Feminism & Rape Culture 2014: My Post is Up Here Guys

[AmyTheOddball]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this person has probably not met a feminist in real life

If this is referring to me, I have two friends in real life who define as feminists. One has a more negative approach to men, the other is indifferent about them.

 

[Grey Wind]

^ The reason why I didn't go into depth is because I haven't the time for long responses and research into my views.

Maybe you should... start researching your views... so they're informed... when you talk about them...

First of all, I don't want you to think that this is my opinion of all feminists. This is my opinion of the majority of tumblr feminists that live in the first world (I am a member of tumblr and I socialise with people from all different areas and fandoms of the site).

Trying to argue against a movement because "some people on tumblr are annoying" is laughable. Remember that there are a bunch of anti-sj people on tumblr who create fake social justice blogs to get a reaction and that most other people on there are in their early to mid-teens and have pretty undeveloped views. If you're going to critisise feminism, target the trans/queer/poc exclusionary feminists and not a couple of vocal people posting on the internet.

Also, when (certain) feminists talk about hating men it's less about misandry and more about being frustrated with the sexism embedded in society.

 

[The Federation]

If feminism has outlived its usefulness in first-world countries, I don't know what to make of things like the recent Hobby Lobby case, which removed access to certain forms of birth control specifically from its female employees with impunity granted by a mostly male Supreme Court.

Feminism generates an unwitting counterculture all on it's own to solve issues that they themselves generate. Not even considering hate groups that form from feminist ideas, not even considering misguided individuals, this is still true. Is feminism important, in that it solves real issues on a daily basis? Surely, it is. But with the encompassing inclusion that feminism loves to claim (you are fem if you are for equal rights), I find it hard to take the reality of the new movement seriously.

It's just confusing to hear people who are so adamant about women's issues scoff at men's issues, then continue on to assert that those pressing for universal equality are fools for not supporting a movement that becomes more and more off-base every day. Hearing things like "men will be helped too" in a system which purports to be equal in everything but name, as an aside, is hard to digest. Comparing our first-world society to any real form of patriarchy is both ignorant and misleading, especially when we have real examples today in other countries.

This idea that there is any type of meaningful relationship between a real patriarchy and the U.S. we live in today is trivializing and diminutive to the real issues.



As a side note, what does Serebii think about the infighting between the blogosphere and activism? Does instant connectivity harm by allowing off the cuff reactions to enter into people's E-egos and form a reactionary online base? Also, do you even think there is an issue?

 

[Baba Yaga]

Apparently Fed would prefer the terms "Patriarchy lite" or "Patriarchy-esque" instead. When you stick to dismantling religion, you say much that is interesting and important.

 

[The Federation]

What are you suggesting? I mostly want to know if I'm supposed to be offended, intrigued, or something else entirely.

 

[LDSman]

That's an extremely narrow way of looking at it. I don't think I've talked to a single feminist who hates men.

They are out there.

There are myopic people with any number of believes, but by and large that's not the case here. Nor should anyone you encounter with those beliefs discredit a very real and very necessary movement and lens through which to view the world.

Would this also apply to the men who wish to address the issues they face? Discrimination in domestic abuse situations, discrimination in divorce and child custody cases, declining graduation rates, rising suicide rates, etc? People seem to tar any men's rights groups as al being the same as the worst misogynist out there.

If feminism has outlived its usefulness in first-world countries, I don't know what to make of things like the recent Hobby Lobby case, which removed access to certain forms of birth control specifically from its female employees with impunity granted by a mostly male Supreme Court.

It didn't remove access to anything. Any employee of Hobby Lobby is still free to spend their own money and purchase the items that HL doesn't want to pay for.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I'm suggesting that you are, quite annoyingly, shitting on feminism as a movement because you have problems with words like patriarchy, oppression, etc. You seem to believe that it's preposterous to call the U.S. a patriarchy because, hey, at least we aren't Saudi Arabia! Because that's a "real" patriarchy. We're not a society completely dominated by men, just kind of, sort of, mostly dominated by men! Check mate feminists. If the best you can come up with is that we aren't Nigeria or something or other, I don't know how qualified you are to be speaking on the subject.

 

[The Federation]

I'm suggesting that you are, quite annoyingly, shitting on feminism as a movement because you have problems with words like patriarchy, oppression, etc.

My problem is with feminists who want to commercialize and rebrand their activism through emphasis on scare tactics and alternate characterization. Bastardizing words like "patriarchy" is unforgivable, because you are trivializing issues that actually exist outside the warm-and-snuggly first world. For those so keen on issues like intersectionality I so frequently see a lack of empathy in perspective.

You seem to believe that it's preposterous to call the U.S. a patriarchy because, hey, at least we aren't Saudi Arabia!

This is what I mean when I say "blind to reality". If you can look at the middle east and compare the true harm and detriment that women suffer there to a business in the U.S. not covering birth control, you are deluded. You are trying to compare a place in the world where you would be killed for knowingly using birth control to an area so privileged (oh hey, another buzzword) that we roar and shout about social injustice when an independent company chooses not to offer a benefit to employees. I don't know if you are one who would support these views, but if you are, you are drumming up buzzwords.

If the best you can come up with is that we aren't Nigeria or something or other, I don't know how qualified you are to be speaking on the subject.

Anyone with a dictionary and a brain is qualified to speak on the subject. Frankly, I get sick and tired of being told I don't know what I'm talking about if I'm not acting the yes-man. This type of debate is inclusionary, something that the movement ironically seems to dislike.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I'll take my assessment as accurate, then. I was sort of hoping that you'd come to realize the silliness of stating x problem is trivial because y problem is worse, but that's what I get for having expectations.

 

[The Federation]

I'll take my assessment as accurate, then. I was sort of hoping that you'd come to realize the silliness of stating x problem is trivial because y problem is worse, but that's what I get for having expectations.

So, well,

Is feminism important, in that it solves real issues on a daily basis? Surely, it is.

Bastardizing words like "patriarchy" is unforgivable, because you are trivializing issues that actually exist outside the warm-and-snuggly first world.

I didn't say one problem is trivial because another is worse. I'm saying one problem warrants one description and another, a different description. Patriarchy very, very clearly does not fit the definition you are trying to attribute it to.

Blowing something out of proportion is bad on its own. Going on to say to someone calling you out on it that they're just trivializing the issue when that's clearly not the case is another thing entirely, and it's far worse.

 

[Cipher]

They are out there.

There are people with underdeveloped views in any number of areas. We're not dealing in ad hominem here, so unless it impacts the underlying ideas we're discussing, it's moot.

Would this also apply to the men who wish to address the issues they face? Discrimination in domestic abuse situations, discrimination in divorce and child custody cases, declining graduation rates, rising suicide rates, etc? People seem to tar any men's rights groups as al being the same as the worst misogynist out there.

Basically, yes. Those are feminist issues. The problems that face men in terms of custody, reporting abuse, and even more existential problems such as harmful images of masculinity, all tie back to the same harmful binaries: Women are the mothers; women are weaker, etc.

Because more of these issues negatively impact women, and because men, despite facing negative impacts in certain areas, control the overall power structure, we call this movement and perspective "feminism." But it's gender-egalitarianism. Its name is only derived from the lesser of the two binaries. The binary itself is the problem.

"Men's rights" get ridiculed because men with an awareness of the larger issues, and who actually want to see results, would really be feminists. They're welcomed in those discussions too. As a counter-initiative, "Men's rights," as you may know it from the Internet, is founded, if not completely on misogyny, on a very myopic perspective.

It didn't remove access to anything. Any employee of Hobby Lobby is still free to spend their own money and purchase the items that HL doesn't want to pay for.

But what HL chose not to pay for, and what was mandated by the government prior to this case as complete and proper care, wholly impacts women, and has now opened the door for any major employer to do the same.

Hobby Lobby still covers viagra and vasectomies, which are more medically narrow (and elective) than what they chose not to pay for in the realm of women's care. That is sexist, potentially dangerous depending on what birth control a woman's doctor recommends, and it was condoned on a federal level by male SCOTUS members. Institutional sexism is not dead.

 

[junkieloser]

a common theme here seems to be "well there are feminists who hate men ya know." there are awful people in literally every political movement and beyond. this does not further the discussion at all. stop bringing it up because it's a useless statement.

It's just confusing to hear people who are so adamant about women's issues scoff at men's issues, then continue on to assert that those pressing for universal equality are fools for not supporting a movement that becomes more and more off-base every day. Hearing things like "men will be helped too" in a system which purports to be equal in everything but name, as an aside, is hard to digest. Comparing our first-world society to any real form of patriarchy is both ignorant and misleading, especially when we have real examples today in other countries.

patriarchy is not black and white as you're making it out to be. and personally i would describe our current situation as a lasting effect that a long past history of patriarchy has had, meaning there are still parts of our culture that is affected by a patriarchal past even if we do not currently live in a 100% patriarchal society.

This idea that there is any type of meaningful relationship between a real patriarchy and the U.S. we live in today is trivializing and diminutive to the real issues.

the us has had a long history of a men led society and to ignore the fact that we are still facing the after affects of that is what's diminutive. Cipher's link to HL disallowing birth control while promoting viagra and vasectomies is an example of this.

here's an article about a CEO of tinder treating an employee with sexist, abusive language.
an article about how the us is the only first world country to not mandate paid maternity leave. and in case you didn't catch on, this is a feminist issue that affects MEN AND WOMEN.

i can dig up more examples later, but two examples of sexism in the workplace.

 

[The Federation]

patriarchy is not black and white as you're making it out to be. and personally i would describe our current situation as a lasting effect that a long past history of patriarchy has had, meaning there are still parts of our culture that is affected by a patriarchal past even if we do not currently live in a 100% patriarchal society.

Do you think you can make believe with the definition of a word? Just because our culture has remnants of patriarchal society scattered about does NOT make it a patriarchy. I am honestly baffled when someone says the U.S. is the least bit patriarchal. Do you think the men running the country would send themselves to jail far more than their female counterparts? Do you think they would allow women equal political sway? How about custody battles? I guess I'm left to assume we lose the majority of those because of a male master plan to exclude themselves from those they love.

the us has had a long history of a men led society and to ignore the fact that we are still facing the after affects of that is what's diminutive.

Calling the after effects of patriarchy "patriarchy" might seem self defeating, but it's not. Is that really your message? You're literally telling me to call one social phenomena something that it's not, because, you know, why not?

i can dig up more examples later, but two examples of sexism in the workplace.

Let me make myself clear for the bajillionth time, I am not (nor have I ever asserted) that feminism is useless, that sexism is not a problem, or that society doesn't defer to men (though only slightly, and in many cases, the opposite is true). I AM asserting that feminism's adoption and use of words that totally fail to characterize reality is a detriment to the movement and are insulting to anyone who should really consider themselves an advocate for equality. Not only does the use put down those suffering through true patriarchy, but it utilizes mischaracterization to support calls to action based almost solely on fear mongering.

Calling the U.S. culture a patriarchy should be reserved for those who want to hinder equality, not help it along, and people need to recognize it.

 

[Cipher]

Not only does the use put down those suffering through true patriarchy, but it utilizes mischaracterization to support calls to action based almost solely on fear mongering.

Calling the U.S. culture a patriarchy should be reserved for those who want to hinder equality, not help it along, and people need to recognize it.

In what way has U.S. culture ever been anything but? When have we seen, in its history, a period in which social expectations and federal legislature did not hinder women if they hindered either gender? What period in its history has seen the top branches of business and or government filled with anything but white men, and seen policy-making that reflects anything but that demographic? "Patriarchy" doesn't need to be synonymous with "theocratic dictatorship," although it often is. It just means institutional power structures overwhelmingly favor men. Which, in the U.S., they do.

I would also argue that if you're behind its underlying goals, getting caught up in semantics is the real way to hinder progress.

"Well, you've just lost me on the wording," is a classically not-even-coded-way of saying, "I don't think the cause has much merit."

 

[The Federation]

In what way has U.S. culture ever been anything but?

I would say it truly started in the 70s and progressed forwards from there, I suppose. Oh, but then this must have been a hypothetical question you believed had no answer, huh?

When have we seen, in its history, a period in which social expectations and federal legislature did not hinder women if they hindered either gender? What period in its history has seen the top branches of business and or government filled with anything but white men, and seen policy-making that reflects anything but that demographic?

As if that's still the case. If you want to prove it, I only encourage new information; I don't have high hopes for its usefulness, though. When women are huge economic drivers and are payed as much or more for equal jobs. Since women vote more it's only a matter of time until more women are elected... that is, if we keep seeing truly sexist, disgusting things from many current male politicians and there's a big enough outcry.

We have a more enlightened, powerful population of women now than ever before. It's been getting better and better since the first feminist movement. Giving credit to the abomination it has become is likely what you're thinking of doing right now, isn't it?

We live in a culture where a man hitting a woman is unforgivable, but a woman hitting a man is cheered on. If a woman even thinks you might have looked at her breasts or butt, she has license to chew you out or hit you. Societal disapproves, often violently, of the most mild of sexism and we are supposed to live in a "Patriarchy"? It's so wrong it's almost comical.

I would also argue that if you're behind its underlying goals, getting caught up in semantics is the real way to hinder progress.

Derogation of the importance of the meaning of a label to a movement just shows you don't understand how a movement works. Standing behind something requires a something to stand behind. In this case it's a made up world where men are advantaged in all areas that matter and hold onto that advantage... somehow.

"Well, you've just lost me on the wording," is a classically not-even-coded-way of saying, "I don't think the cause has much merit."

I don't think you have read all my posts concerning the movement, but it goes deeper than semantics. Of course, that's not to say that I think this particular objection is any less practical.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

I would also argue that if you're behind its underlying goals, getting caught up in semantics is the real way to hinder progress.

"Well, you've just lost me on the wording," is a classically not-even-coded-way of saying, "I don't think the cause has much merit."

If semantics was irrelevant, it shouldn't matter what we call things. By insisting on calling the US a patriarchy, you are already acknowledging that semantics is relevant. Or are you fine with calling things by any word we choose?

Secondly, the choice of words carries social and political influence. That's just the basics of sociology, for crying out loud. "We live in a patriarchy" has stronger connotations than "We live in a society where men have slightly more power," so it creates the impression that the problems are bigger than they are.

Thirdly, if every country in the modern world is a patriarchy, it places countries like the US and Saudi Arabia as equals in this. But then, what word are we supposed to use if we want to make the distinction that Saudi Arabia is far worse? Super-patriarchy? Uber-patriarchy? That sounds comical.

And, for the sake of consistency, would you be fine with calling the US a theocracy too, then? Religious people have more social power than nonreligious people, do they not?

And where do we stop with this? Should we just cut to the chase and call it a nationalistic militaristic totalitarian plutocracy?

Basically, yes. Those are feminist issues. The problems that face men in terms of custody, reporting abuse, and even more existential problems such as harmful images of masculinity, all tie back to the same harmful binaries: Women are the mothers; women are weaker, etc.

Because more of these issues negatively impact women, and because men, despite facing negative impacts in certain areas, control the overall power structure, we call this movement and perspective "feminism." But it's gender-egalitarianism. Its name is only derived from the lesser of the two binaries. The binary itself is the problem.

Unfortunately, people in this very thread, calling themselves feminists, have openly said that men should stay quiet about their gender-related problems because they are statistically smaller at group level and because men are responsible for the problem at a group level. That's what people have been arguing against here, not ideal feminism.

By the way, I prefer choosing names that reflect the underlying logic rather than the weaker binary, which is contingent, but I won't go to details here.

"Men's rights" get ridiculed because men with an awareness of the larger issues, and who actually want to see results, would really be feminists. They're welcomed in those discussions too. As a counter-initiative, "Men's rights," as you may know it from the Internet, is founded, if not completely on misogyny, on a very myopic perspective.

Unfortunately, people in this very thread, calling themselves feminists, have openly said that men should not be taken seriously in discussions concerning women's equal rights. That's what people have been arguing against here, not ideal feminism.

 

[LDSman]

There are people with underdeveloped views in any number of areas. We're not dealing in ad hominem here, so unless it impacts the underlying ideas we're discussing, it's moot.

So it's a "No true Scotsman" claim then?

Basically, yes. Those are feminist issues. The problems that face men in terms of custody, reporting abuse, and even more existential problems such as harmful images of masculinity, all tie back to the same harmful binaries: Women are the mothers; women are weaker, etc.

Feminists don't seem to be doing anything about it. The claim is that once this supposed binary problem is solved, the rest of the problems will go away. In the meantime too bad for the men that lost all contact with their kids due to the biased courts or were forced to live on the streets because there aren't any domestic abuse shelters for men.

Because more of these issues negatively impact women, and because men, despite facing negative impacts in certain areas, control the overall power structure, we call this movement and perspective "feminism." But it's gender-egalitarianism. Its name is only derived from the lesser of the two binaries. The binary itself is the problem.[/QUOTE]

"Men's rights" get ridiculed because men with an awareness of the larger issues, and who actually want to see results, would really be feminists. They're welcomed in those discussions too. As a counter-initiative, "Men's rights," as you may know it from the Internet, is founded, if not completely on misogyny, on a very myopic perspective.

Right, because feminists have done so much for single dads already. Please name cases and situations where feminists helped out these people.

Can you prove the claim that men's rights was founded on misogyny?

But what HL chose not to pay for, and what was mandated by the government prior to this case as complete and proper care, wholly impacts women, and has now opened the door for any major employer to do the same.

Only if they are a "closely held corporation" and there just aren't many of those. And what is the impact? The employer doesn't pay for 4 specific BC types. They still pay for 16 and the employee can still choose to go out and pay for it themselves with no objections from HL.

Hobby Lobby still covers viagra and vasectomies, which are more medically narrow (and elective) than what they chose not to pay for in the realm of women's care.

Viagra? HL is not trying to stop people from having sex. And HL covers tubal litigation. So your point is?

That is sexist, potentially dangerous depending on what birth control a woman's doctor recommends, and it was condoned on a federal level by male SCOTUS members. Institutional sexism is not dead.

Please provide cites for the "sexism" of the Supreme Court. Something besides the fact they were men. That is sexism on its own merits. Please provide cites for the potential danger. To the best of my knowledge, the 4 specific BC types were in the variation of "morning after" types. The unprotected sex is also "potentially dangerous" what with STDs and all. Institutional sexism is a bull crap claim. Either a person is sexist or they aren't. Blaming the "institution" is a scare tactic.

a common theme here seems to be "well there are feminists who hate men ya know." there are awful people in literally every political movement and beyond. this does not further the discussion at all. stop bringing it up because it's a useless statement.


patriarchy is not black and white as you're making it out to be. and personally i would describe our current situation as a lasting effect that a long past history of patriarchy has had, meaning there are still parts of our culture that is affected by a patriarchal past even if we do not currently live in a 100% patriarchal society.

the us has had a long history of a men led society and to ignore the fact that we are still facing the after affects of that is what's diminutive.

See Fed and Aegis' responses above.

Cipher's link to HL disallowing birth control while promoting viagra and vasectomies is an example of this.

Learn the facts. HL does NOT disallow BC. They cover 16 types and tubal litigation. And viagra does benefit women as well so do you know if HL covers it for female use?
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20080722/viagra-for-her

here's an article about a CEO of tinder treating an employee with sexist, abusive language.

Here's a CEO treating her employees to sexist abusive language.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/archie-boss-calls-male-employees-penis-article-1.1534462

an article about how the us is the only first world country to not mandate paid maternity leave. and in case you didn't catch on, this is a feminist issue that affects MEN AND WOMEN.

i can dig up more examples later, but two examples of sexism in the workplace.

Paid maternity leave varies from job to job. Some cover more than others. Some want you to use your own sick and annual leave before they'll help.
And sexual harassment claims by men have been rising.
http://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com/2012/01/sexual-harassment-of-men-in-the-workplace.html

If semantics was irrelevant, it shouldn't matter what we call things. By insisting on calling the US a patriarchy, you are already acknowledging that semantics is relevant. Or are you fine with calling things by any word we choose?

(Snip)

Well said.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

Feminists don't seem to be doing anything about it. The claim is that once this supposed binary problem is solved, the rest of the problems will go away. In the meantime too bad for the men that lost all contact with their kids due to the biased courts or were forced to live on the streets because there aren't any domestic abuse shelters for men.

Well, the problem of gender stereotypes (here called the binary problem) exists, and I haven't seen anyone contest that. It's just that some people, who call themselves feminists, misinterpret the binary nature and say, "We can only help one gender at a time, and we have to ignore the other." They go out of their way to avoid helping men even when it would be simple and natural to help people of both genders at the same time.

For example, when you bring up the fact that labeling women as caretakers of children is a stereotype, bring up the bias in child custody cases. The connection is obvious and you need to go out of your way to avoid mentioning it.

And I have to point out again that if the reason for helping women in the first world (while worse problems exist in the third world) is that you also have to work on smaller problems (and this indeed is a sensible stance), why is it that some people calling themselves feminists refuse to help men on the basis that their problems are smaller? It's nothing more than special pleading.

Not to mention that you can simply judge the need for help on an individual basis. Because, you know, there are other factors than gender to how much a person needs help.

 

[The Federation]

Not to mention that you can simply judge the need for help on an individual basis. Because, you know, there are other factors than gender to how much a person needs help.

But bro, intersectionality though. And all females everywhere fall into established trends and averages. That's just how things work.

Excusing cases where women are anything but disenfranchised is a hallmark of the new feminist victim complex. It doesn't work if there isn't an injustice that can be pinned on something. Where in the past feminism was meant to empower women and worked hard for every victory, today we see regression in the form of repetitious self-victimization and the creation of issues that either don't exist at all or don't exist in the form that's presented.

Why is it such a bad thing that women are moving forwards? Is it because it hurts modern feminist claims that women are oppressed at all times, without regard to any other factors?

 

[Mitzi]

a common theme here seems to be "well there are feminists who hate men ya know." there are awful people in literally every political movement and beyond. this does not further the discussion at all. stop bringing it up because it's a useless statement.

It's important to bring it up, because if you hate men you're not a feminist. The idea of feminism is equal rights and opportunities for both sexes, meaning you support both sexes and not just one. A lot of people on tumblr claim to be feminists and yet constantly bash men for being men -- often labeling them things such as 'scum'. It's hard to spread the ideals of feminism when people get the idea that it's about female superiority, and not equality of the sexes. Yes there are awful people in every political movement, however these "feminists" tend to be extremely vocal and present the wrong image of feminism, and because of this people shy away from an important movement that would normally be common sense.