On what basis do you arrive at a conclusion about the ratio of bad to good apples here?
I think you’re right that this must be the reasoning she’s deploying. I’d agree with your criticism of it. Ironically, I’d think LinusK is actually committed to agreeing with the author on this point, given the gender essentialism he has espoused elsewhere in the thread.
I’ll address both with this: by genuine human being, I mean someone who feels what he or she actually feels, and, despite their flaws, uses their feelings to find reason. (Being in touch with ones feelings: generally considered a feminine virtue, prized by this non-feminist?) The best and most difficult thing a person can do is be honest with him or herself. The opposite is to uncritically tell yourself “OK, this is what I should be feeling!” And then force yourself along to the misery of you and those around you. Alcoholics and idealoges do this. Feminism’s basic validity does not bestow it with divine perfection that is immune from being abused like any other ideology.
Abuse can take the form of drawing lines between the insiders and those who share the same general qualities as their enemies. This has been found under the guise of feminism. I’ll grant it’s the outliers, but it’s still wrong, and it’s ugly. You have the right to be critical of how the MRAs are addressing it, but simply letting it go unaddressed isn’t a responsible position.
I definitely agree with you.
Well, sure. We all should correct those on “our side” when it looks like they are gaining traction with bad arguments. To do otherwise is foolish, since if we let the idiots and the assholes go without challenge, it’s hard to say they aren’t speaking for us.
And ethically, we should counter abuse when we see abuse. To do otherwise is both foolish and wrong.
I don’t think I refrain from challenging feminists. (I’m more likely to be told that I am a bitch to everyone than that I am too nice to anyone.) I don’t tend to go out of my way to police people, though, whether MRA or feminist. If they come to me (I’ll consider this board “coming to me”), I’ll comment. I don’t prowl the internet looking for people to chastise.
If I’m one of the good apples, the bad ones must be terrible.
Not just terrible, we are talking F3 - F5 tornado levels of purely illogical hate and destruction. I have exactly two examples of fair and balanced feminists that I have ever known. One is a childhood friend that I am close to and you convinced me that you another one in this thread. That is extremely rare and you should be applauded for it. Unfortunately, you have the vast majority of people that claim the same title that are actively working random, self-serving, hate filled and counterproductive agendas that few people outside of their own little circle understand.
Remember, most of us only see this from the outside and only get exposed to the extremes because that is the only thing that makes good press. Fair and balanced feminists may still have some good points but they get greatly overshadowed by the unstoppable true crazies out there. I would also like more demonstrable proof (not just rhetoric) that it is really about sex equality because I don’t believe it so far. Maybe the movement as a whole could become more like the ACLU. They will defend a neo-Nazi or a KKK member’s right to march once in a while just to demonstrate general principles.
My impression of the movement now is that it is mostly about a bunch of upper-middle class white women that realize they can’t live out their girlhood fantasies and want the world to make it so…
I really find that hard to believe. I know hundreds.
My standards are probably a lot higher, not just for feminists but for everything. I don’t think I know more than a few good examples of anything and it is unlikely you do either unless you dropped the bar on the ground.
OTOH, the really bad feminists, both male and female, seem to really like to flaunt it like yet to be made but destined to be popular ‘Feminists Gone Bad’ series.
Just out of curiosity, where did you meet these hundreds of rational and fair feminists? I personally know about that many women in total but few of them are feminists and, of the few that are, the vast majority of those have some serious issues in all areas of life.
I’m curious about which of my arguments were not that good. When I post something in Great Debates, I’m generally looking for honest intellectual discussion. While it’s also true I generally like it better when people agree with me (I’m only human), (or at least frame their criticisms in a non-hostile tone), I do make an effort to take either logical criticism, or evidence that contradicts my position seriously. That’s how I learn.
For example, when I first started posting about economics, I knew something about the subject, but far less than at least one other person who persistently engaged me in those threads. And while I do wish he’d taken a slightly less hostile tone in his comments in those threads, I nevertheless learned a tremendous amount, directly because of his comments. (Yes, I’m talking about you, Hellestal.) So I owe him (you) a debt of gratitude, for that.
I wasn’t really expecting much when I started this thread. I did put a lot of work into the OP, but I was fully aware it was a controversial subject, on a left-leaning board. In other words, I’m not trying to play victim here.
But I do expect people to play by the rules, however, and reserve the right to expose them when they don’t.
When people resort to shaming tactics, rather than using arguments or facts, it’s a fair inference that they’re more interested in silencing an argument, than in proving it wrong. In other words, they’re afraid. Fear is an emotion, not an argument.
My starting hypothesis, from the OP, was that humans are genetically and evolutionarily conditioned to put the safety, concerns, and well-being of women above those of men. Given that it’s a subconscious, instinctual mechanism, it’s not surprising that people would react with hostility to any perceived attack on women - even to an argument that’s not an attack against women, but seems like it might be.
To put it differently, one potential prediction of the original hypothesis is that people would start pit threads about someone they perceive to be attacking women, even if he isn’t.
For the record: what I’m doing is criticizing feminism, not attacking women.
For people who insist on seeing those two different things as the same thing, I have a question: if you’re a critic of the Men’s Rights Movement, does that mean you hate men?
I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the cognitive parts of our brains can be used for two different purposes: to rationalize things so they’re consistent with our feelings, or to gut-check our instincts to see if they’re consistent with what’s actually out there. The second is better than the first.
Again, I must point that this is nonsense. If it were true, women wouldn’t be denied choices (in careers, in partners, in education) and civil rights in much of the world today, and even in the Western world before modern times. Your hypothesis is absurd. What aspect of the “safety, concerns, and well-being of women” are served by child brides? Or dowries? Or bride-burning? Or sati? Or genital mutilation? Or denying women leadership roles in political and religious organizations? Or honor killings? These all point to a view of women as (valuable) property, not exalted figures that men must serve selflessly.
For most men, and most women, ‘before modern times’, there was very little choice in career, partners or education. Most men and women, even after the suffragists and suffragettes, were still denied the vote.
I’m currently reading the history of the most self-documented minor noble family in Britain during the 16th and 17th centuries (through letters and diaries and such). The women of that family made their own choices of partner (sometimes scandalously, given the religious tensions of the time). Choices of career for women were less of an issue then, I think - though I understand plenty of modern women aren’t as happy with the idea of a career as the ideologues of feminism might have predicted. Raising a family was a respectable choice for most of human history, and of course it was work in a very real sense (and of course it’s difficult to recognise that work financially - unless mothers want line managers and performance related pay?) Choices in education were limited for most people too - agricultural labour took precedence over book learning and only those with independent means could afford much beyond a basic schooling anyway.
History’s a fascinating thing, if you look at it. Swallowing whole the ahistorical claims of feminists, less so.
You know, of course, that men were largely property too? When your monarch (occasionally a queen) is tantamount to a god, you’re as good as owned - and the feudal system outright owned the peasantry.
I don’t know enough about bride-burning (is that actually a thing? Wife/widow burning I can about understand, but bride-burning??) or some of the other points you raise, but I do know humanity has had some appalling versions of ‘civilisation’ which harmed men and women alike - but a movement that smugly claims to be about ‘equality’ still preaches a narrative of perpetual victimhood for only one sex.
I do know about genital mutilation - something american boys are routinely subjected to, and something which takes place in varying degrees around the world to boys too young to consent. Who told you it was a gender issue? I’d dig some links up, clarifying that some MGM is as traumatic and dangerous as some FGM, and that most FGM is very much on a par with the routine circumcision of american male babies - but you don’t seem the sort to confuse yourself with facts. Ask, if you want to make more educated comments on the matter, and I’ll find them for you. Or, you know, you could do your own research before forming an opinion
Personally, I’ve never stood up, or doffed my cap, or stepped aside, for ‘property’. It’s very easy for us to trust whatever women tell us - they are our mothers, after all - but do you know what, it turns out they really are equal to men and some of them lie to you, deliberately. They can purposefully and maliciously spread falsehoods and propaganda to support an ideology, just as some men do. That’s one equality feminism can truly claim credit for.
More like “most men and almost all women”, but yes, men had it worse in pre-modern times than they do now, obviously.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
I’m currently reading the history of the most self-documented minor noble family in Britain during the 16th and 17th centuries (through letters and diaries and such). The women of that family made their own choices of partner (sometimes scandalously, given the religious tensions of the time). Choices of career for women were less of an issue then, I think - though I understand plenty of modern women aren’t as happy with the idea of a career as the ideologues of feminism might have predicted. Raising a family was a respectable choice for most of human history, and of course it was work in a very real sense (and of course it’s difficult to recognise that work financially - unless mothers want line managers and performance related pay?) Choices in education were limited for most people too - agricultural labour took precedence over book learning and only those with independent means could afford much beyond a basic schooling anyway.
[/quote]
Again - things were bad for (most) men, and worse for (most) women.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
History’s a fascinating thing, if you look at it. Swallowing whole the ahistorical claims of feminists, less so.
[/quote]
Let me know if someone in this thread does that.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
You know, of course, that men were largely property too? When your monarch (occasionally a queen) is tantamount to a god, you’re as good as owned - and the feudal system outright owned the peasantry.
[/quote]
Here we go again - bad for men, worse for women. Female serfs were effectively “owned” by their lords, but they were also “owned” by their husbands.
At no point in my post did I say “Things were great for all men, everywhere, always!”, so I have to wonder why you’re responding as though I did.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
I don’t know enough about bride-burning (is that actually a thing? Wife/widow burning I can about understand, but bride-burning??)…
[/quote]
Yes, it’s a thing. Sometimes the seller of the bride and the buyer of the bride have a dispute over the price, and the buyer responds by murdering the bride.
It must be some part of being “conditioned to put the safety, concerns, and well-being of women above those of men”, I just haven’t figured out how yet.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
…or some of the other points you raise, but I do know humanity has had some appalling versions of ‘civilisation’ which harmed men and women alike - but a movement that smugly claims to be about ‘equality’ still preaches a narrative of perpetual victimhood for only one sex.
[/quote]
That’s not my experience with feminism.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
I do know about genital mutilation - something american boys are routinely subjected to, and something which takes place in varying degrees around the world to boys too young to consent. Who told you it was a gender issue? I’d dig some links up, clarifying that some MGM is as traumatic and dangerous as some FGM, and that most FGM is very much on a par with the routine circumcision of american male babies - but you don’t seem the sort to confuse yourself with facts.
[/quote]
What is the purpose of male circumcision? Tribal/cultural identification, and cleanliness. It’s a needless procedure that shouldn’t be performed, however.
What is the purpose of (much, not all) female genital mutilation? Preventing a women from experiencing pleasure from intercourse, or to prevent intercourse altogether, so as to discourage infidelity.
There’s your answer. If you don’t mind being confused with facts. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
Ask, if you want to make more educated comments on the matter, and I’ll find them for you. Or, you know, you could do your own research before forming an opinion
[/quote]
Oh, please. Did you seriously think I was unaware of the practice of male circumcision? I was responding to a claim that humans are “conditioned to put the safety, concerns, and well-being of women above those of men”. I articulated evidence that contradicts this claim.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
Personally, I’ve never stood up, or doffed my cap, or stepped aside, for ‘property’.
[/quote]
And?
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
It’s very easy for us to trust whatever women tell us - they are our mothers, after all - but do you know what, it turns out they really are equal to men and some of them lie to you, deliberately. They can purposefully and maliciously spread falsehoods and propaganda to support an ideology, just as some men do. That’s one equality feminism can truly claim credit for.
[/QUOTE]
It also turns out that the sky is blue and water is wet. Hope I didn’t blow your mind with those equally-stunning revelations.
Many of your arguments have been refuted with facts and logic. Looking over the thread, it appears that you simply ignore those, responding, instead, to the arguments that are more emotional, (which, interestingly, matches most of yours). Now you want to act as though no one has refuted your claims: nonsense.
Taking the time to write a lengthy polemic may constitute a lot of work, but when that polemic is an odd mixture of actual facts, clear errors of fact, and emotional special pleading, there is no reason to expect anyone to address the facts when your conclusion is refuted more easily by focusing on the errors and the special pleading.
You may not be trying to play victim, but you are certainly giving the impression that that is what you are doing.
I have seen no evidence that anyone is not playing by the rules to which you have linked. (To the extent that posters have walked up to the line and put their toes on it, I would say that both sides of the discussion have done that.)
meh
Given a whole list of things to argue, many of them wrong or silly, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to attack only the difficult arguments.
For that matter, your entire Original Post comes across as a fearful polemic and many of your subsequent posts seem more inspired by fear than fact.
And you have provided no evidence for your hypothesis and resolutely ignored actual evidence contradicting it, so why should anyone give credence to it? Reciting your personal beliefs about society without evidence and then attempting to impose those beliefs on science in the manner of nineteenth century pundits, with even less evidence, is simply a non-starter for your discussion.
And, as has been noted on several threads on this topic, Feminism is too broad to be attacked in your manner without resorting to oversimplification. Feminist thought ranges across an entire spectrum of beliefs and philosophies, from mild requests that women be granted equal education, job opportunities, and pay to extreme calls for the banishment or enslavement of men. Your habit of picking and choosing individual statements, without regard to where they originate on that spectrum, and then attacking “Feminism” as a monolithic entity, is meaningless and counterproductive. (You are not alone in this approach; pretty much every poster who has supported you in this thread has done the same thing, cherry picking individual items that they have encountered from feminists and then dismissing “Feminism” as a whole as though all feminist thought included there particular bête noire.)
As to your “not attacking women” claim, perhaps you actually believe it, but that is hardly the position that your overall presentation displays.
The fuck, it is.
Feminists certainly never speak out against male circumcision on feminist grounds.
I could have provided links for every word but truth is I’m kind of lazy.
Jolly good. I understand that not everyone who claims the label of ‘feminist’ is as appallingly misandrist as some of its founders and most of its current adherents - I expect Genghis had a few moderates in his horde, too. Perhaps you’d best direct your links to those above who dispute it being an issue at all - perhaps because they treat women as valuable property, so don’t want them mutilated, but don’t care what happens to men because patriarchy…no hang on… well, who knows…
Another, equally likely inference is that they’ve realized that the other person does not respond to facts and logic, and continuing to employ those tactics is a waste of time.
Jolly good. I understand that not everyone who claims the label of ‘feminist’ is as reasonable as some of its founders and most of its current adherents. I expect Abraham Lincoln had a few vicious racists in his government, too.
I can see I’m in the presence of an intellectual titan. Your argument is irrefutable, sir, and I thank you for enlightening me. I see now that I’d been misguided in basing my claim on facts, when really I should have sought out you and your profanity. Do you have a sweary newsletter I can subscribe to?
Who disputed male circumcision being “an issue at all”? By all means, quote them.