Why I Don't Call Myself A Feminist | GendErratic

JeremiahMRA · 2012-01-31T05:09:36+00:00

I used to call myself a feminist. I've read more literature on the subject than even most die-hard feminists. I then realized that the root of all its theories comes from an epistemology that isn't rooted in science, and ignores hundreds and hundreds of years of philosophical discourse in lieu of the ramblings of upper class white women who hadn't as much had an hour-long conversation with someone outside of their socioeconomic sphere. For feminists to say "IT'S GENDER ROLES THAT ARE THE PROBLEM!" is the most short-sighted, idealistic nonsense possible, and its appropriation of the very slight dissolution of the male gender role is insulting.

Hamakua · 2012-01-30T22:18:09+00:00

I didn't realize it was Typhonblue until I got to the end. I loved her "Short list of reasons". By then, I couldn't stop reading... not because of the reason, but because of the wit.

loose-dendrite · 2012-01-31T00:07:29+00:00

As a woman I want to understand my obligations to the society I live in.

I love this point because, as a man, I feel the same way. I have difficulty winging important (by my eyes) social rules so I shut down when I encounter vague rules.

typhonblue · 2012-01-31T03:37:40+00:00

[permanently deleted]

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-01-31T02:18:20+00:00

inequlities

(in the dungeon!). Thought you oughta know.

typhonblue · 2012-01-31T08:46:57+00:00

Beautifully put. I think this is a very good article making an excellent point. My only qualm is the use of patriarchy, which is as far as I'm concerned just feminist smoke and mirrors. If we have any system it's an oligarchy and always has been. It's a natural derivation from the idea of the nobility, except instead of bloodline it was money. But, as we can see in the modern world once again it has drifted back to bloodlines, as those with money are most likely to be the ones who were born into it.

JeremiahMRA · 2012-01-31T07:35:04+00:00

Finally, and likely most importantly, it is also a great boon to overt patriarchy, because when the fad of women’s rights passes, the fact that women never claimed their agency in the greater society means it will be a trivial matter to remove their rights. Without a belief in their agency, women will always be controlled by fear more then freedom.

You seem to be against patriarchy. But patriarchy works. And women aren't generally moral agents.

I think you're projecting your own psychology onto that of all other women. You are wishing for something that cannot be. That's actually very similar to what early feminists did; you're just going in a slightly different direction with it. It's not a good path to go down because it just isn't true. Most women aren't like you, and they never will be.

I believe that shaming is a form of abuse.... Shame is violence; violence directed towards our “social bodies” as pack animals.

Shaming is NOT violence. And shaming is sometimes quite right. I'd much rather have a social structure that shames bad behavior than rely on a complex bureaucratic system to stop that behavior. Shaming is far more efficient and therefore better.

The biggest issue facing women in the West is their socialization to see themselves as acted upon rather than actors in their lives. As I outline in ‘Women Do Not Benefit: The Science’, this socialization is directly responsible for women’s lack of achievement now and historically. If we want equal numbers of female CEOs, female politicians, female inventors, female anything, then we need to change how we divide the human race into acted upon (women) and actors (men).

It will never happen. And it's not because women were "socialized historically", it's because women are different than men. Male variance in intelligence is greater, for one, and therefore if a system is merit-based you will see more men at the top than women. CEOs, STEM, for example. Women just lack the ambition to contribute to building civilization to the degree that mean have.

It's also infeasible to change these sex-based differences in men and women.

You also say feminism is "covert patriarchy" but that's pretty silly when your defintion from here is "The process by which men are given a superior social position in exchange for inferior protection." Clearly men do not have a superior social position. We have inferior protection AND an inferior social position.

Feminism is an extension of female psychology and female hypergamy where the individual male is replaced by the government and only a few men at the top benefit.

As Demonspawn has stated:

The crux problem is that there is no way to attain equal privilege until both men and women are seen to be at the same level of individual disposability. That simply won't happen as long as women are the reproductive units of the human race, among other factors.

So when you add equal legal rights to a socially privileged/preferred/protected group, those legal rights/responsibilities which are equal at this moment will quickly shift to greater rights/less responsibilities to the privileged group.

The only sustainable general equality between men and women is men having more rights, women having greater privilege and less responsibilities. i.e. The system we had before feminism screwed it up.

As I said previously, it's infeasible to change the sex-based differences in men and women, and therefore patriarchy is appropriate. You'd need a scenario like that in Brave New World, which is fascism, and probably not achievable (nor would anyone interested in freedom want it to be).

Title	Why I Don't Call Myself A Feminist \| GendErratic
Author	GendErratic
Upvotes	24
Comments	38
Date	January 30, 2012 9:40 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/p3jqy/why_i_dont_call_myself_a_feminist_genderratic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-i-dont-call-myself-a-feminist-genderratic.1028497 https://theredarchive.com/post/1028497

Comments