5 ms·

> Anyone who supports feminism, that is equal rights for women, are feminists, the noun. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-wo

by dlss 10y ago

> Anyone who supports feminism, that is equal rights for women, are feminists, the noun. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... ... which is to say I feel like most people understand the word feminist to mean something other than "99.9% of people living in a western democracy" > the idea that MRA & feminism have equal historical provenance is laughable Completely agree here, and am confused where I might have implied otherwise.

tptacek 10y ago
This very long, very Scott Alexander post has essentially nothing to say about the meaning of the word "feminism", but I'll say again that the reason MRAs refer consistently to "third wave feminism" is that the other waves of feminism secured women's right to vote, outlawed overt gender discrimination in pay, criminalized marital rape, and won Roe v Wade, so demonizing "feminism" is a rhetorically risky strategy.
- dlss 10y ago
  Yeah, in my limited experience, MRAs generally suck at distinguishing between feminism the ideology and feminism the concept, so they end up tripping over themselves trying to explain how they are for women's rights but also against feminism.
kasey_junk 10y ago
No idea what that post has to do with anything. This whole thread on the other hand is about how feminism & MRA do not exist as opposites on a spectrum. Feminism, as you say, is an exceedingly common position. MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick. My point was mainly about your incorrect statement that feminist was to feminism what capitalist is to capitalism. They are not the same thing and thus any extrapolation about negative connotations is unlikely to be correct. As Thomas says, even anti-feminists usually categorize their antagonism with terms line "third wave".
- dlss 10y ago
  > My point was mainly about your incorrect statement that feminist was to feminism what capitalist is to capitalism. They are not the same thing and thus any extrapolation about negative connotations is unlikely to be correct. Ahh, apparently the post was less clear than anticipated. Here's a quote from it that evokes what I was trying to say with the link: "I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way." Which is to say that I disagree with your definition of feminism in this context. According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_309... 80% of people should identify as feminists by your definition, yet only 20% do. This means that at least 60% of the respondents to that survey disagree with your definition of feminism. I think that I (and the gentleman who's position in this conversation I took pity on) am using roughly the same definition of feminism as the 60% of the population from that HuffPo survey. That definition is harder to put into words, but is something along the lines of "someone who primarily sees the world through the lens of gendered power struggles." Kind of like a Marxist, only for gender rather than class. Using this definition, likening the reputation of Feminists to that of Capitalists is not a false equivalency (Capitalists here are people who primarily see the world through the lens of economic life). > MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick. Agreed, I was not trying to imply it was particularly common. My main point was that, in my experience, the more hardcore ends of both groups share a lot of psychological problems and cognitive errors.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You're still pushing a false equivalence. There are to a first approximation no non-hardcore MRAs. Feminism, on the other hand, is entirely mainstream. It's like saying that the more hardcore ends of both Roman Catholics and Branch Davidians have a problem with violence.
    - dlss 10y ago
      > You're still pushing a false equivalence. There are to a first approximation no non-hardcore MRAs. Feminism, on the other hand, is entirely mainstream. I think you're mistaking your experienced distribution for the true distribution. Like, I'm very willing to believe that of the MRAs you're aware of, they are all hardcore -- it's a demonized subculture, you'd have to be a zealot or have fuck-you money to come out supporting it. If instead of defining MRAs as "people posting crazy things to (insert website here)" you simply call an MRA someone who's primary political activity is toward fixing issues MRAs discuss, you'll be able to find a large number non-hardcore MRAs with a couple of google searches. Heck, I think most people working professionally with prostate cancer would qualify. The guy in this thread who mentioned lurking on MRA forums for interesting ideas absolutely qualifies (or rather, he didn't sound hardcore to me on first read). Similarly if you go looking for the equivalent of (insert MRA website here) for feminists, you will also succeed in that endeavor. Your comment re: hardcore Roman Catholics & Branch Davidians makes me think perhaps you haven't gone looking for these sorts of sites. Which is to say, yet again, that I do not believe the equivalence is false. I'd even go so far as to say that I expect the rates of hardcore ideologues in each group to roughly correlate with the rates of paranoid delusion in men and women respectively.

by dlss 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

This very long, very Scott Alexander post has essentially nothing to say about the meaning of the word "feminism", but I'll say again that the reason MRAs refer consistently to "third wave feminism" is that the other waves of feminism secured women's right to vote, outlawed overt gender discrimination in pay, criminalized marital rape, and won Roe v Wade, so demonizing "feminism" is a rhetorically risky strategy.

dlss 10y ago
Yeah, in my limited experience, MRAs generally suck at distinguishing between feminism the ideology and feminism the concept, so they end up tripping over themselves trying to explain how they are for women's rights but also against feminism.

kasey_junk 10y ago

No idea what that post has to do with anything. This whole thread on the other hand is about how feminism & MRA do not exist as opposites on a spectrum. Feminism, as you say, is an exceedingly common position. MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick. My point was mainly about your incorrect statement that feminist was to feminism what capitalist is to capitalism. They are not the same thing and thus any extrapolation about negative connotations is unlikely to be correct. As Thomas says, even anti-feminists usually categorize their antagonism with terms line "third wave".

dlss 10y ago
> My point was mainly about your incorrect statement that feminist was to feminism what capitalist is to capitalism. They are not the same thing and thus any extrapolation about negative connotations is unlikely to be correct. Ahh, apparently the post was less clear than anticipated. Here's a quote from it that evokes what I was trying to say with the link: "I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way." Which is to say that I disagree with your definition of feminism in this context. According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_309... 80% of people should identify as feminists by your definition, yet only 20% do. This means that at least 60% of the respondents to that survey disagree with your definition of feminism. I think that I (and the gentleman who's position in this conversation I took pity on) am using roughly the same definition of feminism as the 60% of the population from that HuffPo survey. That definition is harder to put into words, but is something along the lines of "someone who primarily sees the world through the lens of gendered power struggles." Kind of like a Marxist, only for gender rather than class. Using this definition, likening the reputation of Feminists to that of Capitalists is not a false equivalency (Capitalists here are people who primarily see the world through the lens of economic life). > MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick. Agreed, I was not trying to imply it was particularly common. My main point was that, in my experience, the more hardcore ends of both groups share a lot of psychological problems and cognitive errors.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You're still pushing a false equivalence. There are to a first approximation no non-hardcore MRAs. Feminism, on the other hand, is entirely mainstream. It's like saying that the more hardcore ends of both Roman Catholics and Branch Davidians have a problem with violence.
  - dlss 10y ago
    > You're still pushing a false equivalence. There are to a first approximation no non-hardcore MRAs. Feminism, on the other hand, is entirely mainstream. I think you're mistaking your experienced distribution for the true distribution. Like, I'm very willing to believe that of the MRAs you're aware of, they are all hardcore -- it's a demonized subculture, you'd have to be a zealot or have fuck-you money to come out supporting it. If instead of defining MRAs as "people posting crazy things to (insert website here)" you simply call an MRA someone who's primary political activity is toward fixing issues MRAs discuss, you'll be able to find a large number non-hardcore MRAs with a couple of google searches. Heck, I think most people working professionally with prostate cancer would qualify. The guy in this thread who mentioned lurking on MRA forums for interesting ideas absolutely qualifies (or rather, he didn't sound hardcore to me on first read). Similarly if you go looking for the equivalent of (insert MRA website here) for feminists, you will also succeed in that endeavor. Your comment re: hardcore Roman Catholics & Branch Davidians makes me think perhaps you haven't gone looking for these sorts of sites. Which is to say, yet again, that I do not believe the equivalence is false. I'd even go so far as to say that I expect the rates of hardcore ideologues in each group to roughly correlate with the rates of paranoid delusion in men and women respectively.