The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Blaatschapen]

None of the ads I have seen were about exchanging sex and board.

Oh, I see. I thought Craigslist might be different. Are there any in English that you'd be willing to share?

No, the vast majority of ads are in German.

On that note, I saw one specifically asking for a man today.

Ach und da wir schon 2 Mädels sind, suchen wir am liebsten noch etwas männliche Unterstützung

A place for four, and they want to keep the gender balance.

[Costa Fierro]

This is turning out to be a bloody good read.

[Donut section]

Two recent articles i read make my points for me.

1. Emma Watson apparently recommends these five books to read. This appears to be a general mainstream approach to feminism, and these books are generally popular and well known among feminists. So are these books rather definitive or not?

2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:

Patriarchy (as defined above) doesn’t just hurt women by treating them as property. In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts. Unfortunately, we’ve done a terrible job at understanding and communicating this, to the point that most men in this situation are convinced that feminism, not patriarchy, is actually the root of their problems. So long as middle-class feminists ridicule and demonize them while enjoying relatively pampered lives, these men will continue to hate us. And who can blame them?

I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.

As a "low status, unmarriageable man" who engages in dirty dangerous work i have a bone to pick with claiming we earn peanuts. Sure alot of us earn whatever we can get, but it's not due to some "patriarchy". It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets. And aside from the picking things up, putting them down over there part, our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

We don't see feminism as the root of our problems, human nature is the root of our problems, our own failings. If anything our antagonism towards feminism is the threat to our futures.

Complaining changes nothing and should be ignored no matter who is doing it. Fixing it yourself is worth more than being given a solution by complaining. All we want is the freedom for all to fix themselves, without help.

[Hirota]

It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets...., our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

Sounds similar to gender studies graduates, aside from the physical labour.

[Costa Fierro]

And the HuffPo has gone full retard.

[Hirota]

And the HuffPo has gone full retard.

One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?

Anyway, Huff-po have been getting some flak over it and decided to post a response, including this gem.

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all.

What huff po is trying to argue here is that this kind of view has often been expressed by feminism - in fact it's "pretty standard" - and therefore should be accepted. Maybe on that basis this particular blogger doesn't deserve the attention and vitriol we are seeing posted as an example. But what I also take away from that is an implication that "pretty standard" feminism is acceptably (at least to Huffpo South Africa) racist and sexist by default.

[Jello Biafra]

2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:

Patriarchy (as defined above) doesn’t just hurt women by treating them as property. In fact, the worst victims of patriarchy are the low-status, unmarriageable men who do the most dirty, dangerous jobs in society for peanuts. Unfortunately, we’ve done a terrible job at understanding and communicating this, to the point that most men in this situation are convinced that feminism, not patriarchy, is actually the root of their problems. So long as middle-class feminists ridicule and demonize them while enjoying relatively pampered lives, these men will continue to hate us. And who can blame them?

I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.

I agree with her on this issue.

[Costa Fierro]

And the HuffPo has gone full retard.

One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?

Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, people these days have redefined racism, and sexism for that matter as "power + prejudice", which really has very little merits by itself. The HuffPo has defended the article. But here's what really got my attention the most:

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory.

Tying in with Gallosim's post about what feminists have done in relation to "gender equality", if this is now considered standard feminist theory, then feminism as a social movement is well and truly out of touch with society.

[Hirota]

One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?

Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, people these days have redefined racism, and sexism for that matter as "power + prejudice", which really has very little merits by itself. The HuffPo has defended the article. But here's what really got my attention the most:

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory.

Tying in with Gallosim's post about what feminists have done in relation to "gender equality", if this is now considered standard feminist theory, then feminism as a social movement is well and truly out of touch with society.

I agree - I edited my post you quoted with similar observations.

[Costa Fierro]

Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, people these days have redefined racism, and sexism for that matter as "power + prejudice", which really has very little merits by itself. The HuffPo has defended the article. But here's what really got my attention the most:

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory.

Tying in with Gallosim's post about what feminists have done in relation to "gender equality", if this is now considered standard feminist theory, then feminism as a social movement is well and truly out of touch with society.

I agree - I edited my post you quoted with similar observations.

We can only hope that such attitudes do not become part of regular political discourse.

[Des-Bal]

And the HuffPo has gone full retard.

That is an article written by one person for Huffington Post South Africa's blog. She has never written anything before and the extent of her qualifications appear to be being a student. I disagree with Huffington Post a lot but I don't think this is an indictment of the entire organization.

And the HuffPo has gone full retard.

One of my favourite things to do with this kind of article is change demographic x to demographic y and see if an apologist still thinks it's acceptable.

So any feminist who supports the original article - replace "white men" with "Jew" in this article and does this sound an acceptable stance?

Anyway, Huff-po have been getting some flak over it and decided to post a response, including this gem.

Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all.

What huff po is trying to argue here is that this kind of view has often been expressed by feminism - in fact it's "pretty standard" - and therefore should be accepted. Maybe on that basis this particular blogger doesn't deserve the attention and vitriol we are seeing posted as an example. But what I also take away from that is an implication that "pretty standard" feminism is acceptably (at least to Huffpo South Africa) racist and sexist by default.

Suggesting that someone be permitted to go to radical places and be corrected by public discussion rather than censorship is noble. I don't believe Huffington Post actually stands behind it but that's another matter.

[Hirota]

And the HuffPo has gone full retard.

That is an article written by one person for Huffington Post South Africa's blog. She has never written anything before and the extent of her qualifications appear to be being a student. I disagree with Huffington Post a lot but I don't think this is an indictment of the entire organization.

<shrugs> I'm more interested in their unintended indictment of an entire ideology.

[New Edom]

Two recent articles i read make my points for me.

1. Emma Watson apparently recommends these five books to read. This appears to be a general mainstream approach to feminism, and these books are generally popular and well known among feminists. So are these books rather definitive or not?

2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:



I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.

As a "low status, unmarriageable man" who engages in dirty dangerous work i have a bone to pick with claiming we earn peanuts. Sure alot of us earn whatever we can get, but it's not due to some "patriarchy". It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets. And aside from the picking things up, putting them down over there part, our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

We don't see feminism as the root of our problems, human nature is the root of our problems, our own failings. If anything our antagonism towards feminism is the threat to our futures.

Complaining changes nothing and should be ignored no matter who is doing it. Fixing it yourself is worth more than being given a solution by complaining. All we want is the freedom for all to fix themselves, without help.

I don't agree with the article, but I do find it interesting and worth looking at and discussing. What I personally believe is that the tensions surrounding feminism are about a few things:
1. That men and women are competitors in a lot of areas where they were not before
2. That generally people still accept the idea that men and women should fulfill certain gender roles in society
3. That these two factors clash a lot

I thnk you could sum up allmost all modern conversations about feminism as being about those three things.

I don't agree with you about complaining. I think what you may be referring to though is chronic complaining--where you have complaints but never do anything about it. If you think about it, the basic impulse to complain isn't bad if you're looking to change something. Every inventor, entrepreneur etc has started out complaining that something in the world doesn't suit them. The same goes for people who fought slavery etc.

[New Edom]

2. An evolutionary biologist presents some information as well as critiques of feminism. Bearing in mind the biologist is apparently a feminist. This in particular stands out to me:



I'm dubious about this though. I'm dubious because of the utter contempt or hostility most feminists display on this issue when the men actually have the audacity to complain about how they are treated. I doubt that this will change, but I'm interested in hearing what others think.

I agree with her on this issue.

So what is it exactly that you agree with in the article and in that section in particular and what do you think can be done about it?

[Donut section]

As a "low status, unmarriageable man" who engages in dirty dangerous work i have a bone to pick with claiming we earn peanuts. Sure alot of us earn whatever we can get, but it's not due to some "patriarchy". It's because we rarely require education for what we do, and we rarely if ever increase our skill sets. And aside from the picking things up, putting them down over there part, our jobs are minimal effort. We generally get paid what we're worth.

We don't see feminism as the root of our problems, human nature is the root of our problems, our own failings. If anything our antagonism towards feminism is the threat to our futures.

Complaining changes nothing and should be ignored no matter who is doing it. Fixing it yourself is worth more than being given a solution by complaining. All we want is the freedom for all to fix themselves, without help.

I don't agree with the article, but I do find it interesting and worth looking at and discussing. What I personally believe is that the tensions surrounding feminism are about a few things:
1. That men and women are competitors in a lot of areas where they were not before
2. That generally people still accept the idea that men and women should fulfill certain gender roles in society
3. That these two factors clash a lot

I thnk you could sum up allmost all modern conversations about feminism as being about those three things.

I don't agree with you about complaining. I think what you may be referring to though is chronic complaining--where you have complaints but never do anything about it. If you think about it, the basic impulse to complain isn't bad if you're looking to change something. Every inventor, entrepreneur etc has started out complaining that something in the world doesn't suit them. The same goes for people who fought slavery etc.

I was more talking about complaining to government/whoever is in charge, to change how things are done instead of doing it themselves as the inventor/entrapranure would. I work in a world where effort is king. To see people demand improvement in their life, without expending the effort to earn their place, and others agree to just give them it, builds a lot of resentment. And a lack of trust in their ability.

[Mattopilos II]

I don't agree with the article, but I do find it interesting and worth looking at and discussing. What I personally believe is that the tensions surrounding feminism are about a few things:
1. That men and women are competitors in a lot of areas where they were not before
2. That generally people still accept the idea that men and women should fulfill certain gender roles in society
3. That these two factors clash a lot

I thnk you could sum up allmost all modern conversations about feminism as being about those three things.

I don't agree with you about complaining. I think what you may be referring to though is chronic complaining--where you have complaints but never do anything about it. If you think about it, the basic impulse to complain isn't bad if you're looking to change something. Every inventor, entrepreneur etc has started out complaining that something in the world doesn't suit them. The same goes for people who fought slavery etc.

I was more talking about complaining to government/whoever is in charge, to change how things are done instead of doing it themselves as the inventor/entrapranure would. I work in a world where effort is king. To see people demand improvement in their life, without expending the effort to earn their place, and others agree to just give them it, builds a lot of resentment. And a lack of trust in their ability.

Well, I agree with this to a point. There is a point where law no longer has the desired effect, and it comes down to the tweaking of societal norms and attitudes.

[Jello Biafra]

I agree with her on this issue.

So what is it exactly that you agree with in the article and in that section in particular and what do you think can be done about it?

She more or less explains it better in a different paragraph:

In patriarchal societies, elite males are able to support and protect multiple mates, enabling a renewal of polygyny; an underclass of unmated, low-status males make useful slaves and cannon fodder. Low-status males are duped into accepting their fate via manipulative social norms. Being treated as property is bad for women, but at least they are generally a valued resource in patriarchal societies; low-status men have it worse.

As far as what can be done about it, obviously ending patriarchy is the goal, but the steps along the way are the tricky part.

[Giovenith]

I thought of a bit of a rhetorical query:

If you say "women should be treated equally to men" and then put men down, what does that say about how you want to treat women?

[Bakery Hill]

I thought of a bit of a rhetorical query:

If you say "women should be treated equally to men" and then put men down, what does that say about how you want to treat women?

Nothing essentially. Should =/= is.

[New Edom]

I thought of a bit of a rhetorical query:

If you say "women should be treated equally to men" and then put men down, what does that say about how you want to treat women?

tiresomely: 'men are not systemically oppressed so blah blah blah' is what I'm sure one response would be. Anther would be accusing men of whining about feminism. There's very little honesty and fairness in the mainstream movement.

[Swith Witherward]

The "Shelley Garland" backstory has finally come to light.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04/19/revealed-here-is-shelley-garland-and-why-he-did-it_a_22046533/

[Neo Balka]

So what is it exactly that you agree with in the article and in that section in particular and what do you think can be done about it?

She more or less explains it better in a different paragraph:

In patriarchal societies, elite males are able to support and protect multiple mates, enabling a renewal of polygyny; an underclass of unmated, low-status males make useful slaves and cannon fodder. Low-status males are duped into accepting their fate via manipulative social norms. Being treated as property is bad for women, but at least they are generally a valued resource in patriarchal societies; low-status men have it worse.

As far as what can be done about it, obviously ending patriarchy is the goal, but the steps along the way are the tricky part.

That has got to be the biggest pile of Near psychotic levels of Illuminanti level bullshit i have ever seen.

[Philjia]

The "Shelley Garland" backstory has finally come to light.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04/19/revealed-here-is-shelley-garland-and-why-he-did-it_a_22046533/

Validating my claim that anyone can write for the Huffington Post, which includes people who aren't real. Clearly I need to get in on this. I know I won't get paid but damn I could have some fun.

I especially like that the profile photo was just him in drag.

[Conserative Morality]

The "Shelley Garland" backstory has finally come to light.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04/19/revealed-here-is-shelley-garland-and-why-he-did-it_a_22046533/

"I'm sorry I got caught"

Don't write 'satire' unless you're willing to claim it.

[Jello Biafra]

As far as what can be done about it, obviously ending patriarchy is the goal, but the steps along the way are the tricky part.

That has got to be the biggest pile of Near psychotic levels of Illuminanti level bullshit i have ever seen.

Which part of it do you disagree with, and why?