23
24

A Question Regarding Feminism (self.FeMRADebates)

submitted by ManisbugAnnoyed

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist 13 ポイント14 ポイント

Don't feel bad. I was banned from that sub for saying that young women are getting turned off to feminism because of fools who say things like all piv sex is akin to rape. The mod that runs that place is a nutjob.

That said, you won't like my dismissal of those supposed criticisms either. Because I look at those pictures, and what I see is kids, with very little life experience yet. My response is, "you don't think you need feminism YET."

The fact is, every woman who votes, holds a job after marriage or kids or during pregnancy, or goes to college is directly benefiting from feminism. Every man whose lifestyle is supported by a 2-income arrangement, or who wants to stay home with kids, or who finishes his degree while his wife works, or who cohabitates without marriage is directly benefiting from feminism. Everyone who believes in equality needs feminism, if for no other reason than the effects it's already had.

[–]ManisbugAnnoyed[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント

You know, I agree with you in many ways. I used to call myself a Feminist, since I supported all of its ideals. Then, about 1.5 years ago, a fucking tidal wave struck, and there has yet to be a single day without someone posting a feminist article or series of images. But the problem is, I'm 19. Everyone on my Facebook wall is from the ages of 19-22. They just care SO little about the facts, and they have barely even entered the workforce. But I have literally seen a post every. Single. Day. And all of the articles are as blatantly ignorant as the people posting them.

But I can't condescend them and tell them" You haven't lived enough to be this upset". I can't, because that would be condescending, considering I'm 19 as well. So I have to tell them why these articles are ignorant, I have to actually find and post news articles and official websites with statistics, and I have to PROVE to them that they're wrong. I only became anti-feminist when the unending barrage of hand-wringing and self-righteous bullshit crashed into the general populous. I refuse to stand with the blatantly ignorant incarnation that it takes, because I strongly believe that with the amount of teenage girls that call themselves Feminists now, that it is a vocal majority.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist 11 ポイント12 ポイント

I'm 40. It's just as condescending when I do it. I can just get away with it more often because of the age difference.

I can't say how feminism as a whole will evolve in the future, but I can condescendingly say that the 20 something's of the internet are not the sole definition of The whole of what feminism is today. I hope you will reconsider being anti-feminist and instead consider simply being anti-reactionary bs.

That said, I could see a future where feminism and the MRA movement fade and become obsolete and egalitarianism becomes the new successful movement. Unfortunately, I could also see a future where feminists and MRAs get even more divisive. Not real thrilled with that possibility.

[–]ManisbugAnnoyed[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント

To be honest, I only call myself an anti-feminist because the reactionary, kneejerk form it takes among the early 20-something crows is the only kind there is. Feminism is incredibly important for protecting things like abortion and contraception rights, and blatant, unashamed misogyny. It's also incredibly important because there are third world countries where you can, in all legality, gang rape a woman, pour acid on her face, and then stone her to death as punishment.

However, I see those articles about 1/3 the time that I see the reactionary ones, and they are posted by the same people. In addition, I have never once seen a single reference to a Feminist writer or activist from any point in history, except as part of one of the articles. I get into a lot of debates, and they are never even mentioned. I am effectively against Feminism because a well-researched, educated opinion about any of those subject matters cannot be found. I stand in opposition to Feminism because in my current environment and age bracket, it's the only kind that exists. There are no people that actually care enough about the issue to be offended by my rejection of it.

I don't even call myself a mens rights activist, because I don't feel oppressed, or any more so than anyone else. I think the world has a lot of problems, and calling myself an activist for everyone that I disagree with will take a long time to rattle off. I also think that the name "Feminism" is extremely harmful for a movement that supposedly preaches equality, but only does so for one side. I prefer not to label myself with divisive titles.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist 4 ポイント5 ポイント

The reason it's called feminism is because women were basically property when it started. It was, rightfully in my opinion, all about women at that time. The shift to also addressing men's issues came later in 2nd wave.

I have seen people your age who are equality feminists. It's often the irrational ones who are the loudest. I frankly don't think feminist theory needs to be 'researched". The over abundance of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is part of the problem (i say condescendingly :p). Feminism should not be a show of who can quote the most pop-psychology. Feminism should be about legal and social activism. I don't know a lot of misogynists who suddenly became equal rights advocates because they saw a YouTube video on feminist theory, and very few who are affected by more in depth theory. Conversation like this, online and in real life, where people talk like people - and lots of it. That's what shifts attitudes about people.

I called myself an egalitarian on this board til about 2 days ago. I decided to change labels to see how it effected responses to my posts - and also because after encountering two different absurd mods at feminist boards I felt like old school (or what I like to call "real") feminism needed some representation. In reality, egalitarian is probably more apt, because I get up in arms over any perceived inequality, but I'm not ready to completely give up on countering the shift in feminism. Not as long as there's pink legos for girls. :p

[–]zahlmanbullshit detector 7 ポイント8 ポイント

I decided to change labels to see how it effected responses to my posts

Have you noticed a difference, btw?

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

Yes and no. It has drawn out people with a chip on their shoulder against feminism. Comments that would, imo, likely be glanced over or ignored get more (and more hostile) responses, in some cases comments similar to ones made in the past with the other label. I have not seen any particular individual react differently to similar comments based on the label, but I have seen an upsurge in responders with the deep and passionate need to tell me I'm horribly wrong. Part of what prompted me to change was that I saw it happening in threads where two people would say similar things, and one would be ignored while the one with a feminist icon would have negative responses. But the annoying behavior of mods on supposedly feminist boards also was a motivator for me.

[–]MadMasculinistMasculinist 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The reason it's called feminism is because women were basically property when it started.

This is not even vaguely true.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

Care to elaborate?

[–]MadMasculinistMasculinist [score hidden]

Feminism started in the mid-60's. Women were not "basically property" in the mid-60's.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

Feminism did not start in the mid 60s.

[–]MadMasculinistMasculinist [score hidden]

Yeah, it did.

[–]ManisbugAnnoyed[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Huh, I've never seen pseudo-intellectualism as a problem in that vain. I don't really see people even make an attempt at rationalizing their arguments with any statistics outside of the articles that they re-share from other people. What I see isn't any form of intellectualism, but pure emotional hyperbole and irrationality. They only form of rationalization I really ever hear is "But look at all Feminism has done for women". But they can't name who did it. This isn't really something that bothers me too much, since fighting for the essence of Feminism is more important than knowing its detailed history.

What really bugs me is when I see constant articles quoting the "Women receive 77% of the pay for the same job", or "1 in 4 women have been raped", which are just statistically untrue with biased survey methods. When I say "research", I mean they will shove an poorly written article from a clearly biased Feminist website in your face without having the common sense to corroborate the statistics they are quoting with other sources. Their entire view of Feminism is shaped around falsehoods and unimportant issues, like whether "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is sexist".

I think that the term "Feminism" is pretty polarizing and largely useless when dealing with issues of actual equality. There are issues that need to be tackled around the globe SPECIFICALLY for women, without a second side for men. In middle eastern countries, women need to stop being openly and legally oppressed in every shape and form. In our own country, women need to have the right to have an abortion and to contraceptives. These are rights that WOMEN need, and the oppression they face results solely as a result of being women. I think that the word "Feminism" should apply only to these issues.

When dealing with societal gender roles and constructs, it only serves as a polarizer. Feminism can't tackle every single problem vaguely related to women in society. It just can't. You can't have the same movement attacking mass murder and rape across the country and also concerned with how women are portrayed in fashion magazines. That is a gender role issue, and one which manifests in different ways on both sides.

I think that "egalitarian" or "Humanism" are significantly better terms for across-the-board issues, especially those with gender roles. Tackling body image issues if something that should not be a "feminist" issue. Every time I see an article saying "look at the sexualized images these young girls are subjected to", I weakly raise my hand and say" Hey, you know I'm take off my shirt at the beach because glistening abs and huge biceps are as pervasive as huge breasts and a thin waist". I don't see why sexuality should be called a female or "Feminist" problem, in that a women is called a slut when she has sex with too many men, but I'm called a loser if I don't have sex with enough women. I get upset when "Feminist" women don't know that while women are more subject to more workplace sexual abuse, men account for 90% of work-related deaths. I think that every single "gender role" has an equal amount of unfortunate side-effects for both sides, and that dealing with them separately with "Feminism" and "The Men's Rights Movement" is entirely unnecessary and polarizing.

I think that detaching the word Feminism from statements like "I think a woman has the right to go outside without having to carry pepper spray and without watching her drink" is a good idea. That way, when someone starts to be self-righteous and emotionally indulgent, they will be forced to look objectively at both sides of the issue, and perhaps realize that through a constant waterfall of generalizations and being asked to "check my privilege", I am made to feel like a rapist pig, and I am made anxious just by making eye contact with women. I think that the disuse of the word "Feminism" will prevent me from looking like a misogynist when I oppose someone's viewpoint and lack of two-sided thinking, and it will encourage others to do the same.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

The check your privilege thing is annoying.

I think that every single "gender role" has an equal amount of unfortunate side-effects for both sides, and that dealing with them separately with "Feminism" and "The Men's Rights Movement" is entirely unnecessary and polarizing.

I agree and disagree. In theory, these should be two equality groups that each tackle different areas of the same core problem. Much like companies divide responsibilities. Men are more likely to actively see the the ways inequalities effect men and vice versa, so it makes sense for there to be two groups, ostensibly with the same overall equality goal, from a practical standpoint.

Unfortunately, human nature is what it is. So you get people who are sexist and divisive within these groups. That doesn't hurt the overall until those voices dominate, at which point those groups create a war instead of a solution. I think we're at the edge of finding out which way things will go in the long term with MRA and feminism.

I do understand your view, but I also want to reiterate the point about each of us seeing larger more what we personally experience. I also am not sure I agree with your murder/fashion mag example. Social attitudes are highly influenced by marketing. Changing overall attitudes is part of the solution.

This will seem like a stretch, but bear with me. Have you seen the studies about lead? We had a huge environmental move decades ago to switch to unleaded gas. Since then, crime has gone down, I believe proportionally (would have to look it up). Assuming that relationship is interpreted correctly, then all the anti-crime initiatives had less effect than changing that underlying and seemingly unrelated cause. going after sexist marketing is similar to me. It addresses an underlying cause.

I'll also throw out there that women's liberation was dumped as a term for similar reasons. No matter what you name it, any women's interest group will be viewed negatively by a solid number of people eventually until certain attitudes about women die off. Conversely, any men's group will be eyed with suspicion as an attempt to oppress women by women who think that way.

[–]ManisbugAnnoyed[S] [score hidden]

That's one of my issues. When tackling issues that effect both genders equally/ in different ways, I think the term "sexism" is largely useless. The man is portrayed as muscular Adonis, and the women is portrayed as seductive Aphrodite. I don't think it's "Sexist marketing". I think that the blanket word "sexism" has come to mean "I don't like this". It it's true for everyone, then labeling it "sexism" attributes some level of malice or single-sided ignorance, when the person who casted the women for an underwear magazine probably casted the men for another one. It's not a sexist, it's just an issue.

I agree that each side can only know their own experience, so it makes sense for it to be divided. But then again, that has never really worked. Then, everyone thinks that their own problems are greater, because they have been single-mindedly searching for their own issues. When you stare South for and see the boiling heat for long enough, you forget the North is freezing. Merging the movements together forces everyone to agree on a mission statement, and to allow for the verbal reprimanding of those who still only see each side of the issue, but from within the movement instead of as an outsider who can be labeled as a sexist.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

I agree with your merging concept. The Us/them bit doesn't work in the long term. So how does that get going?

I see sexism in telling men they must look powerful to look attractive.

[–]ManisbugAnnoyed[S] [score hidden]

I think a good start is to encourage Feminists to aggressively distance themselves and reprimand Feminist content which is condescending, engages in fallacious arguments, or doesn't look at both sides of the issue. I wouldn't be so vocally opposed to Feminism if I wasn't the only one who has a counter-argument for whenever something to that article is brought up.

[–]eDgEIN708MRA 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I like you.

[–]avantvernacularMRA/Reuben on Rye 5 ポイント6 ポイント

The point of a movement is to create the conditions of its obsolescence. I think a lot of people tend to forget that.

Edit: as an MRA I hope for the day I can say "the MRM is unnecessary, I will go do something else."

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

The point of a movement is to create the conditions of its obsolescence

I like that. Well said.

[–]zahlmanbullshit detector 5 ポイント6 ポイント

The mod that runs that place is a nutjob.

It's funny, because I see the same guy regularly get shit on for not being a "real feminist" by even more extreme people.

[–]KarmazeEgalitarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント

It's this sort of extreme devotion to academic feminism, where if it's not being said in this over-theorizing academic language that's been double-vetted it's worthless. Which does have a sort of self-moderating aspect to it, in such that it's basically strictly theory and has absolutely no relation to reality what-so ever.

[–]devilwaif [score hidden]

The fact is, every woman who votes, holds a job after marriage or kids or during pregnancy, or goes to college is directly benefiting from feminism. Every man whose lifestyle is supported by a 2-income arrangement, or who wants to stay home with kids, or who finishes his degree while his wife works, or who cohabitates without marriage is directly benefiting from feminism.

You say that as though feminism were some kind of empowering substance or animating principle, without which all these things would spontaneously end. (And, I must admit, that belief is consistent with a belief in patriarchy - of course there is no such thing.) But, in truth, the status quo was changed years ago. What has feminism done to help anyone lately?

Your examples, BTW, are rather poor ones. I know feminism claims women's suffrage as its first wave, but I find the politics of that time (not to mention the politics of the activists) to be rather disconnected from the second wave; in any case, all women received the right to vote not long after all men received it. The idea of the working mother (or, for that matter, the single father) is an old one, and not due to feminism. A man could just as easily have a 2-income arrangement and owe nothing to feminism by having a roommate; and, for that matter, what the modern man gains in household income, he loses in domestic support, not to mention decreased wages due to the labor glut. And there was once a time when it was feasible to go to college while working to pay for it, which owed nothing to feminism.

Everyone who believes in equality needs feminism, if for no other reason than the effects it's already had.

Not all of feminism's effects have been good (for men, for women, for society, for equality), and in any case, its past achievements are no reason to remain devoted to it.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

You say that as though feminism were some kind of empowering substance or animating principle, without which all these things would spontaneously end.

i said exactly nothing to indicate a belief it will spontaneously end.

(And, I must admit, that belief is consistent with a belief in patriarchy - of course there is no such thing.)

No it's not, and of course there's such thing as patriarchy. That's like saying there's no such thing as democracy.

But, in truth, the status quo was changed years ago. What has feminism done to help anyone lately?

There's a whole world out there. Whose status quo has changed? The U.S.? Europe?

Your examples, BTW, are rather poor ones.

You're welcome to your opinion. So far, I haven't seen much in your statements to make me think you view the big picture. And we clearly have severely different views of history if you think you can disassociate one part of feminism from another in that manner, particularly occurring in the span of mere decades.

Its past achievements are no reason to remain devoted to it.

This is the only thing you've said that seems at all logical to me. And you're right. However, when there are still problems to be solved - and there are - then past achievement of the nature needed is a good reason to stick with anything.

[–]dummbatzen [score hidden]

The fact is, every woman who votes, holds a job after marriage or kids or during pregnancy, or goes to college is directly benefiting from feminism. Every man whose lifestyle is supported by a 2-income arrangement, or who wants to stay home with kids, or who finishes his degree while his wife works, or who cohabitates without marriage is directly benefiting from feminism. Everyone who believes in equality needs feminism, if for no other reason than the effects it's already had.

In the US many people benefit from the actions of the Republican Party. In many countries people benefit from the Roman Catholic Church, in particular this can be said of Poland where the transition to a democratic system (with actual voting rights) was helped by the Catholic Church. Classical liberalism played an important role in establishing many individual rights in pretty much all Western democracies.
That being said, I am not convinced that feminism was necessary for women to get the vote or have jobs, but technical advancement and a risen economic standard certainly were.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

Oh wow. Yes, it was very necessary for those changes. We are likely not going to be able to find common ground.

[–]dummbatzen [score hidden]

We are likely not going to be able to find common ground.

As things like sociology have a place in universities, shouldn't the question about the necessity be in principle debatable using science? I am not telling you to waste your time, but shouldn't feminists not at least try to convince other people using empirical facts and logic?
Do you need Classical Liberalism? Do you need the Roman Catholic Church?

[–]Clark_Savage_Jr [score hidden]

Another problem is that if you want to cast that broad of a net for things a group has done that benefits another group, you will snag pretty much any missteps they have ever made.

[–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

Yes, but I'm going to leave that to someone with more energy and simply disagree. The kind of "evidence" that shows that would involve such a large scale. It's not a simple link to a few articles.

[–]A_Bored_Crab [score hidden]

So essentially this is just another " I am right - but I can't be bothered to prove it" type message? I am honestly curious as to how you are still allowed to post here..... Every time someone expresses a different opinion than you you end the discussion.

[–]tbri [score hidden]

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

  • As long as users don't break the rules, they are allowed to post here.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

[–]dummbatzen [score hidden]

You are not really fair; the issue is quite complicated and requires a lot of data to be reviewed. Nobody is paying u/stolenbypirates to give a series on lectures on the topic.

[–][deleted]

[deleted]

    [–]tbri [score hidden]

    Comment Deleted, Full Text and Rules violated can be found here.

    User is at tier 2 of the ban systerm. User was granted leniency.

    [–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

    Thank you.

    [–][deleted]

    [deleted]

      [–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

      That's an effed up story. That's not feminism though. In fact, I'd call enforced gender stereotypes the antithesis of equal treatment.

      What is it you think other feminists can do about nutjob mod beyond calling him out on Reddit when the subject comes up?

      [–]Olrock12Casual MRA [score hidden]

      See, from my perspective, feminists rigidly enforce gender stereotypes and roles, but just for men.

      I recently saw an article from every day feminist which stated men had a responsibility to ensure women are safe, and that we are obligated to protect women. Between stuff like that, and the uproar over shared parenting, child support, and alimony, it is safe to say that feminists do like gender roles, just the male ones that demand we provide for and protect them

      [–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

      Do you happen to have a link to that article? Sounds amusing.

      Those feminists do not speak for me. What you've just described sounds both absurd and short sighted. I mean, I do think we all have a moral imperative to protect each other, but that's completely independent of gender.

      I have no need to be provided for, nor do I have any desire to be provided for. I can only speak for myself, but the same is true for that article writer. The about us on the site itself seems pretty equality oriented.

      http://everydayfeminism.com/about-ef/

      So essentially, each person has a choice. Embrace the equality feminists while condemning the ones like you describe. Or condemn all of feminism based on the negative ones. I know which is more likely to create allies, assuming the end goal is equality.

      Same thing applies to casting judgement on MRAs. I've seen some horrid ones. And some fantastic ones. I choose to think there are differing beliefs and support the good principals rather than trying to weaken the entire thing with bla.met condemnation. Where's the gain in doing otherwise?

      [–]tbri [score hidden]

      Your post contains a link that doesn't use np. It is removed for now. Please edit it and reply to this comment and it will be reinstated.

      [–]StuntPotato [score hidden]

      /r/mensrights would love some participation. no need for np.

      [–]Jonas223XCMRA-leaning Egalitarian 0 ポイント1 ポイント

      The fact is, every woman who votes, holds a job after marriage or kids or during pregnancy, or goes to college is directly benefiting from feminism.

      How? By telling women that every male friend of theirs is a potential rapist? By telling them that, by attending college, they will have a 25% chance of being sexually violated? By teaching women that they can't compete with men in science/technology unless there are activism programs holding their hands along the way?

      Every man whose lifestyle is supported by a 2-income arrangement, or who wants to stay home with kids, or who finishes his degree while his wife works, or who cohabitates without marriage is directly benefiting from feminism.

      What about the divorced father who wants to be an important part of their kids life? Or what about the divorced father who wants to have financial independence and start a new life? How does Feminism help them?

      [–]WhatsThatNoizeLurker [score hidden]

      How? By telling women that every male friend of theirs is a potential rapist? By telling them that, by attending college, they will have a 25% chance of being sexually violated? By teaching women that they can't compete with men in science/technology unless there are activism programs holding their hands along the way?

      To be fair - those things do benefit those women, just not in a very healthy way.

      What about the divorced father who wants to be an important part of their kids life? Or what about the divorced father who wants to have financial independence and start a new life? How does Feminism help them?

      It doesn't - and neither did /u/stolenbypirates say it does. I think his/her point was that Feminism can be used to benefit everyone and does so in several ways. That Feminism is not a perfectly rational movement run by perfectly rational people is not in question here...

      [–]stolenbypiratesFeminist [score hidden]

      You're asking how when I gave you specific examples of how.

      I'm not going to address every issue there individually because one thing you said really gets my ire up, so I'm going to address that.

      Or what about the divorced father who wants to have financial independence and start a new life?

      Now, I'm totally on board with fixing alimony inequalities. But this appears to be criticizing child support. So let me make clear: when you have kids, you don't get a fresh clean start unless you give them up for adoption at birth (at which point they're not your kids) or you're a complete schmuck. You support those kids financially and emotionally. Those divorced fathers who think that shouldn't be the case can shove it. Feminism doesn't and shouldn't help them. It helps their kids.

      Regarding your criticism of the stats, the cdc puts that number at 1 in 5, and it's juvenile to claim the cdc or department of justice doesn't know what they're doing based on bloggers and Reddit land.

      To the rest I'll just say that you're not approaching the whole of feminism and you're attributing things to feminism in a simplistic manner.