Tonight my friend was talking about how certain breeds of dog were good for certain things. Some are faster, some are better at smelling, and so on.
Luckily, I was there to call her out on her racist stereotyping.
In all seriousness though, why does nobody accept that races are different? If something can be scientifically provable, if a difference is factually true, then it cannot be racist. It’s only racist when you generalise or enforce or discriminate, or when you prevent the truth with a stigma.
The same goes for gender. Sexual dimorphism is a thing, and it is a thing in our species. Men and women have different bodies and different capabilities. It cannot be sexist to say what is scientifically true, and so it is ridiculous to contest fact simply on the basis of equality. Mathematicians and logicians may understand it as the difference between 
and 
.
Men and women are equal, in that we value them equally, but this does not mean that they are identical. Likewise, it does not mean that they cannot be unequal in certain areas, such as the frequently discussed one: strength.
I’ve seen it argued that evidence that women are on average physically weaker than men is due to the sole fact that these people were brought up as women. It’s all society, nurture rather than nature. Women are told that they are weak, by sexists who fail to understand that men and women are biologically identical, and thus they become weak.
Obviously this isn’t true. Even women who are raised from an early age to be Olympic athletes end up competing over shorter distances and with much lighter and smaller equipment than their male colleagues, and yet the male athletes continue to out-perform them. If nurture was the dominant force behind this, it would take just one woman out of the entire world’s population to be raised without being told she was weak before this gap could be completely destroyed; and yet this has never happened.
Saying that men are stronger, then, is not sexist. Strength is not even the inherently good thing that feminists make it out to be (and yes, it is feminists doing this: ‘but these stereotypes can’t hurt men, because they suggest that men are strong’). Men have suffered a lot due to being considered strong, whether from facing higher expectations to work harder for longer and financially support their families, or being seen as fighters and sent to be slaughtered on the battlefield, disproportionately targeted for assault and disproportionately scapegoated and convicted for violent crime. Being better at sport, as well as facing much higher expectations to be good at sport (I doubt that a girl with my dyspraxia would face anywhere near the level of bullying that I did), is just one facet of a dimorphic characteristic. It’s not an inherently good or bad stereotype: it has advantages and disadvantages, like all stereotypes, and it restricts its subjects into those specific roles. Saying that average women are physically weaker then average men is about as sexist as saying that they grow less facial hair.
It might be nice for equality if we were all one gender, one race, one sexuality, but we’re not, and it’s harmful to pretend otherwise. By all means remove the stigma - in a world where men are no longer expected to fight to survive (historical sexism for you there) they no longer need to be strong, and so the objectification and body-shaming of muscular and non-muscular men is become a serious issue akin to that of female body-policing (with male eating disorders more common than you may think), whilst the policing of men’s emotions for ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’ are just as damaging - but this doesn’t change the truth. ‘Real men are strong’ is sexist, ‘men are on average stronger’ is not; and neither is ‘women are on average weaker’. Being less physically strong than somebody else does not make you their inferior. When feminists talk about stereotypes in this regard, substituting ‘physically weak’ for ‘lesser’, they are not only erasing the suffering of men for being considered strong, but they are adding the stigma which converts truth to sexism themselves. The truth alone is not sexist, but their patriarchal interpretation makes it so.
A true egalitarian can realise this, and realise that true, biological facts about differences in races or genders can not in themselves be racist: it is only how we use them. Those who take offence, then, are those who are using them wrongly. When I say ‘women are typically weaker’, I don’t mean ‘women are typically lesser’. But when feminists take it as such, they are the ones equating the two concepts, and so they are the ones degrading ‘weak’ women (feminist anti-femininity has long been established as a problem; strong independent women are no more ‘real women’ than weak, dependent ones, and pressuring women either way is equally as harmful). Being physically weak is nothing to be ashamed of, and although it can be used as an insult, it should not universally be taken as such. This dimorphism, like racial genetic differences, is natural; and we are fools if we try to deny it.
You know when we talk about racial profiling?
Black men are always being unfairly targeted. Black men are always being disproportionately prosecuted. Black men recieve harsher sentences. Black men are more likely to recieve capital punishment, even when all other factors are taken into account.
You know how we always conclude “this is obviously because we’re racist against blacks”?
We’re missing a factor there. These victims all share another characteristic: they are men. You may be interested to know that even when race is controlled for, men are just as unfairly targeted in all of these areas. So yes, this is sexual profiling as well. In fact, a white man is more worse off than a white woman than a black woman is worse off than a white women. The effect of gender in this injustice is massively underacknowledged.
Black people suffer in court, men suffer in court, and black men suffer most of all. They are more likely to be prosecuted than if they were white, a woman, or both. What’s more, they are more likely to be prosecuted if their alleged victim is a white woman, than if they were another black man. This is easy to explain away as racism, but again controls show that sexism is just as much a part of this. To Kill a Mockingbird is a novel about racial injustice, but a black woman wouldn’t be so easily falsely prosecuted of raping a white man, so such cases are every bit about misandry as well.
So why do the stereotypes align so well? Men are degraded as rough and crude and violent in a similar way to black people, whilst women are seen as dainty and elegant and innocent just as white people are. I’ve noticed a trend to call white animals female and black animals male.
In fact, there was a study a while ago that suggested that statistics showed black women to be seen as the most unattractive. This was seen as racist, but the study showed that black men were if anything seen as more attractive than white men, so if it was racist against black people on the female result it was equally and oppositely racist against white people on the male one. Regardless, it’s interesting the way these patterns overlap. Do we see attractiveness in this way because of the way the stereotypes fit, with black and male as good a match as white and female?
Black is supposedly the colour of power, and men are certainly expected and pressured into being powerful - in fact, they are objectified on their status and this is a primary factor in how attractive they can appear. White is seen as a more sophisticated colour, and so our racism may well join with our sexism in suggesting that it therefore suits women. Let us not forget that women are expected and pressured into being graceful and innocent, and so these stereotypes do not fit with the black ones, which are better suited to the cruder but more powerful men. Our society reflects this: even on their wedding days women are expected to wear white and men are expected to wear black. There really does seem to be some sort of subconscious link in our minds as to what seems ‘right’.
The net result is that black men get a double dose of being percieved as more likely to be violent and aggressive, whilst white women get let off on both counts. Likewise, white women might experience misogynistic stereotypes of being weak and so on more than black women do (I’ve certainly heard that they recieve much more chivalry). So we can see that sexism and racism feed off each other where they fit, combining two injustices into one, although we must be careful to note that both biases also continue independently (so although black women may experience less misogyny in certain areas, other aspects of racism mean that this does not make them less oppressed).
Thoughts?
Two girls in study hall. (via microaggressions)
….
This reminds me of the two girls walking and talking in front of me while I was rushing to class in Sweden. I was late, but damned I was tempted to just skip class to yell at them.
While I overtook ‘em, in my hurry, I heard them talking.
They were talking about how “women’s rights” campaigns had actually made life “worse” for women and that it was shitty how they were expected to earn their own living when they really just wanted to marry men who could work “for” them….
I should have just skipped class because I didn’t learn jack shit in it because their voices were rattling in my brain the entire time.
(via miniar)(Source: microaggressions)
To begin: I do not believe that White people are oppressed in that way. I have never said that. All that I said was that advocating genocide against an entire racial group would be racist. In every meaning of the word but one, it is. This therefore isn’t me trying to redefine words to benefit me, because I use the common sense and historical and academic definitions, the ones the words were invented to mean and still mean to the vast majority of people today. Besides, being able to stick up for myself against somebody who wants me killed because of my skin colour is not a ‘benefit’, it should be a basic human right. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be okay to deprive me of that right because of my race? On the other hand, twisting definitions so that you can say such offensive things and get away with it most certainly is an undeserved benefit. You took the bait and even put a cute little trigger warning for whitesplaining? So when I say “it’s not cool to want all of my people dead”, and a black person comes in and attacks me, that’s me speaking over them or claiming non-existent authority over their issues? I’m pretty sure that this was a discussion amongst whites, about whites, and proposing nothing new. If you want to come in with your ignorance and be violent, you can, but I did ask you not to derail it by making it about you. I won’t ask again. On that note, what is with referring to me as ‘whitey’? You’re the third in the row. I wonder if you’d be less hostile if I too referred to you with racial slurs instead of making logical points about my own harassment that you just keep misunderstanding. Maybe I should sink down to your level. Oh, and yes these are my own personal experiences, as well as my experiences as a White person. I can’t whitesplain over my own experiences, unless you’ve completely failed to get the point and gone off attacking a straw man. Which you have. Oh dear. On a more basic level we’re talking about language, and so you seem to be suggesting that my whiteness is interfering with the way I understand a language created and mostly spoken by White people. No. My race is irrelevant. The fact is that the word racism means one thing, and racial oppression is something else. If you want to say ‘racial oppression doesn’t hurt dumb whiteys like you’ then that’s fine. But that is not the same as saying that racism (you know, the real definition) can’t be anti-white, because it so obviously can. Saying that you want all White people killed is racist, and no matter how much you try to squirm out of that definition, it won’t make what you said right or ‘healthy’.[TW FOR WHITESPLAINING, MENTION OF GENOCIDE, PRIVILEGE DENYING]
So recently this has been getting pretty bad. I see somebody posting a quote and saying ‘I agree with this quote, but I almost didn’t post it because it’s from a white guy’. I see ‘I hate white people’ posts, people suggesting all white people are ignorant or filling some sort of offensive stereotype, people getting upset when a white person reblogs them on an unrelated topic because ‘white people are invading my safe space’, people harassing others for being white, and then laughing at the typical ‘dumb whiteys’ when they get offended.
This has all been allowed to happen because somebody decided to say ‘black people can’t be racist’.
Let’s get this straight. If you say ‘white people all deserve to die’, there is no way in hell that this isn’t racist. Everybody is racist at some level, it’s a natural human flaw, and you are no exception. You aren’t perfect because you aren’t white. You don’t get a ‘get out of jail free’ card to bully and offend whomever you choose. You are as accountable as anybody.
I know I’ll probably be accused of ‘whitesplaining’ (because white people can’t have a valid opinion when it comes to their own harassment), and told that ‘black people can’t be racist’. But why is this?
Racism = Prejudice + Power
Behold: the racist’s trump card. A definition that does not fit with the original definition of racism, with it’s etymology, with any current major definition, or with the common usage of the word. This is a definition that has just been invented as a cop-out, which has no real validity and which doesn’t even make much sense.
Racism is the belief that different races have different intrinsic characteristics, which can make them superior or inferior to each other. All sorts of generalisations and stereotypes come under this, no matter which race they are aimed at. Any sort of prejudice based on race comes under this definition, and therefore counts as racism. So all of the statements above count, no matter who said them. Racism can therefore be defined as follows:
Racism = Prejudice + Race
This actually fits what the word means, and what it is has always been generally understood to mean.
So why the confusion? I have a feeling that the racists are getting confused with oppression. Oppression is where power comes into it - it is the use of power in a cruel and unjust way. Unjust can mean double standards, which can mean prejudice. So we could define oppression to fit the gap:
Oppression = Prejudice + Power
Oppression can be race-based, and the racists above would have a point here. They would be able to say that white people have typically held more power, and therefore been the racial oppressors. They could say ‘black people can’t racially oppress’. But this is in no way the same thing as ‘black people can’t be racist’, because racism in itself doesn’t involve power.
Racial Oppression = Prejudice + Power + Race
Racial Oppression = Oppression + Race
Racial Oppression = Racism + Power
The racists might also be interested to look at things from beyond a black and white perspective. They might like to realise that racial oppression, including slavery and genocide, has been going on long before Western powers emerged and continues to happen around the world today. White culture has just been the most powerful and thus the most prominent enforcer of racism, but nearly every culture throughout history has been involved in some sort, and nearly every person has been guilty of holding prejudices.
This is not a white thing, and it is offensive (and racist) to suggest that it is. It is also offensive to be racist, to mock somebody when they have the courage to call you out, and then to derail them by coming up with some nonsense definition which paints them as the eternal villain. I can’t get off being charged for murder by saying “ah, but I define murder as killing + smearing my face in custrd, and there was no custard in the house”, and you are no different. If you are going to be racist, no matter what colour you are, you deserve to be held accountable. No more racial immunity.
Yes, you are “whitesplaining” not “because white people can’t have a valid opinion when it comes to their own harassment”, but because you demonstrate a lack of understanding of why racism is an “-ism” (a systemic oppression) and not just people being jerks to each-other (which is pretty much what it is when someone says your opinion on race doesn’t matter “because you’re white”).
You try to discredit the “oppression = prejudice + power” metric because it doesn’t suit you, basically. This isn’t something that People of Color came up with so we could “oppress” whitey; it’s a definition that takes into account all the effects of racism that make it ‘oppression’ & (again) not just people being jerks to each-other. Moreover, it’s not something that was devised glibly or without serious consideration & intent and, once you truly understand what this means, you’ll also understand that there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that white people are oppressed at a systemic level because of their whiteness.
They might like to realise that racial oppression, including slavery and genocide, has been going on long before Western powers emerged and continues to happen around the world today.
You’re on the right track here, but you still miss the mark by a wide margin.
First, the idea of “race” that we, in the US & Western Europe, have is something very specific to our cultural heritage. Also, it was devised by people of European heritage to justify their systems of mistreating people who were not of European heritage.
Once you understand this, you should be able to understand that instances of genocide in other parts of the world were not related to “race” as we understand them. They weren’t committed against people of origins from a very different part of the world; most cases were one ethnic group against another—people who we’d think of as being the same “race”, but who exist in different spheres of cultural history. The same is true of historical slavery—which wasn’t usually anything like the history of slavery in the US. In most cases, slaves could be of any cultural or ethnic group and were often the same “race” as their slave-masters. In addition, most cases of historical slavery were truly more like Indentured Servitude, by our current understanding of the idea.
There were some exceptions that were less kind & more cruel (ie, more like slavery in the US), but to say that the history of slavery around the world was exactly like it was in the US is ignorant & lazy.
White culture has just been the most powerful and thus the most prominent enforcer of racism, but nearly every culture throughout history has been involved in some sort, and nearly every person has been guilty of holding prejudices.
This is true, but race-based prejudice, in itself, is not the same as racism, which is a systemic oppression whose purpose & goal is to maintain a one-way system of mestreatment which results in a difference in access to resources.
I can’t get off being charged for murder by saying “ah, but I define murder as killing + smearing my face in custrd, and there was no custard in the house”
It’s true, you can’t. But you’re also just being absurd. And showing how unaware you are of the role of white privilege (among other things).
When someone says they’re discrediting what you’ve said ‘because you’re white’, most likely, that phrase is shorthand for: “…because your experience of being part of the oppressor group in this equation has made it very difficult for you to understand the oppressions we are discussing—and it shows.”
While there’s no reason to believe that racism is inherent to whiteness, the current social structures we live in have made whiteness an essential part of enforcing race-based oppressive systems. Therefore, there is no way to support the idea that white people are oppressed on the basis of their whiteness. There are simply no examples of ways this is occurring at a systemic level—because it’s not.
In the end, what you’ve been describing & attempting to rail against is Healthy Cultural Paranoia, which is a horse of an entirely different color. You should meet said horse. It will only help you in your journey in learning how to be less of an asshat.
Can anyone think of a situation in western society where a white, cis man could be in a bar or walking down the street, generally just going about his business alone and be scared to be a man?
Because I could lists dozens of real life examples women face, but I’m struggling to think of a situation that it would suck to be a cis man all alone.
What prejudices would he face?
The fact that no obvious examples spring to mind tell me feminism is still needed.Not because he’s a man per se, but often times because someone isn’t white would be a reason for them to be afraid. Also I know a guy who openly wears anti-swastika patches and he once got street harassed by neo-nazis who then got out of their car and chased him down, pummeled him. (I’m not saying that male privilege doesn’t exist as far as moving through public spaces and certainly there’s a lot of misogynists, dangerous ones at that, than there are racists or neo-nazis, but there are some cases where a cis-man can be in danger in public.)
But none of those are because he is male. Wearing anti-nazi iconography and being attacked by neo-nazis is not an example of neo-nazis deciding “OH hey its a man alone at night, lets attack him!” it’s “Oh hey that guy doesn’t respect our ideology! Let’s attack him!”
The fact that the man could be queer but cis is an obviously overlooked point, in the original post, especially since queer people of any sex are disproportionately targetted for abuse and violence. But again, that wouldn’t be because the person was a man.
(And I’ve been blatantly harassed for my autism, as well, even while being read as a man by most passerbys)
I mean, I’m really grossed out by people who say that mean don’t experience sexism, because um, heterosexism and cissexism are both sexism, and feminism tends to forget that there’s more to sexism then misogyny. But still, men are not categorically oppressed by sexism.
If the man is afraid of something, it’s probably not that he’s a man, or at the very least, there are some intersections going on there.
Men are frequently scared to be men when walking past pubs alone in the evening. A hell of a lot of men I know have been beaten up because they happen to be walking past a gang who want to show they’re “tough” or past a pub with some aggressive drunk people hanging out outside. Men are far more likely to be attacked, statistically, and it is dishonest to try and dismiss this by saying “Oh well it’s not specifically for being a man”. It’s also dishonest to pretend the only time men are ever targeted in a racist way is when ethnic minorities are spotted by “neo-nazis”. Just… no. There’s a lot of black v south asian/middle eastern violence in areas such as Birmingham and the Times recently reported some South Asian men telling a middle aged black woman to get out of a bus stop because “black people aren’t welcome anymore”. Black gang members often attack and rob lone white men. White football gangs often attack South Asian people and their businesses. This little pretence that the only people who commit racial attacks are bogeymen “neo-nazis” (who are so tiny in number they must be managing to get around a hell of a lot and manage to escape police pretty damn prolifically) is achingly politically correct and utterly blind to actual problems.
Back to the “it’s not because they’re a man” fallacy. What sort of attack is committed on women “just because they’re a woman”? Going by the “logic” of, “oh it wasn’t because he was a man it was because he was wearing anti-Nazi regalia and the thugs didn’t like his ideology,” one could argue sex attacks “aren’t because she’s a woman but because the man wanted sex,” and it also completely disregards the fact that men are victims of sex attacks too. One could argue women who are beaten and robbed aren’t beaten and robbed because of being a woman but because the people wanted to steal something, plus men are more frequently badly attacked when robbed and this reiterates the fact that men are more unsafe when walking the streets than women are. Hey look, this link from the national statistics site quite clearly states that men are more likely to be the victim of violent crime.
People need to get their heads out of the sand here and stop manipulating things to further their political dogma.
“Can anyone think of a situation in western society where a white, cis man could be in a bar or walking down the street, generally just going about his business alone and be scared to be a man?”
You start with a fallacy. See, you’re certainly right that many women are “scared to be women” in these places, but is that a founded fear? Arguably not. Women are far less likely to be attacked than men, and people of either gender are far more likely to step in and defend them.
Women have the right to be safe, but that does not include the right to feel safe. Men aren’t scared to be men because they’re taught not to be, whereas women are scared because they’re taught to be that way. This is despite the fact that when we look at the actual numbers, we find that men have far more reason to be scared than women. Thus, we have to consider that someone being “scared” has little to do with actual risk. Fear of zombies can be at an all-time high, but that means fuck-all about the number of corpses wandering the streets.
Eateroftrees, if you want “categorically oppressed by sexism” how about looking into the court system, period. If you don’t see “categorically oppressed” then you’re frankly too stupid to be worth my time. If you figure it out after looking, I’m happy to talk about it more and help enlighten you a bit.
While it might be relatively rare for a man to be specifically targeted for his sex, it’s similarly rare for a woman to be targeted simply for being a woman. That said, there are many cases where a man is subject to an attack that simply wouldn’t have happened had he been a woman. For example, most people won’t physically attack a woman over a disagreement, but many are willing to get physical with a man. Thus, arguably, any case where a man is attacked due to a disagreement he was targeted for being a man. A huge number of cases fit this or other similar paradigms.
Even looking into the racist examples mentioned, we see this kind of thing. In my experience, when it comes to assault due to racism the victims are overwhelmingly men. Women might get verbally assaulted, but it’s much less likely to get physical.
The long and short of it is that most of those “dozens of examples” are unfounded crap. The woman might be scared to be a woman, but that’s stupidity, not actual danger. Men on the other hand might not be scared, but they’re in far more danger. Additionally, men face far greater danger “simply for being a man” than women face “simply for being a woman. This is plain, simple, (in most cases) scientifically backed fact, not conjecture and dogma. The fact that you can thing of “dozens of examples” that women face but not a single one that men face tells me that people like me are still desperately needed to educate people like you.
The original post could be phrased a lot better. At the moment it is suggesting that we need feminism to make men feel scared, and I’m hoping that’s not the intentional meaning (although, having met the radical feminists I have, it wouldn’t be the first).
Besides, the fact that the OP can’t think of any anti-male prejudice doesn’t prove anything, apart from that the OP is privileged, and therefore is understandably ignorant in the case of misandry - and therefore shouldn’t be speaking over male suffering as non-existent without having done some serious research, because claims like that are big and offensive and harmful. It also teaches us that our patriarchal society does a very good job at teaching us that men can’t be victims. Or that feminism does a very good job at teaching us that men can’t be victims. Or that our inner sexist stereotypes do.
The fact of the matter is, there are examples out there. Plenty. Feminism is needed, sure, but masculism is if anything needed even more, to make up for all the privilege-denying women claiming a monopoly on suffering because it suits their agenda. Feminism is good, feminists often aren’t (no I’m not just saying that because I hate women - my issues with feminism go deeper, and you’d have to look through so many of my posts to understand them fully. These are a start).
But yeah. As the commentaries above have pointed out, male suffering is a thing, and female suffering and female fear are completely different issues. Happy reading.
(Source: creepyowly)
![permutationofninjas:
youwouldreblogtoanything:
permutationofninjas:
I normally try to avoid stuff like this unless there’s commentary worth talking about, but this is an interesting thing here.
One thing many wannabe feminists don’t seem to realize is that gaining equality means giving up privilege. Women enjoy even (if not especially) now an extraordinary amount of privilege, and one of the major things that the feminist movement has tried very hard to do is to remove any kind of discrimination or oppression against women without removing any of the privilege.
Equality is for everyone, and it cuts both ways. It means no privilege, no oppression. Feminists, consider your own privilege, and learn to give it up. It means no “ladies first”, no “women and children first”, no “you can’t hit girls”, but also no more “women make better parents”, no more “women are more emotionally in touch” and no more “women are less violent”. (Not to mention that all of these things are pretty much bullshit.)
Most women simply take these things for granted. They’ve had this stuff all their life, and unlike men they’ve never had someone try to tell them it’s not OK. Our culture refuses to tell women to consider these things, so women have to learn to do it for themselves. (Most men want to, but being serious feminism has done everything in its power to attack anybody who even brings things like this up.) It’s hard to be honest with oneself, but I think women are up to it. They’re equals, right? Perhaps this is the way they prove it.
There is this new phenomenon called “Inclusive feminism” (actually that’s bullshit, it isn’t new at all. More people are recognizing it for what it is now.)
It basically, from what I understand anyway, takes the core value of feminism (Equality) and actually applies it to all aspects of feminism. Basically it is inclusive to males, females, non cisgender individuals, as well as gender neutral individuals.
Basically, to make a long story short, it is the exact opposite of what many many people believe feminism to be (Man hating, gendercide approving, women-must-rule-the-world lesbian white crazies running around spouting off exactly what the post above mine is implying). Feminism itself isn’t like that, but the idea of inclusive feminism really isn’t like that.
And before you call bullshit and try to shout over what I’m trying to say while plugging your ears, think about this. Everything has to change. Without change, everything stagnates. An institution that does not change cannot survive (one could argue that something like Catholicism has done so, but really, it has changed. So that argument is invalid.) And so, feminism has changed just like everything else. It has evolved. It is a movement that has to change to maintain it’s beliefs.
And to touch on the picture above, a feminist who truly believed in equality would not say that at all. Instead, they would be saying that no one should be partaking in violence on anyone else, regardless of the gender you identify with.
I’m going to have to sit down and write a serious post on this eventually. I really didn’t say all that I meant to.
On one side I agree with you, and on the other side I don’t. Inclusive feminism is far newer than you think, and it’s far from being the majority. It’s only one aspect of feminism, and not even the biggest.
I judge feminism and feminists based on what they do, not what they say. While you might assert that “feminism isn’t like that” in many ways it is. While not all (or even many) feminists are bigots, the ones who are seem to hold most of the power in the movement. They determine the course of the movement, and thus it’s by their beliefs and actions that the movement is judged.
“what the post above is implying.” Well….actually that’s not what it’s implying. What it’s implying is that feminism and feminists have been behaving in a fundamentally ignorant manner, which needs to be remedied and corrected. Feminism up until very recently has utterly refused to even acknowledge the idea that men might actually be being harmed too or that there may be such a thing as “female privilege”. They’ve viciously attacked every other movement working for gender equality, and fought tooth and nail virtually every single organization working to help men. Inclusive feminism is this remedy and correction, but only if its behavior lives up to its ideals.
Clearly you haven’t read through a lot of what I post very carefully, but you only followed me a short while ago so I can’t blame you for that. If you had, you’d understand that “call[ing] bullshit and try[ing] to shout over what I’m trying to say while plugging your ears” is the kind of behavior I hate most and pretty much the last thing I’d do. I believe in looking at everything with an open mind, and judging it based on its worth. I support equality, regardless of what form it may take. If that form is feminism, I’ll support it. If feminism opposes equality in any way I’ll fight it. My personal position is that modern feminism is fundamentally rotten, that the bigots are running the movement. It has potential to be a force for good, but for that to happen the people advocating for honest equality must retake control of the movement and the bigots must be thrown out. This has not happened.
I completely agree with you that feminism must change with the times. However, our point of disagreement is where you assert that this has already happened. (While feminism certainly has changed, it hasn’t changed enough or in the right ways. Not all change is good change.) Feminism is not where it needs to be. It’s not even close. What my post is talking about is this exact change that you’re saying already happened. The world has turned to water and feminism has learned to swim, but it sure as heck doesn’t have gills yet.
You’re right that “a feminist who truly believed in equality would not say that at all.” However, that’s not the point. I’m not in the business of debating who’s a “real” feminist or anything similar. I’m looking at this, and I’m seeing people who call themselves feminists saying stuff like this. It’s not my job to figure out which of you are good and which are bad, it’s your job to grab the bad ones by the belt and collar then toss them out the front door, or better yet the picture window. If a feminist who truly believed in equality would not say things like that, all it does is show how few so-called feminists truly believe in equality.
Inclusive feminism sounds great. If all feminists embraced that, I would be very happy. I identify as a feminist as well as a masculist, and that is exactly the sort of unbiased equality I aim for. Unfortunately, feminism really isn’t like that. I’m not just talking about the radicals, many of whom really are man-hating (some embrace it as empowerment, others don’t realise), though it’s a big problem that they are so plentiful, loud, and seemingly tolerated in the movement. The mainstream is little better. The vast vast majority of feminists wouldn’t say that they hate men, which is good. However they will exclude men from discussions, absolutely neglect male suffering, and laugh at ‘misandry’ as if it’s the funniest joke ever. They are therefore a real obstacle to real equality.
So no, inclusive feminism is not running the shop. So the existence of a few good individuals does not mean that the problem is solved, because - as PON says - they aren’t the ones with the power. The bigots are.
Oh, and finally: even if all feminism was inclusive, it’s still a women’s rights movement. It’s still feminism. So no, it is not the right vehicle to push for equality for all, even if we all acknowledge that men are oppressed too (which is a million years from actually happening). Feminism can’t push for male rights without giving men substantial and equal power in the movement (there’s a little thing called privilege which means you can’t tell us what our issues are), which I can imaging even inclusive feminists being hostile too. Even if that happens (we’re dealing with impossibles now) the name would be obsolete and misleading, and would need to be changed.
So we may as well call ourselves egalitarians to start with, and leave the corrupt shell of feminism to die. Or do as I do, and fight for women’s rights as a feminist and men’s rights as a masculist. Either way, just giving inclusive feminism the keys is A) impossible and B) not the answer.
As for the picture, I’m going to have to say that YWRTA is right: the bottom message is not something a self-respecting feminist would say. Unfortunately, a lot of feminists seem to be lacking is self-respect. Yet more feminists might not say it themselves, but they wouldn’t criticise it - and they certainly wouldn’t recognise it as misandry. This is because the bulk of feminists are anti-masculist. Tell them that men are oppressed because people think violence against men is okay whereas ‘you can’t hit girls’, and they don’t want to know. Either it oppresses women (which it does as well, of course) alone, or it doesn’t fit their worldview and thus can be ignored as not a problem. After all, men are privileged, so how can they suffer? Obviously men’s problems are not important.
Inclusive, my foot.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq7ggz0VVD1qbvqlqo1_400.png)
I normally try to avoid stuff like this unless there’s commentary worth talking about, but this is an interesting thing here.
One thing many wannabe feminists don’t seem to realize is that gaining equality means giving up privilege. Women enjoy even (if not especially) now an extraordinary amount of privilege, and one of the major things that the feminist movement has tried very hard to do is to remove any kind of discrimination or oppression against women without removing any of the privilege.
Equality is for everyone, and it cuts both ways. It means no privilege, no oppression. Feminists, consider your own privilege, and learn to give it up. It means no “ladies first”, no “women and children first”, no “you can’t hit girls”, but also no more “women make better parents”, no more “women are more emotionally in touch” and no more “women are less violent”. (Not to mention that all of these things are pretty much bullshit.)
Most women simply take these things for granted. They’ve had this stuff all their life, and unlike men they’ve never had someone try to tell them it’s not OK. Our culture refuses to tell women to consider these things, so women have to learn to do it for themselves. (Most men want to, but being serious feminism has done everything in its power to attack anybody who even brings things like this up.) It’s hard to be honest with oneself, but I think women are up to it. They’re equals, right? Perhaps this is the way they prove it.
There is this new phenomenon called “Inclusive feminism” (actually that’s bullshit, it isn’t new at all. More people are recognizing it for what it is now.)
It basically, from what I understand anyway, takes the core value of feminism (Equality) and actually applies it to all aspects of feminism. Basically it is inclusive to males, females, non cisgender individuals, as well as gender neutral individuals.
Basically, to make a long story short, it is the exact opposite of what many many people believe feminism to be (Man hating, gendercide approving, women-must-rule-the-world lesbian white crazies running around spouting off exactly what the post above mine is implying). Feminism itself isn’t like that, but the idea of inclusive feminism really isn’t like that.
And before you call bullshit and try to shout over what I’m trying to say while plugging your ears, think about this. Everything has to change. Without change, everything stagnates. An institution that does not change cannot survive (one could argue that something like Catholicism has done so, but really, it has changed. So that argument is invalid.) And so, feminism has changed just like everything else. It has evolved. It is a movement that has to change to maintain it’s beliefs.
And to touch on the picture above, a feminist who truly believed in equality would not say that at all. Instead, they would be saying that no one should be partaking in violence on anyone else, regardless of the gender you identify with.
I’m going to have to sit down and write a serious post on this eventually. I really didn’t say all that I meant to.
On one side I agree with you, and on the other side I don’t. Inclusive feminism is far newer than you think, and it’s far from being the majority. It’s only one aspect of feminism, and not even the biggest.
I judge feminism and feminists based on what they do, not what they say. While you might assert that “feminism isn’t like that” in many ways it is. While not all (or even many) feminists are bigots, the ones who are seem to hold most of the power in the movement. They determine the course of the movement, and thus it’s by their beliefs and actions that the movement is judged.
“what the post above is implying.” Well….actually that’s not what it’s implying. What it’s implying is that feminism and feminists have been behaving in a fundamentally ignorant manner, which needs to be remedied and corrected. Feminism up until very recently has utterly refused to even acknowledge the idea that men might actually be being harmed too or that there may be such a thing as “female privilege”. They’ve viciously attacked every other movement working for gender equality, and fought tooth and nail virtually every single organization working to help men. Inclusive feminism is this remedy and correction, but only if its behavior lives up to its ideals.
Clearly you haven’t read through a lot of what I post very carefully, but you only followed me a short while ago so I can’t blame you for that. If you had, you’d understand that “call[ing] bullshit and try[ing] to shout over what I’m trying to say while plugging your ears” is the kind of behavior I hate most and pretty much the last thing I’d do. I believe in looking at everything with an open mind, and judging it based on its worth. I support equality, regardless of what form it may take. If that form is feminism, I’ll support it. If feminism opposes equality in any way I’ll fight it. My personal position is that modern feminism is fundamentally rotten, that the bigots are running the movement. It has potential to be a force for good, but for that to happen the people advocating for honest equality must retake control of the movement and the bigots must be thrown out. This has not happened.
I completely agree with you that feminism must change with the times. However, our point of disagreement is where you assert that this has already happened. (While feminism certainly has changed, it hasn’t changed enough or in the right ways. Not all change is good change.) Feminism is not where it needs to be. It’s not even close. What my post is talking about is this exact change that you’re saying already happened. The world has turned to water and feminism has learned to swim, but it sure as heck doesn’t have gills yet.
You’re right that “a feminist who truly believed in equality would not say that at all.” However, that’s not the point. I’m not in the business of debating who’s a “real” feminist or anything similar. I’m looking at this, and I’m seeing people who call themselves feminists saying stuff like this. It’s not my job to figure out which of you are good and which are bad, it’s your job to grab the bad ones by the belt and collar then toss them out the front door, or better yet the picture window. If a feminist who truly believed in equality would not say things like that, all it does is show how few so-called feminists truly believe in equality.
Inclusive feminism sounds great. If all feminists embraced that, I would be very happy. I identify as a feminist as well as a masculist, and that is exactly the sort of unbiased equality I aim for. Unfortunately, feminism really isn’t like that. I’m not just talking about the radicals, many of whom really are man-hating (some embrace it as empowerment, others don’t realise), though it’s a big problem that they are so plentiful, loud, and seemingly tolerated in the movement. The mainstream is little better. The vast vast majority of feminists wouldn’t say that they hate men, which is good. However they will exclude men from discussions, absolutely neglect male suffering, and laugh at ‘misandry’ as if it’s the funniest joke ever. They are therefore a real obstacle to real equality.
So no, inclusive feminism is not running the shop. So the existence of a few good individuals does not mean that the problem is solved, because - as PON says - they aren’t the ones with the power. The bigots are.
Oh, and finally: even if all feminism was inclusive, it’s still a women’s rights movement. It’s still feminism. So no, it is not the right vehicle to push for equality for all, even if we all acknowledge that men are oppressed too (which is a million years from actually happening). Feminism can’t push for male rights without giving men substantial and equal power in the movement (there’s a little thing called privilege which means you can’t tell us what our issues are), which I can imaging even inclusive feminists being hostile too. Even if that happens (we’re dealing with impossibles now) the name would be obsolete and misleading, and would need to be changed.
So we may as well call ourselves egalitarians to start with, and leave the corrupt shell of feminism to die. Or do as I do, and fight for women’s rights as a feminist and men’s rights as a masculist. Either way, just giving inclusive feminism the keys is A) impossible and B) not the answer.
As for the picture, I’m going to have to say that YWRTA is right: the bottom message is not something a self-respecting feminist would say. Unfortunately, a lot of feminists seem to be lacking is self-respect. Yet more feminists might not say it themselves, but they wouldn’t criticise it - and they certainly wouldn’t recognise it as misandry. This is because the bulk of feminists are anti-masculist. Tell them that men are oppressed because people think violence against men is okay whereas ‘you can’t hit girls’, and they don’t want to know. Either it oppresses women (which it does as well, of course) alone, or it doesn’t fit their worldview and thus can be ignored as not a problem. After all, men are privileged, so how can they suffer? Obviously men’s problems are not important.
Inclusive, my foot.
Misogyny was created. Racism was created. Ableism was created. Heterosexism was created. Cissexism was created; all in the minds of people who want to control us. These are NOT natural human traits.
As much as I love everything you say, I would have to disagree ENTIRELY with this statements. There seems to be this dichotomy between unnatural and natural and it’s a pretty damn false dichotomy. Everything that is a part of this Earth, that is a part of this universe occurs in nature.
Now, I think you meant to say that these are all LEARNED human traits that teach us hatred. Traits such as these, I believe should not be taught because they end up causing others so much harm in the end. That is where I would agree with you.
However, these are indeed natural. This definitely isn’t to say that they are morally good traits, it’s just to say that we humans are a part of nature and EVERYTHING that occurs along with us is a part of nature.
And you know what? Human nature kinda sucks.
Human nature isn’t consistent. It’s a fucking lie.
Those things up above were constructed by rich white men who wanted to control marginalized groups. I’m not pulling this out of my ass I took an entire class on how the idea of race was created in order to keep black women and men in their place, and also so that they would be divided by white workers.
We aren’t born racist, sexist, heterosexist, etc. we are learned these things. They are NOT a natural part of being human.
Whoever taught your class should be fired. Race was created so Europeans (specifically western Europeans) because of imperialism and colonialism. While yes, race was used to keep white workers from joining forces with black folks who were enslaved, that was not the only reason race was invented. It was also used to prove that they were “civilized” unlike the people they met in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Race was created for many reasons and enslaving Black people was only one of the many reasons. Before race was invented, people identified with their kin-group, city-state, nationality/ethnicity, etc. They still identify with those things but they also would identify as their race as well.
Racism, sexism, classism, etc. is not natural. It is created by the society we live in but that doesn’t mean it’s not any less real. Same goes for class, race, gender, etc.
Ableism is natural, but then Social Darwinism is natural. In nature, if you are too weak to fend for yourself, you die.
Parts of sexism are also natural, including the patriarchy. In nature we are sexually dimorphic, and we have particular gender roles which we are suited to. The same goes for chimpanzees. Or lions or elephants or seahorses or bees. No, the patriarchy was not invented one day by a group of sexist men. Misogyny wasn’t created. The idea that men should go out and work whilst women stay at home to look after the children is something we’ve had since before we’d invented fire. This sort of organised allocation allowed us to function much more efficiently as a unit. It’s something we inherited, and something we need to grow out of. Most sexism is just the perpetuation of what is already there.
This notion that these things are “unnatural” is simply ridiculous. Human beings are hardwired to group together, and part of that nature is the ostracization of the “other.” Originally this kept smaller “tribes” cohesive and helped to remove sicknesses and genetic disorders from the gene pool. This also helped to manage scarce resources.
We have always been wary of other humans who are “not like us.” The only difference is that through the ages we’ve used different criteria to decide who was “not like us.” “Patriarchy” per se (which is really just the distribution of social roles based on gender, not some kind of masculine conspiracy) comes from (as mentioned above) sexual dimorphism and is really an entirely separate thing to this. On a very basic level, though, we see this with young boys and girls that find the other gender “icky.” The other gender is “icky” because they’re different. As they grow up (spurred by sexual development, partly) people get over this particular difference.
The concept of “race” was just a voicing of these instinctive prejudices which have existed since the dawn of the human race. This was not a conspiracy, and in many cases the same prejudices were voiced by other races. I mean, this goes back to the fucking Jews and the Egyptians (and long before that, of course), thousands of years before any of this stuff you’re bringing up.
The same thing happens over religion, over nationality, even over occupation! It happens over political beliefs, and everything similar. As we’ve evolved and our society has changed, mental aspects (beliefs) have overwhelmingly been emphasized over physical aspects. (Consider the acceptability of insulting someone for being Republican versus insulting them for being black.)
Attacking those who are “not like us” is one of the fundamental basics of the human race. That’s not a good thing, but it’s the truth. To deny that and call it “unnatural” is fundamentally ignorant.
All you’re doing is the same thing. You want someone to blame. You want someone that you can fight without feeling guilty about it. You want someone to “other,” be it sexists, racists, whatever. You don’t want to consider the fact that they’re just like you. Sure, their views are ignorant, but as people they’re not in any way different. You want to believe that this stuff was created by people acting intentionally who were just “not like you” so that you can feel morally superior rather than simply people acting the way people always have.
Things like sexism, racism and general bigotry of this fashion are on the downswing. Sure, they’re not gone but they’re on their way out. People’s attitudes are changing, as they have realized that a different skin color doesn’t make you “other.” The same is happening with non-heterosexuals, and to a degree with most religions. Ideology is really the only acceptable one left, and that’s one that will never go away period.
Misogyny was created. Racism was created. Ableism was created. Heterosexism was created. Cissexism was created; all in the minds of people who want to control us. These are NOT natural human traits.
As much as I love everything you say, I would have to disagree ENTIRELY with this statements. There seems to be this dichotomy between unnatural and natural and it’s a pretty damn false dichotomy. Everything that is a part of this Earth, that is a part of this universe occurs in nature.
Now, I think you meant to say that these are all LEARNED human traits that teach us hatred. Traits such as these, I believe should not be taught because they end up causing others so much harm in the end. That is where I would agree with you.
However, these are indeed natural. This definitely isn’t to say that they are morally good traits, it’s just to say that we humans are a part of nature and EVERYTHING that occurs along with us is a part of nature.
And you know what? Human nature kinda sucks.
Human nature isn’t consistent. It’s a fucking lie.
Those things up above were constructed by rich white men who wanted to control marginalized groups. I’m not pulling this out of my ass I took an entire class on how the idea of race was created in order to keep black women and men in their place, and also so that they would be divided by white workers.
We aren’t born racist, sexist, heterosexist, etc. we are learned these things. They are NOT a natural part of being human.
Whoever taught your class should be fired. Race was created so Europeans (specifically western Europeans) because of imperialism and colonialism. While yes, race was used to keep white workers from joining forces with black folks who were enslaved, that was not the only reason race was invented. It was also used to prove that they were “civilized” unlike the people they met in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Race was created for many reasons and enslaving Black people was only one of the many reasons. Before race was invented, people identified with their kin-group, city-state, nationality/ethnicity, etc. They still identify with those things but they also would identify as their race as well.
Racism, sexism, classism, etc. is not natural. It is created by the society we live in but that doesn’t mean it’s not any less real. Same goes for class, race, gender, etc.
Ableism is natural, but then Social Darwinism is natural. In nature, if you are too weak to fend for yourself, you die.
Parts of sexism are also natural, including the patriarchy. In nature we are sexually dimorphic, and we have particular gender roles which we are suited to. The same goes for chimpanzees. Or lions or elephants or seahorses or bees. No, the patriarchy was not invented one day by a group of sexist men. Misogyny wasn’t created. The idea that men should go out and work whilst women stay at home to look after the children is something we’ve had since before we’d invented fire. This sort of organised allocation allowed us to function much more efficiently as a unit. It’s something we inherited, and something we need to grow out of. Most sexism is just the perpetuation of what is already there.
