Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Feminism and an egalitarian future

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 12:09pm

Avorne

Avorne

3,224 posts

Thanks for reminding us you have no idea what you're talking about, Avorne. You obviously don't have any idea what feminism even is, much less a legitimate platform to criticize it. It's not flaming if it's nicer the Nemo would be.

I have no idea what I'm talking about?

About how feminists continue to spread the myths of gendered violence being almost solely perpetrated by males onto females?
About the continued propagation of the 'r_pe culture' idea by feminists? < Strong language and mentions of sexual abuse just FYI. I also have more things on that topic but I think the URLs would get butchered by Armor Games content filter.
About how feminists like to erase male victims to create ridiculous statistics on violence? And about the actual picture of domestic violence?
About the creation and reinforcement of gender bias in family court settings?

I realize that only a very small number of feminists have had a had in any of the examples I painted above but those are the radical feminists highlighted in my first post - the one's that are actually out there and fighting for their cause and claiming to speak on behalf of all other feminists. For every 'good' feminist sitting at home watching TV, who believes there's still a way to go to full gender equality but that it's going to happen someday soon, there's a radical feminist out there on a university campus somewhere shouting about how males are all misogynistic pigs or about how a system (that's in fact already biased in favour of women) is still horribly unfair.

 

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 4:10pm

rafterman

rafterman

623 posts

A study by Yale University...

Your link didn't lead to said study.

 

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 10:08pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,052 posts

Knight

Your link didn't lead to said study.

The link was in the article.

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 1:26am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

I have no idea what I'm talking about?

You have provided a non-comprehensive list of things you have no meaningful understanding of, yes. However, I really don't think that's fair to readers of the thread. Listing ll of those things (which, again, you have no legitimate platform to discuss) might give the impression by omission that there are other feminist issues which you do understand.

I assure you, readers, this is not the case. Avorne is fighting the bad fight based on a series of faulty and misguided assumptions.

First, let's address the issue of etymology. It seems like a lot of people on the Internet don't know what feminism is. At first I thought this was a serious problem, potentially a dangerous one, but then I remembered that the following view is held almost exclusively by those whose opinions are not and should not be valued by anyone, so it's all good.

It seems like a lot of people, our dear Avorne included, seem to think that feminism is not an inherently egalitarian movement. This is largely because the name is feminism. The core principle of feminism is the fundamental equality of men and women. That's the entire concept. Holding that either gender is inferior is anti-feminist. It's not about female superiority.

The reason it's called feminism, then, is because historically it fights against a societal and philosophical tradition of male superiority. To fight for equality is to fight for the advancement of the position of women in society. They are synonymous. If you say you want equality but don't try to improve the social and legal situation of women, then you aren't working for equality. This is especially true during the time of its inception.

Some have suggested that the very label feminism causes issues, and that we've grown past the past and that we should change the name for clarity. My issue with this is two-pronged:

First, the name feminism, as Nicho has kindly explained, makes it clear that the movement is aware of and attempting to correct the social injustice faced by women. Again, most gender equality work is going to surround working for women's rights, simply because women have it worse almost everywhere. In terms of legal and social hierarchies, women are traditionally the oppressed group, and attempts at equality must reverse that. Trying to hide that fact under a manufactured label is only going to make people falsely believe that social status has been equalized.

And even if it had, which it hasn't, so what? You really think the best way forward is destroying evidence of our history and philosophical traditions? Even if you get your way, come up with some new word and throw every bit of historical and philosophical literature that intimidates you down a ****ing memory hole and stop calling it feminism, will there be any pragmatic benefits?

No, not at all. This is because, and this was a fact that took a long time to dawn on me, because people who say they're against feminism based on the name literally don't know what it is. It's like when Christians don't read the Bible. These are people who can't be bothered to even read the wikipedia page on feminism, which makes the core philosophy of equality rather clear. I doubt most of them, our OP included, have even heard of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, much less read any of her work. Rather, they just arbitrarily detest feminism because of their own misinterpretation of the name and willful ignorance. Actually read some feminist literature before attempting to discuss the philosophy.

I really want to hammer this point home, because the irony is that these are the same people telling Christians to read the Bible. You think you have some intellectual grounds to criticize something you literally have made no effort to understand at all! No, don't post a ****ing article about some bull**** you read on menarebetterthanwomen.com on how feminists make up statistics. That article is probably a little biased. Actually explore the philosophy at all before trying to say the entire thing should be destroyed. I mean, Jesus Christ, I think that would be pretty basic to anyone who supposedly values critical thinking.

By the way, I'm assuming you have not read a meaningful body of feminist literature because the alternative is that you have really poor reading comprehension.

So yes, in short, people advocating a change of name are the worst kind of ignorant people: ignorant people who want to destroy the history of what they don't know, so everyone else can't know either. So that wraps up the topic of the label "feminism."

At this point, I'd like to take a brief interlude to quickly address an issue. You keep talking about "extreme" feminists. First, those who claim women are superior are anti-feminist. Except maybe Wollstonecraft. She might get an honorary feminist badge. I'm sure you don't understand why, because that would require an extremely basic understanding of the history of Western philosophy, which you clearly lack.

Anyway, those views are anti-feminist, and, for the most part, don't exist. No, don't post a bunch of links in response to that statement. Stop. Close the google tab. All that will do is demonstrate that you don't get how the spotlight fallacy and confirmation bias apply to you, even though it's really obvious. A formal philosophy of female superiority is just not a view held by many at all. Sure, sometimes you're cruising tumblr and you wind up talking to a fifteen year old girl who's barely taken a poop big enough to hurt telling you about how the plight of men could never compare to the pains of childbirth, but for the most part, these so called radical feminists are not a representative sample of either feminists or people in general.

Now, one more issue I'd like to address. Avorne has also made it clear that he also doesn't understand the world around him, and is possibly a bad person. Let me drop some quick knowledge on you, in list form.

1. **** culture exists. **** is primarily influenced by societal values, and moreover influenced by power relations between genders. Skimming through your tumblr, I did come across some of the stupid arguments against this notion. Most of these arguments, and almost all **** apologetic arguments, stem from a deep if irrational desire to believe that there is an intrinsic justice in the universe. **** is an evil thing that happens for evil reasons.

2. We are far from gender equality. There is no legal gender equality in the United States, nor is it promised. I'm sure you'd try to use this to claim that the UK is better than the US, even though people like you ironically prove that false. Anyway, I don't know the UK law. But in society, gender discrimination is almost omnipresent, especially in the way that people interact with one another. It is sexist against both genders, and males are excluded from social groups as much as women, but the underlying stereotypes that people are raised with repeat the recurring themes that women are inferior, women are subservient, women are lesser.

3. and this one is super important. Women do not have it better than you. I know what's happening here. You don't like the word feminism because it implies we might be trying to do something for other people and not you. You see people talking about hey, let's maybe treat women like they're people and you suddenly get mad that you don't get a prize for being male middle class and white. Guess what whitey, the position of women in society is worse. Attempts to improve it aren't an attack on you. When they get something you don't, it's not because you can't have it. It's because you already have it. When you have an advantage, losing it sure must seem like a disadvantage.

We don't live in a society where women are given preferential treatment. We live in one that's just starting to consider the possibility of treating women as equals for the first time. If you think egalitarianism is good, if you think we should fight for equal rights, good for you. But if you think we HAVE gender equality, or anything close to it, you better take a second look. Examine how gender influences roles in society, both on a large and small scale. Wake up and smell the ashes.

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 2:31am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

Ah, right, censor. In closing point 1 ("1. **** culture exists...") the word censored is rape, and if that exploit no longer works, here's the word with a space: ra pe.

The other censored words throughout are ****, **** and ****.

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 2:50am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,052 posts

Knight

3. and this one is super important. Women do not have it better than you. I know what's happening here. You don't like the word feminism because it implies we might be trying to do something for other people and not you. You see people talking about hey, let's maybe treat women like they're people and you suddenly get mad that you don't get a prize for being male middle class and white. Guess what whitey, the position of women in society is worse. Attempts to improve it aren't an attack on you. When they get something you don't, it's not because you can't have it. It's because you already have it. When you have an advantage, losing it sure must seem like a disadvantage.

Aren't you basing this just on gross assumptions?

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 3:28am

xxBoogeymaNxx

xxBoogeymaNxx

85 posts

radical feminists are not a representative sample of either feminists or people in general.

Radical feminism is a current perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism]

To claim Radical Feminists aren't feminists, and suggesting he read the wikipedia definition of feminism in the same post when it clearly says that radical feminism is a perspective within feminism is a bit ignorant. You cannot simply claim that the extreme part of feminism isn't feminism simply to make feminism look better. That would be like if someone had two misdemeanors and a murder on their criminal record and he said the murder isn't part of his record. It simply doesn't work that way.

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 3:42am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

That's different from the type of radical feminism that the OP is describing. He's describing a view that holds females as superior, while the constellation of philosophies encompassed in the wikipedia approach to terminology seek to offer high-level explanations as to the nature of gender roles in society, and their causal factors.

People who want to supply high-level explanations are prone to being wrong, but that's the nature of the beast. It's hard to be sure of anything up there. But that way lies the truth.

Female superiority is anti-feminist. Yours would be a fair critique if the type of "radical feminism" you affirmed the existence of was the type of "radical feminism" that the OP and I describe. However, it's more a terminology note as such.

Aren't you basing this just on gross assumptions?

Not at all. I'm basing it on the strong inference that Avorne believes women have a distinct advantage over men (he says so at the bottom of the first page.) I proceed to make a series of gross assumptions from that base. There's a difference :P

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 4:03am

xxBoogeymaNxx

xxBoogeymaNxx

85 posts

[url=http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm] Here is a link to something I think you all should read. It brings up many things about the supposed gender gaps of today. Xzeno, you sound educated so I hope you don't just blow it off xD

 

Posted Jan 6, '13 at 4:57am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,052 posts

Knight

Not at all. I'm basing it on the strong inference that Avorne believes women have a distinct advantage over men (he says so at the bottom of the first page.) I proceed to make a series of gross assumptions from that base. There's a difference :P

You know what I mean.

 
Reply to Feminism and an egalitarian future

You must be logged in to post a reply!