I've let this subject be long enough, I feel. Still digging and looking around but I'll go respond to some posts here.
So, as with most movements, there is a core message (women being equal to men) and then there is how the movement is co-opted (women over men).
For example, my mother-in-law is a feminist, as in she supports equal opportunity for men and women and attempts to hold them to the same standards and did so in the 1960s and 1970s when a "proper lady" would never have done such things.
However, for some (not my mother-in-law) equal opportunity and standards is entirely insufficient.
Thing I've found is, the movement that most people in the know seem to reference as "first wave" feminism mostly had the stated goal in mind. That is, they sought to gain equality for women equal to men. For the most part it seems they achieved this, some would say unfairly, because, as an example, the women's right to vote did not come with the typical responsibilities, like having to go to war when called on to do so. Regardless, this was the part of feminism that managed ot stick to the rules they set and achieve most of their goals.
I don't recall where exactly most consider there to be a split, but at some point the first wave ended and eventually a "second wave" kicked off and it's mostly in the post-feminist end of this one we find ourselves today. It would appear that most of the more aggressive and radical of the firsts wave feminists was a big part of the second one, to the point where it often seems hard to tell radical feminism apart from the rest of an admittedly huge multinational movement. There are millions of "every day" feminists and people that at least mentally support the movement, and these people seem mostly ignorant of the full length and breath of what feminism actually is. I used to be one of these people that supported feminism in the back of my own head, as stated above in my first post, mostly out of ignorance.
Because I'm not done digging and looking around on the available sources for arguments and counter arguments I'm being careful not to be overly "final" on ideas here. I don't want to state for sure that "this is how it is" on any one matter like this, but for now my views on feminism remains majorly negative due mostly available information.
Orange, when you say that equal opportunities and standards are entirely insufficient for some, I know exactly what you mean.
Ohhhhhhhh boy.
Alright, this is just a bit of wisdom:
First, I'm definitely not affiliated with any men's group.
Seems like a wise statement given some of the things I've seen examples of. Many feminists don't seem to impressed with freedom of speech if you speak against them or from unfavorable viewpoints.
Ok. Second, BB, if I were you, I'd quickly learn the value of not publicly acknowledging any agreement with any "red pill", "MRA" or "MGTOW" set of beliefs, group, blogger, or poster. That is the best way to get blacklisted, fast. I've seen it happen, albeit from the periphery, and it was impressive. Read what you wanna read, think what you wanna think, but for god's sake, don't talk about how you totally agree with a socially unacceptable opinion until you've made damn sure that you don't want to be remembered for that and only that first.
Like I said, I've seen a few examples so far. Having said that, I've yet to say that I totally agree with anything. I have however said that given the weight of evidence so far, I'm leaning in strong favor of the one's opposing feminism's negative traits and the outcomes those traits have lead to. I'm still digging and looking, and have seen some annoying bullshit from the anti-feminism camp as well.
Besides, it would be foolish of me to call myself something I'm not. I know what MGTOW supposedly is, and can state that I'm not one, I know what most Men's Right's Activists seem to want, and have yet to find any Norwegian MRA groups - mostly because I've not gone around looking yet. If/when I find one I'll make up my mind on what to do. If anything.
Until then I'll keep looking around. I though the "red pill" analogy was very apt, very fitting, as it nicely explained my feelings in the matter after my first few days of digging.
Third, they could be wrong. Probably not a good idea to profess belief off of one blog and youtube channel.
Fourth, even if they're right, so what? Like you're gonna change the tide. What will ruining your reputation do for it? I read a bit of her blog - even if she were right about everything, there's nothing that spreading it would do for you.
Fifth, have you read sites and blogs that contradict these views?
It's not just one blog/channel so far. I've checked out dozens of YT channels and have had little time for blogs so far. I'm running on limited time here, so mostly an hour or two every day on average, at best, to go looking around. And like I said, I've not professed much 'belief' in anything specific said so far. It's simply that if half the things feminism is responsible for is true - and I've seen for myself IRL that a good fat bunch of it is most likely is true - then I'll have to say again, that red pill analogy was really fucking apt.
If they are right, if I eventually get to the conclusion that A) There is a major problem that want likely be solved by others any time soon and B) there is something I can do to help out, then I'm likely going to see what I can actually do to help out and then do that. Likely all I will be able to do is support a local, national group of some sort.
I'm way to inept at required skills, like good articulation and communication to go, say, start some YT series or whatever to express my views. I've barely avoided permanently fucking up on these very forums, making a fool of myself on YT or elsewhere? Fuck that.
As for if I've read anything that contradicts the statements of the people I've read so far, yes, I've read some of that. So far some of the more absurd and easily refuted claims by MRA's and alleged MRA's (Feminists seem fond of calling and MRA as anyone that says anything against them, especially the more extreme ones, even if the supposed MRA's themselves don't ID as ones, so knowing who is and whi is not supposedly one is not always easy) have been, well, easily refuted. For the majority of the time however the feminists I've read have been the unhinged illogical ones, and the MRA's the ones with solid counter-arguments. This may be how it is most of the time, but not all. As I've said though, my digging continues.
As for your second post, in spite of my opinion on you due unrelated issues in the past, I'm sorry to hear of your misfortunes throughout life. Thanks for sharing, at any rate.
You will always have pitchforks raised when moderate people start to talk about movements like those, that suffer from a terrible image thanks to all the strawmen and misconceptions that run all around.
This person is getting an incredible amount of flak for what she says ? Well, the other side gets the same treatment as well (cf Anita Sarkeesian / Feminist Frequency). It's sad.
However despite the links you provided, i'm unable to find a proper article or YT video where she actually exposes her views...
Firstly, in regards to Sarkeesian - the issue with her are two-fold.
To begin with, Anita Sarkeesian is a con-artist and her whole feminist frequency setup is a scam. Given the available evidence I can say this almost completely ensure that I'm right. She is either a feminist out to promote her ideology and frankly absurd claims regarding games on the behalf of her ideology and herself, or she is not even a feminist and ride the professional victim-hood trend and feminism as a crude, but admittedly very effective tool to get what she want.
The second issue with her is that in reprisal to her actions the biggest volume of opposition she get's are of the crude, blunt and offensively non-constructive sort. This helps to enforce her victim-hood and assists her in being believed on her bullshit. This also helps render all the constructive and serious opposition to her as merely more misogyny and woman-hating - when Sarkeesian does something and says something about gaming, it's all true because she is a woman and she said so, but when people oppose her it's all just more opposition to her on the grounds that she's a woman, and the serious counter-arguments against her goes mostly unheeded thanks to Sarkeesian's poisoning the well with impunity.
Sarkeesian is not a legitimate example of an oppressed woman that get's bullshit on the net for being a woman, it's an example of a scammer pulling off a very good scam and making most people buy into it, and blocking any and all opposition to her actions based on the fact that she's a woman and a perceived victim.
Secondly, on the topic of Karen Straughan and a summary of her opinions and beliefs. Simply put, there is no one location to find this, as far as I know. Her YT video's makes her beliefs crystal clear as she makes them, this is one of the reasons I said people with any interest in the subject should go see her videos from oldest to newest. Well, perhaps not 'see' them, as it's not much to see, but turn them on and listen in at least. If you need audio for nothing else letting this go on in the background of what your doing is not hard. Hell, I spent most of these overseeing solo-mining in high-sec just to have something to do. That and house-hold work near my PC, but you get my point.
I think I'd go with Kala mostly on this. Please note that this discussion is going to be from the perspective of a guy in the US.
That said, the issue I have with MRA and the perception of modern feminism is that MRA holds up comparatively infrequent instances of abuse of men and paints it as endemic and frequent, while abuse of women does in fact remain endemic and frequent.
If you are going to seriously claim this, you will have to offer some backing for your argument. I've heard the same from feminists so far, and most that dismiss MRA's and claim that violence almost only or only affect women cite statistics that have been proven to have been poorly made. Most MRA's that claim that abuse is a genderless issue that affects men and women in equal numbers, and on occasion as something that affects men a tad more, well most of them manage to cite sources that are at least, somewhat respectable and trusted.
Consider that the recent spate of recorded high school rape of passed-out girls is frequently responded to with, "What was she thinking?," "She deserved it for going out with guys!," and "They shouldn't have recorded it!" And this is standard thinking.
I've heard about this too. Mostly from feminists, and again, most of the sources they cite are not entirely trustworthy and some numbers they cite are just absurd. Lots of anti-feminists spend time refuting the claims that supposedly exaggerate how bad high school and campus rape rates are. Feminists have claimed as much as "1 in 4 will be raped" and in some cases far higher, this has for the most part been refuted in very solid ways. As I've said, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but in this case, to me, it seems to me you are viewing this issue through the arguments of feminists, whom like I said, often exaggerate wildly on the issue of rape.
Someone very dear to me was, when younger and naive, given a Long Island Iced Tea by a fellow who was once her teacher in high school, and later sexually assaulted by him-- because she assumed she could trust him and could treat him as a friend, where he assumed that she was a female and thus he could do with her as he pleased, once she was drunk enough to not resist.
All she could get him on was serving alcohol to a minor. Fortunately, this means he won't be in a position of trust any more, but the point stands that this is not uncommon.
I'm genuinely sorry to hear about this, believe that or not. However in the context of the topic at hand here this is anecdotal evidence, and at best one case. To assume there is a huge pandemic of rape in schools over one issue is like saying there is a murder pandemic because someone shot JFK.
Consider the proportion of women who will be raped at some point in their lives. Surely, yes, men are raped too -- but what portion of the population? This indicates that the issue is gendered, despite the progress that has been made over the last few decades, over the last century.
What portion of the population? well, the vast US male prisoner population comes to mind with ease. The issue of rape is not gendered, but men are often not very eager to report their rapes to the authorities, and often when they do, they get laughed out of the building or treated as someone lying, delivering a false report. This is ironic, considering how often women have been reported to use false reporting of rape as weapons against men.
...remember that until recently, a married woman could be raped by her husband-- there was a presumption that her body was his to do with as he pleased...
Until recently? How recently are we talking about here? I suppose again, that you have sources of this? Because the sources I've seen would indicate that there was never been a time when rape was okay, or violence against one's wife for that matter.
Third wave feminism-- this is where people are running into issues. Third-wave feminism is about the freedom from gendered social stigma in daily life. Consider what we think of a woman who parties or sleeps around-- she's a dirty slut, to be used and discarded, who can't be raped because clearly she was asking for it. And a man who parties and sleeps around? Odds are, unless he's pretty creepy, we sort of envy him, we give him high-fives.
I'm not sure there is a recognized "third wave" in feminism, but ultimately it don't mean much what we term it. As for the social stigma, social stigmas are a real bitch. The one you refer to is unfortunate, but so are the myriad of social stigmas that plague people of both genders. Interestingly, feminism has done little to nothing to debunk stigmas against men, but in fact helped to enforce many and make new ones.
There is a strong reaction to feminism. Given a chance, reactionaries will happily dismantle this social progress, using a strawman of misandry and man-hating, of women being unable to commit heinous crimes because only men are criminals, and all men are criminals. Surely, the militants aren't ideal-- even if they aren't misandrists, their focus on opaque philosophy of language and social structures that are essentially invisible to participants can confuse or turn off your average person, male or female.
...
I'd agree with you that violence is pervasive and human, and that unbalanced people regardless of gender will use it against others. This is not acceptable. I would propose that the efforts of feminism are, at least, to remove the sanction of society from the use of sexual violence against women-- something that is tacitly present whenever we go, "She was asking for it."
The strawman you speak of is in most case when it pops up not a strawman at all, it's quite real. To claim the feminism in general is "just misrepresented by reactionaries."
I agree violence is never okay, but it seems to me most feminists don't care so long as the violence is not directed towards women. In fact, many would seem to be happy with violence towards men as a "normal thing". Regardless of how many feminists really believe this or not, the majority of the feminists in the world seem perfectly unable or unwilling to self-police their own extremists, and in ignoring them, they are silently endorsing them, by allowing them to go on undisturbed. Obviously this needs to stop, if we are have any hope of getting a society even remotely equal between genders and genetics.
(oh, and forgot an important point-- yes. Equality? We want it. I want people to have the legal autonomy and the social freedom to do as they like with who they like, how they like, so long as all involved are consenting adults; to pursue jobs they are capable of, to be paid according to their ability, without stigma or pay differentials based on gender; to pay taxes or raise kids or serve in the military without being banned from certain roles because, "lols. househusband? does she own your balls?," or "lols. women with guns? what if she has a period in the middle of Fallujah? hurhurhur.")
I am glad to see we are on the same page on this topic, as both seek equality of options, at least. We seem to mostly have equality of pay so far, so let's see if not the following decades get's us equality in other areas, then.
...The only ideologies, ideals, goals and beliefs worth having and following are your own. The minute you let them get out of your head and hands, they are co-opted by those who would abuse them for the power they generate. I hope you can find some kind of peace with your beliefs and seek to pursue them for the betterment of all, and not the domination and destruction of them.
And this is why I am here, sharing.
Regardless, I would disagree with you on the military, but then I don't know what military you speak of compared to my own, and your sharing personal belief and experience anyhow, so it matters little.
I'm a bit reminded of the legal maxim of Hard Cases Make Bad Law - just that in this case it would be that Extremist Spokespeople don't make a movement - but they might be needed to keep a movement going. I am also reminded of real-time systems control - in order to attain a desired state quickly, you have to over-correct, even if it means that you have to back down a bit afterwards. There is no steady state in society - there will always be movement above and below the state you desire; it's intrinsic to feedback-driven systems.
Sometimes I read posts claiming that Feminism is no longer necessary, because we are now in an age where it is not unheard of that men are domestically abused by women. To which my response usually is that in the majority of cases, it's still women being abused by men; and Feminism won't have reached its goals until the relation is 50/50 (and ideally 0 total). And that without Feminism raising the topic of domestic abuse as such, men wouldn't even dare to acknowledge if they are victims of domestic abuse.
I admit that this comment doesn't have much of a point, just two thoughts. But I wanted to mention them.
I'm not sure I follow your logic at all, but thanks for sharing at least. There might even be something in what you say. After all, how many men were reporting their own abuse in relationships until feminism was a major thing? I'm pretty sure mutual domestic abuse was a thing long before feminism, after all, so some good may have come from this movement on tihs front, at least.
Anyhow, again, thanks for sharing :3
A good lesson from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:
"We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, "You can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man." Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage. I am expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important. Now, marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support, but why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage, and we don't teach boys the same? We raise girls to see each other as competitors--not for jobs or for accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing--but for the attention of men. We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are. "Feminist": the person who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes."
So yes I have neither seen nor read anything convincing as to why equality is not desirable. We raise our children, not simply according to different genders, but according to very, very different roles. It is a gross injustice.
And if you seriously believe that you can change that, or things similar, without thinking in terms of equality, then you simply have no idea of a solution.
I have a counter to this monologue you have quoted. Made by me, just now, 04.02.2014 06:10
May have been made by others elsewhere and at other times, I would not know:
"We teach boys to make themselves better. We say to boys, "you must have ambition and drive, and lots of it. You must aim to be successful, and very successful, otherwise you will not be good enough for the woman." Because I am male, I am expected to aspire towards self-sacrifice and be supportive. I am expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that supporting and defending a female is the most important. Now, the role of supporter can be a source of joy and love and mutual respect, but why do we teach boys to aspire to be the supporters and defenders, and we don't teach girls the same? We raise boys to see each others as competitors--for jobs, social positions and resources, these are good things--they get you the attention of women. We teach boys that they can not be human beings in the way that girls are--girls are human beings, they are human doings. "Egalitarian": the person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes."Equality of options regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or any other aspect of the self that is beyond your control, is what I believe in an want. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything less is indeed a gross injustice, thus why I will likely end up opposing feminism on the grounds that it has forgotten it's own stated purpose.
***
In closing for this post, I'd like to point anyone interested in knowing about the issues between the male/female divide in society to check out the works and speeches of Doctor Warren Farrell, especially his book "The myth of male power" and his speech on the supposed pay-gap and other topics. The man used to be a feminist throughout the 60 etc. until he eventually came to realize the issues with men, as well as women, in society and has spent a lot of time working on the topic.
Author
Topic: Equality: is it really what we all want? (Read 9694 times)