Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

However, a lot of people who self-identify as MRAs are... not at all reasonable.

Your bias is showing. You just got done in the FAQ talking about how radical feminism is rare and we shouldn't pay any mind to that, but "a lot" of male rights activists are unreasonable?

From the wikipedia article linked, here's a smattering of things that various groups support, I'd love for you to point out which are unreasonable and why:

  • Fathers' rights activists seek a gender-neutral approach in which unwed men and women would have equal rights in adoption issues
  • Many men feel that they are discriminated against and that they do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse.
  • In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law. (Note that in Sweden and other countries divorced spouses are not considered responsible for each other)
  • Men's rights activists, citing a number of academic studies, assert that domestic violence by women is ignored and under-reported, because men are reluctant to describe themselves as victims.Men's rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women, campaigning for domestic violence shelters for battered men
  • Men's rights activists have argued that military conscription of men is an example of oppression of men
  • Men's and fathers' rights groups have stated that there are high levels of misattributed paternity or "paternity fraud", where men are parenting and/or supporting financially children who are not biologically their own.
  • In the US in 2006, the court case Dubay v. Wells concerned whether men should have an opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters said that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women.

Did you bother to read the bit titled "Relation to feminism"? Because seriously, the most visible/vocal "Men's Rights" organisations are batsh*t crazy misogynists. There are obviously groups advocating for men's rights who are completely reasonable (take for instance the National Conference for Men and Boys in the UK). But the phrase "Men's Rights" has more or less, to quote a friend of mine:

been co-opted by the angry antifeminists of the internet as a cover for untrammelled misogyny, grievously mislabelled "men's rights".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...

Ugh, couldn't even make it through one page of actually discussing women's issues.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Ugh, couldn't even make it through one page of actually discussing women's issues.

Good point; If people want to have a serious discussion about the harms that society does to men perhaps we should spin off a new thread.

bandit0013 wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

However, a lot of people who self-identify as MRAs are... not at all reasonable.

Your bias is showing.

Given the jump from Hypatian statements about the people and their actions versus your immediate rebuttal by quoting the organization's stated goals (which is divergent and not part of what Hypatian was addressing), and the fact that of all the responses she gave, you picked out this narrow bit to pull out and argue poorly against, no. I think it is not her biases that are showing.

I'm sorry, I forgot where I was. Please continue painting other groups with a broad brush. After all, it's ok to stereotype as long as you perceive the group to have privilege. You guys have fun with your group-think.

One more post in this thread and I'm locking your account. You already took your ball and went home, I expect you to stick to your word. Saying you "don't personally care" and then posting this:

So my question has already been answered, it's about women here, not gender equality, thus I'm shaking my head and moving on.

... means you're done. Popping back in and sniping is derailing things and non-productive.

bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

However, a lot of people who self-identify as MRAs are... not at all reasonable.

Your bias is showing. You just got done in the FAQ talking about how radical feminism is rare and we shouldn't pay any mind to that, but "a lot" of male rights activists are unreasonable?

From the wikipedia article linked, here's a smattering of things that various groups support, I'd love for you to point out which are unreasonable and why:

Those issues are not unreasonable. To repeat myself: A lot of people who self-identify as MRAs are not at all reasonable.

There's no bias or inconsistency here. I was pointing out why feminists react poorly to these ideas being brought up in discussions of feminism. It's because: a) Feminist thought already acknowledges these problems, since they stem from the same patriarchal system that insists that men are always "strong" and women are always "nurturers", b) While acknowledging these problems and addressing them in study and thought, feminists do not generally focus on them in [em]direct action[/em], since there are much more serious disparities to address, and there's only so much political capital to go around, c) People inevitably bring up these ideas as an argument against supporting feminism qua feminism, which derails conversations while this disparity is explained, and d) there are in fact amazingly misogynist people out there associating themselves with the idea of "men's rights", and these are the same folks who do things like post anonymous rape threats online against feminists.

That doesn't mean that everyone who cares about these issues is an active misogynist. But it does mean that these issues are commonly used as a distraction from feminist discussion by people who are active misogynists, and because of that people react poorly when these ideas are brought up by anybody at all.

In short: "(Despite the validity of these concerns,) a lot of people (but not all) who self-identify as MRAs (or raise these points of argument in discussions of feminism) are not at all reasonable (although I assume that everybody here is), (and because of that feminists get a bit cranky when these issues get brought up because even though they're fine ideas they're a bit of a tangent, and they get brought up [em]all the time[/em] in a way that distracts from useful discussion of the problems of greatest concern to feminists.)"

And I agree that it would be wonderful to discuss these problems too, in a setting that doesn't suggest that they're things that feminists don't care about. (Because they are things that feminists care about, just not things feminists care about as much as, say, dismantling rape culture, or fair pay for women.)

Certis wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

However, a lot of people who self-identify as MRAs are... not at all reasonable.

Your bias is showing.

Given the jump from Hypatian statements about the people and their actions versus your immediate rebuttal by quoting the organization's stated goals (which is divergent and not part of what Hypatian was addressing), and the fact that of all the responses she gave, you picked out this narrow bit to pull out and argue poorly against, no. I think it is not her biases that are showing.

I'm sorry, I forgot where I was. Please continue painting other groups with a broad brush. After all, it's ok to stereotype as long as you perceive the group to have privilege. You guys have fun with your group-think.

One more post in this thread and I'm locking your account. You already took your ball and went home, I expect you to stick to your word. Saying you "don't personally care" and then posting this:

So my question has already been answered, it's about women here, not gender equality, thus I'm shaking my head and moving on.

... means you're done. Popping back in and sniping is derailing things and non-productive.

If people keep replying to him he should have the right to rebut. His posts are snarky, but so are 80% of posts in this section.

Multra wrote:
Certis wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

However, a lot of people who self-identify as MRAs are... not at all reasonable.

Your bias is showing.

Given the jump from Hypatian statements about the people and their actions versus your immediate rebuttal by quoting the organization's stated goals (which is divergent and not part of what Hypatian was addressing), and the fact that of all the responses she gave, you picked out this narrow bit to pull out and argue poorly against, no. I think it is not her biases that are showing.

I'm sorry, I forgot where I was. Please continue painting other groups with a broad brush. After all, it's ok to stereotype as long as you perceive the group to have privilege. You guys have fun with your group-think.

One more post in this thread and I'm locking your account. You already took your ball and went home, I expect you to stick to your word. Saying you "don't personally care" and then posting this:

So my question has already been answered, it's about women here, not gender equality, thus I'm shaking my head and moving on.

... means you're done. Popping back in and sniping is derailing things and non-productive.

If people keep replying to him he should have the right to rebut. His posts are snarky, but so are 80% of posts in this section.

80% of the posts in this thread aren't dismissive of the core point of the thread. You don't get people leaping into other threads focused on a single issue to argue around the periphery of that actual issue and render the conversation down into semi-relevant mush, why does it always happen in feminism threads?

If you have no ball in the game, and you're not willing to come into a thread with an open attitude, why try to diminish the efforts of other people trying to engage in discussion? I mean, I think you Americans are bonkers with your gun culture, but I don't go into the gun owners thread and tell you all how crazy you are.

Is this the right thread for Feminazi's stole my ice cream?

Oh hey. I saw that come up on reddit earlier, but hadn't watched it. Didn't realize it was bombsfall.

Edit:

Bombsfall wrote:

And really, arguing with misogynists, men who primarily see women as alternately parasites/ fascists / whores, and dudes who spend their waking hours trying to unlock the intricacies of using women for sex holds about as much interest to me as arguing with a racist or a homophobe. While pushing my face slowly into a belt sander. And being menaced by lions full of wasps. On a humid day.

O_O Wow. That's... quite a turn of phrase. And that whole post pretty much sums up everything we've been talking about here.

bombsfall wrote:

I am currently both very popular and VERY UNPOPULAR.

Yeah, Anita Sarkeesian linked your video in Facebook, so that's going to get you some attention! Personally, I loved the video, very nice work dude.

I'm legitimately afraid to google "the red pill" right now.

I actually did Google it and stumbled across a web site which advocates donating to help victims of feminism and rejecting both long-term and short-term relationships. And of course, not letting the mother of your children turn you into a "legal indentured servant" when you distance yourself from her. Siiiiiigh......... I'm just going to stop reading before my blood pressure spikes.

Beautiful post that shows the hard work and polish I've come to appreciate from Hypatian. Thank you for this.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I'm legitimately afraid to google "the red pill" right now.

IMAGE(http://omgface.com/veryhappy/MrSmith22.jpg)

Very well done work Hyp, both on the main post and on keeping the discussion highbrow and civil. Looking forward to discussing more issues here.

I'd like to post an issue / question / discussion. This post pre-supposes that you agree that: There is a general culture in the USA that objectifies women in particular and creates a feeling among men in particular that it is OK to look at women's bodies in public. And that it is a problem in this case specifically because women feel judged constantly based on their appearance.

I am certainly inclined, due to biology or culture, to notice women I find attractive. I'm also quite aware that such behavior (lingering eyes, a turned head during conversation with someone else, etc) contributes to a feeling of being 'on display' or objectification of women and that response can vary greatly from person to person.

Aside from treating women as individuals of value and trying not to oggle people in public, what more can I do as a man to reduce the cultural influence of objectification / 'it's ok to look at an attractive girl's figure' in my life?

Personally I think I'm doing a good job of keeping it in mind and I'm not insecure about it but this comes to the crux of a disconnect I see in discussions between men who at least WANT to have a discussion with feminists but end up just feeling like they are part of the problem rather than the solution. It's one thing to agree, "Yes, we totally objectify women constantly in western media" and another to realize "Wow, I'm personally contributing to the feeling women have that they can't walk down the street without men's eyes on them all the time."

bombsfall wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I'm legitimately afraid to google "the red pill" right now.

That's probably because you're a blue pill mangina. Or feminazi. To use their parlance.

Was the "The Matrix is a good movie" line something that you added or is that an actual thing those people say?

iaintgotnopants wrote:
bombsfall wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I'm legitimately afraid to google "the red pill" right now.

That's probably because you're a blue pill mangina. Or feminazi. To use their parlance.

Was the "The Matrix is a good movie" line something that you added or is that an actual thing those people say?

And does this mean the next Wachowski joint some dubious fringe group will take inspiration from is Speed Racer?

If the goal of feminism is equality, then why do so many women fight against making male and female standards the same?

CannibalCrowley wrote:

If the goal of feminism is equality, then why do so many women fight against making male and female standards the same?

i'd hazard it's due to generational and religious reasons primarily

CannibalCrowley: Perhaps you could give some specific examples?

CannibalCrowley wrote:

If the goal of feminism is equality, then why do so many women fight against making male and female standards the same?

Because most tests are not necessarily direct tests of your ability to do the job. Tests are often indirect ways of screening out as many people who won't be able to hack it when sh*t Gets Real without unnecessarily screening out too many people who could.

It's acknowledging that the science of testing is often not a science: it's more of an art, and tests should be evaluated a priori as little as possible: the best 'test' of a test is to see how the candidates it passes perform in the real world. If a test with different standards produces equally good results in identifying qualified candidates, remember that the test is a means, not an end in itself.

Hypatian wrote:

CannibalCrowley: Perhaps you could give some specific examples?

There was the fight that the Marine Corps went through to get women off the flexed arm hang and to start using pull ups (with a much lower number required for women than men). The lawsuits against fire departments for using the same tests for men and women (Chicago most recently). There's also the issue of affirmative action style policies that exist in many government agencies.

The Marine Corps portion was especially brain twisting because as female Marines and others were fighting against toughening physical standards, they were also fighting to get male only occupations opened to women.

CheezePavilion wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

If the goal of feminism is equality, then why do so many women fight against making male and female standards the same?

Because most tests are not necessarily direct tests of your ability to do the job. Tests are often indirect ways of screening out as many people who won't be able to hack it when sh*t Gets Real without unnecessarily screening out too many people who could.

It's acknowledging that the science of testing is often not a science: it's more of an art, and tests should be evaluated a priori as little as possible: the best 'test' of a test is to see how the candidates it passes perform in the real world. If a test with different standards produces equally good results in identifying qualified candidates, remember that the test is a means, not an end in itself.

This would be a valid argument if they were arguing for a whole new screening method for everyone as opposed to different standards based solely on genitalia. As for tests in general, personally I'd prefer that any EMT working on me be knowledgeable in standard medical procedures. I'd also prefer that said person had correctly treated practice patients as opposed to simply putting one in the field to see how things turn out.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

CannibalCrowley: Perhaps you could give some specific examples?

There was the fight that the Marine Corps went through to get women off the flexed arm hang and to start using pull ups (with a much lower number required for women than men). The lawsuits against fire departments for using the same tests for men and women (Chicago most recently). There's also the issue of affirmative action style policies that exist in many government agencies.

The Marine Corps portion was especially brain twisting because as female Marines and others were fighting against toughening physical standards, they were also fighting to get male only occupations opened to women.

Physical standards is something that I can definitely see the argument. It's a difficult place to be - fitness tests are mostly there to test of a candidate is, effectively, "physically fit". There are very few tests where it is flat out "candidate must lift X lbs with Y limb or joint combination". So for the standards of fitness, a man who bench presses 140 pounds probably isn't necessarily "fit". A woman who can bench 140? Now we get into arguments about what genetics cap you off at and curve against you. And, again, unless the standard is "lift X weight", then it's still somewhat subjective. On either side.

But affirmative action is a whole other animal. The reality of the situation is this - you can't just say, "okay, everyone please stop being sexist," and suddenly there will be more female engineers and chemists. There is an institutionalized bias against certain candidates in certain situations. That is what affirmative action is there to combat. They are situations where the standard is presented as the same, but not actually executed as such. So, while it's not a perfect solution, the net result is not actually favoring women (or whatever group) over another.

As an FYI I really dislike affirmative action. I think it's an easily corrupted system that is a lightning rod for easy criticism and fuel for opposition. But I get why it exists and what it's trying to do.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

If the goal of feminism is equality, then why do so many women fight against making male and female standards the same?

Because most tests are not necessarily direct tests of your ability to do the job. Tests are often indirect ways of screening out as many people who won't be able to hack it when sh*t Gets Real without unnecessarily screening out too many people who could.

It's acknowledging that the science of testing is often not a science: it's more of an art, and tests should be evaluated a priori as little as possible: the best 'test' of a test is to see how the candidates it passes perform in the real world. If a test with different standards produces equally good results in identifying qualified candidates, remember that the test is a means, not an end in itself.

This would be a valid argument if they were arguing for a whole new screening method for everyone as opposed to different standards based solely on genitalia. As for tests in general, personally I'd prefer that any EMT working on me be knowledgeable in standard medical procedures. I'd also prefer that said person had correctly treated practice patients as opposed to simply putting one in the field to see how things turn out.

I actually had your example in mind:

CannibalCrowley wrote:

There was the fight that the Marine Corps went through to get women off the flexed arm hang and to start using pull ups (with a much lower number required for women than men). The lawsuits against fire departments for using the same tests for men and women (Chicago most recently). There's also the issue of affirmative action style policies that exist in many government agencies.

The Marine Corps portion was especially brain twisting because as female Marines and others were fighting against toughening physical standards, they were also fighting to get male only occupations opened to women.

Any number in a fitness test is going to be arbitrary to a certain extent. I can't possibly think of a situation where doing X number of a certain specific calisthenic led to victory, but x-1 resulted in defeat. Like I think this conversation came up a while ago in P&C and an artillery guy mentioned having to be able to deadlift a certain specific weight, which you know--I can imagine a direct connection between being able to lift a certain size shell and being able to function in the artillery. But most of firefighting or combat or some similar job isn't nearly that predictable. The fitness tests are designed to see if you've got a general level of fitness that will allow you to deal with the unexpected. Men and women are physically different, so it makes sense if you're going to measure their general fitness, you need different standards.

Physical tests have to be appropriate for the work you'll be doing, its not as though being marine boils down to the ability to do a flexed arm hang. Any company of soldiers will have a wide variety of roles that need fulfilled not of all of which are solely predicated on pure physical strength. If you can be a productive marine and not 20 flexed arm hangs then its a test that is not fit for purpose.

Also I'm broadly uncomfortable with affirmative action. Although mostly because i think it treats the symptoms of institutional sexism rather than doing anything about the underlying social/structural problems. That said for now, I can't think of anything better in many situations and its better than nothing.

When I was in med school, there were 240 slots for admissions for medical students. 120 were earmarked for men, and 120 for women. I did not think of this as "affirmative action." I was not uncomfortable with it. I did not think it was nonsensical, or unfair. I will admit that no small part of this is that the women generally scored higher on the admissions tests, and on academic and practical exams during med school.

This is hopefully another resource.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....

CannibalCrowley wrote:

If the goal of feminism is equality, then why do so many women fight against making male and female standards the same?

Some women have been conditioned by their culture to be treated differently. Also, just because they're women doesn't necessarily mean they care, know, or fight for feminist ideals. They might just be female and fighting for something.

bombsfall wrote:

I think among all of the horrid stuff I ended up watching/reading in research for this, I was most offended by that.
INTENSE, FANATICAL MISOGYNY IS FINE, BUT MY GOD... THERE IS A LINE, PEOPLE.

Well, it kinda was a good movie, really...

Jolly Bill wrote:

Aside from treating women as individuals of value and trying not to oggle people in public, what more can I do as a man to reduce the cultural influence of objectification / 'it's ok to look at an attractive girl's figure' in my life?

My belief is that you're already part of the solution from the moment you start being aware of the problem and willing to help out. It's not just big things but small things, like language (with the perfect examples provided by KatherinLHC in another thread).

About the physical tests, I mostly agree with what CheezePavillion said. Men and women are built differently, they don't have the same bone and muscle structures, having the same physical tests doesn't make sense. Some people argue that it would be dangerous, for example, to have a woman firefighter who couldn't break down a door if necessary. This is where DanB's posts is spot on: physical tests need to be tailored to the work you'll be doing, to be appropriate and relevant to the job you're applying for.

LarryC's comment reminds me of my own experience. When I started med school, there were no such restrictions. You just had a bunch of tests, you studied for them, and the top 120 of the class (1300 applicants) got to move on to second year. 55% were girls, 45% were boys (I can't seem to use "women"/"men" when you're 17-19 years old). Girls scored higher then boys, and this was a consistent statistics, over the course of 4 or 5 years (think it's still true now, but haven't checked). This in turn leads to pretty hugs problems in the French medical profession. The bulk of its practitioners are aging, closer to 70 than 30, and a good chunk of the young, female doctors opt for different work patterns, picking part time rather than full time, in order to look after home and hearth. Education is largely government funded here, so some of the higher ups have starting asking questions: should we bother spending so much on this long process to churn out doctors if they're going to stay at home or work part time? Should there be some sort of affirmative action, an extra hand in the selection process for med school?
I consider myself a feminist, but I can't deny the validity of these questions. The state is spending money to train professionals only to have them partially contribute to the workforce. Is increasing the cost of education an answer? (and clearly, it's not, if you know anything about the French system, you'd have riots in the streets) How about increasing the number and capacity of daycares, and offering tangible solutions for working mothers?...
Anyhow, I'm going on a tangent here, sorry about that, but I just wanted to offer my own experience as a foil for LarryC's post.

Edit: wow, great link, Edwin!! I'm sure Hyp will find it incredibly useful!!!