The flaw in the argument that feminism is bad because it ignores men's issues

[ignition]

I underlined the symptom of the problem caused by ramping up controversy. It should read "feminists & non-feminists". But feminists are prone to seeing enemies among friends.

Very Bush-like, you're either with us, or you're against us!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I underlined the symptom of the problem caused by ramping up controversy. It should read "feminists & non-feminists". But feminists are prone to seeing enemies among friends. Perhaps it serves the useful purpose of motivating one's fellows by identifying a threat from enemies, but it sure makes it hard to discuss things.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I stand by my terminology. Not merely because *I* see them that way, but because those who often times engage in debates about feminism define themselves as fighting against feminism and what they see is delusion or abuse in the whole of feminism - whether it's the name, whether it's outdated and irrelevant as a movement as a whole, whether it's blatantly sexist. I think to call them "non-feminists" is placating them when they specifically say they hate feminism. At least when they are outspoken about it. Otherwise, some of them (not all of them) use passive-aggressive tactics to point out their position. I respect members posts more when they're up front about their position and/or their motivation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I stand by my terminology. Not merely because *I* see them that way, but because those who often times engage in debates about feminism define themselves as fighting against feminism and what they see is delusion or abuse in the whole of feminism - whether it's the name, whether it's outdated and irrelevant as a movement as a whole, whether it's blatantly sexist. I think to call them "non-feminists" is placating them when they specifically say they hate feminism. At least when they are outspoken about it. Otherwise, some of them (not all of them) use passive-aggressive tactics to point out their position. I respect members posts more when they're up front about their position and/or their motivation.

And the fighting continues......

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And the fighting continues......

Just repeating what is stated. There are such people who would arguably be classified as "anti-Christian", or "anti-capitalist", and especially when they themselves say they are set to see these two systems of thought wiped clean off the face of the planet. I see no issue with offering the same with "anti-feminist."

I don't point fingers at Christians who defend their faith against such hostility and motive. I don't point fingers at capitalists who defend their philosophy against such hostility either. Not all detractors say it (I'll repeat that again), but there are people who think feminism shouldn't exist, and they feel hostility toward it. I see nothing wrong with wanting to defend feminism against that hostility specifically.

For pete's sake, Rev. *I* critique the anti-porn crowd in feminism. One of my best friends is an anti-porn feminist, and we have lively and passionate debates. I've had the same debates here at RF with people who want pornography to be made illegal....are they not "anti-porn"? There is nothing wrong with defending the very existence of something.

Are you suggesting that nobody here has said they think feminism is inherently sexist? And that all feminists should just stop focusing on what they generally focus on and simply become humanists? I see that as a major generalization (first), and that there is an desire to see the entire movement as non-existant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just repeating what is stated. There are such people who would arguably be classified as "anti-Christian", or "anti-capitalist", and especially when they themselves say they are set to see these two systems of thought wiped clean off the face of the planet. I see no issue with offering the same with "anti-feminist."
I don't point fingers at Christians who defend their faith against such hostility and motive. I don't point fingers at capitalists who defend their philosophy against such hostility either. Not all detractors say it (I'll repeat that again), but there are people who think feminism shouldn't exist, and they feel hostility toward it. I see nothing wrong with wanting to defend feminism against that hostility specifically.

I only urge caution in branding a "non-" as an "anti-", which has been done by some in these rancorous threads. I see that it causes you & others great pain. So, fight the good fight, but don't let the fray harm you.

For pete's sake, Rev. *I* critique the anti-porn crowd in feminism. One of my best friends is an anti-porn feminist, and we have lively and passionate debates. I've had the same debates here at RF with people who want pornography to be made illegal....are they not "anti-porn"? There is nothing wrong with defending the very existence of something.

Are you suggesting that nobody here has said they think feminism is inherently sexist?

No. Some believe that & some don't. I believe that it is inherently sexist because of its primary focus on women.
But caution here....I don't think mild sexism due to focus is wrong. Nor do I criticize the movement for its small toxic element. Feminism, like the nascent & much smaller masculinism, is useful, no matter what shortcomings one might find.

And that all feminists should just stop focusing on what they generally focus on and simply become humanists? I see that as a major generalization (first), and that there is an desire to see the entire movement as non-existant.

I don't think feminists should stop. They should proceed with what calls
them to improve things. That it does not call me, is not a criticism.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I only urge caution in branding a "non-" as an "anti-", which has been done by some in these rancorous threads. I see that it causes you & others great pain. So, fight the good fight, but don't let the fray harm you.

I hear you. To be fair, though, I hope you understand that i don't brand all detractors as "anti-". I do see them, however, and that they're not so rare to be considered fringe. I see them as having formidable numbers.

No. I believe that it is inherently sexist because of its primary focus on women.
But caution here....I don't think mild sexism due to focus is wrong. Nor do I criticize the movement for its small toxic element. Feminism, like the nascent & much smaller masculinism, is useful, no matter what shortcomings one might find.

I get that. No worries. I disagree, of course, but what did you expect?

I don't think feminists should stop. They should proceed with what calls
them to improve things. That it does not call me, is not a criticism.

Granted. I don't see this attitude from all detractors, however. Much like you and others have not seen perfection from some self-identified feminists (you see toxic elements within, right?). I see toxic elements from some detractors. I think it's safe to say that people are people all around, yes?

 

[Revoltingest]

I hear you. To be fair, though, I hope you understand that i don't brand all detractors as "anti-". I do see them, however, and that they're not so rare to be considered fringe. I see them as having formidable numbers.

I get that. No worries. I disagree, of course, but what did you expect?

Granted. I don't see this attitude from all detractors, however. Much like you and others have not seen perfection from some self-identified feminists (you see toxic elements within, right?). I see toxic elements from some detractors. I think it's safe to say that people are people all around, yes?

This is all way too agreeable.
Poopy head!

 

[Alceste]

How about my question that has not yet been answered.

Surely it is discrimination if women are paid MORE for doing the same job as a man, for example, the attractive waitress.

How do you feel about that?

I feel that in any industry that relies on voluntary tips, some disparity in earnings based on superficial reasons is inevitable. I am not convinced by your assertion that women make more tips. I will need to see your evidence before I accept that premise.

But you're changing the subject. You still haven't answered my question: what could men in the past do that you can no longer do because of feminism? Please be as specific as possible.

 

[Alceste]

In terms of increased awareness and expectations (and enforcement) of certain standards in language and behaviour - men have borne a 'cost' of feminism in that they are expected to not be *ss*s.

That said, there are some parts of the feminism movement that espouse additional costs that they believe men should bear that they do not believe women should, affirmative action initiatives, double standards in terms of tolerance (and even embracing) sexist remarks and behaviour - there are portions of those who at least publicly identify as feminist who espouse positions and policy that would seek to undermine the position of men rather than simply to enhance the position of women.

It can be expected in a demographic group that there may be such individuals who hold more radical viewpoints than the mainstream moderate position embraced by the entire demographic group (religious groups for example are an example that might easily be recognised as having such elements). The wider society would expect that moderate elements of the demographic group might seek to moderate the espousal of such rhetoric or to mitigate the execution of such behavior, when the moderates of the group are not seen to do so adequately then there is often a perception that the language and actions of the mode radical elements are accepted by that demographic group as a whole.

Feminism is a philosophy, not an organization. None of us have any power or authority over what others say and do. For my part, I usually assume others have brains enough to tell the difference between a mainstream feminist and a nutty, misandrist radical, so there's no point talking about the weird ideas of nutty, misadrist radicals in feminist discussion. Have I overestimated people?

 

[Alceste]

I have given clear and easily understood examples of that.

Do you remember them ?

If so, please indicate that you do.

Sure, a deranged feminist tried to burn down your store 40 years ago with you in it, and the mob mentality of the crowd made them seem to be in solidarity with her. That's awful, as I've said, but I was speaking more generally. What has feminism in general taken from men in general? Mobs riot over all kinds of things. That has nothing to do with feminism, IMO.

 

[DallasApple]

The reason why people say that is because feminist groups do go above and beyond wanting equal rights, they want special rights for women. As an example, one of London's feminist groups campaign members of parliament to introduce legislation to ensure that less women go to prison every year. How anyone can support this is beyond belief, it's off the charts contemptible.

Hmmm ....I think LESS PEOPLE should go to prison every year.At least here in America.We are LOCKING people up in PRISON because they are addicted to drugs.Even if no other "crime" has been committed..Its SICK!

For starters we should legalize POT possession! And we should be able to grow it too for our OWN use! I could have if I wanted to today and had the time and money bought and carried enough alcohol to my house for my own personal use to kill me a MILLION TIMES OVER! Like a hoarder !But you are thrown in jail and a "criminal" for having a seed of a pot plant in your pocket?

Whatever.So anyway ..

 

[Alceste]

Hmmm ....I think LESS PEOPLE should go to prison every year.At least here in America.We are LOCKING people up in PRISON because they are addicted to drugs.Even if no other "crime" has been committed..Its SICK!

For starters we should legalize POT possession! And we should be able to grow it too for our OWN use! I could have if I wanted to today and had the time and money bought and carried enough alcohol to my house for my own personal use to kill me a MILLION TIMES OVER! Like a hoarder !But you are thrown in jail and a "criminal" for having a seed of a pot plant in your pocket?

Whatever.So anyway ..

Ironically, I think what you are saying here is precisely what the group ignition was talking about is fighting for. I mean, if it is this group:

Prison Reform Trust creating a just, humane and effective penal system

To say that they're an example of "feminists" who are going "too far" by trying to "pass legislation to reduce the number of women in prison" is a heck of a misrepresentation.

The Prison Reform Trust's main objectives are:

1. reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime
2. improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families
3. promoting equality and human rights in the justice system.

If you check under their "projects" heading, they're also active on behalf of young people, old people and minorities. Basically they seem to be doing stuff for practically everybody except white men between 20 and 50. OTOH, I'd be really surprised if anyone there lacked sympathy for the challenges of men in prison.

 

[ignition]

I'm talking about Britain, not the US. There's an active campaign to get less women into prison in Britain, and to get women released early. This is evil upon evil. First of all I don't want criminals released early or not going into prison in the first place, and secondly, choosing one gender for preferential treatment in the justice system is no better than treating whites better than blacks. Where's the justice in that? There's a reason why it's called the JUSTICE system. I don't think these radical feminists know that, they're not helping themselves combat the illogical women stereotype either.

 

[Alceste]

I'm talking about Britain, not the US. There's an active campaign to get less women into prison in Britain, and to get women released early. This is evil upon evil. First of all I don't want criminals released early or not going into prison in the first place, and secondly, choosing one gender for preferential treatment in the justice system is no better than treating whites better than blacks. Where's the justice in that? There's a reason why it's called the JUSTICE system. I don't think these radical feminists know that, they're not helping themselves combat the illogical women stereotype either.

Are you saying the campaign you're complaining about is NOT organized by the Prison Reform Trust? (dot org, dot UK, in case you missed that). I fact check everybody. Don't be alarmed. If that's not the organization you're referring to, who are you referring to?

 

[DallasApple]

I don't think anyone! Man woman old or young should be imprisoned for being addicted to drugs! Let alone man woman old or young imprisoned because they had a joint in their pocket!Or a joint in there pocket "3 times".

Anyone.20 to 50 white men included.

I have a 17 year old son a 23 year old son and a 30 year old son.I don't want them locked down in a prison because they have pot (not saying they do) or are unfortunate enough to get addicted to drugs.Oh OR my 47 year old husband for that matter.

Drug addicts do NOT belong in prison! Period.Neither do people that smoke a little pot .Excluding children (who don't belong in prison either) I'm tired of people being criminalized for possession of MJ . Whether I want to do it or not .I'm not saying I want to smoke pot .

 

[ignition]

Are you saying the campaign you're complaining about is NOT organized by the Prison Reform Trust? (dot org, dot UK, in case you missed that). I fact check everybody. Don't be alarmed. If that's not the organization you're referring to, who are you referring to?

I'm talking about the ******* at LFN, london feminist network. Their spokesperson is also a troll, she's an atheist and when she went on air in a BBC program, she labelled all religious people as being "stupid". The fact that they have her as a spokesperson really tells the whole story.

 

[ignition]

Censored really? That was hardly offensive.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Its automatic as is the three letter word for bottom.

 

[Volodya]

I feel that in any industry that relies on voluntary tips, some disparity in earnings based on superficial reasons is inevitable.

So you are fine with this pay differential then.

That is rather telling, because you blow an almighty amount of steam when it is the other way around.

That makes you a hypocrite, and exposes the lie of feminism for what it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are fine with this pay differential then.
That is rather telling, because you blow an almighty amount of steam when it is the other way around.
That makes you a hypocrite, and exposes the lie of feminism for what it is.

I expect that mainstream feminism is picking the most important battles. Where appearance & gender aren't crucial to a job, fighting discrimination is needed & achievable. Some areas make no sense to provide equal opportunity for appearance & gender, eg, models in advertising. Waiting tables is an intractable problem as long as pay is mostly in tips, since to regulate customers' behavior would meet widespread resistance. Also, public policy places a much greater burden on the employer than the consumer. Is it hypocritical to pick one's battles to do the most good one can with one's resources? I don't think so.