Feminism: internet vs. reality

[AronRa]

Likewise, if we look at it in the negative, then a non-feminist is one who does not advocate gender equality, which means they'll accept gender inequality, and that is exactly what 'sexist' means. What part of my observation is incorrect?

ˈfeməˌnizəm/ = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
ˈsekˌsizəm/ = prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

To put it more simply,
Equality for women = feminism;
women's inequality = sexism.

That a person can recognize gender inequality but decide that more pressing issues are needing our attention. For example, I have always recognized there is discrimination against women and against multiple races, but specifically black people in the US, but I have never gone to any rallies to fight it. I wouldn't call that being sexist or racist, but not taking interest in a problem. Only recently have I looked into this stuff, and when I did, I found that the feminist community was not presenting facts as they are and using crap statistics. I still wouldn't call this being sexist, nor being feminist, because I do recognize sexism, but I also criticize people willing to lie about how bad it is.

So regardless whether you yet understand the statistics, do you believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women? Or not?

Pointing out that statistics in common usage are wrong isn't minimizing a problem, its asserting reality is different than what you claim it is. You have not demonstrated that the stats feminists commonly assert are accurate, and when people present or do studies that conclude that those stats are inaccurate, you say that the presenter is antifeminist, as you did with Christina Hoff.

Wrong. As I said, when I saw her video, I appreciated her addressing any errors that might exist, because accuracy and accountability matter to me, more than they do to most people, and as I said, my first inclination was to thank you for proving my point that feminism could only be corrected from within; but as I said, I watched it all the way to the end, and then I realized that she was only a feminist in the sense that Kirk Cameron was an atheist. So I checked out her other videos and realized that she isn't a feminist at all; she's just representing herself as one. She is a fraud.

I initiated this discussion with hopes of hearing good points from the side I do not interact with regularly. As the discussion went on, I tried to demonstrate that the word feminism is poisoned by people like Anita. Anita did not do that which she promised she would despite being given more money than she requested and granted more time than she claimed she needed. If a creationist said they would produce 5 videos in a year if given a few thousand dollars, and then they took two years to make 3 videos with 25 times the amount of money they asked for, and those videos were riddled with misrepresentations of science (or video games in Anita's case), would you not say that that person poisons Christianity? For some reason, I highly doubt you would take his side.

Christian conduct tends to poison Christianity as a matter of course, but that's different than what we're talking about here.

You could argue that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao poison atheism, but even if they did, they wouldn't change the definition of the word. People hate that label so much that many times I've heard people say "just because I don't believe in God doesn't make me an atheist". But yeah, of course it does, because that's what the word means, no matter how much they hate that fact. I had the same kind of conversation with Neal deGrasse Tyson that I'm now having with you, because he hates the word 'atheist' so much, just like you hate feminist; but if you believe that women should given equal treatment within the limits of biology, then guess what? You're feminist.

Tyson also thinks that the atheism movement poisons itself. How much would it have to be poisoned before you could ignore the definition of the word, and pretend that it no longer applies?

You tried to argue that the word 'feminism' was poisoned by people like Anita Sarkeesian, but your argument failed for multiple reasons. (1) Her supporters, the people she reportedly defrauded, still support her, and she was even listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people. That's quite the opposite of the poison you're pleading for. (2) As I have already explained with just a few out of myriad examples, the poisoning came from outside the movement, from critics of women's equality, and their criticisms are a matter of historical record dating back well beyond my life span. Their attack has been relentless, and has not changed significantly, except that instead of calling Gloria Steinem a "man=hating bull-dyke" they're saying that about modern feminists, and accusing them of overreacting when they didn't, or of defrauding someone who still supports her. (3) Even if Rebecca Watson was a man-hating bull-dyke, and even if Anita Sarkeesian was guilty of armed robbery, both of those things combined would not, could not have any significant effect on what feminism means, nor diminish its importance as the movement or as a noble goal.

Remember also that 'atheism' is a term that has always been poisoned since its inception, and much worse than feminism ever will be. The way to correct that was not to invent a humanist or skeptic movement, but to own that word and defend the simple truth of what it is and always was.

The definition of feminism has not changed in the least.

Perhaps not the definition, but both the representation of feminism and the perception of feminism has changed quite a bit.

Nope. The only thing different is that I used to hear religious excuses justifying sexism, where now I only hear atheists trying to say that feminism is itself a religious belief, or that it has a lot of dogma, or some other bullshit mischaracterization; foremost among is minimizing excuses. Otherwise the feminist haters aren't primarily religious anymore; that's the only difference I see.

I said you are unwilling to revise the statistics you assert because you have yet to concede that the statistics you asserted were inaccurate. The US Department of Labor found that when accounting for all relevant variables (such as hours worked and occupation, but there are many other account for variables), the gap shrinks to between 5 and 8 cents. Yes, this is still a problem, and yes it must be addressed, but when known-to-be inaccurate stats are presented in the real stat's place, and someone calls that out, it is called minimizing the problem, when the reality is that presenting incorrect stats despite knowing that they are wrong isn't just lying, but maximizing the problem. This is what pisses me off, people who refuse to concede they were wrong and call the people proposing they were wrong liars. I have presented my evidence and evidence to suggest that the 77 cents on the dollar is incorrect.

Why did you have to present your evidence, your Maddox video, when my John Oliver video already said the exact same thing? Why do I get no credit for that? You've made a lot of false assumptions in the discussion. You assumed that my issue was the numeric percentage of the pay gap, as if a lesser number wouldn't matter, but the video I showed already explained that, and addressed it, making my point clear.

The problem with the definition of feminism is that it is too broad for this specific scenario. The movement has been poisoned by liars (I am neither saying nor implying that you are one of them), and that is the problem. The definition could be broad, which is fine, so long as the movement isn't populated by people willing to lie. If that was the case, I would not be here, and people probably wouldn't have such discussions. But it is because that there is a problem with the movement that I suggest that we move to a new word, one that, yes, is broad, but also has yet to be poisoned by people willing to lie to make a point. I want to fight actual sexism and racism, not the hyperbolic sexism and racism presented commonly in the social justice movement. Currently, there is no movement that does fight against sexism, but I did answer the question by preposing that we make a new movement, even if its just temporary, because the old movement has been taken over by lies.

You cannot complain that the definition of feminism is too broad when the option you're proposing is far more broad. Feminism deals with prejudice, inequity, but specifically on the basis of gender. The definition can't get any more specific than that, and if you think the problem is that the current word is poisoned, then stop poisoning it.

Yes, video games depicting whore houses and strip clubs objectify women, just like real whore houses and strip clubs do. Feminism is, as I said, simply an awareness of these things, and should be accurate of course. That means you shouldn't launch into hyperbole, pretending that sexist objectification is 'evil' or even consciously deliberate. Dehumanizing women wasn't the goal of the game, but that is what it does. The issue seems to be whether we can be aware of that, and admit that's what it is.

Except that objectification depends on perspective, something which you agreed with me on, so I won't say any more on that. But what you fail to recognize, or at least mention, is that all NPCs (non playable characters) in these games are objects to be acted upon. A guard being killed because you have to kill him is no more dehumanizing than a woman in skimpy clothing. Also, when heroes of games, such as Lara Croft of Tomb Raider, are given large breasts or generally sexually suggested clothing, it is called over sexualization, but when the devs hear that and change it by giving Lara Croft smaller breasts, short hair, and less suggestive clothing, people say it is taking away her femininity, and just telling the player that women cannot be heroes unless they take on typically male characteristics. It a lose lose situation for the devs, because they cannot satisfy everyone.

If I have not acknowledged the obvious, it's probably because it's obvious enough that I didn't needed to acknowledge it. So don't assume that I didn't notice it myself, just because I assumed that you did. I've been giving you much more credit than you've given me, even though you keep assuming and asserting things that aren't true. As I said, the point of this is to be aware of what we're doing, so that we can either tone it down or provide some options. Not every boy is going to grow up to look like BatMan or be rich like Bruce Wayne. But at least there is something positive to that, like there is with Lara Croft; whereas there is no arguing that the hookers in these games are just dehumanized.

what do you expect me to believe you would do if some other movement was invented for the same purpose, but with a different name?

I cannot answer that question correctly Aron, because it would require that I have knowledge of what you would think I would do if some other movement was invented. I expect that you would believe that I would present accurate statistics and demonstrate that a problem exists in the realm of wages and then attempt to advocate for the fixing of that problem. But I don't know that that is the case, after all, that question can only be accurately answered by you.

I can answer that question. I don't think you really care about any of the issues that are most significant to western feminism anymore, and that would still be issues under any other name. As I said, I'm not as concerned about political or economic equality as I am social attitudes and unfair double-standards. I promote women in academics, for example, but I also don't have a separate set of standards for their sexuality, which has historically wrought the worst judgements against them. So the appropriate way to deal with any of the claims of sexism is simply to consider whether you are, or appear to be, contributing to the problem, or making excuses for it.

You're still off-track. If by "shirt gate" you mean the scientist who held the press conference with the girly shirt, that was another lack of situational awareness, not a conspiracy to keep women out of anything.

The only people who gave a shit about his shirt were feminists, because they believed that the shirt was objectifying women. The shirt he wore was entirely irrelevant to the accomplishments he made, but people annoyed him because of it. It's just a shirt, it should not have been a problem.

Wrong again. A lot of people criticized that guy simply for not being appropriately dressed for a nationwide press conference. It wouldn't have been much different if he were wearing a Hawaiian shirt or the Black Sabbath tee that I have on right now. I wouldn't represent a team of scientists on CNN wearing this shirt!

In any case, you're wrong about what you said about 'shirt-gate', as that had nothing at all to do with any imagined "sexist conspiracy to keep women out [of science]".

I didn't dismiss anything; nor did I take anything as 'disgusting', but you seem to be arguing what you think I think and not what I actually say.

Apologies, you are correct. I intended to say that you dismissed the statistics I presented (in the form of the Christina Hoff Sommers video) as disturbing, not disgusting.

I didn't dismiss her statistics at all. Try not to assume so much, and you won't be wrong so often.

You did not say why the video was disturbing, but I can only guess that is was because the statistics were "minimizing" problems, when in reality they were accurately describing problems.

Wrong again. I did explain why it was disturbing, and her statistics had nothing to do with that. Until I got to the end of her video, I had no objection to her clarifications/corrections at all. It wasn't until the last one, when I realized, the way she was packaging all this, she was a propagandist. Then I checked out a few of her videos, and that's when I found her disturbing.

You also keep assuming that I must be dishonest. At the same time, you keep insisting that feminists (including myself and practically everyone I know) aren't what I know us to be, and you say this without any justification, and the statistics you cite do not support that case.

Except that the statistics I presented are more accurate than those previously presented, but you called those statistics disturbing, without any reason why, other than they are "minimizing" the problem. But that isn't the case, those statistics weren't minimizing the problem, they were accurately describing the problem, and trying to fight the problem must begin by recognizing what the problem is. People who refuse to recognize that the problem isn't as bad as they claimed it was are people who I would call dishonest, because despite being shown to be wrong, they stick to what they believe is correct and dismiss anything else as minimizing, dismissing, or ignoring the problem at hand, which is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do.

Hopefully by now you realize some of your mistakes here.

The 'Factual Feminist' (for example) did actually deny everything she could deny, and everything else she tried to minimize, excuse, or misrepresent. She's a fraud, because there is no point when she actually endorses any of the issues of feminism as both real and significant. So she is misrepresenting herself as a feminist. She's not; she's an apologist with quite the opposite mission.

Demonstrate that she was minimizing, excusing, or misrepresenting issues presented and demonstrate that she is a fraud, because, as far as I can tell, you have yet to do so.

It would be easier to ask you to find one video where she didn't do any of these things. In fact, I already did challenge you to find any videos where she actually promotes feminism, rather than systematically attacking it while pretending to be something she is not. Her scam is so obvious that I'm not the only one to notice it. According to RationalWiki: Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is a self-declared feminist (though third-parties[1] typically refer to her as an anti-feminist) author, and philosopher, who personally coined the term "equity feminist". She believed in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s, but made an abrupt about-turn, splitting with mainstream feminist thought in more modern times, in favour of a more conservative view on gender equality.[2] She criticizes adherents to third-wave and post-structural feminism as "gender-focused ideologues", inventing the phrase "gender feminism" to describe them (against which her "equity feminism" is placed in contrast) and characterizing them as a "movement that has abandoned equality in order to recruit for the struggle against the 'patriarchy'[3]

Yeah, so not a feminist at all, but an antifeminist apologist, attempting to systematically refute, ignore, misrepresent, hyperbolizeor otherwise dismiss or excuse every genuine issue feminists ever had. I had no cause to challenge anything in the one video you showed me, until the last point, but in some of her other videos that I've seen, she was clearly dishonest, primarily in her minimizing excuses and inappropriate ridicule As I said, she's a fraud.

I pointed out a long list of typical lies from antifeminists, and you have wisely denied them. Good.

I denied that I have done the things presented in that list, not that anyone else has or hasn't done those things. Many antifeminists have done those things, but I am not one of them.

Of course that's exactly what I meant.

My position on feminism doesn't depend on anything any particular person does. I don't have any dogma I have to buy into, and nothing I have to believe or endorse that I don't feel to be substantive or significant. My concern is primarily whether we apply double-standards on the basis of gender. A lot of antifeminists assume that I'm somehow unaware that we are a sexually dimorphic species, as if there are no differences, but what I'm really talking about are how we impose restrictions on the basis of gender that aren't imposed by our biology. What I get from anti-feminists in response is a systematic denial of any injustices imposed against women, and equivocation trying to make it all about men

I do hope you are not speaking of my in that last sentence. Not only have I recognized and concede the problems women face in regards to the wage gap, but I also suggest that we fight the actual problem, not the problem preposed by crap stats. That is why I do not identify with feminism, because while the problems exist, some feminists make them out to be worse than they actually are, and when someone points that out, it is called minimizing the problem. If feminist who do deny the statistics actually start accepting the statistics, and start fighting the actual wage gap, then I would very swiftly be willing to identify myself as a feminist. But I refuse to be a part of a movement which has people, even at its core, who lie.

Then you have no excuse not to call yourself feminist now.

My first encounter with this was 6 years ago. I mentioned how Jurassic Park was right when they said that all vertebrates are inherently female, that females are the staple of the species, as demonstrated by parthenogenic reproduction, and that it takes the introduction of hormones at the right developmental stage to make one male. I said that this is one of the things monotheistic religions got backwards, because they think everything is based on men and that women are made from men. This is a demonstrable fact, yet I was harshly criticized for having said it. The hostile reaction to my perfectly accurate comment was my first introduction to overt sexism within atheism. At the time, I thought we were all too progressive for that. I've been severely disappointed since.

People who disagree with that are very stupid. I side with you on that issue, but only because it is biologically demonstrable. I am stuck on things that have yet to be demonstrated.

I'm just noting one of a great many overt and obvious lies which have always poisoned antifeminism.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just a minor point:

According to RationalWiki: Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is a self-declared feminist (though third-parties[1] typically refer to her as an anti-feminist) author, and philosopher, who personally coined the term "equity feminist". She believed in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s, but made an abrupt about-turn, splitting with mainstream feminist thought in more modern times, in favour of a more conservative view on gender equality.[2] She criticizes adherents to third-wave and post-structural feminism as "gender-focused ideologues", inventing the phrase "gender feminism" to describe them (against which her "equity feminism" is placed in contrast) and characterizing them as a "movement that has abandoned equality in order to recruit for the struggle against the 'patriarchy'[3]

I think Hoff Sommers disagrees with the approach of the radical ("gender") feminists rather than that she's not a feminist - which is how her, invariably, radical opponents depict her to be. She is a liberal - her "about-turn" coincided with the radical movement's rise. As, I believe, I noted elsewhere, radicals want to abolish what they see as patriarchal oppressive institutions (like marriage), whereas liberals - like Hoff Sommers - want to keep but change them.

There's a difference between supporting equality and being anti-men, which is on what the "struggle against the patriarchy" is based/tends to focus. Equally, just because someone puts more store in the biological differences between the sexes doesn't mean that they're actively anti-feminist. Women who chose to be "stay-at-home Moms" in the US ran into the same problem - they were accused of somehow supporting the patriarchal oppression of women. This does not make them or anyone else anti-feminist. It's simply a individual's choice how they live their life.

Regarding the wage gap, there are a number of factors, involved.

For example, there are three main ways someone receives money from their employer:

1) Basic pay only;
2) Basic pay plus commission;
3) Commission only.

As a result, this complicates what's meant by "women are paid less than men" and "women earn less than men" - they're not necessarily the same thing.

Where a woman is paid an hourly-rate that's less than men, then this is clearly unjust.

However, if a woman (or man!) earns less - perhaps through working part-time rather than full-time and/or is not as good productivity- and/or sales-wise, which is how most commission is earned - then (s)he's going to earn less than another employee, regardless of whether that's a man or woman.

Personally, I think the main dividing line is the full-/part-time split between men and women, respectively. Since women are, invariably, the care-giver in a family, they tend to work part-time more than the man, so that they can look after the children. One should also note that this applies to homosexual relationships - one tends to look after children more than the other.

About the only way for that to be resolved is if both sexes/partners work equally in full- and part-time employment. I don't think quotas are the answer. Nowadays, both partners in a relationship need to work - quite possibly full-time - to support a family in the West due to the costs of living. Even here, there's bound to be a difference in pay/earnings where they work in different fields and/or employers.

As long as the basic pay - hourly-rate - is the same for everyone regardless of sex/gender, etc, in a given employer, then there shouldn't be any arguments over whatever wage gap remains.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[surreptitious57]

The standard definition of feminism is the social and political and economic equality of the genders. So since that is something I believe
in with out reservation then I am by definition a feminist and so I have zero problem with being defined as one. Now the reason why the
word references one gender over the other is to emphasise all the disparities which still exist between them even in liberal democracies
Which can be guilty of paying lip service to gender equality when it still does not exist in spite of significant advances made towards that
I am also an egalitarian though the problem with that particular word is that it is non gender specific. So inadvertently does not reference
the inequality between the genders that the word feminism does. This is why describing one self as a feminist is preferable to describing
one self as an egalitarian in such a context. Even though the differences between these two words is non existent so is entirely academic

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

On the issue of Nature vs Nurture, here's a interesting article:

Can genes make us liberal or conservative?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

On the issue of Nature vs Nurture, here's a interesting article:

Can genes make us liberal or conservative?

Kindest regards,

James

What about people, like myself, who are neither liberal nor conservative? Why is that left out the equation?

 

[WarK]

Greetings,

On the issue of Nature vs Nurture, here's a interesting article:

Can genes make us liberal or conservative?

Kindest regards,

James

What about people, like myself, who are neither liberal nor conservative? Why is that left out the equation?

I think it's more about your attitude to authority and change than what political party you support.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

What about people, like myself, who are neither liberal nor conservative? Why is that left out the equation?

I think it's more about your attitude to authority and change than what political party you support.

The study appears to show biologically-based differences between men's and women's attitudes. Or perhaps it's a difference between masculinised and feminised brains!?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

I think it's more about your attitude to authority and change than what political party you support.

I agree!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Now the reason why the
word references one gender over the other is to emphasise all the disparities which still exist between them even in liberal democracies
Which can be guilty of paying lip service to gender equality when it still does not exist in spite of significant advances ...

 

[tuxbox]

:lol:

 

[Syn_O_Myn]

So regardless whether you yet understand the statistics, do you believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women? Or not?

I believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women, and I also believe that it has already been achieved in the Western world or is so minute that it makes no significant difference.

Wrong. As I said, when I saw her video, I appreciated her addressing any errors that might exist, because accuracy and accountability matter to me, more than they do to most people, and as I said, my first inclination was to thank you for proving my point that feminism could only be corrected from within; but as I said, I watched it all the way to the end, and then I realized that she was only a feminist in the sense that Kirk Cameron was an atheist. So I checked out her other videos and realized that she isn't a feminist at all; she's just representing herself as one. She is a fraud.

Perhaps she is mislabeling herself, or lying, but I doubt she is a fraud just because what she calls herself is inaccurate.

Either way, I really just wanted to give the statistics to you in order to support the argument I am presenting. I do not care about Hoff Sommers herself, I just used her video as it quickly sums up the point I was trying to make, some feminists use inaccurate statistics and when people point this out, the statistics don't change in the speeches. When people, after being told they are wrong, continue to say the 77 cent figure, they are lying. And that is off putting to say the least.

Christian conduct tends to poison Christianity as a matter of course, but that's different than what we're talking about here.

You could argue that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao poison atheism, but even if they did, they wouldn't change the definition of the word. People hate that label so much that many times I've heard people say "just because I don't believe in God doesn't make me an atheist". But yeah, of course it does, because that's what the word means, no matter how much they hate that fact. I had the same kind of conversation with Neal deGrasse Tyson that I'm now having with you, because he hates the word 'atheist' so much, just like you hate feminist; but if you believe that women should given equal treatment within the limits of biology, then guess what? You're feminist.

Definitionally, yes, Tyson is an atheist, but he has a very good reason to not call himself one. He is trying to get information about cosmology, evolution, physics, ect. to as many people as possible and to make them see how our natural world functions and inspire them to learn more. If a fundy Christian sees Tyson calling himself an atheist, they can justify within their own mind dismissing the evidence he presents as "from the devil". In other words, calling himself an atheist would make the most important audience to reach dismiss what he is saying. Some will still do so regardless, but some will not dismiss it and accept it, so long as he does not reveal his lack of belief. I guess I am a feminist in the same way that Neal is an atheist. I would say I am an "in the closet" feminist. But I will not identify myself with a movement who has a very vocal fringe, especially college aged students, who want the world to be entirely at their feet, no criticism allowed.

You tried to argue that the word 'feminism' was poisoned by people like Anita Sarkeesian, but your argument failed for multiple reasons. (1) Her supporters, the people she reportedly defrauded, still support her, and she was even listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people. That's quite the opposite of the poison you're pleading for. (2) As I have already explained with just a few out of myriad examples, the poisoning came from outside the movement, from critics of women's equality, and their criticisms are a matter of historical record dating back well beyond my life span. Their attack has been relentless, and has not changed significantly, except that instead of calling Gloria Steinem a "man=hating bull-dyke" they're saying that about modern feminists, and accusing them of overreacting when they didn't, or of defrauding someone who still supports her. (3) Even if Rebecca Watson was a man-hating bull-dyke, and even if Anita Sarkeesian was guilty of armed robbery, both of those things combined would not, could not have any significant effect on what feminism means, nor diminish its importance as the movement or as a noble goal.

Kent Hovind's supporters probably still support him despite the fact that he has been demonstrated to be dead wrong on damn near everything and has actually gone to jail for tax evasion. Anita didn't evade taxes, but she did not fulfill her promises. But the people who have not supported Kent or Anita both would say, if they see either one is lying, that she is a liar.

And I believe that I have demonstrated poison coming from within feminism, by people like Anita failing to do what she said she would in the time she said she would do it in, and when she does make videos, they are rarely actually notable points. Furthermore, she demands that game developers change how they do their work to suit her instead of making games. And when feminists do make games, they are typically disappointing and fail to relate to people in the audience (like depression quest). And then when we learn that some of these feminists slept with game reviewers, we demand journalistic integrity, but then the journalists lash out against their own damn audience, calling the group "dead" and saying gamers are attacking women. It makes feminism look like a shit fest and harms it public image amongst the gamers in particular. Many women are game devs, and they make great games. If feminists want to change the gaming medium, they have create games which sell well. I don't think that most of the things that Anita presents in her videos are actually in need of change. Fucked up things happen in video games. There is literally a level in Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 in which you go into a Russian airport and kill hundreds of innocent civilians in order to start world war three. The mission is called No Russian. Look it up if you so please. But apparently the problem is that women are dressed in ways Anita doesn't like, and a majority of the games she presents were either irrelevant in the gaming media do to poor sales or are so old that they are the representation of video games as an beginning industry. For another example, college age people calling themselves feminists are directly and openly opposed to any form of speech which offends them, even if it is comedic in nature. Even the scummy pick up artists ought to be able to speak, regardless of what they have to say. Young adults and adults ought to be able to put up with a little bit of mean words. Finally, most of the actual criticism of feminists from outside the movement is genuine criticism and not just name calling. Maybe fox news calls feminists retarded or something, but most youtubers with a thousand views to their videos don't just name call.

After about a month, I have decided to rephrase what I am saying. What I have been trying to say is that the perception of feminism by non feminists, in general, has changed from a group of people advocating for the social, economic, and political rights of women, to a bunch of whiny middle class first world women complaining about video games and mean words. That change in perception was caused by actions taken by feminists like Anita and the college aged women who can't stand for an opinion differing from theirs.

Remember also that 'atheism' is a term that has always been poisoned since its inception, and much worse than feminism ever will be. The way to correct that was not to invent a humanist or skeptic movement, but to own that word and defend the simple truth of what it is and always was.

Nonetheless I still hold that Neal has good reason to not identify as an atheist given the current situation of atheism in the media being perceived as a toxic group, which to some degree is true. I hold the same reasoning for feminism.

Nope. The only thing different is that I used to hear religious excuses justifying sexism, where now I only hear atheists trying to say that feminism is itself a religious belief, or that it has a lot of dogma, or some other bullshit mischaracterization; foremost among is minimizing excuses. Otherwise the feminist haters aren't primarily religious anymore; that's the only difference I see.

Perhaps that is a sign that the people dedicated to advocating rational thought and skepticism are the ones turning on the movement which was once mostly opposed by the irrationally religious.

Why did you have to present your evidence, your Maddox video, when my John Oliver video already said the exact same thing? Why do I get no credit for that? You've made a lot of false assumptions in the discussion. You assumed that my issue was the numeric percentage of the pay gap, as if a lesser number wouldn't matter, but the video I showed already explained that, and addressed it, making my point clear.

I fought you over the John Oliver video because he specifically says at ~2:10 that the actual wage gap, when you account for relevant factors, is false. I was wrong to assume you entirely agreed with what Oliver was saying, sure, but I thought that it was an accurate enough representation of your opinion to criticize you over it. Had I known you accept the revised statistic, I would not have argued with you about it. But I had not known that. Furthermore, the wage gap will always exist in one direction or another. For example, young childless women earn 7 - 8% more than men in the US. This isn't a problem that I hear feminists speaking out against, nor should it be, as that is a narrow enough pay gap that it makes no difference, at least to me. Perhaps to people who live pay check to pay check need that to be revised, but the average person not living pay check to pay check would live without knowing the difference, practically speaking.

You cannot complain that the definition of feminism is too broad when the option you're proposing is far more broad. Feminism deals with prejudice, inequity, but specifically on the basis of gender. The definition can't get any more specific than that, and if you think the problem is that the current word is poisoned, then stop poisoning it.

i was wrong to say its too broad. The problem is that the definition of feminism and the representation of feminism by some feminist actions are not aligned. In other words, "equalists" has no extremists, at least not now. I do not know if it will solve the problems that feminism faces, but at least it will not already have been poisoned.

I've been giving you much more credit than you've given me, even though you keep assuming and asserting things that aren't true

I am fairly new to internet arguing, so sorry I make many assumptions about your perspectives. But tell me what I asserted in that paragraph you were responding to so that I can address it.

As I said, the point of this is to be aware of what we're doing, so that we can either tone it down or provide some options. Not every boy is going to grow up to look like BatMan or be rich like Bruce Wayne. But at least there is something positive to that, like there is with Lara Croft; whereas there is no arguing that the hookers in these games are just dehumanized.

Every single NPC is dehumanized in these games. Games would take too long to create and be too boring to play if every NPC you come across has a back story to consider. As I said before you can literally go play a mission in a game, a very notable one, in which you go slaughter hundreds of innocents in an airport who cannot defend themselves. What is the actual bad thing about having hookers or prostitutes in games. They add another layer to the game you play, and while taking them out completely would not affect the story, having strippers in Hitman, for example, adds another layer to the game, a layer of difficulty. You are specifically not supposed to interact with those women in any way. They are there to sneak past, not to watch sneakily.

I don't think you really care about any of the issues that are most significant to western feminism anymore, and that would still be issues under any other name. As I said, I'm not as concerned about political or economic equality as I am social attitudes and unfair double-standards. I promote women in academics, for example, but I also don't have a separate set of standards for their sexuality, which has historically wrought the worst judgements against them. So the appropriate way to deal with any of the claims of sexism is simply to consider whether you are, or appear to be, contributing to the problem, or making excuses for it.

I do not know what significant problems first world women face which i have not addressed already. For example, I said there exists a small pay gap which we should try to close, but I also recognize we probably will never fully close the gap because its just too hard to completely close a gap of its size. It will fluctuate back and fourth for a long time but I doubt it will one day no longer exist. I too think women should feel welcome into any field they want to go into, but if women decide not to go into certain fields, it might not be patriarchy, but just general lack of interest in the fields. Women tend to go into fields which benefit people directly in society more often than not. So if there exists a difference in percentages in certain fields, like physics or chemistry, perhaps its just that women don't want to go into those fields in general (some women might, but many more might not). Why is there no middle ground in your last statement. I don't think giving explanations for something is making excuses for it.

Wrong again. A lot of people criticized that guy simply for not being appropriately dressed for a nationwide press conference. It wouldn't have been much different if he were wearing a Hawaiian shirt or the Black Sabbath tee that I have on right now. I wouldn't represent a team of scientists on CNN wearing this shirt!

In any case, you're wrong about what you said about 'shirt-gate', as that had nothing at all to do with any imagined "sexist conspiracy to keep women out [of science]".

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress

Apparently, some feminists, dare I say many or even most, claimed that a shirt was what is keeping women from desiring jobs in science. Its bullshit. Adults should be able to handle a shirt. I wouldn't care if he wore a god damn bikini, his attire is irrelevant. People wanted something to rage over. I really would not care if a woman wears a shirt with buff men in speedos to a press conference. Its a freaking shirt, it should have been irrelevant, but because some people found it offensive, they made a big deal about it.

I didn't dismiss her statistics at all. Try not to assume so much, and you won't be wrong so often.

Fair enough.

Wrong again. I did explain why it was disturbing, and her statistics had nothing to do with that. Until I got to the end of her video, I had no objection to her clarifications/corrections at all. It wasn't until the last one, when I realized, the way she was packaging all this, she was a propagandist. Then I checked out a few of her videos, and that's when I found her disturbing.

Fair enough, I really only used her video to show that very often feminists use false statistics.

Hopefully by now you realize some of your mistakes here.

I do, but I still hold that "People who refuse to recognize that the problem isn't as bad as they claimed it was are people who I would call dishonest, because despite being shown to be wrong, they stick to what they believe is correct and dismiss anything else as minimizing, dismissing, or ignoring the problem at hand, which is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do."

It would be easier to ask you to find one video where she didn't do any of these things. In fact, I already did challenge you to find any videos where she actually promotes feminism, rather than systematically attacking it while pretending to be something she is not. Her scam is so obvious that I'm not the only one to notice it. According to RationalWiki: Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is a self-declared feminist (though third-parties[1] typically refer to her as an anti-feminist) author, and philosopher, who personally coined the term "equity feminist". She believed in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s, but made an abrupt about-turn, splitting with mainstream feminist thought in more modern times, in favor of a more conservative view on gender equality.[2] She criticizes adherents to third-wave and post-structural feminism as "gender-focused ideologues", inventing the phrase "gender feminism" to describe them (against which her "equity feminism" is placed in contrast) and characterizing them as a "movement that has abandoned equality in order to recruit for the struggle against the 'patriarchy'[3

When I watch some of her videos, I see a person revising or refuting common misconceptions about things in our culture. I wouldn't say that it is dismissing problems, I see it as providing a revised view of common feminist presentations. Her entire series is dedicated to revising or refuting claims by feminists about our culture. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NUk5AFImw is the link to her video about cat calling on the streets. Out of ten hours of walking, 3 minutes of footage was aquired, and most of which was of impoverished, black and latino men giving mild compliments like "Hello there, beautiful!" Only a small part of the video was of a man following her, which was creepy, and that is a problem that ought to be addressed, but most men did not acknowledge her, presumably, as the video represented 1/200 of the actual entire filming time. From my perspective, Sommers is doing all the actual leg work for feminists and trying to promote accuracy and honesty within feminism. She calls herself a feminist, but specifies that she is the factual feminist. My point is that I don't think she is just minimizing every problem, but trying to come at the problems and analyze the problems with facts instead of just raw unrefined thought.

Then you have no excuse not to call yourself feminist now.

I have reason to not call myself a feminist for the same reason that Neal has reason to not call himself an atheist. I do not want to be associated with a toxic community which has been caught using statistics which are known to be false, and then continuing to use those statistics. I don't want to be a part of a movement which complains women in video games being sexually attractive to an audience which, for the most part, likes sexy women, but then doesn't make games which appeal to them, but instead demands the devs change how they make their games. Games which make millions. If that is the movement which is trying to achieve social equality, how is it not just a group of whiners. I know it is not entirely whiners, you are an example of someone who I believe actually advocates for certain things which ought to be changed. I respect you in some of your aims for social equality. I just think feminism, as a movement, is poisoned by a large group of sex negative idiots who don't want any women being portrayed in media as sexually attractive to men if they don't have some sort of back story, and a large bunch of people who refuse to accept accurate statistics. I know that you do, but many feminists don't. Sorry for a month's time since I posted last. I had some personal things to deal with,but I am glad to be back.

 

[Gnug215]

Greetings,

On the issue of Nature vs Nurture, here's a interesting article:

Can genes make us liberal or conservative?

Kindest regards,

James

What about people, like myself, who are neither liberal nor conservative? Why is that left out the equation?

He's a genetic freak of nature!!

Burn him!!!

 

[Visaki]

He's a genetic freak of nature!!

Burn him!!!

Wouldn't that only spread his oxydized freakness around? Better to encase him in concrete and dump into a nuclear waste storage facility.

On the subject I've mostly stayed clear of the internet feminism discussion since the time when I was called a "privelaged white cis male" who "can't understand any of it" by multiple persons after trying to explain why the "womans € is 85* cents" mantra that is so often repeated is not really an accurate representation of the payment situation (because it's calculated with total wages of the year and doesn't take into account working hours, overtime, part time work etc.), at least in Finland.

* or 86, or 82, or 88 or whatever the latest figure floating around the media is

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So regardless whether you yet understand the statistics, do you believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women? Or not?

I believe in political, economic, and even social equality for women, and I also believe that it has already been achieved in the Western world or is so minute that it makes no significant difference.

I would disagree with you there. Later, you state you are a closet feminist, I can work with that. As I have said before, language is a tool; so when it starts getting in the way, we should start just stating what we actually believe and damn the terms. You agree with equality for the genders, wonderful.

Okay, well, right now the U.S. congress is threatening to shutdown the government over funding for Planned Parenthood. That is something happening now in the West; people in the government trying to take action to stop abortions even though they are legal. This is beyond all the steps taken to shut down abortion clinics and place waiting times on them. I believe this is happening because people thought the battle was won and we stopped caring, while the Pro-Life movement rallied and focused their attacks.

My second example is summed up in this video:



I am a feminist (i.e. I want equality for the genders) and I agree with that video.

Now both of those issues are things happening now in the West. Those are just two issues I can think of off the top of my head. Those are real issues that affect peoples lives (not how characters look in video games; what a boring argument to have). Do you still stand by your statement that fighting for equal rights for the genders is minimal in the West?

 

[nemesiss]

ˈfeməˌnizəm/ = the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
ˈsekˌsizəm/ = prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

To put it more simply,
Equality for women = feminism;
women's inequality = sexism.

I find these definitions to be questionable.
Firstly, the definition for sexism. why include "typically against women" it almost implies sexism against men does not exist?

Secondly, the definition for feminism.
I do see them advocating for increasing women's right.
I do not see them advocating decreasing women's right, where women have more rights then men.
I hardly, till never see them advocating for increasing men's right where women have more rights then men.

It would be easier to ask you to find one video where she didn't do any of these things. In fact, I already did challenge you to find any videos where she actually promotes feminism, rather than systematically attacking it while pretending to be something she is not. Her scam is so obvious that I'm not the only one to notice it. According to RationalWiki: Christina Hoff Sommers (born 1950) is a self-declared feminist (though third-parties[1] typically refer to her as an anti-feminist) author, and philosopher, who personally coined the term "equity feminist". She believed in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s, but made an abrupt about-turn, splitting with mainstream feminist thought in more modern times, in favour of a more conservative view on gender equality.[2] She criticizes adherents to third-wave and post-structural feminism as "gender-focused ideologues", inventing the phrase "gender feminism" to describe them (against which her "equity feminism" is placed in contrast) and characterizing them as a "movement that has abandoned equality in order to recruit for the struggle against the 'patriarchy'[3]

Yeah, so not a feminist at all, but an antifeminist apologist, attempting to systematically refute, ignore, misrepresent, hyperbolizeor otherwise dismiss or excuse every genuine issue feminists ever had. I had no cause to challenge anything in the one video you showed me, until the last point, but in some of her other videos that I've seen, she was clearly dishonest, primarily in her minimizing excuses and inappropriate ridicule As I said, she's a fraud.

Aron, Seriously.....?
You are seriously going for the "no true scottsmen" argument?
I find it deeply disappointing for read it from someone whom I thought and expected better of.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I do see them advocating for increasing women's right.
I do not see them advocating decreasing women's right, where women have more rights then men.
I hardly, till never see them advocating for increasing men's right where women have more rights then men.

Do you have any examples of the bolded bit that are not cases of men suffering adverse consequences from enforcing rigid gender roles, which is something feminism works directly to address?

Yeah, so [Hoff-Summers is] not a feminist at all, but an antifeminist apologist, attempting to systematically refute, ignore, misrepresent, hyperbolizeor otherwise dismiss or excuse every genuine issue feminists ever had. I had no cause to challenge anything in the one video you showed me, until the last point, but in some of her other videos that I've seen, she was clearly dishonest, primarily in her minimizing excuses and inappropriate ridicule As I said, she's a fraud.

Aron, Seriously.....?
You are seriously going for the "no true scottsmen" argument?
I find it deeply disappointing for read it from someone whom I thought and expected better of.

This is not an example of a "no true scotsman" fallacy. That fallacy involves creating an ill-defined sub-group that excludes specific cases while also agreeing that the specific cases are part of the larger group (e.g. conceding that Angus is a Scotsman but maintaining tht he is not a true Scotsman).

I have vague Scottish ancestry and have even lived in Scotland. However, one can reasonably claim that I am not a true Scotsman without committing a fallacy because I am not a Scotsman under accepted definitions of the term.

Hoff-Summers is not a feminist under accepted definitions of the term. She has made up her own terms under which she claims to be one despite actively working against feminism.

 

[nemesiss]

I do see them advocating for increasing women's right.
I do not see them advocating decreasing women's right, where women have more rights then men.
I hardly, till never see them advocating for increasing men's right where women have more rights then men.

Do you have any examples of the bolded bit that are not cases of men suffering adverse consequences from enforcing rigid gender roles, which is something feminism works directly to address?

I'm having trouble understanding your question, I assume you mean is; "can you give examples where men are suffering more, due to gender roles?"

Here are some bullet points:
- child custody
- divorce
- rape/abuse (support)
- "toxic" masculinity/femininity

it's not that I think there are no feminists concerned about men on these points, it's that they are not as vocal and attention grabbing.

Yeah, so [Hoff-Summers is] not a feminist at all, but an antifeminist apologist, attempting to systematically refute, ignore, misrepresent, hyperbolizeor otherwise dismiss or excuse every genuine issue feminists ever had. I had no cause to challenge anything in the one video you showed me, until the last point, but in some of her other videos that I've seen, she was clearly dishonest, primarily in her minimizing excuses and inappropriate ridicule As I said, she's a fraud.

Aron, Seriously.....?
You are seriously going for the "no true scottsmen" argument?
I find it deeply disappointing for read it from someone whom I thought and expected better of.

This is not an example of a "no true scotsman" fallacy. That fallacy involves creating an ill-defined sub-group that excludes specific cases while also agreeing that the specific cases are part of the larger group (e.g. conceding that Angus is a Scotsman but maintaining tht he is not a true Scotsman).

I have vague Scottish ancestry and have even lived in Scotland. However, one can reasonably claim that I am not a true Scotsman without committing a fallacy because I am not a Scotsman under accepted definitions of the term.

Hoff-Summers is not a feminist under accepted definitions of the term. She has made up her own terms under which she claims to be one despite actively working against feminism.

And there's the problem. "Feminism" as a movement is not rigidly defined enough to accurately describe all facets of it, thus it's ill-defined.
Some forms of feminism are symmetrically opposed to each other (sex-positive vs sex-negative, victimhood vs empowerment), but they still are all feminists. Since she is for women's right and not opposing it , she is to be considered a feminist too.
so I would say that the "no true Scotsmen fallacy" implies well to the situation.


As for the argument of being anti feminist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism

Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:
1.That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
2.That social arrangements among men and women favor men
3.That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

by this logic, some feminists, are also anti-feminist at the same time.
This sounds contradictory to me...

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do you have any examples of the bolded bit that are not cases of men suffering adverse consequences from enforcing rigid gender roles, which is something feminism works directly to address?

I'm having trouble understanding your question, I assume you mean is; "can you give examples where men are suffering more, due to gender roles?"

Here are some bullet points:
- child custody
- divorce
- rape/abuse (support)
- "toxic" masculinity/femininity

it's not that I think there are no feminists concerned about men on these points, it's that they are not as vocal and attention grabbing.

It was more, "can you cite areas where women have more rights that do not result from rigid gender views".

Items 1, 2 and 4 on that list are -- to the extent that they are issues -- a product of rigid ideas about gender roles.

E.g. the assumption is that women are inherently more nurturing and therefore should be primary caregivers impacts child custody outcomes. The more raising children is seen as something both men and women can do equally, the less likely these legal outcomes become.

This is something which feminists actually work towards doing which benefits both men and women.

Item 3 is an issue, though there are feminists who do positive work in this area (whereas "men's rights activists" do not). Even so, it isn't that women have more rights -- men have the right to create support organizations -- just more current resources. But this relates at least in part back to gender roles in that seeking therapy / support is frequently seen as unmanly.

Hoff-Summers is not a feminist under accepted definitions of the term. She has made up her own terms under which she claims to be one despite actively working against feminism.

And there's the problem. "Feminism" as a movement is not rigidly defined enough to accurately describe all facets of it, thus it's ill-defined.[
Some forms of feminism are symmetrically opposed to each other (sex-positive vs sex-negative, victimhood vs empowerment), but they still are all feminists. Since she is for women's right and not opposing it , she is to be considered a feminist too.

It is a broad movement but it is not so ill-defined as to admit everyone. You defined it yourself previously.

Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:
1.That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
2.That social arrangements among men and women favor men
3.That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

by this logic, some feminists, are also anti-feminist at the same time.
This sounds contradictory to me...

Your conclusion that it is contradictory does not follow. You can be neither a feminist nor an anti-feminist. Or you can have no position on one or more of those principles.

And I would note that Hoff-Summers rejects all three of those principles (at least with respect to western society). This makes her an anti-feminist by the definition you cited.

 

[nemesiss]

(feminism)
It is a broad movement but it is not so ill-defined as to admit everyone. You defined it yourself previously.

Then, indeed, the "no true scottsmen" fallacy does not apply here. perhaps cherry picking is more applicable.

(regarding definition of anti-feminism)
Your conclusion that it is contradictory does not follow. You can be neither a feminist nor an anti-feminist. Or you can have no position on one or more of those principles.

And I would note that Hoff-Summers rejects all three of those principles (at least with respect to western society). This makes her an anti-feminist by the definition you cited.

Based on the definition, you also bear the label anti-feminist, because you conceded that there were points where women are favoured above men.
and the people who would like to address those points, who call themselves feminist, would also be called anti-feminists.
Perhaps you do not considered yourself an feminists, but I doubt you would consider yourself an antifeminist.

this quote on the wiki page on antifeminist is very interesting and thought-provoking.

"Antifeminist" is also used to describe female authors, some of whom define themselves as feminists, based on their opposition to some or all elements of feminist movements. .... Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge argue that by labeling these women antifeminists, the intention is to silence them and prevent any debate on the state of feminism.

It was more, "can you cite areas where women have more rights that do not result from rigid gender views".

Items 1, 2 and 4 on that list are -- to the extent that they are issues -- a product of rigid ideas about gender roles.

E.g. the assumption is that women are inherently more nurturing and therefore should be primary caregivers impacts child custody outcomes. The more raising children is seen as something both men and women can do equally, the less likely these legal outcomes become.

This is something which feminists actually work towards doing which benefits both men and women.

Item 3 is an issue, though there are feminists who do positive work in this area (whereas "men's rights activists" do not). Even so, it isn't that women have more rights -- men have the right to create support organizations -- just more current resources. But this relates at least in part back to gender roles in that seeking therapy / support is frequently seen as unmanly.

Thank you for clarifying your question.
I think that discussing rights of a specific gender, in this case women, where idea's/views about gender roles are not applicable... is near impossible.
I think is also the case, if you would ask the same question, but for men.

If I had a go at it, I'd have to go with... reproduction and contraceptic rights.
it's actually a point, where I do think women should have more rights, because it has a bigger impact on them.
but it's not that I think men should have no rights on the matter.

 

[SpecialFrog]

And I would note that Hoff-Summers rejects all three of those principles (at least with respect to western society). This makes her an anti-feminist by the definition you cited.

Based on the definition, you also bear the label anti-feminist, because you conceded that there were points where women are favoured above men.
and the people who would like to address those points, who call themselves feminist, would also be called anti-feminists.
Perhaps you do not considered yourself an feminists, but I doubt you would consider yourself an antifeminist.

The principle "that social arrangements among men and women favour men" is a reflection of the overall state of things, not a claim that men are favoured over womenin all cases.

I can acknowledge nuance without rejecting that principle so this doesn't remotely qualify me as an antifeminist under that definition.

And for the record, I do consider myself a feminist.

this quote on the wiki page on antifeminist is very interesting and thought-provoking.

"Antifeminist" is also used to describe female authors, some of whom define themselves as feminists, based on their opposition to some or all elements of feminist movements. .... Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge argue that by labeling these women antifeminists, the intention is to silence them and prevent any debate on the state of feminism.

While there may be specific instances of this I don't see any evidence that it is true in general. You can hardly say that Christina Hoff-Summers has been silenced.

Richard Dawkins makes the claim that he is being silenced all the time (sometimes by feminists). Usually he makes this claim in an interview with a major media outlet.

It was more, "can you cite areas where women have more rights that do not result from rigid gender views".

Thank you for clarifying your question.
I think that discussing rights of a specific gender, in this case women, where idea's/views about gender roles are not applicable... is near impossible.
I think is also the case, if you would ask the same question, but for men.

Are saying that areas where men are advantaged are largely due to rigid gender ideas? Of course I agree with that.

Which seems to mean that we agree that feminism -- in combating rigid ideas of gender -- is helping men and women, contrary to your previous claim.

If I had a go at it, I'd have to go with... reproduction and contraceptic rights.

In what sense do women have more reproductive and / or contraceptive rights?