Do you think feminists nowadays are too sex negative?

Iaboveall · 2019-12-12T23:56:38+00:00

It seems like most of them wish to gatekeep sexual attraction in regards to heterosexual men....

[–]BarredSubject 26 points27 points28 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mtcapri 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

Yes, perfect example. They have this ridiculously obvious bias, wherein they see male sexual desire as crude and oppressive, while female sexual desire is sensual and liberating. What's interesting is that—unlike with many other areas in which they demonize men—they don't even really make an attempt to disguise their bias here; they haven't invented a "polite" lexicon for criticizing the male libido, they just openly call it dangerous.

Just more evidence that feminism isn't really interested in tearing down all myths about gender—some, they're perfectly fine ignoring and even reinforcing, and they even have created a number of new ones. Feminists object to the allegations, but the evidence is quite clear that they're aiming for a matriarchal, not an egalitarian society. This is why male feminists always strike me as utter rubes.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have a profound distaste for people who justify their own knee-jerk disgust reactions with their ideology. So feminists who try to argue that Fleshlights are bad and dildos aren't because "traditionally female objectification has been more systemic and has had far worse consequences than male objectification" are put on my shitlist immediately.

This goes for every instance where people are trying to justify a double standard invoking "historical oppression". My whole objecton to this is: if you enshrine a double standard, justifying it based on a historical double standard in the reverse direction, then aren't you creating a new unfair system? How long do we have to tolerate this new double standard before things are considered "equal" again? What is the endpoint? The logic of Intersectionality as it's applied so often is fundamentally flawed and illiberal, well-intentioned though its proponents may be.

However, I'm not really seeing a widespread mainstream War on Fleshlights on the same level as the glorification of female sex toys. Sure, there are what you could call "casual sexist" double standards in media, where a fleshlight or sex doll tends to be treated as something gross and disgusting, while a dildo tends to be treated as something empowering. But while I hear a lot of hubbub about the supposed excess of videogame boobs etc. I hardly ever hear mainstream feminists talk about the topic or condemn fleshlights. There are sex workers who identify as feminists and they are selling fleshlights of their own genitalia on their Twitter, lol.

I'm not ruling out a feminist backlash against male sex toys in the future, especially when sex robots become practical, realistic and appealing enough that a significant amount of people will actually want to buy them. For the time being, I'm guessing the most fervent backlash will come from the radfems (the TERFs of GenderCritical) while the libfems will be conflicted or ambiguous on the issue.

My stance on the issue is that we shouldn't demonize female sexuality nor male sexuality and that sex toys geared towards either sex are harmless and fine, as long as people don't go overboard and let it affect their social or professional life.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This goes for every instance where people are trying to justify a double standard invoking "historical oppression". My whole objecton to this is: if you enshrine a double standard, justifying it based on a historical double standard in the reverse direction, then aren't you creating a new unfair system? How long do we have to tolerate this new double standard before things are considered "equal" again? What is the endpoint? The logic of Intersectionality as it's applied so often is fundamentally flawed and illiberal, well-intentioned though its proponents may be.

Ding ding BINGO !!! Mainstream Feminism has become the exact kind of self-imposed moral authoritarians that the movement originally fought against.

The most disturbing problem is that critiquing, questioning, or criticizing even the most blatant hypocrisies within the movement can jeopardize your career, your reputation, your relationships, your entire life - even life long Feminist advocates have been excommunicated from the movement for expressing WrongThink.

However, I'm not really seeing a widespread mainstream War on Fleshlights on the same level as the glorification of female sex toys.

On the same level? Definitely not. But there are concrete examples of various Feminist advocacy groups across the West having Silicone Dolls heavily regulated and occasionally banned.

My fleshlight example was probably a weak argument in comparison to the Feminist advocates who are trying to popularize the idea that all penetrative sex is rape, no exceptions, regardless of consent.

Imagine what it must be like? Being a young boy growing up under this new social doctrine - spending your days being raised by College indoctrinated Feminists who use classrooms to push their ideology, and their students as the unwitting subjects in their experiments on behavior modification and social engineering. Being raised to believe that your sexuality is a literal crime.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The most disturbing problem is that critiquing, questioning, or criticizing even the most blatant hypocrisies within the movement can jeopardize your career, your reputation, your relationships, your entire life - even life long Feminist advocates have been excommunicated from the movement for expressing WrongThink.

I agree, cancel culture is definitely a problem. And certain people on the left are trying to downplay it because certain forces on the right are either exaggerating the problem or weaponizing it for their own ends. So it's a bit of a clusterfuck of a situation.

On the same level? Definitely not. But there are concrete examples of various Feminist advocacy groups across the West having Silicone Dolls heavily regulated and occasionally banned.

Really? I wasn't aware of any successful efforts in this regard. Do you have a link perchance? :P

My fleshlight example was probably a weak argument in comparison to the Feminist advocates who are trying to popularize the idea that all penetrative sex is rape, no exceptions, regardless of consent.

I'm not very familiar with mumsnet (why would I be? lol), but the stereotypes I've heard of it is from both woke people and anti-woke people is that there are a lot of TERFs (trans-exclusionary radically feminists) on it, aka the kind of "feminists" who post on /r/GenderCritical , if I remember correctly?

In any case, "all PIV is rape" seems more like a Radfem, Dworkinite proposition than a Libfem one. Libfems, especially those who jumped on the bandwagon of Intersectionality, do like to play with power relations etc. and so you could say that Radfems like Andrea Dworkin took the idea of unequal power relations to its logical extreme, arguing that any woman living under patriarchy cannot meaningfully consent to heterosexual sex because any man is more powerful than her. John Dolan makes this argument about Dworkin. It's a funny article where he talks about how her literalmindedness reminded him of his own.

Imagine what it must be like? Being a young boy growing up under this new social doctrine - spending your days being raised by College indoctrinated Feminists who use classrooms to push their ideology, and their students as the unwitting subjects in their experiments on behavior modification and social engineering. Being raised to believe that your sexuality is a literal crime.

I have come across comments from men who grew up with a radical feminist mother in the 70s or 80s and the hang-ups that their upbringing had caused.

I do think that the more mainstream, liberal feminism of today tends to implicitly demonize male sexuality by omitting positive expressions of male sexuality from the discourse and focusing on the darkest parts.

I've written an e-mail to Harvard about this group's guidelines on the education of teens and adolescents concerning relationships and sexuality. The report says that misogyny and sexual harassment are a huge problem in teens nowadays and they propose ways to parents and educators to tackle these issues. I'll copy-paste the mail so that you can see my objections to certain aspects of the guidelines:

I read your "The Talk" report with great interest, having been referred to it in an international left-wing Men's Group.

It contained a lot of quality information and highlighted important problems, but I believe the report has two important weaknesses deserving constructive criticism:

1) The report talks a lot about telling boys what they can't do, but nothing about how they can express their attraction or interest in an acceptable way.

There is a passage about a scenario where a stranger a) wolf-whistles at a woman b) calls her "hot", and c) says she is beautiful when she smiles, and all of these are implied to be unacceptable street harassment. What I fear is that if we only present this part of the story, and no positive examples of expressing interest (and appropriate places and situations to do so), we end up with a generations of boys who internalize "calling a woman beautiful is harassment and thus evil", fostering sexual shame counterproductive to the formation of healthy relationships.

My reasoning is as follows: if one keeps hearing authority figures in talking about the negative and dangerous parts of communicating ones desires, then it risks becoming a scary thing, especially for some more scrupulous or timid boys. They might mistakenly internalize the notion that the best thing to do is to hide attraction/interest all the way, leading to the kind of covert, passive, indirect behavior that is central to the phenomenon called "Nice Guy syndrome".

Obviously, these positive examples of expressing interest and attraction should be directed to girls as well, but I bring up the boys because the majority of the report is focused on misogyny and harassment as it impacts women, with boys/men being presented as the perpetrators.

2) Also, at one point, the report talks about how women outperforming and outnumbering men in college environments has led to relationship dynamics that are in favor of the men. While this is a problem that needs to be adressed, I find it a bit peculiar how the first imbalance (women outperforming and outnumbering men academically) is glossed over as if it is assumed that this is a positive or neutral thing. A bit of clarification (perhaps an acknowledgement that this might be an area where boys are disadvantaged) could be welcome here.

I thank you for your time and hope this feedback can help foster a productive dialogue that recognizes both boys/men and girls/women in their humanity and takes their problems seriously.

I received this e-mail back:

Thank you so much for reading Making Caring Common's (MCC) report "The Talk" and also taking the time to provide us with thoughtful, clear feedback!

I will pass along your email to the team and Rick Weissbourd, the faculty director of MCC.

Thanks for being such an engaged global citizen!

Not a lot, but eh, I'll take it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mtcapri 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Well, you have the split between radfems and libfems (that has existed since the 1980s). Simplistically put, radfems are sex-negative, libfems are mostly sex-positive with a few caveats. Although I'd argue that libfems do sometimes fall into the trap of demonizing male sexuality,, or rather, being very vague and evasive about offering a vision of what acceptable male sexuality looks like while focusing on all of its most horrible and degrading aspects.

However, even though I personally have criticized the latter aspects of feminism many times, I'm currently far more worried about the right when it comes to sex-negativity. In America at least, the libertarians seem to have kept the tradcons in check for a long time, but the tradcons are getting more and more vocal and virulent.

Actually looking at the discourse that is happening on the right nowadays (after ignoring it for a good bit because I assumed that the right was hopeless anyway) has made me reconsider a lot of my stances, or at least put them into perspective. Sure, Anita Sarkeesian and her ilk are annoying with all the thinkpieces about "problematic objectification" because some game is not woke enough and has too many busty female characters, but the extent of their influence seems pretty negligeable compared to the fuckery the conservative right are planning to pull off. The tradcons are actually moving to reinstate prehistoric obscenity laws, calling for the death of pornographers (with which they also implicitly mean sex workers), and we are seeing virulent homophobia and antisemite conspiracy theories from self-styled paleoconservatives and "groypers" who see themselves emboldened by Trump's presidency (how ironic that Trump, the embodiment of Las Vegas-style excess who was buddy-buddy with Epstein, is so revered by a lot of handwringing tradcons, LARPing Christian crusaders whose only argument in any debate is "will somebody please think of the children").

[–]Iaboveall[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

The anti-SJW thing has been going on for quite a while now. It's part of the whole culture wars that have been developing in the 2010s. It's interesting. In the 2000s online "culture wars" seemed to be centered on New Atheism vs. religious conservatives. It was a simpler time, where we could all gather and laugh at the "moral majority" freaking out about Janet Jackson's nip slip at the Superbowl.

A shift happened around 2011. Occupy Wall Street came and then petered out, some would say in part because the 99% vs. the 1% class message got muddled by controversial and unpopular identity politics like "the progressive stack". Around the same time, Elevatorgate happened in the New Atheist community (a female atheist and feminist blogger made a video about how a guy at a conference tried to flirt with her in an elevator at 3AM and said "don't do that". Richard Dawkins made fun of her comparing her plight to the plight of women in Saudi-Arabia. This set in motion a schism between Intersectional social justice theists (PZ Myers) and "Skeptics" and Intellectual Dark Web type atheists (think Sam Harris, probably Dawkins as well, and a shitload of Youtubers). The latter heavily criticized Islam, while the former mostly kept its focus on Christianity, and racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/Islamophobia in Western culture.

At some point terms like "white privilege", "cultural appropriation" and "Male privilege" started leaking into the mainstream discourse. And of course, then you got Youtubers making fun of these things. I watched a few of these videos (shoe0nhead) and thought they were amusing.

Now, we all know now that the YouTube algorithm has a tendency to link people to more and more extreme videos. If you look at a shoe0nheads vid right now (although there are much more productive uses of your time), you'll notice she still makes fun of feminists, but also of MGTOW, incels etc. And she's a Bernie Sanders fangirl. So she's an example of someone who seems genuine when they say "I'm mostly on the left, but I think some people are taking the social justice thing too far". But then you've got people like Sargon of Akkad calling themselves a "classical liberal" while defending every right-wing position under the Sun, including Brexit, and joining the far right UKIP.

I'm glad I didn't watch these anti SJW videos as a teenager, because it would have been harder to recognize this "classical liberal" bait and switch. Same thing goes for a Jordan Peterson videos. He makes some good arguments on certain issues, like the equality of opportunity vs the equality of outcome thing. But when you go further into his material he seems to be promoting a mystical Jungian version of tradcon Christianity. He is more convincing than your average Evangelical priests who goes around denying the existence of dinosaurs and the Big Bang, because he says the Bible is an allegory, that it's the superhero comics of it's time, except it contains the principles for a successful society. But it's easier to say "hang on, this is more tradcon than "classical liberal" if you already have a concept of what those things mean and you already have political opinions of your own. But you start to see some of this demographic who used to be atheist edgelords become Christian crusader edgelords.

Now I'm not saying that you should be anti-Brexit or that you can't be Christian, but the point is that a lot of people were sneaking in right-wing or far-right positions while "mocking SJW's", as a package deal. One minute you are nuancing the gender wage gap, next thing you know you are saying that "climate change isn't a big deal" (spoiler alert: it is). I remember this British atheist Skeptic Gamergate youtuber making a video defending Remain and being swamped by downvotes from Sargon's fanboys. And as we said, the algorithm promotes more extreme videos each time, so before you know it you are getting Molyneux, Lauren Southern etc and their Great Replacement conspiracy theories. (This is not exclusive to political videos - my mum is slightly into New Agey stuff, but she gets linked far crazier shit about UFOs and Flat Earth Society etc.) I wonder if a similar thing is going on on the Left, what with the high online presence of self-styled anarchists and communists.

So what do I think of the whole anti SJW thing? Well, some people would say that this very subreddit is anti-SJW because of its stance critical of various aspects of feminism. But it's certainly a thing that can be taken too far and exploited by bad faith actors. Even the Libertarians are waking up to the fact that tradcon radicals are far worse SJWs than the "SJWs" themselves. One should be able to criticize "social justice" concepts and practices while keeping in mind the relative ",danger" they pose compared to other, more serious threats. Of course, it also happens that feminists use this last argument to deflect any criticism whatsoever. Humans are messy creatures, man.

[–]Jex117 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The anti-SJW thing has been going on for quite a while now. It's part of the whole culture wars that have been developing in the 2010s. It's interesting. In the 2000s online "culture wars" seemed to be centered on New Atheism vs. religious conservatives. It was a simpler time, where we could all gather and laugh at the "moral majority" freaking out about Janet Jackson's nip slip at the Superbowl.

As a 90s kid I'd argue that it started much, much earlier.

The first wave of Anti-SJW's I saw dominating the scene in the 00s were the same folks who previously cornered their careers by defying Religious self-righteousness and moral superiority complexes. The same people who fought Religious hypocrisy were the ones to start the pushback against our new self-imposed arbiters of ethics and morality, our newage clergy of Social Justice Warriors.

Same thing goes for a Jordan Peterson videos. He makes some good arguments on certain issues, like the equality of opportunity vs the equality of outcome thing. But when you go further into his material he seems to be promoting a mystical Jungian version of tradcon Christianity. He is more convincing than your average Evangelical priests who goes around denying the existence of dinosaurs and the Big Bang, because he says the Bible is an allegory, that it's the superhero comics of it's time, except it contains the principles for a successful society. But it's easier to say "hang on, this is more tradcon than "classical liberal" if you already have a concept of what those things mean and you already have political opinions of your own. But you start to see some of this demographic who used to be atheist edgelords become Christian crusader edgelords.

Speaking as a Canadian here - all your concerns about some Tradcon takeover here in Canada are completely unfounded Americacentrism. Our Conservative Parties won't even entertain the notion of modifying our abortion laws, let alone rolling them back - free accessible abortions have been a fact of life for two whole generations of Canadians, nobody is going to change that for us.
I'm an atheist who grew up in a Fundamentalist Christian household - I've seen first hand the damage religion can cause when taken to an extreme, but I also remember the community our church brought together, the troubled people from Church who turned their life around through religion, the career criminals who change their lives when they discover religion in prison, how it can ease a persons fear of death, and soften the sadness of those who mourn them. I reject all religion as having any factual basis, but I can't deny the benefit it provides to many people.
I've personally seen the benefit Petersons life lessons can have on my boys at work. Having become a bit of a father figure / role model for the young lads at my company, I try to lend advice, and I make a point of keeping up with their lives - I've personally seen immature boys develop a noticeable sense of responsibility after getting some of Petersons hard-love.

Now I'm not saying that you should be anti-Brexit or that you can't be Christian, but the point is that a lot of people were sneaking in right-wing or far-right positions while "mocking SJW's", as a package deal. One minute you are nuancing the gender wage gap, next thing you know you are saying that "climate change isn't a big deal" (spoiler alert: it is). I remember this British atheist Skeptic Gamergate youtuber making a video defending Remain and being swamped by downvotes from Sargon's fanboys. And as we said, the algorithm promotes more extreme videos each time, so before you know it you are getting Molyneux, Lauren Southern etc and their Great Replacement conspiracy theories. (This is not exclusive to political videos - my mum is slightly into New Agey stuff, but she gets linked far crazier shit about UFOs and Flat Earth Society etc.) I wonder if a similar thing is going on on the Left, what with the high online presence of self-styled anarchists and communists.

100% agree. I consider myself a Moderate-Liberal - in the 90s and 00s I fit right in with mainstream Liberalism, but the movement has gone in a direction I can't follow - I'm opposed to SJW doctrine because of how it hijacked Liberal parties, not because I want to be Alt-Right. I hate having to associate within right-wing circles to have discussions about the problems with SJW doctrines.

As a lifelong Liberal I should be able to question and critique the direction of my political party, without being smeared as an Alt-Right troll of some kind.

So what do I think of the whole anti SJW thing? Well, some people would say that this very subreddit is anti-SJW because of its stance critical of various aspects of feminism. But it's certainly a thing that can be taken too far and exploited by bad faith actors. Even the Libertarians are waking up to the fact that tradcon radicals are far worse SJWs than the "SJWs" themselves. One should be able to criticize "social justice" concepts and practices while keeping in mind the relative ",danger" they pose compared to other, more serious threats. Of course, it also happens that feminists use this last argument to deflect any criticism whatsoever. Humans are messy creatures, man.

It's not isolated to this subreddit though - it's on the tips of everybody's tongues nearly anywhere you go. I've heard Feminists at work rant about how it's all gone too far - but only under their breath and in private, like they're not allowed to talk about it. Big faces throughout every media sector are routinely taking jabs at the direction society has taken.

Also I don't think SJW should be a term shoehorned solely for Left-Wing radicals. The mentality of a SJW is self-righteous moral supremacy, a holier-than-thou outlook of society, and an attempt to police and control peoples behaviors - this isn't isolated to Leftist radicals. I grew up experiencing this exact same mentality by Right-Wing Religious Radicals - they no longer hold the reigns of moral superiority in society though, modern SJW's have taken hold.

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

Speaking as a Canadian here - all your concerns about some Tradcon takeover here in Canada are completely unfounded Americacentrism. Our Conservative Parties won't even entertain the notion of modifying our abortion laws, let alone rolling them back - free accessible abortions have been a fact of life for two whole generations of Canadians, nobody is going to change that for us.

I actually hail from a small European country. I hear what you are saying, not everywhere is America. But in the current climate, I do believe that American politics has a big influence on politics in other Western countries. I have seen it happen firsthand in the wake of Trump's election. Our country's far-right party, and to a lesser degree our nationalist conservative party, copied the playbook of Trump and the Republican party (down to the use of targeted Facebook ads) and achieved unprecedented electoral success. While our country was on the forefront of progressive measures like gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion etc. in the 1990s and 2000s, there is an underbelly of diehard Tradcaths who have become emboldened since Trump won and our right-wing parties skyrocketed, and they have been growing steadily more vocal. So the reason I'm worried is that what is happening in American politics now seems like a precursor to what will happen in our country 2 to 4 years from now.

I'm an atheist who grew up in a Fundamentalist Christian household - I've seen first hand the damage religion can cause when taken to an extreme, but I also remember the community our church brought together, the troubled people from Church who turned their life around through religion, the career criminals who change their lives when they discover religion in prison, how it can ease a persons fear of death, and soften the sadness of those who mourn them. I reject all religion as having any factual basis, but I can't deny the benefit it provides to many people.

My simplified view on the matter is: spirituality is great and entirely a personal thing, and organized religion should be regarded with suspicion (as we do with all institutions, since where there is a hierarchy, there is a potential for abuse of power). But certainly yes, we should look at religion's positives and negatives on a case-by-case basis and not blanket condemn it, especially now that it has been "dethroned".

I've personally seen the benefit Petersons life lessons can have on my boys at work. Having become a bit of a father figure / role model for the young lads at my company, I try to lend advice, and I make a point of keeping up with their lives - I've personally seen immature boys develop a noticeable sense of responsibility after getting some of Petersons hard-love.

One of the points I sometimes try to make to feminists or feminist-adjacent people is that a Peterson-style voice is something that is sorely missing on the "progressive" side, which why young guys are flocking towards him and the right side of the spectrum. Even though you can disagree with his politics (and I do disagree with a lot of his politics), he has a "father figure" style demeanor that a lot of young guys are missing these days, amidst all the "The Future Is Female" t-shirts. Sometimes you get the impression that men as a gender are "passé". So the Left, if they don't want to lose the culture war, might need to embrace some father figures of their own and incorporate the positive aspects of Peterson's M.O. into their own. As far as I can see, Terry Crews comes closest to a "woke" male role model, and the MensLibbers also seem to like Mr. Rogers (who doesn't, tbh), so this is where more work could be done.

As a lifelong Liberal I should be able to question and critique the direction of my political party, without being smeared as an Alt-Right troll of some kind.

I agree, my dude.

It's not isolated to this subreddit though - it's on the tips of everybody's tongues nearly anywhere you go. I've heard Feminists at work rant about how it's all gone too far - but only under their breath and in private, like they're not allowed to talk about it. Big faces throughout every media sector are routinely taking jabs at the direction society has taken.

True that. I think a lot of progressive people are tired of people trying to outwoke eachother constantly, and that heartens me somewhat.

Also I don't think SJW should be a term shoehorned solely for Left-Wing radicals. The mentality of a SJW is self-righteous moral supremacy, a holier-than-thou outlook of society, and an attempt to police and control peoples behaviors - this isn't isolated to Leftist radicals. I grew up experiencing this exact same mentality by Right-Wing Religious Radicals - they no longer hold the reigns of moral superiority in society though, modern SJW's have taken hold.

In a certain sense, yeah (universities, pop culture and popular media). On the other hand, Mike Pence is V.P. and several Southern U.S. states are trying to adopt legislation that not only turns back reproductive rights, but is impossible to enforce (like requiring doctors to "reimplant ectopic pregnancies" - LMAO. I think we should always be vigilant of "SJWs" of different stripes no matter what their political orientation.

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But when you go further into his material he seems to be promoting a mystical Jungian version of tradcon Christianity

I think it's more of a reaction to the "let's throw everything out" tendency on the left, who argue for total revolution without an understanding of what they're likely to get. By rejecting the church entirely, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. I'm a pretty firm athiest but even I recognise that not everything about organised Christianity is harmful to society and that in the absence of any spiritual guidance some pretty negative things like consumerism and extremist nationalism or tribal identification have crept in to fill the vacuum that's been left.

People ask Peterson about a lot of things, most of which he's no expert on. But it would be churlish of him to say, sorry I'm only going give you my opinions on topics I prefer - you can't do interviews like that. They then take issue with small soundbites, devoid of context, usually, or disagree with one opinion and use that to tar all his opinions about everything as "far right' which, I mean, what are they going to do when they hear from someone who is ACTUALLY far right?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I don't disagree with you that Peterson is often demonized and that he is painted as something much more vicious and hateful than he actually is in reality.

I would call this "Peterson Derangement Syndrome". Note that I don't believe Derangement Syndromes only happen on the left. For example, I am now seeing a lot of Greta Thunberg Derangement Syndrome on the right, with libertarians and conservatives alike shitting on a 16-year who, annoying and flawed as she may be, is also warning people about climate change. Something about the excessive reaction to her by some folks makes me think that they are afraid that the government will come after their meat and their SUVs and they feel threatened, which makes them hyperfocused on this kid who is merely the poster child of a discussion that is damn serious. And hell, even though I dislike a figure like Anita Sarkeesian and would have a boatload of criticisms to make of her if it was still 2014, I think a lot of the excesses of Gamergate could be described as "Sarkeesian Derangement Syndrome", where this one figure's importance was elevated well beyond what she actually merits, in large part due to her most passionate opponents.

All what I was really trying to say is that Peterson is too traditionalist and conservative for my own personal tastes. If you look further into some of his videos, he makes a relatively big deal about how promiscuity is a very bad thing. And in another video, an Australian fan of him (if I remember correctly) asks him if he would support a gay marriage bill, and he responds something like "well, if I had reasons to believe that Cultural Marxists were behind it, then I would vote against it". Which is a weirdly evasive, cop-out, non-answer which made me lose a lot of respect for him (I'm pro-gay marriage btw). Is he alt-right? No. I would say he is more of a garden-variety conservative pundit (more towards the moderate/reasonable side than towards the loony side), but for Millennials and Zoomers. And that is fine, but the point I was making was that a lot of kids are sucked in and swallow everything the man says as gospel, and that he's not as 'liberal' as he presents himself (though obviously als not as far-right as his detractors present him).

I agree with you that the New Atheists were too narrowly focused (and ironically dogmatic) in their thinking. Blaming virtually all the ills of the world on organized religion was short-sighted. While I obviously think that organized religion does cause a lot of ills, I agree that we should look at the positive contributions that certain religious structures made to society, and try to figure out how we can harness these benefits in a more secular context like we have today. For example, having a weekly event where the whole community showed up and socialized with each other is a positive aspect that we have lost because nowadays everything is personalized and catered to the individual and we are all cloistered to our screens all the time, and we live in a gig economy where stability is considered a thing of a quaint, long-gone past. The main point the New Atheists were making though, is that you can have morality without a belief in God, something that a lot of theists were denying. But there are always going to be moral disagreements (even when there was religious hegemony, there were theological disputes).

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The thing that always bothered me about the atheist movement is that they were focused solely on religion. Even then I was rejecting feminism and all of its blatant double standards and misandry. The issue never was religion, then SJWs. In the same way that I found utterly inane the religious people who pointed at Nazis or stalinists as examples of why atheism is bad (although the case can't be made for Nazis, and even stalinism being atheistic could be debated.) Those are all only the expression of one single issue : dogmatism. And I never understood why Dawkins and cie made their point about religion, rather than dogmatism. The point is and always has been that everything should be open to question. No taboos in society, no single thing too sacred to ever be addressed and questioned. If it doesn't stand to scrutiny, then it is not a conviction worth having.

So I keep opposing dogmatism where I see it. I criticize feminists. And I criticize tradcons. Anyway, both are the same side of the same coin, as far as I am concerned.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]theAnalepticAlzabo 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theAnalepticAlzabo 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Thin-Ant1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism was always sex negative.

1st wave feminism, with those Puritan suffragettes, needs no further explanation.

2nd wave feminism: In the 1st issue of the first feminist magazine, ie. Ms Magazine, there was an article entitled "Sexual Revolution is not Our War", whose content you can guess from the title.

3rd wave feminism: No further explanation either.

[–]homo_redditorensis 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's pretty simple (and I'm pretty critical of feminists and wouldn't call myself one): not all MRAs are like Paul Elam. And of course, MRAs are not synonymous to incels/MGTOW/RedPillers/PUAs etc. even though they are lumped together as part of the "manosphere". The idea of a 'left-wing male advocate' itself seems foreign to many people. So I try to grant the same level of nuance and complexity to my "opponents" (even though, being a biased human myself with a limited amount of information, I'm probably going to overgeneralize at some point).

why is it only used to shut down criticism

I'm not sure pointing out the diversity of feminism is "only" used to shut down criticism. For example, in this case, the thread title was a question (are feminists too sex-negative?), not a critical statement saying that feminists are too sex-negative, so this answer doesn't seem like a deflection of criticism, but more a neutral answer.

However, you are right that many people do use it to shut down criticism. And that is lazy and wrong.

if it is nevertheless true, how come it is still possible to make any sort of positive generalizations about a feminist movement -- surely if they are so wonderfully diverse the plurality of feminisms would make that impossible too?

The same applies. People should be more goddamn specific. For example, we could ask ourselves how much of social progress was due to activists (as is often assumed), and not a spontaneous result of technological progress in terms of birth control, capitalism recruiting women to the workforce etc. History is a result of many different people with differing goals working together or against each other on an issue with complex results.

Of course, it's impossible to maintain this level of complexity with every discussion and sometimes we simplify things for the sake of argument. What is more important is the attitude of the person you are interacting with. Do they seem interested in having a conversation, or are they only interested in dunking on you with a hot take and thereby signalling their ingroup cred?

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I disagree respectfully that /u/a-man-from-earth is committing a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. He (or she?)'s not saying: "those feminists may be sex-negative, but they're not real feminists." They're simply pointing out that there are different types of feminism.

I personally get annoyed when people just lump in MRAs with incels, MGTOWs, RedPillers, PUAs etc. because it's lazy and dismissive as hell, so I do try to come at feminists' arguments with an attitude of trying to understand their personal view on the matter as opposed to assuming what their opinions are based on my stereotype of them in my head. That is why Jordan Peterson, for example, didn't perform so well in his debate against Zizek. He just skimmed the Communist Manifesto because he assumed Zizek to be some garden variety SJW commie, completely underestimating him. It was apparent that Zizek was more familiar with Peterson than vice versa. Similarly, Ben Shapiro went on Andrew Neil's show and he accused Andrew Neil of being a left-wing shill because Neil challenged Shapiro's arguments, even though Neil's a staunch conservative.

Of course, people form broad coalitions with others and so you could speak of a sort of "Feminist Coalition". It's a bit hard to see what qualities are necessary to be taken seriously as a feminist. Often it just seems a case of declaring yourself a feminist loudly and proudly, but some (pro-lifers who call themselves feminists ,or people like Christina Hoff Summers who question that we live in a patriarchy) are excluded by most. Libfems seem opposed to TERFs/GenderCritical feminists, but Andrea Dworkin (the poster girl of radfem extremism) is treated with a fair amount of respect. It's a bit like on the American right, where Libertarians and tradcons tolerate each other and throw eachother a bone until something comes up that really reveals the difference in their core values.

[–]AskingToFeminists 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I personally get annoyed when people just lump in MRAs with incels, MGTOWs, RedPillers, PUAs etc. because it's lazy and dismissive as hell,

The huge difference there is is one of power and influence. All of those groups are basically just as influential as the other : not really.

But a fair criticism of the MRM would be through the actions of groups like NCFM, for example.

On the other hand, feminism is a huge institution, with plenty of power. And some things can legitimately be pointed out as to who those people with power and influence are, and what they think, and how this organizations act and what they support.

It is often pointed out, as a tentative to deflect criticism of feminism, that "most feminists don't believe that". I never even bother to argue against that. The opinion of all the worker ants doesn't matter much when the queen is the one calling the shots. NOW opposes shared parenting bills, feminists support NOW, no other feminist organization is actually trying to promote it to anything near a comparable scale as what NOW does to oppose it. Feminism opposes shared parenting. Even if most feminists approve of it, in all practical purposes, it doesn't matter one bit if it isn't reflected. Most feminists would use the same definition as you and me of rape : a non consented sexual intercourse. They wouldn't even think of excluding men. But in practice, it is Mary Koss that defines how feminists collect their data on rapes. And so the feminist worker ants uses stats made after her model. And since everyone around them uses the same definition of rape, they don't even bother to check how it is defined, and affirm in all good faith that rape is overwhelmingly committed by men, with statistics they never bothered to check to back them up. And for all intent and purposes, they are I distinguishable from people who actually believe that men can't be raped. Or they are even worse because they think they operate with the same definition as yours. And so as a whole, feminism doesn't believe that men can be raped.

See, that's the key difference : the power and influence. And I'm not speaking of the nebulous Patriarchal kind.

Of course, feminists hate that you point out to their very real power and influence, as it is completely against their core defense against the accusations of sexism.

so I do try to come at feminists' arguments with an attitude of trying to understand their personal view on the matter as opposed to assuming what their opinions are based on my stereotype of them in my head

That is a very good attitude to have. I try to adopt it too. But you are conflating here criticism of feminism with criticism of feminists.

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

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I personally get annoyed when people just lump in MRAs with incels, MGTOWs, RedPillers, PUAs etc. because it's lazy and dismissive as hell,

Those groups don't self-identify under the same banner, the way every Feminist organization waves the same banner of Feminism.

Is the Catholic Church absolved of guilt after generations of child abuse, just because some Churches don't rape children? Or do we judge the movement by the actions of its most prominent organizations?

Do we make these concessions for Republicans continued support for Trump, because some ridings disagree with it? Or do we judge the party by the actions of its leaders?

Was the Nazi party absolved of guilt after the war for the diverse opinions held throughout different chapters of the Nazi party? Or do we judge the movement by the actions of the collective?

Do we make these concessions for Republicans continued support for Trump, because some ridings disagree with it? Or do we judge the party by the actions of its leaders

I do try to come at feminists' arguments with an attitude of trying to understand their personal view on the matter as opposed to assuming what their opinions are based on my stereotype of them in my head.

I didn't make any assumptions nor peddle any stereotypes - Feminists have consistently relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy as absolution for responsibility. That's neither an assumption nor a stereotype - it's just a widespread fallacy.

Of course, people form broad coalitions with others and so you could speak of a sort of "Feminist Coalition". It's a bit hard to see what qualities are necessary to be taken seriously as a feminist. Often it just seems a case of declaring yourself a feminist loudly and proudly, but some (pro-lifers who call themselves feminists ,or people like Christina Hoff Summers who question that we live in a patriarchy) are excluded by most. Libfems seem opposed to TERFs/GenderCritical feminists, but Andrea Dworkin (the poster girl of radfem extremism) is treated with a fair amount of respect. It's a bit like on the American right, where Libertarians and tradcons tolerate each other and throw eachother a bone until something comes up that really reveals the difference in their core values.

This is exactly what I'm talking about though. This idea that you can't hold Feminism responsible for its actions as a movement, simply because "anyone can call themselves a Feminist" is the epitome of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Feminism is a socioeconomic movement that has enormous political influence in nations across the Western World - this idea that we can't hold it responsible for its actions in society, nor question its goals and direction, nor critique or criticize its most glaring and immoral hypocrisies, is absolute madness.

No movement should be absolved of responsibility, nor shielded from reasonable critique.

[–]homo_redditorensis 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

Well, it is somewhat true that the label "feminist" has grown so popular that some women fall into the trap of using it it to justify any decision they make or any position they hold.

Some positions are so unanimously rejected by most feminists that the women arguing for them don't get away with calling themselves feminist and are pretty decisively "othered". One such example: holding pro-life views. Another example: questioning the existence of a "patriarchy". (Bye bye, Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia.)

Other things aren't really settled, and so anything can be made a feminist issue:

the hijab is empowering
sex work is empowering (but while radfems and libfems agree that sex workers should be decriminalized, radfems argue that the buyers/Johns should be criminalized. I do have to note that there are heavy disagreements over this and that pro-sex work feminists tend to find radfems' position to be SWERFy)
pornography is deeply problematic (as long as the focus is more on the pervy "male gaze" and not so much on the female performers, even the most pro-sex work choice feminists can happily shit on men's preferences)
female CEOs are awesome! #girlboss ! (but overthrow the cisheterocapitalist patriarchy. tbf, the girlboss feminists don't tend to be the same as the diehard socialist anarchafeminists, but in the mainstream the corporate feminists seem to be quite well-tolerated)
sexualized jokes being made in my general vicinity is not only uncomfortable or inappropriate but also degrading and dehumanizing and an affront to my human rights (google: "Ladies' lingerie joke", donglegate)
This one, I saw unfolding in an /r/AskFeminists thread. Many feminists there were saying things to the effect of "a man shouldn't ever approach me and try to flirt with me in public because he isn't "entitled to my attention" and it's tantamount to harassment and it's objectifying because he only is interested in getting to know me because he thinks I'm hot." Then another woman responded: "Well, I like when men approach me in a bar or club, because I am open to finding dates when I'm going out and I think the attention is flattering." And then the responses went "Oh of course, I would never try to invalidate your preferences, it's awesome if you like being approached by a guy, you are totally in your right." And then a man goes "well, how can I tell the difference between a woman who likes to be approached vs. one who doesn't? Do I have to read minds?" and the feminists ganged on him saying "OMG STFU u n00b, if you can't even talk to a woman without knowing if you're harrassing her you shouldn't even try to talk to her to begin with, you misogynist".

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

Well, it is somewhat true that the label "feminist" has grown so popular that some women fall into the trap of using it it to justify any decision they make or any position they hold.

You have forgotten a very important bit here: this, and most other kinds of intellectual malfeasance is tolerated as long as it generates increased buzz around the term "feminist", and is useful for activism, thus giving the movement extra political power, -- there are no safeguards against this in their worldview, so I don't think it's a coincidence. To me as an educated layman and outside observer, this is a feature, not a bug of how their epistemology works.

Bye bye, Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia.

That's all too sad if you believe this, because to me, these two are a part of very small number of feminists still active today who seem actually intelligent and not bereft of compassion or human dignity towards their opponents...

I mostly agree with your other points, it's just a shame the feminist movement is so closed off from outside criticism or meaningful engagement by other academics who aren't true believers, that capable of the task gets to systematically looking at reasons why this keeps happening to their movement, and old-school feminists being smeared as "TERFs" and torn to shreds by the new generation of activists is the closest they come to meaningful outside engagement with nonbelievers' ideas that's not proselytizing. (More in detail about this issue here: https://wentworthreport.com/2018/01/04/why-no-one-cares-about-feminist-theory/)

So in other words, thank you for a detailed response, but the issues you've brought on isn't quite close to what I was talking about at all.

Edit: I'm also curious what you think about the full article, u/Melthengylf (please click through for the full version at the link above), -- to re-state my view, I'm in full agreement with James Lindsay here, and it is my intuition is that the intellectual isolationism and now-obvious decline in the rigor of their theory is the decades-delayed price now paid for the past weaponization of their epistemology, or price for activism > truth attitude towards ideas: "anything goes as long as it smashes the patriarchy, or hurtz menz feelz".

Edit:

Key points of the article below.

These Science Wars should have been definitively ended by Steven Pinker in 2003, when he published his devastating book The Blank Slate. As you’ll no doubt have noticed, feminist theorizing did not stop in 2003, or 2004, or even 2005, though the Science Wars did slide out of the spotlight. Rather than ending the strains of feminist theorizing that it should have thoroughly embarrassed, The Blank Slate more accurately ended any reasonable belief that serious engagement with or criticism of feminist theorizing would slow it down.

Far from being fatalistic histrionics on my part, by the way, this result was recently demonstrated by Charlotta Stern, using Pinker’s book as a benchmark. Stern’s discovery? Feminist theory is very insular and guarded from outside criticism — to the point of fittingly being the academic equivalent of Themyscira, the inaccessible island of the Amazons in DC Comics Wonder Woman universe. It isn’t merely that feminist theorizing isn’t interesting or intelligible to outsiders, it’s that it evolved in a way that sequesters itself away from the majority of other rational thought. Put another way, feminist theorizing has never been short on critics, but, through the deflective power of accusations of potential sexism, it responded to this selection pressure not by responsible academic correction so much as making itself un-care-about-able to the outside world while blinkering itself so that it might continue as though all criticism of it is, indeed, too sexist to be worth noticing.

This is where the high-minded theorizing of the academy runs headlong into the brick wall of reality, however, for three significant reasons. Firstly, feminist theory is un-care-about-able, so had we engaged with it more seriously, no one would care. Secondly, high-minded scholarly engagement with feminist theory fares poorly against the reality of the situation: all charlatanry benefits from serious engagement with the peers it hopes to emulate. Creationists want to debate biologists for the simple reason that some of the imprimatur of biology accidentally scrapes off on the creationist from the moment the debate is scheduled. “See, I’m doing science too! This scientist wants to debate me!” Feminist theorizing, not unlike theology, in this way benefits but is not injured by engagement with mature philosophy and science that attempts to treat it on its own terms. “We’re feminist philosophers and sociologists! We inspire and participate in academic debate in those fields!” We need to think very carefully about whether this is something we want to do. The alternative, by the way, is to refuse to engage its premises on its own terms and to reveal it to be an unsophisticated and inadequate model for understanding reality.

Thirdly and most importantly, criticism of feminist theory, from within feminism itself, is worse than un-care-about-able. It’s arranged so that substantive criticism makes no impact. How could it? It has set up a self-protective system (as do nearly all conspiracy theories) in which criticism of feminist theory is understood to validate feminist theory. Take, for example, the commonly heard claims that “criticism of feminism is why we need feminism.” Under feminist theory, which is deeply dependent upon postmodern thought, knowledge is believed to be constructed by “dominant discourses,” and feminism, particularly intersectional feminism, is taken to be the true defender of marginalized voices, including those allegedly of women. Worse than this, because of its beliefs about these structures of power, to criticize feminist theory is to violate a moral taboo against gender equality. Critics of feminist theory, even in purely scholarly terms, are easily derided as being complicit in sexism, and the moral architecture of the post-1960s academy left other academics (and administrators) particularly weak against these charges. Thus, feminist theory perpetuated and concentrated, making itself simultaneously less connected to reality and even more un-care-about-able.

Criticism of feminist theory therefore cannot work in the normal way. From within, it can only be seen as evidence that the dominant discourses it seeks to overthrow are still dominant, thus need opposing even more strongly. Interpreted from within the scholarly architecture of feminist theory, critics like myself, Peter Boghossian, Paul Gross, Norman Levitt, Alan Sokal, and Steven Pinker are just white males exercising our epistemic pushback, like every other man who disagrees. (Nota bene: Women who disagree suffer from “internalized misogyny” and, in an attempt to maintain favor with “the mens,” engage in the same epistemic pushback, once removed — so there’s no winning here, only agreeing with the feminists, being used as evidence of the rightness of feminism and the need for more feminism and feminist theory, or being ignored.)

This makes two potent forces that have allowed feminist theory to endure beyond the endurance of responsible scholarship. First, it deflects all criticism by abusing a loophole in the academic and cultural Left’s moral architecture: an overwhelming need to distance itself from anything anyone could conceivably call bigotry, which is a need outdone only by an even stronger impulse to throw clear virtuous signals proving the uncrossable magnitude of that distance. Second, it makes itself un-care-about-able by retreating to a fantastic academic island, like theology. The trouble is that the island has made itself well-armed and we’re well within range of its missiles. Given that this is occurring within a wider environment of almost complete indifference to feminist theory for the very good reason that it is producing very little that is comprehensible, coherent or substantive, this is indeed a problem.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I think there is a confusion between postmodern thinkers (like Butler) and Foucault, who is a poststructuralist one and quite traditional indeed.

I don't believe the text you agve me understands Durkheim: religions are indeed moral communities. That means that religious practises reproduces an idealized version of the community. The sacred is a major concept in Durkheim: it separates the Ideal World (the sacred) from the material world (the profane). It is like if Religions expressed in the symbolic realm what the essence of the community is. That is what Durkheim says about religions. And I may say that I would agree that "SJW idoelogies" are religions in a durkheimian sense. Through reproducing the essence of the community in a symbolic way, religion makes social cohession possible.

I would agree that social sciences related to feminism, etc, are religions qua Durkheim sense, not in the sense of the text you sent me interprets it.

Note that this is not at all what the text you sent me interprets as what are the needs fulfilled by religions, but the illussion of control.

with religions often putting moral perfection into the hands of a deity, who has brought moral teaching to humanity.

No, judeo-chistian religions have that specific structure of religion.

On the whole.

The text you sent me interprets community as a sense of identity. This is not community in durkhemian sense. It stems from the liberal american tradition of social studies.

Now, let me be clear: I don't believe the text you sent me is wrong. In fact, I have quite a bit of criticisms of social academia and indeed I believe it needs to be studied critically. I agree with many of the analysis the text does.

What worries me, and I believe it is extreeemely problematic is your take from it:

This text, as well as feminist texts comes from an ideological framework. All social sciences comes from an ideological framework, as was well established since the origin of social sciences, say, by Weber and others.

What is worrying to me is that I believe you are taking a false framework of ideology vs truth that is deeply problematic. You are misunderstanding what ideology is.

What is worrying to me is that I believe that you believe that grievances studies are politicaly motivated and this text isn't.

This isn't the case, all social sciences are politically motivated. The most dangerous, I believe, are those who don't realize it.

I do kind of worry that the author of the text seems largely unaware of being politically motivated through writing the text. Since the 60s, political motivation is embraced rather than tryng to hide it: this is a source of intelectual honesty.

[–]mewacketergi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

To my understanding, the author is either pretty apolitical, or an old-school liberal with fairly moderate and tolerant views, -- and to me, this is pretty mild and far away from being "politically motivated" in our polarized and charged times.

This text, as well as feminist texts comes from an ideological framework. All social sciences comes from an ideological framework, as was well established since the origin of social sciences, say, by Weber and others.

What is worrying to me is that I believe you are taking a false framework of ideology vs truth that is deeply problematic. You are misunderstanding what ideology is.

I don't understand. So to you, there is no contradiction between political activism and intellectual rigor at all, and the cognitive distortions that motivated thinking brings into scholarship are a-okay? I don't believe you think that, but you seem to be saying that you do... Surely I've touched on something that helps you empathize with my concern that it's more accurate today to mentally model the modern feminist movement as an organized religion than a political movement?

Edit: Rephrase first sentence.

[–]Melthengylf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]24-cell 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The trouble is that those moderate down-to-earth Feminists you personally know, aren't the radical bigots who hold positions of power within the Feminist movement, and they aren't representative of the actions of the movement at large.

As an example let's look at famous feminist Mary P Koss, an influential leader within the movement, who successfully lobbied the FBI to change their definition of rape to include male victims of sodomy, yet explicitly exclude male victims of female rapists:

https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape

Theresa Phung: "For the men who are traumatized by their experiences because they were forced against their will to vaginally penetrate a woman.."
Dr. Mary P. Koss: "How would that happen...how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?"
Theresa Phung: "So I am actually speaking to someone right now. his story is that he was drugged, he was unconscious and when he awoke a woman was on top of him with his penis inserted inside her vagina, and for him that was traumatizing.
Dr. Mary P. Koss: "Yeah."
Theresa Phung: "If he was drugged what would that be called?"
Dr. Mary P. Koss: "What would I call it? I would call it 'unwanted contact'."
Theresa Phung: "Just 'unwanted

Yet for some reason she's still held up as a respected leader within the movement. For all the moderate, reasonable Feminists I hear about so much, I just don't see any efforts to expose the abuse of power by Professor Koss.

Yet at the exact same time, ridiculous notions like "eye rape" get widely popularized.

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

That’s nice to hear! What sort of environment is this where you’ve encountered these feminists? I’ve encountered a few such people, though I’ve also met my fair share of feminists who demonize male sexuality. I’ve met feminists who get after guys talking about how hot celebrities are despite doing the same themselves. But to be fair this is a few very devout feminists. In my experience the more casual members of the movement (I.e. they go to women’s marches and donate to feminist causes, but if you skim through their social media you probably won’t see the word “feminist”) are pretty chill and fairly consistently sex positive, whereas the ones who define their identity largely on the movement tend to be a little more hypocritical.

Off the top of my head I actually can’t think of a man I’ve encountered in person who openly self-identifies as a feminist, so I think my perception are a little biased thanks to my more woman-centric observations.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

One thing to bear in mind is that Reddit feminists might not be representative. Reddit tends to attract the socially awkward and socially anxious. So a lot of these women feel very uncomfortable at being approached and they rationalize why you shouldn't (because it's objectifying etc.) Of course, Reddit is also filled with socially anxious men who are finding out that not being proactive in dating as a man doesn't tend to yield success. So these guys feel like they need reassurance that it's okay to talk to a girl to signal their interest (because it doesn't come natural to them) and they're met with testimonials from these women who describe being approached as this horrible dehumanizing thing. This is a devastating recipe for explosive online Battles of the Sexes between socially maladjusted keyboard warriors.

[–]Jex117 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One thing to bear in mind is that Reddit feminists might not be representative.

This is an important point to make, and important for us both to keep in mind, but also consider that the handful of Feminists you've met in real life might not be representative of Mainstream Feminism as a whole, nor the kind of bigoted advocates that get consistently propped up as leaders within the movement.

So these guys feel like they need reassurance that it's okay to talk to a girl to signal their interest (because it doesn't come natural to them) and they're met with testimonials from these women who describe being approached as this horrible dehumanizing thing. This is a devastating recipe for explosive online Battles of the Sexes between socially maladjusted keyboard warriors.

But there are many prominent Feminist leaders who insist exactly that. There's a generation of boys in our society who are being taught from a young age that it's unacceptable to approach a woman without consent - not so much as introducing yourself to a woman at the bar. There are young boys being raised to believe that looking at a girl is a form of rape.

This isn't merely an insignificant quirk of Reddit, this is a legitimate issue that's going to cause long-term wide-spread detrimental psychological effects for an entire generation of young boys; the unwitting subjects of a mass social experiment on modifying human behavior and social engineering.

Just one example how Mainstream Feminism is responsible for acts of enormous immorality, all in the name of their idea of "the greater good."

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]24-cell 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kierran169 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't disagree with you there. It's the institutions that ultimately matter. The rest of us are just squabbling away on Twitter or writing an opinion piece on Medium about it.

I think that specific, targeted criticism of the, simply put, "bad things" done and said by the foremost thought leaders, advocacy groups, and feminists in positions of power, is invaluable. But sometimes one gets lost in petty fights between 'the little guy' and 'the little gal'. An organized campaign to change rape definitions in various legislations and institutions in Western country (to include male victims) would probably be a good initiative for MRAs to undertake. Let's try and see how fervent anti-MRAs spin that one.

As I have an agreeable personality, I tend to approach conversations with my "opponents" as an opportunity to find out how and what they think, and how they arrived to that conclusion. By showing that I'm not approaching them from a position of defensiveness or hostility, but moreso curiosity, I hope that they can consider my point of view and that they humanize people with similar POVs instead of following the script they have been handed (MRAs are misogynist pricks, etc.) If it works for Darryl Davis and KKK members, then why can't it apply here? Although certainly, for every MLK there's a Malcolm X... maybe a Good Cop - Bad Cop routine is necessary for any kind of change and progress.

So maybe my hope that warming up enough "foot soldiers" to men's plight might slowly result in an institutional change is naïve, but eh

[–]Jamestr 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iaboveall[S] 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Forgetaboutthelonely 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_redditorensis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]ur_waifus_prolapse 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they do shame ugly men, and this is likely caused by their disgust reflex towards them. So they are sex positive about the people they like, and they are sex negative about the subhumans they dislike.

Although ugly men get it worse, I'd argue the gendered abuse isn't exclusive to ugly men.

There are prominent Feminist leaders who preach that all PIV (penis-in-vagina sex) is always rape, regardless of consent, no exceptions.

There are prominent Feminists who've advocated for a National Castration Day, some of them sarcastically so, others seeming to give it genuine support. There are all kinds of hurtful anti-male memes targeting male sexuality, popularized by the same Feminists who preach against sexual harassment and objectification.

All the big Feminist media outlets consistently objectify male athletes in their articles, yet preach about how horrible it is that men look at female athletes.

It's not just ugly men on the receiving end. It's all men, including innocent impressionable young boys growing up under this doctrine...

I don't believe this is contradictory because feminist "sex positivity" is and has always been about empowering women to have sex without responsibilities.

Equality pls

[–]bkrugby78 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iaboveall[S] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that all of those links demonstrate huge problems within current-day feminism and it's different streams.

For example, "All Masculinity Is Toxic" is proclaimed by John Stoltenberg, the husband of late Andrea Dworkin, patron saint of radical feminism. Stoltenberg's phrase contradicts what many people who defend the phrase "toxic masculinity" say: "It doesn't mean that 'all masculinity is toxic', it means that parts of it are toxic and harmful to both men and women". So the fact that a decently respected feminist says the direct opposite exposes the existant inconsistencies and incoherencies. Indeed the whole discourse around gender and sex seems very confused and it seems like people haven't really figured it out, so they stick to slogans that fit with their goals and what they believe. When you are in discussion with a feminist who says "toxic masculinity doesn't mean all masculinity is toxic" I suggest you post that John Stoltenberg VICE link to see what they have to say about that. It's interesting to see how such a person responds when someone "on their side" challenges that belief.

Similarly, the Swedish MP saying that all men are assumed to be rapists until proven otherwise is an example of an attitude that I find deplorable, and one of the worst aspects of modern feminist discourse. The argument is pretty much the same that white people who feel uncomfortable around POC make "I can't know if they're one of the good ones, so I'll just avoid them". But this comparison is dismissed because men are not a "marginalized group" while POC folks are. It's not only bad for men, it's bad for women as well, because women are raised to think that every man is a potential violent sex criminal - that can't be good for their mental health either?

Imagine being a young boy these days? Being raised to adopt such deep self-loathing, indoctrinated to believe that your sexuality is toxic and harmful.

Feminists do tend to deny that the demonization exists, because according to them only the "bad" behavior is shamed and demonized. But for a movement that is so hypersensitive about how language, stereotypes and framing affects people's worldview, they don't seem to put a lot of effort into imagining how the feminist messaging would affect young boys growing up.

For example, take a look at this /r/MensLib thread. MensLib is a sub filled with guys who are pro-feminist but struggle with men's issues. They're ostensibly the kind of dude who reads feminist blogs about women falling victim to harassment and all kinds of noxious examples of male sexuality, ranging the gamut of Nice Guys(TM) to actual rapists. These guys mostly buy into narratives of 'toxic masculinity' and 'male entitlement' etc. Reading the thread, I get a distinct impression of self-loathing, guilt, high inhibition, insecurity, learned helplessness. There are a few guys who don't seem too impacted or bothered, but overall the picture is somewhat bleak. This is one of the reasons why I stay away from subs like MensLib unless when I'm in a healthy mindspace.

[+]cromulent_weasel1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think objecting to catcalling is being sex negative.

[–]Iaboveall[S] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Do you think feminists nowadays are too sex negative?
Author	Iaboveall
Upvotes	31
Comments	103
Date	December 12, 2019 11:56 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/e9vvif/do_you_think_feminists_nowadays_are_too_sex/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/do-you-think-feminists-nowadays-are-too-sex.1064304 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064304

Comments