Feminism, Mens Rights and Other Nonsense.

[Kane]

Why is feminism the only right way? If you are a man and even question feminism, you are immediately a misogynist prick. If you are woman and question feminism, you are just stupid and can't stand up for yourself. There can not be a debate of validity of feminism in any public forum, as you will not even be listened to.

Why do we have a men's rights movement? To 'combat' feminism? To combat women? How is men's rights movement any more productive than feminism? Why do men's rights advocates think they have 'the better arguments' when what they do is really the exact same as feminism, just aimed to put men ahead, rather than women.

Why is there so little talk of real equality? Why does no one coin the term "Equalism?" Because frankly, no one gender, group, or race needs equality any less, or any more than another.

What I see happening a lot, is people pitting the rights debate against each other. "It's feminism because most equality issues are women's problems." Even if it was so, it doesn't mean men's equality issues do not exist. The men's rights movement isn't any better, they easily dismiss the equality problems women have without even giving them a proper thought. It's like there is a 'gender war' going on, and the debate is on 'who has the most problems' rather than 'how do we fix the problems that affect everyone?'

One defence for feminism is that it deals with a specific set of issue. Like having a specialist doctor for a specific set of conditions. Indeed, but if this is the case, why are feminists so ready and willing to bash the men's rights movement? I mean, essentially, it's just dealing with a specific set of issues, right? This defence is just easily exposed form of hypocrisy. Men's rights movement might not use this defence, but they are very willing to bash feminism, even when feminists have a valid point. So how does this serve anyone? How is this exactly better than having everyone concentrate on all these issues? How is it better that we have two sides bashing each other? I fail to see the benefits in this, really, help me out, will you?

Another defence for feminism is that it's not exclusive to women. They would be right. Feminism does work to try and stop the forcing of men into their specific gender roles. That is great. However, I've not yet come across a concerned feminist speaking about how men are doing worse at school, for example, or any other issue not directly related to the gender role they are being forced to. Men's rights movement actually has a similar defence, but it's no better for them either.

So really. Why do we have to play for one team or another? I'll tell you why. We want to choose the side that touches us the most. If we feel that the world does women wrong, we want to be feminists. If we feel that world does men wrong, we'll be men's rights activists. We want to fix issues that matter to us personally. Our personal opinions are invested when we look into these issues. However, that's not the way to do things, it will never bring forth a long term resolution to these issues. We must be capable of shedding our own biases, and looking at the bigger picture. We must realize that the world wrongs everyone, and everyone is just as important as each other. Calling a movement Feminism, or men's rights movement, in itself gives the feeling that the opposing gender is not as important. No matter how good your intentions are. We need to focus on gender equality as a whole, not the way we see it through our biased world views.

[Florence]

First off, I think its important to differentiate between feminism and "feminism".

Feminism is the belief and avocation of policies rooted in the belief that men and women are created equal, and deserve to be treated equally. Its called 'feminism' because females are the ones who have been traditionally given unfair treatment in America, and thus it is their rights that need campaigning, not men's.

"Feminism" is the idea that everything bad in the world is entirely the fault of men, that any man will rape any woman given the opportunity, and that essentially anything a man does to even remotely flirt with a woman is inherently sexist and that man is a pig to be ridiculed and made into a pariah.

The former is something I am very much in favor of, the latter is something that makes the former look bad.

Also I find that the vast majority of people campaigning for "men's rights" are angry at having their authority over women challenged, and are stuck in a 1950's sort of mentality. The simple fact is... men's rights don't really need protection. That's not to say we should let men have all their rights trampled on by women... but I struggle to think of any specific issue in which men legitimately face a social injustice that is unique to men.

[Valthazar]

There will always be women who support today's feminism, and those who do not.  You make a good point that many women who do not identify with modern-day feminism (even here on E) are often afraid to post in these sorts of threads, for fear of being judged or ridiculed by other women.

So that's why I wouldn't put much stake into what 'mainstream' trends are suggesting.  Whatever your views are, you will always find others - both men and women - who agree with you.

[Sabby]

I'm an Egalitarian. I want equality for men and women. That's it. I personally detest this emotional blackmail that is 'you are either a Feminist or a sexist'. I refuse to touch the majority of groups that identify as Feminists because of firebrand thinking like this. I'd rather see men and women treated equally, not social justice thuggery.

However, I do recognize that attaining equality right now would involve elevating womens rights to be the same as mens rights. That's not to say that men don't suffer sexism, but the vast majority of sexual inequality effects women.

[Retribution]

This can be taken to most any issue we have today and I have spoken about it in other threads on this forum. With our modern media there seems to be a with us or against us mindset on pick about any topic. We have become largely defined in the press by extremes when most people probably fall someplace in the middle. I am not sure how to fix this, but I suspect it is a large part of the reason most topics seem to be so divisive and if you read the comment thread on about any news story folks seem to be at each other's throats.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I'm a feminist. I don't think men are lesser or that everything is the fault of men (though when you look at a logical time line of the world, most of our major problems we've seen happened when men were in charge, but I think that's more because men are human than because they're men. The problems may not be the same if it had been women in charge all that time, but there would still be problems). I follow what I see as "true" feminism... I want everyone equal. Period. All the same rights. All the same advantages and disadvantages.

I've actually met a considerable amount more "traditional" feminists who think everyone should be equal than I have "feminists" who think men are beneath women. The issue is that the later group is less reasonable and thus louder and drown out the rest of us. They are also far more sensational than the bulk of feminists, so they're the ones that get highlighted by media and the like. It isn't that all or even most feminists are anti-men.

That said, I think the "men's rights" movement is 99% a joke. Most of what is pushed for in this "movement" is the claim that men doing worse in school, in jobs, or just in general happiness because women are pushing to be equal to them, or that more women need to "get back in the kitchen" so men can be men. Never mind the fact that men still have most of the privilege in this country (the US) and most others. I think doing well in school and in your job and just generally being happy is your responsibility, and so blaming it on society and other people is a cop-out.

[Ephiral]

Why is feminism the only right way? If you are a man and even question feminism, you are immediately a misogynist prick. If you are woman and question feminism, you are just stupid and can't stand up for yourself. There can not be a debate of validity of feminism in any public forum, as you will not even be listened to.

When the overwhelming majority of "question the validity" arguments come from harassers and hate groups, it's kinda understandable that you will look like a harasser or hate-group member when you start throwing these arguments around.

Why do we have a men's rights movement? To 'combat' feminism? To combat women? How is men's rights movement any more productive than feminism? Why do men's rights advocates think they have 'the better arguments' when what they do is really the exact same as feminism, just aimed to put men ahead, rather than women.

Whooooooa, there. Telling me MRAs are exactly the same as feminists with a quick s/women/men tells me you know very little about either. The so-called "men's rights movement" is hatred in defense of privilege. Mainstream movement feminism is about the eradication of gender privilege. (Cue the inevitable "But Valerie Solanas! And Andrea Dworkin! And trans-exclusionary radical feminists!" counterpoint. There's a reason I said "mainstream"; that's a tiny fringe actively resisted by the bulk of feminism. This is distinct from MRAs in that... well, can anybody show me a single MRA community that isn't filled to the brim with blatant misogyny?)

Why is there so little talk of real equality? Why does no one coin the term "Equalism?" Because frankly, no one gender, group, or race needs equality any less, or any more than another.

There's plenty of talk of real equality, once you stop defining feminism by what you heard about it from third parties. There are people who call themselves "egalitarian"; in my (admittedly non-universal) experience, this is code for "men's issues are just as all-encompassing and serious as women's issues, so stop spending so much time talking about women!". The facts do not bear this out.

What I see happening a lot, is people pitting the rights debate against each other. "It's feminism because most equality issues are women's problems." Even if it was so, it doesn't mean men's equality issues do not exist. The men's rights movement isn't any better, they easily dismiss the equality problems women have without even giving them a proper thought. It's like there is a 'gender war' going on, and the debate is on 'who has the most problems' rather than 'how do we fix the problems that affect everyone?'

Funfact: There are numerous ongoing discussions within feminist circles, right now, about how gender roles and expectations harm men, how underreported domestic violence against men is, and how we need more men's shelters. A key point in the distinction between feminists and MRAs: Feminists have built shelters. MRAs have instead campaigned for women's shelters to be shut down.

One defence for feminism is that it deals with a specific set of issue. Like having a specialist doctor for a specific set of conditions. Indeed, but if this is the case, why are feminists so ready and willing to bash the men's rights movement? I mean, essentially, it's just dealing with a specific set of issues, right? This defence is just easily exposed form of hypocrisy. Men's rights movement might not use this defence, but they are very willing to bash feminism, even when feminists have a valid point. So how does this serve anyone? How is this exactly better than having everyone concentrate on all these issues? How is it better that we have two sides bashing each other? I fail to see the benefits in this, really, help me out, will you?

Why are feminists willing to bash the men's rights movement? Simple: Show me a single recognized MRA site that isn't full of rape jokes, judging women by their appearance, reference to male feminists as "betas" or "manginas" who are simply trying to get laid, active harassment campaigns against outspoken feminists, etc. Just one.

I won't hold my breath.

Another defence for feminism is that it's not exclusive to women. They would be right. Feminism does work to try and stop the forcing of men into their specific gender roles. That is great. However, I've not yet come across a concerned feminist speaking about how men are doing worse at school, for example, or any other issue not directly related to the gender role they are being forced to. Men's rights movement actually has a similar defence, but it's no better for them either.

Your example is poorly-chosen, but here's an article from a feminist journal that specifically talks about eliminating gender gaps and promoting gender equality in academic performance, without reference to who's over- or under-performing. That's two of your "feminists never talk about this" points countered in a single five-minute Google search.

So really. Why do we have to play for one team or another? I'll tell you why. We want to choose the side that touches us the most. If we feel that the world does women wrong, we want to be feminists. If we feel that world does men wrong, we'll be men's rights activists. We want to fix issues that matter to us personally. Our personal opinions are invested when we look into these issues. However, that's not the way to do things, it will never bring forth a long term resolution to these issues. We must be capable of shedding our own biases, and looking at the bigger picture. We must realize that the world wrongs everyone, and everyone is just as important as each other. Calling a movement Feminism, or men's rights movement, in itself gives the feeling that the opposing gender is not as important. No matter how good your intentions are. We need to focus on gender equality as a whole, not the way we see it through our biased world views.

Exhortations for others to shed their biases and look at the big picture come off as slightly hypocritical when it appears you're informed by significant bias and lack of information. Just sayin'.

[Valthazar]

That said, I think the "men's rights" movement is 99% a joke. Most of what is pushed for in this "movement" is the claim that men doing worse in school, in jobs, or just in general happiness because women are pushing to be equal to them, or that more women need to "get back in the kitchen" so men can be men. Never mind the fact that men still have most of the privilege in this country (the US) and most others.  I think doing well in school and in your job and just generally being happy is your responsibility, and so blaming it on society and other people is a cop-out.

I agree with you.  But if this is the true feminist perspective, then why is our university's administration using affirmative action methods to prevent our male enrollment from dipping below 40%?  I have frequently said that there are no problems with more women entering than men, since they are better qualified now, it seems.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I agree with you.  But if this is the true feminist perspective, then why is our university's administration using affirmative action methods to prevent our male enrollment from dipping below 40%?  I have frequently said that there are no problems with more women entering than men, since they are better qualified now, it seems.

I can't presume to know why your university's administration is doing what they're doing, but my guess would be that they are trying to keep an appearance of "balance" so as to keep the largest number of people possible happy and interested in the school. If people start thinking that they're purposefully accepting more women than men, then they lose funding. This is the same principle behind the affirmative action we saw a lot of schools start making when the feminist movement got big and schools were pushing to bring in more women and even out the numbers. It looks better to those who give money.

[Kythia]

But if this is the true feminist perspective, then why is our university's administration using affirmative action methods to prevent our male enrollment from dipping below 40%? 

Have you tried asking them instead of us?  My guess would be something along the lines of "Feminism, true, "true" or otherwise, is in no way a factor in out admissions policy."

[Kane]

First off, I think its important to differentiate between feminism and "feminism".

Feminism is the belief and avocation of policies rooted in the belief that men and women are created equal, and deserve to be treated equally. Its called 'feminism' because females are the ones who have been traditionally given unfair treatment in America, and thus it is their rights that need campaigning, not men's.

I addressed this point. Either way, even if it is a legitimate point for some people identifying as feminists it still does not evade the fact that calling it feminism automatically gives the sense that one gender is more important than the other, no matter how good the intentions of the feminist may be.

Calling it feminism, causes a large portion of people simply overlook the issues men might be facing.

Also I find that the vast majority of people campaigning for "men's rights" are angry at having their authority over women challenged, and are stuck in a 1950's sort of mentality. The simple fact is... men's rights don't really need protection. That's not to say we should let men have all their rights trampled on by women... but I struggle to think of any specific issue in which men legitimately face a social injustice that is unique to men.

Actually, no. Most people I see advocating men's rights movement are perfectly rational about it, and not angry whatsoever. What you are saying is the exact word to word description of the men's rights movement, that you would hear from a feminist. In the other hand, you would hear just as dismissive of an opinion of feminism from men's rights advocate. I stress here neither of these groups are trying to make anyone's lives more dificult, both are trying to address gender equality issues, but both are being incredibly biased about their opinions.

Specific social injustices unique to men:
"Man up, don't whine." Men are not allowed to complain - This among other gender specific social problems leads to men committing more than 80% of all suicides. Committing three times more suicides is a problem unique to men. This is possibly the largest issue, that goes around all aspects of a man's life.

Men are 30% less likely to graduate from High School.

Men are more likely to get longer sentences for the same crime.

Men are more than twice as likely to be homeless. (Have you ever heard of 'men's shelter?')

Men are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide, more likely to be the victim of an assault, and just as likely to be the victim of domestic abuse. (Except in children, boys are more likely to be abused physically than girls, 60% of all physical abuse in children is directed toward males. Sexual abuse is pretty much 50/50 in case you were wondering)

Men are less likely to get the custody of their children.

Men are less valuable: On average, when a man is killed in a traffic accident, the sentence for the driver is 56% longer than when a woman is killed. (Traffic accidents are a good way to measure, because in other kind of homicides, we could wonder if women are more cruelly murdered.) Western governments spend much more money on women's health issues than men's, despite the fact men are more likely to die early, due to a health issue.

Now do not take me wrong, I am simply pointing out men have a plethora of unique issues I can throw out there without even thinking. If you ask me, I do think there are more women's issues out there than men's issues, especially if we take a global view of things. I could list even more of those here, but I won't, since no one was questioning it. We all know they are there. That doesn't justify naming 'equality' after one gender. It's like we'd name racism after the fact that people from the African origin get way more stick than anyone else. The naming, while it seems like an innocent little thing, makes all the difference, it devaluates the problems of everyone else.

[meikle]

It was an MRA thread in disguise all along!  Who could have predicted?

[Kythia]

That doesn't justify naming 'equality' after one gender. It's like we'd name racism after the fact that people from the African origin get way more stick than anyone else. The naming, while it seems like an innocent little thing, makes all the difference, it devaluates the problems of everyone else.

The "ism" in question is sexism, not feminism.

[Valthazar]

Have you tried asking them instead of us?  My guess would be something along the lines of "Feminism, true, "true" or otherwise, is in no way a factor in out admissions policy."

Oh I'm aware of the reason why, I was just interested in Bloodied Porcerlain's perspective as a feminist.  We have had meetings about this issue, and it troubles most of us that we have to have to implement such a policy.  Our university has a strong Women and Gender Studies department, which is why administratively, it is a bit disconcerting that we have to take a lower qualified male student over a strongly qualified female student in many cases.

[Nadir]

Specific social injustices unique to men:
"Man up, don't whine." Men are not allowed to complain - This among other gender specific social problems leads to men committing more than 80% of all suicides. Committing three times more suicides is a problem unique to men. This is possibly the largest issue, that goes around all aspects of a man's life.

This reminds me of a video, created by a group of feminists, who look into this type of emotional suppressive behaviour. This is the trailer for it - The Mask You Live In.

Also, cite your sources. You put out a lot of numbers, I would like to see where you pulled them from

[Avis habilis]

"Man up, don't whine." Men are not allowed to complain - This among other gender specific social problems leads to men committing more than 80% of all suicides. Committing three times more suicides is a problem unique to men. This is possibly the largest issue, that goes around all aspects of a man's life.

Which is sexist gender essentialism, which is what feminism is trying to stamp out.

Men are more than twice as likely to be homeless. (Have you ever heard of 'men's shelter?')

Yes.

Men are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide, more likely to be the victim of an assault, and just as likely to be the victim of domestic abuse. (Except in children, boys are more likely to be abused physically than girls, 60% of all physical abuse in children is directed toward males. Sexual abuse is pretty much 50/50 in case you were wondering)

Which feminist groups are trying to stamp out & MRAs express no interest in doing anything about. It's just fodder for cries of "see, we have it exactly as tough as you do so STFU women".

Men are less likely to get the custody of their children.

Because women are assumed to be the natural nurturing parent, which is sexist gender essentialism, which is what feminism is trying to stamp out.

[Sabby]

It's just fodder for cries of "see, we have it exactly as tough as you do so STFU women".

Could you please provide a direct quote of Kane saying anything like that? I believe all he has tried to say is that gender inequality issues do exist for men, and that they are just as worthy of attention and recognition as womens inequality issues. Trying to make it sound like he's saying 'men have it just as rough' is incredibly dishonest of you.

Edit: Appears I misunderstood Avis. Basically, it read to me as if he were asserting that Kane had said 'we have it just as tough', rather then MRA groups. I reread his post multiple times and it just refused to click in my head. I really have no idea how that happened. Apologies.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Could you please provide a direct quote of Kane saying anything like that? I believe all he has tried to say is that gender inequality issues do exist for men, and that they are just as worthy of attention and recognition as womens inequality issues. Trying to make it sound like he's saying 'men have it just as rough' is incredibly dishonest of you.

See the first half of his response to that issue. Removing the first half is incredibly dishonest of you.

Which feminist groups are trying to stamp out & MRAs express no interest in doing anything about. It's just fodder for cries of "see, we have it exactly as tough as you do so STFU women".

[Nico]

Men are more than twice as likely to be homeless. (Have you ever heard of 'men's shelter?')

I know of at least three Men's shelters in my town.

[Kythia]

Could you please provide a direct quote of Kane saying anything like that? I believe all he has tried to say is that gender inequality issues do exist for men, and that they are just as worthy of attention and recognition as womens inequality issues. Trying to make it sound like he's saying 'men have it just as rough' is incredibly dishonest of you.

Avis was referring to MRAs, not Kane.  "It's just fodder [for MRA groups] for cries of..."  The full quote explains that.

[Avis habilis]

For anyone actually interested in what anyone's actually doing about the issues Kane raised, check out part four of this (long but useful) essay: http://www.autostraddle.com/helpful-advice-for-talking-to-men-who-think-misandry-is-a-thing-170632/

[Florence]

I addressed this point. Either way, even if it is a legitimate point for some people identifying as feminists it still does not evade the fact that calling it feminism automatically gives the sense that one gender is more important than the other, no matter how good the intentions of the feminist may be.

Calling it feminism, causes a large portion of people simply overlook the issues men might be facing.
Actually, no. Most people I see advocating men's rights movement are perfectly rational about it, and not angry whatsoever. What you are saying is the exact word to word description of the men's rights movement, that you would hear from a feminist. In the other hand, you would hear just as dismissive of an opinion of feminism from men's rights advocate. I stress here neither of these groups are trying to make anyone's lives more dificult, both are trying to address gender equality issues, but both are being incredibly biased about their opinions.

Specific social injustices unique to men:
"Man up, don't whine." Men are not allowed to complain - This among other gender specific social problems leads to men committing more than 80% of all suicides. Committing three times more suicides is a problem unique to men. This is possibly the largest issue, that goes around all aspects of a man's life.

Men are 30% less likely to graduate from High School.

Men are more likely to get longer sentences for the same crime.

Men are more than twice as likely to be homeless. (Have you ever heard of 'men's shelter?')

Men are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide, more likely to be the victim of an assault, and just as likely to be the victim of domestic abuse. (Except in children, boys are more likely to be abused physically than girls, 60% of all physical abuse in children is directed toward males. Sexual abuse is pretty much 50/50 in case you were wondering)

Men are less likely to get the custody of their children.

Men are less valuable: On average, when a man is killed in a traffic accident, the sentence for the driver is 56% longer than when a woman is killed. (Traffic accidents are a good way to measure, because in other kind of homicides, we could wonder if women are more cruelly murdered.) Western governments spend much more money on women's health issues than men's, despite the fact men are more likely to die early, due to a health issue.

Now do not take me wrong, I am simply pointing out men have a plethora of unique issues I can throw out there without even thinking. If you ask me, I do think there are more women's issues out there than men's issues, especially if we take a global view of things. I could list even more of those here, but I won't, since no one was questioning it. We all know they are there. That doesn't justify naming 'equality' after one gender. It's like we'd name racism after the fact that people from the African origin get way more stick than anyone else. The naming, while it seems like an innocent little thing, makes all the difference, it devaluates the problems of everyone else.

I'm HIGHLY skeptical of those statistics, especially the abuse ones. I have no doubt that domestic abuse, as well as sexual abuse towards men are horrifically under reported, but for that exact reason, I'm curious how someone figured it was a 50/50 split.

As for the health costs, just throwing this out there, but if they're including pregnancy and pregnancy related issues into that, then there might be your culprit. Last I checked, men generally don't have to take extended hospital stays to pop out a little human.

But yes, as others have said, I'd like to see sources for these statistics.

[Valthazar]

My only suggestion to the Men's Rights Advocates in this thread is to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that all women are feminists.  They may not be as prominent, but many women actually agree with what you are saying.

For example, Alyssa Condrey, Director of the Network of Enlightened Women says that, “A lot of times, more radical feminism has a victim mentality.  They want to totally isolate and separate themselves from men. We don’t agree with that.” (Source)

Respect the views of feminists, while at the same time, we should feel free to hold our own views.

[Kane]

When the overwhelming majority of "question the validity" arguments come from harassers and hate groups, it's kinda understandable that you will look
like a harasser or hate-group member when you start throwing these arguments around.

Invalid justification, just because majority of people are douchebags, that desn't mean you can just dismiss everything on that notion. No, it's not understandable. You can't even begin a debate without any hate-mongering intended without getting branded as a misogynist. I don't even advocate men's rights movement. I think it goes in the ridiculous bin most of the time, yet just saying it should be equalism, rather than feminism gets me branded as misogynist every time I open my mouth.

Whooooooa, there. Telling me MRAs are exactly the same as feminists with a quick s/women/men tells me you know very little about either. The so-called "men's rights movement" is hatred in defense of privilege. Mainstream movement feminism is about the eradication of gender privilege. (Cue the inevitable "But Valerie Solanas! And Andrea Dworkin! And trans-exclusionary radical feminists!" counterpoint. There's a reason I said "mainstream"; that's a tiny fringe actively resisted by the bulk of feminism. This is distinct from MRAs in that... well, can anybody show me a single MRA community that isn't filled to the brim with blatant misogyny?)

You are doing exactly what people do to Feminism. "Whooooaaaa There! Feminists are firebreathing monsters that want to cut your balls off!" Type of a thing. Just because these guys are the most audible of the mens rights movement, doesn't make the movement any more horrendous than feminism. It is just like feminism, just concentrated on different side of the coin. Mens rights movement is also concerned with women's rights, funny enough. Most men's rights supporters I ever met were quite reasonable. Of course you run into the misogynist pricks time and again, but branding the whole movement on that basis is just as bad as branding feminism on that basis. Even the reasonable members of both groups brand each other the worst possible thing, and it is utterly ridiculous.

There's plenty of talk of real equality, once you stop defining feminism by what you heard about it from third parties. There are people who call themselves "egalitarian"; in my (admittedly non-universal) experience, this is code for "men's issues are just as all-encompassing and serious as women's issues, so stop spending so much time talking about women!". The facts do not bear this out.

Globally, there are certainly more women's issues than men's issues, I never claimed anything else, do not straw-man me and think I won't catch onto it, please. This doesn't remove the fact that calling it feminism devaluates the issues men have, whether they are less numerous or not. This is simply a psychological thing. It bases on no logic, but believe me, psychology plays a great part in these issues.

Funfact: There are numerous ongoing discussions within feminist circles, right now, about how gender roles and expectations harm men, how underreported domestic violence against men is, and how we need more men's shelters. A key point in the distinction between feminists and MRAs: Feminists have built shelters. MRAs have instead campaigned for women's shelters to be shut down.

Yes, yes there is. And I applaud feminists for that. However, the -only- mens issues- they do deal with, have to do with the -gender roles- so far as I've ever read anywhere. If you can show me anything, just one thing that proves me wrong here, I'd be glad to read it. Other than that, did I ever say that MRA is somehow better than Feminism, because you are speaking like I just did? MRA might well be worse than feminism, but it doesn't change the point that I believe both of them are nonsense as much as each other.

Why are feminists willing to bash the men's rights movement? Simple: Show me a single recognized MRA site that isn't full of rape jokes, judging women by their appearance, reference to male feminists as "betas" or "manginas" who are simply trying to get laid, active harassment campaigns against outspoken feminists, etc. Just one.

Recognized MRA site? I like to use the quote. "Never have so many come together and accomplished so little" When speaking of MRA. There aren't any recognized MRA sites, MRA is as organized as a herd of headless chickens.

Your example is poorly-chosen, but here's an article from a feminist journal that specifically talks about eliminating gender gaps and promoting gender equality in academic performance, without reference to who's over- or under-performing. That's two of your "feminists never talk about this" points countered in a single five-minute Google search.

So you linked me to one article that made no mention to the fact that boys perform worse than girls in schools, and one that claims it's all a myth. How does this exactly disprove my point? Unless you can actually point out where does it say in either of the texts that there is an issue here with boys performing worse.

I won't hold my breath.

Exhortations for others to shed their biases and look at the big picture come off as slightly hypocritical when it appears you're informed by significant bias and lack of information. Just sayin'.

Lack of information would have nothing to do with being biased. Not that I have a lack of information, but either way. Can you tell me what is exactly my bias here? Because I fail to see your point. The fact that I see Feminism and MRA equally nonsensical? I'm sorry, but I'm not biased to either direction. Or is it biased to think that everyone should have equality, and equality shouldn't be labeled under a gender specific term. What is this perceived bias towards exactly?

[Sabby]

Avis was referring to MRAs, not Kane.  "It's just fodder [for MRA groups] for cries of..."  The full quote explains that.

Apologies, but it really doesn't read that way to me. Kane listed some statistics, and Avis dismissed them. If he meant that the statistics are highly questionable and created by MRA's for an agenda, that's a completely valid objection, I just didn't see that being conveyed.

[Avis habilis]

Kane listed some statistics, and Avis dismissed them.

No. I pointed out that feminist groups are the only ones undertaking any action to remedy the social ills he's complaining about.

[meikle]

However, the -only- mens issues- they do deal with, have to do with the -gender roles- so far as I've ever read anywhere. If you can show me anything, just one thing that proves me wrong here, I'd be glad to read it.

Codified & enforced genderroles are kind of a root-cause thing in pretty much any significant disparity in privilege & rights & protections between men and women, so yeah, pretty much everything comes back to it.

[Sabby]

Wait, nevermind, I see my error here. I retract my statements. Apologies.

[Lux12]

Well  the truth is men aren't being oppressed by anyone other than other men. Patriarchy hurts men too in some regards because it means that patriarchy not only tries to force women into fitting one strict and false definition but also men. However the problems men faced are eclipsed by those of women. Men despite the existence of laws and changing social values still make more than women for doing the same work. Women are slut shamed where men are praised by society for sexual prowess. The bulk of domestic violence, especially the most severe forms are leveled against women. Society continues to treat being feminine as equivalent to being less valuable. Do I need to mention these legal clauses that people are trying to use to control women's bodies? The standards of beauty imposed on women are more strict than those imposed on men and even the brightest and most talented women run the risk of being more valued for sex appeal than anything else. Women are still actively discouraged from pursuing careers that society deems "masculine". In countries around the world, little girls are killed because they were not born as sons. Women's spirituality is still heavily under emphasized outside of many neo-pagan traditions and sects. Even some places where both the Mother and the Father are still honored women may still face oppression in their spiritual lives. Similarly, in research of social varieties, male subjects are usually focused on instead of female and thus data becomes flawed.

I can keep going on with the list of problems in our society. However it should be clear by now that the need for an individual masculinist movement is pretty much null. The way I see it men need only fear oppression from other men and feminism is a movement working to eradicate patriarchy which will further liberate everyone.

[Kane]

It was an MRA thread in disguise all along!  Who could have predicted?

You are making a great point there, thank you for the ad-hominem attack, it really opened my eyes.

Which feminist groups are trying to stamp out & MRAs express no interest in doing anything about. It's just fodder for cries of "see, we have it exactly as tough as you do so STFU women".

This list was compiled to point out there are issues unique to men. Nothing else. Not to advocate MRA. I do not advocate MRA. Do I have to speak in one syllable sentences here?

I know of at least three Men's shelters in my town.

There are men's shelters. My point wasn't that. My point was that there are issues unique to men. Quote mining is not really helpful to any debate.

For anyone actually interested in what anyone's actually doing about the issues Kane raised, check out part four of this (long but useful) essay: http://www.autostraddle.com/helpful-advice-for-talking-to-men-who-think-misandry-is-a-thing-170632/

Would be a great read if I thought 'misandry' was a thing. Nowhere did I ever say so.

My only suggestion to the Men's Rights Advocates in this thread is to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that all women are feminists.  They may not be as prominent, but many women actually agree with what you are saying.

For example, Alyssa Condrey, Director of the Network of Enlightened Women says that, “A lot of times, more radical feminism has a victim mentality.  They want to totally isolate and separate themselves from men. We don’t agree with that.” (Source)

Respect the views of feminists, while at the same time, we should feel free to hold our own views.

I'm not a MRA. I will keep repeating this as long as I have to. I believe there are more women's issues than mens issues. I also know, for a fact, that the psychological implication of calling Equality "Feminism" Is that men's problems get devaluated. No matter how good of a job feminists are doing.

Sources: (No MRA sites!)

Gender in education: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/21/new-book-explains-why-women-outpace-men-education

Prison terms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

Homelessness: http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homeless-diff-groups.html

Homicide, violence http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html

Boys more likely to be physically abused. http://www.washington.edu/news/2000/04/13/older-children-boys-more-likely-to-be-physically-abused-in-families-with-history-of-wife-abuse-study-indicates/

Gender ratio on child sexual abuse (boys 48%, girls 52%) http://www.onhealth.com/child_abuse/page2.htm

Men less valuable in justice system: http://www.nber.org/digest/aug00/w7676.html

Health spending: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/men-die-earlier-but-womens-health-gets-four-times-more-funding/story-fneuzlbd-1226794504245 (You aren't telling me that pregnancy alone explains 'four times' the spending?)

Again, there are more women's issues than men's issues, everyone knows this. I only brought these up since someone said there are no unique problems to men.


ALSO, I DO NOT ADVOCATE MRA!

[Avis habilis]

Wait, nevermind, I see my error here. I retract my statements. Apologies.

Hey, thanks man! I salute your willingness to say so.

[Sabby]

I edited my original post to clarify, I hope that helps to clear things up. I am very confused as to how I goofed this.

[meikle]

You are making a great point there, thank you for the ad-hominem attack, it really opened my eyes.

It has to be an argument for it to be fallacious!

Do you consider it an attack to be called an MRA?  I guess I would too.

[Ephiral]

Invalid justification, just because majority of people are douchebags, that desn't mean you can just dismiss everything on that notion. No, it's not understandable. You can't even begin a debate without any hate-mongering intended without getting branded as a misogynist. I don't even advocate men's rights movement. I think it goes in the ridiculous bin most of the time, yet just saying it should be equalism, rather than feminism gets me branded as misogynist every time I open my mouth.

"Is feminism valid?" is a question that comes from MRAs and their sympathisers an overwhelming majority of the time. It's not reason to dismiss someone out of hand - I engaged, didn't I? - but it's reason to be highly skeptical and more than a little wary.

You are doing exactly what people do to Feminism. "Whooooaaaa There! Feminists are firebreathing monsters that want to cut your balls off!" Type of a thing. Just because these guys are the most audible of the mens rights movement, doesn't make the movement any more horrendous than feminism. It is just like feminism, just concentrated on different side of the coin. Mens rights movement is also concerned with women's rights, funny enough. Most men's rights supporters I ever met were quite reasonable. Of course you run into the misogynist pricks time and again, but branding the whole movement on that basis is just as bad as branding feminism on that basis. Even the reasonable members of both groups brand each other the worst possible thing, and it is utterly ridiculous.

So if the mainstream MRA movement is so utterly reasonable and non-poisonous, you have that single, solitary example I was looking for earlier, right? I've gone looking. I've been unable to find it. I would love to be forced to reevaluate here.

Globally, there are certainly more women's issues than men's issues, I never claimed anything else, do not straw-man me and think I won't catch onto it, please. This doesn't remove the fact that calling it feminism devaluates the issues men have, whether they are less numerous or not. This is simply a psychological thing. It bases on no logic, but believe me, psychology plays a great part in these issues.

I never accused you of saying anything. I have said what tends to come from people who call themselves egalitarians. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do and then of straw-manning in the same breath. Feminism doesn't devalue men's issues - it is, a huge chunk of the time, the only social-justice movement actually doing anything about them.

Yes, yes there is. And I applaud feminists for that. However, the -only- mens issues- they do deal with, have to do with the -gender roles- so far as I've ever read anywhere. If you can show me anything, just one thing that proves me wrong here, I'd be glad to read it. Other than that, did I ever say that MRA is somehow better than Feminism, because you are speaking like I just did? MRA might well be worse than feminism, but it doesn't change the point that I believe both of them are nonsense as much as each other.

All of the issues you have cited so far, every single one, has societal expectations and gender roles as a root cause. You really think the symptom is more worthy of treatment than the disease? As to the rest, you didn't paint MRAs as superior; you drew a false equivalence. One is a sea of toxicity that accomplishes nothing but poisoning the well, the other actually does shit.

Recognized MRA site? I like to use the quote. "Never have so many come together and accomplished so little" When speaking of MRA. There aren't any recognized MRA sites, MRA is as organized as a herd of headless chickens.

Tell that to A Voice For Men sometime.

So you linked me to one article that made no mention to the fact that boys perform worse than girls in schools, and one that claims it's all a myth. How does this exactly disprove my point? Unless you can actually point out where does it say in either of the texts that there is an issue here with boys performing worse.

Academic research is more credible than your uncited claim. When the research points to your claim being inaccurate, that's... well, that's what "disprove" means. The other article: If you truly believe that there is a gender gap between boys and girls, and that boys are on the underperforming side of it, then how exactly is a paper that studies and seeks to eliminate gender gaps not relevant? Either boys are not underperforming, or this article addresses the issue of boys underperforming; either way, your claim is addressed. As is your claim that feminism stands in opposition to equality.

Lack of information would have nothing to do with being biased. Not that I have a lack of information, but either way. Can you tell me what is exactly my bias here? Because I fail to see your point. The fact that I see Feminism and MRA equally nonsensical? I'm sorry, but I'm not biased to either direction. Or is it biased to think that everyone should have equality, and equality shouldn't be labeled under a gender specific term. What is this perceived bias towards exactly?

Lack of information makes it rather difficult to eliminate bias, since the alternative to bias is deciding on evidence. The rest is a false dichotomy; your bias is clearly toward the inherent superiority of your own position, facts be damned.

[Kane]

It has to be an argument for it to be fallacious!

Do you consider it an attack to be called an MRA?  I guess I would too.

I consider it an attack to be called MRA when I've repeatedly said I am not. I would also consider it an attack to be called Feminist when I am not. (I'm sure if we found an MRA member angry enough around here, they could come and tell me that too.) (I suppose people can define what I advocate as feminism, but that's not how I want it to be called.)

Anyway, you are right, that was just plain old name calling on your part. I stand corrected.

[Kythia]

I'm not a MRA. I will keep repeating this as long as I have to. I believe there are more women's issues than mens issues. I also know, for a fact, that the psychological implication of calling Equality "Feminism" Is that men's problems get devaluated. No matter how good of a job feminists are doing.

Once again, no one is calling equality "feminism".  People are calling feminism "feminism" and equality "equality". 

[Nadir]

Thanks for the sources. Interesting you had to hop across several continents to gather them - I don't think they can all be applied to a single country so the idea that they are all afflicting one culture doesn't quite hold.

[Kane]

So if the mainstream MRA movement is so utterly reasonable and non-poisonous, you have that single, solitary example I was looking for earlier, right? I've gone looking. I've been unable to find it. I would love to be forced to reevaluate here.

Frankly, I've done very little research on MRA. It doesn't interest me. I have spoken to some of its advocates, all I'm saying those people weren't being poisonous, in fact they were saying largely what I was saying, to which I responded that whatever they are trying to achieve will not be achieved any better under the banner of MRA, than it would under the banner of feminism. I never said their sites are not poisonous, I was speaking from personal experience.

I never accused you of saying anything. I have said what tends to come from people who call themselves egalitarians. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do and then of straw-manning in the same breath. Feminism doesn't devalue men's issues - it is, a huge chunk of the time, the only social-justice movement actually doing anything about them.

Again, it doesn't matter whether feminism devaluates men's issues or not in its philosophy, when it does so in its name. I don't get it how this basic psychological message fails to go unnoticed constantly. It's like saying "Fatfree diet, but actually we advocate a diet that's balanced in its energy consumption." Even if it was true, that name would still have people think "Well, that's crazy!"

All of the issues you have cited so far, every single one, has societal expectations and gender roles as a root cause. You really think the symptom is more worthy of treatment than the disease? As to the rest, you didn't paint MRAs as superior; you drew a false equivalence. One is a sea of toxicity that accomplishes nothing but poisoning the well, the other actually does shit.

How should MRA ever achieve anything, the people who are sensible, are afraid to organize in fear of being branded as misogynist pricks for even mentioning their point of view. The people who do organize, are misogynistic pricks who don't care about being branded as such.

Tell that to A Voice For Men sometime.

I would compare that to Jezebel. Do you think Jezebel speaks for Feminism very well?

Academic research is more credible than your uncited claim. When the research points to your claim being inaccurate, that's... well, that's what "disprove" means. The other article: If you truly believe that there is a gender gap between boys and girls, and that boys are on the underperforming side of it, then how exactly is a paper that studies and seeks to eliminate gender gaps not relevant? Either boys are not underperforming, or this article addresses the issue of boys underperforming; either way, your claim is addressed. As is your claim that feminism stands in opposition to equality.

I provide sources in my last post. Have you ever heard of a biased study? I mean, when a person of a certain movement makes a study regarding problems that don't really suit the ethos of their movement? And finds out all the problems that were supposed to be there, according to a multitude of studies, suddenly aren't there. That's called biased. It doesn't address any points.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/07/07/women/
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11542-eng.htm
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/29/women-more-likely-than-men-to-graduate-college-at-22/

Just because you have sources doesn't mean they are infallible.

I also did not claim feminism stands as an opposition to equality. Though a lot of the time, certain strands of it do. Just riddle me this: There is an extreme fringe of feminism, the fire breathing dragons fringe. It is not a big one, and it does not represent feminism as it is, but it is there, and it is vocal.

Now imagine an extreme fringe of equalism. What do they want? More equality for everyone? I mean, you can't twist that to your own meanings, equality is just that, equality. Sure you can try to twist the agenda, but at least we're rid of the psychological implication of the name.

Lack of information makes it rather difficult to eliminate bias, since the alternative to bias is deciding on evidence. The rest is a false dichotomy; your bias is clearly toward the inherent superiority of your own position, facts be damned.

I am certain that the position of equality for equality's sake is superior to any other position that wants to drive equality, when the goal is to drive onwards equality. Yes. How could it not be? Besides, I've provided sources for whatever I've said, so no, facts aren't to be damned.

Thanks for the sources. Interesting you had to hop across several continents to gather them - I don't think they can all be applied to a single country so the idea that they are all afflicting one culture doesn't quite hold.

They are all applied to western countries, in western culture. There isn't much difference. I could do more researching to get you the sources you want, but I'm sure someone would say. "That study was done in Chicago, Chicago sucks anyway."

Once again, no one is calling equality "feminism".  People are calling feminism "feminism" and equality "equality". 

So what is feminism then? If it's not to drive onwards equality, then what is its purpose? As I understand, most moderate feminists would describe it as a pursuit for equality.

Either way, my biggest gripe with feminism is sill the fact that if you don't identify as feminist, you are a misogynist prick. If you even question it, question anything that is said in the name of feminism, you are a misogynist prick. Unless you are a woman, you are an idiot who can't stand up for themselves. This is what you'll face any time you even mention your view point in public, guaranteed.

[Deamonbane]

It's a well known fact that if you go so far as to 'Choose sides' it's very clear that equality is very far from your mind. I will grant you that there are pigs of men that will see women as nothing more than how their kitchens remain clean, how their food is put on their tables and somewhere to put their penises in when they are horny. On the other side of he spectrum, there are men that work hard at menial jobs that they will never be happy at to make sure that wives and children are well cared for. When feminists speak of equality in the work place they are very happy to point out the positions of CEOs and high-paying positions that have fewer women there, but they fail to mention the small menial, hard jobs like taxi-driving, trash collecting, ditch digging, grave-digging etc that women won't touch because they aren't well paying enough, and might just be below them.

The fact that you pick a side means that equality is not what you have in mind. As much as women like to think it, they aren't the same as men. Men and women are different, and there are pros and cons to both genders. It doesn't make one side stronger or weaker than the other, it just makes them different.

[Kythia]

So what is feminism then? If it's not to drive onwards equality, then what is its purpose? As I understand, most moderate feminists would describe it as a pursuit for equality.

I don't believe you honestly can't see the difference between something being a pursuit for equality and being equality itself.

[Kane]

I don't believe you honestly can't see the difference between something being a pursuit for equality and being equality itself.

Semantics.

And I might disagree with Deamonbane to some degree, but he does make a good point.

The fact you have to pick up a side. The fact you can't just speak about equality for all, but have to name it feminism. The fact this name feminism is so sacred, so untouchable, unquestionable even. That fact alone says something, does it not?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

When feminists speak of equality in the work place they are very happy to point out the positions of CEOs and high-paying positions that have fewer women there, but they fail to mention the small menial, hard jobs like taxi-driving, trash collecting, ditch digging, grave-digging etc that women won't touch because they aren't well paying enough, and might just be below them.

This isn't something specific to women. There are men and women who feel that a job is "beneath" them because of the pay. I can't count the number of young men and women who turn up their noses at menial labor jobs because they feel it is somehow "beneath" them. There are also plenty of jobs most men won't touch with a ten foot pole for the same reasons (and even more reasons than just money... reason's like it's a "womans" job) like maids, nannies, etc.

This isn't a gender issue. It's an entitlement issue.

[Kythia]

Semantics.

And I might disagree with Deamonbane to some degree, but he does make a good point.

The fact you have to pick up a side. The fact you can't just speak about equality for all, but have to name it feminism. The fact this name feminism is so sacred, so untouchable, unquestionable even. That fact alone says something, does it not?

No. 

I'm at a loss to know what you think it does, to be honest. 

Do you believe the US NAACP is opposed to racism or just racism as it affects "Coloured People".  Do you believe that Child Welfare organisations think that adults can go fuck themselves?  Do you believe that campus LGBT societies are gay supremacists?

EDIT:  Further, your entire argument is based on the semantics of the word feminism.  I'm not sure dismissing counters with a breezy "semantics" is valid.  We are discussing semantics.

[Ephiral]

Frankly, I've done very little research on MRA. It doesn't interest me. I have spoken to some of its advocates, all I'm saying those people weren't being poisonous, in fact they were saying largely what I was saying, to which I responded that whatever they are trying to achieve will not be achieved any better under the banner of MRA, than it would under the banner of feminism. I never said their sites are not poisonous, I was speaking from personal experience.

So you've self-admittedly done little research, but hold yourself out as very informed?

Again, it doesn't matter whether feminism devaluates men's issues or not in its philosophy, when it does so in its name. I don't get it how this basic psychological message fails to go unnoticed constantly. It's like saying "Fatfree diet, but actually we advocate a diet that's balanced in its energy consumption." Even if it was true, that name would still have people think "Well, that's crazy!"

A name that acnowledges the history of the movement and the valuable contribution of those who came before seems worthwhile to me. If people are going to reject the movement based solely on its name, they were never interested in seriously considering it in the first place. This is the clearest example of motivated stopping I've ever seen.

How should MRA ever achieve anything, the people who are sensible, are afraid to organize in fear of being branded as misogynist pricks for even mentioning their point of view. The people who do organize, are misogynistic pricks who don't care about being branded as such.

Funny, I know a lot of sensible people who speak about some of the issues you cite and seek to address the problem, are part of an organized movement, and aren't branded as misogynist pricks. Quite the opposite. True, they don't do so under the banner of "men's rights", but that's because that label has been pretty much entirely coopted by misogynist pricks. Sort of like how, even if people are hard-left socialists in favour of a strong national identity and government, they're not going to call themselves "National Socialists", because the well's been poisoned there.

Feminism has room in it for people such as you describe.

I would compare that to Jezebel. Do you think Jezebel speaks for Feminism very well?

Not terribly so, but it gets significantly higher marks than any MRA site I've ever seen.

I provide sources in my last post. Have you ever heard of a biased study? I mean, when a person of a certain movement makes a study regarding problems that don't really suit the ethos of their movement? And finds out all the problems that were supposed to be there, according to a multitude of studies, suddenly aren't there. That's called biased. It doesn't address any points.

Um. You may want to look again. My second link, the one discussing the elimination of gender gaps, was in a feminist journal. My first one, questioning the existence of such gaps, was from the UK Department for Education. Are you claiming that's a feminist movement? I note that you're not disputing my actual rebuttal - do you accept that, if boys are underperforming as you claim, then approaches that seek to eliminate any and all gender gaps address this issue?

A detailed examination of those sources.

Sources: (No MRA sites!)

Gender in education: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/21/new-book-explains-why-women-outpace-men-education

Is about higher education, not "boys", and cites gender stereotypes as the underlying problem. So your solution, given that dealing with gender roles is apparently invalid, is...?

Prison terms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

Explicitly does not control for other variables such as criminal history, and indeed, the data shows that the men studied have much more severe criminal histories. This is not to dismiss the possibility that such an issue exists, but I'd like to see a paper with proper controls first.

Homelessness: http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homeless-diff-groups.html

Measures clients of homeless services, and goes on to say that women have a problem accessing these services and are generally discouraged. It cites these problems as the reason that 66% of homeless women studied have never accessed these services. Pop quiz: If homeless populations are equal, but only 1/3 of women access services for the homeless while almost all men do, what percentage of clients should we expect to be women?

Homicide, violence http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html

Is a real problem, and worth addressing - but, given that most of this is stranger violence, things that address it are probably going to look like non-gendered anti-violence campaigns.

Boys more likely to be physically abused. http://www.washington.edu/news/2000/04/13/older-children-boys-more-likely-to-be-physically-abused-in-families-with-history-of-wife-abuse-study-indicates/

Indicates that this is attributable in unknown quantity to adolescent boys intervening in abuse incidents. Would like to see a control for this, or at least an examination of its prevalence. Note also that this study specifically cites households with a istory of domestic violence against women; campaigns against intimate partner violence would seem to address the entire dataset.

Gender ratio on child sexual abuse (boys 48%, girls 52%) http://www.onhealth.com/child_abuse/page2.htm

Explicitly rebuts your claim; the statistic you quote is for maltreatment in general. In the paragraph below that, it cites sexual abuse victims as 75% female.

Men less valuable in justice system: http://www.nber.org/digest/aug00/w7676.html

Is a gender-role issue - violence against women is seen as especially abhorrent, because women are to be coddled and protected. Feminism directly addresses this. What's your solution?

Health spending: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/men-die-earlier-but-womens-health-gets-four-times-more-funding/story-fneuzlbd-1226794504245 (You aren't telling me that pregnancy alone explains 'four times' the spending?)

First: Some of the imbalances this paper cites (breast vs prostate cancer) are issues for men, while others (testicular vs ovarian cancer) actually indicate possible issues for women. Second: You've noted above that men are more likely to be victims of violence, including homicide. Are treatments for violent injuries gendered? Does this bring into question how much of a gap there really is?

In short, it seems you have a strong tendency to either ignore potential explanations for your data other than "Men are being shortchanged here!" or misread the data entirely. Please try again.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/07/07/women/
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11542-eng.htm
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/29/women-more-likely-than-men-to-graduate-college-at-22/

Will look at these shortly; this post is getting delayed enough already.

Just because you have sources doesn't mean they are infallible.

It certainly makes them better than naked assertions, which is all I saw at time of writing, or shoddy interpretations of existing data.

I also did not claim feminism stands as an opposition to equality. Though a lot of the time, certain strands of it do. Just riddle me this: There is an extreme fringe of feminism, the fire breathing dragons fringe. It is not a big one, and it does not represent feminism as it is, but it is there, and it is vocal.

Now imagine an extreme fringe of equalism. What do they want? More equality for everyone? I mean, you can't twist that to your own meanings, equality is just that, equality. Sure you can try to twist the agenda, but at least we're rid of the psychological implication of the name.

Your OP said that there was "little talk of real equality", because feminists continue to call themselves feminists. Rebutted. As to the rest: How would you twist "equalism"? By demanding equal time and resources devoted to men's issues, when they aren't equal in scope. You know, exactly what I said I mostly see self-styled "egalitarians" doing.

I am certain that the position of equality for equality's sake is superior to any other position that wants to drive equality, when the goal is to drive onwards equality. Yes. How could it not be? Besides, I've provided sources for whatever I've said, so no, facts aren't to be damned.

And why exactly do you think feminism pushes for equality, if not "for equality's sake"? You've provided sources that didn't say what you claimed they said, for the most part, so I stand by my statement.

The fact that you pick a side means that equality is not what you have in mind. As much as women like to think it, they aren't the same as men. Men and women are different, and there are pros and cons to both genders. It doesn't make one side stronger or weaker than the other, it just makes them different.

Can we please, please try to avoid opening the massive can of worms that is gender-essentialism? It's highly tangental and highly contentious, and derails are extremely likely, especially given that there are Lieges present in-thread.

[Valthazar]

No. 

I'm at a loss to know what you think it does, to be honest. 

Do you believe the US NAACP is opposed to racism or just racism as it affects "Coloured People".  Do you believe that Child Welfare organisations think that adults can go fuck themselves?  Do you believe that campus LGBT societies are gay supremacists?

I don't necessarily agree with his line of reasoning, but I think his point is that the inherent nature of the organizations (like the ones you have listed) are to cater primarily to their respective constituencies.  There was a thread earlier about how sexual assault aid organizations (largely funded by women's advocacy groups) willfully under-report male victims of sexual assault to maintain their narrative on female victimization.

The mission of the NAACP is to, "ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination," (Source).

Yet it is not a stretch to say that the NAACP is not equally as concerned about the fewer instances of discrimination against Caucasians - despite its mission to do so.

edit: typo

[Kythia]

You'll mean this thread I assume?

The one where it was mentioned that aid organisations (not sexual assault aid organisations) are underreporting and you claimed without bothering to show the single slightest shred of evidence whatsoever that this was due to them being funded by women's advocacy groups.  At the time it was just "your guess" but now I see it has progressed to a statement of fact.  What changed your mind?

Regardless, as to your actual point.  Yes, feminism grew out of women's movements.  But that's not Kane's point.  Kane's point is:

I'm not a MRA. I will keep repeating this as long as I have to. I believe there are more women's issues than mens issues. I also know, for a fact, that the psychological implication of calling Equality "Feminism" Is that men's problems get devaluated. No matter how good of a job feminists are doing.

My point is that equality is not called feminism.

[Ephiral]

Yet it is not a stretch to say that the NAACP is not equally as concerned about the fewer instances of discrimination against Caucasians - despite its mission to do so.

Equal concern about a smaller problem is not equality; it is bias in favour of the victims of the smaller problem. Proportional concern, attention, and resources would be equality.

[Valthazar]

At the time it was just "your guess" but now I see it has progressed to a statement of fact.  What changed your mind?

I apologize for coming across as if I was stating a fact.  Most of the aid organizations cited in those articles were women's advocacy groups - such as Hillary Clinton's organization - which is funded entirely to help female victims.  I cannot think of another reason why male victims would be willfully under-reported.

[Kythia]

I apologize for coming across as if I was stating a fact.  Most of the aid organizations cited in those articles were women's advocacy groups - such as Hillary Clinton's organization - which is funded entirely to help female victims.  I cannot think of another reason why male victims would be willfully under-reported.

Well, clearly there is.  As the first one I came across called out by name was the UNHCR which isn't funded by women's advocacy groups. 

[Valthazar]

I am not sure why you are picking on this point, when I already said that it is simply "most" of the aid organizations that were women's advocacy groups.  I never implied that they were exclusively female-oriented.  This would likely provide an explanation, however, as to why male victims were being underrepresented in reporting.

[Kythia]

I am not sure why you are picking on this point, when I already said that it is simply "most" of the aid organizations that were women's advocacy groups.  I never implied that they were exclusively female-oriented.  This would likely provide an explanation, however, as to why male victims were being underrepresented in reporting.

Really?  I mentioned that it was being done by none female-orientated ones.  Two posts above this one.  Clearly your explanation doesn't work.  But this is woefully off topic, we should agree to disagree on it or take it back over to that thread.

[Kane]

So you've self-admittedly done little research, but hold yourself out as very informed?

I hold myself out very informed in equality issues. Not in MRA websites. I also hold myself very informed in feminism, my wife happens to be a strong advocate for the movement, and does a lot of writing for feminism. And no, we do not have arguments about it, we debate it occasionally, but tend to end up agreeing to disagree... It's not like our view in equality is different, it's that I don't think it should be called feminism.

A name that acnowledges the history of the movement and the valuable contribution of those who came before seems worthwhile to me. If people are going to reject the movement based solely on its name, they were never interested in seriously considering it in the first place. This is the clearest example of motivated stopping I've ever seen.

I don't reject most things feminism stands for, I've supported and will continue to support a lot of different movements started by feminism (Such as the afore mentioned' "man up!" campaing. But I will not keep going on about it. My opinion is that the historical value of the name does not outweigh the fact that the way it's named does give pshycological implications, that cause people to have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is said in the name of feminism, without considering it. You can say what you want about it, but such psychological implications are important, and in the western world we live in, there is absolutely no need for the push for equality to be called feminism anymore, it is only counter productive. That is why it seems like picking sides to me.

Funny, I know a lot of sensible people who speak about some of the issues you cite and seek to address the problem, are part of an organized movement, and aren't branded as misogynist pricks. Quite the opposite. True, they don't do so under the banner of "men's rights", but that's because that label has been pretty much entirely coopted by misogynist pricks. Sort of like how, even if people are hard-left socialists in favour of a strong national identity and government, they're not going to call themselves "National Socialists", because the well's been poisoned there.

I get branded as a misogynistic prick almost every time I even mention that men do have some problems too, even when I'm not challenging feminism. I guess I discuss in the wrong circles. (Heck, I've even been branded as a misogynist prick in this thread at least once.)

Not terribly so, but it gets significantly higher marks than any MRA site I've ever seen.

Really? Because to me, that site is the worst enemy of anyone who calls themselves a feminist, with headlines like "Have you ever beat up your boyfriend, 'cause we have!" and "Objectification of men is good." and joking about male victim of rape perpetuated by a woman. Sounds like any MRA site you are describing, really.

Um. You may want to look again. My second link, the one discussing the elimination of gender gaps, was in a feminist journal. My first one, questioning the existence of such gaps, was from the UK Department for Education. Are you claiming that's a feminist movement? I note that you're not disputing my actual rebuttal - do you accept that, if boys are underperforming as you claim, then approaches that seek to eliminate any and all gender gaps address this issue?

The one discussing the elimination of gender gaps appears to be more focused about gender gaps in developing nations. And the second study I thought to be a study made by feminist movement, because you put it forward as such. And no, I'm not saying the approach is invalid. I'm not making a further comment, because this is not what I have an issue with.

In short, it seems you have a strong tendency to either ignore potential explanations for your data other than "Men are being shortchanged here!" or misread the data entirely. Please try again.

Frankly, I didn't read anything before posting the original post, those were simply things I could remember. I looked up the sources later. I admit they are not all entirely accurate, but there is enough data there to point that men do have their unique socio economic issues too, whether or not they are as severe as women's. It was nothing more, or nothing else than that, and I don't think you are trying to say that they do not, so I don't see a point in this part of the debate either.

It certainly makes them better than naked assertions, which is all I saw at time of writing, or shoddy interpretations of existing data.
Your OP said that there was "little talk of real equality", because feminists continue to call themselves feminists. Rebutted. As to the rest: How would you twist "equalism"? By demanding equal time and resources devoted to men's issues, when they aren't equal in scope. You know, exactly what I said I mostly see self-styled "egalitarians" doing.

Not equal time. Equal consideration. Big difference. You can't give equal time to something that is not equal in scope, but often when feminist movement goes to fix an issue, they only consider one side of the issue. Such as requiring a certain amount of certain gender to be working in a certain job. That's all well and good in an idealistic world, but reality should be that best qualified person would get the job. What we need is a change in attitudes, we need a change in how people are educated, in how they are raised, we need to understand that everyone is equal. The laws that promote one gender over the other need to go, we can't have them for men, and we can't have the for women.

Now the truth is this all seems incredibly difficult to solve, and we resort to solutions like. "Let's force a gender limitation." in the name of feminism. And all it does is screams. "Women can't get a good job on their own so we gotta give them an unfair advantage!" I know attitudes are one of the most difficult to change, but attitudes are exactly what we need to change now.

And why exactly do you think feminism pushes for equality, if not "for equality's sake"? You've provided sources that didn't say what you claimed they said, for the most part, so I stand by my statement.

It doesn't exactly matter, when the name gives you a psychological influence. All one might be wanting to do is equality for equality's sake, but when the name of the movement is 'feminism' then I'm sorry, but the psychological implication on that is to view women's issues with more importance. Yu might not do it, I might not do it even if I called myself a feminist, but a lot of people are going to do it.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.001.0001/acprof-9780199753628-chapter-12 Now if your own gender maes you biased, then why wouldn't a gender specifically named drive for equality do the same?

[Retribution]

*smiles* well this seems to be devolving into the black or white, with us or against sort of thing that I was saying our modern media tends to foster. And from where I sit this thread is illustrating that point. Complete with conflicting data and followed by the refusal of one side to accept the data of the other. It is any topic that is in the public eye given life IMHO.

Having said that and to get back on topic I think semantics is a lot of the issue. When one is a hammer most things look like nails. If your group has a feminist name then of course women's issues are going to be more relevant to them. If a group has a masculine name then men's issues will be their bread and butter. Like say the fact more women get custody of children during divorce because they are perceived as more nurturing. I forget who said that further up this thread, but I honestly find the whole premise to be stereotypical and prejudice to -both- men and women.

I honestly think a lot of the debate could be tended by a group called something neutral like "Equality" or what have you.  And what I think the real root of the issue is, is that most people feel like their own causes whatever they might be has more validity than the next.

[Valthazar]

But this is woefully off topic, we should agree to disagree on it or take it back over to that thread.

We'll continue discussion here:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=198715.0

[Avis habilis]

Think of it like this. Imagine you’re reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement “Flootchism,” because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn’t address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I’d warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just “beast problems” is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.

[Kane]

*smiles* well this seems to be devolving into the black or white, with us or against sort of thing that I was saying our modern media tends to foster. And from where I sit this thread is illustrating that point. Complete with conflicting data and followed by the refusal of one side to accept the data of the other. It is any topic that is in the public eye given life IMHO.

Having said that and to get back on topic I think semantics is a lot of the issue. When one is a hammer most things look like nails. If your group has a feminist name then of course women's issues are going to be more relevant to them. If a group has a masculine name then men's issues will be their bread and butter. Like say the fact more women get custody of children during divorce because they are perceived as more nurturing. I forget who said that further up this thread, but I honestly find the whole premise to be stereotypical and prejudice to -both- men and women.

I honestly think a lot of the debate could be tended by a group called something neutral like "Equality" or what have you.  And what I think the real root of the issue is, is that most people feel like their own causes whatever they might be has more validity than the next.

This is the exact point I've been making. In fact it's the only point I've been making, while being side railed to other debates that don't really matter.

As for the quote by Avis. It would be a good example if it actually was comparable to the situation here. That's like male problems merely harm individual males, when that is obviously not the case. There aren't many institutional roadblocks in western societies either nowadays.

Most of the problems of the 'first world' come from one thing, and one thing alone: Attitudes, and funny enough naming the movement 'feminism' is not going to help tohse attitudes to get better, quite the opposite.

[Retribution]

Quote did not work because it was a quote of a quote, but anyway: I do not agree with this premise plain and simple. The reason being I feel that when an issue affects pick a group, through discrimination it affects all of us. Therefore it is a problem of humanity as a whole even if one group is the specific victim of whatever injustice the groups around them are just as affected and devalued by it if by no other way than the skewed point of view they are raised with.

So trying to stay on topic I would say that issues affecting women are not women's issues per say, but are instead an issue for all of humanity. Agree with me or not that is the way I see things.

[Kane]

EDIT:  Further, your entire argument is based on the semantics of the word feminism.  I'm not sure dismissing counters with a breezy "semantics" is valid.  We are discussing semantics.

Wrong, it's based on the psychology of the word Feminism.

[Clorinda]

Kane, what you're talking about isn't "equalism" (or whatever term you're using), it is specifically "gender equalism."  Presumably equalism would be concerned with all sorts of issues of equality (economic, social, racial, national, personal) in addition to just gender.  So, should the movement not be named "Gender equalism?"  Already, you're arguing from a false premise, that your word is better than the word that already exists.

And, Retribution, yes, these are issues that influence all people, so all movements to end any sort of discrimination should all be called humanism because, really, all people are affected?  And movement that targets one problem is naive because all problems are interconnected?  Is that really your argument because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Florence]

This idea that 'feminism' has some anti-men connotation to it makes me think of a line from Mass Effect: "My sister started a dog shelter, but she loves cats too."

[Blythe]

Wrong, it's based on the psychology of the word Feminism.

I've been following this thread. I'd like to ask you to elaborate, please, on what you've brought up, the "psychology of the word Feminism." I've seen you mention it a few times, but you've been rather vague, and I'm honestly not sure what you mean. You seem to be using "psychology" kind of broadly.

[Ephiral]

I hold myself out very informed in equality issues. Not in MRA websites. I also hold myself very informed in feminism, my wife happens to be a strong advocate for the movement, and does a lot of writing for feminism. And no, we do not have arguments about it, we debate it occasionally, but tend to end up agreeing to disagree... It's not like our view in equality is different, it's that I don't think it should be called feminism.

And yet you're drawing a false equivalence between feminism and thing-you-know-little-about... why?

I don't reject most things feminism stands for, I've supported and will continue to support a lot of different movements started by feminism (Such as the afore mentioned' "man up!" campaing. But I will not keep going on about it. My opinion is that the historical value of the name does not outweigh the fact that the way it's named does give pshycological implications, that cause people to have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is said in the name of feminism, without considering it. You can say what you want about it, but such psychological implications are important, and in the western world we live in, there is absolutely no need for the push for equality to be called feminism anymore, it is only counter productive. That is why it seems like picking sides to me.

If people are going to reject the movement just because "It's feminism!", then they were looking for an excuse to reject the movement. If they're going to support the movement, I (mostly) don't care what they call themselves - but you don't get to tell other people they're doing feminism wrong because they choose history and solidarity over something that has historically had problematic implications.

I get branded as a misogynistic prick almost every time I even mention that men do have some problems too, even when I'm not challenging feminism. I guess I discuss in the wrong circles. (Heck, I've even been branded as a misogynist prick in this thread at least once.)

It helps to establish a bit of distance between yourself and MRA talking points/buzzwords. and to discuss these issues respectfully, at the appropriate time. Most of the respectful and tolerant discussion of men's issues I've seen happens in feminist circles.

Really? Because to me, that site is the worst enemy of anyone who calls themselves a feminist, with headlines like "Have you ever beat up your boyfriend, 'cause we have!" and "Objectification of men is good." and joking about male victim of rape perpetuated by a woman. Sounds like any MRA site you are describing, really.

Nnnnot really. Jezebel has some serious missteps and flat-out fuckups, such as what you've described (and its parent company has some serious issues), but it also has some serious and respectful discussion, and a decided lack of active harassment-and-threat campaigns against prominent critics. So... again, false equivalence.

The one discussing the elimination of gender gaps appears to be more focused about gender gaps in developing nations. And the second study I thought to be a study made by feminist movement, because you put it forward as such. And no, I'm not saying the approach is invalid. I'm not making a further comment, because this is not what I have an issue with.

The second link, as I have said, is from a feminist journal. The first, the one questioning whether the gender gap exists, is from the UK Department for Education. I have already stated this. Why are you still confused?

If you didn't have an issue with it, why did you accuse it of failing to address the problem of boys' underperformance in education?

Frankly, I didn't read anything before posting the original post, those were simply things I could remember. I looked up the sources later. I admit they are not all entirely accurate, but there is enough data there to point that men do have their unique socio economic issues too, whether or not they are as severe as women's. It was nothing more, or nothing else than that, and I don't think you are trying to say that they do not, so I don't see a point in this part of the debate either.

The point is that, by and large, they don't actually say that. They say there is a disparity in certain reported numbers, and often fail to account for causes of those numbers other than "men are disadvantaged here". If they even say that in the first place. As an example: Did you actually crunch the numbers on the homelessness article, as I suggested? Did you notice that the child-abuse study claims the exact opposite of what you said it does?

Not equal time. Equal consideration. Big difference. You can't give equal time to something that is not equal in scope, but often when feminist movement goes to fix an issue, they only consider one side of the issue. Such as requiring a certain amount of certain gender to be working in a certain job. That's all well and good in an idealistic world, but reality should be that best qualified person would get the job. What we need is a change in attitudes, we need a change in how people are educated, in how they are raised, we need to understand that everyone is equal. The laws that promote one gender over the other need to go, we can't have them for men, and we can't have the for women.

I never said this is your position; I presented it as a rebuttal to your statement that "equalism" cannot be distorted or twisted. It can be twisted. It is being twisted.

Can you cite an example of a law in a first-world nation that promotes women over men, as opposed to ameliorating disadvantages faced by women as compared to men? Or are you trying to address a non-existent problem?

Now the truth is this all seems incredibly difficult to solve, and we resort to solutions like. "Let's force a gender limitation." in the name of feminism. And all it does is screams. "Women can't get a good job on their own so we gotta give them an unfair advantage!" I know attitudes are one of the most difficult to change, but attitudes are exactly what we need to change now.

So. Let's look at your example. As it stands, there is a documented bias against women in the workplace. Women's applications are given less consideration and are more easily passed over. Yes, we need to fight and eliminate that bias, but that's a very long-term project, and women are being hurt by it right now. What does an interim solution look like, if equal-opportunity policies as they exist are "an unfair advantage"?

It doesn't exactly matter, when the name gives you a psychological influence. All one might be wanting to do is equality for equality's sake, but when the name of the movement is 'feminism' then I'm sorry, but the psychological implication on that is to view women's issues with more importance. Yu might not do it, I might not do it even if I called myself a feminist, but a lot of people are going to do it.

Dodging the question. You claimed that feminism is not "equality for equality's sake". My question stands: What do you think it is, then?

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.001.0001/acprof-9780199753628-chapter-12 Now if your own gender maes you biased, then why wouldn't a gender specifically named drive for equality do the same?

Because the causes cited for this are in no way linked to linguistics? Because this paper has no bearing whatsoever on the psychology of words? Because Sapir-Whorf is dead, dead, dead? Because, as that article notes, despite feminism being the driving cause of a lot of our examination of gender and gender roles, there is a decidedly pro-male slant to the bulk of the research? Pick one.



Retribution: Interestingly, your theory that oppression of one affects all of us, and that we all experience varying levels of privilege and oppression based on numerous factors including but not limited to skin colour, ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, gender, and sex? It already exists. Intersectional social justice is a thing. And it's a thing largely rooted in and advanced by intersectional feminism.

[Retribution]

Kane, what you're talking about isn't "equalism" (or whatever term you're using), it is specifically "gender equalism."  Presumably equalism would be concerned with all sorts of issues of equality (economic, social, racial, national, personal) in addition to just gender.  So, should the movement not be named "Gender equalism?"  Already, you're arguing from a false premise, that your word is better than the word that already exists.

And, Retribution, yes, these are issues that influence all people, so all movements to end any sort of discrimination should all be called humanism because, really, all people are affected?  And movement that targets one problem is naive because all problems are interconnected?  Is that really your argument because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

To some extent yes. Do not get me wrong I understand we all have our area of concentration I will use myself for example gun owner's rights and wildlife issues are my hot buttons. So of course in my personal case I concentrate on matters involving those issues more because simply put they are what I care about most. I get that.

But the point I was trying to make is sticking with feminism lets say that I think we all accept there is a discrepancy in wages between men and women.  Where the rub comes is the reason, the masculine perspective might say it is because there are more men in the work force. The feminine perspective  would counter that women who do the same job as men are paid less and hey while we are at it the fact that there are more men in the work force is discrimination as well.

I think both sides miss a large portion of the issue and that costs us all and is therefore naive for several reasons. First off as we are hell seeing in this thread when you light into someone on a topic they tend to dig in their heels and no real progress is made. Not to mention many have a just plain contrary nature and will take the other side for the simple sake of arguing.  This gets us no place fast because in the case above men are still earning on average more than women and no significant reforms are being passed because both sides have dug in their heels...it affects us all.  Keeping with my above example, each side of said coin has a legitimate point: from the masculine side more men are indeed in the work force, but some of them might very well like to be stay at home dads and our system is not really setup to encourage that.  From the feminine side there are indeed many cases of women being paid less than men for doing the same job and it is just plain wrong. But with both digging in their heels and fighting from their respective perspective neither legitimate problem is gaining any traction and therefore we all loose to some extent.

Now I am not sure how to fix this, but I hope that helps explain my stance to you some. But the older I get the more I swear that a lot of our problems are not as insurmountable as we think they are. We have just gotten all bogged down with the us against them mindset and it is leading to gridlock that does no one any good. I am trying to weed this sort of thing out of myself. For example in an election last Tuesday I voted for a candidate I never would have in the past because there are things I just plain do not see eye to eye with him on. But there are also places I like what he says, so take the good with the bad and in this case I think the good outweighed the bad. I feel like by accepting things such as this on the issue of feminism or whatever is the only way we are going to make progress as a human species on anything.

[Ephiral]

I don't think the lines are drawn quite where you think they are, Retribution. To use your example of men vs women in the workplace, and specifically how men would like more opportunities to parent: What group has been instrumental in campaigning for, and getting, paternity leave in a number of jurisdictions around the world?

This is a significant portion of what I've been arguing: The alleged "anti-male bias" in mainstream feminism? Doesn't exist. In fact, it does the exact opposite of existing. Feminism does a better job of championing men's rights than so-called "men's rights advocates".

[Retribution]

It honestly depends on which branch of the tree you are looking at Ephiral. For example my wife works for a women's advocacy group that I would say is not extreme. With her work with this group she works on many other equal rights causes. So yes, they are a perfect example of exactly what you are talking about.

On the other hand I do not think most would call an organization like NOW exactly male friendly. I know someone will probably produce a link to the contrary on this as soon as I post this and we could fling turd balls at one another all day. My whole point is that extremism in -any- form is bad for all of us.

[Ephiral]

...and feminism, as understood and practiced by the extremely overwhelming majority, is about as far from extremist as you can get while still doing anything meaningful. So why does it keep getting painted with that brush? Is the entire civil rights movement terrorist because there were some violent radicals there? Should gun-rights advocates all be dismissed as nutjobs because of a few hyper-radical militia groups? Or should we, perhaps, look at the main body of people who fall under a given banner, and dismiss or push back against the radicals as unrepresentative and harmful when they pop up?

[Clorinda]

Retribution, your example also seems kind of silly because the modern economic system is not justopposed to stay-at-home dads, but also opposed to stay-at-home moms.  It's not like the government is subsidizing families where the mother does not work and not subsidizing families where the father doesn't work.  There is no special "stay-at-home mom benefits."  Companies don't pay men whose wives stay home more.  So, really, it's not a gender issue because, economically, both are pretty much equally difficult.  Do you know what the primary economic difference would be?  It's harder for a woman to support a family than a man because women are arbitrarily paid less than men.

There is the social side, but as Ephiral points out, feminists are on the side of stay-at-home dads.  Further, our society does tend to support the notion of men doing the child rearing far more than in previous decades.  So, I don't get what the point is?  How are the examples of "Men would like to not work" and "Women should be paid equally for equal work" at all similar issues?  How do they make sense as complimentary?

Also, are they really "gun owners' rights?"  Aren't they rights that affect all humans?  They should just be called human rights, any other term sets up a dichotomy between gun owners and non-gun ownwers.  And are the "wildlife issues?"  They affect the whole world.  They're "world issues."  Now, do you see how silly that sounds?

[Retribution]

And this displays the point I was trying to make that if I do not completely agree with your PoV then I obviously must be your enemy that gets us no place. So we are going to have to agree to disagree here because there are a lot of issues on this point I will never see your way. As another example for years (it has since been changed) the Susan Kohlmen group did not allow men to participate in their Mother's Day run against breast cancer. If a mens group tried to have an all male Father's Day run against prostate cancer I suspect the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the injustice would me mighty, but I digress. And I doubt anyone will be calling the Kohlmen group radical anytime soon because they are not, but it still displays a double standard.

Denying that such things exist does not mean they do not exist and it is a problem for all people. Weather it be feminism or "rights that affect all humans" or pick your cause. For example I let my life long membership in the NRA lapse oh about 8 years ago because they were pushing some things I simply could not get on board with. However by and large I still support their stance, but that does not mean I refuse to acknowledge the inherent flaws.

And with that I am out.

[Kane]

*Snip*

You are correct in a lot of the points, and I'm not going to address most of them, for either I concde, or it's irrelevant to the discussion. Though I will have to note that Jezebel's discussions are anything but respectful if you pay attention to what's going on there. There are better feminist sources. Really.

Let's just package my argument to something more consumable, because these posts are stretching to a ridiculous size.

The main gripe I have with Feminism, is the name Feminism, and its psychological implications. I've been asked to delve deeper into this subject, so I will.

1.Word feminist suggests one's femininity -- by pledging allegiance to womankind, not synonymous with equality.

2. Only 24% of women surveyed in this study identified as feminists and 17% thought the word was an insult. The word carries a lot of negative meanings with it, alienating people from the idea. Many find it to promote feminity, rather than promoting equality.

3. Feminism, by dictionary definition is "advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." While this is perfectly fine, it completely dismisses all mens rights whatsoever in the description, and this is what many will go by when describing themselves as feminists. Even if this wasn't how 'mainstream feminists' would describe themselves.

4. Feminism alienates men from the conversation. Not because feminists want to alienate men from the conversation, but simply because the name feminism alienates them. There is a deeper psychological issue here than. "Well that's just an excuse for someone who didn't want to know in the first place.) Here. If it was named 'maleism', and it was a men's movement to make everyone's life better, and it would mostly concentrate on women's problems, since they are more numerous, I'm pretty sure women would feel rather sceptical about it, just saying.

5. If I go somewhere and just say I want equality for all, that's what normally people will understand me to want. If I say I support feminism, people will automatically think I'm mainly concerned with women's rights. I am equally concerned with everyone's issues even if I spend more time with women's issues, as they are more numerous.

Women's rights are not a "feminist" issue — they are a human rights issue with enormous global ramifications.

[Florence]

3. Feminism, by dictionary definition is "advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." While this is perfectly fine, it completely dismisses all mens rights whatsoever in the description, and this is what many will go by when describing themselves as feminists. Even if this wasn't how 'mainstream feminists' would describe themselves.

Fine. To prevent more debates like this. How about we all just start calling ourselves Rightsists. We support rights for things.

[Valthazar]

I think one of the critical conclusions from that source is that 14% of men refer to themselves as feminist at the onset, but when a definition of a feminist is provided, however, 58 percent of men say they are a feminist.

That seems to support an issue with the term itself, rather than ideology.

[Kane]

I think one of the critical conclusions from that source is that 14% of men refer to themselves as feminist at the onset, but when a definition of a feminist is provided, however, 58 percent of men say they are a feminist.

That seems to support an issue with the term itself, rather than ideology.

Amen.

[Avis habilis]

That seems to support an issue with the term itself, rather than ideology.

Or an issue with anti-feminists spreading fraudulent conceptions about what it means.

[mj2002]

Or an issue with anti-feminists spreading fraudulent conceptions about what it means.

The opening post of this thread contributes to this as well.

[Nadir]

Or an issue with anti-feminists spreading fraudulent conceptions about what it means.

Don't forget the media, because the only feminist most see are the insane, man hating ones

[Ephiral]

And this displays the point I was trying to make that if I do not completely agree with your PoV then I obviously must be your enemy that gets us no place. So we are going to have to agree to disagree here because there are a lot of issues on this point I will never see your way. As another example for years (it has since been changed) the Susan Kohlmen group did not allow men to participate in their Mother's Day run against breast cancer. If a mens group tried to have an all male Father's Day run against prostate cancer I suspect the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the injustice would me mighty, but I digress. And I doubt anyone will be calling the Kohlmen group radical anytime soon because they are not, but it still displays a double standard.

Believe it or not, I don't subscribe to a with-us-or-against-us mindset. I do, however, reserve the right to challenge the statements and positions of anybody, regardless of where they might be on issues I hold dear. Komen is actually a great example - they're nominally feminist, and I'm sure they'd agree with me on a lot of key issues. But they're also highly problematic given your example, the low level of funding that actually makes it to their cause, and their attempt to defund Planned Parenthood (averted, I'll note, by a loud feminist outcry). Similarly, I prefer AMD products to Intel - but I started giving Intel my money when they drew a line in the sand and refused to fund organizations with a policy of anti-gay discrimination.

It's legitimate to reject someone as a possible ally if they stand against you on significant issues. It's also legitimate to point out when a nominal ally has serious problems, or to contrast the label of 'ally' with the actual actions taken. Most feminists agree that there are men's issues that need addressing; where we tend to disagree is when people start talking about equal attention, or on the notion that there is no room for a discussion limited to women's issues, or on campaigns of harassment.

Denying that such things exist does not mean they do not exist and it is a problem for all people. Weather it be feminism or "rights that affect all humans" or pick your cause. For example I let my life long membership in the NRA lapse oh about 8 years ago because they were pushing some things I simply could not get on board with. However by and large I still support their stance, but that does not mean I refuse to acknowledge the inherent flaws.

Exactly what flaws am I refusing to acknowledge here? You'll note that my first post in this thread disavowed the positions of some rather famous nominal feminists. I am not saying that extremists don't exist; what I am saying is that the entire damn movement shouldn't be treated as though it is comprised of nothing but extremists, any more so than gun-advocacy groups should be treated like every one of them is a backwoods militia stereotype plotting to bring down the government and ignite a race war. Extremists exist everywhere, so why is it only when it comes to women's issues that people pretend the vast, overwhelming majority of reasonable people don't exist?

You are correct in a lot of the points, and I'm not going to address most of them, for either I concde, or it's irrelevant to the discussion. Though I will have to note that Jezebel's discussions are anything but respectful if you pay attention to what's going on there. There are better feminist sources. Really.

I appreciate the acknowledgement. And yes, I admit that there are better sources - a huge number of them, really. As I said, it's not particularly good - but it's still better than any MRA org I've ever seen. This article strikes me as a respectful if superficial look at the gendered nature of domestic violence, so yes, I thik respectful discussion does happen. (I speak to Jezebel as an organization; I'm sure, as with anywhere on the Internet that discusses gender issues, it took all of ten seconds for a commenter to say something horrible.)

1.Word feminist suggests one's femininity -- by pledging allegiance to womankind, not synonymous with equality.

So underprivileged groups aren't allowed to be proud when fighting for their rights? Their allies aren't allowed to declare themselves allies of the oppressed group?

2. Only 24% of women surveyed in this study identified as feminists and 17% thought the word was an insult. The word carries a lot of negative meanings with it, alienating people from the idea. Many find it to promote feminity, rather than promoting equality.

Is that because of the word itself, or because of how it's been used as a slur in attempts to discredit and attack feminists? Again, you ignore equally-plausible explanations for your data.

3. Feminism, by dictionary definition is "advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." While this is perfectly fine, it completely dismisses all mens rights whatsoever in the description, and this is what many will go by when describing themselves as feminists. Even if this wasn't how 'mainstream feminists' would describe themselves.

Um. No it doesn't. It specifically acknowledges men's rights in the last five words - this definition actually defines women's rights entirely in relation to men's rights.

4. Feminism alienates men from the conversation. Not because feminists want to alienate men from the conversation, but simply because the name feminism alienates them. There is a deeper psychological issue here than. "Well that's just an excuse for someone who didn't want to know in the first place.) Here. If it was named 'maleism', and it was a men's movement to make everyone's life better, and it would mostly concentrate on women's problems, since they are more numerous, I'm pretty sure women would feel rather sceptical about it, just saying.

Which is why there's a sizable contingent of male feminists and allies? Their existence rebuts your claim.

5. If I go somewhere and just say I want equality for all, that's what normally people will understand me to want. If I say I support feminism, people will automatically think I'm mainly concerned with women's rights. I am equally concerned with everyone's issues even if I spend more time with women's issues, as they are more numerous.

If you define yourself as an egalitarian as opposed to a feminist, I for one would be extremely skeptical of just how "egalitarian" you actually are. I support equality for everyone, everywhere - and feminism is a significant part of that, though not all-encompassing. I don't define myself solely as a feminist, but I certainly won't reject that label or pretend feminism isn't an important part of the cause.

Women's rights are not a "feminist" issue — they are a human rights issue with enormous global ramifications.

And when feminism is no longer the primary motivator of every iota of progress on women's rights, maybe it'll be a bit more believable that other groups give a damn.

[Kane]

So underprivileged groups aren't allowed to be proud when fighting for their rights? Their allies aren't allowed to declare themselves allies of the oppressed group?

Women aren't underpriviledged in western society (Except where religion has a say, but that's a case for secularists to solve.) The issue is the attitude toward women. I can't find a single law or regulation that works against women in any way in any western country, but if someone shows me one, I will stand corrected. But you have a point here, so I'll give this one to you.

Is that because of the word itself, or because of how it's been used as a slur in attempts to discredit and attack feminists? Again, you ignore equally-plausible explanations for your data.

It doesn't matter how and why the word has gotten its reputation when it has one.

Um. No it doesn't. It specifically acknowledges men's rights in the last five words - this definition actually defines women's rights entirely in relation to men's rights.

I give this one to you too.

Which is why there's a sizable contingent of male feminists and allies? Their existence rebuts your claim.

So the number of males who don't subscribe to feminism, or even oppose it which is even greater, rebuts yours? Nope, it doesn't and neither does your assertion rebut mine.

If you define yourself as an egalitarian as opposed to a feminist, I for one would be extremely skeptical of just how "egalitarian" you actually are. I support equality for everyone, everywhere - and feminism is a significant part of that, though not all-encompassing. I don't define myself solely as a feminist, but I certainly won't reject that label or pretend feminism isn't an important part of the cause.

I am not egalitarian as opposed to feminism. I think I've made it abundantly clear in multiple occasions that most of what feminism stands for is good. I am simply not a feminist, because I don't think the term is descriptive of what feminism is, or should be. I do not oppose feminism.

And when feminism is no longer the primary motivator of every iota of progress on women's rights, maybe it'll be a bit more believable that other groups give a damn.

Secularism is the primary motivator on women's rights issues that relate to religious oppression. Humanism is the primary motivator on the front of women's rights in third world countries. Just saying there are other primary motivators.

[Ephiral]

Women aren't underpriviledged in western society (Except where religion has a say, but that's a case for secularists to solve.) The issue is the attitude toward women. I can't find a single law or regulation that works against women in any way in any western country, but if someone shows me one, I will stand corrected. But you have a point here, so I'll give this one to you.

I... um. I'm kinda boggling at this one. You can't think of a single law that works against women in any way, in any western country? Are... are you sure you're as well-educated on women's issues as you think? Because I can give you 22 examples in the US alone off the top of my head.

It doesn't matter how and why the word has gotten its reputation when it has one.

Which is why nobody talks about gay people any more, right? Or can words be reclaimed and hatred pushed back?

So the number of males who don't subscribe to feminism, or even oppose it which is even greater, rebuts yours? Nope, it doesn't and neither does your assertion rebut mine.

Your assertion is that men are alienated and driven away by the term. It's a blanket statement, so any man who accepts and rallies under the banner of feminism pokes a hole in it.

I am not egalitarian as opposed to feminism. I think I've made it abundantly clear in multiple occasions that most of what feminism stands for is good. I am simply not a feminist, because I don't think the term is descriptive of what feminism is, or should be. I do not oppose feminism.

I chose my words poorly here. I didn't mean you stand against feminism, I mean that you call yourself an egalitarian specifically to distance yourself from feminism.

Secularism is the primary motivator on women's rights issues that relate to religious oppression. Humanism is the primary motivator on the front of women's rights in third world countries. Just saying there are other primary motivators.

Which is why it's been secular non-feminist groups primarily pushing back against religiously-motivated abortion laws in the US? Which is why the secular movement doesn't have a huge problem with anti-feminist screaming MRA types? I would disagree. Yes, there are other motivators, but feminism is the one that's been starting and, to a large degree, driving these pushes. Hell, contrary to your statement, feminism has been one of the things driving to help make secularism safer for women.

[kylie]

         As usual a few (hopefully) good intentions and a lot of mess.  Personally, I don't follow a lot of the groups or authors, particularly lately.  Even when I was reading theory and research, I was usually more interested in people writing on sexuality per se than gender (apart from some studies of what seems to be happening more presently with discrimination, violence or trans/queer issues).  I don't even know peanuts about men's rights as a movement(?) or with reference to specific groups.  So I am not going to toss many names.  And I'm not very interested in the back and forth and quote-squinting, which others are certainly doing sometimes neatly and sometimes more crassly.  So just a couple cents on the general situation.

        Placing sneer quotes around an -ism or a group, and then trying to use that quoted version to disparage certain elements over and over can get ugly.  Try to stop at some point and put words to just what you're talking about.  Then use those, but tell us what you mean by them and try to stick to your own labeling.  For example, certain authors (Dworkin is a good example) and some groups have often been called -- or maybe said to be influenced in certain respects, on certain issues by -- radical feminists or separatist feminists.  There may be a world of difference between what these strains say and what others say on points of interest.  So why not pick a label that you think speaks to exactly what you are criticizing, rather than sticking with sneer quotes over and over when the target (I think?) is not the entire movement.  Maybe the "-ism" actually targeted there is more separatism within feminism.  And you might say the "-ism" being argued for (maybe?) is more egalitarianism generally.  The quotes and new words, it may get a little overdone without adding things people have not already been arguing over. 

         Hmm.  Can I agree with everyone ?  (Ducks presumed barrage of vegetables from most for asking that way. Giggles.)

          Women often suffer real domestic violence, particularly domestic violence -- particularly once again non-reported or non-prosecuted violence, and I'd be surprised if it's actually found to be an even split.  That is, unless people are using a very broad definitions of violence and perhaps also of self-defense.  So it's hardly surprising that women's shelters get some publicity. 

         Men are largely expected to "tough it out" or "suck it up" when it comes to a string of particular, difficult things.  Including for some, having really awfully limited -- if not downright piggish -- rules about what to talk about, and what to say about gender in horribly narrow masculine communities.  Some of which, I am gathering from a lot of hearsay I haven't really investigated yet, go about calling themselves loudly, "men's rights" (do they not?). 

         But that's not all.  Men are often expected to limit and discipline themselves such that they "suck up" rather frequent application to specific kinds of hard work, monotonous or ugly routines, OR  for some, harsh violence...  And while we can still find quite a few men who will only be satisfied with a woman taking care of house, kids, and his ego even IF she might have a day job too...  We can also still find women who are only happy with "a real man" meaning one who never cracks, who rarely cries, who never looks too feminine, and who doesn't bother her about all the petty, sick, annoying shit he goes through in the day and maybe he better be able to protect her physically from every other pig out there too. I don't say all these things to deny anyone seeking particular types of relationships for the sake of it...  But how "normal" has it become for many people to assume one kind and to start demanding it such that everyone is pressured to subscribe to it to a degree? 

         We aren't in the 1970's anymore; more of the jobs are service and office.  More of the jobs aren't great paying, which means more women are working and not making enough for what they do -- before we even get into women often making less for the same (I think, more particularly for professional jobs?) ...

          .... And what about entry level office jobs, service jobs?  The brawny, mechanical, greasy, long hours of manual work factory jobs are pretty much gone and have been for some time.  If a man doesn't grow up with the particular training in grooming and soft - soothing - yielding language, quiet group maneuvering, and technical skills education already being pushed at him all such that he fits those jobs, what happens?  Do women expect him to be able to get those jobs and love them, all the same?  Does he become less of a "real man" and not eligible to be a good partner (which brings with it, less chance to be in a long-term romance with her, if both are led to believe everyone can only have one long-term partner for love and sex and household and everything, no room for more) all because his chances of making what scant money such jobs afford, are rather less?  If he feels that to "develop" himself to compete for those jobs amounts to a feminization or to a contradiction with those women who demand that he otherwise continue to play the emotional "rock" at home, then what?  Is it his personal problem to solve, or is it an education and cultural problem?   

         Just some men, particularly those with higher education, wind their way through this and perhaps aspire to the very masculinized veneer of "technical manager" sort.  They manage to adopt the middle-class image of perhaps, better-paying jobs for higher professional levels women are still often kept below glass ceilings in.  ('What, she might ask for maternity leave!  No way she can be on management track and get the same pay as a guy who might later be eligible for that.'  The more things change, the more they stay the same.)  For those who make it, they'll be given a good chance to elbow women out of the running for a real living wage.  Wage and  even simply, employment disparity continues there and it all favors those men.

           But for too many men -- and many of these are now angry white men filling out the ranks of various more virulent politicians and groups -- success at the white collar jobs was never a "manly" option or an economically obvious option that could be attained...  And where these happen, it's often both at the same time.  You end up with working class males going to underfunded schools in depressed regions among a general recession, being pressed to do something to be hero-provider even for their birth families first, where they can't see what the hell to do.   And they often end up being told by their parents essentially not to focus on school or (even if they aren't strict gender police) polite business language and expensive grooming, but instead to find some reliable, low investment work the minute they graduate if not much, much sooner.  But the wages are getting depressed, contract work is in -- lifetime is out, etc...  Life is tough for many of those jobs and quite a few of these guys end up kicking around ranting about how the women, and so many other minorities have "stolen" all the opportunities from them through affirmative action and how they lack "respect" or "appreciation" for the limits and struggles of more "tough" masculine life.

            There is also the little matter that women's roles are roles taught to enjoy and be aware of aesthetics, relationships, soft power.  Which do not exactly get most women more money or status wholesale.  But they do provide it for a select few (who probably, granted, work their butts off to keep "the right stuff" to do that as long as possible)...  And more important, soft power provides a measure of comfort and perhaps some more basic security to women...  Many shops won't pay much, but having one slot to fill -- how many would want or would prefer the "decorative" or "soft speaking" girl figure, which when times get tough well many women basically know how to be without necessarily compromising every edge of what they consider their personal gender ideal.  Offbeat example: Even the brooding goth chick or say totally earthy, no-makeup vege eco-activist nearly androgynous girl type...  Either often has smoother accessories and washes her hair more often by routine than quite a few of the working class guys? (Though for some it's totally unacceptable of course.) 

           Beyond that, women more often get to enjoy talking to each other for support and seeing inside relationships in ways maybe men aren't "supposed" to, and they get to play with how colors and appearances and fashions can be used to manipulate emotions and relationships -- it's something of a sport for some.  While it's true some would prefer more stereotypically "masculine" things, I would be surprised if women were all happy to trade that in completely for equal work access.  Just as men are not always quick to trade in prestige and wages that are supposed to go with being "reliable providers and leaders" for ready access to cozy but boring and frilly (sometimes grossly humiliated) assistant sort of office jobs. 

            And how many women would be happy if all men leaped headlong to embrace as much personal femininity in sex and performance as possible?  I think there would be a surprising amount of disturbance, even a few more separatist claims seeping around mainstream culture that men should not be allowed to because surely they would do so with "the wrong intentions" or saying that could only be leading to a situation where more women would somehow or other be abused by some "false equality" there. 

[Kane]

I... um. I'm kinda boggling at this one. You can't think of a single law that works against women in any way, in any western country? Are... are you sure you're as well-educated on women's issues as you think? Because I can give you 22 examples in the US alone off the top of my head.
Which is why nobody talks about gay people any more, right? Or can words be reclaimed and hatred pushed back?

Ah, I sometimes forget that the US is considered a civilized country. I do know about the US anti-abortion laws, of course.

Your assertion is that men are alienated and driven away by the term. It's a blanket statement, so any man who accepts and rallies under the banner of feminism pokes a hole in it.

I clearly did not mean all men are alienated by it. Many are.

I chose my words poorly here. I didn't mean you stand against feminism, I mean that you call yourself an egalitarian specifically to distance yourself from feminism.

I might have described something wrong, but I don't essentially distance myself from mainstream feminism, I distance myself from the term 'feminism.' I don't like it, I've told you why I don't like it, and that's unlikely to change.

Which is why it's been secular non-feminist groups primarily pushing back against religiously-motivated abortion laws in the US? Which is why the secular movement doesn't have a huge problem with anti-feminist screaming MRA types? I would disagree. Yes, there are other motivators, but feminism is the one that's been starting and, to a large degree, driving these pushes. Hell, contrary to your statement, feminism has been one of the things driving to help make secularism safer for women.

Non-feminist secular groups are pushing back against any religiously motivated laws, in addition to pushing back against the abuse of women by religion, that happens against the law, or in a 'grey area'. Feminism has started a lot of the pushes, true, but not all of them, I was simply disputing that. Again, I'm not saying feminism isn't a good movement.
Anyway, can you elaborate on how exactly is secularism, that almost without exception a humanist movement, largely concerned by the victimization and rights of women, not safe for women?

Anyway, I keep my stance on having a feeling that terms feminism, men's rights, women's rights and henceforth pit people against each other, categorizing them into neat little boxes. Equal rights does no such thing. However good or bad any of the movements I mention might be.

Positive Ideals behind the secular society:

Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
Equality of all people.
Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.

[Kythia]

Ah, I sometimes forget that the US is considered a civilized country. I do know about the US anti-abortion laws, of course.

It was only last year we equalised the line of succession over here.  Was that the last remaining holdout then?

[consortium11]

And movement that targets one problem is naive because all problems are interconnected?  Is that really your argument because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

You may not think it makes much sense but intersectionality, the idea that all forms of oppression are interlinked and one cannot effectively combat one without combating all of them, is a pretty well established idea and I'd suggest is actually the mainstream view within groups focusing on "isms". After all if a disabled, lesbian, black, Muslim, immigrant is abused (using the term widely) does it matter if they were abused due to racism, sexism, ablism, their sexuality etc etc?

That said, perhaps there is a deeper question there... is (or perhaps better phrased as should) feminism be interested with dealing with the issues women suffer because they're women or with dealing with the issues women face in general?



In truth that leads on to yet another point. In an earlier discussion on rape and the horrific "rape prevention advice" that pops up, the matter of victim blaming appeared and the point was made that in the sort of situation normally envisaged in well-meaning but ineffective advice (night out, walking alone, drunk etc etc) a man who is beaten up isn't blamed in the same way a woman who was sexually assaulted. Whether that's true or not (and I think it is, but the degree is somewhat overstated) the argument appeared to be that victim blaming wasn't wrong because it was wrong in-and-of itself but it was wrong because men didn't face it to the same degree. I hope we can all see the flaw in that argument... if the issue with victim-blaming isn't the act itself but the disparate way it is used then blaming male victims in the same way female victims are would solve the issue.

Is that a good thing?



Again, it touches on the above point about the nature of feminism, just rewritten slightly. Is it about improving the lives of women? Or is it about making the lives of women equal to the lives of men?

And that becomes an issue because if it's the first then claims that feminism is simply egalitarianism/humanism in a different outfit struggle to hold up. And if it's the second then many of the goals could be solved not by directly improving the lives of women but by negatively impacting the lives of men. I've already used the victim blaming example but one could look at disparate rates of pay (don't increase women's pay, simply pay men less), slut shaming (abuse men who enjoy sex), rates of domestic abuse (get more women to hit men) etc etc. Now, that's clearly a pretty ridiculous position... but if we hold the second view on what feminism is to be true then logically it holds water... it is making women's lives the same as men's.



One quick point on "mainstream" feminism. Who are the feminists I'm most aware of (at least with regards to regularly commentating and writing articles)? Suzanne Moore and Julie Burchill because both regularly wrote for the Guardian (the UK's largest left-leaning/progressive newspaper/news website) and in general are two of the "go to" commentators on feminist issues in the media. They are by pretty much any definition mainstream. They also happen to be transphobic... especially so in Burchill's case... and would quite happily fit into the the whole TERF scene.

Now, of course, I'm not going to argue that feminism is intrinsically transphobic or that the majority of feminists follow such an ideology. But Burchill and Moore weren't given their high profile media roles because of their transphobic views and the attention that would generate, they were given their high profile media roles because they were high profile feminists, albeit largely of the second-wave mentality, and the transphobia came out later. Ignoring the strong current of transphobia that some strains of feminism carry seems to me to be somewhat willfully obtuse... especially when you have other high profile feminists like Bidisha saying that feminists such ignore their differences in ideology and make sure they're always on the "girls team" (although some would dispute who gets to join such a team...)

[Kane]

It was only last year we equalised the line of succession over here.  Was that the last remaining holdout then?

Equalised the line of succession of what..? You lost me. And don't get me wrong, I personally don't consider the US a civilised country. :P

[Kythia]

Over here, for me, is the UK.  The same as you, to judge by your Location box.

The line of succession is the line to the crown.  Previously younger males were privileged over older females.  A clearly sexist law.  I'm asking if you feel that that was the last remaining such law in civilised countries.  Be careful, it's a trap.

Incidentally, Ephiral, did you guys ever get that sorted?

[Kane]

Over here, for me, is the UK.  The same as you, to judge by your Location box.

The line of succession is the line to the crown.  Previously younger males were privileged over older females.  A clearly sexist law.  I'm asking if you feel that that was the last remaining such law in civilised countries.  Be careful, it's a trap.

Incidentally, Ephiral, did you guys ever get that sorted?

UK resident. And well, the whole monarchy thing is an entitlement thing, not a women's rights issue. No one should have the right to be the head of a nation on the basis of 'they were born as one' so the issue isn't so much that someone wasn't allowed to be the monarch, but that someone is.

When we are speaking of women's, men's, or anyone else's rights, clearly the issues we should speak of aren't issues that concern the most self entitled family in the world, and that family only.

[Kythia]

You "can't find a law that works against women in any western country."  US anti-abortion laws don't count because the US isn't civilised (astute readers will notice that formed no part of your criteria, facetiousness aside).  Line of successions don't work because you don't think we should have a monarchy. 

Is there any law you would accept?

[Kane]

You "can't find a law that works against women in any western country."  US anti-abortion laws don't count because the US isn't civilised (astute readers will notice that formed no part of your criteria, facetiousness aside).  Line of successions don't work because you don't think we should have a monarchy. 

Is there any law you would accept?

The comment was tongue in cheek, of course I accept the anti-abortion law as an example.

[Ephiral]

As before, anything not quoted is either resolved or conceded.

Non-feminist secular groups are pushing back against any religiously motivated laws, in addition to pushing back against the abuse of women by religion, that happens against the law, or in a 'grey area'. Feminism has started a lot of the pushes, true, but not all of them, I was simply disputing that. Again, I'm not saying feminism isn't a good movement.
Anyway, can you elaborate on how exactly is secularism, that almost without exception a humanist movement, largely concerned by the victimization and rights of women, not safe for women?

Ask Rebecca Watson, who two years ago casually suggested that maybe guys shouldn't proposition a total stranger in a confined space with no witnesses at 04:00 in the morning after she'd publicly announced her intent to go to sleep. She's still getting rape and death threats from avowed secularists. Richard fucking Dawkins threw her under the bus.

Ask Jen McCreight, who was actually driven offline by a concerted harassment campaign.

Ask Justin Vacula, who danced on McCreight's grave and went on to launch a campaign against Amy Roth, up to and including posting her home address with a photo on a known hate site, and writing an article detailing his "case" against her at A Voice For Men. His reward: A prominent position in Secular Coalition for America (which he resigned due to his, erm, controversial history).

Ask the Slymepit, where campaigns like these are sometimes orchestrated and often cheerlead.

Ask Scientific American, who silenced Karen Stollznow when she finally raised the subject of a years-long pattern of sexual harassment against her, despite her taking pains to avoid her harasser.

Don't ask DJ Grothe; according to him, there is not and never has been a problem, at least not that he's heard about, despite having been personally informed repeatedly.

Ask the female con regulars, who have a list of predatory men, including prominent speakers, who should be avoided at secular conferences. Several of the men I mention here were on that list for apparently good reason.

Ask Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, and Lawrence Krauss, who were on that list. All of them have a rather sizable list of accusations of sexual harassment and assault levelled against them - enough that it's looking really credible, and a number of which are trusted by sources I'm willing to believe.

The list goes on, but I trust I've made my point. This is a problem, which is exactly why there is now a countercampaign to clean house - and it's making progress. Look at the recent proliferation of con harassment policies, for example.

[consortium11]

The "secular scene" (for lack of a better term) seems remarkably hostile to women from someone on the outside looking in. If one has the time (and rage) to spare a look at the way Atheism Plus was attacked is an interesting (and dispiriting) way to spend a few hours.

Perhaps worst of all is the almost "cover up" like atmosphere that some seem to extend towards sexism in the atheist community. The argument seems to be that because people believe the same things about secularism/religion and are "allies" in a cause they shouldn't criticise or attack other secularists in the "scene" for being sexist, threatening or offensive because it would make the movement look bad. Which rather misses the point that it would be a lot better if people weren't sexist, threatening or offensive not just because it makes the movement look bad but because it's wrong.

[Ephiral]

Honestly, while I've painted a pretty grim picture, it's... not quite as bad from the inside looking out. It's not good, and there's still a long way to go, but... well, the misogynists and their allies are losing this battle. Broad-based support is firmly on the side of A+ and other progressive social justice types. We're nowhere near as good as John Scalzi and his ilk have been in SFF fandom, but... things are moving in the right direction.

EDIT: That said, I fear this is drifting off-topic rapidly.

[Sabby]

Saying that the 'secular scene' are anti-woman because they are vocally against certain groups that identify as Feminist is exactly the kind of grievance I suspect lead Kane to starting this thread,

I'm an Atheist and I agree with Atheism+ on paper, yet I disapprove of the way it is being run. Are you going to call me anti-woman as well?

[Florence]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I've personally tried to make it clear that I support feminism in the sense of equality, not the sort of anti-men fringe lunatics that run around calling literally every man who even suggests the idea that a woman might be wrong about anything a misogynist.

I'm just going to throw this out here. I fully and completely support feminism.

I also think Rebecca Watson is a smug bitch. To which I'm sure she would reply that I think she's a smug bitch because I'm an evil sexist. It couldn't possibly be because she never wipes that smug grin off her face long enough to say anything of substance.

As for Atheism Plus, I frankly find the idea a little baffling. I mean, I'm all for anyone standing up for social justice and equality, and I'm an atheist myself, but... why do we need some special movement specifically designed for atheists supporting these things? Why not just be an atheist who's already a part of movements working with those goals in mind? I admit, I don't have the greatest base of knowledge on them, so I can't really judge too much, but most of what I have heard does seem to paint them in negative light.

For the record, I consider myself an atheist, a humanist, a Buddhist, a feminist, and a strong advocate for social equality in all its forms. (Well, rational forms at any rate. Sorry NAMBLA, but we just don't see eye-to-eye on a few key issues.)

[gaggedLouise]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I've personally tried to make it clear that I support feminism in the sense of equality, not the sort of anti-men fringe lunatics that run around calling literally every man who even suggests the idea that a woman might be wrong about anything a misogynist.

I'm just going to throw this out here. I fully and completely support feminism.

I also think Rebecca Watson is a smug bitch. To which I'm sure she would reply that I think she's a smug bitch because I'm an evil sexist. It couldn't possibly be because she never wipes that smug grin off her face long enough to say anything of substance.

As for Atheism Plus, I frankly find the idea a little baffling. I mean, I'm all for anyone standing up for social justice and equality, and I'm an atheist myself, but... why do we need some special movement specifically designed for atheists supporting these things? Why not just be an atheist who's already a part of movements working with those goals in mind? I admit, I don't have the greatest base of knowledge on them, so I can't really judge too much, but most of what I have heard does seem to paint them in negative light.

For the record, I consider myself an atheist, a humanist, a Buddhist, a feminist, and a strong advocate for social equality in all its forms. (Well, rational forms at any rate. Sorry NAMBLA, but we just don't see eye-to-eye on a few key issues.)

Yes, the distinct tone of know-it-allism, smugness and "I've got the right to tell you guys just why you're talking and thinking like you do, but you don't have the same right on me and my pals" are a real put-off factor for me too with some parts of contemporary feminism. Especially the kind that plays it  loud in the media - any kind of media, social media as well.

Plus the tendency (or the rethorical trick) of rolling all kinds of oppression, harsh, minor and just suspected signs of oppression and antipathy into the same big puffing cigar. If people are saying that forced marriages, genital cutting and outright killings of women in e.g. Sudan or Uzbekistan are no different in kind, in how they operate, from the lower rate of women directing major films or running big record companies, then it's not credible in my eyes, I can't take that kind of talk seriously. It's just a ploy to create an image of a worldwide gender war where every woman could in a sense risk being raped and killed with impunity. But I get to hear that kind of thing regularly, and it's never questioned with any force or incisiveness in the media. if you do, you're branded a misogynist or (if female) a traitor or a gender house n****r.

A big part of current feminism has shifted emphasis, over the last dozen years or so, from social/gender equality, equal baselines and fighting sexism to publicizing/idolizing of "strong women" in showbiz, politics, business corporations or the media. People such as Rihanna, Beyoncé, Julie Burchill, Sheryl Sandberg, Yingluck Shinawatra, Naomi Campbell...I've even seen Anna Wintour called a "feminist pioneer". ;)  Maybe even Sarah Palin would have fit the list? It’s often sold as part of this line of thinking that the networking of these strong and gutsy - and phenomenally rich -  women (and their flash sex appeal) together with millions of rear troops, in the media and in society, will help get more female politicians and business leaders up to the top. To me that’s really a kind of trickle-down model, and perhaps more pointedly, you don’t ever see Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Rebekah Brooks or Golda Meir invoked as model strong women who owed their success to this kind of woman-to-woman networking plus rising from nowhere, or to highlighting their female/feminine qualities. To me that absence really nails it. It brings out that what really matters in that kind of “punchy woman” argument is those people in the media, “pop feminists” getting to appear associated with someone they admire, perhaps for reasons that don’t have anything much to do with feminism or gender injustices.

I hasten to point out that I still count myself as a feminist and this matters to me, but I don’t want anything much to do with this new brand of pseudo-feminists who are all too keen on piggybacking on other people’s grievances and conflicts to boost their own slogans, and who are so fond of declaring what other people are allowed to think, or have to think, I order to fit the feminist bill.

[Ephiral]

Saying that the 'secular scene' are anti-woman because they are vocally against certain groups that identify as Feminist is exactly the kind of grievance I suspect lead Kane to starting this thread,

I'm an Atheist and I agree with Atheism+ on paper, yet I disapprove of the way it is being run. Are you going to call me anti-woman as well?

For fuck's sake, Sabby. You've already made this mistake once in this thread. Please quote the post where anybody except you (and me, now, in this post) has used the term "anti-woman".

You, um, might have a hard time with that.

Further, it's not just "vocal disagreement", unless you mean to stretch that term into uselessness by lumping organized campaigns of rape and death threats, not to mention actual patterns of sexual assault by prominent figures, under it. The objection is not, and never has been, to dissent - there are some people who are highly critical of A+ who are on board with making secularism a reasonably safe space. The objection is to continued and escalated harassment of women, who were already struggling for equality and voices.

It's also not "certain organizations that identify as feminist". Off the top of my head, McCreight, Benson, Zvan, Thibeault, and Myers aren't part of any such organization - and yet all of them have been prime targets for one hate campaign or another because of their feminism. It's pretty generally targeted at anyone who speaks too loudly about the need for the exact kind of reform the MRAs demonstrate a profound need for.

[Kane]

The list goes on, but I trust I've made my point. This is a problem, which is exactly why there is now a countercampaign to clean house - and it's making progress. Look at the recent proliferation of con harassment policies, for example.

Some of the cases you mention there I take with grain of salt, especially after reading further to them. Some of them are valid, and I'm sure there are even more cases that are valid than listed here. One thing that connects them all is that they are isolated incidences, or orchestrated by troll sites like 4chan and Slymepit (Please, oh please do not confuse slymepit with mainstream secularism.)

I could compile a similar list of things that have been done in the name of feminism. Only to be countered. "But that is not true feminism."
This isn't a secular issue, this is a societal issue. This happens everywhere, ranging from secularism to even the feminist movement. If secular movement is not a safe place for women, then the same arguments may be used to claim feminist movement isn't a safe place for a man. (Luckily, it is not so.)

Secular movement doesn't have an institutional issue here. There is an issue that is apparent anywhere, in any movement, in any part of our daily lives, and affects everything we do. In secularism, these incidents are better documented than in most other cases. Which is a good thing, not a bad thing. The reason it is so frustrating when it comes to secularism, is not that it's so prominent, it is because everyone who upholds what secularism stands for, knows that we should know better.

[Sabby]

For fuck's sake, Sabby. You've already made this mistake once in this thread. Please quote the post where anybody except you (and me, now, in this post) has used the term "anti-woman".

The "secular scene" (for lack of a better term) seems remarkably hostile to women from someone on the outside looking in. If one has the time (and rage) to spare a look at the way Atheism Plus was attacked is an interesting (and dispiriting) way to spend a few hours.

Also.

Further, it's not just "vocal disagreement", unless you mean to stretch that term into uselessness by lumping organized campaigns of rape and death threats, not to mention actual patterns of sexual assault by prominent figures, under it.

Do you have any citation for this? Rebecca Watson getting nasty Youtube comments doesn't equal an organized campaign of death and rape threats.

[Ephiral]

Some of the cases you mention there I take with grain of salt, especially after reading further to them. Some of them are valid, and I'm sure there are even more cases that are valid than listed here.

I could compile a similar list of things that have been done in the name of feminism. Only to be countered. "But that is not true feminism."
This isn't a secular issue, this is a societal issue. This happens everywhere, ranging from secularism to even the feminist movement. If secular movement is not a safe place for women, then the same arguments may be used to claim feminist movement isn't a safe place for a man. (Luckily, it is not so.)

Secular movement doesn't have an institutional issue here. There is an issue that is apparent anywhere, in any movement, in any part of our daily lives, and affects everything we do. In secularism, these incidents are better documented than in most other cases. Which is a good thing, not a bad thing. The reason it is so frustrating when it comes to secularism, is not that it's so prominent, it is because everyone who upholds what secularism stands for, knows that we should know better.

Um. I doubt you could point to a prominent, well-respected feminist who has a dewmonstrated pattern of sexual assault and harassment against men. So no, the same accusations cannot be easily reversed. As to the no-true-Scotsman: No, my response would be "Yeah, that's a problem, and we're working on it." Again, I cite the example of trans-exclusionary radical feminism, and the strong pushback they're getting from more mainstream intersectional feminists. If no-true-Scotsman is your defense... are you really arguing that Lawrence Krauss isn't a secularist? Ben Radford? DJ Groethe? Richard fucking Dawkins, who has repeatedly made some pretty strong statements against these attempts at housecleaning and doubled down on them when confronted?

I call bullshit to that.

If the secular movement doesn't have an institutional problem, why was there such strong resistance to anti-harassment policies? Why are the people who do these things so routinely elevated to positions of importance and prominence? Why does it tend ot have little impact on their careers when this shit comes out? Most importantly, where the hell are all the women?

Even if it were no worse than society at large, which I find unconvincing, that's not an argument that secularism doesn't have a problem, or that it's actually a safe space. That's an argument that society in general has a problem, and that safe spaces are the exception, not the rule.

You say the reason it's frustrating is not that it's so prominent, but that we should know better. I say it's both. We should know better - but there are some big damn names on that list, there are more big names whose bad behaviour hasn't yet come to light, and there are men exercising their positions of power to actively dismiss these concerns and sweep them under the rug. That is the very definition of an institutional problem, and it is hurting both secularism and women who want to contribute to it.

[Sabby]

If the secular movement doesn't have an institutional problem, why was there such strong resistance to anti-harassment policies?

Probably because they were unnecessary. Hard to herd a group of Atheists with emotional pleas. What they needed to do was show that the problem exists, not spout nonesense like "If you disagree with our new rules your as bad as the people who break them". That's not the way you sell a proposition, so of course it's being resisted.

[Kane]

Um. I doubt you could point to a prominent, well-respected feminist who has a dewmonstrated pattern of sexual assault and harassment against men.

Not exactly, no, but I can point to a prominent feminist who preaches man hate and harasses men who disagree with her. Her name is Gloria Steinem. One of the most decorated feminists on the planet, having received the medal of freedom for her work. I could point out more, but I'm not going to make this a "Who can point out more wrong doers in which movement." Issue.

If the secular movement doesn't have an institutional problem, why was there such strong resistance to anti-harassment policies? Why are the people who do these things so routinely elevated to positions of importance and prominence? Why does it tend ot have little impact on their careers when this shit comes out? Most importantly, where the hell are all the women?

I don't know, my wife is the head of a secular organization. She seems to have the opinion there are no issues that have required any special attention. Go figure.

You say the reason it's frustrating is not that it's so prominent, but that we should know better. I say it's both. We should know better - but there are some big damn names on that list, there are more big names whose bad behaviour hasn't yet come to light, and there are men exercising their positions of power to actively dismiss these concerns and sweep them under the rug. That is the very definition of an institutional problem, and it is hurting both secularism and women who want to contribute to it.

Legitimate issues with any substance have rarely been swept under the carpet. Either way, my point wasn't whatever went on inside the secular movement, my point was what work they are doing to better the situation of women.

[Ephiral]

Still waiting on the quote accusing anyone of being anti-women. "Hostile" is not "anti", necessarily.

Also.

Do you have any citation for this? Rebecca Watson getting nasty Youtube comments doesn't equal an organized campaign of death and rape threats.

Okay, I may need to walk back my assertion of "organized" as solid truth, because I can't find the references I thought I had. "campaign of rape and death threats" is absolutely valid, though. Nice of you to pretend that it's only Watson getting it, though, despite my other examples upthread. No, I'm not going to repost the vileness here; it's not hard to find. Also nice of you to completely ignore the multiple, documented incidents of sexual harassment and assault, which are kind of a bigger deal under any circumstances than words. Not surprised you're ignoring that, though, because that leaves it in the realm of words, which can be dismissed without concern. Right?

Probably because they were unnecessary. Hard to herd a group of Atheists with emotional pleas. What they needed to do was show that the problem exists, not spout nonesense like "If you disagree with our new rules your as bad as the people who break them". That's not the way you sell a proposition, so of course it's being resisted.

Oh! Right. DJ Grothe's excuse. I remain skeptical. Why would skepticism be the one subculture whose conferences don't need anti-harassment policies, exactly?

I don't know, my wife is the head of a secular organization. She seems to have the opinion there are no issues that have required any special attention. Go figure.

Um. Not to insult your wife, but... again, we've got numerous, well-corroborated cases of outright assault by prominent figures. This isn't an issue requiring attention? What is?

Legitimate issues with any substance have rarely been swept under the carpet. Either way, my point wasn't whatever went on inside the secular movement, my point was what work they are doing to better the situation of women.

Last thing I'm going to say in-thread on the subject: If these issues aren't being swept under the carpet, why do known predators continue to hold prominent positions?

[Sabby]

Still waiting on the quote accusing anyone of being anti-women. "Hostile" is not "anti", necessarily.

Still fail to see the practical difference between the two.

The opposition to the proposed rules was with the way they were campaigned. No one is saying that Atheist gatherings shouldn't have harassment policies, but trying to add policies and acting the way in which these people have when asked why they should be accepted is what has kicked off the opposition.

[Kane]

Um. Not to insult your wife, but... again, we've got numerous, well-corroborated cases of outright assault by prominent figures. This isn't an issue requiring attention? What is?

They require attention, not special attention. They are not as numerous as people like to say they are. They are obviously an issue, but it's not something that requires massive measures to fix. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Secular movement is not as bad as you paint it to be in your posts. It has its issues, like every movement on the planet. We are working to fix it.

Last thing I'm going to say in-thread on the subject: If these issues aren't being swept under the carpet, why do known predators continue to hold prominent positions?

Lack of evidence. Lack of substantiated claims. Accusation does not equal crime. They might well be predators, but unfortunately, such cases can be very difficult to prove. If we 'out them' as predators without any evidence, we might be facing libel lawsuits, for example.

[Ephiral]

They require attention, not special attention. They are not as numerous as people like to say they are. They are obviously an issue, but it's not something that requires massive measures to fix. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Secular movement is not as bad as you paint it to be in your posts. It has its issues, like every movement on the planet. We are working to fix it.

My original point wasn't that it's necessarily worse than society in general. (I... am not sure whether I would uphold that, but it wasn't my stated position.) My point, which you disputed, was that it's not a safe space. It isn't. Neither is society in general. Safe spaces are the exception, not the rule.

Lack of evidence. Lack of substantiated claims. Accusation does not equal crime. They might well be predators, but unfortunately, such cases can be very difficult to prove. If we 'out them' as predators without any evidence, we might be facing libel lawsuits, for example.

Funny how accusation != crime, but "We don't want this person representing us" == jail time, isn't it? A legal standard of proof is both unnecessary and spurious in this situation, as nobody has been calling for prosecution. Frankly, the scientific and Bayesian standards of evidence - commonly accepted among secularists! - are more lax than the legal standard. Why is this extra rigidity being applied here?

Still fail to see the practical difference between the two.

A typical city street can be a hostile experience for women. It is not anti-woman. The general atmosphere of the secular community (and, hell, society in general) is unsafe and potentially hostile to women, but this is (for the most part) due more to lack of attention or concern or willingness to question the status quo than to active aggression. Therein lies the difference between "hostile" and "anti".

The opposition to the proposed rules was with the way they were campaigned. No one is saying that Atheist gatherings shouldn't have harassment policies, but trying to add policies and acting the way in which these people have when asked why they should be accepted is what has kicked off the opposition.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. You literally just said - on just the last page of this conversation! - that the reason these policies were opposed is because they were "unnecessary". ie, these policies shouldn't exist because they're just a waste of time. This was a common theme at the time. I like you, Sabby, but you've committed the Liar's First Sin: Lying while standing right next to the evidence.

I'm going to take a break from replying to this thread for now.

EDIT: Okay, this is a new page.

[Kane]

Funny how accusation != crime, but "We don't want this person representing us" == jail time, isn't it? A legal standard of proof is both unnecessary and spurious in this situation, as nobody has been calling for prosecution. Frankly, the scientific and Bayesian standards of evidence - commonly accepted among secularists! - are more lax than the legal standard. Why is this extra rigidity being applied here?

If accusation equals a crime, we live in a very dangerous world. That would not be a better place than where claims have to be substantiated. If we say we don't want such and such person representing us, we must say why do we not want them representing us. We can't exactly say. "Well, because they are sexual predators, you know." Without our claim being somewhat substantiated. It needs to be substantiated enough to at least stand in court, otherwise anyone can accuse anyone of anything just to tar their name.

[Sabby]

I haven't backpedaled. The harassment policies were proposed on the grounds that sexual harassment at conventions is a very large problem. Those pushing these rules failed to provide any evidence that the issue exists in such a way that the harassment policy already in place couldn't handle. The push for new policy, until they actually demonstrate why we need it, is unnecessary, and their hostility to those that question the new policy is what has raised the majority of concern.

I have stated two reasons, yes, but I have not replaced one with another. I apologize if I did not convey that very well.

[Hemingway]

What is the actual evidence that any of those alleged predators - I'm curious about Krauss in particular, as I have a great deal of respect for him - have done anything at all? I haven't been following the discussion closely at all, but the last thing I saw concerning it basically amounted to an unnamed source who refused to go into specifics, which more or less settled the matter in my mind.

Heh, I thought A+ died after the FreeThoughtBlogs debacle. I guess not!

[Sabby]

What is the actual evidence that any of those alleged predators - I'm curious about Krauss in particular, as I have a great deal of respect for him - have done anything at all? I haven't been following the discussion closely at all, but the last thing I saw concerning it basically amounted to an unnamed source who refused to go into specifics, which more or less settled the matter in my mind.

To be completely honest, I doubt they have any evidence at all for the most part. Ephiral is more familiar with the topic then me, so I'm sure if there's actually solid evidence that any of these people have committed a crime, he can provide it. But ever since the PZ Myers/Michael Shermer incident, I tend to not trust any accusations coming from A+ or FtB. They've shown themselves to be comfortable throwing around rape accusations with absolutely zero evidence (character attacks don't count as evidence Mr Myers) so I doubt they've suddenly developed some standards of information.

I really want to like Atheism+. The Atheist community is like a herd of cats, so it would be great for there to be some kind of venue to channel our desire for common good into actual results. I just hope this current incarnation will die out soon and we can try again on a more honest and productive foundation.

[Ephiral]

What is the actual evidence that any of those alleged predators - I'm curious about Krauss in particular, as I have a great deal of respect for him - have done anything at all? I haven't been following the discussion closely at all, but the last thing I saw concerning it basically amounted to an unnamed source who refused to go into specifics, which more or less settled the matter in my mind.

If accusation equals a crime, we live in a very dangerous world. That would not be a better place than where claims have to be substantiated. If we say we don't want such and such person representing us, we must say why do we not want them representing us. We can't exactly say. "Well, because they are sexual predators, you know." Without our claim being somewhat substantiated. It needs to be substantiated enough to at least stand in court, otherwise anyone can accuse anyone of anything just to tar their name.

You miss my point. If accusation does not equal crime, as I am willing to accept, why must we treat social repercussions as though they were jail time by demanding legal standards of evidence? Do you demand sworn testimony before you accept any assertion of anything at all? Do you refuse to listen to anybody who relays messages from another person, because that's hearsay? Do you consult a lawyer before you decide not to associate with someone any more? No? Then why are you demanding these standards here, when nobody is calling for legal repercussions?

Bayesian evidence would be a far more reasonable (and more likely to be accurate) standard here. So what does Bayes tell us? Well, the highest credible false-report rate for sexual misconduct I can find is 8%. (That's in Australia, and specifically pertains to rape, but I'm being as generous as I can here.) Taking Krauss as an example because he was asked about earlier, we have at least five separate accusations. (Given that his name circulated on back-channels for years, and one of these five was corroborated by multiple sources, the number is almost certainly higher, but let's stick to known facts.) Crunch the numbers, and we get a 34.26% chance that even one of these allegations is false, let alone all of them. On the other hand, to rebut a common refrain from the other side, the unreported-incident rate, per the US Bureau of Justice, is ~33%. It is just as plausible that five real incidents went unreported as that even a single one of those five is fake. Where would you place your bet?

This is before we take into account things that are more difficult to quantify, like the web of trust. Many of the people who reported these allegations have built up reputations over the course of years for being honest, sometimes to the point of being brutally straightforward. They staked these reputations on allegations that they, with greater details than we have here, found to be credible. There's also the matter that Krauss's name was passed quietly between women for years beforehand as someone who was unsafe to be around - not to ruin his reputation, as that list is still not public, but simply as a matter of safety. These factors are hard to quantify, but they hardly make the stories given to us less credible.

So which is more plausible: That every one of these accusations is false and either good enough to convince multiple credible reporters or seductive enough to convince them to throw away that credibility, or that Lawrence Krauss has engaged in a pattern of predatory behaviour which occasionally crosses the line into outright assault?

We're not looking for arrest or prosecution here - we don't need sworn affadavits and photographic evidence. What we do need is an examination of the information we have so we can make a decision as to whether this is a person we want to represent a movement that is already heavily male-dominated - and I know I don't, given the data available.

I haven't backpedaled. The harassment policies were proposed on the grounds that sexual harassment at conventions is a very large problem. Those pushing these rules failed to provide any evidence that the issue exists in such a way that the harassment policy already in place couldn't handle. The push for new policy, until they actually demonstrate why we need it, is unnecessary, and their hostility to those that question the new policy is what has raised the majority of concern.

I have stated two reasons, yes, but I have not replaced one with another. I apologize if I did not convey that very well.

Um. You said they were unnecessary, then said nobody said they shouldn't exist. Yes, that is backpedaling. Further, you're lying again. I just gave you solid evidence that TAM, for example, had a piss-poor policy in place - it was bad enough that Grothe thought there were no incidents on his watch, and that a guy who was caught with a camera on a stick taking upskirt photos was welcomed back. That is, when it had a policy - when directly questioned about whether there would even be a policy in place at the next event, they repeatedly refused to answer. So yes, the evidence was there, and was given as this push was ramping up. Repeatedly. At length. I just provided it again. Please stop spreading this lie.

To be completely honest, I doubt they have any evidence at all for the most part. Ephiral is more familiar with the topic then me, so I'm sure if there's actually solid evidence that any of these people have committed a crime, he can provide it. But ever since the PZ Myers/Michael Shermer incident, I tend to not trust any accusations coming from A+ or FtB. They've shown themselves to be comfortable throwing around rape accusations with absolutely zero evidence (character attacks don't count as evidence Mr Myers) so I doubt they've suddenly developed some standards of information.

Exactly what evidence do you have that Myers is lying? Keep in mind, his years of credibility and honesty are pretty hefty evidence against such a proposition, especially when he is risking that entire history for literally no conceivable benefit to himself.

Or are naked accusations perfectly all right when they come from sources you approve of?

EDIT: Forgot to remove irrelevant ranty bit from quoted material.

[Sabby]

If you're really resorting to 'prove him wrong', then I'm done here. I'm not going to try and disprove Myers claim. Shifting the burden of proof like that is something I deal with from Creationists, not Atheists.

[Ephiral]

I' not saying "prove him wrong". I'm not looking for solid proof of any sort, just plausibility. I'm saying "There is a significant amount of evidence that indicates that he is not lying, and that these accounts are plausible", and asking for any - any - evidence to counter that. There is apparently none. Why exactly is "He's lying!" plausible in any way?

Remember, Sabby, the best numbers I could find for your position were eight percent. The odds that the accusers in the Krauss case are all lying is 0.00032768%. The burden of proof is on the side saying that the case which has a probability of three ten-thousandths of a percent is true, not the side that finds someone with everything to lose and nothing to gain, with a long history of honesty, credible. Stop pretending I'm the one shifting the burden - yours is the weak case.

[Sabby]

I am really confused right now.

Myers made a claim against a person. He provided no evidence. Now I'm being told to accept his claim on the grounds that he's trustworthy. Well, sorry, but I don't accept those grounds, as I don't trust Myers. He went right to assembling a lynch mob with nonsense justifications like "I have it on good authority that he is a scumbucket"

Can you at least attempt to understand why I would be cautious of a group that operates in this way? I know you trust the members of A+, but I simply do not, so appealing to their credibility does nothing for me I'm afraid.

As for the thing about the policy, I have stated numerous times that I mispoke. I mentioned two reasons why the policy change was opposed. Yes, my wording appears as swapping one for another, and I have, and will again, apologize for that. But, as I have stated multiple times, and now have to again, that was a simple mistake on my part. Unless you'd like to ask me to go back and edit all the posts built on that goof to reflect the amended wording, then I'm not sure what else I can say about it.

Maybe the conventions did need some policy amendments. But the grounds on which those amendments were proposed and the way in which they were defended were what was lead people to deem them as unnecessary at the time.

[Ephiral]

I am really confused right now.

Myers made a claim against a person. He provided no evidence. Now I'm being told to accept his claim on the grounds that he's trustworthy. Well, sorry, but I don't accept those grounds, as I don't trust Myers. He went right to assembling a lynch mob with nonsense justifications like "I have it on good authority that he is a scumbucket"

Can you at least attempt to understand why I would be cautious of a group that operates in this way? I know you trust the members of A+, but I simply do not, so appealing to their credibility does nothing for me I'm afraid.

Myers has years of history writing online. When has he ever lied before? What benefit would it be to him to lie now? Even if he were willing to lie, what evidence overwhelms the sheer, ridiculous implausibility that this many reports are all completely false?

If you're going to accuse a man who's been forthright and honest for years of lying, I'd suggest you have any reason at all.

As for the thing about the policy, I have stated numerous times that I mispoke. I mentioned two reasons why the policy change was opposed. Yes, my wording appears as swapping one for another, and I have, and will again, apologize for that. But, as I have stated multiple times, and now have to again, that was a simple mistake on my part. Unless you'd like to ask me to go back and edit all the posts built on that goof to reflect the amended wording, then I'm not sure what else I can say about it.

I see one apology "if you were unclear", while continuing to assert that your earlier claim that the policies were "unnecessary" was still valid. At no point did you drop the "Nobody's saying they shouldn't exist" part. These two statements are in obvious conflict. You continue to hold both of these statements as valid, as far as I can tell. Even if we take "if I was unclear" as an apology for saying things that were clearly untrue after being presented with evidence that they were untrue, this is hardly "numerous times".

Saying things that are clearly untrue in the same thread as the evidence that they are not true, standing by those untrue statements, and then making more untrue statements in defense of them is not the way to build credibility, Sabby.

Maybe the conventions did need some policy amendments. But the grounds on which those amendments were proposed and the way in which they were defended were what was lead people to deem them as unnecessary at the time.

So "We'd like to know a policy exists at all" should be dismissed out of hand, but nobody's saying policies are unnecessary.
So "You personally handled a sexual harassment case last year and are now claiming it didn't exist - your documentation needs to be improved" isn't valid grounds for change.
So "A sexual harasser who was caught red-handed performing blatantly skeevy and likely criminal acts of harassment was welcomed back with open arms" isn't a reason to think about changing policies.

So, even now, even after the conventions who argued this position have largely realised that they were wrong and corrected the issue, this is still a position that you consider defensible.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Hemingway]

Ephiral, I'm going to stop you right at the first paragraph, at the point where you assume 'no'. Because accusations of rape are not 'any assertions of anything at all'.

I tried looking up rates of false reports in the US, and the numbers range from 2 to 31%. There is apparently no clear definition of what actually constitutes a 'false' claim. I'm not, if you'll pardon the irony, take your word for the 8% figure. It also doesn't actually matter. The Bayes theorem may be used in court, though I could find very few instances of this actually happening ( and it was apparently criticized, too ), but I'm also not a judge or a lawyer, so on general principle, I don't have to accept it.

We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary. If we relax our standards because that proof may be difficult to obtain, then many more people miscarriages of justice would occur. I'm firmly on the side of caution here; better that some guilty people go free, than innocent people wrongly punished. I'm using the 'term' punished loosely here, as having your reputation ruined certainly is a 'punishment', even if there's no official sentence.

What evidence is actually available? I went back and looked at the Krauss case, as that's the one I'm most interested in. It's literally one person claiming two other people had something unspecified happen to them, but they're too intimidated to come forward. Is that evidence? I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is. It's like a parody of the case against Julian Assange.

[Sabby]

I'm completely lost dude... you keep asserting that my two statements somehow cancel each other out, when I've clarified multiple times that I hold both opinions, and I still fail to see how they somehow are incompatible. If I go on trying to defend my position against this I'll be forced to limit my speech to a patronizing level of simplicity, and I'd really rather not. Maybe I'm just having extreme difficulty understanding your objection, and if that is indeed the case, I will apologize, but right now I have to admit that I simply do not follow right now.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, I'm going to stop you right at the first paragraph, at the point where you assume 'no'. Because accusations of rape are not 'any assertions of anything at all'.

Wait, what? I'm not sure I follow here. I went with the rape numbers to be generous, as what academic numbers I could find for general sexual assault were lower.

I tried looking up rates of false reports in the US, and the numbers range from 2 to 31%. There is apparently no clear definition of what actually constitutes a 'false' claim. I'm not, if you'll pardon the irony, take your word for the 8% figure. It also doesn't actually matter. The Bayes theorem may be used in court, though I could find very few instances of this actually happening ( and it was apparently criticized, too ), but I'm also not a judge or a lawyer, so on general principle, I don't have to accept it.

Source on that 31% number, please? I'm unable to find it. The numbers I'm working from include Lisak et al, 2010 (5.9% in their study, though they cite others ranging from 2-10%), Heenan & Murray, 2006 (rape-sepcific, 2.1%; my mistake, this was the Australian one), the 2003 FBI Unfor Crime Report for the US (8%, rape-specific), DiCanio, 1993 (cites dispute over the specific figure but general agreement in the field that it's between 2 and 8 percent). It seems there's at least a vague consensus here among researchers, and I'm at the high end of it (again, being generous).

Further: Even if we accepted the apparently-ridiculous 31% number... that still gives us a 0.28% chance that all five victims are lying in the Krauss case. The best numbers you can pull don't make his innocence plausible.

We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary. If we relax our standards because that proof may be difficult to obtain, then many more people miscarriages of justice would occur. I'm firmly on the side of caution here; better that some guilty people go free, than innocent people wrongly punished. I'm using the 'term' punished loosely here, as having your reputation ruined certainly is a 'punishment', even if there's no official sentence.

We use "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal proceedings, true. But that's a higher bar than even civil court, let alone social actions. Do you hold a full jury trial with lawyers prosecuting and defending before you decide not to associate with someone? Then why are we holding to legal standards here? Why not use the standards that reasonable empiricists use to determine what is most likely to be real and correct given partial evidence?

What evidence is actually available? I went back and looked at the Krauss case, as that's the one I'm most interested in. It's literally one person claiming two other people had something unspecified happen to them, but they're too intimidated to come forward. Is that evidence? I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is. It's like a parody of the case against Julian Assange.

You didn't look very hard. Jen McCreight cited victims A and B. Eddy Cara cited at least one more separate incident, so there's C. Myers and Zvan have another case, so there's D and possibly E. Far cry from "one reporter, two accusers", isn't it?

Given that we know that sexual assault allegations are generally credible, even using your apparently-rejected-by-the-academic-community number of 31%, yes, these constitute evidence. Not certainty, but evidence of which case is more likely to be true. Even if we accept your number (which, barring some very impressive backing, I do not), even if we assume the Zvan and Myers reports are the same victim, the odds are 0.9% that all the accusers on record are lying, and 22% that they are all being honest.

This is what the data we have shows. Your alternative appears to be to go with gut feeling and emotion. (EDIT to remove rather offensive bit here.)

When the issue is unimportant, feel free to judge with your emotions and go with your gut. When it matters, shut up and multiply.

What is more likely to be true given the data we have?



EDIT:

I'm completely lost dude... you keep asserting that my two statements somehow cancel each other out, when I've clarified multiple times that I hold both opinions, and I still fail to see how they somehow are incompatible. If I go on trying to defend my position against this I'll be forced to limit my speech to a patronizing level of simplicity, and I'd really rather not. Maybe I'm just having extreme difficulty understanding your objection, and if that is indeed the case, I will apologize, but right now I have to admit that I simply do not follow right now.

The conflicting statements are "These policies were unneeded" and "Nobody is saying these policies should not exist."

In order for both of them to be true, your position must be that unnecessary policies should exist - that convention staff should waste time and money formulating policies that have no bearing whatsoever on events in the real world. It does not appear that you or those you support hold this position - I see nobody clamoring for a policy on things which do not exist or events which have never occurred, and it is basic logic that a convention with limited time and resources should spend them on things which actually affect the real world. Hence, either:

-These policies should exist because they are needed, or
-These policies should not exist, because they are unneeded and thus a waste of limited resources.

Either way, one of your statements must yield. Further, claims that it was not demonstrated that policies were needed are patently false, as are claims that you had, at the time the claim was made, stated "numerous times" that you misspoke. The evidence against these statements was in this very thread before you made them.

EDIT EDIT: I accidentally half a sentence.

[Valthazar]

I admittedly don't know much about this false reporting issue, but I was recently attending a presentation by a feminist speaker - and this was one of the topics.  She's a women's rights advocate, and happens to have a son who is in college.  When asked about the issue of false accusations of rape, she said it is a difficult issue, since she knows how things can be challenging for men.  She said she advises her son to not have sex unless he knows her well, ideally if it is a committed relationship.

I can't say I disagree with her advice on a practical level, but I found it rather ironic for a feminist to say, given that feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

[Kane]

I'm going to pipe in on the false rape claim issue. There is a small minority of claims that we can be reasonably sure are false. There is a slightly larger minority of claims that we can be reasonably sure are true. The vast majority fall into a grey area, that we do not know whether they are true or false.

In other words, it is just as false to say "Only 6% of rape claims are proven false, so the rest are true" as it is to say "Only 10-15% of rape claims are proven true and result in conviction, so the rest are false."

I don't know where this notion of "Rape claims are likely to be true" comes from. They are not any more likely to be true than any other type of accusations. They are just as likely to be false as any other type of accusation. Just because it's a horrific crime, doesn't make it more likely to have happened than any other type of crime people get falsely accused of, or framed to have done.

That said, every rape accusation should always be taken seriously, and investigated. Even at the risk of it causing someone personal damage. The punishment for rape should be much worse than it is. However, in cases where it can be proven without a shadow of doubt that the rape claim was false, there should be a consequence for ruining someone's reputation. Punishing false accusers does not mean that a genuine rape accuser would be prosecuted if they could not prove they were raped.

You miss my point. If accusation does not equal crime, as I am willing to accept, why must we treat social repercussions as though they were jail time by demanding legal standards of evidence? Do you demand sworn testimony before you accept any assertion of anything at all? Do you refuse to listen to anybody who relays messages from another person, because that's hearsay? Do you consult a lawyer before you decide not to associate with someone any more? No? Then why are you demanding these standards here, when nobody is calling for legal repercussions?

I demand evidence, at least some semblance of it. Yes. I'm afraid that's how I operate. Most of the time, when someone comes to me, accusing someone else of some kind of a misdeed, they'll have some kind of evidence, whether it's someone else witnessing that something wrong at least seems to have been gone on or whatever. It might not necessarily stand in court every and each time, but there has to be some kind of grounds to it, other than "Well the person is quite trustworthy though."

I don't know the personal relationships between every and each person, I don't know what is everyone's agenda. I don't know what are everyone's issues with each other. I simply cannot know when someone's so pissed off with something someone else has done, that they are going to throw them under the 'predator' train to get them back.

The more serious the accusation, the more it demands evidence. If I get told someone told someone else to fuck off, I might take their word for it. If someone tells me someone I trust and has a good record, is a predator, I might just want a bit more.

Since you were using examples like "Do you demand evidence for everything" I guess extreme examples are ok. If someone you trust told you that another quite trusted person just killed someone, with no evidence whatsoever, would you just take it at face value, because that person has been trustworthy in the past?

[Chris Brady]

We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary.

I've got to pipe up right here, and say 'No we don't.'  We live in a society where snap judgements are made against anyone who's accused of a crime.  Ephiral (I'm sorry but taking someone's word simply because they haven't lied before is not admissible in a court of law) is a prime example of this, and they are not the only person to do so.  It happens all the time.

There are keywords that, when used, will trigger an extreme reaction.  Like the word 'Rape'.  It's an act that has never been acceptable.  Ever.  There are examples everywhere of people getting angry, and willing to beat and/or murder the alleged perpetrator, even if there's no evidence of it.

Now the Justice system of various countries try to assume Innocent Until Proven Guilty, but outside of the courts, it's the opposite.

I wish we lived in a society in which that innocence is presumed, before guilt, but we don't.  There have simply been too many news articles in the meager 40 years I've lived on this mudball we call earth that claim otherwise.

[kylie]

I admittedly don't know much about this false reporting issue, but I was recently attending a presentation by a feminist speaker - and this was one of the topics.  She's a women's rights advocate, and happens to have a son who is in college.  When asked about the issue of false accusations of rape, she said it is a difficult issue, since she knows how things can be challenging for men.  She said she advises her son to not have sex unless he knows her well, ideally if it is a committed relationship.

I can't say I disagree with her advice on a practical level, but I found it rather ironic for a feminist to say, given that feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

It does feel a little funny on the face of it, yes.  Though I would be surprised if someone could show it was really a commonly occurring situation.  We don't all isolate ourselves from people generally just because a few of them might be murderers...   Or for that matter, particularly in the US, a few of them might show up in college with an automatic weapon tomorrow, and instantly become mass murderers!   ::)  Yet we go on going to class every so often... Many of us anyway.  So it may be a bit much to postpone sex generally over a few rare cases of false accusations?

         I wonder:  How much more common are false rape accusations than say first-time, surprise murder cases among one's social network, if indeed they are more common?  How much is known about the sorts of relationships or preceding events where people may be more likely to make such accusations?  Are some of these, also arguably cases of simple confusion and miscommunication?  It may also be possible that one person feels it's false and the other doesn't, in some cases.  Although...  I think quite a few of those, people say that outside at the hearsay level...  But probably when you look at the details, many of them are actually someone who didn't think much at the time at all, in a situation where someone normally couldn't consent or not with relative clarity...  And then cases where someone just too conveniently assumed it would be seen as "normal" later because say, they were drunk -- or drugged -- or wearing a short dress -- or failed to ask someone more trustworthy for a ride.  In those cases, one side really believes it's a false accusation but the other, ummm no.  They may very well decide that confusion or exploitation are not the same as permission granted.

           But about that second part of the quote...

feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

          This is getting a little close to the same sort of messy shotgun where Kane (in the case of the opening here) so very loudly kept saying feminism as if it were all one neat thing, with those sneer quotes.  If you look at the various authors and groups, you'll find some do and some clearly do not...  And some say they do but have contradictory details going on when they start talking about various issues, from the get go.  Now granted, you may or may not have reason to say this particular person comes from a strain that typically seems to.  But it's hardly true that all feminisms have.  And certainly not always.  Some people even actually change their minds or detailed prescriptions on certain things from time to time.   ;)

[Kythia]

I can't say I disagree with her advice on a practical level, but I found it rather ironic for a feminist to say, given that feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

Not sure I'd give you that.  While, sure, Dworkin never actually said that "all heterosexual sex is rape", it is undeniably a position held by others even if you believe her that its not held by her.  Sexual expression and feminism don't, IMO have that strong a correlation.  Hell, just look at the SCUM manifesto and separatist feminism.

I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is.

Seriously guys?  Are we genuinely going to allow a passing comment that insults almost a billion and a half people to go unchallenged?  I get that its part of the culture of E but that went beyond the pale a little.  Would you allow me calling sweeping generalisations intended to give casual offense to a fifth of the world without any sort of evidence "atheist tactics"?   

[Sabby]

Kythia, that comment was made in regards to Christian debating tactics, not Christians.

[Kane]

Kythia, that comment was made in regards to Christian debating tactics, not Christians.

I would make a clear point if I was you, and note that is an apologist debating tactic, not Christian.

[Sabby]

I would agree, actually, just the vast majority of Christian debaters are Apologists, so it's not always specified.

[Kythia]

Kythia, that comment was made in regards to Christian debating tactics, not Christians.

While I understand your point, I think that's a mighty fine hair to be splitting.  "Christians use bad debating tactics" is implicitly a comment about Christians - compare with "Australians use bad debating tactics".

But meh.  It's very much a side issue and I don't want to drag it out.  I just wanted to flag it because it annoyed me.

[Sabby]

While I understand your point, I think that's a mighty fine hair to be splitting. "Christians use bad debating tactics" is implicitly a comment about Christians - compare with "Australians use bad debating tactics".

No, see, it's not directed at Christians who debate a point. A Christian debating for climate change awareness is no more likely to swing to the dishonest side then any other debater.

Do you mean 'Debater who is Australian', or 'Debater who argues that Australia is X'. The first is irrelevant, because the topic could be literally anything, but the latter is more specific. 'Australia is X' or 'Australia has the best Y' is a much more refined subject, and is something that can be discussed honestly or dishonestly. The subject matter of Christian debaters is similarly more refined. The difference is that the majority of those positions are argued through manipulative and dishonest means when they reach any kind of formal platform.

[kylie]

          I want to gingerly (gingerly! or with cinnamon if you prefer  O:) ) call vagueness or hyperbole on both of you.  Hem talked about the Krauss case and didn't bother to spell out, at least in that post, whatever relationship he saw between his view of the example (which Ephiral later challenges, but anyhow) and his model of how certain "religious" positions have often been phrased.  Kyth comes along and says in effect, if you so much as use the word Christian shotgun (by which I mean without specifics), then a "billion and a half" people might potentially -- or perhaps should, is rather implied -- get offended.

          First, there might be some question of whether people should attempt to at least guess what vague statements are more particularly aimed at (perhaps the tendency of certain leading fundamentalist Christian figures etc. to often moralize and engage in public character assassination on public "family values" cases without inside evidence about those cases to speak of?) ...  Or maybe when someone is horribly vague, there could be room to ask what in the world they meant or suggest what comes to mind when they say that exactly... 

            Second, this response hinting that the whole of Christendom might or should get into in furious insulted uproar, all billion and a half...?  Just because it was vague and mentioned something negative using the word "Christian" in regard to anything generalized?  This is like Chinese government propaganda. " Why if Obama meets the Dalai Lama "of course"all 1.3 billion Chinese people we're up to now, will all be immediately revolted and take this as the gravest possible insult! "  And because the Great nation is oh so big [just like some Great Big Religions?] you best watch what you say lest too many people don't like being called out about anything a few, or however many of them for that matter might actually be doing. Rawr.  In either case, best no one look at the issues that were being talked about before.  (Or were they there to be talked about?  That's still TBD I guess.)

           But wow...  The sweeping, puffy words in reaction to the pretty vague, perhaps also sweeping puffy words?  I know y'all are trying to shelve it already.  Just gotta say, that irked me a little too.  Done.   :o

[gaggedLouise]

I would agree, actually, just the vast majority of Christian debaters are Apologists, so it's not always specified.

No, they're not. Perhaps the ones that would show up to speak if one would arrange a debate on the topic "Does God exist?" but not the majority of people who engage in debate (on whatever topic in politics, philosophy, ethics or religion) and who identify as Christians.

Also, most Christians don't think it's a catch-all answer to treat rape, any and every rape incident, the way it could have been treated in a hardcore christian community in 1880. Or in some other single decreed way.

Would you accept the statement "Most people in the U.S. who debate the Middle East or in are Jewish apologists" (that is, apologists for the cause of "the Jews"/Israel)??

[Sabby]

As I said in my post, I'm referring to discussions that reach a formal platform.

[Kythia]

Man, I wish I'd never mentioned this now.  The reference to the number of people was intended to show that claiming "Christian" tactics was explicitly claiming a much larger number of people than was, I suspect, originally intended.  Hemingway feels that some Christians use that tactic and has expanded that to a sweeping statement that Christians use that tactic.  Some Somalians have used rape as a tool of intimidation  but I'd be called out if I called rape a "Black tactic"

[Sabby]

Whoa. I think I'm done here. This has gone off topic any how.

[gaggedLouise]

As I said in my post, I'm referring to discussions that reach a formal platform.

I was too, if we count discussions in the U.S. congress, through articles in newspapers and magazines (not readers' comments or "letters to the editor") and major tv and radio networks as well as public panel debates, faculty and town hall debates. But I'm not too keen on taking this line any further either: it is bit of a fringe issue by now.

[kylie]

The reference to the number of people was intended to show that claiming "Christian" tactics was explicitly claiming a much larger number of people than was, I suspect, originally intended.  Hemingway feels that some Christians use that tactic and has expanded that to a sweeping statement that Christians use that tactic.  Some Somalians have used rape as a tool of intimidation  but I'd be called out if I called rape a "Black tactic"

          But would you be called out for calling it a Somali tactic?  That's a better analogy, I think.  Maybe by some rather sensitive nationalists, but the Western news media commonly says something to the tune of, "Somalian militia" or "Somalian pirates" etc. use such things, whenever they get around to mentioning that part of the world.  I suppose it bothers a few Somalians who worry about such things, but for the purposes of having a discussion:  We know it doesn't describe every single Somalian and you should hardly expect all Somalians to be upset at the wording in that context.  The issue really to be discussed is the rape and intimidation and what the heck is happening with it.

          That is different from the beginning of this thread, where Kane just said "feminism" and the quotes and lack of specific cases early on really, at least potentially I might better say, made it appear to be aimed at all of feminism.  It was wildly and endlessly vague while running on with heavy claims.  There was a whole lot of endless chatter using the word over and over, messily.  The post you've quoted only has a very short blurb.  The problem is it's totally short and vague.  But I don't think it's much of a problem that he's mentioned the people he's concerned about are often somehow, someone, somewhere Christian.
 
         If he is right, and I suppose he is (if I am guessing what he meant, or close enough):  Then it is a tactic of some, certain Christians.  Though he wasn't very clear, and I think you could better ask about that.   

          Personally, I don't see from that post saying he thought it was every one.  His weakness (or certainly vagueness) is that it's not specifying anything there.  Or just possibly, you feel you're talking back to some earlier frame of the discussion?  But I don't see what you are aiming at being said, in the post of his that you quoted.

[Kythia]

          But would you be called out for calling it a Somali tactic?  That's a better analogy, I think.  Maybe by some rather sensitive nationalists, but the Western news media commonly says something to the tune of, "Somalian militia" or "Somalian pirates" etc. use such things, whenever they get around to mentioning that part of the world.  I suppose it bothers a few Somalians who worry about such things, but for the purposes of having a discussion:  We know it doesn't describe every single Somalian and you should hardly expect all Somalians to be upset at the wording in that context.  The issue really to be discussed is the rape and intimidation and what the heck is happening with it.

Mmmm.  Probably doesn't need saying but "Western Media do this" and "It is correct to do this" aren't the same statement.  I would certainly call out for claiming it was a Somali tactic, yes, though I don't actually see the difference between the analogies.  "Within a specific subset of a wider whole some members of that subset do this =/= the wider whole does this" is the sole point I was trying to make and I'm actually surprised there's anything controversial there.

I think I'm done.

EDIT:  Just to expand a little - that sort of vague and woolly phrasing is harmful.  Calling rape a Somali tactic sets up lines of thinking, it colours perspectives.  It makes it a societal problem "Oh, that's the way shit is done in Somalia".  Being clear that this is a problem specific to some individuals prevents the vague laziness of sweeping an entire nation under the same wave of the hand. 

[kylie]

          I do think he could have been much clearer.  He might have said for example, certain fundamentalist Christian leaders, if that is who he has in mind.  But often people get in a bit of a hurry and shorten things to Christian.  This happens in many other areas.  Since you raise Somalia, if the Al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia says "The Americans attacked us" when the Marines landed...  Are you going to fuss about "Wait, those were only some Americans, it wasn't me!  [Oh or if you're not American, "It wasn't anyone I know over there!"]  I [He] didn't do it!"  That isn't the point -- nor the situation! -- they are talking about and you're reasonably expected by most everyone to know it.   Did they say it mattered to their point just how many?  Can you show it matters to yours?  Then ask them, or produce some ideas of your own about what did probably happen that's got them so upset if it wasn't "your" Americans.   

         The people who landed were Americans. For that matter, they are Somali pirates and yes Somalian rape cases of whatever ilk, until such time as there is enough discussion for people to agree on something better that can be said in three-ish syllables to get on with comparing them with other situations and dealing with the findings.  Or perhaps you would prefer that in the name of precision we try not to offend however many tribes (and Christian denominations) by using twenty different names for things where various people who are involved go on with the rape and piracy. 

         While I understand that -- as I said -- a few radical nationalist (or alternatively, obstructionist?) Somalis might be so offended that we don't narrow down every discussion to the name of village, tribe or individual and their particular ethnic names and philosophies and use all of that every time we want to say a rape happened around Somalia in each and every sentence...  I will continue to maintain that quite a few Somalis would probably be quite happy if we kept on saying "Somalia" IF it meant we might get more people on the problem faster and actually talk about and respond to the damn rapes which do have something in and of Somalia about them.  By contrast, your position here seems to mean:  Since it's less offensive to keep the simple word Christianity apart from any mention of controversy about feminism, the most precise prideful people like yourself must refuse all discussion of the matter.

        Either way, so it's a better discussion![/i]   We can't put an adjective or a quantity with every single mention of something that does correlate to some extent with certain groups.  We say the part we've noticed and get on with what kind of action we've noticed.  If you want to draw a distinction about who, sure go ahead...  But he didn't really say exactly which Christians he thinks does it.  Why not ask him?  Or make a suggestion if you can guess, even. 

         And whether or not how many Christians happen to like whatever we might find or imagine after that, isn't immediately relevant to modeling how feminism compares to whatever Christian(s) do whatever tactic(s) or not.  It's not a problem of politeness and foregone conclusions.  It's a question of actual philosophy and behaviors we can point out.  They could just be damn different, whichever feminists one picks and whichever Christians do use those things if they do.  Who knows.  Everyone can argue about whether it's nice or unavoidable or mean after we figure out who he was talking about.   

          But tossing out parts of the convo over "Christians" being vaguely involved somehow that someone apparently disapproves of -- when we haven't even figured out just what it was supposed to mean yet?  That doesn't lead us anywhere.  Except it does save some Christians from any critical discussion of anything Christian at all, one might say.  It also could mean leaving out some very positive, complex discussion of what various Christian groups do say, whichever way, about feminism.

[Kythia]

And whether or not how many Christians happen to like whatever we might find or imagine after that, isn't immediately relevant to modeling how feminism compares to whatever Christian(s) do whatever tactic(s) or not.  It's not a problem of politeness and foregone conclusions.  It's a question of actual philosophy and behaviors we can point out.  They could just be damn different, whichever feminists one picks and whichever Christians do use those things if they do.  Who knows.  Everyone can argue about whether it's nice or unavoidable or mean after we figure out who he was talking about.   

          But tossing out parts of the convo over "Christians" being vaguely involved somehow that someone apparently disapproves of -- when we haven't even figured out just what it was supposed to mean yet?  That doesn't lead us anywhere.  Except it does save some Christians from any critical discussion of anything Christian at all, one might say.  It also could mean leaving out some very positive, complex discussion of what various Christian groups do say, whichever way, about feminism.

I'm sorry, could you rephrase this?  I have no idea what you mean by it.  From the first paragraph, what the hell has feminism got to do with this?  As to te second....man, I'm totally lost. Tossing out parts of what conversation?  Haven't figured out what what was supposed to mean?  One might say that, sure, but why?  What positive complex discussions would be left out?

I'm sorry, but you've absolutely lost me here.

[Ephiral]

I'm going to pipe in on the false rape claim issue. There is a small minority of claims that we can be reasonably sure are false. There is a slightly larger minority of claims that we can be reasonably sure are true. The vast majority fall into a grey area, that we do not know whether they are true or false.

In other words, it is just as false to say "Only 6% of rape claims are proven false, so the rest are true" as it is to say "Only 10-15% of rape claims are proven true and result in conviction, so the rest are false."

Um, no, but very nice try. There are a vast number of reasons a true accusation might not result in a conviction, including a victim's lack of interest in being dragged through a courtroom, police lack of interest in pursuing a case, complete failure to report, and evidence that, while clear enough to indicate that something happened, does not meet courtroom standards.

There is a small minority of claims we can be reasonably sure are false. There is a larger minority of claims we can be sure are true, were pursued by police, had victims willing to prosecute, and had evidence to courtroom standards. The vast majority don't see the inside of a courtroom but are credible enough to factor into the decisions of a reasonable person who doesn't happen to be sitting on a jury.

I don't know where this notion of "Rape claims are likely to be true" comes from. They are not any more likely to be true than any other type of accusations. They are just as likely to be false as any other type of accusation. Just because it's a horrific crime, doesn't make it more likely to have happened than any other type of crime people get falsely accused of, or framed to have done.

You're absolutely right. What's the general rate of false criminal accusations? Oh, 2%. Hmm.

I demand evidence, at least some semblance of it. Yes. I'm afraid that's how I operate. Most of the time, when someone comes to me, accusing someone else of some kind of a misdeed, they'll have some kind of evidence, whether it's someone else witnessing that something wrong at least seems to have been gone on or whatever. It might not necessarily stand in court every and each time, but there has to be some kind of grounds to it, other than "Well the person is quite trustworthy though."

Yes, evidence is important, and there should be some backing every belief you hold. But legal evidence is not the only kind of evidence. If someone tells you in the middle of the night that the sun will come up tomorrow, do you demand a sworn affadavit and photographic evidence that the sun still exists? Or does every previous sunrise count as evidence that this is probably true?

P(allegation is legitimate|low report rate, extreme social hostility to accusers, complete lack of benefit to the accusers in this case, low false-report rate) > P(allegation is legitimate). These factors are evidence that the allegations are unlikely to be false.

I don't know the personal relationships between every and each person, I don't know what is everyone's agenda. I don't know what are everyone's issues with each other. I simply cannot know when someone's so pissed off with something someone else has done, that they are going to throw them under the 'predator' train to get them back.

The more serious the accusation, the more it demands evidence. If I get told someone told someone else to fuck off, I might take their word for it. If someone tells me someone I trust and has a good record, is a predator, I might just want a bit more.

You realize that the false-report statistics I've been citing include the overwhelming majority of malicious reports, right? In the absence of a detailed map of social networks, the correct default skeptical position is to fall back on the general false-report rate unless there is evidence that these allegations are more likely to be spurious than the general case.

Also, what exactly constitutes "a good record"? None of the accused are exactly known for their stellar track record on women's issues. The best you can say is that, up until now, they did not have a bad reputation that you were aware of. (It is profoundly untrue to say that they did not have a bad reputation at all.) This is not evidence against the allegations, this is non-information.

Since you were using examples like "Do you demand evidence for everything" I guess extreme examples are ok. If someone you trust told you that another quite trusted person just killed someone, with no evidence whatsoever, would you just take it at face value, because that person has been trustworthy in the past?

No. No no no no no. I did not and never have questioned whether evidence is needed for every belief you hold. I questioned whether courtroom-level evidence is needed. If someone very trustworthy, with nothing to gain from lying and an extremely valuable public and professional reputation to lose, came to me and told me that someone else who I respected had murdered someone, and then a number of other similarly trustworthy people came forth independently with more murdery incidents, and then when I investigated it turned out there had in fact been a number of well-corroborated multiply-witnessed accounts of the accused making death threats, and he was well-known for inviting people to come take a look at his knife collection and quicklime pit, and it turned out that he had a quiet but very real reputation among his potential-victim pool for murder? Then yes, I'd be more than a little suspicious of him. I sure as hell would never be alone with him, and I wouldn't want him representing me in public for any reason. I wouldn't say "He is a murderer, period." I wouldn't demand he be thrown in jail. But I'd sure as hell be disassociating from him, which is all that anybody has ever asked for.

I've got to pipe up right here, and say 'No we don't.'  We live in a society where snap judgements are made against anyone who's accused of a crime.  Ephiral (I'm sorry but taking someone's word simply because they haven't lied before is not admissible in a court of law) is a prime example of this, and they are not the only person to do so.  It happens all the time.

No need to apologize - this isn't far from what I've been saying. I'm not calling for snap judgments (which rational people shouldn't really be making on important matters), but... well, we absolutely don't demand criminal-court standards of evidence before acting on any other piece of data outside a courtroom. Why here?

Seriously guys?  Are we genuinely going to allow a passing comment that insults almost a billion and a half people to go unchallenged?  I get that its part of the culture of E but that went beyond the pale a little.  Would you allow me calling sweeping generalisations intended to give casual offense to a fifth of the world without any sort of evidence "atheist tactics"?

You're absolutely right, and I should not have engaged on these terms. I've edited to remove that; I apologize.

(I'd like to note, however, that it's kinda hilarious for someone to accuse me of the sort of tactics known to certain skeevy evangelical/fundamentalist Christian public figures in one breath, and then say "I don't have to accept this theorem of probability when determining what is probably true because I don't like it!" with the next.)

[kylie]

              Kythia, I edited again to answer your Somali example again btw. 

             When I popped in today, you were replying to Hemmingway's example of the Krauss case, which did talk about rape accusations.  That clearly has something to do with views of gender, the status of women, and -- this is the way I make sense of what little he said -- the tendency of certain very vocal Christians to make public character attacks without evidence. 

             He talks about women making claims without evidence (he says), and then compares that to whatever Christian methods.  At which point, you became flustered because he didn't put in numbers or names, something else where I just added "whatever."  So yes, I think his point was to imagine some parallel between "Christian tactics" and the rape accusations he described.  I can only guess precisely which or how many Christians, or maybe what specific tactics even, that refers to, without asking him for more.  But maybe you could too, if you were interested. 

            When you stop the whole conversation at attacking him merely for saying "Christian tactics" in an all too short post, I think you're probably not very interested in whatever he was trying to say about women, rape accusations, or variations of feminism. 

[Kythia]

              Kythia, I edited again to answer your Somali example again btw. 

             When I popped in today, you were replying to Hemmingway's example of the Krauss case, which did talk about rape accusations.  That clearly has something to do with views of gender, the status of women, and -- this is the way I make sense of what little he said -- the tendency of certain very vocal Christians to make public character attacks without evidence. 

             He talks about women making claims without evidence (he says), and then compares that to whatever Christian methods.  At which point, you became flustered because he didn't put in numbers or names, something else where I just added "whatever."  So yes, I think his point was to imagine some parallel between "Christian tactics" and the rape accusations he described   I can only guess precisely which or how many Christians, or maybe what specific tactics even, that refers to without asking him for more.  But maybe you could too, if you were interested. 

            When you stop the whole conversation at attacking him merely for saying "Christian tactics" in an all too short post, I think you're probably not very interested in whatever he was trying to say about women, rape accusations, or variations of feminism.

Errrrrm.  Have you seen Ephiral's long post just above yours?  The conversation isn't stopped by any stretch of the imagination.  It's still going.  We - you, me and previously Sabby and Lousie - are having a different conversation.  That's something that happens, conversations grow and split off and evolve.

Also, I didn't mean to "attack" Hemingway and my apologies to him if it did come across as an attack.

[Vekseid]

I cannot help but feel this thread has gone from bad to worse.

More specifically, I do not wish to see my forum to become a vehicle for 'the court of public opinion'. Even if 98% of rape accusations are true, destroying the life of one innocent person in fifty is not acceptable collateral damage. Some of my closest friends have gone through some horrific, extended experiences. Cheapening their experience is not acceptable collateral damage.

It's a line I would not like to see crossed here again, please.

If you wish to continue discussion, you may open a new thread, or ask that this one be re-opened in 24 hours.

Thank you.