The Rights of Men

[Manfred Belheim]

I ask because its interesting. I find it difficult to imagine how you reconcile this absolute opposition to feminism when there is a need for it. This has resulted in me asking questions about whether the need for feminism ever existed (seeing if you acknowledge inequality/oppression across many times, places and societies), seeing if you can see that the need has not stopped, and I anticipated a future effort to show you that feminism has been effective.

The questions at time may seem diversionary because of the "Red is red" "No, blue is red" type issues going on. Sometimes these are not reconcilable, like asking a creationist if the world is more than 6000 years old. No point in continuing there.

Why is that? What is the anti-feminist solution to sexism?

Well firstly I'll apologise if you genuinely thought it was an interesting question and something worth asking. To me it seemed such an irrelevant question, and one with only one real rational answer, that I couldn't see any genuine motive behind it.

Having said that, it depends how you are defining "sexism". If you're using it in the social sciences sense where it only applies to large-scale systematic structures designed to control and oppress or whatever else, then actually it's not as simple a question. But as I, along with most normal people, don't hold to that definition then that is not how I read the question.

I believe "sexism", as in individual acts of discrimination or prejudice against other individuals based upon their gender, exists. It's also not always women on the receiving end of it. These individual acts and attitudes can obviously be reinforced within certain groups or organisations of course. But do I believe in "sexism" in the social science sense, as in that there is an overarching systemic system in place that oppresses women (and I think, when used in this sense, it really is ONLY women)? Then no, I don't believe that. And I don't believe that instances of the former (i.e., someone calling a woman a slut because she's had a lot of sexual partners) is evidence of the latter. Nor can I see how such things could organically create the latter.

Feminism seems to be built largely, if not entirely, around the latter as a self-evident truth, and nearly every aspect of feminist logic stems from this foundation. As I don't believe that is a solid foundation, then I find myself generally opposing feminist thought. In addition, mainstream feminism (and it is arguably mainstream, not just some radical extreme) is often guilty of sexism, in the former sense, towards men. So far from being the only ideology which can fight against it, it is actually guilty of it itself. There was a video posted a few pages ago which shows exactly this problem. "Are you just bitter because you don't have a girlfriend?" That kind of thing. Outrageouly sexist attitudes espoused openly and laughed at by the majority of the audience. How can I possibly support an ideology that not only tolerates, but openly encourages such things? "Not all feminists" is really not a convincing counter.

So that's a brief summary of where I stand without going into too much detail. So the anti-feminist solution to sexism is not to be sexist, not to encourage sexism in others, and to (at the very least) express disapproval of sexist attitudes you see. You may argue that this is precisely what feminism does, but when you have prominent feminists espousing ideas such as that men should be put in concentration camps, then maybe you can see my problem with it.

 

[Senethro]

Huh.

So.

Are the religious police in Saudi Arabia not an example of systemic oppression?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah.

So.

The day feminists stop talking incessantly about the number of female CEOs, 1 in 0.5 women getting raped on campus, or any other such first world or non-existent problems, and start spending any significant amount of time talking about the Saudi Arabian religious police or things of that ilk... well then that's the day I might re-evaluate my position. As things stand at the moment, these things pretty much only ever get brought up by feminists in the context of retorts such as that one. You're essentially moving the goalposts again - it's a bit like a bunch of anti-government protesters matching on Washington or Whitehall bringing up North Korea if anyone challenges them on the legitimacy of their beliefs.

In any case, this would be a human rights issue that can be opposed and fought on any number of platforms other than feminism. There's no intrinsic need for a belief in the Patriarchy or the prevelance of sexual assault on US campuses in order to impose horrible things happening elsewhere. As I've already said, I'm not pro-sexism and see no requirement to be a feminist to be anti-sexism.

Anyway, your last post that I was replying to suggested you might actually be interested in a reasonable discussion here so I thought I'd give it another go, but since you basically ignored 90% of what I said and only responded to the part for which you had a glib one-line response, I don't think I'll bother further.

(As an aside, I know absolutely nothing of the religious police in Saudi Arabia so I'm just assuming what they're like based on the name)

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I though it was clear from Manfred's post that he was talking about western culture, not Saudi Arabia. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, MB. I don't think you'll find very many people on this forum willing to argue that systemic gender based oppression doesn't happen elsewhere in the world, it absolutely does. In Muslim countries where women aren't allowed to drive or go to school, in African countries where women are subjected to systemic genital mutilation, and so forth.

I think most everyone here would be more than happy to side with feminism on those issues, IF those were the issues at the forefront. Unfortunately, the feminists that we see in the media these days don't seem to care much about women who are being oppressed thousands of miles away, they just want to complain about manspreading and whine that air conditioning in office buildings is sexist. If your argument is that most feminists are focused on real injustices around the world and that the whiny crybabies I mentioned above are a small minority, then the onus is on the feminists to make sure the majority views are getting pushed into the mainstream, because right now, that isn't happening. From an outsider perspective it looks like the whiners are running the show.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I though it was clear from Manfred's post that he was talking about western culture, not Saudi Arabia. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, MB.

I don't know if it was clear from my post, but I thought it was clear from the preceeding discussion that that's what I was talking about. I also think it's fair to concentrate only on the western world when I criticise feminism as that is where western feminism concentrates its discussion the vast majority of the time too.

I think most everyone here would be more than happy to side with feminism on those issues, IF those were the issues at the forefront. Unfortunately, the feminists that we see in the media these days don't seem to care much about women who are being oppressed thousands of miles away, they just want to complain about manspreading and whine that air conditioning in office buildings is sexist.

To me this is the crux of the problem. Feminism is a large, sprawling ideology, much of which I find to be based on flawed thinking and a lot of which I find to be objectionable. The fact that some feminists have some views that I agree with, or would support, is no reason to back the ideology as a whole. It would be a bit like trying to force me to support Scientology of the Church of the Latter Day Saints on the basis of some of the charity work they do, or because they also object to animal sacrifice just as I do.

 

[Senethro]

The day feminists stop talking incessantly about the number of female CEOs, 1 in 0.5 women getting raped on campus, or any other such first world or non-existent problems, and start spending any significant amount of time talking about the Saudi Arabian religious police or things of that ilk... well then that's the day I might re-evaluate my position.

Why are they non-existent problems? That women are able to succeed in society to the same degree as men sounds like a no-brainer to me as a good thing.

The idea that all more serious problems must be solved before less serious ones is a non-starter. A lazy argument for doing nothing at all.

As things stand at the moment, these things pretty much only ever get brought up by feminists in the context of retorts such as that one. You're essentially moving the goalposts again - it's a bit like a bunch of anti-government protesters matching on Washington or Whitehall bringing up North Korea if anyone challenges them on the legitimacy of their beliefs.

I don't follow.

In any case, this would be a human rights issue that can be opposed and fought on any number of platforms other than feminism. There's no intrinsic need for a belief in the Patriarchy or the prevelance of sexual assault on US campuses in order to impose horrible things happening elsewhere. As I've already said, I'm not pro-sexism and see no requirement to be a feminist to be anti-sexism.

It can be fought on platforms other than feminism, but often isn't/wasn't. In fact its astonishing (read: not astonishing at all) how many oppressed groups have to begin with self advocacy.
Example: Who spoke for the suffragettes before the suffragettes? Not many.

Anyway, your last post that I was replying to suggested you might actually be interested in a reasonable discussion here so I thought I'd give it another go, but since you basically ignored 90% of what I said and only responded to the part for which you had a glib one-line response, I don't think I'll bother further.

I'm sorry you found it that way, but you appeared to be making an extraordinary claim that systemic oppression does not exist. The rest seemed either founded on this or was your own opinion about what constitutes mainstream feminism that I thought it futile to attempt to change. It takes colossal bad faith to say a mainstream position includes advocates concentration camps when it does not.

You accuse me of being glib but you basically went partial Godwin on me, so IDK bud.

As I understand it, you are now claiming that systemic oppression does not exist in western culture.

Why does systemic oppression not exist in western culture? Did systemic oppression ever exist in western culture?

 

[Ryika]

Why are they non-existent problems? That women are able to succeed in society to the same degree as men sounds like a no-brainer to me as a good thing.

First you'd have to prove that they aren't. Just saying the numbers are not the same doesn't mean much.

The idea that all more serious problems must be solved before less serious ones is a non-starter. A lazy argument for doing nothing at all.

It would be a lazy argument if feminists tried to fix both, but many seem to be too occupied with their own "first world problems" to find time to advocate for women with real problems.

 

[Flying Pig]

It would be a lazy argument if feminists tried to fix both, but many seem to be too occupied with their own "first world problems" to find time to advocate for women with real problems.

Follow-up question: should charities working against poverty in the UK give up and move to Africa?

 

[Senethro]

I though it was clear from Manfred's post that he was talking about western culture, not Saudi Arabia. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, MB. I don't think you'll find very many people on this forum willing to argue that systemic gender based oppression doesn't happen elsewhere in the world, it absolutely does. In Muslim countries where women aren't allowed to drive or go to school, in African countries where women are subjected to systemic genital mutilation, and so forth.

I think most everyone here would be more than happy to side with feminism on those issues, IF those were the issues at the forefront. Unfortunately, the feminists that we see in the media these days don't seem to care much about women who are being oppressed thousands of miles away, they just want to complain about manspreading and whine that air conditioning in office buildings is sexist. If your argument is that most feminists are focused on real injustices around the world and that the whiny crybabies I mentioned above are a small minority, then the onus is on the feminists to make sure the majority views are getting pushed into the mainstream, because right now, that isn't happening. From an outsider perspective it looks like the whiners are running the show.

Interesting. Can you please tell me a method for how to identify whiny crybabies? Perhaps you could give some examples of previous legitimate causes for western feminists in western culture which have now been resolved, leaving only whiny crybabies.

 

[Ryika]

Follow-up question: should charities working against poverty in the UK give up and move to Africa?

If they claim to be working for people in Africa and if the poverty in Africa was one of the arguments they bring up? Certainly.

 

[Senethro]

First you'd have to prove that they aren't. Just saying the numbers are not the same doesn't mean much.

What would be acceptable proof?

As to the second question I refer you to Flying Pigs post, but also point out that its something of an own goal and the same argument could be made with regards to the mens issues.

 

[Senethro]

If they claim to be working for people in Africa and if the poverty in Africa was one of the arguments they bring up? Certainly.

So must feminists now declare a geographical field of operation and what aspects of activism they pursue? Should all activists?

Could work. We could have a little field beneath account name. Would clear things up immensely.

 

[Farm Boy]

The idea that all more serious problems must be solved before less serious ones is a non-starter. A lazy argument for doing nothing at all.

Actually, I'd guess that we have to start fixing the boring foundations before the flashy pinnacles start genuinely falling into line.

How old is the median senator, the median CEO? These are people at the pinnacles of power, the most competitive of the most competitive. In what decade(s) did they typically start laying down the foundation of their hypercompetitiveness? Seeing as we know any bump in education or career path knocks a lot of people out of the running for CEO of superawesomeness. Can't we actually get a pretty rough idea of what the disparities in the halls of power during the 2070s are going to be by looking at elementary schools today? You know, barring colossal disaster or upheaval?

 

[Ryika]

What would be acceptable proof?

As to the second question I refer you to Flying Pigs post, but also point out that its something of an own goal and the same argument could be made with regards to the mens issues.

It's interesting that you ask me what proof I would like after just assuming that the information that you're spreading is correct. Have you never bothered to check if your information is correct or if there may be alternative explanations for what we see?

A study that properly tests for that would probably be similar to the studies done for the gender wage gap:

- Ask a ton of people
- Check for all possible factors that could contribute to the differences and try to pin down how much influence they have
- List all factors that you could not check for
- There you go, that's already a proper study that can be taken as a basis for future assumptions.

When it comes to the gender wage gap, those studies start with 77c per Dollar and in the end usually have with something like 2-4% of that left as an unexplained difference in wage, which could be because of discrimination (deliberate or unintentional) and/or other minor factors.

I strongly assume that the a similar thing happens if you actually study where the Male-to-Female Ratios on higher positions come from, instead of just looking at the raw numbers and just assuming that discrimination must be the cause.

So must feminists now declare a geographical field of operation and what aspects of activism they pursue? Should all activists?

Could work. We could have a little field beneath account name. Would clear things up immensely.

Well, "We fight for women's rights in first world countries!" would be a lot more descriptive, wouldn't it? But no, I'm not asking for that, I'm just asking for feminists to stop claiming that they care about Africa when they clearly don't outside of their little "Why I'm a feminist"-speeches. Admittedly, nobody has done that here, so the whole part of the conversation is not that relevant.

 

[Senethro]

It's interesting that you ask me what proof I would like after just assuming that the information that you're spreading is correct. Have you never bothered to check if your information is correct or if there may be alternative explanations for what we see?

A study that properly tests for that would probably be similar to the studies done for the gender wage gap:

- Ask a ton of people
- Check for all possible factors
- List all factors that you could not check for
- There you go, that's already a proper study.

When it comes to the gender wage gap, those studies start with 77c per Dollar and in the end usually have with something like 2-4% of that left as an unexplained difference in wage, which could be because of discrimination (deliberate or unintentional) and/or other minor factors.

I strongly assume that the a similar thing happens if you actually study where the Male-to-Female Ratios on higher positions come from, instead of just looking at the raw numbers and just assuming that discrimination must be the cause.

You said that you would not simply accept numbers that were different. That can cover a great deal of sins. Thank you for being clear.

Well, "We fight for women's rights in first world countries!" would be a lot more descriptive, wouldn't it? But no, I'm not asking for that, I'm just asking for feminists to stop claiming that they care about Africa when they clearly don't outside of their little "Why I'm a feminist"-speeches. Admittedly, nobody has done that here, so the whole part of the conversation is not that relevant.

Hmmmm. Is this like how Manfred opposes the absent feminists with their concentration camp policy?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The idea that all more serious problems must be solved before less serious ones is a non-starter. A lazy argument for doing nothing at all.

Meh. You're twisting things all around again. It's like your point just shifts from one post the the next. The only reason I'm talking about more serious problems elsewhere in the world is because YOU just brought them up in your apparent "gotcha" question. Before that I wasn't talking about them at all because, again, they weren't the topic of the conversation. My objections to mainsteam western feminism have nothing to do with the fact that there are bigger problems in the world. That is not my argument.

I don't follow.

We were talking about western feminism and western problems (or at least I believed we were from the context of the discussion), so when I said there is no wholesale oppression of women and you bring up Saudi Arabia, that is analogous to an anti-government protester using North Korea as an example and justification for their attack on western governments.

It can be fought on platforms other than feminism, but often isn't/wasn't. In fact its astonishing (read: not astonishing at all) how many oppressed groups have to begin with self advocacy.
Example: Who spoke for the suffragettes before the suffragettes? Not many.

Not really relevant to your point, I always think it's a poor example given the gap between men having universal suffrage and women having universal suffrage was about 8 years (in the UK at least), that men's universal right to vote was tied to their civic responsibilities (not least of which was compulsory military service) which women did not have, and that the suffragettes espoused some pretty unfair standards of their own, the white feather thing cropping up as an example yet again.

But again, the point is that, as Wolfbeckett said, no reasonable western person of the modern world is going to have much truck with repressive, religious states. That concern isn't feminist by nature. And indeed, feminists aren't doing very about such matters anyway.

I'm sorry you found it that way, but you appeared to be making an extraordinary claim that systemic oppression does not exist.

My claim is that systemic oppression of women does not exist in the west in the modern world. We can quibble about what I mean by "the west" exactly if necessary.

It takes colossal bad faith to say a mainstream position includes advocates concentration camps when it does not.

Julie Bindel is fairly mainstream. I agree that her comment was a fairly egregious example, but the mainstream is not a million miles behind. Take a look at most things Andrea Dworkin ever went on record with as well. I don't know exactly how you would define mainstream, but neither of these people are exactly radical extremists vilified by the mainstream.

You accuse me of being glib but you basically went partial Godwin on me, so IDK bud.

No, she actually said it quite recently and I was referring to her words. If it was all some sort of massive hoax or joke then let me know and I will amend my position.

As I understand it, you are now claiming that systemic oppression does not exist in western culture.

Of women, yes.

Why does systemic oppression not exist in western culture? Did systemic oppression ever exist in western culture?

The first question is a strange one. Not sure if you're asking me why I think that is the case, or why it actually is the case. The answers would be "because all the evidence I see indicates that" and "why should I care why it's not the case" respectively. Would you ask me why animal sacrifice does not exist in western culture? Isn't it enough that it doesn't?

The second question - again, you're missing out "of women" so I don't know if you're asking a general question or not. And again, for the purposes of this discussion, it's not relevant anyway.

 

[Ryika]

You said that you would not simply accept numbers that were different. That can cover a great deal of sins. Thank you for being clear.

Do you seriously understand "First you'd have to prove that they aren't. Just saying the numbers are not the same doesn't mean much." as "you would not simply accept numbers that were different"?

A number itself just does not mean much. Here, have an example:

- 90% of all people in Yoga-Clubs are women (<- random number, I don't know if it's really 90%)

Your reaction:
"OH MY GOD, YOGA-CLUBS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN!!!!!!!!!!!"

My reaction:
"Okay, let's take a look that these numbers mean. Let's ask 20000 men and 20000 women what they think about Yoga. Aha, aha. 97% of these men say they have no interest in Yoga. 50% of the women say they have no interest in Yoga. Well, that probably explains some of the gap. Let's check for other factors (etc.)"

If you really think your reaction (just seeing a raw number and thinking you can draw a conclusion from that) is correct and my reaction (seeing a raw number and wanting to break it down into all things that influence the raw number) is just trying to do some nefarious stuff, then I feel sorry for you, because you have no idea how wrong you are.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So must feminists now declare a geographical field of operation and what aspects of activism they pursue? Should all activists?

Could work. We could have a little field beneath account name. Would clear things up immensely.

If feminists complain about the angle of men's legs on the New York underground (or insert any other of their usual complaints here) then we can safely assume they don't mean New York, Nigeria.

The declaration is plain and clear in the specific examples they talk about, which are things like CEOs, offensive adverts on trains, offensive legs on trains etc, the vast majority of the time. No inference is required.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Interesting. Can you please tell me a method for how to identify whiny crybabies? Perhaps you could give some examples of previous legitimate causes for western feminists in western culture which have now been resolved, leaving only whiny crybabies.

I don't have a full methodology worked out yet, but a solid first step would be to ask yourself, "what does this person actually DO?" If the only answer you can come up with is "write blog posts and monitor Twitter 20 hours a day" chances are good we're dealing with a whiny crybaby. Legitimate activists do something. They donate time at women's shelters. They fund raise for women's causes. They do academic research. They don't tweet 500 times a day with #patreon.

Previous legitimate causes? Women's suffrage, legal birth control for single people, making it illegal to discriminate based on gender in the workplace, no-fault divorce (although this one is admittedly a bit of a double edged sword), Roe vs. Wade. First and second wave feminism did plenty of good, and I do think there is still room for feminism as a concept even in western society, we're not perfect yet and likely never will be, but the current incarnation of it is loony. When they aren't complaining about ridiculous things like the above mentioned manspreading, they're trying to make insane changes in order to facilitate equality of outcome (no wonder this board's resident socialists all subscribe to hard line feminism) when true freedom for everyone can only be achieved via equality of opportunity.

 

[useless]

Let's apply this to MRAs, why aren't they in Africa or Saudi Arabia?