The false "Facts" of the MRA movement.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Specter Von Baren:

nyysjan:

What have feminists done to deserve ire out of people who are not opposed to equal rights or simply uninformed about feminism?

Fascinating question! Might I give an example from the mouth of another in this particular case?

And?
Really, how is this relevant?
I'm currently at almost 7 minutes and i can't see how feminists or feminism is relevant to this video.

edit-
ok, stopped watching after she started to blame feminists on Earl Silvermans death (well, not killing him, but claiming that he killed himself ot expose a huge feminist conspiracy or something).
NEXT

nyysjan:

Specter Von Baren:

nyysjan:

What have feminists done to deserve ire out of people who are not opposed to equal rights or simply uninformed about feminism?

Fascinating question! Might I give an example from the mouth of another in this particular case?

And?
Really, how is this relevant?
I'm currently at almost 7 minutes and i can't see how feminists or feminism is relevant to this video.

edit-
ok, stopped watching after she started to blame feminists on Earl Silvermans death (well, not killing him, but claiming that he killed himself ot expose a huge feminist conspiracy or something).
NEXT

Didn't bother to pay attention or watch the whole thing, if you had then you would know that she DIDN'T blame it on them but was instead something he chose, himself, to do as a tactic to try and get his voice heard. Interesting how actually listening to something all the way through and not just writing it off flippantly can paint a completely different picture.

Try again.

Specter Von Baren:

nyysjan:

Specter Von Baren:

Fascinating question! Might I give an example from the mouth of another in this particular case?

And?
Really, how is this relevant?
I'm currently at almost 7 minutes and i can't see how feminists or feminism is relevant to this video.

edit-
ok, stopped watching after she started to blame feminists on Earl Silvermans death (well, not killing him, but claiming that he killed himself ot expose a huge feminist conspiracy or something).
NEXT

Didn't bother to pay attention or watch the whole thing, if you had then you would know that she DIDN'T blame it on them but was instead something he chose, himself, to do as a tactic to try and get his voice heard. Interesting how actually listening to something all the way through and not just writing it off flippantly can paint a completely different picture.

Try again.

If you had read my post in full (something that should not take 25 minutes), you would have noted i did write the Earl killed himself, and that the one who made the video did say he did so to force people to notice the horrible lies of feminists about domestic abuse and shit.
So yeah, he killed himself to expose some horrible feminist conspiracy (that does not exist, or if it does, show some evidence).

How the fuck does that have anything to do with feminists?

nyysjan:

How the fuck does that have anything to do with feminists?

Or, even if does, why should it reflect on a movement for equality?
It just tires me so much every-time I see this. "Some people of movement/ideology X said or did Y, therefor we can ascribe belief or action Y to everyone of movement X".

nyysjan:
[
What have feminists done to deserve ire out of people who are not opposed to equal rights or simply uninformed about feminism?
Sure, there have been individuals with overblown rhetoric, and probably some fringe groups, but feminism can draw on roots that started out with goals that almost nobody would disagree with (out loud), have brought positive change (like voting rights), MRA's do not have that past to point for what they are for and what they have worked at.

Here's the big question though, what is feminism truly about than? You mention equal rights for instance, well i'm sorry but right now they exist (over here). So does that mean feminism is obsolete and should move to Saudi Arabia?

Nobody can claim they know what feminism is about and that's exactly because of "NAFALT". Now how do I judge feminism? By its activism. Because that's what has the biggest impact on society. What random sunday feminist 14575 thinks is in my opinion barely relevant. However feminists who shut down discussions about men's issues because talking about men's issues is "misogynistic" is relevant, they had a real impact on people. Feminist who manage to convince the government not to make rape laws more equal (by recognizing men can be raped, happened in Israel) has an impact on people. And usually these feminists, who actually do something, are not people in favor of equal right but fight for female privilege. Now add to that they dare to say they care about men's issues and you got yourself pissed off anti-feminists. Because that makes things worse, pretending you give a shit about men but do everything to show the contrary. As long as feminist activist fight for female privilege and dare to pretend they want to help everyone i'll be a strong anti-feminist. What they did X years ago is irrelevant. I don't feel guilty over what white people did X years ago so I won't support current feminism for what it did X years ago.

generals3:

nyysjan:
[
What have feminists done to deserve ire out of people who are not opposed to equal rights or simply uninformed about feminism?
Sure, there have been individuals with overblown rhetoric, and probably some fringe groups, but feminism can draw on roots that started out with goals that almost nobody would disagree with (out loud), have brought positive change (like voting rights), MRA's do not have that past to point for what they are for and what they have worked at.

Here's the big question though, what is feminism truly about than? You mention equal rights for instance, well i'm sorry but right now they exist (over here). So does that mean feminism is obsolete and should move to Saudi Arabia?

Nobody can claim they know what feminism is about and that's exactly because of "NAFALT". Now how do I judge feminism? By its activism. Because that's what has the biggest impact on society. What random sunday feminist 14575 thinks is in my opinion barely relevant. However feminists who shut down discussions about men's issues because talking about men's issues is "misogynistic" is relevant, they had a real impact on people. Feminist who manage to convince the government not to make rape laws more equal (by recognizing men can be raped, happened in Israel) has an impact on people. And usually these feminists, who actually do something, are not people in favor of equal right but fight for female privilege. Now add to that they dare to say they care about men's issues and you got yourself pissed off anti-feminists. Because that makes things worse, pretending you give a shit about men but do everything to show the contrary. As long as feminist activist fight for female privilege and dare to pretend they want to help everyone i'll be a strong anti-feminist. What they did X years ago is irrelevant. I don't feel guilty over what white people did X years ago so I won't support current feminism for what it did X years ago.

Urban dictionary:
Nafalt
Acronym. "Not all feminists are like that". Can be used as a verb "Nafalt-ing" when one uses this phrase in the context of feminist apologetics.

wow, that does not sound at all hostile (also, never even heard of it before), could you not have just used "no true scotsman" fallacy?

So you have one instance of possibly good legislation (haven't read the bill so can't say how well the law was written) being stopped from being passed by some womens groups.
Does that make all feminists into misandric man hating female supremacists? No, not anymore than being a christian makes you a pedophile.
And the problem was not admitting that women can rape men, but that some were afraid men would use the law to get away with rape by simply accusing the women of raping them instead, how legit the worry was, not sure, haven't seen the bill, but it does not seem to be just "lol, men can't get get raped".

From Wikipedia:
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Sounds like a decent definition of feminism and feminists.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

You've just demonstrated the fact that men do have it easier, and that it is because of sexist attitudes. You equated masculinity, "male-ness" with commenting on female CO's asses, implying that the only solutions are to emasculate men with sensitivity training (with the further implication that demanding basic levels of professionalism weakens a military's strength and makes them "soft") or to only accept women who are willing and able to solve an institutionalized problem with their own personal assertiveness. Men do not have this extra hurdle to jump through. Even with homosexuals integrated into the military, there is not wide-spread gossiping about COs as sex-objects, because it's understood that that is unacceptable. Your CO could in theory be giving you commands that have life-or-death consequences for you and others. It is not a male trait, a powerful or strong trait, to disrespect that CO and treat them like an object for your personal pleasure just because they are a woman. That's the very definition of privilege. Men are allowed to get away with something simply because they are men, and being male and engaging in those unprofessional behaviors is associated in the public mind with strength, power, and effectiveness even as those unprofessional behaviors undermine the chain of command and disrupt the military.

What Abomination said.

Also, it's *one* example of an environment that favours and rewards a certain type of masculinity. It would be an overgeneralisation and a fallacy to conclude that this "proves" macho culture is universal or even representative of all masculinity - take one of these squaddies and see how long he lasts at a fashion house, or a theoretical physics conference, or in theatre, or in a childcare role. I don't think we can conclude anything more sinister than "certain jobs favour and foster a certain expression and demeanour".

nyysjan:

Nafalt
Acronym. "Not all feminists are like that". Can be used as a verb "Nafalt-ing" when one uses this phrase in the context of feminist apologetics.

wow, that does not sound at all hostile (also, never even heard of it before), could you not have just used "no true scotsman" fallacy?

It's a fairly well-known term. Why use it? Well, it's a term that makes sense, and is especially relevant, within gender discussion, same as "What about teh menz" and "mansplaining". It's shorthand for a common rhetorical technique or fallacy.

generals3:
Now add to that they dare to say they care about men's issues and you got yourself pissed off anti-feminists.

Frankly, there is no reason to say that unless it is true. The men's rights lobby isn't actually going to believe you because they're too caught up in a completely an arbitrary discourse of claiming personal "rights" which don't actually exist for anyone, so what is the advantage of saying that? Who are you going to convince who isn't already convinced or otherwise about the prospects of gender equality or how to achieve it?

Incidentally, an anti-feminist means something quite specific. It doesn't mean some random man who labors under the deluded belief that feminism is about female privilege, because actually that person is probably not anti-feminist at all. It means someone who openly and explicitly denies or rebukes the existence of gender or the general equality of the sexes. Anti-feminists may be sociobiologists who couch their arguments in differences in "natural" male and female abilities and competences, they may be religious conservatives who feel that men and women have a "natural roles" in God's plan. They may be functionalist sociologists or conservative psychologists who argue that the social stratification of men and women or their division into separate spheres of life is necessary for society to function or for emotional health, or they may occupy any point between these three positions. An anti-feminist can mean many things, but someone who believes in sexual equality and who believes that male and female positions in society are subject to social action and change, no matter how poorly and inadequately they are equipped to theorize and pursue it, is most certainly not an anti-feminist.

Now. There are libraries and libraries of gender critical and feminist work on men. Granted, they don't tend to assume that "male issues" are down to some simplistic denial of "rights", but maybe, just maybe, that's because it's a stupid position to take. It's a position which has been systematically counterargued and destroyed every time it has come up. If you don't want to listen, if you don't want to read anything, if you just want to keep shrieking about how your rights are being denied when actually what you're generally arguing for is rights which no-one else has, then fine, but you can't then expect to be considered a meaningful part of the discussion because you're not engaging in it.

Sadly, that is how the world is. Your opinion is not looked down upon because you're a man. Your opinion is not looked down upon because you're an "anti-feminist" (hint: you're not), your opinion is looked down upon because it is simply inadequate. You cannot explain, much less hope to do anything about the problems facing men using an outmoded conception of men having arbitrary "rights" which mysteriously only apply to them as men. You cannot hope to do anything about the problems facing men by setting out to effectively undo the past 50 years of social change in the name of ensuring that men aren't "oppressed" by having the socially damaging elements of their behavior challenged or called into question. If the evidence is anything to go by, this is the single worst way to try and help men, but I don't think you care. I think you just believe you're entitled to things which "society" owes you as "rights" and as long as you get yours that's fine.

Like I said, just don't expect to be part of the serious discussion until you start taking yourself and this issue seriously.

nyysjan:

Urban dictionary:
Nafalt
Acronym. "Not all feminists are like that". Can be used as a verb "Nafalt-ing" when one uses this phrase in the context of feminist apologetics.

wow, that does not sound at all hostile (also, never even heard of it before), could you not have just used "no true scotsman" fallacy?

That's because NAFALT comes from MRAs originally. Since they like to demonize feminism based on what a very minor minority of feminists do (and some people that aren't feminists but occasionally align with feminism, like Valerie Solanas) they are often met with the comment that "not all feminists are like that". NAFALT in the "manosphere" is basically the same as "Feminists have no arguments", because according to them it is something feminist or feminist apologists say when they are out of arguments or are faced with "the true face of feminism".

For those of us on the other side, NAFALT is stupid as a concept and the reason MRAs get to hear "not all feminists are like that" all the time is because they really don't seem to understand what feminism is about. For comparison imagine that I said that all Republicans are gun-wielding, jingoistic, xenophobic hillbillies that hate poor people. Imagine that you said that this is not true and I retort with "NARALT! NARALT!" (Not All Republicans Are Like That). Would you consider it a serious line of discussion on my part?

NAFALT is the MRAs way of not having to learn the intricacies of modern feminism, by basically saying that all feminism is the same irregardless of which sub-group of feminism is being discussed. In the eyes of the MRAs all feminists are the same (or they go the route of Generals3 above and argue that feminism doesn't really have a meaning because it so broad, then they hate on feminism some more) and NAFALT is their way of not having to face the fact that feminists are far from a homogeneous group today.

Specter Von Baren:
Then I ask this, who's perpetuating this benevolent sexism? Cui bono? Is it the men that are often the ones that lose out in such situations? Or is it the women who gain from them?

Firstly, it's not a matter of who benefits. By comparison, the US military only recently stopped banning openly gay soldiers. There was no reason to exclude them, many other western nations had stopped doing so, it was actively to the detriment of the US military to arbitrarily exclude them. But they kept doing it because that was just the way the military was, and had always been.

Secondly, women ultimately aren't benefiting from this. An attitude that a group of people are inferior is going to occasionally result in things that are favourable to them, but on the whole it's very much not helping them.

Gethsemani:
In the eyes of the MRAs all feminists are the same (or they go the route of Generals3 above and argue that feminism doesn't really have a meaning because it so broad, then they hate on feminism some more) and NAFALT is their way of not having to face the fact that feminists are far from a homogeneous group today.

Same reasoning can be applied to 'the left' or 'the right', or anything really. It's far too easy to just lump everyone together into one big straw-pile and then put said pile to the torch.
In fact, we can do that right now with 'Democracy'. The UK invaded Island during WWII to 'protect it' from the Axis. Thus, all Democratic countries are bad.

And this is post #5000. Almost all made in the R&P, without getting suspended. I almost feel proud of myself.

Gethsemani:

nyysjan:

Urban dictionary:
Nafalt
Acronym. "Not all feminists are like that". Can be used as a verb "Nafalt-ing" when one uses this phrase in the context of feminist apologetics.

wow, that does not sound at all hostile (also, never even heard of it before), could you not have just used "no true scotsman" fallacy?

That's because NAFALT comes from MRAs originally. Since they like to demonize feminism based on what a very minor minority of feminists do (and some people that aren't feminists but occasionally align with feminism, like Valerie Solanas) they are often met with the comment that "not all feminists are like that". NAFALT in the "manosphere" is basically the same as "Feminists have no arguments", because according to them it is something feminist or feminist apologists say when they are out of arguments or are faced with "the true face of feminism".

For those of us on the other side, NAFALT is stupid as a concept and the reason MRAs get to hear "not all feminists are like that" all the time is because they really don't seem to understand what feminism is about. For comparison imagine that I said that all Republicans are gun-wielding, jingoistic, xenophobic hillbillies that hate poor people. Imagine that you said that this is not true and I retort with "NARALT! NARALT!" (Not All Republicans Are Like That). Would you consider it a serious line of discussion on my part?

NAFALT is the MRAs way of not having to learn the intricacies of modern feminism, by basically saying that all feminism is the same irregardless of which sub-group of feminism is being discussed. In the eyes of the MRAs all feminists are the same (or they go the route of Generals3 above and argue that feminism doesn't really have a meaning because it so broad, then they hate on feminism some more) and NAFALT is their way of not having to face the fact that feminists are far from a homogeneous group today.

Oh it was pretty easy to figure out where it came from, i'm just disappointed he had to go and use that term instead of the "true Scotsman" fallacy, which while wrong, would at least not come of as intentionally insulting and/or antagonistic.

Abomination:
Being a "boy's club" and women who wish to be grunts needing to essentially become "one of the boys" is just going to have to be a fact of life until women prove themselves capable of not being the minority of riflemen (riflepeople?) or whatever term we're using to describe your basic front-line combatant.

We're not talking about grunts incidentally, we're talking about male soldiers actively spreading an attempt to undermine a female officer's authority on the basis of their opinion of her sex appeal.

But even in your case, why should women have to adapt to a "boy's club"? See below:

To expect the baseline military dynamic that has been prevalent for CENTURIES to have a sudden paradigm shift is both unreasonable and absurd.

This would be a wonderful rebuttal if for but one small problem: Undermining officers' command on the basis of their sex appeal is not a long-standing military tradition. In fact, I suspect that in most modern militaries, if a soldier actively spread gossip about what they sexually think of their (traditionally male) CO's ass, the tradition is that there would be severe consequences for the offending soldier.

So it's not part of a military tradition. In fact, treating women in the command structure as sexual objects really shouldn't have anything to do with the military. It doesn't increase combat readiness. It doesn't make soldiers fight more effectively. There is no benefit to it whatsoever. There is no reason people should be apologists for it.

Now I'm not here to rant and rave about how we have to end the practice. I would rather leave that fight to stakeholders in the military. But it's a perfect example of male privilege. Batou attempted to defend soldiers undermining a female officer's authority on the basis of her ass because he linked that behavior with masculinity, which he then linked with military effectiveness. Men should be allowed to undermine women because men undermining women makes them more effective is the implied, perhaps even subconscious message. Men, by virtue of simply being men, have an attribute construed as positive associated with them that lets them get away with unprofessional behavior. Women have a barrier imposed upon them simply because of their being women. That's privilege.

Batou667:
What Abomination said.

See my rebuttal to Abomination.

Also, it's *one* example of an environment that favours and rewards a certain type of masculinity. It would be an overgeneralisation and a fallacy to conclude that this "proves" macho culture is universal or even representative of all masculinity

That's not what privilege means. No one claimed that "macho" culture is universal or representative of all masculinity. However, it is an advantage that all men get to have simply by virtue of being men.

- take one of these squaddies and see how long he lasts at a fashion house, or a theoretical physics conference, or in theatre, or in a childcare role. I don't think we can conclude anything more sinister than "certain jobs favour and foster a certain expression and demeanour".

Com'mon. We know that the military is not some tiny isolated world that operates completely by it's own rules. Hell, the internet collectively lost it's shit when some guys got punished for making unprofessional dongle jokes at a trade show- we know that unprofessional sexual behavior is not just tolerated by men in the military, it's tolerated widely across our society. Meanwhile we have prominent social commentators who get away with slut-shaming women they disagree with to try and silence them.

Privilege does not mean that all men are always more powerful than any other women. It means that in any given situation between an otherwise equivalent man and woman, the man will have an advantage or the woman will have an extra hurdle.

Batou667:
Also, it's *one* example of an environment that favours and rewards a certain type of masculinity. It would be an overgeneralisation and a fallacy to conclude that this "proves" macho culture is universal or even representative of all masculinity - take one of these squaddies and see how long he lasts at a fashion house, or a theoretical physics conference, or in theatre, or in a childcare role. I don't think we can conclude anything more sinister than "certain jobs favour and foster a certain expression and demeanour".

Well done. You've noticed that masculinity does not entail a single fixed cultural expression. Don't worry, you're only about 30 years behind in this.

Simple question. Why do male army recruits act like that? Why do we expect them to act like that, and why is it tolerable for them to act like that in public when doing so to a superior in an office environment, for example, would get you fired or severely disciplined? What is the difference? Why do these trends of "expression and demeanor" exist. What is it about "certain jobs" which incline them towards that more so than others?

generals3:

Here's the big question though, what is feminism truly about than?

So you ask...

nyysjan:

From Wikipedia:
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

... so you receive.

Nobody can claim they know what feminism is about and that's exactly because of "NAFALT".

The appeal "Not all X are like that" is a reasonable defence for just about any complex ideology on the planet when subjected to crude stereotyping or damned as a whole on the behaviour of a subsection. It exemplifies the hostility of some anti-feminists that they have started throwing back that reasonable argument in the form of a mere appeal to ridicule.

It is essentially bullshit that feminism doesn't mean anything because it can represent many different things. It is in effect no different from any complex ideology: existentialism, postmodernism, Buddhism, capitalism, etc. We might similarly take a simple one-sentence definition of Christianity (also Wikipedia) as: "a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament."

And yet somehow, no-one claims that Christianity doesn't mean anything and is beyond description because there is massive underlying complexity and differences in opinion between individuals and denominations on countless matters relating to the religion. Like evolution / Creationism, biblical literalism, Papal and other forms of ecclesiastical authority, homosexuality, women priests, apostolic tradition, converting by the sword, the nature of heaven/hell, "fire and brimstone" attitudes, monophysitism, glossolalia, transubstantiation, and so on at extreme length.

Yet we clearly can comprehend what Christianity, feminism or many of these other things are generally about. That's because we can hold a relatively simplistic view of a whole, complex concept even despite being unable to encompass the entirety of its variation. And I notice that feminism is just about the only think people have sneeringly attacked for the NAXALT defence (libertarianism and Christianity are two others I can clearly recall). This is just logical inconsistency.

Now how do I judge feminism? By its activism.

And not even this is really true, because you pay very little attention to what feminist activists campaign for in toto. Feminist activists are, on a daily basis, working towards hundreds of things you (presumably) think are perfectly reasonable that don't detract from men at all. They are busy out there supporting rape / domestic violence shelters, helping developing countries improve women's rights, providing professional and academic mentoring, improving childcare support, trying to stop female genital mutilation, and supporting women in all manner of other ways. You however do not pay any regard to this bread and butter work at all. You just skim off the stuff you don't like and act as if it's the only thing feminists get up to. Including...

[Women have] equal rights for instance, well i'm sorry but right now they exist (over here)

So you might think, and so some feminists might not. I think they get to argue and campaign for their case without being automatically treated like they're out to disadvantage men. On the day you can prove them wrong rather than just believe it, then you get to say that.

evilthecat:

Well done. You've noticed that masculinity does not entail a single fixed cultural expression. Don't worry, you're only about 30 years behind in this.

Thank you, thank you all! *wipes away tear, clutches trophy as confetti and streamers fall*

evilthecat:
Simple question. Why do male army recruits act like that? Why do we expect them to act like that, and why is it tolerable for them to act like that in public when doing so to a superior in an office environment, for example, would get you fired or severely disciplined? What is the difference? Why do these trends of "expression and demeanor" exist. What is it about "certain jobs" which incline them towards that more so than others?

Hell if I know (see also: Why Are Builders and Decorators Such Obnoxious Wankers, and Does Driving A White Van Legally Oblige You To Tailgate Old Ladies). To speculate, and perhaps indulge in a bit of apologism, the military (especially the army, and within that especially infantry) is marketed and sustained on the idea that they're the toughest of the tough, the best of the best, the only sons-of-bitches who are badassed enough to ship out halfway across the globe to chew bullets in some godforsaken hellhole to shield their homeland from all the commies and terrorists. Physical prowess, resilience and bravado are the defining features and unique selling point of their profession, and hence they tend to seek out or create situations where they can self-affirm those qualities - probably mixed up with a bit of gallows humour, because nobody REALLY relishes the idea of dying or having limbs blown off.

Batou667:

Hell if I know (see also: Why Are Builders and Decorators Such Obnoxious Wankers, and Does Driving A White Van Legally Oblige You To Tailgate Old Ladies). To speculate, and perhaps indulge in a bit of apologism, the military (especially the army, and within that especially infantry) is marketed and sustained on the idea that they're the toughest of the tough, the best of the best, the only sons-of-bitches who are badassed enough to ship out halfway across the globe to chew bullets in some godforsaken hellhole to shield their homeland from all the commies and terrorists. Physical prowess, resilience and bravado are the defining features and unique selling point of their profession, and hence they tend to seek out or create situations where they can self-affirm those qualities - probably mixed up with a bit of gallows humour, because nobody REALLY relishes the idea of dying or having limbs blown off.

Only this happened in the Swedish Army, in the Air Defense Regiment which is regarded as one of the "easiest" postings a soldier can have in Sweden. The reason this happens in the army is not because hegemonic masculinity is intrinsically linked to soldiering, it is because the Army is traditionally regarded as a place where men can treat women as sex objects without getting called on it.

Even if your description of the Swedish Army was spot on, is there anything in that description that means a soldier has to act like a sexist asshole? Physical prowess, resilience and bravado can all exist without an attitude where half the population only exists for your viewing pleasure and masturbation fantasies.

evilthecat:

generals3:
Now add to that they dare to say they care about men's issues and you got yourself pissed off anti-feminists.

Frankly, there is no reason to say that unless it is true. The men's rights lobby isn't actually going to believe you because they're too caught up in a completely an arbitrary discourse of claiming personal "rights" which don't actually exist for anyone, so what is the advantage of saying that? Who are you going to convince who isn't already convinced or otherwise about the prospects of gender equality or how to achieve it?

Incidentally, an anti-feminist means something quite specific. It doesn't mean some random man who labors under the deluded belief that feminism is about female privilege, because actually that person is probably not anti-feminist at all. It means someone who openly and explicitly denies or rebukes the existence of gender or the general equality of the sexes. Anti-feminists may be sociobiologists who couch their arguments in differences in "natural" male and female abilities and competences, they may be religious conservatives who feel that men and women have a "natural roles" in God's plan. They may be functionalist sociologists or conservative psychologists who argue that the social stratification of men and women or their division into separate spheres of life is necessary for society to function or for emotional health, or they may occupy any point between these three positions. An anti-feminist can mean many things, but someone who believes in sexual equality and who believes that male and female positions in society are subject to social action and change, no matter how poorly and inadequately they are equipped to theorize and pursue it, is most certainly not an anti-feminist.

Now. There are libraries and libraries of gender critical and feminist work on men. Granted, they don't tend to assume that "male issues" are down to some simplistic denial of "rights", but maybe, just maybe, that's because it's a stupid position to take. It's a position which has been systematically counterargued and destroyed every time it has come up. If you don't want to listen, if you don't want to read anything, if you just want to keep shrieking about how your rights are being denied when actually what you're generally arguing for is rights which no-one else has, then fine, but you can't then expect to be considered a meaningful part of the discussion because you're not engaging in it.

Sadly, that is how the world is. Your opinion is not looked down upon because you're a man. Your opinion is not looked down upon because you're an "anti-feminist" (hint: you're not), your opinion is looked down upon because it is simply inadequate. You cannot explain, much less hope to do anything about the problems facing men using an outmoded conception of men having arbitrary "rights" which mysteriously only apply to them as men. You cannot hope to do anything about the problems facing men by setting out to effectively undo the past 50 years of social change in the name of ensuring that men aren't "oppressed" by having the socially damaging elements of their behavior challenged or called into question. If the evidence is anything to go by, this is the single worst way to try and help men, but I don't think you care. I think you just believe you're entitled to things which "society" owes you as "rights" and as long as you get yours that's fine.

Like I said, just don't expect to be part of the serious discussion until you start taking yourself and this issue seriously.

Do you seriously think every feminist in the rank and file knows any more about that library of feminist work than the average MRA/antifeminist?

This is partly why I asked you about the academic-activist divide.

You are slamming antifeminists (using colloquial definition) and MRAs for having no more knowledge of this work than I'd say your average self-identified feminist has.

Given that ignorance, it seems entirely plausible to me that some of the attitudes of rank and file feminists that come across as sexist towards men could be put down to something else? In-group bias is seeming very plausible to me at the moment.

Edit: My point is not that I'm against the academic side of feminism, it's just that that isn't what informs the bulk of opposition to men's issues, IMO anyway.

Jarimir:
I'll take a stab at this. It's because it seems as if the only reason MRA's exist is to antagonize feminists, to counter them, to take up a position that is in direct opposition to feminism, etc.

If you say this is an unfair characterization, that MRA's actually do fight for men's rights issues and equality, then they need to take serious steps to SEEM like that is what they are about and not the former.

"Seems" is also going to vary from person to person, depending on their awareness of the current state of affairs when it comes to gender issues.

I absolutely respect someone's right to not identify with a group because of their personal awareness of how a group seems to them. But I have no right to say a group has no right to exist on that basis.

MRA's need to stop bringing up unfortunate anecdotes that happen to men and then blaming feminism for them. They need to focus on issues of equality for the sake of equality and nothing else.

Anecdotes? Seriously?

This is a thread devoted to debunking statistical claims made by MRAs. Even if the statistics are misused or misapplied, that does not mean MRAs are all about posting anecdata only. Come on.

For the sake of credibility MRA's need to steer clear of the impression of "we exist to be the polar opposite of you, and we are here to piss you off, so deal with it."

I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

Again - feminists criticise men and masculinity like no-one's business, and this is not seen as a reason for them to stop existing. Why the double standard?

If MRAs think feminism hasn't actually helped equality in places - which is scarcely an unreasonable stance, check the #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen hashtag for another example of it - why should they not say so?

I agree that some of the issues brought up by MRA's do need addressing, but I have a hard time marching under their specific banner when it seems to read "We hate feminists. Look at the problems feminism has caused", then in fine print it reads "Oh, and here are some issues we would like to work on once (while) we've dismantled the feminist movement."

Examples?

You see I didn't even need to evoke "too much" to make my argument, and for the record I frequently find myself thinking that the whole of humanity needs to "not exist", nevermind various groups of humans.

No, just "seems".

Why is this such a big deal? Plenty of people through the course of decades (more than a century now) have insisted that feminism as a movement should not exist. People still today are thinking and saying it, but you are only outraged when someone thinks that of your precious group? Also, note that feminism continued to exist despite the opposition.

Not my group. Not an MRA.

So basically you're saying that it's ok to treat people like shit if you've been treated like shit?

You do realise that might not be the best of strategies for an EQUALITY GROUP to take, right?

Oirish_Martin:
Again - feminists criticise men and masculinity like no-one's business, and this is not seen as a reason for them to stop existing. Why the double standard?

It is quite a double standard to try to equate criticising masculinity (that is, an arbitrary set of gender roles applied to men) and attacking feminism (the ideology that opposes arbitrary gender roles) in reaction to this, yes.

You'll also note the feminism criticises femininity, the set of arbitrary gender roles applied to women.

Agema:
The appeal "Not all X are like that" is a reasonable defence for just about any complex ideology on the planet when subjected to crude stereotyping or damned as a whole on the behaviour of a subsection. It exemplifies the hostility of some anti-feminists that they have started throwing back that reasonable argument in the form of a mere appeal to ridicule.

Possibly because feminism don't apply that standard to what it sees as competition, like the MRM?

I don't think it's the case that all of their critics are using the term inconsistently, rather they are just reacting to what they see as hypocrisy.

Oirish_Martin:

Agema:
The appeal "Not all X are like that" is a reasonable defence for just about any complex ideology on the planet when subjected to crude stereotyping or damned as a whole on the behaviour of a subsection. It exemplifies the hostility of some anti-feminists that they have started throwing back that reasonable argument in the form of a mere appeal to ridicule.

Possibly because feminism don't apply that standard to what it sees as competition, like the MRM?

How is the MRM competing with feminism? It's simply the reactionary backlash to feminism.

thaluikhain:

Oirish_Martin:
Again - feminists criticise men and masculinity like no-one's business, and this is not seen as a reason for them to stop existing. Why the double standard?

It is quite a double standard to try to equate criticising masculinity (that is, an arbitrary set of gender roles applied to men) and attacking feminism (the ideology that opposes arbitrary gender roles) in reaction to this, yes.

You'll also note the feminism criticises femininity, the set of arbitrary gender roles applied to women.

So the argument basically boils down to you shouldn't be a group that exists purely to oppose another one?

Leaving aside the fact that this is not what the MRA is, as already established, it does do activism, it's still mightily inconsistent. Plenty of groups arise for reasons of oppostion. Why should they not exist?

thaluikhain:

Oirish_Martin:

Agema:
The appeal "Not all X are like that" is a reasonable defence for just about any complex ideology on the planet when subjected to crude stereotyping or damned as a whole on the behaviour of a subsection. It exemplifies the hostility of some anti-feminists that they have started throwing back that reasonable argument in the form of a mere appeal to ridicule.

Possibly because feminism don't apply that standard to what it sees as competition, like the MRM?

How is the MRM competing with feminism? It's simply the reactionary backlash to feminism.

Both movements claim to seek equality.

Specter Von Baren:

nyysjan:

Specter Von Baren:

Fascinating question! Might I give an example from the mouth of another in this particular case?

And?
Really, how is this relevant?
I'm currently at almost 7 minutes and i can't see how feminists or feminism is relevant to this video.

edit-
ok, stopped watching after she started to blame feminists on Earl Silvermans death (well, not killing him, but claiming that he killed himself ot expose a huge feminist conspiracy or something).
NEXT

Didn't bother to pay attention or watch the whole thing, if you had then you would know that she DIDN'T blame it on them but was instead something he chose, himself, to do as a tactic to try and get his voice heard. Interesting how actually listening to something all the way through and not just writing it off flippantly can paint a completely different picture.

Try again.

The point, is if MRA's see feminist rhetoric is and has caused their voices to be shut out, then of course a lot of what they talk about has to do with how they think feminism is a bad thing.

Specter Von Baren:

Specter Von Baren:

nyysjan:

And?
Really, how is this relevant?
I'm currently at almost 7 minutes and i can't see how feminists or feminism is relevant to this video.

edit-
ok, stopped watching after she started to blame feminists on Earl Silvermans death (well, not killing him, but claiming that he killed himself ot expose a huge feminist conspiracy or something).
NEXT

Didn't bother to pay attention or watch the whole thing, if you had then you would know that she DIDN'T blame it on them but was instead something he chose, himself, to do as a tactic to try and get his voice heard. Interesting how actually listening to something all the way through and not just writing it off flippantly can paint a completely different picture.

Try again.

The point, is if MRA's see feminist rhetoric is and has caused their voices to be shut out, then of course a lot of what they talk about has to do with how they think feminism is a bad thing.

Except feminists have not shut out MRA voices, just because lot of people either do not believe you, disagree you, or choose to ignore you, does not mean you are shut out by someone, people are perfectly capable of judging you silly/irrelevant/hateful/whatever on their own.

I feel sorry for Earl Silverman, seems he tried to help those in need and could have used more help from society, but his misfortune, failure or death are not the fault of feminists or feminism, and trying to use his death as a rallying cry against those who try to give women equal rights, is a disgusting thing to do.

Oirish_Martin:

Possibly because feminism don't apply that standard to what it sees as competition, like the MRM.

In order to think that is how it is meant, we would need to see it used that way.

So it's very kind of you to apologise for the MRM with apparently zero awareness of what they generally say and why, but not very useful in terms of real world relevance. I appreciate feminism is high on your shitlist, but I don't recommend that you extend that to uncritically defending the MRM.

nyysjan:

Except feminists have not shut out MRA voices, just because lot of people either do not believe you, disagree you, or choose to ignore you, does not mean you are shut out by someone, people are perfectly capable of judging you silly/irrelevant/hateful/whatever on their own.

You sure about that?

Many feminists are trying equate MRAs with rape apologism. I'd say that constitutes shutting down discussion.

nyysjan:

wow, that does not sound at all hostile (also, never even heard of it before), could you not have just used "no true scotsman" fallacy?

So you have one instance of possibly good legislation (haven't read the bill so can't say how well the law was written) being stopped from being passed by some womens groups.
Does that make all feminists into misandric man hating female supremacists? No, not anymore than being a christian makes you a pedophile.
And the problem was not admitting that women can rape men, but that some were afraid men would use the law to get away with rape by simply accusing the women of raping them instead, how legit the worry was, not sure, haven't seen the bill, but it does not seem to be just "lol, men can't get get raped".

From Wikipedia:
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Sounds like a decent definition of feminism and feminists.

Again, did i say all feminists? No I specifically refered to the activists because whenever i come into contact with activism it's usually bad. Using misleading statistics, shutting down seminars about men's issues, whining about pointless issues, etc. There are feminists who are ok but their voices and actions aren't big and usually they have little impact on the public discourse. I judge feminism by its effects. And while the past may have been glorious i find its present state to be worth a lot of opposition.

And that concern is in my opinion ridiculous. Seriously how would they feel if i'd say "women shouldn't be able to be raped legally speaking because they might accuse men they rape of rape". That's just silly 101 imho.

And the problem with that definition is that it doesn't include many feminists actually. I'd call that definition: "what feminism should be".

One instance of a fire alarm being pulled, and another instance of a woman trying to be heard while being harassed and interrupted, great examples of female oppression of poor MRA's just trying to be heard in a world where women control all media (not).

edit-
And Generals3, you seem to have fairly shallow and limited contact with feminist activism.
Try looking into womens shelters, rape/abuse hotlines, Family planning centers, as well as outreach programs to provide education for women in third world countries for a more, shall we say, broader, view of what feminists do, and what feminism means.

nyysjan:

And Generals3, you seem to have fairly shallow and limited contact with feminist activism.
Try looking into womens shelters, rape/abuse hotlines, Family planning centers, as well as outreach programs to provide education for women in third world countries for a more, shall we say, broader, view of what feminists do, and what feminism means.

Yeah no shelters are a bad example. When feminists lobby against the funding of shelters for men it makes me even angrier. I would also like to mention we may have a different view of what activism is. I may have narrowed it down too much but i see activism as protesting, pushing for legislation and so on. Opening a shelter is not so much activism in my opinion. For me that's like an environmentalist opening a business selling solar panels (which i wouldn't call activism). And I also don't think you have to be a feminist to be willing/wanting to help women. I'm not an environmentalist but i still recycle. And if i'd see a woman in peril i'd try to help her, wouldn't make me a feminist.

Do feminists usually lobby against funding for mens shelters?
I could see it happening occasionally (especially if there is only enough money to fund one shelter), but i seriously doubt it would be a regular thing.

nyysjan:
One instance of a fire alarm being pulled, and another instance of a woman trying to be heard while being harassed and interrupted, great examples of female oppression of poor MRA's just trying to be heard in a world where women control all media (not).

Again, show me MRAs doing this to feminists.

Why are you making excuses for these people? MRAs get very little media coverage, and they were meeting to discuss male suicide iirc. Why is that so awful a thing that it merits breaking the law, pulling a fire alarm, and calling a fire crew to a false report, potentially putting lives at risk?

If the woman is who I'm thinking it is, then she is arguably the one doing the harassing. I don't see how someone yelling Cry Me a River when male suicide stats are brought up and constantly yelling shut the fuck up is being harassed.

Agema:

Oirish_Martin:

Possibly because feminism don't apply that standard to what it sees as competition, like the MRM.

In order to think that is how it is meant, we would need to see it used that way.

So it's very kind of you to apologise for the MRM with apparently zero awareness of what they generally say and why, but not very useful in terms of real world relevance. I appreciate feminism is high on your shitlist, but I don't recommend that you extend that to uncritically defending the MRM.

My defence has not been uncritical. But it's nice to see that you've given up trying to be reasonable here.

Gethsemani:

But an educated man has it easier to become any of those things. The statistics speak for themselves in this regard, of all the examples you listed not one is close to achieving anything that can even remotely resemble parity in gender. Norway is an interesting example in that it actually passed laws demanding that at least 40% of all members in company boards be women and the result was that the formal and actual competence in those boards increased a lot, because instead of choosing their friends and acquaintances (other men) the men on the boards had to start selecting women based on merit.

What would indicate such parity? A 50/50 split, give or take a few percent? We could easily achieve that by enforcing quotas, but we both know that might not be the best idea.

As a result, though, a 50/50 split achieved by quotas is no different than a 50/50 split achieved by any other means. Also, I'm not sure I buy this "once you cut down the nepotism, more women will have a chance" insinuation, since men tend to not only be friends and acquaintances with other men. At least not in the region and social class I live in.

Still, the question about what would indicate such parity is a relevant one. Because it's basically the same old question about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Quotas enforce equality of outcome, and while sometimes they happen to actually be beneficial, I'm not sure they're a feasible measure across the board. Or do we start enforcing 50/50 gender quotas (give or take a few percent) in all professions that are skewed? Just wait till people start raging about how their kids in kindergarten are being looked after by pedophiles, because obviously any mentally healthy man despises kids, and love for kids is something only a pedophile would express.

The problem is that as long as the selection process is mostly performed by men they tend to choose other men. It doesn't matter if it choosing a new CEO, deciding which film scripts to green light or choosing a new department head. Women have the chances too, but they arguably have to work hard than men to get them. Is this sexism? Not on a conscious level, I think. But the institutional sexism is still there, ideas like "women are sooner or later going to choose family over career" or "she could go on maternal leave any second" or "men are much better at dealing with conflicts and crisis".

I dare say this will take more than one generation to fix though, as it's not only a gender issue, it's a social issue. I'm lead t believe that the "successor" will basically be picked long before they're in a position to succeed the last head, and be "groomed" for it. Even in entertainment industry. Basically, fighting against that now will only bring results in a couple of decades.

I was in the army as a part-time soldier just a few months ago. Despite all the work the Swedish military is pouring into appealing to women I was still taken back by just how much "boys locker room" talk there was, with comments being dropped about the asses of female officers, in depth discussion about the perfect breast size and rating of actresses fuckability. I've no doubt that they discussed my ass and rated my fuckability too when I wasn't around, which is one of the reasons that I quit. This isn't really a problem with sexism, but rather a problem with gender roles in general and hegemonic masculinity in particular and as long as it remains it is only natural that women hesitate to join fields in which men are overwhelmingly dominant and normative.

I'm going to be a bit contrarian and "Both sides do it!" here but at least where I live women are going to be discussing cocks (or speculations thereof) and butts and biceps of passing males, and won't be held in contempt for it. A thing I like to bring up is when my ex-girlfriend was talking about how she was out for a drink with her girl-friends and how usually the main topic of their discussion was, well...males and their physical attributes. She was genuinely surprised to hear the male company I frequented preferred to discuss sports and cars. As I was genuinely surprised that she and her girlfriends always ended up talking about cocks and butts.

Anecdotal, I know, but I think this isn't an institutionally sexist thing; if you're a lone member of your gender in the presence of a larger number of the opposite gender, you will be checked out.

Or well, to stir up controversy a bit more - if you want to break the glass ceiling, assuming it exists, those at the frontier of the effort are going to get cut, if history is any indication. That's why they end up in history books. Feminists can't guilt trip the anti-feminists into pulling a Red Sea maneuver. But anti-feminists can't shut down the feminists, either. It's a fight alright, and at least on the front lines, both sides currently seem equally unsympathetic to me. While the moderate back ranks are a lot better in that regard (and on this one, I'm leaning more on the so-called "feminist" side, even if I refuse to wear the tag).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked