Repurposed feminism - Why we still need it

[karaddin]

Continuing on from the last thread, although I'm not sure there is much appetite left for discussion.

The last thread had largely drifted into whether feminists are truly after equality, or just want to take away male privilege while still retaining female privilege, a move that I'm sure surprised no one.

To try push that into a positive direction rather than rehashing the same shit, I'd like to discuss whether feminism can continue to make meaningful gains if it stands on it's own and alienates men and engaging in an outright antagonistic fashion, or whether it needs to either a) encourage men to organise themselves into fighting against the oppression that does occur towards men and then ally with those groups (which is clearly a very different relationship than exists with your typical MRA and feminists at the moment) or B) welcomes men into the tent fighting for equality under a shared banner. I'm heavily in the camp that thinks that the major issues have the same root causes and can be effectively fought by the one movement.

I also happen to believe that these same issues are also significantly involved in both homophobia and particularly transphobia.

Please please please can this thread avoid the usual bullshit, yes there are feminists that go to far and give feminism a bad wrap - unless you are bringing them up to say that they have caused an irredeemable branding issue with the feminist label we don't need that brought up. The same issues exist with Mens Right Advocates, we don't need to hear about that either. I would argue that both groups are guilty of viewing the other gender as an amorphous blob instead of accepting that there are male assholes and female assholes and you need to judge individuals on their merits.

Rather than rehashing the same old tired shit, please talk about how things should be in the future, only talking about the mistakes of the past to highlight how they should be avoided in the future not to dismiss one movement or another for them.

I'm a young cynical idealistic moron who dreams of changing the world, I want to talk about the feminist movement I'd like to try help build, not bitch about how the old one has failed.

I've said this before, but I think it's worth bringing up again. Sometimes I think part of the issue in making people hostile is in the language we've chosen for this. When a feminist talks about male privilege and achieving equality, that tends to give the impression that this will mostly involve taking away these privileges, when in reality the solution is to grant everyone those privileges so they are actually rights. Yes there are some where unfortunately one can't be gained without taking away from the other, I think the custody one is a very good example of this. There are however plenty where there is no cost to the privileged in granting that to everyone, short of taking away laziness. Everyone should have the right to have what they say assessed on the merits of what they say, rather than dismissed on the basis of their gender. This doesn't take anything away from men in a professional environment who have that as a privilege, their arguments will continue to be assessed on their merits, it just grants this to other people as well. Everyone should be accorded the same personal space around them (this is a real bugbear that's pissing me off at the moment so it's an easy example :P).

PS - @Kolantero, my last comment in the last thread that you responded to wasn't directed at you. My brain never gave me a coherent reading of your last post directed at me and perhaps I should try again today.

ETA: Changed the title as per Sci's suggestion on page 17, there doesn't seem to be much interest in further discussion of the failings of feminism beyond the usual hate.

[sologdin]

academic feminism is starting to merge with a more general gender theory/gender studies, that includes also masculinism (distinct from idiot men's rights advocacy), queer theory & LGBT study, and various interrogations of purported deviancies.

safe to say that every objection raised against feminism in the prior incarnations of this thread is manifestly erroneous, based on mere caricature, indicative of the objectors' failure to have engaged with even the basic texts of any part of feminism, and revealing a fundamental political subliteracy.

[straits]

academic feminism is starting to merge with a more general gender theory/gender studies, that includes also masculinism (distinct from idiot men's rights advocacy), queer theory & LGBT study, and various interrogations of purported deviancies.

safe to say that every objection raised against feminism in the prior incarnations of this thread is manifestly erroneous, based on mere caricature, indicative of the objectors' failure to have engaged with even the basic texts of any part of feminism, and revealing a fundamental political subliteracy.

Are these texts with which most feminists have necessarily been acquainted with? Or is that something only an outside observer must be familiar with in order to discuss the stances of said feminists?

[TrueMetis]

academic feminism is starting to merge with a more general gender theory/gender studies, that includes also masculinism (distinct from idiot men's rights advocacy), queer theory & LGBT study, and various interrogations of purported deviancies.

safe to say that every objection raised against feminism in the prior incarnations of this thread is manifestly erroneous, based on mere caricature, indicative of the objectors' failure to have engaged with even the basic texts of any part of feminism, and revealing a fundamental political subliteracy.

How so? Also isn't this the same as generalizing all feminists?

[mormont]

[mod] Drop the personal stuff, please. [/mod]

[Sci-2]

Why is heteronormativity ridiculous?

As for the study of masculinism, I don't see any of it changing the core problems of feminism.

Sorry, I'm still stuck on not understanding what the core problems are. Honestly I see it as largely consisting of people arguing about a subset of people and political positions falling under the umbrella of the "feminist" signifier.

I don't think you've really presented us with any proper argument on the problems of feminism as a whole - at best you've described small samples where even then, unless I missed it, you didn't really find an example of.

However, in terms of political strategy I do think you've brought up an interesting question that karaddin offers above - Would it be advantageous for politically active feminists to make an effort to better address things like custody bias and other masculinist questions/concerns directly and in conjunction with their primary goals?

[Kolantero]

Why is heteronormativity ridiculous?

In theory it might sound good but when you think of how it will play out practically during everyday life then ridiculous is a too tame word to describe it.

As for the rest, I guess you just disagree with me.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

However, in terms of political strategy I do think you've brought up an interesting question that karaddin offers above - Would it be advantageous for politically active feminists to make an effort to better address things like custody bias and other masculinist questions/concerns directly and in conjunction with their primary goals?

As a divorce attorney, I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "custody bias." The law on custody in every state that I am aware of is entirely gender neutral. I absolutely do acknowledge that each Judge brings with them their own biases about male/female roles and where children fare better - although to be perfectly candid, the judges that award kids to mom because she's mom are more likely to be older men who adhere to traditional, heteronormative gender roles (exactly the type of thing feminism is inclined to criticize).

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

In theory it might sound good but when you think of how it will play out practically during everyday life then ridiculous is a too tame word to describe it.

As for the rest, I guess you just disagree with me.

This is just talking past each other, honestly. If you're interested in a serious conversation I would strongly recommend you:

1) Define what you understand to be heternormativity

2) Describe what characteristics of it you understand to be ridiculous and

3) what makes those characteristics ridiculous.

If you can do those three things, we might be able to salvage a conversation. If not, you guys aren't even talking to each other.

[Sci-2]

In theory it might sound good but when you think of how it will play out practically during everyday life then ridiculous is a too tame word to describe it.

How so?

As for the rest, I guess you just disagree with me.

I'm not sure enough of an argument has been presented for me to disagree with you. It seems that at least some of this depends on things that are facts rather than opinions.

My disagreement comes from not seeing how your conclusions about feminism are factual. They seem like examples of confirmation bias, but in the interest of fairness I wanted some underlying data.

eta:

If you can do those three things, we might be able to salvage a conversation. If not, you guys aren't even talking to each other.

Yeah, I find a lot of this to be difficult to engage with because it all seems feels "religious" in the sense that it seems like unverifiable folk wisdom presented as fact based positions.

[Kolantero]

@ Nestor

1) Heteronormativity is the practice of presenting straight sexuality as the norm, as for example taking someone's sexuality to be straight for granted unless you see evidence for the contrary

2) Even if the theory sounds fine, I find it ridiculous because of the effects and consequences the notion would have if it was applied in everyday life, in everyday conversations, in everyday practices etc.

3) As for the reasons I find it ridiculous, I think it's more easier to demonstrate how heteronormativity would be applied in everyday life:

Example 1: A man and a woman (Strangers) are sitting at a bus stop and they start chatting (not flirting). The following dialogue ensues (W=woman M=man)

M: So, what do you do for living?

W: I work at a bar. Although I'm thinking of resigning my job and moving away now that I'm married.

M: Ah I see... Are you moving to your husband's hometown?

The man above can be considered guilty of heteronormativity since he assumed that the woman is married with a man. Some people think this is a solid basis to for making a valid complain. I don't.

Example 2: A man tries to hit on (that's the correct expression in english right?) an unknown woman at a bar. Yet the mere act of approaching her with that goal makes him guilty of heteronormativity since that would take for granted that she is straight. So unless "Are you a lesbian?" becomes a good opening line, I don't see how a guy in that situation would not be guilty of heteronormativitism.

Example 3 (a more extreme one): Two women at their mid-forties are sitting at a table at a lunch-room of a hotel. A male waiter approaches and, upon noticing that there are no more chairs on their table aside from the two ones the women are sitting on he asks: "Would you like me to bring more chairs to the table?"

The waiter was just nice right? Wrong! The only reason the waiter made that offer was because he assumed that the two women were expecting their husbands, and is therefore guilty of heteronormativitism

Aside from how heteronormativitism would affect real life there is also the problem of expanding it to other areas as well, unless we somehow take sexuality to be the only issue in the world for some reason.

So, Tyrion walks into the doctor's office, who at that time is turned the other way reading something and without interrupting his reading he says "get on the bed please, I will be there in a second." But since Tyrion is a dwarf, he cannot climb on the bed (those medical, tall, thin beds doctors have in their offices). Well, what a bastard that doctor is, enacting heightonormativity.

Peanuts at a bar? Preposterous! People with peanut allergies must get offended!

Etc.

[mormont]

So... you've presented, and demolished, a row of straw men. What is that telling us?

[Kolantero]

I'm not sure enough of an argument has been presented for me to disagree with you. It seems that at least some of this depends on things that are facts rather than opinions.

My disagreement comes from not seeing how your conclusions about feminism are factual. They seem like examples of confirmation bias, but in the interest of fairness I wanted some underlying data.

Yeah, I find a lot of this to be difficult to engage with because it all seems feels "religious" in the sense that it seems like unverifiable folk wisdom presented as fact based positions.

Really? Wow... So let me get this straight:

In the last thread I said that feminists do not actively engage in men's issues because of the short-term interests of their own inter-group which goes against their supposed goal of equality, at least not a level more than a few token recognitional words.

Then you asked me to provide proof/evidence for that belief. You asked me to provide evidence that feminists do not engage in such issues. Well how am I going to provide evidence for something I believe a specific group of people DOES NOT do? Should I leave a post blank and say "see not evidence there!" Should I collect every single announcement from every single feminist organization ever, present them to you and say: "see? no evidence here!"

So basically you are asking me to show you evidence for something I do not believe it exists (or if it does is very very rare)... and then you complain that my arguments sound ""religious"". Let me write that down one more time: You want me to prove that something I do not believe that it exists does not exists and you complain that my arguments are ""religious.""

Well, Shiiiiiiit. (The last word to be read with the voice of that black senator from The Wire)

On the other hand if you disagree with me then it should be pretty easy to provide evidence for the contrary: Give me some links which disprove since, you know, you believe that these exist

[TerraPrime]

I don't think Kolantero lives in a country with laws that mandate accommodation for the physically disabled people, because if he did, he would indeed know that hospitals and schools and restuarants and hotels are indeed compelled by law to provide adequate facility to accommodate people who are, say, suffering from achondroplasia (dwarfism). What he seems to think is absolutely ridiculous is, in fact, the law of the land here, and possibly in most countries in the world.

[Kolantero]

So... you've presented, and demolished, a row of straw men. What is that telling us?

And why exactly are these considered "straw men" again? I'm only asking because they are not my strawmen per se... :)

[Shryke]

How so? Also isn't this the same as generalizing all feminists?

Not quite I'd say since generally the people working for various male-centric issues (like testicular cancer or custody issues) don't use the label MRA. In my experience anyway.

Probably because unlike with feminism, the MRA was pretty much adopted first by complete twats. There's no one trying to reclaim the name.

[Kolantero]

I don't think Kolantero lives in a country with laws that mandate accommodation for the physically disabled people, because if he did, he would indeed know that hospitals and schools and restuarants and hotels are indeed compelled by law to provide adequate facility to accommodate people who are, say, suffering from achondroplasia (dwarfism). What he seems to think is absolutely ridiculous is, in fact, the law of the land here, and possibly in most countries in the world.

Are you suggesting that most countries do not have high(er) beds which a dwarf would have trouble climbing on? Because here in England they do. Plus I got that idea from a "House MD" episode which, if i recall correctly, is taking place in the U.S. Also the point was not on the bed itself (yes dwarves should be accomodated in these situation) but on what the doctor said and how would that be perceived through the lense of "heteronormativity"

In other words, grats, you missed the point completely.

[Chaldanya]

Are you suggesting that most countries do not have high(er) beds which a dwarf would have trouble climbing on? Because here in England they do. Plus I got that idea from a "House MD" episode which, if i recall correctly, is taking place in the U.S.

And in England there's laws in place that state the the Drs surgery must make accommodations for this. So there would be steps available or similar.

N

[Sci-2]

I asked for proof of the following:

But a feminist organization would never support Man A of the other case, simply because the one who has the privilege there is a member of their own inter-group. Sure, many of them would probably privately acknowledge that Man A is right but they wouldn't actually and actively support him as feminists.

This just seems like an assumption on your part. I don't know how to read these fables you concoct as anything other than a desire to preserve a somewhat bizarre position of being "Anti-feminist"....whatever that means.

[Merentha]

Are you suggesting that most countries do not have high(er) beds which a dwarf would have trouble climbing on? Because here in England they do. Plus I got that idea from a "House MD" episode which, if i recall correctly, is taking place in the U.S.

As far as I know, hospitals in the US are required to have low beds available for fall risk patients. The ones in my hospital have, at most, 8ish inches (~20cms?) of total height off the ground. As in, if you roll off of them, you'll fall at most 8 inches.

House is fucking terrible for any medical knowledge.

edit: I think we're phasing those low beds out for other beds that are slightly higher. Still incredibly low to the ground, though, and more than suitable for the purpose. I imagine that if the beds were not available for fall risk patients, availability would be required for smaller patients as well. We are, for instance, required to be able to offer suitable beds for overly large patients.