I used to be a feminist and pride myself that I wasn't "the typical male" until I happened to come across the actual facts. Vote up if you had the same deconversion experience.

[–]Kuonji 10 points11 points12 points 17 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 17 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I was raised believing that, because women weren't always allowed to vote, have jobs, etc, men had oppressed women throughout history, and such oppression had persisted to this day in things like men being paid more, women being "relegated" to "unimportant" jobs like secretaries, raising kids, etc. You know, the usual.

Growing up, I used to look at the popular assholes and pride myself that I wasn't like them: that I was sensitive and much more respectful of others, specially women.

I was raised as a christian, and when I deconverted it was very natural for me to cling to the horrors the bible has to say about the treatment of women, and I saw that as further proof that society has really treated women badly throughout the ages, specially when such treatment is still echoed nowadays in Sharia law and some african tribal cultures.

Furthermore, I used to resent my father because he was always working and never seemed to make time for the family.

For a long time I never gave sexism much thought and just went on thinking this was the way of the world; that it was one of the sad facts of life that men just oppress women. The facts were all there, all over the media, proving the systematic oppression of the female gender throughout the ages: The Patriarchy. And since I hate oppression and injustice, I just had to consider myself a feminist and regurgitate the historical horrors and modern statistics that so proved my point.

But at the same time I was trying to "make up for the lost time" in religion, and was studying evolution, evolutionary psychology, secular history, and so on. And then things started not making as much sense as they used to. I thought "gender" was not a genetic feature, but simply a Patriarchy's construct invented to keep women in their place, easily subdued? Weren't women helpless victims, instead of partners in a primitive, intuitive arrangement that, in an evolutionary (but not always individualistic) way ended up benefiting both genders?

I was confused but, well, regardless, things still look pretty bad for women today, so I guess I'd just stick with it.

Then one day, not much long ago, I stumbled upon this. This dude was making a lot of sense, except for the things he was saying about women/men. He didn't sound bitter, but I guess he was just very good at hiding his misogyny. Then I read #29 and was appalled. He can't say that, can he? That's so obviously false and blatantly offensive, it's like denying the Holocaust!

So I searched for some of his sentences and it was like a new world opened up for me. I read studies and statistics that I'd never heard about before, and some that I did, but were presented differently. I discovered Warren Farrell, and now what I knew about evolution and humankind (and science in general) started to fit with the gender issue.

I realized how feminists shun this kind of thinking because they oppose it on an ideological basis, much like fundamentalist christians are opposed to the theory of evolution because they think it undermines either god or his creation. And I started to recognize the evils of the reverse discrimination and affirmative action neo-marxist ideologies, that turn a blind eye to the plights of individuals and treat issues based on some group-biased starting point, and that's simply not fair. This is the 21st century, and we should know better by now.

One day, suddenly, a sentence I read I don't even know where anymore, that didn't make sense to me at the time but for some reason stuck with me, sprung to my mind: "We men, sons of fathers". And I understood why my father had to work so much, and started sympathizing with him.

Fuck, that got long.

[–]Kuonji 8 points9 points10 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for giving us your insight :o)

I think it's important to differentiate "THE PATRIARCHY" from "men," though. Women can certainly be a part of THE PATRIARCHY, dutifully enforcing stereotypes about what is okay for men and women to do. It's not that men are these big evil monsters that oppress women- it's that the way Western society functioned (has been functioning? you choose, leave me out of this) for many centuries involves giving preferential treatment (in terms of rights and privileges) to men.

Unfortunately, the attempts to correct for those rights and privileges sometimes have negative consequences. It's strictly Not Allowed to talk about some things, like reverse sexism or possible innate differences between men and women. Of course men and women are going to be generally different in some ways- we live in different bodies with different organs and hormones pumpin' around!

A lot of people do reject research like this for ideological reasons- "You can't be 'separate but equal'!"- but the objection is fallacious: just because men might be more likely to be able to quickly rotate an object mentally doesn't mean that all men deserve preferential treatment in job applications over all women. There certainly is a subset of feminists who fall prey to this fallacy, but fortunately, not all of them do.

[–]firefly5683 -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]firefly5683 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Sure.

1-More women are accepted and attend college. More degrees are awarded to women than men.

I wonder if part of the reason is that more women apply, but that still means there is an underlying problem in our schools. But these 2 statements are odd because the first one implies the second.

2-The one that stuck out to me the most was the one about men being the victims of violence. I study forensic evolutionary psychology, and while this is true (men are usually the victims), men are also usually the offenders. Men are violent toward other men more than they hurt women. And same for rape since the article includes prison rape (which it should).

3-It also says women are statistically happier than men. I'd like to see the study or studies that have made this claim.

4-And about wages, the Census Bureau came out with a report in 2004 saying that women make 77 cents to the dollar of men who have the same job.

I'm not saying there aren't some legitimate points, but I feel it was poorly presented. Feminism (the idea that women and men are equal and should be treated as such) is rather undeniably reasonable, but the pseudo-feminism that some women claim to have is very harmful because it tries to replace females as the dominant sex, rather than equaling things out as best we can. Women and men are born different and are raised differently, and trying to understand the other sex is a continual, but worthy, struggle.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I wonder if part of the reason is that more women apply, but that still means there is an underlying problem in our schools.

That's part of what the "boy crisis" is about. But feminists claim it is not a problem because 'men outearn women', and so the problem persists, since the feminist worldview dominates politics.

I don't see what you think is wrong with number 2. Men are usually the victims but they are also the offenders so it all evens out?

I'll give you number 3, since it never impressed myself either. There are studies and polls pointing both ways, but happiness is such a subjective thing that I would personally never use it as an argument for anything.

About the wage gap, that's MR 101. To get you started:

And for an in-depth analysis of the problem, check out Warren Farrel's Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It.

If you're into evolutionary psychology and are aware of the differences between men and women, you'll find that these approaches make a lot more sense than OMG MEN HATE WOMEN SEXISM.

[–]firefly5683 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]serume -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]outsider 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]etherspirit 35 points36 points37 points 17 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 25 points26 points27 points 17 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]directrix1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]directrix1 4 points5 points6 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marktully 11 points12 points13 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]djumbrosia -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]montresor 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 6 points7 points8 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]outsider -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]charlestheoaf 7 points8 points9 points 17 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 10 points11 points12 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]charlestheoaf 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]djumbrosia 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]charlestheoaf 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]etherspirit 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Starting first with your examples of essential gender characteristics.

Taking risks is one example.

I am a man, and if I were to find some way to live my life, perfectly (physically) safe, I would do so. Risk taking seems like a prime example of a trait which gender essentialists assign to men, but which also applies to women, btw. Women sky dive, rock climb, downhill ski, perform gymnastics, figure skate, leave home, quit their jobs and start their own business, and engage in various kinds of risk taking behaviour all the time.

Being excited by beautiful women is another.

What about homosexuals? Does this mean that gay men lack an essentially masculine trait? Your heterosexual privilege is showing.

Also, what's a beautiful woman? Seems pretty subjective for something which should be essential.

For as long as we are men, we will like taking risks and looking at beautiful women. No critical mass of feminism can or will ever change that. Attacking us for being who we are is sophomoric and untenable.

Let's be clear here. No one (I know of) attacks men for taking risks, or being heterosexual. Risk takers and heterosexuals are essential to the proper functioning of society. But you should examine why you (and society) have gendered risk taking (and appreciating "beautiful" women) as male.

Getting on to the meat of my argument, surely you agree that some of the traditionally male attributes are destructive or useless? For example, traditional masculinity demands emotional distance ("quit being such a girl and stop crying", "I don't hug or kiss men", "romance is boring and a chore"), and a characterization of seduction as a hunt, and sex as a conquest. Do you not see how these traits are destructive to both men and women, and how this situation needs to be attended to?

[–]etherspirit 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Cramkake, you're splitting hairs for the sake of argument. That's fine, but it's annoying, and partly my fault. I should have said this at the beginning, but I'm speaking about the general tendencies of men. For example, men are physically stronger than women, but there are tons of women that could kick my ass in weight-lifting.

In the same way, men are generally less risk-averse than women. The attack that you didn't know about is here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6863333&page=1. In case you're not convinced by that as an attack, here is an even more vitriolic example: http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/barreca/why-men-cant-handle-money-part-i

Regarding beauty, I mean that men's attraction to women is driven more by visual stimulation. There are absolutes, such as body symmetry and the golden ratio which transcend time and culture. In case you're wondering, homosexuals generally act "manly" as well, placing a heavy emphasis on visual beauty. Here is the attack on men's natural reaction to objectifying IMAGES of women conflated to mean that men will also objectify women in person: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/16/sex-object-photograph .

What I'm not saying is that women can't or don't share in these manly ways. These are manly tendencies, not absolutes, and they aren't necessarily exclusive either. Being a male, I'm only addressing the issue from our perspective. There is a big difference between social constructs and biological ones. The difference is that you can't erase aspects of manliness that are embedded into our biology. You can certainly do this with social aspects, such as the ones you mentioned (men being emotional) and I fully support this.

That is why I say there is nothing wrong with being a feminist, but something wrong about attacking men for being men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]etherspirit 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]outsider 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 17 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 17 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

their end goal is complete matriarchal control of society, with men subjugated to near-slave status.

I thought it was removal of the glass ceiling, escalator, and equal pay for equal jobs? After living in Scandinavia for half a year, I'd just like to say that they've progressed a lot further than we have. Sexism is rampant in America; at the forefront this can be exemplified by how women are portrayed in the media.

Has any of that happened? Because feminists argue that a glass-ceiling and escalator most certainly do exist, and they use hard statistics to back it up. They also critique the PATRIARCHY called Western Society. If feminist ideology were achieved, patriarchy would not exist. Neither would matriarchy.

Wow, I just realized how fucking stupid a lot of the people in this subreddit are. I'm all about fairness and think men's rights need to be defended, but this is a circle-jerk feminist bashing session. Grow up ignoramuses.

From a male with a big dick.

[–]outsider 4 points5 points6 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

How, exactly, has equality been achieved?

Today north dakota voted to make fertilized embryos legal persons, in order to make abortion illegal.
Recently in India some women were beaten and physically removed from a pub by modesty police.
Women in certain regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan still (and worldwide, really) cannot attend school, for fear of being murdered.
Women in Saudi Arabia cannot drive cars.
Women in America (in particular) refuse to identify as feminists, despite agreeing with the main tenets of feminism, because of the cliché of the hairy legged, bra burning man-hater.
Women are taught since their infancy that their bodies are disgusting, that they need to strive for an unattainable beauty ideal.

And these are just off the top of my head.

Note: I am well aware of, and am concerned about, the fact that bad things happen to men all the time, and that there are other dimensions along which people are oppressed. However, you cannot simply point to oppression of another group as proof of your argument that oppression of women is essentially gone.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Some historical examples:

Honey, your antiperspirant doesn't do it

Or perhaps this ad for wigs for black women

The trend continues in advertisements today, in ads for razor blades, antiperspirant, tampons and "sanitary napkins", perfumes, etc.

Or the recent brouhaha with facebook removing pictures of breastfeeding mothers

Or the way that menstruation is framed as a disgusting and shameful state (a curse?). Or the way that women are meant to strive to look like 16 year olds, and any failure to do so is considered a moral failing.

I constantly overhear fat women working under a delusion that they just "have curves", when the reality is that they're fat enough to have a double chin.

The way that the issue of the size of women's bodies is framed is another good example of how women are forced to an unattainable beauty ideal. Instead of allowing women to be happy with their body shape, society shames them, as if not being slender is some form of moral failure. Why should this be so?

[–]outsider -5 points-4 points-3 points 17 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because if a man isn't happy with how a woman smells he just has to deal with it? What does a black lady wearing a wig have to do with anything?

You also realize that there are razor ads for men right? Ads for antiperspirant, well men don't have menstrual cycles so we don't have tampon commercials. Though there are certainly cologne ads directed at men and other hygiene ads directed at men. Know why? It sucks to be around stinky people. That shouldn't be a surprise and isn't a gender issue. Most people also wouldn't want to be around a female who was rocking out on her period without something to stop it from getting everywhere, sorry but no one else needs to deal with your blood unless you are somehow insinuating that tampon commercials are men's faults.

Know who is in charge of banning breastfeeding photos on facebook? A woman. You blame too many things on men. On the other hand, well it's a privately owned company with a terms of service you agree to when you sign up, or is it somehow men's fault there as well?

And guess what else, most people don't like fat people, not just fat women but fat men as well. I'm OK if you aren't happy in your own fat skin, you consume more resources, you take up more space and you don't deserve two seats on a plane for the price of one if you are fat. Get over it and go out and get active for awhile, it isn't a gender issue to dislike fat people.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Men are not the patriarchy, you know. You'll notice nowhere in my posts do I blame men for the inequality which exists. Women "buy in", and enforce destructive gender roles and traits in their own gender as well.

Yes, because if a man isn't happy with how a woman smells he just has to deal with it?

Both men and women have natural odours all over their bodies. What I'm saying is that men's genitals smell as well. But the solution for male smelliness is a shower (the obvious solution), and the solution for female smelliness is a shower, a douche (which, by the way, is actually unhealthy), perfume and talcum powder. Because the natural odour of a woman's genitals is gross. Note please that obviously, not all men require this of women. That is not my complaint. The point is that the dominant narrative around women's bodies is that they are repugnant.

You also realize that there are razor ads for men right?

Shaving is marketed to men as a way to seduce women. It is marketed to women as a way to feel normal, or look acceptable, with the implicit assumption that the way women are naturally is abnormal, unacceptable.

Most people also wouldn't want to be around a female who was rocking out on her period without something to stop it from getting everywhere [...]

Where do I say that menstruation hygiene is a problem? I think I'm pretty clear when I say the problem is the way these ads frame the natural female body as disgusting.

[–]outsider -3 points-2 points-1 points 17 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy is a familial system where the male is head of the household as opposed to the female. If you blame patriarchy for everything you blame men for everything via the transitive property. WTF are you even going on about the smell of a vagina for anyways? Yeah they get funky smelling after some sweat, nothing saying she can't take a shower which really is I'm sire the most common way by which a woman ditches the funk. There is no dominant narrative around women's bodies saying that they are repugnant. That may be how you perceive it or perceive women. Media portrays women as perfect and objects of man's desire to which man will do anything for. Not how you suggest it. You act like a women's preference is evil if it isn't your preference. Guess what freedom means people don't have to think like you.

Shaving isn't marketed to men as much of anything though the marketing does try to insist you can get a close shave without making your face hurt. Shaving is mandatory for most men because of job requirements. There aren't many men out there who would want a full bushy beard but there aren't many out there who actually enjoy shaving every day either.

PK then you tell me what your point was about menstruation because you sure seemed to be implying that men are bad for not wanting to be around menstrual blood.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy is a familial system where the male is head of the household as opposed to the female.

If we're going to do some proof by dictionary:

Merriam-Webster:

1: [your definition]; broadly: control by men of a disproportionately large share of power. 2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy.

(emph added)

WikiAnswers:

Literally 'rule by the father' but more generally it refers to a social situation where men are dominant over women in wealth, status and power. Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a 'patriarchal ideology' that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women.

(emph added)

Patriarchy, as you say, is a system. So even by your definition, it's not a conscious act. You cannot blame a person who is not consciously buying in to a system for being a part of it. It follows then that your use of the transitive property is incorrect.

I am not going on about the smell of a vagina, but supporting my thesis that there is a dominant narrative around women's bodies, and that the main characterization in such a narrative is that women's bodies are naturally repugnant. Women are told that it is unacceptable for their vagina to smell the way is does naturally, as well as they are told to erase most markers of having attained puberty, and I could go on. Here's a thought experiment: a man and a woman have a date scheduled, and it is agreed that it will be pretty informal. So after work, the man showers, changes, but doesn't bother to shave off his 5 o'clock shadow. After work, the woman showers, changes, but doesn't bother to wax her lip. One of these two people has done something which will attract stares, rude comments, and will probably remove any chance of a follow up date. Which one? And suppose she had not shaved her legs, either? Or her armpits? Oh and maybe she didn't pluck her eyebrows, or put on some makeup. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Shaving isn't marketed to men as much of anything though the marketing does try to insist you can get a close shave without making your face hurt.

Are you serious?

Is it your opinion that ads like this are uncommon?

Why does the beautiful woman show up in this one, in your opinion?

I would agree with you, though, that media portray a certain class of woman as the ultimate object of men's (sexual) desire. But it is trivial to point out that this class of women does not really exist.

Certainly, the media often portrays men as incapable of taking care of themselves, often in ads for home care products, or cooking products. Guess what! This stereotypes comes from the ideal of wife as homekeeper! It is implied, in the end, that the woman must pick up the slack from the incompetent man. This is another example of how patriarchal gender policing hurts everyone.

My point about menstruation is that it is framed as something disgusting, and shameful (in fact most flavors of judeo-christianity and islam still consider menstruation to be a curse, and some go so far as to define women who menstruate to be unclean). There is nothing gross about menstruation. But it is not something that is mentioned in polite conversation, and it is used as a tool to demean women and devalue their feelings and concerns ("Why is she so angry? She must be on the rag!).

[–]marktully 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 4 points5 points6 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonkifier 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]marktully 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]wonkifier 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

only one gender

And what does that have to do with sexism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

It cannot be the case that "Gender Studies" is a less egalitarian term than "Feminism"

I would argue that sentence doesn't actually make any sense.

I wouldn't say "animal husbandry" is any less tasty than "chicken". The terms don't go together, though they are in a generally related area.

To the point though... you made different assertions in the post I was referring to

"feminism" is just as loaded and sexist, if not moreso

I already gave an example why it's not as loaded, since it actually refers (in theory) to the specific topic at hand. Sure, the word is loaded, but in a different way... because of the difference between actual feminism and the psychotic femdom superfeminism

And for sexism... from the wiki

Sexism, a term coined in the late 20th century, refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other

I don't see how having folks still around who feel that women as a group need some protecting/assistance is an attitude that one gender is better than the other.

[–]marktully 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The argument isn't about what people claim "feminism" means. That's not the question.

The question is, what does the word itself suggest?

If I CLAIM that: "'Mankind' means men AND women, obviously, you dunce, just look at the way the word is used," that doesn't make "mankind" a legitimate or inclusive term. Just ask... any feminist.

Similarly, just because feminists claim that "feminism" is about equality doesn't make it a legitimate term... even if every flavor of feminism out there actually sought equality for both genders, heart and soul.

Rather, if you buy the argument that saying "mankind" invokes some kind of ineluctable mindfuck, then you are committed to the claim that a word like "feminism" would have similar power.

The fact that every year in the USA, more men than women are raped, and nobody has any goddamn clue, would certainly square with such an assertion.

So much for the linguistics. On the philosophy.

women as a group need some protecting/assistance

All forms of group rights are illegitimate. Inherently, they are exclusionary. This would also apply to Black Rights or Gay Rights or Muslim Rights.

Rights are based in the individual, not the group. Discrimination is wrong because it violates Civil Rights, not Black Rights or Women's Rights or any other sort.

This may seem a purely cosmetic distinction, but it is not. If, say, one is committed to the claim that cultures are of particular value to the human experience and must be protected, the way just about all multiculturalist arguments run, then one is therefore committed to the claim that Nazi culture is important, and must be preserved, and to eliminate it would be an act of cultural imperialism. And by "Nazi," we do mean in the full, Jew-killing sense of the term; anything else is not really "being a Nazi". This is demonstrably the case: Neo-Nazis are largely ignored and marginalized by society, whereas real Nazis hit the front page of Reddit yesterday. (Alternatively, one could say "Thuggees" instead of "Nazis" to avoid invoking Godwin's Law... though it should be noted that biting Godwin's Law does not make one incorrect.)

Rather, we absolutely negate Nazi culture, because the Group Rights of Nazis would infringe on the Civil Rights of individuals. Notice that we are not enforcing "Jewish Rights" when we do so.

That's the theory, of course, but it holds up in practice. When we fail to affirm the legitimacy of individual rights and decry the illegitimacy of group rights, we run the risk of two dangers: One, of former oppressor groups appropriating the "Group Rights" doctrine for themselves, e.g. Stormfront, and Two, of formerly oppressed groups ascending to the role of oppressor, e.g. Duke Lacrosse Scandal.

As such, protecting or assisting women "as a group" is an illegitimate undertaking, and is inherently antithetical to the true pursuit of "Civil Rights" because it unnecessarily and unfairly limits the scope of inquiry and prioritization.

[–]wonkifier -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're not recognizing the difference between "difference" and "difference is bad".

To say women are the only ones who can have babies is not sexist, even though it makes a statement about women specifically.

To say that women are more seen as sex objects in movies and there should be some work trying to calm that down is not sexist, even though it is focused on women specifically.

Sexism implies something bad about the identification.

Feminism in general doesn't bring anything bad with it... just "let's see about correcting this unnecessarily different treatment of women".

As such, protecting or assisting women "as a group" is an illegitimate undertaking

No. There is no need for a balance.

If women need protection in an area and they are damaged or taken advantage of at a much higher rate them men, they warrant some special attention. (and they do in some areas, and they get it)

If men need protection in an area and they are damaged or taken advantage of at a much higher rate then women, they warrant some special attention. (and they do in some areas, and they are starting to get it)

We don't have the resources to treat every individual individually, so having groups helps marshall resources. That's not inherently bad, as long as you're not locking others out of the same process.

[–]BinaryShadow 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

it's not true that feminists are only concerned with the female gender. that's just plain ignorance of what the term "feminism" means. in today's realm, we should be talking about feminisms in the plural, because there are a whole lotta divisions out there now. yes you will get the male bashing in one division, but you'll have another that is more like humanism and supports equality for all, and you'll have another that is more focused on queer rights (female, male, transgender, bisexual, etc., and yes, the etc. still means MORE in this case). and you'll have another that is about sexual liberation. but all in all, "feminism" does not just mean rights for females. feminist theories dissect the interactions of genders in relation to power. it's not about repressing one group over another.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

There is a growing body of work which takes a "transversal" or "intersectional" view of feminism. The idea is that the modes of oppression (class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) intersect, and that any attempt to deal with oppression of a class of people as if in a vacuum may indeed do more harm than good.

Clearly, feminists of the past have not been perfect, and the fractional nature of anti-oppression work makes that there are plenty of obstacles to the perfect feminism I envisage, where all voices are heard clearly, and all reasoned perspectives are considered. But to discount the past work of feminists because they did not (and in some cases still do not) understand this concept (intersectionality) is to do a disservice to all our mothers, aunts, sisters, friends and lovers [EDIT 19/02/09 1534:] for whom these rights were won.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marktully -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anatinus 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I too don't know of the perfect path to take, but I do know that the initiatives for equality have been going down the wrong one for quite a while, now. And that is the path of ideology.

The obvious alternative would be to start funding objective, unbiased scientific inquiries before jumping to the stage of enforcing public policies. As Sam Harris said, "Science is the greatest force in the removal of conversational barriers that we have ever hit upon". We can pit opinions against each other for eternity and in the end no one would be dissuaded. But we start bringing numbers and growing bodies of empirical evidence that fit with a robust theoretical basis into the dialogue, and suddenly just disagreeing is not enough anymore.

But feminists are generally opposed to that kind of investigation on an ideological basis. They fear that merely acknowledging "hardwired" differences between the genders would lead to, for example, women being discriminated against jobs and positions in engineering and hard sciences because that's what the male brain is supposedly designed to excel in. So over the past decades they've worked very hard to build barriers designed solely to stifle the debate on gender issues.

As was pointed out in this awesome interview:

Steven: What I've noticed is that in talking about men's issues, even the ones that to me seem clearest, that there are ways that have developed to cut off the dialog before it even starts. You talk about the sexist draft and you might get a response that men start all the wars anyway. Divorce and custody--men abandon their children and don't want to parent anyway. Men die younger- -it's their fault for keeping their feelings bottled up. Circumcision--what about female genital mutilation, which is much worse.

Elizabeth: So for every issue there's a matching issue. Aaron and I spent years in our relationship going back and forth about who had it worse. That kind of dialog is sort of a dead-end street.

Steven: How did that end up resolving itself in your relationship?

Elizabeth: We ended up deciding there could be no winner to that conversation. We could never prove to our satisfaction or to any of our friends' satisfaction who had it worse. The whole issue of blame really gets in the way of gender reconciliation. It's the biggest thing that we have to work against when we try to build bridges between men and women.

We have taken the position--and it's politically incorrect in a lot of different arenas--that there is no such thing as the patriarchy or the matriarchy. There are certain pockets of our culture that are dominated by men and certain other pockets that are dominated by women. Both genders suffer by virtue of the stereotypical gender roles and a certain overlay of biological programming.

It's really best to put the whole issue of blame aside and look at how we co-create the conflict that we find between men and women in our culture. Both sexes need to be willing to take responsibility for how it is we have participated. From that place we can begin to work on some solutions.

But feminists learned the Marxist trick that it's easier to engage people when you engage them against something. And men – the ones with all the "power" – were the obvious target.

And that's how feminism polarizes the gender issues and downright impedes true equality.

[–]soniabegonia 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That is a pretty awesome interview. Thanks for posting it.

But to some extent, we need conflicting ideologies that call for research of different sorts. The problem with relying purely on science is twofold: First, the way the media reports science is going to be flawed no matter what; and second, scientists will find, cite and corroborate findings that confirm their own pre-existing biases.

For example, it was commonly accepted in the medical field for a brief time that lobotomies were an actual treatment for mood disorders, and for a much longer time that exercise negatively affected women's health.

What becomes problematic is when any singular ideology dominates the scientific field- for example, that women are the "weaker sex" or that finding any differences between the sexes is feeding sexism.

For example, just the other day I read this article by a woman who claims that women's low sex drives might be caused by the exorbitant amount of social pressure that is placed disproportionately on women. I find this a pretty inflammatory and radical claim, but I would love to see some study- even just a questionnaire!- either supporting it or not. It would be interesting to look at female (and male?) sex drive as a function of perceived social pressure, and I never would have thought of that study if not for this ideology that called attention to it.

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]serume -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seele 6 points7 points8 points 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]transeunte 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 17 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hypersapien -10 points-9 points-8 points 17 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 15 points16 points17 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 8 points9 points10 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 17 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]soniabegonia 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For example: either the wage gap is a result of gender discrimination, or it is the logical consequence of people's choice of careers and opportunities to be stay-at-home parents.

All that the philosophy of feminism requires is that women have the same opportunities to become CEOs and so on that men do. The wage gap doesn't have to be a result of discrimination; it's just a statistic that is often cited (for better or for worse) showing differences in wage earning by gender to support the argument that discrimination may be one of the things preventing women from getting those positions.

I admire that you try to distance yourself from movements to prevent your judgment from being compromised by feelings of loyalty. I distance myself from movements for the same reason. :o)

But another reason why I distance myself from movements is that people make snap judgments about all or most of the people within those movements based on the loudest (and often more radical and less intelligent) minority. You seem to be judging feminism by feminists, and by the vocal and unintelligent ones who refuse to read peer-reviewed articles. The philosophy itself is not problematic; it's some of the people within the movement.

[–]ih8registrations 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lhimalcolm 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]outsider 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soniabegonia -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 6 points7 points8 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I used to be a feminist and pride myself that I wasn't "the typical male" until I happened to come across the actual facts. Vote up if you had the same deconversion experience.

Comments

29 is filled with misleading facts and some of the points are just plain false, but there are some true ones in there. I find it interesting that this particular group of "facts" changed your mind so much