8 ms·

Sorry, are you saying that statement made you understand as in the statement is an explanation of some essential point of feminism? Or are you saying that state

Sorry, are you saying that statement made you understand as in the statement is an explanation of some essential point of feminism? Or are you saying that statement made you understand that feminism often (not always!) has a tenuous grasp on reality, tends to make baseless or meaningless statements, and is purely ideological much of the time? Because that statement -- which btw is the standard "I don't want to have to argue with you" brush-off used by campus feminists everywhere -- means nothing. Every other organization is already a men's organization? Really? In what sense could they possibly mean that? What assumptions must they be making for that to hold true? By virtue of the fact that they're on a university campus, they're part of an organization consisting of well over 1/2 women [1]. Men are a minority on most campuses in the states. So does the university as a whole qualify as a "men's organization"? If not, why is a "women's organization" necessary on campus? If there's no need to be 'shielded' from a broader, all-encompassing men's organization constituted by the university, it seems that a men's organization is just as justified as a women's organization in that environment. [1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-...

detcader 13y ago
It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901. Perhaps "White Privilege and Male Privilege" by Peggy McIntosh and "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye are good places to start: http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20Privilege.pdf http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20Privile... http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression.pdf http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression...
- obstacle1 13y ago
  I graduated from a feminist-oriented humanities department where I engaged with these issues critically for a long time. Rather than linking me polemics from 1988 that don't address my point, consider that I disagree with the fundamental positions on a logical basis. If you'd like to engage the points I actually made in my post, feel free.
  - detcader 13y ago
    So what you're saying is, you won't read either essay.
    - obstacle1 13y ago
      What I'm saying is explicitly written down in the posts I've made. If you're willing to engage the points I'm actually making, I'll have a discussion with you. If you're just going to throw broad-reaching polemical feminism 101 articles at very specific points, I'm not going to take you seriously. You didn't even state why you think those articles apply to the (again, very specific) point I made.
      - detcader 13y ago
        I thought it would be obvious by just reading the articles. Even in environments where there are a bit more women than men, men still have male privilege (as McIntosh describes it), women are still under oppression (as Frye describes it). Women still fear rape and all other male violence on college campuses, for example. "Majority" makes no difference when it comes to power structures; look at "the 1%" in the US..
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    I highly doubt you engaged these issues critically if you seriously don't believe that most institutional structures are dominated by men. Great, student bodies have slightly more women than men. However the vast majority of professors, researchers, and administrators are men. It's the positions of power being dominated by men that makes the institution for men. Much like the positions of power in politics and business are undeniably dominated by men.
    - obstacle1 13y ago
      I didn't say that most institutional structures aren't dominated by men. I don't know whether "most" are or aren't -- neither do you. If you figure out a way to quantify that, let me know. Seems like a research grant in the making. I do know, however, that "every other organization is a men's organization" is a ridiculous statement. Every other organization? Seriously? In order for that to be true, "men's organization" has to be defined in some absolutely meaningless manner where organizations which include women and have women as administrators and are run by women are somehow oppressive "men's organizations". Otherwise the statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. >It's the positions of power being dominated by men that makes the institution for men First off, very few men have access to those positions of power. Men who don't have access to powerful offices still have issues and need protection. If you weren't born rich and to parents with connections, you likely aren't becoming a surgeon general or president or even university president. So in what universe can the entire university be termed a "men's club"? Where do the men without access to institutional power turn for relief? They are not only excluded from what feminists term the "men's club", feminists fight to disallow them from forming groups to fight for their own interests. Double whammy. Lower-class men get universally screwed over in the blind drive to bring "equality" to positions of power. Second, much of feminism ignores the question of why one-to-one gender representation is desirable in the first place for each and every position of power. Why is it a goal in and of itself? In hiring someone to lead an organization, I want the person with the qualifications that best match the job description to be hired. If that turns out to be a man, great. A woman, great. I don't care. There is a job that needs to be done and it should be done well, free from political or ideological influence. There is the argument that even if hiring is completely gender-neutral, if the most qualified people turn out disproportionally men then it is inevitable that male interests will be baked into the system. Well, the man is still the most objectively skilled person for the job maybe you should figure out how to build control mechanisms that prevent male ideologies from perpetuating insidious effects throughout the system, rather than just scream about how men should be barred from the position. Just saying "let's hire more women because they're women" seems like the laziest possible pseudo-solution and doesn't seem to lead to desirable long-term effects. Do we want people running our society who are qualified to do so, or do we want people running society because of gender quotas? Third, there is the question of whether or not these inequalities are systemic because of male oppression or female behavior. It is likely a mix of the two, but feminists completely discount the latter. For example having children is a pretty strong biological drive in human beings. I'm not saying all women want to have children, but a lot do. So maybe some females aren't taking high-powered high-strung positions because they'd rather have kids. The vast majority of high-responsibility positions can't cope with the candidate taking 5 months off for mat leave. There's the issue of "oh the females only want kids because they're socially programmed to slave away as subservient housewives". I don't know, the nuclear family is a pretty strong element of culture and socialization for sure. But it seems unlikely that given our million-plus-year history of a biological drive to have kids that it's all a social construct. Further, that females only have kids because they're brainwashed seems unprovable. There are innumerable other issues I could list but what's common to all of them, in my view, is that they focus so intently on the end goal of elevating women's power status that they bulldoze over all other considerations indiscriminately. We need nuance in order to achieve an actual egalitarian society, which much of feminism -- especially statements like "all other organizations are men's organizations" -- beats into the ground with a thousand-pound shovel.
- xixi77 13y ago
  Just looked at the former, and it starts with an example of zero-sum thinking -- namely, that someone's disadvantage is necessarily a source of an advantage for others. Other social justice concepts are apparently also derived from this logical fallacy. I love feminism btw; it has been, and still is, a truly progressive movement, despite it being currently infested with SJW's. The fundamental difference, which results from exactly this zero-sum thinking, is in the approach: are we pulling women up (the conference in question being a great example of that), or are we dragging everyone else down? Are we trying to reduce the gender gap by helping women to increase their value in our society, or do we try to make the society less efficient and reduce everyone's value, just so that the disadvantaged parties feel better?
  - detcader 13y ago
    "are we pulling women up (the conference in question being a great example of that), or are we dragging everyone else down" "everyone else" happens to be men, and plenty of self-identified feminists believe that men need to have power and privilege taken from them, because no one should have the kind of power we do, by nature of the gender caste system. I recommend the first essay, first. "feminism" isn't a monolithic "movement," it's kind of like saying "I love conservatism!"
    - xixi77 13y ago
      That's a good point; the way I see it, the general social justice movement is largely a movement against hierarchy, and for valuing all people equally. It is naturally allied with feminism in the sense that both see the elimination of the gender gap as desirable. I personally consider the SJ concepts destructive and anti-progressive: hierarchy can often be efficient, there is nothing fundamentally immoral about it, and since people's contributions to society are not equal, treating them equally is neither efficient nor just -- similarly to how treating them unequally based on superficial criteria such as gender is inefficient and unfair as well. But, we probably have a philosophical disagreement on this, which is really fine -- I wish the anti-efficiency and anti-growth people would stop calling themselves "progressives" though, but that's quite another topic... I would have absolutely no problem with the feminism/SJ alliance, except for the empirical observation that when you hear someone proclaiming themselves as a feminist, most of the time it's a SJW in disguise, and then we have an unfortunate situation when a valid position is supported by entirely unacceptable arguments... Which is pretty much the reason I felt I had to comment on this, as I don't want people to consider the two concepts as identical.
- reallyseriously 13y ago
  "It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901" How arrogant and condescending.
  - detcader 13y ago
    omigosh, so sorry, I'll be more pleasant next time..

detcader 13y ago

It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901. Perhaps "White Privilege and Male Privilege" by Peggy McIntosh and "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye are good places to start: http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20Privilege.pdf http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20Privile... http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression.pdf http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression...

obstacle1 13y ago
I graduated from a feminist-oriented humanities department where I engaged with these issues critically for a long time. Rather than linking me polemics from 1988 that don't address my point, consider that I disagree with the fundamental positions on a logical basis. If you'd like to engage the points I actually made in my post, feel free.
- detcader 13y ago
  So what you're saying is, you won't read either essay.
  - obstacle1 13y ago
    What I'm saying is explicitly written down in the posts I've made. If you're willing to engage the points I'm actually making, I'll have a discussion with you. If you're just going to throw broad-reaching polemical feminism 101 articles at very specific points, I'm not going to take you seriously. You didn't even state why you think those articles apply to the (again, very specific) point I made.
    - detcader 13y ago
      I thought it would be obvious by just reading the articles. Even in environments where there are a bit more women than men, men still have male privilege (as McIntosh describes it), women are still under oppression (as Frye describes it). Women still fear rape and all other male violence on college campuses, for example. "Majority" makes no difference when it comes to power structures; look at "the 1%" in the US..
- quinnchr 13y ago
  I highly doubt you engaged these issues critically if you seriously don't believe that most institutional structures are dominated by men. Great, student bodies have slightly more women than men. However the vast majority of professors, researchers, and administrators are men. It's the positions of power being dominated by men that makes the institution for men. Much like the positions of power in politics and business are undeniably dominated by men.
  - obstacle1 13y ago
    I didn't say that most institutional structures aren't dominated by men. I don't know whether "most" are or aren't -- neither do you. If you figure out a way to quantify that, let me know. Seems like a research grant in the making. I do know, however, that "every other organization is a men's organization" is a ridiculous statement. Every other organization? Seriously? In order for that to be true, "men's organization" has to be defined in some absolutely meaningless manner where organizations which include women and have women as administrators and are run by women are somehow oppressive "men's organizations". Otherwise the statement is provably false and anyone caught saying it should be instantly discredited. >It's the positions of power being dominated by men that makes the institution for men First off, very few men have access to those positions of power. Men who don't have access to powerful offices still have issues and need protection. If you weren't born rich and to parents with connections, you likely aren't becoming a surgeon general or president or even university president. So in what universe can the entire university be termed a "men's club"? Where do the men without access to institutional power turn for relief? They are not only excluded from what feminists term the "men's club", feminists fight to disallow them from forming groups to fight for their own interests. Double whammy. Lower-class men get universally screwed over in the blind drive to bring "equality" to positions of power. Second, much of feminism ignores the question of why one-to-one gender representation is desirable in the first place for each and every position of power. Why is it a goal in and of itself? In hiring someone to lead an organization, I want the person with the qualifications that best match the job description to be hired. If that turns out to be a man, great. A woman, great. I don't care. There is a job that needs to be done and it should be done well, free from political or ideological influence. There is the argument that even if hiring is completely gender-neutral, if the most qualified people turn out disproportionally men then it is inevitable that male interests will be baked into the system. Well, the man is still the most objectively skilled person for the job maybe you should figure out how to build control mechanisms that prevent male ideologies from perpetuating insidious effects throughout the system, rather than just scream about how men should be barred from the position. Just saying "let's hire more women because they're women" seems like the laziest possible pseudo-solution and doesn't seem to lead to desirable long-term effects. Do we want people running our society who are qualified to do so, or do we want people running society because of gender quotas? Third, there is the question of whether or not these inequalities are systemic because of male oppression or female behavior. It is likely a mix of the two, but feminists completely discount the latter. For example having children is a pretty strong biological drive in human beings. I'm not saying all women want to have children, but a lot do. So maybe some females aren't taking high-powered high-strung positions because they'd rather have kids. The vast majority of high-responsibility positions can't cope with the candidate taking 5 months off for mat leave. There's the issue of "oh the females only want kids because they're socially programmed to slave away as subservient housewives". I don't know, the nuclear family is a pretty strong element of culture and socialization for sure. But it seems unlikely that given our million-plus-year history of a biological drive to have kids that it's all a social construct. Further, that females only have kids because they're brainwashed seems unprovable. There are innumerable other issues I could list but what's common to all of them, in my view, is that they focus so intently on the end goal of elevating women's power status that they bulldoze over all other considerations indiscriminately. We need nuance in order to achieve an actual egalitarian society, which much of feminism -- especially statements like "all other organizations are men's organizations" -- beats into the ground with a thousand-pound shovel.
xixi77 13y ago
Just looked at the former, and it starts with an example of zero-sum thinking -- namely, that someone's disadvantage is necessarily a source of an advantage for others. Other social justice concepts are apparently also derived from this logical fallacy. I love feminism btw; it has been, and still is, a truly progressive movement, despite it being currently infested with SJW's. The fundamental difference, which results from exactly this zero-sum thinking, is in the approach: are we pulling women up (the conference in question being a great example of that), or are we dragging everyone else down? Are we trying to reduce the gender gap by helping women to increase their value in our society, or do we try to make the society less efficient and reduce everyone's value, just so that the disadvantaged parties feel better?
- detcader 13y ago
  "are we pulling women up (the conference in question being a great example of that), or are we dragging everyone else down" "everyone else" happens to be men, and plenty of self-identified feminists believe that men need to have power and privilege taken from them, because no one should have the kind of power we do, by nature of the gender caste system. I recommend the first essay, first. "feminism" isn't a monolithic "movement," it's kind of like saying "I love conservatism!"
  - xixi77 13y ago
    That's a good point; the way I see it, the general social justice movement is largely a movement against hierarchy, and for valuing all people equally. It is naturally allied with feminism in the sense that both see the elimination of the gender gap as desirable. I personally consider the SJ concepts destructive and anti-progressive: hierarchy can often be efficient, there is nothing fundamentally immoral about it, and since people's contributions to society are not equal, treating them equally is neither efficient nor just -- similarly to how treating them unequally based on superficial criteria such as gender is inefficient and unfair as well. But, we probably have a philosophical disagreement on this, which is really fine -- I wish the anti-efficiency and anti-growth people would stop calling themselves "progressives" though, but that's quite another topic... I would have absolutely no problem with the feminism/SJ alliance, except for the empirical observation that when you hear someone proclaiming themselves as a feminist, most of the time it's a SJW in disguise, and then we have an unfortunate situation when a valid position is supported by entirely unacceptable arguments... Which is pretty much the reason I felt I had to comment on this, as I don't want people to consider the two concepts as identical.
reallyseriously 13y ago
"It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901" How arrogant and condescending.
- detcader 13y ago
  omigosh, so sorry, I'll be more pleasant next time..