Criticisms of Feminism

[Imyoji]

I'm more of take whatever points that are good, be it from an extreme or mainstream, and see what sticks. All ideas are valid, but the most practical are the ones generally applied in the end, so in a way, the main stream has just as low a chance of being accepted in the end all be all.

Both points are valid, just which one would be more practical and most supported with evidence is the one that gets implemented.

The problem is the world tends to listen to who has the loudspeaker. Sarkeesian and her radicals have it.

Streisand effect/Internet backdraft at work. In other words, it's really just enforcing 360^o thinking. Too bad some people can only do a 180.

[Susurruses]

Really?
How does sexual reproduction tie into one's paycheck, do tell.
Or into one's ability to do construction work? Teach? Work in finance?

I eagerly await your explanation.

Men and women are biologically different. Laying a social construct over that to attempt to force them to be socially equal is not going to help. The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.

Dude, if you think there are only 'men' and 'women' then you need to seriously examine what you've been taught about sex (hint: it's more diverse than a simplistic binary; it's a spectrum) and gender (hint: it is also incredibly diverse and varies culturally).
Gender roles are a sociocultural phenomenon; it is absolutely possible and viable to break them down and not force people into boxes without the ensuing collapse of society and sexual relationships.

[Carpathia and Moldova]

If this post came off as condescending, then I deeply apologize. Its 7 in the morning, English isn't my native language and I haven't slept in more than 72 hours, so my ability to express myself correctly, is a bit (well, more than a bit) rusty, right now and I have a tendency to rush things when I'm this tired (which is most of the time, unfortunately).

What I mean by "you're doing it wrong" is that you should also try to fight against the very cause of discrimination, as well as discrimination itself. Even if you get rid of the people in power, the ones who will replace them, will just grab onto their new gains and try to hold onto them, just as their predecessors did. So, you end up back on square one. The real problem is the mechanism which generates this sort of social problems and that mechanism is the inheritance of advantages. You may think that keeping inheritance is fine, because you might, just might, leave your children 100$ more than you had and that this would be good for them.

The fact is, your children would be better off if they started life with the same chances and position, as everyone else. Because, as long as we have a hereditary elite and a caste system, enforced on a species which is clearly NOT hardwired for this (why do you think we're all unhappy with our lot in life? You don't see worker ants complaining about their status, so if we were a caste-based species, then why would we?), it leads to problems like this. When a game is rigged, you waste your efforts by trying to eliminate the rules which are unfair, because the people making the rules, will just invent a new set of unfair rules (in this case, another type of discrimination to replace the one you just got rid of). Getting rid of the people making the rules, won't solve the problem, either, because whoever will take their place will just end up doing the same thing. The solution is to eliminate the mechanism by which unfair rules are being created, in this case, heredity.

Again, I apologize if I seem condescending and aggressive. I am very tired and in a bad mood due to some personal issues which I will not discuss here. I had no intention of being condescending, in fact, I was trying to give you some helpful advice. I fully sympathize with your goals and share your ideals of social equality, even if I use the words "socialism" and "meritocracy" to describe what you call "feminism". I don't want to chastise you, but to have a constructing debate with you on how to make things a little better, because (and I honestly admit this), your point of view is something which I value and against which I always weigh my own views, on the hope that I can also improve myself and my own methods for promoting equality (I am a civil rights activist in my country).

Part of what I wrote in the OP, is also aimed at fellow straight white males, who, due to their conservative views,may not be aware of the fact that defending discrimination also damages them.

[Dazchan]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

Not really.

[Susurruses]

OP: [Straw Feminism]
/thread

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

well, you're hella wrong.

[The Serbian Empire]

The problem is the world tends to listen to who has the loudspeaker. Sarkeesian and her radicals have it.

Streisand effect/Internet backdraft at work. In other words, it's really just enforcing 360^o thinking. Too bad some people can only do a 180.

And thus oppose the efforts of Sarkeesian knowing that it's just going to run in circles again and again.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Men and women are biologically different. Laying a social construct over that to attempt to force them to be socially equal is not going to help. The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.

Dude, if you think there are only 'men' and 'women' then you need to seriously examine what you've been taught about sex (hint: it's more diverse than a simplistic binary; it's a spectrum) and gender (hint: it is also incredibly diverse and varies culturally).
Gender roles are a sociocultural phenomenon; it is absolutely possible and viable to break them down and not force people into boxes without the ensuing collapse of society and sexual relationships.

1. That's horseshit and you know it, sex does come in a simple binary, there's no spectrum, and there's no mayonnaise gender.
2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological

[Cannot think of a name]

Streisand effect/Internet backdraft at work. In other words, it's really just enforcing 360^o thinking. Too bad some people can only do a 180.

And thus oppose the efforts of Sarkeesian knowing that it's just going to run in circles again and again.

Isn't there already a thread for Gamergate hysteria?

[Carpathia and Moldova]

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

Bro. Take it from another straight white male who got the short end of the stick, precisely because of the thing which you're trying to convince me, is beneficial for myself. Discrimination creates friction and frustration for everyone and doesn't have any benefits whatsoever, except for a very small group of very powerful individuals.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

And thus oppose the efforts of Sarkeesian knowing that it's just going to run in circles again and again.

Isn't there already a thread for Gamergate hysteria?

who even decided to call it 'gamergate'? gamergates are completely unrelated to their shenanigans

[Imyoji]

Streisand effect/Internet backdraft at work. In other words, it's really just enforcing 360^o thinking. Too bad some people can only do a 180.

And thus oppose the efforts of Sarkeesian knowing that it's just going to run in circles again and again.

What Sarkeesian says is not supposed to be taken with anger or complaining fervor (so far what I've seen was not a legitimate dissection of what she says, but petty ad homs and strawman attacks), but with proper dissection and rationalization. Insofar I am willing to say both sides are really just throwing ad hom after ad hom, slur after slur without much progress being done.

I'm more inclined to not agree with any extremist unless it is logical and practical to do so (in regards to racism and trans* rights in particular).

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

Bro. Take it from another straight white male who got the short end of the stick, precisely because of the thing which you're trying to convince me, is beneficial for myself. Discrimination creates friction and frustration for everyone and doesn't have any benefits whatsoever, except for a very small group of very powerful individuals.

>implying I'm straight
asexual
still male though

I'm not saying gender roles are beneficial, I'm saying society can't wipe them out while sexual reproduction exists.

[The Lotophagi]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

So your testicles drop off when you wear a skirt? That's really weird.

[-Shie-]

Different standards in life for men and women doesn't even bother me unless we degrade ourselves like we do now. There's nothing wrong with fatherhood and motherhood or patriarchy.

[Carpathia and Moldova]

Insofar I am willing to say both sides are really just throwing ad hom after ad hom, slur after slur without much progress being done.

This is exactly what I was trying to say and I believe this is the result of certain people "playing both sides against the middle". The ruling elite is constantly pushing us to fight eachother, so that we would be unable to unite and strip them of that which allows them to maintain their unfair advantages.

[Constantinopolis]

What I mean by "you're doing it wrong" is that you should also try to fight against the very cause of discrimination, as well as discrimination itself. Even if you get rid of the people in power, the ones who will replace them, will just grab onto their new gains and try to hold onto them, just as their predecessors did. So, you end up back on square one. The real problem is the mechanism which generates this sort of social problems and that mechanism is the inheritance of advantages. You may think that keeping inheritance is fine, because you might, just might, leave your children 100$ more than you had and that this would be good for them.

The fact is, your children would be better off if they started life with the same chances and position, as everyone else. Because, as long as we have a hereditary elite and a caste system, enforced on a species which is clearly NOT hardwired for this (why do you think we're all unhappy with our lot in life? You don't see worker ants complaining about their status, so if we were a caste-based species, then why would we?), it leads to problems like this. When a game is rigged, you waste your efforts by trying to eliminate the rules which are unfair, because the people making the rules, will just invent a new set of unfair rules (in this case, another type of discrimination to replace the one you just got rid of). Getting rid of the people making the rules, won't solve the problem, either, because whoever will take their place will just end up doing the same thing. The solution is to eliminate the mechanism by which unfair rules are being created, in this case, heredity.

Agreed, absolutely agreed.

We need to change the system, not the individual people who happen to be on top of it at the moment. Yes. This is what socialist feminists (and socialists in general) argue, as well.

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

Bro. Take it from another straight white male who got the short end of the stick, precisely because of the thing which you're trying to convince me, is beneficial for myself. Discrimination creates friction and frustration for everyone and doesn't have any benefits whatsoever, except for a very small group of very powerful individuals.

You really should be a Marxist. This is exactly what we say about discrimination (whether based on gender, race, etc.) - it is a tool used by the ruling capitalist class to "divide and conquer" the rest of us, to prevent us from seeing our common interests.

Discrimination against women and traditional gender roles do not benefit men. Or, to be more exact, they do not benefit working men. They benefit wealthy capitalist men (and women).

[Imyoji]

Insofar I am willing to say both sides are really just throwing ad hom after ad hom, slur after slur without much progress being done.

This is exactly what I was trying to say and I believe this is the result of certain people "playing both sides against the middle". The ruling elite is constantly pushing us to fight eachother, so that we would be unable to unite and strip them of that which allows them to maintain their unfair advantages.

Except you commented on the movement as a whole as doing such an action, when it is clearly not the case.

In short, not insightful enough, your OP. And the statement you just lobbed to me just now made very little sense or relevance.

[Carpathia and Moldova]

Different standards in life for men and women doesn't even bother me unless we degrade ourselves like we do now. There's nothing wrong with fatherhood and motherhood or patriarchy.

There are a lot of things wrong, as long as people are not treated equally. Strict social conventions only lead to frictions, which cause frustration, depression, etc and eventually lead to a failed life.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Gender roles are necessary while sexual reproduction still exists, matey.

So your testicles drop off when you wear a skirt? That's really weird.

Nope, not really.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

A lot of feminist actually are misandrist

But that issue is something best for feminist to finally take care of.

[Warpspace]

Men and women are biologically different. Laying a social construct over that to attempt to force them to be socially equal is not going to help. The only way you're ever going to eliminate gender roles is to eliminate sexual reproduction entirely and just clone men or women.

Dude, if you think there are only 'men' and 'women' then you need to seriously examine what you've been taught about sex (hint: it's more diverse than a simplistic binary; it's a spectrum) and gender (hint: it is also incredibly diverse and varies culturally).
Gender roles are a sociocultural phenomenon; it is absolutely possible and viable to break them down and not force people into boxes without the ensuing collapse of society and sexual relationships.

Women are physically weaker then men due to their evolved body that made sacrifices for childbirth as hominid/human brains increased in size. Then there's the reduced muscle mass as well. Of course, this isn't relevant at all outside of areas of physical exertion, especially warfare, and certainly doesn't justify any sexism outside of extremely physically intensive jobs.

The only place I'd really question full equality for the sexes is Special Forces. Unless it can be proven that female commandos can perform to the exact same efficiency of their male counterparts, for now that tree house should keep their no-girls-allowed sign up.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

What I mean by "you're doing it wrong" is that you should also try to fight against the very cause of discrimination, as well as discrimination itself. Even if you get rid of the people in power, the ones who will replace them, will just grab onto their new gains and try to hold onto them, just as their predecessors did. So, you end up back on square one. The real problem is the mechanism which generates this sort of social problems and that mechanism is the inheritance of advantages. You may think that keeping inheritance is fine, because you might, just might, leave your children 100$ more than you had and that this would be good for them.

The fact is, your children would be better off if they started life with the same chances and position, as everyone else. Because, as long as we have a hereditary elite and a caste system, enforced on a species which is clearly NOT hardwired for this (why do you think we're all unhappy with our lot in life? You don't see worker ants complaining about their status, so if we were a caste-based species, then why would we?), it leads to problems like this. When a game is rigged, you waste your efforts by trying to eliminate the rules which are unfair, because the people making the rules, will just invent a new set of unfair rules (in this case, another type of discrimination to replace the one you just got rid of). Getting rid of the people making the rules, won't solve the problem, either, because whoever will take their place will just end up doing the same thing. The solution is to eliminate the mechanism by which unfair rules are being created, in this case, heredity.

Agreed, absolutely agreed.

We need to change the system, not the individual people who happen to be on top of it at the moment. Yes. This is what socialist feminists (and socialists in general) argue, as well.

Bro. Take it from another straight white male who got the short end of the stick, precisely because of the thing which you're trying to convince me, is beneficial for myself. Discrimination creates friction and frustration for everyone and doesn't have any benefits whatsoever, except for a very small group of very powerful individuals.

You really should be a Marxist. This is exactly what we say about discrimination (whether based on gender, race, etc.) - it is a tool used by the ruling capitalist class to "divide and conquer" the rest of us, to prevent us from seeing our common interests.

Discrimination against women and traditional gender roles do not benefit men. Or, to be more exact, they do not benefit working men. They benefit wealthy capitalist men (and women).

Well, as a working man I'd fight to the death defending the capitalist system that my ancestors forged in the revolutionary war. I sure as hell wouldn't be paid jack shit if I was working for the state.

[Imyoji]

A lot of feminist actually are misandrist

Source?

And no, Gamergate is not a source nor is it borderline relevant. It's a clusterfuck that should be kept far far away from civil discussion.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Bro. Take it from another straight white male who got the short end of the stick, precisely because of the thing which you're trying to convince me, is beneficial for myself. Discrimination creates friction and frustration for everyone and doesn't have any benefits whatsoever, except for a very small group of very powerful individuals.

>implying I'm straight
asexual
still male though

I'm not saying gender roles are beneficial, I'm saying society can't wipe them out while sexual reproduction exists.

Yes we can. Not being boxed into a role doesn't seal up my cunt.