What is the point of feminism?

[adumbrodeus]

I can virtually guarantee that if I had instead followed up with "Yeah! Hate speech and intolerance are exactly the same thing!" NOBODY would have bat an eye.

If that was true then they would mean the same thing. Words are defined by perception, that is the nature of language because it's purpose is to be understood.

The reality is that most people assume that the concept the person was trying to get at is that all hate speech is a form of intolerance because equating to suggest something is a subset of another thing is a common form of linguistic lazyness.

If we can't accept the same definitions then debating is an utterly fruitless endeavor. The most crucial aspect of communication is coherence, not subjectivism.

No two humans in the world have the exact same definitions of every word, common definitions are formed on by assent. What you are suggesting is sophism, not debate over anything of substance.

The reality is it's quite easy to discuss with people who use different definitions, all you need is to define your terms.

You're on my ignore list now, so don't expect any more responses.

Well you did get obliterated on pretty much every point and I didn't expect you to have to introspection to reconsider your views so this was the obvious result. Validation for the intellectually lazy, if I don't see my views being defeated it never happened!

If you were looking for an echo chamber for your views I suggest KiA.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

As far as conservative religious movements not wishing to completely deprive women of their agency, haven't you been paying attention? What about the Hobby Lobby decision? What about the recent furor over planned parenthood?(lets leave out the wider debate about the actual morality and look at it in terms of the more general push by the religious right to restrict women)

You continue to assume the worst about conservatives when better explanations are readily available. Planned parenthood (and abortion generally) is controversial because of principled disagreement about the value of human life in the womb. There wouldn't be such a legion of female pro-lifers (41% of US women) if the goal was to deprive women of agency. The church certainly represents patriarchy, but your attribution of sinister motives to social conservatives, that's baseless paranoia.

Consider this, what is the intent of affirmative action? To increase representation of a given group in fields that they're rare in. In the long term what does increased representation do? Break down stereotypes against their participation in that field. Of course in the US the purpose of most affirmative action initiatives is to counter unconscious biases rather then increase field representation. Note that this bias cuts both ways.

I agree that bias cuts both ways, and that stereotypes tend to magnify restrictive gender roles. In theory, this might justify some kind of affirmative action. But affirmative action in practice is horribly biased against men - for example, Sweden abolished affirmative action at universities when men tried to use it. Many American colleges continue to bias their picks in favor of women even though women are significantly over-represented in American colleges. Furthermore, affirmative action creates inefficiency by selecting students and employees with inferior qualifications. And when a gender gap is due to legitimate, resilient preferences that happen to be gendered, this inefficiency is a futile struggle against human nature. Affirmative action is inherently racist or sexist, and I cannot support racism or sexism on such flimsy grounds.

Not entirely sure what's overblown about it though, systematic power disenfranchisement is certainly worth weighty rhetoric, but so is systematic lower wellbeing. However power differentials often culminate in dramatic individual cases of severe well-being deprival, the greater the differential the more likely this is to overwhelm the well-being advantage of the more protected position.

Which brings me to my point, men's issues are real and important to discuss but do not invalidate women's issues. Both are worthy of weighty attention, but men's issues are not issues of lack of power, but lack of wellbeing. The assumption that lack of wellbeing is created by lack of power that permeates many men's movements is wrong, the correct answer is that it's created by competition.

Weighty rhetoric is sometimes appropriate, but mainstream feminist rhetoric is exaggerated, misleading, and ultimately self-defeating. **** culture, oppression, patriarchy, accuser as victim as survivor, believe the victim, **** as penetration, wage gap as sexism, domestic violence as a women's issue, false accusations as negligible, due process as **** apology, etc. Feminism's noble ideals are decaying into rotten buzzwords, and by needlessly hurting and alienating men it's also hurting women's legitimate causes.

It's gracious of you to acknowledge men's wellness issues. Certainly you're right that men's issues don't invalidate women's. This categorization, however, of the former as "well-being" and the latter as "power", is too simple. Many men's issues can be expressed in terms of disempowerment: consent to parenthood, conscription, and court bias, to name a few. "Competition" seems like a scapegoat, because any reasonably complete explanation of men's problems will include the same gender roles that underlie women's issues (are those also due to "competition"?).

 

[Rich Homie Supreme]

Yes, the 78 cents figure is not meant to discuss equal pay for equal work, rather it discusses the sum of wage differences due to systematic factors. Elements like being passed over for promotions at a higher rate, perceived relative incompetence to men in certain fields (and perceived competence in others, but it nets for a lower average), that's what the figure accurately represents.

The 78 cents thing is actually women EARNING less not MAKING less. We all know the huge difference between the two. I wish i could find those statistics for guys now but, I'll look for them later but, Women statistically work less hours and take more time off last I checked (not saying all don't work as hard as men, cause I know some extremely hard working women just that on average, they don't.), they are less likely to negotiate their salary, and they are less likely to even take the higher paying jobs in the first place. I don't doubt that there are problems women face in the west cut nothing as major as systematic discrimination, and the same for men.
Also yes, I tackled issues of well being because I'm not interested in talking about power when most individual men and women hold such little power to speak of in the first place. I see women having better well being in the US than men honestly.
Also I think that feminism has the wrong position. If they simply focus on women's issues with no regard for men's, then really what their heading towards isn't equality but feminine superiority, which was what I though was feminism's goal before actually reading up on it. Can't say that modern feminism doesn't have shades of that it in though with stuff like #killallmen, feminist hate mobs forcing Australian target stores to not sell gta because "it's a game about beating up prostitutes" despite the game never making you beat up prostitutes for a mission or achievement as far as I'm aware, teach men not to ****, and the feminist tactic of using shaming language to get out of any rational debate. My experiences with feminism haven't painted it in a very nice light.

 

[Kurri ★]

You're on my ignore list now, so don't expect any more responses.

Do you normally do this when someone challenges your beliefs and calls you out on your BS?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Each of those is a topic unto itself, so if you don't mind I'd prefer to tackle those tangents individually so as not to have a eye-glazing wall.

I am curious though, if you consider these unchangeable due to issues of fundamental human nature, why bother? Even where social psyche comes into play, I think in the long term it can be changed.

The 78 cents thing is actually women EARNING less not MAKING less. We all know the huge difference between the two. I wish i could find those statistics for guys now but, I'll look for them later but, Women statistically work less hours and take more time off last I checked (not saying all don't work as hard as men, cause I know some extremely hard working women just that on average, they don't.), they are less likely to negotiate their salary, and they are less likely to even take the higher paying jobs in the first place. I don't doubt that there are problems women face in the west cut nothing as major as systematic discrimination, and the same for men.

I'm not sure how what you said disagrees with me. What you stated are elements of this, as are them earning less due to field shaping and lack of promotions, as do they work less hours and tend to negotiate less.

This is still systematic differences in genders which needs to be dealt with, it's just that the issue is as much what women are taught and how they are expected to interact in society as what men are taught and how they interact in society.

Also yes, I tackled issues of well being because I'm not interested in talking about power when most individual men and women hold such little power to speak of in the first place. I see women having better well being in the US than men honestly.
Also I think that feminism has the wrong position. If they simply focus on women's issues with no regard for men's, then really what their heading towards isn't equality but feminine superiority, which was what I though was feminism's goal before actually reading up on it.

So the black liberation movement is inherently racist for not focusing on latino issues?

Feminism doesn't deny men's issues, but as an activist movement it's focus is women's issues, just like the LGBTQ movement's focus is queer issues.

Can't say that modern feminism doesn't have shades of that it in though with stuff like #killallmen, feminist hate mobs forcing Australian target stores to not sell gta because "it's a game about beating up prostitutes" despite the game never making you beat up prostitutes for a mission or achievement as far as I'm aware, teach men not to ****, and the feminist tactic of using shaming language to get out of any rational debate. My experiences with feminism haven't painted it in a very nice light.

That hashtag was a joke.

Earlier in my post I talked about people being taught how to interact in society, media is a major part of this. Hence why there were protests.

And every movement ever has people who use linguistic tricks to dodge rational dialogue.

 

[ilysm]

*pops in*

So I just found this thread for anyone who's still confused at this point the reason why it's called 'feminism' as opposed to something like 'equalism' is because it's the feminine traits that are so often shamed (or even just treated in a very weird way) by society at large. This is partly why being gay or trans (mtf trans at any rate, or nonbinary) or queer or crossdressing or dressing in drag or even just wearing makeup or cleaning the house or being a nurse or playing with dolls as a male is a stigma, I think. Because all of these traits are too 'feminine' and thus somehow wrong.

So if we're assuming that has the goal of feminism been accomplished? On a day to day basis? Pretty much a solid no. It still exists in this community (it's much less of a problem here than with many other online/gaming communities but still). People go nuts when they see a 'grill' commentating or playing Smash, which yes is a joke but it's kind of not funny and a little tired, especially when it happens every time. It's easy to turn statistics on wage gaps into days of debate but outside of that this stuff actually happens, and happens almost every day, and happens in this community. I was watching the APEX stream when Nyani went to bat against FOW. VGBC needed to lock the chat for a while because of the sheer amount of slurs, hurtful jokes, and hateful speech being flung around. This is how we stigmatize femininity. Hell, the entire Alex Strife incident? Definitely not representative of the community as whole but man if anyone can see things like this happening and conclude that feminism is over and we can all go home is missing something. It's one thing to say that feminism is done since women acquired the (basic, fundamental, guaranteed) right to vote or that feminism is done since we put up some posters of Rosie the Riveter during the second World War, but it's quite another thing to say that feminism has been accomplished since APEX this past winter and show's over guys let's wrap it up.

Saying the ideal goal of social justice is total equality is a bit misguided imo because any kind of justice or fairness isn't about everybody getting what everyone else gets, or even getting what they deserve. It's about getting what they need right now. And we still have a ways to go but we can do it.

*ollies outie again*

 

[ForTheLulz]

I'm not sure how what you said disagrees with me. What you stated are elements of this, as are them earning less due to field shaping and lack of promotions, as do they work less hours and tend to negotiate less.

This is still systematic differences in genders which needs to be dealt with, it's just that the issue is as much what women are taught and how they are expected to interact in society as what men are taught and how they interact in society.

Except that's exactly the point the other guy was arguing.
Women tend to work less hours and tend to negotiate less. That's the fault of the women. Not of the employers.
An employer does not systematically discriminate against women, causing them to lose less money.

Why are feminists arguing for advantaging woman's pay, when the factors for advancing it are entirely the woman's choice? Doesn't make sense to me ( :/ )

I was watching the APEX stream when Nyani went to bat against FOW. VGBC needed to lock the chat for a while because of the sheer amount of slurs, hurtful jokes, and hateful speech being flung around. This is how we stigmatize femininity.

What people need to realize about young women and twitch:
Twitch chats are cancer. In no way do these stay at home have not attended a tournament 14 year olds represent our community, the FGCommunity, or the gaming community as a whole. When people see a woman (or "GRILLL") as they call it on a stream, people are going to yell "GRILL!". That's how it works. That's how basically every game stream works.

I think when people bring up the argument of twitch chats when we argue that we are not open to women, they are arguing a strawman. We are.
The problem is that women think that the gaming community isn't receptive to them because of Twitch chats like these.

I think the best thing to do to introduce women into our community is to tell them that in no way do online comments represent the FGC, and more importantly smash, as a whole. None. Nada. Nil. Zilch.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I think the best thing to do to introduce women into our community is to tell them that in no way do online comments represent the FGC, and more importantly smash, as a whole. None. Nada. Nil. Zilch.

I agree, but we should take care to avoid hypocrisy. Twitch is to Smash what Tumblr is to feminism: a cesspool of casual trolling and rabblerousing. The "discourse" isn't to be taken seriously, and we should generally focus on the best that a community has to offer.

Each of those is a topic unto itself, so if you don't mind I'd prefer to tackle those tangents individually so as not to have a eye-glazing wall.

I am curious though, if you consider these unchangeable due to issues of fundamental human nature, why bother? Even where social psyche comes into play, I think in the long term it can be changed.

Was this for me? Reply in whatever manner you see fit!

Gender gaps are a mix of nature and nurture. They're partly vestigial remnants of bygone gender roles, but also partly rooted in biochemical differences. Egalitarian parenting habits are the best long-term, positive solution to gender inequality. Affirmative action forces an unsustainable, artificial kind of "equality" unless there's lots of discrimination to counteract.

So I just found this thread for anyone who's still confused at this point the reason why it's called 'feminism' as opposed to something like 'equalism' is because it's the feminine traits that are so often shamed (or even just treated in a very weird way) by society at large. This is partly why being gay or trans (mtf trans at any rate, or nonbinary) or queer or crossdressing or dressing in drag or even just wearing makeup or cleaning the house or being a nurse or playing with dolls as a male is a stigma, I think. Because all of these traits are too 'feminine' and thus somehow wrong.

What makes you think that modern society devalues the feminine? Shaming men for being unmanly could be about forcing men into the provider/protector role. Feminist rhetoric tends to devalue masculinity, blaming it for violence (rather than, say, how we shame or ignore needy men).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Except that's exactly the point the other guy was arguing.
Women tend to work less hours and tend to negotiate less. That's the fault of the women. Not of the employers.
An employer does not systematically discriminate against women, causing them to lose less money.

Why are feminists arguing for advantaging woman's pay, when the factors for advancing it are entirely the woman's choice? Doesn't make sense to me ( :/ )

Because while people individually are unpredictable, as a group they function in predictable ways based on average stimuli, in this case things like social expectations, upbringing and the like.

So even if the wage gap is entirely due to women settling for lower wages and elements like that, it's still a systematic difference that needs to be dealt with, that's why feminism tends to critique media, because that's how society transfers values. Your poor assumption is that I was placing the onus of sexism entirely on bosses when in reality I'm placing the onus on societal values which affect bosses AND employees.

Not that he is entirely right, the elements he cited are part of it, but lower promotion rates and subconscious field shaping are also part of it, and the reason this occurs is NOT because of conscious sexism, but because employers perceive them subconsciously as less competent depending on their field.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I agree, but we should take care to avoid hypocrisy. Twitch is to Smash what Tumblr is to feminism: a cesspool of casual trolling and rabblerousing. The "discourse" isn't to be taken seriously, and we should generally focus on the best that a community has to offer.

Stay on target, mate. We should focus on distinguishing lies from facts, do not turn this into a game of "disregard those guys" ping pong. Evoking the Twitch community was a deflection, avoid playing into their hands.

 

[ForTheLulz]

Because while people individually are unpredictable, as a group they function in predictable ways based on average stimuli, in this case things like social expectations, upbringing and the like.

So even if the wage gap is entirely due to women settling for lower wages and elements like that, it's still a systematic difference that needs to be dealt with, that's why feminism tends to critique media, because that's how society transfers values.

We need to deal with women being women? We need to deal with people being different? That's how I think you're putting it.
Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity.

I know about that study where "prospective employers were only shown a candidate’s physical appearance, making their gender clear, they were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman. This was because women were expected to perform worse on the math problems, even though it was a task they were equally like to do well. (Economist)"
However, the solution to that is not giving boosts to women at the disadvantage to men, it's a more reasonable solution, such as conducting blind interviews. A study somewhere (which I forget where) had shown that blind interviews for colleges more than twice increased the chances of minorities of getting into said college.

Advantaging women simply because they aren't as confident as the men would only be a detriment to the men applying to the job.

 

[Vexor1011]

We need to deal with women being women? We need to deal with people being different? That's how I think you're putting it.
Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity.

I know about that study where "prospective employers were only shown a candidate’s physical appearance, making their gender clear, they were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman. This was because women were expected to perform worse on the math problems, even though it was a task they were equally like to do well. (Economist)"
However, the solution to that is not giving boosts to women at the disadvantage to men, it's a more reasonable solution, such as conducting blind interviews. A study somewhere (which I forget where) had shown that blind interviews for colleges more than twice increased the chances of minorities of getting into said college.

Advantaging women simply because they aren't as confident as the men would only be a detriment to the men applying to the job.

In a sense it does need to be dealt with, yes. The way you phrase it, Dealing with "women being women" might just solve the issue. Would you care to elaborate more on your initial statement? Because right now, I'm not in your corner.

 

[Coolaid_Mix]

I am all for women's rights, but those feminists that complain because there is no female link in zelda and then complain when there is a female link makes me hate humanity

 

[Kurri ★]

I am all for women's rights, but those feminists that complain because there is no female link in zelda and then complain when there is a female link makes me hate humanity

It's because she's not a female Link. She's Linkle, a completely separate character, and even more, only playable in a spin-off title. We've still yet to have a true female Link.

 

[Coolaid_Mix]

It's because she's not a female Link. She's Linkle, a completely separate character, and even more, only playable in a spin-off title. We've still yet to have a true female Link.

Is that so? I was just told that there is a female Link in the game now. Isn't she basically link though?

 

[Kurri ★]

Is that so? I was just told that there is a female Link in the game now. Isn't she basically link though?

Really it just depends on how they develop her as a character. She is meant to be a genderswapped Link, but if she isn't developed to be an equal (i.e making her a fan girl of Link instead of a Hero of Legend or whatever) then it may be seen as a wasted potential.

Gonna be honest, I haven't seen too many complaints for Linkle aside from her name, cause Linkle isn't very flattering. The circles I frequent seem to be happy with her creation. I'm sure the people who are upset are either few, or would rather a main Zelda title feature a female Link.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Totally forgot about this thread

We need to deal with women being women? We need to deal with people being different? That's how I think you're putting it.

Well, ya. Women are just as capable of sexism and systematically reinforce the system just as much as men do. If women are not motivated by their own liberation to seek true equality then they should do it to stop the reinforcement of a system that forces men to perform mental and emotional self-mutilation. Similarly if men are not motivated to seek true equality to protect themselves from this enforced mental and emotional self-mutilation they should do it for the equal agency and power of women.

Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity.

I know about that study where "prospective employers were only shown a candidate’s physical appearance, making their gender clear, they were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman. This was because women were expected to perform worse on the math problems, even though it was a task they were equally like to do well. (Economist)"
However, the solution to that is not giving boosts to women at the disadvantage to men, it's a more reasonable solution, such as conducting blind interviews. A study somewhere (which I forget where) had shown that blind interviews for colleges more than twice increased the chances of minorities of getting into said college.

Advantaging women simply because they aren't as confident as the men would only be a detriment to the men applying to the job.

Again, we're looking at average outcome. Average outcome is as a result of social stimuli so while it's ridiculous to look for absolute equality in every outcome, if we had actual equality, results should be at least be very similar on the basis of sex with only slight variations brought on by the biological differences in sexual dimorphism, eg women will probably average better at competitive video games due to slightly higher average manual dexterity.

But the blind interviews is definitely part of the solution, but that doesn't fix issues like promotions and other performance evaluation based things. Nor does it fix women being socially trained towards attributes which are disadvantageous in male dominated fields and male dominated fields tending to value attributes which women aren't socially even when they're not inherently advantageous in the field.

You're certainly correct that ultimately we need to fix the underlying issues that disadvantage women in these areas rather then placing arbitrary handicaps or advantages as anything more then stopgaps, that builds resentment. That good sir, is why media portrayal is such a big target in modern feminism, because that's how these things are messaged to the next generation.

 

[Vexor1011]

Really it just depends on how they develop her as a character. She is meant to be a genderswapped Link, but if she isn't developed to be an equal (i.e making her a fan girl of Link instead of a Hero of Legend or whatever) then it may be seen as a wasted potential.

Gonna be honest, I haven't seen too many complaints for Linkle aside from her name, cause Linkle isn't very flattering. The circles I frequent seem to be happy with her creation. I'm sure the people who are upset are either few, or would rather a main Zelda title feature a female Link.

A female Link? Really? I don't see why that's necessary..

 

[FallenHero]

Wow guys, in what reality are you living? These posts are seriously narrow-minded.

Have you ever heard of countries like Saudi Arabia, India, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia... ?
You know what it is to be a woman there?

In most countries, being a woman is not an advantage. Denying that, you are fooling yourself.
Feminism is necessary in helping those societies evolve.

I am pretty sure there are more feminists in countries that already have (at least for the most part) equality between genders. I never hear feminists talk about the problems women face in other countries, they either just talk about the wage gap (which has been proven to be NOT REAL LOOK IT UP) or talk about how they are so "oppressed" and other personal issues that both genders can face. My problem with feminism in 2015 is just how unnecessary it is and even the people not part of the vocal minority of feminists that are bat**** insane don't seem to realize that. The definition of feminism on dictionary.reference.com says "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." not that it is "the advocacy of men AND women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to each other". A lot of feminists don't even understand that both genders are discriminated against, and the ones that do claim that feminism advocates for the rights of both genders when it is brought up even though the definition disagrees. Both genders are sexually objectified in video games, movies, etc. Women complain about how characters like Samus or Lara Croft are objectified and an unrealistic standard for women, but nobody ever complains about how a character like Captain Falcon or Bruce Wayne are an unrealistic standard for men.

Why do you set up such binaries? It isn't either or. And no, I do not call myself an egalitarian. In my first post I explicitly mentioned I was feminist.

Also, I don't identify as gay. Queer is the term I use in describing my sexuality. Keep that in mind? If that confuses you I'll explain.

And I watched half of the video. Please, don't expect me to watch any more. The guy already has already used the f** slur twice. Regardless of the point he's making, using that word hurts in a way I don't think you'd be able to understand.

Why should I listen to a straight cis white man tell me how to handle myself? Why should I continue to listen to someone who asks straight on if I'm "f***king slow" for being queer and supporting feminism? What right does he have to be an authority on my personal experiences?

And why do you listen to this stuff? Why not find queer vloggers? Let them explain to you what it's like to be queer, and how they've engaged with feminine/masculine expression, and where they've found acceptance.

Please, take care in the content you share. Regardless of your intention, you could really hurt someone. I've reported the post; there are many queer and disabled individuals who are part of this community, and this video directly insults both parties. This is the debate hall, yes, but one can debate without stooping to such a level.

I'm not going to sit here and watch the whole video, but I REALLY hope you didn't just report him just because you disagree with what he said.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I am pretty sure there are more feminists in countries that already have (at least for the most part) equality between genders. I never hear feminists talk about the problems women face in other countries, they either just talk about the wage gap (which has been proven to be NOT REAL LOOK IT UP) or talk about how they are so "oppressed" and other personal issues that both genders can face. My problem with feminism in 2015 is just how unnecessary it is and even the people not part of the vocal minority of feminists that are bat**** insane don't seem to realize that. The definition of feminism on dictionary.reference.com says "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." not that it is "the advocacy of men AND women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to each other". A lot of feminists don't even understand that both genders are discriminated against, and the ones that do claim that feminism advocates for the rights of both genders when it is brought up even though the definition disagrees. Both genders are sexually objectified in video games, movies, etc. Women complain about how characters like Samus or Lara Croft are objectified and an unrealistic standard for women, but nobody ever complains about how a character like Captain Falcon or Bruce Wayne are an unrealistic standard for men.

Wondering, have you read the rest of the thread?

We discussed the wage gap rather heavily and how it's primarily a measure of systematic elements like field differences, hiring differences, the expectation and reality of women's burden of childcare, and the like, most of which are the result of variances in social roles.

We also discussed how feminists tend to focus on their countries and when they due interact outside the NGOs they work with tend to be supportive, this is due to a history of "white man's burden" feminism.

We also heavily discussed men's issues as well-being issues and how they're complimentary to women's issues and reinforce each other. The role models that you criticize are a specific form and part of a wider criticism of how the expectation of masculinity harms men emotionally, which is distinct from how the portrayal of women in media reinforces social rules that deprive women of agency. Also I don't think anyone complains about samus except in other M.



And going back to this discussion which I intended to tackle individually.

You continue to assume the worst about conservatives when better explanations are readily available. Planned parenthood (and abortion generally) is controversial because of principled disagreement about the value of human life in the womb. There wouldn't be such a legion of female pro-lifers (41% of US women) if the goal was to deprive women of agency. The church certainly represents patriarchy, but your attribution of sinister motives to social conservatives, that's baseless paranoia.

Understand, my commentary isn't on the position, but rather on the political and social movement. As an ideal it is a question principaled disagreement over whether or not those in the womb count as human life. As a movement in the united states it is politically rooted in the religious right and complimentarism which is why it tends to extend to even things like contraception which is why I also mentioned hobby lobby in the same breath.

I think it's also important to point out that being a woman doesn't somehow mean that one doesn't support the systematic denial of women's agency (especially if they believe that women get the better end of the trade), after all, who defeated the equal rights amendment?

Also, this is an aside but to describe the religious right as "the church" is inaccurate. Different christian faiths have very different positions on this this and the religious right in the US is primarily influenced by neo-calvinism.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Understand, my commentary isn't on the position, but rather on the political and social movement. As an ideal it is a question principled disagreement over whether or not those in the womb count as human life. As a movement in the united states it is politically rooted in the religious right and complementarism which is why it tends to extend to even things like contraception which is why I also mentioned hobby lobby in the same breath.

Generally it is better to engage, when debating, with the ideals rather than the movement. For instance American feminism in 2015 is in principle about equal rights for women, but as a movement gotten sidetracked by trivial issues like manspreading, Tim Hunt's shirt, etc.

I think it's also important to point out that being a woman doesn't somehow mean that one doesn't support the systematic denial of women's agency (especially if they believe that women get the better end of the trade), after all, who defeated the equal rights amendment?

Women certainly don't view "systematic denial of women's agency" as a goal. They might value the "better end of the trade" or deny that traditional gender roles are as bad as this wording implies.

Also, this is an aside but to describe the religious right as "the church" is inaccurate. Different christian faiths have very different positions on this this and the religious right in the US is primarily influenced by neo-Calvinism.

Both are bastions of patriarchy in their own way. Describing all Christian faiths as "the church" isn't accurate either! It often refers specifically to the Catholic church, or organized Christianity, rather than the full spectrum of Jesus based beliefs.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Generally it is better to engage, when debating, with the ideals rather than the movement. For instance American feminism in 2015 is in principle about equal rights for women, but as a movement gotten sidetracked by trivial issues like manspreading, Tim Hunt's shirt, etc.

We're not discussing the rightness of the ideal though, we're discussing the political power of feminism versus it's idealogical opponents and the pro-life movement, due to it's strong affiliations with the religious right (who have been endorsing complimentarianism for quite some time), it's opposition to contraception, and it's general anti-sex positions, is a strong example of the power of feminism's idealogical opponents. Whether or not "pro-life" is the correct view doesn't change the fact that the movement is fundamentally an anti-feminist movement in it's current practicing even if we don't consider the question of abortion itself.

Women certainly don't view "systematic denial of women's agency" as a goal. They might value the "better end of the trade" or deny that traditional gender roles are as bad as this wording implies.

Well ya they wouldn't state it that way but fundamentally that's what women's gender roles are, lack of agency for protection. It's not unexpected that a significant number would either not question this arrangement as "how it's always been" or overtly endorse this arrangement.

Both are bastions of patriarchy in their own way. Describing all Christian faiths as "the church" isn't accurate either! It often refers specifically to the Catholic church, or organized Christianity, rather than the full spectrum of Jesus based beliefs.

That was my objection, you're phrasing it like a disagreement but you pretty much rephrased my point. Unless you're just disagreeing with the neo-calvinist point and what I'm more talking about a lot of the concepts bleeding over into the practice of other christian groups. The neo-calvinist influence among "traditionalist" catholics is especially obvious. This has a lot to do with history shaping perceptions of what it means to be a fervent christian in the US,

 

[FallenHero]

Wondering, have you read the rest of the thread?

We discussed the wage gap rather heavily and how it's primarily a measure of systematic elements like field differences, hiring differences, the expectation and reality of women's burden of childcare, and the like, most of which are the result of variances in social roles.

We also discussed how feminists tend to focus on their countries and when they due interact outside the NGOs they work with tend to be supportive, this is due to a history of "white man's burden" feminism.

We also heavily discussed men's issues as well-being issues and how they're complimentary to women's issues and reinforce each other. The role models that you criticize are a specific form and part of a wider criticism of how the expectation of masculinity harms men emotionally, which is distinct from how the portrayal of women in media reinforces social rules that deprive women of agency. Also I don't think anyone complains about samus except in other M.



And going back to this discussion which I intended to tackle individually.



Understand, my commentary isn't on the position, but rather on the political and social movement. As an ideal it is a question principaled disagreement over whether or not those in the womb count as human life. As a movement in the united states it is politically rooted in the religious right and complimentarism which is why it tends to extend to even things like contraception which is why I also mentioned hobby lobby in the same breath.

I think it's also important to point out that being a woman doesn't somehow mean that one doesn't support the systematic denial of women's agency (especially if they believe that women get the better end of the trade), after all, who defeated the equal rights amendment?

Also, this is an aside but to describe the religious right as "the church" is inaccurate. Different christian faiths have very different positions on this this and the religious right in the US is primarily influenced by neo-calvinism.

I skimmed through some of the posts on previous pages and read at least a majority of a few of the posts here, but you don't actually expect people to read through 4 pages full of lengthy posts right? I wrote that post before I skimmed through that much. I am not gonna sit here and read every single post on this thread. Remember when ZSS was revealed to have high heels in Smash 4 and people complained about it being sexist?

 

[FlusteredBat]

Feminists can't even be consistent about the perpetual victimization of women because it contradicts the empowerment narrative. They also deny the biological reality of gender differences yet never shut up about why women deserve special treatment.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I skimmed through some of the posts on previous pages and read at least a majority of a few of the posts here, but you don't actually expect people to read through 4 pages full of lengthy posts right? I wrote that post before I skimmed through that much. I am not gonna sit here and read every single post on this thread. Remember when ZSS was revealed to have high heels in Smash 4 and people complained about it being sexist?

Well I wasn't condemning, more implicitly suggesting a back read since myself and ForTheLulz discussed the wage gap in considerable detail.

And was not aware, but that sort of makes sense since it does detract from her core archtype. Bounty hunter in heels is... interesting. Wasn't aware she had heels though. Must not have been that big of a thing.

 

[Dutch Kirby]

Feminists can't even be consistent about the perpetual victimization of women because it contradicts the empowerment narrative. They also deny the biological reality of gender differences yet never shut up about why women deserve special treatment.

Well, there's a difference between biologial differences and differences in society. Just because there's a lack of biological differences, doesn't mean society sees it that way. For example, a girl with small boobies can't be topless, but an overweight guy can walk around shirtless while his boobs are bigger than the girl's. After all, society thinks female boobies are sexual, while they're not a sexual organ at all.

And 'special treatment', affirmative action, is needed. As long as men are more likely to get hired for good jobs, because of conscious or unconscious sexism, something must be done to stop that. If everything would already be a balanced 50/50, affirmative action and feminism in general would be obselete. At this moment, they are not.

There are no biological differences, and it's time to remove the societal differences. Only then, equality is truly achieved. Both blatant (seeing women as less worthy than men) and more subtle forms of sexism (gender stereotypes) must be dealt with.

So yeah, Kirby is a feminist, whether people like it or not.

 

[FallenHero]

And 'special treatment', affirmative action, is needed. As long as men are more likely to get hired for good jobs, because of conscious or unconscious sexism, something must be done to stop that. If everything would already be a balanced 50/50, affirmative action and feminism in general would be obselete. At this moment, they are not.

Of course Tumblr radicals and blatant man-haters are taking things too far, but most feminists aren't like that. It's sad that the extreme ones caused a stereotype that media and non-feminists (especially anti-feminists) took over, ruining the image of the movement, even though most feminists are not like that at all.

So yeah, Kirby is a (non-radical) feminist, whether people like it or not.

How the **** can you say you are not a radical feminist when you feel like women SHOULD have special treatment/advantages over men? You literally just contradicted yourself in the same post. If feminist are going to claim they fight for equality between genders, they should also avoid the oppressed becoming the oppressors.

There are no biological differences, and it's time to remove the societal differences. Only then, equality is truly achieved. Both blatant (seeing women as less worthy than men) and more subtle forms of sexism (gender stereotypes) must be dealt with.

Saying that there are no biological differences between men and women is just scientifically wrong. Are there biological differences between genders? Yes. Should they be treated differently by society for their differences? No.

 

[adumbrodeus]

How the **** can you say you are not a radical feminist when you feel like women SHOULD have special treatment/advantages over men? You literally just contradicted yourself in the same post. If feminist are going to claim they fight for equality between genders, they should also avoid the oppressed becoming the oppressors.



Saying that there are no biological differences between men and women is just scientifically wrong. Are there biological differences between genders? Yes. Should they be treated differently by society for their differences? No.

I don't think affirmative action qualifies as a radical position, it's far too mainstream in politics.

You also completely ignored why he agreed with it, he's not arguing for it as a permanent facet in society but instead as a solution for unconscious sexism based on the idea that a higher rate of inclusion into traditionally male dominated fields would change impressions of women in those fields ultimately ending subconscious sexism. This is similar to how India's program for the untouchable caste functioned.

Unfortunately wide recognition of the program has resulted in many perceiving it as unearned, resulting in furthering sexist and racist stereotypes. Even when it's being used strictly in a way that counterbalances the difference in rates of trashing resumes it still is percieved as being unearned and it even extends to fields where affirmative action doesn't exist (EG. Obama being referred to as the affirmative action president, implying that he was given it because of his race rather then being ideally positioned due to the politics of the time). Blind resumes help but only for initial resumes, interviews and the like still reveal gender and subsequent promotions are still affected. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good solution for this beyond changing subconscious attitudes, hence a focus on media criticism.

 

[FallenHero]

I don't think affirmative action qualifies as a radical position, it's far too mainstream in politics.

You also completely ignored why he agreed with it, he's not arguing for it as a permanent facet in society but instead as a solution for unconscious sexism based on the idea that a higher rate of inclusion into traditionally male dominated fields would change impressions of women in those fields ultimately ending subconscious sexism. This is similar to how India's program for the untouchable caste functioned.

Unfortunately wide recognition of the program has resulted in many perceiving it as unearned, resulting in furthering sexist and racist stereotypes. Even when it's being used strictly in a way that counterbalances the difference in rates of trashing resumes it still is percieved as being unearned and it even extends to fields where affirmative action doesn't exist (EG. Obama being referred to as the affirmative action president, implying that he was given it because of his race rather then being ideally positioned due to the politics of the time). Blind resumes help but only for initial resumes, interviews and the like still reveal gender and subsequent promotions are still affected. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good solution for this beyond changing subconscious attitudes, hence a focus on media criticism.

I never ignored why he agreed with it. Making women have advantages over men won't end subconscious sexism. Sure it might end it for men, but for women it might make them subconsciously sexist against men. I don't think affirmative action will do anything to help equality between genders. It is like forcing players to SD at the beginning of a match because they are using a higher tier character than their opponent.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I never ignored why he agreed with it. Making women have advantages over men won't end subconscious sexism. Sure it might end it for men, but for women it might make them subconsciously sexist against men. I don't think affirmative action will do anything to help equality between genders. It is like forcing players to SD at the beginning of a match because they are using a higher tier character than their opponent.

Women ARE subconsciously sexist against men, and themselves for that matter. The issue of gendering fields on the basis of primarily subconscious sexism cuts both ways, men are just as disadvantaged in traditionally childcare oriented fields as women are in STEM and finance.

Keep in mind I did point to my analysis of why affirmative action has issues, but it's not because there's something inherently wrong to giving a group a leg up as a temporary measure to fix fundamental flaws in subconscious attitudes, it's just that right now it seems ineffective.

 

[FallenHero]

Women ARE subconsciously sexist against men, and themselves for that matter. The issue of gendering fields on the basis of primarily subconscious sexism cuts both ways, men are just as disadvantaged in traditionally childcare oriented fields as women are in STEM and finance.

Keep in mind I did point to my analysis of why affirmative action has issues, but it's not because there's something inherently wrong to giving a group a leg up as a temporary measure to fix fundamental flaws in subconscious attitudes, it's just that right now it seems ineffective.

You seem to assume I don't know this just because I didn't mention it. I don't understand how giving a group a leg up over another will fix anything. Even if it is just temporary, that just means the group that isn't getting the advantage will temporarily be discriminated against for being in that group. The group that is getting the leg up could end up becoming exactly like what they fought against.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I wasn't making that assumption, I was confirming that as our starting point. Systematic sexism isn't individual, it's societal.

Even if it is just temporary, that just means the group that isn't getting the advantage will temporarily be discriminated against for being in that group. The group that is getting the leg up could end up becoming exactly like what they fought against.

The idea is to make it commiserate to the discrimination they experience as a way to cancel the two out, resulting in an overall null result. The way to avoid reversal is sunset provisions for when the discrimination is no longer an issue. In the case of sex since it's distinguished roles the proper result would be breaking both sides so affirmative action for men in traditionally female dominated roles like childcare paired with affirmative action for women in traditionally male dominated fields like finance.

Of course again this is great in theory but the problem of perception seems to sink affirmative action as a solution for societal sexism in the job field.