Consider this analogy: Only rarely does anyone tell me that they are a Christian. The vast majority of Christians are decent, normal people. When you encounter them on the street, there’s not much way of identifying them as Christian unless you ask. (Or unless they’re coming out of a church, I suppose.)
The people who are the most loud and out-spoken about being Christian tend to be assholes. These are the Fred Phelps’ of the world, and the too-slick televangelists with forked tongues, screaming about the gays. You are far more likely to encounter the former type of Christian, but you are disproportionately likely to hear the latest screed from some religious hatemonger.
Likewise, you are very likely to encounter equality-feminists everyday. You wouldn’t necessarily know it unless you asked. But you’re disproportionately likely to hear some absurd rant about how all males are bad (or something of that nature). I’m not sure who the Fred Phelps of feminism is, but the Internet is full of angry ranting bloggers of all stripes, including man-hating self-described feminists. They do not by any means represent the majority.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but I hope the point is clear: Ideologies tend to have very loud fringes.
Huh? What even prompts this question? Show me where race and/or sex is taken into account on my tax forms?
Can you explain what you’re talking about?
The answer to the question is painfully obvious: fuck no. (Calculated per dollar of income or property subject to tax. As white males earn more than others, sure, of course they pay more than others.)
Sweartagod, I have no idea what your point is here.
I’ve never heard of feminism being the cause of the GFC!
Except if you look at the top decision makers in most companies who were heavily involved in the crashes associated with the GFC … what percentage of their boards and high level management were women? If it is less than 10% does that mean feminism only needs to “own” 10% of the GFC? And maybe those women weren’t feminists anyway!
Am I arguing the opposite “Does that mean masculinists should be owning up to their part in the GFC?” of course not! Neither men nor women can be responsible for something so large; humans are responsible. The more we look at similarities between men and women, we empower both. There are more differences between people who grow up in different countries/cultures than there are difference between men and women in the same culture.
Unfortunately statistics are an objective measure of how people experience the world. If the chance of a sexual assault incident resulting in conviction is as low as one in 100 … does that mean 99 cases were not sexual assault? - no. Does it give a clear indication of the likelihood of what happens in the case of sexual assault? - yes. What the statistics do is help people understand the dangers of living their lives are (in the same way we keep track of road fatalities) and also highlight areas that need addressing.
The statistic you cite should offend both genders, for creating a society where 1/6 of the population are traumatised (and what fraction of the population are in the position to cause that trauma).
They weren’t claiming they weren’t feminist. They were claiming that anyone who didn’t believe in rape culture theory wasn’t a feminist. And, like I said, it was the first time I heard from anyone that just believing men and women should be treated equally wasn’t enough to be a feminist.
What I’ve seen is the feminist leaders form their own little circle of friends and guess who is always paid to speak at events, gets their books sold, gets articles published, and gets hired to each others board? Yep, that circle of friends. Its like middle school all over.
The TL/DR version: Most of the world already agrees in principle with “everyone should be equal”, but huge chunks of that population have huge holes in their awareness of the ways in which equality is still lacking and in which their own perceptions and assumptions and attitudes may be playing a role in that.
I equate feminism with the saying two wrongs don’t make a right. But can it produce a right?
In practice it appears to be a female superior / male inferior philosophy. I would say out of the 2 opposing sides, the ‘patriotically society’ and feminism being so evidently unfair and biased people can see the shortcomings and unfairness of both systems and hopefully decide on a more equal societal view then either offer.
And feminism has its share of litmus test feminist.
Years ago, I went to the now defunct Amazon Feminist Bookstore to pick up a book. I was a subscriber to Ms., a member of NOW and had a Women’s Studies minor. I also had a corporate job and was married (to a man!) and wore a wedding ring. The glares I got showing up in my suit into that bookstore might be one reason they went out of business. In their minds feminists were all lesbian hippies. (I can’t imagine what it would have been like for a man in that store).
But there are pro-life feminists - who want equal economic opportunity and equal political access. There are feminists who think porn is cool (there are plenty of self proclaimed feminists who write and produce it), and feminists who would like to legalize prostitution, there are feminists who believe that their effort is better spent overseas - that we shouldn’t relax our vigilance here in the U.S., but we aren’t suffering nearly as much as women in the Middle East or making sure women in the third world have access to birth control and education.
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” - Rebecca West, 1913.
It is if you only do it for women. Men who have been raped are in as bad a position as ever they were, but even the term “rape cultures”, which was coined for the rape of men in prison, got hijacked by feminist teeny-boppers.
So yes, you can’t on the one hand claim that feminist is all about equality and then on the other give as your example a case in which feminism has improved the position of women while ignoring the analogous position of men,
Who says they’re only doing it for women? And in any case, trying to protect women (or children, or whales, or chimpanzees) is not an unequal action.
I challenge you to find a major feminist organization that opposes treating seriously sexual assault of men.
You’re just wrong here. Helping women is not an unequal thing to do. Helping women helps everyone – just like Civil Rights for black people helped all Americans, and just like helping the sick improves life for all of us.
Social movements tend to get more radical over time. At first they want to appeal to the broadest constituency possible to achieve results. But once results start to be achieved then more radical goals start to look achievable and you lose people. Once you lose moderates then the cause gets more radical. It is like reducing a sauce.
Think of it mathematically where opinions are layed out 1-100, where 100 is the most radical. At first the average opinion is 50, right in the middle and that is where the leadership is. This alienates people whose opinions are from 1-10 and they leave. Now the spectrum of opinion is from 10-100 and the middle is 55. So the leadership moves to 55 which alienates those whose opinions are from 10-20. This moves the middle to 60.
Thus social movements get more radical overtime. Feminism used to mean equality, now it means taxpayer funded abortions, “rape culture”, and hatred of men.
This. I’d like to call myself a feminist, but a lot of the more overt feminism I’m exposed to is just so annoying and alienating. I often read The Guardian and generally enjoy the op-eds, but they are full of feminist pieces, many of which are just silly. Too many are based on personal anecdotes which are then extrapolated to the whole of society to form “truths”. Sometimes there is better evidence, but you then see, for example, evidence of hostility towards women attempting to negotiate higher salaries extrapolated to “prove” that young girls are having the word “bossy” harmfully misapplied to them.
There is also, in my opinion, a lack of understanding of the realities of society for all people. Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes people are total shits, and it may not have anything to do with sexism, and is probably not representative of anything or anyone. You will also find many gross generalizations about men that I find offensive. The narratives many of these feminist pieces tell are completely foreign to me, and yet I’m assumed to be in denial when I say so. The problem is, if you disagree or point out the flaws, you are a misogynist and therefore not worth listening to. The obvious result of this is that the only criticism that is not to be shouted down is positive. Another way of putting this is that many feminists have created an echo chamber for themselves where all feminist ideas and initiatives become valid and worthy. Perhaps in an effort to create a feeling of inclusiveness for women who feel mistreated by society, there is too much acceptance of anecdotes and feelings, and too little criticism of flaws in arguments among feminists.
Income taxes? If white males earn more than humans fitting into other categories, they should be paying more taxes. If you’re still living in Mom’s basement, don’t worry!
All feminists are not identical. That should be painfully obvious…
Many years ago, there was a local feminist ice cream shop – Amazon Sweet Shop. Yummy! All natural. One time, I tried their vegetable soup. I asked for salt, and got a really nasty glare. So, just for silly, I also asked for a side order of preservatives. They were furious, and started lecturing me. I thought they were going to throw me out! It was a joke…
So, yeah, some feminists are humor-impaired. But then there’s Rachel Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres, Alison Bechdel, and so very many others, who are fun and witty and have great senses of humor!
Total agreement re the rest of your post: there are feminists on both sides of nearly any major policy position. To me, the idea of a pro-life feminist is close to oxymoronic, but there are a great many of them.
I’m pro choice, but you have to remember that many pro life people legitimately consider abortion murder. To them abortion is like saying we should have the right to stab 2 year olds to death if we don’t want them anymore.
I, of course, disagree with this analysis for many, many reasons, both biological and philosophical, but if somebody really feels that way I have no problem with them being a pro-life feminist. I don’t really see a contradiction there.