Feminism should be for women. Pandering to men is a betrayal. You see this same logic with BLM. “Gosh, what about us white people? Don’t all lives matter? Maybe black people are the real racists.”
The idea that a movement was once needed but has gone “too far” is the hallmark of reactionary thought. If you’re railing against feminism now it’s hard to believe you wouldn’t be railing against the suffragettes.
LinusK, you like quoting “extreme” statements from feminist thinkers and then sitting back like they’re self evidently wrong. Did I miss the counter-argument? Men commit the most murder, the most rape, and the most exploitation. Where are the female Boko Haram? Tamil Tigers? ISIS? Men run the sex slave trade. They fuck kids. Pornography. Prostitution. For men.
Now you can scale the argument back and say humanity itself is collectively insane. I’d agree. I could list off a ton of murderous imperial queens. Tamar. Ranavalona. Nzinga. The argument that if women ran the world it’d be a tea party is an ahistorical, eye rolling sentiment. Lord knows how many Muslims Hillary will end up bombing. But if you’re weighing the scales of wanton destruction the dudes deserve all those quotes. To the extent that civilization has advanced has been the feminization of men’s worst instincts. My favorite bit is when some guy says that men are heroic because they defend women. But from who? Yeah, other men.
Not arguing to replace feminism; I’m arguing to displace it. Although, either liberalism or Humanism would be fine.
Feminism is an example of the tribalization of politics.
You brought up two issues. The first is abortion. I don’t want to derail the thread by getting into an abortion debate, but I will say this: I’m “pro-choice.” Not because I think abortion is a woman’s right, but because the idea that life begins at conception is ridiculous. The idea that life begins the moment of birth is equally ridiculous. The baby that’s about to slip through the birth canal is substantively identical to the baby the moment after she is born. Anyway, I’m 100% on board with fighting Republican attempts to make abortion more difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming. If a woman is going to have an abortion, it’s better that it happen as soon as possible.
The other was the number of women in Congress. Women make up more than 50% of the US population. There is literally nothing standing in the way of women running for Congress, or people from voting for them. So far as I can tell, the main problem is not enough women running. Not that I blame them: personally there’s almost nothing I’d like less than running for political office. But short of mandatory quotas, women have the right to decide whether to run for office, and who to vote for, just like everybody else. In any case, male politicians bend over backwards to support women’s issues. As long as they’re doing that, I’m not sure what difference it makes that they’re men.
Well, let’s look at what feminists have been saying for the past 50 years. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
Sure we hate men. The oppressed always hates the oppressor.
All men are rapists.
One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.
When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.
*There is a birth defect that is surprisingly common, affecting a key pair of chromosomes. In the normal condition the two look the same, but in this disorder one is shrunken beyond recognition. The result is 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. The main mechanism is androgen poisoning. I call it the X-chromosome deficiency syndrome, and a stunning 49 percent of the human species is affected.
It is also called maleness.* Men are pretty terrible people.
It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘manhood’ altogether.
Research has found that women are superior to men in most ways that will count in the future, and it isn’t just a matter of culture or upbringing—although both play their roles. It is also biology and the aspects of thought and feeling shaped by biology. It is because of chromosomes, genes, hormones and brain circuits.
The nuclear family must be destroyed.
Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.
The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.
Now I’m not saying this kind of thing hurts all men: those who have good fathers, those who have already developed critical thinking skills before exposure, those who have already developed healthy male identities - they’re likely to ignore this kind of shit.
But for others, there’s a risk of internalizing male-hatred, and becoming self-haters as a result. Furthermore, the more they try to be “less-like-a-man,” the less success they’re likely to find in life - particularly with women - and a kind of self-defeating cycle sets in. When they realize what’s happened, many of them are likely to react with anger to what’s been done to them. Which is not good for anyone.
You referred to me in the third person, but I’ll answer anyway.
1.) I don’t think feminism is to blame for all my problems. In fact, in the big scheme of things, I consider myself fortunate. I certainly have problems, but they’re 1st-world problems. I have the means and ability to deal with them.
2.) “Ignorant white men.” I’m not sure who you’re referring to - are all white men ignorant? I’m among the millions of white men who voted for Obama in both elections. (Although I voted for Hillary in the primaries in '08.)
In any case, if you’re referring to Republicans, it’s the tribalization of politics that’s driving white men into the Republican party. There’s a limit to the amount of scorn and shame you can heap on white men before they abandon you.
If you’re implying that the mechanism for counting the “unemployed” has changed, you’re wrong. It hasn’t.
I you’re saying the “headline number” is not the whole story, I entirely agree.
There are millions of people who aren’t actively looking for work, but would join the workforce if real wages and salaries increased. That’s one of the reasons why the Fed’s policy changes are so ass-backwards. They should have continued the policies that brought this far in the first place - instead of abandoning them - and they should take interest rate hikes off the table indefinitely.
There’s a constant flow of money from those who produce real wealth (people who work) to owners of things (land, buildings, corporations, copyrights, etc.). The second group may or may not work - and mostly doesn’t - but enjoy a disproportionate share of the wealth produced by others. And their share - the share of all wealth that goes to the very rich - increases year after year, decade after decade.
This is a problem - and not a “natural” problem, but a structural problem that has been actively and consciously created - that deserves more attention than it gets. (Although I give Bernie a ton of credit for trying to draw people’s attention to it.)
There’s a group of people who create the wealth of our country, and then there’s the division of wealth - a huge share of which goes to a tiny number of people.
Unfortunately, identity politics - the tribalization of politics - does a lot to draw people’s attention away from the real problem, while doing nothing to fix it.
No there are not “millions”. The current number for “discouraged workers” is somewhere around 700,000. A lot of individuals but not a major population segment statistically.
‘Jew’ is not an ethnicity. Where did you pluck that from? ‘Semitic’ is, I think? But even if it were so, and you have a trick homonym to hand, then it’s two questions. We were talking about religion - I answered the question in those terms. Can one be ethnically feminist?
This is what I observe, not what I believe. Your beliefs are the issue, since they’re not supported by fact (no matter how many times your labour your catchphrase: ‘Not All Feminists’. I wonder how many you think ‘many’ is? It’s the same tired claim that somehow you speak for some mainstream majority. Are you counting all those iiiiiis andy?
Multiple? Two, or a multitude? Is it in fact just you running around sounding like a crowd again?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, but do take more care in the future not to overstretch your analogy. The implication that I’m anti-Jew is unwarranted. The association of criticism directed at a flawed philosophy with the persecution of a people would be shameful, if you’d done it on purpose.
The analogy holds at this point if feminism is a revealed truth, a class of knowledge protected by a priesthood, a religion. Is it your religion?
Yeah, we get that you don’t want to hear criticism. Did you miss the bit where I grew up feminist? So, yeah, I think by your measures I am ‘ethnically feminist’. Do I get a voice now, or are you still only listening to those who agree with you? How about the honorary membership I keep getting granted, for acknowledging that I want gender equality? Feminists keep saying I’m a feminist, so surely I can speak now?
No?
Me: When will equality be reached?
You: When everything is equal.
Yes… Not really big on specifics, is it? As it is, it demands power in the hands of people who will let you know when they’ve had enough power, thanks. I can see the appeal, for some people, but it wouldn’t get my vote.
How will your reach ‘roughly equal representation’ of women in the level of local government that empties my bins? Because women have had ample opportunity to level that one out for themselves. You’ll be needing to pressgang some, I’m thinking. Feminism’s message to women is ‘Don’t let a man tell you what to do! We’ll be doing that!’
There’s nothing anti-man, or for that matter anti-bicycle, in that sentiment whatsoever. It doesn’t say that men, or bicycles, are bad, or that there’s anything wrong with a woman loving a man or a fish riding a bicycle, if they want to. It just says that neither women nor fish should be assumed to be innately dependent on men or bicycles.
[QUOTE=LinusK
*There is a birth defect that is surprisingly common, affecting a key pair of chromosomes. In the normal condition the two look the same, but in this disorder one is shrunken beyond recognition. The result is 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. The main mechanism is androgen poisoning. I call it the X-chromosome deficiency syndrome, and a stunning 49 percent of the human species is affected.
It is also called maleness. […]
Research has found that women are superior to men in most ways that will count in the future, and it isn’t just a matter of culture or upbringing—although both play their roles. It is also biology and the aspects of thought and feeling shaped by biology. It is because of chromosomes, genes, hormones and brain circuits.
*
[/quote]
That’s that same silly hyperbolic quote from one deliberately provocative opinion article by one anthropologist named Melvin Konner that you’ve been milking for what seems like dozens of posts now, despite the fact that none of the feminists here that you’re trying to pin these sentiments on actually agree with it.
Honestly, LinusK, I hope you’re planning to send Melvin Konner a nice holiday gift this year, because you’ve been working his silly remarks for all you’re worth to try to make it look as though they somehow represent “feminism” in general. Melvin Konner is singlehandedly supplying about 30% of the exaggerated misandrist remarks that you’re trying to attribute to “feminism” per se.
Aye aye, iiandyiiii - here’s one for you. As a feminist of the mainstream with no support for misandrist extremists, tell this one off for me - I’m not allowed to right?
I did once defend two women from each other (by feminist shaming tactics, essentially, though there was some deployment of mass and force). I wouldn’t call myself a hero.
Working with a school group, 11 year olds, I watched two who were talking and not working. Suddenly, the much bigger individual swung and connected - a punch in the eye for the little one. ‘Stop!’ I said. ‘He started it’, she said. He hadn’t, I’d been watching, but she knew that would mostly work on most teachers.
The world is full of detestable, despicable people, and shining saints of virtue and compassion, and those that fall between. Imagining you can tell one lot from the other by anything as irrelevant as genital origami, or skin colour, or sabbath days is mere bigotry.
More feminism is required? Perhaps we could look at feminists’ attitude toward shared custody after a divorce:
I’m glad you realize it is a problem, but I hope you now recognize “more feminism” is not the answer.
You bet?
Do a simple google search: then you’ll know.
Feminism’s apologists always characterize the misandry of feminist leaders as some fringe, unimportant part of feminism, and then claim that feminism is really about equality.
It’s not.
But you don’t have to believe me. I’ve provided evidence. But google is your friend. Check it out yourself.
How do you suppose words come about? How do they change their meaning over time? Do you object to homosexualists hijacking ‘gay’, which as we know means ‘frivolously happy’?
The ‘this is what the dictionary says’ bit is getting as tiresome as any of LK’s stuff. Anything (and especially any mass movement) is always much more than its dictionary definition, and likely to have moved on by the time usage warrants it a place in the dictionary
Well there are those repeated questions that nobody wants to answer, but if you have no answers than questions offer you nothing, I suppose. Have a stab at them anyway, go on, you might be better than you think you are.
I think the conversation about what you would like to do instead of Feminism is a profitable one, so thank you for this. I’m not certain there is a real difference between replace and displace.
“Liberalism” I take to mean left-wing politics as they exist in the US or Western world. That is largely acceptable to me.
“Humanism” I’d like to ask you to expand upon. Are you talking about the Renaissance movement that focuses on rational thought?
Interesting. I’d like more detail on this, which you provide in a minute.
Actually, I said women’s health care. You jumped right to abortion. I would include a lot of other issues there, like pre-natal care, physical exams, cancer screenings, HPV vaccines, etc.
My emphasis added. It is naive to think there is nothing in the way of women in politics. Just like it’s naive to think that there’s nothing in the way of minorities in politics. Times are changing but we, as a society, are not yet able to evaluate a person solely on their ability to do their job, without consideration of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or sock choice. We just aren’t there.
While you aren’t sure what difference it makes who represents you, I believe it does make a difference. I won’t vote for a candidate based on their gender, but our representatives should in some way approximate our society. Having a Congress of old white men represent a diverse society sounds like a recipe for disaster.
LinusK You’ve been conducting these threads this way for several months (!) now. Not only have most of these comments been thoroughly de-bunked and disavowed, they don’t really help your cause. Move on to preaching the new system - liberalism or humanism - because looking up mean spirited quotes isn’t really a winning game. I assure you if I or any woman wanted to look up nasty quotes about women from men to support why we think we need Feminism, we’d end up with posts that were so long they’d fill pages on their own, filled with language so vile the thread would get moved to the Pit.
Back to “tribalization of politics”. I was unaware that there was a large movement of any group to the Republican party. I thought it was shrinking. I was certainly unaware that Feminism was driving membership. And why would it be only white men? If Feminism is a problem for men, wouldn’t it be all men? In any case, I would love to see some cites on Feminism and the Republican party.
My emphasis added. LinusK are you saying that Feminism is the real problem? Or that it’s hiding economics, which are the real problem?
It’s a ‘trick’ in the sense of shifting from religion to ethnicity - that is, having been introduced as a point of religion, it was then used to suggest I was referring to the ‘ethnicity’. You know I can also find ‘grey aliens’ on wiki? It’s not quite the authorative source you suppose it to be.
Really? So, when a fella goes down to the Israeli embassy, and petitions for Israeli citizenship under their Right of Return laws, what test do they use to determine if he qualifies?
A) Quote from the Torah by memory.
B) Dance the Horah.
C) Pointedly not eat a bacon sandwich.
D) Demonstrate descent from Jewish ancestors.
I’ll give you a hint: the answer is D. But, apparently, the nation of Israel doesn’t know what “Jew” means. I hope you’ll do the right thing, and inform them of their error.
too late…
ETA: thanks for that link though, I particularly enjoyed this: “As Israeli author Amos Oz puts it, “a Jew is anyone who chooses or is compelled to share a common fate with other Jews.”[65] Oz summed up his position more succinctly in a monologue published in Tikkun, saying “Who is a Jew? Everyone who is mad enough to call himself or herself a Jew is a Jew.””
There’s nothing anti-man, or for that matter anti-bicycle, in that sentiment whatsoever. It doesn’t say that men, or bicycles, are bad, or that there’s anything wrong with a woman loving a man or a fish riding a bicycle, if they want to. It just says that neither women nor fish should be assumed to be innately dependent on men or bicycles.