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.