Feminism: internet vs. reality

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think the topic has somewhat derailed from the original intent of: "How is being a feminist a bad thing"?

Myself, Inferno, Aron Ra, (I assume by their contributions) SpecialFrog and HWIN are comfortable saying that we are feminists.

So, more precisely, I asked "How is the above definition a bad thing?" when the definition of feminism, as pointed by Inferno in his Why I am a Feminist blogpost from Emma Watson's HeforShe speech:

Feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

So why are we comfortable saying that we are feminists while others say they support equal rights and opportunities for men and women yet reject the term feminist, sometimes with passion?

So far, the best and it appears the only argument, against the label of feminist is that "it has been poisoned" by, "well, crap feminists". And thus the arguments move to, "well, why not use "equalist" or "egalitarianist"?

I still hold by the proposition that a new movement would be better than feminism, as the word itself has been poisoned by, well, crap feminists.

As I've said before, I prefer humanist as genuinely about equal rights as human beings.

There are numerous issues I have with this line of thinking:

1. Why should we pacifically accept a redefinition of the term "feminist" by its, as HWIN pointed out before I could, detractors? Are there any other terms we would accept be defined by those oppose to it?

2. Why should we paint the movement with the broad brush of a few ot its more extremist adherents? Again, is there any other movement where such a broad brush would be found acceptable?

So the two issues above lead to this one:

3. If we do let feminist be redfine by its detractors or be painted by the actions of its most extremists members and thus move to the terms "equalist", "egalitarianist" or "humanist", what happens when this new branding is equally poisoned by, "well, crap equalists"?

What happens when "the radical movement has poisoned the chalice with its ideological dogma/rhetoric, etc, which is why there are those who find the term (humanist) no longer acceptable"?

Do we move on to the next branding? And then the next?

So I don't see why we should pacifically accept that term feminist is no longer acceptable and let the detractors turn it into a bad word. The argument of "there are bad feminists so we should discard the term" is no more convincing to me as it would be if we replaced feminist with atheist.

The above has not addressed Master_Ghost_Knight's last comment to me, I don't to be perceived as someone who avoided responding:

But that is the all bloody point!
You had no problem providing concrete examples of past feminist causes.

That is indeed the bloody point: "So what if I can't name a right that I think women should have but don't today". I don't see why my support of equal rights between men and women should stop when they have it, which by the way they don't. That was the point of the comparison to race. I still support equal rights for all races too.

Just because on paper, by which I mean legally, men and women are equal or black or whites are equal, does not mean I should stop supporting gender or race equality.

And from what I understand, you support them too, you are only objecting to the term feminist and the only reason I could glimpse so far is because you think that since because legally they have the same equal rights, the issue is resolved:

Name one

Looking at only one of literally thousands of possible pieces of evidence, we find that out of 535 members of Congress (US), only 20 are women. The reasons put forward are manifold, but it seems that “family planning” plays no role here. Instead, it is thought that women doubt themselves more than men and are less likely to consider running for office. The evidence does not suggest that women are actually worse.

This undermining of women’s self-perception lies, I believe, at the heart of the issue. Sadly I can’t find the article so you’ll either have to believe me or not, but in a (New York Times?) article a few years back, an author asked women about their career choices. The overwhelming majority cited their self-perception (“I’m not good enough,” etc) as the main problem. This was (unconsciously) made worse by their mentors, who would encourage their male counterparts because they actively sought attention, while the females at the respective jobs didn’t actively search for encouragement (“If I’m good enough, I’ll be told”) and consequently didn’t feel like they were good enough.

Only the political aspect is controlled by legislation. They've passed laws guaranteeing equal pay, but statistically that still isn't happening; there's still a verified pay gap.

But the social issue is, (I think) more important, and legislation can't address that at all. For example, why is it that when a woman pursues her lust the same way as a man, he is admired as a player and she is denigrated as a slut -even by other women? This is a social attitude, easily ingrained in ignorance and difficult to change, because it requires awareness, comprehension, and re-evalation, things Americans typically suck at.

So that's two.

I'm 100% for equal rights, full support. But if you are advocating for something, and you want me to rally behind it, then you better have a concrete goal!

What exactly do you think is asked of you by saying you are a feminist? Being a feminist does not necessarily mean going on protest or advocating for reproductive rights in front of the media/politicians. At its least, it would simply of being supportive of equal rights for men and women and being mindful of your actions that may undermine them.

You say that you are supportive but by rejecting the term feminist for who knows what actual reason, don't you think that you might be in fact undermining the movement for equal rights?

Specifically addressing your answering of the objections I raised...

MarsCydonia, I understand your concerns at allowing any term being redefined by its detractors , or - as a result of the actions of the few - "crap feminists/etc".

Since "beauty is in the ear of the listener", one's at the mercy of whatever the listener thinks/believes a "-ism" to mean. However, this is less likely with the term humanism than feminism.

The real problem for me is that one's implying that one's viewing all issues from a woman's perspective.

I don't see that as a particularly useful way to think about issues - for me, it seems more reasonable to view things from the perspective of a human being, as much to help me get past the danger(?) of viewing things only through a man's eyes.

Feminism is a sub-set of humanism - in my opinion: the latter is a higher level of perspective due to this.

To give an example, the issue of marriage equality is not really a feminist issue - it has nothing to do with equal rights for women and men so much as equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Being a humanist I can view all issues regardless of their domain - as a feminist I can't.

I could call myself a feminist regarding issues relating to men/women but not with other issues that are not based on sex. I see it as a pointless term to refer to myself given that humanist covers all issues regardless of their domain.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Specifically addressing your answering of the objections I raised...

MarsCydonia, I understand your concerns at allowing any term being redefined by its detractors , or - as a result of the actions of the few - "crap feminists/etc".

Since "beauty is in the ear of the listener", one's at the mercy of whatever the listener thinks/believes a "-ism" to mean. However, this is less likely with the term humanism than feminism.

The real problem for me is that one's implying that one's viewing all issues from a woman's perspective.

I don't see that as a particularly useful way to think about issues - for me, it seems more reasonable to view things from the perspective of a human being, as much to help me get past the danger(?) of viewing things only through a man's eyes.

Feminism is a sub-set of humanism - in my opinion: the latter is a higher level of perspective due to this.

To give an example, the issue of marriage equality is not really a feminist issue - it has nothing to do with equal rights for women and men so much as equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Being a humanist I can view all issues regardless of their domain - as a feminist I can't.

I could call myself a feminist regarding issues relating to men/women but not with other issues that are not based on sex. I see it as a pointless term to refer to myself given that humanist covers all issues regardless of their domain.

Kindest regards,

James

Well said!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Can you instead give me an example of a right that you think blacks should have but don't today, and yet whites have?

No.

Would this mean that people should stop calling themselves civil rights aupporters?

No. nor have I defended that people can't call themselves whatever they wanted.

Or are you saying that racism issues no longer exists because blacks and whites have the same rights on paper?

If by issues, you mean Civil issues. Then YES! And I will clarify with an example.

Remember Ferguson? Someone started the chant that "black lives matter", and that was an important sentiment. A bunch of white people joined in, apparently with good intentions, and changed the slogan to "All lives matter". Well, no one would argue that's true, but it misses the point that black people are the victims of systemic inequity all over this country.

And now here is the kicker. If changing the slogan from "black lives matter" to "all lives matter" missed the point, chanting "black lives matter" was doubly so.
Let me even grant you for the sake of argument, that the officer was a racist, and that he killed Brown specifically because he was black.
Now here is my question. Why the hell wasn't there an independent investigation with third party outside the precinct? Why despite violating the the code of conduct and the rules of engagement, wasn't the officer prosecuted and convicted for murder? this sort of event happens because A) racism and B) officers have no consequence to deter their miss behavior.

Chanting "black lives matter" is not productive because it tries to focus policy on A). Guess what, there are no laws that specifically discriminate against against black people. There is nothing a legislator can do there. You can not legally stop people from being racists. What do you want to do? Do you want to implant a chip on a persons brains and give them an electric shock every time they have a racist taught? Is that what you want? Taught police?
Now here is the alternative. If they focused on B had chanted "Put murder cops in jail", you can bet your ass there would have been change. Because there is something concrete a legislature can do there. If officers started to go to jail for misconduct (and this would happen independently of the victim being black or white), you can bet they would think twice before doing something stupid, and you can bet that they would start receiving proper training to ensure that their asses don't end up in jail.
There is racism, yes, but framing everything as a race issue is counter-productive. It was not racial discrimination that was at fault here, what was a fault here was lack of persecution of police misconduct that allows officers to victimize people without consequences, including those who are racially motivated. And that is what people don't get. They like to protest, but have no idea what they want.

Another good example is Iceland, now regarded as the most feminist nation on earth. I was just there a few months ago, and the local male feminists were bragging that there even fathers get months of paid maternity leave, where the United States hasn't even guaranteed that for women yet! There is another advance for men's rights which was acheived by feminists.

:docpalm:
Are you serious?
In Iceland both man and women get paid maternity leave. But in the United States neither men or women get paid because of sexual discrimination?

Yup, no need for feminism in the privilege west.
Senate GOP Fast-Tracks Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood

Since when is planned parenthood about sexual discrimination?

I don't see why my support of equal rights between men and women should stop when they have it (...)
Just because on paper, by which I mean legally, men and women are equal or black or whites are equal, does not mean I should stop supporting gender or race equality.

And I'm saying that you should stop supporting any of those things. The problem with today's social justice warriors, is that they are not passive, they are active. They are trying to achieve things, bullshit things that are no real, they play the victim card to extort pity and money from people, they are putting their noses in things that are not of their damn business. They are trying to get artists fired because they don't like their portrait of women. They are trying to put men in jail who have done nothing wrong, bypassing due course, for bogus accusations of rape just because a woman said so. They accuse all men of being rapist, and trying to redefine rape for things as silly as looking at them funny and creeping them out. There a loonies calling for forced male sterilization. There are loonies barging in to private quarters disrupting an assembly of people discussing matters that do not agree with their world view. They call for censorship and taught police. And they do all this claiming themselves to be feminists.

I think the topic has somewhat derailed from the original intent of: "How is being a feminist a bad thing"?

But don't you see. It has not been derailed. You asked how can people have a problem about people being feminist.
The issue is that those people are not referring to the same thing. They are not against women's rights, they are against loud and crazy people and their crazy ideas, people who call themselves feminists and acting in a feminist movement. They just give the benefit of believing that they are indeed feminists fighting a feminist cause.
You can say, "Well that is not what feminism is about. Feminism is about equal rights and against gender discrimination, that other thing is not feminism, and calling those crazy people feminists is a misunderstanding and a misuse of the word.". It's Ok, it's just a word, you can have the word feminism, I will find some other combination of vowels and consonants to describe those people, let's say feminazis. I'm a feminist then, and I have a serious problem with feminazis.
It is just a matter that most people claiming to advocate for feminism are wrong in their label and are actually feminazis.

Is it clear now?

Looking at only one of literally thousands of possible pieces of evidence, we find that out of 535 members of Congress (US), only 20 are women. The reasons put forward are manifold, but it seems that “family planning” plays no role here. Instead, it is thought that women doubt themselves more than men and are less likely to consider running for office. The evidence does not suggest that women are actually worse.

This undermining of women’s self-perception lies, I believe, at the heart of the issue. Sadly I can’t find the article so you’ll either have to believe me or not, but in a (New York Times?) article a few years back, an author asked women about their career choices. The overwhelming majority cited their self-perception (“I’m not good enough,” etc) as the main problem. This was (unconsciously) made worse by their mentors, who would encourage their male counterparts because they actively sought attention, while the females at the respective jobs didn’t actively search for encouragement (“If I’m good enough, I’ll be told”) and consequently didn’t feel like they were good enough.

But the social issue is, (I think) more important, and legislation can't address that at all. For example, why is it that when a woman pursues her lust the same way as a man, he is admired as a player and she is denigrated as a slut -even by other women? This is a social attitude, easily ingrained in ignorance and difficult to change, because it requires awareness, comprehension, and re-evalation, things Americans typically suck at.

Men also don't apply for certain positions because they don't fell they could cut it. So what?
How can you blame a decision that a woman does on her own out of their own free will on sexual discrimination?

So that's two.

So that is none.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I recall the article to which Inferno is referring - and, like him, I'm finding it very difficult to track down: Google isn't always your friend.

There was a study more recently that explored the reasons for income inequality - again, Google is failing me - and showed that among the many reasons were choice of subjects in school, which affected later choices for college, and then work.

Whereas males chose science-oriented subjects - maths, sciences/technology, engineering - If women did go into the sciences, it was invariably at the "soft" end: sociology/social sciences.

The earning potential in academia and/or the private sector being materially affected as a result.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Personally, I can be more than one thing and have more than one perspective.
Being a feminist doesn't mean that I have to see everything in those terms.

 

[Syn_O_Myn]

It's easy to notice when the law openly prohibits women from voting, or owning property, or running a business. That's patriarchy too, by the way. It's easy enough to change laws, but a lot harder to change attitudes. There's a disturbing trend in this country to promote hate. The United States has actually become a lot more racist in recent years, and a lot more sexist too. When I posted my video, 'Reconsidering Norms', I was responding to excessive anti-feminist hatred, a situation which turned out to be completely unreasonable, and which has only escalated since. I'm tired of hearing men whine that women already have equal rights as far as the legislation goes, so why don't they shut up about everything else. Because that's not all there is. Feminism is about political, social, and economic equality to men. Only the political aspect is controlled by legislation. They've passed laws guaranteeing equal pay, but statistically that still isn't happening; there's still a verified pay gap.

But the social issue is, (I think) more important, and legislation can't address that at all. For example, why is it that when a woman pursues her lust the same way as a man, he is admired as a player and she is denigrated as a slut -even by other women? This is a social attitude, easily ingrained in ignorance and difficult to change, because it requires awareness, comprehension, and re-evalation, things Americans typically suck at.

Has the US become more racist and sexist, or has an underlying population of racists and sexists risen in response to recent events? Either way, I think we agree on the concept.

In your video, you described what your raising was like, and I think it would be relevant to mention mine. I to put it short, I was never expected by my parents to be hyper masculine or masculine in general and they granted me respect so long as I granted them respect, which I did. Neither one of my parents had authority over the other, and rightfully so. If you want to credit this to feminism, do so. I don't care. My neighbors were like this as well, where both parents have split power in decisions. I live in New Jersey, one of the wealthier parts, and while many people were roman catholic, most were not homophobic (from my perception of them).

Next, you say that anti-feminists are just saying, "Women have equal rights as far as the legislation goes, so why don't they shut up about everything else." Really Aron, I think even you know that its more complex than that. The people who are getting the most views on the "anti-feminist" side, probably ThunderF00t and SargonOfAkkad, aren't just saying "fuck off women, you already have rights". They discuss specific claims by feminists which demonstrate some level of dishonesty. And these aren't just fringe extremists, unless Anita and Ms. Watson are extremists, which I do not think you believe they are.

Before I strawman any you, I need to know what you believe the wage gap in America is at the moment. And in regards to sexual perception, I would say that it is in our society and we understand why it is exists, unjustifiedly, and I think you know why that perception exists as well. It does need to change, and that is something feminism has been attempting to change and rightfully so.

As I said before, whenever I hear how 'feminists' have poisoned the word, they're either talking about some fringe opposed by the mainstream, or they've been mislead by MRA nonsense, of which there is a fuck-ton, and it is all stupifying, really the worst arguments I've ever heard. So the best excuse I ever hear is "well, feminism is bad because,..."some feminist I met was rude to me". That's about as good as it ever gets, but it usually much much worse.

I'm 52 years old, and I remember this movement from as early as 1970, when people then were complaining that "those damned women's libbers were all man-hating bull-dykes". Back then, they said it about Gloria Steinem; now they're saying it about Anita Sarkeesian. They're still saying the same thing, for the same reason, and they're still wrong.

REALLY Aron, you cannot be serious. I presume that you know of at least ThunderF00t's series of videos? Possibly Sargon's and TL;DR also makes videos which discuss feminist topics. While yes, some feminists are on the fringe, you seem to support Anita as not a fringe feminist. She has made some good points, but she has also lied through her teeth, and then when someone points that out, its called harassment. We are talking about the internet here, where anonymity gives a guise of protection to people. While rape threats and death threats might be said on these forums, the people who are willing to threaten online are generally not willing to threaten someone face to face, let alone commit the acts. It just called internet flame, and when people flame you, you can ignore them.

So we have certain historic figures praised for their involvement in the feminist movement, and I'm not ready to throw them under the bus just because a few men feel insecure about identifying under the feminist label. How would that look? "Well Susan B. Anthony founded the Feminist movement, which was OK back then, but then Rebecca Watson didn't like creepers hitting on her in the elevator and that poisoned the word. So we're just going to shit on history now."
Like I said before, everyone who acknowledges that there still are social inequity issues has no problem identifying as a feminist, and everyone who objects to that label also denies that western women have any goals left to achieve.

That is preposterous to the highest degree. We can recognize that people like Susan B. Anthony were brave feminists who have impacted our society greatly and still disengage from a movement which has become volatile at its fringes and even has pierced in what you seem to imply is the mainstream. We do this in the same way that we can admire the original star wars trilogy while still criticizing the newer trilogy for being utter crap.

I guess you've never heard of Secular ProLife. That's just of several reasons why this is not an issue of secularism.

You suggested that we should discuss gender equality without using the word, 'feminism'. Why? There is no other word that applies here. Some people would suggest that we use 'egalitarian', but that won't do, (1) because that word traditionally implied the redistribution of wealth in a communist system where everyone has the same amount of money, and (2) because it is far too broad, meaning no discrimination of any subset without regard to any specifics. Even within the reduced egalitarian umbrella, if we're talking about religious discrimination, that's an issue of secularism, dealt with by the 1st amendment, or by similar legislation in other countries. If we're talking about ethnic discrimination, that's called racism, and is dealt with by means like affirmative action. If we're talking about the imposition of unfair gender bias, that's sexism, which is countered by feminism. What other word applies?

I guess you've never heard of Pro-Life Feminism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

You and I both know that just because one subsection of a movement disapproves of something the majority supports doesn't mean that the movement cannot make any progress towards the goal that the majority supports.

I now need to introduce a concept for you to consider. Definitions aren't always accurate and words can mean more than just the definition given to them. For example, if you google atheism, Merriam Webster calls it a) a disbelief in the existence of deity or b) the doctrine that there is no deity. We have seen in recent years the popular youtube atheists have denounced this concept, because atheism was more than that in the context often talked about and that it was incorrect, as atheism isn't a disbelief, as in convinced anti-belief, but instead lack of belief. Just because one definition has been true in certain contexts, doesn't mean that that definition is universally true for all contexts. The definition of feminism goes deeper than just a few words. While the definition you present isn't wrong, its just not specific enough. It doesn't take into account that three waves of feminism have washed over the last century. The third wave has brought to light reasonable concerns but also has been poisoned by the fringes. If you ditch the word and found a new movement, you can support the good without carrying the baggage of the poison. I have not said we ought to revert to a movement already poisoned by other implications, I support a movement that starts with a clean slate. If the civil rights movement was poisoned to the extent that feminism has been poisoned to, I would support a move to a new name too.

Because the feminism is the only movement advocating gender equality, and because they take the goal of "social, political, and economic equality with men" so seriously that they advocate for men's rights too, then there should be no issue whatsoever accepting that label if that actually describes your concerns too. There is no reason to construct an entirely different movement with the same goal, just because you find the name emasculating. Nor should you. I don't.

It is not because I find the movement emasculating, it is because the movement is poisoned by the fringe. College students, yes they may be fringe, will disrupt discussions that promote ideas that suggest that men can have problems too. I know you and other mainstream feminists would not do this, but it is the fringe that does, and the outskirts of the movement are the first thing that people see. I say the same thing for Islam and Christianity, if the fringe poisons the whole, abandon the name entirely and leave the fanatics to represent the movement. I would say the same thing for atheism if atheists started advocating for acts of atrocities against basic rights.

While descent may be genetically equal, it has traditionally always been that the wife takes the man's surname, because she is his property. That's patriarchy in regular practice. We do have a few social attitudes to adjust on a number of increasingly subtle issues, but that's why we should understand the purpose feminism still has.

I agree that the surname adoption is a remnant of what was a transaction practically, and should be dropped from our culture, but it sounds like you believe that it is still a transaction. I won't say that is what you were suggesting, but that is what it sounds like you were suggesting. If it was, I just have to say that women are capable, legally, of divorcing under the same conditions as men. And while some women are abused by their husbands or partners and refuse to leave, we have psychological explanations as to why it happens. For example, stockholm syndrome.

 

[AronRa]

Greetings,

I think part of the confusion over what the term "feminism" means is how it's perceived by both women and men.

3) Anti-men (radical, '80s/'90s) - where men are seen as "the enemy" who need to be curtailed (in order for women to gain equality) - this strain of feminism includes the rejection of science as "men's ways of knowing" in favour of "women's ways of knowing", aka the tautological "lived experiences (of women)", aka personal experience;

Wait, when did THAT ever happen?

I'm a feminist myself, and although I am not a feminist activist, I have been frequently associated with prominent feminists whom I know, and I am absolutely unaware of anyone who could acknowledge this movement you're talking about. Cristina Rad, Lacy Green, Greta Christina, Gloria Steinem, and even Rebecca Watson all speak against this sort of thing. So where did you get the idea that nineties feminists were secretly man-haters? Because the mainstream feminism movement is completely unaware of this.

My wife, who is a feminist activist also known to all these other people, demands documentation for this indefensible claim.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

I think part of the confusion over what the term "feminism" means is how it's perceived by both women and men.

3) Anti-men (radical, '80s/'90s) - where men are seen as "the enemy" who need to be curtailed (in order for women to gain equality) - this strain of feminism includes the rejection of science as "men's ways of knowing" in favour of "women's ways of knowing", aka the tautological "lived experiences (of women)", aka personal experience;

Wait, when did THAT ever happen?

I'm a feminist myself, and although I am not a feminist activist, I have been frequently associated with prominent feminists whom I know, and I am absolutely unaware of anyone who could acknowledge this movement you're talking about. Cristina Rad, Lacy Green, Greta Christina, Gloria Steinem, and even Rebecca Watson all speak against this sort of thing. So where did you get the idea that nineties feminists were secretly man-haters? Because the mainstream feminism movement is completely unaware of this.

My wife, who is a feminist activist also known to all these other people, demands documentation for this indefensible claim.

AronRa, have you not heard of radical feminism? Or "feminist epistemology"?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yup, no need for feminism in the privilege west.
Senate GOP Fast-Tracks Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood

Since when is planned parenthood about sexual discrimination?

Well, Planned Parenthood is not about sexual discrimination, but the drive to defund it seems to be. Planned Parenthood provides healthcare to low income women. Since (if I am not mistaken) less than 10% of their finances deal with abortions, the GOP want it shut down completely. Seems weird to me that a women's health organization is repetitively targeted by one party in the U.S. Seems to me if women were seen as equals, than one of the main focuses of a political party would not be to stamp it out, but perhaps expand healthcare for its citizens that are low income.

Oh, and is you think #BlackLivesMatter is only about cops killing black people, than you do not know anything.

 

[AronRa]

Has the US become more racist and sexist, or has an underlying population of racists and sexists risen in response to recent events? Either way, I think we agree on the concept.

I think both. All I know is what I heard reported, that there has been a significant increase in the number of hate groups since 2000, and a disturbing response of support for recent atrocities from the Charleston church shooting to Donald Trump's slurs against Mexicans. He actually rose in the polls because of that.

In your video, you described what your raising was like, and I think it would be relevant to mention mine. I to put it short, I was never expected by my parents to be hyper masculine or masculine in general and they granted me respect so long as I granted them respect, which I did. Neither one of my parents had authority over the other, and rightfully so. If you want to credit this to feminism, do so. I don't care. My neighbors were like this as well, where both parents have split power in decisions. I live in New Jersey, one of the wealthier parts, and while many people were roman catholic, most were not homophobic (from my perception of them).

Next, you say that anti-feminists are just saying, "Women have equal rights as far as the legislation goes, so why don't they shut up about everything else." Really Aron, I think even you know that its more complex than that. The people who are getting the most views on the "anti-feminist" side, probably ThunderF00t and SargonOfAkkad, aren't just saying "fuck off women, you already have rights". They discuss specific claims by feminists which demonstrate some level of dishonesty. And these aren't just fringe extremists, unless Anita and Ms. Watson are extremists, which I do not think you believe they are.

Yes, I've seen MANY videos hating on Anita Sarkeesian for getting more money than she asked for. I've seen several more grossly misrepresenting Rebecca Watson. Yes I saw a lot of dishonesty in the videos made about them. Don't tell me coffee = rape. I was at that conference, and I rode that elevator. So I know better. There was nothing wrong with what Watson did there, and others have severely distorted that story, making it into something it never was.

Before I strawman any you, I need to know what you believe the wage gap in America is at the moment.

Easiest answer:

And in regards to sexual perception, I would say that it is in our society and we understand why it is exists, unjustifiedly, and I think you know why that perception exists as well. It does need to change, and that is something feminism has been attempting to change and rightfully so.

As I said before, whenever I hear how 'feminists' have poisoned the word, they're either talking about some fringe opposed by the mainstream, or they've been mislead by MRA nonsense, of which there is a fuck-ton, and it is all stupifying, really the worst arguments I've ever heard. So the best excuse I ever hear is "well, feminism is bad because,..."some feminist I met was rude to me". That's about as good as it ever gets, but it usually much much worse.

I'm 52 years old, and I remember this movement from as early as 1970, when people then were complaining that "those damned women's libbers were all man-hating bull-dykes". Back then, they said it about Gloria Steinem; now they're saying it about Anita Sarkeesian. They're still saying the same thing, for the same reason, and they're still wrong.

REALLY Aron, you cannot be serious. I presume that you know of at least ThunderF00t's series of videos? Possibly Sargon's and TL;DR also makes videos which discuss feminist topics.

Of course I'm serious, and it is because I know Thunder, although I haven't spoken to him in years because of this. Understand that I have an emotional involvement because he and I were friends, and I spent months trying to defend him. He made that impossible. So I finally had to give up.

Most of our mutual friends are openly feminist. Some of them, like Cristina Rad and Ashley Paramour (pictured above) and certainly myself have spent hours and hours arguing with him, either face-to-face or on Skype, trying to reason with him about this. Go ahead and click the links. They have all complained to me that there is no way to convince him, or that he insists he has never been proven wrong about anything ever in his life. I think that's indicative of something. They tell me that one day he commented that anti-feminist rants get a lot more hits than science advocacy videos, and the next thing you know, a week later, that's what he's all about. Even c0nc0rdance, who never empathized with feminism, says that Thunder has gone a different direction than both of us. AndromedasWake, who created TheLeagueofReason forum, made a video saying much the same thing, lamenting Thunder's extremism. It's too bad too. I was at Q.E.D. in Manchester, and someone mentioned Thunder on stage, saying what a shame it was that he could explain science so well, but that he was so grossly mistaken about feminism. This was to a supportive audience of a few hundred like-minded people.

I've seen some of his videos, and I can only shake my head. I don't even want to talk about them; they're so disappointing. Reactions from the feminist community has only been laughter at his expense. Every time he posted a new one, I'd watch it and be embarrassed for him. I don't even subscribe to him anymore. I told you, I have never ever heard a good argument against feminism, but I've heard some really amazingly bad ones.

While yes, some feminists are on the fringe, you seem to support Anita as not a fringe feminist. She has made some good points, but she has also lied through her teeth, and then when someone points that out, its called harassment. We are talking about the internet here, where anonymity gives a guise of protection to people. While rape threats and death threats might be said on these forums, the people who are willing to threaten online are generally not willing to threaten someone face to face, let alone commit the acts. It just called internet flame, and when people flame you, you can ignore them.

Maybe you can. I can too, but it's because it takes a lot to scare me. A lot of other people can't be sure if someone is bluffing. If I threaten to kill you or harm someone in your family, how should you respond to that? Because I'll tell you, I had this conversation with Thunder. He said no one should take rape threats seriously, because it's just like when you tell someone, "I'm gonna kill you"; everyone knows you're just saying that. I told him that I don't say things like that, because I don't say things I don't mean. If I ever say I'm going to kill you, you'd better take that as a genuine threat, because it means that I seriously literally intend to forcibly terminate your life. If someone posts things like that about me or my family, my family demands that I take that seriously.

So we have certain historic figures praised for their involvement in the feminist movement, and I'm not ready to throw them under the bus just because a few men feel insecure about identifying under the feminist label. How would that look? "Well Susan B. Anthony founded the Feminist movement, which was OK back then, but then Rebecca Watson didn't like creepers hitting on her in the elevator and that poisoned the word. So we're just going to shit on history now."
Like I said before, everyone who acknowledges that there still are social inequity issues has no problem identifying as a feminist, and everyone who objects to that label also denies that western women have any goals left to achieve.

That is preposterous to the highest degree. We can recognize that people like Susan B. Anthony were brave feminists who have impacted our society greatly and still disengage from a movement which has become volatile at its fringes and even has pierced in what you seem to imply is the mainstream. We do this in the same way that we can admire the original star wars trilogy while still criticizing the newer trilogy for being utter crap.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. One of my favorite examples of a positive feminist attitude is the music of Halestorm.

We met Lzzy Hale back in May and my wife asked her if she was a feminist. Lzzy said no, because she thought that that word meant 'misandrist'. How sad is that? Because she would be an excellent representative of what feminism really is. That's what would happen to lessons on Susan B Anthony if we pretend that feminsim means what its critics want it to mean rather than what it really does mean.

I guess you've never heard of Secular ProLife. That's just of several reasons why this is not an issue of secularism.

You suggested that we should discuss gender equality without using the word, 'feminism'. Why? There is no other word that applies here. Some people would suggest that we use 'egalitarian', but that won't do, (1) because that word traditionally implied the redistribution of wealth in a communist system where everyone has the same amount of money, and (2) because it is far too broad, meaning no discrimination of any subset without regard to any specifics. Even within the reduced egalitarian umbrella, if we're talking about religious discrimination, that's an issue of secularism, dealt with by the 1st amendment, or by similar legislation in other countries. If we're talking about ethnic discrimination, that's called racism, and is dealt with by means like affirmative action. If we're talking about the imposition of unfair gender bias, that's sexism, which is countered by feminism. What other word applies?

I guess you've never heard of Pro-Life Feminism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

No I haven't, but I'm not surprised, since I've also seen articles showing black people defending the Confederate flag. You can find an atypical exception to anything.

You and I both know that just because one subsection of a movement disapproves of something the majority supports doesn't mean that the movement cannot make any progress towards the goal that the majority supports.

I now need to introduce a concept for you to consider. Definitions aren't always accurate and words can mean more than just the definition given to them. For example, if you google atheism, Merriam Webster calls it a) a disbelief in the existence of deity or b) the doctrine that there is no deity. We have seen in recent years the popular youtube atheists have denounced this concept, because atheism was more than that in the context often talked about and that it was incorrect, as atheism isn't a disbelief, as in convinced anti-belief, but instead lack of belief. Just because one definition has been true in certain contexts, doesn't mean that that definition is universally true for all contexts. The definition of feminism goes deeper than just a few words. While the definition you present isn't wrong, its just not specific enough. It doesn't take into account that three waves of feminism have washed over the last century. The third wave has brought to light reasonable concerns but also has been poisoned by the fringes. If you ditch the word and found a new movement, you can support the good without carrying the baggage of the poison. I have not said we ought to revert to a movement already poisoned by other implications, I support a movement that starts with a clean slate. If the civil rights movement was poisoned to the extent that feminism has been poisoned to, I would support a move to a new name too.

But you haven't even given me reason to believe that the word really has been 'poisoned', and you dodged my question above, highlighted in yellow. Like I told you before, if you have an issue concerning gender equality, even if it is an issue of men's rights, you can bring it to feminists to advocate on your behalf, because that's what they do, and they're the only movement to have ever advocated for gender equality. So what is the issue?

I often say that feminism can only be corrected from within. We've seen countless demonstrations showing how critics of feminism completely fail either to actually advocate men's rights or correct any of the issues which arise within the feminist movement. So the only way to fix this isn't to make up some other movement no one really cares about, and which won't actually do anything, but to constantly right the movement from within, so that it can be more successful where it is most needed. Because the middle east isn't going to respond to 'equalists'. That's one of those situations which especially need real feminist activists.

Because the feminism is the only movement advocating gender equality, and because they take the goal of "social, political, and economic equality with men" so seriously that they advocate for men's rights too, then there should be no issue whatsoever accepting that label if that actually describes your concerns too. There is no reason to construct an entirely different movement with the same goal, just because you find the name emasculating. Nor should you. I don't.

It is not because I find the movement emasculating, it is because the movement is poisoned by the fringe. College students, yes they may be fringe, will disrupt discussions that promote ideas that suggest that men can have problems too. I know you and other mainstream feminists would not do this, but it is the fringe that does, and the outskirts of the movement are the first thing that people see. I say the same thing for Islam and Christianity, if the fringe poisons the whole, abandon the name entirely and leave the fanatics to represent the movement. I would say the same thing for atheism if atheists started advocating for acts of atrocities against basic rights.

It always come down to this, the antifeminist claims to fit the one-and-only and still applicable definition of feminism, but simply objects to the name, as if that means anything, as if changing the name would make it alright, which we've already seen isn't true. For example, I am not a feminist activist myself. All I did was admit that that definition applies, which it does, and because of that, I have since had to invest more time arguing against anti-feminists than I have creationists, (tonight being no exception). Why? What fucking difference does it make, whether you accept that label or not? Why do you care if I do?

I have no doubt but that Christopher Hitchens was a feminist, because he eloquently expressed feminist ideals, but he never made the mistake of identifying by that label, because THEN you'd see where most of this "poison" is really coming from.

Don't expect any further responses from me until next week, as I'll in St. Louis for Gateway to Reason. Until then, I'll leave you with this sweet sentiment from Tim Minchin, an outspoken feminist and a personal friend of Rebecca Watson. Enjoy.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Seems weird to me that a women's health organization is repetitively targeted by one party in the U.S. Seems to me if women were seen as equals, than one of the main focuses of a political party would not be to stamp it out, but perhaps expand healthcare for its citizens that are low income.

Hasn't the exact same party tried to cut medicare, medicaid, food stamps, any and all social safety nets? Are they not a religious motivated group whit a clear pro-life agenda?

Oh, and is you think #BlackLivesMatter is only about cops killing black people, than you do not know anything.

Don't I? What has been the main focus all along?

 

[tuxbox]

In my opinion there are two types of feminists, legitimate and fanatics! The fanatical feminists, like all other fanatics, scare me. Fanatics causes the movement harm.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Seems weird to me that a women's health organization is repetitively targeted by one party in the U.S. Seems to me if women were seen as equals, than one of the main focuses of a political party would not be to stamp it out, but perhaps expand healthcare for its citizens that are low income.

Hasn't the exact same party tried to cut medicare, medicaid, food stamps, any and all social safety nets? Are they not a religious motivated group whit a clear pro-life agenda?

I did not make this clear and I went off on a tangent as well. You make a good point that the GOP is all about defunding everything (but the military), but the main difference when it comes to their stance against Planned Parenthood is that they preform abortions. When the GOP talks about defunding food stamps or other healthcare measures, it is under the umbrella of "fiscal responsibility". However, when it comes to Planned Parenthood, it is about "stopping abortions" (something that is already legal). Why the change in tact? Now, you also seem to be implying religion has something to do with this, and I would agree. However, the U.S. is made up of over 80% religious people, and just over 40% of voters are republicans. Thus, I cannot see this viewed as purely a religious issue (i.e. not ever theist is pro-life). Religion is a factor, but not the only one.

Oh, and is you think #BlackLivesMatter is only about cops killing black people, than you do not know anything.

Don't I? What has been the main focus all along?

One would think it was obvious from the monicker. It is about black people being able to walk home in their own neighborhood without being suspected of attempting a crime. It is about black children being able to play with toys without the cops being called on them. It is about black students being suspended from school for drug use, while white students get a "strong talking" for the exact same thing. Basically, it is about addressing the social injustice that happens to a population of people on a daily bases.

The thing I found the funniest about your earlier comment is that activists in Ferguson were saying exactly what you said (i.e. officers need to be held accountable for their actions). Why do you think that was not the case?

 

[MarsCydonia]

MarsCydonia, I understand your concerns at allowing any term being redefined by its detractors , or - as a result of the actions of the few - "crap feminists/etc".

Since "beauty is in the ear of the listener", one's at the mercy of whatever the listener thinks/believes a "-ism" to mean. However, this is less likely with the term humanism than feminism.

Hence my query of how did it come to this.

Unfortunately, your comment did nothing to alleviate my concerns. Do you disagree that the feminist movement was poisoned by the detractors or the "crap feminists"? You do not appear to so why should we (those of us who have no issues calling ourselves feminist), or even you, let the detractors enjoy a continued success of having redefined feminism as something it is not?

If you understand these concerns, can't you envision a better answer moving on to the more vast and vague term of humanist until the detractors of the humanist movement succeed in turn? Continually move on to the next branding when one term falls out of favor to the ears of a few? Should we let the detractors continually dictate the issues?

Here is the disagreement as I do not share the beliefs that this is the better course. I prefer to raise my voice or lend my voice to those that would say no. Both atheists and homosexuals have become more accepted because of the work of those who would not stay silent when some seeked to misrepresent atheism and homosexuality. It is not in me stay completely silent when some people seek to misrepresent feminism either.

The real problem for me is that one's implying that one's viewing all issues from a woman's perspective.

I don't see that as a particularly useful way to think about issues - for me, it seems more reasonable to view things from the perspective of a human being, as much to help me get past the danger(?) of viewing things only through a man's eyes.

Feminism is a sub-set of humanism - in my opinion: the latter is a higher level of perspective due to this.

I don't see the term feminism as implying that I should see everything from a woman's perspective. In fact, I view things from a man's perspective and I think that the only implication that should be seen from myself being a feminist is that I am supporting equal gender rights and as such I am not completely closed to hearing from a woman's perspective.

Being a humanist I can view all issues regardless of their domain - as a feminist I can't.

Being a humanist I can view all issues regardless of their domain and I can also do it as a feminist, as a secularist, as an atheist, etc. None of these terms are mutually exclusive and the problem I see is when someone is implying that any of these means I should rigidly view things from one perspective only and not be open to hearing from others.

I could call myself a feminist regarding issues relating to men/women but not with other issues that are not based on sex. I see it as a pointless term to refer to myself given that humanist covers all issues regardless of their domain.

You could call yourself both. I do.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Possibly Sargon's and TL;DR also makes videos which discuss feminist topics.

I have never seen a video of Sargon's but the pair of videos I have seen of TL;DR makes me doubtful he discusses feminist topics.

In one of the videos I have seen he presents a woman presenting feminism in the same lines as Emma Watson did:

“The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes".

The next line from him in the video was "that is not what feminism is".

So why should we expect TL;DR to make any legitimate criticism of feminism when he does not recognize feminism for what it legitimately is?

 

[tuxbox]

Gender Pay Gap in the States

Pay Gap in the Obama Administration

Legitimate Feminists are needed to fight for equality. That is my two cents.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Gender Pay Gap in the States

Pay Gap in the Obama Administration

Legitimate Feminists are needed to fight for equality. That is my two cents.

Here is a question. Why do you think there is a wage gap?
What are the factors that make it so?

 

[tuxbox]

Gender Pay Gap in the States

Pay Gap in the Obama Administration

Legitimate Feminists are needed to fight for equality. That is my two cents.

Here is a question. Why do you think there is a wage gap?
What are the factors that make it so?

I have not done enough research to answer those questions and I'm pretty sure I would not find any unbiased answers on Google. That said, the gap is there for whatever reason.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

MarsCydonia, I understand your concerns at allowing any term being redefined by its detractors , or - as a result of the actions of the few - "crap feminists/etc".

Since "beauty is in the ear of the listener", one's at the mercy of whatever the listener thinks/believes a "-ism" to mean. However, this is less likely with the term humanism than feminism.

Hence my query of how did it come to this.

Unfortunately, your comment did nothing to alleviate my concerns. Do you disagree that the feminist movement was poisoned by the detractors or the "crap feminists"? You do not appear to so why should we (those of us who have no issues calling ourselves feminist), or even you, let the detractors enjoy a continued success of having redefined feminism as something it is not?

I accept that - since the earliest form of feminism, ie, the suffragette movement - the acceptance of equal rights for women has been opposed, primarily by men, and also by women who accept the traditional relationship(s) between men and women. One has only to look at America's Constitution to see that it wasn't until the 19[sup]th[/sup] Amendment that women were granted equal rights to vote.

However, there is a stream of/in feminism that is misandrist - perhaps mainly borne out of the above opposition - which has damaged feminism in the eyes of many, and made it a uncomfortable, if not untenable, position to hold and term to use.

I should perhaps clarify, if only for AronRa's sake, that the two versions of feminism in my list - liberal and radical (at 2 and 3 respectively) are both forms of what's called "Second Wave Feminism".

Whereas the former are content to keep but change cultural institutions, the latter are determined to abolish what they see as incorrigible patriarchal, and thus oppressive to women, institutions. For example, marriage, which is seen as institutionalised rape, prostitution, and/or slavery. Morgan's definition of rape is problematic for men everywhere - if a boyfriend/fiancé/husband suggests to his girlfriend/fiancée/wife that they go to bed, even if she says "yes", it's rape. This comes back to my point about feminism being a woman-oriented perspective. There's also the implication that rape is intrinsic to heterosexual relationships - not lesbian ones. [Wiki's article on Radical Feminism is also interesting - including the Criticism section. Note the reference to "white, middle-class": this has led to a certain amount of ethnocentrism in dealing with the developing world and "rescuing" women and girls there - in order to receive US funding, governments and organisations must sign the (Christian Right instigated) Anti-Prostitution Pledge. Of course, many just sign to get the funding.]

Susan Haack and Janet Radcliffe Richards have addressed the issues of "feminist epistemology", and the anti-science attitudes of radical feminism.

As you may - or may not(?) - have gathered, I side with the liberal feminists.

If you understand these concerns, can't you envision a better answer moving on to the more vast and vague term of humanist until the detractors of the humanist movement succeed in turn? Continually move on to the next branding when one term falls out of favor to the ears of a few? Should we let the detractors continually dictate the issues?

Here is the disagreement as I do not share the beliefs that this is the better course. I prefer to raise my voice or lend my voice to those that would say no. Both atheists and homosexuals have become more accepted because of the work of those who would not stay silent when some seeked to misrepresent atheism and homosexuality. It is not in me stay completely silent when some people seek to misrepresent feminism either.

I understand your concerns - I just feel that it's pointless arguing a term that's already become sullied: you're dealing with, at least, half-a-century's worth of problems with the term - as Aron admits when he's attempted to clarify any misconceptions on identifying himself as a feminist. [Indeed, a radical feminist would probably reject the notion that a man could be a feminist(!)]

Humanism, in contrast, doesn't have that issue: it recognises equality of rights, regardless of ethnicity/culture, sex/gender/sexual-orientation, economic/social/political/national, etc. Indeed, humanism can hold its own against religions as it contributed to Christianity, etc.

The real problem for me is that one's implying that one's viewing all issues from a woman's perspective.

I don't see that as a particularly useful way to think about issues - for me, it seems more reasonable to view things from the perspective of a human being, as much to help me get past the danger(?) of viewing things only through a man's eyes.

Feminism is a sub-set of humanism - in my opinion: the latter is a higher level of perspective due to this.

I don't see the term feminism as implying that I should see everything from a woman's perspective. In fact, I view things from a man's perspective and I think that the only implication that should be seen from myself being a feminist is that I am supporting equal gender rights and as such I am not completely closed to hearing from a woman's perspective.

Understood - I'm not disagreeing with you on that, just on the usefulness of the term given that it was/is women who founded and are the drivers of/for it.

I don't wish to be perceived as "siding with" one or other gender - that opens one up to accusations of being sexist: the term itself, like masculinism, implies a female-oriented perspective, and hence bias.

Humanism/ist doesn't carry that connotation.

Being a humanist I can view all issues regardless of their domain - as a feminist I can't.

Being a humanist I can view all issues regardless of their domain and I can also do it as a feminist, as a secularist, as an atheist, etc. None of these terms are mutually exclusive and the problem I see is when someone is implying that any of these means I should rigidly view things from one perspective only and not be open to hearing from others.

I could call myself a feminist regarding issues relating to men/women but not with other issues that are not based on sex. I see it as a pointless term to refer to myself given that humanist covers all issues regardless of their domain.

You could call yourself both. I do.

When I was a Catholic, and started reading other religions, I realised I was in a rut - viewing the world as a Catholic. I then became a Christian, in the sense that I dropped the unconscious anti-Protestant attitude. However, I realised that other religions and their perspectives were just as valid - or invalid! - as my own, and became areligious. Later, I became atheistic.

Essentially, I climbed out of a series of ruts.

Feminism - like masculinism - is a rut.

Climbing out of either of those leads to humanism. Is there something higher than that? Well, if non-human persons are shown to exist, whether on Earth or through ET, then perhaps there'll be "personism" as the next higher rut - until something higher is found?!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have not done enough research to answer those questions and I'm pretty sure I would not find any unbiased answers on Google. That said, the gap is there for whatever reason.

If you don't know the source of the problem, concretely what do you want to do?