~ archived since 2018 ~

The World’s Fastest Patriarchy Disproof

notnotnotfred

March 13, 2014

35 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The World’s Fastest Patriarchy Disproof
Author	notnotnotfred
Upvotes	35
Comments	18
Date	March 13, 2014 4:32 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/20an6o/the-worlds-fastest-patriarchy-disproof/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-worlds-fastest-patriarchy-disproof.1615352 https://theredarchive.com/post/1615352

Comments

[–]YetAnotherCommenter17 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No offense but this is simply inadequate.

First, with respect to economic... what constitutes "economic power" is a complex issue. This article takes ONE metric... an important metric no doubt but only ONE metric... specifically control of consumer spending dollars... and treats it as the overriding factor.

With respect to political power, the US isn't an absolute democracy and many decisions, particularly foreign policy decisions, are made by members of the executive. Whilst the election of the chief executive is done by the electoral college, the composition of which is determined by popular vote, a massive amount of executive decisions are not very democratically accountable. As such, the fact that women cast the majority of votes isn't enough to disprove the proposition that "men control politics".

With respect to education, the argument here is quite strong BUT the educational sphere is in significant part epiphenomenal of the Executive branch of the political sphere, the vast majority of significant contributors to pedagogical philosophy are/were male, and as such I'd think that the situation in education is more complicated than the argument makes it out to be.

That said, I do think that it is incorrect to describe ANY of these spheres as "controlled by men, for men". I disagree with Patriarchy theory (as defined by the article) but I think that this article severely overestimates "women having the power"... power is a complex issue.

Also, to be blunt, there is a second definition of patriarchy which is commonly used by feminists... it refers to a VALUES SYSTEM that says "masculinity is better/more valuable than femininity." I don't think this accurately describes our gender system either, but its a significantly more reasonable proposition than the definition of "Patriarchy" used by the article (the article basically uses a Radical Second Wave definition... the "values system" definition refers to Third Wave beliefs).

This argument isn't worthless, but seriously, we can do better than this.

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notnotnotfred2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xodima2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, my problem with that assertion though, is that value itself has multiple determining factors.

My understanding is that women are seen as more weak and fragile, incapable and in need of protection, where as men are seen as plenty capable to defend himself. This doesn't make women very valuable, just a life in debt to the bigger man.

However, men are definitely seen, traditionally, as more capable, more useful and Better which IS a contributing factor in value. This means that a family has more incentive to put effort in their son's future than their daughter's. In this way, son's have more value than daughters. But that also means males are held to a higher standard in life, whereas being vested in women isn't seen as a profit to society.

The idea of patriarchy for me isn't necessarily to point out the value of a man or woman, but the actual reason they are valued.

If someone is vested in you being pretty, frail and incapable, it seems like it'd be a pretty limiting success and you are literally a walking blob that society gains nothing from. Now, when someone is vested in you changing the world, being strong, being brave, creating, doing. When someone is vested in your power, then you are something great and magnificent. You, in group context, are irreplaceable and absolutely necessary unlike the other half.

This is why people traditionally want boys (but love daughters too.) because they have high hopes for a boy. It's also why infanticide has killed millions in China and India (Although India's now illegal dowry system can be blamed for that). It becomes a matter of who is more important and likely to succeed.

My concept of patriarchy is based on the fact that as long as men are seen as the more capable sex, then men will... be seen as the more capable sex. It matters for women as a whole because we as people are majorly a product of how society portrays us. If girls aren't raised to have the values and determination that men have, then of course there will be a lot more powerful men in the world.

In the end, I obviously want everyone to hold equal value and weight. It's extremely important that people start to see no difference in the outcome of raising a son or daughter. Both can become wonderful parents and/or amazing scientists, inventors, etc. Meanwhile, it's also important that people can see a man or woman in distress and make no assumption that one is more in need than the other.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First, thank you very much for your response! I agree, individuals should hold equal weight/value, or more correctly their value should be a product of their character/achievements as well as their worth as a human being.

As to what I mean by men and women and "value"....

The gender norms for both sexes define "value" in terms of use/utility for society.

Women are seen as having an innate value, inherent to their biology. This is because women can bear children. Bearing children... growing the supply of laborers... creating 'the future'... these are seen as socially contributive. Because women can do this, due to their biology, women are seen as automatically socially contributive.

So society ABSOLUTELY believes that there is a gain from women. Women ARE valued. If women were NOT valued, or seen as LESS valuable than men, "Women and children first" would not happen. Society would NOT sacrifice higher-valued members for the sake of lesser-valued members.

Like I said, this is based on female biology. Women are not valued for their abilities or accomplishments or capabilities but rather for their bodily functions.

But men? Look at the gender roles and the tasks they assign to men... are they nearly as biologically assured? Does a man's puberty make him as likely to bring home a productive hunt with nearly the same level of assurance as a woman's makes her able to bear a child? By himself, a man is just another mouth to feed - only when he starts pulling his own weight and that of others is he accepted as a "real man" socially (i.e. contributes perceived value to society).

I have a longer explanation of this theory here: http://www.genderratic.com/p/4135/summa-genderratica-the-anatomy-of-the-gender-system/

Remember the standard issue Subject-Object dichotomy... Men Do, Women Are. This is ultimately because a man's social contributions are found solely in his actions, and a woman's are seen as products of her biology.

Now, this sucks. This absolutely sucks. Of course it causes immense pain for women, particularly talented, skilled, intelligent and ambitious women. I am not denying this one bit.

All I am saying is that grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side. Being a man has its own kind of gender-related misery. I am NOT saying "my problems are worse than yours", I am saying we both suffer from significant but very different problems that ultimately come from the same source.

You bring up the concept of "son preference" in China and India. I am not an expert on Chinese or Indian cultures, however I know both are very family-centric. And like you said, there was the dowry system in India. I can only make a very general declaration/speculation here, but in those cultures women ARE valued BUT their value is seen not as belonging to them (individually) but rather to their family.

This is atrocious and horrible, and it results in hideous cruelty and abuse. I agree. But I don't think it stems from disvaluing women, but rather valuing women in a particular way and treating that value as family/tribal property rather than the property of the woman in question.

I agree with you that men are seen as the more capable sex. However, we need to point out that they are also seen as having NO innate value - a man is ONLY valued because of his actions, and thus a "failure" of a man is considered worthless.

A woman, on the other hand, always has innate value as a woman. Of course her achievements are (unfortunately) rarely taken into account, but just like she has a "glass ceiling" she also has a built-in safety net that keeps her out of the "glass cellar." The vast majority of our society's homeless are men. The jobs with the highest lethality are all occupied by men. Low paying, dirty and dangerous jobs are staffed almost entirely by men. Men CAN achieve higher rewards but they ALSO face higher risks.

It matters for women as a whole because we as people are majorly a product of how society portrays us. If girls aren't raised to have the values and determination that men have, then of course there will be a lot more powerful men in the world.

I agree with you that this is partly true. Nurture/how people are raised is clearly an important component. That said, nature is too. Biology IS real and scientists HAVE found significant neurological differences between the sexes. In addition, it has been shown that whilst there is no such thing as an exclusive-to-one-sex personality trait, there IS an average difference between the sexes (as a matter of statistical aggregate).

I agree nurture matters, but nature DOES skew the bell curves somewhat. Men and women are not alien races, and our culture tends to greatly overstate gender differences, but whilst the differences between discrete individuals are more important there are some naturally differing propensities between the sexes. This doesn't imply that statistical outliers are 'wrong', nor does it mean everything is biology... all it means is that on average there are differences between men and women. They are not insurmountable nor are they determinative, but they do exist.

In the end, I obviously want everyone to hold equal value and weight. It's extremely important that people start to see no difference in the outcome of raising a son or daughter. Both can become wonderful parents and/or amazing scientists, inventors, etc. Meanwhile, it's also important that people can see a man or woman in distress and make no assumption that one is more in need than the other.

On that subject, we are entirely in agreement with each other.

[–]Xodima2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ahh, yeah! It's great to discuss this and I couldn't help but reply. I think we have a very similar take on this from different perspectives.

Remember the standard issue Subject-Object dichotomy... Men Do, Women Are. This is ultimately because a man's social contributions are found solely in his actions, and a woman's are seen as products of her biology.

That is sadly pretty prevalent standard in society. And I agree that being female gives someone a bit of glass on both ends of the spectrum. I also agree that this system hurts both men(Possibly more on an individual level) and women (Possibly more as a whole).

The concept of patriarchy that I have been taught is that it isn't really about who it effects worse (As everyone is affected in some way when railed into life expectations they don't ascribe to) but instead, who the major players are in society. With that, I say it's male oriented in that culture is made around the progress of men, though it's arguably made leaps and bounds as of late. there's still a historical context which affects continued progress though.

Gender traditionalism dominates our culture and is ingrained in society to the point that we don't see half of it but it affects us naturally. It's a culture which values the success of men and the acceptance of women but this is definitely through the eyes of men which is why I deem it patriarchal. While there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to follow that culture, it's not for everyone, and creates a blanket system of codependency which is in itself oppressive.

Is this common now? Not as much as before. We have made great strides in acknowledging the capabilities of women and the needs of men, but to say feminism is done and unnecessary is just plain irresponsible or disingenuous. Not everyone approaches the table with the right attitude, especially angry 16 year olds, but we still have a strong traditionalist system, regardless of what it's called, that dictates the lives of billions. I think it's fair to say that we can't simply expect society to become equal without programs that help guide the necessary change and undo years of ingrained social stigmas for man and women.

I agree nurture matters, but nature DOES skew the bell curves somewhat.

While I definitely expect biology to play a small factor in most relationships, as I think we agree, many more women would be predisposed toward more male oriented fields if social factor didn't exist. I believe that acceptance toward gender fluidity and expression is wonderful, and with it, a healthy sense of independence is necessary between men and women. To foster codependency is to ignore that regardless of who is hurt more at any given time, we all suffer a lack of freedom and sense of pride as who we are and not how we affect the other gender's sexual pieces. c:

When I see most MRAs argue against patriarchy, they seem to think that women are the prime beneficiary while men are all that get hurt due to gender stereotypes. However, nobody looks at this as a whole, and most refuse to see the limitations on women, the problems with being seen as needed only for a womb(I mean honestly, artificial wombs = end? That's absolutely degrading and even dystopian) , the stereotypes and false beliefs that still stand against women's success, the prevalence of traditional culture, and self worth based solely on physical appearance, lack of societal meaning, etc.

It was nice seeing your view which seem more along the lines of my own but obviously from a different slant.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thank you again for your reply. I appreciate it and I'm glad to see we have a lot of common ground!

I am mostly in agreement with you (although I don't use the word "patriarchy" because I think both Radical Second Wave and Third Wave feminism's version of patriarchy theory is incorrect), so I'm only going to point out things I want to quibble with.

to say feminism is done and unnecessary is just plain irresponsible or disingenuous.

I agree we still have strong traditional gender roles in society, absolutely, and we DO need movements to address them. This obviously includes movements for women to address their problems with the gender system.

I simply think that the "official" feminist movement (i.e. radical second wave and third wave feminism, speaking ideologically) is not the right one to do so... partly because it has a flawed approach to social science and partly because it actually reinforces the gender roles by consistently casting women as powerless victims and men as omnipotent oppressors.

While I definitely expect biology to play a small factor in most relationships, as I think we agree, many more women would be predisposed toward more male oriented fields if social factor didn't exist. I believe that acceptance toward gender fluidity and expression is wonderful, and with it, a healthy sense of independence is necessary between men and women.

We're certainly in agreement there. We're different sexes of the same species, not alien races from different planets.

When I see most MRAs argue against patriarchy, they seem to think that women are the prime beneficiary while men are all that get hurt due to gender stereotypes.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. They're simply pointing out, against a backdrop environment which argues that women were the ONLY victims of oppression designed to benefit MEN, how women in fact benefitted (in many ways/circumstances) and men were in fact victimized (in many ways/circumstances). No one is saying women DIDN'T (or don't) suffer under the gender system... what the MHRM is saying is that men suffer too and women got some benefit out of the system.

However, nobody looks at this as a whole, and most refuse to see the limitations on women, the problems with being seen as needed only for a womb(I mean honestly, artificial wombs = end? That's absolutely degrading and even dystopian) , the stereotypes and false beliefs that still stand against women's success, the prevalence of traditional culture, and self worth based solely on physical appearance, lack of societal meaning, etc.

I agree women have suffered all of this, and frankly its terrible. However, feminism has detailed and investigated the way that traditional gender roles have hurt women for decades now.

The MHRM exists to provide a comparable analysis of the other side of the equation.

If we want to talk about looking at this "as a whole", it is not the women's side which has been lacking attention or consideration but rather the men's side.

This doesn't mean women don't have problems or that they shouldn't address their problems; they do have problems and they should address them.

All I am saying is that men have an equivalent right to do the same for their own problems.

It was nice seeing your view which seem more along the lines of my own but obviously from a different slant.

I agree. I think our views are basically in agreement, although we focus on different areas. Nevertheless, I'd like to stress I don't see you as "hostile" to my own interests. It is quite possible for both men and women to address the issues faced by their own sexes respectively without anyone being 'the enemy' in the process.

[–]Xodima2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I simply think that the "official" feminist movement (i.e. radical second wave and third wave feminism, speaking ideologically) is not the right one to do so.

That's reasonable. However, I don't think there's much of an official movement left. Feminism as I know it, is ideologically conflicted. I might just be unaware of the mainstream since I mostly follow certain bloggers and Redditors as well as a few friends, but I think criticism of it is fine and necessary.

partly because it has a flawed approach to social science and partly because it actually reinforces the gender roles by consistently casting women as powerless victims and men as omnipotent oppressors.

I can see that at times, but I think most of the time, the reinforcing roles bit gets conflated with historical context. I'm open to being told otherwise since I'm not fully knowledgeable with the particular criticisms on that subject.

No one is saying women DIDN'T (or don't) suffer under the gender system... what the MHRM is saying is that men suffer too and women got some benefit out of the system.

It's a bit iffy for me on that part. Some of the things said by pretty prominent figures in the movement (And by prominent, I include what I see as highly regarded people such as the owner of this sub, the "Honey Badgers", AVfM staff, and a couple Vloggers.) tends to paint the picture of womanhood as the main beneficiaries of society. Particularly in GWW's explanation of Male disposability as well as her apparent opposition to the women's suffrage movement in a speech and Paul Elam/Typhon's... well, everything they say xD

Nevertheless, I'd like to stress I don't see you as "hostile" to my own interests.

Same here, and thank you for taking the time to discuss these things with me. It's really important to get an honest view from a calm discussion and I am really interested in your take on it.

My experience with the MRA has admittedly been unpleasant. The general attitude has seemed very anti-feminism and not really feminist-critical or about men's rights in any way that isn't against about (Or blaming)feminism. I would LOVE to see more groups like 7000 in Solidarity, the Representation Project, and so forth. I love seeing positive groups for men's issues to be raised and I advertise them when I can.

Men do need places where men's issues can be discussed without injecting women's issues, but when it becomes an aggressive effort to Smash the matriarchy, I can't see the good in it. Now, I do respect that there ARE quite a few people who do actively denounce that part of the movement. I admire that. However, I don't think I can really agree with it when is still so much angry, hateful rhetoric from leaders and a large amount of the user base. The best thing this movement can do for men, in my opinion, is ditch the whole anti-feminism tirade and actively support awareness of men's issues in the outside world.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's reasonable. However, I don't think there's much of an official movement left. Feminism as I know it, is ideologically conflicted. I might just be unaware of the mainstream since I mostly follow certain bloggers and Redditors as well as a few friends, but I think criticism of it is fine and necessary.

There may not be much of a movement left, but what remains clearly has disproportionate influence on politics and bureaucracy.

But yes, I'm glad we both agree that criticism of it is fine and necessary.

It's a bit iffy for me on that part. Some of the things said by pretty prominent figures in the movement (And by prominent, I include what I see as highly regarded people such as the owner of this sub, the "Honey Badgers", AVfM staff, and a couple Vloggers.) tends to paint the picture of womanhood as the main beneficiaries of society. Particularly in GWW's explanation of Male disposability as well as her apparent opposition to the women's suffrage movement in a speech and Paul Elam/Typhon's... well, everything they say xD

I think that perhaps you're slightly misinterpreting their arguments here.

No one's saying women actually (overall) benefitted from this (at least in the modern context... historically speaking, gender roles may have been unfortunately necessary (at least to some degree) but I think the modern world and widespread prosperity has rendered them obsolete). What's being said is that the system prioritized the well-being and safety of women.

This doesn't mean women benefitted or had it easy (although yes, the MHRM does argue women had it LESS RISKY than men). Just that the intention behind the system was protective.

Think of it this way.. the system is like a well-intentioned but absolutely clueless parent that screws up their kids but really didn't want to. Its a tragic clusterfuck where the road to hell is paved in good intentions. The parent really DID want the best for their kids... but the real life results were very much at variance with the intended ones.

Same here, and thank you for taking the time to discuss these things with me. It's really important to get an honest view from a calm discussion and I am really interested in your take on it.

Thank you very much! I appreciate that and the sentiments are truly mutual.

My experience with the MRA has admittedly been unpleasant. The general attitude has seemed very anti-feminism and not really feminist-critical or about men's rights in any way that isn't against about (Or blaming)feminism.

I'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences. I admit my own experiences with (radical second wave/third wave) feminists haven't been the best either (I've had them gender-police me to my face, do the whole "LOL whatabouttehmenz?" and "MALE TEARS!" thing, mock my concerns etc).

I have had positive experiences with self-labelled feminists, but typically they were classical liberal/individualist feminists or early second wave feminists... both kinds of feminism which the official feminist movement sees as "not feminist enough" or "not true feminism."

As I see it, the MHRM's anti-feminism needs to be seen basically in the context of the official feminist movement, which is all radical second wave/third wave. So when we say "Feminism" just keep in mind we're using the word in the same way official/movement feminists use it. We're all dictionary-definition feminists here (except for a handful of trad-cons, but they're the minority on this sub).

I do agree that some positive projects on men's issues are always good things and need to be encouraged. However, and as much as I hate to get back onto the 'anti-feminism' thing, are you familiar with CAFE's talks at the University of Toronto? It was (official/movement) feminists trying to stop them from happening. And the biggest protests happened to stop a talk that was positioned as "moving beyond misogyny and misandry" which was delivered by a gay man and a woman (Nathanson and Young).

I want to support awareness of men's issues in the outside world. However, the institutional power of radical feminists (not you, and not egalitarian or equity feminists) is unfortunately one of the biggest opponents to this.

Remember when the University of South Australia was going to start a men's health program influenced by some MHRM ideas? A radfem professor at the Uni S.A. stated that she thought it was really problematic for a course to frame men "as victims" and for men to want to be seen that way.

None of this reflects on you, so please don't think I'm trying to 'blame' you for this. I'm simply saying that whilst I know there are feminists like you out there, it is the radical misandrists who control the debate (and the government funding, and who receives tenure, etc). Opposing them is thus a necessary component to generating institutional momentum towards addressing men's issues.

I do agree, however, there are times when the MHRM gets too focused on feminism instead of simply putting forward a discussion about men's issues. This is why I tend to post my own articles to /r/Masculism rather than on here, since that place is better for calm and levelheaded discussion where as here tends to be a place where people can blow off steam.

[–]Xodima1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xodima2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There may not be much of a movement left, but what remains clearly has disproportionate influence on politics and bureaucracy.

I'm neutral on this. I don't doubt you but what I see often pointed out as feminist legislation, at least in the US, is often based in liberalism (idea of equality = push which is sometimes positive, sometimes negative. Race and gender combined.) and traditionalism (Opposite of feminism) or things that are dying out in popularity from years ago (Which I agree should be abolished completely ex the Tender Years Doctrine which is unconstitutional in the US)

Over all, I can agree that there are some problematic things that need to be worked out. The overall consensus on /r/MensRights however, seems to be that feminism, all feminism, and anything related to feminism is to be forever gone. Somehow they believe that equality under the name of MEN's rights is the only way it can be achieved. I don't think men's rights in and of itself is bad, I think the MRA are assaulting the very idea that women's rights is needed.

While I respect that you don't seem to be opposed to feminism as a movement, but feminism in how it has evolved, I don't see many over in the sub affording the same distinction. It's not feminist critical, it's anti-feminist.

I admit my own experiences with (radical second wave/third wave) feminists haven't been the best either (I've had them gender-police me to my face, do the whole "LOL whatabouttehmenz?" and "MALE TEARS!" thing, mock my concerns etc).

Understandable. Also sorry that you had to deal with that. They definitely do feminism more harm than good by associating themselves with it when it's just blind sexism.

both kinds of feminism which the official feminist movement sees as "not feminist enough" or "not true feminism."

Yeah, I can understand that. It's sometimes difficult (Not impossible) to challenge certain core beliefs in mainstream. I won't give up on it though; challenging is improving. Always. ^^

As I see it, the MHRM's anti-feminism needs to be seen basically in the context of the official feminist movement, which is all radical second wave/third wave. So when we say "Feminism" just keep in mind we're using the word in the same way official/movement feminists use it. We're all dictionary-definition feminists here (except for a handful of trad-cons, but they're the minority on this sub).

I honestly do love seeing blatant hatred shot down in the MRA but I feel it gets made and upvoted far too quickly and easily to think that it's the biggest portion. When /u/TyphonBlue gets (Eventually) downvoted and told to basically fuck off when defending outrageous positions and blatant hatred it gives me a little more faith in humanity. Even when /u/notnotfred is downvoted for the same thing, or anyone that is highly anti-feminist.

Still, seeing that GWW's positions on the sufferage movement and the ability to vote, as well as some other things in her speech at Ryerson is a bit unfortunate to say the least.

As far as the U of T thing (Everyone on the internet has heard of "Big Red") I don't actually think their or her views are held by most feminist. At least not to the extent of blockading the event there. While I agree that there are feminists in the mainstream I highly disagree with (Sheila Jefferey for example. I hate how she portrays trans, gay, and lesbian individuals among many other things.) I would say that the heavily politicized groups tend to take a very ugly turn.

I do agree, however, there are times when the MHRM gets too focused on feminism instead of simply putting forward a discussion about men's issues. This is why I tend to post my own articles to /r/Masculism rather than on here, since that place is better for calm and levelheaded discussion where as here tends to be a place where people can blow off steam.

Yeah, it's more than likely that the name itself is a target of extremism. Just like someone who hates men might want to identify as a feminism, those who hate women will likely identify as MRAs. My problem is the pervasiveness of vitriol from even the most well respected MRAs and their stances as anti, rather than critical. I do know that there are a lot of MRAs who are actually turning down the anti-feminist label and that's awesome. /r/Masculism seems nice and 've been meaning to post in /r/OneY but it seems most people still favor /r/MensRights as the default MRA sub which is depressing.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Over all, I can agree that there are some problematic things that need to be worked out. The overall consensus on /r/MensRights however, seems to be that feminism, all feminism, and anything related to feminism is to be forever gone.

I think you're still implicitly working from a dictionary-definition of feminism. Like I said before, at MR "feminism" typically means the institutionally powerful feminist movement... the lobby groups, the academic departments etc.

We're letting their actions define "feminism." Even though yes, in political science and philosophy classes the term can refer to a far wider range of ideologies, including many which are mens-rights-supportive, today's institutionally powerful feminist movement is not.

And if you look at today's feminist movement, they don't seem to have any particular problems kicking out dissident feminists like Sommers, Patai, Paglia, McElroy or Young. Or Warren Farrell for that matter.

So yes, we let the official feminist movement define 'feminism'. After all, they see fit to decide who is or is not a 'real' feminist... the MHRM simply grants this to them.

With respect to the fact that there seems to be a concerted campaign to permanently besmirch the name of "feminism", you're not wrong. This is very much deliberate... The argument for this strategy is that the label "feminism" has good publicity because of its association with the dictionary definition of "feminism" (ask most people if they support gender equality - the answer will be yes!). However, this label has been appropriated by the Dworkins, MacKinnons and Robin Morgans of the world (as well as the Sarkeesians and Watsons and Valentis and Marcottes). This allows these demented manhaters to in effect "borrow" the credibility of the non-misandrists who advocate for genuine equality under the aegis of "feminism".

In short, there is very much a deliberate goal of destroying the positive connotations of the word "feminism" because it permits radical manhaters to steal the credibility of genuine egalitarians.

Do I necessarily agree with this strategy? I'm still somewhat undecided, but I have to concede I think the argument for it is compelling. I admit my relatively scholarly temperment means I am inclined towards using "feminism" broadly, and differentiating between egalitarian feminists/equity feminists on one hand and class-war/misandrist feminists on the other... but given how the manhaters seem so utterly preoccupied with monopolizing the definition of "feminist" then I think letting them have that label (and letting it become associated with people like Big Red) may have some benefits.

I think the MRA are assaulting the very idea that women's rights is needed.

Only if you treat "feminism" as synonymous with "women's rights" - and the MHRM does not. The MHRM defines "feminism" as Radical Second Wave and Third Wave feminism, which are the kinds of feminism that dominate the academy and the think tanks and lobby groups.

I think that if you asked the people here, almost everyone would agree that women DO suffer because of gender cliches and that it is justified for women to form a social movement for the redress of these grievances. I don't think the people here are opposing ANY theoretical women's movement... merely the established/official women's movement that calls itself "feminism." Opposing THAT movement is hardly the same as opposing ANY women's movement.

Understandable. Also sorry that you had to deal with that. They definitely do feminism more harm than good by associating themselves with it when it's just blind sexism.

Thank you. You'll find that many of the people here were in fact feminist-sympathetic until they had experiences similar to mine.

Yeah, I can understand that. It's sometimes difficult (Not impossible) to challenge certain core beliefs in mainstream. I won't give up on it though; challenging is improving. Always.

I respect your determination and optimism. I wish you success in your endeavours!

Still, seeing that GWW's positions on the sufferage movement and the ability to vote

You mean that the Suffragettes gender-shamed men who didn't enlist to go to war? This is a matter of historical record. The White Feather thing HAPPENED.

Or that the Suffragettes weren't egalitarians and only wanted votes for "proper ladies" (relatively wealthy females of "polite society")? This is true as well. Indeed, the feminist movement has often been criticized, including by other women's movements, for being too "all about middle class white women's advancement."

Or that a man's right to vote was historically seen as contingent upon service in wartime? This is in fact true and has been true up until relatively recently (and is still true in much of the Western world). Only in nations with a universal franchise WITHOUT either conscription or national service can we say that this link between the right to vote and an obligation of state service does not exist.

Let's take an example of a feminist I greatly respect: Mary Wollstonecraft. She was hardly a radical egalitarian-individualist. She did, however, represent an evolutionary improvement over the reigning beliefs of her time. I don't think her inconsistencies or imperfections necessarily mean her work is worthless (to the contrary, I think how she raked Auguste Comte over the coals was utterly brilliant and frankly heroic). But just because they helped advance our society and discourse from a "more wrong" to a "less wrong" position does not mean they were all perfectly infallible and all believed in a contemporary understanding of gender egalitarianism and individual rights.

For a non-gender example, let's look at Thomas Jefferson. The author of the Declaration of Independence was a slaveowner. That doesn't, in my view, mean the Declaration of Independence is any less beautiful and it doesn't mean that the Declaration of Independence didn't contribute towards the ultimate abolition of slavery (it certainly was a vital document in turning people against the institution). But it does mean that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a perfect embodiment of the values he helped preserve.

I think that a similar position should be taken with respect to the Suffragettes and Wollstonecraft and the like. This means that yes, we have to come to grips with their flaws and inconsistencies, whilst still respecting the ways in which they contributed to society's growing understanding of gender relations.

As far as the U of T thing (Everyone on the internet has heard of "Big Red") I don't actually think their or her views are held by most feminist.

By a dictionary definition, you're absolutely right. The vast majority of people who meet the bare requirements to be at least some kind of "feminist" (as defined in Pol Sci/Phil courses) would not accept Big Red's viewpoint. However, going by "official" feminism's beliefs, Big Red's viewpoint is in fact the only acceptable "feminist" (as they use the term) position.

The fact is I wish the feminist movement was more amenable to views like yours. But there have been many attempts and many people aiming to take the word "feminism" back from the radicals. These have, unfortunately, all failed. Radical Second Wave and Third Wave Feminism is simply too deeply entrenched and institutionalized. They toss out dissenting feminists, they even tossed out Betty Friedan (whom I respect) for not believing in patriarchy theory. Their ideas and theories form the basis of modern rape and domestic violence counselling services, they have influence at the highest levels of policy and bureaucracy, etc.

In this environment, it seems that attempts to reclaim "feminism" from them will fail.

I would be very, very delighted to be proven wrong.

[–]Xodima1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I think I can better empathize with that particular view of feminism. Thanks for going in depth with it. I actually do now understand a bit of what I didn't before, mainly, the idea that supplanting "Feminism" with "Men's rights" is anything more than a hateful agenda to change the general affections of popular opinion rather than add to the table, a movement which would balance the affections (coinciding rather than abolition)

My biggest issue with Men's Rights is the "Kill you, change the tide" attitude. It's a technique that seems harmless until you realize that people's motives are often influenced mostly by seemingly unimportant aspects such as pronouncing a gender with a movement. If you make MEN's Rights synonymous with equality, you take affections away from women's rights. Women are now the oppressor. This Is a problem with feminism and I completely admit it. Men need a movement in the name of men/masculinity. However, so do women.

I will still try to help the positive people take back the name. It might take a lot of effort and self-awareness from a lot of people but I think it's possible, at least now, I understand the intent behind the negativity and it'll better guide my reason.

You mean that the Suffragettes gender-shamed men who didn't enlist to go to war?

I admit that I was tired and barely watch it. Mostly took notes, but I gathered that she was against the sufferage ever happening, and that women are capable of voting. It probably went in line with her positive sounding tone when talking of old fashioned codependency vs independence. I can respect a person who fights for men's rights and agrees with women's independence as a gender, but saying that women should be both dependent on men AND that men should be independent of women seems really hateful.

Well, that does help! Thanks again for going into detail with that. I still plan on picking bones with some MRAs over some nasty hate filled agenda, but I am more understanding of the anti-feminist thought process.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I think I can better empathize with that particular view of feminism. Thanks for going in depth with it.

My pleasure.

My biggest issue with Men's Rights is the "Kill you, change the tide" attitude. It's a technique that seems harmless until you realize that people's motives are often influenced mostly by seemingly unimportant aspects such as pronouncing a gender with a movement. If you make MEN's Rights synonymous with equality, you take affections away from women's rights. Women are now the oppressor. This Is a problem with feminism and I completely admit it. Men need a movement in the name of men/masculinity. However, so do women.

On this, I absolutely agree with you. However, I haven't ever heard any MRA argue that Men's Rights is the only necessary component of gender equality.

For example, Warren Farrell argues that what we really need is a "gender transition movement" addressing the needs of both sexes and shifting towards more flexible sex roles. He, the more-or-less founder of the MHRM (he's basically our Friedan), doesn't argue that the MHRM is a sufficient movement for total gender equality (he argues its a necessary one, but not a sufficient one).

Indeed, it is the established/official/institutionalized feminist movement which claims it is the sole, sufficient, exclusive voice for equality. This is because they adopt the position that all gender issues faced by both sexes are reducible down to the oppression of women, and thus only by dismantling the oppression of women can any gender progress be made at all.

That said, I do agree a movement for women's rights does need to exist. Why not call it the "Women's Human Rights Movement"? There are also self-labelled "Womanists," typically black women who believe feminism is too much of a bourgeois white women's club. There are plenty of alternative labels to "feminism" and these alternative labels have the advantage of not being associated with the Radical Second Wave or Third Wave.

I will still try to help the positive people take back the name. It might take a lot of effort and self-awareness from a lot of people but I think it's possible

Well I absolutely wish you nothing but the best of fortune in your quest. At the very least, you have a legitimate case by Pol Sci/Phil standards (which are intellectually honest).

I admit that I was tired and barely watch it. Mostly took notes, but I gathered that she was against the sufferage ever happening, and that women are capable of voting.

I can't speak for GWW, but I don't think she's against the vote being extended for both sexes. Rather, the inequality of responsibilities that remained even after the extension of the equality of rights seems to be what she was protesting.

I do know GWW does not vote, and I don't know her exact positions on the political philosophy of the franchise per se. However, on the gender issue she's consistently pointed towards the unjust nature of the rights/responsibilities imbalance.

I certainly haven't heard anything from her that would constitute an allegation that women are incapable of voting (reasonably).

It probably went in line with her positive sounding tone when talking of old fashioned codependency vs independence. I can respect a person who fights for men's rights and agrees with women's independence as a gender, but saying that women should be both dependent on men AND that men should be independent of women seems really hateful.

I don't think that's what GWW was arguing. During the Q&A period, she specified that she sees the gender roles as a tradeoff... whilst there is a clear overall social advantage in being heterosexual or being white (in North American society), GWW contests that there is an overall advantage for either sex. Rather, she argues that traditional gender roles had an interlinked set of "pros and cons" for both sides. Her work does tend to highlight the "pros" women received from their "precious object" status under the traditional gender system, but this seems to be more of an attempt to counteract the typical depiction of gender roles than an argument that traditional femininity is totally awesome.

I still plan on picking bones with some MRAs over some nasty hate filled agenda, but I am more understanding of the anti-feminist thought process.

Thank you, and I hope to see you "pick bones" and contribute to the discussion here more often. I can only speak for myself, but you're the kind of feminist I absolutely have no quarrel with, so I am confident your input here will be of value to all those seeking equality between the sexes.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mattsingz1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link