Feminism is to the late 20th century what Marxism was to the late 19th: you can agree, you can disagree, you can agree with loads of disclaimers; but it’s the most important theory of its time and in one fashion or another you need to respond to it. It frames discussions.
That post does address his arguments, such as they are. He’s claimed he’s an egalitarian. He then says stuff that’s clearly contrary to egalitarian ideals. Ergo, he’s not an egalitarian.
The difference is simple:
Suppose one group was over-represented in one area, and under-represented in another. Equality for group A would mean “fixing” the area where they were under-represented, while ignoring the area where they were over-represented.
For example, women are under-represented in STEM fields.
On the other hands, women are 33% more likely to get a college degree than men.
Which issue do you think feminists care about? Which one do they ignore?
I see. “You’re no more an egalitarian than Donald Trump,” is an attack on the poster’s argument rather than the poster himself.
So, just to be clear, here: In a thread you started dedicated to the idea that feminists don’t really care about equality, you’re calling me out because I said a guy on your side doesn’t really care about equality.
Yeah, that’s super consistent.
So, you don’t know what the word “equality” means either?
Can I resolve this entire debate by buying you a dictionary? (You’ll have to share with Jack!)
All genders are equal, but some are more equal than others?
I suppose it might be. If you’d included any. But your contribution was simply “You’re wrong”. So once again, you’re wrong.
It’s a thread on the concept of feminism. Feminism is not about equality regardless of gender. It takes ‘equality’, strips it of meaning, and attaches it to a slogan which reverses its meaning: ‘equality for women’.
My mind is made up. I based my position on a mountain of evidence. Positions based on perverse slogans and the denial of blindingly obvious societal gynocentrism do not appeal to me
He’s calling you out because of your brazen denial that your personally-directed comment was somehow about ‘the argument’. Any comment framed that way (‘You are X [or not X]’) is a personal comment. For example: ‘You are not a very good moderator’, or ‘You really shouldn’t be allowed to wield any form of power’ would both be personal comments, regardless of evidence for their veracity. Remarks about arguments would be phrased in this sort of way: (eg) ‘That argument doesn’t even make sense, since your insult is unfounded, you’re being called out on something else anyway, and neither has any bearing on what feminism is’. Hope that helps.
Meanwhile, on topic…this is yet another example of how feminists defend an unsound ideology.
So, just for the record, this is now the third time I have explained the rather simple concept of equality to you. Does anyone not named **Jack **have trouble understanding the concept of “if A=B then B=A”?
Yes it is
Ugh, I can see that I’m going to have the concept of equality to you a fifth (?) time.
I noticed.
No you didn’t
Ah yes, the tragic problem of societal gynocentrism, the silent killer.
Well, that the transitive property applies to math doesn’t mean it applies to language, or that everyone will use the language as it is meant to be used, as the end of Animal Farm illustrates.
True. When the inevitable happens and women use the power of societal gynocentrism to sentence me to ploughing the fields, I’ll cry out: “curse you ‘equality’, you weren’t supposed to mean this!”
Well, Animal Farm was an allegory, so ploughing the fields could be a stand in for just about anything, really.
There’s nothing quite like watching someone who demonstrably does not understand semantics trying to make a semantic argument.
It’s fortunate for you that the rules do not work the way you think they work, else you’d have been banned around your fourth post.
In order for this little anecdote to provide a condemnation of feminism, the following 4 conditions would have to be true:
[ol]
[li]The story would have to be true (and let’s just leave it there…)[/li][li]It would have to be the case that the reason they wouldn’t employ you is because of your gender (and not for any of the myriad other reasons someone who read your posts could think of for not employing you)[/li][li]It would have to be the case that the reason they chose not to hire a man is based upon their interpretation of feminist ideals[/li][li]It would have to be the case that their conclusion based on their interpretation of feminist ideals was the correct interpretation, and that any other reasonable feminist would also reach that interpretation[/li][/ol]
I believe that you have met precisely *zero *of these conditions. Well, let’s be kind and say that you’ve met one.
That means that this little story (of which you oh so conveniently have so many) is pretty much meaningless.
But don’t let that stop you from sharing more of your *interesting *little stories of the strangely numerous ways you’ve run afoul of societal gynocentrism. They do fascinate me so.
I don’t necessarily agree with your analysis.
Your points 1 and 2 seem somewhat redundant. If the anecdote is true (1) then they’ve stated outright that he was denied employment because of his gender (2), rather than “myriad other reasons”. As for 3 and 4, it may not be true that feminist ideals caused the discrimination, rather that it represents a double standard that feminism hasn’t fought male discrimination in traditionally female occupations as vigorously as they have to open traditionally male occupations (like STEM) to women.
Of course, I don’t speak for Jack of Words.
It could be the case that the story was true as far as he told it (i.e., that they told him that they wouldn’t hire him because he was a man), but they actually didn’t hire him for another reason. And they only told him that being a man was the problem in order to spare his feelings.
And hey, for the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear that when I say “It could be the case that the story was true,” I’m speaking hypothetically.
That’s a possibility, but it also suggests a double standard. Would they tell a woman that she wasn’t being hired because she was a woman? Would they open themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit just to spare her feelings? If she shared that story on a website (as Jack has done here) or on social media would people suggest she made it up or would there be a backlash against the school?
Indeed, your suggestion of this possibility accepts the double standard whether Jack’s story happened or not. You’re saying that a school could openly admit to discrimination against a man because it would better than hurting his feelings with the true reason.
LinusK, are you familiar with this study?
[QUOTE=Are Feminists Manhaters? Feminists and Non-feminists’ attitudes toward men]
The present study examined self-identified feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men. An ethnically
diverse sample (N = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory
(AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999). Contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than
did nonfeminists.
[/QUOTE]
It appears not much research has been done on this topic.
As for the claim that feminists on this board don’t speak out against anti-male attitudes, I literally just did that in a thread on microaggressions yesterday.
[QUOTE=the relevant bit]
…I am feeling increasingly alienated by this culture… and I couldn’t put my finger on it until an internet commenter made it clear. He was a gay man who had been a long-time social justice activist and he saw the recent actions on campus as misguided, namely because social justice these days has become an intellectualized experience for many people, to the point where we’ve confused lecturing at people with real social activism. And in my experience, lecturing only alienates people who really cannot get it on an empathetic level.
…as a woman, I am genuinely unhappy with a lot of the mainstream feminist narrative because it seems so fundamentally alienating to men. That just seems like bad strategy. I’ve heard all the arguments in favor, the statements that men cannot truly be feminists because they lack the experience of being a woman, and I think it’s bullshit. We need allies, and I don’t think you can yell people into understanding you.
The SJW crowd would call this ‘‘tone policing’’ and I get the criticism, but on the other hand, I’m a woman, I know sexism is a thing, and I still think we’re getting it wrong. Those articles about how women are justified in their mistrust of men really piss me off. I would hope that we all understand the concept of confirmation bias and also that, as feminists, we’re well aware most sexual assaults aren’t committed by strangers. Can’t rationality step in at a certain point and trump personal experience? It just seems intellectually lazy to me, and not at all productive.
A recent example is an article I saw that said something along the lines of ‘‘3 Ways ‘For Her Pleasure’ Sex can actually be misogynistic.’’ For fuck’s sake.
[/QUOTE]
I half-heartedly googled looking for articles posted by feminists that critiqued (what seems to me is) the dominant feminist paradigm in media that attacks male allies. I didn’t find any… I found the opposite, articles that piss me off about why male allies aren’t good enough. There is a very loud and vocal contigent of feminists I often do not agree with. They are nothing like the feminists I know in real life. It’s almost as if loud extremists get the most attention in this society.
I think that you are deeply emotionally invested in your very narrow view of what feminism is, and it’s probably a waste of time to try to change your mind. But as for me, I often find myself conflicted, intrigued, and challenged by the diversity of thought among feminists. (I could say the same for being a liberal, or virtually any other thing I identify with.) The world is a complicated place, and these are complex issues. I suggest, for the overall betterment of society, yourself, and the long-suffering members of this board, that you try to take a more intellectually curious and nuanced view of the world you live in.
I don’t know, maybe? Given that it’s a made-up story, maybe the question should be: could someone make up a story that painted men in a bad light? And in that case I think the answer is: probably.
Those damn gender discrimination laws that don’t apply to men.
How should I know? Predicting social media trends isn’t really in my wheelhouse (though that could just be my excessive humility speaking!)
That depends on the true reason, doesn’t it?