Anti-Feminism

[Lamia]

@LinusK

If I said feminists never did things like DeCrow, I humbly admit my mistake. It is clear that some feminists do things like DeCrow (like DeCrow herself, for example).

It’s good of you to finally acknowledge that she existed.

If you want me to say it again, I’ll say it again: some feminists are doing the right thing.

I must have missed where you said it the first time, but I agree with jsgoddess that this is more than I expected of you. So congratulations on that, for what it’s worth.

I deny being “deceptive”. I posted the links to the sources in hope that people would read them. You’re free to go on thinking I’m deceptive, if you like.

You don’t leave me much choice, since you’ve refused to offer any other explanation for why you’ve repeatedly misrepresented your own sources in this thread.

Another thing you’ve done repeatedly is claimed that no one has given you any specific examples of your weaknesses as a debater. Well, misrepresenting your sources is a pretty major weakness. If you’re not trying to be deceptive then you need to be paying a lot more attention to how you describe your sources, your use of quotes, and particularly how you choose to edit those quotes.

Beyond that, you may also want to consider whether spending your time and energy attacking feminism is really the best way to improve things for men. Even if this thread had gone a lot better for you, undermining feminism isn’t going to end prison rape, make it safer to work on an oil rig, or change the ending of Titanic. Fighting prison rape in particular is not a popular cause, and while I think efforts to “raise awareness” are generally overrated, a thread on this subject that wasn’t just a bunch of “feminists don’t care about prison rape!” could conceivably have changed some minds or inspired someone to get involved. And when the thread wound down, almost certainly in less than 23 pages, you probably would have felt better about how you’d spent your SDMB time.

[LinusK]

@iiandyiiii

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.

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?

Muslims have a central text, called the Qur’an, and a leadership structure that includes Imams. The text, and the religious leaders, speak for Islam.

Who speaks for egalitarians?

As far as I know, that’s not a movement.

Who speaks for atheists?

No one. It’s not a movement. It’s just a name for people who don’t believe in God.

Who speaks for environmentalists?

Al Gore.

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.

I don’t know about that. Take a very specific example. Suppose one feminist says: “Feminism is about equality.” And another says: “Feminism is about advocating on behalf of women.”

Are they both right? What if women were not, in fact, oppressed by law or society. Would they still both be right?

What if women were not only not oppressed, but actually privileged legally and socially?

When you speak of feminism, you’re not speaking of my beliefs, for the most part.

That’s why I asked you about your beliefs. Feminism is, according to at least some feminists, such a broad, inclusive label, it is devoid of content. It literally means nothing, because it means whatever anyone who calls him/herself a feminist thinks it means.

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).

If you call yourself a feminist, and you may not know what most feminists believe, is that a problem?

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”.

I can’t go along with that. If I came to the conclusion that feminism was whatever anyone who calls themselves a feminist says, I’d still be against it - because it would be a movement that literally had no idea what it stood for, or what it was trying to accomplish.

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.

My goal is to criticize feminism as a political ideology.

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.

If I believed that feminism was genuinely about achieving “equality”, I’d be less critical. I don’t believe that. The way that feminists - many feminists - choose to spend their time and energy isn’t consistent with it. I could go on, but I’d be re-re-re-repeating myself, so I won’t.

[wonky]

@LinusK

If I believed that feminism was genuinely about achieving “equality”, I’d be less critical. I don’t believe that. The way that feminists - many feminists - choose to spend their time and energy isn’t consistent with it.

So, who has a better percentage of people advocating for gender equality? Is there such a group?

[camille]

@iiandyiiii

As to who speaks for feminists… uhh, no one? Who speaks for Muslims?

@LinusK

Muslims have a central text, called the Qur’an, and a leadership structure that includes Imams. The text, and the religious leaders, speak for Islam.

Please provide a cite proving that all Muslims are on the same page about Islam, and the interpretation of the Koran.

Name these leaders who speak for Islam, and show that they all agree, and are considered the final authorities by the Muslim population.

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

If I believed that feminism was genuinely about achieving “equality”, I’d be less critical. I don’t believe that. The way that feminists - many feminists - choose to spend their time and energy isn’t consistent with it. I could go on, but I’d be re-re-re-repeating myself, so I won’t.

So we’re at an impasse. I think you’re wrong about feminism for the most part, and wrong about most feminists. I think that the way that many/most feminists spend their time and energy is indicative that the goal is equality/equal treatment. I think you are specifically interpreting many statements and actions of some feminists in the worst possible light, and I believe that this is a choice you are making.

These are subjective feelings largely borne of personal experience (including personal interactions and articles/books read), and I don’t see how either one of us could possibly be persuaded by someone else’s personal experience.

I’ll just reiterate what I said before, in slightly different words – a non-feminist telling feminists what feminism is really about is going to get zero traction, just as a non-atheist telling atheists what atheism is really about, or non-Christians telling Christians, etc. In general, feminists understand feminism better than non-feminists, just as atheists understand atheism better than non-atheists, and Muslims/Christians/Jews understand Islam/Christianity/Judaism better than non-believers.

[LinusK]

@Rune

The whole idea of The Patriarchy is bullshit and one of the reasons modern feminism is such a joke. It doesn’t exists as a force any more than The Matriarchy. Or The BORG. In fact if one substitudes “The Patriarchy” with “The Borg” when reading feminists it instantaneously makes much more sense.

One of the things that irritate me when feminists take on men’s rights is that they tend to like to frame everything and everybody as a question of being victims. And I as a man have absolutely zero interest in being protrayed or assuming the identity of a victim.

I think - and this is of course, just my opinion - but men, in general are not interested in being “victims”.

That’s one reason MRAs are doomed to fail. Whoever came up with that name either didn’t understand cultural/biological sexism, marketing, or both.

The problem with assuming the identity of a victim is it’s disempowering. Someone who is a victim is someone things happen to. Men do not want to be people “things happen to.” They want to be agents - people who make things happen. My own reasoning (which I think you disagreed with - correct me if I’m wrong) is that this is not just a function of cultural conditioning - although that’s certainly part of it - but is rooted in evolutionary psychology. Going back to the millions of years of our evolution as a species, a male who could not make things happen was a disposable male. A man who spent his time complaining about how unfair things were, was a man who was a burden - not an asset. A man who could make things happen was a necessary man - a man who commanded respect. Men, as a result, have always defined themselves in terms of what they could accomplish. Being a victim is not an accomplishment. It’s a demand that others do things for you, as well as an admission of weakness.

One of the great disservices feminism does for women, is that it encourages them to see themselves as victims, rather than agents. It’s appealing to biological/cultural sexism in doing so - which is why it’s so successful - despite the facts. But it has the very real and counter-productive affect of encouraging people to see women as people who must be coddled. Not as people who can be entrusted with leadership roles, or as people who can be counted on when things get tough.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@LinusK

One of the great disservices feminism does for women, is that it encourages them to see themselves as victims, rather than agents. It’s appealing to biological/cultural sexism in doing so - which is why it’s so successful - despite the facts. But it has the very real and counter-productive affect of encouraging people to see women as people who must be coddled. Not as people who can be entrusted with leadership roles, or as people who can be counted on when things get tough.

Until this paragraph you were just making a feminist argument about victimhood, except couched in pseudoevolutionary language that doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

Feminists have been shouting, left and right, about basically exactly this, except in reverse, for decades. You’ve never in your life heard a victim called a “survivor?” All of your internet research and self-professed expertise about what feminists think, and you’ve never once been confronted with the feminist principle of empowerment? What do you think that’s all about?

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Quoting now from the first book I grabbed off the shelf – could’ve been literally any of 'em:

Without a reference point to a movement organizing to change conditions for all women, even self-help, a liberating model for assisting women, can move in dangerously apolitical directions. If empowerment means gaining control over the decisions affecting one’s life and finding access to the resources needed to live decently, then self-help within shelters tries valiantly to offer such possibilities to women. Self-help creates the environment in which women demonstrate that society can be changed and that women no longer have to endure abuse, inequality and powerlessness. Through self-help, grassroots women are able to maintain control of services and lessen the tendency, common in social service agencies, to create hierarchies and professional distance. Yet shelters exist within a society that denies resources to women and undercuts their individual and collective power. Without material resources - housing, jobs and sufficient incomes - empowerment as a universal goal is unreachable.

You genuinely have no idea about even the most fundamental things that you’re talking on and on and fucking on about. You don’t know anything about feminism.

[LinusK]

@Emiliana

Serious question for LinusK: What do you believe should be the most important *goal *in the making of child custody arrangements? I’m not asking what the arrangements should be (e.g. 50/50 physical custody, etc.), but rather what you see as the most important outcome to be achieved.

The goal is the best interests of the children.

The idea that children are best served by staying with their moms and turning their dads into second-class parents is sexist prejudice. It’s unsupported by the evidence. It’s bad for children, for parents, and for society as a whole.

50/50 parenting just means that that’s the rebuttable presumption, or the starting point. If a judge wants to depart from that, she’s free to do so, but must articulate the reasons for doing it. If, for example, the parents agree to something else, that would be reason enough.

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

The goal is the best interests of the children.

The idea that children are best served by staying with their moms and turning their dads into second-class parents is sexist prejudice. It’s unsupported by the evidence. It’s bad for children, for parents, and for society as a whole.

Luckily, NOW doesn’t support this.

50/50 parenting just means that that’s the rebuttable presumption, or the starting point. If a judge wants to depart from that, she’s free to do so, but must articulate the reasons for doing it. If, for example, the parents agree to something else, that would be reason enough.

Why does there need to be a starting point at all? Why wouldn’t the court just start from “we’re going to determine what’s best for the children”, rather than starting at 50/50 (or any other position)?

[Emiliana]

@LinusK

The goal is the best interests of the children.

The idea that children are best served by staying with their moms and turning their dads into second-class parents is sexist prejudice. It’s unsupported by the evidence. It’s bad for children, for parents, and for society as a whole.

50/50 parenting just means that that’s the rebuttable presumption, or the starting point. If a judge wants to depart from that, she’s free to do so, but must articulate the reasons for doing it. If, for example, the parents agree to something else, that would be reason enough.

Best interests of the children, check.
Automatic presumption regarding mother, check. Turning dads into second class parents, check.

50/50 starting presumption, fine. But this is exactly where the individual circumstances of the parents and children come into play. Will the former spouses be living in the same school system? Will their jobs both give them the flexibility to care for the children? What do the children, especially older children, want? Will both ex-spouses have living situations that allow for the adequate care and housing of the kids? Will the kids spend an inordinate amount of time moving from one household to the other? Would alternate weekends and summers with one parent be less disruptive than a literal split?Etc., etc.

I’m quite certain that these are precisely the sorts of questions that are considered in custody disputes. A legally mandated 50/50 custody split would prevent the best interests of the children from prevailing. What constitutes their best interests depends on the individual circumstances of the family, not on some abstract ideal of equality. Children are not property to be divided equally between parents.

You seem to be living in a world that no longer exists if it ever did. You’ve been provided with plenty of evidence of how custody actually works, and yet you won’t let go of the notion that something other than legally mandated 50/50 custody is equivalent to wrenching men out of their children’s lives.

[hildea]

@LinusK

Men do not want to be people “things happen to.” They want to be agents - people who make things happen. My own reasoning (which I think you disagreed with - correct me if I’m wrong) is that this is not just a function of cultural conditioning - although that’s certainly part of it - but is rooted in evolutionary psychology. Going back to the millions of years of our evolution as a species, a male who could not make things happen was a disposable male.

Do you still think human beings are inherently inclined to see men as less valuable and more expendable than women? Or have you reconsidered after looking at the cites you asked for, and was given, about infanticide and sex-selective abortion targeting girls in China and India?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@LinusK

Men do not want to be people “things happen to.” They want to be agents - people who make things happen.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point, and I apologise if so, but; is it your contention that women do want to be people “things happen to.”, or that they don’t want to be agents, or that they don’t/do want those things at different rates than men?

[Jack_of_Words]

Gosh, nearly forgot this was here, I’ve been having so much fun in the Pit.

But can anybody tell me whether women who are anti-feminists are as stupid as I’m told I must be, more stupid, or are they just the unfortunate victims of men? Also, would you say they are also misogynists? (‘Also’ as in you’d then be one…)

[Jack_of_Words]

On custody and family courts, by the way, at least as far as the England/Wales model, children are not always best able to speak to their own interests. I’ve witnessed a judge directly ask the mother what the best interests of the child were (because he was a sexist old dinosaur concerned with traditional gender roles, of course, but nobody present challenged it). But mostly, the question is answered by appointed persons, often with social work qualifications (not always women, not always misandrists).

But we don’t, as a society, interfere with the raising of children willy-nilly. We protect them, imperfectly, as best we can - but the state is not generally entitled to micromanage parenting, not even ‘in the best interests of the child’ (which is not, in any case, a set of hard and fast rules).

One of the common guidelines is that routine is most beneficial to the child (and that unpredictable contact with the absent parent…the father, because it mostly is, due to all those dreadful old sexist social roles we argue against when it suits us…is worse than no contact at all). Of course, routine contact is sometimes very easily arranged, and sometimes very difficult (regardless of gender). For members of the armed forces, or the diplomatic service, or many careers, that kind of predictability and routine is not available.

By the “won’t someone think of the children!” standards of the family court system, even happily married/partnered servicemen/women and diplomats and middle-managers of corporations and the self-employed and countless others are harming their children.

Not that anyone has ever bothered to conduct any meaningful study on whether or not what is done in ‘the best interests of the child’ has any lasting positive or negative effects. I think, like the judge I mentioned in the first paragraph, we just ask mothers…

[wonky]

@Jack_of_Words

Not that anyone has ever bothered to conduct any meaningful study on whether or not what is done in ‘the best interests of the child’ has any lasting positive or negative effects.

Sure about that?

[Gedd]

How is this still going on?

Most feminists simply think men and women should be treated equally.

There are some outliers, just like with any group (See: Christianity and the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK)

[Slithy_Tove]

I do encounter women who say “I’m strong and independent, but I’m not a feminist.”

Why? Each one has her own reason, but they are average people, going with the flow (no Donald Trump-like pun intended). If they live in a college town in the Northeast or Northwest, they’re more likely to be socially comfortable calling themselves feminists. Here in the suburbs of Atlanta, that would make them outliers. There’s a lot of people here who will say they aren’t religious, but won’t declare “I am an atheist/agnostic.”

(Although, you can imagine an “I’m not a feminist” Texan woman taking less shit of her boyfriend that an Oregon-apathy feminist, in practical day-to-day terms.)

Even more harsh than accusing them of being sheep is the assumption that they’ve made what’s called the Patriarchal Bargain. When they’re young and hot, they see more rewards from the traditional entitlements granted to (mostly young and hot) women than the sort of rights for which they have to include their own efforts: actually going through college, putting up with the corporate crap, etc. And the rights that they inherited from earlier generations of feminism, like birth control? That’s taken for granted.

[Emiliana]

@Gedd

How is this still going on? <snip>

It’s been going around in circles for some time now. I suspect it’s because LinusK’s style of argumentation is so frustrating to so many posters, myself included. A special kind of train wreck.

[Rune]

@hildea

Do you still think human beings are inherently inclined to see men as less valuable and more expendable than women? Or have you reconsidered after looking at the cites you asked for, and was given, about infanticide and sex-selective abortion targeting girls in China and India?

Perhaps the views are different in China/India and The West. Meaning of course that it’s not inherent, but still might be a thing in Western culture that women are seen as more valuable and less expendable than men. There is a thing called Women are Wonderful Effect which seems to be a real thing. And I have yet to see an article emphasising that men were killed as an especial horrendous thing. “An earthquake hit San Francisco. 20 people were killed, including men and children.” Odd how that sounds so outlandish and silly.

Btw. I personally have the same prejudice. The death of a number of (an anonymous) women awakens much more a feeling of tragedy and loss, than does the death of (an anonymous) men.