Notes for a talk at ICMI with the following title: Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.
-
Feminism is not “progressive”: It’s regressive; it is based on misandry, sexist discrimination, hate & bias; it suppresses science (esp. on domestic violence, on female violence and on criminology in general); it is conspiracist; it asserts the existence of a non-existent entity “Patriarchy”; it is ultra-conservative, in its treating women as helpless infants. Infantilism about women is conservative, not progressive.
-
Feminism is not “egalitarian”: It demands, and achieves, preferential treatment for a privileged group (women). By definition, this is anti-egalitarian.
-
Feminism is not “liberal”: To the contrary, it is socially conservative—women are infants, without agency; it is illiberal & authoritarian; it demands increasing state power; it uses the police and institutional power as a tool of social control; it is moralistic & Puritan. More or less by definition, these are central principle of state-enforced illiberalism, social illiberalism and social conservatism.
-
Feminism is not “left-wing”: It has no interest in economic fairness (esp. those at the bottom of society); it is openly anti-working-class. Marxism and socialism are, by definition, left-wing because their primary concern is with economic exploitation, wage slavery, alienation of the worker, co-erced theft of their labour, and so on. Feminism is, in no way, “left-wing”. Feminism is a form of Identity Politics. This, in general, is an anti-left-wing position. Furthermore, it is a form of Identity Politics closely aligned with the State, policing, punishment and incarceration (so-called carceral feminism). Again, these are not “left-wing”. They have been traditionally right-wing positions for centuries.
The ICMI20 talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQf1JDa28Y&list=PLOXfnai0-o0I8BtOpmjbn_3FGYBHiV64S
While no one has the time to break down all the misogynists ideas presented here, I’ll give a try at a few:
Feminism, at its core, advocates for gender equality and challenging gender-based discrimination and inequality. While it is true that individuals can hold extreme or radical views in any movement, it is incorrect to generalize these views to the entire feminist movement.
Feminism does not suppress science. Feminists actively engage with and contribute to various scientific fields, including sociology, psychology, gender studies, and more. It is important to foster a critical and evidence-based understanding of gender-related issues, which includes recognizing and addressing biases within scientific research.
The concept of patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and women are marginalized. While the degree and manifestation of patriarchy may vary across cultures and societies, if you examine a list of presidents, CEOs, top academics, and billionaires it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.
Feminism seeks to empower women and challenge societal norms and structures that limit their opportunities and choices. It advocates for equal rights, agency, and autonomy for women. Feminism does not view women as helpless infants but recognizes their capacity for self-determination and capability in various aspects of life.
LMAO
Wow, 4 paragraphs of sexist feminist lies meant to hide it’s bigoted nature
Color me shocked
Feminism ≠ Women. It is possible to criticise an ideology without attacking the people which the ideology claims to represent.
I’ll have you know (per the dictionary definition) that Feminism actually advocates for women’s rights. The difference is quite subtle, but very important.
… that agrees with Feminist ideology… Anything else is “misogyny”, “fake news”, “pseudo-science” etc.
Apex fallacy/collectivism; Just because the people at the top are men, this does not mean that all men have power. After all, the vast majority of homeless are men too…
Such as…?
🤣🤣🤣
Sums up my response perfectly
So, you didn’t watch the 48 minute video which very clearly and in-depth goes over each point and instead labeled it “misogyny”?
Do I have to remind you that attacking a social movement for its bad policies is not the same as “hating women”?
As for the rest of your nonsense post, I give you this kernel of truth:
'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ’
Consider your evidenceless post dismissed.
and
cannot coexist if you bring self-awareness into the equation
this entire video is asserted without evidence ya goof
Why?
This comment is just nonsense. He shows why feminism is regressive and sexist. He may not have given evidence for every single claim, but he certainly gave plenty.
And showing how a movement is actually a hate movement can certainly coexist with not hating the demographic said movement claims to fight for.
From my viewing, he made unsubstantiated points almost every step of the way, ie even when he did imply evidence, he had an awful inclination not to cite it directly thus making it unlikely to be fact-checked.
could you remind me of his key points and their evidence?
So did the commenter “refuting” them, and i don’t see you having a conniption over that
Almost as if you don’t question statements supporting feminism, but only question entirely valid criticisms of it’s sexist bigoted actions
First off I want to say I never said that GravyMan refuted anything, they at best provide their own experience because they do not back up their claim with anything. They made clarifying statements as to how they see feminism as a feminist because they felt bad discourse abrew (probably)
The conversation became messy then, when it’s the case that OP and OP’s video didn’t bring evidence, and then others complain that GravyMan who contends OP’s synopsis don’t bring evidence. Wowsers.
Why are we then still hammering on the 2nd person, and why do we write off my paragraphs as ‘boldly spewing out bullshit’ as if that’s an argument. I could’ve easily said that’s what OP is saying. This gives me an inclination that you (since you made this about me being ideological) are the one stuck in your depths.
This reads like rote repeat of standardised thought.
One thing sticks out though: the “no true scotsman fallacy”. It is unfair to generalize a social movement based on fringe elements, which is why saying feminism is about equality is unfair. As of today mainstream, politically influential feminist organisations are successfully pushing openly discriminatory policies, with success.
That’s how you have the special justice system in Spain where the right to a fair trial is essentially abolished if the alleged victim is a woman and the alleged perpetrator is a man. (Look it up!) That’s how Belgium is right now putting into law that killing a woman is a more severe crime than killing a man. (Look it up if you know dutch or french) That’s how homeless shelters across the world are reserved to women only by pretending that they’re about domestic violence and that only women suffer that (both untrue), even though most of the homeless are men. The list goes on.
I’m sure many people who identify as feminists do not agree with these horrific, dehumanizing policies, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are the direct result of the movement. All politicians who made those things happen had gone into politics through feminism. The policies made possible through feminism are more representative of the movement than any “definition” anyone likes to think is true based on their own preference.
If you believe in equality, stop calling yourself a feminist, it’s empowering very nefarious people.
This may blow your tiny male feminist brain, but two things can be true at once. Feminism is an ideological infestation which has made some minor contributions while simultaneously holding back research on issues including boys’ underachievement in education, domestic violence against men, the sentencing gap and much more.
This is only difficult to conclude if you are a deeply stupid individual. Men have far greater pressure on them to succeed, and they do so in greater numbers despite being increasingly held back. They’re also far more likely to fail spectacularly, ending up homeless, in prison, or killing themselves (suicide being another topic on which feminists fight the data).
“Men” do not hold power, a tiny minority of men do (and if you’re talking politics, those men are ultimately beholden to an electorate that is mostly female).
Square that with calls to close women’s prisons, give them lower sentences for the same crimes, and generally frame all their misbehaviour as a consequence of the patriarchy. Hint: you cannot.
Self-determination? Were you not just complaining about the lack of female CEOs? Truly, the feminist brain is not capable of self-awareness.
Women in greater numbers choose to take time off work to raise children, the effects of which you complained about just one paragraph earlier. Conversely men sacrifice greater portions of their lives working longer hours, further from home, seeing less of their kids. That’s why they earn more, but it’s not at zero cost and women make a different trade-off, as do men before children enter the picture (that last part should be a wake-up call, but you’re too sleepy for that).
Calling people misogynists for seeing feminism for what it is does not hide the fact you’re a creepy incel trying to present yourself as “one of the good ones”.
While I agree with many of your arguments, we do not call each other names here.
Ugh, new forum, same old story. And I just don’t have the patience of go through yet another rabbit whole with yet another pseudo-academic online feminist.
I’ve done it enough that I’ve given up hope on breaking through all that brainwashing. I reply to you, but not for you. This reply is for anyone else reading this who still has the capability of independent thought.
“men hold primary power”: There’s multiple interpretation of that phrase, and feminists leverage this to both claim that patriarchy is everywhere and imply that it creates inequality in favor of men. Once you disambiguate the phrase, you quickly find out that both are rarely true at the same time.
Specifically:
A) “men hold primary power” means that men as a class wield the power of how society function. They, as a class, make the rules. And they do so only understanding their own needs and desires and as a result, they rule to the benefit of men at the expense of women.
The opposite interpretation is:
B) The positions of authority are held by men, but they do not wield this authority on their own behalf, they wield it on behalf of stakeholders where one the most important of which is women. As a result the authorities create a society that primarily oppresses men to the benefit of women.
So feminists like GravyMan like to go around claiming that we live in a patriarchy by mentioning male billionaires, top politicians etc… And then usually they imply that this means that there is inequality that favors men and oppresses women. They usually only imply it because this gives them wiggle room to wiggle out of the claim. Here he didn’t straight out claim a direct link of inequality he just said “it’s difficult to conclude [the opposite]”, but that’s a difficult one to wiggle out of.
So yes, obviously, the prevalence of men in positions of power implies that we live in some kind of patriarchy for some definition of patriarchy. But the question is: which definition is the one that applies to our society?
And if you look at the rates of completed suicide, the rates of homelessness, the rates of homicide victims and more recently post secondary education. Then contrast this with social efforts to help victims of violence, suicide risks, education opportunities that are gendered for the benefit of women. It becomes quite clear that we’re far closer to definition B) than we are to definition A).
Furthermore, people like me, who are concerned with the general trend of callousness towards men and accompanying misleading ideology that takes away empathy and aid resources from those men, we don’t like the term “Patriarchy”. We see how it is misused to imply things that are not true about the way society function. And we see how it’s definition is so malleable and routinely exploited to the detriment of men. So we try to condemn its use wherever we see it.
While I agree with OPs three other points. I don’t generally like to spend much time on them. I think ideas are more important than labels.
And at the end of the day there is just one core concept that can unravel all of the misandry found within feminism. And I can summarize it in a simple question:
What happened to your empathy and compassion for men?
Whenever you have new people in the audience, you have people unfamiliar with the foundations, the history, and the progress. That’s just life. If you want to attract people to your way of thinking and grow the movement, you are going to have to find a way to welcome newcomers and bring them up to speed, not turn them away.
Unless you are content to just beaver away on your research, revelling in all the progress you are making and making pronouncements from on high, you will have to test your theories in the real world. That means engaging with critics, those with other theories, especially incompatible theories, and being open to learning new things, even things that might force you to change your mind.
Most importantly, you have to acknowledge that not every person who disagrees with you or questions your thesis is a bad actor. There are plenty of people who just want to learn and grow and addressing what they see as weak arguments both guides them on their journey and strengthens any arguments that withstand the test.
You are correct.
Especially in this case I probably judged GravyMan prematurely. He’s using detailed definitions and explanations which I usually attribute to “Academic types” who have years of in depth experience in the topic and can’t possibly be completely blind to the double standards present within feminism. But looking back, his statements are more like feministm 101 type statements, so it’s actually believable that he just doesn’t have any in depth understanding of what he’s talking about.
So I definitely should have taken a far more charitable approach.
I’m not sure what to say beyond that I feel this kind of response to criticism deserves more than a mere upvote. My expectation was to be ignored or to see pushback, because that seems to be one of the more common forms of “discussion” these days.
Thanks for showing me that my own preconceptions could stand a few adjustments. :)
Getting frustrated and blunt with having to keep pointing out the blatant sexism, bigotry, and hatred in a gender supremacy group is very different from an “i’m right all the time fuck you” attitude.
Even if they look the same to the average feminist, @Dienervent’s response didn’t surprise me at all.