Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

[rustypouch]

I'd very much like to see the highlighted claim cashed out in observational terms, so that we could see exactly what observations justify it and exactly what potential future observations would allow us to revise our belief to say "in general, men and women now have equal social power in a given sphere". I'm not demanding that you personally do this but until someone does it the argument boils down to "well I feel like overall I get a bum deal, and that's evidence enough!". (Cue boilerplate list of feminist grievances).

I tend to think social movements work better with clearly defined goals. Demanding an eight hour working day is nice and specific. Demanding an end to an amorphous "male privilege" which is explained in terms of feelings and parables rather than hard data is going to be a much harder sell.

I tend to agree. Yes, it may have existed for old people, but it's been greatly reduced, and often not evident for people my age and younger, and there are many areas where women have things better. But as a 30-something white man, I'm often not allowed to express opinions on these things. Then when my opinions are acknowledged as existing, and that there are some areas where men are disadvantaged, these concerns are dismissed as unimportant.

As an example, this article : http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/in-rape-culture-all-men-are-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

From the article:

Men who grumble about being “guilty until proven innocent” are demanding to be seen as individuals, separate from their perceived sex and the history that goes with it. That’s a tempting but unreasonable demand to make.

I find that very insulting. Would anyone accept this if it were directed to any other group? Change a few words around, and it's terribly bigoted:

Men Blacks who grumble about being “guilty until proven innocent” are demanding to be seen as individuals, separate from their perceived sex race and the history that goes with it. That’s a tempting but unreasonable demand to make.

For some reason it's fine to make these generalities.

Yes, I know not all feminists are like this, but there are enough out there to really turn me off.

 

[curi0us]

Wow. Privilege.

I've ridden that merrie-go-round in this forum until I was dizzy. Privilege is a really weird concept. It's very difficult to discuss without everyone getting all defensive. In Western society it is possible for individual women to be in a position of power and to use sexist attitudes against male subordinates. In general, men still have greater social power because of prevailing sexist attitudes. But that's just so general as to be meaningless.

This is the very, very best article on privilege. If you're collecting things that feminists have written, I highly recommend that you add this one, especially the parable, to your repertoire.

https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/

I was wondering if femnism might have recovered from how demented it was when I was in college but if that is an example of the "very, very best" then I am guessing it has not. From your link:

So, quite simply: don’t be that dog. If you’re straight and a queer person says “do not title your book ‘Beautiful **********,’ that’s stupid and offensive,” listen and believe him. If you’re white and a black person says “really, now, we’re all getting a little tired of that What These People Need Is A Honky trope, please write a better movie,” listen and believe her. If you’re male and a woman says “this maquette is a perfect example of why women don’t read comics,” listen and believe her. Maybe you don’t see anything wrong with it, maybe you think it’s oh-so-perfect to your artistic vision, maybe it seems like an oversensitive big deal over nothing to you. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES, YOU HAVE FUR. Nevertheless, just because you personally can’t feel that hurt, doesn’t mean it’s not real. All it means is you have privilege.

This seems to be just another version of the women can't be sexist and blacks can't be racist modes of thinking endemic to identity politics. Consider this sentence:

If you’re male and a woman says “this maquette is a perfect example of why women don’t read comics,” listen and believe her.

Why must I believe her? What makes her an inherently infallible authority on comics, maquettes and the reading habits of women? Why should that single women be so entitled, so profoundly privileged, that her opinion should not be questioned and must be believed just because she is a woman and I am man?

The comic example is especially ludicrous because the statement made is obviously incorrect, I've known quite a few women that read comics so why would I mindlessly believe a woman who is clearly wrong about that anyways?The general notion that individual women can automatically speak with authority on all other women's beliefs is a classic feminist error, I am surprised it is sill being made so blatantly.

Even if the example statement was more reasonable the idea that it must be believed due to gender privilege without reference to it's truthfulness is oppressively insensitive. Being aware of how privilege/background effects ones views is an important aspect of social empathy but the idea that a member of the designated privilege groups is morally obligated to automatically submit to the intellectual authority of another person is incredibly disturbing, especially when one considers how this ideology is being pushed upon impressionable youth. While I think Naive1000 is exaggerating the prevalence of female predators and genocidal feminists your article is so cruelly empowering to such people that I would argue that it very likely that author is a kind of psychological predator/bully who on some level must enjoy attacking others.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

While I think Naive1000 is exaggerating the prevalence of female predators and genocidal feminists your article is so cruelly empowering to such people that I would argue that it very likely that author is a kind of psychological predator/bully who on some level must enjoy attacking others.

Bear in mind that axe-grinding feminists spend a lot of their "leisure" time obsessing over the worst examples they can find of oppression, sexual violence, objectification of women and so forth and that this is the set of experiences they draw on. Since they have a lot of experiences with such things, vicariously if not always personally, what's called the "availability heuristic" leads them to think that such experiences are more common than they actually are.

Exactly the same bias leads people who are perfectly decent and who don't spend time around sexists to think such experiences are less common than they actually are.

That said, the argument you are critiquing is a straightforwardly fallacious appeal to personal authority, and I agree completely that nobody in any sphere gets to win a political argument by saying "I'm right, just take my word for it!".

 

[tyr_13]

You do realize that throwing a dictionary at someone who studied feminism for more than half a decade and read at least 250 feminist books is a bit absurd, don't you?

Appeal to authority aside, it would seem that it's exactly why throwing the dictionary is necessary. When someone has invested a lot of time and mental effort in reading, understanding, and observing the minutia of something, it's useful to force them to step back and see the forest for the trees as it were.

Especially given that it's the same dictionary that defines atheism, albeit with an "archaic" caveat as WICKEDNESS, in the first definition?

That doesn't make the definition it gives for feminism incorrect.

I might conceivably be interested in a discussion about why I do, in fact, find the label meaningless, and why I think that insisting that it is meaningful is far more destructive than constructive, should you decide to participate in one. I really don't have a lot of interest in puerile hurling.

You already explained why you believe it is meaningless, but I maintain that it's become meaningless to you and people who have been studying it inside and out. As a marketing term, or a justifying label, it's meaningless. As an actual description, it is not.

One can use that dictionary definition to examine if what's being advocate actually is in line with feminism. People can call Obama socialist, that doesn't make him one. Other people can call themselves and the idea of subjugating men feminism, but that doesn't make it so. Of course it gets more complicated, but I reject it's as complicated as you assert. It is only in certain contexts that it becomes meaningless.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The general notion that individual women can automatically speak with authority on all other women's beliefs is a classic feminist error, I am surprised it is sill being made so blatantly.

As the British comedian and activist Mark Thomas once said, "if we asked the Queen 'what do women want?', the answer would be 'a new royal yacht'".

 

[Verklagekasper]

Privilege is a really weird concept.

Maybe. Its application in arguments seems far less mysterious, though. Denouncing a person as "privileged" always seems to imply that he or she does not even have the right to have a view since the person does not have the right race, gender, sexual orientation, age, education, or income. I've seen self-alleged "skepchicks" publically arguing that way not only against men but also women. It's tragic that a community which prides itself of critical thinking has been infiltrated by people who dismiss opinions on the ground that their holders are male, or straight, or white etc.

 

[Cayvmann]

Hate does not have very good results.

Rightly said. Hate and anger do make for some mighty bad decisions though.


Wait, that wasn't positive at all.

 

[Lithrael]

Why must I believe her? What makes her an inherently infallible authority on comics, maquettes and the reading habits of women? Why should that single women be so entitled, so profoundly privileged, that her opinion should not be questioned and must be believed just because she is a woman and I am man?

The comic example is especially ludicrous because the statement made is obviously incorrect, I've known quite a few women that read comics so why would I mindlessly believe a woman who is clearly wrong about that anyways?The general notion that individual women can automatically speak with authority on all other women's beliefs is a classic feminist error, I am surprised it is sill being made so blatantly.

Good lord man, the article didn't say "take their word as holy truth and change your ways" it just said LISTEN. It just said pay attention. The idea is to not ignore these data points just because you don't like what they are saying. Nobody should change their ways because of what ONE person said. But the examples she's using are things I have heard a WHOLE lot more than once and I'll wager, so have you. When you're talking about social trends those anecdotes ARE your data.

*I* read comics but even so I DO notice a whole lot of examples of attitudes towards women that are off-putting. Yes, I notice examples of lots of other attitudes that are off-putting too. But to decide that, because you know women who read comics, you can dismiss the idea that most women get justifiably tired of things like Starfire becoming a braindamaged pinup is at least as crass as whatever crap you're accusing feminists of.

 

[varwoche]

On a more serious note, I've already said I don't hate feminism or it's original premise. I'm just weary of where many feminists in charge are pushing it.

If you want to demonstrate that feminists who are in charge believe as you suggest, how about we take a look at women who are actually in charge (what a concept!). Here's a place you can start: There are currently 17 female US senators. Can you cite any examples from these individuals that support your argument?

 

[bookitty]

I was wondering if femnism might have recovered from how demented it was when I was in college but if that is an example of the "very, very best" then I am guessing it has not. From your link:


This seems to be just another version of the women can't be sexist and blacks can't be racist modes of thinking endemic to identity politics. Consider this sentence:



Why must I believe her? What makes her an inherently infallible authority on comics, maquettes and the reading habits of women? Why should that single women be so entitled, so profoundly privileged, that her opinion should not be questioned and must be believed just because she is a woman and I am man?

The comic example is especially ludicrous because the statement made is obviously incorrect, I've known quite a few women that read comics so why would I mindlessly believe a woman who is clearly wrong about that anyways?The general notion that individual women can automatically speak with authority on all other women's beliefs is a classic feminist error, I am surprised it is sill being made so blatantly.

Even if the example statement was more reasonable the idea that it must be believed due to gender privilege without reference to it's truthfulness is oppressively insensitive. Being aware of how privilege/background effects ones views is an important aspect of social empathy but the idea that a member of the designated privilege groups is morally obligated to automatically submit to the intellectual authority of another person is incredibly disturbing, especially when one considers how this ideology is being pushed upon impressionable youth. While I think Naive1000 is exaggerating the prevalence of female predators and genocidal feminists your article is so cruelly empowering to such people that I would argue that it very likely that author is a kind of psychological predator/bully who on some level must enjoy attacking others.

Did you stop reading at the paragraph above? It follows with (bolding mine)

That’s not a bad thing. You can’t help being born with fur. Every single one of us has some kind of privilege over somebody. What matters is whether we’re aware of it, and what we choose to do with it, and that we not use it to dismiss the valid and real concerns of the people who don’t share our particular brand.

That doesn't fit your " women can't be sexist and blacks can't be racist "

The comic thing is something that gets tossed around by female comic readers all the time. Even the ones who aren't feminist. Remember when Catwoman came out? (Sometime around 1993, I think.) At first she was a super-duper sexy chick in a fairly useful costume. By #10, she was tits. Huuuuuuuuge tits, like "how the hell are you going to jump across the rooftops with those things?" type of tits. It was annoying. The Batman series is one of the few to offer complicated female villains with back stories that make them empathetic (Poison Ivy, amazing.) They don't need to look like Morggana the kissing bandit to be interesting. But as soon as the sales drop - tits.

This isn't uncommon. The most recent brouhaha was over DC's redo of Starfire. (of course, they never should have given her to Scott Lobdell. He's pretty good with angst-ridden guys, not so good with complicated female characters. IMHO.)

So when she says something like that, she isn't saying "No girls will read your comics!" but more like "Really? This again? Don't you know that tons of women read comics and that this sort of nonsense has filled up chatrooms, bog posts and private conversations for like 30 years?"

 

[epepke]

Appeal to authority aside, it would seem that it's exactly why throwing the dictionary is necessary. When someone has invested a lot of time and mental effort in reading, understanding, and observing the minutia of something, it's useful to force them to step back and see the forest for the trees as it were.

Except that the forest is not usually to be found in a dictionary.

I'm not interested in appeal to authority, just some actual discussion. I wrote a fair number of words describing in what sense I considered the term meaningless. I also note that @bookitty used the same term "meaningless" in a sense that I agree with, and you did not throw a dictionary at her.

That doesn't make the definition it gives for feminism incorrect.

But I assert that it is.

You already explained why you believe it is meaningless, but I maintain that it's become meaningless to you and people who have been studying it inside and out. As a marketing term, or a justifying label, it's meaningless. As an actual description, it is not.

Well then, I guess, don't worry, be happy, and have a nice day!

If you are not interested in a discussion, then I cannot force you.

 

[bookitty]

I'd very much like to see the highlighted claim cashed out in observational terms, so that we could see exactly what observations justify it and exactly what potential future observations would allow us to revise our belief to say "in general, men and women now have equal social power in a given sphere". I'm not demanding that you personally do this but until someone does it the argument boils down to "well I feel like overall I get a bum deal, and that's evidence enough!". (Cue boilerplate list of feminist grievances).

I tend to think social movements work better with clearly defined goals. Demanding an eight hour working day is nice and specific. Demanding an end to an amorphous "male privilege" which is explained in terms of feelings and parables rather than hard data is going to be a much harder sell.

You nailed it. This is exactly where privilege gets weird. Let's take the most often used example - A woman walking down the sidewalk is gets verbally harassed by a man walking towards her. In the case, the man has greater power - people around him may think that he is rude but no one will step forward to tell him so. Many bystanders will barely notice because "that's just what happens." There is little social repercussion to the man.

But this example is flawed in so many ways. It is not universal to all woman, not all women react the same way, not all men do this or feel that this is appropriate behavior, and in some rare cases a man or woman will step forward to denounce the harassment. These are all the issues that are brought up when this example is used.

Example of privilege are like that. It's really easy to show if you say "In some Muslim countries women are not allowed to drive." Harder to show when Walmart wins the largest gender discrimination class action lawsuit in history. And nearly impossible to explain if you use the common stuff that happens primarily to individuals.

Of course, I'm using what I know best which are things that happen to women. This doesn't begin to touch on other forms of gender discrimination or acts of privilege caused by racists or xenophobic attitudes.

An end to male privilege is not quite the goal. What I want to see is a social understanding that our own personal experiences with the world are not universal. We all have things that we take for granted, that doesn't mean that everyone does.

At OLA, I was able to fearlessly chit-chat with the cops because I'm a middle-aged, well-spoken white female. They weren't going to target me, calling attention to myself was not dangerous. That doesn't mean that I can tell someone who has had a different experience with cops that all the cops are nice and that they, too can expect the same treatment. Or that if they get different treatment it is because of something they have done.

This doesn't mean that I want to get rid of my middle-class, white privilege only that I recognize it and I don't use it against someone who doesn't have my advantages.

 

[bookitty]

I also note that @bookitty used the same term "meaningless" in a sense that I agree with, and you did not throw a dictionary at her

Don't worry, Tyr will get to me. He's pretty tough but fair.

 

[tyr_13]

Except that the forest is not usually to be found in a dictionary.

No, but the meaning of words certainly is.

I'm not interested in appeal to authority, just some actual discussion. I wrote a fair number of words describing in what sense I considered the term meaningless.

And in part I agreed, but still find parts needlessly dismissive. Remember what you were responding to was that the term 'feminism' is overbroad, the part I agree with, and that saying 'feminist ideas' is meaningless, the part I disagree with. The reason I disagree is that one should get an idea of what a feminist idea is going to relate to based on the definition of the term. That a host of people put forth ideas they say are feminist and related to feminism that aren't means that they should be called out on it, not that the term is therefore useless to actually describe ideas.

Let me try to make this more clear, when I say 'feminism', I'm using the dictionary term. When you quote me saying 'feminist ideas' (distinct from 'ideas from feminists'), I'm referring to the dictionary definition. What I disagree with is that my use of the word was meaningless.

I also note that @bookitty used the same term "meaningless" in a sense that I agree with, and you did not throw a dictionary at her.

I haven't read everything in the thread, but bookitty didn't quote me when she said it. These issues frustrate me greatly and I tend to only read a little at a time, so when the thread moves quickly, I don't follow it tightly.

But I assert that it is.

I counter-assert that it isn't - with a cherry on top.

Well then, I guess, don't worry, be happy, and have a nice day!

If you are not interested in a discussion, then I cannot force you.

That's not what I said, but don't let that stop you.

Don't worry, Tyr will get to me. He's pretty tough but fair.

I'm none of those three things and you know it.

 

[curi0us]

Good lord man, the article didn't say "take their word as holy truth and change your ways" it just said LISTEN. It just said pay attention.

You are wrong! It very clearly said, "listen and believe". I dont see how you missed that point but here it is for you to read again:

If you’re male and a woman says “this maquette is a perfect example of why women don’t read comics,” listen and believe her.

The idea is to not ignore these data points just because you don't like what they are saying. Nobody should change their ways because of what ONE person said.

Again you are blatantly wrong. I quoted the article giving three specific examples of just "one" person being the authority only because of a privilege differential so I don't know why you think it is reasonable to claim otherwise.

But the examples she's using are things I have heard a WHOLE lot more than once and I'll wager, so have you. When you're talking about social trends those anecdotes ARE your data.

Now you are replacing the appeal to authority argument with an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Not only is it another blatant fallacy it isn't even at all what the author said, you are just making stuff of up.

*I* read comics but even so I DO notice a whole lot of examples of attitudes towards women that are off-putting. *Yes, I notice examples of lots of other attitudes that are off-putting too. *But to decide that, because you know women who read comics, you can dismiss the idea that most women get justifiably tired of things like Starfire becoming a braindamaged pinup is at least as crass as whatever crap you're accusing feminists of.

I never decided that because I know women that read comics that I could "dismiss the idea that most women get justifiably tired of things like Starfire becoming a braindamaged pinup"! I decided that because I know women that read comics it is false to say they don't. It's like you didn't even consider what the article I was responding to had really said before you jumped to conclusions about me.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

War of the dueling ancedotes!

 

[JJM 777]

Not all feminists are angry and hateful. Some of them actually have a sense of humour.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Having turned the argument around in my mind a few times I'm currently thinking that "you can't see this social privilege/disadvantage because you're not from the right social group and you lack the empathy/education/whatever to see it" is a useless argument because while it might be true it cannot be falsified. It's like saying the Emperor is wearing wondrous new clothes that only an honest person can see, except that a person being blind to social privilege is a lot more plausible than invisible pants. In either case if the other person says they can't see the merit of your argument you can say "that's because you're a bad person!" instead of having to say "maybe that's because I've got a bad argument".

So even if that argument is in fact perfectly true, we shouldn't use it. It's useless except as a way of insulting people who disagree with you. You can appeal until you are blue in the face for other people to listen and believe you, but they can quite justifiably respond "you aren't listening to and believing me, so why should I listen to and believe you?".

Instead to argue for the same conclusion I think you just have to present specific, factual case studies or sociological data to show that the privilege exists in objectively measurable terms.

 

[Lithrael]

You are wrong! It very clearly said, "listen and believe".

OK. We are just interpreting that in different ways. I guess I do sound like an apologist but it seems to me that actually trying to take every person's viewpoint as the whole truth of the world is such a blatantly impossible idea that nobody would say that and mean it literally. I took it to mean that you need to give their opinion proper weight and thought because they, having different shoes than yours, have arrived at that opinion for reasons that you might not have experienced yourself and so do not automatically give weight to.

It's the same sort of thing as the way you'll automatically feel solidarity with another person's experience if you've had it yourself, but it takes a little more imagination to sympathise with another person's experience if you haven't had it. And in some situations your imagination can't live up to what it's really like anyway. So you need to 'believe' them when they tell you about it.

Now you are replacing the appeal to authority argument with an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Not only is it another blatant fallacy it isn't even at all what the author said, you are just making stuff of up.

When you're talking about matters of public opinion isn't the populum what you're supposed to pay some attention to? And we're clearly just interpreting the article different ways, what I said is what I think the author is getting at, that's all.

I decided that because I know women that read comics it is false to say they don't.

Ah OK I actually did misread you there. I assumed the hyperbole wasn't a stumbling block to communication on that point but clearly it was.

 

[bookitty]

Having turned the argument around in my mind a few times I'm currently thinking that "you can't see this social privilege/disadvantage because you're not from the right social group and you lack the empathy/education/whatever to see it" is a useless argument because while it might be true it cannot be falsified. It's like saying the Emperor is wearing wondrous new clothes that only an honest person can see, except that a person being blind to social privilege is a lot more plausible than invisible pants. In either case if the other person says they can't see the merit of your argument you can say "that's because you're a bad person!" instead of having to say "maybe that's because I've got a bad argument".

So even if that argument is in fact perfectly true, we shouldn't use it. It's useless except as a way of insulting people who disagree with you. You can appeal until you are blue in the face for other people to listen and believe you, but they can quite justifiably respond "you aren't listening to and believing me, so why should I listen to and believe you?".

Instead to argue for the same conclusion I think you just have to present specific, factual case studies or sociological data to show that the privilege exists in objectively measurable terms.

I agree that the weirdness of privilege does make it sort of a trump card and it has been abused in that capacity. I disagree that the entire idea is therefore invalid.

Social groups have various advantages/disadvantages over other groups. Where advantages are granted by society and not taken by the individual, it is privilege. Extreme example - A heterosexual, healthy, white, male in the US will have an easier time getting a job than a disabled lesbian who is a woman of color. This doesn't mean that the white guy doesn't deserve the job or that steps should be taken to decrease his employment possibilities. Only that as a society need to work on valuing all members.

Recognizing privilege is recognizing that your advantages do not make your life experience universal. It is listening when someone tells you that they have different outcomes or responses to the same situation because they are lacking those advantages. This doesn't always mean changing your actions. Sometimes it is enough to just believe and accept.

As to measuring privilege, I do wish there was some convenient warehouse of facts. Right now it is scattered about various examples. One of the most obvious in the US is the escalation of attacks on safe, legal abortion. This will primarily affect low-income women. The voters are statistically middle or upper class. The law-makers are statistically male. They have advantages which negate the worst financial burdens of raising a child.