think I was very careful to use gender-neutral pejoratives to show how I feel about this particular line of thought.

[Gauthier]

Cue cries of Attacking Gender.

I think I was very careful to use gender-neutral pejoratives to show how I feel about this particular line of thought.

Guaranteed he'll interpret "candy ass" as attacking his masculinity.

[New Edom]

Are you suggesting that it is alright for women to beat men up?

So pointing out that a habit of (often) male judges playing a part in the criminal justice system being partial towards women in criminal and custody cases is trumpeted as proof of some matriarchal world domination is the same as saying it's okay for women to beat up men now? But hey, if holding things for a woman is the same as slavery...

You are assuming that I'm taking the same position as Ostro, which I am not. While I sympathize with what is bothering him, i don't agree with his proposed solutions or the notion of us living in a matriarchal society. However I do think that female on male violence is largely ignored by feminists. I am talking about fairness. I am talking about the recogntion, that is all.

[Natapoc]

I agree that the problems facing all people need to be dealt with. Gender not involved.

The problem is that men have never dealt with the same oppression that women did throughout history. It was less than a century ago that they were given the right to vote in all states, for example.

But because the mostly male-staffed criminal justice system has a habit of favoring women in criminal and custody cases, it's proof that we live in an Amazon matriarchy where defiance is punished by castration.

This is what makes it so difficult to communicate with the MRM types. It's like they live in another world. They really believe we live in a matriarchy (and not the nice kind).

I would not be surprised if they really believe that woman would have them castrated for not opening doors or whatever.

It's a strange fantasy world they live in that is both disturbing and hilarious.

[Galloism]

But because the mostly male-staffed criminal justice system has a habit of favoring women in criminal and custody cases, it's proof that we live in an Amazon matriarchy where defiance is punished by castration.

This is what makes it so difficult to communicate with the MRM types. It's like they live in another world. They really believe we live in a matriarchy (and not the nice kind).

I would not be surprised if they really believe that woman would have them castrated for not opening doors or whatever.

It's a strange fantasy world they live in that is both disturbing and hilarious.

I will tell you though, I am puzzled about one thing. When it can be easily shown that, at least within the context of the United States, that men ARE discriminated against in the mostly-male staffed criminal justice system, as both victims and suspects, what's the solution?

Ignore it and hope it goes away? I'm not convinced that will work.

[Tekania]

Feminism = gender equality in all ways. End of story.

Opposing feminism means you believe men and women should not have equal status - and that, imo, is not a valid opinion.

in opposition of the core definition of it as the social theory, yes.... many who oppose self-labeled feminists however agree with the core concepts of the social theory but disagree with loud mouths in the "movement" who are engaging ideas or using poor methodologies in "studies" (I use the term loosely) disseminating (what at the core of it as a social theory) is very non-feministic things in the name of feminism. The problem is the social theory and the practical movement are not in all aspect the same thing. And the movement is well known to play the misogyny card when radicals are critiqued for their misinformation and bad ideas. And the simple fact is, as long as the "movement" continues to engage in the "us or them" false dichotomy defending very non-feministic feminists the movement is going to continue to hemorrhage reasonable people into the anti camps from the fact that the practical movement is not in line with the social theory.

[Nierra]

Feminism = gender equality in all ways. End of story.

Opposing feminism means you believe men and women should not have equal status - and that, imo, is not a valid opinion.

in opposition of the core definition of it as the social theory, yes.... many who oppose self-labeled feminists however agree with the core concepts of the social theory but disagree with loud mouths in the "movement" who are engaging ideas or using poor methodologies in "studies" (I use the term loosely) disseminating (what at the core of it as a social theory) is very non-feministic things in the name of feminism. The problem is the social theory and the practical movement are not in all aspect the same thing. And the movement is well known to play the misogyny card when radicals are critiqued for their misinformation and bad ideas. And the simple fact is, as long as the "movement" continues to engage in the "us or them" false dichotomy defending very non-feministic feminists the movement is going to continue to hemorrhage reasonable people into the anti camps from the fact that the practical movement is not in line with the social theory.

The very fact that there are loads of people on NSG against feminism, a predominantly radical social liberal sight, is reason enough to believe this.

[Natapoc]

This is what makes it so difficult to communicate with the MRM types. It's like they live in another world. They really believe we live in a matriarchy (and not the nice kind).

I would not be surprised if they really believe that woman would have them castrated for not opening doors or whatever.

It's a strange fantasy world they live in that is both disturbing and hilarious.

I will tell you though, I am puzzled about one thing. When it can be easily shown that, at least within the context of the United States, that men ARE discriminated against in the mostly-male staffed criminal justice system, as both victims and suspects, what's the solution?

Ignore it and hope it goes away? I'm not convinced that will work.

No I think that should be addressed both by eliminating gender roles (which is one of the causes) and by legal reform.

[Galloism]

in opposition of the core definition of it as the social theory, yes.... many who oppose self-labeled feminists however agree with the core concepts of the social theory but disagree with loud mouths in the "movement" who are engaging ideas or using poor methodologies in "studies" (I use the term loosely) disseminating (what at the core of it as a social theory) is very non-feministic things in the name of feminism. The problem is the social theory and the practical movement are not in all aspect the same thing. And the movement is well known to play the misogyny card when radicals are critiqued for their misinformation and bad ideas. And the simple fact is, as long as the "movement" continues to engage in the "us or them" false dichotomy defending very non-feministic feminists the movement is going to continue to hemorrhage reasonable people into the anti camps from the fact that the practical movement is not in line with the social theory.

The very fact that there are loads of people on NSG against feminism, a predominantly radical social liberal sight, is reason enough to believe this.

Well, and while most people agree that men and women should be social, political, and economic equals, most also do NOT identify as feminists.

There are more who believe in equality who state they are not feminists, than those who do state they are feminists. 82% said they believe men and women should be equal under those criteria, but only 23% of women and 16% of men self-identify as feminist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 94917.html

There are more things on heaven and earth Heratio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Edit: fixd typo.

[Galloism]

I will tell you though, I am puzzled about one thing. When it can be easily shown that, at least within the context of the United States, that men ARE discriminated against in the mostly-male staffed criminal justice system, as both victims and suspects, what's the solution?

Ignore it and hope it goes away? I'm not convinced that will work.

No I think that should be addressed both by eliminating gender roles (which is one of the causes) and by legal reform.

Eliminating gender roles is a noble goal, and one I very much support, but in order to do so we need solid concrete action against such roles, not just say "we're working against gender roles" and handwave it away.

With that in mind, what type of legal reform do you suggest?

[The Black Forrest]

in opposition of the core definition of it as the social theory, yes.... many who oppose self-labeled feminists however agree with the core concepts of the social theory but disagree with loud mouths in the "movement" who are engaging ideas or using poor methodologies in "studies" (I use the term loosely) disseminating (what at the core of it as a social theory) is very non-feministic things in the name of feminism. The problem is the social theory and the practical movement are not in all aspect the same thing. And the movement is well known to play the misogyny card when radicals are critiqued for their misinformation and bad ideas. And the simple fact is, as long as the "movement" continues to engage in the "us or them" false dichotomy defending very non-feministic feminists the movement is going to continue to hemorrhage reasonable people into the anti camps from the fact that the practical movement is not in line with the social theory.

The very fact that there are loads of people on NSG against feminism, a predominantly radical social liberal sight, is reason enough to believe this.

Loads? Maybe a dozen or so and how many of them have relationship baggage?

I started admitting being a feminist when Sarah Palin (and a couple others) started talking. They were horrible examples for my daughter.........

[Kelinfort]

No I think that should be addressed both by eliminating gender roles (which is one of the causes) and by legal reform.

Eliminating gender roles is a noble goal, and one I very much support, but in order to do so we need solid concrete action against such roles, not just say "we're working against gender roles" and handwave it away.

With that in mind, what type of legal reform do you suggest?

To be fair, most of them endorse a form of gender essentialism or gender roles. I feel that number's inflated a bit for every group.

[Natapoc]

No I think that should be addressed both by eliminating gender roles (which is one of the causes) and by legal reform.

Eliminating gender roles is a noble goal, and one I very much support, but in order to do so we need solid concrete action against such roles, not just say "we're working against gender roles" and handwave it away.

With that in mind, what type of legal reform do you suggest?

Well I'm an anarchist so you'd probably not like my real answer... But as far as solutions we would both be likely to agree with... To start we need better data to see what's really going on.

Standardizing legal definitions and keeping better records would help identify exactly where the problems are. Right now we have really poor quality statistics that frequently measure conflicting things.

I think it would make a lot of sense for independent review boards to frequently access legal transcripts with any information that would indicate sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion eliminated.

Police officers, judges, juries, prosecutors and others should also be instructed on how gender roles and racial bias is harmful so as to help them be aware of any bias they may have so they can attempt to reduce it.

What would you do?

[54e]

Page 69 of a feminism thread.

Just in case you're scoring at home.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Page 69 of a feminism thread.

Just in case you're scoring at home.

And you're in junior high school.