Criticisms of Feminism

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

No, they fucking don't. You know that isn't true, don't lie.



In the same way that some individuals hate women. Not entire fucking cultures, that is a flat out lie.

Actually, it is true. And things are just starting to change for the better. Every nation on earth is patriarchal, some to a greater extent than others.

In the united states, it's only been a couple decades since it was fully legal for a guy to rape his wife. It was not until 1993 that it finally became illegal for a man to rape his wife in all 50 states. If systematic support of rape against women by men is not hate... What is?

And only a couple generations ago it was not even legal for a woman to vote or own land.

In countries like Saudi Arabia it is illegal for a woman to drive, and a woman can't even go out in public without her body being fully covered. While rapists are sometimes punished if there are enough witnesses, there is no penal code or written law specifically criminalizing rape. Meanwhile, the victim is generally given a harsher punishment than the rapist, which can include flogging, imprisonment, or even stoning.

All over the world women have had to fight for the right to have equality with men and although a lot of progress has been made in some countries, that fight is far from over. Female politicians and CEO's are still a rarity even in the countries where most progress has been made.

Most religions, even in the Western world, have fully supported this mistreatment and continue to do, often disallowing women from becoming pastors or priests, fighting against women's access to birth control, creating a permissive environment for domestic abuse to thrive by demanding that women submit to men and must not divorce.

The daily experience of being a woman in countries like America may not be quite as restrictive as it is in places that practice Sharia law, but women are still held to stricter standards than men with regards to covering their bodies, are still sexually objectified in the media at a higher rate than men, and are still generally hesitant to report rapes because of a broken criminal justice system in which most rapists go free or are given very light sentences even after being brought to trial.

It is legal in parts of America for employers to fire women for being too attractive, but also legal to fire women in certain professions for gaining a little weight, which essentially means that it is legal to fire a woman arbitrarily for how she looks whether she conforms to patriarchal beauty standards or not.

These are only a few examples of institutionalized misogyny. I could go on for days.

If there were entire cultures that dedicated themselves to hating women, they wouldn't last too long.

[Edgy Opinions]

If there were entire cultures that dedicated themselves to hating women, they wouldn't last too long.

Societies with a majority of non-white people can still be white supremacist. Faulty logic, eh?

[Ragnarum]

If there were entire cultures that dedicated themselves to hating women, they wouldn't last too long.

Societies with a majority of non-white people can still be white supremacist. Faulty logic, eh?

You are forgetting that women can also be white.

[Edgy Opinions]

You are forgetting that women can also be white.

No, I mean that a society can indeed subjugate a considerable, integral portion of its populace.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You are forgetting that women can also be white.

No, I mean that a society can indeed subjugate a considerable, integral portion of its populace.

PRC, wot?

[Des-Bal]

No, I mean that a society can indeed subjugate a considerable, integral portion of its populace.

The important thing to remember is that regardless of what the balance of power looks like, what evidence suggests, or the logical consistency of your viewpoint everything bad can be traced back to white heterosexual cisgendered males. It's a fantastic narrative that doesn't require much original thinking.

[Natapoc]

No, I mean that a society can indeed subjugate a considerable, integral portion of its populace.

The important thing to remember is that regardless of what the balance of power looks like, what evidence suggests, or the logical consistency of your viewpoint everything bad can be traced back to white heterosexual cisgendered males. It's a fantastic narrative that doesn't require much original thinking.

What makes you think that?

[Edgy Opinions]

No, I mean that a society can indeed subjugate a considerable, integral portion of its populace.

The important thing to remember is that regardless of what the balance of power looks like, what evidence suggests, or the logical consistency of your viewpoint everything bad can be traced back to white heterosexual cisgendered males. It's a fantastic narrative that doesn't require much original thinking.

Actually that's a dumb way of referring to even the most "radical" branches of the ideology you attempt to parody.

Women can oppress. Trans people can oppress (I could have a dangerous position in regard to others because of my white status). Non-white people can oppress, and be oppressors in different schemes of racial hierarchy indeed, inside racism itself, even if white people end up topping it. Non-hetero people can oppress.

All of these can be internalized gatekeepers against others who make part of their own group.

Bad forms of feminism are a huge concern because they might harm non-binary people and women, even if one is of the theory that holds men as people who can fully strive for themselves. (I am not part of this line, and I'm tired of people who believe in this de-legitimizing my gender, my lived experience and my views because I think different.) And they DID harm women and others, trans people most particularly, in the past.

This was never denied.

[Eleanor Ritas]

The important thing to remember is that regardless of what the balance of power looks like, what evidence suggests, or the logical consistency of your viewpoint everything bad can be traced back to white heterosexual cisgendered males. It's a fantastic narrative that doesn't require much original thinking.

Actually that's a dumb way of referring to even the most "radical" branches of the ideology you attempt to parody.

Women can oppress. Trans people can oppress (I could have a dangerous position in regard to others because of my white status). Non-white people can oppress, and be oppressors in different schemes of racial hierarchy indeed, inside racism itself, even if white people end up topping it. Non-hetero people can oppress.

All of these can be internalized gatekeepers against others who make part of their own group.

Bad forms of feminism are a huge concern because they might harm non-binary people and women, even if one is of the theory that holds men as people who can fully strive for themselves. (I am not part of this line, and I'm tired of people who believe in this de-legitimizing my gender, my lived experience and my views because I think different.) And they DID harm women and others, trans people most particularly, in the past.

This was never denied.

Okay, so if I'm understanding the internet correctly, now I'm supposed to respond in way that completely ignores what you said.

Okay. Here goes:

That doesn't change the fact that you always claim it's the white straight guys fault when you get right down to it! That's why I have to watch seven hours of forced fem interracial pron every eight hours!

Did I do it right?

[Edgy Opinions]

Okay, so if I'm understanding the internet correctly, now I'm supposed to respond in way that completely ignores what you said.

Okay. Here goes:

That doesn't change the fact that you always claim it's the white straight guys fault when you get right down to it! That's why I have to watch seven hours of forced fem interracial pron every eight hours!

Did I do it right?

Yes. After 7 months doing that you also have to spell correctly 100 different sexuality and gender identities whose name was first coined in tumblr since the site was founded everyday, and explaining them over and over, then reaching the point where you reach modern-day understanding of it all and finally discretely parrot it to other privileged dyadic cishet people because you have an increased amount of legitimacy before others. (That's exactly what I'm trying to do right now, man! I tell ya, it's crazy! Don't let the Communisticsecularsatanicgayistfeminazi Occupation Government take over America like they did to Hueland, or you will perish in even worse manners!)

[Mushet]

No, they fucking don't. You know that isn't true, don't lie.



In the same way that some individuals hate women. Not entire fucking cultures, that is a flat out lie.

Actually, it is true. And things are just starting to change for the better. Every nation on earth is patriarchal, some to a greater extent than others.

In the united states, it's only been a couple decades since it was fully legal for a guy to rape his wife. It was not until 1993 that it finally became illegal for a man to rape his wife in all 50 states. If systematic support of rape against women by men is not hate... What is?

And only a couple generations ago it was not even legal for a woman to vote or own land.

In countries like Saudi Arabia it is illegal for a woman to drive, and a woman can't even go out in public without her body being fully covered. While rapists are sometimes punished if there are enough witnesses, there is no penal code or written law specifically criminalizing rape. Meanwhile, the victim is generally given a harsher punishment than the rapist, which can include flogging, imprisonment, or even stoning.

All over the world women have had to fight for the right to have equality with men and although a lot of progress has been made in some countries, that fight is far from over. Female politicians and CEO's are still a rarity even in the countries where most progress has been made.

Most religions, even in the Western world, have fully supported this mistreatment and continue to do, often disallowing women from becoming pastors or priests, fighting against women's access to birth control, creating a permissive environment for domestic abuse to thrive by demanding that women submit to men and must not divorce.

The daily experience of being a woman in countries like America may not be quite as restrictive as it is in places that practice Sharia law, but women are still held to stricter standards than men with regards to covering their bodies, are still sexually objectified in the media at a higher rate than men, and are still generally hesitant to report rapes because of a broken criminal justice system in which most rapists go free or are given very light sentences even after being brought to trial.

It is legal in parts of America for employers to fire women for being too attractive, but also legal to fire women in certain professions for gaining a little weight, which essentially means that it is legal to fire a woman arbitrarily for how she looks whether she conforms to patriarchal beauty standards or not.

These are only a few examples of institutionalized misogyny. I could go on for days.

Watch out with saying every nation, that includes indigenous people who may not be patriarchal, nation is different than country, and while patriarchy is very globalized these days due in no small part to colonialism it's difficult to actually say every contemporary nation is patriarchal since nation is much more abstract and there's so many more of them than countries. Now when it comes to every country I can agree with you, and the rest of your post.

[Anglo-California]

I really don't see why anybody's paycheck should be equal. People should be paid according to how well they do the job, not in relation to how much others are paid.

[Free Tristania]

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).

It's only because of my late father's inheritance that I can study at all without getting my ass so far up in debt that I can never pay it off. Thanks but no thanks.

[Natapoc]

Actually, it is true. And things are just starting to change for the better. Every nation on earth is patriarchal, some to a greater extent than others.

In the united states, it's only been a couple decades since it was fully legal for a guy to rape his wife. It was not until 1993 that it finally became illegal for a man to rape his wife in all 50 states. If systematic support of rape against women by men is not hate... What is?

And only a couple generations ago it was not even legal for a woman to vote or own land.

In countries like Saudi Arabia it is illegal for a woman to drive, and a woman can't even go out in public without her body being fully covered. While rapists are sometimes punished if there are enough witnesses, there is no penal code or written law specifically criminalizing rape. Meanwhile, the victim is generally given a harsher punishment than the rapist, which can include flogging, imprisonment, or even stoning.

All over the world women have had to fight for the right to have equality with men and although a lot of progress has been made in some countries, that fight is far from over. Female politicians and CEO's are still a rarity even in the countries where most progress has been made.

Most religions, even in the Western world, have fully supported this mistreatment and continue to do, often disallowing women from becoming pastors or priests, fighting against women's access to birth control, creating a permissive environment for domestic abuse to thrive by demanding that women submit to men and must not divorce.

The daily experience of being a woman in countries like America may not be quite as restrictive as it is in places that practice Sharia law, but women are still held to stricter standards than men with regards to covering their bodies, are still sexually objectified in the media at a higher rate than men, and are still generally hesitant to report rapes because of a broken criminal justice system in which most rapists go free or are given very light sentences even after being brought to trial.

It is legal in parts of America for employers to fire women for being too attractive, but also legal to fire women in certain professions for gaining a little weight, which essentially means that it is legal to fire a woman arbitrarily for how she looks whether she conforms to patriarchal beauty standards or not.

These are only a few examples of institutionalized misogyny. I could go on for days.

Watch out with saying every nation, that includes indigenous people who may not be patriarchal, nation is different than country, and while patriarchy is very globalized these days due in no small part to colonialism it's difficult to actually say every contemporary nation is patriarchal since nation is much more abstract and there's so many more of them than countries. Now when it comes to every country I can agree with you, and the rest of your post.

That's very true. I should have said every country. I did not intend to implicate non patriarchal indigenous nations.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I really don't see why anybody's paycheck should be equal. People should be paid according to how well they do the job, not in relation to how much others are paid.

That's not what "equal paycheck" means.

Would you be fine in a job environment where a woman earns a full dollar and you only get paid 60 cents in the same position and with the same experience?

[Free Tristania]

I really don't see why anybody's paycheck should be equal. People should be paid according to how well they do the job, not in relation to how much others are paid.

That's not what "equal paycheck" means.

Would you be fine in a job environment where a woman earns a full dollar and you only get paid 60 cents in the same position and with the same experience?

A lot of women work fewer hours than their male counterparts - f.i in part time jobs. You get the pay you've worked for.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's not what "equal paycheck" means.

Would you be fine in a job environment where a woman earns a full dollar and you only get paid 60 cents in the same position and with the same experience?

A lot of women work fewer hours than their male counterparts - f.i in part time jobs. You get the pay you've worked for.

I said in the same position

Most positions are specific whether you are a full-time or a part-time employee.

But, you know, thank you for demonstrating you don't know how hiring works.

[Free Tristania]

A lot of women work fewer hours than their male counterparts - f.i in part time jobs. You get the pay you've worked for.

I said in the same position

Most positions are specific whether you are a full-time or a part-time employee.

But, you know, thank you for demonstrating you don't know how hiring works.

No it explains why women make less than man and it also explains the entire pay gap. The equal work situation doesn't happen all that often as women and men still work don't the same jobs (there are still "female jobs" and "male jobs") and women work less. So statistics ought to reflect that - but that would destroy the argument of feminism.

[Free Tristania]

More about the non-existent pay gap: women do not get paid less than men because they are man.

But every "full-time" worker, as the BLS notes, is not the same: Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.

Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012.
Enlarge Image

Corbis

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O'Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O'Neills conclude that, "labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all."

These gender-disparity claims are also economically illogical. If women were paid 77 cents on the dollar, a profit-oriented firm could dramatically cut labor costs by replacing male employees with females. Progressives assume that businesses nickel-and-dime suppliers, customers, consultants, anyone with whom they come into contact—yet ignore a great opportunity to reduce wages costs by 23%. They don't ignore the opportunity because it doesn't exist. Women are not in fact paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I said in the same position

Most positions are specific whether you are a full-time or a part-time employee.

But, you know, thank you for demonstrating you don't know how hiring works.

No it explains why women make less than man and it also explains the entire pay gap. The equal work situation doesn't happen all that often as women and men still work don't the same jobs (there are still "female jobs" and "male jobs") and women work less. So statistics ought to reflect that - but that would destroy the argument of feminism.

1. Are you sure two nurse aides should not be getting paid the same rate per hour if they are both nurse aides and they have the same responsibilities simply because one is a man and the other is a woman?

2. How do you know there is no equal work situations? Have you gone to every workplace in every industry to experience this? Or are you just pulling hypothetical farts?

3. Why do you think there are still "female jobs" and "male jobs", care to take a guess?

4. What argument?

[Free Tristania]

No it explains why women make less than man and it also explains the entire pay gap. The equal work situation doesn't happen all that often as women and men still work don't the same jobs (there are still "female jobs" and "male jobs") and women work less. So statistics ought to reflect that - but that would destroy the argument of feminism.

1. Are you sure two nurse aides should not be getting paid the same rate per hour if they are both nurse aides and they have the same responsibilities simply because one is a man and the other is a woman?

2. How do you know there is no equal work situations? Have you gone to every workplace in every industry to experience this? Or are you just pulling hypothetical farts?

3. Why do you think there are still "female jobs" and "male jobs", care to take a guess?

4. What argument?

1. Have they been out of the work force when they got married (because they conceived a child) ? Meaning: they have less experience.

2. Read the article and don't be lazy.

3. Would you rather be saved by a female fire-fighter or by a male one ? Who would be the better nurse ? The man or the woman ? Exactly.

4. The mythical pay gap.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

More about the non-existent pay gap: women do not get paid less than men because they are man.

But every "full-time" worker, as the BLS notes, is not the same: Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.

Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012.
Enlarge Image

Corbis

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O'Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O'Neills conclude that, "labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all."

These gender-disparity claims are also economically illogical. If women were paid 77 cents on the dollar, a profit-oriented firm could dramatically cut labor costs by replacing male employees with females. Progressives assume that businesses nickel-and-dime suppliers, customers, consultants, anyone with whom they come into contact—yet ignore a great opportunity to reduce wages costs by 23%. They don't ignore the opportunity because it doesn't exist. Women are not in fact paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

The only problem I see here is where they note that "child care" is only "natural and expected". No it isn't. Most tech female workers get into tech jobs and have to leave because of this silly notion that they should not provide women maternity leave or something similar to that.

It makes female tech professionals not only more adverse to a tech firm but also more prone to not get into the tech industry at all. So dismissing the whole child care issue is just careless.

[Free Tristania]

More about the non-existent pay gap: women do not get paid less than men because they are man.

The only problem I see here is where they note that "child care" is only "natural and expected". No it isn't. Most tech female workers get into tech jobs and have to leave because of this silly notion that they should not provide women maternity leave or something similar to that.

It makes female tech professionals not only more adverse to a tech firm but also more prone to not get into the tech industry at all. So dismissing the whole child care issue is just careless.

Did you know that men don't get paternity leave at all ? In fact: in most countries he doesn't even get a paid day off to support his wife when she is giving birth. The woman on the other hand gets a lavish maternity leave. While this may or may not be deserved: she is, then, out of the workforce and thus more expensive (as it is paid leave, an expense for the company which goes uncompensated by her work for the company since she isn't working but at home).

In the Netherlands she would be out of the workforce for a period of 16 weeks (that's her paid leave) and perhaps longer if she pays for it - that means that 16 weeks go without labour (and potentially longer) - during those 16 weeks the man is still working.

[Natapoc]

3. Would you rather be saved by a female fire-fighter or by a male one ? Who would be the better nurse ? The man or the woman ? Exactly.

Are you serious?
1. I'd rather be saved by whomever was able and willing to save me regardless of his or her gender. I have met quite a few male and female firefighters and all of them would be more than qualified.

As for nurses: I'd rather be treated by the most skilled nurse. I think it would be stupid to pick a less skilled nurse simply because of his or her gender.

It's hard to imagine that maintaining sexism is so important to people that they would rather risk their lives than be treated by someone who does not fit an arbitrary gender role.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. Are you sure two nurse aides should not be getting paid the same rate per hour if they are both nurse aides and they have the same responsibilities simply because one is a man and the other is a woman?

2. How do you know there is no equal work situations? Have you gone to every workplace in every industry to experience this? Or are you just pulling hypothetical farts?

3. Why do you think there are still "female jobs" and "male jobs", care to take a guess?

4. What argument?

1. Have they been out of the work force when they got married (because they conceived a child) ? Meaning: they have less experience.

2. Read the article and don't be lazy.

3. Would you rather be saved by a female fire-fighter or by a male one ? Who would be the better nurse ? The man or the woman ? Exactly.

4. The mythical pay gap.

1. You seem to think every woman who has married and is expecting children just goes "welp, time to get out of the workforce, fuck this". Hint: that's not what happens often.

2. You just posted it and I read it and gave my response above. Stop calling me lazy when I just replied to your report. I guess you expect me to read 1000 words per minute?

3. I don't care which sex they are. I know women who are firefighters and men who are nurses. The fact you are making stupid stereotypes to back up an asinine argument is telling.

4. The pay gap exists because of a multitude of reasons. Some reasonable and some not so reasonable.