The Feminism Thread

[Stevicus]

Tempers can and do flare: I think this stems from the fatigue that accompanies being actively interested in an issue like this where we might encounter something on a weekly or even daily basis where we have to make decisions: as I've described elsewhere, it is a constant headache to choose between the principles of "pick your battles" and "silence is assent." This is why you'll see people making a mountain out of what might seem like a mole hill (in terms of a behavioral explanation). I wrote a post about fatigue not too long ago (in Feminist Only, I think people can still read even if not comment): Feminist Fatigue

I don't think losing temper or being bitter is helpful at all, but it's a tough situation because I understand on a human level why and how it happens.

I can see how it happens in any discussion about any topic. But some of it seems unique to the internet. I can have the same conversations in real life without any fireworks. It's different when interacting with someone face to face, whereas on the internet, it's more like posturing for an audience.

As for the "manosphere," there are veritable trashheaps of misogyny and toxicity out there for sure; but masculism isn't by fiat anti-feminist and I think it would be helpful for everyone to remember that there are valid men's rights issues, social issues, and so on that are unfair to men. I'd call myself a masculist because I care about men and their rights and how society impacts them too. It's just a shame that a lot of the movements that would work towards these ends have been co-opted by misogyny, anti-feminism, and toxicity. (Still, we should care, according to me!)

I've noticed that much of the criticism of feminism from the "manosphere" tends to point at things and events which they see as evidence that feminists believe in gender equality only when it is convenient for women. They decry what they see as a double standard, which leads some men to wonder, "Well do women really want true equality or don't they?"

I've heard some women lament that "chivalry is dead," suggesting that men aren't fulfilling some sort of gender role that they're still expected to fulfill. (Chivalry was never all that it was cracked up to be, though, considering what it actually entailed, historically.)

However, I've seen much more toxic areas of the "manosphere," which caught my attention after a few significant shootings where I learned what the word "incel" meant. This gave me the impression that there's a lot of young men out there with no real direction in life, few prospects, few ambitions, no real role models they can identify with, and believe that they're ostracized, unwanted, and will always be alone.

These are the ones who seem vulnerable to right-wing recruitment. While every generation goes through its wayward youth phase, this somehow seems different and more toxic. I'm not sure where it's headed.

I think you're right that feminism comes through different ideological lenses. My approach is one of social justice (feminism is a humanism), but I can certainly say that this isn't the only flavor. So when you ask about MTG, I'm not sure what to say: if her worldview could be perceived as a feminism by somebody for some reason, it's so alien from my values that I'd have to break it down into specific aspects to agree whether it's something I could call feminism or not.

MTG might be considered a beneficiary of feminism, even if she's not a feminist herself.

I think I can generally see eye-to-eye with most socialist-oriented feminists who believe in economic justice.

 

[Revoltingest]

How does one refer to a concept like toxic masculinity with a different term, to stick to the example?

One could refer to the specific issue.
Making it about "toxic masculinity" does suggest something
broadly male. Sure, sure, that's not your intent. But it's a
buzzword used by many with different intentions. And it goes
hand in hand with the "patriarchy" to make women's problems
appear to be caused by men generally.
If "toxic femininity" became a common term to describe the
many faults particular to women, would this be well received
by feminists? Would inner city shootings be characterized
by "toxic black culture"? I'm betting not. Tis problematic
to label a problem by the group...rallying the faithful, but
potentially alienating outsiders.

 

[Meow Mix]

@Brickjectivity and @Revoltingest

I’m not fully awake yet to respond to everything, just reading.

But what about using “toxic conceptions of masculinity?”

Would that be better?

 

[Revoltingest]

@Brickjectivity and @Revoltingest

I’m not fully awake yet to respond to everything, just reading.

But what about using “toxic conceptions of masculinity?”

Would that be better?

I’ll wait until you and I both have more time.

 

[JustGeorge]

Are you sure you're in the right job here?

Of course I am. Not doing what one is supposed to is part of the job requirement.

 

[Meow Mix]

The last time I created a thread about why I wasn't a feminist,
they arrived to blow up & lock the thread. Some difficult ones
are long gone. Will it fare better now? Can the great & wise
@Meow Mix bring us into an age of civility & understanding?

From THHGTG....
"Feminism is big big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely,
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way
down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to feminism.”

There's nothing productive in railing against TERFs & other
extremophiles...no one here agrees with them (I assume).
So what about feminism that could be criticized...something
true for most of the flavors spanning the continuum?
Some possibilities....
- Blaming men for problems that boil down to women's choices,
eg, no pockets on clothing, skimpiness.
- Inattention to discrimination against men, & advantages to women,
eg, military draft, child custody, acceptance of F on M violence.
- Denigration of men's rights activism by focusing upon the
extremists, not not judging themselves by this method.
- Seeing disagreement as victimizing them, ie, "gaslighting".
- Blaming "The Patriarchy", a nebulous boogeyman, too much.

I haven't thought anyone was blaming men for no pockets; but what do you mean by skimpiness?

It's certainly a problem when people hold double standards (on the middle two points: inattention to discrimination against men and denigration of men's rights activism): you won't find that from this feminist at least. I agree that any feminists that err on this are in the wrong.

The last two are very contextual: there are times that I would agree with them and times that I wouldn't. I can at least understand the concern in a theoretical sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't thought anyone was blaming men for no pockets; but what do you mean by skimpiness?

I don't understand why women buy clothing that barely covers, looks
like some parts are ready to peek or fall out, must be colder than
a witch's....uh...a well digger's elbow, & cost a fortune per yard.
Can't blame that on "The Patriarchy". As @Rival knows, I'm a
fan of dungarees....but not too much of a fan.

It's certainly a problem when people hold double standards (on the middle two points: inattention to discrimination against men and denigration of men's rights activism): you won't find that from this feminist at least. I agree that any feminists that err on this are in the wrong.

While it's a complaint (as requested by the OP), it's not
necessarily a double standard or at all hypocritical for
feminists to not show concern for men's rights or problems.
Everyone must (IMO) limit their focus & efforts to what
calls to them.
However, it only troublesome when this lack of concern
accompanies dissing men's advocacy...as a few of them
do (avoiding a broad brush here).

The last two are very contextual: there are times that I would agree with them and times that I wouldn't. I can at least understand the concern in a theoretical sense.

No argument with that.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't understand why women buy clothing that barely covers, looks
like some parts are ready to peek or fall out, must be colder than
a witch's....uh...a well digger's elbow, & cost a fortune per yard.
Can't blame that on "The Patriarchy". As @Rival knows, I'm a
fan of dungarees....but not too much of a fan.

I'm probably one of these sometimes: it's because it do be hot out sometimes! Or if we're talking about the yoga pants thing, they're comfortable as all hell and I'm often literally going to the studio for barre/yoga before or after whatever I'm doing.

While it's a complaint (as requested by the OP), it's not
necessarily a double standard or at all hypocritical for
feminists to not show concern for men's rights or problems.
Everyone must (IMO) limit their focus & efforts to what
calls to them.
However, it only troublesome when this lack of concern
accompanies dissing men's advocacy...as a few of them
do (avoiding a broad brush here).

No argument with that.

Sure, our attention is limited in scope by necessity; I thought you were talking about people that outright dismissed men's rights activism in total (rather than just not paying attention to it). That would be wrong.

As I've said elsewhere, one issue is that a lot of misogynists have infiltrated men's rights activism, which is really unfortunate. But anyone worth their salt will still agree that masculism is a noble pursuit worthy of attention and agreement because there are real issues that disproportionately affect and harm men, and we should care about men too.

 

[Rival]

I'm not sure. The mods will catch us eventually...

Hey...

Your Fake Account



Reminded me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm probably one of these sometimes: it's because it do be hot out sometimes! Or if we're talking about the yoga pants thing, they're comfortable as all hell and I'm often literally going to the studio for barre/yoga before or after whatever I'm doing.



Sure, our attention is limited in scope by necessity; I thought you were talking about people that outright dismissed men's rights activism in total (rather than just not paying attention to it). That would be wrong.

As I've said elsewhere, one issue is that a lot of misogynists have infiltrated men's rights activism, which is really unfortunate. But anyone worth their salt will still agree that masculism is a noble pursuit worthy of attention and agreement because there are real issues that disproportionately affect and harm men, and we should care about men too.

Misandrists infect feminism too. So both movements
suffer from image problems that hinder progress.
Dang...you're way to agreeable...this might be a rule
violation.

 

[JustGeorge]

Your Fake Account



Reminded me.

I knew it would be you who would catch me...

 

[Debater Slayer]

Misandrists infect feminism too. So both movements
suffer from image problems that hinder progress.
Dang...you're way to agreeable...this might be a rule
violation.

Personally, I think the beliefs of TERFs and SWERFs are quite possibly the biggest smudge on the image of feminism. Within the beliefs of those two groups, misandry, transphobia, opposition to freedom of choice (both to perform sex work and to have sex reassignment surgery), and even bigotry toward intersectional feminists abound.

I have a TERF friend who recently told me she was "mad" at me because of my view that trans women are indeed women. So even though I'm still willing to remain friends and discuss the issues with her, it seems clear that she finds anything less than agreement with transphobia to be "misogynistic."

I'm not planning to budge a single inch on my support for trans rights and the scientific consensus behind gender dysphoria and the importance of transitioning for some people, so we'll see how the friendship proceeds from here.

 

[Meow Mix]

This Quora answer from a trans man sums my own thoughts up well:

View attachment 54845

View attachment 54843

View attachment 54844

Okee doke, a response to these posts.

In the first picture, the claims that are made:

• Feminists want a 50/50 split in CEO's, political positions, etc.
• Feminists deny "biological facts" like males being physically stronger

The speaker has abandoned the premise that "some" feminists think these things, having said just before that "some things are constant across feminism." That's obviously false.

What feminists would most likely argue is that there should be a 50/50 split in CEO's/boards/etc. -- in an ideal world where gender-based marginalization is quashed. It should happen naturally, sheerly by the statistics of people making their way into those positions in a world where women are valued as much as men, as confident and as educated as men.

We are actually on track to have 50/50 by something like 2049 if current trends continue unabated (which is usually a fallacy, so don't take this as a prediction, just a comment about what current trends are like).

As for "biological facts," I don't think any mainstream feminists deny the statistical strength differences between men and women: what we would point out is that this isn't a good reason to make some assumptions. Differences like this fall on curves, and there is overlap.

In the second picture, these claims are made:

• You're either with feminism or against feminism
• Feminists cite false facts on campus rape and wage gaps maliciously
• Feminists "latch on" to things not related to feminism (according to the arguer) like transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Islam (???)
• Feminists don't discuss the concerns of men

Hoo boy. Where to start on these claims? Remember, the poster is claiming these are things central to "all" feminism; they had already given the disclaimer that "not all feminists are extremists, but some things are central to all feminism" (paraphrased) in the first post. Again, we see that is false.

Most feminists don't think "you're either with feminism or against feminism" in the sense that everybody must identify as a feminist or somehow they are an enemy to feminist goals. You've certainly seen me make this exact argument to you before (that it didn't matter to me whether or not you identified as a feminist), and I wasn't considering you an enemy. I'm not alone in this regard. Are there extremist feminists out there that might think like this? Sure, but they're wrong. Labels aren't needed to be allies or at least to stand in congruence with goals, or at least not to have goals hostile to equality or that foster marginalization.

As for "citing false facts on campus rape and wage gaps," whoever the poster was would have to be a little more specific about that. I'm not sure what to say about that. There are facts about campus rape and wage gaps. Those facts can be cited. Maybe this person had "false" facts quoted to them once or something, I have no idea. That doesn't mean facts don't exist or can't be cited.

As for "latching onto things," what this person is talking about is called intersectionality as it relates to feminism (recognizing that women face different battles based on different circumstances and identities). When it doesn't relate to women, then it's not related to feminism: a feminist can simply also care about transgender rights, or care about other social justice issues. This is a bizarre complaint, honestly.

As for discussing the concerns of men, this couldn't be more false. I very often see conversations about how toxic conceptions of masculinity harm men as well, how there ought to be more concern for male victims of rape and abuse, things like that. It's not uncommon at all in feminism to discuss the concerns of men.

In the third picture, these claims are made:

Actually, this picture was just sort of a summary of earlier false claims, so there's not much more to respond to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a TERF friend who recently told me she was "mad" at me because of my view that trans women are indeed women. So even though I'm still willing to remain friends and discuss the issues with her, it seems clear that she finds anything less than agreement with transphobia to be "misogynistic."

I have some friends who hold beliefs I find heinous.
But I have some influence to cause improvement.
(Although some here would say my views are worse.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You've certainly seen me make this exact argument to you before (that it didn't matter to me whether or not you identified as a feminist), and I wasn't considering you an enemy.

That's good. I don't see you as an enemy either. If anything, people may tire of me being a bit of a weirdo and oddball, but, that's another subject entirely.

Okee doke, a response to these posts.

In the first picture, the claims that are made:

• Feminists want a 50/50 split in CEO's, political positions, etc.
• Feminists deny "biological facts" like males being physically stronger

The speaker has abandoned the premise that "some" feminists think these things, having said just before that "some things are constant across feminism." That's obviously false.

What feminists would most likely argue is that there should be a 50/50 split in CEO's/boards/etc. -- in an ideal world where gender-based marginalization is quashed. It should happen naturally, sheerly by the statistics of people making their way into those positions in a world where women are valued as much as men, as confident and as educated as men.

We are actually on track to have 50/50 by something like 2049 if current trends continue unabated (which is usually a fallacy, so don't take this as a prediction, just a comment about what current trends are like).

As for "biological facts," I don't think any mainstream feminists deny the statistical strength differences between men and women: what we would point out is that this isn't a good reason to make some assumptions. Differences like this fall on curves, and there is overlap.

In the second picture, these claims are made:

• You're either with feminism or against feminism
• Feminists cite false facts on campus rape and wage gaps maliciously
• Feminists "latch on" to things not related to feminism (according to the arguer) like transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Islam (???)
• Feminists don't discuss the concerns of men

Hoo boy. Where to start on these claims? Remember, the poster is claiming these are things central to "all" feminism; they had already given the disclaimer that "not all feminists are extremists, but some things are central to all feminism" (paraphrased) in the first post. Again, we see that is false.

Most feminists don't think "you're either with feminism or against feminism" in the sense that everybody must identify as a feminist or somehow they are an enemy to feminist goals. You've certainly seen me make this exact argument to you before (that it didn't matter to me whether or not you identified as a feminist), and I wasn't considering you an enemy. I'm not alone in this regard. Are there extremist feminists out there that might think like this? Sure, but they're wrong. Labels aren't needed to be allies or at least to stand in congruence with goals, or at least not to have goals hostile to equality or that foster marginalization.

As for "citing false facts on campus rape and wage gaps," whoever the poster was would have to be a little more specific about that. I'm not sure what to say about that. There are facts about campus rape and wage gaps. Those facts can be cited. Maybe this person had "false" facts quoted to them once or something, I have no idea. That doesn't mean facts don't exist or can't be cited.

As for "latching onto things," what this person is talking about is called intersectionality as it relates to feminism (recognizing that women face different battles based on different circumstances and identities). When it doesn't relate to women, then it's not related to feminism: a feminist can simply also care about transgender rights, or care about other social justice issues. This is a bizarre complaint, honestly.

As for discussing the concerns of men, this couldn't be more false. I very often see conversations about how toxic conceptions of masculinity harm men as well, how there ought to be more concern for male victims of rape and abuse, things like that. It's not uncommon at all in feminism to discuss the concerns of men.

In the third picture, these claims are made:

Actually, this picture was just sort of a summary of earlier false claims, so there's not much more to respond to.

I'm satisfied with this summary / breakdown. Thanks for taking the time to.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's good. I don't see you as an enemy either. If anything, people may tire of me being a bit of a weirdo and oddball, but, that's another subject entirely.

Girl, you know I love ya <3

I'm satisfied with this summary / breakdown. Thanks for taking the time to.

I'd have been more thorough, but homework, and in some cases the claims were not specific enough. I'm glad it was constructive in any way though. ^.^

I understand there are feminists out there that fit some of the bills that people are venting about. But that's why I made the thread too. I want to show that feminism isn't by fiat extreme.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Girl, you know I love ya <3

Thanks. That means a lot. I was worried I scared/worried you a few days ago, I got on a higher dose of estrogen recently, and I was a bit emotional, not to say I'm not emotional anyway, and emotions can be a bit funky until your body gets used to the change. I consider myself a bit better now, but I have been posting a bit less on RF and filling my time a bit with other things, to not only gets my mind off some things I want to get them off of, and I'm not talking RF or RFers at all, but get me off RF for awhile while I'm a bit more emotional as well. But I think everything will be just fine.

I understand there are feminists out there that fit some of the bills that people are venting about. But that's why I made the thread too. I want to show that feminism isn't by fiat extreme.

Makes sense. I found @Debater Slayer 's post to me on the subject of Feminism a bit helpful as well, as he somehow touched the mark on some things, I think, without me actually being overly specific as to what I thought.

I think it's easy to hate feminism as a transgender person, especially using all the TERFs in the world to justify a cold outlook. I just consider it very wrong to do so. Plus you guys will probably help me see other sides to things, especially regarding Feminism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have some friends who hold beliefs I find heinous.
But I have some influence to cause improvement.
(Although some here would say my views are worse.)

Same here, although the main issue with the TERF friend is that she has said she doesn't want to talk about the subject whatsoever and isn't sure whether we could stay friends because of my support for trans rights. She has made it clear her objection was to my beliefs, not how I expressed them. (I've never been hostile to her or the like.)

People who shut down discussions and opt to maintain hateful beliefs can be especially tricky to deal with. Hopefully she'll reconsider and won't decide to avoid discussions altogether or end the friendship over the difference in views. I'd be disappointed, too, because I refused to give up on her when several people we mutually knew distanced themselves from her due to her beliefs instead of trying to influence change in her views like I've tried to do.