You can advocate for the well-being of women without feminism. Attacks on feminism are not attacks on the advocacy for women. Feminism isn’t for women. Feminism isn’t even for feminists.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Antigynocentrism 
That depends on how feminism is being defined by the people involved. I think there is more than one working definition for the word, which is where so much of the disputes and misunderstandings come from. Many people define feminism AS the advocacy for the well-being of women. “Feminism” doesn’t always mean “radical feminism”.
Yes, for each person there is another slightly nuanced definition of the word, “Feminism.” Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say, “You can advocate for the well-being of women without the feminist movement.”
The need for a working definition outside the Myth of Feminism comes from the conflation of feminism and women’s rights advocacy, and the other agenda items that come with the feminist movement.
And when I say “Feminism,” I make no distinction between moderate and radical feminism, for, they both fit together, and serve different roles to achieve the same end.
My working definition of Feminism is, “The project to increase female power.” As I understand it, it has no upper limit, and part of the activism associated with it is the promulgation of disinformation and the “character assassination” of the entire male demographic. This is demonstrated through the results of feminist activism, not through feminist advocacy.
How is a “project to increase female power” a negative thing when females undeniably have less power than men across the globe? Most people I know who identify as feminists aren’t anti-men and they don’t want to be MORE powerful than men; they want to have equal power, and to be treated as men’s equals.
The project to increase female power (called Feminism) is bad because it has no upper limit. It is not bounded by any ethical or moral constraint. It has already infringed on the human rights of men, and has done nothing to attach corresponding responsibilities to the privileges it has afforded women.
This is without regard to what any individual feminists you know might believe. I’m sure at the conscious level, the people you know who identify as feminists just want some variation of equality.
The assertion that males have more power than females depends on how you define power. If you simply look at one small group of people who are in power, and see that they are mostly male, you can assert that “men have more power” only if you subtract the individuality of the group, “men.” Either that, or you have to go on to assert that the power group, being mostly male, confers some sort of preferential treatment towards males outside their group. This has been shown to be false. Females are the strongest group of consumers, and it is to these that the corporatocracy pander. Females are the strongest group of voters, and it is to these which the legislators pander. In this way, it is incorrect to say that, “men have all the power,” but it is fair to say that, “those who have the power are (mostly) men.” However, it is of not significance to those not in power what the sex of those in power mostly are — it is of more significance whom those powers serve. In westernized nations, that is females.
Dr. Warren Farrel describes power (for the individual) as control over your own life. For the average man at large, he has fewer choices as mandated by law and by society than women.
Consider the draft. That is an abridgment of men’s autonomy. But you do not see feminists campaigning against the male draft, or for the equal draft.
Consider reproduction. Women have more contraceptive options available to them than men. After conception, women have complete control over the gestation of the child. She can abort, or deliver. The man has no say. I’m not saying he should have any say over gestation, but it is valid to point to it as an area over which he has no control. After delivery, the woman has complete control over whether to notify the father, whether to keep the child, put the child up for adoption, or abandon it through the legal abandonment framework. She can either assume responsibility or shirk it. At no point is she cornered into any financial obligation. In short, she has complete freedom to enjoy sex without risk of financial obligation to raising a child.
The same cannot be said for men. Men are often told, “Well, you chose to have sex, so you consented to handing over your choice whether to be a parent and the financial obligation of it to her,” even though she does not have that same restriction on her choice to enjoy sex. If she decides he’s going to be a dad, she does not have to tell him. If she does, family court will ensure that even in his absence, he will pay. If he does not pay, he will go to jail (in a “debtor’s prison,” which is a crime against civil liberty which the civilized world has otherwise done away with). If she doesn’t notify the father, she can at any time notify the father at a point in the future and sue for arrears in child support, even though he didn’t know he was a father and even had such an obligation. She can sabotage a condom and/or steal his semen and use it to impregnate herself against his will. He will still be obligated to provide child support. She can rape him (through forced envelopment, or by other means such as drugs, coercion, or statutory rape), and he will still be forced to pay. Even if she has sex with an adolescent, though child support is stayed until he is 18, he will then be made to pay arrears for the period prior to becoming an adult.
But if a man sabotages a condom and impregnates a woman against her will, it’s sexual assault.
This is not power for men.
Consider affirmative action and gender quotas. These have been shown to be self-defeating. If two applicants for a job have similar human capital, the employer simply must choose the female (because males “have more power,” essentially demonstrating that they don’t).
Consider what happens whenever men try to establish male safe spaces; they are not allowed because it’s sexist, but women are. The YMCA allows women, but the YWCA doesn’t allow men. Same with the scouts. Same with gyms. Same, by and large, for campus groups.
Consider domestic violence. Many states (about 20-30) impose “mandatory arrest” laws coupled with “primary aggressor” laws. While they vary slightly from state to state, mandatory arrest laws state that someone must be arrested. Primary aggressor laws essentially state that this person must be the man, irrespective of evidence or the result of investigation. So a woman is free to beat her husband, and if he calls the police, they will come out and arrest him. Right now, if you live in a “mandatory arrest/primary aggressor” state, the best legal advice for a man who is being beaten is, “Run! And don’t call the police!”
Consider criminal justice. Women are arrested less for the same crimes. They are charged less often. They are convicted less often. When they are convicted they are sentenced to less punishment. This not only takes less power from women (going through the courts is a process of losing power), but generates ongoing statistics that make it look like men are generally criminals while women are innocent and doe-eyed. This in turn is used to legislate even more draconian sexed laws against men.
But if you have to run, there’s nowhere for you to go. There are no shelters. There are no government services to help a man, even if he has kids in tow, from an abusive partner. Yet we channel billions to erect shelters all over the place so that women always have an out. Even if you wanted to argue the numbers, that’s no reason why the government should spend exactly zero on men’s escape from DV.
Consider men’s health research. The government has a department dedicated to women’s health and women’s health research, but none exists for men, even though women now outlive men by seven years on average.
Everywhere you look, you can see where the average man has less power and privilege than the average woman, and it’s all put into place cyclically and iteratively over the last five or six decades by Feminism and feminists, under the auspices of balancing out a specter of imbalance called “patriarchy” and “male privilege.”
The truth is that for the average man, there is no privilege. There is no wage gap, there’s an earnings gap because men are forced to make more sacrifices, work longer hours, take more dangerous positions within any given occupation because society expects him to, and there’s no help for him. Society expects men to shut up about their problems, work on women’s “problems,” and dispose of himself when convenient.
And feminists haven’t done a damn thing to change this. In fact, they put it into place.
I agree that there are many problems and disadvantages specific to the male gender, including the ones you have outlined. But I could, if I had the time and energy, compile an equally long, if not longer, list of disadvantages suffered by women – not just in Western societies, as your list seems to mainly focus on, but in many cultures around the world where women are discriminated against with horrific consequences.
The feminist movement is not just for Western women. It is for the thousands of women raped and systematically abused by the patriarchal culture and political system in India; it is for the thousands of young Somali girls who have their clitoris cut out and their labia minora sewn up when they are as young as four so that prospective husbands can see proof that they’re “pure”. To say that men collectively have less power than women is hugely inaccurate when the discussion has a global focus, which it should.
I don’t think anti-feminism stances or rants are helpful in solving gender issues, any more than anti-men stances are helpful for women who are suffering gender-based discrimination. If the problems that you have listed AND the problems women face are going to be solved, I don’t think an either-or approach to gender is going to get us anywhere. It is ineffective to finger-point at feminists for problems that men are facing, not only because the blame is inaccurately placed, but because it encourages the us-vs-them mentality which has bred these issues in the first place.
Whenever this discussion is had, it is invariably brought, by feminists, to either a far away time or a far away place. But always, at further inspection, those far away times and those far away places always yield another side to this story. In India, the “patriarchal” expectations for men are just as unfair as they are for women. India has probably the largest men’s rights presence in the entire world because of the scale of crime (structural and street) being committed against them there. I personally cannot attest to it because I am not there, although I do listen to news reports from Europe, India, and Africa on these matters and the men are in trouble there, too. I’m not saying it’s a free ride for women and girls — it’s certainly not. But it’s not the patriarchal hate machine Feminism paints it to be.
If you want to talk about genital mutilation, let’s talk about the MILLIONS of boys being mutilated in WESTERNIZED nations as young as two days with no anesthesia, sometimes resulting in death, all because it’s either more convenient to clean or because women prefer the appearance that way. There is no excuse or indication for any genital mutilation of children of either sex. In Africa, there is a campaign to get 20.8 million males circumcised under the auspices of protecting them from HIV. The research that supports this has been debunked, and those implementing the project, when asked why they don’t implement it in westernized nations were forced to answer, “because it would be considered unethical.”
Feminism has been observed for decades now, and the results of their activism is the cause of all the suffering I mentioned in my first response to you. So from where I’m standing, Feminism is the problem, and feminists need to broaden their cultural world-view and take a look at their own doctrine. I don’t take an either-or approach to gender, which is the impetus for the original ‘bit’ that I posted — that you can advocate for women without Feminism. Feminism is most certainly the enemy, but to oppose it is not to oppose women’s equality, rights, or well-being. It’s only to oppose their social and legal supremacy.
My stance remains unchanged. If you wish to convince me that feminists somehow aren’t anti-man, you’re going to have to point me to feminist critique of all the hateful rhetoric that has come from prominent, mainstream feminist personalities and authors found here:
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
(talk about your us-vs-them mentality)
You’re also going to have to convince your fellow feminists to stand down from opposition to men’s groups seeking to implement their own remedies to their own problems.
(us-vs-them)
If you want men’s rights advocates to join with feminism in dealing with men’s issues, you’re going to have to submit your history of activism (not advocacy, but real-world boots-on-the-ground activism of actionable items) working on men’s issues, because we can’t find it anywhere. We cannot find any evidence of feminists doing any actual work causing any actual change for the elimination of men’s problems — and we aren’t waiting up for feminists to get women’s problems fixed up first.
There is more than one working definition of the word, but I am using the definition that works best for those of us outside the movement. We are my intended audience, not feminists. We are not seeking to change the minds of feminists, but solidify our own external understanding of it in terms not only of the rhetoric that comes from it, but the effects of its activism.
Ending feminism isn’t even the main thrust of this site. The main thrust of this site is ending gynocentric culture, of which Feminism is only one facet.
Do you agree that we live in a gynocentric culture?
-If so, do you agree that we need to eliminate it?
–If so, how? (Specifically)
-If not, why not?
Pingback: Homepage
I don’t think we’re having the same argument as each other here, to be honest. By sole issue with your initial post was the assumption that every person who identifies as a feminist is, by definition, a man-hater or somehow anti-men, which is an incorrect generalisation and a dangerous one. That was and is the extent of my point and while you’re trying to engage in a larger debate, I don’t believe that you’ve addressed that at all.
Neither do I. Where did you find that assumption? My original post was very short and the only claim is that you can advocate for the rights of women without Feminism (identification as, or association with); nothing more, nothing less. It’s filed under “Bits,” a collection of short thoughts to inspire other thoughts or to be assembled later into larger works.
My definition of a feminist is someone who believes and perpetuates Feminist dogma (regardless of whether they identify as a feminist), chief among it is patriarchy theory. If you subscribe to the belief that men oppressed (and oppress) women, and confer some sort of benefit at women’s expense, you are a feminist. And if you believe in patriarchal oppression, you either hate men or will soon enough.
Have you ever read the Redstockings Manifesto? This is the defining spirit of feminism and it is filled to the brim with hatred and resentment for men in the form of false accusation and fraudulent imputations of intent. Notice the absolutes with which it speaks. These absolutes are present EVERYWHERE in modern feminism.
There is no way that believing women have been oppressed by a patriarchal system necessarily leads to a hatred of men. If you believe men are oppressed and disadvantaged by feminism, does that make you a woman hater?
Pingback: DUI Lawyer Philadelphia