Anti-Feminism

[LinusK]

@Dangerosa

I’m not sure why it should be the job of feminists to see more women prosecuted or more men report domestic violence against them. Should more women be prosecuted - well, if they are committing crimes, yes. I don’t know much about it. I know that when a women does get prosecuted for a violent crime, you don’t get many feminists stating she SHOULDN’T be prosecuted or declaring her innocence without evidence. I didn’t hear a lot of my feminist friends even expressing an opinion on Jodi Arais, for example. Should men report domestic violence against them, yep. But it isn’t my job as a feminist to make out posters to that effect (hell, I don’t make posters about the mainstream feminist issues I care about). The issues feminists work on are the ones that they feel oppress women, you aren’t going to hear them, as a single voice, talk about the issues that oppress men (hell, we can’t talk as a single voice about anything). Women don’t have the oppression issue that black men have in this country, of the justice system being set up against them, so the justice system, as it pertains to criminal prosecution, is really not on the radar for most of them.

As to men doing riskier jobs, yep. Currently women are trying very hard to make the elite corps in the Army and Marines - and they are finding it very difficult to pass the physical requirements to do so. Women have had the same problem with being fireman. If few women want to take on these roles, and the physical restrictions are such that very few of THOSE will pass, then you’ll get very few women in dangerous jobs. Some feminists would like to see standards lowered. I’d like a fireman who can carry my 230 husband out of a burning house. If the standards are part of a valid requirement, they need to be kept, but it is worthwhile to say “why do we have this requirement.” A ten mile run with a sixty pound pack sounds like something an Army ranger might need to do to do her job. Women have been working to get into male dominated roles for years, and have had significant barriers - not only physical barriers, but being a woman on a construction site can be very discouraging. I spent a good twenty years of my career in a male dominated world (a relatively safe one) and got raped at work by a coworker.

“I’m not sure why it should be the job of feminists to see more women prosecuted or more men report domestic violence against them.”

What I’ve said is that feminism is not about equality. If you agree that feminism isn’t about equality, I’ll happily concede that feminists have no obligation to work towards equality: when it comes to family violence, or any other issue.

“I know that when a women does get prosecuted for a violent crime, you don’t get many feminists stating she SHOULDN’T be prosecuted”

I’ve already posted about this, so you can look back if you want to see the full argument, or the cites. But basically, some years back, feminists pushed for “mandatory arrest” policies, because they thought too many men were getting away domestic violence.

The problem is that women and men are about as likely to engage in domestic violence. So, when mandatory arrest laws went into effect, many more women started getting arrested for family violence.

Feminists were not happy with this unintended consequence (since they live in a world where only men are violent, and not women), so they’ve begun an effort to change the law again, so that the “problem” of women getting arrested will go away again.

Again, if you want to see the cites, or the full argument, you can look upthread.

“The issues feminists work on are the ones that they feel oppress women”

Yes. This is my point. I’ve made this exact argument a number of times upthread. We’re in agreement about this.

As to men doing riskier jobs, yep. Currently women are trying very hard to make the elite corps in the Army and Marines - and they are finding it very difficult to pass the physical requirements to do so. Women have had the same problem with being fireman. If few women want to take on these roles, and the physical restrictions are such that very few of THOSE will pass, then you’ll get very few women in dangerous jobs. Some feminists would like to see standards lowered. I’d like a fireman who can carry my 230 husband out of a burning house.

Currently neither firefighters or soldiers are among the most dangerous jobs in America. The most dangerous jobs tend to be low-status blue-collar jobs. (Fisherman is #1, if I remember correctly.)

“I spent a good twenty years of my career in a male dominated world (a relatively safe one) and got raped at work by a coworker.”

I’m very sorry to hear that. You have my sincere sympathy. I’m sorry that happened to you.

[LinusK]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t need examples of the nuts – I know there are nuts and nutty ideas. Here are some examples of feminists and feminism that I think are much more representative of feminists and feminism in the real world than the OP’s straw men:

Thank you for this.

5 Ways the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too

I liked this post so much I’m going to go ahead and quote it:

Guys, I promise, the next post won’t be a list like this. I know it’s becoming a pattern. I swear, the next post will be in normal rambling paragraph form.

But lists are nice, and they’re neat, and right now, I think this is a list of issues people don’t think about enough. When people say that feminism is just about women, they overlook the fact that men are, in fact, also harmed by the very system that feminists are trying to combat; that the same prejudices and underlying issues that hurt women can, in some cases, hurt men as well. These are five examples of how the Patriarchy ALSO hurts men:

Male Victims of Domestic Violence are often not taken seriously either by the courts or by society itself. This is a fairly serious problem, because it means that a lot of victims are potentially falling through the cracks. This in turn reduces the likelihood that domestic violence against men will be reported, because men don’t want to be emasculated on the basis of being a victim. It’s not considered “manly” to be a victim.

Male Victims of Sexual Assault experience the same sort of problems that male victims of domestic violence do: people don’t necessarily take them seriously and society tells them that men are not men if they are sexually assaulted. This is also a big problem, because they are also unlikely to report instances of rape or sexual abuses, resulting in ongoing psychological harm and a lack of justice for the victims. On top of that, the original definitions of rape did not even RECOGNIZE that men could be raped-~-it’s only the modified and updated versions of rape law that acknowledge that male rape victims even exist.

Fathers During Custody Hearings are less likely to acquire custody of their children. Courts presume that the mother is the more suitable caretaker because the Patriarchy perpetuates the gender binary in such a way that masculinity becomes divorced from the concepts of care and nurture, while femininity becomes inherently tied to this. This also harms male children who may be better off with their father than their mother but are given to their mother based on this rigid gender divide.

Gay Men can also be harmed by the Patriarchy. As I discovered when I was doing my research on social networks and identity formation, the concept of gender correlates strongly with expectations of sexuality. Because of this, societies often emasculate gay men, based either on their sexual activities alone or based on preconceived notions of homosexuality. This in turn helps to perpetuate violence against homosexuals in many instances, and is used to justify other related prejudices. The harm is even greater in societies in which hypermasculinity is a problem, because it forces gay men to either behave in a hypermasculinized way that is also hypersexualized and heternormative, or suffer the consequences of deviating from this gender expectation (we see this, for example, in Mexico where machismo is a prominent social feature)

Men in General because the Patriarchy helps to promote a gender binary that categorizes displays of emotion as particularly feminine. This often results in a lack of or at least limited emotional literacy among men, and places men who DO show emotion in an uncomfortable position wherein their behavior is read as “unmanly”. Because of this constant suppression of emotion men often have problems rooted in miscommunication (especially with women). On top of this, studies have shown that most decision-making is rooted in emotion; but the ability to express the decision-making process often presents a challenge to men who lack this emotional literacy due to the norms imposed by the current gender binary.

There are other examples of this, of course. Men who are gender-nonconforming, transsexuals, etc. are also harmed by the Patriarchy. For everyone who wants to say that feminism is JUST about women, it’s not. When women are considered equal to men, and the behaviors and traits associated with women (however accurately or inaccurately) are respected the way traits associated with men are, these harms can potentially be diminished. The Patriarchy is not just hurting those of us with uteri-~-it’s hurting everyone.

I bolded the parts that I’ve already brought up.

I’m very glad that at least some feminist acknowledge these issues.

On Shoveling Snow And How Patriarchy Hurts Men Too

This one, not so much. I admit, I was so put off by it, I wound up skimming after the first several paragraphs. If I have time, maybe I’ll look at some of the links later.

But basically what it seems to be saying is that patriarchy hurts men by not letting them be more like women.

This is the standard bullshit feminist line that proves that the writer is not listening actual men, and is just projecting what would bother her (if she was a man).

And then of course, it goes on to attack men who are talking about what actually does bother them.

I have news for you feminists: men (generally, of course) are not interested in being more like women. They want to be masculine, be appreciated for it, and not constantly have shit rubbed in our faces for being men.

It's not feminism that hurts men

8xbet – Nhà cái đặt cược đẳng cấp số 1 châu Á

[/QUOTE]

[LinusK]

Sorry, accidentally hit “submit” (I guess) instead of preview.

Anyway:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoy...hurts-men.html

This had a reasonable point in it:

"Women aren’t required to sign up for the draft, for instance, a relic of the patriarchal idea that men are to protect women.

The rest of the post had to do with women not having to shovel snow. Not a big deal, really. You’d have to look pretty hard before you found men complaining about having to shovel snow.

It's not feminism that hurts men

This one, not so much. I admit, I was so put off by it, I wound up skimming after the first several paragraphs. If I have time, maybe I’ll look at some of the links later.

But basically what it seems to be saying is that patriarchy hurts men by not letting them be more like women.

This is [edit] standard feminist navel-gazing, in which she imagines what would bother her if she were a man.

And then of course, it goes on to attack men who are talking about what actually does bother them.

[Edit] Feminists: men (generally, of course) are not interested in being more like women. They want to be masculine, be appreciated for it, and not constantly have shit rubbed in our faces for being men.

I know feminists want to believe men desperately want to be more like women, but we don’t. We want to be appreciated for what we are, instead of being told what we should be.

8xbet – Nhà cái đặt cược đẳng cấp số 1 châu Á

Mixed feelings:

I admit that there are a few valid concerns typically championed by men–mostly in the family law area.

Tepid, but Ok, I guess.

Breaking down of traditional gender roles benefits men as much as women.

Well, no, not really. Men (generally) are not really interested not being men anymore. “If women are objectified as ornaments, then men are objectified as appliances. And the difference between an ornament and an appliance is that ornaments are coveted objects prone to theft by the unworthy, while appliances that no one wants get hauled to the dump.” -girlwriteswhat

Men, of course, would like it if they could be appreciated for who they are, instead of what they can do. But, that’s… well, just not likely to happen.

[Senegoid]

@LinusK

Anyway:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoy...hurts-men.html

This had a reasonable point in it:

Oops, bad link. Can fix?

[camille]

@Senegoid

Let me add a comment (or rather, a question) about your post:

If one party is too drunk to consent (including being “blacked out”) and the other isn’t, is any sexual activity thus considered a sexual assault, regardless of who initiated it, or “who did what to whom”? And regardless of which party initiated it, or which party “did it”, if that is considered an assault, then is the not-so-drunk party necessarily always culpable? Or is it the active, or initiating, party (the one who did unto the other) who should be culpable, regardless of which is the drunk one?

In the extreme case, where one party is literally unconscious and the other party commits a sex act, then the committing party is absolutely guilty, right? If the male is too drunk to consent and he rapes the female, he is certainly absolutely guilty regardless of the state-of-mind of the female, right? But if the female is too drunk to consent and the male rapes her, then he is guilty in that case too, right? The sensible rule would seem to be, it’s the initiator or active party who is culpable, regardless of which of them is the drunk one. Is there an established body of cases that establish that logic? If so, the problem with the Amherst case (at least on the surface) is that it seems to violate that logic.

Two Things:

1. I’m not a lawyer
2. There’s a difference between college disciplinary proceedings and a criminal case

Probably best to ask these questions in the Affirmative Consent thread. There are lawyers posting there who might answer them, although they don’t all seem to agree.

But if you want an example of how a case similar to the questions you are asking turned out, I recommend this (lengthy but excellent) Esquire article about the Occidental College case.

(and note to** LinusK** - there is an example of feminists speaking out against the treatment of accused male college students in there, if you ever decide to check out this link)

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

Well, no, not really. Men (generally) are not really interested not being men anymore. “If women are objectified as ornaments, then men are objectified as appliances. And the difference between an ornament and an appliance is that ornaments are coveted objects prone to theft by the unworthy, while appliances that no one wants get hauled to the dump.” -girlwriteswhat

Men, of course, would like it if they could be appreciated for who they are, instead of what they can do. But, that’s… well, just not likely to happen.

There’s two things here: first, speak for yourself about what you’d like as a man – I’ll speak for myself and let other men speak for themselves. Second, your version of “being a man” might be entirely different than my version. So I don’t find this convincing or helpful at all.

[Jack_of_Words]

@iiandyiiii

There’s two things here: first, speak for yourself about what you’d like as a man – I’ll speak for myself and let other men speak for themselves. Second, your version of “being a man” might be entirely different than my version. So I don’t find this convincing or helpful at all.

Speaking for myself, I wonder if you grant women the equal right to speak for themselves, as individuals who let other women also speak for themselves, even though their definition of ‘being a woman’ might be entirely different? I only ask because that would seem to make you a feminist anti-feminist, and I’m wondering why you haven’t disappeared up your own fundament…

[BrightSunshine]

@LinusK

Breaking down of traditional gender roles benefits men as much as women.

Well, no, not really. Men (generally) are not really interested not being men anymore. …Men, of course, would like it if they could be appreciated for who they are, instead of what they can do. But, that’s… well, just not likely to happen.

Breaking down gender roles mean that people are treated based on who they are, and what they can do, regardless of their gender. What one does – especially for others – is the essence of their part in society. People should be appreciated based on that, and by and large, they are. Everything from telling jokes to fixing cars to cooking meals to teaching music to fighting fires. The few exceptions are people who are unusually good looking or are born to wealth or royalty.

The ornament vs appliance line is absurd. How many women are actually purely ornamental and not at all functional? How many women are highly sought after?

As PP mentioned, everyone’s definition of being a man is somewhat different. If your wife has a job and earns the same as you or more, does that make you not a man anymore? If you change half of your kids’ diapers, does that make you not a man anymore? Distributing the responsibilities of paid work and unpaid work more equally between the genders is a key component to breaking down traditional gender roles. Weren’t you complaining about feminists not wanting responsibilities?

Also, breaking down traditional gender roles mean that men won’t be disproportionately doing dangerous jobs or dying on the Titanic or denied custody anymore. Isn’t that what you wanted?

[Rune]

@LinusK

“I’m not sure why it should be the job of feminists to see more women prosecuted or more men report domestic violence against them.”

Feminism is about equal rights. We just don’t fight for equal rights for men. That’s their job. That’s fine of course. It’s just that every time something comes up that affect men negatively, someone always chime in that feminism is the answer.

In Spain if a woman cries abuse the police will throw you in jail for 48 hours. No proof needed, no investigation required - in fact investigation is not allowed. After the two days, the guy will then have to prove his innocence in a “court” where he’s not allowed to speak. And surprise surprise, women have taken to abusing this power to get themselves better financial deals, better divorce settlements, win out in child custody cases, or just for sweet revenge. (False Accusations in Spain) I’m sure it was a surprise to the lawmakers who thought women were about such shitty business. Except women are not better than men, they’re ever as much shitty as men are.

In NY you’re not a proper feminist unless you let your wife be fucked by a string of men every month (What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism) Because much patriarchal oppression.

Yes… no. This feminism thingy isn’t for me.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Rune

Feminism is about equal rights. We just don’t fight for equal rights for men. That’s their job. That’s fine of course. It’s just that every time something comes up that affect men negatively, someone always chime in that feminism is the answer.

In Spain if a woman cries abuse the police will throw you in jail for 48 hours. No proof needed, no investigation required - in fact investigation is not allowed. After the two days, the guy will then have to prove his innocence in a “court” where he’s not allowed to speak. And surprise surprise, women have taken to abusing this power to get themselves better financial deals, better divorce settlements, win out in child custody cases, or just for sweet revenge. (False Accusations in Spain) I’m sure it was a surprise to the lawmakers who thought women were about such shitty business. Except women are not better than men, they’re ever as much shitty as men are.

In NY you’re not a proper feminist unless you let your wife be fucked by a string of men every month (What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism) Because much patriarchal oppression.

Yes… no. This feminism thingy isn’t for me.

So, you found one message in the first link. What’s the source?

The second link is YouTube. How about a link with textual confirmation?

The final link is one guy who agreed to an open marriage; he gets to fuck other women, but doesn’t get as many dates as his wife. Still, he’s OK with the situation. Most women who consider themselves feminists & are married to men prefer monogamy.

So, you had fun finding these links. Your attitude toward feminism has been obvious for a long time & needs no explanation.

[iiandyiiii]

@Jack_of_Words

Speaking for myself, I wonder if you grant women the equal right to speak for themselves, as individuals who let other women also speak for themselves, even though their definition of ‘being a woman’ might be entirely different? I only ask because that would seem to make you a feminist anti-feminist, and I’m wondering why you haven’t disappeared up your own fundament…

Of course, but I have no idea what you mean by “feminist anti-feminist”.

[Jack_of_Words]

@iiandyiiii

Of course, but I have no idea what you mean by “feminist anti-feminist”.

Well I have no idea what you mean by ‘Of course’ - though I suppose you mean ‘Of course I accord equal rights to women’ (that’s the feminist bit). The anti-feminist bit is that some of them take up the right not to be feminists…indeed, to be anti-feminists, in some cases - which you surely support, since women have the right to speak for themselves (even if some feminists would attack them for it). And since feminism is only about equality, you must surely also support the right of men to be anti-feminists? If you support the right of people to think for themselves, regardless of gender, you’re a feminist anti-feminist. I’m impressed, if slightly repulsed, like those double-jointed people who can bend their elbows the wrong way…

[andros]

@Jack_of_Words

If you support the right of people to think for themselves, regardless of gender, you’re a feminist anti-feminist.

Is there some way you can explain your point so that it doesn’t seem to be utter nonsense? Or is it just, yanno…utter nonsense?

I’m pro-free speech, and that includes letting people speak their opposition to free speech. Somehow that translates to my being anti-free speech by your logic?

[iiandyiiii]

@Jack_of_Words

Well I have no idea what you mean by ‘Of course’ - though I suppose you mean ‘Of course I accord equal rights to women’ (that’s the feminist bit). The anti-feminist bit is that some of them take up the right not to be feminists…indeed, to be anti-feminists, in some cases - which you surely support, since women have the right to speak for themselves (even if some feminists would attack them for it). And since feminism is only about equality, you must surely also support the right of men to be anti-feminists? If you support the right of people to think for themselves, regardless of gender, you’re a feminist anti-feminist. I’m impressed, if slightly repulsed, like those double-jointed people who can bend their elbows the wrong way…

…huh? Women have the right to not be feminists. I do not advocate the government forcing all women to be feminists. I don’t understand how this makes me an anti-feminist feminist, since I am aware of literally zero feminists who disagree that women (and men, too) have the right to not be feminists (or to be anti-feminists).

[wonky]

He’s trying to do the “You’re intolerant of intolerance!” gag.

[Miller]

@andros

Is there some way you can explain your point so that it doesn’t seem to be utter nonsense? Or is it just, yanno…utter nonsense?

I guess there’s a reason he’s not the Ace of Words.

[Jack_of_Words]

@jsgoddess

He’s trying to do the “You’re intolerant of intolerance!” gag.

Nope, though I was considering quoting your intolerance of anti-feminism, exhibited above as the tiresomely familiar ad hominem attacks on outspoken anti-feminists. Elsewhere (on this board) anti-feminism is equated with misogyny, and right-wing views. I’m a leftist lover of women, and an avowed anti-feminist…with the caveat that ‘feminism’ is now effectively a meaningless term, given that any criticism of any individual feminist or of a feminist position is deflected by pointing to one that isn’t batshit crazy (though never effectively policing the sisters) or, disingenuously, referring to a dictionary definition that defies the reality.

Feminism is often claimed to have achieved great things for woman - although those things were largely achieved pre-feminism and only for some women. Now it consists primarily of the most privileged demographic (white western women) trying to prop up a victim narrative in support of a claim that women need special treatment because they’re equal. The goal has moved from the admirable ‘equality of opportunity’ to the lamentably dangerous ‘equality of outcome’, a goal which can only be achieved by a totalitarian regime. It’s a hate group. I don’t like them, whatever they stand for. It’s largely concerned with protecting incomes and careers by denying, diminishing or demeaning my own experience of DV. It acts vociferously and tenaciously against equality where equality would mean giving up some power (see family courts).

Let me pass you over to a woman who is an anti-feminist, who has saved me the trouble of making the case: Check Your Privilege

[Jack_of_Words]

@Miller

I guess there’s a reason he’s not the Ace of Words.

Are we in the Pit? Well, I guess there’s a reason you’re a moderator - it’s good to know what you can get away with where. What you can get away with here, it seems, is the alarmingly discourteous (if tediously common) practice of attempting to silence dissenting voices by talking about them publically in the third person. There’ll be some shaming soon, I’m sure.

[wonky]

@Jack_of_Words

Nope, though I was considering quoting your intolerance of anti-feminism, exhibited above as the tiresomely familiar ad hominem attacks on outspoken anti-feminists.

So, you say no, then go on to do the very thing I said you were doing.

But you may quote me at will to demonstrate a horrid tolerance I never said I felt. You may also find that I am intolerant of: attempts to derail racial equality, attempts to derail LGBTQ equality, and gluten.

[Jack_of_Words]

@andros

Is there some way you can explain your point so that it doesn’t seem to be utter nonsense? Or is it just, yanno…utter nonsense?

I’m pro-free speech, and that includes letting people speak their opposition to free speech. Somehow that translates to my being anti-free speech by your logic?

You clearly misapprehend my logic. I find a good test for that sort of thing is “That sounds ridiculous, perhaps I should check if I’ve understood it properly, unless I’m infallible. Am I infallible? No. Best try a little harder then.” Or you could just reach for a random analogy, tack it on to an insult, and hope that works…

I’m tempted to try again, but I fear that much as Orwell predicted, we’ve reached a point where some people simply cannot comprehend thought that others would rather suppress. I gave up arguing with Mormons as well.