|
Post by Harkovast on May 21, 2016 13:00:05 GMT
The reason the Islam analogy doesn't work for me is that a lot of the things I am complaining about the feminists not talking abotu are things they normally WOULD talk about, but stop when it doesn't fit hte narrative.
Loads of men sexually assualt large numbers of women in public...why on earth would I expect feminists to comment? I can't figure why I would assume that.
This isn't like thinking muslims should apologise for terrorists. This is like being surprised that no muslims are complaining about the guy stood in Mecha burning a koran and eating a bacon sandwich! If you don't object to that, how the hell are you even muslims?
In the same way, if sometimes seeing women being exploited and abused is okay...how the hell can you be SJW/feminist and not just a huge hypocrite? (That was a hypothetical 'you'. I dont mean you, canuovea, cause obviously you don't do that.)
I'm finding this conversation frustrating because I am trying to say "There are problems in the feminist sub culture" and you keep coming back with "yeah but lots of feminists dont do that, and I dont do that, so you are being unfair."
How can I even comment on feminism in anyway if I can only make statements that apply to 100% of its advocates? I look at major faminist websites and blogs and I see a lot of stuff I can't support. Go on Everyday Feminism, see how long it takes you to read an article that makes you face palm. Last time I looked there was an article saying that White people should never have conversations about racism and are bad if they do.
The complaint being raised in one of those Slate Star Codex articles, where the feminist says something to a man in effect of "yes, you have problems, but I'm a woman so my problems are worse." This lack of empathy isn't an isolated thing, in my experience. I've read a lot of social justice stuff that acts this way. "White male tears" and mansplaining etc make it clear that the wrong people don't deserve to be listened to and can't have problems. The concept of priviledge (whatever the original intention) leads people to a mind set where only the "unprivilidged" can have problems and those with priviledge can't complain.
To just roll your eyes and say "yeah but I know feminists that don't do that" seems dismissive, like these problems dont exist (and in my experience, and the experience of others, they DO exist.) Its possible that some femnist/SJW ideas are fundamentally misguided and harmful, and I'm reaching the conclusion that thisis the case.
Again, I haven't changed my views about issues of equality. Sexism is a HUGE problem. But the methods being employed to combat it by a lot of fmeinists seem misguided and seem to undermine the cuase rather than help it.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on May 21, 2016 18:45:45 GMT
With risk of having to once more run from this thread with my tail tucked, from the weight of my own mispronounced postulates, I'd like to join the fray once more.
Because frankly...
Ok, first of all, it seems like you're doing the precise thing you just said you hate feminists for doing: namely, you decided to view the situation with Beyonce the way you do and not let any puny facts get in the way.
It started as "All SJWs love Beyonce and defend her sweatshops!", but when Can's search turned up jack shit (as did mine - I searched for "Beyonce sweatshop feminism" before Can posted his findings) it suddenly became "Well if feminists really against sweatshops and not defending her they would have condemned her!"
I know this is not what you mean, but it does seem pretty bullshit.
I'm unconvinced. I've very rarely seen feminists complain about work condition and exploitation. It's certainly a bad thing, but only tangentially connected to feminism.
Now the Cologne thing is different, I'll mention it below.
As for the article, it was pretty frustrating to read, as the guy raises some very good points amid some real achievements in failing logic forever. And it's looong as hell. Could you please surmise what point you mean that it makes?
That feminists lack empathy? Sure, I've seen that. Feminism, probably due to its left-wing roots, is mostly focused (bordering on obsession, really) on "The Structural". In this worldview, outliers and not-all-men will be ignored as not really counting in the whole scheme. Also, everyone involved in The Structural has a role they can't really shake off, even if they mean to.
You could've seen me defend this approach in the past; I don't really like it or agree with it, but... none of the things in The Structural are actually false, and so long as it's directed against the patriarchy I'm willing to put up with it. Since it does much more harm to men and women alike than mouthy feminists ever could.
So anyway, when reality threatens ideology, it's human nature to pretend not to see. This is why everyone said nothing about the Cologne incident. The Structural demands that once Muslims enter Western lands, they're magically transconfigurated from a deeply patriarchal, problematic culture to an oppressed minority that can do no wrong.
It's a damn shame that so many feminists engage in this. And still, patriarchy is a bigger concern for me.
To show you what I mean: at one point, the article mentions that both feminism and patriarchy are reasons for young nerds' torment. For me, this is inconceivable. How do you, being in high school or around that age, become concerned what feminists think? You won't unless you purposefully go to the Internets and look up some of the more radical feminist blogs. And if you got there somehow, you should be informed well enough to know which angry rants touch on actual problems, and which are cuckoo. Compared to pressures exerted by patriarchal society, this is pretty much nothing. In my life's experience, nerds are worried that "I'm a loser and no girl will ever want to give me one glance", not "oh no, but what if my desires are actually oppressing her?" Give me a fucking break.
Meanwhile, as I've failed to meet even one nerd who was tormented by feminists' view of their sexuality, I've seen whole shovelcraps of the so called nerd entitlement. Was feeling pretty betrayed by them, too.
I'm not saying those people don't exist. I mean that in the face of the world's current state, any harm done by feminists is negligible, while patriarchy still reaps.
A pretty shitty bargain, isn't it? Still, I hope that one day feminism will have enough of a pull that the problems within it will deserve to be put into focus, and feminists won't be able to dismiss them with their usual tactics. Because such world would be preferable to the current one, shittiness notwithstanding.
Or has it already happened in the West?
But I digress. Then again, so does the long-ass article! Can we once again iterate what the core problem is? Treatment of "nerds" by feminists is a can of worms worth opening and discussing, but I don't think it's what was going on here.
And to close it off: many people have many different definitions of feminism, the label is not completely meaningful. I have no problem with ignoring the cruel and the nutcase elements. While you seem to want feminism to mainly devote itself to policing anyone that adopts the label and then spouts bullshit.
I, for example, completely detest what passes for (mainstream) feminism in Poland. I consider it mostly same old self-reflection-less patriarchal conservatism with some primitive "you go girrl!" slogans tacked on. But I subscribe to a more American-third-wave brand of feminism and just ignore the other ones; certainly I don't go to this thread to complain that their idiocy exists.
PS But maybe, it is I who lack empathy as well? To keep with the tone of confessions in the Slate Star article, I spent my ages 12 to 20 vehemently loathing anyone with a sex drive. I was reading that part of the article not without a semblance of a grim satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on May 21, 2016 19:40:00 GMT
You're trying to brand feminism as a whole with problems and methods that you yourself have said do not even apply to the majority. Its like you're lumping all feminists under the umbrella of SJW, when they're rather different categories with some overlap. This is why it is important to be able to make statements that actually work for at least the majority, because right now you're attacking the whole of the "brand" based off the actions of a minority.
You are saying that there are problems in the feminist subculture, I'm agreeing with you. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can't agree with that.
A historical example: "Progressives are working to increase workers rights, have introduced regulations, broken up the Trusts, and are basically saving America. But they're also in favour of Eugenics. Better kill the Progressive movement!" Except, of course, you can't even say that the majority of feminists think only men can be sexist, or that privilege is an exclusive thing that only goes one way.
See, I do think the problems exist. I also think you're overreacting, and doing more harm than good in the process. The more people who abandon the label of "feminist" while still really holding feminist beliefs, the more the label gets co-opted by extremists (specifically, in this case radfems).
I'm not even saying "don't comment on feminism", or that you have to have something applying to 100% of feminism to make a statement. But some accuracy would be nice.
There are right wing libertarian neo-liberal economics types who are feminists too. As such, to them, those women at the sweatshop aren't being exploited and abused, they're being helped. This is especially easy to swallow if you believe the claims that the sweatshop is paying double the regional standard for such things (as the company involved has claimed). And of course you're going to believe that if it means this person you look up to is actually being fair! That's how humans think.
And then there is the fact that hypocrisy is a rather common trait with humans, hardly a feminist or even SJW exclusive.
Argument by analogy is stupid anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on May 21, 2016 20:23:05 GMT
StyxD
Hark didn't say "all" though, he was basically saying that "enough support it to criticize feminists over it" which... kinda yeah? But... Also... kinda no?
I did find a feminist website against sweatshops because of the working conditions for women. The website, however, wasn't the most up to date, and so I'm unsure about their Beyonce stance. Now if they suddenly were all like "Beyonce is still great!" then that would by hypocrisy for sure. But it really didn't come up much beyond that. So yeah, I agree, kinda with you here, I'm not seeing a lot of love for Beyonce and as I've said feminism and workplace conditions may have some overlap, but not a whole ton.
The Structural Worldview, systemic, etc, stuff is what I've come into conflict with sometimes too, and liberal feminism tends to downplay that a bit. In my mind, a lot of it is rather one sided. I've said "this relies on the systemic interpretation too much" only to be met with "wait, isn't systemic a good thing?" Yes, systemic interpretations are very useful and important, but they tend to gloss over details and I have problems with this. A balanced combination is required sometimes. For instance, the notion of "privilege" is very systemic in nature, yet it is usually very one sided. It should be obvious that a system that grants one person privilege for something may, for that very same thing, also oppress the individual it privileges. These things are not a zero-sum game.
Though I suppose one might charge that I'm basically making my own personal modifications to feminist canon. Of course, I also think that if people agreed with me we could all go "yeah, this sucks in different ways for everyone, and we all need to be aware of how we are all effected by the patriarchy to the point of not being assholes to each other about it." At least, I'd like to think that.
Basically, I think sometimes the structural stuff gets used in a way to divide us rather than unite us against the actual problem.
However, about that whole "being tormented by feminism for my sexuality" thing... I kinda get that personally. My parents weren't like "thou shalt not look at a woman with lust!" or anything, and I didn't really understand "objectification" of women exactly, but I did get the sense that I should feel bad for being attracted to women sometimes, or looking at them even. To the point where I (to this day somewhat) had to avert my eyes if I had one in my field of view for too long. That... sounds worse than it was... but it really wasn't exactly comfortable.
We need to find a way to avoid Victorian ideas of "oh my god an ankle! My eyes! I'm going to hell!" but also avoid the "mmmh, I'm gonna stare at you and undress you with my eyes!" shit as well. Its a mess.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
Though I'd also say that the West isn't at that point quite yet. In some ways it may be getting there though.
Heh, maybe you should bring up their bullshit and complain about it, might make Hark feel better! Goodness knows, I've complained about silly feminist crap before.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on May 22, 2016 0:51:13 GMT
If my complaints annoy anyone , I apologise. I have to call things how I see them. I haven't changed my views on gender or equality, I just find that a lot of things coming from so called feminists dont match with those beliefs. I can't pretend they do and I cant turn a blind eye to it and pretend its not the case.
I dont claim my experience is universal and i dont expect others to feel or act as I do. If you like being called a feminist, then thats great! You own that label and make it something positive. I'm just not comfortable with what I feel it means.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on May 22, 2016 0:53:59 GMT
That is fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 6, 2016 18:54:54 GMT
So that Sanford swimmer who got convicted of rape (as in every juror said he was guilty of 3 counts of sexual assault, which includes rape) got sentenced. Minimum was like 4 or so years. He got 6 months in prison and 6 months probation. Because they didn't want to affect his "swimming scholarship".
Yeah, so tell me rape culture isn't a thing.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Jun 7, 2016 6:05:57 GMT
I don't know if this has been posted, but it is now.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 7, 2016 7:48:25 GMT
But you don't understand Canuovea, he didn't have a criminal record and a bunch of people who knew him said he was a stand up guy (apart from the time he was caught in the middle of raping someone), and his father made a very good point, his son "shouldn't have been jailed for 20 minutes of action", clearly the rapist is the victim!
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 7, 2016 8:09:30 GMT
My god StyxD, that is... kind of accurate, in the worst way possible.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 15, 2016 17:31:51 GMT
The Amazing Atheist seems to think that because Norway's justice system is based around rehabilitation, we shouldn't be angry about the Stanford Rapist getting a lenient sentence. Because punishment is bad. Blah blah vengeance, blah blah we're horrible people for demanding it.
It rings a little hollow, personally, because we tend to consider other things worth punishing, but this guy? Nah. And fuck, if punishing this guy as harshly as possible makes his victim feel even one iota better, I don't see why we should not? Once we start punishing people less for stupid shit, and once there is a better rehabilitative style justice system in place, then sure. Fine. But that is not how things are, and I see no reason for this one to get special dispensation. As it stands, this certainly isn't justice.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 16, 2016 6:25:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 16, 2016 7:55:09 GMT
I read about that yesterday. I'm not surprised, the backlash was massive.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 17, 2016 4:36:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 23, 2016 18:12:49 GMT
|
|