The two types of Feminism

[ruby sparks]

Gonna offer a few suggested answers to my own question here. Only my personal suggestions, obviously. Not presented in any particular order. They do not all have to apply to any one individual and there may be others I'm not thinking of. Plus they are non-exclusive in that there may be overlap between them. Also, there may be men out there for whom none of these apply. All or some (or none) may also apply to non-feminist women and/or non-feminists of all or any gender. Some feminists might have them as reservations of their own while still self-identifying as feminists:

1. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) overstated.
2. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) simplistic.
3. The perception that the claims of feminism are too ideological and not empirical enough.
4. Fear of losing privileges (doesn't have to be an unsubstantiated fear).
5. The perception that men's issues are sidelined.
6. The perception that women's privileges are not properly taken into account.
7. Reluctance to embrace change.
8. Denial of the extent of the problems for women.
9. Fear of psychological annihilation.
10. Not seeing in what ways we could all be better off if men co-operated and compromised more.
11. Thinking that feminists don't co-operate or compromise enough.
12. Self-interest (ie selfishness).
13. Dislike of criticism, especially if it is felt in an individual case the criticism is either unfair or partially unfair.
14. Not wanting to say sorry (it's the hardest word) or admit past mistakes.
15. The perception that feminism often undervalues men.
16. The perception that feminism is in essence 'for women'.
17. The perception that feminism is in essence, or sometimes or often 'against men' (not the same as number 15).
18. Thinking that equality (controversially even equality of opportunity perhaps) is unrealistic, impractical or undesirable.
19. A preference for 'traditional' gender roles.
20. An inclination to stand up for and defend one's own (biological) sex.

Most of these are true to varying degrees.

So...could you take a moment to make a list of the numbers which you think apply to you, or those that don't if that's a shorter list?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You provided a bad example--you described a case of a business acting in the interest of it's top person rather than in the interest of the business itself.

Orly?

She, and her female employees had their infants close by, and it was free of charge. As the children entered school, the crèche was enlarged and adjusted to cater for their needs.

Had there been male employees in charge of raising kids they would have had access to the crèche as well, but of course there weren't any.

Also, my sister knows how to use a spreadsheet. She worked out that a crèche was cheaper than the cost of employing temporary staff or replacing someone altogether. Even though she was just a woman, give her some credit. She had started her business from scratch with her then partner, then bought him out and run it for another 10 years already by the time she got pregnant the first time, so she must be doing something right.

The point is that providing such services costs a business more than it's worth to them. A business that doesn't will fare better than one that does. Note that when large companies do it it's because they are after large numbers of highly paid employees, not because they want ordinary workers.

- - - Updated - - -

You are assuming the discrimination exists...

No, I'm not. I'm simply following the evidence of all varieties and coming to that apparently reasonable conclusion, just as most if not all of those who study it in great detail have done. I don't think your analogy with the non-alcoholic covers it. That was a case of temporary semantic ambiguity, of very incomplete information, easily resolved by simple clarification. Imo, your discrimination denial is untenable. But I already know how far you are prepared to go with it, after you were presented with the results of the study on 'blind' job applications vis-a-vis racial discrimination, so partly because of that I tend to discount your personal views quite a lot. No personal offence intended, but your argument is crap, imo. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm about to stop discussing it with you, because I think you've got your fingers metaphorically stuck in your ears, for whatever reason, unfortunately. As to your points of view, you are welcome to them and good luck with them.

It's the same thing, just on a shorter timeframe. Once there was one bit of evidence that said yes any denials were taken as evidence of having the problem.

You're doing the same thing with discrimination--you've decided it exists and therefore anyone questioning the data is part of the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

You are assuming the discrimination exists and therefore anyone denying is actually supporting the discrimination.

In 2008 Julia Gillard was the deputy leader of the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition. Senator Heffernan claimed that she is not qualified to lead the country because she is "deliberately barren". "One of the great understandings in a community is family, and the relationship between mum, dads and a bucket of nappies" he explained. It did not occur to him that four previous Prime Ministers, all male, would have to be disqualified for the same reason. Another Senator, George Brandis, expressed similar sentiments. He said that Gillard "doesn't understand the way parents think about their children", and is hardly able to comment on some issues of childhood because she "had chosen not to be a parent".

OK, just a couple of anecdotes, but if there are enough of them they turn into evidence of wide-ranging discrimination. Similar assertions about Angela Merkel's and Theresa May's barrenness making them unsuitable for national leadership have been made too, by the way. I am pretty sure that both Germany and the UK were led by a number of male Chancellors and Prime Ministers that were not said to be unqualified for the office on account of barrenness, deliberate or otherwise.

Success or not in preventing women from attaining leadership is irrelevant. The very fact that childlessness supposedly disqualifies women from becoming government heads but does not disqualify men is discrimination.

You are arguing that discrimination does not exist because you are deliberately turning a blind eye to it.

Sure, there are bozos like this. Unless it's a monopoly situation you just go elsewhere. That's generally the route to good pay anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) overstated.

Obvious. So many keep harping on the 7x cents on the dollar figure (I've seen many values for that last digit.) That's a very apples-to-oranges comparison.

2. The perception that the claims of feminism are (often or sometimes) simplistic.

See #1.

3. The perception that the claims of feminism are too ideological and not empirical enough.

See #1.

4. Fear of losing privileges (doesn't have to be an unsubstantiated fear).

I disagree with the word "privileges" here--it's the fear of being treated unfairly because of the numbers. Woe to newly-graduated man when companies are trying to correct past gender imbalance. Attempting to fix past discrimination too sharply ends up being discrimination against those who share the trait with the past discriminators but had nothing to do with the discrimination.

People are individuals, not groups. You don't right the wrong done to the 50 year old woman by doing wrong to the 25 year old man!

5. The perception that men's issues are sidelined.

I'm not sure what men's issues are really involved here.

6. The perception that women's privileges are not properly taken into account.

Maternity leave (beyond what's needed for childbirth) but not paternity leave.

7. Reluctance to embrace change.
8. Denial of the extent of the problems for women.
9. Fear of psychological annihilation.

Nope.

10. Not seeing in what ways we could all be better off if men co-operated and compromised more.
11. Thinking that feminists don't co-operate or compromise enough.

Two sides of the same coin. So many feminists want it all with no regard for whether it's fair to men.

12. Self-interest (ie selfishness).
13. Dislike of criticism, especially if it is felt in an individual case the criticism is either unfair or partially unfair.

Nope.

14. Not wanting to say sorry (it's the hardest word) or admit past mistakes.

Nonsense. Most of us had nothing to do with discrimination. There's nothing to be sorry about, no mistakes to admit.

15. The perception that feminism often undervalues men.
16. The perception that feminism is in essence 'for women'.
17. The perception that feminism is in essence, or sometimes or often 'against men' (not the same as number 15).

While you are treating these as separate they are all aspects of the same thing--most feminism is purely about women and doesn't pay attention to whether it's fair to men also.

18. Thinking that equality (controversially even equality of opportunity perhaps) is unrealistic, impractical or undesirable.

In some cases it isn't. High strength jobs are going to be mostly men, trying to pretend otherwise is stupid. If you have strength standards they should be the same for everyone no matter what that does to the pass rate. (Note, however, that strength standards are not always the right measure--for the firefighter it certainly is as the concern is the weight of their gear, but for the police it's more about the environment. Forget the strength, they have the same obstacle course.)

19. A preference for 'traditional' gender roles.
20. An inclination to stand up for and defend one's own (biological) sex.

Nope.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I disagree with the word "privileges" here--it's the fear of being treated unfairly because of the numbers. Woe to newly-graduated man when companies are trying to correct past gender imbalance. Attempting to fix past discrimination too sharply ends up being discrimination against those who share the trait with the past discriminators but had nothing to do with the discrimination.

People are individuals, not groups. You don't right the wrong done to the 50 year old woman by doing wrong to the 25 year old man!

Yes, and you also don't right the wrong done to the 50 year old woman by giving an unfair privilege to the 25 year old woman.

5. The perception that men's issues are sidelined.

I'm not sure what men's issues are really involved here.

No, he's right. Men's rights being sidelined is a problem. The second type of feminists fear that if men get to complain about institutional injustice towards men as a group that will take attention away from fighting for women's rights. Or that calls for men's rights are actually just veiled attacks on women. They are not always wrong about that, but they are coming at it wrong. They should be banding together with MRAs in a natural alliance looking for egalitarianism and fairness to all individuals.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, and you also don't right the wrong done to the 50 year old woman by giving an unfair privilege to the 25 year old woman.

You won't right the wrong by being too timid, either. At some point you're going to have to upset someone, either by preserving something they don't like or by destroying something they do. The important thing is to make sure you've chosen the right course of action for the right reasons, and that you're not being unnecessarily harsh or merciless in pursuing it.

I'm not sure what men's issues are really involved here.

No, he's right. Men's rights being sidelined is a problem. The second type of feminists fear that if men get to complain about institutional injustice towards men as a group that will take attention away from fighting for women's rights. Or that calls for men's rights are actually just veiled attacks on women. They are not always wrong about that, but they are coming at it wrong. They should be banding together with MRAs in a natural alliance looking for egalitarianism and fairness to all individuals.

So Chanty Binx is the good type of feminist. Good to know.

 

[Hermit]

Men's rights being sidelined is a problem. The second type of feminists fear that if men get to complain about institutional injustice towards men as a group that will take attention away from fighting for women's rights.

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

This isn't the thread for that, but I'm sure a MRA would be happy to do so. I am curious why you want to know who is responsible for them. If the answer is "other men" (where feminists like to take the conversation) would that somehow make them less of a problem worthy of dealing with? Would it mean we should ignore them and focus only on women again (where feminists like to take the conversation)?

 

[Hermit]

Could you provide a list of institutional injustice towards men and tell us who is responsible for them?

This isn't the thread for that, but I'm sure a MRA would be happy to do so. I am curious why you want to know who is responsible for them. If the answer is "other men" (where feminists like to take the conversation) would that somehow make them less of a problem worthy of dealing with? Would it mean we should ignore them and focus only on women again (where feminists like to take the conversation)?

You brought up the issue of institutional injustice towards men right here in this thread. I asked you for a list, and all of a sudden you decide this issue does not belong in this thread. Nice one.

You also established the connection between institutional injustice towards men and feminism yourself when you wrote "The second type of feminists fear that if men get to complain about institutional injustice towards men as a group", so let's talk about that statement, but when we do, we need to identify the institutional injustice towards men that the second type of feminists fear men complaining about. This is the right place to discuss institutional injustice towards men precisely because you established the connection between it and feminism. So, list, please.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually you make a good point. I did note that. I don't right now have the energy to compile such a list so I will point you to Cassie Jaye's movie '"the red pill" for now and get back to you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So Chanty Binx is the good type of feminist. Good to know.

By pulling a fire alarm to disrupt their meeting and then mouthing off at them on the street as they exit it, to the point that the became an internet meme? No I would not agree that she is trying to work with them.

 

[Arctish]

So Chanty Binx is the good type of feminist. Good to know.

By pulling a fire alarm to disrupt their meeting and then mouthing off at them on the street as they exit it, to the point that the became an internet meme? No I would not agree that she is trying to work with them.

Do you have evidence she pulled the alarm? Or did she just happen to be standing outside when someone pulled it, and that's good enough to ship all the blame on to her personally?

And did you actually listen to what she was saying in that video? She was "mouthing off" about all the things feminists and MRAs have in common, the goals they all share, and the mutual struggle they're engaged in for a more fair, just, and equitable society. She was doing exactly what you say we all should be doing: "banding together with MRAs in a natural alliance looking for egalitarianism and fairness to all individuals".

Sure, she was being loud and rather rude but so what? By your definition she's one of the first type of feminists, the 'good' type. I don't know why you don't see it. It's pretty obvious to me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you have evidence she pulled the alarm? Or did she just happen to be standing outside when someone pulled it, and that's good enough to ship all the blame on to her personally?

She went into the building screaming in protest with the rest of her group and the group pulled the fire alarm. I do not know if it was her actual hand that pulled it. I do know she cheered when it was pulled. That much is on video. I posted it earlier in this thread. It is within the amazing atheist YouTube clip the article you pointed to pointed to.

She then did indeed wait for them to exit the building so she could mouth of at them and tell them to shut the fuck up.

Yes, she did claim to be in agreement with them on a few points while calling them names, talking down to them, and telling them to shut the fuck up, but why should anybody believe her at that point?

If she was harassed after that, cry me a river. She brought it on herself.

Did you watch her interview with Cassie Jaye? Her reaction to MRA issues is to posit that it is a result of patriarchy and women are the real victims.

And did you actually listen to what she was saying in that video? She was "mouthing off" about all the things feminists and MRAs have in common, the goals they all share, and the mutual struggle they're engaged in for a more fair, just, and equitable society. She was doing exactly what you say we all should be doing: "banding together with MRAs in a natural alliance looking for egalitarianism and fairness to all individuals".

Bullshit. You don't band together in a natural alliance by protesting against and then shutting down an event and accosting the attendees on the street. She could have attended that meeting as an audience member or possibly even as a panelist and actually listened and maybe then given some ideas and try to work together.

Sure, she was being loud and rather rude but so what? By your definition she's one of the first type of feminists, the 'good' type. I don't know why you don't see it. It's pretty obvious to me.

If Milo or somebody like that walked into a Feminist meeting, blaring music and sounding off fog horns whenever a woman tried to speak, and mansplained to them how he is trying to show them he is working with them and what is best to them while calling them names and telling them to shut the fuck up, would you have the same view of him?

 

[Toni]

If Milo or somebody like that walked into a Feminist meeting, blaring music and sounding off fog horns whenever a woman tried to speak, and mansplained to them how he is trying to show them he is working with them and what is best to them while calling them names and telling them to shut the fuck up, would you have the same view of him?

Sounds like a pretty average day, to me. Minus the 'celebrity' asshole.

I mean, what have you done this entire thread except tried to mansplain feminists and feminism?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I mean, what have you done this entire thread except tried to mansplain feminists and feminism?

Interacted with people and listened to ideas without telling them to shut the fuck up or protesting and shutting down their meetings.

There is nothing wrong with somebody like Binx having views on MRAs an sharing them with people on a message board or with her friends or even on the streets as she does. It changes when she actually interrupts and shuts down MRA meetings.

 

[thebeave]

If I remember correctly the event Jolly Penguin is talking about, the feminist protest was over Warren Farrell holding a conference about male suicide. The protesters were calling the attendees "fucking scum". It was cancelled because of all the protester drama.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here you go. This took all of 3 seconds to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q

Arctish, still think she was there to support them but just "a little rude"?

As comments to that video put it:

I find it somewhat difficult to believe Chanty Binx when she says that feminists don't want male rights taken away, when she participates in things such as this.

it's not even a men's rights meeting it's the Canadian Association For Equality

i usually consider the people who true fight for woman rights/freedoms/equality to fall under the egalitarian/humanist categorization while feminists being these sort

No, but feminism is totes about equality and we also help men"

Dear Sufragettes, the time when your movement was a noble cause seems to have ended...

oh boy and they ask me why i hate feminists

I love when feminists claim they are also for male equality, and then they pull shit like this. Their male empathy is just as clear as the Citarum River.

...I'm a girl..I'm disappointed. Feminists want equal rights or equality ..right? Doesn't mean you take away the men's rights and make them lower than you

This is not feminism. It's just abusing the word feminism. The term feminism has become poisoned by these self proclaimed feminists. They hijacked it.
The sad thing is that there are A LOT of women in the world that are actually being oppressed. They can't drive, they can't vote, they are being wed to some random person. Horrible stuff and real rights issues!
All you hear from these "feminists" are hateful statements about nonsense: the patriarchy, an offensive shirt or an ad. Not even first world problems. The thing that baffles me most is that they get a lot of serious media attention and credibility in politics. It's just by sheer presence and quantity of screaming on the internet. Apparently there are no real journalist anymore. Even news papers like The Guardian and The Times are taken them seriously.

There are good feminists fighting for fair and equal treatment towards women and who work alongside MRAs for fair treatment to all. Some of them were in the meeting you see here being shut down by Binx's group.

Look how people react to the tactics of Binx and company, and how it gives Feminism in general a bad name. I started this thread so we could try to better distinguish the two.

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWuLVtH6vgM[/YOUTUBE]

If this is the sort of approach (or person having such an approach) that anyone here is either defending, excusing or apologising for, rather than just condemning straight out, then they need to catch themselves on, imo.

[/tuppenceworth]

 

[Toni]

I mean, what have you done this entire thread except tried to mansplain feminists and feminism?

Interacted with people and listened to ideas without telling them to shut the fuck up or protesting and shutting down their meetings.

There is nothing wrong with somebody like Binx having views on MRAs an sharing them with people on a message board or with her friends or even on the streets as she does. It changes when she actually interrupts and shuts down MRA meetings.

I don't think you understand the definition of mansplaining, so I'm posting it here:

man·splain
manˈsplān/Submit
verbinformal
(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
"I'm listening to a guy mansplain economics to his wife"

Substitute feminism for economics and this forum for his wife. In this case, I don't think the mansplaination was intended for a(n entirely) female audience but mostly to fellow mansplainers. That's a fairly accurate summary of this entire thread, starting with the title.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Substitute feminism for economics and this forum for his wife. In this case, I don't think the mansplaination was intended for a(n entirely) female audience but mostly to fellow mansplainers. That's a fairly accurate summary of this entire thread, starting with the title.

So what? I take no pause in telling you my views about toxic vs productive feminism. My lack of a vagina does not shame me from doing so. I will also give an opinion on abortion despite not having a womb, and on black/white race issues despite being neither black nor white. I'll even give my opinion on capital punishment, despite never having murdered anybody or been murdered by anybody. Your "mansplaining" accusation is nothing but ad adhom argument. It addressed who I am and not what I said.

 

[Toni]

Substitute feminism for economics and this forum for his wife. In this case, I don't think the mansplaination was intended for a(n entirely) female audience but mostly to fellow mansplainers. That's a fairly accurate summary of this entire thread, starting with the title.

So what? I take no pause in telling you my views about toxic vs productive feminism. My lack of a vagina does not shame me from doing so. I will also give an opinion on abortion despite not having a womb, and on black/white race issues despite being neither black nor white. I'll even give my opinion on capital punishment, despite never having murdered anybody or been murdered by anybody. Your "mansplaining" accusation is nothing but ad adhom argument. It addressed who I am and not what I said.

Nah, it's addressed to what you said. And how it's said: with the assumption that somehow you have a superior understanding of subjects you deign to discuss.

And the 'So what?' That says it all.