Feminism something something... Anyway we need more of it

[thistlepong]

So gender discrimination is only done against women? Well, that's new. Or rather old, like from the 1970's or something

Are we pretending that was not already specifically addressed?

[Kolantero]

So there's two definitions of objective in play here.

One means, essentially, free of bias - for example, "an objective opinion".

The other means something close to real; empirically proven or provable - for example, "an objective fact".

You are taking the word to mean both of these at the same time. This is an intellectually dishonest troll tactic.

Say the NRA sponsors and releases a study about gun violence. Sure, we all know that it's going to show that guns are great and we all should have one. If it didn't, they wouldn't release it. And a lot of people are just going to assume it's bunk because of the source. But that's not how to find the truth. Anyone who's interested in intellectual honesty is going to look at that study and find the specific reasons why it may not represent the objective truth. Find the specific procedures and assumptions that show bias by the researchers. Demonstrate the flaws in the study. And if there aren't any, well, that says something.

The NRA is known to be not objective (biased), but that does not in itself prove that their claims are not objectively true. What's required for that is - gasp - addressing the claims.

And if we were able to judge an ideology as being completely objective (which is probably impossible) then that ideology would include all the possible objectively correct /true approaches.

I'm not sure you're even capable of addressing feminist claims because from all I've seen you just get stuck on the name and how much it hurts your so-manly fee-fees, and never get far enough to actually read the claim.

Funny you should say that since this is the exact same logic feminists used to provide evidence for some of their theories (for example the word businessman was used as linguistic evidence for male dominance in positions of power in companies). Maybe it got in their not-so-manly "fee-fees" too.

Are we pretending that was not already specifically addressed?

You''ll have to try a tad harder than that I think. 3/10

[Kolantero]

It's only done in a patriarchal context - that is, a context reflecting a greater society wherein maleness, masculinity, and/or masculine-coded behavior is valued above femaleness etc., and/or masculinity etc. and femininity etc. are viewed as monolithic opposed binaries rather than multifaceted complementary spectrums.

So in every context of modern society maleness is valued above femaleness? And how do you define those btw? I imagine by what is stereotypically considered masculine/feminine behavior? (at least that's what -coded seems to imply)

[thistlepong]

You''ll have to try a tad harder than that I think. 3/10

No.

Feminism that focuses on male discrimination against men who exhibit feminine-coded behavior is not remotely gynocentric. It is my understanding that, while second-wave feminism was horribly gynocentric, most of modern feminism has rejected that view and aims for the larger picture, though [to what degree] is a bit contentious.

Pretty much covers it.

[Kolantero]

Anyway I'm not sure why exactly I even have to argue that feminism isn't some objective truth or an objectively correct approach. Unless I missed God descending from the heavens and giving us feminist ideals and beliefs on 10 stone tablets it's not. G'night

[Sci-2]

Anyway I'm not sure why exactly I even have to argue that feminism isn't some objective truth or an objectively correct approach. Unless I missed God descending from the heavens and giving us feminist ideals on 10 stone tablets it's not. G'night

I for one just found this entire line of argument confusing, for the reasons Emberling discussed.

"Feminism isn't an objective truth or an objectively correct approach" is a statement that is hard to parse given the word "feminism" is a very, very broad signifier.

[emberling]

And if we were able to judge an ideology as being completely objective (which is probably impossible) then that ideology would include all the possible objectively correct /true approaches.

Repeat after me: there is no such thing as an 'objectively correct or true approach'

You can have an objective approach, even a completely objective approach. But the approach is not true or false. The results are. And they don't care how objective your approach is.

Funny you should say that since this is the exact same logic feminists used to provide evidence for some of their theories (for example the word businessman was used as linguistic evidence for male dominance in positions of power in companies). Maybe it got in their not-so-manly "fee-fees" too.

You're confusing cause with effect.

Language is a powerful tool. A simple change in generally accepted language - executive over businessman, African-American over Black - can have a significant effect in changing or removing preconceptions, in reducing othering, in promoting respect - or vice versa.

But it is not an end in itself. It is not an injustice on its own. Using 'executive' instead of 'businessman' is a remedy (though not, obviously, a complete one) to the injustice of male overrepresentation in executive positions. More directly, it is a remedy to the default assumption that a businessman/executive is male - something that would be immeasurably harder to fix without changing the term. But the term itself is, at most, a signifier or symbol of injustice.

The term 'feminism' is not without its problems, but changing to a more male-inclusive term would probably have more negative effects than positive ones. We still - all of us, yes, even you - and you too - are trained to pay more attention to men's opinions than women's. The current environment encourages those men who take up gender studies to do so in full awareness of the privilege they possess. Without that requirement of self-reflection, without that extra and, yes, discriminatory barrier, it would be all too easy for the privileged to come in and derail the conversation until it settles on an equilibrium that looks nice and fair, as long as you're standing on the top side of it.

[Theda Baratheon]

I just find the whole ''oh I don't like feminism because of the fem'' pretty weak to be honest. The same tired, old shit that MRA's spew all the time. Yes, you will certainly find people who identify as feminists who are still very much in the mindset of the 70s with the Sisterhood and enforcing gender binaries and transphobia, but those people are a pretty small minority in feminism as a whole today. Feminism is NOT a monolith, you can't just say shit like ''feminists think....'' to encapsulate every single person who identifies as a feminist. So, quite frankly, if you don't like feminism, or if you go so ridiculously far as to smugly proclaim you are anti-feminism then it's gonna be for a damn side more reasons than simply disliking it's supposed sole focus on women's issues.

And Kolantero, you really need to sort out this paranoia you have that apparently all studies including women are being influenced by the shady Feminist overlords with their evil feminist agenda. Give me a bloody break.

And no, i'm not being entirely polite, or eloquent, but really - I just fail to see why someone who titles themselves Anti-feminist would continue to write their crap in the feminism threads. If that's what gives you your kicks, then whatever, but you aren't entitled to anyone actually taking you seriously, especially when you always reply with vague comments like ''feminism isn't correct'' ''all feminists whine about things that have no importance'' and whatever else you've deigned to post.

I could actually understand a reluctance to call oneself feminism if they believed feminism has its place alongside the broader sphere of all gender issues, therefore closer to this ''equalism'' that some people like to repeatedly mention, but to call oneself anti-feminist is something I don't understand as it implies you think men are either a) equally discriminated against or B) women aren't discriminated against or c) more discriminated against than women which is quite frankly, pretty damn silly.

But that's reluctance, not a complete hatred of, enough to call oneself 'Anti-feminist' so I am asking you simply what are some of the main issues within feminism that you feel are not worth ''whining about'' and what exactly makes you think that all feminists think exactly the same way, enough to constantly use sentences implying feminism is a monolith and also, what are some issues concerning discriminating against men that are completely ignored within the realms of all feminism ?

[Sci-2]

The NRA is known to be not objective (biased), but that does not in itself prove that their claims are not objectively true. What's required for that is - gasp - addressing the claims.

Yeah, this is what I was curious about in my initial post in this thread.

I'm guessing statistical analysis has shown differences in means for the sexes over a variety of topics, but on this board at least most people are interested in equality of opportunity.

Maybe the board lawyers can help us out - is anyone pushing for quotas of any kind in any lawsuit we might attach the qualifier "feminist" to?

[sologdin]

In order for the above to have any credibility, we would have to accept feminism both as objectively correct (regarding its view(s) of gender (in)equality) and as the only correct ideology of that field. That notion is objectively false, since feminism is clearly ideologically marked by being gynocentric, something very easy to see in its name and most basic definitions (and I doubt even most feminists would deny it) with the excuse that female is the "wronged" gender. Therefore regardless of whatever you or I or anyone believe about feminist, its views are definitely not objectively correct.

It's not my fault if you consider your own objectively subjective views as objectively right.

doubly irrelevant. the objectivity argument is pure red herring. the notion that my contribution wants credibility is non-serious.

as to the first, i challenge anyone to identify a political ideology that is "objective" in any of the senses described in this thread.

as to the second, it's hard to see how--

it's not really obvious. as for an assumption of legitimacy: uh, no. i read "anti-feminist" and assume an intention to undo all egalitarian progress regarding sex and gender. that means reducing women to the status of chattels. you can have whatever secret gender politics you want in your brains, but all we see is the overt manifestations, which are not consistent with even 19th century concepts of women's liberation.

--must be found credible prior to the generation of a response.

the primary objection therein is that it is not obvious that you have accepted any portion of feminist doctrine as legitimate, despite the conclusory allegation of same. what reason would any reader have to think that you consider any part of feminist doctrine legitimate when your contributions focus on undermining feminism generally, and your custom title proclaims anti-feminism?

most broadly stated, feminism is a doctrine of political egalitarianism that is several hundred years old and which has ended coverture, freed women de jure from rape, produced de jure equal access to employment, and extended suffrage. you have identified that as gynocentric, and as such somehow unobjective. that's a non-sequitur. what is the alternative? it's not like men were disenfranchised on the basis of sex or denied the right to own property because of their genitals. how could the fight for those rights be anything other than gynocentrist?

all of that avoids the issue that i raised: why should anyone think that you don't want to undo all of these accomplishments? why would any reader grant the presumption? if there has been an ambiguity in your pronouncements--and there is, arising from a tendency to post in hasty generalizations about feminism in its entirety--then we construe that ambiguity contra proferentem. i can't see why "anti-feminist" is entitled to any contrary benefit of doubt.

[TerraPrime]

Oh good fucking lord. Where have you all been? Kolantero has been advocating his view that feminism is wrong for months. When he said "feminism" he doesn't mean it in the way that most of us use he word, but rather, he means "people whose gender politics disagree with mine." Once you make that substitution his posts are much less confusing.

[Elder Sister]

I can't ever keep straight who the he-man woman haters are, Terra. We need a list or something.

[Gillio]

I can't ever keep straight who the he-man woman haters are, Terra. We need a list or something.

For your very big dartboard?

[Salome the Persian Witch]

Why do I feel that Kolantero is a first year D student trying to get us all to do his homework?

No consistent definition of terms, fallacious logic, no academic rigour or process, imaginary unsubstantiated evidence, and the claim that his conclusion is foregone because he feels it should be that way.

I salute you boarders discoursing from a genuine place of exploration and debate. If he were to take anything from the discussion, he might be a C- student by the end of the semester!

[Sci-2]

Yeah, this is what I was curious about in my initial post in this thread.

I'm guessing statistical analysis has shown differences in means for the sexes over a variety of topics, but on this board at least most people are interested in equality of opportunity.

Maybe the board lawyers can help us out - is anyone pushing for quotas of any kind in any lawsuit we might attach the qualifier "feminist" to?

Fuck it, I'm just gonna quote myself as I figure it might move things along. ;-)

[sologdin]

means "people whose gender politics disagree with mine.

were you able to pin that down?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

May I talk about my sexism? Today, I got my hair cut. The cut I got From the woman wjho cut my hair was not what I asked for. Off the cuff, when I was describing the situation to my coworkers, I said "the bitch...".

Now, here's the thing. My last shitty haircut was from a man, and when I told the story I said "the dick..."

Both are gendered insults. If I was thinking, in the first case, I would have said "the jackass.." or whatever instead, but I really normally wouldn't rethink calling someone a dick.

I didn't even think about what was wrong with calling that dude a dick until I called that chick a bitch. Both were shitty things to say though, right? Really, they were both jackasses. Or it's just a shit situation because we all need one, because we all need the services, but most of us don't know the jargon needed to describe what we want.

ETA: Sorry, super drunk. I Hope this logic is still logical tomorrow.

[karaddin]

May I talk about my sexism? Today, I got my hair cut. The cut I got From the woman wjho cut my hair was not what I asked for. Off the cuff, when I was describing the situation to my coworkers, I said "the bitch...".

Now, here's the thing. My last shitty haircut was from a man, and when I told the story I said "the dick..."

Both are gendered insults. If I was thinking, in the first case, I would have said "the jackass.." or whatever instead, but I really normally wouldn't rethink calling someone a dick.

I didn't even think about what was wrong with calling that dude a dick until I called that chick a bitch. Both were shitty things to say though, right? Really, they were both jackasses. Or it's just a shit situation because we all need one, because we all need the services, but most of us don't know the jargon needed to describe what we want.

ETA: Sorry, super drunk. I Hope this logic is still logical tomorrow.

I think it probably falls into the casual sexism blanket, where directed against the non oppressed group (ie calling the guy a dick) seems harmless, but can be used to put a member of an oppressed group in there place (which isn't to say that's what you were doing). I think in a society that has surpassed problematic sexism, using gendered insults is OK but our society isn't there yet. That's not to say you should beat yourself up about it, I certainly slip up with this plenty as well - the fact that you are self aware enough to reflect on it (even when super drunk on a Tuesday night, tsk tsk) says that it's unlikely to be indicative of greater sexism within yourself. The issue with it there is just that using it around someone who is can reinforce their views and contribute to a culture of sexism.

Trying to avoid gendered insults is the best way to go, whether you go with jerk, jackass, douche or asshole...or any of the more creative ones.

[Lyanna Stark]

The most simple example can be seen in the name of the ideology. FEMinism for example very obviously derives from "female" and it shows (or put more correctly it is the result of) the gynocentricism and the bias of the ideology.

Now an objective term would be I don't know Equalism or something. The word "equalism" doesn't show any preference to either gender.

Oh ffs, not this again. Why is it so hard to understand that feminism has a history and that history is important since it is the basis for where we are today. Why do you want to force a name change on a movement just because you don't like the name? Tough? I think existentialism is a pretty dumb name too, but I don't think I can come here, ignore its history and get it changed cos I feel like it.

History and context do in no way prevent feminism and feminist of dealing with only women. Third way feminism deals a lot with gender identity, how gender roles are negative for women and men both, since if you have a restrictive female role, then it follows that you also have a restrictive male gender role as it's "inverse". Further, we have reached a stage where people who do not have a fixed gender identity, who wishes to change theirs etc. are also included in the theories of gender, gender identity and gender roles.

To create a solution for a problem, it first has to be idenitified and described as best we can. The original problem was that women were oppressed, had fewer rights and women wanted to do something about it as they thought back then that it was not right and it was not fair. Then came the description of the problem and we are still doing that, to a degree. Then you have the various strains of feminism with various suggestions for hwo to tackle the problem in the best way.

Hence your context, your history.

Personally I have a theory about why so many are so butthurt by the word "feminism" (especially when we have words like "mankind" and nobody bats an eyelid) that for once, it puts women in the spotlight ahead of men. Women's problems were what started the movement and women were the ones who have primarily fought for it, too. So yes, as I described in "history and context" this is a movement that started and grew out of women's misery and it was women who thought it was not fair and not right and women who did the bulk of the agitating, the thinking, the writing on the subject.

It must hurt a lot of people who assume male entitlement that there is something out there that cannot be appropriated and where history cannot be re-written to look "neater".

Anyway I'm not sure why exactly I even have to argue that feminism isn't some objective truth or an objectively correct approach. Unless I missed God descending from the heavens and giving us feminist ideals and beliefs on 10 stone tablets it's not. G'night

Right, so what are the objective truths? List some please. Beauty? Truth?

[Kolantero]

as to the first, i challenge anyone to identify a political ideology that is "objective" in any of the senses described in this thread.

So you are agreeing with me since if there isn't any then feminism is not one either.

as to the second, it's hard to see how--

--must be found credible prior to the generation of a response the primary objection therein is that it is not obvious that you have accepted any portion of feminist doctrine as legitimate, despite the conclusory allegation of same.

So? "not obvious" doesn't allow you to jump to conclusions (or well you can do it but ofcourse I'm going to point out your fallacy). Aren't you a lawyer or something? Innocent till proven guilty

what reason would any reader have to think that you consider any part of feminist doctrine legitimate when your contributions focus on undermining feminism generally, and your custom title proclaims anti-feminism?

Actually I've said in my first post in this thread (reply to Lyanna) that I don't reject every single thing advocated by feminism, also said the same thing numerous times in the past. Anyway, you want to jump to conclusions who just happen to fit what suits your own worldview (that an anti-feminist is against gender equality) go ahead, just don't expect me to accept them as valid.

most broadly stated, feminism is a doctrine of political egalitarianism that is several hundred years old and which has ended coverture, freed women de jure from rape, produced de jure equal access to employment, and extended suffrage. you have identified that as gynocentric, and as such somehow unobjective. that's a non-sequitur. what is the alternative? it's not like men were disenfranchised on the basis of sex or denied the right to own property because of their genitals. how could the fight for those rights be anything other than gynocentrist?

If you want to say that the discrimination of feminism was (you used the past tense yourself) valid and making sense in other eras where stuff like rape was acceptable then hey, I agree with you. Now let's get back to 2013 (speaking about western culture and about "regular" definitions of rape)

all of that avoids the issue that i raised: why should anyone think that you don't want to undo all of these accomplishments? why would any reader grant the presumption? if there has been an ambiguity in your pronouncements--and there is, arising from a tendency to post in hasty generalizations about feminism in its entirety--then we construe that ambiguity contra proferentem. i can't see why "anti-feminist" is entitled to any contrary benefit of doubt.

It doesn't really matter if you think that an anti-feminist is entitled to any benefit of the doubt. What matters is that an "anti-feminist" ideology does not necessarily rejects all the things brought forward by feminism and that's a fact, not an opinion.