When did feminism go completely crazy?

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Mansplaining is sexist in the same way that, say, black people using the n word is racist. As in, it isn't, and a cursory understanding of the power structures and usage of each word shows why.

This thread is cool because it shows that OT is nearly as progressive as it thinks.

 

[Oruc]

Mansplaining is sexist in the same way that, say, black people using the n word is racist. As in, it isn't, and a cursory understanding of the power structures and usage of each word shows why.

This thread is cool because it shows that OT is nearly as progressive as it thinks.

Power structures is bull, it supports the idea that white women cannot be raped because rape is sex+power and whites have power over all others

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Power structures is bull, it supports the idea that white women cannot be raped because rape is sex+power and whites have power over all others

I wish I could take arguments to ridiculous extremes like this, it'd make for hilarious results.

 

[Oruc]

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. A problem is that unlettered people pick up on statements by scholars that, absent context, appear to be bombastic. The observers blow the statements out of proportion.

Another problem is that some feminists make statements that actually are bombastic.

In either case, some parties extrapolate the general from the particular and scream at the top of their longs that "feminists are doing this that or the other thing," when they should be accurately saying "some feminists are doing this that or the other thing."

For example, I recently attended a lecture by Emily Nagoski, a sex health expert and researcher. Her new thesis is that the sex drive, understood as an individual survival instinct, doesn't exist, and that it would be a better model to view sexual arousal as being two separate but interrelated, things: physical arousal and emotional arousal.

Dr. Nagoski was not shy about presenting the consequence of this new thesis in a feminist light. She points out that adopted by society of her model on sexual arousal may have a significant effect upon how we view rape and other sexual assaults. To wit, once we have freed ourselves from thinking of sex as an individual survival drive our relationship with sexual violence changes because we would no longer see (most) people who violate our sexual mores as slaves to their physical drives and unable to help themselves.

The critic of Dr. Nagoski could readily take that and say "Feminists Think Sex Drive Doesn't Exist." That soundbite is flawed on a number of levels. For one, the speaker has, as the OP has, assumed that one woman speaks for all of feminism. For another, the statement that the sex drive doesn't exist full stop disregards the manner in which Nagoski has attempted to frame her model in light of drives being individual survival requirements.

I dont't see how you can complain about this? every other ideology is held to the same standard. The mad hatters are held up as the living representation of an ideology when they say something ridiculous and what others say are twisted to mock them. If you want equality here it is.

I wish I could take arguments to ridiculous extremes like this, it'd make for hilarious results.

Reductio ad absurdum, except only your ideology should be treat with kid gloves, get $%~#.

 

[Triewd]

Lets return this issue back to the issue of Feminism rather than distractions (I am not even going to address 'mansplaining') :

Theres my problem with feminism.

The kicker? those people are/were leading feminists with influence to this day

I've seriously never seen a feminist discuss one single issue that affects men. I mean, I don't follow feminism religiously or anything like that, so this is just my own personal experience speaking, but yeah.. a big fat 0. It's always women's issues. I mean, I'm sure it happens here and there, but feminism seems to be a movement first and foremost for women's issues. Which makes sense to me, since it's "fem"inism, like I said.

Here's a video that talks about some of this:


Link to video.

As far as I am concerned Feminism has always had a core element of crazy. Therefore in some sense the OP is wrong.

 

[Evie]

Cherrypicking sure is fun.

 

[Lohrenswald]

The kicker? those people are/were leading feminists with influence to this day

Those sounds more like tumblr wackos to me.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Dawkins? Yuck.

What exactly is your issue with Dawkins of all people?

He's what would be kindly put as a "militant atheist" and less kindly as "what Christians think all atheists".

What I saw in that video was Dawkins quoting a feminist who was saying some really stupid things.

I haven't read any of Dawkins' books, and have only seen a few of his videos. How is urging people to examine the evidence before making up their minds what they want to believe being a "militant atheist"? Is he advocating burning churches, mosques, temples, and other places of worship? Is he all for burning bibles, korans, smashing statues, icons, etc.? That's how I would define "militant atheist" and people like that horrify me, because what they are really advocating is just wanton destruction.

He's a racist, sexist philistine. I don't find those qualities admirable in some snake-handling Appalachian minister, why should I be more impressed because I find them in an Oxford don?

Source?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Traitorfish has gotten an image of Dawkins by seeing what he's done and said.

How is that not a "legitimate" enough reason?

 

[Triewd]

Those sounds more like tumblr wackos to me.

If you don't believe me why don't you whack those names or those terms into the search engine of your choice?

For example:
Sally_Miller_Gearhart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart

n 1973 she became the first open lesbian to obtain a tenure-track faculty position when she was hired by San Francisco State University, where she helped establish one of the first women and gender study programs in the country.[2] She later became a nationally known gay rights activist

In an essay entitled " The Future - if there is one - is Female ", in 1981, Gearhart claims that "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race."

There you go both in a position of Power and advocated reducing male population

 

[JollyRoger]

Indeed.

EDIT: In fact its an Ad Hominem meant to detract, from my arguments rather than address them.

What arguments did you make in the post characterized as mansplaining?

 

[Flying Pig]

That was thirty years ago - practically all social movements begin in a flurry of intellectual activity, with more than their fair share of out-there ideas, and eventually settle down to become either maturely centrist or toothless, depending on your view of things.

 

[Sonereal]

 

[cardgame]

I blame the bloggers and the internet "news" outlets that publish Marcotti and Valenti, along with assorted other perpetual victims of insignificance like "manspreading". Like an article about the google nexus being too big for female hands as a sign of male oppression.

Jezebel ranks high in the 'fault' category.

 

[Triewd]

Traitorfish has gotten an image of Dawkins by seeing what he's done and said.

How is that not a "legitimate" enough reason?

Burden of proof.

Its a statement made against someone without proof - You might believe it but you expect others to you need to prove it - otherwise its a slur with no proof, and could be considered slander (though not in this case because of context perhaps)

 

[JollyRoger]

otherwise its a slur with no proof

Does a youtube video of the man count as proof?

 

[Traitorfish]

Y'know, there back in the '70s and '80s, there was a genuine attempt to start up a progressive men's movement. I sometimes wonder why it never got off the ground, given that the issues it hoped to address were very real, and have only become more glaring with time.

Then I see threads like this, and remember what happens when you attempt to talk to straight guys about gender issues.

Source?

An impression, acquired over time.

 

[Triewd]

Does a youtube video of the man count as proof?

well for starters this is what Dawkins is said to be:

He's a racist, sexist philistine. I don't find those qualities admirable in some snake-handling Appalachian minister, why should I be more impressed because I find them in an Oxford don

So you would need to prove that he is racist sexist and is a philistine which as I understand it is a biblical term for someone based on a people in the bible who the Israelites termed as uncultured as a people (is that not contradictory?!?)

Im not certain you could prove that....

EDIT: Traitorfish that may be your impression but it is not mine

 

[useless]

MRA's are literally just a backlash to the gains feminism has made; see this whole primarily misogynistic anti-SJW Gamergate rubbish.

 

[Farm Boy]

An impression, acquired over time.

You can throw the Illinois redneck in your bibliography while you're at it.