[RD] Feminism

[Lexicus]

The RD tag is more than necessary given the amount of trolling in my previous thread. And care to explain how "whiny" is a sexist insult? You're looking for reasons to be offended.

sex·ist
ˈseksist/
adjective
1.
relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

So my point still stands then.

No.

This is nothing more than a strawman.

No, it's not. Feminism is not anti-sex. Your argument is laughable. And frankly these kinds of arguments are usually made by men blaming feminism for their inability to get laid.

EDIT: I will say that TERFs are anti-sex-with-men, but TERFs are a particularly radical current and are largely disavowed by other feminists.

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

That one clearly didn't work, we need a better one.

 

[Lohrenswald]

3. Feminism is whiny

oh my god lmao this is to stupid to be true

go to bed already

Moderator Action: Flaming is unacceptable, especially in an RD thread. Two point infraction. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ryika]

There's feminism the religion, then there's feminism the social movement, and then there's feminism the "thing that individual women say it is".

Feminism the religion is evil, just as all other religions are, and Feminist-dogma is dangerous.
Feminism the social movement is not actually a social movement but a collection of sub-movements, some of which are good and some of which are not.
And feminisim the "thing that individual women say it is", is whatever the individual woman thinks it is.

 

[civver_764]

sex·ist
ˈseksist/
adjective
1.
relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

That's not an explanation.

No.

My point was that feminism views men as more privileged than women, how does this not still stand even with your amendment to my premise?

No, it's not. Feminism is not anti-sex. Your argument is laughable. And frankly these kinds of arguments are usually made by men blaming feminism for their inability to get laid.

Now you're not even making an argument.

That one clearly didn't work, we need a better one.

And what would a better one entail that the current one doesn't have?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hey Valka D'Ur,

I hope the world around you converges to a place where feminism is not required, and equality is assumed without needing to fight for it. Where it is okay to be a man and be sensitive, gentle, and loving without thinking they must be homosexual. Where women are attracted to such men, instead of men who constantly feel the need to show strength. Where women are also more sensitive, gentle, and loving. Where people know how to love. How to embrace one another. Where people realize that written law is less powerful than people who understand and trust one another.

Cheers,

Thank you.

And I have never held the view that men who are sensitive, gentle, and loving must also be gay. I may categorize specific men as members of a particular profession or political party, but whether they're gay, straight, or something else is something that is not my business unless I am in - or am contemplating being in - a relationship with them that goes beyond mere friendship. Whatever they might choose to tell me is up to them.

That's not to say that no personal things matter... I have never, and will never, knowingly interfere with another person's committed relationship. That's something that some other women around here find hard to believe. In the SCA, for example, our local group had two married couples, one of them where the wife absolutely despised the SCA and was so sure that every single woman was out to take her husband away from her. It wasn't until someone linked my name with the guy who introduced me to the group that she didn't mind me talking to him - she reasoned that if I "had my own man" I wouldn't be after hers.

The other woman in the group couldn't even reason that far. She was really not happy if I talked to her husband about anything other than Shire business or if the group was doing an activity like gaming or a Shire activity. One-on-one conversations about books, crafts, history... her tolerance for that was about 2 minutes tops, before she'd drag him away, even though he clearly wanted to continue the conversation. Some of this was 30 years ago and we still haven't been able to finish some of the conversations about particular science fiction authors and books.

In short, I find it ridiculous to assume that men and women can't be friends without sex being involved. Those who do assume that have some odd notions, in my view.

 

[caketastydelish]

For the love of God, not another one of these threads.

 

[caketastydelish]

I know this woman who goes by Red. A real diamond in the rough. Loves to get very sexual with me while her MRA son pounds away on the keyboard and whatever else down in the basement. She is a bit whiny though, but obviously not to the point of being evil enough to want dignity, respect, and equality.

I agree that the OP is definitely wrong, but so is your argument. Trump obviously has no problem getting laid, and he his highly misogynistic. Many misogynists have no problem getting laid. Many non-misogynistic men can't get laid. There isn't a correlation. Debate the issues, not the ability to get laid..

 

[metalhead]

My point was that feminism views men as more privileged than women

You're not going to get very far if you keep insisting on ascribing a view to all feminists, particularly one that attempts to treat a complex subject like how gender affects one's social, professional, and legal standing in such a simplistic manner.

It sounds as if you're merely attacking something because you don't like the sound of it, and not because of a deeper philosophical disagreement with its tenets, to the extent the extremely broad label of "feminism" denotes common belief and common purpose.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not an explanation.

Yes it is, women are stereotyped as being whiny.

My point was that feminism views men as more privileged than women, how does this not still stand even with your amendment to my premise?

That wasn't what you said.

That men are more privileged than women along the axis of sex is not really up for debate. It is simply a fact.

Now you're not even making an argument.

That is an argument, your total inability to respond to it does not make it not an argument. It is manifestly false that feminism is anti-sex.

And what would a better one entail that the current one doesn't have?

This question requires research and as such I'm not going to answer it.

 

[civver_764]

You're not going to get very far if you keep insisting on ascribing a view to all feminists, particularly one that attempts to treat a complex subject like how gender affects one's social, professional, and legal standing in such a simplistic manner.

So there are forms of feminism that don't hold that men are privileged? That is news to me. Even Lexicus goes as far as to call this a "fact". But I would be interested to learn otherwise.

It sounds as if you're merely attacking something because you don't like the sound of it, and not because of a deeper philosophical disagreement with its tenets, to the extent the extremely broad label of "feminism" denotes common belief and common purpose.

How about we stick to the arguments I made, rather than speculating about my intentions.

Yes it is, women are stereotyped as being whiny.

Now this is an explanation. I'm not buying this though. If someone is acting whiny, it's not sexist to call them out for it. The alleged presence of certain stereotypes does not make it sexist. It would only be sexist if I said something like "women tend to be whiny".

That wasn't what you said.

Not exactly, I rephrased.

That men are more privileged than women along the axis of sex is not really up for debate. It is simply a fact.

I would certainly contest that. For example -- Men are more likely to die at work, die at war, be the victim of homicide or violent crime, kill themselves, and they receive harsher sentences when committing crimes.

That is an argument, your total inability to respond to it does not make it not an argument. It is manifestly false that feminism is anti-sex.

Your "argument" basically amounts to "you're wrong because you're wrong".

 

[Lexicus]

I would certainly contest that. For example -- Men are more likely to die at work, die at war, be the victim of homicide or violent crime, kill themselves, and they receive harsher sentences when committing crimes.

Men do all these things to themselves.

Your "argument" basically amounts to "you're wrong because you're wrong".

Yep. As I said, I have had sex with feminists and so I know from personal experience that they are not anti-sex.

 

[Ryika]

Men do all these things to themselves.

Actually, "it's societal expectations and norms that make them do it".

 

[civver_764]

Men do all these things to themselves.

Uhh, what? With the exception of suicide, that's a pretty ridiculous claim. And anyways, it doesn't matter who's doing it, the point is that there is no "male privilege".

Yep. As I said, I have had sex with feminists and so I know from personal experience that they are not anti-sex.

I didn't say "all feminists are anti-sex", I said that feminism the ideology is anti-sex.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hello everybody. In this thread I will be arguing that feminism is evil, and that we need a better, more equitable gender movement. The basic reasons for this are:

Evil is defined a profoundly immoral.

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, 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.

It seems to be that you are overreaching by claiming feminism as evil. It also seems that to get to your overreach, you are going outside the mainstream understanding of what feminism is and are using extremes as the baseline you are arguing against.

1. Feminism is anti-male
For example -- Feminism teaches that a "patriarchy" runs the world. It teaches that men benefit from this, and women are disadvantaged by this. This creates an atmosphere of disdain towards males. Males are taught that they need to correct themselves and their sons ("teach boys not to rape"), that they have a "toxic masculinity", and that even appreciating the beauty of a woman is akin to abuse.

If we look at the world through a more objective lens, we see that there is no "patriarchy", or at least that it does not benefit men at the expense of women. Gender roles have pros and cons for both genders, and while I support moving beyond these roles, claiming that men had it "easier" is just dishonest.

I do not think letting boys know that rape is wrong is evil. I also think you are mischaracterizing mainstream feminism. By such a diversion, you are making the argument "easier" for yourself in a somewhat dishonest way. Most feminists would agree with you that gender roles have pros and cons for both genders. Is agreement with you profoundly immoral?

2. Feminism is anti-sex
For example -- If women are portrayed in a way that is sexually appealing to men, that is the "male gaze" and it harms women, according to feminism. I think this is totally perverted, one of the greatest aspects of women is their beauty. Men are designed to appreciate this, and in fact it gives women a certain power over men who find them attractive. That's part of the biological force that keeps our species going.

Some degree of male gaze is harmful to women, but I do not think that mainstream feminists claim that all male attention is harmful. And if women are beautiful, do you agree that a woman that is a feminist is beautiful? How can someone that is beautiful also be profoundly immoral?

3. Feminism is whiny
For example -- Despite having laws in place since the 1960's which ban pay discrimination based on gender, feminists still like to complain about the "gender pay gap". On International Women's Day, women skipped work and protested in the street, to show people a "day without women". This is just childish, and certainly not a good way to advance in your career. What exactly are they trying to accomplish anyways? Do they want a law that mandates all employees receive the same pay? Nothing comes out of protests like that besides the feminist victim complex becoming more solidified.

There is still a gender pay gap, despite laws on the books. And bringing attention to your point of view is not necessarily whiny. I guess you are providing by example of how it can be perceived that way. Even though your thread comes off as a bit whiny, I do not consider your points profoundly immoral - merely profoundly misguided,

We need a better gender movement, one that recognizes the sacrifices and merits of both genders. One that does not shame one gender, and makes the other a victim. One that recognizes that men and women are merely two parts of the whole, and stresses unity rather than division.

We have that movement already - it is called feminism.

 

[Lexicus]

Uhh, what? With the exception of suicide, that's a pretty ridiculous claim. And anyways, it doesn't matter who's doing it, the point is that there is no "male privilege".

It's not a ridiculous claim. It is overwhelmingly men who send other men to die at war. It is overwhelmingly men who are responsible for the dangerous workplaces that get male workers killed. And judges in the US hanging out harsher sentences to men are disproportionately men.
It of course does matter who's doing it because the whole 'privilege' issue is about what oppressor groups to do oppressed groups. It's not about what oppressor groups are subject to as a result of the systems of oppression they construct.

I didn't say "all feminists are anti-sex", I said that feminism the ideology is anti-sex.

Okay, so substantiate that claim.

 

[metalhead]

So there are forms of feminism that don't hold that men are privileged? That is news to me. Even Lexicus goes as far as to call this a "fact". But I would be interested to learn otherwise.

Lexicus is right, it is objective fact that there are situations in which men are privileged; it is incorrect to call this a "feminist" belief. It is merely an observation people have made about reality, and I question your motives because you obviously don't see this reality and try to ascribe this reality to something invented by "feminists" because it allows you to discredit it due to your belief that feminists are whiney and evil. So your motivations matter.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka, you are choosing to make this about you. I did not say "Valka hates men".

I consider myself a feminist. You've posted a lot of drivel in this thread and others about how nasty, evil, bad, wrong, etc. feminists are. Therefore, this IS, to some extent, about me. It's also about every other feminist on this forum, and I include both men and women in that. As I said previously:

Keep clearly in mind that every time you disparage feminists as some kind of group who all think the same way and act the same way and that we are all anti-male, hate men, etc., you are insulting numerous members of this forum.

I agree, women should not change their last names if they get married. But this is just a distraction, you did not address my actual argument.

Oh, okay. In that case, here goes part of it:

Feminism teaches that a "patriarchy" runs the world. It teaches that men benefit from this, and women are disadvantaged by this. This creates an atmosphere of disdain towards males. Males are taught that they need to correct themselves and their sons ("teach boys not to rape"), that they have a "toxic masculinity", and that even appreciating the beauty of a woman is akin to abuse.

If we look at the world through a more objective lens, we see that there is no "patriarchy", or at least that it does not benefit men at the expense of women. Gender roles have pros and cons for both genders, and while I support moving beyond these roles, claiming that men had it "easier" is just dishonest.

Some feminists teach that. I've seen their diatribes that are absolutely vicious toward men. Stuff like that creeps me out, because they refuse to acknowledge the good men, the ones who have tried to make changes for the better, to benefit everyone.

Then there are cases in which individual women have no use for men due to their own past life experiences. I encountered such a woman on my old Dune forum; she had seen and experienced some pretty horrific things as a child during the war in the Balkans. When you witness male soldiers killing your male relatives and raping your female relatives, that can result in the view that men aren't good for much that is positive. This person was constantly having difficult interactions with the male moderators and admins on the forum, so I just finally told them it was best to recuse themselves from dealing with her. I would not allow her to get away with breaking the rules, but their attitudes and lack of understanding were just exacerbating an already tense situation.

So yeah, teaching boys that rape is not okay is something that needs to be done. Teaching them that "no" means NO, and not "yes" or "maybe" is something that must be done. Granted, most boys and men don't need extra emphasis for this lesson, since they are decent people who already understand that rape is not okay and that "no" means NO. Unfortunately, however, there are some who really don't get it.

As for "there is no patriarchy"... there is patriarchy within the family, there are patriarchal attitudes within the community, and some countries have patriarchy in the courts and other major institutions.

I have experienced the familial patriarchy and the community patriarchy. Do not sit there and tell me it doesn't exist.

Again, I'm totally on board with all of this, but you are ignoring what I actually said in my post.

You should really look up that other feminism thread. If I wanted to have the same discussion now as I did then, I'd just go re-read that one.

I agree that the OP is definitely wrong, but so is your argument. Trump obviously has no problem getting laid, and he his highly misogynistic. Many misogynists have no problem getting laid. Many non-misogynistic men can't get laid. There isn't a correlation. Debate the issues, not the ability to get laid..

You left out the fact that Trump is rich and some women will accommodate rich men if they think they or their family will benefit in some way. I wonder how many, over the years, had a fantasy of becoming the latest Mrs. Trump, or at least the publicly-acknowledged mistress?

Of course it could simply be bragging rights that they had sex with a rich and famous man. It's not only men who are attracted to situations that give them bragging rights.

 

[caketastydelish]

Men do all these things to themselves.

In this case I'm actually going to have to respectfully disagree.

Men making an overwhelming percentage of homicide victims should not be 'men doing it to themselves'. Do you realize how offensive you'd sound if you said rape victims did it to themselves?

I'm tired of justifications or excuses. Men make up 80% of homicide victims. I laugh at the MRA's when they say something like 55% of university students are female because that's not a significant ratio gap. But 80% (four out of five) is. Obviously, there's a clear cut pattern. Even if you want to say 'this is proof that the patriarchy hurts men too' you could say that, but you couldn't feasibly mark it off as irrelevant.

I also don't buy 'men don't have to do those dangerous jobs but they signed up for it'. Some jobs just have to be done (like working on an oil field, among other things). Men are also socially pressured into being the 'provider' which means they're willing to do more dangerous work for more pay, otherwise they failed at 'being a man'.

I actually agree with the feminists that this is the patriarchy hurting men too, but again, don't pretend everything in the world is safe and easy for a man.

There was a study that suicide rates among men skyrocketed whenever the economy of a country collapses. Men are supposed to 'be the provider' and they can't do that if it's hard to find a job.

 

[Lexicus]

Men making an overwhelming percentage of homicide victims should not be 'men doing it to themselves'. Do you realize how offensive you'd sound if you said rape victims did it to themselves?

You missed the point of what I was saying. Here it is:

It's not a ridiculous claim. It is overwhelmingly men who send other men to die at war. It is overwhelmingly men who are responsible for the dangerous workplaces that get male workers killed. And judges in the US hanging out harsher sentences to men are disproportionately men.

 

[JollyRoger]

Who commits the vast majority of homicides? From the OP, I'm guessing feminists.