Comment author: DaFranker 05 October 2012 04:07:58PM 2 points [-]

Well, some recent hindsight analysis (during the eridu radical-feminist debacle) allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small but memorable such near-type experiences. The kinds you'd probably expect from a stereotypical scenario of "The Father is Master and Law of the House" or a poor waitress working late shifts at a café on the same street corner as a strip club.

So in my case I probably wasn't dealing only with "feminists", but at the same time with individuals taken with a widespread personal fear or anger towards men, in nearly all the cases that produced these kinds of strong reactions. This might be due to statistical coincidence (not that particularly unlikely) or to some behavior that causes other types of feminists to not identify themselves as such when dealing with me, or to some other cause.

It may very well be that the A scenario you describe actually does happen to me sometimes, but with the other participant(s) simply not identifying themselves as feminists at all. If so, I either never ran them through my mental model of feminists for a pattern-matching, reverse-ideological-turing-test thinghy, or my model is sufficiently incorrect/imprecise that they actually failed said test.

In my personal (social) experiences, feminists overall are not as vicious most of the time =)

I kind of suspected this to be the case, because if the contrary were true, the feminist movement as a whole would be spectacularly self-hindering and shooting itself in the foot constantly, since such behavior as I've observed would basically cause very destructive conflict and wouldn't actually help further their goals.

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 04:31:39PM 1 point [-]

(during the eridu radical-feminist debacle)

I don't know that 'debacle' and there seems to be a lot of content that could be part of it (you meant something in the comments of this same article apparently). If you think it is very relevant, i'd be grateful for one or several specific links to start from.

allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small but memorable such near-type experiences.

Where can i find out what "near-type" means here? This appears important enough to postpone my reply to this part.

because if the contrary were true, the feminist movement as a whole would be spectacularly self-hindering and shooting itself in the foot constantly, since such behavior as I've observed would basically cause very destructive conflict and wouldn't actually help further their goals.

I didn't mean it in that way. And i think the feminist movement, as a whole or in part, doesn't necessarily want to be lightly told by men what behaviour is or is not "furthering their goals" =P

(This instance seems to me like one in which you did so lightly, because it didn't seem highly relevant / on-topic.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 October 2012 03:31:19PM 0 points [-]

The basic concept I associate differentially with "radical" feminism is that the whole idea of gender is so pernicious and pervasive that I can't get anywhere worth being as long as I operate in a framework that supports it; a necessary first step is discarding the idea of gender and everything that supports or depends on it.

To use a local comparison, I consider the relationship between ordinary feminism and radical feminism roughly analogous to the relationship between "human brains and institutions are irrational, so if we wish to rid ourselves of irrationality (which we ought to wish, since irrationality causes suffering) we need to do a lot of careful work" and "human brains and institutions are insurmountably irrational, and trying to improve our rationality using those irrational brains and institutions is a waste of time; the only way to significantly reduce irrationality is to eradicate existing brains and institutions and replace them with something better."

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 04:16:16PM *  0 points [-]

This seems like a fairly good description of that concept, and how it is related to radical feminism. Not that i know: while i'm somewhat interested in radical feminism, i can't honestly claim to be a radical feminist. (I do claim to have some radical views and some feminist views... but that combination doesn't necessarily result in the radical feminism.)

I don't know about your comparison. I believe that (i don't understand radical feminism well enough) or (i don't understand the local topic well enough) or (your comparison doesn't fit well). And i can't think of more useful criticism now.

Comment author: DaFranker 05 October 2012 02:50:02PM 3 points [-]

Thanks for pointing that out - that wasn't my intention. What I mean is that I can't even participate in any such conversation, regardless of circumstances - only feminist women are even allowed to participate and speak of this (AKA only the informed, righteous victim-saviors have any say in the matter).

Being a man forbids me to say anything. If I disagree on any point, I'm evil. If I agree on any point, I'm attempting to trick them and I'm evil. I'm an enemy soldier and I cannot be allowed, at any cost, to be perceived as even remotely close to anything else than The Enemy. In many cases, even staying silent, nodding, or going away from the discussion is still grounds to condemn me; I'm trying to pretend it doesn't concern me, or showing contempt, or running away to ignore the subject, respectively, in their views.

Obviously this is not the omnipresent case for all feminists. It's just the most common situation (>50%, actually) that occurs whenever I end up in some kind of social setting where it becomes established as common knowledge that one of the women is a Feminist.

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 03:32:22PM *  0 points [-]

(Sorry for the reply being so long rather than more concise, i'm aware my texts almost routinely get out of hand.)

What I mean is that I can't even participate in any such conversation, regardless of circumstances - only feminist women are even allowed to participate and speak of this [...]

I am not opposed to principles like these if they are applied in such contexts that it appears "sensible". And in most social settings (you didn't mention any specific kinds apart from "where it becomes established [...]" and i don't want to speculate) it is probably what i would deem sensible. But this does not extend to all circumstances.

From the little i have read so far i think the conversations that you want to have could be both interesting and fruitful, maybe even for all participants, in an apt context. (Note this as A.) But this context might need to be, from a feminist perspective, expressly intended as reaching out to you-as-a-man. (I didn't write "you", because it does not only concern/consider you personally. I didn't write "men", because in this case the topic is centred on you.)

And such a context must be either offered to you (this would probably be the better case), or you have to ask for it diffidently. You are probably aware of how feminists (as in "feminist women") typically reject what they feel to come across as a (social) demand from a man. (Note this as B.)

It follows that while i consider it desirable to actualise the conversation you wish for (see A), no one in particular is responsible for ever actualising it (see B). This is unfortunate (more for you than for me) but i don't know a better solution, working from my premises.

(As you're aware, alternatives that might be easier to implement exist, for instance carrying out the conversation with men other than you which are (pro-)feminist, but this wasn't the topic here.)

I'm an enemy soldier and I cannot be allowed, at any cost, to be perceived as even remotely close to anything else than The Enemy.

In my personal (social) experiences, feminists overall are not as vicious most of the time =)

But i don't know how well you personally know how many feminists of which kinds of feminism, so that impression might well be useless to you. I still include it because i'm optimistic like that sometimes.

Comment author: DaFranker 04 October 2012 06:57:03PM *  2 points [-]

So if I work in an office where men are required to wear ties and a specific type of business shirt, both in specific variants that are particularly uncomfortable to wear, but women are free to dress as they want...

...the standard feminist argument is that there is no sexism here, because the men are the ones who historically had the power, and this is a perfectly valid and moral situation? Does the gender of the person imposing these rules (AKA The Boss) change the game? Does it suddenly become sexism if it's a woman imposing the rules and they all live in an isolated tribe that cut off all links with the history and past of the rest of the world?

That's without even broaching the sensitive subject of the apparent complete lack of Schelling point for where exactly women start becoming capable of sexism towards men once/if they overturn the current "institutional power that men have". I can't reasonably discuss that point with a feminist woman, because she's a woman and I'm a man, so I am a priori wrong and attempting to subjugate her by broaching that subject.

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 02:40:53PM 0 points [-]

Regardless that i'm not extensively answering your entire comment, i still wanted to point out just a little peculiarity:

I can't reasonably discuss that point with a feminist woman, because she's a woman and I'm a man, so I am a priori wrong and attempting to subjugate her by broaching that subject.

I think this seems to imply that for "reasonable discussion" to occur, you must be the one to broach the subject. Is this correct; did you mean to imply that? (I could imagine that either way.)

Comment author: DaFranker 04 October 2012 05:44:03PM 0 points [-]

Thanks, that puts in context what you were talking about. Radical feminists is just the first thing that was mentally available when I looked for "identifiable ideological social group".

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 02:22:24PM 0 points [-]

If you're willing to do me a favour, please list at least a few buzzwords or (basic) concepts which you would spontaneously ascribe to radical feminism but not or less so to other feminisms. (This implies not looking up anything about it before sending the comment.)

Anyone else can feel free to do so as well, of course, though in that case i suggest you also shouldn't read any answers to this request before fulfilling it.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 October 2012 05:10:37PM 0 points [-]

What do the feminists say on that subject? Would that pass the test?

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 02:15:25PM 0 points [-]

If we simplify away some major disagreements between different feminisms, then i think that per definition an actual feminist's statements on feminism would pass an "ideological Turing test" that tests for feminism, excepting false negatives. (This is not exactly the test's purpose of course.)

Are you also interested in what i would suggest "submitting" to the test in this case specifically?

Comment author: MileyCyrus 04 October 2012 05:13:32PM *  1 point [-]

From Finally Feminism 101:

Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

This is a fairly mainstream feminist blog, a popular site for feminists to redirect critics if they feel the critics have little to offer. Google sexism + "power plus prejudice" and you can see other sites explaining why, according to the feminist definition of "sexism", it's impossible for men to be victims of sexism.

Comment author: t-E 05 October 2012 01:38:23PM *  2 points [-]

First, you didn't clearly answer my question, but i assume that you now imply that you indeed did imply that you think it would pass.

Second, it wasn't stated in my previous comment, but i was and am aware of the power plus prejudice definitions. You seem to assume here that i was not.

Third, and most importantly, i still believe that it would not pass, as i noted in my parens remark. This is because i think that none of "[institutional] power" or "prejudice" [against a group] can adequately be described as "historical disadvantage" alone. When they write "institutional power" as well as "power plus prejudice", they decidedly are not referring to something that lies purely in the past (indeed the present-day components are arguably the most important, though not the only interesting, ones) . The adjective "historical" in your usage seems to me to be incompatible to that.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 27 August 2012 11:33:03AM *  3 points [-]

You think I could replace "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged" with "unfair treatment of a woman based on her sex" ? I don't think that would pass an ideological Turing test.

Comment author: t-E 04 October 2012 04:21:44PM *  0 points [-]

Is this implying that you do think "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged" would pass an ideological Turing test? (For the record, i don't think it would.)

View more: Prev

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit