Thread:Madkatmaximus/@comment-25625534-20150602104025/@comment-3444778-20150603082412

So LSB said to me earlier: "Obi's probably going to jump in."

And I said back to him: "Yeah, and he'll probably spend far more time picking apart my rant than Madkat's." :P

I might as well start at the beginning, too. You are correct, I too have grown up in a conservative environment - but only in its most basic form. Neither Christianity nor political or social conservatism were imposed on me beyond the age of reason; I have adopted them and made them my own in my own right. Until about a year and a half ago, I truly had no clue what feminism was. My sister had been hanging around Tumblr for awhile, and some feminist philosophies began oozing out. At first, they seemed to make sense; I bought the rape culture line, income inequality, the patriarchy, the whole deal. But then I started to pay more attention to what was going on in the world, and things just weren't adding up.

My sister has since left for and returned from her first year of college, studying to become a neuroscientist. She no longer considers herself a Christian, seems to view the world through a Tumblr feminist lens, and considers me to be sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and whatever else by virtue of inherent "societal perceptions."

We used to be pretty close, as siblings go.

So no, I don't think you ever understood quite what I believe about the feminist movement. This is, unfortunately, not a simple case of "been there, done that, now I'm enlightened."

I'm glad you know very nice feminists; so do I, namely my sister, whose opinions are now starting to leak into the minds of my younger sister and brother as well, for better or for worse (I never had quite the same amount of influence over them - kind of an outcast here). I don't believe that everyone who identifies as a feminist is a nasty person. And perhaps I haven't met enough people, but I've not met anyone who has, either, although I understand why the social left would find that to be a useful caricature to impose on the social right. I find that most conservatives have very weak outreach to people have been misled by social propaganda, which is a failure of lack of articulacy (and a fatal one, at that), perhaps leading to a superiority complex, but the colossal failures of modern social conservatism are a conversation for another time. My point is simply this: I don't see anyone as "nasty" for their self-proclaimed adherence to the feminist movement, along with most rational conservatives. To address that angle is to lend credence to an underhanded leftist caricature (read: conservatives believe all feminists are feminazis).

The belief that "all people should be equal" with regard to "social, economic, and political rights [...] regardless of their gender" is egalitarianism, not feminism. Even by the dictionary definition, which does not account for every nuance of what a given political ideology has ever intended or stood for, feminism is about bringing the civil rights of women up to the same level of that of men. By that definition, feminism would rightly be considered a subset of egalitarianism devoted specifically to ironing out the civil rights of women (hence "folding back into egalitarianism once achieved" from my original post). You mention feminist advocates for men's rights as well, but I'll address that chronologically. For now, we have a better working definition of feminism.

You say that those who do not call themselves feminists have no business trying to define feminism in a way that feminists disagree with. I find this silly for two main reasons: firstly, because when I characterize feminism as a movement, I address its practical effects to a greater degree than its stated intents, and secondly because its stated intents are so widely varied that if only those who consider themselves feminists could define the word, we'd never have a proper, working definition.

You insist that the feminist movement is about equal rights for women, according to everyone who considers themself a feminist. In some interpretations, this is true; however, "equality" is an extremely fickle word. Is that equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? What is considered a "right," and at what point does it become "equal"? So again, "equal rights" cannot be considered a measuring stick for agreement with the "feminist movement." If you considered the "equal rights" of women to be things like the right to vote, virtually the entire Western world could be considered feminist. If you considered the "equal rights" of women to be walking around on the beach topless, like men (a popular and age-old feminist initiative), then virtually no one outside of explicitly defined feminist circles would be.

Yes, I should have clarified: I was referring to the Western world. It's funny that you bring up the Arab world, though, because for all of the feminist activists and organizations that I've seen, legitimate human rights abuses around the world seem to be very low on their priority list. Yes, there are some who consider themselves feminists that have vested interests in improving the quality of life for women around the world. But there are many humanitarians who do the same without classifying themselves as feminists. Furthermore, there are many feminist-supporting groups and corporations that continue to do business in parts of the world with atrocious human rights records. For the most part, I see feminists doing only lip service to the girls in Afghanistan who have acid thrown in their faces, while genuine support is not by any means an exclusively feminist export.

Here in the States, however, we have quite a different story.

Let's talk about the wage gap. I'll say it again: it's been debunked. I've got several studies that show that in comparable employment situations, men and women are paid generally the same amount. In fact, women have been shown to have a monetary advantage by up to eight percent. It's funny you have that "random example," because that's all I ever see: random examples. The aggregated data just doesn't support it. When considering the wages of women as compared to their male counterparts, many things have to be considered, including experience, time off for maternity/re-entering the workforce, etc. Yes, there are isolated situations where women are mistreated in payment. And yes, you could pull out all of the personal anecdotes you could ever find and say, "Look at all of these instances! It must be a trend!" And you could evaluate each situation, remove all of the ones that have legitimate reasons for offering lower salaries, and factor in all of the women that are being paid equally for their work - and suddenly, the wage gap looks a little less trendy. I'm aware that this example is neither very feasible nor very scientific, but again, studies have been done by several reputable independent research firms. I'd link you now except that I'm in the process of moving three years' worth of bookmarks from my other computer to this one, so it'd be somewhat of a pain to go find them right now. Let me know if you're interested.

Oh, but speaking of equal employment opportunities, how about affirmative action for women? Haven't you heard that women represent embarrassingly low percentages of government and business advisory boards? Or CEO positions? Or tech workers? If you believe that "society" and "culture" (again, like "equality," very fickle words) discourage participation in these kinds of jobs, does rejecting potentially better-qualified male candidates spell out equality for women? This isn't even considered a "radical" feminist idea; in fact, I believe it was Sweden that recently introduced an initiative that within a few years would fill its government seats with a set quota of women. Even so, I reject the notion that society or culture significantly discourage girls from pursuing certain interests. This is simply the nature versus nurture argument, and science once again sides against feminist theory: according to preliminary studies, there are observable, tangible differences between the sexes in interests and in modes of thought since shortly after birth.

Okay, now your entire concept of a microaggressions is pretty twisted at its core. You say that microaggressions are "an analysis of how embedded misogynistic ideas can be in our language without us even being aware of it." I don't think you understand misogyny. Misogyny is the belief that men are superior beings to women. It is not possible to have "embedded misogynistic ideas" if you're not a misogynist. You either are or you aren't. If you could provide an example for embedded misogyny in someone that actually isn't a misogynist, that'd be great. But for our definition of microaggressions, take a peruse through microaggressions.com. I do it sometimes, just for giggles. From what I can see, nearly all of them are issues with off-color senses of humor, flat-out jerks, people with poor articulacy, or, as I mentioned, hypersensitivity. If you want to believe that the accused are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobic, or whatever else that permeates "culture and society," be my guest. If you want to see it, you can; if you want to explain it in other ways, you can. No one can truly know the intent of these people. That's what we have discernment for. But one of these methods cultivates hypersensitivity, induces the need for "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces," and ultimately restricts the right to free speech (via redefinition of "hate speech," most likely - but there's room to be creative here); the other does not. I'm glad you say that "microaggressions" are a linguistics issue, a notion I'd agree with in some cases; but it's not about being offended...? If no one was offended by "microaggressions," the term would never have been invented!

Okay, now hang on for rape culture. This one is kind of double-sided, and at times ambiguous enough that it's tricky to find a consistent answer from either the social left or the social right. I believe that rape culture, as you defined it, does not exist. I've never heard of a rape victim who was not enveloped in sympathy, or one who was blamed solely for their misfortunes. Clearly, my perception is limited; at the same time, I have reason to believe I'm correct regardless. Every single person that I've spoken with about the subject has referenced Youtube comments or Tweets or some other middle school-like communication medium that requires no accountability, which in turn devolves to, "if this isn't indicative of our culture, then what is." If you polled the general population, I can guarantee you, the ratio of those who sympathize with versus those who blame rape victims would firmly dispel the notion. There are exceptions from time to time (one recently from a California judge, actually - don't remember the full circumstances, but I was shocked by the ruling); but a culture where the victim is always blamed? No.

Here's the flip side to that: is rape more pervasive in society than it should be? Absolutely. And it's not because our society at large is taught to blame the victim. Instead, we live with a culture of ever-increasing acceptance of promiscuity, pornography, and moral relativism, the results of the sexual liberation (ironically a feminist initiative!) and, more broadly, the rise of secularism. "Waiting until marriage" is a thing of the past; abstinence is a joke - kids are now taught to have as much sex as they want, so long as they do it "safely"; that some circles can get away with rape (again, not a majority by any means, but a problem nonetheless) shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who is aware of our cultural decline.

The reason this is so tricky is because it seems like the religious right and the feminist left(-ish) would line up here. They don't. The feminist answer to the prevalent issues of sexual assault in our society (rape culture or not) has done even greater harm. Allow me to present a few examples. Most outspoken feminist groups do not support the use of firearms or date rape drug-detecting chemicals or martial arts etc., etc. by women for the stated reason that they "perpetuate rape culture." They instead propose intensive education. Forget teaching boys to treat girls with the utmost respect from a young age; instead, educate them about sexuality as early as deemed necessary, and teach them to "not rape" girls. And the sex-ed for Kindergartners I alluded to (*that should have been "sexuality exploration" - it's a "gender identity recognition" initiative) was not some Alex Jones fantasy, it has been implemented in Massachusetts public schools for several years now. I speak more tentatively here, but I disagree about increasing sex ed. Kids need to be taught 1) what it is, 2) what it's for, 3) be smart/self-defense, 4) you needn't be afraid to report, and 5) abstinence is the only guarantee, and it should be primarily incumbent upon the responsible parents, not the state. But the privatization of education is another can of worms entirely, and even here I'm probably missing some points, hence why I'm less comfortable speaking to this end. Not to mention, a side-effect of the feminist agenda happens to flip one of our constitutional rights on its head. I'm not sure what you know about the "Yes Means Yes" legislature, but it's basically a feminist-supported law in California that effectively makes any male accused of rape guilty until proven innocent. I support stricter punishment for those convicted, but the results of feminist activism speak for themselves. The bottom line is this: feminists, as determined by the solutions they have collectively proposed and supported, refuse to recognize that human nature is inherently sinful; therefore, their solutions are ultimately unworkable.

Yes, the vast majority of societies have had patriarchal family structures. Behold: Western civilization. Any questions?

If you're talking about family structure, there shouldn't be any doubts from a Christian perspective. Paul's letters are crystal clear: roles match biology, nothing more, nothing less, with the exception of a few minor religious symbols. From a secular perspective, it's worked pretty well for the entire existence of humanity (referring to "man of the household" model, of course). Today, women in the West can do pretty much whatever they want to do. Work? Fine. Raise a family? Fine. If you're going to argue about stigmata, just know that it's a two-way street.

If you're talking about patriarchy in terms of societal structure, I'm not going to harp on the past. Even if I was a feminist, I couldn't change 1200 A.D. Today, as I mentioned, women have more freedom than they have ever had in all of history. Again, as you and I have both acknowledged, stigmata are a two-way street.

Stereotypes can be good and bad for reasons that should be obvious to everyone. However, the sexes only present a miniscule portion of the fine line between assumption and discernment. If someone is insensitive about another's sexuality, it can be attributed to the speaker's lack of discretion as easily as institutional sexism. Once more, if you believe it exists, you can see it if you want - that's not proof that it's there, and more harm will come if you believe that it is. It's also kind of funny that you say "certain genders should present in certain ways." In context (I know, awkward snippet), you could also say that it's a trait of less emotionally stable people to interpret "expect to present" as "should present." People ought to understand that there's no shame in differing from the norm, but at the same time, that's no reason to shame those who expect the norm so long as they don't criticize departure from it. I hope you can see the theme here: if you want to see criticism in a non-hostile remark about your top knot and invoke institutional sexism, you can; that doesn't mean that it's there. Food for thought.

One last paragraph, circling back to the consideration of feminists who support men's rights. This is another semantics thing, mostly; feminism is defined by the dictionary as egalitarian specialization in the rights of women, but supporting women's rights and men's rights are not mutually exclusive. That said, I've seen enough feminists and feminist groups that are so stoked by the perceived inequality of the sexes that they deem consideration of men's rights insulting to their cause. These people are also not mutually exclusive with the misandrist/aforementioned disgruntled lesbian wings of feminism, but it kind of varies per their depth in the movement. The longer you believe in institutional sexism and rape culture and the longer you interpret the flow of life through the feminist lens, the more frustrated and aggravated by the differences you perceive you become. As I touched on in my original post: there are economic and political advantages to supporting the feminist movement. It won't be going away anytime soon, no matter how much they accomplish.

For your final challenge, as I explained early on: "equality for all genders" could mean lots of things. I don't buy it.

And finally, here's my biggest hangup with feminism: if it's all about empowering women, why does it end up blaming everyone else (men, society, culture, etc.) for their ills, whether they're justified or not? Wouldn't it be more empowering to stand up independently and do as you see fit than to demand being coddled or benefitted as retribution or force others to comply with your vision of utopia? That, my friends, is the penultimate contradiction of feminism.