4 ms·

What is misleading is the framing of this being purely about the quality of the story and 'fake news', when in reality it's cherry picking this article to try a

by Latty 10y ago

What is misleading is the framing of this being purely about the quality of the story and 'fake news', when in reality it's cherry picking this article to try and decry feminism. > Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is literally the demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming this article invokes (wrt feminists). No, it's not, because we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men. That's not exactly news, we know that's the case, just as we know that minorities still suffer from a time we had racism built into our laws and culture. There are real problems there. > Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist blogs and publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference. Yes, and I'm sure there are a few crazies out there who truly hate men, or want crazy shit that doesn't make sense - but they are few and far between, and don't represent mainstream feminism. This site is clearly attempting to paint normal, mainstream feminism as that crazy kind to get people to reject it. > In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that exactly "the wider context" you feel is missing here? It's not - the issue is that a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues. I have absolutely no problem with talking about men's issues - they are real, are a problem, and affect me personally, as I'm a man. That said, whenever feminists bring up issues, you get the counter cry of "what about men", which sounds reasonable in the way that the "all lives matter" counter does - sure, we care about gender equality, not just women. The issue is that there are more issues that more deeply affect just women, like there are for minorities in the race issue. The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great injustices. Yes, it's hard, because some of the people saying "I care about men's rights" have no intention of doing so to 'counter' feminism, but it's hard to tell and you get kneejerk responses on both sides. It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists, not people who actually care about the issue without other agendas. Yes, there are unreasonable people on all sides of this, as with pretty much everything. However, the reality is that discrimination and disadvantage is still more widespread for women in our culture, and working to fix that is going to require more effort. This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case, and that mainstream feminism is instead trying to disadvantage and discriminate against men - an accusation that simply doesn't reflect reality. Just as the average white person is being barraged with the idea that the rights of minorities come at their expense, now sites like this are barraging men with the idea that the rights of women come at their expense. That is a lie designed to pit people against each other, and make us willing to reject the causes fighting for us all to get our basic rights.

Chris2048 10y ago
> That's not exactly news, we know that's the case No we don't. Much like the interpretation of the pay gap, there's more context. In this case: "we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men" Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now? Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so. > a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues Says who? > there are more issues that more deeply affect just women Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women. > The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great injustices. again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do? > It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists The reason people stay away from this label is that it's demonized, leaving only true misogynists who care to use it (I'd liken this to the initial uptake of alternative currencies by criminals). What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters... > This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same? Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want? > the idea that the rights of women come at their expense This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men?
- Latty 10y ago
  > Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now? > Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so. Both, clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now - culture was formed around it. Yes, clearly it has gotten better, but it's not a solved problem, and our understanding of what is a problem gets better over time. Saying sexism is a solved issue is like saying racism is a solved issue - just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone. > Says who? Me. > Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women. I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss - straw-manning my argument to make me sound more extreme, then claiming I'm wrong. Of course rape and abortion affect men, but clearly they have a disproportionate affect on women. In an ideal world we could focus on equality in general and work it all out, in the real world we have limited time and resources, and focusing on the biggest disparities is the best way to get closer to the ideal scenario, which has benefits in terms of culture and expectation, inspiring future changes and understanding. > again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do? You literally just did it. I don't control it, but it's clear that it's happening - you can deny that intent all you want, and maybe you truly just don't see the problem, but you are doing it. By making out that feminists are crazy people pushing 'anti-men' agendas you are going to reduce the change that can happen. > What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters... I would say that a 'true' MRA (that is, someone who cares about men's rights, not someone using it to try and push down women's rights) is someone who tries to fix social issues that disproportionately affect men (which do exist), without trying to push down feminism. I would consider myself someone who cares about men's rights as much as I'm a feminist. I don't think the two are at all at odds. > By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same? I am using 'agenda' to mean a dishonest or ill-informed focus. I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki" - it may or may not be reasonable. A quick glance at the main page doesn't look unreasonable, but who knows. They weren't the article being highlighted here. > Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want? I am saying I looked at this source and found it to be biased. In my comment I linked an example of an article that is obviously and intentionally misleading. It's nothing to do with the conclusion I want. If a site claiming to be 'feminist' had a truly anti-male agenda I would be just as happy to dismiss that. > This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men? Assuming our aim is true gender equality, then the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal. Just as the right of the ex-slave's freedom come at the cost of the rights of the slave-owner to own them. This site is clearly trying to create a fear of social change which benefits women. The articles are hyperbolic and focus on the issue at a rate that exaggerates the issue to readers. We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> That's not exactly news, we know that's the case No we don't. Much like the interpretation of the pay gap, there's more context. In this case: "we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men" Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now? Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so. > a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues Says who? > there are more issues that more deeply affect just women Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women. > The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great injustices. again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do? > It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists The reason people stay away from this label is that it's demonized, leaving only true misogynists who care to use it (I'd liken this to the initial uptake of alternative currencies by criminals). What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters... > This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same? Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want? > the idea that the rights of women come at their expense This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men?

Latty 10y ago
> Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now? > Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so. Both, clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now - culture was formed around it. Yes, clearly it has gotten better, but it's not a solved problem, and our understanding of what is a problem gets better over time. Saying sexism is a solved issue is like saying racism is a solved issue - just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone. > Says who? Me. > Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women. I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss - straw-manning my argument to make me sound more extreme, then claiming I'm wrong. Of course rape and abortion affect men, but clearly they have a disproportionate affect on women. In an ideal world we could focus on equality in general and work it all out, in the real world we have limited time and resources, and focusing on the biggest disparities is the best way to get closer to the ideal scenario, which has benefits in terms of culture and expectation, inspiring future changes and understanding. > again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition better than they do? You literally just did it. I don't control it, but it's clear that it's happening - you can deny that intent all you want, and maybe you truly just don't see the problem, but you are doing it. By making out that feminists are crazy people pushing 'anti-men' agendas you are going to reduce the change that can happen. > What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters... I would say that a 'true' MRA (that is, someone who cares about men's rights, not someone using it to try and push down women's rights) is someone who tries to fix social issues that disproportionately affect men (which do exist), without trying to push down feminism. I would consider myself someone who cares about men's rights as much as I'm a feminist. I don't think the two are at all at odds. > By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same? I am using 'agenda' to mean a dishonest or ill-informed focus. I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki" - it may or may not be reasonable. A quick glance at the main page doesn't look unreasonable, but who knows. They weren't the article being highlighted here. > Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" - if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want? I am saying I looked at this source and found it to be biased. In my comment I linked an example of an article that is obviously and intentionally misleading. It's nothing to do with the conclusion I want. If a site claiming to be 'feminist' had a truly anti-male agenda I would be just as happy to dismiss that. > This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men? Assuming our aim is true gender equality, then the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal. Just as the right of the ex-slave's freedom come at the cost of the rights of the slave-owner to own them. This site is clearly trying to create a fear of social change which benefits women. The articles are hyperbolic and focus on the issue at a rate that exaggerates the issue to readers. We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.