Why I Fight.

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Feminism won decades ago and now all that's left of a once useful movement is moaning, whining and irrelevance. Feminism is an outdated dogma which, like sexism, are relics of the past.

Feminism has "won", the job is done?

Do you consider the pay gap, or the incidence of harassment and sexual assault to be of importance?

There is no pay gap, that is a myth with ample evidence freely found online and elsewhere. I have never in my entire life met or worked with a woman who earned less than a male colleague for the same work or was denied professional opportunities because of her gender. Never in all the places I've worked, people I've met and colleagues I've worked with. It is illegal under the law therefore the issue is one of law if there ever were a single, credible instance of such discrimination.

As for sexual assault, that is not an issue for feminism. That is an issue for police. Being assaulted or raped has nothing to do with equal rights.

The real fights feminism had to fight were won, justly, decades ago and it is now an irrelevant movement that does only harm to society and promotes discrimination and inequality. I'm glad that it is fading into obsolescence and that so few people still subscribe to its current dogma. It's going the way of the dodo slowly but surely as more and more people realise how harmful, poisonous and wrong it is.

 

[Silvanus]

There is no pay gap, that is a myth with ample evidence freely found online and elsewhere. I have never in my entire life met or worked with a woman who earned less than a male colleague for the same work or was denied professional opportunities because of her gender. Never in all the places I've worked, people I've met and colleagues I've worked with. It is illegal under the law therefore the issue is one of law if there ever were a single, credible instance of such discrimination.

Ample evidence that it doesn't exist? I can pretty easily find (trustworthy) statistics that [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295833/Analysis_of_the_Gender_Pay_Gap.pdf] it [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics] does [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/info-ashe-2013.html], but not much compelling evidence against.

Anecdotal evidence isn't really going to cut it.

As for sexual assault, that is not an issue for feminism. That is an issue for police. Being assaulted or raped has nothing to do with equal rights.

If crimes disproportionately affect certain demographics, then yes, they're connected to equal treatment. Ignoring inequalities is not a useful approach, and never has been.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ignoring inequalities is not a useful approach, and never has been.

Oh, it's very often been a very useful approach, assuming that it's having to acknowledge them that is the problem.

 

[AreYouDumb]

You're fighting for a world which does not exist, will not exist and should not exist.

Men and women will always treat each other with double standards, which is fine, because they are different. They expect different things from each other, and there are good reasons for that - both from a natural and a social stand point.

In any case, whats the worst thing your wife had to endure due to "equating female with male sexuality"? Just out of curiosity.

I will respectfully disagree, because your viewpoint is skewed and presupposes humans are only subject to natural impulses, which history shows is clearly false. Humans are fully capable of moving past their baser selves.

The thing is thats absolute trash. Humans don't even have free will, we just have the illusion of it, and thank god for that.

....What the frak is that supposed to mean? Free will is an illusion? Uh, not it's not. You weren't predetermined by fate to type that out. You did it because you wanted to. I just...that claim of yours is not rooted in logic in anyway shape or form! It makes about as much sense as when batman said that "Punk is nothing but death, and crime, and the rage of a beast" It's trying to sound deep, but it means nothing.

If you accept atomic theory, then you have to accept that people don't have free will. To believe there is free will in a universe where atomic reactions and subsequent actions take place, then believing that humans control the electrostatic atomic interactions in our head would be to believe that humans can control the atomic structure of the universe.

That said, we're humans. We can't be detached enough to accept that as the way of things, so just do what makes you feel good. That's all anyone can do.

@ theluikhain: He said he was a potential monster. IN this context, i'm quite sure he was implying that he believes himself to appear as a rapist. Or murderer. Which is even worse.

You'll forgive me if I feel like that sounds nonsensical. How do things work if the human race doesn't have free will? Is racism just programed into us by destiny? Are we pre-determined to like one show over the other?

I can't do what makes me feel good. I don't have free will according to you. Therefore I can't. You see how nonsensical this is?

And what the other guy said, what in the name of all that is holy does atomic reactions have to do with anything?

Yeah, i'm not going to do this. If you ever feel like it, research basic atomic theory and it's implications. You should be able to find some good summaries on the web.

If you can't explain an argument and you just give up the second I ask you to explain it, then what was the point of bringing it up in the first place

And if "everything is atoms" then how did you decide to stop talking to me? Did the atoms that make up your mind decide they wanted to do something else?

Okay, listen. From what you just said, it is obvious that you have no grasp of the basic principles of science. I'm not your teacher, and am not going to educate you in different scientific fields just so we can have an argument.

That is why i'm not going to continue. It would require ages of explaining on my part, to a very unwilling receiver at that. So i hope you can understand why i'm pulling out.

Begging your pardon, I know what protons, neutrons and electrons are, I know electron shell structures, I know how atoms bond to each other and I know what isotopes are. You argument of "If we accept we think freely we accept we can control the fundamental nature of the universe" just makes no sense. At all. Please explain it to me.

*I am capitilzing for emphasis, not out of condescension or whatever.

Because neurons are made up of many ATOMS. Neuronal electrical activity in aggregates forms all brain activity (Inlcuding motor skills, conciousness, emotions etc. EVERYTING). The product of these neuronal signals is what makes brain activity, and brain activity is what makes US.

These neruons are made up of atoms, and are therefore subject to the atom's reactions. Atomic reactions are pretty much positive things binding to negative things. WE dont control this process. To say that we have complete free will is to say that YOU (the product of brain activity, which is the product of neuronal singalling, which is the product of atomic reactions) can somehow control how the atoms in our neurons will react, which would be saying that WE can influence positive and negative atomic attractions in our brain. The flaw in that thought process is that our thoughts dont exist UNTIL these reactions have already hapenned.

I know it's a real mindfuck, and is really hard to get your head around (It took me a while).

you obviously dont have to believe any of this, it's just the only logical conclusion that can come from accepting atomic theory. Well, there's also all that dark matter shit which no one knows anything about, but we'll just leave that out of this discussion.

First of all this is really a separate discussion on the metaphysics of freedom and determinism and is not straightforwardly relevant to the discussion on feminism. However I think there are some questions worth considering before you immediately accept some sort of atomic determinism.

But before I get on to those questions for both yourself and anyone reading, the issues you are raising here are related to (as I have mentioned)to the debate on freedom, determinism and incompatibilism. I would highly advise you read some philosophical literature surrounding the topic because, despite my best attempts, I do not think I am going to be able to demonstrate the sophistication this topic entails in a few posts.

Anyway, the first question that strikes me as especially pertinent is thus: what is that you mean by free will? In fact let us rephrase it to human freedom (or if you want to be more inclusive freedom in general) so as do avoid any misleading notions.

Why is it I ask this question? Well suppose you define freedom (as many might) as "doing what one wants". Well might I not state that this interpretation of freedom is perfectly consistent with your deterministic views? If doing want one wants entails acting on ones desires (wants) I do not see why the nature of atomic theory renders this impossible. Sure what I want is determined by all the causal interactions of the atoms I am constituted by but so long as the state of affairs are arranged such that I can act on my want (even if the act is predetermined) surely I am still free under this definition.

What you firstly need to do is show a) what account of freedom you are arguing against and b) that this is the only notion of freedom someone might argue in favour against your position.

 

[Fox12]

Most of the debate here tends to revolve around fan service and Anita sarkeesian. Personally, having know rape survivors, I tend to fall on the feminist side of things. I don't think anyone hear is blatantly sexist though, they just debate semantics. I also hate fan service, as I find it demeaning and offensive. Despite this, I hate the term social justice, since it has a certain smugness to it, even if its unintentional.

 

[Darius-X]

Here's something light to even the heat:

I think it's a pity that quite the amassment of feminists would love to ruin the fedora's distinguished reputation.

I think it's funny how hypocritical it is to scorn a gentleman who wears such a hat, whilst propagating that nobody should be shaming women for the way they dress.

PS: Before anyone asks, no, I shave my neck.

PPS: I would not describe myself as a nice guy.

PPPS: This post was made in jest and you may take it in any way as you see fit. Just know that any sort of aggressive retort will:

- not be answered seriously
- not at all

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Ample evidence that it doesn't exist? I can pretty easily find (trustworthy) statistics that [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295833/Analysis_of_the_Gender_Pay_Gap.pdf] it [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics] does [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/info-ashe-2013.html], but not much compelling evidence against.

Anecdotal evidence isn't really going to cut it.

Although I can't speak for the UK, in the US there is mountains of evidence that the "wage gap" is, at best, statistical sleight of hand and, at worst, non-existent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

Interestingly, the biggest proponent of getting rid of the wage gap myth is Dr. Warren Farrell, who was the President of the National Organization for Women (NOW) 3 times in a row. Good (though long) speech he gives here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VAZx07rOKU

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

There is no pay gap, that is a myth with ample evidence freely found online and elsewhere. I have never in my entire life met or worked with a woman who earned less than a male colleague for the same work or was denied professional opportunities because of her gender. Never in all the places I've worked, people I've met and colleagues I've worked with. It is illegal under the law therefore the issue is one of law if there ever were a single, credible instance of such discrimination.

Ample evidence that it doesn't exist? I can pretty easily find (trustworthy) statistics that [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295833/Analysis_of_the_Gender_Pay_Gap.pdf] it [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics] does [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/info-ashe-2013.html], but not much compelling evidence against.

Anecdotal evidence isn't really going to cut it.

It does for me since I've seen first hand that it's untrue. There is no more compelling evidence than what one sees for themselves. Any stats you dig up do not account for womens' choices of profession, largely lower paid clerical, administrative, secretarial, educational, care and other similar roles (as well as stay-at-home mums). If one compared 10 nurses or primary school teachers with 10 engineers or 10 electricians the comparison is one of apples and oranges. Compare however a male teacher with a female teacher and, excepting for length of service or special duties, two employees in the same department doing the same job will earn the same wage. FACT. There are (and have been for years) women in high paid jobs, leadership roles and who own their own businesses. FACT. Any woman can make of herself anything she can and chooses to. FACT.

Women have for decades had equal rights, healthcare, education, employment and pay and any complaining falls on deaf ears now, fighting against a boogeyman that no longer exists. Find one single example anywhere today in any modern country where a woman is paid less for exactly the same job as a man in the same role. If even one such existed, it would be contested and won in any court, every single time.

Fight all you want. Just know that your chosen soapbox is irrelevant, outdated, fading into obscurity as more and more people are alienated by its perpetual myths and nonsense that are disproven daily in real life. More and more people realise it's nonsense and won't associate with it. And good riddance too. You can fight, and I can ignore and challenge, go free society! Discrimination does need to go away, but feminism perpetuates discrimination against men and is not the right vehicle any more.

 

[Silvanus]

Although I can't speak for the UK, in the US there is mountains of evidence that the "wage gap" is, at best, statistical sleight of hand and, at worst, non-existent.

Spoiler: Links spoilered for length.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

Though I'm not going to subscribe to be able to read the WSJ article, the first two sources seem to be claiming that the wage gap simply isn't as large as was believed, and may be partway attributable to factors other than discrimination. That's very different from KingsGambit's bold claim that it definitely isn't there at all.

The third source is disputing the commonly-cited "77 cents" statistic, but includes a graph that indicates an existent (though smaller) pay gap. In fact, all those sources are referring in various fashions to the same argument, and the same points. It's an argument with merit, but it is far from the argument KingsGambit was making.

It does for me since I've seen first hand that it's untrue. There is no more compelling evidence than what one sees for themselves. Any stats you dig up do not account for womens' choices of profession, largely lower paid clerical, administrative, secretarial, educational, care and other similar roles (as well as stay-at-home mums). If one compared 10 nurses or primary school teachers with 10 engineers or 10 electricians the comparison is one of apples and oranges. Compare however a male teacher with a female teacher and, excepting for length of service or special duties, two employees in the same department doing the same job will earn the same wage. FACT. There are (and have been for years) women in high paid jobs, leadership roles and who own their own businesses. FACT. Any woman can make of herself anything she can and chooses to. FACT.

No, anecdotal evidence is not the most "compelling" evidence. Different people have different experiences. I'm after something rather more solid than claims and anecdotes.

Fight all you want. Just know that your chosen soapbox is irrelevant, outdated, fading into obscurity as more and more people are alienated by its perpetual myths and nonsense that are disproven daily in real life. More and more people realise it's nonsense and won't associate with it. And good riddance too. You can fight, and I can ignore and challenge, go free society! Discrimination does need to go away, but feminism perpetuates discrimination against men and is not the right vehicle any more.

What discrimination against men?

I've seen this claim so very many times, and it's never supported with anything reputable or trustworthy.

 

[Pieturli]

And right now, that world does not exist.

You're fighting a good fight OP, hat's off to you.

I think a nice thing we can all remind ourselves of is that despite us in the west (counting North America, Western and Northern Europe) still having problems with how we treat women, sexual minorities and even ethnic minorities, huge progress has been made and that progress is continuing. We are miles ahead of almost every other part of the world when it comes to almost all areas of human rights. The one exception I can think of is how well some South-East Asian countries treat transgendered people. Today is the best time to be a woman or gay (that sounded profoundly stupid, I apologize) that there has ever been. I'm not saying there aren't problems still, just saying that I think you and others should take heart in how much we have progressed.




This topic reminds me of MHRA's. I've got a little hypothesis that people who moan about how straight white guys are being persecuted have a terribly skewed view of feminists/LGBT folks. It seems that their impression of feminism comes primarily from their own imaginations and tumblr. Now sure, there are legitimate crazies in feminism (Andrea Dworkin, anyone?) but the impression I get is that they are in an absolutely microscopic minority. The Social Justice Warriors on tumblr are probably 50% trolls, 49% attention seekers, and maybe one percent actual human shitheaps.


CAPTCHA: Miles to go. Appropriate maybe?

 

[RoonMian]

I'm old enough to remember a time when in my country people were burned alive just for being immigrants while ordinary citizens stood around and applauded.

Yet when I say that I believe that you cannot tolerate intolerance, that intolerance is not an opinion but a crime, that you have to speak out if you have a voice, that you have to stand up if you have a heart... Because I've seen on live TV people burning alive and jumping out of windows to save themselves... I get called a "Social Justice Warrior"...

In my eyes anyone who uses that insult unironically disqualifies himself.

 

[Erttheking]

....What the frak is that supposed to mean? Free will is an illusion? Uh, not it's not. You weren't predetermined by fate to type that out. You did it because you wanted to. I just...that claim of yours is not rooted in logic in anyway shape or form! It makes about as much sense as when batman said that "Punk is nothing but death, and crime, and the rage of a beast" It's trying to sound deep, but it means nothing.

I love how you immediately jump to "fate" because obviously thats the only thing that could back up my claims. The rest has already been said by others.

I can't do what makes me feel good. I don't have free will according to you. Therefore I can't. You see how nonsensical this is?

Stop the strawman m8, I never said anything of the sort. Its the other way round. You're bound to do things that "make you feel good".

When someone says something like that and doesn't specify what they mean my mind is going to go to places like that because, well, what else am I supposed to think? So which one do you subscribe two? The one where society forms us in certain ways (Which I'll admit is true but hardly completely cancels out free will) or the one where we can't have free will because that means we tap into the power of atoms (Which I don't buy at all)

Yes we are indeed bound to do things we enjoy, but the thing is that we can choose not to. I love nothing more than soda but I haven't been drinking it very much as of late because it's bad for me. Ergo I used my free will to stop myself from drinking more than one can a week.

Your point just seemed so...there. It just seemed baseless and needlessly nihilistic.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Although I can't speak for the UK, in the US there is mountains of evidence that the "wage gap" is, at best, statistical sleight of hand and, at worst, non-existent.

Spoiler: Links spoilered for length.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

Though I'm not going to subscribe to be able to read the WSJ article, the first two sources seem to be claiming that the wage gap simply isn't as large as was believed, and may be partway attributable to factors other than discrimination. That's very different from KingsGambit's bold claim that it definitely isn't there at all.

The point isn't whether it exists (pretty much all the authors agree it does) but why it exists. If you compare the salary of someone who works at McDonald's and someone who is a Petrochemical Engineer, even if they both work exactly 40 hours a week, there is going to be a significant "wage gap", but that doesn't mean the gap is morally wrong, unfair or the result of discrimination.

Likewise, as the articles and Dr. Farrell point out, the long-held use of the "wage gap" was to try and make the point of "women earn less money than men on average, therefore discrimination, sexism, patriarchy, etc.", when in fact numerous easily explainable and demonstrable factors show why and how the gap exists, and when factoring in the aforementioned reasons, any remaining effects that can be attributed (but almost never actually proven) to "discrimination" are, at best, extremely small.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Actually I ran this past a friend of mine who is good with science and he said that when it comes to this stuff and how the brain works, atoms don't matter at all. It all comes down to chemical reactions. I'm just gonna post what he said.

We can control the reactions by sheer belief, based primarily on physical actions associated with the belief, what we eat, where we are, who is around us, and if you want to put things in your intense, deep nerve stimulation technologies, the last of which directly influences how parts of the brain perform.

You can argue that the inherent reactions in our brain will determine if we will react in chemistry-changing ways, and how we change that chemistry based on outside input, but that's chaos theory, and proving that will take considerable effort.

 

[dragonswarrior]

AAaaaaahhhhhh... The OP is refreshing.

Good luck learning out there mate, don't forget to look for the intersections between sexism, racism, and classism. It's REALLY interconnected, and it's hard to fight against only one without accidentally sacrificing the others. So I would (from personal experience) recommend learning about and fighting against all of them. Just a tip.

 

[Silvanus]

The point isn't whether it exists (pretty much all the authors agree it does) but why it exists. If you compare the salary of someone who works at McDonald's and someone who is a Petrochemical Engineer, even if they both work exactly 40 hours a week, there is going to be a significant "wage gap", but that doesn't mean the gap is morally wrong, unfair or the result of discrimination.

Likewise, as the articles and Dr. Farrell point out, the long-held use of the "wage gap" was to try and make the point of "women earn less money than men on average, therefore discrimination, sexism, patriarchy, etc.", when in fact numerous easily explainable and demonstrable factors show why and how the gap exists, and when factoring in the aforementioned reasons, any remaining effects that can be attributed (but almost never actually proven) to "discrimination" are, at best, extremely small.

Putting it down entirely to job differences seems just as reductionist as putting it down entirely to discrimination, doesn't it?

A pretty good read about differences in pay within occupations can be found here [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?_r=0]. More in-depth stuff is here [http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf].

The Bureau of Labour Statistics also tracks earnings within job categories, rather than between them, and found a pay gap does exist [http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf].

So, it really doesn't seem as if differences in employment trends between the sexes actually accounts for the pay gap. There's significant evidence that it exists within job categories, and in the same professions.

 

[Silvanus]

Feminists don't want equality they want special treatment, they want to censor things they don't personally like and complain.

I need some evidence to accept a claim about such a gigantic, diverse group of people.

 

[Twinrehz]

Skipping a bit of the reading here, because it's a bit too much for me to be patient enough to get to my point. And I also really just want to say this:

I have probably been sheltered from most of the gender inequality in my life, I sort of don't see it, even if I look. I don't look too well, though, I'm a bit of a social outcast, and other people generally don't interest me.

However, it does piss me off, to no small degree, when someone tries to reduce a person's standing by claiming the opinion is less relevant because it came from a woman. I can only reply to such statements with: So what? What difference does it make if it came from a man, a woman or an invertebrate? Even if the statement annoys you because it goes against what YOU believe in, there's no reason to start being unreasonable and attacking their person. It's not how discourse works, and if that's how you're going to react to it, then you have no place in the public room.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why this "civilized" society keeps maintaining its old fashioned ideas of lesser worth because of gender? Why women are treated like nothing more than "cum-dumpsters", to be taken advantage of and cast aside once you're done? That since they're "lesser beings", their feelings are not worth considering?

Why is it OK? In my mind, it's not OK. It's wrong to denigrate a person because of their opinions and their gender. I've never thought lesser about an advice because of the gender that gave me the advice.

If this post seems a bit confusing, it's because I'm having trouble collecting my thoughts properly.