Notes for a talk at ICMI with the following title: Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.
-
Feminism is not “progressive”: It’s regressive; it is based on misandry, sexist discrimination, hate & bias; it suppresses science (esp. on domestic violence, on female violence and on criminology in general); it is conspiracist; it asserts the existence of a non-existent entity “Patriarchy”; it is ultra-conservative, in its treating women as helpless infants. Infantilism about women is conservative, not progressive.
-
Feminism is not “egalitarian”: It demands, and achieves, preferential treatment for a privileged group (women). By definition, this is anti-egalitarian.
-
Feminism is not “liberal”: To the contrary, it is socially conservative—women are infants, without agency; it is illiberal & authoritarian; it demands increasing state power; it uses the police and institutional power as a tool of social control; it is moralistic & Puritan. More or less by definition, these are central principle of state-enforced illiberalism, social illiberalism and social conservatism.
-
Feminism is not “left-wing”: It has no interest in economic fairness (esp. those at the bottom of society); it is openly anti-working-class. Marxism and socialism are, by definition, left-wing because their primary concern is with economic exploitation, wage slavery, alienation of the worker, co-erced theft of their labour, and so on. Feminism is, in no way, “left-wing”. Feminism is a form of Identity Politics. This, in general, is an anti-left-wing position. Furthermore, it is a form of Identity Politics closely aligned with the State, policing, punishment and incarceration (so-called carceral feminism). Again, these are not “left-wing”. They have been traditionally right-wing positions for centuries.
The ICMI20 talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQf1JDa28Y&list=PLOXfnai0-o0I8BtOpmjbn_3FGYBHiV64S
While no one has the time to break down all the misogynists ideas presented here, I’ll give a try at a few:
Feminism is based on misandry, sexist discrimination, hate & bias
Feminism, at its core, advocates for gender equality and challenging gender-based discrimination and inequality. While it is true that individuals can hold extreme or radical views in any movement, it is incorrect to generalize these views to the entire feminist movement.
Feminism suppresses science:
Feminism does not suppress science. Feminists actively engage with and contribute to various scientific fields, including sociology, psychology, gender studies, and more. It is important to foster a critical and evidence-based understanding of gender-related issues, which includes recognizing and addressing biases within scientific research.
Feminism asserts the existence of a non-existent entity “Patriarchy”
The concept of patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and women are marginalized. While the degree and manifestation of patriarchy may vary across cultures and societies, if you examine a list of presidents, CEOs, top academics, and billionaires it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.
Feminism treats women as helpless infants
Feminism seeks to empower women and challenge societal norms and structures that limit their opportunities and choices. It advocates for equal rights, agency, and autonomy for women. Feminism does not view women as helpless infants but recognizes their capacity for self-determination and capability in various aspects of life.
misogynists ideas presented here
LMAO
Wow, 4 paragraphs of sexist feminist lies meant to hide it’s bigoted nature
Color me shocked
[…] misogynists ideas […]
Feminism ≠ Women. It is possible to criticise an ideology without attacking the people which the ideology claims to represent.
Feminism, at its core, advocates for gender equality […]
I’ll have you know (per the dictionary definition) that Feminism actually advocates for women’s rights. The difference is quite subtle, but very important.
Feminism does not suppress science […]
… that agrees with Feminist ideology… Anything else is “misogyny”, “fake news”, “pseudo-science” etc.
The concept of patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and women are marginalized. […]
Apex fallacy/collectivism; Just because the people at the top are men, this does not mean that all men have power. After all, the vast majority of homeless are men too…
[…] challenge societal norms and structures that limit their opportunities and choices.
Such as…?
It advocates for equal […] agency […] for women.
🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
Sums up my response perfectly
The concept of patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and women are marginalized. While the degree and manifestation of patriarchy may vary across cultures and societies, if you examine a list of presidents, CEOs, top academics, and billionaires it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.
Ugh, new forum, same old story. And I just don’t have the patience of go through yet another rabbit whole with yet another pseudo-academic online feminist.
I’ve done it enough that I’ve given up hope on breaking through all that brainwashing. I reply to you, but not for you. This reply is for anyone else reading this who still has the capability of independent thought.
“men hold primary power”: There’s multiple interpretation of that phrase, and feminists leverage this to both claim that patriarchy is everywhere and imply that it creates inequality in favor of men. Once you disambiguate the phrase, you quickly find out that both are rarely true at the same time.
Specifically:
A) “men hold primary power” means that men as a class wield the power of how society function. They, as a class, make the rules. And they do so only understanding their own needs and desires and as a result, they rule to the benefit of men at the expense of women.The opposite interpretation is:
B) The positions of authority are held by men, but they do not wield this authority on their own behalf, they wield it on behalf of stakeholders where one the most important of which is women. As a result the authorities create a society that primarily oppresses men to the benefit of women.So feminists like GravyMan like to go around claiming that we live in a patriarchy by mentioning male billionaires, top politicians etc… And then usually they imply that this means that there is inequality that favors men and oppresses women. They usually only imply it because this gives them wiggle room to wiggle out of the claim. Here he didn’t straight out claim a direct link of inequality he just said “it’s difficult to conclude [the opposite]”, but that’s a difficult one to wiggle out of.
So yes, obviously, the prevalence of men in positions of power implies that we live in some kind of patriarchy for some definition of patriarchy. But the question is: which definition is the one that applies to our society?
And if you look at the rates of completed suicide, the rates of homelessness, the rates of homicide victims and more recently post secondary education. Then contrast this with social efforts to help victims of violence, suicide risks, education opportunities that are gendered for the benefit of women. It becomes quite clear that we’re far closer to definition B) than we are to definition A).
Furthermore, people like me, who are concerned with the general trend of callousness towards men and accompanying misleading ideology that takes away empathy and aid resources from those men, we don’t like the term “Patriarchy”. We see how it is misused to imply things that are not true about the way society function. And we see how it’s definition is so malleable and routinely exploited to the detriment of men. So we try to condemn its use wherever we see it.
While I agree with OPs three other points. I don’t generally like to spend much time on them. I think ideas are more important than labels.
And at the end of the day there is just one core concept that can unravel all of the misandry found within feminism. And I can summarize it in a simple question:
What happened to your empathy and compassion for men?
Ugh, new forum, same old story.
Whenever you have new people in the audience, you have people unfamiliar with the foundations, the history, and the progress. That’s just life. If you want to attract people to your way of thinking and grow the movement, you are going to have to find a way to welcome newcomers and bring them up to speed, not turn them away.
Unless you are content to just beaver away on your research, revelling in all the progress you are making and making pronouncements from on high, you will have to test your theories in the real world. That means engaging with critics, those with other theories, especially incompatible theories, and being open to learning new things, even things that might force you to change your mind.
Most importantly, you have to acknowledge that not every person who disagrees with you or questions your thesis is a bad actor. There are plenty of people who just want to learn and grow and addressing what they see as weak arguments both guides them on their journey and strengthens any arguments that withstand the test.
You are correct.
Especially in this case I probably judged GravyMan prematurely. He’s using detailed definitions and explanations which I usually attribute to “Academic types” who have years of in depth experience in the topic and can’t possibly be completely blind to the double standards present within feminism. But looking back, his statements are more like feministm 101 type statements, so it’s actually believable that he just doesn’t have any in depth understanding of what he’s talking about.
So I definitely should have taken a far more charitable approach.
I’m not sure what to say beyond that I feel this kind of response to criticism deserves more than a mere upvote. My expectation was to be ignored or to see pushback, because that seems to be one of the more common forms of “discussion” these days.
Thanks for showing me that my own preconceptions could stand a few adjustments. :)
Getting frustrated and blunt with having to keep pointing out the blatant sexism, bigotry, and hatred in a gender supremacy group is very different from an “i’m right all the time fuck you” attitude.
Even if they look the same to the average feminist, @Dienervent’s response didn’t surprise me at all.
This reads like rote repeat of standardised thought.
One thing sticks out though: the “no true scotsman fallacy”. It is unfair to generalize a social movement based on fringe elements, which is why saying feminism is about equality is unfair. As of today mainstream, politically influential feminist organisations are successfully pushing openly discriminatory policies, with success.
That’s how you have the special justice system in Spain where the right to a fair trial is essentially abolished if the alleged victim is a woman and the alleged perpetrator is a man. (Look it up!) That’s how Belgium is right now putting into law that killing a woman is a more severe crime than killing a man. (Look it up if you know dutch or french) That’s how homeless shelters across the world are reserved to women only by pretending that they’re about domestic violence and that only women suffer that (both untrue), even though most of the homeless are men. The list goes on.
I’m sure many people who identify as feminists do not agree with these horrific, dehumanizing policies, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are the direct result of the movement. All politicians who made those things happen had gone into politics through feminism. The policies made possible through feminism are more representative of the movement than any “definition” anyone likes to think is true based on their own preference.
If you believe in equality, stop calling yourself a feminist, it’s empowering very nefarious people.
So, you didn’t watch the 48 minute video which very clearly and in-depth goes over each point and instead labeled it “misogyny”?
Do I have to remind you that attacking a social movement for its bad policies is not the same as “hating women”?
As for the rest of your nonsense post, I give you this kernel of truth:
'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ’
Consider your evidenceless post dismissed.
Do I have to remind you that attacking a social movement for its bad policies is not the same as “hating women”?
and
Feminism is not “progressive”: It’s regressive; it is based on misandry, sexist discrimination, hate & bias; it suppresses science
cannot coexist if you bring self-awareness into the equation
'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ’
this entire video is asserted without evidence ya goof
This comment is just nonsense. He shows why feminism is regressive and sexist. He may not have given evidence for every single claim, but he certainly gave plenty.
And showing how a movement is actually a hate movement can certainly coexist with not hating the demographic said movement claims to fight for.
From my viewing, he made unsubstantiated points almost every step of the way, ie even when he did imply evidence, he had an awful inclination not to cite it directly thus making it unlikely to be fact-checked.
could you remind me of his key points and their evidence?So did the commenter “refuting” them, and i don’t see you having a conniption over that
Almost as if you don’t question statements supporting feminism, but only question entirely valid criticisms of it’s sexist bigoted actions
First off I want to say I never said that GravyMan refuted anything, they at best provide their own experience because they do not back up their claim with anything. They made clarifying statements as to how they see feminism as a feminist because they felt bad discourse abrew (probably)
The conversation became messy then, when it’s the case that OP and OP’s video didn’t bring evidence, and then others complain that GravyMan who contends OP’s synopsis don’t bring evidence. Wowsers.
Why are we then still hammering on the 2nd person, and why do we write off my paragraphs as ‘boldly spewing out bullshit’ as if that’s an argument. I could’ve easily said that’s what OP is saying. This gives me an inclination that you (since you made this about me being ideological) are the one stuck in your depths.
Feminism does not suppress science. Feminists actively engage with and contribute to various scientific fields, including sociology, psychology
This may blow your tiny male feminist brain, but two things can be true at once. Feminism is an ideological infestation which has made some minor contributions while simultaneously holding back research on issues including boys’ underachievement in education, domestic violence against men, the sentencing gap and much more.
it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.
This is only difficult to conclude if you are a deeply stupid individual. Men have far greater pressure on them to succeed, and they do so in greater numbers despite being increasingly held back. They’re also far more likely to fail spectacularly, ending up homeless, in prison, or killing themselves (suicide being another topic on which feminists fight the data).
“Men” do not hold power, a tiny minority of men do (and if you’re talking politics, those men are ultimately beholden to an electorate that is mostly female).
It advocates for equal rights, agency, and autonomy for women.
Square that with calls to close women’s prisons, give them lower sentences for the same crimes, and generally frame all their misbehaviour as a consequence of the patriarchy. Hint: you cannot.
recognizes their capacity for self-determination
Self-determination? Were you not just complaining about the lack of female CEOs? Truly, the feminist brain is not capable of self-awareness.
Women in greater numbers choose to take time off work to raise children, the effects of which you complained about just one paragraph earlier. Conversely men sacrifice greater portions of their lives working longer hours, further from home, seeing less of their kids. That’s why they earn more, but it’s not at zero cost and women make a different trade-off, as do men before children enter the picture (that last part should be a wake-up call, but you’re too sleepy for that).
Calling people misogynists for seeing feminism for what it is does not hide the fact you’re a creepy incel trying to present yourself as “one of the good ones”.
While I agree with many of your arguments, we do not call each other names here.
This video is extremely slow and not concise, so you’ll have to excuse everyone for not making it through your 1k view video from 2 years ago from a guy who advertises himself as a mathematician first. (Not to completely knock the guy, he at least has done a decent amount of research on what different sects of ideologies exist in relation to feminism, seems to recognize imaginary arguments (Blank Slatism) and is quick to throw away conspiratorial thought)
Does not define feminis as a “belief in gender equality”, reasons:
1 Feminists reject gender equality, and is anti-equality (hes apparently only going to elaborate on this 20+ minutes in, but at least he knows gender-essentialist feminists are their own bag of worms and tries to narrow the topic to not-quite-blank-slatists)
2 Surveys show low amount of people define themself as feminist but large suport gender equality2 does not really follow as an argument to dismiss feminism as a belief in gender equality, there’s multiple ways of considering yourself a gender equalitist, in fact, I would say most people consider themselves to view everyone as equal, so gender equalitist becomes a very useless term very quickly due to the sheer amount of different worldviews on what that involves (like this video!). Numbers also don’t exist in a vacuum, we have to consider stuff like the 2014+ conservative movement to argue against feminist ideas, I would personally argue that youtube was a popular space of discourse that had a lot of misrepresentation of feminist principles and end-goals through snappy clips of ‘triggered feminist owned’ videos.
Also as of 2020, 61% of American women defined themselves as feminist, I wouldn’t compare that to schizophrenia??? but of course he says this without actually saying the number of people who identify themselves as feminist
Alright now that we spent 18 minutes talking about what intersectionalist feminism isn’t, we are given a list of ‘mumbo-jumbo jargon’ that he attributes to cult behavior
That’s weird considering I think you could make a list like this for most academic fields,Claim: there’s no recognizion that females engage in violence as well (19:00)
Tarana Burke has said MeToo is a survivor’s movementThis is by a law professor who studied feminist legal theory writing a long justification for acknowleding women’s acts of violence, this seems like a defacto case of the word contemporary (and is the first thing to come up on a search on ‘feminist acknowledging women violence men’)
Philosophy Tube, did not discover that her girlfriend didn’t perform violence against her when she transitioned and is still a feminist as far as I’m aware
Jess Philips (mentioned in the video) in 2019 multiple times acknowledging female offenders’ existence in parliament as she worked on the latest Domestic Abuse bill
could probably go on, especially because the closer you get to blank slatism you get, you’ll see that it only makes sense to acknowledge female violence but I think it’s established that being a feminist doesn’t neccessitate not believing in female violence. Well that’s annoying I had to provide all that evidence, and all he said for you to accept his terms is “there’s very little recognizion that females engage in violence as well”, when in the description he even cites #MeToohas been pathologizing masculinity as harmful.
Claim: This is mumbo-jumbo, because it is not scientific, this is the mumbo-jumbo jargon of a cult 19:40
Jargon is the specialized vocabulary of any profession, trade, science, or hobby, he has not specified anything that makes it cultish, and thinking soft-sciences has to have hard-science jargon just sounds like stem-brain (courtesy of smbc)
Claim: Misandry & Hate is perpetuated by mainstream feminists (goes on to name ‘very well known people’) 21:20
Judy Bindland(?) sorry i tried googling variations to make sure i got the name right, but I couldn’t find any feminist by this name
Suzanne Moore who whined in 2016 how her movement isnt actually that popular, and I don’t know why we’re mentioning RADFEMs in the first place when we already acknowledged that we wanted to throw these accusations at all of feminism
“many many other examples”, enlightening…
I think this is an appropriate time to use his own excuse of “drops in a small small ocean” exceptionClaim: Sexist discrimination against men exist in the education system
He’ll back this claim later I guess (Addendum after the fact: he didnt)
Claim: Feminism suppresses science that goes against its narrative
Example: 5 decades of domestic violence science suppressed, this is called Gender Symmetry Estate
Research on partner violence consistently shows that women are more likely to be victims of severe physical violence, including injury, hospitalization, or death, compared to men. Studies have also consistently found that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of partner violence. These gender differences are supported by extensive empirical evidence and have been replicated across multiple studies and various countries. (CDC, WHO, NIJ, and various various scholarly journals are not just fake - There’s also a very very good paper critiquing Straus and others’ papers, you can read through and be the judge. paper’s author also recognizes violence can go both ways, and woah woah hold on a sec, there’s even substiation of feminism as being misrepresented?? This paper seems like a pretty open and shut case.)
Claim: The reason for the Gender Pay Gap is because men and women have different occupations and different choices, in lifestyles they have different patterns, and this reason is being suppressed
And do you think maybe we should prioritize so that jobs on both sides of the spectrum feel an inclination towards have decent pay? Why do we act like education, and nursery has so little value for instance
Also this isn’t suppressed, and wasn’t in the year he posted this, it’s readily available. (There’s an argument that people like Hillary Clinton misunderstood these studies or the real solution to them, but they have mostly been corrected over the years) occupational segregation should be addressed basically. You’d also think he’d link to things that are suppressed considering it’d be hard to find. idk, consider your evidenceless claim dismissed
Bonus Claim: Gender pay gap reportings are forced by governments
Gender pay gap reporting refers to the practice of collecting and disclosing data on the difference in average earnings between men and women within an organization or across a particular industry or sector, I don’t see an issue with this being enforced.
Claim: the Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory because the leader in some countries and universities and police departments are women
I’m sorry… But this is a clear misunderstanding about what Patriarchy is claiming.
the concept of the patriarchy asserts that societies are organized in a way that systematically privileges men and grants them greater power, authority, and control over resources compared to women. It suggests that this power imbalance is not merely a result of individual choices or preferences, but rather a result of deeply ingrained social, cultural, and institutional structures. This dominance is not limited to individuals but extends to systemic patterns and norms. It’s argued that it perpetuates gender inequality by reinforcing traditional gender roles and expectation, and that it does this because it leads to disparities in opportunities, resources and decision-making power.
It posits women as being objectified and treated as commodities way more often. It argues that the on-the-book laws and cultural nroms perpetuate these unequal power dynamics. It does not imply that all men benefit equally from this system or that women are devoid of agency or power, and modern patriarchy theory generally recognizes that men suffer too under patriarchy (see former paper that I said was a slamdunk)
Claim: They believe in gynocentrism
radfem shit, again I thought we were here to shut down feminism as a whole, especially when the next sentence is “Feminism is Anti-Egalitarian”, says it’s an empirical fact
Claim: Women are given privilege in the legal system, not given the same responsibilities as men
Decidedly full of shit down to any level. What do you want me to say, he made it the fuck up. How is there 20 minutes left
Claim: Feminism sees men as disposable. People only cared when girls were suffering that one time when boys also suffered and in greater amounts
Feminism acknowledges men as being seen as disposable in current society and is one of the movements trying to work towards getting rid of that, it just so happens that feminism believes patriarchy’s traditional-values teaching is the source of this. This also doesn’t make sense if we take his claim that feminism is a minority belief seriously.
Claim: Feminists deny Due Process
Consider your evidenceless claim dismissedClaim: Feminism is excusing and downplaying perpetrated violence
see https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006
Claim: The science on this matter is reasonably clear
you just said it’d been denied for 4-5 decades
Claim: and yet female perpetrated violence is downplayed and male domestic violence is overplayed
This could easily be argued to be part of patriarchial society, but there’s still no source despite such large claims
Claims: These gender gaps exist 30:00
I agree. I think I’ve heard about the existence of almost all of these. But he’s also just saying things without sourcing anything.
So consider your evidenceless claim dismissed.
Claim: No feminist is advocating for anything to be done about these gaps
Just…
Claim: Feminism is neither liberal, because it treats women as children
didnt even elaborate how this time, let alone name real examples
Claim: Undermine due process
doesnt elaborate how
Claim: Suppress freedom of speech because they say that they are being sexistly oppressed and use that to shut down free speech
I don’t think they challenge the 1st amendment, but while I have you, Paradox of Tolerance
Claim: expanding state power
feminism is when you want the state to do its job I guess
Claim: Sex work is considered a form of oppression under patriarchy
There is a very loud SWERF group in feminism but I think most feminists already have come around to see that it’s best for it to be legalized and protected
Claim: Mobbing/Vigilante Methods/Cancelling is illiberal
Paradox of Tolerance, and while there are obviously instances where I disagree with mob-rule type decisions, people generally rile up to hold others accountable - I don’t agree with
retributive justice and hope society in general comes around, but that is not a feminism issue.
Claim: Authoritarian Control & Obedience
cant name a single policy that furthers this narrative
Claim: Feminism is not leftwing because Marxist-connected feminism is on the decline
I have no fucking idea whether or this is the case, outside of intersectional feminist spaces almost all critique Capitalism as part of what needs something done with
Claim: There’s actually a lot more women doing super great, it’s just that men are the top 0.01% while there are way more women below them [in like the top 10% i guess?] and Theresa May was a conservative prime minister
I don’t see how the first part would make feminism not left wing, but yeah there can be conservatives that think they’re feminist despite ignoring big feminist ideas I guessWell that was a fun thing noone will read, my job here is done
I read it and thought you made some salient points. There’s aspects I disagree with and I think we could have an interesting discussion around them. But I don’t have the patience to create multiple comments with sources that you have, I’ve done it all before and really don’t want to get down in those reeds. I didn’t watch the video either, so I’m going to assume that the video itself was poorly structured.
“There’s also a very very good paper critiquing Straus and others’ papers”
Could you give me the title of this specific paper (I tried clicking the link but it is saying the connection is not private - if it is the one I am thinking of, there is a good chance that Straus has already responded to it. Here’s Straus defending the scale https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22865343/ ). On this point though, I guess it comes down what methodology you feel is better. The organisations you mentioned look at arrest statistics. Whereas papers that find parity look at factors that may be impacting men (such as the theory they are less likely to report, and even less likely to see it as abuse when it is happening to them - some research backs this up). Erin Prizzey who set up the first domestic abuse shelter has been on record saying it is an issue with learned patterns of behaviour, rather than a gendered issue. For instance, was this study covered in your debunking https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261543769_References_Examining_Assaults_by_Women_on_Their_Spouses_or_Male_Partners_An_Updated_Annotated_Bibliography or this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/. There are many studies on this. There are reasons to doubt the CTS measure that Straus employs, but there are also reasons to doubt arrest statistics as men are less likely to be a part of arrest statistics, some would theorise this is because they are less likely to be reported and seen as less serious by society as a whole https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11199-018-0949-x. There are more studies demonstrating this as well, though I would have to find them but here’s a couple https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518220300061?via%3Dihub, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630#:~:text=The%20moral%20typecasting%20framework%20proposes,facilitate%20categorizing%20women%20into%20the. I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that these aspects may skew the statistics on perpetration rates between men and women.
“And do you think maybe we should prioritize so that jobs on both sides of the spectrum feel an inclination towards have decent pay? Why do we act like education, and nursery has so little value for instance”
In regards to this point. I wholeheartedly agree that education and nursery should offer more pay, but I think there is different value other than financial. It is also worth noting that the market decides the price. There is only costs in teaching and nursery etc. I really don’t think it is reasonable to expect their pay to be comparable to companies that make mobile phones (for example) at costs of around £700.00 a pop (that people willingly pay), this isn’t so much a decision on what fields are worth more but on market demand, that women make most of the contributions to.
“Gender pay gap reporting refers to the practice of collecting and disclosing data on the difference in average earnings between men and women within an organization or across a particular industry or sector, I don’t see an issue with this being enforced.”
I do, average pay doesn’t really give indication as to the factors. My company (in an attempt to close the gap) a few years ago put my team on the same pay. I thought this was great as it resulted in a pay rise. However, we where we were put on the same pay. My colleague, who had worked her way through the levels and was on more money than men due to the fact she had worker harder was now being paid the same as me who hadn’t put that effort in. This wasn’t fair on her. I don’t believe the mere fact of measuring averages is an effective way of measuring fairness.
I could touch on more of your points but - from your response - it does seem like your responding to a poorly constructed video and I don’t have the time or inclination to discuss these fully.
Thank you for your input, however. I found it an interesting read.
Assuming your colleague had gotten raises through merit, it’s obviously silly to roll that back, I would’ve thought that they’d account for raises given that it wasn’t actually implied that they had to act on this, just disclose the difference, and this reminds me I’m probably foolish in imagining such a thing would just be itself in a vacuum (ie not fuck up things that are kinda encouraging people to do their job better)
Could you give me the title of this specific paper
Sorry for the long wait, “Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist” (literature review) by Johnson MP. in 2011, which was a year before
I use this paper most of all to show what feminist academics thought even 10 years ago, since the video seemed to still have these misconceptions, and they mostly argue against Straus for misrepresentations and ill conclusions of others’ works and beliefs.Your second study doesn’t seem to support the point based on its abstract, from point a to f
First Study: References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated
is a bit of a mess, as most of the things citing it doesn’t really use it for the purpose of saying “women are as physically aggressive as men”, and it for some reason brings a child-abuse study(?), a bunch of anecdotes, and an internet survey from the middle of a sociologist’s book (not paper) up in its first part, but this put me down a further rabbithole of Gender Symmetry discussion which I hadn’t delved into before, 1 2 and I’ll admit it at the very least doesn’t seem like a settled debate, so I retract what I have to say about Gender Symmetry itself since idk anymoreI don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that these aspects may skew the statistics on perpetration rates between men and women.
I fully agree, (think my wall even says so) but from any not-radfem feminist perspective, this seems to be parts we acknowledge, it’s just also viewed as caused by Patriarchal society as it previously stood and perpetuated by how it currently stands
Thanks for your input as well, it forced me to learn a little more about what I don’t know
and like all feminists, after boldly spewing out bullshit you pat yourself on the back and walk off, smug in your “fixing” of a perceived wrong, and certainly not staying around to have it be challenged.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Comment removed for personal attack.
tl;dr I don’t understand feminism, at all.
Neither do feminists. Whatever they claim to be, their actions are always overt misandry. They cannot seem to help themselves be better.