Answering The Criticism On My Feminism Post: Part 1

My last post saw a number of interesting comments and I wanted to take a second to answer them. You can read the comments and the original post by following the link if you’re interested.

Thank you to those who were willing to share their opinions, and I sincerely appreciate it.

Let’s get started.

I wanted to begin with a comment from Tildeb. Tildeb thought that there is a very patriarchal system at play, and so I asked them to point me towards systemic patriarchy by saying this:

“point me towards systemic patriarchy – one that is systemic in the West. I can think of only one and that’s maternity leave in the US. Other Western countries have maternity leave but that could be argued to be a systemic oppression of women rooted in the system of laws.”

Instead of pointing me towards a systemic law (I still don’t think one exists and women in the West are treated equally with men by law) they decided to go with the feminist talking point about ‘fear sexual assault’.

Then they asked me a series of questions, which I’ll answer here.

Put another way, would men tolerate a sexual predator environment and all its avenues of maintaining it if they were the prey? Would men tolerate so many judges blaming them for ‘enticing’ sexual assault or would they demand that the law against such assaults be systemically enforced?

I’m not sure where this sexual predator environment exists. What are these avenues maintaining it?

No, men would not stand for judges blaming them for being sexually assaulted, but there are bad judges out there and you can find a slew of specific cases where you could legitimately argue that the judge was a knucklehead and gave a light sentence or berated the victim.

And guess what, judges can also face trial for blaming women who are victims of rape.

This isn’t new and yes, I think our justice system has to be reformed in places. But that’s not as much a feminist issue as an issue with our justice system as a whole.

And yes, I think stiffer sentences should be carried out for sexual assault.

I don’t think so. But check it out for yourself: ask a woman how she feels walking down a street, any street any time of day. Now ask a man. Those two answers are worlds apart.

Okay, I did.

Both said you should take reasonable precautions, which is the same answer I would give and all of us felt reasonably safe walking at any time, although less so depending on where we would be walking at what time.

Do you think about sexual assault every time you get dressed or undressed?

No, and neither did the two women I asked. If you’re thinking about being assaulted every time you get dressed or undressed, I think that’s unhealthy.

Does the horror genre kill of men every time they have sex in the plot?

Every time a woman has sex, they get killed in a horror movie? I don’t think so. How did Sidney make it through four Scream movies?

In fact:

After having sex, Sidney and Billy are attacked by the killer, who seemingly murders Billy. Sidney escapes the killer and seeks help from Kenny, but he gets his throat slit by the killer. Sidney again flees

Looks like a whole bunch of guys get killed. Misandry!

I think you’re reading too much into this. Not everything is a feminist conspiracy.

Do you automatically evaluate all others on their potential of assaulting you in a sexual nature – at home when you answer the door, at work when you enter a room, at a restaurant or theater or store?

No. And neither did the two women. That sounds paranoid.

Do you try to park your car according to your (not your car’s) physical security, choose your exercise paths running or biking based on staying in sight of others in public places…

No. But like any responsible adult, I take precautions for my own safety. Sometimes I take risks and I know there are bad people out there who would like to hurt me, but I’m not going to let them dictate how I live my life.

The women I asked said they are not victims and do not like being treated like children. Both walk home late at night sometimes. Both said people should beware when travelling through certain stretches of the city late at night. Both said they don’t believe in the patriarchy.

I have another coworker who told me about how their brother in law was walking home the other day. Someone stopped their car on the side of the road (a complete stranger) and clothes-lined him. He fell and hit his head off the sidewalk and suffered a brain aneurysm.

There are bad people out there who want to hurt people for no reason. Being a man doesn’t exempt you from that.

Are you whistled at most times you walk down a street, accosted by cat calls on a hot day if you’re wearing something ‘revealing’

No. But in my experience, women are more subtle about it. They still talk about men. They still comment on our looks etc. They just don’t publicize it on the street very often.

women asking you for sexual access most time you venture into public

So women walk down the street and strangers just walk up to them and demand sexual access? Huh?

Please tell me where you live so I can avoid that part of the world.

women you don’t know and in public places inappropriately touching you, invading your personal space in sexually suggestive ways, inappropriately reminding you that you are a male and worth their unwanted sexual attention… and then insulted if you demur?

Yes. I’ve had all those things happen to me. I’ve been insulted for saying no. I’ve been shamed for saying I’m not in the mood.

I was once at a party and got severely intoxicated. I fell asleep on a bed. When I woke up a woman had my penis in her hand and she was playing with it. I told her to stop, and she kept trying. I finally got up and stumbled to the living-room. She told her friends and they followed me calling me names, as if I should be the one ashamed.

I could tell you more stories but I think that suffice.

Have more than half of your male friends been sexually assaulted?

I don’t know. I don’t poll them and we don’t talk about it. None of them know about that party story either. I do know of one friend who passed out at a party and woke up with a condom on.

Do other men give you advice on avoiding attracting the ‘wrong’ kind of aggressive female? Do other men criticize your hair and makeup for its effect on women?

Yes. Dating advice is hardly new territory.

Yes, people criticize what a man wears or how his hair looks etc. Of course they do. As well as weight, whether they smoke, how active they are, how smart they are etc.

Are you looking for a utopia where no one ever does or says anything dickish?

You – like most men – knwo very little about what it’s like to be immersed in such a sexualized world every moment of every day of your life where you are held equally accountable by laws that supposedly ‘protect’ you for the unwanted sexual attention and actions of others as you are criticized for not being attractive enough, not doing more to make yourself both more and less attractive all the time, shown in every media why you are a sexual person first and everything else after.

Yes. We live in a sexual world. Men experience this as well. Men movie stars tend to be attractive. Men models are attractive. Both men and women are told they should be attractive. That’s not likely to change in the future. Like it or not, we are a sexual animal and we are drawn to traits we find attractive and both sexes generally want to attract the attention of the opposite sex.

Go on any dating site, for example, and you’ll find loads of women with very precise figures for what they want in a man. Everything from their job, their education to their weight and size.

This is not your world. But it is one small part of the patriarchy world, a world that exists and from which you are privileged simply by the nature of your gender not to have to live in.

Well, I do not feel privileged and I think you’ve bought into a semi-religious cult that has no real direction now that it has achieved its initial goals. Instead of criticizing actual abuse against women, they often attack video games and movies. When questioned, they go on about this patriarchy and privilege and so forth, but generally offer very little of substance besides buzzwords.

Yes, we face problems and our system isn’t perfect. Yes, there are issues to be addressed but I see no reason to believe that feminism is the right mechanism to get it done, because as Ruth pointed out in my first post, feminism doesn’t take into account 50% of the population. They are only interested in women and women’s issues.

My point is that now that we have men and women on equal standing as far as laws go, let’s get to work on all of those issues together.

Fuck looking at whether someone is a male or female to decide whether they matter or not.

If sexual assault is an issue (and it is) then let’s reform the system so that everyone benefits. Not everything is patriarchy, and not everything is due to men being violent assholes.

So there’s my answers to your questions. I hope there are no hard feelings. I just wanted to thoroughly answer your comment and felt this was the best format to do so.

Next post I’ll address  The Arbourist’s comment.

As always, thank you for reading and feel free to leave your thoughts below.

Advertisements

165 Comments

  1. One caveat: find two women who have been assaulted, raped, etc. and ask them how they feel now when they are alone, and someone knocks on the door. Ask them how they feel about having to go out at night, possibly alone, to get a taxi, to take a bus home or to work, to work late nights.
    It scars you.
    I’ve never been assaulted, but if I had been I think it would have to change how I approach strangers, or how they approach me. GC, you are and always will be staring at this from the center of male (forgive me) entitlement. Just as a woman cannot know what it’s like to raise a child until she has one, neither can a man know what happens to a woman of any age, when she’s raped.

    Judges have been known to actually ask old women who were assaulted in the middle of the night, in their beds, ‘what were you wearing?”

    I avoid the feminist label for myself, because it tends toward the strident. It encompasses everything, as the saying goes, if you’re a hammer, everything is a nail.

    • “One caveat: find two women who have been assaulted, raped, etc. and ask them how they feel now when they are alone, and someone knocks on the door.”

      Do you think this would differ if it was a man who was raped or assaulted?

      “I avoid the feminist label for myself, because it tends toward the strident. It encompasses everything, as the saying goes, if you’re a hammer, everything is a nail.”

      Haha. I completely agree. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Judy. Always a pleasure. 🙂

      • I think, GC, that men are constructed differently. It might be unpleasant, but Im not sure it would have a lasting impact the way it would with a woman. Rape, after all, is not about sex, it’s about anger. Sex is used as the vehicle, but it ain’t necessarily personal, although in the case of spouses, yeah, it can be. but it’s still an act of anger.

          • I have no idea, but since rape is usually considered an attack on women, I think the very definition of rape as it’s perceived would depend on the man -as -victim , as it does the woman who is the victim.
            This is interesting. you’re making me think about this.
            Men are traditionally the aggressors. They are generally stronger, more muscular, and more prone to act out violently with women as the target. a true rapist disregards age or anything but the fact that it’s female.
            Rape in the traditonal sense,probably not. But men do get raped in prison, so yeah, that could have a serious impact on a guy. Im not sure if a woman seducing a man until he finally gives in constitutes rape as it’s perceived.

  2. You say:
    “I wanted to begin with a comment from Tildeb. Tildeb thought that there is a very patriarchal system at play, and so I asked them to point me towards systemic patriarchy by saying this:

    “point me towards systemic patriarchy – one that is systemic in the West. I can think of only one and that’s maternity leave in the US. Other Western countries have maternity leave but that could be argued to be a systemic oppression of women rooted in the system of laws.”

    Are you serious? I mean genuinely serious? I’m 38 years old and my French grandmother was amongst the first 10 female international law students at the Sorbonne. My Spanish grandmother was not legally allowed to sign a check, by herself, until the 70’s. The history of female property rights has been checkered, to say the least. Are you seriously implying society is not based on a system of patriarchy?

  3. I remember having the same conversation with my aging father back in the late 60s… a man maligning hippies for looking like girls.

    So here’s a little test for you GC: take a gander at something like Mad Men – or say The Hour from BBC – and see if you can spot the embedded patriarchy. Remember, my father – a university educated and worldly man – couldn’t because he had been immersed in it for so long he was inured to it. Yet to people like thee and me, the environments of these shows drip with patriarchy privilege. How could anyone be blind to it? And yet…

    Here’s the thing… the same is true today but we’re so soaked in it we just don’t see it in action because some improvements have occurred (in the vein of a throwback, it is my father who says imagine women int he workplace? Imagine some women actually complaining about their treatment in it! Unbelievable gall!).

    We don’t even think how odd it is to ask a new mother if her child is a boy or a girl. Does it matter? Why if we’re so egalitarian? We don’t for moment think it odd that pink is awarded to girls and blue to boys… or why this practice is maintained… if we’re already so very egalitarian as you suggest.

    Most people simply aren’t shocked when over 50% of girls in foster care are sexually abused in comparison to under 10% of boys in foster care. Why the differential? What is it about girls that make them so much more of a target than boys?

    Finding meaningful answers to these kinds of questions derived from massive discrepancies in rates – which is the key to indicate systemic problems based on gender – isn’t ever going to be achieved by going along with the tactic you are employing here: waving away the widespread disparity wherever it occurs and that indicates a systemic problem by raising and empowering contrary particulars and feeling yourself justified that this accounts. It doesn’t. Those women you talked with about fear doesn’t allow you to understand their awareness is of a different kind and depth and importance than yours… because of their gender. All you see is false similarity of shared words.

    This is exactly the method used by creationists to negate the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

    This is the same method you’re using to wave away the overwhelming evidence for systemic patriarchy.

    You think patriarchy in your day to day world is really a fiction, a creation of feminists and those fooled by them. You simply don’t care about the systemic discrepancies in rates. For example, the RCMP has just established a 100 million dollar fund to deal with the damage done to yet another generation of women in the national police service.. after a 20+ year law suit fought by the federal government every step of the way..

    You forget the huge problem women in the military face from sexual assault… so huge that new offices and dedicated staff have been charged to begin to deal with this systemic problem… after a 20+ year law suit fought by the federal government every step of the way.

    You forget Trudeau had to mandate gender parity for cabinet. You omit that in every field where power and privilege can be found, we find an overwhelming majority of men. Not women. Men. And we continue to find huge discrepancies in all kinds of systemic rates that continues to be denied importance because, well, it’s not really a problem, you see.

    You’re not dealing with patriarchy as it is. You think by treating women as you would a man you are disabling it. This is only partly true. But the systemic patriarchy is immune from individual change by its current staff. What is required is a change in systems. And that can’t even start until more people – not fewer as you advocate – empower it to begin.

    • “So here’s a little test for you GC: take a gander at something like Mad Men”

      Oh God, I’ve tried twice. It puts me to sleep. 🙂

      “Most people simply aren’t shocked when over 50% of girls in foster care are sexually abused in comparison to under 10% of boys in foster care. Why the differential? What is it about girls that make them so much more of a target than boys?”

      I don’t know. But it should be addressed and the 10% of boys being molested should be corrected as well, and a movement focused solely on women isn’t going to do that. Even look at your comment. It seems more concerned with the 50% than the 10% because one is girls and one is boys.

      I see children. I don’t care about whether they are male or female.

      “You think by treating women as you would a man you are disabling it.”

      You mean treating them equally? Isn’t that the point or the end goal?

      “What is required is a change in systems. And that can’t even start until more people – not fewer as you advocate – empower it to begin.”

      What sort of system would you implement if you had that power?

      I’m also advocating for more people (not less) to empower it because I want to include everyone.

      Do you believe that in its current form, feminism is going to be successful?

      Personally, I think it will alienate nearly half the population, including a large chunk of women. It will fizzle out. I think that alienation has begun. It started with Gamergate and has steadily continued.

  4. “It ignores everything from rape statistics to pay gaps to investment in the study for curs to gender specific diseases. ”

    No. I can’t include everything. I was answering the questions that Tildeb talked about. Not speaking about everything in society or every facet of feminism.

    But on the subject of rape, we could also talk about young males being targeted by female guards: http://www.businessinsider.com/women-abusing-males-in-juvenile-detention-2013-7

    On gender based diseases, we could talk about how breast cancer gets twice as much funding as prostate cancer, even though they have comparable mortality rates and rates of cancer.

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/

    Or we could talk about the epidemic of male suicide rates that hardly anyone is discussing: http://www.bcmj.org/articles/silent-epidemic-male-suicide

    It wasn’t long ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. It wasn’t long ago that women weren’t allowed to vote etc. But that isn’t the case now.

    I tried looking up whether your facts about Viagra and tampons was correct but can’t find anything.

    Point being, that I readily admit that issues remain for both males and females, but again, that doesn’t mean feminism is the best vehicle to address them either. In my opinion, it isn’t.

  5. @Godless Cranium

    “On gender based diseases, we could talk about how breast cancer gets twice as much funding as prostate cancer, even though they have comparable mortality rates and rates of cancer. “

    I think we should talk about the different funding levels of breast vs. prostate cancer – because I have an inkling you are thinking that the disparity in funding is based on a bias in society that favours females, thus adding to the general notion that that we don’t need feminism.

    What the Daily Caller article fails to mention is the difference in how lethal the two varieties of cancer are. The conclusions you draw – “even though they have comparable mortality rates and rates of cancer. – are not supported by the evidence available .

    (cribbed from reddit) It has a lot to do with the relative survival rates of each cancer. It’s true that many men will develop prostate cancer, but for most it will occur in later stages of life The relative survival rate for prostate cancer as stated by the American Cancer Society is as follows:

    5 years: almost 100%

    10 years: 99%

    15 years: 94%

    (note: these are averages incorporating each stage that the cancer can be detected)

    This means that on average, 94% of men are still alive 15 years after their prostate cancer is discovered. Breast cancer is far more deadly. The rate changes dramatically in the first five years alone. Once again, according to the American Cancer Society the survival rate for the first five years of breast cancer depending on the stage it is discovered is:

    stage 0-1: 100%

    stage 2: 93%

    stage 3: 72%

    stage 4: 22%

    As you can see, prostate cancer is very unlikely to be fatal even within the first fifteen years. Since most men are at an advanced age when they develop the cancer, they usually die of other causes long before the cancer becomes a problem. By contrast, breast cancer survival rates can drop below 50% within the first five years. These numbers are based on women treated several years ago, and the rates are improving with better detection and treatment. Nonetheless, the difference in survival rates between the two cancers is dramatic, and also probably the reason that breast cancer receives so much more awareness than prostate cancer.

    tl;dr: Even if you have prostate cancer you’re far more likely to die of other causes before it becomes a problem, whereas breast cancer is likely to result in death within the first five years after detection, depending on the stage.

    Further evidence – from the NYT article

    “Among the big cancers, breast cancer receives the most funding per new case, $2,596 — and by far the most money relative to each death, $13,452. Notably, prostate cancer, the most common cancer, receives the least funding per new case at just $1,318. But on a per-death basis it ranks second, with $11,298 in N.C.I. funds.

    Here’s a look at the N.C.I. cancer funding based on 2006 death rates and incidence rates for some of the most common and deadliest cancers.

    Cancer (Deaths) N.C.I. Funding per Death
    Lung (162,460) $1,630
    Colon (55,170) $4,566
    Breast (41,430) $13,452
    Pancreas (32,300 ) $2,297
    Prostate (27,350) $11,298

    Cancer (New cases) N.C.I. Funding per New Case
    Prostate (234,460) $1,318
    Breast (214,640) $2,596
    Lung (174,470) $1,518
    Colon (106,680) $2,361
    Pancreas (33,730) $2,200″

    It is much more likely that relative rates of mortality that are the cause of the funding disparity. Most certainly, cancer funding is not an accurate or reasonable example of ‘anti-male bias’ when it comes to how the sexes are treated in society.

  6. “As you can see, prostate cancer is very unlikely to be fatal even within the first fifteen years.”

    So the cancer that is the second leading cause of cancer death in men is no big deal.

    And the pain it can cause coupled with the loss of functions and risk of infection etc…no big deal.

    “The American Cancer Society estimates that 27,050 men will die from the disease this year in the U.S., while breast cancer will kill 40,460 women. Prostate cancer has also never attracted the level of patient advocacy that breast cancer has—most men simply do not like to talk about such a disease.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-06-13/a-gender-gap-in-cancerbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

    That’s a fuck of a big number as is the number of people dying from breast cancer.

    “Owen Sharp, the charity’s chief executive, said: “Prostate cancer is simply not on the radar in the UK. Even though it kills one man every hour – that’s 10,000 men each year – most men and women don’t know enough about it.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-20875488

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-20875488

    “Most certainly, cancer funding is not an accurate or reasonable example of ‘anti-male bias’ when it comes to how the sexes are treated in society.”

    Which I didn’t say it was. I was answering a comment about gender based diseases and funding. There is no doubt that breast cancer gets a ton more funding than prostate cancer.

    I think breast cancer is more visible and has better funding strategies.

  7. I think that all of these opinions are an example of the pendulum swinging too far the other way. There are good points on both sides, but being fearful every minute in any situation, is not a way to live. I am in a wheelchair, live alone, but I’ve never been fearful in any way. I can’t live like that. There’s a lot of worrisome things going on, I don’t want to add something I have no control over anyway. In other words, I don’t have 911 on speed dial. I do think boys and men suffer the same way girls and women do if abused or raped.
    My boys and grandsons have been taught to respect women. Naturally I’m very proud that they do. There are as many women out there that have no respect for men. Believe me, they can be just as despicable in the corporate world as men.

  8. Forgot to add that I don’t think the prostate cancer figures are accurate because older men, say 60+, are of the generation that do not go to doctors regularly. If they did, the prostate cancer occurrences would be much less. Colon cancer is another test most people detest, no pun intended. Having had cancer twice, (I’m in my second year of being cancer free for the second time) I hope everyone swallows their pride, dignity issues, whatever, be their own health advocate and get tested! The younger, the better.

  9. Feminism has different faces. I’ve come across self-styled radical feminists who unashamedly hate men and make no secret of this. I’ve also spoken to feminists who I would describe as liberal minded, and there’s definitely a distinction between the two groups.

    Radical feminists, particularly those who openly hate men, may well have their reasons. They (or someone close to them) might have been the victim of sexual assault, or been in an abusive relationship. They have faced persistent abuse from the men in their lives. This will inevitably shape opinion. I can’t criticise these women from forming such views when said views are based on their experiences.

    There’s also the ongoing misogyny that I have personally witnessed on Twitter, and have seen it displayed through such mediums on countless occasions. I’ve seen the posts on sites like Return of Kings (among others) that endorse pushing back women’s rights decades. These are the reasons why feminism remains relevant, even in Western society.

    It’s unfortunate that the most radical of radical feminists (the ones who qualify as misandrists) are seen as the norm of feminism, but that’s a distortion of what feminism is.

    • “Radical feminists, particularly those who openly hate men, may well have their reasons. They (or someone close to them) might have been the victim of sexual assault, or been in an abusive relationship. ”

      Would you say that you would understand if men who are in similar conditions hate women?

      I wouldn’t. I’d say that’s bigotry, and they need to seek help. One man doesn’t represent all men. One women doesn’t represent all women.

      The one woman I asked these questions to said that she had personally witnessed her friend smack her husband across the face because he disagreed with her. She then mocked him and told him he couldn’t do anything about it because the police would arrest him or not believe him.

      I’m betting he’s in an abusive relationship. I don’t think he should hate all women because of it.

      “This will inevitably shape opinion. I can’t criticise these women from forming such views when said views are based on their experiences.”

      If someone hates a whole group of people (in this case roughly 50% of the population) because of the actions of a few, I think they deserve criticism.

      “There’s also the ongoing misogyny that I have personally witnessed on Twitter, and have seen it displayed through such mediums on countless occasions. I’ve seen the posts on sites like Return of Kings (among others) that endorse pushing back women’s rights decades. These are the reasons why feminism remains relevant, even in Western society.”

      There are dicks all over the internet. Some people say things behind anonymous internet handles they would never say in person. Some people say things just to get people riled up. This is not only males.

      Pushing women’s rights back is a serious issue. I’m not a feminist but I take it seriously. Just as I would anyone’s rights being taken away.

      “It’s unfortunate that the most radical of radical feminists (the ones who qualify as misandrists) are seen as the norm of feminism, but that’s a distortion of what feminism is.”

      Not sure it’s a distortion. They are the face of feminism. They are the most visible and are the ones going to the UN trying to silence speech that they disagree with. While not every person who calls themselves a feminist would agree with them, they are part of a movement that includes these people and in many ways endorses them. If you read a handful of feminist blogs you will inevitably run across their parroting of the same talking points that the radical feminists have put forth as truth. It’s not hard to find people saying all men are rapists, for example. Or that we live in a systemically misogynistic society, even though they can’t name even one law that systemically oppresses women in the West.

      Hell, even Pinks weak example above is not true. At least in Canada. They took the tax off tampons. Viagra is still taxed as far as I can tell, although you can claim it as an expense on your tax returns.

      Bottom line is that I don’t think a movement that is based entirely on representing 50% of the population is the right vehicle in an era where women already enjoy the same freedoms by law as men.

      Yes, there is still work to be done. Yes, we can always strive to do better. I don’t think feminism is the best route to seeing that happen.

      • @Godless Cranium

        “Or that we live in a systemically misogynistic society, even though they can’t name even one law that systemically oppresses women in the West. “

        This is fascinating stuff because one does not need a particular law to point to for evidence that we live in a patriarchy. The system was created by, largely maintained by and enforced one class of individual. Structural sexism, and racism do not need explicit laws, quite the opposite, in fact. Laws must look as fair and unbiased as possible. How they are applied is somewhat more problematic.

        From the (NWAC) Fact Sheet on Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls

        “Nearly half of murder cases in NWAC’s database remain unsolved.
        NWAC has found that only 53% of murder cases involving Aboriginal women and girls have led to charges of homicide. This is dramatically different from the national clearance rate for homicides in Canada, which was last reported as 84% (Statistics Canada 2005, p.10). While a small number of cases in NWAC’s database have been “cleared” by the suicide of the offender or charges other than homicide, 40% of murder cases remain unsolved.”

        What we are seeing here is the intersection of the sexism and racism that permeates our society. We are all Canadian citizens here, yet how do we get statistics like this?

        “The number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls in Canada is disproportionately high. NWAC’s research indicates that, between 2000 and 2008, Aboriginal women and girls represented approximately 10% of all female
        homicides in Canada. However, Aboriginal women make up only 3% of the
        female population.”

        The answer? Systemic racism and sexism or what bell hooks calls White-Supremacist-Capitalist-Patriarchy.

        Another example you say? Why are the majority of sexual assaults in the US are not reported to the police (only 344 out of every 1000)? (From rainn.org)

        Clearly, sexual assault is against the law, yet only 6 out of the meagre 344 cases that get reported will end in incarceration for the perpetrator.

        The reasons stated for not reporting being sexually assaulted?

        “20% feared retaliation
        13% believed the police would not do anything to help
        13% believed it was a personal matter
        8% reported to a different official
        8% believed it was not important enough to report
        7% did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble
        2% believed the police could not do anything to help
        30% gave another reason, or did not cite one reason”

        Hmm, it is almost like victims of sexual assault know the system isn’t working for them. Yet the laws still exist making sexual assault a crime. Having laws on the book is one thing – applying them justly in society is quite another.

        “Bottom line is that I don’t think a movement that is based entirely on representing 50% of the population is the right vehicle in an era where women already enjoy the same freedoms by law as men. “

        Many women would disagree with you as ‘equality’ in name only, isn’t good enough for them.

    • @darthtimon

      “It’s unfortunate that the most radical of radical feminists (the ones who qualify as misandrists)…”

      “Misandry” isn’t a thing. If it is, what institutional power is backing up the term in question.

      Also, do you also believe that reverse-racism exists?

      ” are seen as the norm of feminism, but that’s a distortion of what feminism is. “

      Movements against the status quo will inevitably be smeared by those wishing to maintain it.

      • ““Misandry” isn’t a thing.”

        Yeah. It does. It’s a hatred of men. Misogyny is a hatred of women.

        “institutional power is backing up the term in question.”

        It’s a hatred of men. You don’t
        t need an institution to hate men. Just like I don’t need an institution to hate people based o their skin color.

        “Also, do you also believe that reverse-racism exists?”

        No. Racism is racism.

        “Movements against the status quo will inevitably be smeared by those wishing to maintain it.”

        You’re heroic. Or they might just see disagree with their views.

        I know, that’s hard to believe. Must be just oppressors trying to keep oppressing.

        • @Godless Cranium

          “Yeah. It does. It’s a hatred of men. Misogyny is a hatred of women.”

          It would seem that you’re trying to paint these two terms as two sides of the same coin, which of course, they are not.

          Why misogyny is real and misandry isn’t is the fact that the hatred of women is a systemic feature of society. The people/institutions in society that wield power implicitly or explicitly endorse misogyny. This is one of the root causes of the diminished status of women in society.

          A superstructure of hatred against men on a societal level simply doesn’t exist.

          “No. Racism is racism.”

          Actually it isn’t. With no institutional power behind it, it is discrimination. It is the key difference between racism and discrimination. It is also why I mentioned ‘reverse-racism’ in the first place because those who happen to be in the oppressed category cannot be racist toward their oppressors.

          Or did you see the scores of white people being gunned down for dubious reasons and then the black police officers being protected by the black-dominated legal system shielding them from accountability?

          No, neither did I.

          Differences in class power within society are the material reality of the situation, lofty notions about egalitarianism are simply that – lofty notions.

          • I’ll agree to disagree. My position is if you’re racist you’re racist. If you’re sexist you’re sexist.

            However, I do think this position reflects why ideologies need to be discussed and opposed. It’s not okay to pretend some groups of people can’t be racist or sexist. That’s actually the definition of sexism and racism.

      • I think misandry and reverse racism are ‘things’, just not institutionalised or as widespread as misogyny and racism. I think people who bring up these ideas as part of a ‘not all men’ or ‘all lives matter’ hashtag are missing the point behind the ‘black lives matter’ and ‘yes all women’ ideas. Can a black person be racist toward someone else? Yes. Is this is a widespread problem, embedded in society? No. It’s therefore pretty clear where our efforts need to be directed.

        It’s the same with sexism. Misogyny is a much more serious problem and it stands to reason this is where the focus needs to be. Unfortunately the MRAs and MGTOWs of the world love to latch on to the worst aspects of feminism and as you say, smear the rest with that narrative. It’s not fair and not accurate (certainly not in my experience), but it’s all too easy to do, and unfortunately people buy into it. Most of the feminists I know actually want to include men in the feminist movement, because changing our attitudes towards sex and sexism requires addressing both sexes.

        • Then why bother identifying with a movement so easy to smear? At what point is there enough awful things attributed to feminism that you realize it’s become a harmful ideology?

          Your friends sound very moderate and I’m glad they want to include men, but do they realise that isn’t likely to happen? As Ruth pointed out, feminism isn’t about men. This isn’t the vehicle that is going to tackle issues such as the skyrocketing suicide rates among men that is growing every year, because it’s focused on 50% of the population. Not 100%.

          It has gone from wanting the rights to vote and equal protection under the law to picking apart what words we use and worrying about how many times you’re told to smile in a day.

          • With respect, I have to disagree. Feminism isn’t about 50% of the human race, it’s about all of us. It’s about changing the attitudes of men and women. It’s not about worrying about words – it’s about reshaping a culture where men like Brock Turner can get a few months in jail for rape. It’s about changing a scenario where women can and do get attacked or killed for saying no. There may be equality in theory in law – that doesn’t always translate into reality.
            The
            I’ll prepare a more thorough response in time, but in the meantime I’ll come at this from the perspective of a father to a little girl – I don’t want her to grow up thinking she can’t say no to a man, for any reason. I don’t want her thinking she needs to justify her statements. I don’t want her facing the vitriol my friend faced on Twitter from misogynistic arseholes, because she wanted to be treated like a human being and not an object.

            • I can’t see fathers disagreeing with you and that doesn’t mean they have to be feminists to do so.

              What do you mean by justify statements? I’m assuming you mean when they say no? Or are you talking about in general all the time?

              No one wants to face vitriol online. That’s not a uniquely feminine issue. Men face horrible treatment as well. People say things online just to get a rise out of people as well.

              There also isn’t a great solution if you value freedom of speech.

              • Good evening G (I don’t actually know what to call you!). I promised a more detailed reply, and having had a hectic past few days, I am finally in a position to deliver one!

                So, feminism in the West. Is it necessary? My argument is very much yes. Are there laws for gender equality in countries like the US and the UK? Yes. Does this mean they guarantee equality, or that the underlying reasons for the existence of those laws disappears? No.

                According to the NSOPW site (https://www.nsopw.gov/en-GB/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1) 18% of women in the USA will be raped in their lifetime. That’s 20 million women. According to the RAINN site, 1 in 6 women in the US have been the victims of rape or attempted rape.

                https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

                In constrast, 1 in 10 victims of rape are male. This is not to trivialise the experience of men who have been raped or sexually assaulted, but this is a problem which affects women a lot more, even in a country which is more developed.

                In the UK, half of women in a Guardian survey reported they’d been sexually harassed: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/10/half-of-women-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-at-work-tuc-study-everyday-sexism

                So, there is still work to do in dealing with this issues. They are problems that, whilst not unique to women (in that sexual assault and harassment can be faced by men as well), they are faced far more by women.

                So, what’s the best vehicle to deal with this? Feminism. It’s about equality, despite the perception out there that it’s about angry women who hate men. This is something promoted by a small element of radical feminism, and MRAs and their ilk, who naturally want to present the worst face of feminism. There are a few people I can put you in touch with to get a true picture of what feminism is, and also why it’s good for men as well as women.

                • “Good evening G (I don’t actually know what to call you!).”

                  Whatever you want. I’m easy. 🙂

                  “So, feminism in the West. Is it necessary? My argument is very much yes. Are there laws for gender equality in countries like the US and the UK? Yes. Does this mean they guarantee equality, or that the underlying reasons for the existence of those laws disappears? No. ”

                  Okay. I’m going to stop you right here, because I don’t want to get into a statistics game with you. I could name statistics as well such as the rising and troubling suicide rate among men etc.

                  But look at your statement. There are already mechanisms on the books to deal with these things. Let’s enforce them. Why do we need feminism to deal with these things, when they’ll ignore or trivialize how it happens to men as well, even if it’s at a lower rate in the cases you mentioned, while also ignoring the issues men face all together?

                  “So, what’s the best vehicle to deal with this? Feminism.”

                  Why?

                  “It’s about equality, despite the perception out there that it’s about angry women who hate men.”

                  Equality would mean caring equally for both men and women’s issues. Feminism doesn’t do that. MRA’s don’t do that. They care about women and men. It’s right there in their names.

                  “This is something promoted by a small element of radical feminism, and MRAs and their ilk, who naturally want to present the worst face of feminism.”

                  Quin, Sarkeesian, Laci Green and the like are not a small portion of feminism. They are the modern faces of feminism. You have a Canadian Prime Minister basing cabinet decision not on merit but on a an arbitrary characteristic such as gender. I can’t help that I was born a man. Someone else can’t help they were born a woman. I don’t want to be judged because I’m a man and if I were a woman, I’d say the same thing. I want to be judged on my character and what I have accomplished.

                  Any time (in my opinion) we violate this, we are discriminating and that is never okay.

                  “There are a few people I can put you in touch with to get a true picture of what feminism is, and also why it’s good for men as well as women.”

                  I am always open to suggestions, my friend.

                  Thanks so much for dropping by and sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it!

        • @darthtimon

          “I think misandry and reverse racism are ‘things’, just not institutionalised or as widespread as misogyny and racism.”

          Cool. We should definitely get on educating these people on how racism and sexism is bad for society – when did you want to start with educating women on how sexism is bad for men, or did you want to start with the black people of the US and how they need to stop and really consider the feelings of the white population, or perhaps let’s start in Canada with our First Nations and talk about how their racism is hurting the white people?

          Because they, most certainly, have no idea of what sexism and racism are all about.

          When actions as class and actions as individual are intermingled the inevitable confusion, as demonstrated on this thread, sets in.

          Do women as a class possess power over men of a class?

          No.

          Does the black population of the US possess power over the white population?

          No.

          Do Canada’s first nations possess power over the white people in Canada?

          No.

          Are there *individual* instances of sexism and racism from these oppressed groups against their oppressor? Of course there are – do they change the balance of power? They most certainly do not – so discrimination is a better description of what is going on. Should it be dealt with as a societal problem? Absolutely, but as you say, there are more pressing concerns to deal with first.

          “Is this is a widespread problem, embedded in society? No. It’s therefore pretty clear where our efforts need to be directed.”

          Essential what I’ve been stating, without the problematic overlay of having to pretend that our society treats everyone the same, and that some sort equal playing field exists.

          Neither proposition is true.

          “because changing our attitudes towards sex and sexism requires addressing both sexes.”

          I would argue that changing societal attitudes toward sexism requires a critical mass of organized, militant women obdurately demanding that the implicit and explicit patriarchal structures that perpetuate sexism be banished from society.

          Social change in society happens when power is taken from the status quo – it has never been, nor ever will be freely given. The suffrage for women was never a ‘please may I’ it was a demand. The civil rights movement in the US during the 60’s was never a negotiation – it was an explicit expectation of change, backed by the threat of societal disruption.

          “Most of the feminists I know actually want to include men in the feminist movement,”

          Nice. Most feminists I know actually don’t – because the class interests of males tend not to line up with the class interests of females. Did you see the mass male based movements rallying against restrictions on abortion (a.k.a basic human bodily autonomy)? Or prostitution? Or porn?

          Yeah – neither did I.

          Men can be allies of the feminist movement, but the body proper and vanguard must necessarily be composed of females – because it is their class interest, their oppression and their rights that are on the line.

          • @The Arbourist,

            For a country like Argentina, I have no doubt that marches such as the one your link detailed are necessary. Perhaps marches are yet necessary even in countries like the US. However, descriptions such as ‘militant’ aren’t helpful – they are what are seized upon by MRAs to suggest feminism is about demonising men, rather than equality.

            Radical feminism also has a problem with inclusion. It has an uneasy relationship with liberal feminism and there are elements of radical feminism which are decidedly anti-trans.

            • @darthtimon

              “However, descriptions such as ‘militant’ aren’t helpful – they are what are seized upon by MRAs to suggest feminism is about demonising men, […].

              Organized militant action is what changes society. Men will oppose any feminist action that threatens the status quo. Stirring up whingy MRA’s is of no concern as MRA’s oppose any progress of females in society.

              As far as demonizing men – This is the society that men have built, dominate and maintain – they are the oppressor class and reap the benefits of membership. Indeed, they are part of the problem.

              “rather than equality

              Just what kinda of equality is there in a society that values one sex over the other? Please note that this systemic principle runs through every facet of society… there is no ‘equal’ playing field to be had.

              The definition that many radical feminist like to use is as follows: Feminism is the struggle to liberate women from the patriarchal aspects of society. It is feminism’s goal to illuminate, critique and ultimately tear down these oppressive features because their existence guarantees inequality within society.

              It has an uneasy relationship with liberal feminism…

              Because (neo)liberal man pleasing “let’s get along and work together – *cue rainbows, glitter, and uncorns* for equality!!!” is about effective at changing society as it is getting a close shave with a banana. Why liberal feminism is so popular is because it poses exactly zero threat to the established societal hierarchy.

              “and there are elements of radical feminism which are decidedly anti-trans.”

              Dealing with the root problems and material reality of the female situation society, like biological sex, is vital in combating the oppression of females.

              Ideology that doesn’t deal with these material realities are unhelpful to the central cause of effective feminism (the emancipation of females from patriarchy) thus should not be central in feminist struggle.

            • @Darth

              The last comment by the Arbourist where they show how they think about men and liberal feminists should be what worries you. They literally view men not as equals but as an occupying force to be overthrown and beaten down. They don’t see equals. They see oppressors and they are the victims.

              This comment coipled with Tildeb literally advocating for things to be based on racial and gender lines instead of merit should scare the living shit out of anyone who believes in liberal values and equal treatment not based on arbitrary characteristics.

              This is why modern feminism is not a good vehicle to move forward with in my opinion.

              • Tildeb literally advocating for things to be based on racial and gender lines instead of merit…

                This is where your thinking goes astray: merit is already submerged in a patriarchal system and is nothing but a rationalization based on wishful thinking. You believe parity doesn’t matter because it can be achieved by merit within a patriarchal system. But that’s NOT what reality shows us. That’s why the very thing you wave away – disparate and consistent RATES that reveal the dominance of patriarchy over merit – is the very evidence needed to understand why parity by policy is NOT sexist but anti-patriarchy. Your argument bolsters only patriarchy hidden behind and defended by the term ‘merit’. But it’s not ‘merit’ that gives men unreasonable dominance in rates of institutional power and authority. It’s patriarchy.

                    • Come on, Ron: there’s nothing supernatural about patriarchy, the embedded privilege awarded to the male based on gender. Nor is there any inherent unreasonableness criticizing it if one comes across people who think it is imaginary. It’s not imaginary. And its effects are real. There’s ample real world evidence to support its presence embedded in our culture and there are good reasons to dismantle it if one wishes gender to not be the cause of unfair privilege.

                    • The ironic thing about the patriarchy theory is that one of the worst things someone can call someone else in a 1st world democratic society that values freedom is an oppressor but people who buy into this crap have no problem doing it to an entire gender while calling them sexist.

                      Really is crazy when you think about it.

                    • I asked a 9 year old hockey player yesterday if he would understand, “You skate like a girl” to be a compliment or criticism. I then asked if he would understand, “You took it like man” to be a compliment or criticism?

                      You know these answers, GC. They’re part of our culture. So it’s not crazy, GC. It’s pervasive and it is exercised thousands of different ways – from social ‘niceties’ to respecting cultural norms.

                      I think we need to be reminded when we do our small patriarchal part, thinking nothing of it when we should, to partake. We have to make the effort to get rid of this ubiquitous gender privileging/put downs, and I see this as the important job of feminists, male and female. It is a necessary undertaking if we wish to eliminate gender bias. You think this ongoing problem is imaginary, which is factually incorrect. That’s an even bigger problem, in that we can’t even begin to make headway as long as people who are central to the problem assume there is no problem. This shoe fits you, GC.

                    • Not imaginary? The patriarchy is the feminist version of Christianity’s devil: some nefarious, invisible force that’s constantly hovering about tempting us to commit evil and deemed responsible for everything that is wrong with the world.

                      The evidence in support of this claim is NIL.

                    • And when their arguments fail to convince, like Pink demonstrated, they resort to bullying. The rest of their congregation…errr…tribe ignores it and they all make sure to avoid any information that might contradict their firmly held beliefs.

                      Sounds pretty much like a religion to me.

                    • @Tildeb

                      I’ve known you awhile on WP. Ive seen comments of yours I don’t agree with and ones I’ve thought to myself ‘this man/lady tore them a new asshole. They hit the nail on the head’.

                      What I didn’t know was you also had a ‘nice’ mode. Lol

                      We disagree on this but I still think you’re pretty awesome Tildeb and appreciate your no holds barred honesty.

                    • My comment was aimed at Ron because I’ve shown – to absolutely no effect, apparently – that we have embedded into various culture-wide practices a sense of gender (from weak to strong) that interferes with treating others by the quality of their character first and foremost. I think this is a value worth striving to achieve. Waving this gender-biased effect away as if it is non existent, as if it were nothing more than figments of deluded imaginations, as if it were a ridiculous notion, as if pointing out where and how we fall short of the value were done only by those trying to appear as if victims of their own gender conspiracy thinking, is intellectually dishonest at best and outright denialism at worst.

                      This is why I’ve also pointed out repeatedly the method used to discredit and discard accusations of patriarchy. This method is identical to the method used to protect the tobacco lobby from legitimate criticism of its dishonest advertising, to advance the pseudo-reasonableness of climate change denialists, the anti-vaxers and -fluoride supporters, the alt medicine and anti-gmo Luddites, etc…. and how this shared methodology by the anti-patriarchy deniers should indicate the scope of dishonesty needed to vilify not just feminists but the movement itself. I’m pointing out that my criticism of sharing the same failed methodology as the run of the mill denialists should alarm those who can think better, who should be able to avoid falling into this seductive trap.

                      Our method of thinking (epistemology) about an issue is the bell tone we can use – the harbinger we can evaluate – to the quality of the controversial opinion we support (ontology) and we are wise to pay at least as much attention to HOW we think about an issue as we do to WHAT we think about something… because the ‘how’ very much determines the ‘what’.

              • I don’t agree with much of the narrative put forward by Arbourist, but then, she is not the face of feminism for me. Radical feminism isn’t necessarily modern feminism – or if it is, it exists alongside liberal feminism.

                But the necessity for feminism in general can be found in the stats I provided yesterday, and elsewhere too. They deal with specifics where women are being hurt or held down by men. Issues which have relevance to the behaviour of both genders. The idea is to change a culture that tells men AND women this sort of behaviour is OK, or at least tolerable.

                Radical feminism unfortunately doesn’t want to engage with men, or with women who think this is the best way forward. It is quite exclusionary.

                • @darthtimon

                  “Radical feminism unfortunately doesn’t want to engage with men, […]

                  The record for engaging with men speaks for itself. Witness this thread and continue to engage away with someone who doesn’t get/won’t accept one of the fundamental concepts of feminist theory.

                  “It is quite exclusionary.”

                  Lol, movements that represent factions of society are by definition ‘exclusionary’. Are you going give grief to #BLM for not including enough white people – you know the people that oppress them – in the movement?

                  Women are expected to accommodate (those pesky patriarchal standards) the needs of others – the flak radical feminists get for having the apparently quaint notion that feminism should be centred around the needs of females – and if it isn’t catering to the needs of males it is somehow ‘exclusionary’.

                  Audre Lorde comes to mind at about this time in the discussion and it continues to ring true: “The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house”.

                  • Your BLM example is interesting – do black people exclude other black people from that movement, the way radical feminism excludes women who don’t share the same views? This is what I mean by exclusionary – radical feminism excludes other women, including other feminists, and there are elements of radical feminism which have taken a decidedly ironic stance on the transgender issue.

                    You want to effect genuine, meaningful change no? Do you think this can be achieved without engaging with men, and seeking to challenge male perspectives? Your comments are providing fuel for GC’s fire, so to speak. He believes feminism is not about equality. Is he right? What should I tell my daughter? As a man, how can I be a feminist role model and promote the idea to her that her gender doesn’t hold her back? Or should I, as a man, abandon any notion that I can help my daughter?

                    • @Darthtimon

                      “Your BLM example is interesting – do black people exclude other black people from that movement, the way radical feminism excludes women who don’t share the same views? “

                      You tell me.

                      It is just the framing of the issue. #BLM is about issues that effect people who are black and their experiences. In a few photos I see the odd white person, but I’m guessing their allies – they are not making the movement about themselves, they are there to support a cause, even if it isn’t their own. But there is no mistaking who makes up the population of #BLM.

                      “This is what I mean by exclusionary – radical feminism excludes other women, including other feminists […]

                      The only differentiation going on I see from radical feminists is a set of beliefs grounded in material reality of the female experience in society and wanting to change those conditions for the better.

                      “and there are elements of radical feminism which have taken a decidedly ironic stance on the transgender issue.”

                      If your definition of feminism is about female emancipation from the patriarchal structures of society – that is feminism centred on females – there is nothing particularly ironic about said issue.

                      “You want to effect genuine, meaningful change no? Do you think this can be achieved without engaging with men, and seeking to challenge male perspectives?”

                      How much genuine social/societal change happens through discussion. How long do you think women have been asking politely and nicely for men to stand up and roll back patriarchy so they can share in being regarded as fully human too? (pro-tip: Too fracking long)

                      Yeah..no. Engaging with men, and discussing things works to a point, but honestly, if a system is working great for you, what impetus is there to change it? Or haven’t you been watching the Trump saga lately and not seeing the embodiment of patriarchal values on display, and yes of course there is certainly outrage, but millions of men will still be voting for him.

                      Take a peek at the enlightened voting male cohort in the US, the ones for repealing the 19th amendment.

                      Challenge perspectives and engage away.

                      Have you noticed how effective the feminist commentators (of all stripes) here have been in changing just one dude’s mind through argument? Do you know how a robotic a process this is for many women who try to explain to dudes what is going on in their lives and get shut down or ignored?

                      I’ve lost track of the time wasted gently explaining to dudes how patriarchy is a thing and maybe, just maybe, they should give more than rat’s ass about the whole thing.

                      Yeah no. Wasting time on a dudeish versions of ‘egalitarianism’ makes pissing up a rope seem like worthwhile venture. Women need to organize, identify, and deconstruct the toxic patriarchal aspects of society that brings great harm both women and men. Females, who get the short end of the stick by default, understand better what needs to be done.

                      Or, should we, as you say “engag[e] with men, and seeking to challenge male perspectives” – I wait with bated breath for you Darthtimon, to win our gracious host over. Which tack will you take – more equality? Look at tildeb’s well argued treatise and GC’s responses – perhaps some more engagement will be the trick? Have fun with that. 🙂

                      “Your comments are providing fuel for GC’s fire, so to speak. He believes feminism is not about equality.

                      Happy to play the evil-(radical)feminist-bogyman. Feminism that isn’t manpleasing, that threatens the status quo, that threatens male privilege is never going to be popular. What it will do, is get stuff done, like the Second Wave did when it fought for, struggled, and took power away from the status-quo – and stared the long struggle for personhood for females in our patriarchal societies.

                      You don’t get equality on an uneven playing field. Not ever.

                      “As a man, how can I be a feminist role model and promote the idea to her that her gender doesn’t hold her back?”

                      Telling her so would be a lie. Gender, fundamentally, is a hierarchy. It places males in the dominant role and females in the submissive role. Take a peek at what are considered masculine and feminine behaviours and then look at which characteristics are lauded in society. There is nothing good for females in the gender hierarchy. Consequently, that is why many radical feminists push for abolishing gender and gender roles, because they are harmful social construct that hurts both women and men.

                      “As a man, how can I be a feminist role model”

                      Explain the system to her and how it works. Don’t let the ‘locker-talk’ and ‘guy-talk’ that is sexist in nature go unchallenged with your friends. This is a tough one, let me assure you. Speak out against misogyny and support females when they speak by listening (really listening) and take the hit to give women a chance to speak in public and other spaces in society.

                      “Or should I, as a man, abandon any notion that I can help my daughter?”

                      Fight to dismantle patriarchy. Arm your daughter the with the unhappy facts of being female in society. Prepare her for the young age when men will start commenting on her looks and wanting to get to be with her – prepare her for that fact she’ll have to work twice as hard to progress in society. Prepare her for the fact that her body will be shamed because it doesn’t meet the male standard of beauty. Prepare her for being thought as a object rather than a subject, as men are. Prepare her for the fact that her bodily autonomy and reproductive future is *still* under debate. Prepare her for getting used to being passed over for promotion because she might get pregnant. Prepare her for the idea that when she is making a point, the men in the room will silence her, ignore her or call her bitchy and hysterical (or some combination of the three) and then repeat her opinion as if it was their own and claim it. Prepare her for the fact that she will be socialized to be quiet, polite, and not take up space like men do.

                      Or don’t do any of the above, that hazards of free advice and what not.

                      – But know this. Never in recorded human history has the dominant class and associated oppressive systems given up power willingly. Not. Once.

  10. That’s the trouble with an ideology that is inherently biased but claimed to be centred on fairness – while it may have usefulness initially in improving fairness, the bias will live on and be used to gain unfair advantages if it is allowed to.

  11. You have cited what is in your opinion Sarkeesian’s attempt to silence her critics as problematic. I can agree with you that censorship never a good thing. But a) she hasn’t gotten that and b) there’s no guarantee she’s going to. Just because you ask for a thing doesn’t mean you’ll get it.

    Everyone has an ideology. Your touted egalitarianism is an ideology. Having ideas is dangerous? Dogma is dangerous. Not necessarily ideologies, in and of themselves.

  12. You have asked what is meant by patriarchy, calling it a ‘buzzword’.

    Here you go:

    Patriarchy

    1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

    2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy

    That’s the full definition from Merriam Webster.

    Here’s the simple definition from the same source:

    Patriarchy

    1: a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men

    2: a social system in which family members are related to each other through their fathers

    I am not certain why you are insisting that systemic sexism must necessarily be CODIFIED into law.

    It isn’t. It’s codified into families. It’s codified into systems of operating in society whether it’s codified into law or not. As Pink has already noted laws are only the beginning. It’s changing attitudes that is the hard part.

    If you seriously cannot look around the society around you and see sexism, in particular against women, then I need to know where the hell you live.

    Please spare me the notion that sexism is simply a religious construct, too. This construct, of the man as the head of the house, and women and children expected to conform to traditional gender norms can be seen throughout our society.

    • Would it help make my point more clearly if I provided more links of feminists acting like dogmatic ideologues?

      Like when they call all men rapists? Or maybe when they tell a man to take down a bobble head doll because it offends them? Or when they try to stop speakers in universities from speaking because they disagree with their views?

      I can provide several if you wish.

      • No, it really wouldn’t. If you want to try take down a particular type of feminism you are more than welcome to do that.

        But you have repeatedly said there is no need for feminism, period. That it’s done it’s job and is no longer relevant at all for any reason. I’m providing you reasons why it is still relevant, whether or not I agree with every segment or idea some groups might represent.

        I have, and others have, shown you how systemic sexism does still exist and you aren’t having any of it. There are laws against it, so how can it possibly exist?

        I could point you toward loud mouth men’s groups who hate women and want to take us back into the dark ages, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get what they want or that they represent the majority of men who have formed men’s rights groups. Those do exist, too. I don’t see you talking about how bad that is.

        Hell, there’s one guy who has a HUGE following who says the only women worthy of breathing air are the ones who work just as hard as men, who do manly things, yet still retain there femininity. You might be surprised how many such groups exist.

        • “I have, and others have, shown you how systemic sexism does still exist and you aren’t having any of it.”

          No. You haven’t. I’ve asked repeatedly for a law that oppresses women in a Western country. I acknowledged that the current maternity leave law in the US could be seen as one. <—having some of it

          The closest anyone got was tampons vs viagra. In Canada that isn't true. I can't find data anywhere else.

          "There are laws against it, so how can it possibly exist?"

          I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said it isn't systemic in nature. That it's individual in nature and that the law protects women and men from sexism.

          "I could point you toward loud mouth men’s groups who hate women and want to take us back into the dark ages, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get what they want or that they represent the majority of men who have formed men’s rights groups."

          Yes. But I don't belong to their tiny backwards cults. You on the other hand, identify yourself as a feminist. Huge difference there. The MRA's don't represent my views on any level.

          "Those do exist, too. I don’t see you talking about how bad that is."

          Because they are minuscule. Feminism is not.

          And I do talk about it. I've talked several times about American politicians, for example, trying to take away reproductive rights.

          I just don't do it as a feminist but as a human being who cares about equal rights.

          "Hell, there’s one guy who has a HUGE following who says the only women worthy of breathing air are the ones who work just as hard as men, who do manly things, yet still retain there femininity. You might be surprised how many such groups exist."

          Whoever he is, he sounds like an utter prick. But again, I don't belong to his movement and he doesn't represent me. If he ever makes it to the UN and tries to systematically and globally silence dissent, I'll be sure to write about it.

          • Yes, and you are hung up on the fact that it MUST necessarily be a law. The fact that there is any law at all that has to be made saying that women should be equal to men is problematic and symptomatic of the system itself. You do not see families and religions as systems. There need not be a law saying that women are less-than. There shouldn’t be a need for any law to be enacted to say that they aren’t.

      • You mean you don’t think you’re acting like a dogmatic ideologue after making up your own definition of feminism and criticizing the definition you made up?
        The fact of the matter is your argumentation is highly flawed from a logical perspective. Not a single law is necessary for prejudices to exist. To imply a law is necessary is ridiculous. Fox news tactics.
        Long after anti-gay laws were abolished homophobia still existed. Still exists. LGBT people are still murdered today. Just for being LGBT. The idea that can be dismissed is appalling.
        Patriarchy is how the world works. It’s mirrored, reflected in most aspects of life. In companies, in families. One male leader is the head of the pyramid. Other people’s values are measured as in their usefulness to that leader’s system. That is capitalism. That is Trump. That is Syria. That is Brazil where a female president was impeached for a non-crime committed by all male presidents before her. That is patriarchy. Some animals are more equal than others. And it’s the males.

  13. “I am not certain why you are insisting that systemic sexism must necessarily be CODIFIED into law.”

    I thought we were talking about society. A patriarchal society and a systemic sexism that permeates all of society…but yet can’t be found in any law.

    Let’s go step by step.

    “1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power”

    Men are not immediately the head of the family. There are plenty of families that have strong female leaders in their family.

    Father’s are not immediately supreme in any family. In fact, they often lose custody of children, have to pay alimony etc.

    There is no law that upholds any of that.

    Inheritance is not governed by whether you’re a male or female. When my parents die, my sister will get an equal share.

    The last part is what we are talking about. Some people believe that men hold a disproportionate amount of power. So demonstrate it. Both men and women have issues that need solving. Feminism only addresses one of those, and that’s why I don’t think it’s the right vehicle to see us forward.

    “As Pink has already noted laws are only the beginning. It’s changing attitudes that is the hard part.”

    If you want to change attitudes by silencing people, then I want no part of it. As already pointed out, Sarkeesian tried. She also tried with Gamergate. That’s a problem.

    Are you also saying you must be a feminist to change attitudes? That even non-feminists aren’t concerned with sexism etc?

    I noted laws have changed, and that it hasn’t been long since women claimed those rights. They have them now by law. If you disagree, demonstrate how they do not.

    “If you seriously cannot look around the society around you and see sexism, in particular against women, then I need to know where the hell you live.”

    Canada.

    Sexism exists on an individual level. Both against men and women for crying out loud. You act as if men never face sexism. I’ve given you both stories from my own life – very personal stories – to demonstrate how this isn’t true and provided multiple links to show this isn’t true.

    Feminism by your own definition only ever deals with one half of that sexism!

    “Please spare me the notion that sexism is simply a religious construct, too. ”

    Huh? Where did I say this?

    I said modern feminism resembles a religion.

    “This construct, of the man as the head of the house, and women and children expected to conform to traditional gender norms can be seen throughout our society.”

    You act as if men have no gender norms either. Suicide rates in men are skyrocketing and some people think it’s because we are told not to express our feelings, for example.

    Yes, there are gender norms. Yes, they are shit. Yes, it’s a society wide issue and not just a woman’s issue. And yes, women help to uphold those gender norms and enforce them as do men.

    • “I thought we were talking about society. A patriarchal society and a systemic sexism that permeates all of society…but yet can’t be found in any law.”

      We are talking about society. A society that, yes, has laws, but that doesn’t mean people abide by them. We have laws against murder, rape, battery, tax evasion, discrimination, etc. Does that mean those problems suddenly ceased to exist? Or that people who commit such crimes always pay for them? Are you suggesting that since there are laws on the books that either a) people always follow the law or that b)the people who don’t always get caught and learn their lesson?

      “Men are not immediately the head of the family. There are plenty of families that have strong female leaders in their family.

      Father’s are not immediately supreme in any family. In fact, they often lose custody of children, have to pay alimony etc.

      There is no law that upholds any of that.”

      Again, I didn’t say there was a law that upholds men as the head of the household. I’m providing you evidence that it doesn’t have to be codified into law to be part of a system. It doesn’t matter how many laws you make, if people are programmed as part of a tradition to operate in a certain way the laws are irrelevant.

      I already know that men often lose custody of their children and have to pay alimony, etc. I pointed that out to you yesterday as an example of how patriarchy is also injurious to males because it defines traditional gender norms. Men provide, women nurture.

      Law of the land is not the only thing that determines a system. Sure, some families are not set up with the man as the head of the household. But that is not the norm in situations where there are nuclear families. Especially since religion still does figure prominently in family life. Are you saying that families are not systems? That religion is not a system?

      No laws are needed to uphold that systemic sexism when the fear of excommunication from the family or the organization is used as leverage.

      You have pointed out that the disparity between women choosing certain careers is at play. More men choose certain careers than women. Why do you think that is? Why do you think more women don’t pursue engineering, the sciences, politics? Because it traditionally a man’s role. Because as children girls are encouraged in certain directions and boys are encouraged in others.

      What can possibly be more systemic than the family?

      “Yes, there are gender norms. Yes, they are shit. Yes, it’s a society wide issue and not just a woman’s issue. And yes, women help to uphold those gender norms and enforce them.”

      Exactly! Exactly this! Society IS the system, not the laws. Society.

      Yes, women help to uphold those gender norms and enforce them and that is part of what feminism aims to deal with. If you have gotten into some dark part of the web that says ALL women hate men then you have missed what real feminism is. Feminism isn’t about hating men, it’s about empowering women. Are there some groups who are extreme who hate men? I’m sure. There are also men’s groups that are extreme and hate women. In no way whatsoever do I think that represents the mainstream of what men in general, or all men’s rights groups believe.

      • “We have laws against murder, rape, battery, tax evasion, discrimination, etc. Does that mean those problems suddenly ceased to exist? Or that people who commit such crimes always pay for them? Are you suggesting that since there are laws on the books that either a) people always follow the law or that b)the people who don’t always get caught and learn their lesson?”

        No, but people who are beat up don’t then say they live in a society that condones it and that the society is oppressing them.

        Do you not see the difference here?

        “I’m providing you evidence that it doesn’t have to be codified into law to be part of a system.”

        And I showed you that the system isn’t a law now and people can leave their wealth to whoever they choose when they die.

        “t doesn’t matter how many laws you make, if people are programmed as part of a tradition to operate in a certain way the laws are irrelevant.”

        They aren’t programmed. People already know they can leave their wealth to whoever they choose.

        And laws are one way a society shows they agree with a concept.

        “You have pointed out that the disparity between women choosing certain careers is at play. More men choose certain careers than women. Why do you think that is? Why do you think more women don’t pursue engineering, the sciences, politics? ”

        I don’t know. Why do more men not take part in social services?

        Maybe they don’t want to? There are a variety of reasons this might come about, including that politics might not be seen as a female norm based profession, much like nursing and social work isn’t seen as a male norm based profession. See how it goes both ways?

        “Because as children girls are encouraged in certain directions and boys are encouraged in others.”

        Yes!

        And that applies to both males and females and your ideology only wants to address the one.

        “Exactly! Exactly this! Society IS the system, not the laws. Society.”

        LOL. Finally we agree on something!

        “Yes, women help to uphold those gender norms and enforce them and that is part of what feminism aims to deal with.”

        Then I applaud them because they are trying to deal with both sides of the issue on this one and yes I’ve seen this in action. I don’t much like the tactics they often employ to try and get this done, but that’s a different story.

        “f you have gotten into some dark part of the web that says ALL women hate men then you have missed what real feminism is. ”

        Do you not see the similarity between this statement and a Christian telling me that even though there is a Christian movement trying to stop abortion, not all Christians hate women?

        The faces of the movement often do and they try to censor differing opinions and they try to shame people into compliance.

        “In no way whatsoever do I think that represents the mainstream of what men in general, or all men’s rights groups believe.”

        No. But they are wrong (in my opinion) for the very same reason feminism is wrong. They only deal with half the picture and often try to paint women as boogeymen. Something modern feminism does as well.

        I’m an equal opportunity dissenter. 🙂

        • “No. But they are wrong (in my opinion) for the very same reason feminism is wrong. They only deal with half the picture and often try to paint women as boogeymen. Something modern feminism does as well.”

          I just wanted to add to this point. You know how atheists will often say something like, ‘if you don’t know why I don’t believe in your god, ask yourself why you don’t believe in another god and apply that to yours’?

          Kind of the same here. You likely don’t agree with MRA’s and neither do I.The reasoning is the same for both. That doesn’t mean I won’t agree with specific issues that a feminist or an MRA might bring up, but I’m not going to run to their movement to be identified as one.

          Much like I’ve worked with Christian organizations to stop poverty or help homeless teens. I don’t agree with Christianity and I might not even agree on why they’re helping, but they are helping and for one day I can put that aside and find common ground.

    • GC, you state, “A patriarchal society and a systemic sexism that permeates all of society…but yet can’t be found in any law.”

      Why are you uhung up about law as the defining factor? By that measurement, you’ve just eliminated racism and, at the same time, child poverty. Oh look, they can;t exist systemically because you can;t show me where in law these are embedded!

      Voila! No need for anti-racist groups and spokespeople, no need for child poverty advocacy…!

      This is what you are doing by dismissing the need for feminism; you are substituting your beliefs in place of reality.

      How so?

      Well, I’m quite surprised you refuse to see embedded patriarchy when it’s all around you. All you need to do is look at our language. In the whole, female attributes are considered negatively whereas male attributes positively (I know there are exceptions but I’m speaking in general use)… and this language is still exercised regularly by both men and women. How can that embedded patriarchy still be the case when, as you repeatedly insist, there are equality laws on the books?

      Yeah, how can that be… because we’re all so aware of gender bias when we encounter it, I’m almost sure…. now that feminism as you are arguing here has already carried the day?

      Might it be somewhat valid to say that expressions of patriarchy really aren’t even seen until someone negatively affected by its exercise points it out? (Well, valid unless the person’s name is ____________ and has been ‘identified’ as a radical feminist, right? Then there’s no need to listen.)

      I mean, it’s not like you use the same language, right?

      Do you seriously think our language has magically become gender neutral by their passage of equality laws? How do we correct for that embedded source of patriarchy if we first assume there is no embedded problem?

      • “Oh look, they can;t exist systemically because you can;t show me where in law these are embedded!

        Voila! No need for anti-racist groups and spokespeople, no need for child poverty advocacy…!”

        Yes. I think we’d be better served looking at actions and individual cases. I wish we didn’t look at a persons skin color all of the time. We keep dividing ourselves. Just like feminism does.

        “Well, I’m quite surprised you refuse to see embedded patriarchy when it’s all around you. All you need to do is look at our language. In the whole, female attributes are considered negatively whereas male attributes positively”

        Yes. When I call someone a dick, I mean it positively.

        No. I don’t think words should be outlawed or policed by feminists either.

        “Yeah, how can that be… because we’re all so aware of gender bias when we encounter it, I’m almost sure…. now that feminism as you are arguing here has already carried the day?”

        They did carry the day. Feminism was successful.

        I think we should be using a different mechanism to do the rest.

        “Might it be somewhat valid to say that expressions of patriarchy really aren’t even seen until someone negatively affected by its exercise points it out? (Well, valid unless the person’s name is ____________ and has been ‘identified’ as a radical feminist, right? Then there’s no need to listen.)”

        You might disagree with me and that’s cool. I enjoy the conversation and it helps me learn.

        However, I have not censored anyone. I have answered people to the best of my ability. And I haven’t said anyone was a radical feminist, although the statement from the Arbourist that excuses racism and sexism sickens me, if I’m honest. It’s also a good indicator of why feminism isn’t a good vehicle any longer.

        I’m surprised no feminists from this thread have disagreed with them. Do they agree or is it tribalism at work?

        “Do you seriously think our language has magically become gender neutral by their passage of equality laws? How do we correct for that embedded source of patriarchy if we first assume there is no embedded problem?”

        You seem very concerned with language and specific words. I’m not even sure what words those are or why you find them so offensive.

        • My criticism of your post has to do with the METHOD you are using to support your belief. You continue to raise particulars that suit your belief. This is a methodological error.

          You refuse to recognize or address the differential rates that point to systemic problems. I’ve raised two institutions where the problem is so widespread that it is taking generations to correct in spite of policies and laws intended to do so, namely, the RCMP and the military.

          I’ve pointed out the huge discrepancies in positions of power and privilege, namely highest echelons of business and politics.

          I could include lots of other systemic areas with very little effort, say, the kinds of sports that are designed by men for men to the esteem for female athletes who succeed in them and the kind of questions and concerns they must face compared to and contrasted with male athletes.

          In every institution, there is a very slow change occurring bringing equity to the forefront but this process only happens because of constant pressure to do so. That’s why I mentioned the decades-long law suits fought against by your elected representatives and the public offices they currently hold.

          You would have us disregard applying more pressure because only in your own mind is there no need. And there’s no need because you don;t use a method to find out if if your beliefs match reality.

          Men assault women every day and get away with it because the laws you think demonstrate equity do not achieve the results you presume have already been achieved. And this problem kills hundreds of women in Canada every year, not to mention demonstrate the deplorable rates of convictions for men who regularly and with confidence assault women knowing they are almost free to do so. Jian Gomeshi?

          And this deplorable state of reality is not going to get any better if we believe your beliefs are in fact true and assume the need for feminism has come and gone. Reality demonstrates otherwise: systemic gender bias is ubiquitous and very difficult to alter. We have most of our work ahead of us.

          • “My criticism of your post has to do with the METHOD you are using to support your belief. ”

            You mean not taking your word for it just because you say it exists? You mean I’m using critical thinking skills and skepticism?

            “I’ve pointed out the huge discrepancies in positions of power and privilege, namely highest echelons of business and politics. ”

            be the change you want. Do those things. That’s the value of a free society. Nothing is stopping women from doing any of those things and a great many of them ARE doing those things.

            “I could include lots of other systemic areas with very little effort, say, the kinds of sports that are designed by men for men to the esteem for female athletes ”

            There are womens leagues and again, nothing stopping them from creating more. I suspect that women are also part of the ‘problem’ because maybe they don’t enjoy watching sports. Not everyone is going to do what you want. Not you or feminism in general. Stop trying to control everything. It’s like a fucking religion.

            “there is a very slow change occurring bringing equity to the forefront but this process only happens because of constant pressure to do so. ”

            Yes. No need to identify as a feminist to care about equality either. I’m part of that pressure, as well as every other person who values freedom and equity!

            ” And there’s no need because you don;t use a method to find out if if your beliefs match reality.”

            Yes I do. I just don’t buy into victimhood as easily as others and I’m a skeptical human being. When people start telling me that I should just see something and if I can’t then it’s because of an invisible patriarchy, you remind me of a religious theist trying to convince me of their protected belief. The same thing that prevents me from believing in God is the same thing that prevents me from believing in your all-encompassing patriarchy.

            “Men assault women every day and get away with it ”

            So do women! I’ve been assaulted by a woman on multiple occasions.

            “And this problem kills hundreds of women in Canada every year”

            You know what else likely kills hundreds of women every year?

            Feminism teaching women not to protect themselves because we should just be teaching men not to rape.

            That’s like teaching people not to lock their doors because people just shouldn’t steal. You leave them vulnerable.

            Men already know it’s bloody wrong to rape and some do it anyways because they’re bad people. But the cult-like thinking of some feminists doesn’t let them see past the obvious stupidity of teaching people not to take precautions with their own safety, so the predators can have a clear shot at them.

            It’s nonsense!

            “We have most of our work ahead of us.”

            That’s the problem with third wave feminism. There will ALWAYS be something to fight against. If there isn’t, you’ll make shit up like an enshrouding patriarchy or people who ask you to smile or word choices or something.

            The stuff first and second wave fought for is over. Thank you feminism. Bring some of that to countries where the patriarchy is alive and well.

            We can fight the rest without identifying as a feminist. You act like there is no other way. We must be feminists in order to believe in gender equality.

          • And by the way, are you or any of the other feminists going to point out to the Arbourist that they are being sexist and racist? Or that when you hate a group of people based on their skin color or sex/gender, you’re being a bigot.

            I’m just wondering since that power + prejudice nonsense is taught in part by feminists.

            I mean, if you’re really about gender equality, shouldn’t opposing ideas like hating a whole demographic part and parcel of what you should be vigilant about?

            • @GC

              “And by the way, are you or any of the other feminists going to point out to the Arbourist that they are being sexist and racist?”

              Perhaps the other feminists can appreciate the differences between racism and its systemic nature and discrimination which doesn’t have that quality. It isn’t particularly difficult, nor should it be particularly threatening.

              “I mean, if you’re really about gender equality,[…]

              Never claimed to be. Gender is a hierarchy that is fundamentally unequal. One of the goals of the not-fun kind of feminism is the dismantling the toxic notion of gender.

              “shouldn’t opposing ideas like hating a whole demographic part and parcel of what you should be vigilant about? “

              What are you even talking about? 🙂 Since when is highlighting the differences between what racism and discrimination are = hating a whole demographic?

              • “Perhaps the other feminists can appreciate the differences between racism and its systemic nature”

                I hope they can see that saying you hate a whole group, no matter their race or sex, is sexist and racist.

                That’s not rocket science.

                Pretending a group is incapable of hating another group based on sex and race is sexism and racism. It’s the definition of both.

                “Never claimed to be.”

                I wasn’t talking to you.

                “One of the goals of the not-fun kind of feminism”

                There’s a fun kind of feminism?

                “is the dismantling the toxic notion of gender.”

                How are you going to do that? Are you planning on chopping penis’s off or sewing them on?

                “What are you even talking about? 🙂 Since when is highlighting the differences between what racism and discrimination are = hating a whole demographic?”

                I was talking about what I said above.

                I do think I’m done talking to you though. I find you toxic.

                • @GC

                  “I hope they can see that saying you hate a whole group, no matter their race or sex, is sexist and racist.”

                  I made such a statement. I do remember quite recently trying to patiently explain what the difference is between systemic racism and discrimination. The conclusions you jumped to are your own. 🙂

                  ““is the dismantling the toxic notion of gender.”
                  How are you going to do that? Are you planning on chopping penis’s off or sewing them on?”

                  Given the amount of insight you’ve demonstrated on social/feminist issues – we probably should not proceed. :>

                  “I do think I’m done talking to you though. I find you toxic. “

                  Fair enough? I’d hate to come between the you and the straw-argumentation you have thoughtfully constructed.

  14. I get what you mean about equality, but your arguments remind me of a white man trying to explain how he is living the same experience as a black man in America. And maybe you believe that, too. I don’t know. I realize your main objection has to do with a particular form of feminism, but one part of your argument was particularly troubling to me:

    “I was once at a party and got severely intoxicated. I fell asleep on a bed. When I woke up a woman had my penis in her hand and she was playing with it. I told her to stop, and she kept trying. I finally got up and stumbled to the living-room. She told her friends and they followed me calling me names, as if I should be the one ashamed.”

    Clearly this is not acceptable behavior and that woman violated you. You go on to say that you don’t know how many other men this has happened to, because it isn’t something you talk about. But you seem to feel this story demonstrates evidence of equality between the sexes when it comes to this scenario. Before I offer my thoughts on this, I am asking you to please clarify. Do you feel that way?

        • “Okay, it was unclear. From your male perspective, how do you think an experience similar to yours is different for a woman who wakes up intoxicated with a man touching her?”

          I think you’re angling towards saying that because I’m a man, I could have fought my way clear and so I wasn’t in any real danger of being raped.

          However, you would be incorrect. I was about 120 lbs and so inebriated that I could barely hold my eyes open. She was bigger than me and sober, and she had friends around. If she had decided to rape me, I would have been raped.

          So no difference. Being assaulted or raped is horrible for both men and women.

          I hope that answers your question?

          “It isn’t all that different from “militant atheists” who I may not agree with. There are always going to be atheists who hate, and have zero tolerance for theists–and I don’t appreciate when they are chosen as my representative. ”

          Atheism isn’t an ideology. Feminism is. If people don’t want to defend what feminism is responsible for, then I’m not sure why they would self-identify as a feminist.

          I can fight for women’s rights without being a feminist.

          “And because of this, women are often just as blind to what is happening as men are. It’s what we are used to, and we are often the ones doing it to our own.”

          Or maybe those women (and there are many who disagree with feminism and the patriarchy and view it as a way of creating perpetual victim classes) have good points and see feminism for what it is. Maybe they realize that feminism the way it is being practiced today is turning into a semi-religious cult and they want no part of it.

          • So what I think you meant to say the first time was “Yes, I do believe my story demonstrates an example of equality between the sexes in this scenario.”

            What you believe I am “angling towards” should be completely irrelevant when it comes to answering. Don’t do that. I am not debating you, I am simply requesting clarification. Technically your answer was that rape is equally horrible for both men and women, but that question was not put on the table. Obviously we would be in agreement on that. I was more interested in your perception of how a woman might experience the situation you specifically experienced. Because you are not connecting with women on this. Women like me, who are nothing like the feminists you are unhappy with, are not nodding our heads in agreement with you. Shouldn’t we be on the same side?

            I imagine you do not think that women overpower men more than men overpower women, and it is not your fault that you do not understand the role fear and intimidation has played in the lives are far more women than men. Many women do not understand, either, and polling two of them is hardly making a case for anything.

            You are taking the position that all victims are equal, therefore why separate the sexes just because one side has more victims? I get it. But when the leading cause of assault is gender-specific, you don’t ignore it out of a sense of fairness. There is a whole other part of feminism which deals with the culture that creates those higher numbers for women–and if we can change it, we will decreases the number of assaults faster than if we ignore the things that are unique to women. So let’s talk about it. But whether you mean to or not, you are asking us to ignore it.

            I don’t care about what some other feminist has said. You are addressing me right now, and this was your answer. And I am only telling you how it comes across.

            • “So what I think you meant to say the first time was “Yes, I do believe my story demonstrates an example of equality between the sexes in this scenario.”

              Not necessarily equality as in it happens to men as much as women, but that it can happen to men.

              “What you believe I am “angling towards” should be completely irrelevant when it comes to answering. ”

              It was. I answered it as honestly as possible. But that was what you were angling towards though, wasn’t it?

              Now imagine I said that to a woman after they told me they were sexually assaulted. What if I asked her what she thought the difference was between her and someone else’s experience? Imagine if I did that publicly somewhere. What do you think the consequences would be?

              “Technically your answer was that rape is equally horrible for both men and women, but that question was not put on the table.”

              Right. So why does feminism only really concern itself with females but not males and why does this make it the best vehicle for progress in 2016?

              “I was more interested in your perception of how a woman might experience the situation you specifically experienced. Because you are not connecting with women on this.”

              Yes I can. I think the opposite is true. I can connect which is why I’m not a feminist. I care about everyone, regardless of whether they are males or females, who are raped or sexually assaulted. I used to work at a teen center and believe me, boys get abused as well.

              “Women like me, who are nothing like the feminists you are unhappy with, are not nodding our heads in agreement with you. Shouldn’t we be on the same side?”

              Yes. We are on the same side of this issue, as I think the vast majority of both men and women are.

              Why is feminism the best vehicle for addressing this again? Is it only feminists who deal with rape and are they equally representing boys and men or just females?

              “I imagine you do not think that women overpower men more than men overpower women, and it is not your fault that you do not understand the role fear and intimidation has played in the lives are far more women than men.”

              Are you talking about just from a rape standpoint? Because men feel fear and intimidation in heaps as well. I implore you to watch the video I posted, where a female feminist tells you a sampling of the fear men feel daily.

              And no, I do not think women overpower men more often in rape scenarios.

              “Many women do not understand, either, and polling two of them is hardly making a case for anything.”

              No. It’s not a scientific poll. But it shows that there are women who disagree and actually are offended by feminists trying to paint them as a victim class. You don’t have to go far to find women on the internet who vehemently disagree with modern feminism and what it is trying to accomplish. In fact, I really do think there is a groundswell of push-back on its way, from both the right and the left against the regressive left. Feminism is a big part of the SJW regressive left.

              That’s just my opinion though.

              “You are taking the position that all victims are equal, therefore why separate the sexes just because one side has more victims? I get it. ”

              Good. So we agree then?

              “But when the leading cause of assault is gender-specific, you don’t ignore it out of a sense of fairness. ”

              Oh, but there was a but in there.

              I never said we should ignore it. I said why is feminism the best vehicle to address it? What I’m hearing here is that more females are victims, and there are some males that go through the same thing, but let’s use a movement based specifically around women to address it. Let’s not ignore there are more women, but let’s pretty much entirely ignore the male part of the equation. There’s less of them.

              “There is a whole other part of feminism which deals with the culture that creates those higher numbers for women–and if we can change it, we will decreases the number of assaults faster than if we ignore the things that are unique to women.”

              Yes, the wing you’re talking about are the SJW regressive lefts. The ones I disagree with most.

              But what are these cultural initiatives you speak of?

              I can think of the one that said don’t teach women to protect themselves, teach men not to rape. That initiative is harmful as hell to women. That’s like me saying don’t lock your doors, tell people not to steal. Feminists unwittingly made it easier for predators to target prey.

              Do you honestly think men don’t know it’s not okay to rape?

              Of course they do! There are always going to be bad people, whether they are men or women, who will rape people or hurt people for no reason.

              “So let’s talk about it. But whether you mean to or not, you are asking us to ignore it.”

              No! I’m asking you to take into consideration victims and stop ignoring one half of the equation, and stop pretending that feminism is the best way to bring about change that benefits everyone. They have no clear goals. First and second wave did. Do you not see the difference between what they are attempting to do and what first and second wave did? There is no end-date to the feminist movement. There is nothing that if achieved, they will say they’ve accomplished their goal. There is just endless bickering and shaming from within their ranks and from without. It’s becoming a toxic movement and one that is actively seeking to limit free speech around the world.

    • Oh and hi!

      Before you go too much further with the black white analogy I just want to say that no, I can’t personally live the life of a woman and experience it first hand. I can only look at statistics, make observations and empathize.

      But a female feminist also can’t personally live the life of a man and run into the same problem. However, they often don’t have a problem telling me what it’s like to be a man, or say I’m part of some evil patriarchy that seeks to make women slaves.

      So that street runs both ways.

      Ill post a link later when I’m at home of a Lesbian who literally took acting lessons and wore professional make up to live like a man and her personal experiences.

      At one point she says she feels sorry for men. It’s an interesting video.

      • I’d love to hear your answer to my above question. But you may be getting too hung up on one part of feminism. It isn’t all that different from “militant atheists” who I may not agree with. There are always going to be atheists who hate, and have zero tolerance for theists–and I don’t appreciate when they are chosen as my representative. There are always going to be women who hate men. There will also always be men who hate women. Should they be given the spotlight?

        There are more men and women actively sexualizing women than there are women accusing all men of being villains of the patriarchy. Be careful not to take away from the parts of feminism which are important, and which you might be blind to. We have come a long way, sure; but culture does not turn around so quickly. And because of this, women are often just as blind to what is happening as men are. It’s what we are used to, and we are often the ones doing it to our own.

        No one wants to be lectured on participating in cultural norms; but just think of what used to count as culturally acceptable in the past. Future generations will shake their heads at us, too. Perhaps time would be better spent supporting the feminists who get it right, rather than placing a spotlight on the part of their movement which gets it wrong.

        • I’ll definitely answer at home. Typing via phone is so annoying. Lol.

          But no, I wouldn’t discount what a feminist says merely because tgey are a feminist. It’s not like they never make a good point. I just disagree with the direction it seems to be moving.

          For example, the Arbourist in this post who excuses racism and mysandry. This is being taught all over and it’s dangerous nonsense that isn’t true.

          • @GC

            “the Arbourist in this post who excuses racism and mysandry.”

            Please try to argue against what I said, not what you think I said.

            There is a difference between how different groups of people interact in society. Racism describes the act of the dominant class oppressing the subservient one.

            The underclass, because they have less power in society (institutionally speaking) cannot be racist. They can still discriminate however, meaning their ‘racism’ isnt backed by the the structures of the dominant society.

            Please appreciate the nuance between the two terms.

            • Please look at the actual definition instead of spouting your racism and hatred spreading power + prejudice nonsense. It’s dangerous and ironically, it’s racist and sexist.

              If you hate someone for the color of your skin you’re a racist. If you hate someone based on whether they are a male or female you’re sexist. It’s simple and fits the definitions for racism and sexism to the tee.

      • @Godless Cranium

        ” I can only look at statistics, make observations and empathize.”

        Well two out of three isn’t bad. You see, empathizing with women would look a lot more like actually listening to what they are saying and not hand-waving away their experiences or trying to diminish them with a – “but men suffer too…” rejoinder.

        We all suffer under patriarchy and you seem to be having difficulty acknowledging that it even exists.

        “But a female feminist also can’t personally live the life of a man and run into the same problem. “

        So which problems as a man are you experience due to the intransigence of feminists?

        “I’m part of some evil patriarchy that seeks to make women slaves.”

        Patriarchy is the air we breath, cannot *not* be a part of it. It is a hierarchical construction based on the notion that there is one superior class of people and one class of inferior people.

        *You* a singular person may not be doing anything to diminish the rights of women, but you belong to the class of people that *does* do that. So what are you doing to stem the oppression of women? Declaring that we’re *past* the need for feminism – when women on the thread have been explicitly telling you there is still much more work to be done? Empathy on the doubleplus good level for sure. 🙂

        Fascinating stuff.

        • I am listening. Ate you saying no females disagree with feminism? I told you about two. I can point you to numerous others, including whole YouTube channels run by females who think your patriarchy is nonsense.

          What thing is feminism doing?

          You’ve demonstrated it here. You’ve demonstrated both racism and sexism because that’s what you were taught.

          • @Godless Cranium

            Ate you saying no females disagree with feminism?

            Many females disagree with feminism. Many many more disagree with radical feminism – it isn’t the empowerful, happy-clappy, man pleasing kind. 🙂

            “whole YouTube channels run by females who think your patriarchy is nonsense.”

            And they are certainly entitled to their opinion, however wrong they may be. 🙂

            “What thing is feminism doing? You’ve demonstrated it here.

            You mean the piece where I try to clue in dudes into some ideas that some feminists think are important? While usually while trying to dispel the various straw-versions of feminism they have erected and are faffing on about?

            Guilty as charged.

            ” You’ve demonstrated both racism and sexism because that’s what you were taught. “

            Class analysis… what is it? 🙂

            • “Many females disagree with feminism. Many many more disagree with radical feminism – it isn’t the empowerful, happy-clappy, man pleasing kind”

              Sounds like I hit a nerve. Goes against your narrative.

              “And they are certainly entitled to their opinion, however wrong they may be. ”

              Glad they have your permission.

              “You mean the piece where I try to clue in dudes ”

              You mean women aren’t meant to know this too? Or they all know it?

              You’re a babbler.

              “into some ideas that some feminists think are important?”

              That’s the subject. I’m disagreeing it’s important because it’s a form of sexism and racism.

              “While usually while trying to dispel the various straw-versions of feminism they have erected and are faffing on about? ”

              Yes. You’re blatant sexism and racism was so enlightening. I can’t believe I’d never heard it before. When you brought up that only men can be sexist and only white people can be racist, you nearly blew my mind. A lightbulb went on and I realized that’s the piece of the puzzle I’d always been missing.

              Reality: No. That’s the moment I realized that you were spreading racism and sexism and were so mired in your quasi-religious ideology that you can’t see past it to reality.

              “Class analysis… what is it?”

              Racism and sexism as actually defined in any dictionary…what is it?

              • @GC

                “You’re blatant sexism and racism was so enlightening. I can’t believe I’d never heard it before. When you brought up that only men can be sexist and only white people can be racist, you nearly blew my mind.”

                Fascinating conclusion. Not really based on anything I’ve said, but feel free to run as far as you’d like with your version of events. 🙂

                “Racism and sexism as actually defined in any dictionary…what is it?”

                Is the dictionary your first and last source for knowledge and information? It can be problematic when discussing complex topics. Just sayn’ 🙂

  15. Whoa! Another post on feminism? You must be a glutton for punishment. Much like religious indoctrination, you can’t win this debate with facts or logic because they don’t inform the feminist ideology.

    But godspeed, and good luck!

  16. Pingback: Women, Business and the Law 2016: Getting to Equal (?) | Just Merveilleux

  17. @tildeb

    Need to unbury this from upthread –

    “I think we need to be reminded when we do our small patriarchal part, thinking nothing of it when we should, to partake. We have to make the effort to get rid of this ubiquitous gender privileging/put downs, and I see this as the important job of feminists, male and female. It is a necessary undertaking if we wish to eliminate gender bias. You think this ongoing problem is imaginary, which is factually incorrect. That’s an even bigger problem, in that we can’t even begin to make headway as long as people who are central to the problem assume there is no problem.”

    Outta the park Tildeb. QFT. 🙂

  18. I think that man’s domination over women was originally built into our genes. Most animal species as far as I know have dominant males and as humans we have evolved socially to follow morals and behaviour that is not discriminative to all other humans. When you consider our progress as against Islamic countries we have done exceedingly well.

    This progress must be credited to the feminists who fought for woman’s rights and from my perspective they have done their job extremely well. Granted there are a few macho males that we all know who act like Trump, however that is always going to be a fact of life, just as you will get the murderers, shoplifters, car thieves and rapists no matter what processes you have in place to deter them.

    Feminist movements today are trying to bask in the former glory of many decades ago and it is not working in 2016. I would suggest that the huge majority of men oppose inequality just as the majority of people oppose racism. I agree that a woman’s activist movement born from the past is over and they would be accepted far more if they treated both genders as one and renamed themselves in line as a human rights styled organisation.

    Men have this background that is inherent of the animal kingdom and I am all for reminding men that they keep their male dominance in control and keep improving their attitudes towards women, however you do not try to crack a nut with a sledge hammer and this process will be ongoing until the time the dominative male gene is bred out of the male psyche.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s