Perhaps feminists are right about everything. Yet one would never be able to figure that out from the flimsy or nonexistent arguments that feminists provide for certain parts of feminist theory. Daran sums up the feminist-critical meta-argument:
Feminist Theory—Patriarchy, Male Privilege, Female Oppression, Rape Culture…, almost the entire enchilada—is a baseless construct sustained entirely by the systematic use of circular arguments, special pleading, ad homs (logical and abusive), victim blaming, Red Herrings, selective use of evidence, suppression of evidence, baseless assumptions, baseless factual claims, demonstrably false factual claims, observably falsified hypotheses, smoke, and mirrors.
In short, large swathes of feminist theory are not justified by the arguments that feminists provide for them. Yet even when feminist theories are unjustified, it does not mean that they are unjustifiable. Some of the conclusions of feminists are credible, even if the route that feminists take to them is not.
Inside its own confines, feminist theory might seem to be built on a strong foundation. From outside, however, it often appears to be a castle built on sand. When asked to defend feminism assumptions, feminists typically resort to… other feminist assumptions. In pointing out feminist assumptions, I don’t necessarily believe that they are necessarily wrong, or that nobody could defend them, only that generally feminists either can’t or don’t (with exceptions that I will give examples of).
Loaded Terms
One of the problems with feminist theory is feminist jargon: terms such as “oppression,” “privilege,” “dominance,” “power,” and “patriarchy.” These terms often have general meanings that are different from their technical usage within feminism. They simultaneous create and reflect a worldview shared by feminists, a worldview with a certain set of values and assumptions. If feminists would lay out these values and assumptions, then it would be easier for people to decide whether or not they agree. Yet too often, feminists treat these assumptions and values as self-evident and universal, when truly, they are not. When feminists do provide arguments for their conceptualizations, these arguments tend to suffer from the problems that Daran discusses above.
In an example I discussed a while ago, Marilyn Frye defines oppression as living one’s life “confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction,” but then simply assumes that this characterization only applies to women’s experiences, but never to men’s.
Let’s take an even closer look at a term that came up in my discussion with Richard Jeffrey Newman over at Alas: “male dominance.”
Male Dominance
What does this mean? What are the ways of measuring “dominance,” and why should we measure it those ways? Dominance in which contexts? Does the claim that males are “dominant” mean that they are dominant in all contexts, or just in the most important ones? If so, what makes those contexts the most important? Until feminists can answer these types of questions, the claim of male dominance is merely an article of faith.
I can think of a narrow way of measuring dominance that justifies the claim of male dominance, which is to look at the sex of those people with the most political and socioeconomic power. Those people are indeed disproportionately male. However, it is not clear why we should accept this measurement of “dominance.” While males are over-represented in certain areas of advantage, such as political power, they are also over-represented in areas of disadvantage, as Adam Jones observes:
men are dramatically overrepresented in a number of categories that are, or should be, associated with disadvantage and/or disempowerment: prisoners and death-row inmates; victims of violence (including violence at the hands of state agents); occupational fatalities; suicide victims; the homeless; drug users; deaths from heart disease, lung cancer, and AIDS; those drafted or registered for the draft; and those laid off from industrial and managerial jobs.
In assessing dominance, we can’t just look at the who is at the top of the male distribution, but also at who is at the bottom. And the men who are at the bottom often tend to be dead. Are dead men “dominant?”
If death counts as a lack of dominance, then feminists are systematically overestimating male dominance. If death doesn’t count as counter-evidence to male dominance, then feminists are overestimating the the benefit of male dominance to men, by constantly using it in the same breath as “male privilege.”
The Castle Built on Sand
All the above questions apply to other pieces of feminist jargon such as “privilege,” “oppression,” and “power.”
• Why do they mean?
• What are the possible ways of conceptualizing and measuring them?
• Why should we conceptualize or measure them the way feminists do? e.g. in which contexts do they apply to, and what makes those contexts important?
As far as I can tell, feminists define those terms in a self-serving manner, or don’t bother to define them at all. Having “dominance” and “power” means “having the types of power that men have more of.” “Oppression” means “being subject to the types of harms that women suffer more of.” And “privilege” means “having the types of advantages that men are more likely to have.” When feminists use their terms in this way, then it is obvious that women are more oppressed, while men are more privileged, dominant, and powerful. Yet when “men are dominant” means that “men have more of the types of power that men have more of,” the argument becomes circular or tautological.
Of course, feminists don’t believe they define these terms in the self-serving manner that I say they do. And they do not explicitly define their terms in these ways. Feminists seem to believe that their conceptualizations of what counts as oppression, power, and privilege are universal, and should be accessible to any moral person with the ability to reason. Yet there are many possible conceptualizations of those ideas, most of which are ignored by feminists. When alternative conceptualizations to the intuitions of feminist women are ignored, the de facto usage of “oppression,” “privilege,” “power,” and “dominance” is self-serving and biased towards women’s (or at least feminist women’s) experiences of the world.
It’s a human tendency to believe that our disadvantages are more pressing than other people’s, and that our advantages are less present or more deserved than those of others. The burden of proof is on feminists to argue for their conceptualizations; instead, feminists act as if their conceptualizations are self-evident and that the burden is on others to argue against them. This is backwards.
Why people don’t “get” feminism
Feminists often term opposition to feminism as a failure to “get it.” What does it mean to “get” feminism, or to “not get it?” As someone who evidently doesn’t “get it,” I will offer a hypothesis. “Getting” feminism means assenting to its assumptions and values. For some people, these assumptions and values are intuitive or easily deducible. For others, these assumptions are evident in feminism, such as in its terms and buzzwords, but the truth of those assumptions is not so evident. They are hesitant to step into the self-referential circle of feminist buzzwords, perhaps because they sense how loaded those terms are.
Typical feminists don’t seem to reason themselves into feminism, because too much of feminism is built on claims for which no reasoning is provided. Consequently, acceptance of feminism requires a leap of faith based on emotion, akin to a religious conversion. This could be why, when challenged, feminists often fall back on ad hominems, personal attacks, or several non-arguments such as “you are just blinded by your privilege,” “you don’t get it,” or “this is not a place to debate Feminism 101.”
Another possibility is that some feminists have constructed their own improved arguments that can support feminism. As I hinted at above, while feminists might not generally have credible arguments for some of their claims, credible arguments might be possible: for instance, though common feminist reasoning on oppression (e.g. Frye’s) is flawed, Caroline New provides a conceptualization of oppression that justifies the claim that women are oppressed.
When these feminists share their more sophisticated arguments, and combat the sophistries of their sisters, it will be possible for the public to assess their agreement or disagreement with feminism. Until then, feminists are welcome to make all the leaps of faith they want; they just can’t expect us to follow them.
EXCELLENT POST, Hugh. Really first class.
Well written. The quasi-religious character of feminism is very clear and obvious to me. It is a system of thought which can become immune to facts. It can be criticized (not substantively) from within, but not from without.
Indeed, I have experienced “the you don’t get it” retort myself. I remember once, in an online discussion on whether or not pornography causes violence, I posted a small bibliography of studies and government findings that, at the very least, would throw serious doubt upon the idea that pornography causes violence. Naturally, this was all ignored and jeered-at.
One particularly delicious response was: “I bet you haven’t read a single word of feminist theory!”
Yes, so “getting feminism” is no different from “buying feminism.” In fact, to even read femnist theory is to accept it wholesale, and any empirical evidence that doesn’t arise from within feminism should be safely ignored. Empiricism is, of course, just a trick of Satan- er- a trick of men, I mean.
I’m particularly interested in the way “patriarchy” is used to bridge gaps within the feminist community.
It’s comforting to the more liberal and rational feminists to be assured that “blaming the patriarchy” does not imply that men must perforce be despised and condemned on account of their sex: “feminists blame an oppressive system and ideology, one from which men benefit disproportionately, but against which they may be honestly struggling. For the last time, feminists don’t hate men!”
On the other hand, internet radfems (people like Heart, for example) also claim to hate the patriarchy, but for a quite different reason: it allows them to categorically exculpate women and to categorically inculpate men. Far from minimizing the connection between masculinity and patriarchy, they emphasize it for all it’s worth. If, for example, women find themselves quarrelling, then the explanation is that they are reproducing a patriarchal paradigm; if they find themselves conforming to societal codes in dress and behaviour, then they have been forced to “do a deal with the patriarchy”; if they make unscrupulous headway in society at large, then they are “dupes of the patriarchy”. Always the implication is that the apparent faults of women (i.e. what Heart et aliae would conceive as such) are the actual faults of the patriarchy. The faults of men, however, are not to be ascribed to any power beyond them. I’ve yet to hear of a man’s bad behaviour excused or minimized on the grounds that he was reproducing patriarchal paradigms, that he was forced to do a deal with the patriarchy or that he was duped by it. Why not?
The unspoken justification is, obviously, that men are the patriarchy and that women are its victims even when they appear to be its supporters and enforcers. As men are identical with patriarchy, then it follows not only that individual male wrongdoers are guilty of their own misdemeanours, but also that all other men share in their guilt. When an internet radfem writes “I hate the patriarchy” what she means is “I hate men”. She’s just too canny to come right out and say it.
A useful word.
Tom Nolan:
[quote]When an internet radfem writes “I hate the patriarchy” what she means is “I hate men”.[/quote]
Or perhaps more to the point, “I hate that aspect of masculinity/manhood/male gender role that produces, supports, aids and abets patriarchy.” The problem is that what men are outside of this aspect is left undefined, leading to a rough equivalence in appearance, if not in practice.
men are dramatically overrepresented in a number of categories that are, or should be, associated with disadvantage and/or disempowerment:
prisoners and death-row inmatescriminals; victims ofviolencemen (including violence at the hands ofstate agentsmen);occupational fatalitiesoccupations; suicide victims; the homeless; drug users; deaths from heart disease, lung cancer, and AIDS;those drafted or registered for the draftpre-all volunteer service draftees; and those laid off fromindustrial and managerialjobs.what’s amazing is these men think Feminists do not understand the dynamic of men’s violence. This we get drafted by men to fight other men, so feel sorry for us crap is amazing. And I’ll be damned if some man thinks he deserves something more than me from society, or any woman that volunteered, or when she wasn’t allowed to volunteer just SHOWED UP, because he signed his name on a paper at 18 or because men got drafted (by men) to (fight men) in the past. I volunteered and I serve proudly. Your name on a paper means shit.
This “we can’t define it” business is starting to get a little redundant at your camp. It’s like if I were hitting you over the head with a bat and I just kept asking “Well what is pain -really-.” What does pain really -mean- anyway? Why do I have to define pain your way!
Heh
“I’ll be damned if some man thinks he deserves something more than me from society [...]” – kiuku
Who could wish for more than kiuku from society?
advice: don’t post to the internet when you’re drunk. Have a nice weekend.
Tom: oh, I once read an interview with Mary Daly in which the interviewer preceded the session with the phrase “the patriarchy, in other words, men”
Every religion needs a devil, and that’s what the patriarchy is. In feminist mythology, the historical rise of patriarchy which supplanted ancient matriarchies is equivalent to Adam and Eve being cast-out of the paradise of Eden after gaining knowledge of sin. Patriarchy is an alien intrusion which can be expunged, much in the same way that sin can be expunged, which will one day return us to Golden Age which existed before it.
[quote comment="16474"]“I’ll be damned if some man thinks he deserves something more than me from society [...]” – kiuku
Who could wish for more than kiuku from society?
advice: don’t post to the internet when you’re drunk. Have a nice weekend.[/quote]
heh
May I suggest to have a quick read through all introductory documents about feminism/feminist philosophy at the stanford encyclopedia of philsoophy? (plato.stanford.edu) Most of the theoretical problems of feminism as a non-contingent political philosphy are discussed there (by feminist scholars themselves), they’re mostly accepted, and thus aren’t really worth debating about academically. This doesn’t invalidate the cause, as HughRistik correctly said, but some non trivial parts of what’s publicly treated as the underlying theory.
kiuku,
The “we can’t define it” business is a serious theoretical and partly a political problem, mostly for feminism itself. Just check out the source I mentioned above, which I suppose will be more authoritative to you than anything you may read here.
I’m not in any camp. Consider me a war correspondent
.
“Feminists seem to believe that their conceptualizations of what counts as oppression, power, and privilege are universal, and should be accessible to any moral person with the ability to reason. Yet there are many possible conceptualizations of those ideas, most of which are ignored by feminists.”
Feminist’s use of the term “privilege” is derived from Standpoint Theory, which is a system of thought that supposes that people that benefit from privilege have a view of the world that is morally and ethically skewed. You need to be oppressed to have a clear view of the social order. I think it complete nonsense.
This is why they insist on admission of privilege and an acceptance of “Feminism 101″ to even participate in their circular discussions. They use privilege admission as an amulet to ward off opposing views.
Tobias,
Not necessarily (authoritative to me). Thanks for the link.
There is a difference between choosing to fight and being forced to fight. If one is unable of discerning that difference, then one clearly does not understand the concept of choice.
Actually, my name on the paper means far more than “shit.” It means that if I do not wish to fight, if I find the reason for the war or the war itself to be unjust, I am bound by law and oath to serve and die for this country or I will be fined and/or imprisoned.* In short, I do not actually get to choose to volunteer. If those in power, both men and women, decide they want me, my opinion means “shit,” as does my life. For the boys and men who have no desire to fight, that is a very real fear, particularly given the current global atmosphere. It is inappropriate and dishonorable to mock that fear or throw it in the face of eighteen-year-old boys who just graduated from high school.
* While one may claim to be a conscientious objector, the reality of modern warfare is slowly making that position a combat position unless one is assigned to safe areas within the country (assuming the combat zones are not in the US).
For me feminism is a no win situation.
Years ago we fathers with custody were severely discriminated against. Today, a significant amount of money is being spent to return society to those bad old days. OK, most should know that. Any attempt to talk about it results in demand that ‘the patriarchy’ was at fault and yes, there were mostly men in Parliament back then and still are.
That said, most of the men in Parliament are pragmatists and will do whatever they think will keep them in office. Feminists to this day talk only of the problems of lone mothers: Their silence on lone fathers acts as a lever to cause bad thinking in Parliament.
There is a LOT more to it than just the men serving in Parliament. Those who opposed changing the laws were not at all gender differentiated, as many women opposed fairness as did men. Now we see a bit of the problem.
There’s more though. Any attempt to talk about the bad old days of rampant and severe discrimination results in charges of misogyny. Any attempt to talk about the problems of today’s lone fathers –there are many– results in charges of misogyny; while at the same time no person can say that there is misandry in speaking of the problems of lone mothers: In this way feminists shut down and oppress real men.
In this area, single parenting, feminists, who have most of the social-group power and almost all of the press-power, oppress and harm men and children. Parliament will do pretty much exactly what the feminists want and the feminists ‘wants’ do not include the best interests of lone fathers or their children.
When looked at in total it is a no win situation. One can blame ‘the patriarchy’ and take blame for one’s own suffering or be classified as a misogynist. One can let innocent people suffer or be branded as hating women.
It is not much of a choice.
I wiped my butt with your draft slip with the little “conscientious objector” box checked on my way to work today.
jw, men being in positions of power has never done anything to help men NOT in positions of power. Because men don’t, and never have, thought like that. Feminist divide the world according to gender (as nationalists divide it by nationality) and so the meme of a ‘gender war’ is born. The idea that men, as a group, will favour eachother. Yet when we look at actual examples of this, it falls apart. Male judges favour female criminals, female judges favour female criminals. A no-win situation for a male.
And kiuku, I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. But please, this blog has very strict rules on being polite and courteous to other posters. No ad-hominems.
Your point?
As I said before, kiuku is a true member of the Sisterhood. Never will she be accused of not being a “real feminist” and never will she have her comments banned from any feminist blog.
But Cathy Young, on the other hand, is a phony feminist who secretly hates women.
[quote comment="16585"]I wiped my butt with your draft slip with the little “conscientious objector” box checked on my way to work today.[/quote]
You desecrate the honorable and courageous sacrifices made by countless men and boys who have fought and died for this country with your above statement, particularly those who lost their lives in Vietnam. While you may feel you serve your country proudly, you do so without humility or respect, and that is rather disgraceful and dishonorable.
She’s just a bully. Like most bullies she’ll pat herself on the back and imagine her incoherant assaults are granting her some sort of high status. It’s typical pathological behaviour.[I understand the sentiment, but let's try to find a different way to put it. --Hugh]I could put it a hundred different ways, but I’m not sure by what criteria one would be more appropriate than another. Perhaps a more clinical version:
kiuku’s lack of empathy, abundance of grandiosity, and as of yet incoherant world view are the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist.
Is that better?
I think one of the most blatant examples of a “loaded term” is
their definition of
I’ve been caught out on it several times when discussing issues feminist
Actually Hugh, I think this is more to your liking (commenting on the comments rather than the commentator):
The lack of empathy, abundance of grandiosity, and as of yet incoherant world view in the comments kiuku has posted here, are the hallmarks of pathological narcissism.
Here’s a short dialogue for your amusement…
Me: “Would you agree that feminism cannot handle criticism?”
Feminist: “No, feminism can handle criticism. Feminism is quite open to criticism, in fact!”
Me: “So why do you consider Cathy Young, Christina Hoff-Sommers and Camille Paglia to be anti-feminists?”
Feminist: “Because they criticize feminism!”
Me: “…”
Feminist: “You see?”
Me: “My head hurts.”
TS,
What a messed up thing to say anyway, veterans day;to shame anyone’s service, call it dishonorable. I’m not surprised. The only thing that can possibly redeem that is if you have worn the uniform. ANYONE that puts on the uniform, especially willingly, especially in a time of war, honors those who have gone before them, and who died and bled proudly for this country and the rights of its free citizens.
You having a penis does not make you a Veteran and does not count you among them or their heroism yours, or all men’s. What you’re doing dishonors Veterans who did serve and who did give their lives. You are trying to hijack heroism…trying to grab a piece of the big penis-pie from Veterans. Draftees were (emphasis -were-) men. Most of the military is men, but most of the enemy is men. So the gender, the sex cancels out, and all you are left with is people, some heros: women and men who serve our country proudly in uniform. Some did it because they had to, some saw it as a civic duty, like taxes, of the able-bodied to defend. They used to draft criminals, and sometimes these people were defectors and saboteurs. Now it is an all volunteer service. And you won’t see anyone thanking those who “registered for the draft” on Veteran’s day.
How horrible to hijack the heroism of those who, able-bodied, served proudly and willingly, for your agenda.
“Actually, my name on the paper means far more than “shit.” It means that if I do not wish to fight, if I find the reason for the war or the war itself”-TS
Then how did I wipe my butt with it?
I agree that she’s not accepted by many other feminists as a feminist, but can you cite any recognised feminist saying that she secretly hates women?
Aych:
Jams:
Then
How about “Kuiku’s comments evince a lack of empathy, and an incoherent world-view”.
Aych, there’s a valid (and important) point buried in your comment, but lets try to make it about feminism rather than about kiuku.
Jams, none of the above earn a strike, because none were particularly insulting. Nevertheless, I saw you did earn a strike. I like you; you’re a terrific commenter here; but please try to curb the ad homs.
Speaking of Veteran’s Day, let me put some perspective o Kiuku’s bombast and dishonesty. She is a female member of the Air Force. She can therefore not be a combat pilot, or one of those ground controller guys or those Recon types in the red berets, and in the Air Foreece those are the combatants directly comparable to soldiers or Marines. She is what we in the Army call a REMF – a Rear Echelon Motherfucker. Support troops take their share of causalties, or more, and they are essential in a war. But they at least have to be in the area of operations, not safely off in Qatar or someplace like that. It disgusts this comabt veteran to watch her posturing.
A has been pointed out above, and as she herself is saying apparently, there is a difference between someone who gets a draft notice and someone like her who actually enlists. Yes, of course – granted. So why mention actual service as arebuttal when someone else brings up the unrelated issue of forced conscription? It’s a dodge. The purpose of the dodge is obvious – it allows her to discount another instance of inequality between men and women where the Patriarchy privileges women. Perhaps if she had a son who had to register for the draft, she might not have this bigoted and ghoulish attitude, but jugding from the attitude towards men she has shown in her posts here, it’s really unlikely she’ll ever have one
Kiuku can’t wipe her ass with a draft notice; that’s one more thing she’ll never have.
From her subsequent comment, I appears that here sneer was directed at ‘conscientous objectors’, not at the men who fight, and who are killed and injured.
As for ‘honerable and courageous sacrifices’ – I’d rather have them alive and entire. This whole ‘honor’ business is part of the fraud that sucks young men into the war-machine. Enlisted soldiers are the worst-paid employees for the risks they take: They literally work for ribbons.
Respect them, certainly; They deserve that. But ‘honor’ be damned. They’re (mostly) men, doing a very dangerous job, for which some of them pay a very heavy price.
Excellent post, Jim, and for the record, I take your remark about “Rear Echelon Motherfucker” to be a comment about how theater-troops regard those in non-theater roles, rather than abuse hurled specifically at kiuku.
Jim,
I did wipe my butt with it. now it is all brown, so if Congress ever decides to enlist any of you by bringing back the draft that ended in 1973 pre-feminist ass-kickery, they’ll have to fish it out of my toilet.
Yeah things that oppress women in other countries count as oppression of women. Men being drafted into war and dying doesn’t count because it doesn’t happen in America at the moment.
well lookie, its the bad ex-feminist….a top ten for ya.
Problem one with many modern day feminists: They’ve forgotten that feminism was supposed to be about equality.
Problem two with many modern day feminists: They’ve forgotten that if one wants women to have equality and be seen as thinking, intelligent, autonomous humans, they must also take responsibility and credit for their actions, both bad and good, and simply not shove the blame for everything they do, especially the bad things, onto The Patriarchy and Men.
Problem three with many modern day feminists: “All feminists are Equal, but some Feminists are More Equal than Others”.
Problem four with many modern day feminists: They have seemingly forgotten that forever placing oneself in the victim role is no way to win a war.
Problem five with many modern day feminists: They are too damn bossy, especially to other women.
Problem six with many modern day feminists: They feel they should have authority in peoples bedrooms, and all too often call any act of sex they deem unacceptable or not to their liking abuse, rape, or criminal.
Problem seven with many modern day feminists: They suffer from strange bouts of classism and racism.
Problem eight with many modern day feminists: They set themselves up to be the voice of “Tribe Woman”, and they certainly are not.
Problem nine with many modern day feminists: They refuse to engage with those who disagree with them.
Problem ten with many modern day feminists: They’ve taken up many stances and ideaologies that are disturbingly like those they started out fighting against.
Feminism is an ideology, and like most ideologies, is impervious to scientific reasoning. It serves mainly as a justification for power grabbing by feminists. Since feminsts have the eternal mantle of the “oppressed” any outrage they commit is entirely justified.
The late great James Burnham did a fairly good expose of ideological thinking in his book, “Suicide of the West.” It’s worth reading, at least the chapters on ideological thinking, because it applies to feminism ever more so today.
Really, the moment that the term “ism” was applied to “femin” we should have realized it was in the same category as Marxism, fundamentalism and national socialism. Except the Marxists have better arguments.
Ren,
What you are describing is a spoiled child. Perhaps that explains why more and more women wnat so little to do with feminism and are adamant that they are not feminists. You know how every so often someone comes here and asks where all the feminsts are. I might ask the same question of feminist blogs – how many women post on them. It ought to be hundreds on each blog if they have any real mass appeal.
Someone might ask me how it is, if feminsts nowadays have such a small constituency among women it is that they have achieved so many of their legislative and policy goals. This is where you take one of their talking points about male privelge and point oout that legislatures are overwhelmingly male. That is hte arena where they have had success, that is their only real constituency – the Patriarchy.
Daran – REMF is a well-established slang term, and it is not personal abuse, it’s inter-service rivalry. I did not mean in any way the low-rate Kiuku’s service, or service. She was just out of line low-rating draft notices to support her bigotry, and it was time ot say something. If her service weren’t esential, her position wouldn’t exist, somple as that.
Now she is reduced to poo-poo taunts. That’s a telling admission.
Ren — came by cuz I heard you had a rocking comment here: right on. These particular feminists you cite aren’t doing feminism any favors.
As far as the rest of it — no comment. It’s easy to cherrypick unreasonableness from any philosophy. Spending so much time picking apart the low hanging fruit begs the question: why? What’s the motivation for that?
And the answer to that is the answer to Jim’s question: “You know how every so often someone comes here and asks where all the feminists are.” As you know, I’m one who came and went.
The motivation is because its not questioned. Dissenters who question are considered anti-feminists. And because it’s not questioned some of the memes slowly infect even the most reasonable of feminists.
“Problem one with many modern day feminists: They’ve forgotten that feminism was supposed to be about equality.”
It is about equality. Equality for women (not men??). Even octogalore falls for that one.
callum: Of course. Men do not see other men as feminists DEMAND men see other men: This is even more pronounced looking at the higher end of the dominance scale.
Dominant men, alpha males if you will, see lesser men as workers and bullet stops, convenient things and not much more. When dominant men are under control of healthy dominant women we get societies that help all. In our society the dominant women see men as convenient things, just like the dominant men. Thus, there is no balance and innocent people get hurt.
Fixing that is well within feminist control. Should the feminists simply TELL the dominant men to look out for the interests of the lesser men, we would not be having this conversation.
Sadly, feminists refuse to fix the problem so … We’re stuck with a society in which more and more innocent men get hurt. Worse, we’re stuck with a society that demands a hurt man was hurt due to his own fault. The REAL fault goes on all dominants and all with power in the press & social spheres of our power block structure which very much includes the feminists.
In some areas of society where feminists have almost all of the power and control men get hurt routinely and severely. Feminists cannot weasel out of their own responsibility for damage done to innocent men and their children.
Jim,
Oh come on now. Low rating draft notices. That’s what they exist for nowadays, the conscientious objector ones for when we run out of toilet paper!
Leta,
Men sent -by men- off to war and dying, against -other men-. You’d be hard-pressed to find a Real Feminist who supports drafts and most of them speak out strongly against war, especially for its negative consequences on women. Again the sex cancels out. You can make this about men, but it’s not. I honor Veterans as HEROS not men.
[quote comment="16685"]From her subsequent comment, I appears that here sneer was directed at ‘conscientous objectors’, not at the men who fight, and who are killed and injured.[/quote]
Many of the men who were drafted did not wish to fight and objected. However, they could not necessarily fulfill the government’s requirement to be considered a conscientious objector. Similarly, many of the men serving now are in battle despite their objection with the war in Iraq primarily because they took an oath and intend to honor it.
By mocking those who do not wish to fight or consider a war unjust, kuiku is dishonoring those men’s sacrifices.
AND THEN there are the people who are prepared to die for their country when it needs them to, where it needs them to, regardless of the sex of those who command them, those who surround them, or who are in charge, for the rights of ALL its free citizens, some who do not “wish to fight” and some who cannot fight. Those are the people who understand the word “Duty”. Those are
Real Americans.
Can you define a Real American?
Octo,
just in case you come back to this thread -
I think you’re asking a very important question. Of course, it cuts both ways. What is it about gender related issues that make everyone wonder if it’s possible to be interested in the subject not to have some deep-rooted emotional issues? Is it the people discussing that cause the impression? Is it a correct impression? What does that tell us about the debate itself? Would this question be asked about someone’s opinions about foreign policy, tax-spread theories, any other political theory that doesn’t deal with gender as one/the primary social cleavage?
I’m really surprised how much you actually think registering for the draft makes you a Veteran or all men entitled to that heroism. What sacrifice? The time it took to sign your name? Your name on the paper is meaningless to the people fighting right now and those who fought and died.
Zero.
It means nothing.
NOW’s stated position on the draft and registration:
“NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW’s primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.”
This policy was adopted by the NOW National Board in January 1980.
Kiuku,
The term conscientious objector* is not limited to boys who must register for the draft. It applies to all people, both males and females, who are either drafted or enlist willingly into military service and take issue with fighting in a war in general or with a particular war. So when one derides conscientious objectors, one is not simply mocking males who have signed the draft card or males (but not females) who have not enlisted, but also the men and women who have enlisted but do not wish to fight. It is most important that one understands this because it is becoming increasingly relevant as the present military situation continues.
* Portions of the wiki article are held in question, however, the general article itself gives a decent description of who and what a conscientious objector is.
TS,
You’re, and others, are asking me to penis-praise someone who registers for the draft when I’m wearing the uniform. That’s absurd.
Exactly what degree of empathy do you want me to submit for the “psychological stress” of those who undergo registering for the draft, when I’m in the uniform?
And then call someone’s service dishonorable, when you didn’t even serve yourself…is just amazingly indicative of NARCISISM and PRIVILIGE.
Heroism hijacking is the number one argument employed by men to defend the privilege they wish to assume simply by being born male.
tobias: I don’t think that’s responsive to what I said. I don’t think it’s problematic to be interested in gender-related issues. I do think men picking apart the low-hanging fruit of a movement at its root geared to addressing demonstratable systematic inequalities in opportunities for women is problematic. So your examples of tax policy etc. aren’t good analogies.
When the advantaged group, who might be able to isolate various circumstances in which they aren’t, but who are in the vast majority, focuses discussion on whining about the former and denying the latter, to me it’s not worth engaging.
I’m suprised the question would even be asked as to why feminists aren’t here. There are two groups feminists need to care about as priority one (and please, don’t claim this means feminists don’t care at all about men who’ve faced various disadvantages — they’re just not feminism priority one). Those two groups are: women, and men who are aware of the relative advantages operating, and have the self esteem, empathy and confidence to engage accordingly. I haven’t found those here, with a few exceptions, and I think if othe feminists had, you’d see more of them here.
[quote]I’m suprised the question would even be asked as to why feminists aren’t here.[/quote]
This is a blog where feminism and feminists will be criticized. It is not unexpected that supporters of an ideology would avoid such spaces, particularly given the issues discussed and the perspective from which they are discussed.
However, what is interesting is how this occurs on this blog. When there is an abundance of feminists here, few non-feminists post and vice versa. The latter occurs when feminist ideas and assertions are questioned or criticized. The former happens when feminist comments go unquestioned or at least only slightly nudged, essentially creating a feminist space akin to that of a feminist blog.
Most ironically, when a middle ground is attempted or actually met (which Hugh is unbelievably good at doing), it goes unnoticed or gets treated by feminists as a veiled attack.
Octo,
Hey. So far there are a few arguments the so-called “Feminist critics” employ:
1. Heroism hijacking
“All men are good, deserve privilege/more opportunities/praise as men because of male heros.”
2. The top and bottom argument, as employed by Baumeister and others, already ripped apart on Feminist blogs.
“Yes men are the drug dealers but they are also the drug users! So there”
as you can see this one is particularly convincing.
And last the
3. “We can’t really define it” argument. It’s just too damn arbitrary.
What’s really interesting is when they use the “We can’t define it” argument along with the “Top and bottom” argument because if they can’t define “oppression” how can they argue against its existence? They have to atleast acknowledge the existence of a definition or perspective of oppression, even if it is Feminist.
kiuku you fail. I believe in equality for all. When men have hardship that women don’t thats wrong in exactly the same way when women have hardship that men don’t.
“All men are good, deserve privilege/more opportunities/praise as men because of male heros.”
that is as exactly wrong as saying all women are good and deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt when men in the same position aren’t.
“2. The top and bottom argument, as employed by Baumeister and others, already ripped apart on Feminist blogs.
“Yes men are the drug dealers but they are also the drug users! So there””
because some men have power does not mean all men have power. some women are crazy self centred and irrational. But i refuse to label all women that way.
[quote comment="16798"]Exactly what degree of empathy do you want me to submit for the “psychological stress” of those who undergo registering for the draft, when I’m in the uniform?
And then call someone’s service dishonorable, when you didn’t even serve yourself…is just amazingly indicative of NARCISISM and PRIVILIGE.
Heroism hijacking is the number one argument employed by men to defend the privilege they wish to assume simply by being born male.[/quote]
Um, because you CHOSE to be in the uniform? Hey, I am of the mind that ALL people should have to register for the draft, but as it stands, you are in the uniform by choice, and that makes a huge difference.
renegade choice/consent never matters thats why rape shouldn’t be a crim… wait…
leta, you don’t want to go there with me, you really don’t.
Kiuku (parodying what she regards as an invalid argument, after having made a scholarly reference to “Baumeister and others”)
Actually, it is perfectly fair to point out that both the perpetrators and victims of an evil act can belong to the same sex. The outrageous suggestion is the contrary one: that (for example) a male victim of rape has no cause to complain, on the grounds that both he and his rapist belong to the same gender-group. Here she is again on the “What is Real Feminism” thread:
One of the marvellous things about Kiuku – one of the reasons I value her presence so much on FCs – is her readiness to actually SAY what so many radfems quietly think. In this case, that if perpetrator and victim are male then, given that both belong to the same group, the books balance and no-one has any cause for complaint. It’s the clear confirmation of something I mentioned up-thread. Radfems consider that “the crimes of the patriarchy” = “the crimes of men” and that all men share in responsibility for those crimes. Ergo the male victim is guilty of the crime committed against him.
Octo,
Ok, but then, if being interested in gender related issues is not problematic but then leads to the (not just individual) realization that the leading (social) philosophy is epistemologically problematic, how could a cause-sympathetic ((my) humanism is about giving freedom) man be able to discuss this without falling into the second category, while women can be meta-critical all the time?
Toy Soldier
Agreed – Hugh is advocating that feminists debate rationally, not that they abandon sexual egalitarianism, nor even that they dilute their focus on inequality as it adversely affects women. He’s just pointing out that their arguments need to address rational objections if they are to be effective in society at large.
His reward? His post has been largely ignored. That’s understandable on the part of antifeminists – who are, of course, quite pleased when feminists choose stupid arguments to further their cause. But that, for example, Octogalore, having paid her respects to Ren (whose posting here, I’ve noticed, is often portrayed by nonplussed feminists as a sort of saintly “leper-work”) should dismiss Hugh’s post like this
I find flabbergasting. Or at least, I find it slightly disappointing.
Ren, Leta’s point was actually aimed at kiuku, and those who think like her, even though he was replying to you. kuiku doesn’t appear to see a problem with conscription, because she, personally, volunteered. That’s a bit like not seeing a problem with rape because you choose to have sex.
leta isn’t really saying that rape shouldn’t be a crime.
daran-
still a crap way to make a point that will win no friends, you know? its statements like that which are, sorry, part of the reason you have not so many feminists here. y’all want logic and good arguements, comments like that don’t really lend themselves all that well to such things.
eh, about to rant on in in my own way anyhow…
[...] on “Shifting through the Feminist Sandcastle” have raised my notorious ire [...]
Renegade,
Everyone in the military is there now because they chose to be. No way I am thanking “men and boys” just because men and boys “registered” for the draft. I thank VETERANS: men and women.
Should I thank criminals then? They drafted them too.
The situation of a regular ol’ civilian male to call someone elses service dishonorable when they haven’t worn the uniform without question or remorse can only be possible in the male-female privilege dynamic. It can only be privilege when someone serving in uniform in a time of war has to thank men and boys who registered, and if not, it is dishonorable…a desecration. For me to call out your draft paper, wipe my butt with it, and say it means nothing to those who actually did and presently serve, my actual service becomes dishonorable. Amazing.
Veterans day no less. I’m not saying you should thank people in uniform if you don’t want to, and you don’t believe in it.
I may be serving the country in uniform in war but I still have to thank men and boys for signing their names. I’m still a woman in the Patriarchy. I dishonored the penis sacrifice by not lauding draft registrees.
Everyone in now is there because they chose to be. It’s an all volunteer service. Maybe you should be thanking them, because it means they aren’t drafting you.
Daran,
I love my job, and I do have a problem with conscription, as it is now.
It’s not really a big issue on my agenda, though.
Kiuku.
Despite expressing viewpoints very different from ours, we welcomed you here, and we have at all times treated you well. None of the bloggers have been abusive toward you, and for the most part, neither have the other guests. Those few times that another guest was abusive, they were rebuked.
This is our place, our home on the web. You are also a guest here; please behave like one. Specifically please drop your offensive, not to mention peurile, lavatorial comments. By all means find other ways to make your points.
no.
Kiuku:
I do admire the work of the people (female and male) in todays non-draftee military. You included. Do not assume otherwise.
[quote comment="16794"]NOW’s stated position on the draft and registration:
“NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW’s primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.”
This policy was adopted by the NOW National Board in January 1980.[/quote]
octogalore said:
If I was picking on the lowest hanging fruits, you would see me quoting random comments on feminist blogs like Twisty’s, or picking on isolated and polemical statements by Dworkin and MacKinnon. If I was doing so, then I think your point about me picking the low hanging fruit would be accurate, and it might even display a motivation to tar feminism by the words of its least articulate or sophisticated members.
But I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. I am picking on people like Marilyn Frye and her view of oppression, which is widely cited in feminism and in women’s studies courses. If Marilyn Frye is a “low hanging fruit” in feminism, then you make feminism sound like it hangs rather low in general.
And I’m not just looking at the low hanging fruit in feminism: I do mention some high-hanging fruit, such as feminist sociologist of gender Caroline New’s arguments on oppression. She provides a quite rigorous argument for why women (and also men), should be considered “oppressed.” That’s the kind of argumentation I’m looking for.
What motivation do my arguments hold? Well, it could be that I’m just trying to find as many excuses to be skeptical of feminism as possible. And I am skeptical. Yet I do realize that if feminists were to “show their work” in the arguments they make, I might find myself agreeing with them more often. In fact, if feminists are correct, but they refuse to provide arguments why they are correct, then they are depriving me and others of important knowledge.
Well, it’s always interesting to have you here when you decide to drop by. We enjoy discussions with feminists, but we do not expect them to set up residence here.
octogalore said:
This comment is an example of the kind of point I’m making in my post. You see men as “the advantaged group,” who can “isolate” various disadvantages that they have.
What I’m saying is that your use of terms like “advantaged,” and the assumptions loading in them, are in need of explanation and justification. Perhaps you can justify the claim that men are “the” advantaged group according to some criteria. But until I know what those criteria are, and why you choose them, I really can’t qualify your claim. (I’m not necessarily asking that you go and justify your use of that term to us, here and now, though it would certainly be an interesting exercise. The point is that feminists systematically employ loaded terms like this without justification, or even recognizing the need for justification. And no, “Feminism 101″ doesn’t really do a better job.)
In the case of “isolating” incidents of male disadvantage: if you are saying that male disadvantages are isolated incidents, then I downright disagree with you. There was the “isolated” incident of the HMS Birkenhead (where the men sacrificed themselves so the women could take the lifeboat), then there was the RMS Titanic (where men sacrificed themselves or were forced away from lifeboats so women could survive), then there was the Srebrenica Massacre (where then U.N. preferentially evacuated women and left behind over 7,000 Muslim men to be slaughtered by the Serbs). These are only a few examples of cases in recent history where men’s lives have been treated as disposable. Once you “isolate” enough incidents, you get a pattern.
As “whining about the former and denying the latter,” I do not deny that women have nontrivial disadvantages (though I might disagree with feminists on what they are). Pointing out the existence of male disadvantages only looks like “whining” to you, because you are committed to different background assumptions about the relative advantages and disadvantages that men and women are subject to, and how to measure those things.
I advocate that instead of arguing over who is “whining” about what, the debate should be taken to the level of the background assumptions (about what counts as “oppression,” “privilege,” “advantage” in what contexts, etc…) that make certain claims look like “whining” to feminists and valid to non-feminists, or valid to feminists and whiny to others. For this to happen, feminists will have to acknowledge and value an exploration of their background assumptions.
Hell Hugh, even I will take a stab at this, wrt to advantages vs disadvantages…
1: I think men hold the advantage in the majority of the workforce, especially in positions of power and with higher salaries: places such as law firms, the medical profession, many other white collar fields. For a long time this was because men also had advantages in schooling, the ability and means to get higher educations. This is changing, but men still hold the advantage.
2; Athletics; there are far more opportunities and greater money in mens professional sports as opposed to womens. (and yep, I realize male pro athletes command higher fees because more people watch pro sports with male athletes, but it is an example)
3: Media/Entertainment; Men have an advantage here in that the primary prereq for their success is talent, where as for the most part, talent is not enough for women to be majorly successful, they also need looks. Yes, there are exceptions, but overall men have an advantage here as well.
That’s a few off the top of my head.
Tobias: I’m not talking about global truths, I’m talking about what bores me. First, I don’t think women have any blanket authority to be critical about EVERYTHING, which I think you know from my blog. Next, why would a male who has issues with various aspects of feminist theory be irritating to me, and I believe to other feminists? Because as legitimate as a percentage of his comments might be, the fact that he’s spending so much time making them is suspect to me, given what I believe feminism’s foundation is. To me, it means he has ISSUES. Ones that I’m not unsympathetic to. But ultimately, piecing though them isn’t my highest and best use.
As to Hugh’s post, that sums up my perhaps unfair dismissiveness. The sarcastic first sentence pretty much had me pressing control F to find Ren’s comment. Stiffening my spine, I stumbled through the next two paragraphs, only to be completely turned off by “feminists typically [negative statement]…” and “huge swathes of feminist theory [negative statement]…”.
For the record, I believe Hugh is a reasoned and intelligent person who, in ten years, will be so busy bedding down feminists that he’ll (a) forget what his problems were with feminist theory and (b) wonder why he bothered.
2; Athletics; there are far more opportunities and greater money in mens professional sports as opposed to womens. (and yep, I realize male pro athletes command higher fees because more people watch pro sports with male athletes, but it is an example)
Ok this shits me. If women are being discriminated against in sports what we should do is abolish womens sports just like the negro league was racist women’s athletics events are sexist. we should integrate all sports its the only way to achieve equal work for equal pay right?
Perhaps a better way of answering the question (why feminists aren’t here often, or since I can only speak for one of them, why I’m not) is that becuase I disagree with the very premise of the site (men picking apart feminism), I think there’s a fundamental divide between my perspective and that of many of the posters here that cannot be bridged by discussion.
Octogalore (sounding oddly like Kiuku)
Why, is an argument any more or any less valid as a result of the sex of the person who made it?
As a thought experiment, try imagine the person asking the above question with
(scenario 1) a penis
and then with
(scenario 2) a vagina.
Make any difference?
how dare men pick apart feminism its not like feminists attempt to pick apart the beliefs and behaviour of groups of men.
leta: I don’t care if it shits you, actually. The abolishment of the negro leagues allowed for black men to have the chance to compete against and with white men in the same sports. Key word being men here. Don’t be an ass, we all know women are not going to make it in the NFL, excetera, that doesn’t mean they can’t be entertaining, talented well paid athletes.
Care to touch the other two examples, or not?
Octo,
That’s fair enough.
Well, that may be the case, who knows. I just don’t think that reasoned and intelligent men can only interested in this subject because they aren’t bedding feminists. If that, even on some subconscious level, should be someone’s motivation, I agree, it would be a waste of time.
So you are actually arguing against the equal pay for equal work. because if you are arguing that womens sport is just as entertaining well that is purely subjective.
“1: I think men hold the advantage in the majority of the workforce, especially in positions of power and with higher salaries: places such as law firms, the medical profession, many other white collar fields. For a long time this was because men also had advantages in schooling, the ability and means to get higher educations. This is changing, but men still hold the advantage.”
The benefits that men receive from power are greater than the benefits women receive from equivalent power. Women find powerful men sexy men do find powerful women sexy just not as much (at least in my experience). This creates greater incentives to reach high positions (discrimination against women also happens). A tendency/expectation to work yourself into an early grave can be both positive and negative.
Tom, of course I’m not saying gender makes a person’s opinion more or less valid. If women were tearing down feminism, I’d have the same reaction. I said men simply because the posters who are doing that here are men (while Ren doesn’t ID as a feminist, her posts here have not made broad negative statements about feminism). Let’s not oversimplify, please.
Tobias, we all have to live with our own personal data samples, unreliable as they may be. In my experience, men who have successful and fullfilling relationships with successful and fulfilling women aren’t interested in spending a ton of time nitpicking about feminism.
women who have successful and fulfilling relationships with successful and fulfilling men tend not to be feminists.
[quote comment="16907"]So you are actually arguing against the equal pay for equal work. because if you are arguing that womens sport is just as entertaining well that is purely subjective.”
No, I’m not. I am saying that women work as hard in athletics as men do and don’t get paid as much. You can dislike it as much as you want, does not make it any less true.
“1: I think men hold the advantage in the majority of the workforce, especially in positions of power and with higher salaries: places such as law firms, the medical profession, many other white collar fields. For a long time this was because men also had advantages in schooling, the ability and means to get higher educations. This is changing, but men still hold the advantage.”
The benefits that men receive from power are greater than the benefits women receive from equivalent power. Women find powerful men sexy men do find powerful women sexy just not as much (at least in my experience).
Leta; IT DOES NOT ALL COME DOWN TO MATING. Many women want to have the success for THEMSELVES and prefer NOT to rely on a man, even if they do find them sexy. They would also like a fair opportunity to have the power and the money even if they find such men sexy. Get it?
“This creates greater incentives to reach high positions (discrimination against women also happens). A tendency/expectation to work yourself into an early grave can be both positive and negative.[/quote]”
And, so…what? This is still an advantage men hold.
Octo, your remarks about the supposed absence of fulfilling relationships among feminist critics is structurally identical to the assertions of some anti-feminists that feminists are ugly and need to get laid. Your parallel observations in this area are equally invalid.
[quote comment="16910"]women who have successful and fulfilling relationships with successful and fulfilling men tend not to be feminists.[/quote]
Nice generalization there, Leta….kinda like most men who whine about mens rights are guys who never get laid?
both statements are bullshit. Lot’s of feminists have just fine relationships…though many have them with women instead.
Ballgame, um no, that’s not an analogy. Feminists are concerned with women’s rights. Feminist critics are concerned with criticizing feminism. I don’t happen to think the two are equally credible.
And, if you noticed, I said that’s my experience and that it might be limited. But for purposes of the question which I believe was raised about why feminists aren’t here, I think our personal experience is valid. My personal experience is that the guys I know — husband, friends, dad, etc. — fit my theory. That in turn influences, when I’m deciding which guys to hang with, what my decision is.
If you disagree — cool. Go for it. For all I know, the authors here are veritable Romeos, posting erudite essays on the evils of feminism in between passionate trysts and intimate discussions with ladyfriends. That’s not really relevant to my experience, though.
i know both statements are bullshit. But some people only realise they are being discriminatory when they are treated the same way they treat others.
Also, absence of relationships is not “identical” to ugly and needing to get laid. I never referred to appearance or needing to get laid. The prediction I had about Hugh was in reference to comments he’s made about wanting more action, working on his appearance, his young age, and my belief that if we had a crystal ball, we’d see that this will indeed be the case in ten years. It was not made in reference to other posters here.
First, Octo, I stand by my analogy.
Secondly, your argument appears to be: Feminists don’t participate in discussions at Feminist Critics, because the bloggers at Feminist Critics aren’t getting laid. Uh, logic?
The question of whether or not feminists or feminist critics are disproportionately unattractive is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand. At best, if you were right (and I’d have no idea, not being privy to the intimate lives of Hugh, Daran, TS, or Ren*), it would reveal you to be prone to the prejudice of ‘sexual able-ism’. At ‘worst’, you could be flat wrong. Either way you’re just advancing a mildly offensive rhetorical deadend.
*OK, I guess strictly speaking I am privy to some of Ren’s intimate life, but really that’s neither here nor there.
*crosses fingers, hopes last remark is taken in the goodnatured way it was intended*
BG, did you possibly not read my last comment? The only reference I made to one of the feminist critics’ looks and getting laid was a positive one — namely, that he seemed to be attractive and to have strong future gettinglaidalot potential.
My argument did not, in fact, hinge on the relationships that FCs are or are not having. It hinged on the fact that the premise of the site is not one I stand behind personally. Since I stated that in at least three comments above, it is hard to believe you missed it. My hypothesis as to why the premise of the site and the doggedness of pursuing that premise are what they are? Just a little bit of fun. Even we feminists like some of that, on occasion.
ballgame: It’s all good…no secret…I’m gettin’ laid. Shocker, considering my charming personality and all.
But, all honest and everything, even as someone who blogs here, there are comments and commenters who tend to piss me off…and truthfully, they are a big part of why feminists I do know don’t participate, even feminists who used to participate. There are, literally, commenters here I occassionally do want to jack upside the head as say “if you have a point, make it without being such a reactionary fucking asshole.”
I blog here and even I get sick of it…I can only image how tedious it is other folk.
BG, did you possibly not read my last comment?
Actually, Octo, I didn’t, we cross-posted. I also think we’re talking past each other a little, so I’ll happily drop it.
It seems Octo is aiming for the heart of the matter here.
Well, we don’t always get what we want.
I agree that Leta’s comment was vulnerable to misinterpretation, particularly by someone for whom that particular topic is a hot button. However, I don’t think we should be judged by the worst of our commenters. I doubt you would want to be held to that standard either.
Neither do I think Leta is the worst of our commenters.
eh, about to rant on in in my own way anyhow…
(Edit: I did not write that last sentence. So how did it get here? — Daran)
I agree that people who spend lots of time criticizing feminism have ISSUES. Just as I think most people defending feminism have ISSUES. Guess what, guys? We all have issues. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here spewing out text on gender politics. People who are interested in gender politics tend to think there is something wrong with the status quo (regardless of what they think the status quo is), and one of the main routes to such a view is some kind of negative experiences. Often, they tend to be different from typical people who are happy with the status quo, and gender-nonconforming. Hence, issues.
I have several comments on octogalore’s views about feminist critics and their motivations.
First, the soundness and importance of the arguments of critics of feminism do not depend on their motivations. I agree with octo that the motivations of critics of feminism are interesting, just as I think the motivations of feminists are interesting. However, focusing on the motivations of critics and defenders of feminism shouldn’t be used to avoid looking at the arguments they both make.
Second, I agree with octogalore that some male critics of feminism have difficulties in their relationships with women (just as I think that many female feminists have different difficulties in their relationships with men). Her comments about me are in reference to previous posts of mine where I related how one of the reasons I have problems with feminism is that it greatly exacerbated my difficulties with the opposite sex due to shame over my sexuality, and that no feminists or feminist message tried to counteract those effects on me, or has acknowledged the existence of those side-effects and identified them as a problem instead of blaming the 15 year-old version of myself for misinterpreting feminist theory. (Though I should clarify that “getting laid” was not my only goal, but also to have relationships or even a basic sense of comfort in my own skin around women.)
The sense I am getting from octogalore is that feminism is a large and multi-faceted philosophy that is beneficial in general, but has certain problematic aspects. I have seen her speak out against certain radfem commentators at other blogs, which is impressive. To octogalore, given feminism’s overall soundness, it is cherry-picking to focus primarily on the problems with it, or its members who are most problematic. While someone who does that might even be making narrowly sound arguments, their obsession with focusing on the problems with feminism betrays a certain type of motivation, a motivation to find things wrong with feminism, which probably comes from negative experiences with women and/or particular feminists or feminist stances that are not representative of feminism as a whole. There isn’t much point for octogalore to engage people who hold such a motivation even if she is sympathetic to them in specific areas, because they will always be getting the big picture wrong. Octo, how much of that I am getting right?
I’m not sure whether or not that is an accurate summary of octogalore’s perspective, but it is a perspective that a feminist could hold, so I will explain my differences from it. First, I don’t see the problems with feminism as always easy to isolate. Let’s call this the “bad apple” theory of feminism. Some of the problems with feminism can be isolated into particular feminists or schools of feminism, but others can’t. In my original post, I mention loaded feminist terms such as “oppression,” “privilege,” “male domination,” and “patriarchy.” While octogalore is unhappy that I used language such as “feminists typically [negative statement]…” and “huge swathes of feminist theory [negative statement]…”, I have to point out that typical feminists do use these terms, and that huge swathes of feminist theory are based on them. If they are “low-hanging fruit” of feminism, then feminism is a very short tree. Octogalore makes use of these loaded terms herself with a version of the feminist oppression argument when she refers to men as “the advantaged group.”
Since some of the problems with feminism cannot be scapegoated onto a minority of feminists or feminist writings, then it is not unfair to make broad criticisms of feminism. It’s possible for broad criticisms of feminism to be true. Second, even when problems with feminism can be isolated into “bad apples,” other feminists are often inadequately slow to criticize them (though octo herself is often an exception). The good apples need to throw out the bad apples from the barrel, because an apple pie with only one bad apple in it is still enough to make you sick.
I certainly see the difficulty octogalore faces in engaging in dialogue with people who have emotional antipathy to feminism underlying their arguments, even reasonable arguments (just as I find it difficult to engage with feminists who hold a positive emotional bias towards feminists, even when they make reasonable arguments). These underlying emotional biases don’t necessarily invalidate the intellectual claims on either side, but they influence the focus of the discussion. In my case, for instance, while I have disagreements with feminism, agreements with feminism, and disagreements with MRAs, I tend to focus primarily on the former, because that is what I am more passionate about.
I don’t think there is any easy solution here. Clearly, it’s difficult to have a dialogue based on conflicting emotions about feminism, since those emotions are irreconciliable. Instead, I favor a discussion about about the different facts, values, and assumptions that feminists and feminist critics might hold which influence their feelings about feminism in the first place.
I also do try to counteract personal biases I might have against feminism, though it might not be obvious to feminists who read my writings, because they don’t see the more extreme claims that I swallowed or toned down while writing my posts. While octogalore was turned off by the language that I used, I would like to show how certain aspects of my original post are sympathetic to feminism:
Yes, it’s sarcastic. (though partly to have my lead sentence be attention grabbing.) Yet the actual content of my posts suggests that feminists might be right about more things than they are given credit for, which is not currently recognized due to the low quality of large parts of feminist theory.
Which I wrote instead of something more extreme, like: “feminist theory is not justified by the arguments that feminists provide for it,” or “most of feminist theory is not justified by the arguments that feminists provide for it.”
The possibility that there are possible sophisticated arguments in support of feminism claims is not one that I had to acknowledge. But I did anyway, because it might be true. In fact, there are some areas where I myself can think up reasonable arguments to support feminist positions which feminists themselves have trouble supporting, which sometimes I believe and sometimes I don’t, but which I am hesitant about stating, because I don’t want to seem like I am setting up straw feminists.
octogalore said:
Actually, it started over the summer. One reason I wasn’t posting much. While being busier with women does mean that I have less time to post, it doesn’t necessarily lower my convictions. Often after I’ve gotten together with a woman, I realize if I had continued down the pro-feminist trajectory that I was on in high school, I would not have been able to have that experience. I would have instead been walking on eggshells around her out of fear of offending her or being “sexist” or “patronizing,” I would have been too inhibited to flirt with her out of fear of harassing her, and I would have been too hesitant to kiss her or touch her out of fear of somehow molesting her.
By now, I would probably have never kissed a woman and be striving to become the next Robert Jensen or John Stoltenberg, but simultaneously hating myself and resenting women who went for patriarchal “jerks” instead of nice, sensitive, pro-feminist men like myself. I am sure this is what my feminist future would have looked like, and no provisions in feminism would have stopped me from turning out that way (even though I’m sure octo-style feminism wouldn’t demand that I turn out that way).
So, octo, my current or future success with women is unlikely to make me forget my problems with feminism, since I know I would not have those successes if I had kept pursuing feminism in the way I was doing.
My argument is not necessarily that feminism tries to have this effect on men (though I doubt Catharine MacKinnon loses sleep over it), or that all forms of feminism would have that effect, only that the type of feminism I was exposed to had that effect (and I should also point out that other pro-feminist men have tended towards celibacy either voluntarily or involuntarily, so my interpretation of feminism as inhibiting heterosexual expression is hardly insane or unprecedented).
Neither do I argue that feminism in general is invalidated because my exposure to a particular strain of it as a teenager caused me personally to be ashamed of my male sexuality. If feminists would say that this is a problem and that greater consideration should to go to the kinds of feminist messages that are delivered to young men, particularly shy and gender non-conforming young men, that would be enough. Instead, the response from feminists that I usually see is to deny that there is any possibility that part of the problem could be due to feminism, rather than 100% the fault of impressionable teenage boys who are trying their best to do what feminists tell them. It is that kind of “see no evil” attitude that I have a problem with, especially when it’s directed towards people who could otherwise have turned into big supporters of feminism.
kuiku, if you just write a single word “no”, then we can’t even be sure who or what you’re replying to. I assume it was a response to this comment:
If by “no” you mean that you won’t find other ways, then that’s fine too. You don’t have to make your points at all.
But to me, it comes across as “I’ll do as I please”, which is fine when you’re in your own home, but petulant when you’re in someone elses.
HughRistik:
[quote]Second, even when problems with feminism can be isolated into “bad apples,” other feminists are often inadequately slow to criticize them (though octo herself is often an exception). The good apples need to throw out the bad apples from the barrel, because an apple pie with only one bad apple in it is still enough to make you sick.[/quote]
It’s worth pointing out, too, that discussing the low-hanging fruit can be a productive avenue of criticism when selectively and properly employed, regardless of the subject of the criticism. Reason being: a system may be flawed, but the flaws may only become apparent at the extremes, much like architectural flaws may only become apparent under stress. By nature, the extremes aren’t representative; but they serve to illuminate aspects of a position that may warrant further investigation and examination. To use a not unrelated example, arguments regarding the PA Deni/”theft of services” case embody such an approach, in a profoundly valid way. Or we might consider the recent Aquadots recall as illuminating issues with manufacturing processes, quality control and oversight.
That said, it can be a heavy-handed tactic and prone to over- and misuse. As the legal saying goes, hard cases make bad law; and focusing on the extremes, similarly, can lead to over-broad criticism and tarring of the whole.
In Denmark we have selective draft. Men are drafted. Women are not.
Women can volunteer. They can be anything in the military, but they have a choice.
Men can be so-called conscientious objectors.
They will then still be under the direct rule of the government for the same period as people in the military. Instead of being in the military they will be digging ditches or cleaning toilets in public buildings. Of course, they will not get paid normal pay for this. Just a small symbolic amount. Enough to keep you alive through food if you still live with your parents. Enough that the State can pretend that this is not forced slave labour although it really is because refusal will lead to imprisonment.
Now, personally, I am in favour of the draft. This might seem like a paradox since I am generally a libertarian.
Why am I in favour?
Because the draft “drafts” equally from poor to rich. Otherwise we might see a country defended by the poor peoples kids while the rich politicians and bureaucrats kids are getting university degrees. I do not want that.
Why is the State drafting only men?
Well the draft has been around for a long time. Not long ago being a soldier was very hard physically. It still is but less so. I believe that now is the time to expand the draft to include women – like they have it in Isreal.
Whether feminist support the draft in Denmark should be of no consequence – and thankfully – it mostly is.
In Denmark feminism is aligned with leftism who tend to think we should just abolish the military altogether and live in peace and harmony with radical Islam.
Funny how revolutionaries of every creed including feminism are working together set on destroying what we have here in the West.
They all have different words for it. The patriarchy, the infidels, the capitalist system. All these creeds are so transparently stupid. They present a Utopia, but always result in Hell.
Never judge a social movement by what is SAYS it want to achieve. Judge it upon who it actually does to a society.
Right now there is a coalition in Denmark including feminists, leftists and Islamists working to have Sharia there.
Octogalore:
But also:
Obviously you and other feminists are free to come here, or not come here as you choose. We’ve worked hard to suppress the personal vilification and hostility that feminists are typically subject to on antifeminist and MRA sites, and I think we’ve been reasonably successful in that respect.
What we are not going to do, is slope the discoursive playing field in feminism favour, which is what would happen if we barred broad negative comments about feminism, while allowing broad positive comments, such as you yourself have made.
OK, so this is totally off-topic but…
The reason why Muslims are becoming radicalised is because we in the west keep using our military to fuck up Islamic nations.
I can’t speak about Danish feminists in particular, but I have never seen a feminist express anything about Sharia other than total opposition to it.
The implication is still that most men who criticise feminism aren’t getting laid and that this somehow undermines their criticism.
It’s an ad hom.
So don’t. Deal with the arguments instead.
Daran – you are right.
I should have stayed on the draft topic. Sorry for going off-topic.
My point in case was that drafting only men could be seen as sexist.
When confronted with this, sometimes Danish feminist will respond that women spend time having children so it is only fair men should be drafted.
Hugh
A good analogy. So what’s custard? And if it were a blackberry and apple pie, what would the blackberries represent?
Daran, re #109: my feeling is that the issues are entangled with the arguments, and therefore engaging with the latter implicates the former.
You may believe I can’t prove this. And I can’t. But we all have to trust our instincts as to where our time is best and most productively spent.
Hugh — whatever the changes you’ve experienced in your relationships with women, and I’m glad you’ve experienced them, I still stick with my prediction.
Your summary of my disconnect with the site is fairly accurate.
Your discussion of why your arguments with feminism aren’t just with low-hanging fruit aren’t convincing to me. Men are, on average, advantaged. Feminism isn’t about blanket statements of the kind that upset you. If various feminists employ them, that’s their issue, not an issue inherent to feminism.
Finally, I don’t believe that your earlier difficulties and the current improvements in your relationships to women can be ascribed respectively to feminism and to breaking with it in various ways. You reacted to various manipulative behaviors women used claiming they were “feminism,” and decided they were correct. It doesn’t require any break with feminism and its principles to be attractive to women. One can be edgy, interesting and confident without fear of being castigated by feminists. Being afraid to flirt is not something that can be laid at feminism’s door, I’m afraid. The distinction is between confidence and lack thereof, not between feminist criticism and feminism.
And that’s why I’m sticking to my prediction. Ten years. Bet on it.
So basically the line of argument is that scepticism towards feminism is caused by and can simply be reduced to personal experiences?
Well. I happen to believe that one can have perfectly rational reasons to be sceptical. I look at the damage a movement causes a society and fundamental civic institutions, and I call it by its name.
[quote comment="17031"]So basically the line of argument is that scepticism towards feminism is caused by and can simply be reduced to personal experiences?
Well. I happen to believe that one can have perfectly rational reasons to be sceptical. I look at the damage a movement causes a society and fundamental civic institutions, and I call it by its name.[/quote]
Well. I happen to believe that one can have perfectly rational reasons to be sceptical. I look at the damage a movement causes
a societymen andfundamental civic institutionsmen’s privileges, and I call it by its name.[quote comment="17031"]So basically the line of argument is that scepticism towards feminism is caused by and can simply be reduced to personal experiences?[/quote]
Even conceding this, it’s not necessarily an argument against it. The only thing separating this from some of the bases of feminist theory (e.g., standpoint theory and CR) is the way in which oppression is conceptualized; and based on ideas present in ST and CR, an external conceptualization would not necessarily be a valid or even useful one.
If anything, the argument that criticisms would be based in personal experiences does more to validate it than anything else — unless, of course, one simultaneously suggests that the resulting issues are, to use the least loaded term for it, maladaptive.
I don’t dispute it. I just don’t agree that the former somehow invalidates the latter if the latter can stand on their own merits.
And I certainly don’t agree that men’s issues invalidate their arguments any more than do women’s.
@kiuku – thanks, that is a rather striking admission.
@Infra – I am not a postmodernist. But I realize that caused sentiments can overlap with rational reasons. I am generally not a big fan of the “the personal is political” line of thought as it tends to have rather dire consequences.
[quote comment="17048"]@Infra – I am not a postmodernist. But I realize that caused sentiments can overlap with rational reasons. I am generally not a big fan of the “the personal is political” line of thought as it tends to have rather dire consequences.[/quote]
Neither am I. (Post-structuralism isn’t the same thing, but I’m not really an adherent of that, either.)
I’m not saying that rational arguments can’t be made, only pointing out that the objection of a basis in personal experience isn’t a solid objection, in view of ideas and theories used to develop and support the position from which one might object. To consider it a valid objection, one would either have to invalidate, to a degree, what supports one’s own view, or assert maladaptive characteristics on the part of the opponent.
Both options are problematic. The objection itself is, in this context, barely tenable.
OK. So we agree.
Daran: the enganglement is the reason, IMO, that they don’t.
[quote comment="17028"]my feeling is that the issues are entangled with the arguments, and therefore engaging with the latter implicates the former.[/quote]
Perhaps this is an element of the disconnect, but the same holds true for feminist arguments as well. Feminists tie their particular issues into their arguments and treat their personal experiences as indistinguishable from their general argument. This is considered acceptable.
It is curious then that should I, for example, tie my personal experiences in with my advocacy for male rape victim support services, it would invalidate both my arguments and the cause itself. This is most confusing, particularly since the methodology is exactly the same in both instances.
TS:
No. Your experiences can constitute part of your awareness. My point was that all of your advocacy cannot be reduced to your experiences. Much of your advocacy stems from your knowledge about the current situation for other victims.
TS: yup, and I’ve had issues when feminists treat personal experiences as indistinguishable from their general argument, as well. I think there are folks here who can attest to this.
And I’ve never said anything about male rape victim support services as a cause being invalid. I’d appreciate your staying on point.
[quote comment="17054"]It is curious then that should I, for example, tie my personal experiences in with my advocacy for male rape victim support services, it would invalidate both my arguments and the cause itself. This is most confusing, particularly since the methodology is exactly the same in both instances.[/quote]
It wouldn’t invalidate the cause itself, but it would introduce a further complication. Effectively, this constraint would mean that only two groups of people would be able to argue for the perspective: those who have not experienced victimization as a male, or those who have, but have had reactions or developed perspectives that are deemed acceptable by one’s opponents in debate (and would therefore be suitable for address).
[quote comment="17057"]And I’ve never said anything about male rape victim support services as a cause being invalid.[/quote]
While I could not care less whether one considers the above cause worthy or worthless, please note that I used the phrase “for example,” implying that what followed was not previously mentioned.
[quote]I’d appreciate your staying on point.[/quote]
I am. One did not specify which issues are the result of “cherry-picking,” so it is not unreasonable assume one’s opinion extends to all issues raised by non-feminist bloggers and posters on this site.
[quote comment="16914"]
No, I’m not. I am saying that women work as hard in athletics as men do and don’t get paid as much. You can dislike it as much as you want, does not make it any less true.
[/quote]
The value of work is not defined as who put in the most effort but who gets the best results.
[quote comment="16914"]
Leta; IT DOES NOT ALL COME DOWN TO MATING. Many women want to have the success for THEMSELVES and prefer NOT to rely on a man, even if they do find them sexy. They would also like a fair opportunity to have the power and the money even if they find such men sexy.
Get it?
[/quote]
the same argument can be equally applied to men. Since we are searching for differences and why and how they apply that argument is meaningless.
My point was incentives creates more motivation. More motivation tends to create more work. Earn enough money so people don’t think you are a loser is a good motivator.
[quote comment="16914"]
And, so…what? This is still an advantage men hold.[/quote]
Having men who aren’t me have power empowers me as much as women having power does.
Not at all.
@ballgame, Daran
This thread is a good one. Kiuku sayingu that she “wipes her ass with the draft”(3x), that war is an instance of “men doing it to themselves” and the comment that gets crossed is the one that called her a “bully”.
Would it be racist of me not to care at all about Blacks in Sudan because they “do it to themselves” ? I think so.
I would be hard-pressed to find something remotely as sexist and hostile from the other side that you did let through.
I understand why you’re doing it and I don’t want to censor anybody, but don’t pretend the rules and leeway are the same for feminists and nonfeminists on this blog (As you did on the “thread for AB”-RP).
Disclaimer : This is not an attack on your authority
Jacksam, you cherry-picked a few comments from a five-year-old thread which predates our current moderating approach (which entails the use of NoH and RP threads). You neglect to mention that we let jams’ comment that kiuku ‘shouldn’t post when drunk,’ which we wouldn’t let stand on a NoH thread today, for example.
Our current policy does allow feminists a little more leeway than others, but not much more. We don’t allow anyone (feminist or not) to engage in ad hominem attacks on other commenters, for example. And it’s obviously not going to be very easy to debate tenets of feminism — some versions of which are clearly toxic — if we don’t allow people to express those tenets.
You seem committed to using an ‘us vs. them’ approach which to my mind is antithetical to good faith discussion.
@ballgame
Fine. My “carte blanche for feminists” comment was exagerrated. Let’s say you have an “accomodationist” and I have a “confrontational” approach to debate in general.
Jacksam, see this post which I put up just two weeks after this one, explaining my approach to moderation at that time.
“What we moderate are personal attacks and personal hostility, not views on substantive topics no matter how offensive they are to some.”
Despite the colourful language, kiuku is expressing the view that the draft is an insignificant matter. This is a view on a substantive topic.
This is a view on a substantive topic.
That was a personal attack, as was Jams’ “drunk” remark, which nevertheless got past the moderation.
Yes, it would be a racist view on a substantive topic, just as kiuku’s views were sexist. Under my moderation approach at the time, I would have allowed you to say that. These days not so. Egregiously offensive views – even on substantive topics – are likely to be moderated if we have no interest in discussing them. It should be clear that we are more likely to be interested in discussing offensive feminist views, than other offensive views. This is Feminist Critics. Our primary interest is in criticising feminism, not criticising racism, or for that matter criticising positions opposed to feminism which we do not agree with. That’s not to say that we never discuss these other issues, just that they’re not as important to us.
Another change in our approach to moderation since then is that we have become much less tolerant of persistent bad-faith argumentation. So if we say that about you, you should take it as a warning that you are skating on thin ice.
I presume you are referring to this comment. As ballgame pointed out, the rules on behaviour are the same for RP and NoH, what differs are the moderation priorities. The rules are also the same for everyone. You’re right that not everyone gets the same leeway, but ballgame never claimed or pretended that they did. As I said in the post I linked to, “the rules are not different for different people. What changes is how they are enforced.” “Attacks on feminists are tolerated least” and “Misbehaviour by feminists is tolerated most”.
Jacksam:
Imagine there are two MMA organisation, the World MMA Council (WMC) and the International Association of Mixed Martial Artists (IAMMA). (Two names I made up on the spot. Any resemblance to real organisations is purely coincidental.) Both claim that their fighters are the best in the world.
WMC regularly sends its fighters to IAMMA contests. What usually happens is that they get pelted with tomatoes by the crowd. Once in the ring they find that the home fighters cheat. Even though they themselves don’t, the Refs rule against them anyway, while giving the home fighers a pass. Frequently they get thrown out of the contest altogether for no good reason. Nevertheless they perform reasonable well under the circumstances.
WMC has an open invite to IAMMA fighters to enter their contests. Those few IAMMA fighters who come are treated well. The crowd is restrained from throwing tomatos. Once inside the rings, the refs generally rule fairly, if anything favouring the visitors. The home fighters fight clean, because they have to. Despite this favourable treatement, IAMMA fighters rarely show up. The few that do, lose.
You could describe the WMC as accommodating, but which of the two organisations do you think shows the most confidence in its claim that its fighters really are the best?
The link to your post doesn’t work. But don’t bother. I have no problem with that.
“Attacks on feminists are tolerated least” and “Misbehaviour by feminists is tolerated most”.
That is all I meant.
I knew this would happen. That’s why I put the disclaimer. Mods just can’t resist the good ol’”appeal to the stick” when they’re criticised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
TL,DR :”I am RIGHT. Btw, I can ban you.”
Therefore, you’re right.
The claim “you’re arguing in bad faith” is in itself a bad faith argumentation, and not a very objective one. Give me the benefit of the doubt, esp. if the question is ban or no ban.
@Daran
I misinterpreted your comments on the other thread to mean : “The WMC fighters are not disadvantaged in any way on their home ring”
Now that you’ve said “Misbehaviour by IAMMA fighters is tolerated most”, the misunderstanding disappears.
“accommodationist” : I was referring to this blog’s policy of seeing bad faith everywhere, putting “some” in generalizations, adhere to a very strict interpretation of what the other said to refute his position, no slight ad homs tolerated, etc….
I don’t agree that most of those “polite” policies are beneficial to a debate. It’s an aesthetic preference, I guess.
Fixed.
I still recommend you read it.
We’re not pretending anything if we openly acknowledge it, admittedly on a five-year-old post. Perhaps we ought to update that post to reflect our current approaches, and install it as a page under the ‘About’ Heirarchy to make it easier for newcomers to find.
I would also observe that you haven’t actually pointed out an instance of differential toleration between feminists and non feminists. The remarks by kiuku were all substantive views acceptable under the policy applicable at the time – no moderator tolerance needed. Finally it should be noted that just because an infraction doesn’t result in a moderator response, doesn’t mean that we accept or tolerate it. We might have simply missed it.
Neither of us has said you are arguing in bad faith in this thread, nor would a ban necessarily be the response if you were. ballgame’s remark that “an ‘us vs. them’ approach … is antithetical to good faith discussion.” was a general remark about the likely result of your approach, not a statement about what is happening in this thread. I did say in “Thread for AB (RP)” that your claim that “the NoH rules are “carte blanche for /feminists”-”be super nice for /others” wasn’t a good faith argument, and I explained why. Your admission above that it was “exaggerated” concedes the point.
Sure, “Bad faith” when asserted fallaciously can be a bad faith argument. That isn’t what we are doing here.
I mentioned the subject, not to hold a stick over you for your comments in this thread, but to draw your attention to the fact that we do now consider bad faith, ultimately, to be moderation issue, and because it’s one in which you are in danger of falling foul of when discussing substantive issues. For example I think some of your recent comments about AB are bad faith. But I’ll address this when I get round to replying to them.
We’ll explain, with specificity, what the problem is and what you can do to reform. You’ll be given the opportunity to do so.
The WMC fighters do have huge unfair advantages in their home ground. They have the advantage of a favorable crowd. Despite the best efforts of the organisers, some tomatoes still get thrown at the visitors. If an out-of-the-ring fight does break out, regardless of who’s at fault, the home side have overwheming numbers on their side.
The WMC fighters also have a huge fair advantage in that they will have honed their tactics to suit a “fair fight” environment. They can use their favourite (legal) moves, while visitors are barred (after more warnings, perhaps than the home side would get) from using their favourite illegal ones.
The overarching principle behind our approach is more or less to avoid doing to feminists whatever is done to us on feminist blogs which unfairly discriminates against. Where the MMA analogy breaks down is that contestants generally have the goal of winning. My goal is not so much to win the argument as to be right. If I lose an argument, and consequently shift my position to a more sound one, then that’s a win for me. But that only works if it is a fair loss. If I lose because unfair tactics by the opposition prevented the substantial point from being properly debated, then I’m not going to change my view.
@Daran
This cannot be good, but what the hell, I’m all for confrontation.
Sure, “Bad faith” when asserted fallaciously can be a bad faith argument. That isn’t what we are doing here.
Says who ? You ? I would say different. That’s the problem. It’s not objective. As in :
I did say in “Thread for AB (RP)” that your claim that “the NoH rules are “carte blanche for /feminists”-”be super nice for /others” wasn’t a good faith argument, and I explained why. Your admission above that it was “exaggerated” concedes the point.
I did not concede that it was in bad faith, only that it was an exaggeration. Huge difference. I thought that noone would take it at face value, that someone would read that “carte blanche for /feminists”-”be super nice for /others” really were the rules.
It was exaggerated for humourous and rhetoric purposes, not to deceive anyone, but as a (normally) perfectly acceptable way to get the point “Misbehaviour by feminists is tolerated most” across.
If it wasn’t clear I was exaggerating, or if you think exaggeration is not tolerable on this blog, then that still does not make it a “bad faith argument” !
You all employ that accusation very generously, to say the least. It implies dishonesty, and people don’t particularly like to be called liars.
So, yeah, as I said, aesthetic differences.