Showing posts tagged feminist.
x

If Feminism Is For Equality....

Yggdrasil: If feminism is for equality, why do feminists discount evidence of male oppression because "only women are oppressed,"... →

neodiogenean:

iffeminismisforequality:

neodiogenean:

cuntycuntycunty:

thisgingersnapsback:

sexxxisbeautiful:

because some men are oppressed but never for being men.

some men are oppressed for being a person of color, for being trans*, for being poor, for being queer.

but never for being a man.

is

is this blog

is OP for…

I agree for the most part with yggdrasil’s response to cuntycuntycunty, but I think there is a lot of confusion between the sociological and popular definitions of terms like “racism”, “misogyny”, and “misandry.” Arguing against a person using the popular definition of these terms by using the sociological definition doesn’t create a compelling argument, because you are both talking about different things. In some sense, the sociological definition is more useful and represents a more nuanced understanding of racism and mis***y, but they were not the subject that cuntycuntycunty was breaching.

Neo, the problem is that the “sociological” definition you’re talking about isn’t actually accepted by the sociological community.  PoN discusses the definition and its formation in general here.  In fact, the “popular” definition nowadays seems to be the “power + prejudice” one, while the scientific community and those of us that take the time to look it up use what you’re thinking of when you say the “popular one.”

In the popular sense, misandrists and misogynists can exist in any culture, patriarchal or matriarchal. Does the fact that these people are individuals acting without the force of an entire culture behind them limit the amount of damage the can do to a person or group of people’s lives? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that the potential damage to a person or group of people is zero. Even in a misogynist culture in the sociological sense, a lone misandrist in the popular sense couldn’t destroy a man’s life if she wanted. If there is one thing that people do well it’s find new, creative, and ingenious ways of ruining other people’s lives.

This is a problem.  Even if we do use your “sociological” (or more correctly “made-up”) definition, you seem to be assuming that misandry is something that can only be perpetrated by women, and since “women aren’t in power” there can be no societal misandry.  Anyone can perpetrate misandry, and as is mentioned here there is evidence of men being discriminated against wholesale in law and institution.  Even by that “sociological” definition, misandry exists in the U.S. today.

Also, it turns out that if we limit sexism to actual institutional power we find that virtually all sexism against women….doesn’t qualify.

Thank you for your response. It was illuminating. You’re correct that I betrayed an assumption that misandrists would be female, and I will be more careful in the future to not pattern my thinking like that. As to the “sociological” vs “popular”, thank you for pointing out my error. My basic point still stands, namely, Yggdrasil failed to make a compelling response to cuntycuntycunty due to both of them using different definitions of the words under discussion.

I actually disagree with your assessment that “prejudice + power” has become the popular definition. At least in my anecdotal experience the definitions seem to be divided this way: people in meat-space use just “prejudice”, parts of the social justice community online use “prejudice and power”, and based on your assessment sociologists use just “prejudice” as well.

I still stand by what I said to a degree. When I said that the internet social justice (what I previously called the “sociological”) definitions of racism, etc. were more nuanced than the sociological/popular definition (what I previously called “popular”), I meant it. Whether that nuance is useful to discussion, or helpful when it’s being read into words with traditionally broader meanings is another topic entirely, and outside of the scope of what I was and am trying to say in my response to Yggdrasil.

True, when I was talking about it being “popular” I was referring to within tumblr and other internet activist communities.  The general public’s still using what I consider to be the correct one.  I personally find the SJ definition to be much less nuanced, because it totally ignores individual circumstances in favor of lumping people into classes of “privileged” and “disprivileged” without really considering the individual cases that make all the difference.  As I’ve seen, this definition as it is is almost never used to actually highlight discrimination or -ist behavior, but rather is used to excuse -ist behavior from “acceptable” people towards “acceptable” targets.

That’s my problem with it.

(via )

— 2 years ago with 147 notes
#social justice  #feminism  #feminist  #equality  #sexism 
If feminism is for equality, why do feminists not oppose different physical standards for male and female soldiers, firefighters and police officers?

dancing-painted-bears:

Because I do??

Yes, but many feminists do not.  Accepting those differing standards is something inherently opposed to equality, and thus should be inherently opposed to the basic principles of feminism.  The fact that some, let alone many feminists do not oppose these and many were instrumental in putting them in place is the problem.

One of the issues with IFIFE is that people tend to take these things personally.  When we say “why do feminists…?” what we mean is “why are there feminists that…?” not “why does every single feminist…?”  When we speak about feminism as a whole, we’re speaking about the actions of the movement as an aggregate.  Even if only fifty-one percent, barely more than half are engaging in a problematic behavior then it completely justifies the statement even though almost every second feminist will claim to disagree.  You agreeing that this is wrong is great support, but it does nothing to counter the point: you’re just the one in ten, one in five, one in three that isn’t a bigot on this particular issue.

This also has to do with power.  Feminism as a movement does have leaders even though it’s very fractured.  What this means is that a comparative handful of people hold an awful lot of power.  If they’re bigots, the actions of feminism will be bigoted even if all other feminists are well-meaning and the “bad feminists” are a substantial minority.  Why?  Well, feminists tend to stick together, even when they should be calling each other out.  They’re happy to attack ideological differences between groups, but rarely do so when the issue is the group’s effect on the outside world.

You oppose this.  Great.  Now where were you and all the other feminists who oppose it when feminist lobbyists were pushing for it in the first place?

(Source: iffeminismisforequality, via thesailortitan)

— 2 years ago with 12 notes
#feminism  #feminist  #equality  #egalitarian  #IFIFE 

This blog exists to pose questions about how the world works, in an attempt to make people challenge their beliefs about the ways in which feminism does, and more importantly, should operate.  Admittedly it is done in a rather….confrontational manner, but all the same.

It’s rather disheartening when we see sixty or seventy reblogs all just repeating a single badly-formed and inaccurate criticism of something that’s been said, but only ten or so of the response to that criticism….especially when not a single one of those presents any rebuttal to that response even by the author of that criticism.  When we are proven wrong we’re entirely willing to admit it, but rarely if ever do we see a response that comes even close to doing so.

The point of debate and discussion is not to attack and overpower, but to reach the truth.  Simply latching onto the first statement that supports your own ideology and screaming it loud and long for all the world to see in no way advances that goal.  We present questions, and offer a chance for people to answer them.  We like answers, because sometimes we can learn from them, and even if we can’t perhaps others can.  However, when those answers are inadequate, poorly-formed or just out-and-out wrong (and being honest that’s the majority, plain and simple) we provide a response and rebuttal to those answers.  Overwhelmingly, those responses are ignored.

We offer a chance for debate, and rarely if ever do we fail to answer a criticism or comment on a matter whether privately or publicly.  Considering the number of responses we get that’s often not a small task, though made easier by the fact that often the first response, no matter how bad, is parroted endlessly by people too lazy or incompetent to use some critical judgment or creative thought.  We stand behind the words that we write, even when doing so involves writing five or ten responses to similar and equally mistaken criticisms.  It’s somewhat depressing that people are unwilling to stand behind theirs enough to write even one response, let alone more.

It’s a sad state of affairs when adults cannot carry on rational and sensible debate in an open forum.  It’s a worse state when people claiming to be adults are incapable of understanding how debate and discussion work and that one must either defend one’s position or concede it, rather than simply placing one’s fingers in one’s ears and screaming buzzwords until the nasty mean logical person goes away.  It’s beyond worrisome when people are incapable of functioning when actually expected to defend what they say, or to present evidence backing up their claims and buzzwords.  It’s outright scary when the reaction to claims made using logical argument, with citations and scientific proof to back them up, are simply ignored because they contradict ideology, left unaddressed because facts and statistics cannot be invalidated simply by yelling at them.  It’s no less than terrifying when ideology becomes so accepted that the very idea of questioning it and applying some form of rational thought to the theories and practices is considered subversive and offensive.

There is a reason we question whether feminism can possibly be saved….and you are it.

— 2 years ago with 7 notes
#feminism  #feminist  #equality  #egalitarian  #response  #responses  #debate  #IFIFE  #misandry 
If feminism is for equality, why do many feminists still support affirmative action in universities when men make up only 42% of students….the same percentage there was of women in 1970?

angeliccacophony:

Because affirmative action guarantees equal opportunities for all. The argument of strictly men vs. women fails to take into account PoC, PWD, and any other number of factors. Affirmative action isn’t binary.

Let’s be clear, this is about feminists supporting affirmative action with regards to women.  There is a potential basis for affirmative action regarding PoC, but that’s not the topic of discussion.  Good answer, though, and the OP has been updated to clarify.

(Source: iffeminismisforequality, via cacophonouschoas-deactivated201)

— 2 years ago with 21 notes
#feminist  #feminism  #equality  #egalitarian  #affirmative action  #university  #IFIFE