Feminism and the emasculation of men

KyussBishop

K-9 wrote: »

I do think KyussBishop has a point.

The likes of Bacik gets huge publicity, she's a pretty extreme and far out feminist. I suppose the likes of Bacik or, to go to the opposite extreme, Ronan Mullen and David Quinn get far too much exposure. Is it the press, yep!

But for me, social media and yep, Boards.ie, play a part in giving that exposure to Bacik and Mulen. An extremist is an extremist, not worth much discussion or comment.

Far too much attention is devoted by mens rights activists to hard line feminists, for what gain?

Unfortunately it seems the more moderate opinions spend all their time defending extreme opinions that get conflated with mainline ones. The more extreme mens rights opinions posted on here and the Gentlemans Club seem reactionary nonsense to me.

Yes this, particularly the last sentence, is definitely the sense I'm getting - people need to remember just how much of a media loudspeaker the extremist feminists are getting, and likely on the mens rights side as well, because this stuff manufactures controversy and sells newspapers - not to mention foments a divide among the public, that is extremely useful in distracting attention from more important things.

This makes me extraordinarily suspicious of the defense of generalizations - and quickly makes me wonder about the motivations behind that; maybe it's just trenches getting drawn in argument, or maybe it's something that plays a deliberate part in both sides (parts of mens rights and parts of feminisms) set of ideologies.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again it's because they actually get things done. I wouldn't have any time for blasting the pro-censorship elements of feminism if they hadn't actually succeeded in various campaigns to restrict people's freedom of speech, for example - if they were just spewing hot air and getting nothing in return that'd be one thing, but they are managing to actually change the rules and laws across the board in a variety of ways, so they cannot simply be ignored. Those who oppose them must actually fight them rather than saying "They're just fringe extremists, they'll soon go away."

I don't think those types will go away at all, so they definitely do need to be challenged, but I do think that they are likely not as representative as media outlets make them seem.

If you fight them, you've got to not alienate all other (potential ally) feminists along the way as well - which the way generalizations and "Us vs Them" type narrative in the thread, comes close to guaranteeing.

That's why I think definitions and use of words is important, and isn't just splitting hairs (though I can understand how it would look that way alright) - I think it's important for 'feminism' not to get a bad name, by it being hijacked by extremist types, and by people assisting the extremist feminists in hijacking the term, by contributing with generalizations and such.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to point out the problems people have been pointing out, in the thread, and to fight on those issues - just not to misfire and generalize it against all feminists (or to frame it in a way that can be taken that way).

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again it's because they actually get things done. I wouldn't have any time for blasting the pro-censorship elements of feminism if they hadn't actually succeeded in various campaigns to restrict people's freedom of speech, for example - if they were just spewing hot air and getting nothing in return that'd be one thing, but they are managing to actually change the rules and laws across the board in a variety of ways, so they cannot simply be ignored. Those who oppose them must actually fight them rather than saying "They're just fringe extremists, they'll soon go away."

But you just keep stating pro censorship as if that means it's automatically a bad thing.

I don't know how anti-censorship you are. Do you have any line on censorship at all? To try and get some parameter on the censorship discussion, Would you censor internet child pornography?

If you do, well you are pro censorship to some degree, and have an arbitrary line.

Piliger

KyussBishop wrote: »

Prove any of your claims here, with actual statistics representative of the feminist movement (and that can include, just the politically active movements if you like - forget the dictionary definition) - posters are going to great lengths to try and justify their sweeping generalizations, and (since generalizations are inherently logically fallacious) it smells of utter bullshít, so people are going to have to justify this with some actual stats.

Summary: Back up your generalizations, with actual stats - not unrepresentative cherry-picked samples, actual stats representing the whole (just politically active if you like) movement - otherwise your generalizations should't be treated as anything other than fallacious nonsense.

I find your arguments are so wildly nonsensical and misandrous, and your aggression so OTT that it makes one wonder about your whole motivation in being involved in the debate at all. It seems like you are just trying to derail and divert the thread for your own agenda. I don't see the point in anyone responding to you to be honest.

Henry9

KyussBishop wrote: »

Prove any of your claims here, with actual statistics representative of the feminist movement (and that can include, just the politically active movements if you like - forget the dictionary definition) - posters are going to great lengths to try and justify their sweeping generalizations, and (since generalizations are inherently logically fallacious) it smells of utter bullshít, so people are going to have to justify this with some actual stats.

They are the feminist movement. This is what you can't seem to grasp.
The fact that you are waving your dictionary about wailing 'but they're not all the feminists' is irrelevant.
'generalizations are inherently logically fallacious', not true, it is quite reasonable to deduce from the leaders of a movement what the goals and ideals of that movement are. Especially when they spell them out in writing.

They have the influence, and they were being discussed. Until you decided to take up the cudgels to defend the word 'feminist'.
As if anyone cares what they are called, it's the movement and their influence that matters.

Besides, what form would these 'stats' take?
Who would compile them? Should there be a census of all 'feminist' organisations? That would be difficult since by your logic most of them don't qualify as feminist.

Alternatively, we could y'know, look at their policies and their actions.
We could deduce from their lobbying and their writing.
We could examine the influence they've had on law, education, y'know observe their impact.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Summary: Back up your generalizations, with actual stats - not unrepresentative cherry-picked samples, actual stats representing the whole (just politically active if you like) movement - otherwise your generalizations should't be treated as anything other than fallacious nonsense.

Yeah yeah, you asked for examples and got them. Now they're unrepresentative and cherry-picked.

They are representative. You just think they're not because you've defined the 'feminist movement' to include 'most people'.
Even though they're completely unaware of it.
It is you who are being fallacious, your argument is based on a completely false premise, that 'most people are feminists' so these examples are 'unrepresentative'

Unrepresentative? Jebus, Women's Aid, Kathleen Lynch and Niall Crowley are 'unrepresentative' of the feminist movement?
They'd be among the most socially influential people in Ireland in the last 20 years.
Why don't you ask some feminists if they represent the movement?
Not because they sell newspapers, but because of the changes they've succeeded in bringing about. Some overwhelmingly good, some bad.
But because they're outnumbered by these unknowing feminists, they're not representative of the movement.

If there's a silent majority of feminists out there who are egalitarian, then where are they? If they're silent how can they qualify as part of the movement anyway?
Decisions are made by those who show up

By your logic, Women's Aid are not feminists since they are obstructive to men's equality issues, but I do qualify as one.
L O ****ing L.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not my definition - the dictionary definition, and I've explicitly pointed out multiple times the distinction between feminism 'the word' and feminism 'the collection of political movements'.

You're generalizing about feminists yet again: Provide a study surveying the attitudes of feminists in general, to back that up - not unrepresentative samples or anecdote.


It's simple: There's a big distinction between factions within the political movement, and 'feminists' overall - and people should not be generalizing about the feminist movement, based on unrepresentative samples.

You're basically debating in order to defend the ability to make sweeping generalizations: Which, regardless of any of the arguments I've personally made, are logically wrong to begin with anyway - you don't even contest that you are making sweeping generalizations either, just try to accuse me of the same thing.


I'll settle for a study, which proves that any of the generalizations you use, apply just to feminism 'the collection of political movements' - even discarding the dictionary definition.

Can anyone show even that, or is it just the usual unrepresentative samples?


You've never asked for an example, of feminists promoting the removal of womens rights - and find it yourself because all I've argued, is that the dictionary definition of feminism is compatible with that, not that it happens (I didn't make any such claim one way or the other, as to whether or not any feminists do that).


Now you are directly lying about what I have said, as pointing out how examples are unrepresentative samples - i.e. are just a repeat of the same generalization - is pointing out the fallacy of your argument.


You haven't offered any statistics, this is another outright lie from you - all that has been offered are individual examples, none of which provide any statistics on the views of the overall feminist movement.

If you're going to generalize about the entire feminist movement, you need to provide some statistics proving that your generalization is appropriate - and I'll settle for statistics, of the politically active feminist movements (statistics for all of them, or more than a majority subset, not cherry-picked examples).

Multiple posters here have given you examples that you've dismissed as unrepresentative. So now it's your turn - put up or shut up!

Give some examples to support your contention that were all for you the most part feminists

Some examples of feminists advocating against women's rights (I asked for this on page 75 btw at 17.07 on 4 march. I guess you weren't really reading before you responded....)

Some examples to demonstrate why self identified feminists arent feminists

Data please, just like you asked the rest of us for

And don't bother telling me you don't need to - you're the (only) one positing this alternative view of what feminism is , this bull**** argument that defies either empirical evidence or semantics - prove it

Lou.m

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think those types will go away at all, so they definitely do need to be challenged, but I do think that they are likely not as representative as media outlets make them seem.

If you fight them, you've got to not alienate all other (potential ally) feminists along the way as well - which the way generalizations and "Us vs Them" type narrative in the thread, comes close to guaranteeing.

That's why I think definitions and use of words is important, and isn't just splitting hairs (though I can understand how it would look that way alright) - I think it's important for 'feminism' not to get a bad name, by it being hijacked by extremist types, and by people assisting the extremist feminists in hijacking the term, by contributing with generalizations and such.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to point out the problems people have been pointing out, in the thread, and to fight on those issues - just not to misfire and generalize it against all feminists (or to frame it in a way that can be taken that way).

Do you live in Putin land? Where everyone is against you?

Feminism does not have a bad rap. And if it gets one let it. If the majority of people one day think it does then it probably deserves it.

Let people think what they want about MRA.

The public are more intelligent than people give them credit for.

The feminist movement happened largely because the public supported it and saw it as just.

Even revolutionary movements and thinking need the support of the majority infact they need to be representing the majority in changing a system that the majority feel is unjust.

Let the general public read the MRA stuff on reddit or here or blogs or whatever or feminist material the extremes and the moderates let them form their own opinions.

I have heard accounts of MRA activists stalk and threaten women for criticizing them. I have heard them get into trouble with police.

'Men's Rights Activists are rage-filled and claim feminists intentionally "cover up" issues like male rape and workplace injury rates so women can achieve global domination. Har. Those pesky feminazis, however, keep getting in the way, so it's up to the MRAs to win the world over. And how do they do this? By threatening to "gag, rape and gut" bitches who dare to question their flimsy politics.

If MRAs actually wanted to mobilize behind the issues they raise, they'd stop they would stop harassing people campaigning for workplace safety measures, or helping men and boys who are survivors of rape and domestic violence access the resources they need.

Even in the Men’s Rights Reddit there are dissenting voices against A Voice for Men’s tendency to demand free speech while practicing silencing tactics.

The fact is that A Voice for Men promotes rape culture and violence against women, and that’s really all there is to it.

It is a question of character.

There are shady people out there and generally the public are a good judge of character.

Drag all organizations into the open and drag people into the public domain. When people stand up publicly and say this is me my background my name etc and this is my cause then that is getting somewhere.

Some of the assertions MRA's make are just fantasy.

Society has always been better to women historically.

Biologically every woman counts in reproduction, where males are more disposable.

Look, we don’t like feeling like walking incubators any more than you like feeling as if you’re nothing more than some kind of sperminator.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/toronto-protest-up-to-date-coverage/

Here ..here are some MRA sites read em ...make your own judgments fols some of might love em some might hate em..


There are ties between MRA sites and stormfront.



They are the gender equivalent of white rights activists.


They also claim that women always get custody of children despite also defending the wage gap because women spend more time with children. They are so dazzled by their own victimizing ideology that they can’t even see the contradiction.

If you want to know more, check out the rest of this site.

They also ignore and even erase the very real problems of Men of Color, queer men or anybody who isn’t part of the middle class, cis-het, white man elite. See: prison rape.

Yup! They don’t give a damn about intersectionality. It’s “**** you, got mine, and I want even more”.

Let the public read their sites and interview their activists and judge for themselves.

Maybe it will help the movement mature or something. Or inspire men in the public to create a genuine male movement. I think men do need space to assess what it is to be a man.

MRA's always sound like a hate group when I read their stuff. Pity but there you go.

Let the public form their own opinion though.

tritium

Lou.m wrote: »

Do you live in Putin land? Where everyone is against you?

Feminism does not have a bad rap. And if it gets one let it. If the majority of people one day think it does then it probably deserves it.

Let people think what they want about MRA.

The public are more intelligent than people give them credit for.

The feminist movement happened largely because the public supported it and saw it as just.

Even revolutionary movements and thinking need the support of the majority infact they need to be representing the majority in changing a system that the majority feel is unjust.

Let the general public read the MRA stuff on reddit or here or blogs or whatever or feminist material the extremes and the moderates let them form their own opinions.

I have heard accounts of MRA activists stalk and threaten women for criticizing them. I have heard them get into trouble with police.

If MRAs actually wanted to mobilize behind the issues they raise, they'd stop they would stop harassing people campaigning for workplace safety measures, or helping men and boys who are survivors of rape and domestic violence access the resources they need.



It is a question of character.

There are shady people out there and generally the public are a good judge of character.

Drag all organizations into the open and drag people into the public domain. When people stand up publicly and say this is me my background my name etc and this is my cause then that is getting somewhere.

Some of the assertions MRA's make are just fantasy.






Look, we don’t like feeling like walking incubators any more than you like feeling as if you’re nothing more than some kind of sperminator.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/toronto-protest-up-to-date-coverage/

Here ..here are some MRA sites read em ...make your own judgments fols some of might love em some might hate em..


There are ties between MRA sites and stormfront.



They are the gender equivalent of white rights activists.


They also claim that women always get custody of children despite also defending the wage gap because women spend more time with children. They are so dazzled by their own victimizing ideology that they can’t even see the contradiction.

If you want to know more, check out the rest of this site.

They also ignore and even erase the very real problems of Men of Color, queer men or anybody who isn’t part of the middle class, cis-het, white man elite. See: prison rape.

Yup! They don’t give a damn about intersectionality. It’s “**** you, got mine, and I want even more”.

Let the public read their sites and interview their activists and judge for themselves.

Maybe it will help the movement mature or something. Or inspire men in the public to create a genuine male movement. I think men do need space to assess what it is to be a man.

MRA's always sound like a hate group when I read their stuff. Pity but there you go.

Let the public form their own opinion though.

I think your point about MRA's are valid in some instances. They'd all be equally valid examples if applied to some feminist groups. So some people on both sides are bad people- is that your point?

Lou.m

tritium wrote: »

I think your point about MRA's are valid in some instances. They'd all be equally valid examples if applied to some feminist groups. So some people on both sides are bad people- is that your point?

No.

Where are the MRA's who are reputable and in the political mainstream to balance it?

Even in the beginning when it was a counter movement feminism had supporters like George Bernard Shaw, John Mills,Robert Green Ingersoll.

My point is bring them all out in the open.


There actually IS a men's movement that started in the 1970's that was associated with it's sister movement feminism. It was about men's studies and men's rights but it saw feminism as a sister branch and vice versa. this liberation theory holds that men are hurt by the male gender role and patriarchy and that men's lives are alienating, unhealthy and impoverished in this society. They are often sympathetic to feminism and seek to emancipate men in the same manner by which women continue to seek liberation through the feminist movement. They believe that men are overworked, trained to kill or be killed, brutalized and subjected to blame and shame. They give attention to the damage, isolation and suffering inflicted on boys and men through their socialization into manhood.Masculinity scholars seek to broaden the academic discourse of gender through men's studies. Central to men's studies is the understanding that "gender" does not mean "female," the same way "race" does not mean "black." Men's studies are typically interdisciplinary, and incorporate the feminist conception that "the personal is political." Masculinity scholars strive to contribute to the existing dialogue about gender created through women's studies. But they are not critical of women's studies nor the space it inhabits in society. They welcome it.

But they would seem to be completely at odds with MRA's. And I have heard MRA's use the term 'Mangina ' etc etc.


My point is.

Let the public judge for themselves the character of MRA and Feminism. They usually get it right.

Bring it all out into the open get rid of the anonymity of the net.

Yes all movements have bad people...but not all movements have good people. Some are more good than bad.

Public opinion is generally a better judge than people think. And the public often form opinions based on character, respectability, honesty, lawfulness and sincerity.

The Iona institute may have some good people involved ....but in general the public opinion is against them because of character judgement and a feeling that they are irrational.

And rational is not the same as logical Logical is seeing obvious sense, i.e.; red=stop green=go etc. Rational is seeing moral sense Rational is when you can see the sense in doing something, i.e. it was rational to have some breakfast before work, to enhance concentration.Rational is understood as a soundness of ones mind, where as Logical is a reasoning that is outside one's self. You may be thinking logically but not rationally.

I have noticed many MRA's to behave irrationally and to lack emotional containment. That does not negate any logic their argument may have of course (which they are quick often to point out and use to sometimes get away with the irrational behavior). But it is still irrational behavior. In real life, rational people are also the people who are perceived as being very reasonable. They are also considered intelligent as they are able to see both the emotional, as well as the logical side of an argument.

They'd all be equally valid examples if applied to some feminist groups. So some people on both sides are bad people- is that your point?

That is logical. But it is not reasonable nor rational.

Look at the character of the examples and the extreme of both. And how both relate to the outside global world.
Rational is seeing moral sense and being able to see moral sense. And we describe people who cannot see moral sense as irrational. It requires seeing beyond the logic whilst not ignoring the logic.

For example what would a MRA movement have to contribute to a society like India where where women's rights are subordinate. Yet there are MRA movements in India according to reddit. Does this seem rational ?

Looking at the 'bad apples' both groups I wonder which the public would see as most sinister and irrational?
Much of the MRA's seem to have more of the irrational.

But let the public judge for themselves.


I am saying the best way for a movement to be moral is complete honesty and bring it right out exposed into the open and let the public judge it for itself.


Pour it all out feminism MRA ..warts and all the worst of both should be shown ..let the public judge they are usually right.

strobe

By that metric Lou.m, the feminism of today has been judged by the public and judged negatively. Someone posted a survey earlier in the thread that found only 23% of women would consider themselves feninists. Most women today seem to balk at the idea of being thought of as feminists. The feminist movement is very much out in the open warts and all and based on this the majority of the public, men and women, don't even want to be associated with the word 'feminist'.

Do you hold to your contention that the public usually get it right, and have done in this regard?

Lou.m

strobe wrote: »

By that metric Lou.m, the feminism of today has been judged by the public and judged negatively. Someone posted a survey earlier in the thread that found only 23% of women would consider themselves feninists. Most women today seem to balk at the idea of being thought of as feminists. The feminist movement is very much out in the open warts and all and based on this the majority of the public, men and women, don't even want to be associated with the word 'feminist'.

Do you hold to your contention that the public usually get it right, and have done in this regard?

Good then. Let the Public way up MRA and Feminism on balance and let them have their say.

I know my opinion let them have theirs.

But drag it in the open as it all is.

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

But you just keep stating pro censorship as if that means it's automatically a bad thing.

The point is that it's not about "equality between men and women", it's irrelevant to that. That's the reason I keep bringing it up - by the strict definition Kyuss wants to use that "feminism = wanting equality", then calling banning porn and "offensive" ads a "feminist issue" is bullsh!t and they shouldn't be allowed to go unchallanged - or alternatively, the oft trotted out line that feminism simply means wanting equality, is false.
Which is it?

I don't know how anti-censorship you are. Do you have any line on censorship at all? To try and get some parameter on the censorship discussion, Would you censor internet child pornography?

If you do, well you are pro censorship to some degree, and have an arbitrary line.

I would yes, but actually I have serious issues with how it's being done - I'd go after the individuals who upload it rather than the hosting company as has happened with an Irish lad, because the principle that the owner of a vast hosting network should be intimately familiar with everything his or her customers are doing could really f*ck up the rest of the internet. Boards is a good example - the MCD fiasco a couple of years ago was absurd, if they felt wronged I'd have no problem with them going after individual posters and asking Boards to hand over IPs, but suing the content provider is a massively disruptive (to the internet in general) way of doing it, because the way we're going people are going to be too afraid to put up any platforms that aren't somehow pre-approved or pre-moderated.

That's a bit of an aside however. I believe in banning child porn because those involved haven't consented (cannot, in fact, consent) to the acts depicted. I don't for example believe in banning cartoon depictions of it because no actual human has been harmed against their will, and if everyone involved in a production is a consenting adult, I have a serious issue with banning anything in that category, because it stops being about individual rights and becomes some kind of moral standard upholding, which I just don't agree with. Depictions of people who have not or cannot consent to being depicted is the only thing I approve of censoring because it infringes individual rights. If I and somebody else agree to film a horrendously violent scene and put it online that's our business, and in my view nobody else has the right to tell us otherwise - no matter how offensive anyone may find it.

Again though my views on censorship are a side issue here. The point is, "Men and women should be equal" as a statement, cannot in any way be related to "Depictions of X should be banned". Currently, both men and women are legally allowed to appear in porn, there's no "inequality" in the legislation there to correct, and so by attempting to ban it (or offensive t shirts, or offensive facebook pages etc) you are now fighting for something which is irrelevant to the stated "feminism = wanting equality" definition. If that's the case, then either (a) that definition of feminism is false, or (b) the pro-censorship types are erroneously labelling their cause a feminist cause and should be called out on that by actual feminists, for hijacking the name.

My question is, which is it going to be? The current situation is that a lot of feminists will assume "You don't like feminism? You must want men to have unfair advantages then", while ignoring the fact that feminism is now associated with far more than just that one goal.

To go back to my previous analogy, you cannot state that feminism = x, when in practise feminism = x + y. You cannot sell a vanilla ice cream as vanilla if it's actually vanilla and chocolate, and if the customer doesn't want it, it doesn't mean he or she doesn't like vanilla, it could mean they don't like chocolate. (Although that's a crap analogy because let's face it, people who don't like chocolate aren't really the kind of people you want to be associated with)

KyussBishop

Piliger wrote: »

I find your arguments are so wildly nonsensical and misandrous, and your aggression so OTT that it makes one wonder about your whole motivation in being involved in the debate at all. It seems like you are just trying to derail and divert the thread for your own agenda. I don't see the point in anyone responding to you to be honest.

I'm not surprised at all for you to come out with the "you're a misandrist because you disagree with me" bollocks - it's pretty much exactly like a radical feminist accusing someone of being misogynistic for exactly the same reason.

No surprise either, that you don't bother to (because you can't...) quote a single thing from any of my posts, that's supposed to be misandrous.


For people arguing from the mens rights side: Watch out for this kind of bollocks, because even though there are valid mens rights arguments, if you associate with this kind of deeply (frankly bald-faced) intellectual dishonesty, you'll find yourself believing it over time as well - because no matter how smart you are, stuff rubs off through repetition.

As the thread goes on, it's becoming really clear that some (definitely not all) on the mens rights side of the debate, inhabit a faction of the mens right movement, that (while probably a minority) is just as intellectually dishonest as some of the more extreme feminists - so apply extreme cynicism, to any arguments relying upon sweeping generalizations in particular, as it's becoming clear posters know that is bullshít, and are (I would judge) deliberately trying to wedge an intolerant "Us vs Them" divide between mens rights and feminists.

KyussBishop

Henry9 wrote: »

They are the feminist movement. This is what you can't seem to grasp.
The fact that you are waving your dictionary about wailing 'but they're not all the feminists' is irrelevant.
'generalizations are inherently logically fallacious', not true, it is quite reasonable to deduce from the leaders of a movement what the goals and ideals of that movement are. Especially when they spell them out in writing.

They have the influence, and they were being discussed. Until you decided to take up the cudgels to defend the word 'feminist'.
As if anyone cares what they are called, it's the movement and their influence that matters.

Besides, what form would these 'stats' take?
Who would compile them? Should there be a census of all 'feminist' organisations? That would be difficult since by your logic most of them don't qualify as feminist.
...

So, you don't have any stats to back up your generalizations - you have none.

You don't have any stats even surveying the feminist movement leaders, that you are now falling back to for justification of your generalizations.

It's not my problem, to figure out what form the stats would take or how to collect them, that's your problem, because you have to do the legwork to figure that out and prove your generalizations - the burden of proof is on you; and sure, you can forget the dictionary definition, and just provide stats on the feminist political movements (either all of them, or a representative majority selected from most groups).

Your generalizations are completely unbacked, making them completely fallacious - end of.


I didn't ask for examples, I asked for proof of your generalizations - you provided examples, that rely upon the exact same fallacious generalizations, to try and prove your point.

It was basically this:
"These feminists are against true equality, therefore all feminists are against true equality"
"That's a generalization, prove that it's representative of feminists, with stats"
"These other feminists are against true equality, therefore all feminists are against true equality"

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

So, you don't have any stats to back up your generalizations - you have none.

You don't have any stats even surveying the feminist movement leaders, that you are now falling back to for justification of your generalizations.

It's not my problem, to figure out what form the stats would take or how to collect them, that's your problem, because you have to do the legwork to figure that out and prove your generalizations - the burden of proof is on you; and sure, you can forget the dictionary definition, and just provide stats on the feminist political movements (either all of them, or a representative majority selected from most groups).

Your generalizations are completely unbacked, making them completely fallacious - end of.


I didn't ask for examples, I asked for proof of your generalizations - you provided examples, that rely upon the exact same fallacious generalizations, to try and prove your point.

It was basically this:
"These feminists are against true equality, therefore all feminists are against true equality"
"That's a generalization, prove that it's representative of feminists, with stats"
"These other feminists are against true equality, therefore all feminists are against true equality"

Still waiting for those examples and supporting evidence Kyuss........

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

Multiple posters here have given you examples that you've dismissed as unrepresentative. So now it's your turn - put up or shut up!

Give some examples to support your contention that were all for you the most part feminists

Some examples of feminists advocating against women's rights (I asked for this on page 75 btw at 17.07 on 4 march. I guess you weren't really reading before you responded....)

Some examples to demonstrate why self identified feminists arent feminists

Data please, just like you asked the rest of us for

And don't bother telling me you don't need to - you're the (only) one positing this alternative view of what feminism is , this bull**** argument that defies either empirical evidence or semantics - prove it

Read up on something called 'burden of proof' - you make the generalization, you need to prove it.

And 'argument ad populum' is yet another fallacy - which ironically is relying upon yet another generalization (which wouldn't even undo the fallacy).


How about this, should be really simple: Instead of generalizing about the entire feminist movement, just use proper labels and identify the subsections you're criticizing - very easy, yet for some reason posters insist on wanting to tar an entire movement with the same brush - which reeks of massive (and at this stage, seemingly deliberate) intellectual dishonesty.

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

Read up on something called 'burden of proof' - you make the generalization, you need to prove it.

And 'argument ad populum' is yet another fallacy - which ironically is relying upon yet another generalization (which wouldn't even undo the fallacy).


How about this, should be really simple: Instead of generalizing about the entire feminist movement, just use proper labels and identify the subsections you're criticizing - very easy, yet for some reason posters insist on wanting to tar an entire movement with the same brush - which reeks of massive (and at this stage, seemingly deliberate) intellectual dishonesty.

Actually no, read up in something called hypothesis testing. You first posited what a definition if feminism should be, the burden isn't on everyone else to prove you wrong (albeit they've done a pretty good job of that)

You were after all first to tell us what feminism entailed, rewriting the entire pantheon of feminist history and its self definition in the process- pretty impressive given the depth of debate within feminism itself about that exact question...

Btw, I think you'll find a significant number of (not all) posters have been making exactly the distinction you been belatedly calling for in the general debate. Terms such as radical feminist, academic feminism etc are pretty prominent in here (by myself included). You on the other hand have been pretty disingenuous at dismissing anything that didn't fit your label. You're starting gambit was "sure we're all feminists"- how much more as populum can you get than that?

KyussBishop

Lou.m wrote: »

Do you live in Putin land? Where everyone is against you?

Feminism does not have a bad rap. And if it gets one let it. If the majority of people one day think it does then it probably deserves it.

Let people think what they want about MRA.

The public are more intelligent than people give them credit for.

The feminist movement happened largely because the public supported it and saw it as just.

Even revolutionary movements and thinking need the support of the majority infact they need to be representing the majority in changing a system that the majority feel is unjust.

Let the general public read the MRA stuff on reddit or here or blogs or whatever or feminist material the extremes and the moderates let them form their own opinions.

I have heard accounts of MRA activists stalk and threaten women for criticizing them. I have heard them get into trouble with police.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're replying to, but yes - this being my first look at the quality of some mens rights arguments (some, not all, as many are reasonable), I can definitely see the line of intellectual dishonesty used, as being compatible with a lot of what you mention in your post.

Generalizations - when unchallenged - fool people and the public very easily though, so a couple of rounds of me putting a spotlight on the sweeping generalizations being used to back certain viewpoints, and it will pretty much kill the credibility of those arguments.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The point is that it's not about "equality between men and women", it's irrelevant to that. That's the reason I keep bringing it up - by the strict definition Kyuss wants to use that "feminism = wanting equality", then calling banning porn and "offensive" ads a "feminist issue" is bullsh!t and they shouldn't be allowed to go unchallanged - or alternatively, the oft trotted out line that feminism simply means wanting equality, is false.
Which is it?

Well yea I'd agree here, I don't really see that as a feminst issue to be honest - I do think someone can fit the dictionary definition of feminist and advocate this though.

If all they are advocating is pro-censorship stuff, it does kind of seem like hijacking, for them to do this using feminism as a platform - I wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a guise, to hide that it's more likely to be moral advocation from the church.

I think the problem you mention, of people saying "you don't like feminism then?" is only really a problem if people use generalizations, because if you just identify the group you criticize ('pro-censorship feminists'), it solves the whole problem really, and anyone who says you're a feminist-hater or the like, can be rebuffed by showing they are inaccurately generalizing about your views (whereas, if you generalize about feminists, it's the other way around).

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

Actually no, read up in something called hypothesis testing. You first posited what a definition if feminism should be, the burden isn't on everyone else to prove you wrong (albeit they've done a pretty good job of that)

You were after all first to tell us what feminism entailed, rewriting the entire pantheon of feminist history and its self definition in the process- pretty impressive given the depth of debate within feminism itself about that exact question...

Btw, I think you'll find a significant number of (not all) posters have been making exactly the distinction you been belatedly calling for in the general debate. Terms such as radical feminist, academic feminism etc are pretty prominent in here (by myself included). You on the other hand have been pretty disingenuous at dismissing anything that didn't fit your label. You're starting gambit was "sure we're all feminists"- how much more as populum can you get than that?

No tritium, I've said you can go ahead and prove your generalizations, based on your own definition of feminism 'the collection of political movements', so the burden of proof is on you - provide some stats to show us, that your generalizations are representative of the political movement.

Cherry picking examples from parts of the political movement, is just relying upon the exact same generalization, to prove your generalization (a circular argument), so you'll need some stats representative of the political movement.

You can't even provide stats showing your 'academic feminists' generalization is correct, so that's not anywhere near an accurate distinction, just another form of generalization - an accurate distinction would be 'misandrists within the feminist movement, 'pro-censorship feminists', 'discriminatory feminists' etc..

tritium

KyussBishop wrote: »

No tritium, I've said you can go ahead and prove your generalizations, based on your own definition of feminism 'the collection of political movements', so the burden of proof is on you - provide some stats to show us, that your generalizations are representative of the political movement.

Cherry picking examples from parts of the political movement, is just relying upon the exact same generalization, to prove your generalization (a circular argument), so you'll need some stats representative of the political movement.

You can't even provide stats showing your 'academic feminists' generalization is correct, so that's not anywhere near an accurate distinction, just another form of generalization - an accurate distinction would be 'misandrists within the feminist movement, 'pro-censorship feminists', 'discriminatory feminists' etc..

So am I to assume you can't actually provide any statistics, data or examples to back up your position?

hatrickpatrick

KyussBishop wrote: »

So, you don't have any stats to back up your generalizations - you have none.

You don't have any stats even surveying the feminist movement leaders, that you are now falling back to for justification of your generalizations.

It's not my problem, to figure out what form the stats would take or how to collect them, that's your problem, because you have to do the legwork to figure that out and prove your generalizations - the burden of proof is on you; and sure, you can forget the dictionary definition, and just provide stats on the feminist political movements (either all of them, or a representative majority selected from most groups).

Your generalizations are completely unbacked, making them completely fallacious - end of.


I didn't ask for examples, I asked for proof of your generalizations - you provided examples, that rely upon the exact same fallacious generalizations, to try and prove your point.

It was basically this:
"These feminists are against true equality, therefore all feminists are against true equality"
"That's a generalization, prove that it's representative of feminists, with stats"
"These other feminists are against true equality, therefore all feminists are against true equality"

But Kyuss, nobody is saying all feminists are either pro or anti anything. All people are saying is that those who are, are not vocally opposed by those who or not, or else they must comprise a majority - because you don't see many articles written by their fellow feminists denouncing what they're saying.

I'm sure not all Fine Gaelers are ok with Shatter's recent behavior, but let's imagine that there are many in the party who feel he should go. Their silence on that is facilitating his continued term in office and therefore to the general public, "FG is backing Shatter". That's not an unfair thing to say even if many members don't support him, because in practise, by not opposing him, they are allowing those who support him to control the situation. So even if they don't approve, it doesn't matter - they are aligned with a movement which is backing him.

I'm sure there are individuals working for the NSA who don't approve of the STORMBREW operation, but by continuing to work on it and not doing anything to try and stop it, they are facilitating its continued existence.

To use my quote from earlier, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

hatrickpatrick

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well yea I'd agree here, I don't really see that as a feminst issue to be honest - I do think someone can fit the dictionary definition of feminist and advocate this though.

If all they are advocating is pro-censorship stuff, it does kind of seem like hijacking, for them to do this using feminism as a platform - I wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a guise, to hide that it's more likely to be moral advocation from the church.

So then we are, in fact, in agreement on the fact that either this is part of feminism, or those who use the feminist label to advocate for it are hijacking / co-opting the movement. That's a start!

I think the problem you mention, of people saying "you don't like feminism then?" is only really a problem if people use generalizations, because if you just identify the group you criticize ('pro-censorship feminists'), it solves the whole problem really, and anyone who says you're a feminist-hater or the like, can be rebuffed by showing they are inaccurately generalizing about your views (whereas, if you generalize about feminists, it's the other way around).

I don't have a problem with feminists per se (emphasis on the "s"), I do however have a problem with feminism because it tolerates the use of its name for campaigns which disgust me, and does absolutely nothing to vocally distance itself from them. As with my FG analogy, even if not all FGers support Shatter, not a single one of them is getting a vote from me next time unless he is forced out of the DOJ. They are facilitating corruption by keeping him there even if all they're doing is not opposing the status quo.

Piliger

KyussBishop wrote: »

As the thread goes on, it's becoming really clear that some (definitely not all) on the mens rights side of the debate, inhabit a faction of the mens right movement, that (while probably a minority) is just as intellectually dishonest as some of the more extreme feminists - so apply extreme cynicism, to any arguments relying upon sweeping generalizations in particular, as it's becoming clear posters know that is bullshít, and are (I would judge) deliberately trying to wedge an intolerant "Us vs Them" divide between mens rights and feminists.

The intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. It is clear from all of your escalating questionable posts, that you are simply playing games and twisting facts and comments made by male posters. Your attempts to turn the reality of the situation upside down at every turn to deny the legitimacy of the discussion is evidently for one reason and one reason only, to disrupt the discussion with irrelevant and patently false 'argument'.

KyussBishop

tritium wrote: »

So am I to assume you can't actually provide any statistics, data or examples to back up your position?

tritium you can play the idiotic 'turn all questions back to the poster asking them' game all day, it's transparent for anyone to see who is reading the thread, and makes it really obvious that you are dodging backing up your generalizations.

You make the generalization, you need to provide the proof - proof that doesn't rely on making the exact same generalization (i.e. selective samples, making it a circular argument) - the burden of proof is on you - and you can even use your own definition of feminism to do it as well.

I made no generalizations, I don't need to backup any claims.

smoking_kills

KyussBishop wrote: »

tritium you can play the idiotic 'turn all questions back to the poster asking them' game all day, it's transparent for anyone to see who is reading the thread, and makes it really obvious that you are dodging backing up your generalizations.

You make the generalization, you need to provide the proof - proof that doesn't rely on making the exact same generalization (i.e. selective samples, making it a circular argument) - the burden of proof is on you - and you can even use your own definition of feminism to do it as well.

I made no generalizations, I don't need to backup any claims.

Search you-tube-search Google.

The feminists who are most vocal are leading the movement. As such they represent the movement, the silent majority are just that, silent.
You will find opposing views like trutium and other have said, but look at the views on the video/blog/website compared to the alternative view. Its obvious to anyone who follows the online and even offline feminist movement who speaks for movement, and what their views are!

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But Kyuss, nobody is saying all feminists are either pro or anti anything. All people are saying is that those who are, are not vocally opposed by those who or not, or else they must comprise a majority - because you don't see many articles written by their fellow feminists denouncing what they're saying.

I'm sure not all Fine Gaelers are ok with Shatter's recent behavior, but let's imagine that there are many in the party who feel he should go. Their silence on that is facilitating his continued term in office and therefore to the general public, "FG is backing Shatter". That's not an unfair thing to say even if many members don't support him, because in practise, by not opposing him, they are allowing those who support him to control the situation. So even if they don't approve, it doesn't matter - they are aligned with a movement which is backing him.

I'm sure there are individuals working for the NSA who don't approve of the STORMBREW operation, but by continuing to work on it and not doing anything to try and stop it, they are facilitating its continued existence.

To use my quote from earlier, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

People have been trying to redefine feminism, to make it specifically about inequality in the thread - and now that that's discarded, the current remaining argument people are holding onto, are generalizations, where extreme feminist groups are taken as being representative of feminists overall (and this is without pointing at dictionary definitions, just considering active political movements).

There are also several outright lies in peoples posts along the way, and deliberate misrepresentation, as well as other silly/fallacious methods of argument, and general intellectual dishonesty; many of the posters you post alongside, use pretty deliberately dishonest methods of argument to try and push their point (in a way comparable to the more extreme feminists) - though I do not include you with them.


If generalizations like that are going to be made, they need to be backed with stats to show they are representative; doesn't have to show all feminists holding a certain view, but certainly (if it's to be considered representative), at least a majority - and remember, this is with the 'collection of political movements' definition of feminism; not even stats for that can be shown (hell, not even stats for 'academic feminists' can be shown).

People are just making sweeping generalizations without any kind of backing.

I understand your argument regarding other feminists not speaking up, but that's not a solid grounding for assuming the fringe are representative of the majority, and to then generalize about feminists.

What you are saying here is reasonable enough, but what other posters are saying has been a lot more extreme than that.

pundy

did anyone stop to think for a minute that if "feminism" didnt exist, then there might not be any "issues" to address??

and because it does exist, the issues are created.

hatrickpatrick

KyussBishop wrote: »

People have been trying to redefine feminism, to make it specifically about inequality in the thread - and now that that's discarded, the current remaining argument people are holding onto, are generalizations, where extreme feminist groups are taken as being representative of feminists overall (and this is without pointing at dictionary definitions, just considering active political movements).

As I said earlier, they're getting things done and they're not being vocally opposed. Even if a majority don't agree with them, they are facillitating their actions by failing to do anything to oppose them.

There are also several outright lies in peoples posts along the way, and deliberate misrepresentation, as well as other silly/fallacious methods of argument, and general intellectual dishonesty; many of the posters you post alongside, use pretty deliberately dishonest methods of argument to try and push their point (in a way comparable to the more extreme feminists) - though I do not include you with them.

Thanks For the record, I don't have any issue with you either, as you probably know I actually greatly admire a lot of your political ideologies and your debating style.

If generalizations like that are going to be made, they need to be backed with stats to show they are representative; doesn't have to show all feminists holding a certain view, but certainly (if it's to be considered representative), at least a majority - and remember, this is with the 'collection of political movements' definition of feminism; not even stats for that can be shown (hell, not even stats for 'academic feminists' can be shown).

What if it can be shown, as I have with some links which I can repost if you like, that whether they are majority held views or not, they are succeeding in changing rules, regulations and policies in various areas and therefore restricting people's freedom? Even if not backed by the majority, this cannot be ignored.

People are just making sweeping generalizations without any kind of backing.

Well as I say, I have in fact backed mine up, I'll happily provide more references if you're interested?

I understand your argument regarding other feminists not speaking up, but that's not a solid grounding for assuming the fringe are representative of the majority, and to then generalize about feminists.

As I've said, I don't regard them as representative of the majority, or as I said, "feminists", but they are representing feminism to a certain extent when their policies are being implemented by governments and institutions on the grounds of self-styled "feminist campaigns".
It would be entirely different if people like myself were falsely accusing them of calling themselves feminists, but they do self identify as such, that's not something I'm merely pulling out of thin air.

What you are saying here is reasonable enough, but what other posters are saying has been a lot more extreme than that.

True, and actually to a certain extent the same applies to you - very reasonable and moderate arguments. Maybe we should grab an island somewhere and start our own country?

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So then we are, in fact, in agreement on the fact that either this is part of feminism, or those who use the feminist label to advocate for it are hijacking / co-opting the movement. That's a start!

Well yes, I'd put it as more the latter - I don't think the pro-censorship crowd make feminism any less about equality, even though I disagree with them - the discriminatory/misandrist feminists are another matter.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't have a problem with feminists per se (emphasis on the "s"), I do however have a problem with feminism because it tolerates the use of its name for campaigns which disgust me, and does absolutely nothing to vocally distance itself from them. As with my FG analogy, even if not all FGers support Shatter, not a single one of them is getting a vote from me next time unless he is forced out of the DOJ. They are facilitating corruption by keeping him there even if all they're doing is not opposing the status quo.

I would assume that many feminists do speak out about this - they just aren't handed the megaphone in the media, that the more controversial parts are, because it stirs less shít/sells less newspapers.

Feminism isn't a political party, that has central control, it's a diverse selection of activist movements, with the usual infighting among each other, and with nobody who can really do anything about those hijacking the 'feminist' label.

Really, the onus isn't on them to speak out against every feminist crackpot group - that just gives them even more attention - and that's not tacit support, like people try to make out, and it doesn't make the crackpots representative in any way.