View Single Post
Old May 22nd, 2013 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Arguments against Feminism

[To make women bitter and resentful is goal one for the hateful communist ideologues known as judeo-feminists. One of their commonest pseudo-arguments is that women are getting screwed on the job. Typically they claim women make X amount less than men. Of course, they never qualify this, because then its absurdity would be apparent. Women make less because they either work fewer hours or don't have the credentials/experience men do. When you adjust for these factors, women are if anything overpaid compared to men. In short, feminists are liars. The truth is not their friend. The truth is not in them.

St. Louis Fed Study Debunks Myth of 'Gender' Wage Gap
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publicatio...r_wage_gap.pdf

(Fiebert, Cal State Long Beach) Nearly 300 papers show women are as likely or likelier to commit domestic assault against men
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm ]

[printed in full in posts #2 and #3]


Tomisright / Smilla

Hmm, this is interesting, and as a category 2 person, I want to engage with this. I sincerely hold views that most people on this site regard as odious and false. I don't believe we live in a "rape culture" or under a patriarchy in the way people here use the terms. I believe the world in general is a more dangerous place for men than it is for women. I believe that the wage gap is a fiction, that women are as or more prone to use violence in relationships as men, etc., etc.

In other words, I disbelieve a lot of stuff that is regarded, as a commentator wrote below, as "Feminism 101," i.e. as well-established, like evolution. But I'd had Feminism 101; I've studied feminism in an academic setting both as an undergraduate and at the graduate level. I just don't agree with it. From my point of view, you all are not the biology teachers trying to move past basic discussions of whether evolution is true or not; you are the Catholic Church in the age of Galileo, trying to defend a dangerously wrong view of the world by shutting out contrary voices.

From my point of view, sites like Jezebel are propaganda centers for a dangerously false ideology—an ideology I feel a duty to confront, as it constitutes libel against my gender and results in actual, widespread harm to men, when enacted in policies that strive to "equalize" wages that are already equal, lower the burden of proof for sex offenses, etc.

So what should I do? How should I engage on these issues, issues that matter to me very much? When one learns of a forum where views that one finds hateful and wrong are advanced, is one required to remain quiet for fear of "derailing"? May one not point out that the emperor has no clothes, just because the conversation has moved on to how nice his ermine collar is?

his ermine collar is? Yesterday 3:06pm


Couchplanted / Tomisright

I hope I don't regret this.

To start I don't understand your category 2 label. Are you classifying yourself as a secondary citizen in the scope of humanity, or are you remarking on your status as a commenter here?

You don't believe that there is a rape culture or patriarchy as is defined by Jezebel/feminism. Do you believe there is rape culture or patriarchy, period?

That's wonderful that you chose to study feminism, but.. why? Are your current views newly found or previously established? I have the feeling that you chose to place yourself in these environments to gather fodder. Why continue to take these classes that you see as spewing falseness?

It sounds very much that you view feminism as a cult. I'm wondering if that's only contained to "propaganda sites," or if you hold this same viewpoint outside of them.

None of the questions I put forth are asked with a need for you to reply to them. I don't need nor want the answers, and I say this with the awareness that you'll think I'm further proving your point about this being a hostile arena for someone with your ideals, and that we aren't interested in hearing from someone that doesn't agree with us. You won't be entirely wrong.

Entirely. What I mean by this is that it is absolutely in the how of you presenting your side of the debate. Metaphors and analogies aren't going to cut it. A feminist could use the church metaphor exactly as you did. They can help to illustrate your point, but they're a shaky foundation to build on. How should you engage? Responsibly and respectfully. Bring to the table establish research and reporting, and not just one source or link. If the facts can be mined from an unbiased objective source? All the better. Personally unique stories won't hold as much weight as a collective story. (For example saying that you were walking down the street one day and someone kicked you wouldn't have as much bearing as saying you've walked down the street and every day you've been kicked - and that you have seen this happen to others of your ilk again and again.) It is very much how you present your side. The words you choose to use and the tone in which you choose to use them can influence the trajectory of the debate. Confront? That's aggressive. That will have people walking a wide circle around you because it lends them to believe that you have no interest in debate and are only interested in beating your chest.

Are there people here who won't engage with you? Absolutely. Will they look through your comment history like I did? Yup, and they'll see the same thing. No backup, a snarky tone, an apparent unwillingness to engage in thoughtful respectful debate, and a seeming desire to provoke.

On the whole, I have no idea you come here seeing that we're an abhorrent group. Yesterday 5:41pm



Tomisright / Couchplanted

I'm going to try to answer your questions in the spirit in which you asked them (and avoid debating the substance as much as I can).

I chose to study feminism out of general progressive bent (I voted for Clinton, Nader, Nader, Kerry, Obama) and a curiosity about gender relations. I found pretty early on that I did not agree with it. Still, in law school, I went on to take Feminist Legal Theory. I was hoping to find a genuinely new approach, an alternate form of logic or way of thinking about law. Instead, I found a collection of feminist issues presented from an advocate's point of view.

The breaking point was when we were studying cases of domestic abuse where the abused women had killed their abusers and been imprisoned for it. In one case, the woman worked at a construction site. She told some male coworkers about the abuse. They offered to straighten the guy out for her. She lured her abusive boyfriend to a lonely spot, and her coworkers took the guy into the woods to beat him up. They went too far and killed him.

The feminist position was she should be pardoned. I asked, "what about the men?" In law, if you have a right to defend yourself in a given situation, and I step in and defend you, I act with the same authority you would have—i.e. if you would have been justified in defending yourself, I am justified in defending you. So if you argue that her actions were justified, so were theirs. If she should be released, so should they be.

The feminists did not agree. They did not seem to care that these men were sitting in prison. They did not think it was a contradiction to leave them there while demanding the woman's release.

As to whether feminism is a cult, and whether this extends beyond sites like this: I think Jezebel pretty closely tracks the views of a lot of youngish, progressive men and women (I often see Jezebel articles reposted by my facebook friends).

As for tone, yes, I realize my tone is snide if not contemptuous. To that I'd say a couple of things: how is for example Lindy West's tone? Have you seen how contemptuously she refers to men? ("Little Bros" is one example that comes to mind.) The author of this very article calls MRA's "a disease."

But more importantly, just as commentors here get tired of explaining points they feel that they have won over and over again, so do I. After the umpteenth time of explaining to, say Lindy West that there is no $.23 gender gap caused by discrimination, and having her go on and cite it again in future articles, I stopped presuming good faith. At a certain point you stop trying to persuade the person you are talking with. The point is to do the best you can to mock them and make them look like an idiot. This serves two purposes: 1) it puts them on notice that when they advance certain views, there will be pushback—they can't go on lying without consequence; and 2), it may persuade the audience, if not the person I'm talking to.

The most fascinating things about your reply are where you advise me not to argue from individual anecdote, and your statement that you looked through my history and found "no backup." I won't say I have never, ever argued by anecdote. But in my view, I have supplied huge amounts of independent research supporting my positions. E.g., the St. Louis Fed's study debunking the wage gap, http://www.stlouisfed.org/publicatio...r_wage_gap.pdf...

Or this page collecting 286 research papers showing women commit as much or more domestic violence as men: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm...

I have cited things like this over and over and over again; I have also dug into, e.g., the studies that found high rates of sexual assaults on campus to see exactly what questions they were asking (answer: exactly what the worst MRA troll you can imagine would think they were asking).
So the fact that you, who seems to be a reasonable person willing to listen, can look through my comment history and come away feeling I have provided "no backup" makes me despair of the possibility of any two human beings having a real conversation.

You didn't ask me to answer your questions, but I'll respond to your last line anyway: I come here precisely because I think you are an abhorrent group (or anyway are wedded to an intellectually bankrupt and damaging dogma). I want you to know not everyone agrees with you. I want to leave you at least less certain of your beliefs. Places like this are where academic feminism gets translated into popular culture, where it can do real damage. During the last presidential campaign, a young woman stood up in a town hall debate and asked the candidates what they are going to do about the "wage gap." Neither candidate for our highest office challenged the factually false premise of her question. The discussions that happen in places like this matter. Yesterday 11:02pm

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 22nd, 2013 at 01:08 PM.