5 ms·

So your issue with feminism is essentially that it's wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues? Nothing about feminism is orthogonal to addressing

So your issue with feminism is essentially that it's wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues? Nothing about feminism is orthogonal to addressing the needs of men. In fact there is a lot of feminist theory exploring pretty much every single issue you listed, and if you did actually engage the issue critically you'd probably know that.

Domenic_S 13y ago
Hello, Just wanted to tell you that your comments of "if you did actually engage the issue critically..." are obnoxious. Two honest people can read the same literature, learn from the same folks, etc, and come to different conclusions. You're insinuating that if obstacle1 disagrees with you then they are either ignorant or lying about their experience. Not cool.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  No sorry, had the poster actually engaged the issue critically they'd probably at least cite specific sources and literature for the issues they are raising, instead of reciting the same tired criticisms of feminism that are brought up in literally every discussion of feminism ever.
obstacle1 13y ago
Sometimes I think HN has a 2-post memory or something. To remind you, I originally responded to a poster who claimed to "finally understand" feminism when a teacher said, in response to "why can't there be men's organizations", that "every other organization is a men's organization". I'm reacting to that specific kind of feminism, which prohibits addressing men's issues on the assumption that all men are already taken care of by some mythical "men's club". This obviously isn't representative of all feminisms, but it's a pretty common viewpoint here on HN, and it's often accepted uncritically. Note I qualified my talk of feminisms in the previous post with "much of feminism says X", deliberately avoiding saying "feminism says X". It is not wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues. It is wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues exclusively while lying that it also addresses men's issues, subsequently advocating the prohibition of groups that address men's issues. There are streams of feminism that are orthogonal to addressing the needs of men. And I'm addressing those streams specifically. People who say things like "you can't have men's organizations because every other organization is a men's organization" are contributing to these streams.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  I'm sorry but it's patently obvious that "every other organization is a men's organization" is hyperbole. You're making a very forced semantic argument that applies to pretty much everyone. 99.999% of feminists would agree that there are institutions dominated by women, they just happen to be the hyper-minority. You're doing exactly what's done every time a feminist discussion comes up, deliberately misrepresenting feminism in an attempt to discredit it. Please show me these feminists that want to prohibit men from addressing men's issues. Or provide a shred of evidence for any of your claims. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't post tired unsubstantiated bullshit and pretend you've critically engaged the subject.
  - obstacle1 13y ago
    I'm sorry, you're wrong. Semantics are important because the meanings of the words people use are important. If there's one thing feminism should have taught you it's pay attention to the discourse, because the discourse shapes everything around you. Yet here you are telling me to ignore it. Also, you have a messed up vision of what "critical engagement" means. Addressing arguments on a logical basis -- which is what I'm doing -- is a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation. When I tell you that a->b and b->c thus a->c, do you really need me to cite a source? Saying that "every other group is a men's group" directly in response to the question "why don't we need men's groups?" is very explicitly wanting to prohibit men from addressing men's issues. I do not need to cite sources to show that. To placate you, here are just a few examples of certain strands of feminism actively blocking efforts by men to organize for men: "CAFE has attempted to open chapters at several campuses across Canada in the past year, only to be met with heated protests. In June, the Canadian Federation of Students put forth a motion to oppose “men’s rights awareness groups” like CAFE, alleging they “provide environments of sexism, patriarchy and misogyny to manifest and be perpetuated on campus.”" [1] "The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group." [2] University of Toronto feminist group pulls a fire alarm to prevent a men's group lecture from happening, since they couldn't stop the lecture by protest alone. [3] [1] - http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/15/controversial_mens_rights_group_fundraising_for_a_centre_for_men_and_families.html http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/15/controversial_men... [2] - http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/04/01/ryerson-students-union-censors-mens-issues-group/ http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/04/01/ryerson-stu... [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc I'm certain that if you warm up your fingers and do some googling, queries like "X university bans mens group" would provide more such articles from around the world.
reallyseriously 13y ago
Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you calling them a liar and belittling them?
- quinnchr 13y ago
  Yes it's quite possible, as long as the don't lie about and belittle the position they are attacking.
  - obstacle1 13y ago
    Since you're intent on demanding citations, I'll ask you to cite where I lied about and belittled the position I'm attacking. Thanks.

Domenic_S 13y ago

Hello, Just wanted to tell you that your comments of "if you did actually engage the issue critically..." are obnoxious. Two honest people can read the same literature, learn from the same folks, etc, and come to different conclusions. You're insinuating that if obstacle1 disagrees with you then they are either ignorant or lying about their experience. Not cool.

quinnchr 13y ago
No sorry, had the poster actually engaged the issue critically they'd probably at least cite specific sources and literature for the issues they are raising, instead of reciting the same tired criticisms of feminism that are brought up in literally every discussion of feminism ever.

obstacle1 13y ago

Sometimes I think HN has a 2-post memory or something. To remind you, I originally responded to a poster who claimed to "finally understand" feminism when a teacher said, in response to "why can't there be men's organizations", that "every other organization is a men's organization". I'm reacting to that specific kind of feminism, which prohibits addressing men's issues on the assumption that all men are already taken care of by some mythical "men's club". This obviously isn't representative of all feminisms, but it's a pretty common viewpoint here on HN, and it's often accepted uncritically. Note I qualified my talk of feminisms in the previous post with "much of feminism says X", deliberately avoiding saying "feminism says X". It is not wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues. It is wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues exclusively while lying that it also addresses men's issues, subsequently advocating the prohibition of groups that address men's issues. There are streams of feminism that are orthogonal to addressing the needs of men. And I'm addressing those streams specifically. People who say things like "you can't have men's organizations because every other organization is a men's organization" are contributing to these streams.

quinnchr 13y ago
I'm sorry but it's patently obvious that "every other organization is a men's organization" is hyperbole. You're making a very forced semantic argument that applies to pretty much everyone. 99.999% of feminists would agree that there are institutions dominated by women, they just happen to be the hyper-minority. You're doing exactly what's done every time a feminist discussion comes up, deliberately misrepresenting feminism in an attempt to discredit it. Please show me these feminists that want to prohibit men from addressing men's issues. Or provide a shred of evidence for any of your claims. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't post tired unsubstantiated bullshit and pretend you've critically engaged the subject.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  I'm sorry, you're wrong. Semantics are important because the meanings of the words people use are important. If there's one thing feminism should have taught you it's pay attention to the discourse, because the discourse shapes everything around you. Yet here you are telling me to ignore it. Also, you have a messed up vision of what "critical engagement" means. Addressing arguments on a logical basis -- which is what I'm doing -- is a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation. When I tell you that a->b and b->c thus a->c, do you really need me to cite a source? Saying that "every other group is a men's group" directly in response to the question "why don't we need men's groups?" is very explicitly wanting to prohibit men from addressing men's issues. I do not need to cite sources to show that. To placate you, here are just a few examples of certain strands of feminism actively blocking efforts by men to organize for men: "CAFE has attempted to open chapters at several campuses across Canada in the past year, only to be met with heated protests. In June, the Canadian Federation of Students put forth a motion to oppose “men’s rights awareness groups” like CAFE, alleging they “provide environments of sexism, patriarchy and misogyny to manifest and be perpetuated on campus.”" [1] "The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group." [2] University of Toronto feminist group pulls a fire alarm to prevent a men's group lecture from happening, since they couldn't stop the lecture by protest alone. [3] [1] - http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/15/controversial_mens_rights_group_fundraising_for_a_centre_for_men_and_families.html http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/15/controversial_men... [2] - http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/04/01/ryerson-students-union-censors-mens-issues-group/ http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/04/01/ryerson-stu... [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc I'm certain that if you warm up your fingers and do some googling, queries like "X university bans mens group" would provide more such articles from around the world.

reallyseriously 13y ago

Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you calling them a liar and belittling them?

quinnchr 13y ago
Yes it's quite possible, as long as the don't lie about and belittle the position they are attacking.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  Since you're intent on demanding citations, I'll ask you to cite where I lied about and belittled the position I'm attacking. Thanks.