Is modern Feminism the new Sexism?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
I think you have to start with the question, what do you mean by modern feminism?
Let's do a little history lesson - sorry if you know all this already, but it might be helpful to see how each 'wave' of feminism has focused on specific issues, so you can see that feminism is aiming to move equality along a continuum.
First Wave feminism as a movement, began around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The main focus was around legal issues such as suffrage, property ownership, and employment.
Second Wave feminism started to develop in the 1960s and 70s. It broadened the debate to include a wider range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, domestic violence and marital rape. Rape crisis centres and women's shelters developed from the thinking and debates during the second wave. It also brought about changes in custody laws and divorce law.
Third Wave feminism focused on individuality and diversity - lasting roughly 20 years from the 1990s.
Fourth Wave (current) has moved into the technological sphere, focusing on sexual harassment (including street harassment), workplace discrimination, body shaming, sexist imagery in the media, online misogyny, assault on public transport, and intersectionality, relying on social media for communication and online petitioning for protesting.
I have said on an earlier thread that I don't believe in putting men down, but I do believe in helping women up. This isn't simply a question of only men or only women can and should succeed. (I know my argument is binary, I am not getting into a debate about non-binary). Why wouldn't you want one half of the population to have the opportunity to flourish? Let's put it another way, why wouldn't you want your mother, sister, wife, girlfriend etc to be the best she can possibly be?
Do I agree with 3rd and 4th Wave thinking? No, not really. I believe in equality of outcomes - but I can say this from a privileged position. I am white, solvent, successful, and smart. I am taken seriously by my colleagues (though I have a ton of stories about #everydaysexism I could bore you with). But - and here's the funny thing - if we shut down debate that makes us uncomfortable, we are censoring free speech and the opportunity to learn, develop, and grow. We are in effect no-platforming opinions we disagree with. We've talked about this many times on other threads on this forum.
It must be quite difficult to be a white male sometimes (I've also said that before) particularly in this climate. All I ask as a woman is that you don't make assumptions about me. That's all, really.
Let's do a little history lesson - sorry if you know all this already, but it might be helpful to see how each 'wave' of feminism has focused on specific issues, so you can see that feminism is aiming to move equality along a continuum.
First Wave feminism as a movement, began around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The main focus was around legal issues such as suffrage, property ownership, and employment.
Second Wave feminism started to develop in the 1960s and 70s. It broadened the debate to include a wider range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, domestic violence and marital rape. Rape crisis centres and women's shelters developed from the thinking and debates during the second wave. It also brought about changes in custody laws and divorce law.
Third Wave feminism focused on individuality and diversity - lasting roughly 20 years from the 1990s.
Fourth Wave (current) has moved into the technological sphere, focusing on sexual harassment (including street harassment), workplace discrimination, body shaming, sexist imagery in the media, online misogyny, assault on public transport, and intersectionality, relying on social media for communication and online petitioning for protesting.
I have said on an earlier thread that I don't believe in putting men down, but I do believe in helping women up. This isn't simply a question of only men or only women can and should succeed. (I know my argument is binary, I am not getting into a debate about non-binary). Why wouldn't you want one half of the population to have the opportunity to flourish? Let's put it another way, why wouldn't you want your mother, sister, wife, girlfriend etc to be the best she can possibly be?
Do I agree with 3rd and 4th Wave thinking? No, not really. I believe in equality of outcomes - but I can say this from a privileged position. I am white, solvent, successful, and smart. I am taken seriously by my colleagues (though I have a ton of stories about #everydaysexism I could bore you with). But - and here's the funny thing - if we shut down debate that makes us uncomfortable, we are censoring free speech and the opportunity to learn, develop, and grow. We are in effect no-platforming opinions we disagree with. We've talked about this many times on other threads on this forum.
It must be quite difficult to be a white male sometimes (I've also said that before) particularly in this climate. All I ask as a woman is that you don't make assumptions about me. That's all, really.
I consider modern feminism and the #MeToo movement (as part of that feminism) to have been born from something that is important in an evolving society. < Shreck Accent > Feminism is like an onion... it's got layers < / Schreck Accent > We are "peeling the onion" one layer at a time. As you point out, Bee, the various waves dealt with different aspects of society.
I also am obliged (if for no other reason than Devil's Advocacy) to point out that there are "opinion pendulums" in society as various groups try to become part of a society, get ostracized, then get accept. Perhaps that is some bizarre form of "social inertia" if you will the analogy. We knock society around and it takes a while to recover from the knock. But then things get better and we take the next hard knock, whatever it might be. So don't be surprised if men "push back" for a while.
People get uncomfortable when we draw analogies between individual actions (taken in aggregate) and the behavior of molecules in a gaseous medium (such as air). Individually, every molecule and every person is just "doing its own thing." But when you perform some type of aggregation analysis, you can find trends that allow behavioral predictions. I recall Isaac Asimov's psycho-history from the Foundation trilogy as a way to predict the behavior of whole multi-planetary societies. I also know from statistics that as the number of elements being aggregated gets larger, the error of your estimated behavior diminishes. Let's face it - advertisers have hopes of doing this kind of analysis.
I have digressed a bit (no surprise to anyone who knows me) but the point I was making is that this wave of feminism was almost predictable simply because we have had waves of feminism in the past. I.e. it has already shown "wave" behavior. Let's just watch out for the tsunami.
I also am obliged (if for no other reason than Devil's Advocacy) to point out that there are "opinion pendulums" in society as various groups try to become part of a society, get ostracized, then get accept. Perhaps that is some bizarre form of "social inertia" if you will the analogy. We knock society around and it takes a while to recover from the knock. But then things get better and we take the next hard knock, whatever it might be. So don't be surprised if men "push back" for a while.
People get uncomfortable when we draw analogies between individual actions (taken in aggregate) and the behavior of molecules in a gaseous medium (such as air). Individually, every molecule and every person is just "doing its own thing." But when you perform some type of aggregation analysis, you can find trends that allow behavioral predictions. I recall Isaac Asimov's psycho-history from the Foundation trilogy as a way to predict the behavior of whole multi-planetary societies. I also know from statistics that as the number of elements being aggregated gets larger, the error of your estimated behavior diminishes. Let's face it - advertisers have hopes of doing this kind of analysis.
I have digressed a bit (no surprise to anyone who knows me) but the point I was making is that this wave of feminism was almost predictable simply because we have had waves of feminism in the past. I.e. it has already shown "wave" behavior. Let's just watch out for the tsunami.
That's a good way of putting it. I started my post with reference to a continuum. Society in general is moving along a continuum as we develop our thinking to adapt to the problems and issues an evolving world throws up. I can see the patterns in history where groups of people who have felt in some way disenfranchised have stirred things up, there's been a time of unrest and debate, followed by some form of change. I'm thinking of the Civil Rights Movement, and decriminalisation of homosexuality for example.
I agree that it applies to the women's movement too - each wave has focused on the most pressing issues of the time which has resulted in incremental improvements.
I'm not. But isn't the crux of the problem the fact that inequality exists in the first place? Women are currently wrestling with the themes in Wave 4. Men pushing back (though natural and understandable - useful even, in terms of moving thinking on) can simply feel like men (in general) are being defensive and women are still not being listened to. Wouldn't it be more helpful to both if men listened and assisted in moving the conversation and thinking forward, acknowledging that something has to change and being part of that change? So by all means, push back - but come up with solutions too that show a willingness to support women.
I think [hope] you are simply being flippant - but let me ask why a tsunami would be problematic?
I agree that it applies to the women's movement too - each wave has focused on the most pressing issues of the time which has resulted in incremental improvements.
I'm not. But isn't the crux of the problem the fact that inequality exists in the first place? Women are currently wrestling with the themes in Wave 4. Men pushing back (though natural and understandable - useful even, in terms of moving thinking on) can simply feel like men (in general) are being defensive and women are still not being listened to. Wouldn't it be more helpful to both if men listened and assisted in moving the conversation and thinking forward, acknowledging that something has to change and being part of that change? So by all means, push back - but come up with solutions too that show a willingness to support women.
I think [hope] you are simply being flippant - but let me ask why a tsunami would be problematic?
Why state that women are still not being listened to, when by the same token, men are also not being listened to? If two sides disagree, each can argue that their own point of view is not listened to.
Who defines that it is indeed "thinking forward"? Change doesn't necessarily mean progress. It can be a retrograde step. Perhaps it is just a case of equilibrium. One side has one position, the other side has an opposing position. The forces on either side reach some kind of status quo. The tension is always there but will it never be a "resolved" tension.
As a side note, I am concerned that feminism is not addressing the issues about poor performance of boys at school relative to girls, the fact that men don't live as long as women (and so more of the healthcare budget should shift towards men), male suicide is much higher, domestic violence shelters for men are non-existent with all the budget going towards women, huge male fatalities during wartime, who pays for dinner, ladies first, fashionable hatred of old white men, under representation of men in biomed sciences (why no affirmative action for young white men here?), and so on.
If feminism is really about achieving equality between the sexes, why do they not advocate for bringing women into line with men when there are currently ahead of them? Or is it that they want all the perks but none of the downsides?
Who defines that it is indeed "thinking forward"? Change doesn't necessarily mean progress. It can be a retrograde step. Perhaps it is just a case of equilibrium. One side has one position, the other side has an opposing position. The forces on either side reach some kind of status quo. The tension is always there but will it never be a "resolved" tension.
As a side note, I am concerned that feminism is not addressing the issues about poor performance of boys at school relative to girls, the fact that men don't live as long as women (and so more of the healthcare budget should shift towards men), male suicide is much higher, domestic violence shelters for men are non-existent with all the budget going towards women, huge male fatalities during wartime, who pays for dinner, ladies first, fashionable hatred of old white men, under representation of men in biomed sciences (why no affirmative action for young white men here?), and so on.
If feminism is really about achieving equality between the sexes, why do they not advocate for bringing women into line with men when there are currently ahead of them? Or is it that they want all the perks but none of the downsides?
Last edited:
I'm probably going to be ejected from the Sisterhood for saying this, but no - I don't believe feminism is about equality. How do we measure equality?
For me, and many other women, it's about equality of opportunity. Women and men will never be equal. In the same way I can't compare myself to you, Jon, or to you, Doc. We are individuals with a complex history of nature/nurture and exposure to stimluli. I was pleased to see Jordan Peterson make the same reference about equality of opportunity in an interview.
The first step in solving a problem is to recognise that there is a problem.
For me, and many other women, it's about equality of opportunity. Women and men will never be equal. In the same way I can't compare myself to you, Jon, or to you, Doc. We are individuals with a complex history of nature/nurture and exposure to stimluli. I was pleased to see Jordan Peterson make the same reference about equality of opportunity in an interview.
The first step in solving a problem is to recognise that there is a problem.
Okay - news just in: Women do not want what men have because the patriarchy hurts men too.
Feminism is not ‘for the equality of all people’. Feminism is not ‘the belief that women should be treated the same as men.’ Feminism is not ‘the movement to make women equal to men in society.’ Feminism is not equalism.
Feminism is the liberation of women and girls all over the world from the patriarchy and misogyny that continues to harm and oppress them as a class of people. Feminism centres women unflinchingly and unapologetically. Feminism is the conversation about women’s issues in the world; without having to add some tokenistic sentence at the end acknowledging that men also experience some things too.
The problem with saying that we are working towards women becoming equal to men is that it frames men and male culture as being the optimum culture or the ideal goal that women should reach to become equal.
Let's think about some of the things men 'have' that women might aspire to under the banner of 'equality':
When feminists talk about the patriarchy, we are not talking about men in general. We mean the way that society has developed and which has given an unfair advantage to men - with the acknowledgement that the very same 'advantage' may also be harmful to men. That's what we mean by toxic masculinity. Not that being a man is in some way reprehensible.
The laws about family court weren’t written by women. The legislation about children remaining with their mothers was not signed off by women. The majority of all judges are men. Legislators were men. Policymakers were men. The research that the majority of family court attachment and bonding theory was based on came from a man. A lot of the legislation and policies were developed in a time where men were the breadwinners and women were the childrearers. It made sense to the men in power that women should take care of the babies and men should go out and do important man things.
Nowadays, men's rights activists are positioning that as ‘reverse sexism’ – but actually, its a legacy from the patriarchy. The assumption that you wouldn’t want to play an active part in your kids’ lives, dreamt up, supported by, signed off by and judged by your fellow patriarchal family court judge. Think about it. Women were not in influential positions at the time these systems were being developed. Women did not orchestrate these patriarchal systems. Men did.
Feminism is not ‘for the equality of all people’. Feminism is not ‘the belief that women should be treated the same as men.’ Feminism is not ‘the movement to make women equal to men in society.’ Feminism is not equalism.
Feminism is the liberation of women and girls all over the world from the patriarchy and misogyny that continues to harm and oppress them as a class of people. Feminism centres women unflinchingly and unapologetically. Feminism is the conversation about women’s issues in the world; without having to add some tokenistic sentence at the end acknowledging that men also experience some things too.
The problem with saying that we are working towards women becoming equal to men is that it frames men and male culture as being the optimum culture or the ideal goal that women should reach to become equal.
Let's think about some of the things men 'have' that women might aspire to under the banner of 'equality':
- Women's cancer mortality rates rising to the same rates as men.
- Significant increases in women's rates of violent crime and interpersonal violence to match that of men around the world.
- Women matching the rates of men murdering their partners and ex-partners.
- Women increasing their rates of sexual violence, trafficking and exploitation of men and boys
- Women in power developing regimes in which baby boys were murdered or aborted because no one wanted a son
- Women carrying out many more terrorist acts and mass murders all over the world, especially school shootings – to claim equality with the men
When feminists talk about the patriarchy, we are not talking about men in general. We mean the way that society has developed and which has given an unfair advantage to men - with the acknowledgement that the very same 'advantage' may also be harmful to men. That's what we mean by toxic masculinity. Not that being a man is in some way reprehensible.
The laws about family court weren’t written by women. The legislation about children remaining with their mothers was not signed off by women. The majority of all judges are men. Legislators were men. Policymakers were men. The research that the majority of family court attachment and bonding theory was based on came from a man. A lot of the legislation and policies were developed in a time where men were the breadwinners and women were the childrearers. It made sense to the men in power that women should take care of the babies and men should go out and do important man things.
Nowadays, men's rights activists are positioning that as ‘reverse sexism’ – but actually, its a legacy from the patriarchy. The assumption that you wouldn’t want to play an active part in your kids’ lives, dreamt up, supported by, signed off by and judged by your fellow patriarchal family court judge. Think about it. Women were not in influential positions at the time these systems were being developed. Women did not orchestrate these patriarchal systems. Men did.
I'm going to toss in one of my usual stink bombs, but in this case, I think it is absolutely relevant to the discussion. It is "an elephant in the room."
ONE (but not the only) reason for the "culture of inequality" can be traced back to religion, wherein some religions make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the man is the "lord and master of the household." If you read the Bible you can find many references where women are told to keep quiet in the temple and that no woman can be a teacher (the literal translation of rabbi). Some though not all of the language of the Bible stems from the infamous King James Version (KJV) that is praised for its poetic and flowery translation. Of course, if you delve into it a little deeper you learn that James II was a noted misogynist who also appreciated the Monarch's Golden Rule - "Them that has the gold makes the rules." It is well known that he "influenced" the translation to be decidedly anti-woman in any place where the translation allowed that choice. The monks in question weren't doing this for some scholarly exercise. It was to be a monument to the "piety" of James II of England.
In the Koran, the expression of Sharia includes that women must cover themselves and hide from the gazes of other men than their husbands, and there are all sorts of inequalities of treatment. For example, a woman claiming rape has to have four male witnesses or the case will be dismissed but the charge of adultery against a woman requires only one. Women are required to stay at home. A man can EASILY divorce a woman by taking her out in public and saying "I divorce you" four times in front of witnesses, but 'tain't that easy for women to divorce their men.
There is the concept in both Christian and Muslim families regarding "honor killing" where the near-adult female child does something to besmirch the family name and gets killed for it in order to preserve the "honor" of the family. Both cultures want to "protect" women from their base natures. Neither culture wants to let women do things that would endanger their "precious little delicate flowers." So women were, until not that long ago, denied jobs as firefighters, police, and combat soldiers or pilots. Women in Muslim countries weren't even allowed to drive a car and that is only just now changing a little bit.
Men have grown up in the same repressive culture as women. A lifetime of repression - no, whole GENERATIONS of repression - have shaped the culture to have this effect. Of COURSE men treat women as chattel. In the Bible, they often WERE. Of COURSE women defer to men. They get that message in sermons at least several times per year. As long as people continue to accept "that old-time religion" this will not change. Men AND women are shaped by this toxic and totally reprehensible misogynist viewpoint that is preached regularly from pulpits (or their Muslim equivalents) world-wide.
The worst part will be that in order for women to gain true equality of opportunity, they will essentially have to confront the archaic viewpoints held by religion regarding treatment of women. And religion is DEEPLY embedded in so many societies world-wide that it will be an epic battle. It will reach a point where religion must either change or be abandoned.
ONE (but not the only) reason for the "culture of inequality" can be traced back to religion, wherein some religions make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the man is the "lord and master of the household." If you read the Bible you can find many references where women are told to keep quiet in the temple and that no woman can be a teacher (the literal translation of rabbi). Some though not all of the language of the Bible stems from the infamous King James Version (KJV) that is praised for its poetic and flowery translation. Of course, if you delve into it a little deeper you learn that James II was a noted misogynist who also appreciated the Monarch's Golden Rule - "Them that has the gold makes the rules." It is well known that he "influenced" the translation to be decidedly anti-woman in any place where the translation allowed that choice. The monks in question weren't doing this for some scholarly exercise. It was to be a monument to the "piety" of James II of England.
In the Koran, the expression of Sharia includes that women must cover themselves and hide from the gazes of other men than their husbands, and there are all sorts of inequalities of treatment. For example, a woman claiming rape has to have four male witnesses or the case will be dismissed but the charge of adultery against a woman requires only one. Women are required to stay at home. A man can EASILY divorce a woman by taking her out in public and saying "I divorce you" four times in front of witnesses, but 'tain't that easy for women to divorce their men.
There is the concept in both Christian and Muslim families regarding "honor killing" where the near-adult female child does something to besmirch the family name and gets killed for it in order to preserve the "honor" of the family. Both cultures want to "protect" women from their base natures. Neither culture wants to let women do things that would endanger their "precious little delicate flowers." So women were, until not that long ago, denied jobs as firefighters, police, and combat soldiers or pilots. Women in Muslim countries weren't even allowed to drive a car and that is only just now changing a little bit.
Men have grown up in the same repressive culture as women. A lifetime of repression - no, whole GENERATIONS of repression - have shaped the culture to have this effect. Of COURSE men treat women as chattel. In the Bible, they often WERE. Of COURSE women defer to men. They get that message in sermons at least several times per year. As long as people continue to accept "that old-time religion" this will not change. Men AND women are shaped by this toxic and totally reprehensible misogynist viewpoint that is preached regularly from pulpits (or their Muslim equivalents) world-wide.
The worst part will be that in order for women to gain true equality of opportunity, they will essentially have to confront the archaic viewpoints held by religion regarding treatment of women. And religion is DEEPLY embedded in so many societies world-wide that it will be an epic battle. It will reach a point where religion must either change or be abandoned.
Jon, I've just realised you've expanded on post #5. My answers relate to your unedited post.
I've been very clear that feminism is not about equality between the sexes. Women don't want to be the same as men. The patriarchy is hurting you too. My point is, the patriarchy isn't working for either women OR men.
Imagine for a second, if we did dismantle the patriarchal beliefs and cultures centuries of male power have created for us. A world where men can show their emotions without worrying that someone will call them the ultimate insult: a woman. A society where women are not objectified as sex toys to be used up and thrown away when they get older or imperfect. A world in which teenage boys are not having to visit therapists and doctors about their erectile dysfunction and addiction to porn. A society in which rape isn’t a constant threat to women and girls all over the world – and a joke told about men in prison. A life in which men can participate and enjoy parenthood in equality with the mothers of their children because they believe their role is just as important. A workplace where a pregnant woman isn’t managed out of her job because she is perceived as unreliable – but where a man whose wife is pregnant is supported for becoming a ‘responsible family man’. A world where women can become the main breadwinners and not make men feel insecure about it. A community where men can stay at home with the kids admiring the tenacity of the mother of his kids who rakes in the cash in a job she loves.
A world where the patriarchy no longer controls women, kills female babies because they were unwanted, hacks off vulva and clitoris of women, revels in porn, excuses everything with rape myths, positions ‘woman’ as the ultimate insult to men, sells women’s bodies and denies women the right to healthcare and advice about their own reproductive systems.
True feminism is revolution. Feminism is the liberation of women from the values and systems of the patriarchy. Feminism is the movement to challenge and dismantle the patriarchy, raising new generations of humans that do not fall into the same tropes we have. Feminism is not about excluding men in our discussions or our events – but feminism will inevitably support men to be healthier and happier.
There is something important to be said here. Feminism is the movement towards liberation of women and girls from the oppression and control of the patriarchy – but actually, the real change will come for the world when we rise up and dismantle the patriarchy together. The destruction of patriarchal and misogynistic values benefits everyone.
And Doc, I agree with you that religion plays a huge part in how society has been shaped for generations. I can't speak with any authority on any religion other than Christianity, but even there, in a religion that promotes loving your neighbour as you love yourself, women have been all but written out of the story. And why? Because the 12 apostles were men - even though there may be evidence to suggest that the role of Mary Magdalene was far more central to the whole story. And these men have written the Gospels. And these Gospels have become truth.
I've been very clear that feminism is not about equality between the sexes. Women don't want to be the same as men. The patriarchy is hurting you too. My point is, the patriarchy isn't working for either women OR men.
Imagine for a second, if we did dismantle the patriarchal beliefs and cultures centuries of male power have created for us. A world where men can show their emotions without worrying that someone will call them the ultimate insult: a woman. A society where women are not objectified as sex toys to be used up and thrown away when they get older or imperfect. A world in which teenage boys are not having to visit therapists and doctors about their erectile dysfunction and addiction to porn. A society in which rape isn’t a constant threat to women and girls all over the world – and a joke told about men in prison. A life in which men can participate and enjoy parenthood in equality with the mothers of their children because they believe their role is just as important. A workplace where a pregnant woman isn’t managed out of her job because she is perceived as unreliable – but where a man whose wife is pregnant is supported for becoming a ‘responsible family man’. A world where women can become the main breadwinners and not make men feel insecure about it. A community where men can stay at home with the kids admiring the tenacity of the mother of his kids who rakes in the cash in a job she loves.
A world where the patriarchy no longer controls women, kills female babies because they were unwanted, hacks off vulva and clitoris of women, revels in porn, excuses everything with rape myths, positions ‘woman’ as the ultimate insult to men, sells women’s bodies and denies women the right to healthcare and advice about their own reproductive systems.
True feminism is revolution. Feminism is the liberation of women from the values and systems of the patriarchy. Feminism is the movement to challenge and dismantle the patriarchy, raising new generations of humans that do not fall into the same tropes we have. Feminism is not about excluding men in our discussions or our events – but feminism will inevitably support men to be healthier and happier.
There is something important to be said here. Feminism is the movement towards liberation of women and girls from the oppression and control of the patriarchy – but actually, the real change will come for the world when we rise up and dismantle the patriarchy together. The destruction of patriarchal and misogynistic values benefits everyone.
And Doc, I agree with you that religion plays a huge part in how society has been shaped for generations. I can't speak with any authority on any religion other than Christianity, but even there, in a religion that promotes loving your neighbour as you love yourself, women have been all but written out of the story. And why? Because the 12 apostles were men - even though there may be evidence to suggest that the role of Mary Magdalene was far more central to the whole story. And these men have written the Gospels. And these Gospels have become truth.
And the worst part is that there is no real truth in them. In the gospels, Jesus is just a retelling of the story of Horus (Egyptian) and his twelve followers, from a time over 1200 years earlier. And one of the Mesopotamian god-kings from even earlier.
I will stand down here because I've gone through the issues with the Bible too many times and it is not totally relevant here except insofar as it has contributed to the patriarchy. Otherwise, my feelings on this subject would be off-topic. But religious contribution to the patriarchy is a major "gotcha" that will force religion to change or force women to become atheist.
I will stand down here because I've gone through the issues with the Bible too many times and it is not totally relevant here except insofar as it has contributed to the patriarchy. Otherwise, my feelings on this subject would be off-topic. But religious contribution to the patriarchy is a major "gotcha" that will force religion to change or force women to become atheist.
I have a few issues with Feminism if it looks at women's needs in isolation, when they are in a system that also involves men. Let me illustrate with a few examples. Person A is from one gender, Person B from the opposite gender.
#1. Imagine a hypothetical case where Person A is advocating for equal annual pay for their gender while their output is 1/10th of the pay of the opposite gender. Is that fair?
#2. Imagine a hypothetical case where Person A lives on average for 20 years in retirement, while Person B lives 5 years in retirement. Is it fair for Person B to contribute the same amount into a pension scheme than Person A, when their payout is 1/4? Person B is already suffering from 15 years less of life, yet they get hit again with subsidising the privileged.
#3. Imagine a hypothetical case where 60% of university graduates are of gender A, with only 40% of graduates are of gender B. Is it fair to choose candidates based on results only or do you take gender into consideration too?
Before I continue, I would like answers to 1, 2 and 3!
This is therefore not an advantage. And, if this 'advantage' confers some benefits to women, it is therefore not a disadvantage. You can't say it is both good and 'good' for men, but only bad and 'bad' for women.
The term itself is deliberately phrased to attack men. To think otherwise is naive. It is the verbal lexicon of hate. How would you feel if men started referring to 'disgusting femininity'? Words matter. Toxic words cause a divide between the genders. Is the term 'toxic masculinity' hate speech and should feminists therefore be no-platformed? Or has male-bashing become the new acceptable face of misandry?
An example of toxic masculinity I found on the web:
Imagine how popular a movie is where the lead male character is a crumbling wreck, bursting into tears at the drop of a hat.
I can't stop giggling to myself just thinking about it! While I may hear that this should not be the case - trying to prove that toxic masculinity is bad - at the same time, you only have to look at the movies to see what is popular. The most "romantic" scene in the Titanic movie is where the guy is strong, freezing himself to death while she stays nicely dry on the floating debris. How would you feel if he was on the raft while she was freezing to death?
You can't advocate for the liberation of women from this 'harmful' misogyny while at the same time wanting to keep your raft. This misogyny comes from the same culture that likes a guy to be a 'gentleman', killing himself in the process.
I just had a little insight as I am writing this. When someone says toxic masculinity. they are in fact attacking men's behaviour, which is the result of how they have evolved. Is it fair to attack those who had no say in the matter? To illustrate, masculinity is an umbrella term to cover all traits of men. To then attack a subset of those traits (toxic masculinity) is to also attack a group of people who evolved to behave in that manner. The currently alive men had no say in their evolution. This cherry-picking and choosing of the traits you like and not the ones you don't like, is tantamount to abuse. Do you attack a person because their DNA gives them a certain skin colour? Then why attack someone for code in their DNA that gives them certain traits?
One last point. The ideology that surrounds this is in fact not what most women want. Having an intellectual framework that sounds nice and cosy does not match up with the evolved preferences of women. Women take more of the blame for the 'patriarchy' than men, since they are the ones who have mostly selected their mates based on dominance, resources and power. Women have chosen which DNA traits to propagate. Don't feed the beast if you don't want more of them! (I believe the portrayal of the patriarchy is a misrepresentation and a bunch of twaddle, but that is another argument.)
[Edit: Don't blame the women either, since they evolved too, like men. We are all hapless.]
#1. Imagine a hypothetical case where Person A is advocating for equal annual pay for their gender while their output is 1/10th of the pay of the opposite gender. Is that fair?
#2. Imagine a hypothetical case where Person A lives on average for 20 years in retirement, while Person B lives 5 years in retirement. Is it fair for Person B to contribute the same amount into a pension scheme than Person A, when their payout is 1/4? Person B is already suffering from 15 years less of life, yet they get hit again with subsidising the privileged.
#3. Imagine a hypothetical case where 60% of university graduates are of gender A, with only 40% of graduates are of gender B. Is it fair to choose candidates based on results only or do you take gender into consideration too?
Before I continue, I would like answers to 1, 2 and 3!
This is therefore not an advantage. And, if this 'advantage' confers some benefits to women, it is therefore not a disadvantage. You can't say it is both good and 'good' for men, but only bad and 'bad' for women.
The term itself is deliberately phrased to attack men. To think otherwise is naive. It is the verbal lexicon of hate. How would you feel if men started referring to 'disgusting femininity'? Words matter. Toxic words cause a divide between the genders. Is the term 'toxic masculinity' hate speech and should feminists therefore be no-platformed? Or has male-bashing become the new acceptable face of misandry?
An example of toxic masculinity I found on the web:
Imagine how popular a movie is where the lead male character is a crumbling wreck, bursting into tears at the drop of a hat.
I can't stop giggling to myself just thinking about it! While I may hear that this should not be the case - trying to prove that toxic masculinity is bad - at the same time, you only have to look at the movies to see what is popular. The most "romantic" scene in the Titanic movie is where the guy is strong, freezing himself to death while she stays nicely dry on the floating debris. How would you feel if he was on the raft while she was freezing to death?You can't advocate for the liberation of women from this 'harmful' misogyny while at the same time wanting to keep your raft. This misogyny comes from the same culture that likes a guy to be a 'gentleman', killing himself in the process.
I just had a little insight as I am writing this. When someone says toxic masculinity. they are in fact attacking men's behaviour, which is the result of how they have evolved. Is it fair to attack those who had no say in the matter? To illustrate, masculinity is an umbrella term to cover all traits of men. To then attack a subset of those traits (toxic masculinity) is to also attack a group of people who evolved to behave in that manner. The currently alive men had no say in their evolution. This cherry-picking and choosing of the traits you like and not the ones you don't like, is tantamount to abuse. Do you attack a person because their DNA gives them a certain skin colour? Then why attack someone for code in their DNA that gives them certain traits?
One last point. The ideology that surrounds this is in fact not what most women want. Having an intellectual framework that sounds nice and cosy does not match up with the evolved preferences of women. Women take more of the blame for the 'patriarchy' than men, since they are the ones who have mostly selected their mates based on dominance, resources and power. Women have chosen which DNA traits to propagate. Don't feed the beast if you don't want more of them! (I believe the portrayal of the patriarchy is a misrepresentation and a bunch of twaddle, but that is another argument.)
[Edit: Don't blame the women either, since they evolved too, like men. We are all hapless.]
Last edited:
I have to answer some of these...
People using this argument as a masculine/feminine thing need to understand that NO PERSON is ever paid what they think they are worth. They are paid what the boss thinks the job is worth. The task isn't to get government to mandate "normalized" pay. It is to assure that the boss assigns promotions based on absolute productivity within ranges.
But life is a crap-shoot. (You step in crap and say "shoot"?) Neither person A nor person B know how long they will live. BOTH face running out of retirement savings unless they have very good investments lined up. Using gender-based actuarial data to adjust pension payments runs counter to the trend of medicine to extend life-spans. You can't know when you are going to die. Oh, you can quote the odds just fine, but everybody will do their damnedest to "game" the system, to outlive their "three-score and ten" lifespan as predicted by the Bible.
The USA has wrestled with the racial equivalent of this gender-oriented question. Many courts are beginning to take the viewpoint that if the person had equal opportunity to excel but didn't do so, that their choice is actually reflective to some degree on their ability to excel. If the test results can be shown to be relatively unbiased, then basing most of the selection process on results isn't unfair.
(Hmmm, apparently the forum's engine retains text attributes when doing cut/paste.) This statement by Bee is true, and contains an important point that I wish to emphasize. If only women want it then they are trying to dismantle a system from the outside. If men and women work together, then they are working to dismantle a system from the inside. Since both men and women are part of the same system, having only half of the system "on the job" performing this putative dismantling is I think going to be doomed to at least partial failure. The job HAS to be to win the hearts and minds of the men who grew up inside that system.
People using this argument as a masculine/feminine thing need to understand that NO PERSON is ever paid what they think they are worth. They are paid what the boss thinks the job is worth. The task isn't to get government to mandate "normalized" pay. It is to assure that the boss assigns promotions based on absolute productivity within ranges.
But life is a crap-shoot. (You step in crap and say "shoot"?) Neither person A nor person B know how long they will live. BOTH face running out of retirement savings unless they have very good investments lined up. Using gender-based actuarial data to adjust pension payments runs counter to the trend of medicine to extend life-spans. You can't know when you are going to die. Oh, you can quote the odds just fine, but everybody will do their damnedest to "game" the system, to outlive their "three-score and ten" lifespan as predicted by the Bible.
The USA has wrestled with the racial equivalent of this gender-oriented question. Many courts are beginning to take the viewpoint that if the person had equal opportunity to excel but didn't do so, that their choice is actually reflective to some degree on their ability to excel. If the test results can be shown to be relatively unbiased, then basing most of the selection process on results isn't unfair.
(Hmmm, apparently the forum's engine retains text attributes when doing cut/paste.) This statement by Bee is true, and contains an important point that I wish to emphasize. If only women want it then they are trying to dismantle a system from the outside. If men and women work together, then they are working to dismantle a system from the inside. Since both men and women are part of the same system, having only half of the system "on the job" performing this putative dismantling is I think going to be doomed to at least partial failure. The job HAS to be to win the hearts and minds of the men who grew up inside that system.
There is a real possibility that women will attempt to change the system from the 'grass is always greener' perspective. Then, once the change has occurred, they find themselves less happy, since they have artificially engineered an outcome that is contrary to their evolved natural preferences. You can go against your own nature, but it is likely to have knock-on effects that have yet to be anticipated. In the pursuit of 'progress', you are in danger of going against your own biology. This is where ideology trumping biology means you are only looking at half the equation.
An example could even include the opposite sex. By putting pressure on men to behave in a way that is against their nature, this could lead to negative consequences, akin to caging a dog in a confined area for days at a time. While not a physical prison, it becomes a prison of the mind. Who knows what such psychological damage could lead to.
An example could even include the opposite sex. By putting pressure on men to behave in a way that is against their nature, this could lead to negative consequences, akin to caging a dog in a confined area for days at a time. While not a physical prison, it becomes a prison of the mind. Who knows what such psychological damage could lead to.