On Feminism

Great Debates
101

But now you have to tell me why you use merit for admission at all.

If the goal is to educate the undereducated, economically marginalized underclass, we should allow anyone in that class to get into any college, right?

If it results in some of them not getting to go to the school at all because they were displaced by a “diversity” candidate who otherwise wouldn’t qualify, it doesn’t help them much, does it?

I’m simplifying, of course, but that’s the point. College admission is competitive. It shouldn’t be surprising that someone cares more about their own admission based on the hard work they did to get the grades and all the rest, and then sees someone put ahead of them in line based on skin color or sex - after being told skin color and sex shouldn’t matter, and knowing that it would be illegal if skin color or sex were used in admissions if the victims were not white and male. You may be willing to explain why it’s worth it to them, but you shouldn’t be incredulous that they don’t just accept it with open arms.

Good argument for fixing grades and test scores. Not a good argument for simply bypassing them.

Yes. And you don’t get to answer it for them.

Hmmm? What will it be? You have to wait and see before you smugly conclude that they’re all selfish hypocrites.

102

You left out the full text:

So a few points: if a couple has drunk sex, the fact that the accused was drunk is not a defense. The fact that the accuser is drunk, on the other hand, may make it an offense.

Drunk is a relative term. For example, people who are “black-out” drunk - meaning they don’t remember things, or don’t remember everything - may appear to be making conscious, voluntary choices, even if later they feel like they weren’t.

It’s up to the accused to determine whether the other person is too drunk - even if he’s drunk himself. (Being drunk is not a defense.)

Consent must be “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” and “ongoing”. And the accused, not the accuser - has the burden of proof. Again, even if he was drunk himself.

The fact that an accused actually genuinely believed he had affirmative consent - is not a defense.

Obviously, there are two lessons to be learned here: 1.) never touch a girl who’s been drinking; and 2.) if you do, make sure you lodge a complaint against her first. (You must avoid being the “accused,” at all costs.)

103

A man who acts to support equality is a feminist. (At that moment, at least.)

104

Sorry, QuickSilver, if you think I’m going to talk about my personal life, given the personal nature of the attacks against me, you must be delusional. (Or you think I’m a moron.) I’m not going to expose myself or the people I care about to random hate-mongers on the internet.

In any event, there are several problems with anecdotal arguments on the internet. One is that they’re unverifiable. Another is the problem with selective evidence. A third is confirmation bias. And a fourth is that no one person’s experiences are representative.

I might know a dozen men who’ve been physically attacked by their wives or girlfriends, called the police and been arrested. But that would be just one data point, and not a particularly important one. Moreover, you’d have to way to know if what I said was true.

I might know a dozen men who’ve been divorced by women who met someone new, and lost their homes, their savings, their children - and been forced to pay child support and alimony to their ex-wives and their new boyfriends. But that would only be one data point, and you’d have no way to know if it was true.

I might know a dozen college men and boys who’ve been falsely accused of rape and had their lives destroyed as a result. But that would be one data point, and you’d have no way of knowing whether it was true.

I might know a dozen men who’ve been jailed for failing to pay child support - even for kids that aren’t theirs - and lost their jobs, cars, and homes as a result - only to find their child support obligations had mounted while they were in custody. Again, you know the rest.

In any event, the point is that any one person’s experiences aren’t relevant.

My response to those who say, “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” is tell me what you do believe. Because if you silently stand by - or worse yet, defend - the so-called radicals, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem.

105

We’ve done this – explaining what we believe, and criticizing and challenging extremist views – many times, but you seem much more interest in arguing with the extremists who aren’t here (and fantasy-extremists that you believe encompass feminism as a whole) than engaging with us.

106

For those curious, what a real lawyer would point out about this statute is that genuine belief in the existence of affirmative consent IS in fact a defense, unless it’s unreasonable or the RESULT of intoxication (“under either of the following circumstances” being a limitation on the general rule).

Which is, you know, the opposite of the above.

107

We have. Over and over. You ignore it.

You may not assume that just because someone hasn’t told you they disagree with something that they agree with it.

108

I think we’ve reached an endless loop in this subroutine. So once again, with feeling…:

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.

109

Here’s a fun one which popped up on my FB: Humans of New York

110

We’ve done this before, don’t you remember?

111

Sooooo feminism is to blame how exactly?

112

Nooooot in any particular way. Oooooobviously if the story is an accurate representation, then there’s something very wrong with the nature of these kind of cases in NY. But that’s already widely accepted, and I’m mostly responding to the common feminist reply to mras that they are wrong for seeking out men’s groups, and that they should use feminism. Feminism does not deal well with problems particular related to men, and I see no reason it should as it is a women’s activist group. It’s not feminism that is wrong, it is feminists who claim feminism is the answer to men’s problems.

113

Feminism isn’t a woman’s activist “group”; it’s an idea.

A lot of my male ancestors would be very surprised to discover that they were women, but they did things such as send their daughters to school (or even to college) when It Was Not Done in their social class. You don’t need female plumbing to think it’s stupid to judge people primarily on that detail, or to realize that a good brain is a sad thing to waste.

114

Well said. As an analogy: I know that Republicanism is a “big tent,” but at some point, if you disagree with what the leaders of the party say, you need to take a look at yourself and decide if you* really are* a Republican.

115

No, it isn’t “well said”. Any harbour in a storm, eh?

Please cite where radical feminists are considered the effective ‘leaders of the feminist party’. Self-appointed loud mouthed shnooks, sure. But leaders?

There is no “analogy” between feminism and any political party.

116

Obviously, not a group where you have to be a woman; but a group which fight for the rights of women. Like for instance, an animal welfare movement is not an organisation of animals, but a movement which fight for the rights of animals. And in the same way it’d be silly to criticise animal rights activists for not scrapping that and instead just become feminists, since feminism isn’t about the rights of animals, in the same way it’s not about the rights of men.

That’s not a criticism of feminism, but of feminists who claim that feminism is the answer to issues which lies outside the realm of feminism.

117

So you reject out of hand the notion that mainstream feminism would, for example, support the rights of shared custody of men with their children (after divorce)?

118

Nobody is saying the men’s rights people should drop their association with men and start burning bras and going to Lilith Fest.

But feminists are their natural allies. They are complementary movements. Two sides of the same coin. Our current set of gender roles hurts everyone. It is destructive all around, and we all have a stake in dismantling it and replacing it with something that enables everyone to have their maximum number of choices and their best opportunity to succeed.

And this isn’t something that one side or the other can do on their own.

119

And the best antidote to condescension is pretension? (I’m not sure you want to imply you were truly ‘overwhelmed’, for example, but it does have a lot of syllables)

I do condescend, from time to time. More often than I try to undermine individuals whose ideas I disapprove of, as some posters are inclined to do*****, but less often than I treat everyone around with me with compassion and generosity regardless of the trivial things so many people seem obsessed by - gender, for example, or height or wealth or abs etc.

I condescend to those who warrant it (regardless of gender, height, wealth or abs etc). I imagine you do the same (though it’s possible you flagellate yourself afterwards). On this occasion, I judged it warrented, and I see no reason to seek (or accept unsolicited) anyone’s elses judgement.

Are feminists seeking to ban condescension now? I may have missed that memo - or seen it, idly observed “Fruitcakes!” and moved on. You should have made your point more clearly, perhaps.

There we are you see, you’ve leapt ungainly to an ugly conclusion. I assumed from your question, brief as it was (and devoid of some inflection that was no doubt in your head), that you hadn’t heard the word before. Helpfully, I suggested where you might have encountered it. But it seems you were questioning my right to use the word. Did I miss another memo from the fruitcakes?

I am grateful for your feedback, random internet user. Regarding your poor experience of a JackofWords product, here at JackofWords the philosophy is ‘If it’s free, the customer knows where he can stuff his opinions’. Please accept this complimentary voucher, which could be redeemed for a rolling doughnut, probably.

You’re not in the Pit now, dear.

It’s mythical in the concept stated, that is, when artfully tied to the expression ‘women should earn the same pay for the same work’ - where we naturally agree with that, and find ourselves being sold ‘women overall should have an average wage matching men’s average’, which is not a ‘wage gap’. It’s a wealth gap - there are a lot of those, most of them far more pernicious and entrenched and damaging than that between all men, as a group, and all women, as a group. Of course, if all men earned more than any woman, that would certainly be reprehensible. But as groups, both have billionaires and both have the homeless.

This flagship indicator of entrenched prejudice (or innate, blameless nature, or some mix of those and other factors), why is it so important? The ceaseless pursuit of wealth is open to anyone, and the result is poverty for others (and poverty doesnt care about your gender either) More importantly, what solution can you propose that doesn’t include everyone being told (equally!) what work to do and how to spend the wage?

And with those out of the way, here’s this again. Anyone?

120

Nope. Some feminist might well do that. I’m saying that feminism is not the correct venue to forward issues particular to the male sex. Neither should it be.

But that’s precisely what feminist protesters did at a mra meeting in another video posted in the last thread on the subject. Drop mra and turn to feminism. Because men are apparely not allowed to chose their own group in which to come together and forward their issues.

Feminism and mra are also about more that merely gender roles. For instance actual changes made to the battery and custody legislation.