"Why can't we hate men?"

[TubbaBlubba]

It's directly related, insofar as critical theory feminism is an outgrowth of postmodernism and Maxism, with its emphasis on subjective experience over systematic and scientific approaches to knowledge and policy. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm

So I suppose you must mean e.g. Judith Butler? Yeah, the thing is, the Critical Theory of Adorno, Horkheimer etc predated postmodern/poststructuralist thought and was, as a Marxian theory, materialist and structuralist, quite opposite to being based on "subjective experience". The latter is an influence of Focault et al., who were by and large critiquing the former.

The intermingling of these two is something I see in Anglosphere discussions, but not in discussions among people on the European continent (where these systems of thought originated). In fact I suspect that a lot of Frankfurt school thinkers would say that Queer theorists are not very Marxian, and a lot of continental Postmodern thinkers would say they aren't particularly postmodern either (though to me, it certainly seems more postmodern than Marxian). I am personally not a huge fan of the school, anyway, whereas I consider Adorno etc to have had some useful insights. I'd say that the juxtaposing of Postmodernism and Marxism is in anything a peculiarity of the school of thought, not so much a natural combination.

 

[luchog]

Mainstream feminism (at the intersection of feminism and skepticism) yes, of course. Can you think of a more mainstream collection of freethinkers or skeptics who are focused on promoting feminism?

ETA: Maybe these folks?

https://twitter.com/skepchicks/status/583286744302379008

Tired of seeing the laughing dog, so I won't bother using it. But if you are seriously considering FTB to be representative of the millions of feminists out there, then you are seriously deluded. They're nothing more than a tiny collection of fanatics that have nothing whatsoever to do with mainstream feminism, and they're not even consistent within themselves, let alone anything outside their slowly-disintegrating little echo chamber.

 

[Ziggurat]

I find it so strange when the "we could make babies without men" comment comes out as if it is some looming threat worth watching out for.

I'm the one who brought it up, and that is absolutely not the tone in which I did. I made it pretty clear that this was pure delusion, that there was no chance it could ever come to pass.

But here's the thing: while that particular plan might not be a threat, the people who believe in that sort of **** are a threat. They have done actual damage. They have ruined real people's lives. Not on the scale that their fantasies would allow, certainly, but large enough for the people involved. Crazy is dangerous, and some of these people are truly crazy. That is the point of accurately describing what it is that they believe.

 

[luchog]

I'd say that the juxtaposing of Postmodernism and Marxism is in anything a peculiarity of the school of thought, not so much a natural combination.

No one has ever accused radicals or fanatics of being rational. It's in the same vein as Afrocentrism, and other postmodern movements. The problem with postmoderist philosophies in general is that they not only allow, but encourage, a lot of pick-and-choose syncretism and re-interpretation/re-definition based entirely on subjective preferences and individual worldviews in a very Humpty-Dumpty-like manner.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm the one who brought it up, and that is absolutely not the tone in which I did. I made it pretty clear that this was pure delusion, that there was no chance it could ever come to pass.

But here's the thing: while that particular plan might not be a threat, the people who believe in that sort of **** are a threat. They have done actual damage. They have ruined real people's lives. Not on the scale that their fantasies would allow, certainly, but large enough for the people involved. Crazy is dangerous, and some of these people are truly crazy. That is the point of accurately describing what it is that they believe.

You misunderstand my post.

The people making these comments are the subject of my ire, not you. We agree 100 per cent. These people effect discourse in a very negative way.

It just astounds me that people who want to try and use this as some kind of "shape up or you will lose the upcoming war" don't see how sad and lost it makes them sound. I hear "if you don't stop doing things I don't like then I'll convince every woman not to have sex with you. " every time, and it doesn't scare me, it's a hilariously extreme threat with no chance of coming to fruition.

I just can't help but wonder why, instead of trying to change tactics these people just insist on being absurd. It's not working, they have the biggest platform they have had, and the extremists are doing nothing but drowning out anyone with a bit of common sense.

 

[sadhatter]

No one has ever accused radicals or fanatics of being rational. It's in the same vein as Afrocentrism, and other postmodern movements. The problem with postmoderist philosophies in general is that they not only allow, but encourage, a lot of pick-and-choose syncretism and re-interpretation/re-definition based entirely on subjective preferences and individual worldviews in a very Humpty-Dumpty-like manner.

Its fighting the hydra, being hypocritical isn't a flaw is a feature.

 

[Ziggurat]

You misunderstand my post.

That is entirely possible.

I just can't help but wonder why, instead of trying to change tactics these people just insist on being absurd. It's not working, they have the biggest platform they have had, and the extremists are doing nothing but drowning out anyone with a bit of common sense.

In many cases, it's because they are actually crazy. And not just in a colloquial sense, but as in an actual clinical mental illness. Radical feminism attracts crazy women because it gives them someone to blame for their problems and excuses for their behavior.

 

[luchog]

Its fighting the hydra, being hypocritical isn't a flaw is a feature.

Or rather, hypocrisy doesn't exist if it can be re-defined away. In that way, they support the Horseshoe Theory, having so effectively emulated the Reactionary Right.

 

[d4m10n]

Tired of seeing the laughing dog, so I won't bother using it. But if you are seriously considering FTB to be representative of the millions of feminists out there, then you are seriously deluded.

Can you think of a more mainstream collection of freethinkers or skeptics who are focused on promoting feminism?

 

[pharphis]

I think you two might be talking past each other. You're focused on the overlap/intersection of "skeptics" and "Feminists" and luchog is talking about feminists in general.

 

[d4m10n]

I think you two might be talking past each other. You're focused on the overlap/intersection of "skeptics" and "Feminists" and luchog is talking about feminists in general.

My experience of "feminists in general" has been primarily drawn from within (overlapping) skeptic and freethought communities. This may be because I studied maths rather than humanities back in the day. Is there some reason to believe feminism is much more mainstream (whatever that means) elsewhere?

 

[sadhatter]

My experience of "feminists in general" has been primarily drawn from within (overlapping) skeptic and freethought communities. This may be because I studied maths rather than humanities back in the day. Is there some reason to believe feminism is much more mainstream (whatever that means) elsewhere?

Social sciences.

Probably could have found this out with a Google search.

 

[d4m10n]

Social sciences.

Which social scientists took the trouble to show which particular feminist ideas should be considered mainstream rather than fringe?

 

[sadhatter]

Which social scientists took the trouble to show which particular feminist ideas should be considered mainstream rather than fringe?

Wait a second, you don't know any female contributers to the social sciences? Let alone enough to pick some feminists? Do you purposely ignore female contributions to society, or only when easy?

 

[pharphis]

Wait a second, you don't know any female contributers to the social sciences? Let alone enough to pick some feminists? Do you purposely ignore female contributions to society, or only when easy?

Where did you get "female" in there?

 

[Lambchops]

When discussing these topics with people online I'm routinely told I should "take a women's studies class" and that my understanding of feminism is allegedly based on key popular examples like Big Red or Anita Sarkeesian, even when I refer to academics, lawyers or politicians (or their resulting policies ie Duluth Model)

Yes, I'm aware of those figures and they are the kind of people that generic anti- and non-feminists are aware of. But I also have some awareness of what academic feminists do and say, and it's not pretty (when it's coherent - sometimes it's just incoherent). The example from the WaPo article is just an example of one of the academics being honest with herself in public, because it is if not fashionable it's at least not too controversial to spew such bile towards men. Somehow it's considered "punching up" even though she holds more power and "earns" more income than the majority of men.

I'm fairly anti-feminist so I would consider her a radical feminist, but not too far away from the average feminist when it comes to those in academia. I think even though a minority of the population calls themselves feminist to begin with, the vast majority of them have no knowledge about the academics, and aren't familiar with the counter arguments (especially in regards to men's issues, which are usually framed as still being "patriarchy").

So in terms of the population she probably only makes up <1% of it, but the moderates typically blindly defend "academic feminists" and their activism so it goes unchecked. This is probably true for lots of relatively fringe political factions.

Do you identify as an MRA or a MGTOW?

Please explain why you are an "anti feminist". Thanks.

And also; bringing up Anita Sarkeesian? Really? That doesn't exactly strengthen you case against the "evil feminists". Are you a Gator?

At this point it kinda looks like you've got the term "skeptic" mixed up with "contrarian edgelord".

 

[d4m10n]

Wait a second, you don't know any female contributers to the social sciences? Let alone enough to pick some feminists? Do you purposely ignore female contributions to society, or only when easy?

Which social scientists took the trouble to show which particular feminist ideas should be considered mainstream rather than fringe?

 

[Roboramma]

Do you identify as an MRA or a MGTOW?

in what way does that impact on his arguments?

Please explain why you are an "anti feminist". Thanks.

Didn’t he do that?

And also; bringing up Anita Sarkeesian? Really? That doesn't exactly strengthen you case against the "evil feminists". Are you a Gator?

he brought up someone’s name to say that while he knows who she is his knowledge of feminism is much deeper than that and doesn’t conform to the stereotype of someone who is just anti- that particular individual. How does that detract from anything else he is saying?

 

[pharphis]

Do you identify as an MRA or a MGTOW?

Please explain why you are an "anti feminist". Thanks.

And also; bringing up Anita Sarkeesian? Really? That doesn't exactly strengthen you case against the "evil feminists". Are you a Gator?

At this point it kinda looks like you've got the term "skeptic" mixed up with "contrarian edgelord".

I'm not MGTOW, I've happily been with my GF for almost 10 years. I'm fine with the label MRA (men's rights advocate), because I
1) Discuss these issues in a way that doesn't erase male victimhood
2) I can (and am) simultaneously a WRA (women's rights advocate)
3) I have supported charities such as the Canadian Association for Equality

re: Anita Sarkeesian,
If you reread my post, I hope it is clear that I am saying that OTHERS bring up Sarkeesian and presume that my knowledge and opinion only goes as far as laughing at feminists on youtube like her and Big Red. That seems to be a popular genre on youtube.

I never used the word skepticism and I DO NOT try to be a "contrarian edgelord". I'm not sure how you got that out of my comment so I suspect it's your initial reaction to wrong-think.

---

The reason I'm anti-feminist is because
1) I am both a MRA and WRA (egalitarian is fine)
2) Feminist Ideology is based in patriarchy theory. I've made a thread on this topic a couple of months ago, but the gist is that I believe this is a non-supported conspiracy theory hypothesis (arguably disproven).
3) Feminist ideology paints all problems as resulting from men, and frames victimhood as primarily something women experience. This harms both men and women, though arguably hurts men more. This is done through concepts like "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy" and "internalized misogyny".
3b) Notice how all of the labeling is blaming men by proxy. *

Does that mean I will disagree with everything a feminist says or does? No, of course not. What it means is that I think they've improperly modeled reality and thus their proposed solutions will only make things worse while blaming everyone for their failure.

Is that a good enough answer? The TL;DR is "they blame men for everything, perpetually victimize women and this makes everything worse for everyone"

*As a side note, quite often when (including in this thread iirc) someone mentions how males suffer from the majority of say.. violence (or any problem they are victims of primarily) the feminist instinct and vocalization is typically "ya but men are mostly the PERPETRATORS").

edit: ninjad. I should know better than to answer such questions but I try to be forthcoming with my beliefs, even if controversial.

 

[pharphis]

Sorry, did you just use "in power" and "academics" in the same sentence? 'Cause... no.





No, it's entirely realizing that just because someone happens to share some superficial similarities, doesn't mean that they're necessarily on one's side. Horseshoe theory and all that. Extremists resemble each other, despite their different worldviews, more than they resemble moderates.




I think you're dramatically overstating the number of people who 1) actually take their classes, and 2) actually come away substantially influenced by them. Aside from a smattering of jargon and a few of the less whackjob concepts (such as intersectionality), the Critical Theory feminists can count very little actual influence on mainstream feminism.

Forgot to respond to this earlier, sorry.

What's wrong with "academics" and "in power". I didn't say there was 100% overlap but academics play a role in informing politicians, lawyers and the police. Otherwise things like the Duluth model wouldn't have come into existence. If you look at what politicians say as well (those in power) and the policies they enact it's clear that feminists in power also have some of the less savory ideas. I don't want to focus too much on individual politicians because I hate the way these discussions break down, but Justin Trudeau up here in Canada is openly feminist and I think his foreign aid policy (95% to women specifically because they are women) for example is bigoted. He also has a habit of fellating Islam. As a fairly minor example of something that just flies by under the radar is a statement like "Women should be paid at least as much as men".
Another example is Clinton, "women have always been the primary victims of war. They lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons..."

Both statements are paraphrased but do not change the meaning at all. The Clinton quote is googleable and the Trudeau quote came from a press conference shortly after his election in 2015. It would take some effort for me to find that but I distinctly remember it.


I agree that most people won't be influenced substantially from their classes, but I don't think "tens of thousands" is much of an exaggeration across the US or Canada. Some 1st year courses fill up for 200-500 students ("women in society") and stuff like that hosted by the gender studies or sociology departments, which students take for an easy grade. Of course some courses will be much less crazy than others, and those are the least likely to ramp up the insanity.