Stupid Feminist Comments

[brimstoneSalad]

Ok, sure, they *can*. But I don't think it's as easy for them because of the double standard.

It is physically easy for them to do, which was my point.

If it is more psychologically difficult for them to choose to do it, or want to do it, that's a completely different issue.

If they want to do it, and choose to try to do it, they can do it very easily. For men, that is not the case.

Also, I don't know why you keep calling it bragging. It doesn't have to be bragging.

Are people going to have intellectual conversations about sizes and shapes the body parts of people they've had sex with?
Maybe there's a whole field of educated discussion I've been missing out on.

It's very reasonable to assume, if people are talking about these things in public, they're bragging about them.

A woman can ask for advice about sex without indicating the quantity of her sexual partners.

I suppose it would be an issue if she were asking advice about things so different each week that it couldn't possibly be the same person.
"How do you have sex with somebody under four feet tall? What's a good position?"
"How do you have sex with somebody over seven feet tall? I can't figure it out, what's a good position?"
"How do you have sex with a really really fat man, where his belly keeps crushing you? Is there a good method?"
"How do you have sex with a quadriplegic? I can't figure it out, help!"

Sure, that's one conceivable way in which the number of her sexual partners could be conveyed in a non-bragging context.

-Men can ask for advice about manifold sexual situations without stigma.
Oh, wait, no they can't.
"Dude, you're so incompetent, how do you not know how to please a woman? What a loser! Virgin!"

That's probably a tie. You know men aren't allowed to ask for directions; doubly so with sex.

As to the choice idea... I don't think it's really like choosing between chocolate and vanilla soy ice cream.

Do bigots choose to be bigots?

We should spread the idea that the stigma is wrong, and spread liberalism in general.

Or do the other thing, and stigmatize men too.

I don't see why it'd be more harmful than ordinary sex...

It implies a broader array of sexual partners, which increases risk drastically.

Yes, even in a monogamous relationship, your partner will probably cheat on you and may catch a disease from the two or three others and give it to you. But with casual sex, you may have sex with a dozen people a year or more, and each of those dozen with a dozen others.

Sexual transmission and risk is an exponential effect.
Having ten sexual partners is closer to a hundred times as risky than ten times as risky. Maybe more.

But that's an interesting point, then. That doesn't make it right to use a harmful double standard in reaction though.

No, but it may make it wrong to relieve women of the stigma, instead of enforcing the stigma upon men.

It's like in some countries, men are encouraged to smoke, and women are stigmatized for it. This is GOOD for women, and bad for men. Feminists are often so dogmatic about removing stigmas, that they want to make it acceptable for women to smoke too.

Issues like that are not a feminist's job; that's MRAs job to remove the social pressure pushing men into smoking, and to encourage men to value their health.

The stigma there isn't really with having the bowel movements, just talking about them. It's different with the slut thing.

It doesn't apply unless people know about it on the social level. And if you judge yourself for it... well, that's kind of up to you. It's much harder to complain about that kind of thing. It kind of gets into the issue of "free will".

Anyway, as mentioned above, couldn't that be a good thing if it's prevented dangerous behavior?

But using a harmful double standard to combat that isn't really ideal.

No, everybody should be equally stigmatized assuming it's equally harmful. Keep in mind, this was not a stigma that was ADDED to women. This is a stigma that has been REMOVED from men.

For a while it used to be unacceptable for men to talk about these kinds of things too, or have more than one sexual partner in their lives. They still did it, but it was very shameful. The good and noble man god married, and only ever had sex with his wife until he (or she) died.

[brimstoneSalad]

KIP, please try to make one reply post. You can copy the quote tag.

e.g. [quote=''brimstoneSalad'']

When you push quote, copy the first quote tag, and paste it multiple times in front of what you want to quote. Then type out: [/quote] after the section you want to quote.

Make sure you get the whole thing. You can't leave off the [ or the /
[/quote]

According to dictionary.com and other dictionary websites, a privilege is something that is granted. A law or a right that is given to an individual over others.
For something biological you would use different terminology, such as advantage.

Privilege | Define Privilege at Dictionary.com

Which ever 'side' someone is on, they both can make this mistake.

You have misunderstood the argument you just made. You should take some time to think about this more carefully, and you'll be able to realize the mistake you made.

That's my point. Society gives that privilege to men to have multiple sex partners but not to women. So women have to keep quiet about it, but men don't.

Do you understand how that's a completely different privilege, and that talking about sex and having sex are different?

A woman CAN have many partners, she just doesn't have the privilege of bragging about it after.

Different privileges. Women have some privileges, and men have different privileges.
They don't cancel out.

Bragging? I don't want to brag. Men don't need to brag either.

Oh but they think they do.

Just talking about an intimate partner, whether a 'fling' or an ongoing relationship is risky for a woman if she has had many of any kind of relationship. It doesn't have to be a casual one.

Who would she be talking about it to?

People who aren't in a relationship? She shouldn't be doing that. It's just going to make them feel bad, or jealous. Of course they'll call her a slut.

To somebody who is like minded, and in similar relationships? No.

Again, though, I will reiterate that slander is illegal.

I disagree. If strength was the most important factor in rape, then most women would be raped.

If an oven were the most essential tool in making cake, then all baked goods would be cake.
What? No.

Without superior strength, the vast majority of rape regardless of culture would not occur. It's very difficult to rape somebody who is stronger than you.

Without an oven, the vast majority of cakes would not be baked. It's very difficult to bake a cake without an oven.
It doesn't mean if you have an oven, you have to bake a cake. Ovens can be used for other things too, but if you want to bake a cake, you really need an oven.
Take away the oven, and no cake.

Rape is mostly about what society teaches men about women.

That's rhetoric, not reason. It's a ridiculous claim without evidence, and it is rightly ridiculed by the anti-feminist crowd online. It's one of those claims that has been making feminists look irrational lately, and that you have repeated it here is disappointing.

Rape is only slightly influenced by social attitudes. The vast majority of cultures view rape as wrong, and discourage it even to the point of stoning rapists. You will find no evidence of general rape promotion over other crimes in moral terms.

Comparing Islamic and African countries to advanced European ones and pretending you can draw any kind of causative associations from weak correlations is incredibly ignorant.

AND there's not even evidence of the correlation you claim, since reporting is lacking, and you don't have objective data on social attitudes (you're just making assumptions based on anecdotes).
Look at Indonesia! Sweden has almost 100 times more rape! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_stat ... s_2012.png

In order to establish causation in situations like these, you have to control for other social variables.
Such as:

What is the general state of police and social order in these countries? Are any crimes actually prosecuted, or criminals removed from society at a rate comparable to the Western world? How do the consequences of rape compare for would-be rapists?

How about the effect of polygamy? Do you realize the only way a large number of men in these countries will EVER have the chance to have sex is by raping?

How about the state of health care and scientific knowledge? Did you know many men in Africa believe raping virgins or babies to be a cure for aids?

Most men in these countries, with the exception of some immigrants from less egalitarian societies, think that sexual assault of a woman is abhorrent.

These men from third world countries don't think very much about chopping off people's arms or killing people either -- men, women, children.
You have no sense of perspective here. Africa is chaos. You can't say, "oh well if they just had feminism everything would be better, they clearly just haven't been told rape is wrong".

There are cases of rapists in Africa who are doing it to, for example, lesbians because they think it's the right thing to do. They think they need to teach lesbians how to enjoy sex with men by raping it into them, for Jesus.
This IS a knowledge problem; they are just intentionally misinformed about homosexuality.
This is something that can be largely cured with education, unlike most rape.

For the most part, men know what they're doing is wrong. They just don't care, because there are no consequences, and they don't feel like they have any other options due to socioeconomic conditions.

Not equally though, women tend to be less reckless than men with driving jobs. I doubt warehouse jobs will ever be equal as women have less interest generally in this type of work.

Are you the kind of person who brushes off workplace death of men due to differences of preferences and style of work, and then harps on about the supposed wage inequality, when men are (as you just admitted) more likely to take risks and work dangerous jobs?

You need to let go of double standards in evaluating evidence like this.
You can't dismiss a fact (like the difference in workplace deaths) by explaining the variables that account for it, and then complain about another supposed fact (like wage inequality) without taking a close look at those same or similar variables.

-In Australia, my experience has been that many women would prefer to go dutch on paying the bill for a date. Sometimes because they don't want the guy to think she 'owes' him something. Mostly because it's not fair for a guy to pay.

That's great that some women in Australia are choosing to do the right thing. Emphasis on choice. They can have free food if they want it, and leave the man high and dry.
This doesn't negate the privilege, just because some women are choosing not to take advantage of it. You don't give men a pass on privileges they choose not to take advantage of.

If you said "men can pee standing up", and I denied that as a privilege on the grounds that some men choose to sit to pee, would that seem reasonable?

-Society tells men that if they wear women's clothing it is humiliating. This is a sexist issue for women, as they can wear men's clothing and not feel humiliated by it, because there's no shame in looking like a man. But there IS shame in looking like a woman. Most men wouldn't wear female attire because of this reason.

The way you tried to twist this around and make it about the oppression of women when it's men who aren't allowed to wear women's clothes is just insulting.

You would make a good politician, I guess. You seem to have mastered rhetoric. But rhetoric will do no good here; you'll need to form coherent arguments.

I've said it a few times; women have a lot of shit to deal with that's no fair. So do men. Denying the reality of the privileges either party has based on flimsy and irrational excuses isn't helping anybody.

This isn't really a topic that's interesting to me. If you want to continue being irrational about this, that's up to you. I was just trying to help you understand that the one sided view you were taking isn't rational, and that you were making very poor arguments. Even as an advocate for feminism, if you care about feminism, you should aspire to do much better and use an evidence based approach if you want to affect positive change.

[EquALLity]

It is physically easy for them to do, which was my point.

If it is more psychologically difficult for them to choose to do it, or want to do it, that's a completely different issue.

If they want to do it, and choose to try to do it, they can do it very easily. For men, that is not the case.

Ah, I see, ok.

Also I want to add to the psychological issues- It could still hurt people to know that other people would judge them if those people knew the truth about their lives.

Are people going to have intellectual conversations about sizes and shapes the body parts of people they've had sex with?
Maybe there's a whole field of educated discussion I've been missing out on.

It's very reasonable to assume, if people are talking about these things in public, they're bragging about them.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about shapes or whatever.

You gave an example of a way it could happen without bragging, and there are others too.

Anyway, whether or not there should be a stigma for the bragging is a different issue. It's not like women are called a slut only if they're bragging when disclosing information about their sex lives.

Do bigots choose to be bigots?

I didn't say it wasn't a choice.

Or do the other thing, and stigmatize men too.

Maybe that would be good; I think depends on the results of the stigma etc..

It implies a broader array of sexual partners, which increases risk drastically.

Yes, even in a monogamous relationship, your partner will probably cheat on you and may catch a disease from the two or three others and give it to you. But with casual sex, you may have sex with a dozen people a year or more, and each of those dozen with a dozen others.

Sexual transmission and risk is an exponential effect.
Having ten sexual partners is closer to a hundred times as risky than ten times as risky. Maybe more.

Ahhh, I see.

But, even in a monogamous relationship, your partner will probably cheat on you? Most people are cheaters? How did you come to that conclusion?

No, but it may make it wrong to relieve women of the stigma, instead of enforcing the stigma upon men.

I don't think either situations are ideal.

The best solution seems to be for there to be a stigma that produces more good than bad. Maybe just a stigma for doing unhealthy things in general, because they are unhealthy, and education about why casual sex is unhealthy.

It doesn't apply unless people know about it on the social level. And if you judge yourself for it... well, that's kind of up to you. It's much harder to complain about that kind of thing. It kind of gets into the issue of "free will".

I don't think it's necessarily as easy as you seem to suggest, and since men don't have to deal with that issue, I'd consider it a male privilege to not have to deal with that choice.

Also there's the other thing I just added at the top.

Anyway, as mentioned above, couldn't that be a good thing if it's prevented dangerous behavior?

It think depends on whether or not the stigma produces more harm than good, and if it can be replaced with a better one.

[brimstoneSalad]

Also I want to add to the psychological issues- It could still hurt people to know that other people would judge them if those people knew the truth about their lives.

That kind of depends on them.

You gave an example of a way it could happen without bragging, and there are others too.

What others? Getting advice is a legitimate reason to convey information. Otherwise it's just for the sake of having something to say -- gossip, small talk, bragging. Interesting stories are social currency.
You could just listen to other people's stories, or if you're really so boring all you have to talk about is your sex life, maybe pick up a hobby so you're not so boring anymore?

It's kind of like the meat vs. vegan issue. There are other things to eat that serve the same nutritional purpose. There are other things to talk about that serve the same social purpose.

Bragging/gossiping/whatever is an important social currency, but there are many ways to fulfill this.
Some people just make up stories. Actually, a lot of people do. Not saying that's good, but it's an option.

Do bigots choose to be bigots?

I didn't say it wasn't a choice.

I did. Remember that conversation?

This gets into the practical notion of functional free will (as distinct from the theological concept).

But, even in a monogamous relationship, your partner will probably cheat on you? Most people are cheaters? How did you come to that conclusion?

Over 1/3rd of men, and almost as many women (1/5th according to some sources and rising), will admit to cheating on their spouses (married, not just dating, where it's probably more), the actual numbers would be substantially higher.

A more useful metric, at least for women, may be looking at the rate of newborns who are the result of infidelity (unknown to the father, based on DNA testing), which is about 1-2%. This gives a much more reliable random sampling.
From there we'd have to control for any differences in contraception use in infidelity.
But if they're similar, this would suggest somewhere in the range of one incidence of infidelity a year for women, on average, based on sex frequency.
We could look at how many sexual encounters the average affair is, too, which is probably a little under a year, but I don't have good data right now on the number of actual encounters.
Eight years is the average divorced marriage length, but these people will often get married multiple times (80% marry again). Around 40 years for those ending in death, which would be something like 2/3rds of people. Let's say about 32 years on average.
If we assumed the sexual encounters to account for 50% (because the husband IS also having sex with her, otherwise he'd probably be able to figure out the child wasn't his), and infidelity rates don't vary much over time, the average woman has a 98% chance of having one year long affair in the lifetime of her marriages.
Shifting the balance of sex or use of protection could drastically change that number. (Would women be more likely to use protection while cheating if they aren't on the pill? I suspect so.)

That could be shifted based on how many affairs the average person who HAS affairs has. If it's three affairs per person who has affairs (spending 10% of the marriage cheating), then the number would actually be closer to the reports of 1/3rd.

This just deals with women, though, since we don't have evidence of who the babies came from for men (most of the men producing these affair babies may have been single). We could look into this though.

It's something that could be explored in much more detail, bringing in statistics about contraception, and frequency of affairs.

I don't find the numbers reporting 1/3rd as very reliable, given that this is self reporting and something like 90% of Americans consider cheating immoral and so have a motivation to lie (including to themselves: Well, that one didn't count because I was drunk. Or "we were fighting, that's different, it doesn't count").
We would only expect 10% to be particularly honest about it. 1/3rd is more like the minimum.
What's the chance of somebody lying about this? 50%, 60% more?

Hard to say.

[knowledge is power]

Brimstone Salad, since you like to point out how bad my debating skills are, and certainly they need some work, why don't you read this article, as it seems to me that this is what you are engaging in.









4 Things Men Are Really Doing When They ‘Play Devil’s Advocate’ Against Feminism

September 6, 2015 by Melissa A. Fabello



Source: Everyday Feminism

I just did a radio show.

I was asked to come on to talk about street harassment. More specifically, I was asked to discuss this article I wrote on “tatcalling,” or the experience of my tattoos being used as supposed invitations for catcalling (an article that I think people loved, by the way, based on the number of death threats I received post-publication).

So I already knew exactly what to expect.

After being asked a few broad-sweeping questions that repeatedly prompted me to address the oft-claimed defense that street harassment is “just a compliment” (and, uhh, being told that my last name “sounds made-up”), the host specifically asked for other tattooed women to call in and discuss their experiences with their body art and street harassment.

So I really wasn’t surprised when the first call answered was from a dude.

This gentleman claimed, essentially, that this “new wave” of feminism is too sensitive in its insistence that our “personal lives” and experiences have sociopolitical significance.

His argument was that not every situation can be tied back to structural oppression, and that my point about how so-called “harmless compliments” are actually indicative of just how much women’s bodies are not respected in public spaces was absurd.

Then he called me “entitled” – which is funny because he’s the one who took “Tattooed women, call in and share your experiences” to mean, “Random men, let us know your thoughts!”

And I know exactly why he called, why he felt so compelled to share his unoriginal thoughts.

He just wanted to oh-so-importantly give us “the other side of the story,” since my stance was “one-sided” and “slanted.” He just wanted to “intelligently, rationally debate” this topic that he has zero experience with – by letting me know that I’m wrong.

Because, ya know, we so desperately need to know what men think about women’s lives, particularly in regards to how our pain isn’t valid and how a little bit of “common sense” will help us understand just how not oppressed we are – otherwise we’re being misandrist feminists who are only interested in echo chambers and yes men.

Right.

But maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe I really am being “too sensitive.” After all, he was just playing devil’s advocate to my point, right? I mean, why wouldn’t I be grateful for some perspective that I have probably never considered before in my entire life?

If you’re a feminist who spends any amount of time on the Internet, you know exactly what I’m talking about: You post that article about the wage gap on Facebook, and all of a sudden, all of these cis, white, straight dudes come out of the woodwork to remind you that the statistics are faulty, that women take more time off of work, that women just don’t like STEM fields – all under the guise of “playing devil’s advocate” – as if you’ve never heard these arguments before.

And it is a guise.

Because most people who play devil’s advocate (a legitimate debating tool where one speaks for a perspective not currently present in an attempt to get someone else to, after taking into consideration this new information, reconsider their viewpoint) with feminists aren’t actually doing that at all.

So, just in case positioning oneself as legal counsel to Satan isn’t concerning enough, I want to lay out why, especially as feminists and social justice advocates, we roll our eyes at so-called “devil’s advocacy.” We know that in reality, you’re actually probably just about to do one of these four things.

1. You’re Regurgitating (And Reinforcing) the Common Status Quo

What’s amusing about the aforementioned man calling into that radio show to make his case is this: The bulk of the interview thus far had been the host telling me what men tend to think about women’s discomfort with street harassment.

That means that I spent a lot of time offering my rebuttal, backed up by both feminist analysis and lived experience – neither of which most men who refute the notion of street harassment as offensive have.

And then this fellow called in to… repeat… all of those positions.

This man – who I think thought he was acting as some kind of hero to mankind – called in to regurgitate the stances that I had already rebuked.

And those stances – the popularly accepted viewpoints on any given topic – are known as “the status quo.”

When sociologists use the term “status quo,” what’s being referred to is the currently existing social structures and values of any given culture at any given time. It’s basically the generally established “way that things are.”

The work of most feminists and other anti-oppression activists is to challenge the status quo, or push society to reevaluate the “way that things are,” notice the ways in which they’re harmful, and work to eradicate them.

So when you “play devil’s advocate,” you’re quite literally repeating the status quo, telling us stuff that we already know – because not only do we, too, live in this space and time and therefore comprehend the norms of this cultural and historical place, but we also are actively thinking outside of that box, which first requires us to know that box really, really well.

And you’re not-so-radically reinforcing that we should remain in that box.

That is: You’re not saying anything enlightening. You’re basically responding to our asking “But what if 2 + 2 could equal 5?” with “I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, but 2 + 2 equals 4.”

2. You’re Disrespecting Our Critical Thinking Skills

Whenever someone responds to my critique of the culture in which we live with what they believe to be a deep conundrum or contradiction, my first thought is, “Wow. You have absolutely no respect for me as an intellectual being.”

Now, I’ll be the first to say that I don’t think we should value intellect (and particularly the narrow definition that we allow for it) as a trait (hi, that’s ableist) – and yes, I know that you devil’s advocates out there want to argue that intellect and its associated innovation is valuable to the propagation of our species – but I do think that we should respect one another for whichever ways our smarts show up for us.

For some of us, smarts show up in our critical analysis skills, or our abilities to analyze, evaluate, reconceptualize, and communicate ideas.

And when you regurgitate the status quo to us – reestablishing the norms that we’re trying to move past by interrupting our thought processes in asking us to reconsider ideas that we’ve already contemplated deeply – you’re signaling to us that you don’t trust our ability to think critically.

Oftentimes, what makes this even more frustrating is that the suggestion is because we’re of the identities to which we’re speaking (like women talking about women’s experiences), our stances are inherently slanted.

You withhold trust in our ability to rationalize because you assume that our points of view are influenced by our experiences – as if your perspectives aren’t equally slanted by yours.

Here’s a frustrating news flash for devil’s advocates: There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. It can’t exist because we all bring values to the table when we try to solve a problem “objectively.”

So are feminists biased? Women? People of color? Yes. We (and they) are.

But what makes you assume that the perspective of, for example, a white man isn’t biased, isn’t affected by your social positionality?

I’ll tell you why: It’s because you’re so used to living in a world that affirms and validates your experience as “the way things are” that you’ve never been asked to consider those biases.

It’s because, again, you’re repeating the status quo, which by virtue of its existence goes unquestioned.

And when you assume that our conclusions fell from the sky or came to us magically through the lens of bitter experience, you’re assuming that you’re past falling victim to subjectivity and are therefore the only ones in the conversation who can think critically for yourselves.

3. You’re Positioning Your Thoughts As More Valuable Than Our Lived Experiences

I wish that I was exaggerating here, but in all honesty, a typical Facebook conversation between a feminist and a layperson (especially one who is a straight, cis man) goes like this:

—Street harassment is offensive.

—No it isn’t. It’s a compliment.

—I think that’s up to me to decide. And I don’t take it as a compliment.

—But you should. It’s harmless.

—It’s not harmless. It’s embarrassing, violating, and sometimes even threatening.

—That’s ridiculous. You should be flattered.

—But I’m not. It frustrates and offends me.

—Please. Women love it when men tell them that they’re beautiful.

At which point, up to a dozen other women will comment, explaining why street harassment hurts them, even going so far as to link to more stories and research to support their stances. Even some feminist-minded dudes will jump in to try and talk some sense into the offending asshole. But the latter will continue to stand by his opinion, despite the mounting proof that he’s entirely wrong.

I’ve seen this happen – yes, even just around the topic of street harassment, let alone a million other issues – over and over and over again.

What this kind of devil’s advocate doesn’t understand is that his (often unsolicited) opinion on an issue does not trump the lived experiences and valid emotions of the marginalized person’s story – especially when that narrative is a near-universal one.

The truth is, you can’t rationalize your way out of how people experience their existence. Trust me: Sometimes I wish I could change my perspective on something and therefore experience this world in a less terrible way, but I can’t.

Because no matter how many men tell us that their intent in catcalling is harmless, it’s still going to be offensive.

Because your thoughts – no matter how well-intentioned, well-thought-out, or well-researched they are – simply pale in comparison to living in a marginalized body that experiences the trauma of oppression.

It must be glorious to be in such a position of power that you have the privilege to pontificate on the idea of oppression.

But when you interrupt a conversation built on years of experience and synthesizing to add your “devil’s advocate” “two cents” on what you think about it, you’re positioning your five seconds of contemplation as equal to or more valuable than someone’s actual life.

4. You’re Shutting Down a Conversation Instead of Adding to It

I’m going to tell you something that you don’t want to hear (and I know you don’t because when I was learning this, I sure as hell didn’t either): Your opinion doesn’t always matter.

I know that we – and especially those of us in positions of privilege – are taught from a young age that an opinion can’t be right or wrong and that our thoughts about the world are important and worth sharing. But I hate to break it to you: That’s bullshit.

There are times when your perspective on the world will be invaluable – because only you have it in the exact way that you do, and it most certainly has the power to change the world, for better or for worse, in some regard. But that’s not always.

And when your opinion – or what you think is a fascinating new lens through which to see the world – reinforces the status quo, disrespects the person with whom you’re engaging, and takes up unnecessary space, you’re actually not adding to the conversation. You’re shutting it down.

And whether you realize it or not – whether you mean to or not – that’s oppressive as all hell.

So, ya know, just to play devil’s advocate here, I want to give you an idea to chew on: Maybe sometimes, instead of inserting your opinion, it’s better to pay attention to the conversation than to add to it redundantly and reductively.

Now that would make Satan proud.




Melissa A. Fabello, Co-Managing Editor of Everyday Feminism, is a sexuality educator, eating disorder and body image activist, and media literacy vlogger based out of Philadelphia. She enjoys rainy days, Jurassic Park, and the occasional Taylor Swift song and can be found on YouTube and Tumblr. She holds a B.S. in English Education from Boston University and an M.Ed. in Human Sexuality from Widener University. She is currently working on her PhD.





I suggest you check out the Atheist foundation of Australia (AFA) for more information on actual sexism and feminism in the thread titled 'All things sexist - a resource thread' Many people there will explain things better than I apparently can.

[brimstoneSalad]

why don't you read this article, as it seems to me that this is what you are engaging in.

I read it, and it is not. Did you read it?
I prefer to focus on facts. Opinions are very close to useless. Personal 'opinions' even more so.

You made a claim: That female privilege doesn't exist. You were corrected.
That's all it has to be.
Your lists of male privilege were mostly correct.

We can make lists of male AND female privilege all day. There are a lot of things wrong with society, wrong with biology too.

And as I said, it's OK if you just want to focus on feminism and don't care about men's rights; fuck em' that's fine.
Each side needs advocacy, just like a trial, and they need to fight, and they need to come to certain compromises.
This is the court of public opinion, essentially.

Chances are both sides will never be entirely happy, because there are competing interests at hand.

since you like to point out how bad my debating skills are, and certainly they need some work,

A large portion of the article discussed being intellectually disrespected. I hope the irony was not lost on you.

I appreciate that you feel passionately about this, but you should try to argue your own case so you can learn and improve your debating ability. When you post things like this that make it clear you didn't actually understand what I said, it's not helpful.

You are essentially doing what the article said that men do when they try to play devil's advocate. You've posted something unrelated that doesn't address the actual points made, and has not added to the conversation. You have disrespected my intelligence by posting this, as if you think it addresses what's going on here and I don't know this already.

I'm not playing "devil's advocate", or pretending to, I'm not a feminist. Along the God-Devil spectrum, I'm an atheist here. I'm correcting a narrow subset of false claims you have made, and trying to shut down the rhetoric machine that was building into a flame war. And FYI, you have no reason to believe I'm a man.

Now, I’ll be the first to say that I don’t think we should value intellect (and particularly the narrow definition that we allow for it) as a trait (hi, that’s ableist)

The author of that article is a moron. She left her brain somewhere, and doesn't seem interested in finding it again. Or maybe she's just a liar.

Either you believe ALL animals are equal, from a dust mite to a human, and it's equally wrong to kill a mite and a man, or you're ableist (which is actually rational, because it ascribes moral value based on ability in cognition), or you're a speciesist (which is just as irrational as the initial proposition).

Which one are you?

1. You believe mites and humans are morally equal
2. You're ableist and believe beings with little to no cognitive ability have less value than highly intelligent and sentient ones
3. You're a speciesist, and think non-humans have no moral value, and all humans have equal moral value by virtue only of having 'human' DNA.

Multiple choice here. Please answer.

You withhold trust in our ability to rationalize because you assume that our points of view are influenced by our experiences – as if your perspectives aren’t equally slanted by yours.

She also doesn't know what words mean.

If you want to quote an article, please quote a better one from somebody intelligent. I would be delighted to meet an intelligent feminist. Unfortunately, the rhetoric involved seem to rot people's brains. That goes for many MRA too.

4. You’re Shutting Down a Conversation Instead of Adding to It

Political rhetoric isn't really a legitimate conversation. But if you consider it one, then yes; I'm shutting down the political rhetoric. It's hostile and unproductive toward actual understanding of these issues.

This is why I don't recommend a video be made about this. People's critical thinking skills get shut down when rhetoric gets involved. It would start a shit storm. I'm trying to stop the shit storm.

The fact that she considers anything she does a "conversation" is actually quite disturbing.

I suggest you check out the Atheist foundation of Australia (AFA) for more information on actual sexism and feminism in the thread titled 'All things sexist - a resource thread' Many people there will explain things better than I apparently can.

I can assure you that I don't have anything to learn from these people; rhetoric is not useful outside its sphere, and feminism is not my profession.
I might be able to teach them a thing or two about critical thinking if they'll check the rhetoric at the door, but I don't think any of them are going to be willing to do that.
If you think any of them are up to it, feel free to invite them here.

I'm really not interested in arguing about feminism, though. I just wanted to shut down the rhetoric and show the facts of the matter -- that there are two sides here, and they both have good and bad ideas, and that the conflict is both logically insoluble due to naturally conflicting interests, and also important at the same time; so it's one that can probably only be advanced adversarially.
There isn't really a perfect "equalist" position here that rationally combines feminism and MRA, because there's no rationally apparent balance there.

I hope you have gained something from this.

[knowledge is power]

You made a claim: That female privilege doesn't exist. You were corrected.

Please show me where I made this claim.

You seem to not be as rational as you think you are. You are making unsupported claims about my stance on things. Making assumptions on my and other women's frames of mind.

Clearly we are getting nowhere. My only advice I can give you now is to listento what women say about their experiences. Don't make assumptions, Don't assume we are all brainwashed. That is misogyny right there, that women don't know their own minds.

[DiscreteElite_]

Oh my goodness. There are so many replies.

I will post my refutations much later, but not now. I have finals next week and I have to prepare a game during the time this is done being posted. My refutations will consist of facts and putting your words in a different context--where you'd most likely see it as wrong; you'll see what I mean.

[brimstoneSalad]

You made a claim: That female privilege doesn't exist. You were corrected.

Please show me where I made this claim.

If you agree now that female privilege also exists (as male privilege does), then you expressed that very poorly (I believe you are being dishonest here, but maybe you haven't realized that you changed your mind in this thread).
This was the claim I was contesting, by giving examples of female privilege (I don't deny that males and females have different disadvantages AND advantages alike).

I'm just trying to provide an even and fair/unbiased voice of reason in this often heated conflict.

Don't make assumptions, Don't assume we are all brainwashed. That is misogyny right there, that women don't know their own minds.

Now you're just making personal attacks. Keep it to the issue: the matter of male vs. female privilege. They both have advantages and disadvantages in society, and that's the only important point to this; it's not intellectually honest to focus on one in ignorance of the other.

I hope you'll be more even handed in the future, and present yourself more politely on these topics. Just because somebody is not a feminist, doesn't mean that person is a bad human being. Try to understand others' arguments in good faith in the future.

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh my goodness. There are so many replies.

I will post my refutations much later, but not now. I have finals next week and I have to prepare a game during the time this is done being posted. My refutations will consist of facts and putting your words in a different context--where you'd most likely see it as wrong; you'll see what I mean.

Welcome back!
Looking forward to it.