Well, see, but because of my stupidity, I thought that you were responding directly to Human Action, who was responding directly to Linus’:
and that they must therefore have something to do with each other.
One of the key precepts of my redundant and stupid ideology, as it happens, is that not everything is about you.
Is that really a bonus? Seems like it might be useful to have a word that describes that concept specifically as it relates to gender.
I don’t care if you’re a feminist. I care that I’m a feminist and my husband is a feminist. I think that feminism is a good thing, so sure, I’m generally supportive of good people identifying as feminist.
Well, as others have asked you, where exactly did this happen? Who are these saffragettes?
I think the list I gave, and the list we’re about to review again are pretty much the definition of “property”. But let’s get to that. I’m glad we agree that it’s happened throughout history.
Again - some actual examples would be helpful here.
My knowledge of history is from a an undergraduate degree with honors from Stanford (yes, in history) and a Masters in History from the University of Cailfornia. I don’t think I’ve ever looked a tumblr for anything other than cat pictures. And, yes, I’ve reported your post.
This was the list of examples I gave previously. Have another look. In what material way were women of 100 years ago not property unless a male relative chose to settle a means of support upon them and allow them certain freedoms, much like a man of property might do for a favored slave?
The right to vote
The right not to be beaten or killed by father, family or spouse
The right to own property in their own name
The right to earn and keep their own income
The right to decide whom to marry
The right to have sex outside of marriage
The right to keep their life if they are raped or otherwise considered unpure
The right to an education
The right to live outside of their father’s household as an adult, without a husband
The right to do research and publish the results under their own names
The right to have their own names - to this day society expects that my name is patronymic. I take my father or my husband’s name. The better to know to whom I belong.
You could be a feminist because you believe in equality for all genders, but if that’s not relevant for you, that is your own choice.
…can you, in two sentences or less, define what you consider feminism to be?
I’ll take these one at a time.
What I’ve argued before is that women and men are approximately equally likely to engage in violence in intimate relationships. There is concrete data to back that assertion up, and I’ve linked to it previously. If you want, I’ll go back and look for it, so you can see it yourself, when I have time.
That men are disproportionately arrested for domestic violence is because of the bias in favor of women, and against men, when it comes to violence. This bias is internalized within men, including within men who are victims of domestic violence. They’re less likely to call the police, and when they do call the police, the police are less likely to do anything about it. On the other hand, if a woman hits a man, and he hits back, the police are likely to take the man to jail, not the woman. So a man who is a victim of domestic violence is basically trapped. If he fights back, he risks going to jail. If he does nothing, it’s likely to escalate. If he calls the police, they’re not likely to help. And there are few or no outside resources for him to turn to. The only option is to leave, and if he has kids, that means leaving the kids behind.
Feminists, years ago, pushed for and got “mandatory arrest laws”. What that meant, was that police were supposed to make an arrest, when they arrived at the scene of a domestic violence call. What feminists didn’t expect - because they live in a world where only men hit women, and women don’t hit men - is that police started arresting women, instead of walking away when the victim was a man. Arrests of women for domestic violence increased. (Again, I’ve linked to evidence of this before, but I’ll look for it again, if you want to see it.)
Since arrests of women were not what feminists want, they’re now pushing for different policies. They want police, for example, to consider who is more “fearful” when making an arrest, rather than who hit first. Since most men are (a) just generally not as fearful as women; and (b) explicitly trained not to show fear, even when they are afraid, what feminists are pushing for is a very thinly veiled policy telling police to arrest the guy.
I’m not sure what professions you’re talking about, so you’ll have to be more specific. The pay gap between men and women, however, almost disappears, when you compare apples to apples. (Number of hours worked, years of experience, etc.) What’s left (about 5%) can be explained by a number of things other than bias against women.
In any event, Asian Americans make $66,000 per year, on average, vs. $49,800 the US median household income. “They are the highest-income, best-educated” demographic in America. In terms of religion, Jews are the highest-earning religious group in the United States, with 46 percent of the working population earning a six-digit figure every year. Gay people make more than straight people: Among same-sex couples with both partners in the labor force, median household income is significantly higher ($94,000) than among heterosexual couples ($86,000).
Anyway, the point is that assuming a pay gap is automatically the result of discrimination is problematic, unless you think that Asians, Jews and gay people are beneficiaries of discrimination.
I haven’t heard that before, but women are more likely to get into college: For 35 years, women have outnumbered men in American colleges.
I do think that parents who sacrifice for their kids (which is most of them) are doing an important, unpaid service for the US, and the US economy. (Who will pay into Social Security, if not the people who are children now?) I’m in favor of some kind of compensation for parents of children. But I don’t think it has to be the woman who stays home with the kids. I understand it’s a cultural norm. But if feminists would get behind the idea that being a good father was not only a singular masculine achievement, but that children actively benefit from having fathers in their homes - and that fathers can be just as good care-givers as mothers - I think that would help more mothers leave their kids at home with their dads, while the moms went out to work.
The problem is I’m not sure that’s what actual mothers want to do (I suspect many would prefer to stay home with the kids, while their husbands worked) and I personally haven’t seen feminism pushing for recognition of the importance of fathers in families (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist). I have seen feminists actively dismissing the role of fathers (and can link to examples if you want), despite research shows that children with fathers in the home do better than those without them. Some feminists (and please note I said “some”) seem to prefer to ignore the evidence, rather than admit that fathers are important, in terms of raising children successfully, or in raising children to be successful.
Non-sequitur.
I never said it did; but rather allowed for non-feminist gender quality that could theoretically exist. I’m unconvinced that you even read my post.
I’ve witnessed far more hatred from avowed anti-feminists than from avowed feminists. It’s pretty clear who I want to throw in my lot with.
Not my argument, at all.
I’ll try to get over it.
I finally got around to reading Occidental Justice: The Disastrous Fallout When Drunk Sex Meets Academic Bureaucracy, which somebody upthread suggested I read.
The link is right there, but I’ll provide some highlights.
I know that was long (sorry) but there’s one more thing I wanted to add: two teenagers, who were both drunk, have sex. The boy is labelled a rapist, and thrown out of school. The girl is a victim.
But other than their genders, there’s no difference between them: they both were drunk, and they both willingly had sex - at least so far as the other could tell.
If Occidental’s definition of rape is correct, didn’t they rape each other?
Yes, that was me, and I (as a feminist) was critical of this case, as I was with the Amherst case. And I hope you noted that some feminists mentioned in the article spoke out against it as well (including some Occidental faculty).
Human Action responded to these points earlier, and since I basically agree with his (or her) positions, I won’t repeat them in my own words.
But there is still the problem with you using broad brush arguments in your critiques and replies. As noted by Miller, it is a double standard to say “Feminism is…”, or “Feminists don’t want to hear that…”, but then deny that your views on anti-feminism shouldn’t be associated with Paul Elam, or the larger anti-feminism movement. If you only speak for yourself, then how is it fair to attack feminism as a monolithic ideology, and expect individual feminists here to answer for it?
Feminists don’t all agree on strict ideological terms, or any number of other related issues. Just as you say you do not agree with some of what Paul Elam is saying. You cannot have an honest debate if you fail to acknowledge that anti-feminism is also a larger movement with its own basic tenets and public image. If you insist on using sweeping statements for all of feminism, you can’t hand wave away the positions and actions of the more openly misogynistic anti-feminists.
I addressed this above, but I’d like to add that you yourself admitted in this thread that you were presenting ideas based on Karen Straughan’s videos, and you cited her, and MGTOW, in previous threads. Are you saying you came up with these arguments before you were exposed to Straughan or MGTOW? From what I’ve seen and read, your arguments are taken practically verbatim from Karen Straughan (who as I said, is affiliated with Paul Elam’s AVFM).
In any case, I think what created a problem right off the bat was the way you titled and presented your OP. There were too many disparate points to address in a single debate.
It might have worked better to start a debate with a more specific topic, and a less provocative title. For example: “Haven’t Women Already Achieved Equality?”, “Patriarchy and Biological Essentialism: Debunking Feminists Views”, etc. It would likely expand on its own to include related issues, as most debates here do, but it wouldn’t have been poisoned from the starting gate.
But your OP read like you were just indulging in a rant, repeating the various memes from anti-feminist and MRA groups - not presenting a well reasoned personal critique to discuss. IMO it’s a bad way to begin an honest, coherent debate. Rants belong in the Pit.
Sorry, I’m terrible with names. Anyway, thanks for the link.
I did notice the article quoted a feminist at the Harvard Law School, who was among those who signed the petition against the definitions and procedures that colleges are now (apparently) using to prosecute allegations of rape.
I don’t remember the article mentioning any feminists at Occidental who stood up for “John” when it happened.
Now it was a long article, and I stayed up late to finish it, so I’ll go look again, if you think it’s in there.
I’m curious if you have a response to the question I asked at the end of the post: “If Occidental’s definition of rape is correct, didn’t they rape each other?”
To the extent that Human Action agreed with my revisions to his positions - which mainly had to do with who is privileged (according to feminism) and who is oppressed - I agree too.
If you’d prefer I said, “Some feminists don’t want to hear that…” I can do it. That’s not the normal style I use in Great Debates. For example, I might say, “Republicans don’t want to hear…” knowing that whatever I’m saying doesn’t apply to all Republicans. It’s a rhetorical style. One I admittedly haven’t given a lot of thought to. But it is one that’s commonly employed here.
I do only speak for myself. But if feminism stands for anything, I’d argue that it stands for exactly the positions I attacked in my OP. If you agree that feminism does stand for those positions, we can move on to whether those criticisms have any validity. If you want to insist that I have to associate myself with Elam, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
If you (or anyone) wants to assert that I’m responsible for the actions or speech of every person who’s ever criticized feminism, then again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’ve never claimed that feminism is a monolithic ideology. In fact, I said the exact opposite: that much of it is incoherent. What I’ve also said, (and where we might disagree) is that feminism’s lack of coherence is not a shield against criticism.
The topic of this thread isn’t Paul Elam, or MRAs: it’s feminism. If you want to attack or criticize that person or those groups, you’re free to do it. It’s just not the topic of this thread.
I do believe I can have an honest debate about feminism, if feminists step up to the plate and defend their views, rather than attempting to deflect, or using some of the dishonest and childish tactics that have been used in this thread.
No. As I said earlier, Straughan was the proximate cause of starting this thread. As you’ve said - and as I said earlier - much of what I’ve said here comes from her.
MGTOW is an entirely different thing. Ultimately, I rejected their philosophy - though I still think “going your own way” is an entirely reasonable philosophy for some men. And I also think that men having a space to talk about their issues, their relationships, and their problems, with each other, is a healthy and valuable thing - which, from my admittedly limited reading, is part of what they’re actually doing.
I think the problem is not how I titled the OP, but the tendency of some people to interpret an attack on feminism as an attack on women.
For the record: I like women. And I think feminism does a disservice to both sexes.
I see some stuff on page 2 but frankly when I look at stats for hospitalization and death resulting from domestic violence, the numbers are not even comparable. I agree that some women feel free to slap men because they think they can get away with it but they rarely terrorize their male partner the way that men much more frequently terrorize their female partner.
Banking, medicine, consulting, etc. are all high paying professions that are hostile to women to varying degrees. These also tend to be relatively high paying professions. So what if women make almost as much as men in a given profession if men get all the jobs in high paying professions not just out of preference but because women are dissuaded form joining those profession because of rampant sexism?
Comparing apples to apples the gender pay gap is between 5% to 10% but that’s STILL 5%-10%. That’s about half of what you need to fund a retirement. That’s STILL a gender pay gap.
Not that its relevant but they also tend to live in high cost-of-living places. On a COLA adjusted basis, the difference is reduced significantly and when you account for education, Asians get paid somewhat less than their white counterparts.
once again when you adjust for things like education and the COLA, the differences shrink to nothing.
Is that compared to hetero couples with both partners in the labor force? Does the hetero couple have childrearing responsibilities more frequently that might interfere with income production? I suspect when comparing apples to apples, there is no positive gay pay gap.
So once you control for everything that can be controlled for, there is still a significant pay gap. One of reasons there are so few women in banking (and other high paying professions) is because these professions are hostile environments for women (to varying degrees).
[quote]
I haven’t heard that before, but women are more likely to get into college: For 35 years, women have outnumbered men in American colleges.
And that disparity is leading colleges to hold women to a higher standard, in order to even out the gender equation.
That “cultural norm” you mention is what I’m talking about.
Perhaps that’s because anti-feminists and members of the men’s rights movement have a long history of attacking women.
From the Southern Poverty Law Center Spring 2012 Intelligence Report:
It’s certainly…interesting…how much some of the material quoted in this piece, including Lepine’s suicide note, resembles things** LinusK** has been posting here.
That same issue of Intelligence Report also features an article titled “Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women” and again, much of this should sound familiar to readers of this thread. For instance:
I post this knowing it will make absolutely no difference to LinusK, as he has already shown himself to be incapable of absorbing information that doesn’t support his pre-existing views. But I thought that others in this thread might wish to see the SPLC’s take on things.
According to Occidental’s definition, it would seem so. My problem isn’t that the the woman wasn’t also charged with rape, it’s the idea that anyone should be charged. It’s the denial of due process when it is charged. It’s the counselors that traumatized the woman by convincing her she was raped.
You were asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested, right? Why would that be the priority when the rule itself is the problem? And recall that the man did not originally press charges. How can anyone push for the woman to be charged/arrested if the complainant doesn’t come forward? How would anyone even know about it if he doesn’t come forward?
The point is you probably shouldn’t even say “Republicans don’t want to hear…”. If you start off that way, what Republican will see it as an honest debate? If you’ve already made up your mind what people think, what they want to hear, and how they will react to your thesis, then why bother? As I said, it’s not a debate, it’s a rant.
Well, speaking for myself, I don’t agree with your OP. But as I said, there were too many points to parse out and address, and frankly, your approach discouraged me from the idea that you were interested in an honest coherent debate. Apparently, many other posters felt the same way. You might think that is unfair, or defensive, but as the OP, and the one who is seeking to persuade others, it is on you to present your arguments in a way that will gain receptiveness.
Fine. But then don’t assert that I’m responsible for every person who claims to be a feminist. Don’t start a debate where you say things like, “I have news for you feminists…”.
The title of the thread is Anti-feminism. You are presenting anti-feminist arguments inspired by a prominent anti-feminist (Straughan). How is that not relevant to this thread?
Are you suggesting that the replies you received weren’t honest? As I, and many others, have been saying, you are not presenting an honest and coherent debate. You are making sweeping statements, use a double standard, and presented a mishmash of arguments and attacks, some of them ridiculous. That’s not deflecting, it’s a reflection of how you presented your OP, which you still don’t seem to understand.
Well, you didn’t even mention the sinking of the Titanic.
As this thread grows, we don’t have to mention it. We live it!
Let me just set this deck chair over here…
…I think it looks better over there. You’re a big strong guy …mind moving it? <flutters lashes>
Hi Lamia.
If you’ll look back to my original post about this subject, you’ll see that the link was to a site run by the Feminist Majority Foundation:
There’s also this: CDC Study: More Men Than Women Victims of Partner Abuse.
And this: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review.
I realize that the idea that only men hit, and not women, is part of some feminists’ worldview, but the reality is different.
I’m not Lamia, but I was foolish enough to take a close look at your claims.
Read your quote again, because it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says. It basically debunks your claim. The source goes on to say:
It also says earlier on:
This quote is not taken directly from the CDC study it refers to. I checked out the actual study, and those claims are not there. The site you link to is listed by the SPLC as a “misogyny” site:
From the same cite:
However, I will look at the study more closely since it is available.
There was only an abstract available for this study, but here is a review from another researcher:
Has anyone here made the claim that “only men hit, and not women”?
You’re fighting a strawman, in some cases with unvetted cites from dubious sources.
Having said that, I will agree that the numbers are high enough that there should be more awareness and facilities for men who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. When I was active as an advocate, we did have such an awareness program, and we had male advocates on call for male victims, should they prefer speaking to another man. I don’t know who these anonymous facilities are who are allegedly ridiculing and turning male victims away, so it’s difficult to address these allegations.
I really called that one, didn’t I?
My next prediction is that LinusK will continue to avoid acknowledging that when he said:
The “someone” he thought he was responding to was in fact himself, the “at some point” was a month ago in a completely different thread, and also that he didn’t even understand the content of his own link.
Looking at LinusK’s paraphrase of his previous post again just now, it strikes me that while he described it as being about “those same feminists” it was actually about women in general:
So someone who claims to be attacking feminism, not women, uses “feminists” and “women” interchangeably.