Anti-Feminism

[camille]

@jsgoddess

In some places there needs to be additional resources in order to provide shelters for male victims of domestic violence AND the notion that real men can’t be victims domestic violence must be fought against as pernicious sexism.

I think it’s very telling that anti-feminists need to be told that, that it doesn’t seem to be a priority for them. There are legitimate men’s advocacy programs that do actually help men, but these online warriors seem to just want to stop the conversation about any of it. Hey, we all do it! It must be human nature! Why investigate it? If these stupid feminists would just shut up and go away the problem would be solved!

The biggest problem, for some of them, seems to be all those pesky “false allegations”. And why it should be the woman’s responsibility to avoid getting raped. Here’s a sweet proposal, from one of the more prominent anti-feminists, “Roosh V” (Daryush Valizadeh):

**How To Stop Rape
**
I also read that men must be taught not to rape, which means that they are all born with the capability to rape and have zero instinct to know that taking a woman with violence is improper. Thankfully, a man only has to be told the phrase “rape is bad” at some point after puberty by an overweight feminist to definitively stop his future brutal and bloody rape career. It’s a miracle that more men have not raped their mothers, babysitters, and sisters before being taught in college that rape is actually not a good thing.

I don’t know of a single man entering adulthood who thought that rape was good and had to be manually taught it was bad in order to stop him from raping, so when journalists and cultural commentators suggest that the best way to defeat rape culture is to teach men not to rape, I couldn’t possibly agree. I saw a different set of problems instead.

I saw women wholly unconcerned with their own safety and the character of men they developed intimate relationships with. I saw women who voluntarily numbed themselves with alcohol and other drugs in social settings before letting the direction of the night’s wind determine who they would follow into a private room. I saw women who, once feeling awkward, sad, or guilty for a sexual encounter they didn’t fully remember, call upon an authority figure to resolve the problem by locking up her previous night’s lover in prison or ejecting him from school.

By attempting to teach men not to rape, what we have actually done is teach women not to care about being raped, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions.

I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.

If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.

Without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn’t know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him. Consent is now achieved when she passes underneath the room’s door frame, because she knows that that man can legally do anything he wants to her when it comes to sex. Bad encounters are sure to occur, but these can be learning experiences for the poorly trained woman so she can better identify in the future the type of good man who will treat her like the delicate flower that she believes she is.

Sorry for the long quote, but I found it to be very compelling reading. I think it speaks to what they see as the real problem with feminism.

And btw, LinusK, this is the man Karen Straughan was referring to when she said: “I can’t call him a bad person, because he’s only trying to solve a problem.”

[Jack_of_Words]

@camille

I think it’s very telling that anti-feminists need to be told that, that it doesn’t seem to be a priority for them. There are legitimate men’s advocacy programs that do actually help men, but these online warriors seem to just want to stop the conversation about any of it. *Hey, we all do it! It must be human nature! Why investigate it? If these stupid feminists would just shut up and go away the problem would be solved!

I’m engaged in a conversation about it, which is a direct contradiction of your statement that ‘online warriors’ (that would be me, you, and everyone else in this thread :rolleyes:) want to stop the conversation about it. I do want to stop the conversation about gender in relation to DV, because it’s irrelevant (unless your definition of ‘equality’ includes ‘women are better than men’…)

Nobody, by the way, has said the words you (at least) put in single quotes. “Why investigate it?” To put an end to it, regardless of the gender of the victim, regardless of the gender of the attacker. We wouldn’t need ‘advocacy programs’ (or better yet, actual refuges) for men, if, for example, feminists hadn’t harassed and threatened the founder of the first refuge for daring to acknowledge that it wasn’t a gendered problem. Feminists (‘its all about equality’ :rolleyes:) demand that the problem be viewed as one of toxic men and saintly suffering women. It isn’t. It evidently isn’t, and only a bigot would think otherwise. We wouldn’t even need refuges ‘for men’ if feminists weren’t promoting the idea that a battered women will be reasonably afraid of all men. We’d just have refuges. I was associated with the local refuge, back in my 20s, when I was a good feminist. The residents had to sneak men in so they could get laid, even though the bigoted ideologues who ran the place preached that men were inherently untrustworthy, that our first loyalty would be to an abuser who shared our genitalia, rather than a victim who didn’t.

@camille

The biggest problem, for some of them,

Gosh, you’re reasonably good at this - ‘for some of them’, she says, after ‘the biggest problem’. The biggest problem for the smallest percentage? Consider placing truth, and decency, and honesty, and equality above your ideology of hatred, I implore you.

@camille

seems to be all those pesky “false allegations”. And why it should be the woman’s responsibility to avoid getting raped.

Whoosh, we shot straight over to rape, as though anybody supported rape, as though it had any particular relevance to DV, and as thouh that were a peculiarly gendered issue. But rape is the silver bullet for feminists. Nobody supports rape - every man (who hasn’t thought too hard about why you just introduced rape, who was raised in a gynocentric culture, who loves women and was raised never to hit one (but not to mind about hitting men)) is a feminist when it comes to rape (even though there are false allegations - even though you put ‘false allegations’ in quotes, as though they never happened).

@camille

Here’s a sweet proposal, from one of the more prominent anti-feminists, “Roosh V” (Daryush Valizadeh):

Is he an anti-feminist? I thought he was pick-up artist? I seem to recall he’s making the news because feminists want to silence him in Canada (another Streisand Effect own goal…).

I’ve lost count of the number of posts in this thread waffling on about how feminists aren’t a monolithic whole. Neither are anti-feminists. I’m pretty sure the decent, peaceful, Amish are ‘anti-feminist’ - go hold a placard at one of their barn-raisings, then I wouldn’t have to read your deceitful posts here.

@camille

Sorry for the long quote, but I found it to be very compelling reading. I think it speaks to what they see as the real problem with feminism.

Who is ‘they’? The ‘monolith’ that doesn’t understand that feminism isn’t the monolith you just claimed it was?

@camille

And btw, LinusK, this is the man Karen Straughan was referring to when she said: “I can’t call him a bad person, because he’s only trying to solve a problem.”

Not that he’s my friend or anything, but while I’m here, let me address that. It’s only your orthodoxy that insists Roosh is a bad person. I don’t know who he is or what he says, but I know KS is smart and decent and all about equality and your posts are full of contradictions and prejudice and bigotry, so maybe he is just trying to solve a problem? Is the problem that only your gang should be allowed to solve your problems, with the ends justifying any means?

[BuddhaBeast]

I’m not anti-feminist per say, but I don’t like some of the new trends in the feminist movement. I think it’s been sorta hi-jacked by people just using it to promote their own power and self-interest and its got very little to do with improving the lives and well-being of women nowadays.

[Lamia]

@BuddhaBeast

I’m not anti-feminist per say, but I don’t like some of the new trends in the feminist movement. I think it’s been sorta hi-jacked by people just using it to promote their own power and self-interest and its got very little to do with improving the lives and well-being of women nowadays.

Perhaps I’ve been whooshed here, but according to your link the feminist movement has indeed been hijacked…by “evil Illuminati”.

I wonder if there’s some sort of Godwin-esque Law about things being blamed on the Illuminati if a thread goes on long enough.

[BuddhaBeast]

@Lamia

Perhaps I’ve been whooshed here, but according to your link the feminist movement has indeed been hijacked…by “evil Illuminati”.

I wonder if there’s some sort of Godwin-esque Law about things being blamed on the Illuminati if a thread goes on long enough.

I’m pretty sure that’s become just another way of saying “powerful people behind the scenes” I don’t think that’s referring to any specific cult group.

Maybe “propagandists” would be the better term?

[wonky]

@Lamia

Perhaps I’ve been whooshed here, but according to your link the feminist movement has indeed been hijacked…by “evil Illuminati”.

I wonder if there’s some sort of Godwin-esque Law about things being blamed on the Illuminati if a thread goes on long enough.

Actually, feminists are behind the Illuminati. I have cites!

[Lamia]

@BuddhaBeast

I’m pretty sure that’s become just another way of saying “powerful people behind the scenes” I don’t think that’s referring to any specific cult group.

Have you looked at the rest of that Tumblr? The author seems to take the Illuminati very seriously, although perhaps it is a satirical blog that’s too subtle for me.

[camille]

@Lamia

Have you looked at the rest of that Tumblr? The author seems to take the Illuminati very seriously, although perhaps it is a satirical blog that’s too subtle for me.

He’s linked to that website in at least 3 threads so far today - his first day here.

[Miller]

Behind every shadowy puppet master, there’s a shadowy puppet mistress.

[camille]

@Jack_of_Words

I’ve lost count of the number of posts in this thread waffling on about how feminists aren’t a monolithic whole. Neither are anti-feminists.

Exactly. I knew if we gave you a chance you’d come around. You finally admit that anyone can find examples of nutters on the internet, and use them to smear a whole group - and that it is wrong! You’ve debunked the OP’s premise. Clearly, your work is done here!

You’re diamonds, mate. Ta.

[Frylock]

@Jack_of_Words

Not that he’s my friend or anything, but while I’m here, let me address that. It’s only your orthodoxy that insists Roosh is a bad person. I don’t know who he is or what he says, but I know KS is smart and decent and all about equality and your posts are full of contradictions and prejudice and bigotry, so maybe he is just trying to solve a problem? Is the problem that only your gang should be allowed to solve your problems, with the ends justifying any means?

It’s only our orthodoxy that insists that it takes a bad person to say “we should legalize rape if it happens on the perpetrator’s own property”?

[BuddhaBeast]

@camille

He’s linked to that website in at least 3 threads so far today - his first day here.

Yeah I dug in and read a lot of it last night and I found a lot of the ideas really interesting.

[wonky]

@camille

Here’s a sweet proposal, from one of the more prominent anti-feminists, “Roosh V” (Daryush Valizadeh):

Especially interesting given that “private property” includes the woman’s home, her workplace (in most situations), many schools and universities, most places of business and places of worship. Gosh, it’s almost as if he wants to be able to attack women in 95% of the places women might be.

And then he says rape will be “virtually eliminated” by doing that! Such a surprise! Why, I have a solution that would make rape disappear entirely; say women don’t have any rights at all! That way, no women will be raped or murdered. You can only rape and murder people, after all.

[Emiliana]

@camille

He’s linked to that website in at least 3 threads so far today - his first day here.

Having seen a couple of his posts, I’m thinking we’re about to see connections made between the Illuminati and pit bulls, circumcision, and tipping. We can only hope it’s all it one thread.

[BuddhaBeast]

@Emiliana

Having seen a couple of his posts, I’m thinking we’re about to see connections made between the Illuminati and pit bulls, circumcision, and tipping. We can only hope it’s all it one thread.

That would be an incredible thread.

[LinusK]

@Rune

Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
I’m not a Men’s Rights proponent, but I’d be curious to know what you think is wrong with the “biological/evolutionary reason(s) for male disposability”.

Here. Because it’s contrary to basic principle of evolution. No individual is ever disposable for any other individual who does not share his genes. That is, a person (man or woman) is disposable to some extend to his own children, and much less to other immediate family, and pretty much nobody else. Certainly not an unrelated woman.

You linked to another post, so I’ll include those comments too.

It’s contrary to basic principles of evolution. The argument is usually put on a biological foundation and something along the line that men are disposable because one man can impregnate a bunch of women, so it doesn’t matter so much if a few men dies, other men will just make up for it by having multiple women. But that is based on a misunderstanding on how evolution works, this would require group selection which doesn’t seem to be a thing. It’s irrelevant to the genetic legacy of one man, that a bunch of other men can impregnate a bunch of other women.

This chivalric ideal that men should risk, or even lay down, their lives to protect women also seems to be rather absent from other cultures. As far as I know, it’s not really found in Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Arab or any African cultures I know of. It also wasn’t found in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, religion, literature, etc, or mentioned anywhere in the Bible, not in old Nordic or Germanic mythology or literature, never heard of it in Ancient Greek/Sumerian/Babylonian texts. In fact it appears to be a unique Western cultural trait.

I personally have the theory that it’s a fusion of Christianity and Germanic warrior culture which appeared sometimes in the High Middle Ages. I.e., the Germanic people (Franks, Saxons, Normans) loved a good war, but since Christianity expressly forbade this, they had to come up with proper justification: so they invented the idea of A Just War. War fought in protection of the Church and the weak (the sick, old, holy people, and women – not so much children though, that came much later. And nowadays you Americans seem to have added Sacred Democracy to the list of things that makes for a Just War).

Because it’s contrary to basic principle of evolution. No individual is ever disposable for any other individual who does not share his genes. That is, a person (man or woman) is disposable to some extend to his own children, and much less to other immediate family, and pretty much nobody else. Certainly not an unrelated woman.

I think we’re talk individual selection vs. group selection. Correct me if I’ve misunderstood. If so, I don’t think it’s contrary to basic principles of evolution.

From Wikipedia:

Experiments from the late 1970s suggested that group selection involving altruism was possible.[9] Early group selection models were flawed because they assumed that genes acted independently; but genetically-based interactions among individuals are ubiquitous in group formation because genes must cooperate for the benefit of association in groups to enhance the fitness of group members.[10] On the other hand, kin selection is accepted as an explanation of altruistic behavior.[11]

Since the 1990s, group selection models have seen a resurgence.[12][13][14][15][16] Some biologists argue that kin selection and multilevel selection are both needed to “obtain a complete understanding of the evolution of a social behavior system”.[17]

In 2010 three authors including E. O. Wilson argued for multi-level selection, including group selection, to correct what they saw as deficits in the explanatory power of inclusive fitness.[18] The response was a back-lash from 137 other evolutionary biologists who argued “that their arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and a misrepresentation of the empirical literature”.[8]

Group selection may be controversial, but it doesn’t appear to be “not a thing.”

To continue:

In 1994 David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober argued that the case against group selection had been overstated. They considered whether groups can have functional organization in the same way as individuals, and consequently whether groups can be “vehicles” for selection. Groups that cooperate better might survive and reproduce more than those that did not. Resurrected in this way, Wilson & Sober’s new group selection is called multilevel selection theory.[19]
David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober’s 1994 Multilevel Selection Model, illustrated by a nested set of Russian matryoshka dolls. Wilson himself compared his model to such a set.
Wilson compared the layers of competition and evolution to nested sets of Russian matryoshka dolls.[14] The lowest level is the genes, next come the cells, then the organism level and finally the groups. The different levels function cohesively to maximize fitness, or reproductive success. The theory asserts that selection for the group level, involving competition between groups, must outweigh the individual level, involving individuals competing within a group, for a group-beneficiating trait to spread.[20] Multilevel selection theory focuses on the phenotype because it looks at the levels that selection directly acts upon.[14] For humans, social norms can be argued to reduce individual level variation and competition, thus shifting selection to the group level. Wilson ties the multilevel selection theory regarding humans to another theory, gene-culture coevolution, by acknowledging that culture seems to characterize a group-level mechanism for human groups to adapt to environmental changes.[20]

MLS theory can be used to evaluate the balance between group selection and individual selection in specific cases.[20] An experiment by William Muir compared egg productivity in hens, showing that a hyper-aggressive strain had been produced through individual selection, leading to many fatal attacks after only six generations; by implication,it could be argued that group selection must have been acting to prevent this in real life.[21] Group selection has most often been postulated in humans and, notably, eusocial Hymenoptera that make cooperation a driving force of their adaptations over time and have a unique system of inheritance involving haplodiploidy that allows the colony to function as an individual while only the queen reproduces.[22]

Wilson & Sober’s work revived interest in multilevel selection. In a 2005 article,[23] E. O. Wilson argued that kin selection could no longer be thought of as underlying the evolution of extreme sociality, for two reasons. First, he suggested, the argument that haplodiploid inheritance (as in the Hymenoptera) creates a strong selection pressure towards nonreproductive castes is mathematically flawed.[24] Second, eusociality no longer seems to be confined to the hymenopterans; increasing numbers of highly social taxa have been found in the years since Wilson’s foundational text on sociobiology was published in 1975,[25] including a variety of insect species, as well as two rodent species (the naked mole-rat and the Damaraland mole rat). Wilson suggests the equation for Hamilton’s rule:[26]

rb > c
(where b represents the benefit to the recipient of altruism, c the cost to the altruist, and r their degree of relatedness) should be replaced by the more general equation

rbk + be > c
in which bk is the benefit to kin (b in the original equation) and be is the benefit accruing to the group as a whole. He then argues that, in the present state of the evidence in relation to social insects, it appears that be>rbk, so that altruism needs to be explained in terms of selection at the colony level rather than at the kin level. However, kin selection and group selection are not distinct processes, and the effects of multi-level selection are already accounted for in Hamilton’s rule, rb>c,[27] provided that an expanded definition of r, not requiring Hamilton’s original assumption of direct genealogical relatedness, is used, as proposed by E. O. Wilson himself.

I know that’s long, and I don’t pretend to understand all of it - I’m not an evolutionary biologist - but at the very least it implies that group selection is part of modern evolutionary biology.

But imagine a simple scenario.

Suppose two groups of hominids live in close proximity. They compete for things like game, forage, water and other resources. One tribe has a set of genes that predisposes them to individual selfishness - meaning each member of the group looks out for #1. The other group inherits genes that encourage cooperation - meaning they consider not just their individual interests, but the interests of the group as a whole.

Then suppose something happens. The rains don’t come: food is scarce.

And a wildebeest wanders into the area.

Here’s some questions:

1.) Is the cooperative tribe more or less likely to capture the wildebeest?
2.) Is the cooperative tribe more or less likely to share the food with the women and children?
3.) If the cooperative tribe more or less likely to fight each other over it?
4.) If the two tribes go to war over the food, which side is more likely to win?

Finally, even if the selfish tribe gets the food, what happens to them if they don’t share it with the women and children? The next generation will be smaller - if there is one - and the next, and the next.

Then consider wolves:

Wolfpacks are established according to a strict hierarchy, with a dominant male at the top and his mate not far behind. Usually this male and female are the only animals of the pack to breed. All of a pack’s adults help to care for young pups by bringing them food and watching them while others hunt.

Most wolves, at any given time, do not breed. Instead they use their resources to care for the pups of the alpha male and female. If instinctual altruism is not why they do it, what is?

[LinusK]

@iiandyiiii

Feel free to criticize feminism, or specific aspects of feminism. But that’s not the only thing you’re doing – you’re also trying to tell me what feminism is. I’m not going to just accept that your version of feminism is more accurate than mine. I already know that there are feminists I disagree with on certain issues. That doesn’t mean that their feminism is more true or pure than mine, it just means that we might disagree on the best way to achieve equal treatment by law and by society for women and men.

As far as the broader thread, you’d get very little push-back if you took individual statements from individual people and challenged those assertions without attributing them to feminism as a whole. If you say “this person said this, and I think that is wrong/stupid/false/evil because xyz”, then that might be a good discussion. But you’re saying (or at least this is how I’m understanding you) “this person said this, and this person identifies as a feminist, therefore feminism is wrong/stupid/false/evil…”. That’s not logical, and not rational.

I’m not sure what to do with that. In one paragraph you’re saying that all feminism is fine, even if you disagree with it: “it just means that we might disagree on the best way to achieve equal treatment by law and by society for women and men.”

In the next, you’re saying I have to distinguish between every single person who is a feminist. If feminists don’t speak for feminism, who does? Isn’t that just another round-about way of saying feminism is immune from criticism?

[LinusK]

@Lamia

[Lara Stemple] is director of the UCLA Health and Human Rights Law Project, and has done a lot of work on prison rape and sexual victimization of men. I don’t know if Stemple identifies as a feminist, but she did publish a piece titled “HBO’s Oz and the Fight Against Prison Rape” in a book titled Third Wave Feminism and Television.

A little more searching turned up an article on SciDevNet (“View on Gender: Sexual violence affects men too”) where Stemple is quoted as referring to herself as a feminist:

Originally Posted by SciDevNet
Stemple says: “When you have these really excellent studies showing that the numbers of males and females experiencing sexual violence are not that different, it then becomes really hard to justify why there is a constant emphasis on women and girls [in international law]. As a feminist, I think excluding men can be really problematic — because it hits this drumbeat about women and girls as victims all the time.”

Interesting quote. Do you believe that number of men and women experiencing sexual assault are about equal?

If so, why is it, do you think, that there is such a constant emphasis on women and girls, rather than men and boys?

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

I’m not sure what to do with that. In one paragraph you’re saying that all feminism is fine, even if you disagree with it: “it just means that we might disagree on the best way to achieve equal treatment by law and by society for women and men.”

I don’t know if all feminism is fine or not. I know that some statements and actions by some feminists are not fine, and some might be fine but I might disagree with them. The “it just means…” refers only to the disagreements, not whether everything every feminist does is acceptable (that’s absurd for any group). So no, not everything every feminist does or says is “fine” with me.

So you’re misunderstanding me. That’s not what I meant.

In the next, you’re saying I have to distinguish between every single person who is a feminist. If feminists don’t speak for feminism, who does? Isn’t that just another round-about way of saying feminism is immune from criticism?

No, I’m saying that you should criticize the statements of people, and criticize individual people, and not criticize broad groups containing millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people with wildly disparate beliefs for the statements of individuals.

As to who speaks for feminists… uhh, no one? Who speaks for Muslims? Who speaks for egalitarians? Who speaks for atheists? Who speaks for environmentalists? These groups have such diversity of beliefs, as does feminism, that it would be absurd to hold any individual’s statements as representative of such an incredibly broad group of people.

When you speak of feminism, you’re not speaking of my beliefs, for the most part. You don’t know what most feminists believe (and I may not either – I only know about my beliefs and the beliefs of those I know and read a lot about). You should recognize and accept this. This doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize and challenge ideas or statements from some feminists – feel free. But be clear with what you are challenging, please. Don’t say “feminists believe X which is bad because of YZ” – say “person ABC, who identifies as a feminist, said X, which is bad because of YZ”.

Unless your whole goal is just to try to convince us feminists that your version of feminism is the “true” feminism, and ours is not… which would be pointless. If that’s your goal then I would suggest that you try to find another.

Feminism for me is simply the belief that men and women should be treated equally and fairly by law and by society. There are lots of disagreements on how best to achieve this. Your criticisms may apply to some individual feminists, but most of them don’t apply to me or to the vast majority of feminists I know and know of.

[Lamia]

@LinusK

Interesting quote. Do you believe that number of men and women experiencing sexual assault are about equal?

If so, why is it, do you think, that there is such a constant emphasis on women and girls, rather than men and boys?

Interesting attempt to change the subject. Are you ever going to answer my questions about why you misrepresented your own sources or keep your promise about when you’d admit that you were wrong about feminism?