5 ms·

I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in

I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. </dons flamesuit>

jb17 13y ago
I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.
- s_baby 13y ago
  Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.) We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
    - yaddayadda 13y ago
      I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
      - s_baby 13y ago
        >My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point. >I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place! Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia
        yaddayadda 13y ago
        I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    Sounds a bit like child abuse. And when I say a bit I mean a lot.
    - phaer 13y ago
      Care to elaborate?
      - adamnemecek 13y ago
        "... couple that forces their boy to ..." Is that sufficient?
        phaer 13y ago
        Depends on what 'forces' means exactly in this case.
        sjtrny 13y ago
        "...eat their vegetables" is that abuse?
        adamnemecek 13y ago
        Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?
        phaer 13y ago
        You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.
        13y ago
  - phaer 13y ago
    > Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I am sorry, I don't see how that would be the same as "denying any difference between men and women". Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"? A lot of clothing conventions for males in past centuries would pass as "female" today. Until the late 19th century it was common for small boys to wear dresses, see [1] for an example. Besides, I myself played with dolls as a small boy and as far as I can tell did take no harm. That might be different if those boys grow up around homophobic people who bully them for playing with dolls or wearing dresses. [1]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-st...
    - s_baby 13y ago
      If it's wrong to force traditional roles/identities onto those with a "queer" predisposition then the opposite is also true.
      - phaer 13y ago
        That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case. Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Does someone have recommended readying about that?
        phaer 13y ago
        A response would be even more appreciated than a down-vote ;)
        s_baby 13y ago
        >Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas. B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature. C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America. How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles. If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.
rayiner 13y ago
> very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement There's a very vocal subset of any group of people that has extreme opinions. Within the feminist movement, the vitriolic anti-male segment has really shrunk since the 1970's, and if anything there is a much bigger subset today that seek to validate and justify traditional gender roles. In my personal experience, I've encountered a decent number of men who point to innate gender differences to justify the skewed representation of women in engineering. I have also encountered a decent number of feminists who embrace traditional gender roles. I have yet to encounter any feminist of the vitriolic anti-male persuasion, though I read about them in my American Legal History class. In the mainstream media, I've read a few articles along the lines of Susan Patton's regressive letter urging Princeton women to "find a husband" while they had the opportunity to do so at an Ivy League institution, but none of the vitriolic anti-male screeds that people assure me exists.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. > only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.
- vacri 13y ago
  They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Well said, but I think you've lowballed this figure.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Hardly. Virtually every feminist scandal that attracts any attention whatsoever is about postmodern feminists and their oversensitive antics. The most popular feminist media, including Feministing and Jezebel, as well as articles on HuffPost and Slate, deal with postmodern radical ideologies. Academia has also long been dominated by them. Either they're not some "tiny and unpopular subsection" and actually a majority, or the logically vast majority of "reasonable" (depending on your views) feminists are doing precisely jack shit.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Are you saying that the only feminists who count are the ones who cause scandals? I don't follow. Is this the same viewpoint that says that all Muslims are terrorists because those are the ones that make the news? (Because "Local Mosque-Goers Are Pleasant Neighbors" doesn't sell newspapers.)
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      No, absolutely not. Obviously sensationalism sells. But the issue here is that your initial assertion of postmodern feminists being a "tiny and unpopular subsection" is a falsehood. As I said, most popular feminist publications today, both in mainstream journalism and in academia, belong to the former school. This includes the feminism in the tech industry, the ideology of which is expressed in resources like the Geek Feminism Wiki, perhaps the crown of everything that is wrong with postmodernism summed up into a single anecdotal wiki with virtually no editorial standards beyond "Does it fit in the echo chamber?". Then, let's face it: when postmodernists and radicals get all the attention, while all the supposed good and moderate feminists receive absolutely none... you have a problem. Your movement is being hijacked. You can underestimate the issue all you want, but the fact is it's the postmodernists who are actually making an influence.

jb17 13y ago

I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.

s_baby 13y ago
Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.) We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
    - s_baby 13y ago
      >My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point. >I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place! Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia
      - yaddayadda 13y ago
        I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Sounds a bit like child abuse. And when I say a bit I mean a lot.
  - phaer 13y ago
    Care to elaborate?
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      "... couple that forces their boy to ..." Is that sufficient?
      - phaer 13y ago
        Depends on what 'forces' means exactly in this case.
      - sjtrny 13y ago
        "...eat their vegetables" is that abuse?
        adamnemecek 13y ago
        Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?
        phaer 13y ago
        You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.
        13y ago
- phaer 13y ago
  > Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I am sorry, I don't see how that would be the same as "denying any difference between men and women". Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"? A lot of clothing conventions for males in past centuries would pass as "female" today. Until the late 19th century it was common for small boys to wear dresses, see [1] for an example. Besides, I myself played with dolls as a small boy and as far as I can tell did take no harm. That might be different if those boys grow up around homophobic people who bully them for playing with dolls or wearing dresses. [1]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-st...
  - s_baby 13y ago
    If it's wrong to force traditional roles/identities onto those with a "queer" predisposition then the opposite is also true.
    - phaer 13y ago
      That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case. Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Does someone have recommended readying about that?
      - phaer 13y ago
        A response would be even more appreciated than a down-vote ;)
      - s_baby 13y ago
        >Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas. B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature. C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.
stcredzero 13y ago
Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America. How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles. If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.
AutoCorrect 13y ago
It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.

rayiner 13y ago

> very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement There's a very vocal subset of any group of people that has extreme opinions. Within the feminist movement, the vitriolic anti-male segment has really shrunk since the 1970's, and if anything there is a much bigger subset today that seek to validate and justify traditional gender roles. In my personal experience, I've encountered a decent number of men who point to innate gender differences to justify the skewed representation of women in engineering. I have also encountered a decent number of feminists who embrace traditional gender roles. I have yet to encounter any feminist of the vitriolic anti-male persuasion, though I read about them in my American Legal History class. In the mainstream media, I've read a few articles along the lines of Susan Patton's regressive letter urging Princeton women to "find a husband" while they had the opportunity to do so at an Ivy League institution, but none of the vitriolic anti-male screeds that people assure me exists.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. > only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.

vacri 13y ago
They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Well said, but I think you've lowballed this figure.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Hardly. Virtually every feminist scandal that attracts any attention whatsoever is about postmodern feminists and their oversensitive antics. The most popular feminist media, including Feministing and Jezebel, as well as articles on HuffPost and Slate, deal with postmodern radical ideologies. Academia has also long been dominated by them. Either they're not some "tiny and unpopular subsection" and actually a majority, or the logically vast majority of "reasonable" (depending on your views) feminists are doing precisely jack shit.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  Are you saying that the only feminists who count are the ones who cause scandals? I don't follow. Is this the same viewpoint that says that all Muslims are terrorists because those are the ones that make the news? (Because "Local Mosque-Goers Are Pleasant Neighbors" doesn't sell newspapers.)
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    No, absolutely not. Obviously sensationalism sells. But the issue here is that your initial assertion of postmodern feminists being a "tiny and unpopular subsection" is a falsehood. As I said, most popular feminist publications today, both in mainstream journalism and in academia, belong to the former school. This includes the feminism in the tech industry, the ideology of which is expressed in resources like the Geek Feminism Wiki, perhaps the crown of everything that is wrong with postmodernism summed up into a single anecdotal wiki with virtually no editorial standards beyond "Does it fit in the echo chamber?". Then, let's face it: when postmodernists and radicals get all the attention, while all the supposed good and moderate feminists receive absolutely none... you have a problem. Your movement is being hijacked. You can underestimate the issue all you want, but the fact is it's the postmodernists who are actually making an influence.