Self Defense: "Weak men put their hands on women for any reason!"

[DunnoBro]

I didn't type what you're replying to.

Sorry, not sure how to fix it...

 

[AfungusAmongus]

At the bottom of your post click the orange 'Edit' button. Find where it says quote="FirestormNeos, post: 18611306, member: 219424" near the beginning, and replace this with quote="Budget Player Cadet_, post: 18599956, member: 131880". Then click 'Save Changes'.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Uh, of course feminists were responsible for this neglect. They time and time again facilitate the claim that feminism is about equality for both genders, but operate under the assumption "inequality" is an absolute less/more issue, and that giving women more rights makes things more equal overall.

Care to provide examples of what you're talking about?

Yet ignore that inherently, the definition of "Feminism" means getting rights for women, not men.

That said, everyone benefits from the destruction of patriarchal power structures.

And many feminist circles certainly do reject men's rights being discussed, just the term "MRA" itself is a valid insult and attempt to deny the validity of an argument.

Let's draw a clear, hard line between "men's rights" and "men's rights activists". Unlike feminism, where you find a handful of nutters in an otherwise fairly decent movement, the MRA movement is basically completely run by the nutters. Have you seen MTGOW or /r/redpill? These are, for the most part, not men addressing serious issues.

In toronto they protested just a civil discussion of men's rights on a college campus.

You mean this one? Because it's pretty indicative of what I'm talking about. This is not just some random group of intellectuals concerned with the rights of men, and the student body is entirely within their rights to protest what appears to be a group closely linked to hate groups. Pulling the fire alarm, obviously, not so much.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Let's draw a clear, hard line between "men's rights" and "men's rights activists". Unlike feminism, where you find a handful of nutters in an otherwise fairly decent movement, the MRA movement is basically completely run by the nutters. Have you seen MTGOW or /r/redpill? These are, for the most part, not men addressing serious issues.

Strawman alert. What makes you think /r/redpill represents men's rights activists better than /r/MensRights? You complain that Tumblr feminists don't represent your movement, then turn around and smear your opponents using semi-related fringe groups. Check out the 2014 International Conference on Men’s Issues to learn more about the people running this movement. If you think these men (and women) aren't addressing serious issues, then maybe you aren't taking men's issues seriously.

You mean this one? Because it's pretty indicative of what I'm talking about. This is not just some random group of intellectuals concerned with the rights of men, and the student body is entirely within their rights to protest what appears to be a group closely linked to hate groups. Pulling the fire alarm, obviously, not so much.

You're saying that feminists are right to stifle their critics because those critics are part of a group that appears to be linked to hate groups. Disruptive protests would have been justified if Farrell and Fiamenco were preaching hatred of women; but in fact they were merely criticizing the overreach of feminist ideology. Feminists kindly illustrated their point with noise and shenanigans.

By resolving 2, in other words by resolving **** culture as an entity. There shouldn't be anything inherently predatorial about approaching women on the street, and that's something I'm fairly sure many feminists are working towards.

But once again, you make the mistake of conflating all violent crime with the kind of violent crime that this catcalling, following-around, and aggressive sexual behavior implies risk of: sexual assault. Catcalling leading to murder or robbery is not

First of all, everyone is sick of feminists blaming sexual assault on '**** culture' when the term obviously doesn't fit. Take it from one of the largest **** prevention programs:

In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “**** culture”
for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out
the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple
fact: **** is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small
percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.

While that may seem an obvious point, it has tended to get lost in recent debates. [...]

By the time they reach college, most students have been exposed to 18 years of prevention
messages, in one form or another. Thanks to repeated messages from parents, religious
leaders, teachers, coaches, the media and, yes, the culture at large, the overwhelming
majority of these young adults have learned right from wrong, and enter college knowing
that **** falls squarely in the latter category.

Secondly: typical. Feminists want to help fix men's problems by telling them not to ****. Gee thanks!

Thirdly: The harm of catcalling, according to feminists, depends on the actual incidence of sexual violence (this is supposedly why women catcalling at men isn't as bad). Yet clearly the bulk of the harm is in the violence itself. Since catcalling is a public act by strangers, it especially suggests violence in public spaces perpetrated by strangers. And if stranger violence is irrelevant when it's not sexual, then sexual violence is irrelevant when it's not by a stranger. This excludes the vast majority of sexual violence, weakening the inference from catcalling to real-life violence.

Depends on which feminists you ask. Those who are not trying to destigmatize non-aggressive interactions are, in my opinion, wrong.

ow my brain

But still it's practically inconsistent to think badly of those who aren't trying to destigmatize non-aggressive interactions, while at the same time thinking that the least aggressive of aggressive interactions is a serious harm and merits a potent stigma. Aggression has a continuum, and any sufficiently powerful stigma against weakly aggressive interactions is likely to leak over into non-aggressive ones.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You guys really don't understand the opposing sides on these issues at all.

 

[FirestormNeos]

You guys really don't understand the opposing sides on these issues at all.

Stereotypical Third-Wave Feminists and Men's Rights Activists tend to be like that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's not so much the movements just a lack of education on the topics, which can be corrected via research.

Also the worst of feminism has nothing on second wave feminism.

 

[muddykips]

Yet ignore that inherently, the definition of "Feminism" means getting rights for women, not men.

Could I just step in real quick?

Feminism is about working towards gender equality, and even its opposite, masculism (not "meninism"), strives towards that same goal. The difference is that feminism works under the belief that since women have had less rights throughout history as well as today, their issues should be focused on more in order to make things more equal; in contrast, masculism's focus is the problems of men.

Of course, all issues regarding gender are relevant - even nonbinary rights are focused on. The reason why it might seem like feminists operate on a less/more basis is because feminism dictates men have more, and therefore it's less progressive if men's rights take the limelight, unless they're relevant to the cause; e.g. if you take care of patriarchal values that hurt males, that means you're also tackling the patriarchy in general, which is a good thing in terms of working towards gender equality!

But like Budget said, could you give some examples of scenarios where women getting more rights hinders equality? Cause I don't really get that argument...

Also:

The harm of catcalling, according to feminists, depends on the actual incidence of sexual violence (this is supposedly why women catcalling at men isn't as bad).

I thought the harm of catcalling was the fact that it humiliates, objectifies, and generally degrades the woman targeted, coupled with the fact that catcalling has become a socially acceptable thing to do? Women who catcall at men do it to give men a firsthand experience of what it's like, and while it isn't really a technique I'm completely on board with, it ISN'T as bad, because it isn't something ingrained in our culture, whereas men catcalling women is.

But yeah, the insinuation of sexual violence doesn't help, either.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I thought the harm of catcalling was the fact that it humiliates, objectifies, and generally degrades the woman targeted, coupled with the fact that catcalling has become a socially acceptable thing to do? Women who catcall at men do it to give men a firsthand experience of what it's like, and while it isn't really a technique I'm completely on board with, it ISN'T as bad, because it isn't something ingrained in our culture, whereas men catcalling women is.

But yeah, the insinuation of sexual violence doesn't help, either.

X "depends on" Y doesn't mean that Y is the only thing X depends on.

 

[muddykips]

X "depends on" Y doesn't mean that Y is the only thing X depends on.

...?

You were the one that said "the harm of catcalling depends on the actual incidence of sexual violence" (X depends on Y).

I basically replied that Y isn't the only thing X depends on (sexual violence isn't the only thing the harm of catcalling depends on (the main problem is that it degrades women)), and then you responded with the above quote.

tl;dr I don't get what you're trying to tell me. Could you try rephrasing it in a less ambiguous way?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

...?

You were the one that said "the harm of catcalling depends on the actual incidence of sexual violence" (X depends on Y).

I basically replied that Y isn't the only thing X depends on (sexual violence isn't the only thing the harm of catcalling depends on (the main problem is that it degrades women)), and then you responded with the above quote.

tl;dr I don't get what you're trying to tell me. Could you try rephrasing it in a less ambiguous way?

You didn't contradict me. Nothing I said denied that "the harm of catcalling was the fact that it humiliates, objectifies, and generally degrades the woman targeted", because I was concerned with the argument that real-life incidence of sexual violence adds significantly to the harm of catcalling. I agree that that pretty much sums up the harms of catcalling. Of course these harms are partly a matter of one's variable responses to being catcalled. Some women think nothing of it, and others react positively at least some of the time (if they never did, then the practice of catcalling would die out). Furthermore, while some men react neutrally or positively, this is far from universal. I personally find it irritating but not a big deal. Your view seems sexist against men, since you assume the victims are women.

 

[muddykips]

If everyone paid attention to the issue if and only if every individual woman vocally opposed catcalling, it'd probably be too late.

Variable responses isn't a good excuse, particularly because that erases the main point, that the majority of women generally dislike it when others are allowed to publicly degrade them (I would too!). If a woman is catcalled and doesn't respond in a strictly negative fashion, there's a pretty good chance it's because they're afraid of retribution, e.g. insults, physical aggression (including but not limited to sexual violence), or simply social rejection. Counting the voices of those being silenced isn't a good practice, and "at least some of the time" is a pretty flimsy argument when discussing the issue as a whole.

And then, yes, there are some women who genuinely see nothing wrong with catcalling, which is mostly because our culture has taught them that it is a normal and justified occurrence. Other things that people believe because society tells them it's ok includes assuming blondes are idiots, women who don't cover up 80% of their body deserve ****, and that a woman who has had more than one sexual partner is a ****. Some women do believe these things, but that doesn't make those beliefs right, seeing how the majority of women are against that kind of stuff.

Also, I've been discussing how men catcalling women is an issue; I really don't see how the victims in this situation are anything but women. How am I being sexist against men when women are the ones being thrown under the bus?

 

[Sucumbio]

What feminism encompasses includes promotion of strength and attracting attention because hormones. The ill fated church of satan and his founder especially was interested quite a bit in the power of women over a man's junk.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Variable responses isn't a good excuse, particularly because that erases the main point, that the majority of women generally dislike it when others are allowed to publicly degrade them (I would too!). If a woman is catcalled and doesn't respond in a strictly negative fashion, there's a pretty good chance it's because they're afraid of retribution, (for instance, sexual violence). Counting the voices of those being silenced isn't a good practice, and "at least some of the time" is a pretty flimsy argument when discussing the issue as a whole.

And then, yes, there are some women who genuinely see nothing wrong with catcalling, which is mostly because our culture has taught them that it is a normal and justified occurrence. Other things that people believe because society tells them it's ok includes assuming blondes are idiots, women who don't cover up 80% of their body deserve ****, and that a woman who has had more than one sexual partner is a ****. Some women do believe these things, but that doesn't make them right, especially since the majority of women are against that kind of stuff.

Those women who don't mind being catcalled are unlikely to consider it degrading. While fear may play some role, a woman might genuinely condone catcalling because she finds it harmless or enjoys the attention (depending on her opinion of the catcaller). What's degrading is treating grown adults like children by discounting their voices and (paternalistically) telling them how they really feel.

None of your arguments are sufficient to undermine positive opinions of catcalling. Individual decisions about what to condone or condemn are typically based on cultural norms, so catcalling isn't special in that way. You need to argue that women's opinions aren't just influenced, but forced, if you want to undermine them. And while the opinion of "the majority of women" matters to the overall debate, it doesn't somehow invalidate the minority.

Also, I've been discussing how men catcalling women is an issue; I really don't see how the victims in this situation are anything but women. How am I being sexist against men when women are the ones being thrown under the bus?

News flash: women catcall men too! ModelPranksters is one example; for another, I've been butt-grabbed and holla'd at by women strangers in public. You're sexist for assuming the stereotypical female victim / male aggressor model, especially when males suffer more violence (including the vast majority of public violence and a substantial minority of sexual violence) and receive less support when victimized (especially sexually).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Oh yes, so we should randomly sexually harass people because SOME of them like it? I'm sorry but are you serious, the majority of women dislike it from strangers, if they think otherwise we have a concept called consent.


Catcalling against men is just as much sexual harassment it's simply much rarer driven by an ingrained culture of male rights to women's bodies. Like all sexually violence that's primarily viewed as a male gender role however, male gender roles tend to enforce silence, but saying that it's primarily a male on female issue isn't denying it happens to some men, it's just pointing out male gender roles systematically encourage men to do it.

Female on male sexual violence is primarily predicated on the idea that men will never say no, so it tends to manifest in subtler ways that rather then convey power over the other, convey an invitation intended only the person to be aware of. Similarly ****, when it occurs, is a matter of assumed consent rather then a matter of exercising power over the partner.

This is not to say that they're not equally wrong but come from different social contexts and needs to be handled by breaking different gender roles. That's why "saying it happens to men too!" is usually a handwave, because it's an attempt to reduce to a general social issue without recognizing that the vast majority of the two happen under different contexts.

It's akin to basing your view of Islamic extremists on surveys of western Muslims who choose to join these groups not recognizing that the demographics and the cause of this social effect is radically different for residents of the Islamic world.


With one exception, female on male sexual violence to lgbtq individuals because gay people are commonly objectified for straight peoples' benefit in a variety of ways, whether a fashion accessory or a zoo.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Oh yes, so we should randomly sexually harass people because SOME of them like it? I'm sorry but are you serious, the majority of women dislike it from strangers, if they think otherwise we have a concept called consent.

Nobody claimed that catcalling is good - I merely argued that its badness is exaggerated. Your equivocation between catcalling and sexual harassment neatly demonstrates this exaggeration - only extremely offensive or persistent catcalls could reasonably be called harassment.

Catcalling against men is just as much sexual harassment it's simply much rarer driven by an ingrained culture of male rights to women's bodies. Like all sexual violence that's primarily viewed as a male gender role however, male gender roles tend to enforce silence, but saying that it's primarily a male on female issue isn't denying it happens to some men, it's just pointing out male gender roles systematically encourage men to do it.

There's no "culture of male rights to women's bodies" in the modern Western world. If you think such a thing exists, prove it.

Ignoring male victims, as Mudkips did and many others often do, is blameworthy even though catcalling is primarily a male on female issue.

Female on male sexual violence is primarily predicated on the idea that men will never say no, so it tends to manifest in subtler ways that rather then convey power over the other, convey an invitation intended only the person to be aware of. Similarly ****, when it occurs, is a matter of assumed consent rather then a matter of exercising power over the partner.

What makes you think that male rapists do it for power while female rapists are merely mistaken? Your speculation is at best a gross over-generalization, if not **** apology and paranoid demonization.

This is not to say that they're not equally wrong but come from different social contexts and needs to be handled by breaking different gender roles. That's why saying "it happens to men too!" is usually a handwave, because it's an attempt to reduce to a general social issue without recognizing that the vast majority of the two happen under different contexts.

That may sometimes happen, but that's now how it's usually used. For instance in this case "men too!" refutes the typical feminist attempt to sweep male victims under the rug and cast everything as a manifestation of patriarchy.

With one exception, female on male sexual violence to lgbtq individuals because gay people are commonly objectified for straight peoples' benefit in a variety of ways, whether a fashion accessory or a zoo.

...could you rephrase that? I honestly don't know what you're saying here.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Let's bring this back to a main point rather then point by point.

You seem to think that I'm dismissing men's issues yet you have refuses to engage on any of the issues that I brought up about male gender roles and how they damage men, instead dismissing them as me demonizing men.


The fact is that gender roles are complimentary and ignoring these issues against men is in fact because of male gender roles, men are told to man up, that our value is in power, and to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good, this is the root of the ignoring of sexual violence against men but it is just as much the root of how men are encouraged to commit sexual violence against women.

To blame it on feminism is wrong, this well predates feminism and feminism hasn't made these issues worse for men, rather it simply hasn't made them much better for women.

Admittedly there attitudes like "men can't get *****" among a decent number of feminists, but they're pretty much omnipresent among people who aren't critical of gender roles, so feminism serves to make people more critical of these sexist attitudes.

The solution for men's issues isn't to blame feminism, it's to fight society's concept of masculinity as something damaging.

...could you rephrase that? I honestly don't know what you're saying here.

Gay people regardless of gender are fetishized by straight men and women (obviously opposite gendered gay people), this is due primarily to otherness and greater social power.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I expressed mixed feelings on feminism and gender roles to BPC on page 6.

The male role may encourage power-seeking, and power-seeking may promote sexual violence, but it doesn't follow that "men are encouraged to commit sexual violence against women." To illustrate, swap genders. The female role encourages childcare which correlates with child abuse, yet it is false that "women are encouraged to commit child abuse". Furthermore, this '**** culture' hypothesis contradicts the obvious fact that our culture unequivocally condemns **** and rapists (except when a woman ***** a man or boy).

Admittedly there attitudes like "men can't get *****" among a decent number of feminists, but they're pretty much omnipresent among people who aren't critical of gender roles, so feminism serves to make people more critical of these sexist attitudes.

This argument falsely infers causation from correlation. Interest in gender issues predisposes people to both feminism and anti-misandry. Therefore feminism could correlate with anti-misandry without making people more critical of misandry.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Sexual violence is encouraged by objectifying women, by treating them as a trophy as a reward. The fact that it's punished too is a societal mixed message, further amplified by the social image of a rapist being a stranger in a dark ally resulting in no connection of entitlement to a woman's body by in "acceptable circumstances" with the image of ****.

If you want to know why this idea exists, just look at media. Women are constantly presented as trophies and rewards, from direct (such as Popeye and This Means War) to the near omnipresent smooch of victory. The fact is media narratives shape perceptions of gender roles, which shapes a situation where beliefs of ownership and sexual rights are created. Hell, judges decline to even consider prosecuting marital **** for example.

I ask you this, how many mainstream pieces of media are there with guys as a prize for a contest between women? Compare that to how often this trope is used in general audience media with women.

This argument falsely infers causation from correlation. Interest in gender issues predisposes people to both feminism and anti-misandry. Therefore feminism could correlate with anti-misandry without making people more critical of misandry.

I never presented it as a correlation implying causation (but correlation does strongly suggest an effect), what I'm saying is that because modern feminist activism is based on critiquing male and female gender roles and advancing women's issue by breaking them down, of course this often bring awareness of how these roles can negatively affect men. This is especially true because third wave feminism takes a strong interest in Queer issues, and queer male issues are as a result of male gender roles. Not to mention that "women can't **** men" is well-acknowledged benevolent sexism, reinforcing the gender role of the helpless woman that applies to other areas.

That's why feminism makes people more critical of these sexist norms.


See, that's the frustrating thing about the MRA, they don't get the connection because they haven't delved beyond "we have these issues", there is no real recognition and criticism of male gender roles and there is no admission that anyone else has issues. In that sense you guys remind me a lot of 2nd wave feminism.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm sure everyone remembers the first time they had a dramatic situation unfold and suddenly you notice wow this SO a television moment, someone call Sgt. Benson.

 

[FirestormNeos]

I'm currently lurking around and I'm going to admit that...

1- How do we know sexism doesn't have a confirmation bias? What's stopping me from assuming that everything has some form of encouraging some sort of sexist idea?
2- How do we know for certain whether a woman is flaunting her sexuality because "woo! freedom!" or if she's doing it because of societal pressure?
3- How can we fix these social issues that feminism talks about without resorting to censorship of art?
4- Are women as impressionable as we are lead to believe by many sociologists, or is that just the patriarchy once again brainwashing us to believe that women can't look at a picture of a skinny person without having a body identity crisis?
5- Would the MRA exist even if Feminism didn't cause people to challenge gender discrimination? Or are they feminism's more paranoid and somewhat selfish cousin? Or maybe they are a purely reactionary concept?
6- If and when women finally have equal rights to men (if they don't already), what will become of feminism?
7- Can someone explain to me why matters like the design of a fictional character are more important and discussion-worthy then the cancer to feminism that is "Pro-Life" scumbags in the political environment, or the crap happening to women in the middle east?
8- What is feminism's answer to Moral Relativism?

Note: None of those questions were rhetorical.

What feminism encompasses includes promotion of strength and attracting attention because hormones. The ill fated church of satan and his founder especially was interested quite a bit in the power of women over a man's junk.

^ this is bait ^

 

[Sucumbio]

It's not even that complicated really. People can be possessive... They covet. Even if it's their own body used as a weapon it's really just a veiled defense mechanism which men do not need as frequently because men can just beat you up like you stole something. Just imagine being physically inferior all your life, and for thousands of generations before and to come. We do not like being inferior. Why should women be any different?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm currently lurking around and I'm going to admit that...

1- How do we know sexism doesn't have a confirmation bias? What's stopping me from assuming that everything has some form of encouraging some sort of sexist idea?

How do you know everything in society isn't already encouraging sexism?

I kid, but there is no hard and fast rule because it's all in the analysis. Does it endorse women being treated as possessions? Does it endorse the idea of female sexuality being there for the enjoyment of men? Questions like that.

2- How do we know for certain whether a woman is flaunting her sexuality because "woo! freedom!" or if she's doing it because of societal pressure?

Talking about an individual woman? Is she a prostitute or some other form of sex worker and was forced into the profession? If no, then it's feminist, the whole point is male ownership of female sexuality, without that ownership, that's why women are actively DISCOURAGED from dressing in a sexy manner except in private and men argue that dressing sexy means they're asking to be *****.

3- How can we fix these social issues that feminism talks about without resorting to censorship of art?

Discourage it by not buying art that promotes harmful gender roles.

4- Are women as impressionable as we are lead to believe by many sociologists, or is that just the patriarchy once again brainwashing us to believe that women can't look at a picture of a skinny person without having a body identity crisis?

You're misunderstanding the issue, it's not actually for adult women, it's for kids so they don't internalize skinny as the only possible form of beauty for women. There's not practical way to change that the current generation has internalized it now and the fact is that people are impressionable especially at a young age. The same is true of getting more representation in media for other racs, especially children's media.

5- Would the MRA exist even if Feminism didn't cause people to challenge gender discrimination? Or are they feminism's more paranoid and somewhat selfish cousin? Or maybe they are a purely reactionary concept?

\

It potentially could've come to be on it's own but it's very unlikely because dissatisfaction with female gender roles is much more common then with male gender roles.

That said it's functionally feminism's past though, in a lot of ways it reflects the mistakes of second wave feminism in how it handles the issues of other groups and it's refusal to criticize the behaviors of it's group,

6- If and when women finally have equal rights to men (if they don't already), what will become of feminism?

Well it's not just rights, it's also social issues, but if equality is achieved then it's no longer necessary and will vanish.

7- Can someone explain to me why matters like the design of a fictional character are more important and discussion-worthy then the cancer to feminism that is "Pro-Life" scumbags in the political environment, or the crap happening to women in the middle east?

Feminism is and continues to be engaged in a very public fight with the forces in society that push traditional gender roles politically including the issues that you mention, you might simply encounter more people criticizing media but feminist activism certainly devotes a lot of resources towards these political fights. But as I stated before, addressing these media issues is very important for future generations so as not to imprint these gender roles.

As for the Middle East, do you mean issues like female Genitalia mutilation?

8- What is feminism's answer to Moral Relativism?

Simply that there is no objective morality or that ethics and morals are meaningless concepts?

 

[FirestormNeos]

I kid, but there is no hard and fast rule because it's all in the analysis. Does it endorse women being treated as possessions? Does it endorse the idea of female sexuality being there for the enjoyment of men? Questions like that.

And how much analysis is too much analysis?

Talking about an individual woman? Is she a prostitute or some other form of sex worker and was forced into the profession? If no, then it's feminist, the whole point is male ownership of female sexuality, without that ownership, that's why women are actively DISCOURAGED from dressing in a sexy manner except in private and men argue that dressing sexy means they're asking to be *****.

ooooooooh... okay.

Discourage it by not buying art that promotes harmful gender roles.

This explains several issues.

"Stop paying for sexist art!"
"But then there will be no more art!"

You're misunderstanding the issue, it's not actually for adult women, it's for kids so they don't internalize skinny as the only possible form of beauty for women. There's not practical way to change that the current generation has internalized it now and the fact is that people are impressionable especially at a young age. The same is true of getting more representation in media for other races, especially children's media.

So in other words, for example, if a film is going to be G or PG rated, it better have other female characters designs in addition to "blatant R34 bait #25663"?

It potentially could've come to be on it's own but it's very unlikely because dissatisfaction with female gender roles is much more common then with male gender roles.

That said it's functionally feminism's past though, in a lot of ways it reflects the mistakes of second wave feminism in how it handles the issues of other groups and it's refusal to criticize the behaviors of it's [own] group,

So if I'm not mistaken...

First Wave was somewhat racist (if I remember correctly from History class), Second Wave was somewhat hypocritical (if I'm interpreting the second part of this post correctly), and Third Wave... puts it's faith on shady role models... question mark?

Well it's not just rights, it's also social issues, but if equality is achieved then it's no longer necessary and will vanish.

Ah, social issues. Almost as infuriating and mutually closed-minded as debating over religion.

Feminism is and continues to be engaged in a very public fight with the forces in society that push traditional gender roles politically including the issues that you mention, you might simply encounter more people criticizing media but feminist activism certainly devotes a lot of resources towards these political fights. But as I stated before, addressing these media issues is very important for future generations so as not to imprint these gender roles.

So does that make the critics of "slackivist feminism" dangerously impatient and nearsighted?

As for the Middle East, do you mean issues like female Genitalia mutilation?

Yes.

Simply that there is no objective morality or that ethics and morals are meaningless concepts?

When you say ethics...

 

[Sehnsucht]

I don't have much at all to contribute to the discussion, one way or another. Mostly because I'm doubtless uninformed in basically all respects. But since this thread -- or at least, the current tangents -- seem to concern feminism, I have a question for the floor. So for those of any view, I invite your input.

Suppose the following (condensed for tidiness):

Spoiler

My current view is that sex and gender are otherwise arbitrary, like eye colour and skin tone. These superficial traits don't pose any inherent obstacle in the fulfillment of a given goal, competency in work and vocation, depth of rational and emotional faculties, capacity to socialize and form relationships, managing finances, excelling at a task or vocation through discipline, potential for study and academic success, ability to rear children, ability to be moral and empathic persons, and so on and so forth. And these traits don't necessarily confer an advantage in any of these things, either.

There are certainly physiological differences between sexes. But I suspect that on the whole, these differences are negligible, neither posing nor eliminating any significant hurdles in the aforementioned pursuits.

Because of this, equity is the only rational state of affairs. Persons of any combination of sex and gender should have equity of opportunity professionally, academically, judicially, and socially -- because any other alternative doesn't make sense. If the playing field is level, then everyone has a shot. What people then do with the shot they have will be in their hands.

I also find conventional gender roles to be arbitrary. Who cares if a person wears trousers or a skirt? Prefers pink to blue? Paints their face or not? Is the household breadwinner or not? Fashion, preferences, expression; these are superficial traits, and so are deserving of neither praise nor scorn. They neither inhibit nor bolster a person's capacities and value.

Further, if it is the case that there are professional, academic, judicial, and/or social imbalances in the playing field advantaging one sex or gender over another, then the ideal is to work to rectify such imbalances. What this entails will likely depend on situation and context, but I suspect the optimal route would be to A) raise up disadvantaged groups to the level of those who do have more privileges, and to B) get rid of privileges/attitudes/advantages that don't make sense, or can't be justified.

So with all this in mind, what am I?

Am I a feminist? If not, what other terms would encapsulate my body of present views?

From what I've seen, the topic of feminism, especially online, is a veritable minefield of polarized debate. It's to the point where I'm unsure how to navigate the discourse effectively. Which is why I invite the more educated posters in this thread to lend their insight on my layman's understanding of affairs.

Otherwise, by all means carry on the ongoing discussions. 8)

 

[AfungusAmongus]

what am I?

So far, I'd call you egalitarian because you advocated gender equality without focusing on either gender. Your view that gender is arbitrary, superficial, and relatively negligible might best be called liberal (opposite of traditional). Depending on the focus of your interest in gender issues, you might also be MRA or/and feminist.

The choice of label may depend on its connotations in a specific context. Just as Russell's religious self-identity (atheist or agnostic) varies "to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street", so might your gender-issues affiliation vary depending on the audience's vocabulary.

We might also distinguish theoretical from practical stances. I'm an egalitarian in theory and an MRA in practice, just as I'm an agnostic in theory and an atheist in practice.

 

[Sehnsucht]

So far, I'd call you egalitarian because you advocated gender equality without focusing on either gender. Your view that gender is arbitrary, superficial, and relatively negligible might best be called liberal (opposite of traditional). Depending on the focus of your interest in gender issues, you might also be MRA or/and feminist.

The choice of label may depend on its connotations in a specific context. Just as Russell's religious self-identity (atheist or agnostic) varies "to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street", so might your gender-issues affiliation vary depending on the audience's vocabulary.

Mmm. Never thought of it through the lens of context-specificity.

Perhaps, then, I am a feminist when I advocate for and/or support women's rights, and an MRA when I advocate for and/or support men's rights. I don't do any activism currently, but I do support equity within and between sexes and genders as a principle, so I suppose I am both by default. But a singular term, like egalitarian, may serve as a useful shorthand umbrella term for such multifarious support.

I suppose this is a good point for further reflection. I do find these topics of gender (and gender relations) to be interesting, so I do want to gradually educate myself further. Thanks for giving me a morsel to chew on, then.

Though of course, any input from other savvy folk would be appreciated. 8)

 

[adumbrodeus]

And how much analysis is too much analysis?

No such thing. The issue is incorrect analysis. Is it in the net analysis, promoting, opposing, or simply not presenting a system where harmful gender roles

This explains several issues.

"Stop paying for sexist art!"
"But then there will be no more art!"

Ya, the idea is to encourage more egalitarian art as opposed to simple views of gender and sexuality.

So in other words, for example, if a film is going to be G or PG rated, it better have other female characters designs in addition to "blatant R34 bait #25663"?

R rated as well because late adolescences these things are still be imprinted, art aimed at people older then that isn't as important but will naturally shift as attitudes change. Basically, under 18 crowd is where the emphasis is at, not that particularly terrible peices of media aren't going to be pointed out that's aimed at older crowds but the emphasis is there.

So if I'm not mistaken...

First Wave was somewhat racist (if I remember correctly from History class), Second Wave was somewhat hypocritical (if I'm interpreting the second part of this post correctly), and Third Wave... puts it's faith on shady role models... question mark?

Pretty much correct, though first wave was a bit better then the rest of society and actually shared a close relationship with abolitionism (the Seneca falls convention was directly related to the split in abolitionism caused by the refusal of many to allow full participation for women in the movement).

Second wave was about as racist as the rest of society though.

Third wave, I'd say it's biggest problem though is the emphasis on upper class issues, the glass floor (women's access to working class "men's" jobs such as garbage collectors), while still a feminist issue is rarely mentioned in modern discourse.

Ah, social issues. Almost as infuriating and mutually closed-minded as debating over religion.

They are quantifiable though, we have studies showing that when women or men apply in the "wrong" field their resumes are more likely to get trashed just because the name is male or female for example. We have studies showing that men and women are evaluated differently at least in the tech industry.

So does that make the critics of "slackivist feminism" dangerously impatient and nearsighted?

As a general concept rather then individual manifestations of it which are sometimes wrong. Yes, it's essentially a groundswell dissatisfaction of media which perpetuates harmful gender roles in their view, which is critical to raising awareness, so yes it is nearsighted. Not everyone can be on the protest front lines.

Yes.

Sorry that was a trick question because I had something to illustrate about attitudes about Islam as compared to reality and this is important.

FGM isn't really a Middle Eastern problem, it's an African cultural problem, there is some practice in Iraq and Yemen but the only Middle Eastern nation that predominantly practices it is Egypt which is in Africa.

The point of this is that people reflexively attribute all these facing women to Islam when the reality is that many of these issues are equally prevalent or primarily based in entirely different geographic areas. Of the nations in Africa which primarily practice it some are primarily Christian and some are primarily muslim, but the practice predated both's prevelance.

Why do I point this out?

Because I'm pointing out that the cause of these women's issues are poverty and ascribing them to regional culture or religion is a mistake.

When you say ethics...

I'm trying to get a beat on what form of moral relativism you're talking about.

I don't have much at all to contribute to the discussion, one way or another. Mostly because I'm doubtless uninformed in basically all respects. But since this thread -- or at least, the current tangents -- seem to concern feminism, I have a question for the floor. So for those of any view, I invite your input.

Suppose the following (condensed for tidiness):

Spoiler

My current view is that sex and gender are otherwise arbitrary, like eye colour and skin tone. These superficial traits don't pose any inherent obstacle in the fulfillment of a given goal, competency in work and vocation, depth of rational and emotional faculties, capacity to socialize and form relationships, managing finances, excelling at a task or vocation through discipline, potential for study and academic success, ability to rear children, ability to be moral and empathic persons, and so on and so forth. And these traits don't necessarily confer an advantage in any of these things, either.

There are certainly physiological differences between sexes. But I suspect that on the whole, these differences are negligible, neither posing nor eliminating any significant hurdles in the aforementioned pursuits.

Because of this, equity is the only rational state of affairs. Persons of any combination of sex and gender should have equity of opportunity professionally, academically, judicially, and socially -- because any other alternative doesn't make sense. If the playing field is level, then everyone has a shot. What people then do with the shot they have will be in their hands.

I also find conventional gender roles to be arbitrary. Who cares if a person wears trousers or a skirt? Prefers pink to blue? Paints their face or not? Is the household breadwinner or not? Fashion, preferences, expression; these are superficial traits, and so are deserving of neither praise nor scorn. They neither inhibit nor bolster a person's capacities and value.

Further, if it is the case that there are professional, academic, judicial, and/or social imbalances in the playing field advantaging one sex or gender over another, then the ideal is to work to rectify such imbalances. What this entails will likely depend on situation and context, but I suspect the optimal route would be to A) raise up disadvantaged groups to the level of those who do have more privileges, and to B) get rid of privileges/attitudes/advantages that don't make sense, or can't be justified.

So with all this in mind, what am I?

Am I a feminist? If not, what other terms would encapsulate my body of present views?

From what I've seen, the topic of feminism, especially online, is a veritable minefield of polarized debate. It's to the point where I'm unsure how to navigate the discourse effectively. Which is why I invite the more educated posters in this thread to lend their insight on my layman's understanding of affairs.

Otherwise, by all means carry on the ongoing discussions. 8)

Classic dictionary definition feminist, you lack the further analysis to push into any other categories because these is actually broad enough for you to be in any category.

If you were to believe that historically women received systematic oppression and that oppression reverberates into modern society by way of people simply following the patterns they always did without noticing the issue, then you'd be one part of one of the feminist approaches to gender issues.

As followup do you focus on the individual rights of men or women to achieve equality as a way to break down this systematic oppression? Do you believe gender is socially constructed but not necessarily bad and the inequality between genders is the issue? Do you believe that mapping gender unto sex merely on the basis of genitalia an issue? Do you believe that men who are either unwilling or unable to fulfill their gender roles are socially oppressed due to dirtying themselves with feminization? Congrats you're a liberal feminist.

Do you believe that "women" gender and sex is established as a social underclass and the only way to fix this is to end the concepts of gender and sex entirely? Congrats you're a radical feminist.

Note: Liberal feminism is the predominant mainstream form currently, radical feminism was predominant in the second wave.

Now going back all the way up, do you believe that it's actually men who have historically been marginalized and women have historically been the oppressors? (this similarly can come with or without a belief Then congrats, you're an MRM.

Yep, to be an MRM you have to be a dictionary definition feminist, since the defining factor is opposition to gendered discrimination, but it's not the same as actually supporting feminist philosophy or activism, it's merely a semantic matter. Take that as what you will.

Mmm. Never thought of it through the lens of context-specificity.

Perhaps, then, I am a feminist when I advocate for and/or support women's rights, and an MRA when I advocate for and/or support men's rights. I don't do any activism currently, but I do support equity within and between sexes and genders as a principle, so I suppose I am both by default. But a singular term, like egalitarian, may serve as a useful shorthand umbrella term for such multifarious support.

I suppose this is a good point for further reflection. I do find these topics of gender (and gender relations) to be interesting, so I do want to gradually educate myself further. Thanks for giving me a morsel to chew on, then.

Though of course, any input from other savvy folk would be appreciated. 8)

Following up, no to be an MRM you have to be a feminist in the broad sense but advocacy for women's and men's issues can come from either philosophical camp as I just mentioned. The core question is a matter of "do you think these issues are coming from a society posited on male or female power"?

A men's movement can come from a feminist standpoint and a women's movement can come from an MRM standpoint.

Keep in mind that gender roles aren't just about relative issues they're can also established to create obligations to higher classes.

So far, I'd call you egalitarian because you advocated gender equality without focusing on either gender. Your view that gender is arbitrary, superficial, and relatively negligible might best be called liberal (opposite of traditional). Depending on the focus of your interest in gender issues, you might also be MRA or/and feminist.

The choice of label may depend on its connotations in a specific context. Just as Russell's religious self-identity (atheist or agnostic) varies "to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street", so might your gender-issues affiliation vary depending on the audience's vocabulary.

We might also distinguish theoretical from practical stances. I'm an egalitarian in theory and an MRA in practice, just as I'm an agnostic in theory and an atheist in practice.

That's, an incorrect definition of egalitarianism that is being popularized by the MRM. Egalitarianism is the fundamental belief that all people are of equal social worth and from it all equality movements (racial, religious, gender, LGBTQ, anti-abelism) are derived. Anyone who associates with any such movement is by their nature an egalitarian, even if they're wrong.

Your definition of traditionalism is spot on though and at the end of the day that is the opposition of both, but mrm and the actual branches of feminism are coming from a different core assumption of gender theory.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Classic dictionary definition feminist, you lack the further analysis to push into any other categories because these is actually broad enough for you to be in any category.

If you were to believe that historically women received systematic oppression and that oppression reverberates into modern society by way of people simply following the patterns they always did without noticing the issue, then you'd be one part of one of the feminist approaches to gender issues.

I'm not educated enough on the subject to be able to actually defend any view I might forward (i.e. haven't read any literature, have no numbers or sources, etc.). But from what little I've come across, it seems uncontroversial to say that a history of systemic disadvantage and oppression toward the female sex.

From what I've been exposed to regarding the feminist viewpoint, the proposition is that such a systemic order still does exist. Not quite so prevalent or overtly as it has been before (thanks to Suffrage and efforts of feminists past), but enough that there are still a number of issues to address.

Do I believe this is the case? I prefer to earn my beliefs through reasoning and research, and due to lack of study, I can't confidently and earnestly say that I "believe" this is the state of affairs. But on the basis that I'll take the word of those more educated than I that something is amiss, I'll say that I do believe that there presently continue to be systemic imbalances. Because if a whole lot of people are bringing up these issues again and again (as is the case in our present age), then there must surely be something afoot.

Perhaps best put, I believe the above as a principle, but I don't know the details on any of the specifics (or I don't trust myself to be able speak intelligently as to those specifics). So it's a case of belief ("this is probably the case") versus belief ("I know this to be the case"). But I digress.

As followup do you focus on the individual rights of men or women to achieve equality as a way to break down this systematic oppression? Do you believe gender is socially constructed but not necessarily bad and the inequality between genders is the issue? Do you believe that mapping gender unto sex merely on the basis of genitalia an issue? Do you believe that men who are either unwilling or unable to fulfill their gender roles are socially oppressed due to dirtying themselves with feminization? Congrats you're a liberal feminist.

Do you believe that "women" gender and sex is established as a social underclass and the only way to fix this is to end the concepts of gender and sex entirely? Congrats you're a radical feminist.

Note: Liberal feminism is the predominant mainstream form currently, radical feminism was predominant in the second wave.

It seems I lean more toward liberalism than radicalism. At the very least, the concepts of gender and sex seem useful labels for the purpose of identity and categorization. These things clearly do exist, so to try to pretend they don't (as in radical feminism) seems rather counter-productive. And I don't know anything about underclasses, so I'm ill-equipped to side with radicalism.

So, concerning your questions:

-I find equity more important (or of greater priority) than equality, but yeah, if there are systemic issues for any sex-gender combinations in any domain, then it's in our collective interest to address them.

-Sex is clearly a real quantity, since it's a physiological affair (chromosomes and hormones). I suppose the more grey area is to what extent sex informs gender, and the relation between the two. Gender may have some root in sex, but I imagine that it's also hugely informed by social norms and expectations.

But I'm inclined to think that, no matter the degree of influence, there's nothing about one's sex and/or gender that merits discrimination (scorn, aversion, chastisement, etc.), on account of its otherwise-arbitrariness.

-It does seem an issue, if you are consistently pressured to adhere to a set of gender norms when your innate gender expression or identity doesn't quite fit into such boxes and labels. Because I find the existence of these boxes unjustified, to discriminate based on how and who doesn't adhere to these norms is unwarranted, and so issues pertaining to this dichotomy are worth addressing.

-Do you mean how men are expected to be "manly" or "masculine"? As mentioned before, I find the way one expresses themselves to be arbitrary (unless it transgresses upon another, which I don't think gender does). So I see no issue if a man likes "girly" things, or behaves in "feminine" ways, or what have you. I have observed, IRL and in media, that men who don't conform or adhere to such a standard of masculinity may be demeaned or ostracized. As such, I'm inclined to believe that indeed, there is an implicit (and unwarranted) issue in this regard.

Given all this, then, it seems liberal feminist is an apt descriptor of my working views.

Now going back all the way up, do you believe that it's actually men who have historically been marginalized and women have historically been the oppressors? (this similarly can come with or without a belief Then congrats, you're an MRM.

Yep, to be an MRM you have to be a dictionary definition feminist, since the defining factor is opposition to gendered discrimination, but it's not the same as actually supporting feminist philosophy or activism, it's merely a semantic matter. Take that as what you will.

Following up, no to be an MRM you have to be a feminist in the broad sense but advocacy for women's and men's issues can come from either philosophical camp as I just mentioned. The core question is a matter of "do you think these issues are coming from a society posited on male or female power"?

A men's movement can come from a feminist standpoint and a women's movement can come from an MRM standpoint.

Keep in mind that gender roles aren't just about relative issues they're can also established to create obligations to higher classes.

If, historically, men have had the dominant influence in the social and political domain -- which I take it to be the case -- then the work would lie in bringing about equity for all. Better to grant lacking privileges than to strip existing ones, unless existing ones can't be rationally justified.

So I suppose I can't be an MRA, if that entails that I think women have historically oppressed men on a systemic scale (more so than men have oppressed women).

If the above applies, I suppose I'm nominally a (liberal) feminist, in that A) I support equity across the board, and that B) it seems to me that it's more probable that there is overall a female<male imbalance, rather than a female>male imbalance. But I say that I am nominally so because I'm not yet savvy and don't do any real activism or promotion of feminist ideals. The most I do is try to not perpetuate things that don't make sense (i.e. not discriminating on the basis of sex and gender). Which, I suppose, is a start. 8P

Thanks for your input, in any case. It makes for a nice primer on the subject, at any rate. 8)

 

[AfungusAmongus]

That's, an incorrect definition of egalitarianism that is being popularized by the MRM. Egalitarianism is the fundamental belief that all people are of equal social worth and from it all equality movements (racial, religious, gender, LGBTQ, anti-abelism) are derived. Anyone who associates with any such movement is by their nature an egalitarian, even if they're wrong.

Egalitarian roughly means 'pro-equality', so it is an excellent label for someone whose position is an abstract endorsement of equality on some issue. What definition, exactly, do you say MRM's are incorrectly popularizing? I'm well aware that the word is meaningful in contexts beyond gender (for example in ethics it competes against egoism and altruism). And I'm well aware that you don't necessarily forfeit your egalitarianism when you focus on one or the other gender.

Because I'm pointing out that the cause of these women's issues are poverty and ascribing them to regional culture or religion is a mistake.

Saudi women can't go to school or drive a car without permission from their fathers/husbands, yet Saudi Arabia has far less poverty than the USA. Please try to explain this situation without recognizing the obvious effects of regional culture and religion.

Many ethiopian families wealthy enough to immigrate to the USA want to practice FGM. Please try to explain this situation without recognizing the obvious effects of regional culture and religion.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm not educated enough on the subject to be able to actually defend any view I might forward (i.e. haven't read any literature, have no numbers or sources, etc.). But from what little I've come across, it seems uncontroversial to say that a history of systemic disadvantage and oppression toward the female sex.

From what I've been exposed to regarding the feminist viewpoint, the proposition is that such a systemic order still does exist. Not quite so prevalent or overtly as it has been before (thanks to Suffrage and efforts of feminists past), but enough that there are still a number of issues to address.

Do I believe this is the case? I prefer to earn my beliefs through reasoning and research, and due to lack of study, I can't confidently and earnestly say that I "believe" this is the state of affairs. But on the basis that I'll take the word of those more educated than I that something is amiss, I'll say that I do believe that there presently continue to be systemic imbalances. Because if a whole lot of people are bringing up these issues again and again (as is the case in our present age), then there must surely be something afoot.

Perhaps best put, I believe the above as a principle, but I don't know the details on any of the specifics (or I don't trust myself to be able speak intelligently as to those specifics). So it's a case of belief ("this is probably the case") versus belief ("I know this to be the case"). But I digress.



It seems I lean more toward liberalism than radicalism. At the very least, the concepts of gender and sex seem useful labels for the purpose of identity and categorization. These things clearly do exist, so to try to pretend they don't (as in radical feminism) seems rather counter-productive. And I don't know anything about underclasses, so I'm ill-equipped to side with radicalism.

So, concerning your questions:

-I find equity more important (or of greater priority) than equality, but yeah, if there are systemic issues for any sex-gender combinations in any domain, then it's in our collective interest to address them.

-Sex is clearly a real quantity, since it's a physiological affair (chromosomes and hormones). I suppose the more grey area is to what extent sex informs gender, and the relation between the two. Gender may have some root in sex, but I imagine that it's also hugely informed by social norms and expectations.

But I'm inclined to think that, no matter the degree of influence, there's nothing about one's sex and/or gender that merits discrimination (scorn, aversion, chastisement, etc.), on account of its otherwise-arbitrariness.

-It does seem an issue, if you are consistently pressured to adhere to a set of gender norms when your innate gender expression or identity doesn't quite fit into such boxes and labels. Because I find the existence of these boxes unjustified, to discriminate based on how and who doesn't adhere to these norms is unwarranted, and so issues pertaining to this dichotomy are worth addressing.

-Do you mean how men are expected to be "manly" or "masculine"? As mentioned before, I find the way one expresses themselves to be arbitrary (unless it transgresses upon another, which I don't think gender does). So I see no issue if a man likes "girly" things, or behaves in "feminine" ways, or what have you. I have observed, IRL and in media, that men who don't conform or adhere to such a standard of masculinity may be demeaned or ostracized. As such, I'm inclined to believe that indeed, there is an implicit (and unwarranted) issue in this regard.

Given all this, then, it seems liberal feminist is an apt descriptor of my working views.

So you're a pretty mainstream liberal feminist, with an exception.

If, historically, men have had the dominant influence in the social and political domain -- which I take it to be the case -- then the work would lie in bringing about equity for all. Better to grant lacking privileges than to strip existing ones, unless existing ones can't be rationally justified.

So I suppose I can't be an MRA, if that entails that I think women have historically oppressed men on a systemic scale (more so than men have oppressed women).

If the above applies, I suppose I'm nominally a (liberal) feminist, in that A) I support equity across the board, and that B) it seems to me that it's more probable that there is overall a female<male imbalance, rather than a female>male imbalance. But I say that I am nominally so because I'm not yet savvy and don't do any real activism or promotion of feminist ideals. The most I do is try to not perpetuate things that don't make sense (i.e. not discriminating on the basis of sex and gender). Which, I suppose, is a start. 8P

Thanks for your input, in any case. It makes for a nice primer on the subject, at any rate. 8)

I mentioned that gender roles are not just for relative power to to also enforce social positioning, and this makes "lowering oneself" to take the feminine role highly socially disadvantaged. This is the root discrimination against homosexual men and mtf trans people as well, not to mention other issues like completely ignoring that men can be victims of sexual violence by women for example.

But the other consideration is that gender roles, because they're complimentary are intertwined. Fighting for male issues isn't in opposition to feminism, quite the opposite, the issue that feminism has with the MRM is that they see feminism's defeat as a necessary component.

Egalitarian roughly means 'pro-equality', so it is an excellent label for someone whose position is an abstract endorsement of equality on some issue. What definition, exactly, do you say MRM's are incorrectly popularizing? I'm well aware that the word is meaningful in contexts beyond gender (for example in ethics it competes against egoism and altruism). And I'm well aware that you don't necessarily forfeit your egalitarianism when you focus on one or the other gender.

I'm saying that you're incorrectly limiting it, egalitarianism is a necessary component to be in a gender issues movement (lgbtq, feminism, or MRM), not a specific philosophy towards gender issues.

Saudi women can't go to school or drive a car without permission from their fathers/husbands, yet Saudi Arabia has far less poverty than the USA. Please try to explain this situation without recognizing the obvious effects of regional culture and religion.

Many ethiopian families wealthy enough to immigrate to the USA want to practice FGM. Please try to explain this situation without recognizing the obvious effects of regional culture and religion.

I'm saying poverty creates culture which creates these issues, and saudi arabia has an extremely destitute underclass.

 

[Sehnsucht]

So you're a pretty mainstream liberal feminist, with an exception.

I mentioned that gender roles are not just for relative power to to also enforce social positioning, and this makes "lowering oneself" to take the feminine role highly socially disadvantaged. This is the root discrimination against homosexual men and mtf trans people as well, not to mention other issues like completely ignoring that men can be victims of sexual violence by women for example.

I've observed as much myself, IRL and in media. It's all rather absurd.

Since I find such things to be otherwise arbitrary, discrimination on the basis of orientation, sex, gender, race, class, and other things never made any sense to me. As a result, for me it's less out of a sense of righteous indignation that I oppose such things, but out of cerebral bafflement; these things can't be justified rationally, so why engage in bigotry at all?

Of course, this question can be addressed -- fear and hatred influenced by deleterious norms and lack access to education and media consumption and tribalist biases, or doubtless something along those lines. It doesn't make sense to me personally, which is why I don't engage in discriminatory practices.

But the other consideration is that gender roles, because they're complimentary are intertwined. Fighting for male issues isn't in opposition to feminism, quite the opposite, the issue that feminism has with the MRM is that they see feminism's defeat as a necessary component.

I don't think advocating women's issues need undermine men's issues, or vice-versa. Surely one can focus on one without undermining the other -- or even work towards the betterment of both.

And if the MRM sees the abolition of feminism as necessary, then I have to say the MRM suddenly seems rather shady. If feminism is the structure of (applied) ideas and thought supporting the resolution of women's issues, and the MRM opposes feminism, it would follow that they therefore oppose the resolution of women's issues.

I would imagine than an MRA would deny that they oppose such things, though (because it obviously sounds awful). Is it that the MRM opposes feminism's approach to these issues, or does it oppose the movement itself?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I've observed as much myself, IRL and in media. It's all rather absurd.

Since I find such things to be otherwise arbitrary, discrimination on the basis of orientation, sex, gender, race, class, and other things never made any sense to me. As a result, for me it's less out of a sense of righteous indignation that I oppose such things, but out of cerebral bafflement; these things can't be justified rationally, so why engage in bigotry at all?

Of course, this question can be addressed -- fear and hatred influenced by deleterious norms and lack access to education and media consumption and tribalist biases, or doubtless something along those lines. It doesn't make sense to me personally, which is why I don't engage in discriminatory practices.

Because those who engage in it don't recognize it as bigotry to be perfectly frank, it's viewed as simply the way the world works and criticism of these things are met with harsh backlash viewing it as ironically, inequality itself.

I don't think advocating women's issues need undermine men's issues, or vice-versa. Surely one can focus on one without undermining the other -- or even work towards the betterment of both.

And if the MRM sees the abolition of feminism as necessary, then I have to say the MRM suddenly seems rather shady. If feminism is the structure of (applied) ideas and thought supporting the resolution of women's issues, and the MRM opposes feminism, it would follow that they therefore oppose the resolution of women's issues.

I would imagine than an MRA would deny that they oppose such things, though (because it obviously sounds awful). Is it that the MRM opposes feminism's approach to these issues, or does it oppose the movement itself?

It opposes feminism's approach to those issues, but again it fundamentally opposes the idea that women are the more oppressed group historically. It believes in a matriarchy vs. a patriarchy.

That said, it's issues for men are legitimate it's just shallow because it doesn't do any deeper analysis of how gender roles create this problem, so there's no real criticism of masculinity and femininity.

The other thing which is may be more legitimate is that it disputes the position of feminism that agency is more important then inherent worth. The problem is that inherent worth is tied with extreme restrictions on sexuality.

Gender is a complicated topic.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I'm saying that you're incorrectly limiting it, egalitarianism is a necessary component to be in a gender issues movement (lgbtq, feminism, or MRM), not a specific philosophy towards gender issues.

Egalitarianism is (in this context) a specific philosophy towards gender issues - a philosophy endorsing gender equality. It doesn't necessarily imply a similar position on other issues such as race or class; indeed it'd be remarkable if everyone's beliefs about all types of equality so neatly coincided. And surely more types of equality will be recognized in the future, such as equality of species or natural-artificial intelligence equality. Do you claim that gender egalitarianism implies a position on these issues?

I'm saying poverty creates culture which creates these issues, and saudi arabia has an extremely destitute underclass.

OK, so how exactly did poverty cause Ethiopian FGM or Saudi female hypoagency? If we don't know how, then why believe that poverty is the true cause?

[The MRM] opposes feminism's approach to those issues, but again it fundamentally opposes the idea that women are the more oppressed group historically. It believes in a matriarchy vs. a patriarchy.

The MRM has no definitive ideology, and to my knowledge no MRA has ever argued for something as ridiculous as 'matriarchy theory'. Some accept the mainstream view that women were more disadvantaged (even oppressed) historically, while others believe that men's disadvantages were generally comparable to women's. The only definitive belief is that men's issues deserve attention today!

That said, it's issues for men are legitimate it's just shallow because it doesn't do any deeper analysis of how gender roles create this problem, so there's no real criticism of masculinity and femininity.

A major obstacle to MRA criticism of gender roles has been the pervasive anti-male bias in gender studies departments. Non-feminist views have practically no voice at those full-time university positions that let you analyze gender roles for a living, so it should be no surprise that they're under-represented in the literature.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Egalitarianism is (in this context) a specific philosophy towards gender issues - a philosophy endorsing gender equality. It doesn't necessarily imply a similar position on other issues such as race or class; indeed it'd be remarkable if everyone's beliefs about all types of equality so neatly coincided. And surely more types of equality will be recognized in the future, such as equality of species or natural-artificial intelligence equality. Do you claim that gender egalitarianism implies a position on these issues?

Quite the opposite, the point that is at issue is that egalitarianism as applied to gender has no actual positions and limiting it is a reframe.

Egalitarianism is the philosophy that all peple have equal worth and any movement that believes that it's pushing for equality is egalitarian by nature.

OK, so how exactly did poverty cause Ethiopian FGM or Saudi female hypoagency? If we don't know how, then why believe that poverty is the true cause?

Because poverty is the reasons that these things don't change in most of africa. The social customs pre-existed the poverty but to make progress with gender issues.

As far as saudi arabia realize that A. it purposefully radicalized it's population by feeding large amounts of money and power to Salafist clerics and B. that it imposes it's restrictions by law explicitly to placate those very same clerics.

The MRM has no definitive ideology, and to my knowledge no MRA has ever argued for something as ridiculous as 'matriarchy theory'. Some accept the mainstream view that women were more disadvantaged (even oppressed) historically, while others believe that men's disadvantages were generally comparable to women's. The only definitive belief is that men's issues deserve attention today!

I think you're not very well educated on the history of your movement, are you? It explicitly grew out of the idea of masculinism as a counter to feminism's beliefs in patriarchy, positing matriarchy as a counter theory.

The MRM is a specific position within men's issues not men's issues in general.

A major obstacle to MRA criticism of gender roles has been the pervasive anti-male bias in gender studies departments. Non-feminist views have practically no voice at those full-time university positions that let you analyze gender roles for a living, so it should be no surprise that they're under-represented in the literature.

There's disagreement with MRM, but you know what, the same was true of feminism in the past, if your philosophy wants academic positions you need to fight for them like feminism did.

 

[FirestormNeos]

No such thing. The issue is incorrect analysis. Is it in the net analysis, promoting, opposing, or simply not presenting a system where harmful gender roles

Third sentence confuses me.

Sorry that was a trick question because I had something to illustrate about attitudes about Islam as compared to reality and this is important.

Fun fact: When people are tricked, they tend to feel angry. This can either be good for an argument (I was tricked into mindlessly voicing a non-overtly islamophobic idea that I don't agree with in a thread about sexism. Therefore, I'm racist ) or bad for an argument (I was tricked into mindlessly voicing a non-overtly islamophobic idea that I don't agree with in a thread about sexism. Therefore, this person is trying to derail the argument and therefore has lost their credibility ).

Lemme further explain myself:

As for the Middle East, do you mean issues like female Genitalia mutilation?

Because I am not a robot attack dog programmed to kill anyone who doesn't do their research (which you were acting like for the sake of baiting me into saying something stupid), anything not in bold was interchangeable when reading:

"As for the Middle East, do you mean issues like women not being allowed to leave their home without their husband's permission?"
"As for Africa, do you mean issues like female genitalia mutilation?"
"As for North America, do you mean issues like women in college and the military being *****?"

I fell for the trick question not because I'm an illiterate dunce like this crude image is depicting me as, but because when I go onto a thread about feminism, I am looking for context about feminism, not about Islamophobia.

I'm trying to get a beat on what form of moral relativism you're talking about.

Nothing. Your mention of "ethics" simply reminded me of... something else...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Third sentence confuses me.



Fun fact: When people are tricked, they tend to feel angry. This can either be good for an argument (I was tricked into mindlessly voicing a non-overtly islamophobic idea that I don't agree with in a thread about sexism. Therefore, I'm racist ) or bad for an argument (I was tricked into mindlessly voicing a non-overtly islamophobic idea that I don't agree with in a thread about sexism. Therefore, this person is trying to derail the argument and therefore has lost their credibility ).

Lemme further explain myself:



Because I am not a robot attack dog programmed to kill anyone who doesn't do their research (which you were acting like for the sake of baiting me into saying something stupid), anything not in bold was interchangeable when reading:

"As for the Middle East, do you mean issues like women not being allowed to leave their home without their husband's permission?"
"As for Africa, do you mean issues like female genitalia mutilation?"
"As for North America, do you mean issues like women in college and the military being *****?"

I fell for the trick question not because I'm an illiterate dunce like this crude image is depicting me as, but because when I go onto a thread about feminism, I am looking for context about feminism, not about Islamophobia.

Sorry the intent wasn't to make you look like an idiot (I admit the picture was a bit much), rather the intent was to show that these issues are culturally rooted and very difficult to fully understand outside of the culture, without making mistakes. The illustration was by way of a trick question. Nobody is perfectly educated and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect that of you, especially since you're coming with questions.

The overall point of trying to illustrate this is an answer to the question of why doesn't american feminism concentrate more on these serious issues.

I think I just illustrated one of the primary reasons, most western feminists don't consider themselves anywhere near as well educated on the intricacies of non-western societies, which makes them prone to make mistakes, mistakes like the one you just made. It's not a big deal to state but when you're trying to convince these nations to make policy, it can be a BIG problem.

That's one major reason why western feminists that aren't specialists in those areas tend to back off, and often when they don't there's unfortunate results. For example, Ms. Sarkeesian, speaking about Japan, completely discounted their feminist movement. Not the only issue with her speech on the topic but it shows a great deal of ignorance of the culture. This reluctance is especially prevalent in modern feminism because of a legitimate anti-colonialism sentiment.

The other reason is simply practical, less control also these issues have less immediacy to a western feminist's life so there's not as much incentive.

Those 3 reasons are why feminism doesn't have anywhere near as much common discussion of non-western issues, and frankly because of "foot in mouth" syndrome, I'm glad of it.

So, that was my intent in the trick question, to illustrate by your actions. Showing is much better then telling and doing is even better then showing, it's not shaming the people who don't understand other cultures just pointing out why people who know they don't know about a given topic prefer to leave the topic to those more aware.

Nothing. Your mention of "ethics" simply reminded me of... something else...

Yep, I'm sure I know what you're talking about but that's not the only ethics discussion . So, got an answer?

 

[FirestormNeos]

Sorry the intent wasn't to make you look like an idiot (I admit the picture was a bit much),

Nobody is perfectly educated and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect that of you, especially since you're coming with questions.

Oh wow, thanks. That makes me feel much better.

I think I just illustrated one of the primary reasons, most western feminists don't consider themselves anywhere near as well educated on the intricacies of non-western societies, which makes them prone to make mistakes, mistakes like the one you just made. It's not a big deal to state but when you're trying to convince these nations to make policy, it can be a BIG problem.

Takes notes, U.S. Ambassadors.

That's one major reason why western feminists that aren't specialists in those areas tend to back off, and often when they don't there's unfortunate results. For example, Ms. Sarkeesian, speaking about Japan, completely discounted their feminist movement.

>reads article
>“The US bombed them back to traditional values – feminism does not exist in Japan. While I don’t like judging an entire culture… that does not excuse them.”

DID SHE ACTUALLY JUST...

Oh my god, I clicked the article to see if encouraging her to look up "feminism in japan" would be relevant, but this... this is...

I think I need to cry now.

Not the only issue with her speech on the topic but it shows a great deal of ignorance of the culture. This reluctance is especially prevalent in modern feminism because of a legitimate anti-colonialism sentiment.

Better to risk appropriation by engaging in cultural exchange then to simply shut everyone out and devolve into a xenophobic jack***.

Those 3 reasons are why feminism doesn't have anywhere near as much common discussion of non-western issues, and frankly because of "foot in mouth" syndrome, I'm glad of it.

[insert joke about people getting karate kicked in the head here]

So, that was my intent in the trick question, to illustrate by your actions. Showing is much better then telling and doing is even better then showing, it's not shaming the people who don't understand other cultures just pointing out why people who know they don't know about a given topic prefer to leave the topic to those more aware.

I see. Thanks for clearing things up.

So, got an answer?

An answer for what?

Yep, I'm sure I know what you're talking about but that's not the only ethics discussion .

Oh arceus... Just thinking about it gives me a migraine. X_X

 

[adumbrodeus]

>reads article
>“The US bombed them back to traditional values – feminism does not exist in Japan. While I don’t like judging an entire culture… that does not excuse them.”

DID SHE ACTUALLY JUST...

Oh my god, I clicked the article to see if encouraging her to look up "feminism in japan" would be relevant, but this... this is...

I think I need to cry now.

If you think that's bad, do some research on second wave feminism.

You may consider feminism overly timid now when it comes to colonialism and other group's issues but it's as a reaction to last wave being far too willing.

Better to risk appropriation by engaging in cultural exchange then to simply shut everyone out and devolve into a xenophobic jack***.

Well yes, but there's a problem:

There are two ways to avoid being "xenophobic jack*****", either learn or limit yourself to topics about cultures that you know inside and out while letting those who are capable work in that area, in other words specialization.

There are feminist advocacy organizations which specialize in these sorts of international topics and focus on dealing with these issues.

I think one of the most important facets of modern feminism is it's endorsement of specialization, I don't just mean international feminism, black feminism, men's issues, lgbtq issues, feminist activism recognizes that these issues need specialization otherwise the concerns are poorly addressed.

I see. Thanks for clearing things up.

No problem!

An answer for what?

What type of moral relativism.

Oh arceus... Just thinking about it gives me a migraine. X_X

Haha you and me both.

 

[FirestormNeos]

If you think that's bad, do some research on second wave feminism.

Well, there's always Martin Luther King Jr. to keep people in check, so it's worth giving them a chance--

*looks up second wave feminism*

Couldn't find anything. Mind providing a laundry list of problems with second wave feminism?

Well yes, but there's a problem:

There are two ways to avoid being "xenophobic jack*****", either learn or limit yourself to topics about cultures that you know inside and out while letting those who are capable work in that area, in other words specialization.

*Sees picture*

Oh boy, that's going to give me a migraine a couple weeks from now.

*Sees comment below*

Okay then.

There are feminist advocacy organizations which specialize in these sorts of international topics and focus on dealing with these issues.

ohhh... which ones?

What type of moral relativism.

The "everyone has different views on what is right and what is wrong, so who am I to judge those things?"

Haha you and me both.

On the bright side, that fiasco is the closest we'll ever get to a real life version of Predator Vs. Alien.