Category Archives: Anti-Feminism

An anti-Feminist speaks to an anti-anti-Feminist

You’ve misrepresented the anti-Feminism stance, and the intentions behind those who advocate behind the acceptance of Feminist ideas. You further, while claiming to not allow others to define what Feminism is “for you,” attempt to redefine it for others.

Stop trying to “define” Feminism. Look at what it is before attempting to provide a short-hand verbal pointer to it. Like most Feminists, you seem to have started with a definition, and worked your way backwards to fill the word with your best intentions. A better way to approach it is to first observe what it is then to clinically describe what is before you, rather than projecting your intentions and value judgements on and into it.

You claim that Feminism, the body of claims, diagnoses and prescriptions of how the species behaves at a social level is in line with the general notion of well-educated benevolence, impartiality and fairness. The contents of Feminism do not promote the fair and impartial treatment of all people. It promotes the resolution of issues for women (and eventually other groups) that are ascribed to “oppression” or “subjugation.” Please look those words up, try to understand what the words are pointing to as actual physical occurrences and events and see if the matches are legitimate. I believe that if you are genuinely impartial, you will find that they do not for a) all people, b) en masse for a women or “minority groups” or or c) accurately match the intended meaning, which in most cases is “grievance” or “complaint.”

Where once the women’s movement focussed on resolving specific grievances that women experienced in the wealthier parts of the world (without attending to those of other groups) latter generations have sought to explain the whys and hows, and have constructed a mental and eventually political framework of what they and previous generations perceived and spoke of.

These later generations, having fallen prey to the same series of cognitive bias, have extended, their diagnosis to other social groups. And you, like they, and most who refer to themselves as Feminist, fall prey to inaccurate and hyperbolic language with the same built-in cognitive biases.

You claim that Feminism is a human rights group. It isn’t. It is a political ideology and is no more a human right group than Communism, or Capitalism or any other -ism. You are confusing the best intentions, presented in the best light of a group of people for a set of ideas, while ignoring that the fundamental claims made are false and generate the very kind of issues that you claim to work against. In doing so, you grant social legitimacy for a set of ideas that are false and incite people to behave harmfully to others.

I have no problem with what I understand to be your best intentions: fairness, impartiality, and kindness. I, an anti-Feminist share them. What I take issue with is that you don’t seem to distinguish between the actual content of these bodies of ideas from your own best intentions. I take issue with your inaccurate presentation of what each body of ideas is, and the purpose that people intend to put them to.

In doing so, and based on the same cognitive biases, you dismiss those who disagree with your assessment, and rather than clearly identify what ideas they hold, you ascribe malefic or ignorant behaviours and intentions to them with the final result being dissuasion from clinical and impartial evaluation of the ideas.

In short: you present Feminism as lollipops, women as babies and anti-Feminists as candy thieves. This misrepresentation is among the issues that make an anti-Feminist, an anti-Feminist.

Correcting The Skeptic Feminist’s attempt to separate “Group F” from the nutcases

I’m sure that you’re well-meaning, but this video does not offer sound reasoning. “If you’re an anti-feminist, that means you are against feminist activism” No. A non-Feminist is one who does not accept the tenets of Feminism. An anti-Feminist is one who advocates against the validity and acceptance of these tenets.

This entire video is merely an attempt at apologia for a label.  Your statements remind me of the Christian who says “We’re not talking about those irritating nutcase bible thumpers. If you believe in being a good neighbour, you’re a Christian. Christianity is merely activism for being a good person.”

No. If I don’t believe there is a god, I am not a Christian. If I am an anti-Theist, I am not against being a good neighbour. If I do not believe that women are somehow overall more oppressed than men, this does not mean that I am against human rights.

Your argument, as you quite correctly say, is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. It is a series of argument by stipulation, compound conflations and equivocations.

“Feminism is literally an activism in the cause of equality” No. It’s not. Feminism is the acceptance of a series of hypotheses based on the notion that women are on average more, or more intensely, oppressed than their male counterparts and it is from here that the value of “equality” is derived. “Equality” is a proposed solution to a stipulated claim. Non-Feminists reject the claim as non-theists reject the claim of the existence of a god.

Further, one may believe these things, yet not be an activist for its cause. Feminism is not activism, Feminist activism is activism.

If one believes that the world is out to get you or someone you love, it makes perfect sense that one would act in anger, and if you don’t understand that the claim is made from the point of view of only half of the population, it makes sense that you would ignore it or dismiss those of the other half and build your world view accordingly. Take the two together, ignorance and misunderstanding, add to that grand-hypotheses, passion and peer-group support and you have a recipe for bigotry. This formula is applicable across pretty much any group.

And it is this byproduct, the bigotry in action, that causes people to move from a position of non-Feminist to that of anti-Feminist.

Your essential error is the failure to recognize Feminism for what it is: a series of hypotheses about how the world works and proposed solutions based on these hypotheses. You second and common error is to conflate Feminism with Women’s Rights/Issues Activism. Feminism is one part of the women’s movement, it is not all of it. The women’s movement, like the men’s movement is one where people seek to resolve goals that affect that particular sex. This can be done without conflating issues or problems for oppression or subjugation.

You’ve offered some recommendations, I offer the following of my own: grab yourself a dozen textbooks or articles written by Feminists and inspect each claim critically. Keep asking the following question: “What is the fundamental underlying presupposition required for this presupposition to be true, how how was it derived?” Here’s a quick-start document. http://faculty.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl380_feminist_thought/what%20is%20feminist%20theory.pdf

Once you do, what you’ll recognize is that the problems that women experience become more concrete, more local, more solvable. You’ll also discover that there’s no need to blame large groups such as “men” or “institutions” or “society.” That will change the entire character of your activism.

Are women “oppressed?”

+Helena Handbaskit asks:

“[A]re women oppressed in the western world, and if no, was there ever a time when they were, and if yes to that, when did it change and what changed it?”

I claim that they are not more or less oppressed than any man is or has been.

This is how I’ve come to my conclusion.

How we answer the question depends entirely on the meaning of the word “oppressed.” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ gives us the relevant bits. (Feel free to use other dictionaries.)

Oppression:
1. Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority
2. The state of being subject to oppressive treatment
3. Mental pressure or distress (figurative)

What is “prolonged?” “Continuing for a long time or longer than usual; lengthy”

What is “cruel?” “Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it”

What is “unjust?” “Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.”

What is “authority?” “The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience”

What is “oppressive?” “Inflicting harsh and authoritarian treatment”

What is “inflicting?” “Cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone or something”

What is “harsh?” “Unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses”

What is “authoritarian?” “Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom” or “Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial:”

So, using Oxford’s terms, oppression is the prolonged, unjust, willful causing of pain or suffering, or lack of caring thereof, by someone who has the power to enforce obedience (usually “men” or “the system”.)

Feminist claim that “women” experience this. This is their ideology’s foundational claim.

Does this sound like the average Western woman’s experience to you? One rarely hears a Feminist claim that they need Feminism because sub-group SG of country C experience, what essentially sounds like torturous slavery to me. We hear that “women” experience this. Let’s be generous and say that “women” is 50.1% of all women. Does this sound like what one-quarter of the world experiences regularly? Does this resemble general reality in any way?

This sounds like child soldiers in Sierra Leon. It sounds like some sex-slaves in the Philippines. It sounds like any man or woman during the Rwandan genocide. It sound like Jews in a Nazi concentration camp. It does not sound like the life of the typical university student who writes blogs and tries to shut down men’s therapy groups. It does not sound like any woman who expresses herself without fear for her life.

The claim is pure hyperbole, accepted as reality, because people are too lazy to look words up and think about them. And because such hyperbole is an excellent tool for inflaming the easily influenced into repeating the claims, or of raising money, or for scrabbling for a sense of moral superiority to brow-beat well-intentioned people into acquiescing to demands.

Do some women experience this? Without a doubt. So do, without a doubt, some men. Are there enough to justify that we say that a minimum of one-quarter of the world’s population experiences this?

No.

People bandy this hyperbole, broadening the scope of a word until it loses all reality-based anchoring and has the simple, strong and na├»ve emotional impact of a taboo. These definitions point to severe conditions. The way that the word is currently used is to use a diluted version of the weakest version. “The office’s atmosphere was oppressive,” meaning “unpleasant.” The reason is simple: propaganda. We already have the instinct to protect women, as we would children.

There is arguably a hierarchy of care in our species: infants, babies, small children, children, young women, older women, young boys, men, older men. The further down the scale, the less we care, the less we do about. This is a constant in our species, across history, geography and cultures. We do not start willy-nilly sacrificing lives until we reach the level of young boys.

Was there a time in our history where women as a class were limited in their participation in the public sphere? There was. Were the reasons cruel and capricious? They weren’t. If we look at the reasons, the conditions and the intended outcomes what we’re likely to see is good intentions that worked well in certain contexts, and as contexts started changing, the behaviours became less relevant. Remember that all trends in history are curves not abrupt start-stops.

Was there a time when women were kept, fed, housed and provided for, but denied access to education or a voice in politics. Yes. Was this oppression? No. It was not cruel, nor capricious, nor malicious, nor, even intentional. Were women “owned?” Other than those who were explicitly slaves, no. Slaves of all races were (and are) of both sexes and all races. Were they cloistered? In a great many cases, surely. They were cloistered in the way that one safeguards one’s most precious asset. Men had the job of protecting women. How does a mother protect children? She supervises them, limits their environmental reach and sets rules so that she can perform her duty of protection. People, male and female, can be overprotective and beyond it’s need.

What Feminists call “oppression” was men having accepted their roles as providers and protectors even after we had created such a secure and wealthy environment that women no longer needed individual men’s protection, she could benefit from men’s collective protection and provision. We have no wild animals to contend with, a rigorous police force, and social programs aplenty.

A woman only needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle because men have created a near-ideal circumstance for the fish to flourish, unassisted, supported by his work, invisible in its aggregate. What Feminists are calling “oppression” today, is merely having to experience real-life, the princess complaining that there are too few mattresses over the pea.

Depictions of sexually appealing women in video games? “Man spreading?” Tweets as harassment? Please.

This is what I advocate: adult women should be treated as are adult men. They should be expected to handle life’s joys and rough edges just as a man would. Women, during the emancipation movement sought the freedom to have control over their own lives, not to have control over others’. She should expect no treatment that is beyond or below that which men receive. Having the right to freedom in the most advanced, the safest, the best-fed society the world has ever known, she should endure the same minor discomforts of living that men do. These are the simple duties for which the rights that are granted to all of us exist.

Does this deny a woman her power to voice her concerns? Not in the least bit. All citizens in our society are granted this right, and that’s all women are: citizens who happen to be female.

The only way that “women are oppressed” in the Western World, and I would claim in most of the world is if the term is completely redefined to mean “subject to the same nuisances and inconveniences as are men.”

A Term to Kill: Diverse

“X group is a diverse group.” One item is not diverse. Often a speaker will use an expression such as “Feminism is diverse” when the intention is usually to convey “A wide variety of types of people advocate for Feminist ideas.” Lately, the term diversity is used to express “A group of people who is composed of mostly non-white and non-male people.” Much as the term “People of Colour” means, quite literally, people whose race is not Caucasian, the term diversity has come to signify “a variety of non-Caucasian (and/or non-male) people.”

A more correct way of expressing the idea would be to say that “the board consists of people of diverse races (and/or sexes).” One should note that there is a pecking order, and the definition is usually quite fluid, and it’s exponents are adept at hedging and shifting goal posts.

A group of all white men is not diverse.

A group of all white women may be considered as diverse.

A group of men of many races lacks diversity, because it does not include women.

A group of all women of many races is diverse.

Bonus points if other characteristics such as sexual preferences or disabilities of any kind are criteria used as “diversity qualifiers.”

Why is diversity important? So that the group can be representative of the oppressed, or of those in need of representation. This is important so that voices may be heard.

Feminist jargon is, in large part, speaking using the passive voice combined with nominalizations.

Active: Mary threw the ball.
Passive: The ball was thrown by Mary.

Note that the first example portrays agent unambiguously acting upon an object, whereas the second example obfuscates the direct action.

A nominalization is the grammatical error of using a verb, or an adjective as a noun. Nominalizations are also known Zombie Nouns.

change

  • I need a change. (change = noun)
  • I will change. (change = verb)

murder

  • The murder of the man was tragic. (murder = noun)
  • He will murder the man. (murder = verb)

When listening to Feminist jargon, take the time to re-read each sentence as though it written in the active voice and convert nominalizations into active verbs. Prepare to be surprised as to how little sense the language makes.

 

 

Tagged ,

Bathing in male tears

You bathe in male tears? Most simply shower.

You bathe in male tears? Most simply shower.

By the way, the Japanese imagination will never cease to wonder me with ideas I would never have conceived of.

On the issue of “representation” in positions of influence

Technically, it is not the population that “should” “be” represented, but the electorate’s interests. Not the people, not the voters, but the interests that they hold. The term “representation” is as poorly used as is the term “equality.” People are not equal; when people use the term “equal” they usually refer to impartial and equivalent moral value, used as basis to justify assigning equivalent rights and duties under law. As long as any individual does their best to work safeguarding and promoting the majority of the electorate’s interests, sex, race or any other variable is (or should be) irrelevant. The notion that “S/he is one of us” in no way guarantees correct performance of these duties.

Tagged ,

It’s a Ma’am’s world

Two excellent analogies for how men and women currently interact relative to the Feminist hypothesis of Patriarchy, the alleged one-sided “oppression” of women. Men call it being treated like a disposable utility, in the case of these analogies, a hireling, someone who gets the job done then is told to take a hike.

Feminism purports “oppression” without acknowledging the benefits (“the privileges”) that come with the contract, and so uses this as a moral justification to demonize men. Many men see this set up as being taken advantage of.

Either both engage in the contract, or not. When men choose not to, because they see the contract as being inequitable, it’s called “MGTOW.” When men try to bring awareness of this, and change the laws that have taken this cultural norm of a contract into law, it’s called Men’s Rights Activism. When people simply discuss this issue free of the Feminist framework, it’s called Men’s Issues Advocacy.

Dear Feminists: want to smash the patriarchy? Be completely self-reliant, and make any exchange a mutually agreeable contract: do your own work, fend for yourself. We men certainly do. Feminists have spent years demonizing men, pointing to only to men’s advantages, and ignoring their obligations and disadvantages, while focusing exclusively on women’s inconveniences and ignoring the advantages that the contract brings them.

I especially appreciate the author’s conclusion: men have to stop offering, and women have to stop expecting. Women only expect the incessant freebies because men so undervalue what they have to offer, and so overvalue what women have to offer that they pay to give it away. “Oh! You want to go to Montana? Let me take you there, and while we’re at it, I’ll pay you for the trip! Can I throw in some extra free lunches for you? Would that incite you to ride my bus?”

We men are half the problem.

Tagged , , , ,

Feminism is politics, not morality

One of the problems with gender ideologues and zealots is that they fail to recognize the distinction that Feminism is politics, not morality.Feminism is politics, not morality

Tagged , , , ,

This is the real basis of Feminism

Woman High On Drugs Finds Out She is Fat.

Admittedly, there’s something that’s quite funny about the video. But at the same time, what this drug induced person, whose inhibitions and self-awareness are obviously shut right down, is showing us the uncensored contents of her psyche.

There is not a single woman that I know that doesn’t feel this way, or fear it, despite their great pains to hide it.

And this, my friends, is the true root of Feminism: the inner turmoil that comes from our primal urge to belong. There was once a time when what people struggled for were women’s freedoms as granted by rights. Those goals having been accomplished, today’s identity politics Radical Feminism is based on assuaging that which gives the urge to howl.

Men are rapists! Why? Because men find some women so sexy that they can’t help themselves, is the unspoken narrative. This is the inverse of the video, it is being so sexually attractive that belonging is beyond inevitable, to the point that others are crazed beyond self-restraint.

Women are oppressed by The Patriachy. Why? Because we care for victims. The greater the victim a woman is, the more she will be cared for, even if they have to alienate everyone to get it.

Feminism is nothing more than the wounded. I would suggest that we teach them that men in general have our equivalents and to the degree that they stop behaving abusively, and increase basic human courtesy and respect, they’re chances of getting what they want will improve.

Dear Feminist women. You’ve got every single right in law that men have, and some that we don’t. That’s covered. We instinctively love you, despite our better judgment at times. That’s covered. Your final step is to abandon your means-goal driven ideology and to focus on what you really want: the best life that you can have, including genuine, deep and rich relationships based on respect.

Failure to do so will only continue to drive more and more men away.

Tagged