On Feminism

[Ruken]

@LinusK

I don’t think what happens in family court is comparable to the wage gap. The 70% figure (or whatever it is) comes from comparing the wages of all women to all men. It doesn’t take into account the number of hours worked, the length of time on the job, or the type of job. When you take those kinds of things into consideration, the gap is closer to 5%. And I don’t know whether that takes into account the occupational death gap: men are 13 times more likely to die on the job than women.

I think we wrote past each other on this one. Where I see the parallel is in that we shouldn’t just look at the total gap, subtract known non-discriminatory reasons for the gap, and assume that the entirety of the remainder is due to discrimination.

For example, we have a “custody gap” of 85:15 instead of 50:50. I believe that there are societal biases against fathers as parents. We know why some of this gap exists, as discussed in my previous post, but I’m not going to say that the remaining difference is due *entirely *to anti-father discrimination. I believe the contribution of that discrimination is non-zero, and bounded on the high end by the difference, but I don’t know where it is.

We have a wage gap. I believe that there are societal biases that devalue work by women. I’ve seen them, and I referenced two studies upthread that show this. But as you point out, a very large chunk of this gap is due to factors that are not from direct wage discrimination. They do not account for the entire gap. But I don’t know how much of the remaining difference is due to that discrimination.

Regardless, I think that both these societal biases are bad. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here.

Regarding the “dangerous work premium”, you might want to drop that one because it doesn’t pan out. A fully efficient market *should *equalize differentials, but real market inefficiencies eliminate the premium, and often it is negative! See DOI: 10.2307/2525246

[Ruken]

@AHunter3

This thread’s still extant?

@ddsun

Eople-pay eep-kay osting-pay… (I’m guilty of being one them).

I think it’s an interesting topic, despite some of the personalities involved. I might have even learned something.

[Renaissance_Man]

@LinusK

As actual evidence of discrimination against women disappears, feminists become more creative about finding excuses to maintain their victimhood status. Whether it’s complaining about how men sit, the comments of a random cop in Canada, or a shirt a guy wore on TV, their complaints just get just sillier as Western society and becomes more and more feminized.
//
But the reality is that feminism has consequences, and it hurts not just men, but women and children too.

“Feminism” is a one-word oxymoron. The root word, feminine, suggest attractiveness. Feminists are nothing if not anti-attractive. They abhor curvaceous, sexy women.

35,000,000 unborn babies, murdered at the insistence of “feminists.” Roe v Wade was based on the lie that Norma McCorvey was raped. She lied. Nevertheless, abortion should be legal for women who have been raped. That would eliminate 99% of abortions in the U.S.

So what do “feminists” think of China’s decades old practice of aborting female babies?
Ah yes, it’s the woman’s “choice.” Nothing to debate. Move along here.

[Jack_of_Words]

@andros

…or perhaps your obvious trolling had its predictable response. :rolleyes:

I struggle to get past ‘Or’ - what do you think your proposal is an alternative to?

@andros

To be clear, Jack of Words, it was not my intent to accuse you of trolling this or any other message board. My apologies if it came across that way.

But based on your post it seems clear you expected a particular response from the woman you spoke, the one with the “pained expression” that you just knew was a feminist, and as you say you deliberately used a word you were confident would arouse ire for your own amusement, this would on first blush seem to be an example of trolling IRL.

I’m confident it really *wasn’t *that, of course. But I’d love to hear you explain your intentions in more detail.

I’m relatively confident that your confidence is irrelevant. Once again, I’ll remind you all that I am not the topic of the thread. ‘Jack of words purposefully pushed a feminist’s buttons’ is not a meaningful contribution to this thread - the only use I see for it is to try to tie another label to me. MMMiller went round the houses trying to set me up as an anti-semite, various posters went straight for the old ‘seems sexist, so probably racist’ routine and now you want to tell everyone I’m a troll. I’d mind more, if it didn’t reveal the fragility of feminist ‘argument’: Can’t defend your beliefs? Attack the character of those that speak against them.

I troll racists IRL too, btw - though they’re not always as easily recognisable as feminists.

[LinusK]

@Mithrander

I know I should just stay out of gender politics, as after my divorce I got screwed by the system so bad that no cannibal will touch me as I am far too bitter … but this statement bugged me enough that I felt obliged to reply.

Really? You can’t think of a single time when a female in our current society might have an advantage over a male in the same situation? I’ll ignore the draft, as that is unlikely to actually be implemented again, but which gender is privileged in the following situations?

A man and a woman are having a domestic argument, and the cops have been called.

A man and a woman robbed a store and got caught, and are now being sentenced for the crime.

A woman is pregnant, and her and the man involved don’t agree on how to handle the situation.

A man and a woman are divorcing, and custody is being disputed.

A man and a woman are sitting alone in a park where children are playing.

A man and a woman are both at a bar and broke, while hoping to score some free drinks.

The last one is weaksauce, I’ll admit, but there are absolutely situations where being a female is an advantage. I’m not saying those advantages are better or more numerous than the ones that men get, but they exist. So when feminists insist that they don’t have any privilege whatsoever, I don’t buy it. It comes across as trying to get more advantages without even acknowledging the ones you have.

Now, to avoid the Linus problem of painting with a way oversized brush, there are some feminists who really are about equality. I applaud them, they rock. There are also angry and entitled feminists who feel that because women have gotten the short end of the stick for so long, the pendulum deserves to swing back the other direction. I can agree with the first group and disagree with the second despite the fact they both call themselves feminists.

So Linus, here’s a tip from someone who is (marginally) on your side. You might get better results with your MRA witnessing threads if you don’t treat every person who identifies as a feminist as part of the second group instead of the first. Finally, if you just want to argue with the second group, just fucking go to Reddit, there’s plenty of them there. Your repeatedly arguing past people here isn’t doing your side any favors.

I’m not an MRA.

But I’m prepared to believe that not all self-identified feminists are misandrist. And I’m prepared to believe that some for equality, rather than for women.

But I’m waiting for some of them to take the issues above - and other issues I’ve brought up - seriously, rather than brush them off, or treat them like a joke. Because if a feminist was really for equality they’d be as concerned about equality for men, as for women.

As it is, they’re worried about the number of female CEO’s, and the number of female members of Congress. In other words, their attention is focused on the 0.01%. But there’s another 99.99% of us who’re never going to be CEO’s or members of Congress. Where are the feminists who’re worried about the vastly higher number of men who kill themselves? Who’re incarcerated? The boys who’re dropping out of school? Who’re being labelled and drugged? Where is the demand for more male grade-school teachers? Where is the concern for men who’re screwed in divorce court? Where is the concern for boys - and girls, for that matter - who grow up without fathers?

The equality feminists say they’re for equality. But that’s all they do. They just say it.

[iiandyiiii]

@Mithrander

A man and a woman are having a domestic argument, and the cops have been called.

There has been a historical power imbalance, such that in male-female conflicts there were usually two assumptions by authorities: the woman is the man’s to do with as he pleases, or the woman is the victim of the man. Feminism has helped make the first assumption largely in the past (at least in America), but the second assumption still holds influence. When this historical power imbalance is eliminated (there should be no power imbalance), then the second assumption should go away, and authorities shouldn’t be biased by gender.

A man and a woman robbed a store and got caught, and are now being sentenced for the crime.

Similar to the first answer. This historic power imbalance still influences assumptions, such that women are assumed to be not as aggressive, violent, or dangerous, and therefore not as deserving of harsher sentences.

A woman is pregnant, and her and the man involved don’t agree on how to handle the situation.

If by “situation”, you mean what’s going on inside the woman’s body, then I think it’s reasonable that the woman has more of a say. It’s her body, therefore she gets to decide what to do with it, and who gets to go inside it, and who gets to stay inside it. A man is free to disagree with her decision, and even end a relationship over this disagreement, but the choice on what happens to her body should be entirely hers (which means that she gets to decide if anyone else’s opinion is relevant or not). Do you disagree?

A man and a woman are divorcing, and custody is being disputed.

Due to historic power imbalances and traditional roles of men and women, women and mothers in general are sometimes assumed to be more important than men and fathers, for children. This is a bad thing and something that feminists should (and do) fight against.

A man and a woman are sitting alone in a park where children are playing.

This has to do with the power imbalance mentioned in the first answer, as well as the human tendency for lazy thinking (e.g. “most sexual abusers and kidnappers are men, therefore we should be more suspicious of men around children than women, even though the overwhelming majority of men are not dangerous at all to children”). This is a bad thing and something that feminists should (and do) fight against.

A man and a woman are both at a bar and broke, while hoping to score some free drinks.

This is also a remnant of the power imbalance, IMO. Men are assumed and expected to be providers, and the approachers, while women are assumed and expected to be provided for and approached. This is a bad thing and something that feminists should (and do) fight against.

[LinusK]

@Kimstu

<snip>

Quote:
Originally Posted by LinusK
When a feminist says that feminism isn’t about equality, you have nothing to say at all.

Sure we have something to say in response to such assertions: we disagree with them.

Well, no. I was making a factual statement about a particular feminist - Marshmallow - who posted on the 11th (#161). Here’s what I said (#270):

When a feminist says that feminism isn’t about equality, you have nothing to say at all.

Quote:
Feminism should be for women. Pandering to men is a betrayal…

Why is that?

You may “disagree with them,” in some general sense, but in the specific instance I was talking about - in this thread - you didn’t disagree with her. In fact, despite having time to discuss urine funnels and splinters and Jews, none of you had anything to say about Marshmallow’s comments at all.

So again, why the difference?

Why - when I say feminism isn’t about equality - herds of equality feminists appear to denounce me; but when a feminist says it, it becomes the proverbial tree in the forest, which nobody heard?

Ignorance on its own we can successfully fight, in most cases. The comorbidity of ignorance with wilfull irrationalism, on the other hand, is a much harder proposition.

I like that. Plus, I learned a new word. +1.

[iiandyiiii]

@LinusK

Why - when I say feminism isn’t about equality - herds of equality feminists appear to denounce me; but when a feminist says it, it becomes the proverbial tree in the forest, which nobody heard?

Feminists shouldn’t pander to men. They shouldn’t pander to women, either. They shouldn’t pander to anyone. Pandering is generally not a good thing. “Feminists shouldn’t pander to men” isn’t a statement that feminism isn’t about equality.

[Peremensoe]

@LinusK

Why - when I say feminism isn’t about equality - herds of equality feminists appear to denounce me; but when a feminist says it, it becomes the proverbial tree in the forest, which nobody heard?

Maybe because it was one tree, whereas your comments are an endless forest of falling trees. I’m sure that few readers are actually trying to follow this tiresome mess of a thread, and it is easy for any single remark by anyone else to be overlooked by drop-ins. But your timber of wrongness is just everywhere.

[Jack_of_Words]

@Peremensoe

Maybe because it was one tree, whereas your comments are an endless forest of falling trees. I’m sure that few readers are actually trying to follow this tiresome mess of a thread, and it is easy for any single remark by anyone else to be overlooked by drop-ins. But your timber of wrongness is just everywhere.

And yet I too have asked regular posters in this thread to comment on that ‘one tree’, and still nobody has anything to say about it. Oh, hang on, after being asked directly, by name, to address that feminist’s remarks (in light of his repeated claim that he doesn’t know of any actual extremists), here’s andy…

@iiandyiiii

Feminists shouldn’t pander to men. They shouldn’t pander to women, either. They shouldn’t pander to anyone. Pandering is generally not a good thing. “Feminists shouldn’t pander to men” isn’t a statement that feminism isn’t about equality.

None so blind, eh? “Feminism should be for women” is a statement about ‘equality’, a statement that comes immediately before the one you just twisted, tortuously, and before the rest of that misandric post (which you’ve yet to adequately address).

I don’t know who’s following this thread, Peremensoe, but if they have any intellectual honesty then they’ve already seen enough of what even ‘self-identified mainstream’ feminism is - let alone the actual, effective, ‘extremist’ feminism of Marshmallow, of feminism’s founders and of its faithful followers.

[iiandyiiii]

@Jack_of_Words

None so blind, eh? “Feminism should be for women” is a statement about ‘equality’, a statement that comes immediately before the one you just twisted, tortuously, and before the rest of that misandric post (which you’ve yet to adequately address).

I agree that “Feminism should be for women”, though I’d also add that it should be for society, for children, for humanity, and for men.

[Ibanez]

@Jack_of_Words

And yet I too have asked regular posters in this thread to comment on that ‘one tree’, and still nobody has anything to say about it. Oh, hang on, after being asked directly, by name, to address that feminist’s remarks (in light of his repeated claim that he doesn’t know of any actual extremists),

They won’t, and never will directly answer it, sure they’ll skirt around it some what and dismiss is as one instance of crazy that should be dismisses because (not all feminists are like that) NAFALT but there’s enough stories of the movement has been hijacked by crazy. The link I provided up thread of the teacher banning boys from playing lego in her class, obvious feminist fighting for gender equality but not a peep.

Here’s another one, Greg Elliotlife is being ruined for criticizing feminists when they said they were going to send a mob against a man for creating a distasteful video game.

I wish I could say the movement was a joke that I could just dismiss, but it’s a misandric movement that has men clear in its sights. Less and less people identify as feminists these days, and it’s for good reason.

[raventhief]

Look, feminists don’t scramble to refute any particular instance of feminism that doesn’t correlate with their own for the same reason that anti-feminists don’t feel the need to refute every single anti-feminist statement made.

[Jack_of_Words]

@iiandyiiii

I agree that “Feminism should be for women”, though I’d also add that it should be for society, for children, for humanity, and for men.

So it should be for everyone. You might have taken a moment to mention that to Marshmallow…who clearly thinks otherwise, if you’d take the trouble to address her whole post. Again, I know you won’t be swayed by me…and you must know the reverse is also true. So who are you hoping to influence? Idiots?

[Jack_of_Words]

@raventhief

Look, feminists don’t scramble to refute any particular instance of feminism that doesn’t correlate with their own for the same reason that anti-feminists don’t feel the need to refute every single anti-feminist statement made.

Quite right, though we’re not talking about ‘every single instance’, are we? We’re talking about a post made in this thread, among those from ‘self-identifying mainstream feminists’ who were at pains to say they didn’t support misandric feminism…and who won’t let anything go if I or LK post it. But Marshmallow’s views go unchallenged (and almost unacknowledged). In Andy’s case, he’s bending over backwards to try and make her hate-speech seem reasonable. I can only assume this is because it doesn’t serve their anti-anti-feminism to stir up her particular hornets nest.

[iiandyiiii]

@Jack_of_Words

So who are you hoping to influence? Idiots?

People who want to learn what feminists think about feminism.

[Emiliana]

@iiandyiiii

People who want to learn what feminists think about feminism.

This would be a terrible place to learn what feminists think about feminism. I’d admire your perseverance, but this thread, like its predecessors, is chock full of lost causes and dead horses, not to mention a jackass or two.

[iiandyiiii]

@Emiliana

This would be a terrible place to learn what feminists think about feminism. I’d admire your perseverance, but this thread, like its predecessors, is chock full of lost causes and dead horses, not to mention a jackass or two.

Perhaps you’re right. I’ll try harder to resist the temptation to respond. If anyone wants to engage me personally on this issue, feel free to send me a PM.

[Emiliana]

@iiandyiiii

Perhaps you’re right. I’ll try harder to resist the temptation to respond. If anyone wants to engage me personally on this issue, feel free to send me a PM.

I meant to say that I admire your perseverance–not that I would, but that I do. It’s just: pearls and swine as it were.

[LinusK]

@raventhief

Look, feminists don’t scramble to refute any particular instance of feminism that doesn’t correlate with their own for the same reason that anti-feminists don’t feel the need to refute every single anti-feminist statement made.

Hypothetically, suppose I had a discussion with someone who said, “Feminism is about equality,” and I wanted to convince them that it wasn’t.

What evidence could I present that might convince them?

What about prominent books and articles that leading feminists had published over the years - including books that were in some colleges (like mine) required reading?

Or say the policies and lobbying efforts of national feminist organizations?

Or examples of the kinds of things feminists publicly get upset about, versus the things they ignore?

Suppose I presented all of that, the response was that I was “witnessing” and that those other feminists were merely an irrelevant fringe, and that it was up to a feminist to decide what feminism was about; and therefore, as long as the feminist I was talking to insisted feminism was about equality, his view was necessarily more accurate than mine.

At some point I would just have to give up. If there is no evidence that will convince him otherwise, his belief in equality feminism is unassailable. It’s beyond the reach of evidence or reason.

So I give up: those who insist that feminism is about equality, because they - and their friends - think so will go on believing that. Your belief that feminism is about equality is unassailable.