tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post4699145269630348909..comments2024-03-22T05:55:48.117-04:00Comments on The Pervocracy: Feminism is not sexism on Opposite Day.Cliff Pervocracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-46413286985614165862010-07-21T10:48:33.496-04:002010-07-21T10:48:33.496-04:00BTW a little more anecdotal evidence that I was al...BTW a little more anecdotal evidence that I was all wrong on the equitable distribution thing; my new lawyer suggested that I could do better than the split my wife proposed and I agreed to as fair, as the law would consider the house I owned before marriage to still be mostly mine. Further, as we didn't get around to changing the deed to both our names until several years into the marriage, I could push on that technicality to reduce her share, if I were a bastard; in my case and most cases I can imagine doing that would be injustice. With men's higher salaries, that injustice will probably affect women more often, in line with the findings of the FL court in the study linked earlier.<br /><br />(I am of course not attempting to change the split.)Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-50148994170821804122010-07-21T10:25:28.175-04:002010-07-21T10:25:28.175-04:00Seems like two different questions getting mixed u...Seems like two different questions getting mixed up here.<br /><br />1) "Should femin<b>ism</b> speak up for men when men get the short end of the stick?"<br /><br />No. Feminism is about advancement of women, as the name says.<br /><br />2) "Should femin<b>ists</b> speak up for men when men get the short end of the stick?"<br /><br />Yes. Everybody should. Feminists are people, and people don't get to be unjust to some people because they are working for the benefit of other people. Everybody should be MRA in the same sense in which everybody should be feminists. Be alert to and support justice for each, and don't support punishing Person A of Group X for the actions or privilege of Person B of Group X.<br /><br />(It seems to me that Holly already sticks up for men on the few occasions when she sees them get the short end of the stick. On the other hand, if Figleaf sees men getting fed shit sandwiches, he'll only talk about how the smell on their breath affects women.)Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-54395814833776770112010-07-20T19:42:10.058-04:002010-07-20T19:42:10.058-04:00Holly:
"Good thing feminists are against rigi...Holly:<br />"Good thing feminists are against rigid gender roles. We sure as hell aren't responsible for them."<br />Well its good to know that most of you aren't. Doesn't give the nasty ones that perpetuate those roles and act like they aren't there a free pass but oh well.<br /><br />"Asking feminists to be concerned about men is like asking a Meals On Wheels operation to be concerned about animal abuse. They're both worthy causes, and some individuals may support both, but they're different things and Meals On Wheels is perfectly justified in saying "hey, nothing against the animals, sounds like someone should go fight that fight, but that's just not our thing."<br />Exactly. I grew tired of seeing feminists simultaneously taking credit for helping men while silencing men so I just decided to say something myself. I'm glad we agree here.<br /><br />Hershele:<br />"You haven't said anything against the ways women get the short end of the stick. I have as much basis for assuming you're a misogynist as you have for assuming feminism is misandry. "<br />Maybe not here but I do on my blog. And for the record I don't think I said that feminism equals misandry. If I thought that I would certainly be anti-feminist. Mind you there is misandry within it but its not the whole (or at least I hope its not). I'm merely doing exactly what many feminists have told me I should do. Speak up for myself.<br /><br />And as for not talking about how women get the short end of the stick there is already a movement that's over 40 years old for that. And even then I don't actively deny that they do.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13806448004236223177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-65123233686496108422010-07-20T09:37:10.117-04:002010-07-20T09:37:10.117-04:00I also notice that you say what feminists are gene...<i>I also notice that you say what feminists are generally for and against in regards to how men are treated. Frankly I don't hear those things enough from feminists.</i><br />You haven't said anything against the ways women get the short end of the stick. I have as much basis for assuming you're a misogynist as you have for assuming feminism is misandry.Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-85796208956921382342010-07-20T08:27:58.426-04:002010-07-20T08:27:58.426-04:00Danny - It's true, life isn't perfect for ...Danny - It's true, life isn't perfect for men. In fact in some ways it kind of sucks having those rigid gender roles for men. Good thing feminists are against rigid gender roles. We sure as hell aren't responsible for them.<br /><br /><i>So instead of waiting for feminists to show a level of concern for men that meets my satisfaction (because frankly after some serious thinking that's an unfair expectation) I've decided to just say those things myself.</i><br />Asking feminists to be concerned about men is like asking a Meals On Wheels operation to be concerned about animal abuse. They're both worthy causes, and some individuals may support both, but they're different things and Meals On Wheels is perfectly justified in saying "hey, nothing against the animals, sounds like someone should go fight that fight, but that's just not our <i>thing</i>."Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-3069724357339277572010-07-20T01:55:02.441-04:002010-07-20T01:55:02.441-04:00Hershele:
First, this is chivalry; the other side ...Hershele:<br /><i>First, this is chivalry; the other side of that coin is the conflation of women with children and the notion that women must be protected from life's hardships such as financial independence and high political or corporate positions.</i><br />I'm all for looking at both sides of the coin but most of the time both sides are not looked at when talking about chivalry. Usually the conversation stops right at what you mention. Rarely any mention of the unfair burden put on men to have their masculinity and manhood judged by other people's standards of what a real man is supposed to do. In fact based on most of the discussion on chivalry I've seen from feminists you would think that chivalry only harms women, which is frankly not true.<br /><br /><i>Again, such a lot to unpack. Which hierarchy are we talking about? Corporate hierarchy? I don't think this is true...</i><br />Just as women are judged on their beauty and physical attractiveness to the point of being unfair men are judged on their success to the point of being unfair. That's why you have women who go to drastic measures to look good and men who go to drastic measures to be successful in the job place. That's why you have women who won't date a man that can't totally support them so they don't have to work and men who won't date a woman that isn't in the greatest fitness while not holding themselves to the same standard.<br /><br /><i>Are men shamed for being sexually inactive?</i><br />Yes. And your doubt sounds like cherry picking of your own. Supposedly talking about how men are shamed for not being sexually active is cherry picking but talking about shaming women for being sexually active is insightful commentary?<br /><br />I fought back the urge to accuse you of trying to spin those items into making women look like the victims and men look like evil perpetrators. Such an accusation wouldn't really get us anywhere.<br /><br />I also notice that you say what feminists are generally for and against in regards to how men are treated. Frankly I don't hear those things enough from feminists. Or at least the voices saying those things just aren't loud enough. So instead of waiting for feminists to show a level of concern for men that meets my satisfaction (because frankly after some serious thinking that's an unfair expectation) I've decided to just say those things myself.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13806448004236223177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-20071333603368880492010-07-19T16:29:07.591-04:002010-07-19T16:29:07.591-04:00Danny, I think most feminists want men murdered le...Danny, I think <b>most</b> feminists want men murdered less than they are now.<br /><br />I skimmed the list, since I had an idea of the jist going in, and a lot of what I saw is "patriarchy" or, if you don't like the word, the result of social forces most feminists are fighting <b>against</b>. I'm open to the argument that, having skimmed, what I saw wasn't representative, and moreover that I cherry-picked without really intending to.<br /><br />I mean, Holly, if I may use your comment section to fisk this a little (and now I'm overtly cherry-picking):<br /><br /><i>3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.</i><br />Three things here: First, this is chivalry; the other side of that coin is the conflation of women with children and the notion that women must be protected from life's hardships such as financial independence and high political or corporate positions. Second, feminists, again, don't typically want anyone to get beaten up. Third, men don't typically beat up women, but they don't typically rape men (actually, men typically don't do either to anybody, and women even less so); I have a feeling it's substantially the same personality issue that leads to both forms of behavior.<br /><br /><i>6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.</i><br />Again, such a lot to unpack. Which hierarchy are we talking about? Corporate hierarchy? I don't think this is true; indeed, people at the extremes of this sort of mindset think women as a whole are less worthy because of the (often lingering) effects of the glass ceiling. So superficially this seems about right, but I think the worthiness=place in the hierarchy as applied to women gets lost in general sexism.<br /><br />Difference feminism, which is gender essentialism with its heart in the right place, would say that we shouldn't judge women on male criteria such as success, but I don't think this item is generally something most types of femism support.<br /><br /><i>7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.</i><br />Chivalry again.<br /><br /><i>22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.</i><br />Are men shamed for being sexually inactive? Anyway, this is cherry-picking on the part of the compiler of the list. Change "for being sexually inactive" to "for my level of sexual activity" and it's somewhere between not true and outright false.Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-12728477998276150592010-07-17T07:49:12.592-04:002010-07-17T07:49:12.592-04:00Its good to know that Holly but in my experience a...Its good to know that Holly but in my experience a lot of feminists spend a lot of time actively denying the existence of female privilege (and are willing to do a lot of language twisting to do it).<br /><br />The point I'm trying to make is that there are privileges on both sides and they all need to be dealt with. It won't do any good to act as if only one side has privileges.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11316703490574522868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-71970421034684724092010-07-16T21:30:04.198-04:002010-07-16T21:30:04.198-04:00Danny - The reason I asked for a list is--most of ...Danny - The reason I asked for a list is--most of those things there, feminists are not in favor of.<br /><br />"I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man."<br /><br />As a feminist, I would like <i>everyone</i> to get murdered less, you know? I don't feel that "men should get murdered more often" is a real common feminist talking point. And so on down the list.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-68114805624807741822010-07-16T21:26:04.925-04:002010-07-16T21:26:04.925-04:00Sure.
Here's a list of female privileges (htt...Sure.<br /><br />Here's a list of female privileges (http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/06/08/female-privilege/). Not perfect or iron clad but I think worth talking about.<br /><br />Now about male oppression. Just as women have their only limited boxes of what's "okay" for their gender men have boxes as well. <br /><br />In a husband/wife relationship just as society expects the wife to abandon all desire for a career to become an internal provider (as in inside the home) society expects the husband to abandon all desire to be a family man to become an external provider (as in outside the home).<br /><br />When it comes to acceptable sexuality there are restraints on what is okay for men just as with women. Women are expected to be all virtuous and never really want sex while men are supposed to consumed by insatiable lust. Deviate from either and the shaming begins.<br /><br />The way you ask that I think you're expecting me to try to claim that the harm done to men and women is equal. Really don't care who has it worse because figuring that out won't get us any closer to the answers.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11316703490574522868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-41059013453634166722010-07-16T19:40:57.395-04:002010-07-16T19:40:57.395-04:00Danny - Please name some specific, concrete male o...Danny - Please name some specific, concrete male oppressions and female privileges.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-8114618424557968732010-07-16T19:38:33.544-04:002010-07-16T19:38:33.544-04:00"I don't like anyone being oppressed. I t..."I don't like anyone being oppressed. I think I'll disassociate myself from people who think that if they have to pay child support they should be free to abuse their children, however."<br />I can understand that. I don't bother associating with feminists who seem to spend more time speaking on the lives of men that actually trying to understand the lives of men.<br /><br />"Danny, the question isn't about existing, the question is about representing Feminism. Numerically, I think the reasonable feminists have it, and I think they're closer to the ideological center of the movement as a whole (or, rather, the ideological center of the movement is with the reasonable people, not the misandrists)."<br />Unfortunately even the "reasonable ones" are not immune to doing some of the very things they say they're against. And even if there are more reasonable feminists than reasonable MRAs that doesn't mean we should all flock to feminism.<br /><br />"But it depends what you think of as reasonable. I have a feeling you consider anyone who points out any institutional sexism or acknowledges the existence of male privilege in any way to be unreasonable."<br />And your feeling is wrong. Not only do I think there's nothing wrong with pointing out those things but I agree they need to be pulled out. The unreasonable comes into play when you have those who define male privilege then go on to intentionally limit the scope of male oppression (and female privilege) for the sake of trying to act as if being a male is a cake walk. (Such as the earlier part of your comment in which you are okay with MRAs existing as long as feminists get to define their size and scope, that's not enough to call you unreasonable but your implication there is unreasonable.) The unreasonable also comes out when I see people try to cherry pick the problems of society that need to be stamped out because some of them actually work in their favor so they try to protect them.<br /><br />"Or anyone not satisfied with legal equality and willing to passively wait for society to catch up."<br />Oh no I don't want anyone to wait passively for actually equality. And you know why? Because I myself don't want to wait for it so how fair is it for me to expect anyone else to do so? Unlike you who want to give feminists unlimited room while making sure MRAs only get equality in the ways you approve of.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11316703490574522868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-70242870892049225432010-07-16T13:59:09.435-04:002010-07-16T13:59:09.435-04:00If the men's-rights movement ever settles down...If the men's-rights movement ever settles down to be like the feminists of 2010 but about men (and with a much smaller scope, since there's less oppression of men by any non-crazy definition of "oppression") I'll join. I don't like anyone being oppressed. I think I'll disassociate myself from people who think that if they have to pay child support they should be free to abuse their children, however.<br /><br />Danny, the question isn't about existing, the question is about representing Feminism. Numerically, I think the reasonable feminists have it, and I think they're closer to the ideological center of the movement as a whole (or, rather, the ideological center of the movement is with the reasonable people, not the misandrists).<br /><br />But it depends what you think of as reasonable. I have a feeling you consider anyone who points out any institutional sexism or acknowledges the existence of male privilege in any way to be unreasonable. Or anyone not satisfied with legal equality and willing to passively wait for society to catch up.Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-71082621298595069772010-07-14T22:39:33.693-04:002010-07-14T22:39:33.693-04:00While it nice to see that there are reasonable fem...While it nice to see that there are reasonable feminists out there that believe in the items listed here I'm not gonna pretend that the feminists (or however you want to call them) that do push the ideas listed don't exist.<br /><br /><br />Mousie00:<br />"Right now MRAs tend to be a bunch of creepy cranks and lunatics, but that's pretty much my impression of the earliest feminists as well. I think cranks and lunatics tend to start just about any movement, good or bad."<br /><br />Yes. I sometime giggle when people try to compare present day feminists with present day MRAs and try to pretend that feminists haven't had a 40 some odd year head start.<br /><br />Even the greatest sword started off as a hunk of unrefined metal.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11316703490574522868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-44744499134430169152010-07-12T19:44:19.915-04:002010-07-12T19:44:19.915-04:00I mean, not just unfounded, but BACKWARDS.I mean, not just unfounded, but BACKWARDS.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-10182312877500718112010-07-12T19:43:13.784-04:002010-07-12T19:43:13.784-04:00Hershele, I have to eat some crow. I've been ...Hershele, I have to eat some crow. I've been repeating information provided to me by my lawyer, back around 1999, on equitable distribution. I was searching for statistics, which are very hard to find, and finally I found out my information was false at least as of this <a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oqpyTXekLGIJ:www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/bias.pdf+equitable+distribution+statistics+by+gender+in+divorce&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgezpdRAZMg5Xnrk4WKao6lbetx3HP0Z8eu_TUGmgrhJZxL23f_GXixzdWPaZHp63Je5g0ASd0C-cbSEzozowOCtv842l-ho2yCo8XXFmow1nIriiwqliSRzB79HDoHkeFKUbJl&sig=AHIEtbSdhDT6DW3HT9f5jm4QsfC21ndn_A" rel="nofollow">1990 study by the Florida Supreme Court</a>.<br /><br />"4. In equitable distributions, men generally receive sixty-five to seventy-five percent of<br />the marital assets compared to twenty-five to thirty-five percent for women."<br /><br />My lawyer gave me to understand that women get more almost inevitably. Maybe he was covering for not being a very good lawyer. I would like to know more about that statistic; e.g. does it include divorces back to the dawn of time? When does it go up to? If it was culled from data from 1900 to 1970, for example, I'd like to see something more recent. But anyway it's the best I can find right now, so I have to conclude that my equitable distribution complaint was unfounded.<br /><br />If anyone has more current or more general (not just Florida) stats I'd be interested.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-27243202426894237452010-07-12T18:33:29.534-04:002010-07-12T18:33:29.534-04:00Atheism has never been defined as anything other t...<i>Atheism has never been defined as anything other than "lack of a belief in a god".</i><br /><br />You haven't been in a lot of religious debates, have you? There's considerable debate about what "atheist" actually means and who counts as one. However, I suspect you're really more of an antitheist. This is basically what happens when people [paradoxically] turn atheism into a fundamentalist religion. Antitheists are to atheists as female supremacists are to feminists and the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity - a small but overly attention-grabbing subset which strongly colors an outsider's opinion of the whole despite being rather unrepresentative of that whole.<br /><br />I say this as someone who self-describes as a "Zen Nihilist". Some people would call my philosophy to be a form of atheism, and some wouldn't. And some people would call that term redundant because "Zen is inherently nihilist". And then most Zen philosophers would take offense to that...Not Menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-31551128189607822010-07-12T17:07:07.910-04:002010-07-12T17:07:07.910-04:00On equitable distribution: 50% is perfectly reason...On equitable distribution: 50% is perfectly reasonable, it's what they were each living on while married, in a sense. Anything else and you're providing the wrong kind of disincentive for whoever gets less to divorce. I don't know the statistics, aren't most married men outearning their wives? I understand the second or third derivative of that statistic is negative, but the raw number still holds. Thus inequitable distribution amounts to using the power of the purse to get women to stay in unhappy marriages.<br /><br />Again, I suspect we'd have wildly different estimates of how many men would use whateve leverage they have to force their wives to stay married to them if they could versus how many women would force their husbands to, and I honestly don't know which of us is closer to the mark. But that is at least in the abstract how, given the way things actually are, equitable distribution is fairer than the alternative (i.e., it doesn't stick it to men in general, it sticks it to bad men).Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-32692781688367993102010-07-12T15:46:39.411-04:002010-07-12T15:46:39.411-04:00Ashur--
You are not being ganged up upon. You hav...Ashur--<br /><br />You are not being ganged up upon. You have taken it upon yourself to post numerous, argumentative comments in a blog owned by someone else and frequented by a large number of regulars whose opinions are generally very different from your own. They all disagree with you. They expressed that disagreement. You're not being persecuted, here.<br /><br />Here, have some of that logic you're so fond of:<br /><br />1. Social justice movements focus on the people who are on the receiving end of injustice.<br /><br />2. Women are on the receiving end of injustice.<br /><br />3. Therefore, feminism should focus on women.<br /><br />Your whole argument seems to be predicated on the idea that 'feminist' is somehow an exclusionary term, or possibly that we're all Nazis for some reason you don't see fit to explain. I (and a huge, vast, overwhelming majority of the people who self-identify as feminists) disagree with you. If it bothers you that much, don't call yourself a feminist. No skin off my nose.<br /><br />Oh, and two more things:<br /><br />1. 'You're too stupid to bother arguing with' is not actually an argument and does not mean that you're right.<br /><br />2. Whining about ad hominem attacks one moment and calling someone a cunt the next? Really not classy.aebhelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-29969867522853924172010-07-12T13:56:10.664-04:002010-07-12T13:56:10.664-04:00Herschele, you may be right about "I would su...Herschele, you may be right about "I would submit that, because of your history, you are particularly attuned--perhaps overly attuned". It's so hard to tell. As I said in the other thread, I used to think <i>anyone</i> who self-identified as a feminist thought women are better, because that's all I met and I met a lot. Now I know that's not the case, but I might indeed still be over attuned.<br /><br /><i>That's not quite as poor a definition as "feminism is a movement that fights against equality,"</i> It's not a definition at all. A definition would be "Feminism is a movement for the advancement of women"; I think it will stay necessary for the foreseeable future. However, I think there is also need now for a movement that promotes men. Just people will support or oppose one or the other (or both or neither) depending on the circumstance.<br /><br /><i>but doesn't an equitable distribution favor neither party? What alternative do you propose?</i><br /><br />"Equitable distribution" (scare quotes intentional) typically takes from men to give to women. I see it as a pretty clear example of societal favoritism in that context, just as the 488 men in the top 500 CEOs is a clear example of the other way. I don't have a quick fix. It tends to be redistributive when the man makes more and proportional if the woman makes more; if, before marriage, John made $4x and Jane made $x, and that continued during marriage, Jane will likely get significantly more in the settlement than John, because Jane needs it more. If Jane made $4x and John made $x, Jane will still get at least 50%, because Jane made most of it. Divorce attorneys for men strive for 50% as the best possible outcome. It should not simply be proportional all the time; that would be grossly unfair to full-time homemakers, who are more commonly women. Like the CEO problem, there isn't a quick easy fair fix. I think it would be a good step if the higher earner got 50% at minimum.Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-82655809133469508462010-07-12T12:22:20.451-04:002010-07-12T12:22:20.451-04:00Why would the police be evil if there was no crime...<i>Why would the police be evil if there was no crime? They'd be doing nothing.</i><br />Why would feminism be bad if there were no sexism? It would cease to exist.<br /><br /><i>If there was no female oppression Feminism would still be fighting as if it there was. </i><br />Says who? This seems to be the basis of your argument, but you've not defended it.<br /><br /><i>My argument is not that it is sexist against men, but that it is ineffective at achieving gender equality because it fixates on women.</i><br />How would focusing on men achieve gender equality?<br /><br />Unless ... oh, I get it. You're advocating misandry. That's kinda fucked up, but you're certainly entitled to believe whatever creepy nonsense you want.<br /><br /><i>If Feminism wasn't blind to some oppression and convinced other forms existed where it didn't, there'd not be a single feminism in the western world, because more women are living under much worse conditions in the middle east.</i><br />Gosh, you are 16, however old you are. <a href="http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/" rel="nofollow">You're not the first to think of that.</a><br /><br /><i>I've cited examples already, such as the insistence that media is sexist and the vast anti-porn movement within Feminism</i><br />There are people pointing to specific instances of sexism within the media, yes. Are you saying they're making it up, for whatever reason? There is porn that objectifies women, too. How does the fact that some feminists are anti-porn, and that feminists continue not to like sexism however much feminism has achieved so far, indicate that feminism has some goal other than equality?<br /><br /><i>Feminism really IS about liberating women and that really IS my objection.</i><br />So you object to liberating women.<br /><br />And now a line in case I want to respond to someone other than Ashur and it breaks his brain again.<br /><br />Like Mousie, for instance:<br /><i>I think the "women are better" type of feminism is far more pervasive than people here think.</i><br />It's not pervasive; it's loud. I would submit that, because of your history, you are particularly attuned--perhaps overly attuned--to people rnning with the notion that women are innocent and pure and men are horrible brutes, but I think most of that is done in the nae of misogyny, even if it's not called that.<br /><br /><i>There are other places that women are clearly treated better. "Equitable distribution" in divorce being one</i><br />That's not quite as poor a definition as "feminism is a movement that fights against equality," but doesn't an equitable distribution favor neither party? What alternative do you propose?Hershele Ostropolernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-78032019513475858012010-07-12T12:08:19.003-04:002010-07-12T12:08:19.003-04:00I might just also add that there's someone els...I might just also add that there's someone else I watch on youtube who has a similar viewpoint phrased far more eloquently than I can be bothered to do<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkXcMr3yEOA&feature=fvstAshurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-83336914414898991712010-07-12T12:05:03.277-04:002010-07-12T12:05:03.277-04:00Norah Vincent's "Self-Made Man" is a...<em><br />Norah Vincent's "Self-Made Man" is an account of how a lesbian lived as a man for a year and a half, and it makes for a fascinating exploration of gender roles.<br /></em><br /><br />Sold. I liked that post, I think you did the whole issue more justice than I could have. I'll blog about that book when I've finished it.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-49127460438051777262010-07-12T11:58:13.362-04:002010-07-12T11:58:13.362-04:00Some thoughts on feminism and sexism:
I think the...Some thoughts on feminism and sexism:<br /><br />I think the "women are better" type of feminism is far more pervasive than people here think. For example, try reading Ursula K. Le Guin's "Always Coming Home" while keeping the idea in your head that men are as good as women. Next, look at some reviews and see how many mention the "women are better" attitude.<br /><br />Considering the profound effects of androgens and estrogens on the functioning of the brain, equality of opportunity is not likely to lead to equality of results. Women and men are likely to both prefer different tasks and succeed differently in statistically noticeable ways.<br /><br />That might explain 350 of the Fortune 500 CEOs being male, but not 488. Misogynist sexism is clearly a factor (I'd bet largely unacknowledged by the sexists).<br /><br />CEOs and politicians do not represent talent rising to the top to me. They represent scum rising to the top. Politicians especially. If your job is based on telling people what to do, you have an automatic black mark against you in my book.<br /><br />How much feminist energy is spent on getting women into the extremely dangerous, not tremendously profitable, and over 99% male field of high steel construction? How much should be? Why?<br /><br />When equality is achieved in an area, many feminists do not stop pushing. There is still more spending on girl's educational programs and scholarships than boys, despite the fact that girls are now doing better in education than boys.<br /><br />There are other places that women are clearly treated better. "Equitable distribution" in divorce being one. Self-defense pleas being another. Socially, how is a man treated if he runs from a fight? A woman?<br /><br />Norah Vincent's "Self-Made Man" is an account of how a lesbian lived as a man for a year and a half, and it makes for a fascinating exploration of gender roles. It includes a lot of ways that society treats women better that are mostly unrecognized, as well as confirming many known ways men are treated better; and a lot of things that are just different, unclear who has it better.<br /><br />Single-issue organizations work better. An individual could certainly be a feminist and also work towards more equitable treatment of men, but that isn't and shouldn't be what feminism is.<br /><br />Sometimes with gender differences who's getting the short end of the stick depends greatly on individual point of view, feminist arguments on makeup being an obvious example. I can imagine feminists working to get women into high-steel construction as a male dominated field at the same time as MRAs work to get women in to do their share of the dying.<br /><br />Right now MRAs tend to be a bunch of creepy cranks and lunatics, but that's pretty much my impression of the earliest feminists as well. I think cranks and lunatics tend to start just about any movement, good or bad.<br /><br />The Firefox spelling checker is fine with androgens but doesn't like estrogens. Sexism? No, it's fine with oestrogens. Parochialism. :)Mousie00noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2770580070906411828.post-12937043287344104412010-07-12T11:50:11.057-04:002010-07-12T11:50:11.057-04:00Holly said....
"Well... yes. That is the case...<em>Holly said....<br />"Well... yes. That is the case. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me."</em><br /><br />Seems unreasonable to me. Quite apart from any logic of the discussion in hand, I think the type of cunt who'd attempt to gang up on someone because of an opposing view, especially with someone who tried to oppress them just because they are worried you're perpetuating gender inequality is a fucked up and weak thing to do.<br /><br />I would never do it to you.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.com