3 ms·

> 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 ex

by 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.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    If you are saying that there is a group of men (and some women) who argue reasonably that the family court system is biased towards mothers and deeply unfair to fathers, then, while I will disagree with those arguments or at least any extrapolation from those arguments towards broader gender inequity (you should see how unfair and, in fact, terrifying the domestic violence legal situation is for women), I do stipulate that those people are reasonable and should not be demonized. But having concerns about family law does not make you an MRA. People with family court problems want to fix the family court system. MRAs are people who feel like women are locked in a zero-sum contest with men, and that women have obtained more than their fair share of concessions in that contest. That's a problematic view, not widely believed to be based in fact, and held only by a fringe. It is not at all comparable to feminism, which is based on the clear historical truth that women have been disfavored both by custom and by law in truly outrageous ways: not being given the right to vote, having the state make coercive medical decisions for them, having no protection from spousal rape, being overtly and deliberately paid less for the same work, &c. We can argue about the state of play on these things today. We cannot argue about the historical context of feminism.

by dlss 10y ago

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.
- tptacek 10y ago
  If you are saying that there is a group of men (and some women) who argue reasonably that the family court system is biased towards mothers and deeply unfair to fathers, then, while I will disagree with those arguments or at least any extrapolation from those arguments towards broader gender inequity (you should see how unfair and, in fact, terrifying the domestic violence legal situation is for women), I do stipulate that those people are reasonable and should not be demonized. But having concerns about family law does not make you an MRA. People with family court problems want to fix the family court system. MRAs are people who feel like women are locked in a zero-sum contest with men, and that women have obtained more than their fair share of concessions in that contest. That's a problematic view, not widely believed to be based in fact, and held only by a fringe. It is not at all comparable to feminism, which is based on the clear historical truth that women have been disfavored both by custom and by law in truly outrageous ways: not being given the right to vote, having the state make coercive medical decisions for them, having no protection from spousal rape, being overtly and deliberately paid less for the same work, &c. We can argue about the state of play on these things today. We cannot argue about the historical context of feminism.