OP, we’ve had several of these threads now. I think we have established that you do not approve of Feminism. Further, I think we have established that you outright dislike Feminism (post 37):
I’m not sure what the point is of another thread in the same vein. In an effort to shift things in a more fruitful direction, may I ask you - what in your opinion, would be the best path forward for women in today’s Western society? Feminism, I assume, is a closed path. Let’s assume that the women in question would like to continue to have equal access to a political voice, medicine, education, and the right to work. How would you craft a political and social movement that worked for these things in today’s world?
Although I started by asking how you would advise women, don’t contain your answer to women only. This new movement should address women and men alike. Can you envision a movement that accomplished a more equal society? If so, how?
In the last thread, feminists said maleness was in fact a defect.
[/quote]
:dubious: You’re misremembering. Nobody in that thread, feminist or otherwise, said that maleness was a defect.
I think what may have confused you was the reference to the Y chromosome being “genetically deficient”, biologically speaking. But that’s just a technical term that means the Y chromosome carries fewer genes than the X chromosome. That does not mean that the Y chromosome is in any way genetically defective, much less that men are defective in some way for having a Y chromosome.
That thread also contained some discussion of an article you cited by an anthropologist named Melvin Konner. The author made hyperbolic claims like “Women are superior in most ways that matter now” and “women can carry on the business of a complex world in ways that are more focused, efficient, deliberate, and constructive than men’s because women are not frequently distracted by impulses and moods that, sometimes indirectly, lead to sex and violence”, and jested about an alleged “X-chromosome deficiency syndrome” that produces “shortened life span, higher mortality at all ages, an inability to reproduce, premature hair loss, and brain defects variously resulting in attention deficit, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, hypersexuality, and an enormous excess of both outward and self-directed aggression”.
But nobody in the thread endorsed Konner’s exaggerated statements. You kept desperately adducing Konner’s provocative remarks as examples of “what feminists think”, and dozens of actual feminists kept disagreeing with them.
So relax, LinusK. There weren’t any feminists in the last thread claiming that “maleness was a defect”.
Like, for example, all the studies showing persistent gender discrimination that I brought to your attention in post #25.
Neither I nor any other feminist I’ve ever heard of is insisting that we need to keep making schoolchildren “sit at a desk all day”, or claiming that it’s the optimal way for any child to learn. Most feminists AFAICT tend to be rather liberal about education issues and advocate accommodating a variety of learning styles. So keeping boys chained to desks all day in a sit-still-and-listen-to-lecturer environment is definitely not a feminist position.
In fact, I think you antifeminists need to remember that the traditional sit-still-and-listen-to-lecturer approach to academic education for children was developed and perpetuated for hundreds if not thousands of years ALMOST ENTIRELY BY MALE TEACHERS to be applied ALMOST ENTIRELY TO MALE STUDENTS.
For centuries or millennia in almost all literate cultures that I know of, it was overwhelmingly boys who received the school-based training required for academic/professional qualifications, and it was overwhelmingly men who designed and administered that training. The sit-still-and-listen-to-lecturer approach was developed and promoted by men, for boys. Not by feminists trying to coddle girls academically at the expense of boys.
Most of these men never seem to have noticed that their chosen instructional environment wasn’t actually optimal for most boys. Until, that is, feminists managed to break down the barriers to academic achievement for girls enough that people began to realize that in this instructional environment girls often outperformed boys. Big revelation: hey, this classroom technique we developed mostly for boys and have been using for centuries mostly on boys isn’t actually so great for boys! Everybody who cares about boys’ education and academic success ought to be thanking feminists for exposing the problems with the traditional boy-education techniques, rather than whining that the problems with traditional boy-education techniques must somehow be the fault of evil feminists in the last few decades trying to disadvantage boys.
You mentioned earlier that you were married. I don’t know if you have young children. If you don’t, you can ignore the following question. I’m sure you know about half of marriages end in divorce, and I’m sure that won’t happen to you, but if it did, are you OK with becoming an every-other-weekend dad?
Do you think that being male is a genetic disorder?
Do you think the concept of manhood should be abolished?
Do you believe, ““Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women”?
Do you agree that:
Do you think feminism means women should be able to do whatever they want to do; and if so, does the same thing apply to men?
No kids yet, but in this unlikely circumstance I would go along with what’s best for the children. It’s impossible to determine that in advance, but could depend on many things. I would hope that there is no standard or default option, and if we couldn’t agree, then the court would determine what’s best based our individual circumstances rather than some unnecessary default.
No, and neither do the feminists I know.
I don’t think I fully understand what this means. I think certain aspects of traditional masculinity and femininity are negative, such as an emphasis on aggression for masculinity, and submissiveness for femininity, among other things.
No, and neither do all the feminists I know, and the vast majority of feminists I’ve ever even heard of.
In this context (since I don’t know the full context) I’d answer “no”, as I believe most feminists I know would.
Yes for both, as long as their actions don’t infringe on the rights of others.
I am not iiandyiiii and cannot speak for him, but these misleading strawman arguments are easily debunked by anybody. To wit:
Nothing in either family law or feminism decrees that divorced fathers in general have to be or ought to be “every-other-weekend dads”. If individual divorced couples mutually agree to establish shared custody, every-other-weekend visitation, or some other arrangement that suits them both, that’s just fine with feminists. If the couple can’t agree, then the court should establish whatever arrangement is in the best interests of the child, and that’s just fine with feminists too.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Do you think that being male is a genetic disorder?
[/quote]
No, and neither does anybody else except (perhaps) a provocative opinion-piece author named Melvin Konner.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Do you think the concept of manhood should be abolished?
[/quote]
If “the concept of manhood” means “forcing men into stereotypical traditional gender roles under threat of denying or attacking their manhood if they refuse to comply”, then yes, that kind of social oppression should be abolished.
If “the concept of manhood” just means “all the different ways that actual men actually feel, think and behave”, then no, of course that should not be abolished even if it were possible to do so.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Do you believe, ““Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women”?
[/quote]
No.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Do you agree that: “[Men who are falsely accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. […]”
[/quote]
No.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Do you think feminism means women should be able to do whatever they want to do; and if so, does the same thing apply to men?
[/QUOTE]
Feminism means that women and men both should be equally able to pursue whatever types of career, personal, relationship, creative, and family scenarios they find appealing and fulfilling, with due respect for legality and the autonomy and rights of other people. Feminism means that neither women nor men should be prevented from or punished for seeking this individual choice of fulfillment just because what they happen to choose may not be considered appropriately “feminine” or “masculine” from the perspective of traditional gender roles.
Feminism does not mean that either women or men should be able to do whatever they want to do with no negative consequences if it involves, e.g., breaking the law or interfering with the rights of others.
Lucie Slater’s violent attack on her boyfriend by smashing a drinking glass into his face, which injured an artery as well as damaging nerves and requiring 30 stitches in addition to hours of surgery, was absolutely inexcusably aggressive and reckless.
But AFAICT, because she only struck one blow and then immediately ceased the attack, the punishment she received was not actually significantly out of line for typical sentencing of first-time domestic violence perpetrators who seriously injure their victims by striking one blow with a dangerous object and then ceasing the attack.
All right. Formerly card-carrying bra-burning feminist here to answer your questions.
I am all for joint custody. I think one of the ways to help women achieve their career goals is to even out the responsibility for rearing children. Currently, it is more a burden on women and as a feminist, I think it shouldn’t be. Yes, I said “burden.” When someone has to take a day off to stay home with a sick child, who is it? Usually the mom. When someone is in charge of getting kids to an after-school activity, usually it’s the mom. I say “usually” but during my child-raising days we both did it, depending on who these these duties would impact less with regard to the job, or maybe just because it was the other person’s turn. This is pretty much a pillar of feminism, equality of child-raising. Also note that couples with one daughter are 5% more likely to divorce than couples with one son. This rate goes up along with the number of daughters. Hm.
No. Good grief.
So there is one widely accepted concept of manhood? I don’t think there is. If the “concept of manhood” is that the man is always smarter and should be in charge, then I think it should be abolished.
Pure? Sterile? Formal? No, this statement is ridiculous on many levels.
Where on earth are you getting these ideas? I don’t think ANYONE should be able to do whatever they want to do if it involves tromping over other people, and I think both sexes should be equally free to do what they want to do within that constraint.
The kind of feminism I support is one where one sex is not held in contempt by the other sex. Where little boys playing baseball who do it badly are not caustically referred to as “girls.” Where older boys playing football who do it ineptly are not caustically referred to as “ladies.” Where people of either sex are not shunted into an occupation because of their sex, or kept out of an occupation because of their sex. This includes not forcing girls to pretend they love STEM and it also includes not telling boys they are sissies if they ironed their ROTC uniform themselves. And so on.
Now I will agree that feminism or something like it has gone too far in certain areas, one of which is sexual harassment, or hostile work environment. Really, the thing feminists wanted to prevent, originally, was something on the order of, “Blow me, or you’ll lose your job.” (Which happened.) But there was more than one thing at work here. One was the threat to livelihood, when women were a lot more limited in where they could work, so it was an actual threat. Another was the power imbalance, “I can make you do this.” As women’s job horizons expanded, the first part went away and the answer to “Blow me or you’ll lose your job” became, “Eat shit, I quit.” But the second part didn’t go away, it just got transferred so it’s not an exclusively male thing (and now it’s “I can ruin your life”). All the other stuff, like whether a coworker makes a pass or hangs up some porn in a locker is just interpersonal human stuff that can go on regardless of what sex you are. But current laws have people walking on eggshells. PC out of control.
And I am certainly not denying that “evidence of discrimination against women disappears.” There has been a lot of progress, of the type I hoped for 40 years ago. Ms. Magazine used to have a back page where it showed instances in advertising or other media of how women were negatively portrayed, or treated as sexual objects only, or treated as dumb, with the tagline, “Click!” The most recent one I saw (and that was several years ago) had a picture of a female plumber under the sink with her whale-tail showing and IMO that was not a “Click!”, that was an endorsement for (a) women in nontraditional jobs, and (b) one way to combat plumber’s crack. I thought, “Is that the best Ms. Magazine can do these days?” And then I thought, “Well, good.”
Debatable, of course, but on the available evidence the most active, vocal feminists here have got nothing more important to do than hang around in the Pit (where they don’t even have to pretend to be deploying facts and reliable figures) insulting LK and myself for the thought-crime of questioning their perverted definition of ‘equality’.
That said, if any of their petty barbs were ever to hit a vital organ and LK or I were to come to some damascene revelation, perhaps that would change history and radically restructure third-world countries (the go-to arguments for feminists who can’t claim white western women are oppressed with a straight face).
Come on, Linus! You, and you alone (since I’m your sock, they say ;)) have the power to alter historical fact and liberate millions of women. Well, not the first one, obviously (though you do have the power to accept your collective responsibility for what some other chaps did some long time ago). As for the second one, I’d advise not using feminism as your tool, because it turns out that berating white western men (while demanding the right to emulate them) has done nothing for women in the developing world, even after decades of bra-burning, slut walks and aggressively shutting down criticism.
Whether drunk sex is rape is a highly contentious issue, but most feminists argue that it is - including feminists in this thread. Most colleges and universities consider drunk sex rape, and it’s the law in California and New York.
In other words, it’s not just a few crazies on the internet.
The California law uses the term "incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.”
Why are you arguing to have sex with incapacitated people?
Feminists up and down these endless OP’s have contradicted, corrected and tried to inform your paranoid rhetoric with facts and personal experience and opinion. Each reasonable and informed attempt has been rebuffed only to have you repeat the same tortured logic that supports your irrational efforts to paint all feminists as having the same agenda as a small number of extremists who say crazy shit in service of their own goals and who do nothing in service of gender equality - something that all reasonable posters here have certainly acknowledged, i.e men are not deficient, intercourse is not dehumanizing to women, domestic violence is inexcusable regardless of who perpetrates it, etc…etc… etc…
But instead of acknowledging that most reasonable people agree that extremist feminist views are not the core tennet of feminism, you resolutely avoid responding to evidence that contradicts your hypothesis - something that, at best, makes you an ideologue.
Assuming your purpose here is not to dabate but to witness your paranoid agenda, is it unreasonable to ask and get an answer from you as to what event(s) in your personal life has caused you to take up this cause to liberate humanity from the scurge of feminism? Reason being: If we can’t change your mind, at least we might be able to understand better where you’re coming from. I know you’ll assume this might open you to personal attack but you’re not exactly winning this argument anyway. So while you’re unlikely to persuade anyone who isn’t already in agreement with you, perhaps you’ll find some sympathy.
In an earlier iteration of the “endless” OP, I did attempt to get someone, anyone, to provide some sort of fact-based rationale for the position that all those detestable, despicable feminists are “a small number” or a “fringe” or, indeed, somehow ‘extremists’ rather than the mainstream.
Merely repeating something (like feminist lies about rape rates in colleges or the mythical wage gap) doesn’t make it true. Merely distancing oneself from the detestable and despicable rump of a movement does nothing to address the problems of that movement. Abandoning a discredited ideology (in favour of egalitarianism) would help - but only if you’re an egalitarian. Egalitarian feminists are very much a fringe minority within feminism - at least in my experience.
I haven’t counted how many ‘reasonable’ feminists are posting here - “six or so”? Nah, I’m kidding, maybe it’s two dozen. That’s if we take their word for it, as individuals (if I wanted to protect the despicable, detestable majority of members of a movement, I’d certainly be saying “But I’m reasonable”). But let’s take their word for it, and give them the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations for rebuffing criticism of a flawed ideology. So, we have twenty or so people saying something along the lines of “well I’m just in favour of women being treated equally” (I’ve only noticed one bright enough to say they were in favour of people being treated equally even if they’re not women). Pit that against the overwhelming numbers of hate-fuelled nutjobs that even a cursory exploration of feminist activism reveals. It seems the fringe minority are the self-professed ‘reasonable’ feminists.
Do you twitter? Check the hashtag #killallmen, and then look for one along the lines of #comeonsistersletsbereasonable…
The core tenets of feminism can be discovered in the writings of wingnuts like Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Marilyn French et al. These are the rabble rousers who fuel the activists, these are the bigots who powered the movement, these are the sort of feminists who persecured Erin Pizzey for daring to speak the truth about domestic violence. Do you have anything other than bald assertion to show otherwise?
If I’m honest, no I do not know any vocal feminists off the top of my head who I can quote in support of my gender equality position, except those who have already replied here many times over. I will look for external sources because you ask. Perhaps someone following/contributing to this thead will assist. In the meantime, may I suggest that I would no more be able to provide you with a name of anyone who is vocally advocating for the fact that the earth is round. I trust I don’t have to explain why that is in 21st century western society.
Except when it does. I do not support the calim that men are in some way inferior to women any more than I support the reverse. Most here have echoed that sentiment. Which leaves extremists who make these claims bafoons in our eyes. Now, please provide substance to the claim that these movements are an actual “problem” in society. And not just scare mongering - actual evidence supporting the claim.
So you don’t have actual statistics to support this claim. Just your experience. Interesting that my experience to the contrary requires me to provide you with additional proof, while I have to simply take you at your word, Jack. How about this then, you count up all the feminists like me who have contributed thus far to this topic and then count up those who agree with your point of view. You may find that we outnumber you by 5 to 1 (conservative estimate). Do you require further proof that we are not fringe? Or do you wish to continue to rely on your “experience”?
How about you check out the #killalljews, or #killallarabs, or whatever other detestable sentiment you’ll find on the interwebs and draw your own conclusions about the validity that regardless of how horrible a sentiment one might hold dear, there are people in the world who will agree with it. Does that make it more or less acceptable?
I know the difference between the Pit and GD has been explained to you. Oddly, many people prefer to express their frustrations with the same old re-tread in the Pit thread, rather than bothering to repeat themselves here, where they are generally ignored.
Some of us, against all common sense, post in both places. My last post in this thread was ignored.
In the meantime, in this thread, we cycle over the same ground. We have, again, had to cover the genetic defect issue. We’re covering custody, again. We’re covering IPV, again. Any attempt to move debate forward is ignored.
IMO, this is a witnessing thread, like the others. It trends dangerously towards hate speech at times, but apparently does so within the rules.
