TIL all "feminist research" just assumes that women are oppressed

[–]Jacksambuck[S] 119 points120 points121 points 13 years ago (100 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points76 points 13 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 46 points47 points48 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nutz76 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nutz76 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]riker89 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]riker89 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]unknownsouljahboy 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]doomsought 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_sevinK_ 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Its the exact same thing as with Theology, and millions of other types of specialized Philosophy.

Example being the difference between Philosophy of Religion and Theology. Theology assumes whatever religion you are studying to be correct. So if you are studying Christianity, you are under the assumption, that Jesus was real, God is real, and Jesus was his son. Philosophy of Religion might look at the truth or realness of God, or debate the differences between different religions and different Gods.

This line of specialized Philosophy allows you to go deeper and look at things from that lens and viewpoint, not necessary to discredit or disregard other viewpoints, the assumptions is a way to break free of certain notions and try to come to conclusions you may never have come to if you weren't under said assumption, it is a way to stir debate and thought.

This happens all the time in Philosophy, almost every single specialized branch of Philosophy has assumptions that allow them to go deeper into the subject of study.

The more you know.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]matronverde -19 points-18 points-17 points 13 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde -17 points-16 points-15 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quarkster 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

Hang about... he's quoting wikipedia which in turn is quoting other sources - the specific one about the "key tenets" comes from: ^ Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 35.

Now... this indicates to me that he isn't making a claim but merely echoing a claim made in a sociological white paper. If you have a problem with that claim, address the paper itself and not what jb is saying. I cannot find these rebuttals you refer to in order to confirm your statements.

It seems fairly apparent to me that a theory needs asumptions. It also seems apparent to me that one of the fundamental tenets of feminist theory is that women are subordinated by men. This is necessarily true, because that is precisely what 'patriarchy' is.

If you're going to claim that this tenet does not exist, that is tantamount to claiming that patriarchy does not exist.

[+]matronverde -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Hang about... he's quoting wikipedia which in turn is quoting other sources -

except he is misrepresenting the sources. the Feminist Theory referred to in that article is not literally "any theory espoused by academic feminism", its much closer to say "philosophy of science" which, you'll note, is a very tiny part of science itself, and isn't itself scientific. and the conclusion of feminist theory isn't simply "there's patriarchy", which is why it's not begging the question that women are oppressed. that's the starting point, it analyzes the philosophy of feminism itself, sort of like meta feminism.

jb is pretending this literally represents all feminist literature and then dismisses it outright because it isn't science i guess. the best criticism of the thought represented in that wiki article is that it is shittily named, something even i as a feminist readily say about a lot of terms used.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

he's simply astounded that feminist theory would actually have such flawed basic assumptions at its core.

but its no more a flawed assumption than how philosophy of science assumes, say, induction in order to discuss more interesting things.

What we are debating here is not feminist theory. We are debating on critique of feminist (the one I quoted earlier) that claims feminism has some root tenets, or assumptions.

I don't know any serious field of study that doesn't have root unjustified assumptions.

Answer this question, and use sources: Does feminism make the assumption that women are subordinated against by men?

not all feminism, no, and i can't prove a negative. in early feminism, proof was provided of subjugation. even in modern day, you can go into academic research and find studies on wage disparity, social disparity in treatment and language, and overt oppression world wide.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

I don't know any serious field of study that doesn't have root unjustified assumptions.

Well then you are massively ignorant. Assumptions are different from observations, and observations are what the vast majority of science, history, psychology, and other fields of study, are based on - as well as data I might add. Observations - you come up with a hypothesis. You test for that hypothesis, making sure to follow correct scientific methodological practices. You then write up your observations, correllating them with other observations in the field. You submit these observations to the community, and allow it to succeed or fail based on its strengths and weaknesses.

It really is not rocket science.

not all feminism, no, and i can't prove a negative. in early feminism, proof was provided of subjugation.

Was it? Was it really? Even Mary Wollstonecraft knew that both sexes encouraged inequality. It seems to me that this proof you speak of has always manifested itself in the form of self-help books and armchair posturing. Maybe you could direct me to some early solid research in this area?

even in modern day, you can go into academic research and find studies on wage disparity

Indeed you can find that academic research. Recently some came out of the Payscale think-tank that suggests the wage disparity has been blown way out of proportion. Catherine Hakim's preference theory suggests a solid explanation for why there is a wage gap - in a nutshell it comes down to choices that men and women make.

social disparity in treatment and language

Again, I wouldn't disagree. This research does indeed exist. But by no means does it come to the conclusion that there is an all seeing patriarchy that is subjugating women en-masse.

and overt oppression world wide

Yup. Once again, that research does exist. Once again it does not come to the conclusion of a patriarchy that controls men and women to the detriment of society.

Let me ask you some questions - why do you expect people to swallow these statements as fact, yet when presented with alternative viewpoints, you don't even seem to listen? Why doesn't the feminism movement allow for women to be the oppressors once in a while? Why do they near deify people like Valerie Solanas and Simone de Beauvoir? These were not just some random bloggers. These women were instrumental in defining what feminism is! They have to be accounted for.

Why are women always dipicted by feminists as being a bastion of righteousness and virtue? Why is Charlotte Bronte dipicted as writing about the hellish lives of women, when the men in her books have equally hellish lives too? Have you read Wuthering Heights? The pain that Cathy puts Heathcliffe through is pretty damning, and to me is the ultimate story of female hypergamy backfiring on a woman.

Why is equality for women determined by quashing the quality of life of men all around the world? I wouldn't dare suggest that female genital mutilation and oppression in the Middle East does not need tackling. But at the same time small boys are being mutilated routinely every day, and not only does feminism not bat an eyelid at it, but often times feminist writes encourage it!

Why can the fact that men are bewitched by women into fighting, hunting, and protecting the tribe, not be evidence of matriarchal oppression? Why is it just assumed that the MRM are rape sympthasizers, when the vast majority of us find it abhorrent?

I don't honestly expect that you'll tackle these questions with purity and intellectual honesty. There are too many cognitively dissonant walls for you to smash through in order to do that.

[+]matronverde -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

assumptions are different from observations, and observations are what the vast majority of science, history, psychology, and other fields of study, are based on

a bit of sleight of hand here; science is composed of observations, but it is based on such unproveable assumptions like induction, constancy of laws, etc.

Maybe you could direct me to some early solid research in this area?

i apparently don't need to. you go through the next three sections pointing out said research. you're not making the connection though, because of some misconceptions:

This research does indeed exist. But by no means does it come to the conclusion that there is an all seeing patriarchy that is subjugating women en-masse.

i see this PANOPTICON PATRIARCHY straw-man bandied around a bit, but i've never seen a feminist, even black-flag over-the-top radical feminists i vehemently disagree with, define it that way. of course it doesn't prove that assertion; no one's making that claim.

in a nutshell it comes down to choices that men and women make.

in a nutshell you can handwave any kind of oppression as beind the "kinds of choices people make" but generally, even outside of scary scary feminism, we don't stop there. we ask why they make those choices, what goes into the framework of those choices, and if it is inherently good to have that framework. marketing as an industry wouldn't exist if their answer to "Why is Pepsi more popular in the north than Coke" with "in a nutshell, people choose it. shrug"

as far as your questions, i'm going to list here your purely rhetorical ones to dismiss them out of hand: >why do you expect people to swallow these statements as fact, yet when presented with alternative viewpoints, you don't even seem to listen? Why is Charlotte Bronte dipicted as writing about the hellish lives of women, when the men in her books have equally hellish lives too?

now the straw-men: >Why doesn't the feminism movement allow for women to be the oppressors once in a while? Why are women always dipicted by feminists as being a bastion of righteousness and virtue?

already linked to a book in this conversation which does just that, which also doesn't deify them.

Why is equality for women determined by quashing the quality of life of men all around the world?

it's not at all about quashing the quality of life among men around the world, unless that quality of life is maintained at the cost of inequality. in order for a woman to be president, some man will have to not be president, etc. i'm not concerned about his quality of life in this instance

But at the same time small boys are being mutilated routinely every day, and not only does feminism not bat an eyelid at it, but often times feminist writes encourage it!

the feminists i've seen defend circumcision do it for religious reasons, and i have frequently taken them to task on that. other than that, i don't know of feminists that agree with the practice. i did a search on google and the first result was an r/AskFeminists post where most feminists decried it as barbaric. so i'm not sure about your straw-man here.

Why can the fact that men are bewitched by women into fighting, hunting, and protecting the tribe, not be evidence of matriarchal oppression?

i wouldn't say they were bewitched unless you think that men have nothing to gain from gathering food, protecting their home and property (which they traditionally had sole authority over), etc. do you think that in the absence of women wars would stop? that people wouldn't try to defend or hunt or eat?

Why is it just assumed that the MRM are rape sympthasizers, when the vast majority of us find it abhorrent?

i do not know about the whole MRM movement. i don't particularly think that most people, MRM or otherwise, think of the canonical violent rape as justified. the question is more what you define as rape. if someone who you would not normally sleep with attempts and succeeds in encouraging you to alter your consciousness so that you are no longer capable of consent (in the broad legal term, i.e. you don't get to sign contracts if you're not clear of mind even), then congrats, they are trying to fuck you without your consent. that is called rape.

before you say anything, it doesn't matter if they're a woman and you're a man. it's still rape. i have heard of feminists who think otherwise, but i've never talked to one.

Why do they near deify people like Valerie Solanas

most 3rd wave feminists i know question the degree of satire in the SCUM Manifesto given that she actively engaged in unjustified violence against a man. that's hardly deifying.

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

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I thought as much. I concur with your assessment of their rebuttal.

He/She (not sure!) says it is a philosophy and not a science, but science and philosophy are interlinked to a very complex degree. They inform each other, and help each other to grow as a set of theories and discourse.

Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

Feminism at its very core is not rational. Because it does make an unsubstantiated claim that women are forced to be subordinate to men. But the facts shoot this assumption down before it has even had a chance to flower. Biology cripples it, psychology cripples it, and history cripples it. You only have to look at how men are reduced to quivering wrecks at the sight of a beautiful and receptive woman to know that it isn't true.

Men and women are trapped in a symbiotic relationship, and this is a fact that is born out time and time again.

[+]matronverde -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck[S] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mundilfari 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingOfEggsAndBacon 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nutz76 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MechPlasma 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]comehitherhitler 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Indeed. Feminism is easy to define/identify because it's about that assumption. The difference between feminists is what they do with it afterwards. "Kill most/all men" feminists, for example, simply believe men are inherently bad as the explanation for the "oppression", thus it's impossible to actually fix via anything other than in the extreme.

Note that this also allows us the easy task of telling who is really a feminist and who isn't. Somebody who won't call themselves a feminist but are ideologically feminist are feminist by definition, they're just not part of the Feminist (big-F) movement. It also introduces the possibility of the opposite condition where somebody calls themselves a feminist even though they don't believe women have ever been oppressed ; they're attached to the label and not the ideology so it doesn't make sense to call them feminists regardless of what they call themselves. (It would be like an atheist claiming that Jesus Christ was real and was the son of God ; they're not really an atheist.)

The reason that all feminism is receiving a backlash is because this assumption, that women were oppressed, isn't founded on an objective analysis of reality. It very specifically requires the ignoring of the suffering of men throughout the ages. While maybe not entirely misandry, it's pretty close in that it requires some degree of dehumanization of males.

This is why I have said before that the only difference between a "good" feminist and a "bad" one are that the "good" ones simply haven't said something bad yet. The reason I say this is because they are unintentionally admitting to having dehumanized males to some degree, thus it's only a matter of time until the right question is asked which blatantly reveals this. (E.G. "women are the majority of DV victims" or "women experience more violence" or "the vast majority of rapes happen to women", all of which are stats founded on the blatant ignoring of these things happening to men.)

EDIT: Fixed word

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Feminism" or a subcategory of "it" can begin from recognizing that there exists in many societies an unequal treatment of different peoples, more specifically, women. What you've suggested in your first paragraph leads to the inevitability that even ethnic studies are illegit simply because they sometimes have as a starting point the position that a certain group is oppressed in certain cultures. So, no. Your point is unreasonable.

To your second point, "feminism" as an amorphous thing shouldn't be taken seriously, which is my point. Whether you claim to be against it or someone claims to be a "feminist" I consistently reject the label and ask that there be clarification. I do it regularly (for more so for those who declares themselves to be feminist).

Now that you have been presented with new information, are you willing to consider a different reality?

[–]RubixCubeDonut 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]SteelCrossx 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SteelCrossx 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SteelCrossx 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]MechPlasma 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 40 points41 points42 points 13 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]GMotor 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

The better question is what your point is.

It seems you're trying to invoke NAFALT. As in "Not all feminists say this so if I prove it to you , will you stop trying to say that they do ?". IF that's the case then it is you who is missing the point.

There are people who don't believe in evolution but instead buy into the nonsense about god snapping his fingers and making the universe. Well that's fine and dandy but to critique a scientific paper on evolution , it's not enough to simply disagree with it : It must be critiqued from a scientific perspective.

As such , if a feminist author writes a bunch of crap he or she claims is proven , it's not enough to simply say "I disagree." It started in the academic realm and has to be answered using the same framework. So NAFALT doesn't apply in a positive or negative way here because we're talking about academic scholarship. It's a non-sequitur to say NAFALT because without an academic rebuttal that has been peer-reviewed by disinterested third parties , it simply doesn't qualify as a rebuttal.

Mind you , if feminists believed in using this method of peer-review and vetting none of their "research" would ever make it out of their own hard drives.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

You aren't talking about academic scholarship. You are talking about pop "scholarship" at best.

I am rightly showing that you completely lack a definition that covers "feminists" in total (which I rightly argue is an impossibility anyhow). Thus you are saying something about a particular group within an undefinable (and at times even contradictory) group, without actually having to address a core argument. Basically, your argument is unsound. So much so that even an 1st year undergraduate could drive a Mac truck through it. So, taking your example, if I said "Christians say" and have as an assumption a definition of Christianity that is limited to the WBC, then surely my (your) argument would be valid. It is a straw man, after all. Yet it says absolutely nothing about the reality of a situation.

There are people who don't believe in evolution but instead buy into the nonsense about god snapping his fingers and making the universe. Well that's fine and dandy but to critique a scientific paper on evolution , it's not enough to simply disagree with it : It must be critiqued from a scientific perspective.

I see the point you are trying to make, but it is poorly made and nearly unrelated. For your argument to make sense, you have to say that there isn't a feminist who also argues scientifically. That is an absurdity. It is as though the definition of feminist for you is unscientific or that they are mutually exclusive. But of course, as I have suggested, the term feminist is so malleable that one could argue that feminism is both scientific and unscientific; that feminism is at the exact same time both one in the same and completely averse to science. Again, if we refuse to define it and instead have a big tent term, then when it comes time to argue we may pick and choose what we will. You have chosen the laziest and near-worst possible responses.

And your statement:

Mind you , if feminists believed in using this method of peer-review and vetting none of their "research" would ever make it out of their own hard drives.

is just silly.

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nutz76 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robert32907 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HilscherFarms 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]literallyschmiteraly 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]texasjoe 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]texasjoe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]DavidByron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]texasjoe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've not been here long, but I haven't seen any posts about men whining about being unattractive, or their dating life. Are you sure you're not just spoiling for a fight here? I mean... it's a pretty damn diverse bunch of people and we don't all think the same.

I'm sure there are afc's (your term, not mine) here. I'm sure there are also plenty of other characters zipping about the place.

We're here for a central concern - to discuss and promote the idea that men should be equal to women in legal terms, and in social terms. That we are not disposable and are not a "resource" to be used and abused.

Anything else I really see as incidental. There is a lot of pent up frustration here that has built up over years and years of peoples lives, and I think you trivialize those experiences by mocking them.

Ultimately; if you don't like it. Don't read it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jacksambuck[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah, I think it's because mra isn't nearly as theory based as feminism is. mra does have it's basis in anecdotal stories and evidence, don't get me wrong, but a lot of the main mra points can quite objectively be proven as issues with statistics, and where there aren't statistics, it's normally because of the law. there are theories like "the disposable male" but it's not like you can't be an mra if you don't swear by it

feminism however while it also uses statistics they try too hard to come to theoretic conclusions to their problems which is why they end up with things like patriachy, rape culture, etc. also because these things are so subjective their message gets a bit confusing as what is patriachy or rape culture to one feminist can contrast with other feminists. ultimately though once you're more theory based than facts, it's a lot easier to get into echo chambers, as no one gets what you're saying, so the more you only talk to people within your bubble.

some of what I said about feminism is still applicable to mr, but not as much I don't think

[+]matronverde -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

It's probably more to do with the fact that if we're to use facts/arguments presented here, elsewhere, we need to back them up.

i'm not sure this is the case. look at this reply to my comment. upvoted, yet contains a multitude of claims that are completely unsubstantiated. here, in r/mr, one can just say that feminism advocates generally speaking for circumcision, or at least ignoring it; one can just say that feminists want to diminish the quality of life for men despite commonly cited evidence to the contrary. there's tons of other responses in this thread that just vomit up casual accusations on feminists as a whole or feminism as a whole. here in the OP, jacksambuck takes a field of study within feminism (literally, from the article, an "extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical discourse") and posits that this means its elements as an extension are actually the fundamental tenants of all of feminism, rather than prefatory assumptions for a specialized field of study.

it's similar to something like evolutionary biology or cognitive neuroscience, both of those take as assumptions stuff that hasn't been necessarily proven (namely that evolution is the primary means of adaptation at all timescales, or that the mind is what the brain does) because it is up to other, broader categories of knowledge to prove that which we are already relatively sure of.

this is basically a willful misinterpretation because it is cleared up in literally the first line of the wikipedia article he "cites". and it's in the 200+ upvotes now!

the fact of the matter is that r/MR is not any different than /r/feminism or r/libertarian or r/politics; stuff that conforms to what everyone already agrees with is given a free pass, stuff that rejects or is in opposition to it is given an comparatively unreasonable burden of proof.

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

It's upvoted because what feminists are doing is crystal-clear and outrageous. If you weren't so corrupt, you'd see it. I wonder if you knew it before today, or if you just bit the bullet for your fucked-up ideology.

It's telling that none of you outright deny it.

jacksambuck takes a field of study within feminism (literally, from the article, an "extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical discourse"

Accrding to wikipedia, "feminist theory" happens to contain:

Gender studies, Gynocentrism, Women's studies, Kyriarchy, Patriarchy, Men's studies, the male gaze, sexual objectification...

No big deal, right? Just a field of study.

What about:

their research should focus on the condition of women in society

...don't you understand? How can you justify such dogmatically enforced sexism? They don't even allow for "the patriarchy hurts men too"!

[+]matronverde 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It's upvoted because what feminists are doing is crystal-clear and outrageous.

a statement without even a supporting argument. no, "i don't have to explain it, it's obvious" doesn't cut it. it doesn't cut it when feminists do it, nor when you do it.

If you weren't so corrupt

another unsubstantiated claim, at the very least a gross overgeneralization. i'm not even sure what corrupt means in this instance, no definition or standard has been put forth. what do "non-corrupt" feminists do?

Accrding to wikipedia, "feminist theory" happens to contain:

i actually did a search for this in your linked article, and it's not there. did i miss it? what section are you referring to?

How can you justify such dogmatically enforced sexism?

so black history studies are dogmatically enforced sexism? is OBGYN work dogmatically enforced sexism? asking feminism to study men equally with women in all regards is a bit like asking men's rights to be equally concerned with women's rights, yet i see a disturbing lack of coverage of women's rights issues worldwide on the front page. you'll note i've not formed objection to this.

what qualifies as "dogmatically enforced sexism"? what doesn't? examples please.

They don't even allow for "the patriarchy hurts men too"!

i don't see why focusing on a topic means other topics are explicitly excluded. i'm not sure if english is your first language, but that's not a proper parsing of the term "focusing". maybe "explicitly and exclusively focusing" but you wouldn't really use that in an academic sense typically.

[–]Jacksambuck[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

They value objectivity and falsifiability.

most people value objectivity and falsifiability, but they are not literally the only values. in politics, for example, ethics is also valued frequently, as well as consistency. in a lot of (highly productive) social sciences, effectiveness and solvency tends to be valued where objectivity and falsifiability are currently impossible.

The sidebar, and/or the articles for the terms.

once again, you are conflating "feminism" with "feminist theory". i thought we made this clear. what you just said was feminist theory covers all those things, when what you meant is "These things are listed under the sidebar for general feminist topics." i hope this clears that up.

Is feminism supposed to answer objective questions about gender inequality, or is it a lobby group? Pick one.

is the national institute for the sciences supposed to answer objective questions about science or is it a lobby group? my reply to your question is "both", or alternately, "false dichotomy".

they explicitly reject objectivity.

citation needed.

All the ways in which women are victimized get documented, and none of the ways in which men are victimized.

categorically untrue. bell hooks' books frequently cover how masculinity negatively affects black men. there have been campaigns by feminists to get prison/male-victim rape recognized under the FBI definition.

a tip about discussion: when you make "all" or "none" statements, especially about very broad and pervasive topics, your argument is exceedingly weak and requires only one counterexample for dismissal.

After a while, yeah, the picture gets one-sided.

this is a slippery slope; lots of other intellectual disciplines are mainly about one topic but frequently venture into other topics. american history frequently delves into foreign politics, and cellular biology frequently delves into epidemiology.

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]falconheart 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SaintPhoeniix0 points 13 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]noels13 -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]esonge -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]matronverde -17 points-16 points-15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]radrler 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	TIL all "feminist research" just assumes that women are oppressed
Author	Jacksambuck
Upvotes	319
Comments	179
Date	June 6, 2013 11:22 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1fs8p2/til_all_feminist_research_just_assumes_that_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/til-all-feminist-research-just-assumes-that-women.1171979 https://theredarchive.com/post/1171979

Comments