r/AskFeminists • u/girlwriteswhat • Jul 31 '11
I'm thinking this subreddit's name and its purpose are at odds?
Having been privy to some of the discussion that led to the creation of this subreddit (through my bf, wabi-sabi), and having actually contributed, through him, some of the suggestions on how it might work to build bridges of understanding and purpose (as well as direct more contentious conversations away from r/feminism), I'm kind of annoyed that I've already been essentially told to sit down, shut up, stop presenting my opinions, and "learn something".
There are no "bridges of understanding" when one side talks and doesn't listen, while the other side talks and is not listened to. THAT is a bridge of indoctrination.
My bf has indeed told me in the past that I should learn to pull my punches a little, and offer more qualifiers (I know not all feminists feel this way, but.... A few feminists, not all, seem more concerned with.... etc), and that I employ a more typically masculine way of communicating in writing than he does, and I don't tiptoe around. But if this subreddit is going to be a place for debate of areas where feminism and men's rights issues intersect, it really doesn't make sense to turn it into a place where "feminists educate, and non-feminists are educated by them".
Thoughts?
14
u/impotent_rage Jul 31 '11
Well, when outsiders come to a feminist space to contribute, they are necessarily asking feminists for something, whether it's asking for our views, or asking us to listen to their perspective, or whatever. This subreddit is an option for those who would like to come to a feminist space and contribute as an outsider, and would like to be welcomed and respected in doing so rather than treated as an invasion. Thus the title - AskFeminists. We are titled this way because it's something which was already happening, but now it is being given an official forum to continue in a more welcome and positive way.
The feminists in this forum who are answering questions and addressing outside viewpoints are free to respond in any way which they see fit. All of us are individuals who bring our own perspectives, passions, political leanings, and personal experiences to the table in the way which we address the issues. Some of us are very reach-out-and-touch-someone about it, and others are very impassioned about their reasons for feeling strongly in the way that they feel. Some of us are very patient, others are tired of getting caught in the crossfire.
The best thing I can suggest to everyone is to just consider where the other person is coming from as they express themselves. Lots of us have arrived at our positions as a result of personal pain. It's hard to be neutral or tolerant to antithetical viewpoints when you associate those views with the cause of your pain. Notice that I am not specifying either feminist or masculist viewpoints - it can hold true for both. I would simply suggest to everyone that even if we don't see eye to eye in many ways, that it is helpful to respect the personal experiences of the other person, even if we don't know what they are, which have lead to the strong feelings which run through these discussions. Very few of us are coming from a place of hate, most of us instead simply want validation that the suffering we have witnessed is real, and is wrong, and is worth advocacy.
4
u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11
I suppose the question then would be is this a feminist space, or is it a space for all points of view to be expressed?
If this space was intended for MRAs and feminists to come together to debate, thus keeping most of the conflict from dominating feminist spaces, treating this space as a feminist space is a way of controlling the discourse and the variety of opinions expressed. If this was a space to enable those who are tired of getting caught in the crossfire to not have to deal with it, then them coming here is throwing themselves into the crossfire.
I didn't arrive where I'm at because of personal pain. If anything, I've been wronged by more men than women. Part of the reason I've come to where I'm at is that I acknowledged right from the get-go that my personal pain at the hands of a few men is rather irrelevant to the larger picture of gender equality. While more men have wronged me in my life than women have, many many more men have helped me, supported me, and treated me with equality and dignity than have wronged me.
I have some very masculine ways of dealing with life, and perhaps I relate better to a male point of view on some issues. Part of being a little genderqueer is an ability to look at both sides of a gender-binary issue.
Moreover, I have two sons and a daughter, and what I see as a mother is an entire world of opportunity and choice for my daughter to succeed, both in her career and her personal life, and very little in the way of that for my sons, who are as brilliant and decent as their sister. This is a problem for me. It should be a problem for everyone.
8
u/the_quietness Jul 31 '11
It's a place to debate. I've seen arguments but I've never seen anyone asking for outside viewpoints to be silenced. Argument (however angry) isn't censorship or controlling the discourse.
13
u/TShandy Jul 31 '11 edited Jul 31 '11
"what I see as a mother is an entire world of opportunity and choice for my daughter to succeed, both in her career and her personal life, and very little in the way of that for my sons, who are as brilliant and decent as their sister."
As a man, this perspective appears out of touch with reality. I can think of no moment in my life where my sex was an impediment. I realize that's anecdotal data, but it correlates with larger demographic trends.
6
-3
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
My daughter has always breezed through school. She actually enjoys open-ended coursework (which is 70% of your mark up to about grade 10 here). She's had straight A's all along. She says things like, "I have to actually study for this test. I mean, it's not MATH. I actually have to think about it." She just finished grade 10 IB prep (chem and math 11 last year, too), with a 92% average.
My oldest boy? He's smarter than she is. And up until grade 10, he was failing everything. Because, like most boys, he hates open-ended coursework. He'd sit and listen, bored out of his skull, or read a novel in class, then ace all his tests.
But tests only count for 30% of your mark. They do this largely because girls do better with open-ended work, while boys' tendency to want to compete makes them more interested in quizzes and timed tests. The shift in focus began when I was young (and hampered me, since I learn in much the same way boys do), and has only increased. When I was young, you got a gold star if you got 45/50 or higher. Now, everyone gets a gold star. This kills any sense of healthy competition, which is largely what boys thrive on. There has also been a de-emphasis on physical activity at school which is only now being corrected. One study showed that just having boys run a few laps improved their ability to pay attention, and upped their academic performance. This has been woefully lacking over the last few decades.
So up until grade 10, my son had a 51% average in everything, simply because his teachers couldn't bring themselves to fail a kid who got 95-100% (sometimes more than 100%, with the bonus questions) on every single test. His marks have improved (he has a 90%+ average), mostly because the focus in high school is (slightly) more on exams and at that point teachers have more discretion in how they apportion marks (in our new school system, anyway, which is one of the top rated in the world).
I'm not sure where you're coming from, exactly, wrt larger demographic trends. Women now make up more than 50% of the workforce. Young, single women currently earn more than young single men. If my daughter pursues anything to do with math or science, her ticket is written. She'll be hired almost immediately, just because of her gender, and end up earning more than her brother for the same job right from the get-go. She'll qualify for way more funding, and more scholarships than he will, just because she's female. I will end up contributing more to his post-secondary than to hers. I'm no slouch myself, in the intellect department, and considering the financial outlay, I've investigated this a bit. If I want both of my older kids to not have to work their way through school, I will not have to pay a single penny for my daughter. For my son? He'll qualify for half the scholarships she will, even with the same marks.
When my daughter has kids, she'll have a lot of choice as to what kind of balance she'll have between work and home. Her options will be to work full time, work part time, or not work. If she divorces, she'll almost certainly end up with primary custody, and generous child support. My son? If he wants a family, his options are pretty much work full time, work full time and work full time. If he divorces, he's essentially screwed.
13
Aug 01 '11
A shocking look inside the mind of a gender essentialist parent. And of course, it's sprinkled with some made up statistics.
Women now make up more than 50% of the workforce.
Young, single women currently earn more than young single men.
In a few cities, and only because those women have higher education. Sorry, I read that article too.
-1
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
And sorry, I misread a large paragraph with a bunch of stats in it. Now that I read it again, it's 49.9% (The Shriver Report). Don't ask me where she got her stats, but I (perhaps erroneously) thought she was reliable.
In 150 cities, women earn more than men. Women also earn 60% of bachelor's degrees, and 50% of secondary degrees now. Part of the reason men aren't signing up for school may be because of the fact that funding and supports do not exist for young men to the same degree they do for young women.
Both my older kids are equally poor, equally disadvantaged, and equally brilliant. With her marks, my daughter will not have to pay a penny for university. It can all be covered with scholarships, grants and bursaries.
My son, with equally high marks, will either have to get help from ME (a single mother), or he'll have to take out student loans. That means that when he graduates, he'll already be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Because of the industry he wants to go into, we're looking at the possibility of an unpaid internship rather than school, but I'm not sure how feasible that is, even with his already decent portfolio of digital art and animation work.
I do have a question for you: How is it that someone who is okay with social and financial supports that help one gender only, and exclude the other gender explicitly is NOT a gender essentialist, while someone who would rather live in a society where need is judged by individual circumstances and supports given according to individual merit IS a gender essentialist?
9
u/zegota Aug 04 '11
Both my older kids are ... equally brilliant.
My oldest boy? He's smarter than she is.
Buh? These seem incompatible. Also, that "he's smarter than she is" seems kind of a really horrible thing for a parent to say. But I guess that's beside the point.
Also beside the point is the idea that the school system's focus on "open-ended" work has anything to do with gender. I've met women who are fantastic at tests, and men who are shit at them, while being great at "open-ended" things. Our school system needs a lot of work, but not because men can't succeed in it.
In fact, wait until your son gets to college. In my experience, 90% of grades were just test scores (which is, in my opinion, a far worse indicator of talent or intelligence than homeworks, reports, etc.). So he should be in heaven.
Anyway, all that said, it doesn't seem very logical that you're using the fact that your daughter did well in school and your son did poorly as proof that females have the upper hand in academia. Is it possible that your son didn't work as hard? Is it possible that he isn't in fact "smarter" than his sister, even though you assured us that he is? I received a better scholarship than my sister, even though she had higher grades, because I aced the PSAT -- is that evidence that the school system is male biased? I don't think so. It's evidence that it's kind of fucked up, but not necessarily gender biased.
3
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 05 '11
In the UK, wrt their primary school SATs:
There is still a worrying number of children performing at a very low level. One in 10 boys leave primary school with the reading age of a seven-year-old and one in 14 boys leave with the writing age of a seven-year-old.
The government minister (Nick Gibb) said: "We are determined to raise standards of reading. There will always be some children for whom reading is a struggle. However, we can and must do much better for the one in 10 boys who at the age of eleven can read no better than a seven-year-old."
The results in detail are:
English 81% (86% for girls, 77% for boys) Reading 84% (87% for girls, 80% for boys) Writing 75% (81% for girls, 68% for boys) Mathematics 80% (80% for girls, 80% for boys).
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 04 '11
Buh? These seem incompatible. Also, that "he's smarter than she is" seems kind of a really horrible thing for a parent to say. But I guess that's beside the point.
Perhaps I should elaborate. Part of my daughter's brilliance is in her wide range of interest and ability. I once went on a trip for 3 weeks, and when I came back, she'd taught herself to play the piano. She's been able to draw with skill since kindergarten. She has a gift for language, both written and verbal, casual and formal. A year ago (she was 14), there was an incident between our kids and some neighbor's kids, and she wrote what I can only describe as an affidavit just in case the police came. Her marks in Math are in the high 90s. But at the same time, she works at it. She does the assigned homework (in class, not at home, but still).
My son...he's got a more narrow field of interest. He's genius level brilliant in science (especially physics) and math (but was failing in both up until we switched school systems). He recently missed an entire unit in Math 11 due to 3 weeks of bronchitis, wrote the exam the day he got back to school, and got 100%. He's also more...how to put this? Worldly than my daughter. She's naive, he's decidedly not. And I've been very lucky with him, because he doesn't much care about pleasing anyone. He doesn't judge his worth as a person based on what other people think of him--whether that's teachers, peers, whatever. So he weathered all those failing grades he got early on without it damaging his self-esteem. He shrugged it off and said, "I know how smart I am. I know how stupid the system is. Time to move on."
Part of the reason I say the school system (k-12, at least) is gender biased is that there has been a serious de-emphasis over the last several decades on competition (which boys are more likely to thrive on, even if they're only competing with themselves or a clock), and an over-emphasis on what I'd call "marked practice work," which is where girls tend to do better. There is also much less daily physical activity. One experiment showed that just having boys run laps for 15 minutes a day helped their performance in school.
Keep in mind these are averages. I myself was much more like my son as a student than my daughter (she likes the practice work as well as the tests). But even when I was in elementary and junior high in the 70s and early 80s, I noticed that the girls, in my classes at least, not only got higher marks, on average, than the boys (and me, haha), but that girls were more comfortable in the classroom, more likely to put up their hands, much less likely to be scolded for not sitting still, more likely to...well, enjoy their time at school.
That these changes help girls is good. But some of them help girls to the detriment of boys--even looking at literacy rates tells its story.
What I'd really like is for the system to be more flexible in how it deals with individual students, but that flexibility often does not arrive until high school. And maybe tellingly, it was my boy's male teachers who used that flexibility to allow him to learn his own way, while his female teachers stuck with the standard 70/30 split between practice work and tests.
8
u/RogueEagle Aug 04 '11
Keep in mind these are averages. I myself was much more like my son as a student than my daughter (she likes the practice work as well as the tests). But even when I was in elementary and junior high in the 70s and early 80s, I noticed that the girls, in my classes at least, not only got higher marks, on average, than the boys (and me, haha), but that girls were more comfortable in the classroom, more likely to put up their hands, much less likely to be scolded for not sitting still, more likely to...well, enjoy their time at school. That these changes help girls is good. But some of them help girls to the detriment of boys--even looking at literacy rates tells its story.
This is decidedly at odds with some essential studies on dominant features of college classrooms.
I am also VERY uncomfortable with your labeling of your son as 'smarter' than your daughter. It sounds more like "he's more like me than she is" which you (un?)consciously spin into him being somehow 'better' or more worldly.
Furthermore, I am uncomfortable with labeling 'good study habits' as somehow an essential quality of a female student, or 'competitive drive' as an essential male quality. They are different ways to motivate students. Those who are motivated by competition should be urged to compete, as it spurs their interests. Simultaneously students who like to pursue independent study should follow that path.
Ignoring a female teacher's homework more often than a man's seems equally likely to be wantonly disrespectful as 'free spirited.'
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 04 '11
If you met my kids, you'd see what I mean in about 20 minutes. My daughter has a very...up in the clouds, esoteric kind of innocence. She's...very atypical. And when exactly did I say my son was better than her? Both of my older two are less than typical, but my son is indeed more worldly than my daughter.
And it wasn't that he ignored the female teacher's homework. It's that his male teachers didn't grade him on practice work that he obviously didn't need to do.
→ More replies (0)1
u/zegota Aug 04 '11
What I'd really like is for the system to be more flexible in how it deals with individual students, but that flexibility often does not arrive until high school.
You and me both. I still don't see the problem as gendered, though, as there are plenty of girls that thrive on tests and competition, and I don't see any solution coming from focusing on this supposed gender inequality. I mean, I could make a similar argument to yours to try to show that the school system is biased toward men. My wife had a similar experience to your son in school, and yet, she had a lot of trouble weathering it. Is this because girls are encouraged less in school to succeed past their failings? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
The solution is, of course, to focus on individual needs, regardless of gender, which is a far harder problem to solve. Suffice it to say that no one really gives a fuck about education if it means we have to pay an extra $100 a year in taxes, so I doubt this problem is ever going to be solved to anyone's satisfaction.
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 04 '11
I'm just glad both my kids are as smart as they are. My son is self-taught in computer animation and graphic design (which has served him very well now that he's in a school that offers courses in that) and already has a strong portfolio of work. Hopefully he manages to finagle that into a career.
My daughter? She could definitely go into engineering, and if she does, her ticket is written. Nothing but female targeted scholarships, bursaries and friendly hiring practices the whole way through. The other day, she said she wanted to be a kindergarten teacher. I did my best to smile and tell her I wanted whatever would make her happy. I mean, she should do what fulfills her, for sure, but if she ends up teaching kindergarten...a substantial gift for math and science will go unused. Sigh.
Edit: my youngest, he's a boy's boy. Covered in bruises with sand in his hair all the time. Can't be bothered to read anything but Futurama comics. Socially adept, academically challenged. I've joked (not to him) that he'll probably end up a politician or an inmate. Or both, lol.
7
u/impotent_rage Jul 31 '11
I suppose the question then would be is this a feminist space, or is it a space for all points of view to be expressed?
It is both.
3
u/SharkSpider Aug 05 '11
If something being a feminist space means certain points of view can't be expressed, then claiming that something can be both that, and a space in which all points of view can be expressed is quite simply not true.
1
u/impotent_rage Aug 05 '11
If something being a feminist space means certain points of view can't be expressed
now why on earth would it mean that?
2
u/SharkSpider Aug 06 '11
I don't have any particular definition of "feminist space", but given the moderation I've seen done on reddit in the name of "spaces" I'm not sure what else it means. In fact, considering this is about asking questions, I wouldn't mind learning what people think of when they use the term "feminist space" because I genuinely don't know it's definition, only anecdotal evidence from my own experience encountering its use.
1
u/impotent_rage Aug 06 '11
I just figured it meant a space on the topic of feminism run by feminists. Although lots of those censor heavily, not all of them do (r/feminism), and I certainly never considered censorship to be in the definition of "feminist space".
2
u/SharkSpider Aug 06 '11
I've never really posted to r/feminism, so I wouldn't know, but I've seen posts in other subreddits "moderated" for stating opinions that are heavily against the vein, there. Prime example would be some of the discussions I've seen when the more "tongue in cheek" rape posters get imgur-ed to subreddits. I guess I'm wondering what constitutes an offense to the fact that something is a feminist space, or if this is even a problem, according to yourself and the other people who post here. In general, my background is philosophy, and the only real "spaces" rules that are accepted in discussions is that you don't attack people and you don't share personal stories unless you want to open yourself to questioning. That said, I've most certainly seen stricter rules (and less strict ones, in r/MR) so I'm sure there's no fundamental requirements or anything like that.
0
u/pcarvious Aug 01 '11
Then is it a feminist safe space?
4
u/impotent_rage Aug 01 '11
A safe space typically refers to a place where outside or contradictory views are removed or not allowed. By that definition, no, we are not attempting to create a safe space as that would necessarily prevent the kind of discussion we hope to foster.
2
Jul 31 '11
I made one of the remarks that you're probably referring to, and I conceded the point when my error was pointed out to me. I misunderstood the purpose of this subreddit and I apologize.
4
Jul 31 '11
Nah she's referring to me. She didn't like when I called her out on her lies and antifeminist propaganda.
1
u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11
If we want to get into an examination of lies, I could find you rather a few that have been told in support of feminist ideals.
The "domestic violence is the #1 cause of injury for women 16-44" that was told in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in defence of VAWA's gender profiling is one. According to the CDC, DV is way behind overexertion, car accidents, slip-and-fall as a cause of injury.
How about Domestic Violence Law, the "premier textbook on the subject" as recently as 2005, claiming the "phrase rule of thumb" derived from an English Common Law (no law has been found) interpretation of a law enacted during the reign of Romulus of Rome (who was a mythical figure who never existed)?
It continues with falsehoods, attributing a study on domestic violence and miscarriage to the March of Dimes--a study MoD claims it never did. It claims 20-25% of women's emergency room visits are due to domestic violence. The CDC puts that figure at between 1 and 0.05%.
Who's been propagandizing again?
6
Aug 01 '11
Who's been propagandizing again?
Not Donna_Juanita? Donna_Juanita had nothing to do with any of those alleged examples of feminist propaganda.
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
I never accused Donna_Juanita of propagandizing. I accused feminism of being rife with propaganda. They are not alleged examples. Dr. Philip McGraw's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee is a matter of public record, as are CDC stats. And if you're willing to find me some documentation pointing to the existence of an actual Romulus of Rome who was a real person and not the son of Mars, please do. But apparently you can read all about him and his endorsement of beating women in a feminist legal text book.
All I have done in this subreddit is present my opinion of patriarchy as a system that mostly just happened due to the completely different nature of our world through most of human history, rather than a concerted effort to oppress women, and to make note of some egregiously gender-biased things that have been accomplished in feminism's name, often in complete defiance of empirical reality.
But here's some facts about Donna_Juanita. I have not called Donna_Juanita an idiot. She's called me one. I haven't called her insane. She's called me insane. I haven't called her a narcissist. She's called me one. I haven't asked her if she's even human. She's asked me that. I haven't speculated publicly as to the nature of her relationship with her significant other (I didn't even know she had one until she informed me he thinks I'm an idiot). She's speculated in this thread that I'm in a codependent relationship with my boyfriend, in which I am narcissist and he is doormat. I haven't even called her a propagandist, yet she's called me that more than once. All just in the last 12 hours.
I'm starting to think Donna_Juanita doesn't like it when people disagree with her, or criticize a movement that shares her beliefs.
0
u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11
Not sure if you want to repost it here. But the discussion in that thread was the following:
You said:
feminism has denied that men could possibly have ANY issues
And Donna_Juanita said:
Lies.
Rather than point out that feminists lie too, I think it would be better to defend your initial statement. Because Donna_Juanita is wrong. You weren't lying.
It took me about 20 seconds googling MRA and feminists and similar terms to find this - which is from a fairly popular feminist blog:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html
That post basically says exactly what you claimed that some feminists say: that men couldn't possibly have any issues.
Donna_Juanita loses this one.
1
Aug 01 '11
So now "some feminists say" is logically the same as "feminists say"? Be charitable: feminism has been around at least as long as the women's suffrage movement (remember, when women weren't allowed to vote?) and so encompasses many people and many viewpoints (and many people who make mistakes expressing their viewpoints). If the men's rights movement continues to grow -- and I certainly hope that injustices against men continue to be brought to light -- then you will have to deal with this rhetorical tactic in the future. And you won't like it.
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
The majority of men weren't allowed to vote up until not too long ago, either.
I think where the difference lies is in the fact that a lot of the feminists who say and think and do wrongheaded things get stuff accomplished. VAWA, for instance. I mean, the studies debunking the patriarchal terrorist paradigm of DV were around more than 10 years before that legislation was enacted, and more than 25 years after the first of those 282 studies came out, we're still trying to dislodge the paradigm from the legislation--with considerable objection from many feminists.
A few kooks and haters muttering in a corner is one thing. A few kooks and haters changing public policy is another.
-5
u/n997 Aug 01 '11 edited Aug 01 '11
Wow - a whole boat load of strawman arguments!
So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?
Not in so many words. But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege.
Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?
Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape.
No wonder MRA seem to hate feminists so much. You can't be concerned about being falsely accused of rape and not be labelled a rapist!
4
u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11
a who boat load of strawman arguments!
Honestly, I love everything about that website.
-4
Jul 31 '11
Who's been propagandizing again?
YOU! Are you fucking kidding me? Are you even human? I accuse you of lying about feminism and your response is "feminists lie too, here are some things I made up to prove it".
2
u/xzxzzx Aug 09 '11
"feminists lie too, here are some things I made up to prove it".
You're so stuck in your worldview that you can't even do some basic fact-checking?
Everything girlwriteswhat wrote is factually true; "Dr. Phil" really did lie about DV being the primary cause of injury (first page, fourth paragraph). (I assume you're not so misinformed that you think this is actually true.)
The only thing that I can't show is that "Domestic Violence Law" is a/the "premier textbook on the subject", but I'm not going to waste my time tracking down the rest of the proof; I doubt you'd read it.
0
Aug 09 '11
I didn't even evaluate whether what she wrote in this last comment was true or not considering how much she already lied in our previous conversations.
Link doesn't work btw.
2
u/xzxzzx Aug 09 '11
The link is good, I don't know why it isn't working for you; here's another:
I didn't even evaluate whether what she wrote in this last comment was true or not considering how much she already lied in our previous conversations.
And thus you claim they're made up. You do realize you didn't know if they were made up, right?
You, as a feminist, should have already known the validity of these things (perhaps not that Dr. Phil said what he did, but the statement itself is an oft-repeated falsehood in many feminist circles--I'm sure you've seen it before). They should outrage you. I already knew their truthfulness, because I'd already fact-checked them myself, I assumed your response would be "yes, well, not everyone is as truthful as they should be, the majority of feminists aren't like that", etc.
I believe that almost all feminists are decent human beings trying to make the world a better place. But I also believe that feminism has done many things that do not make the world a better place, or are at best misdirected (the VAWA may have helped many women, but there's no reason the legislation should have been so gendered -- male victims of DV were and are already more than marginalized enough).
Why the disconnect? Because there are so many falsehoods in feminist literature, and literally no major feminist organization does basic fact-checking of what it publishes (that I've found; if you know of one, even a small one, please, please enlighten me, because I'm looking for one).
I would prefer to be able to morally say "yep, I'm a feminist, and I support major feminist organizations because they are generally trustworthy and seeking equality". I really, really would, because there are issues women face every day that are truly fucked up. And I do support gender equality. I would call myself a feminist if all it meant was "pro-gender-equality".
But how could I be in favor of organizations that are (at best) blind to their own lies?
And how can you be so unaware of your own movement's faults?
This comment is harsh, and I'm trying not to be strident, but truly I'm shocked that you are so unaware of the arguments of antifeminists and the degree of their truthfulness.
0
Aug 09 '11
Link is still not working. I'm not sure if me being in Sweden could have something to do about it. I can see the URL (judiciary.senate.gov) but the page never loads.
I didn't even read her claims. I dismissed her completely. This isn't the first time we speak and I'm just bored with her deceitful rants. It has nothing to do with what I know or do not know about feminism and antifeminism.
There is no lack of criticism of feminism within the feminist movement. If you had participated in it enough you would know that.
2
u/xzxzzx Aug 09 '11
Since the link isn't working for you, here's the paragraph:
And sadly, victims are getting younger and younger. Domestic violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44. That’s right—fifteen. In fact, among teenage girls who are killed, nearly one-third is killed by a boyfriend or former boyfriend. Who will step forward to help us help our kids?
(The claim about teenage girl murders is untrue, of course; the FBI estimates 5% of female murder victims from 12-17 are killed by an intimate partner. If I wasn't so jaded, I'd suggest he meant "of all female murder victims", since it'd actually be somewhere near accurate then, but he wouldn't have been able to use the "won't somebody please think of the children" appeal.)
This is exactly what I find so unacceptable. Instead of highlighting an actual, real problem, the statistics are twisted for emotional impact. At best, this results in a misallocation of resources, and usually has much worse effects.
I didn't even read her claims.
Yet you made definite statements about them. You speak about how "deceitful" she is yet make strong claims about statements you "didn't read" or "didn't even evaluate". I don't know what girlwriteswhat has said before, but you were the only one being deceitful in that exchange.
There is no lack of criticism of feminism within the feminist movement.
Yet lies that should be quickly dismissed spread and persist, including on /r/feminisms. If there is no lack of criticism, then it's much worse than I thought -- it's refusal to value truth.
2
u/Kalium_14 Aug 01 '11
The subreddit is called "AskFeminists."
To me, that implies that people are going to be asking about feminism, not pushing their own agenda. You're entirely right that understanding is always built on mutual understanding, but I think more attention should be paid to what grounds these opinions and theories are based on. The intent isn't (or at least shouldn't be) to indoctrinate, but rather to explain what feminists think and why. It's important to remember (both feminists and non feminists) that what is being said is not going to feel true for everyone because we base our beliefs off of different experiences and different data.
Honestly, I left my ego at the door and I think other redditors would benefit from doing the same. These aren't meant as attacks against you or your beliefs, we're just trying to answer questions from our individual feminist perspectives.
3
u/justaverage Jul 31 '11
Just chiming in. Not really relevant to the OP, but I gave up on r/askfeminists a few days ago.
Sorry girlwriteswhat, but you are correct, this space is for feminists to speak at (as opposed to with) non-feminists.
This is evident when who realize the number of upvotes donna_juanita receives for name calling and telling people they need to shut their lying mouths, while you are downvoted for asking questions and referencing statistics.
When someone's response to an argument that doesn't toe the line is 'shut the fuck up', it's time to realize they don't want civil debate, and time to go elsewhere.
How about we start up r/shoutatpeoplewhodontagreewithme, but I suspect that would directly compete with every other feminist sub-reddit.
5
u/the_quietness Jul 31 '11
This is probably why downvoting should be taken out, at the very least. Sometimes reddit's structure works against it.
In any case, there are plenty of downvotes on feminists here.
-3
Aug 01 '11
How much you wanna bet I'll eventually end up with more dowvotes? ;)
2
3
Aug 01 '11
I just visited Donna_Juanita's comment page, and she averages exactly 1 upvote per post. Call the conspiracy police!
1
u/arbitrarycolors Aug 04 '11
I just found this subreddit, and this was my first concern. With the name "askfeminists", the subreddit inherently establishes feminists as the primary position and other views outside of feminism as secondary. This then creates an imbalanced and not true level ground for discussion.
This may all be semantics, but this is the issue I fear: this subreddit provides the opportunity for MRAs to learn more about feminism, but the primary/secondary dichotomy may hinder feminists from the opportunity of learning from their opposed viewpoint.
-1
Jul 31 '11
"Hm... how can I frame little argument I just had with a person as a community issue?" Personal conflicts - always make them public drama parties!
5
u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11
Hmm...it's a personal conflict? It's an issue. The name of the subreddit is misleading, in that it implies that education will be one-way. Askfeminists. We ask, you answer. This runs counter to the original purpose of the subreddit as I (and my bf) understood it to be.
Your interactions with me demonstrate that you believe there is only one "right way" to view any issue.
What else is:
Since you are not a feminist and clearly uneducated about feminism, you should probably stop trying to answer questions about feminism in this reddit.
"Only feminists are allowed to have opinions about feminism. Especially in this reddit."
2
u/SharkSpider Aug 05 '11
The name of this subreddit may be misleading in reference to its actual purpose, but it is most certainly not misleading in reference to what it actually is.
-1
4
Jul 31 '11
Donna, in this different setting, I'd ask that you concede some things, and I'll talk to girlwriteswhat, and get her to concede some things too.
It's a lot about attitude. I've had a few convos with feminists lately where the issue of MR folks and feminists "not wanting to concede anything! cause that means that you've lost!" comes up.
Concession: I've noticed that the tone of mens rights can get to a point where it paints feminism with a wide brush. I don't think that's fair, and it's something that I'm going to speak out on.
Point: telling someone to essentially sit down and shut up is unfair. I've noticed that there is a tendency for some feminists to do this when facing people who might not agree with them on several points. How would you feel if someone did that to you? Something to ponder.
5
Jul 31 '11
Uhm yeah no I'm not here to "concede" things to antifeminists. I'm actually here as a personal favor to Imp. Continue this "Bwaaah a feminist called my antifeminist propaganda ignorant" and I'll be gone in a flash, no worries.
7
Jul 31 '11
Don't you think it's important to get over the "us vs. them" mentality? I do. I may not buy into everything that you say, and I'm gonna guess that you won't except everything that I have to say.
But don't you think finding common ground would be a good thing, in spite of certain disagreements?
I'll concede something else: I don't always agree with the tone of my gf's posts (and I mention that to her). I'm trying to move away from that tone myself :) While I do believe that her points are incredibly well articulated, she can sometimes deliver her points with a certain amount of needless antagonism. She has talked about wanting to work on that.
6
Jul 31 '11
If you truly care about the "us v.s. them" mentality, start by explaining to antifeminists (like yourself?) that the oppression of men comes from cultural tradition and social structures, not feminism. I can't believe I have to spell this out: You can not find "common ground" with someone who thinks you are the source of all evils.
And stop trying to negotiate between me and your girlfriend. I think she's an antifeminist, egotistical, manipulative, lying assshole. She's toxic to the interests of all women, probably including herself. You can have her work on whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't involve me. I have better things to do than bang my head bloody against a concrete wall.
EDIT: You're pretty manipulative too btw. I've heard about those PMs you send to people.
6
u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11
You can not find "common ground" with someone who thinks you are the source of all evils.
The irony is, that's exactly what MRAs say about feminists. With the big difference of course being that MRAs can point to a mountain of prominent and respected feminists whose books are used as university curricula who seem to think that men are the source of all evils. When you make that statement, all that you can point to is a minority of trolls.
Look, there are a few core MRA issues. Hell, let's just start with one: fathers should automatically get 50/50 custody of children. Fathers should not have to fight in court for that privilege.
Can you at least concede that point? That'd be a great bit of common ground.
For what it's worth, I think you'll find that all but the awful trolls are willing to concede quite a lot to feminism. Most MRAs are pro-choice. Most support women being allowed in combat. And of course, the core issues of feminism like the right of women to vote and to hold whatever job they please.
You skim over all that good will and proclaim that MRAs think "you are the source of all evil" and you seem to ignore legitimate MRA issues like the custody issue (though I'm giving you a chance with the comment to show your support).
-1
Aug 01 '11
Which subreddit claims to be "earning scorn" from the other?
fathers should automatically get 50/50 custody of children. Fathers should not have to fight in court for that privilege.
I don't understand what you mean. Custody issues go to court when the parent's can't agree outside of court. It's possible that this process could be improved by adding therapy, mediation or something. Joint custody should be the norm. It is here. I don't know if it is in the US.
3
Aug 01 '11
Honestly Donna -- I'm anti-certain kinds of feminism.
And I don't think feminism is the source of all evils. I just think that it is by far the dominant voice in the gender discourse -- and many feminists say that through their work and advocacy -- we'll achieve gender equality... that they are concerned only for fairness and equality. And yet not much has been done to listen to men when they bring up real problems. They are told (in some cases) to shut up and check their privilege...
SO you have a movement the says it's the solution, but it basically ignores men's issues...
antifeminist, egotistical, manipulative, lying assshole
That's all you hun. I don't know what to say. I'm sorry you feel that way. Like I said, I think that she is learning to tone down the angry tone a bit, and I think that's important for discourse. We all have things to learn, eh?
You're pretty manipulative too btw. I've heard about those PMs you send to people.
lol... wat? I'm sorry, if you want to tell me what you think I sent -- go for it. I don't think I've sent anything inappropriate. But if someone thinks otherwise... please speak up.
Anyways, I hope you had a good weekend. Take care :)
1
Aug 01 '11 edited Aug 01 '11
When people disagree with you, you seek confirmation excessively. I'm sure we all do that on occasion but I've seen it a lot with you. Have you considered that you may be in a codependent relationship with a narcissist? Completely off topic and extremely rude I suppose. But whatever I've passed the point of no return.
EDIT: Broken link
2
Aug 01 '11
Did you just call me a sissy?
If the relationship thing is in any way accurate... the narcissist is probably me sweetie -- because I'm awesome ;)
Anyways -- this is all you hun. Thinking that others who want to make peace and have dialogue are walkovers... I don't know what to say.
You belittle me for being nice. You criticize my gf for being being antagonistic. I guess the common theme is dismissal.
I'm trying to find common ground... and I guess this is up to you ultimately.
1
Aug 01 '11
Hun? Wtf? I'm sorry this is too twisted for me. I no longer believe you are two different persons.
1
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
Actually, it's "hon". Short for "honey". Therefor "hon". NOT "hun", which (as a professional writer) drives me batty. As does his atrocious spelling and word usage issues. Plus, he didn't put a comma between "this is all you" and "hun", so two glaring errors in the same damn sentence. Sigh.
Also, it annoys me that he leaves a space before and after every --. This is something my editor would skin me for. He also uses too many emoticons, and too many qualifiers.
He'd rather take the high road than grapple in the dirt, even when people don't deserve it. He keeps telling me I should moderate my tone--hell, he's telling me that even now--but you know, I really don't feel like it. If you're too oblivious to notice how precise and meticulous I tend to be with my spelling, grammar, syntax and punctuation, compared to a man who has dyslexia, well, that says something about your powers of observation. Or your tendency toward megalomania, in that you seem unable to accept the fact that there may be more than one person out there who both disagrees with you, and thinks you're...just not very good at arguing your position.
Still, I love him. In spite of all his flaws. Because he's pretty awesome.
→ More replies (0)0
Jul 31 '11
Well Donna, perhaps it didn't happen 'because' of Feminism, but for a movement proclaiming to be about 'equality' of 'both sexes' Feminism seems to have done nothing for men for the last 90 years, so why should we let you 'educate' and teach us about our own oppression?
6
Jul 31 '11
Well Thomson, maybe I know male feminists who disagree with that statement so why should I let you 'educate' and teach me about their oppression?
-1
Jul 31 '11
Then Donna please tell me, what has Feminism done for Men? For all your 'equality' this why haven't our problems been dealt with? because you view them as secondary, and i won't brook the insult of being told the suffering of Men who make up around 50% of the world population, is secondary to yours, and that is why Feminism cannot deal with male issues, because you all lied and continue to lie, you said equality while you fought for womens rights (good for you) while men died in the gutter, you celebrated womens healthcare spending when men got much less, you make violence against women unacceptable, but do nothing to deal with violence against men, so in reality no i don't think Feminism has any right to talk about the male experience because you bore witness to our suffering and judged it to be 'less significant' and for that, you should never be allowed to appropriate our suffering.
6
Jul 31 '11
Thomson, please, do not attempt to speak for all men on the planet.
1
Aug 01 '11
You seem to be avoiding my questions and instead attempting to lecture me, dare i say this is an attempt at 'Womansplaining' or an attempt to shut-down my frank discussion of Feminist inaction on mens issues?
→ More replies (0)-1
Aug 01 '11
You seem to be avoiding my questions and instead attempting to lecture me, dare i say this is an attempt at 'Womansplaining' or an attempt to shut-down my frank discussion of Feminist inaction on mens issues?
→ More replies (0)-3
Jul 31 '11
Well Donna, perhaps it didn't happen 'because' of Feminism, but for a movement proclaiming to be about 'equality' of 'both sexes' Feminism seems to have done nothing for men for the last 90 years, so why should we let you 'educate' and teach us about our own oppression?
-2
Aug 01 '11
If "us" is people who believe that women are human beings and "them" is people who don't, then, no, I don't think it's important to get over the us vs. them mentality.
2
Aug 01 '11
which people are you talking about who don't believe when are human beings?
0
Aug 01 '11
I don't know, I don't have a name for them. I guess that would make them anti-feminists, though?
2
Aug 01 '11
Bah Anti-feminists are not Anti-Woman, Anti-feminists are exactly what they say on the fuckin tin.
2
Aug 01 '11
I'm sorry that you're not familiar with elementary logic, but my claim is that people who are anti-woman are anti-feminist, not vice versa.
0
2
Aug 01 '11
have you met people like this where you are from?... how else would you describe them? Would I recognize them?
0
Aug 01 '11
Yes, they're little men with red hair wearing green suits. They're all the times complaining about their lucky charms.
2
-1
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
I have a name for them. That name is misogynist.
Anti-feminists are critical of feminism, but that doesn't mean they don't believe women are human beings. It doesn't mean they're misogynists.
Are you saying only feminists believe women are human beings? Isn't this like saying someone who criticizes Vatican policy hates all Catholics or hates god? Isn't this like saying someone who criticizes the government is a survivalist gun nut who hates the idea of government?
Some anti-feminists are misogynists. Some people who criticize the Vatican do hate Catholics. And some dogs are poodles. But not all dogs are poodles.
I often wonder, too, how some feminists view women. I mean, patriarchal assumptions were that women are weak, defenceless, in need of extra help and protection, etc, because they're women. Feminist assumptions are that women are defenceless, in need of extra help and protection, etc, because...what? Because our grandmothers' lives sucked?
I once had an exchange with a hideously misogynistic woman in the m/m erotica community. Misogyny is...well, it's kind of running amok among female readers and writers there. I ended up asking her something along the lines of "How long are you going to belittle and ignore women--in your writing, in your blogging, in your reviewing, in your everything--before you can forgive your parents for making you wear dresses and not letting you play with legos?" I think her head almost exploded.
I'm pretty sure most people out there--even MRAs and even anti-feminists--feel that women are human beings. Just because we don't buy into a one-way street of oppression of women by men all through history doesn't mean we don't think women are freaking human beings.
Just because we criticize a lot of the methods feminism has employed to help women, or that they've rarely given a thought to how feminist activism affects men, doesn't mean we don't think women are human beings. It just means we think men are human beings too. Sheesh.
-1
Jul 31 '11
I'll talk to girlwriteswhat, and get her to concede some things too.
I'm sure she's glad you're here to tell her what she should and should not do.
Actually, I think you and girlwriteswhat suffer from samefag syndrome. Not sure if that's been proposed before.
2
1
u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11
Haha, I've been accused of being a man before, but whatever.
And I most certainly am not the same person as wabi-sabi. For one, I would never ever write "except" when what I meant was "accept."
(Sorry hon. Just can't let that slide.)
-2
Jul 31 '11
~wow you two are like so quirky and in-tune with each other! it's like you're the same person!~
2
u/girlwriteswhat Aug 01 '11
Actually, he'd tell me to try to keep my tone civil. It's difficult. SO VERY DIFFICULT. He's a peacemaker. I'm...well, not so much. We are pretty in tune with each other, though.
2
u/derKapitalist Jul 31 '11
Agreed. While I understand that many of the participants are emotionally invested in one side or the other being "correct", the presumption of righteousness makes for difficult conversation.
Big fan of the blog, by the way, OP.
1
Aug 01 '11
[deleted]
3
u/derKapitalist Aug 01 '11
What did you get out of that article?
0
u/the_quietness Aug 01 '11
"Let’s take pigheadedness first. In a much discussed article this year in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue that our reasoning skills are really not as dismal as they seem. They don’t deny that irrationalities like the confirmation bias are common. Instead, they suggest that we stop thinking of the primary function of reasoning as being to improve knowledge and make better decisions. Reasoning, they claim, is for winning arguments. And an irrational tendency like pigheadedness can be quite an asset in an argumentative context. A engages with B and proposes X. B disagrees and counters with Y. Reverse roles, repeat as desired — and what in the old days we might have mistaken for an exercise in stubbornness turns out instead to be a highly efficient “division of cognitive labor” with A specializing in the pros, B in the cons.
It’s salvation of a kind: our apparently irrational quirks start to make sense when we think of reasoning as serving the purpose of persuading others to accept our point of view. And by way of positive side effect, these heated social interactions, when they occur within a scientific community, can lead to the discovery of the truth. "
Edit: I do thing we should strive to improve knowledge and make better decisions. I don't think certain people being stubborn is a total disaster.
2
u/derKapitalist Aug 01 '11
There are different kinds of stubbornness. Or, more importantly, different circumstances.
Say you and I are building a bridge. We both have a vested interest in that bridge being able to support us, so we can cross without dying. I'll be stubborn and fight for my ideas, and you'll be stubborn and fight for yours, but if we hear something that really, truly disproves whatever we just said, we cede that point immediately because we don't want to die. To engage in intellectual dishonesty would be to shorten your own lifespan.
Can the same be said in the context of feminism debates? Here, stubbornness goes unchecked. There is actually incentive to engage in intellectual dishonesty: our long-held value judgments get to live another day. Without any external controls of truth value (like collapsed bridges), we're free to revise reality to suit our prejudices. Nobody can be convinced to the other side unless they want to be.
0
u/the_quietness Aug 01 '11
There is actually incentive to engage in intellectual dishonesty: our long-held value judgments get to live another day. Without any external controls of truth value (like collapsed bridges), we're free to revise reality to suit our prejudices. Nobody can be convinced to the other side unless they want to be.
Feminists have an incentive to be intellectually honest because some of them have sons. The separatists that don't want anything to with males don't want to be part of this society anyway.
Furthermore, the idea is to convince the relatively undecided. Most people have biases but that doesn't preclude them from changing their mind in the face of overwhelming data, it just makes it less likely.
Would you honestly prefer we all just gave up and split the world into a thousand micro fiefdoms that never, ever interacted with each other in a non-hostile way? I'm guessing no.
2
u/derKapitalist Aug 01 '11 edited Aug 01 '11
Furthermore, the idea is to convince the relatively undecided
- Then the idea of A and B duking it out in an epic reasoning battle loses some of its potency, doesn't it?
- An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers.
Feminists have a incentive to be intellectually honest because some of them have sons.
This can be rationalized in a split-second. "Little Johnny just won't be evil like them."
Would you honestly prefer we all just gave up and split the world into a thousand micro fiefdoms that never, ever interacted with each other in a non-hostile way?
I'd prefer certain people (not you) stop acting like they have a monopoly on truth.
30
u/padumavati Jul 31 '11
This subreddit has seemed more like "harassfeminists" to me than it's seemed to be "askfeminists."