When did you stop beating your husband?
13 Likes
If you can’t satisfactorily answer that question just admit it!
When did you stop eating kittens?
How do you deal with the cannibals in your organization?
Why won’t you acknowledge the supremacy of dolphins!
14 Likes
Are you implying she stopped? Animal.
4 Likes
What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom!
10 Likes
Of course there are.
There are also reason to support all-white Christian Homelands.
I wouldn’t call any of them good reasons, however.
14 Likes
Sure, if you’re going to define words like that, yeah, we do not have a patriarchy. But we also do not have Athenian democracy. And the word is not used by most people in the way you are using it, unless they are trying to skew an argument.
Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.
Yes, I truly believe that we do have a patriarchy.
Yes, they do. And much like citing Wikipedia, it’s a good jumping off point, but you should not base your entire senior thesis on a dictionary definition. You really shouldn’t be relying on it much past sixth grade if you expect to get better than a “C”.
18 Likes
I’m not sure I follow. If it’s only the feminists who care about terminology then why would anyone reject the label “feminist” even if they fit the dictionary definition of the word?
That’s like saying “I support the fight to end slavery but I’m not an abolitionist. I can’t STAND abolitionists.”
20 Likes
I suspect that you’ve had that many views because people like to see what sort of drama might erupt when a man feels the need to discuss the evils of feminism. As for refutation of your arguments… what sort of evidence are you looking for, anyway?
20 Likes
Hey monkey! I too have many popular viewed topics on Quora, such as, “what is the best cheese to go with buffalo chicken”!
Love me some Quora, but as @OtherMichael said, it is a good jumping off point. (Not to imply you disagreed, mostly just saying Hi!)
4 Likes
First, I was not responding to you, or what you had posted (even if you may firmly believe otherwise); I was just voicing my own opinion re misogynists. You have your opinions. I have mine.
Second, your reaction is interesting, and sort of revealing.
Third, perhaps you could provide everyone a list here of all issues you’re concerned about; that way we could avoid posting any views on those that end up being contrary to yours, then, as a result, be accused of making ad hominem attacks.
5 Likes
in work
I don’t really know enough about phobias to provide a correct answer to that, but I do know that some disorders (like phobias) and prejudices/bias can be addressed through gradual corrective/remedial/social interactions. So… there’s always hope.
Fine, I’ll leave it with this comment.
Because a lot more than equality is assumed. There are several definitions:
Feminism is the promotion of legal and social equality for men and women.
Feminism is a movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality with men.
Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.
It really depends on whether feminism includes equality for men, or is even willing to admit that there are or can be areas where men are disadvantaged relative to women. It also depends on whether the idea is to reach equality and stop there, maintaining a balance and working against inequality either way.
Feminist policies have often been designed to help women and not men. It isn’t necessarily just a general belief in equality either; there are specific underlying philosophies that are common. I gave the example of the Duluth Model, which was rejected by its founder Ellen Pence:
“By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff […] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with […] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find.”
If you disagree enough with the philosophies and worldview held by a lot of feminists, disagree with several key claims that feminists generally make or dislike the implementation of policy, you might stop calling yourself a feminist because while it’s true that you still want equality, you don’t think it’s what they’re offering. Egalitarianism is a clearer and gender-neutral term. Where feminists aren’t overly concerned about terminology, they can just read “feminist” in its place. If they aren’t happy with it, maybe their version of feminism isn’t synonymous with egalitarianism (and not all are).
The accuracy of that analogy would really depend on whether anti-feminists are calling for male dominance and are against women in general, rather than just criticising feminist political theory.
- Evidence that IPV services are not hostile to men who need them (I provided a report that said that they were the worst places to go)
- Evidence that abuse by women is taken seriously in the Duluth Model, or they are willing to view cases impartially
- Evidence that the data showing that IPV is also common with women is fabricated, misleading etc.
- Evidence that the average woman does endure a 73 percent reduction in her standard of living after a divorce.
- Evidence that income is a reasonable proxy for standard of living (it’s more fungible and transferable, but it would be equally possible to insist that the ex wife cooks and cleans for her ex husband to ensure that he has no reduction in his standard of living).
Interesting…
Who were you talking about then? It just sounded very much like a “naming no names” comment with no context. As I said, if you are indirectly accusing me of this, be clear. I have never suggested that I don’t believe in women’s equality or don’t want an equal society.
[quote=“jsroberts, post:1, topic:96237”]
Iceland is one of the most equal and happiest countries on earth, and both men and women’s contributions as parents are embraced. Custody is assumed to be shared, men spend more time around kids and less time in prison, and abuse is lower despite all the opportunity men have to do it. This is the feminism I want.
[/quote]
2 Likes
I reiterate: take a break.
13 Likes
The subject of misogyny came up in the other posts, hence my own post in response.
BTW: “…if you are indirectly accusing me of this, be clear.” Ah, you know it would be nice if “please” got thrown in. Politeness doesn’t cost anything. Please.
6 Likes
I think that’s a kind of silly complaint since it’s akin to saying “the voting rights act was designed to help black people and not white people.” Well, duh—that’s because the white people weren’t the ones getting their voting rights taken away.
Even so there is room for disagreement on individual policies, which is why I wrote this in my first comment:
You can be a feminist without agreeing with every policy proposal supported by other feminists, just as many abolitionists disagreed with the violent tactics of John Brown.
21 Likes
If they are anti-feminists, then yes - they are against women in general.
Let me go back to my “replace ‘feminist’ with ‘integrationst’” example. An anti-integrationist is against other races in general, period.
7 Likes
I was gonna NOPE out of this thread, but that question made me lol.
11 Likes
I look at the first list you gave and see a lot of questions of the form “do actually know what this means” or “do you know the history of this”, and of the form “why do you think this isn’t an issue.” If someone were genuinely tired of intellectual dishonesty, things like Thomas’s list of leading questions mixed with his own answers is a pretty large step down. But fine, if you’re going to press for it, I’ll answer all of them.
What is the end goal of feminism? Equality. Oh, he’s already tried poisoning the well for that answer? Screw him.
What specific conditions are we striving for now? Equality isn’t something you can set a single end condition for because people can be treated unequally in lots of different ways. Some things feminists are working on are dealing with wage gaps, glass ceilings, treatment of sexual assault victims, but you can’t expect an exhaustive list. You wouldn’t imagine that the moment black people were given equal rights on paper, that was the end of having to deal with racism.
Since, in first world countries, there are no rights that men have that women don’t and many rights that women have that men don’t, it seems like feminism is not so much needed in the countries in which it is so vocal. Oh, never mind, I guess he might. This isn’t a question. None of the rest of this paragraph is. Strange nobody wanted to answer this.
How can an inherently biased ideology (that has ‘fem’ in its name) possibly stand for true equality. Despite the “how” this isn’t a question either, just more well poisoning. Yes, the name says “female lives matter” instead of “all lives matter”. No, that doesn’t mean what he thinks it does.
Do you really subscribe to the ridiculous idea that anyone who is not a feminist is against equality? Only sort of! People can avoid calling themselves feminists and be for equality, especially because they’ve heard people dishonestly portray it as an inherently biased ideology. But the ideals most feminists hold are ones that anyone for equality would have to agree with, because that’s what it is about.
What exactly is feminism doing for men’s right? It depends on the people involved. Since men are not exactly disadvantaged in most cases, they obviously won’t receive as much attention, but trying to break down rigid gender barriers and toxic masculinity helps them in a number of different ways.
Especially the rights that women have, (at least in the country they live) such as freedom from genital mutilation, protection from domestic abuse and fair custody hearings. Is this a question? He just said that men and women now have the same rights, so by his own logic this wouldn’t be a concern, right?
If the answer is not a lot, then don’t silence people who are fighting for those rights and don’t claim that feminism is fighting for true equality of both sexes. I know Men’s Rights Activism is a haven for misogyny, but you HAVE to admit that feminism attracts more than its fair share of misandry too. These aren’t questions, just accusations. So strange nobody wanted to answer this.
How can we separate the very real plight of third world women from the whining of first world women? We could make something up, like where dishonestly we pretend one is real and the other just whining. But while problems facing women in the third world are generally more serious, as with humans in general, they also generally spring from the same causes as problems facing women in the first world, which can be pretty serious too. So really, we can’t and shouldn’t want to.
It seems to me that first world feminists love to use the oppression of women in Africa or the Middle East to justify feminism, but then continue the conversation about how they personally need more power. This isn’t a question, just another accusation. So, so strange nobody wanted to answer this.
What exactly is the “patriarchy”? A social system where men tend to predominate in roles of leadership and be valued higher than women.
What kind of insidious cabal still adheres to its agenda and continues the oppression of women? Social systems aren’t run by cabals. But most people adhere to them, being a social system and all – this author, for instance.
Who are its chief architects? Social systems don’t have chief architects.
How can we recognise its meddling and again, how will we know when it’s gone? Can you find evidence of men predominating in roles of leadership or being valued higher than women? Then it’s not gone.
It seems to me that it is just a catch-all word to mean “men are scum, women are oppressed,” with the luxury of not requiring any thought or understanding of facts at all. This isn’t a question, just a particularly insulting accusation. So, so, so strange nobody wanted to answer this.
I could keep going with the other posters, if we need, but looking to the end it gets even worse. This is not what honest criticism looks like. It’s not even a real list of questions, just an excuse to fill in the usual insulting prattle feminists get subjected to all the time. I think it’s gotten more reply than it deserves, thank you.
23 Likes
