Why I choose subscribe to Feminism or Men's Rights Movement

Anaxagoras

This thread is branch from the current discussion regarding whether a Men's Rights Movement ought to exist (you can find the thread here:https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5628/should-a-mens-rights-movement-exist). Although my position was lost in the discussion considering that I was having two separate discussions in that thread, I made my position known to the forum member @Banno privately and in better detail regarding my position regarding both feminism, and the men's rights movement. Without going into too much detail in short, I stated to him I chose to not subscribe to feminism given that historically, feminism is a response to disillusioned white women in U.S. society who were tired of white male patriarchy.

Lacking intersectionality, the general position of feminism in looking at female oppression did not include women of color. Similarly, the general position of the men's rights movement, is a response from the "straight white male" position of disillusioned men who felt oppressed in their own way (due to perceived gender biased laws against men). Although both seek to address social problems between men and women, the fact that there appears academically the lack of intersectionality between both movements makes it a problem for other persons of color who are experiencing both racial and sexual oppression. It is well documented that even among the women's rights movement there were African-American women who still experienced racism and of course outside of that even in among black nationalist movements, black women still faced sexual oppression.

According to author Margaret A. Simons in her book "Racism and Feminism" states that the low membership of women of color in the Women's Liberation Movement (a predominant white woman's movement) is due to the lack of analyzing factors from within the minority community such as fears of diving the community, the relationship between black and Latinas and the church, and more importantly addressing the factors of racism as a problem. Similarly, I do not believe that the men's rights movement also considers the issues that many minority men face in relationship to their own oppression.

I understand that people tend to shy away from definitions especially definitions that pertain to the discussion of race relations but frankly I believe that the development of feminism is nothing short of addressing not the issues of women in general but more specifically feminism addresses the problems with white women, and the same can be said about the men's rights movement. Although these are legitimate problems in their own right, I think we need to remove ourselves from the illusion that feminism as well as men's rights movements speak for all women and men. This is why I moved myself to the position of egalitarianism.

I believe when we address the evolutionary root causes of oppression whether based on gender or race and allocate that to it being a human problem in which all humans suffer and we try to identify with it on a human level, we can begin to relieve ourselves of the racial and gender specifics and begin to address suffering as a globally human problem and not a gendered one.

Artemis

↪Anaxagoras

I don't agree with your condemnation of feminism, obviously. I think your view of feminism is simplistic.

Nevertheless, I don't mind calling some anti-white-patriarchal movement "egalitarianism" if changing the term would get people to doing more and whining less about whichever term they happen to dislike.

ssu

historically, feminism is a response to disillusioned white women in U.S. society who were tired of white male patriarchy. — Anaxagoras

Here we go with the US centrism in everything...

I understand that people tend to shy away from definitions especially definitions that pertain to the discussion of race relations but frankly I believe that the development of feminism is nothing short of addressing not the issues of women in general but more specifically feminism addresses the problems with white women, and the same can be said about the men's rights movement. — Anaxagoras

So what do you think about Feminist movement let's say in South Korea, with the minjung feminist movement? Or the women's suffrage movement in Japan? Those women weren't white.

I believe when we address the evolutionary root causes of oppression whether based on gender or race and allocate that to it being a human problem in which all humans suffer and we try to identify with it on a human level, we can begin to relieve ourselves of the racial and gender specifics and begin to address suffering as a globally human problem and not a gendered one. — Anaxagoras

Perhaps by starting with that women's rights have not been an issue only for European whites right from the start?

Anaxagoras

I don't mind calling some anti-white-patriarchal movement "egalitarianism" — NKBJ

Where did you contrive this nonsense?

I don't agree with your condemnation of feminism, obviously. I think your view of feminism is simplistic. — NKBJ

Nope. Actually there is writing that supports the view that the lack of intersectionality in feminism is what has drawn less members of women of color in different communities.

Anaxagoras

Here we go with the US centrism in everything... — ssu

Of course I'm commenting on the feminism promoted in the United States...

So what do you think about Feminist movement let's say in South Korea, with the minjung feminist movement? Or the women's suffrage movement in Japan? Those women weren't white. — ssu

Because of the lack of intersectionality that exists in western feminism, many women of color around the world have identified oppression in relation to the cultural issues respective to their places of origin. So those forms of "cultural feminism" exist is because the initial waves of feminism didn't address those issues for example the following research article states:

"Many of the approaches that emerged in the “first” and “second waves” of feminist scholarship and activism were not able to effectively engage with questions of culture. Women of color and ethnicity, postcolonial feminists and poststructural feminists, in addition to the questions and debates raised by liberal feminists (and their critics) on the implications of multiculturalism for feminist goals, have produced scholarship that highlights issues of cultural difference, division, diversity, and differentiation. Their critiques of the “universalism” and “culture-blindness” of second wave theories and practices exposed the hegemonic and exclusionary tendencies of the feminist movement in the global North, and opened up the opportunity to develop intersectional analyses and feminist identity politics, thereby shifting issues of cultural diversity and difference from the margins to the center of international feminism."

Source:http://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-177

Perhaps by starting with that women's rights have not been an issue only for European whites right from the start? — ssu

Can you rephrase the question?

Artemis

Where did you contrive this nonsense? — Anaxagoras

First off, why are you so aggressive?

Second, what, then, is the POINT of your precious egalitarian movement?

Third, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about feminism. You haven't said anything that convinces me, and I get the distinct impression, it wouldn't matter what I said, you have no interest in understanding or believing my position.

RBS

↪Anaxagoras

First of all, just to clarify my view, is that I love women and have deepest respect for all of them. They are a beautiful creation of God on earth and should be respected the most in a society. However, and unfortunately some will not get that idea in their mind no matter what you do and that's a sad truth that we have to live with it, but hopefully one day all will respect all.

In today's society whatever questions arises are either due to the unanswered nature of those questions or simply that those questions were answered but the responses were not clear to some or may need more clarifications. We do have to understand the limit and scope of the word feminism and in which context it is being presented which is now very wide and political. We as human beings are equal and that should be accepted by all no matter of the gender and no matter of the race or religion. Now once we clear that then there is the social, cultural, religious and finally the physical requirements of each and every gender. That being said, women are as much free as men in the world and they should do whatever they want but physical and emotionally there will be limit to their capabilities.

To me the idea of feminism is a problem of the whole world and not only one society or culture or religion. However, there are things that the notion of feminism will not be accepted as equally as in the west as in other cultures or religions.

Artemis

That being said, women are as much free as men in the world and they should do whatever they want but physical and emotionally there will be limit to their capabilities. — RBS

Excuse me? What "emotional limits" should we women be aware of?

And, just fyi, there are physical limits to the capabilities of men as well.

RBS

Excuse me? What "emotional limits" should we women be aware of? — NKBJ

Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. Handbook of emotions (pp. 395-408).

ssu

Of course I'm commenting on the feminism promoted in the United States... — Anaxagoras

Of course. That's this kind of inherent assumption. But it's better to start "In the US feminism is a response to disillusioned white women..". Women's right movement has been a truly universal movement. Would you start talking about the history of the Labour movement and just and only look at the US?

Can you rephrase the question? — Anaxagoras

That just like above, even if it surely was a slip up, one should start from accepting that women's movement was and is quite international. Many times the hot potatoe issues have been something totally different from the Western of US experience, just as in South Korea and Japan. I've not noticed many women-only train cars in the US.

Because of the lack of intersectionality that exists in western feminism, many women of color around the world have identified oppression in relation to the cultural issues respective to their places of origin. — Anaxagoras

Again this is such an American viewpoint. What is the intersectionality of being Korean in South Korea where 96% of the people are Korean? The ethic minorities after the Koreans are 1 million Chinese, about 150 000 Vietnamese and 140 000 Americans. So if we take race into the question, should we look at those that are women and African Americans in South Korea? Especially those who are part of the US Armed Forces confined in the US bases that are basically little America's, it would be quite strange. I guess some can indeed experience also racism, yet I do assume that South Korean feminists are more interested in changing their own Korean culture and it's views at women's roles etc.

What I'm basically trying to say that women's right / feminist movement hasn't gone in various countries at all in the same way as in the US or UK, which btw. are actually far more conservative countries in many ways for example to the Nordic countries. Hence it's better to refer to the US situation and understand that feminism or womens rights tackle with different obstacle in other countries.

Yet the US-centric viewpoint dominates. Especially when you talk about intersectionality, a term coined in the late 1980's and used first talking about being women and black. If you look at countries that are racially and ethnically very homogenous as South Korea, Japan or my country, Finland, which all make the State of Maine to look extremely multicultural, the issue is a bit odd. In these countries the whole race issue thing is more of simply copying the American discussion to an environment where it hasn't at all the same meaning.

Artemis

Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. Handbook of emotions (pp. 395-408). — RBS

I tried googling it and that source isn't giving me anything of relevance.

I think it's generally understood that men aren't socialized to deal with their emotions in healthy ways, hence higher rates of suicide and physical aggression. Women tend to know and utilize healthy coping mechanisms much more than men.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_we_should_help_boys_to_embrace_all_their_feelings

VagabondSpectre

Hey guys, I suddenly had an amazing idea!

Let's all extol the suffering-earned-virtues of our race, gender, and sexual orientation, and then whoever wins the most virtue gets to dictate what the important issues are, what's moral, fair, and who the bad quays are...

Genius, right?

Artemis

Let's all extol the suffering-earned-virtues of our race, gender, and sexual orientation, and then whoever wins the most virtue gets to dictate what the important issues are, what's moral, fair, and who the bad quays are... — VagabondSpectre

Well, we all know that dead, white men have it worst of all. :smirk:

RBS

I tried googling it and that source isn't giving me anything of relevance. — NKBJ

https://lafetedubienetre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/brodyhall2008.pdf

I think it's generally understood that men aren't socialized to deal with their emotions in healthy ways, hence higher rates of suicide and physical aggression. Women tend to know and utilize healthy coping mechanisms much more than men. — NKBJ

I would argue not true, the idea of higher rate of suicides are not because of emotions. There are 100s of other reasons of why people or as you say men commit suicide and can be an interesting topic to discuss but wouldn't suggesting it mixing it up with the topic on feminism.

Tzeentch

I'm deeply skeptical about individuals who claim to fight for the rights of others. [mod deletion] an attempt of the subconscious to cope with perceptions of personal failure (modern feminism and MRAs both). A lot of people are being led along by horror stories which have never happened to them personally, and which may have never happened at all. They choose a side based on one of the most general distictions between humans, gender, which is completely nonsensical.

Ultimately these people shout a whole lot, but do very little for their fellow human. If you want to see yourself as a philantropist, there are plenty of people in your close vicinity that need help. An honest conversation with a lonely elder or another act of kindness will do more good than any amount of arguing on the internet or angry shouting in rallies.

[mod deletion]

Artemis

https://lafetedubienetre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/brodyhall2008.pdf — RBS

Perusing this article, I see that it's about gender differences and has little to say about women's emotional limitations. It says a few things about men and women processing/expressing emotions differently, but nothing about females being more limited than men.
It does, interestingly say this:

"Women may have more sophisticated emotion concepts that can serve as retrieval cues, or they may encode emotional experiences in more detail than men do (Seidlitz & Diener, 1998)."

and:
"Across many studies, females score higher than males in identifying the meanings of nonverbal
cues of face, body, and voice (Hall, 1978, 1984; McClure, 2000)."

Anyways, I don't think the chapter suggests what you think it does.

I would argue not true, the idea of higher rate of suicides are not because of emotions. There are 100s of other reasons of why people or as you say men commit suicide and can be an interesting topic to discuss but wouldn't suggesting it mixing it up with the topic on feminism. — RBS

You're the one who brought up women's emotional abilities, so I was following up on that. It cannot be denied that suicide and emotional disregulation go hand in hand.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190313-why-more-men-kill-themselves-than-women

BC

↪Anaxagoras

I don't know what you were expecting, but it doesn't seem like your thread is panning out very well. This isn't owing to any fault uniquely yours. Many will react very strongly to merely seeing topics raised like "the men's movement", "feminism" (1st, 2nd, 3rd, nth wave), racism, sexism, classism, etc. Reactive statements are made, reactive responses are registered, and before long there is a raging battle. The rage registered is generally in inverse proportion to how little is at stake.

"What do you mean, you bastard, 'how little is at stake' when FEMINISM is the topic!" someone shrieks .

It's like this: Feminism is important, of course. But it's progress will have little to do with this particular discussion. The men's movement is important too -- but it will neither stand nor fall as a result of anything said here.

Then someone complains that you were US-centric. Had you extended your generalizations to include Europe, South Korea, and Japan, no doubt somebody else would have objected that you were generalizing. And so on and so forth.

Why might it be the case that Feminism tends to be an affair of white women? Might it not be the case that movements develop along the lines of personal relationships? It stands to reason that the white feminists in New England and New York who hatched a major chunk of the movement knew each other through specific class, collegiate, and social networks that were mostly white. In the same way, black civil rights advocates who propelled their interests forward in the civil rights movement knew each other through other class, collegiate, and social networks that were mostly black.

I'm not dismissing racism; I'm only noting that the centuries old pervasive segregation of the races produced white and black movements. It would be unreasonable to expect that social movements are likely to overcome the deeply seated racism of the country.

Terrapin Station

I tend to be skeptical of claims of oppression in lieu of pretty solid empirical sociological research, and then I'd only buy the idea insofar as the data goes, as long as I think the research was methodologically sound.

Likewise I tend to be skeptical of claims about the feminist movement doing this or that without pretty solid empirical research.

My suspicion is that people tend to create narratives in these arenas that don't necessarily have much to do with reality.

Shawn

Although these are legitimate problems in their own right, I think we need to remove ourselves from the illusion that feminism as well as men's rights movements speak for all women and men. This is why I moved myself to the position of egalitarianism. — Anaxagoras

Isn't this the issue of reactionary movements? In that, because I don't have some such reaction, then does that posit that I don't apply to it?

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪RBS

You say it when you insist "women," whomever that is meant to be, then assert they must of some kind of weakness, which supposedly makes men, whomever that is meant to be, superior.

This is greatly sexist in at least four ways.

Firstly, you apply there is some trait which applies to all women, such that you are free to assume and conclude it about any individual you encounter. You have a narrative insisting women will have these weaknesses without taking into account the fact of whether it is true or an individual.

Secondly, you got an implicit value judgment about what having a trait means. In instances where women do have a certain emotional trait, you've taken it to be a weakness which affects her value and trustworthiness, when if fact the emotional trait may either be just irrelevant (she does what she's meant to well anyway) or even a strength (for the task she's doing, the emotional trait provides a benefit).

Thirdly, as others have pointed out, you take implications from studies which are not there. You haven't even substantiated women have this trait of weakness you're describing.

Fourth, you use this supposed weakness as a bludgeon to disregard the input of women. The way you've positioned women implies this supposed weakness makes their input irrelevant or untrustworthy. You seem to suppose, not-women (and I assume you) have some kind of upperhand in commenting on what is true or engaging in reasoning.

This an assertion of the superiority of not-women.
It's not loving or respecting women. You are positioning them as irrelevant and disregard what they might have to say.

I like sushi

First of all, just to clarify my view, is that I love women and have deepest respect for all of them. They are a beautiful creation of God on earth and should be respected the most in a society. — RBS

Really? Maybe you should get out more then!

As for myself I’m not in the habit of blindly ‘respecting’ someone simply because they have a foo-foo.

Note: Don’t worry, just having some fun. I assume you didn’t mean what I extracted for comic effect ;)

↪Anaxagoras

Even if it's true that, historically, the feminist movement excluded black women, and even if it's true that a men's rights movement stems predominantly from straight white males, these are awful reasons for rejecting the positions they endorse. You care too much about things which shouldn't matter, such as someone's skin colour, gender, or sexuality. You're part of the problem. Stop targeting people because they happen to be straight or white or male.

RBS

↪TheWillowOfDarkness

First of all, my comment was deleted so that I will call sexiest. What women want with equality and all that is all OK, but what they want on the top of that is not OK.

Firstly, you apply there is some trait which applies to all women, such that you are free to assume and conclude it about any individual you encounter. You have a narrative insisting women will have these weaknesses without taking into account the fact of whether it is true or an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It is hard to meet everyone and each of the women on the planet and just FYI studies cannot be done by the entire population of women but in general and that’s how a study is done. So, if a study is missing your perspective of the definition of the feminism then you are absolutely entitled to put your perspective forward.

Secondly, you got an implicit value judgment about what having a trait means. In instances where women do have a certain emotional trait, you've taken it to be a weakness which affects her value and trustworthiness, when if fact the emotional trait may either be just irrelevant (she does what she's meant to well anyway) or even a strength (for the task she's doing, the emotional trait provides a benefit). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again, those emotional traits can affect the decision and perspectives in certain conditions given at a certain call that they have to make.

Thirdly, as others have pointed out, you take implications from studies which are not there. You haven't even substantiated women have this trait of weakness you're describing. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If you can provide a report of BBC stating that men have more suicides than women than my studies are more valuable than those who sell news for money.

Fourth, you use this supposed weakness as a bludgeon to disregard the input of women. The way you've positioned women implies this supposed weakness makes their input irrelevant or untrustworthy. You seem to suppose, not-women (and I assume you) have some kind of upperhand in commenting on what is true or engaging in reasoning. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is nothing like that I have done in my notes. Perhaps you have to read again and again. There is nothing that I called irrelevant and untrustworthy.

This is the problem with the intellect and true understanding. You put to much pressure on your brains to find meanings for things that are not there at all.

It is love and respect and will be there forever, these assertions that you have done here based on my notes will not change my perspective for a woman as I do understand that people are different. So, your idea is again your idea and my idea is mine.

RBS

Note: Don’t worry, just having some fun. I assume you didn’t mean what I extracted for comic effect ;) — I like sushi

Lol, now if I say all of them doesn't mean those who are angry and yelling all the time but those who are decent and I think most of them are nice and honest and are great to be in conversation with.

Artemis

↪TheWillowOfDarkness

:cheer: :100:

I like sushi

I think it's generally understood that men aren't socialized to deal with their emotions in healthy ways, hence higher rates of suicide and physical aggression. Women tend to know and utilize healthy coping mechanisms much more than men. — NKBJ

It’s generally understand that isn’t the reason for aggression and suicide at all - sadly it seems I had to point out that men are generally less risk adverse, physically stronger and having more testosterone (which factors into aggressive tendencies). There is something to be said for young boys being treated like rough and tumble play is somehow “toxic” and to be subdued too.

You’d had to offer evidence (scientific) to back up the claim that women apparently have healthier coping mechanisms.

Artemis

It’s generally understand that isn’t the reason for aggression and suicide at all - sadly it seems I had to point out that men are generally less risk adverse, physically stronger and having more testosterone (which factors into aggressive tendencies). There is something to be said for young boys being treated like rough and tumble play is somehow “toxic” and to be subdued too. — I like sushi

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

You’d had to offer evidence (scientific) to back up the claim that women apparently have healthier coping mechanisms. — I like sushi

I really don't want to get into this that deeply. For any scientific article stating x, you can find one stating y. That's because no scientific study is, or is meant to be definitive. You can do your own searches and see for yourself that there are a bunch of scientific studies and arguments on either side.

I think it's like 80-95% (my very unscientific estimate) socialization. Women are encouraged to talk, have therapists, "be in touch" with their feelings, and men are encouraged to be stoic. It's one of the ways patriarchy actually works in women's favor, or at least, kind of, up until you get bozos like RBS over there who think the freedom of expressing emotion and being irrationally controlled by emotions are the same things. :roll:

In short, I think men and women have roughly the same cognitive abilities from the onset, but these are subjected to, and redirected by social circumstances.

I like sushi

↪NKBJ

Testosterone. It’s biological not merely social conditioning.

Women are encouraged to talk, have therapists, "be in touch" with their feelings, and men are encouraged to be stoic.

Doesn’t matter who is encouraged to do what. Women communicate more verbally than men - it’s biological.

In short, I think men and women have roughly the same cognitive abilities from the onset, but these are subjected to, and redirected by social circumstances.

And there’s the problem. In short, you’re wrong.

Artemis

↪I like sushi

At least I know enough to preface my opinions with I think, and not just posit TESTOSTERONE! as some kind of definite answer.

Hormones would be included in the 5-20% I believe is not socialization.

Artemis

And there’s the problem. In short, you’re wrong. — I like sushi

Also, it's illogical to say, "since you don't know x to be true, and only believe it to be so, it is therefore wrong."

The wrongness or rightness of any claim is not dependent on my certainty that it is so.

I like sushi

↪NKBJ

I guess I took “roughly the same” to mean almost the same - which they’re not. Hormone balance plays a VERY significant part in cognitive development (including verbal communication it appears) as well as in rough and tumble play.

Note: I already pointed this out and the “testosterone” was the biological evidence for this.

Maybe you meant ‘roughly’ to encompass some quite stark differences. I try to be generous with my interpretation but you’re making it difficult for me, sorry.

Why I choose subscribe to Feminism or Men's Rights Movement

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions