Criticism of Feminism

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

There is plenty of research which indicates that boys get a disproportionate share of their teachers' attention in co-ed schools, for example.

I'd like to see this research personally. I'd like to know how provincial these results are or if they are global. I'd say that given performance, we are seeing the exact opposite. Boys in school are being more and more medicated for their behavior, it seems that much of the modern curriculum rewards the talents of girls and treats young boys like their condition is pathological and must be treated.

msolga wrote:

The women replacing those "disposable" laborers in full-time factory jobs are probably cheaper, casualized workers. And how long their jobs might last (in western countries) , before being sent off-shore, is anyone's guess.

On the matter of hard physical labor, men aren't being replaced by women, they are being replaced by machines. The areas of labor force that are shrinking are mostly in areas where men have worked. Fields that traditionally employ women have had less of this.

msolga wrote:

The last example could be described as mass action by women in response to Egyptian military violence. :

And as the vlogger put it, in the video that brought them all to the street, it may seem offensive that the woman was being beaten, but where was the outrage for the men being beaten around her? Why did they chant that their brother's blood would cover them? How many men had already experienced state violence before these women were inspired to march on the streets? Exactly whose job is it to fight for Egyptian independence?

msolga wrote:

I am not exactly indifferent.
And I'm not sure where enlightenment comes into it, either.

I think that enlightenment is in thinking that equal rights is a product of addressing only one gender's issues. Indifference is to ignore that the effort exerted ultimately falls short of stated goals of equality.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
To Gloria Allred, if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot.

Just watched it.
She's actually talking about women having equal status to men, not being second class.

I don't believe I stated her view wrong. I said it was good on paper, but I asked a question about it: Can you achieve gender equality if you only address the issues of one gender? I don't believe you can. Being that I don't agree with her methodology, I don't fit her definition of feminist, and by her standard that makes me a bigot.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

These are real things, not generalizations. I think circumcision is definitely one we should pause on. We should pause on it specifically because of how mindlessly we accept it.

But , you see Art, I don't "mindlessly accept" male circumcision.
I've listened to enough men, on A2K threads & elsewhere, to understand that it is a real issue for them. So I'm seeing it differently now because of what men have said about it.
I just found the way the woman in the first (or second?) video presented the issue of male circumcision as evidence of male oppression, or something ..... a rather silly & self-serving position.
Feminists, or women even, weren't responsible for the long tradition of male circumcision & they (& many men, too) are understandably opposed to female genital mutilation.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't assume anything about the critics of feminism, because anyone, anywhere, at any time might criticize feminism--i know of no way to exhaustively categorize such critics.

I don't think there is an objective assumption, but surely you've assumed various things at various times. Certainly you've observed others make assumptions.

Setanta wrote:

However, your thread is a mess.

Help me tidy it up then.

Setanta wrote:

First of all, because random comments by women doesn't constitute feminist polemics.

I acknowledged as much. It's a philosophy with no single head.

Setanta wrote:

Second, because feminism is not necessarily a political program nor a political ideology, and cannot, therefore, be criticized polemically on the basis of performance in the public arena.

I don't know that I agree. Gun rights activists may be diverse in their reasons for why they should own guns. They may even differ on how many or what kinds they think should owned. It would be silly to state that firearm ownership is not a political philosophy exempt from criticism. I think the same applies here. Despite the wide varieties of feminist attitudes, we are not incapable of addressing any one or multiple views with criticism.

Setanta wrote:

The most political of allegedly feminist programs are those which seek equality of opportunity and compensation in the work place, and a woman need not be a feminist to demand such equality.

Agreed.

Setanta wrote:

Finally, a man who has no interest in or stake in what people might describe as feminism could as easily see the need for and call for equality of opportunity and compensation in the work place.

Agreed.

Setanta wrote:

Providing anecdotes about a man having his penis cut off and the reaction of a handful of women to the event is pretty idiotic, when the theme is, ostensibly, criticism of feminism. Do you allege that the women involved are prominent speakers for feminism?

I don't consider them prominent feminists. I do think that their performance is interesting though. They demonstrated behaviors that would be clearly understood as sexists had the gender roles been reversed. They acted in a way that men have acted for many years on television, and so what I think a situation like this demonstrates is that women are no less able to demonstrate public idiocy. This is an important observation IMO, because much of the behavior they exhibited was the kind of behavior that has been traditionally masculinity. In short, much of our assumed roles about men and their behavior was established when such a show didn't exist. This means that some of our assumptions about men may actually simply be assumptions about humans given a certain context.

I have zero doubt that many man only shows express sexist ideas, what that incident reveals is that women are no less capable of doing the same... but getting a pass.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

It's not easy.

There is no leader of the feminists. There is presumably no correct or orthodoxy in how to best be a feminist (maybe). Any headless entity is most likely combated by individuals and groups that often target outliers and strawmen (or strawwomen as the case may be here). This can make the critics of such things seem weak or illogical. This can also mean that a criticism of one action or event can be interpreted as a larger critique of the whole.

Over much of my life I've been comfortable with the term "feminist," but I feel that perhaps it requires an update, or perhaps retirement. I find myself thinking about what I actually embrace: Human equality.

I've watched a few videos recently about sexism. Sexism portrayed by women in this case. People's reactions have been really interesting to me, and I'm interested in some additional A2K feedback. One personal observation I have so far is that if the critic is a man, then "he doesn't get it," and if it's another woman, she is a "disgrace to her gender." I started to think about human narratives, and then a question popped into my head:

What do we assume about the critics of feminism?

Do we assume they are primarily male? Conservative? Old? What assumptions do we make about their life experiences?

A
R
T

I'm going to say that if I understand what your saying here, I agree. It seems strange to me for a feminist to claim equal rights yet the title is feminist? If you have other purpose than equal rights for all, then those are really the factors involved for a feminist. Yet any time such a question is posed, they shy away and return to the equality argument.

If that is the case why not broaden it, why not abandon it for the secular humanist plight instead? It encompasses everyone equally, including women for that objective of equality for all, without the exclusion in it's title. So for me feminism has a hidden aspect to it that some feminists don't directly talk about or state. They in fact don't necessary want equality, but something more than equality.

These women tend to have superiority complexes and why they can't adopt a better title for their presumed goals.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I'm not suggesting an agenda is in play for greater rights. I'm saying that indifference prevents equal rights. So any philosophy will fail it's stated goal of equality if indifference prevails. In this case, I believe there are legitimate gender issues for men that equally demand addressing, so I'm interested in how feminism and stated feminists adress them:

Pragmatically or with denial.

Some people don't think any gender issues exist beyond the ones women experience. Will such philosophies be successful in creating equal gender status?

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I believe there are legitimate gender issues for men that equally demand addressing, so I'm interested in how feminism and stated feminists adress them:

Then I think men should make us aware of which gender issues are of most concern for them.
As women did with their particular concerns.
I'm just not clear, from the material presented here what the pressing men's issues actually are.
Besides, the thread is titled: "Criticisms of Feminism" .
Feminists are to be criticized for "indifference" to men's issues?

Could you spell out what you believe are the legitimate gender issues for men that demand addressing then?

0 Replies

@failures art,

Which past?

But also,

Which oppression?

Which feminism?

This is one of those bigbig subjects that don't really fit neatly into a box.

To be more specific, I manage to hold these two thoughts in my head simultaneously:

#1: There are still ways in which men are in fact the oppressors. Less in America than elsewhere, now, which is in large part because of feminists and their activism. But still a lot elsewhere, and still not nothing here. Not enough that there is no more need for feminism.

#2: There are feminists (both male and female) who cry "victim" too quickly.

When I was taking women's studies classes in the late 80's and early 90's (and what a time to be taking women's studies classes), I got into a lot of heated arguments against what I thought was lazy thinking. I kept some of the textbooks like "The Sexual Politics of Meat" because they were just so stupendously stupid.

That was more than 20 years ago, hence my "which past" thing to failures art. It's not new to me at all. Maybe it's what you're seeing in your peers rather than in general? I've noticed that a lot of women go through a thing where feminism is not on their radar as kids, then in their teenage years or so (often college) they realize holy crap, there ARE all of these injustices still, today, that's not fair! And then they get radicalized, and some of those types kinda go off the deep end into silliness. Then after that phase they come to a happier medium.

Meanwhile, very interesting social experiment the other day. We watched the movie "Mr. Mom" as a family. Good god that looked dated. Sozlet was bored out of her mind -- none of the "funny" situations were funny to her, as they were predicated on a dynamic that needs to be taken to the extreme of The Rock in a tutu to be funny anymore. Look, a reasonably manly red-blooded American male changing a diaper! Pause. Pause. Funny in 1983 maybe.

We've seriously made major strides since then. Still can stride a lot further -- women are still doing a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare, and are penalized more harshly professionally for having children than men are.

But all that crap about men not knowing how to do laundry, not knowing how to cook, not knowing how to SHOP in a grocery store for chrissakes. So dated. Which is awesome, and I do thank the activists who helped that happen (men and women, feminists all).

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Related to that last point btw:

Feminism is not anti-men. Equality can and often does benefit men, too. I think that creating a society that is more accepting of men being active fathers benefits everyone, for example, not just women.

Love to see happy dads toting around babies in Snuglis. Really not a big deal anymore.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Related to that last point btw:

Feminism is not anti-men. Equality can and often does benefit men, too. I think that creating a society that is more accepting of men being active fathers benefits everyone, for example, not just women.

Love to see happy dads toting around babies in Snuglis. Really not a big deal anymore.

So long as feminists assert that women are widely abused by men when they are not, and is largly silient about the abuse that men suffer from women, feminism is anti-men.

The feminsts need a name change and to become much more inclusive. The Violence Against Women act should get a name change this year as it is reauthorized, but it will not, because the feminists are not wanting equality and assholes like Biden are still trying to attone for their sins by making all men suffer the oppression of the feminists.

0 Replies

I don't know about sexist but Google's ads are adist. One mention of senility, lower brain function and we get an ad for Exocet [?] patches - for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer symptoms.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Where I think you are stuck is that you have assumed a narrative of conflict. your "men suck" replies are combative and suggest that it's a contest for the top seat. I have no desire for one gender to "win." I'm primarily concerned with equal standing and responsibility. I'll praise it when I see it, and condemn it when I do not.

It is not only equality that the feminists are opposed to, it is also human rights, the right of every individual to pursue our will and our bliss. They demand the right to decide how we live, and claim the right to impose their will by force through their partnership with the state. There is not much difference between modern feminists and the abuses that the original feminists took up arms over, the movement has mutated into a force of evil.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

We see clearly where the feminists stand on justice and human rights with their recent effort, carried out by some stooges in Washington, to gut due process at the University. We also see here a return to the oft used technique of using the partnership with the state to ram down the feminist will upon the rest of us. The effort was resisted and has been dropped from the bill, but the fact that the feminists tried this bullshit as well as the fact that they seem to have thought that they could get away with it should get our hair to stand on end.

Quote:

WASHINGTON, October 31, 2011—Congressional legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) may include new provisions sharply reducing due process protections for college students accused of sexual assault, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has learned. A draft of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 circulated by Senator Patrick Leahy's office effectively requires that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard—a 50.01%, "more likely than not" evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault. The draft also includes a provision requiring universities to allow alleged victims of sexual assault to appeal the results of college disciplinary hearings, subjecting accused students to a form of "double jeopardy" not allowed in our nation's courts.

Deeply concerned about these threats to campus due process, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is urging citizens to contact their Senators and ask them to reject these provisions in the draft bill. FIRE holds no position on any other section of VAWA or the draft bill.

"These provisions are fatally flawed and do not belong in federal law," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "Reducing protections for students who are accused of serious misconduct will not increase justice."

The draft bill provides that colleges adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual assault must "apply the standard of proof recommended by the most recent Guidance issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights" (OCR). OCR is the federal agency tasked with enforcing federal civil rights laws, including Title IX, in educational programs and institutions that receive federal funding. In an April 4, 2011, "Dear Colleague Letter" from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, OCR mandated that colleges and universities receiving federal funding must employ a preponderance of the evidence standard under Title IX when adjudicating allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault—a requirement the 39-year-old law had not previously been interpreted to contain. OCR's new regulations have already coerced colleges and universities across the country to abandon their commitment to due process protections for students accused of sexual assault.

Supreme Court precedent argues strongly against using the preponderance of the evidence standard in campus hearings concerning allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence. FIRE pointed out in an open letter to OCR on May 5, 2011, that preponderance of the evidence is our judiciary's lowest evidentiary standard and provides insufficient protection to students accused of serious misconduct. FIRE explained that lowering the burden of proof in sexual assault cases will reduce confidence in campus judiciary systems and inevitably result in more incorrect guilty verdicts. OCR has failed to respond to FIRE's letter or to two letters from the American Association of University Professors in defense of due process rights

http://thefire.org/article/13805.html

0 Replies

@failures art,

Why should i bother to "help [you] tidy it up?" As i see it, you had some disparate and inchoate objections to what some women had said, so you thought you'd rant about that, and attempt to tart it up with an intellectual gloss about the criticism of feminism, which would have the additional utility (in your eyes) of immunizing you against criticism of your criticisms.

Your claim that feminism is a "philosophy with no single head" is just so much babble. As much could be said of any "philosophy" and about general philosophy itself. That does not alter that you have failed to provide any evidence that any of the people whom you have linked are legitimate spokesmen for feminisim. Hell, you don't even investigate the issue of what feminism is before you're off and running (all over the road) on a rant about it.

What multiple views of feminist polemics do you intend to address? I don't see any mention of Friedan, Brownmiller, Steinem, nor anyone else you can legitimately point to as a feminist polemicist. It seems to me you just want to keep it vague, which would suit your uncoordinated and ultimately pointless rant. This . . .

Quote:

I have zero doubt that many man only shows express sexist ideas, what that incident reveals is that women are no less capable of doing the same... but getting a pass.

. . . is the sort of incoherent blather one has to wade through when you really get wound up. Leaving aside the near impossibility of translating that sentence into English, what point about feminism does it make to observe that women are no better than men? What is the basis upon which you allege that those women "got a pass?"

No, i definitely have no brief to clean this mess up. I'm not even sure exactly what you're on about here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Thanks for the rant advice. You're the local pro. No, I don't really need your help tidying anything, thank you.

I am free to ask whatever questions interest me, and you may choose your level of interaction.

What exactly has you spun up about this? What's harmfulabout asking these questions? Nothing, not even the most sacred things to me are beyond reproach or criticism. I think sozobe put it pretty well when she shared how she feels/thinks multiple things simultaneously. Now soz is a woman. Would we respond to a man saying that feminists often rush to victims status too fast if a man had said it? If not (and let's be honest, the reaction would not be the same), then why would people react different other than based on tier assumptions about the individual offering critique. This narrative building is problematic in discussing ideas, and is what I'm interested in, primarily. Secondarily, I'm interested in people's personal objections, and criticisms of femknism. Surely you have some. You've got an opinion on everything, Set. Do you have nothing to offer, even constructively to the philosophy, or any particular elements or divisions of it?

I would lime to hear specifics on the matter of The Talk. In your opinion, was their language sexist? Was their response adequate afterwards? Why was it assumed that Kieu's husband mus have done something to have deserve this mutilation? Where do such narratives originate, and are they harmful?

I'm interested in these questions. If all you're looking for is to troll, I'm not interested. Your call, boss.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

I'm not spun up . . . that's one of your favorite feeble tactics, to suggest that anyone who has the temerity not to agree with you must be emotionally involved. I've just been pointing out your bullshit. Had you started with a definition of feminism, or a discussion of what constitutes feminism, you might have deserved some credibility. Instead, you just threw together some disparate vids and took off into the wild blue yonder from there. When people are peddling bullshit, pointing that out is a constructive contribution.

You are trying to peddle this bullshit as representative of feminism. It's not. Get over it.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Okay. Nevermind.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Ya know, Set, I'll just never quite understand why a seemingly half-assed intelligent guy like you loves to parade these stunning levels of hypocrisy.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Some people don't think any gender issues exist beyond the ones women experience. Will such philosophies be successful in creating equal gender status?

Probably not to be honest. Not even all women are worried about equality. It really comes down to certain aspects of our society. One example, deals with equal pay, however; I find it interested when women want paid maternity leave and at the same time the same pay as their male co-workers. That is lopsided because men do not get paid leave for maternity reasons. I feel that is why women generally get paid less than their male co-workers with the same job description and responsibilities.

I also think many laws are biased towards women, such as divorce cases. The laws are heavily sided towards women which is a failure of two merging social types. When women were more likely to be home makers and didn't hold careers or jobs, I can understand why these laws would favor women since a divorce could really make things very difficult for a single woman without any skills because she relied on her husband for finances. But now things are different, women are really not held back by such social norms yet these laws still heavily side with women in divorce cases.

Those are only two examples, and they aren't true for every case but for the most part they generally are. This makes those who cry for equal rights for women a bit overly zealous in my opinion. That is why I think it is better to abandon feminism and adopt a secular humanist attitude because it strives for equal opportunity for everyone regardless of sex or race. How that exactly translates needs to be debated.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Over much of my life I've been comfortable with the term "feminist," but I feel that perhaps it requires an update

well we could just call them women

or better yet just call everyone human and proclaim equality for all

2 Replies

Criticism of Feminism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know