Evil Economist, if you’re interested in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature on biases that affect wage and employment, I cited several papers upthread.
Although this thread is long enough that those might be a PITA to dig up.
As long as this argument is about a label, rather than principles that are sometimes associated with it, this will just go on and on with no resolution.
Haven’t you already played out this routine? Way back, someone who isn’t me or Linus posted this:
I’d understand you not even registering the meaning of anything LK or I say, you’ve a trench to defend after all. But try to process what Robot Arm is saying, if you’re able.
When someone uses a word, we don’t always take them at their word, if you will. Examples can be more subtle (and more real) than Orwell’s other classic, 1984, and its ‘Ministry of Truth’.
In this particular case, the word itself isn’t very helpful in understanding the movement. ‘Equality’ (where it’s used in its true sense) can always be achieved in at least two ways, one of which you probably don’t want. For example, take two different people and shoot them both in the head. Boom. Equality.
Let’s continue to suppose that the definition reflects the actual movement, and consider what kind of equality it calls for. Equality of opportunity is an egalitarian goal, one that I wholeheartedly support. Equality of outcome, on the other hand, is a totalitarian goal - it necessitates control, and to be fully achieved it requires total control. I wholeheartedly condemn totalitarian thinking.
As an aside, consider ‘equality of outcome’ versus ‘equality of opportunity’ in the field of democracy. Some women won the right of equal opportunity (to vote, and to stand) long ago. Later, the remaining men and women also won that right. Now, feminists complain that there are not enough women in government (usually ‘in the top jobs’ of government, but that’s another argument) - and yes, Not All Feminists, don’t be tiresome. Feminism has so much respect for women that it now feels the need to ‘fix’ how they vote. Winning the vote wasn’t enough, they need to be made to use it ‘properly’.
But so far, we (well, you, and for the purposes of this post, me, temporarily) have been assuming that feminism, broadly speaking, uses the word ‘equality’ honestly. But of course, a dictionary definition tells us very little about anything. “A horse is an equine quadruped” [Dickens; he was a writer, you may have heard of him]. A dictionary definition that teaches us very little about horses.
Let’s try…given that we’ve godwinned feminism discussions some several threads ago…‘National Socialism: A political movement to restore pride and patriotism in greater Germany’ (or somesuch, as we might suppose it would have appeared in a german dictionary of the time).
If someone tried to defend the rampant anti-semitism of the Nazi Party by parroting a dictionary definition at you, how would you feel about that? We judge a movement not by its dictionary definition, but by the actions and words of its adherents. All of its adherents, including iiandyiiii’s six imaginary mainstream friends as well as the bigots who infect young minds from their unearned positions in academia, the rabble-rousers with millions of youtube followers between them, the con-artists like Sarkeesian who feed into (and from) a doctrine of divisive non-equality, and all the unelected representatives of anyone with a womb who think that if women are to have more, it must be taken from men.
If you’re so concerned with equality, join me, and all the other egalitarians. If you really want equality, for all, regardless of gender, then stop defending feminism - it does not mean what you think it means.
NA
If Orwell were alive he’d be disgusted at the way you’ve misappropriated his work in defense of the repugnant MRA movement.
Much the way I feel now, talking to you, I suppose.
So, like the way we can judge the anti-feminist movement by the way they advocate rape and murder? By the way an anti-feminist murdered 77 people? By the way anti-feminists have proposed terrorist acts in support of their movement?
Or is our Orwell fan proposing a double standard?
Yeah, so if we’re judging a movement “not by its dictionary definition, but by the actions and words of its adherents,” what precisely have the “egalitarians” ever done? Be specific. Give names. List the laws they’ve passed. List their achievements.
Let me make a prediction; you’ll change the subject rather than telling anyone what “egalitarians” have ever done. Because “egalitarian” is a re-branding of the MRA movement, and those people are Batshit. Fucking. Insane.
P.s., anyone who calls Anita Sarkeesian a “con-artist” is too deeply enmeshed in anti-feminist propaganda to be quoting Orwell with a straight face. Jesus.
I’ll track those down, thanks.
I’d call this the pot calling the kettle black, except that people actually do make an effort to debate with you. You generally ignore it, or post incomplete cites to things that do not support your argument. For whatever reason, neither of you has yet to realize that we actually do check your citations.
I think I see the issue. Your world is binary. You see only winners and losers. Someone must lose something when the other side gains. Life is not a football match. The real world isn’t binary, nor does one answer have to be oblivion or the complete destruction of one side or an argument. It’s clear you have absolutely no comprehension of equality.
The person who is confused here is you. Civil rights is not a zero sum game.
I’m a trifle surprised that none of the other, more intelligent, rational and relatively reasonable feminists on this board have intervened in an attempt to stop you representing them (though I do thank you for demonstrating to my advantage quite how feminists tend to work).
Anyway, let’s have a look at your selective little exercise, which entirely missed the point of my post:
I didn’t use his work to defend anything - I mentioned it in the hope that you’d understand what RobotArm was trying to tell you, and thus look slightly less foolish.
Why, in your mind, are all proponents of equal rights for men ‘repugnant’? How does that relate to your understanding of ‘equality’?
Hush now, we’ve done the ‘ant-feminists are like anti-semites’ canard and come out the other side. I don’t want or need you to like me - I’m not the issue here. Try to focus on the points being made, or trot off to the Pit thread where personal insults and a scant regard for facts are warmly welcomed.
So long as you judge feminist calls for murder and rape equally, then yes, go ahead.
Of course, just as feminism ‘is not a monolith’, so too the voices of anti-feminism are many and varied. Double standards, anyone?
Who was that? Can his (or her? there are female anti-feminists) murder spree be laid at the door of anti-feminism? What about the women who murder? Do they represent all women? Are you misogynist anti-feminist, or are you just a fan of double standards?
Feminists have carried out terrorist acts in support of their movement - and many of them advocate a drastic approach, if not a final solution. to the ‘problem’ of men. The logical fallacy of defending A because B is no better is called tu quoque, by the way.
See your own, above. That kind of projection is seen so often in feminism. Your problem here is that you’re making a category error. If feminism didn’t exist, there would be no anti-feminism. Defend feminism by defending feminism, that’s my advice - because at the moment you’re mostly saying ‘feminism is dreadful, but so are you’.
Egalitarians aren’t a club. I don’t know if you’re aware of that. All those who played their part in ending slavery were egalitarians, for example. Rosa Parks, there’s a name to conjure with. Rosa Parks, the ‘repugnant’ (as you would have it) black female egalitarian. Seriously, you’re not the best person to be defending your ugly ideology…
So, standing up for ‘equal’ rights for men, as well as ‘equal’ rights for women…that’s batshit fucking insane, is it? Hmm.
Egalitarianism, by the way, was around a long time before ‘the MRA’, a long time before feminism, and a long time before you first heard of the ‘batshit fucking insane’ idea that people should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, colour, sex or any other unchosen characteristic. That’s what it means, by the way. Look it up. In a dictionary…
And anyone who defends Sarkeesian’s batshit bullshit is too far down the rabbithole to be rescued. Jesus was an egalitarian, as it happens 
Wow, I’m at a loss how someone could go from “When someone uses a word, we don’t always take them at their word, if you will” to “MRAs are proponents of equality.” But then you didn’t see the humor in people not believing your story of sex discrimination, either.
You mean, the anti-Semite discussion that you started? It’s been two posts, and you’ve already forgotten? Is this like when you whinge about the slack modding while saying things that would get you banned under strict modding?
The lack of self-reflection on your part is astounding. But probably necessary to hold the opinions you hold.
Probably something you should keep in mind (but won’t!) when criticizing feminism.
Yes
Let’s pay a game: I’ll give you $100 for every person you can identify who was directly killed by a feminist acting under an explicitly feminist motive, and you give me $100 for every person I can identify who was killed by an anti-feminist under an explicitly anti-feminist motive.
But first you have to prove you have the money to pay me. Because you’re going to owe me a lot of money.
You mean the movement you think everyone should join doesn’t exist? Good job!
Rosa Parks wouldn’t have anything to do with your ugly ideology, and your taking her name for your repugnant movement is an insult to her and her family, and the principles she stood for. If I had a higher opinion of you I’d ask you to apologize for defaming her.
And we’re back to me throwing back at you your own quote, “When someone uses a word, we don’t always take them at their word, if you will.” I bet you still don’t get it.
And once again: “When someone uses a word, we don’t always take them at their word, if you will.” Will you get it this time? I bet not.
The Sarkeesian hatchet-job was started by the Gamergate crowd, who are the pathetic wing of the MRA movement, which is the pathetic wing of the male gender. I’m not surprised that’s the crowd you’ve thrown-in with.
Jesus, Rosa Parks. Strange that you only claim dead people who can’t tell us for themselves that your movement disgusts them. Is that because no-one who was alive to defend themselves would have anything to do with your movement?
By the way:
I win.
Well, I didn’t actually say the latter, did I? Even though you…let’s say ‘accidentally’…enclosed it in quote marks.
I don’t see the humour in that. I wasn’t aware there was any humour in the disbelieve in my anecdote, by the way - are you sure, when you use the word ‘humo(u)r’ that you’ve checked the definition (in a dictionary)?
No, I mean the one that Miller tried to get to fly, some time ago (he introduced religion and ‘talking to jews like you talk to feminists’ as an analogy, then got terribly confused as to whether ‘ethnicity’ was part of the analogy or not - it wasn’t, when it didn’t suit him, or was when it did, depending).
Your definition of ‘equality’ also applies to the concept of ‘whinging’, I see. Did you miss the work I put in to demonstrating conclusively that Miller was talking out of his arse when he said I would have been banned?
I look forward to the day when a feminist in this thread puts any effort at all into backing up the (somewhat limited range of) insults dished out. Again, I’m not the topic. I’m not even my arguments. Say something about feminism, eh? Say something about what I’ve said. Granted, your ill-educated diatribes are of benefit to the anti-feminist cause, but I can’t help feeling they’re so ignorant and ugly that anyone seriously weighing up your ideology will simply dismiss them as unrepresentative rantings.
And yet, the non-monolith of feminism has core principles, which must be shared by feminists to be feminists. You see how ‘fruitcake’ is not a monolith, and yet all those different fruitcakes are nonetheless fruitcakes? No? Ah well, can’t help you then.
So, you’re not going to say who it was, when the incident was, what you were talking about - or, indeed, offer any evidence to back up your assertion as to his (or her?) motivations. I’m just supposed to take your word for it? Do you see the humour in my not believing you?
I’m already playing you like a fiddle 
Let’s not.
You want to make a game out of ideological murder? Somebody rein this chap in, for pity’s sake, even I could put up a better defence of feminism than this.
So no game then? Would it not have made more sense just to list the people you can identify as having been killed by an anti-feminist under an explicitly anti-feminist motive?
Right…it’s not a ‘movement’. It’s a philosophy, a way of approaching life, that’s been around for a long, long time. I wonder why you haven’t previously encountered the idea that people should be treated equally regardless of, for example, gender? Oh, hang on, no, it’s because you’re a feminist - and they want people to be part of their movement, rather than hold a considered philosophy.
Come on, someone save this dude, he’s doing you no favours.
Again, not an ideology. Just a philosophy, a way of approaching life. Equal treatment for all, regardless of things they did not choose. Explain to me how that’s ugly. Ugly equality, applied equally?
Help him, someone, this is pitiful.
Someone? This feminist is claiming equal equality is repugnant and insulting. Even I don’t think he stands for you all, but…
Help him. Please.
You don’t understand Sarkesian, you don’t understand Gamergate, you don’t understand ‘equality’ (seriously, how does ‘equality’ end up condemning ‘equal rights for men’ out of hand?) and you don’t understand gender. Or me. I’ll take some of the blame for the latter - I tend to use long words and high concepts, which don’t sit well with the sort of person who’s happier acting like a rutting stag in a sports bar…‘MY TEAM GOOD, YOUR TEAM BAD!’
Plenty of live egalitarians - still not a movement, by the way. You would dismiss them as ‘MRAs’, I expect. ‘NOT MY TEAM!’.
Yes. You win. You’ve won the internet. Take it home with you and stroke it.
No cites in that, I notice Just another attempted character assassination. I expect they’re patting you on the back in the Pit.
Alas, you do not see, nor have you shown us anything that would support your fantasy view (there’s a clue right there ) However, as previously noted, the unelected spokesperson for all women who was given space on BBC Radio 4 quite clearly said that the ‘gender war’ must not end, not even for the sake of the children, because ‘if women are to have more, it must be taken from men’. Your remarks are classic feminist projection - and in many ways it’s a good strategy.
Indeed, it isn’t. I think you’re confusing me with zero sum feminists. I’m the one who thinks equality should be applied equally - do you have anything to say about anything I’ve actually said?
OK, let’s assume for a moment that the wage gap is basically a lie. I’m a bit skeptical of the way it’s usually presented, myself, largely because I feel like the frequently quoted statistic hasn’t changed at all in 20 years; 20 years in which universities have been churning out female graduates at a record pace, and 20 years in which the basic idea of equal-opportunity-for-women has been so widely accepted that if anything, it’s taken for granted, 20 years during which a serious and substantial accusation of gender-based pay differential at a large public company could be crippling.
(In fact, here is a thread I started asking about it 5 years ago.)
If it was 80 cents on the dollar in 1995 purely due to bigotry and prejudice and societal acceptance of that bigotry and prejudice, there’s no way it’s still 80 cents on the dollar today.
Of course, that’s just a suspicion on my part, I don’t claim to actually know the truth one way or the other, and unless you yourself are an expert sociologist who has done extensive research, or unless there’s an overwhelming consensus in the academic community, you don’t know either.
But, for the moment, let’s assume that it’s a lie. Well, so what? If you accept my hypothesis that the vast majority of women who identify as feminists are not man-hating associate professors writing screeds about rape but are just women living their lives and trying to raise their sons and daughters to have the same potential, how does one frequently quote statistic being wrong actually meaningfully reflect on that large group of people?
I feel like one of several things has to be true for the point you’re making to actually be valid:
(1) Large percentages of those who identify as feminist not only actively believe the wage gap to be true, but take actions based on that belief… and furthermore it is so overwhelmingly obvious that the wage gap is false that it takes a deliberate blindness or a deliberate refusal to recognize facts that disagree with one’s ideology in order to deny it
or
(2) The lie about the wage gap is being perpetuated by a sufficiently large number of people in positions of organized and elected leadership in the feminist movement as a whole that their actions can legitimately reflect on the movement as a whole… kind of the way the sins of the Vatican hierarchy reflect on Catholics as a whole
I don’t think either of those are even close to true.
And to me, that’s really the crux of why I disagree with what you’re saying. Not because some of the examples that you quote are not in fact odious and incorrect actions being made in the name of feminism (although I’m absolutely confident that a fair number of the instance you have pointed out would turn out to not really be anywhere near the way you’re representing them), but because they just have nothing to do with what the vast vast majority of people mean when they claim to be a feminist. I’ve made a lot of feminists in my life, and of the ones I know at all well, none of them at all fit your stereotype of the man-hating all-sex-is-rape-claiming extremist. So when you try to pin those sins on the movement as a whole, it’s not just some theoretical group-vs-fringe definition which causes me to disagree with you, it’s my actual real life experience with actual women.
You probably lack the literary understanding to catch the humor.
The only person I see pulling out the Nazi references here is you.
Uhhh…fruitcakes. Yeah.
Anyway, if you’d bothered to do any research at all you would have found that the core principles of feminism are: “achieving equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.”
Now let me predict the tedious exchange we’re about to have:
JW: Those big mean feminists are only interested in equality for women!
EE: Equality for women means equality for men, by definition
JW: But but but but…“equality” doesn’t mean “equality” when big mean feminists say it! Unlike us egalitarians, who are interested in equality.
EE: And does “equality” mean “equality” when “egalitarians” say it?
JW: Yes, because words mean why I say they mean, and “equality” means “equality” when feminists say it, but it means a shot in the head when egalitarians say it! Wait! The reverse of that! Orwell!
All this interspersed with: Claims that you’re a great writer, evidence of your posts notwithstanding; claims that you’re a high minded thinker, evidence of your posts notwithstanding; whinging about the mods; frankly unbelievable stories of the ways feminists have wronged you, which people frankly have trouble believing.
You’re not sure which of the incidents of an anti-feminist killing 77 people I’m referring to? If you really can’t figure it out, you could try reading the thread.
You poor dear, should I fetch a fainting couch?
Right, it’s a made-up philosophy with no living members.
Name them. Name the people who would call themselves egalitarians. List their accomplishments. Remember, “We judge a movement not by its dictionary definition, but by the actions and words of its adherents.” List those actions.
Right.
I suspect this could be the common ground on which you and **LinusK **could meet.
I forgot to respond to this:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Haha whoops. Obviously I meant “met”. (Freudian slip?)
Here is what I just don’t get LinusK. Here you admit that there are “millions” of feminists that do not believe the same as the ones you get criticizing. Why do those few define feminism in your eyes? Because they are vocal? Many of your subjects are dead. They may have had some influence originally, but many are now seen by actual living feminists as radicals or extremists. Why does Andrea Dworkin, seen by many as a wingnut, have so much more weight than Camille Paglia? Why does Mary Daly have more weight than Erica Jong? What about Marlene Dietrich, Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, Coretta King, Malala Yousafzai? There are a lot of conflicting views even in the women just named. There are a lot of famous feminists, but you know what? There are a lot more NOT-famous feminists. Why do YOU get to define the ideology from your place outside, while the “casual “ feminists themselves are misinformed or misled? If there are millions self-proclaimed feminists that do not believe that intercourse is the same as rape, or that men are defective or obsolete, why do the writers you’ve found get to be the defining examples of feminism? In this and other threads, you have had feminists say, no I do not agree with that person or that extremist. Why do you feel that your few extremists define the beliefs of the millions who disagree with them?
Why are we supposed to believe YOU that WE are misinformed or misled about our own beliefs?
Well, this is where the Nazi comparison came in.
How many Germans would have thought that National Socialism was about equality?
You know, the Socialism part.
Do you think the common sympathiser, or even party-member, would have imagined the actual murder of the Jews?
You clearly lack the ‘literary’ ability to explain it…or anything else.
None so blind…try reading the thread, you’ll find the tortuously contrived set-up by Miller that I referenced.
Yeah. I was going to go with ‘fruit’, though I realise that has another meaning in the US. ‘Fruitcake’ seemed more appropriate. You could substitute any category of things which contains items that are clearly different from each other but similar in a way that makes them all members of the category. Do you follow?
Round and round we go. I’ve done plenty of research, thank you. Equality ‘for women’ is not equality.
You do a lot of that - it’s rather telling, I think.
Well, as a writer, I can’t say I’m that impressed. But hey, that’s just one opinion, try submitting it, maybe there’s a publication that would entertain that sort of garbage.
Have I said ‘great’? I’m pretty good - and audiences tend to agree. The ‘evidence’ against the proposition consists of some barely literate feminists (see Miler’s untidy, unedited posts for all the examples you’d need - and he can look at yours…) repeating the notion that I’m not. It’s the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you!”.
Same false claim, same false evidence.
Just labelling your opponent’s arguments as ‘whinging’, as much as you clearly depend on it, is not in and of itself an actual argument. I have commented on the moderation along the way, and comprehensively demolished Miller’s fatuous claim about my being banned.
I see it as feminists choosing not to believe, which ‘frankly’ (about as convincing a ploy as Miller’s “seriously”) doesn’t surprise me.
Or you could stop playing silly games and make your point clearly.
Because I’m appalled by you turning murder into a game in which you make money? Dear oh dear.
Well, you see, all philosophies are ‘made up’. None of them have ‘members’ (it’s not a club, we’ve covered that). As for living egalitarians, you yourself claimed it was ‘rebranding’ of MRAs - who are alive, aren’t they? Perhaps you wish them dead and have got ahead of yourself.
It’s not a movement, it’s a philosophy. Your demands are fatuous.
Oh yes, absolutely right. You’ve won! Your framed certificate is in the post.
As a bonus, and in honour of your saving the distressed damsels of feminism, I withdraw from debate with you.
You find the women named above to be analogous to leaders of the Nazi party?
Re Marlene Dietrich - while often seen as a feminist icon, amd her roles often bent gender expectations, she may not have considered herself a feminist. I apologize if i have gotten that wrong.