photo blog_head_zpsfzwide7v.jpg
Valar Qringaomis

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

"You've become about as shrill as the SJWs you often rail against"

A: If "feminism" = gender equality
Then "masculinism" = gender equality as well?

Edit: no, not trolling. This arose from a long discussion. Masculinism as a term is ridiculous IMO. I'm just putting that in as a foil. What say you people?

Edit: I find it amusing that the likes from this post are only from guys.

Edit: oh wow I started a wonderful shitstorm. Still, plenty of points and counterpoints being put out, I'm learning a lot

B: No.
To vouchsafe equal rights to one section of society inevitably infringes on the privilege of another.
Men don't need an equal rights group, just as straight people don't need a 'straight pride day', or white people don't need a 'white lives matter' group.
You don't like an infringement on your privilege? GTF over it.
Like I said, A, I assume this was a troll.

Me: So basically men are evil

A: Some people would think it

C: How did this go from Andrew's statement to "men are evil"?

Me: Conservative Christians, about homosexuality, say that you should "love the sinner, hate the sin".

One critique of this idea is that the sin is inextricably associated with the sinner. In other words, it is impossible to "love the sinner, hate the sin" - if you hate the sin, at some level you will hate the sinner.

Ditto with "love the patriarch, hate the patriarchy".

Actually I see that feminists generally express more aggression towards men/the "patriarchy" than conservative Christians towards gays/homosexuality. This is probably because whereas conservative Christians see homosexuality as a sin, feminists see "patriarchy" as something that is actively hurting them.

So there is an elision of men and "patriarchy". From "patriarchy" hurting women to men hurting women. From "patriarchy" being evil to men being evil.

There is a stereotype (hah! this is normally a bad thing) that men are not disadvantaged by "patriarchy".

Yet, nowadays even many feminists acknowledge that men are disadvantaged in some ways in modern society. Of course, they claim the answer is more feminism, but at least they don't say that "Men don't need an equal rights group" (their answer is that the equal rights group men need are the feminists).

It is not a coincidence that #killallmen was a hashtag promulgated by some feminists not too long ago, and that some feminists boast that they "bathe in male tears". This speaks of the underlying antipathy towards men that is especially evident in the school of feminism that claims that "Men don't need an equal rights group", and that more subtly exists in feminism as a whole.

C: Gabriel, you seem to have developed a caricature of feminists on the basis of militant feminism. Many of those extremist views seem as ludicrous to the rest of us as to you, feminist or not.

I'm glad there are many who are still unravelling and piecing together this equality business, and it is evolving. As has already been mentioned, and as is the main reply to YC's question, the term feminism originated in a time when the chasm between male and female power was much larger and necessitated much more drastic actions. Do you want to change it? OK, sure. There are some pretty good suggestions from Veena, consider those.

"the patriarchy" is embedded in society. How we view success and power are very much a product of this history. Hence your comment below about masculinity and the characteristics of lauded women.

I'm not sure why you jump so quickly from A's comments to assuming he or anyone else on this thread thinks that "all men are evil". You've become about as shrill as the SJWs you often rail against.

Me: If 99.9% of curries you have eaten give you diarrhea, it is safe to assume the next curry will. As a good Bayesian I have confirmed my priors lots of times.

While there're low key feminists who are reasonable, those who like to talk a lot about feminism and especially those who use certain keywords and phrases are almost certainly of a certain kind.

I am not the only one to make such observations (There’s no point in online feminism if it’s an exclusive, Mean Girls club , The end of men: Why feminists won’t accept that things are looking up for women. , Warning: If you upset today's ferocious online feminists, prepare for a flood of abuse – Telegraph Blogs)

"Men are evil" is a short and easy way to explain the logic behind "Men don't need an equal rights group" and that saying that men are marginalised is just a backlash to "privilege" being challenged.

C: you're not the only one to think so, and no one here is saying you are unique in your point of view. But recognise that just like you, militant feminists have their points of view too, emanating from their personal experiences, and like to be as valid as yours. Your default is to assume feminists who engage you are of the same variety. And to jump on people's statements with that assumption. Just like an SJW. Ironic.

A: Ow. I think near everyone here is jumping on statements with assumption. The problem I see here is that we like to use "short and easy" phrases alá Gabriel but they can be easily misinterpreted from the poster's original intentions. Look at how people assumed my post was to troll. To avoid this, one would have to be very exact and specific, but that as we know. Is really tedious after repeating so many times.

What I am glad here is that people are actually civil here. No name calling or that sort like in previous posts. I like

Me: C If a woman had been raped by men 100 times, would she be justified in thinking that all men are rapists?

Personal experiences shape how one thinks, but they do not mean one is justified in doing so.

I have observed feminist interactions (both with me as a participant and without) for a very long time and I can usually predict what will happen next, what arguments will be trotted out etc.

You will notice that my reply was "So basically men are evil" - summarising B's logic and giving him a chance to respond to me. And I do not think that it is unreasonable - when you posit half the world's population as an oppressor class undeserving of a voice a reasonable person might think that you think that they are evil.

And I do not have long essays lying around ready to paste in comment boxes. If I had explained everything that I have done so far at the start I would probably be wasting my time. Far better to start with one pithy comment and expand and explain as I go along, adapting to the flow of the conversation.

Also notice that I did not go:

"OMGBBQWTF YOU ARE A MISANDRIST. FUCK YOU I AM BLOCKING YOU NOW"

If you notice my responses everywhere you will notice that I always try to engage people.

That SJWs make *an* assumption is not why they're distasteful. It's that they are irrational, rude and intolerant. For starters.

A: Hahhaha that "outburst" reminds me of someone

C: The main issue I took with your assumption was that there was a huge leap of logic. I didn't see what he said as being logically encompassed by your statement, not even with your explanation. There, we diverge.

Kudos on engaging people. 14 years after first getting to know you, it's still interesting to see what you have to say, even if I don't always agree with you.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes