Is it really so self-evident to you that all women hate all men, that you think, by asking someone if women act like they value men, you've backed them into an inescapable corner?

Is it really so evident to you that women 'love' men, that citing stupid shit like 'grabbing drinks' is relevant? Meanwhile, men will just keep on dying.

Got any juicy sources on that?

I also cited 'getting groceries' which is perhaps even more stupid. I intentionally included both trivial and non-trivial things in that list, because the point was to contrast the incredibly narrow idea of women only thinking men are good for dying or being in prison with the infinite variety of other things actual women think men are good for.

I've known very few women who don't value men for anything beyond their muscles (whether used to raise houses or raze enemy cities) so it's difficult for me to understand where you're coming from.

But getting groceries is not stupid, if you catch my meaning.

I've known very few women who don't value men for anything beyond their muscles (whether used to raise houses or raze enemy cities) so it's difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. — csalisbury

If women loved men, they would be actively appalled at men's state in the world. But they aren't; they understand that their livelihood depends on it. No men, literally no buildings. You will never be anything but a tool to women, but because you recognize that they have the upper ground, you understand it's in your interest to ingratiate yourselves to them and be a 'good man' (and the only good man is a...)

#staywoke

I believe that you believe that I'm doing nothing but rehearsing ingratiating rhetoric. You might believe that it's become so engrained, for me, that I've tricked myself into believing the stuff.(FWIW, I don't believe that women are better than men. I think there's a lot of awful men and a lot of awful women. I certainly don't consider myself 'good,' though I want to be, nor am I blind to the obvious flaws of the women I enjoy spending time with. Anyone you get to know well has endearing traits as well as character flaws.)

If you wanna play the game of finding the hidden motives underlying what's being said, that's fine, we can do that. But I think you're savvy enough to understand how easy it would be to furnish an equally simple explanation for the anger you've shown here.
.

@darthbarracuda There's no simple answer to the questionin the OP. Feminism today is hyper-splintered and you're never going to satisfy everyone. But it mostly boils down to 'don't essentialize women'

Well, third-wave feminism is just a branch of identity politics. The 'real' feminism which is dying (second-wave) is more about criticizing sexual and biological institutions, not mere representations and tertiary cultural reflections thereof in media and weighing of demographics. Modern feminism is just a piece of the mainstream zeitgeist, and has no subversive or critical power. It does, however, have the power to kill men, which is what all roads lead to in the world we live in, dead men.

If you wanna play the game of finding the hidden motives underlying what's being said, that's fine, we can do that. But I think you're savvy enough to understand how easy it would be to furnish an equally simple explanation for the anger you've shown here. — csalisbury

I don't really think the motives are hidden. Maybe I'm wrong about your super special idiosyncratic way of viewing the world. Maybe you act exactly like everyone else but for secret internal reasons opposed to theirs. Alright, but I'm not a mind-reader.

I don't really think the motives are hidden. Maybe I'm wrong about your super special idiosyncratic way of viewing the world. Maybe you act exactly like everyone else but for secret internal reasons opposed to theirs. Alright, but I'm not a mind-reader.

Yeah, I mean, nothing that I've said on this thread strikes me as particularly idiosyncratic (though it was nice what I did with that raise/raze thing right? Using a pair of homophones to capture the only two things men are purportedly good for? Thought that was pretty dope)

But, in any case, that's the point, your motives don't seem all that hidden to me either. So if you want to keep going forward with this, here's my interpretation: I don't think you know very much about what women are actually like, because you haven't spent very much time with women and they don't seem to want to spend time with you and I think that makes you very mad at women.

But, in any case, that's the point, your motives don't seem all that hidden to me either. So if you want to keep going forward with this, here's my interpretation: I don't think you know very much about what women are actually like, because you haven't spent very much time with women and they don't seem to want to spend time with you and I think that makes you very mad at women. — csalisbury

I don't feel any anger toward particular women, and I get along just fine day to day. I don't know many women, but I don't know many people generally, to be honest. That's a fine interpretation, I don't think it's quite right, but you're entitled to it.

Also, I wasn't saying your views expressed here were idiosyncratic. Rather that they were perfectly ordinary and predictable from someone of your general phenotype, yet you seem eager to shunt the diagnosis and treat it as an idiosyncrasy -- that you have a deeper insight into the workings of individual people, and that your opinion isn't just the result of your various demographic positions.

TGW, there's a vast difference between the chattering class feminist (educated, economically stable, and socially privileged) and the uneducated, impoverished, and socially disadvantaged woman who has never read so much as a feminist pamphlet in her life. Likewise with men: There's a lot of distance between the well educated, well employed, and economically stable man and the guy whose job prospects relocated to Sri Lanka, is disconnected from society, and is broke.

A lot of what privileged feminists talk about is irrelevant to anyone outside their social class, if not to themselves.

What are psycho-social relations like between the sexes in the non-privileged layers of society? Well, under the stress of not nearly enough money to go around, numerous and continuous frustrations, and family histories loaded with difficulties... NOT TOO GOOD. This isn't a result of "feminism" or "feminist theory". It's a result of economic flat-lining for many people. Economically, they're dead meat. Neither men nor women hold up well under these circumstances.

There are social-sexual female roles in society that are deserving of severe criticism. But... you've got to tease out bad behavior that is frivolously voluntary and bad behavior which is the result of really bad circumstances.

Yeah, but that's exactly what I'm saying, I don't think it's idiosyncratic at all, & I don't see myself as idiosyncratic for saying it. I def like to think of myself as idiosyncratic, you're right, but this isn't the well from which I draw my sense of uniqueness. I think most people who have spent time with women (without approaching them with a priori idealization or denigration) seems to have more or less the same takeaway. It seems like you won't believe me, and I don't know how I can make you believe me, but it's really not an 'act' for the benefit of women (It is for some people, sure, but not for most) The look from outside can be as skewed as the look from inside. (Plus women aren't that attracted to men who docilely tow the feminist line. Even if it were a strategy, it'd be a pretty bad one. Nice guys may not finish last but guys who labor to appear nice guys almost certainly do)

But I understand a little bit better where you're coming from though. You're pinning me as the sensitive guy who, listen, I understand you, you as a person, you as someone with a soul, unlike those other animals, those jocks for whom you're just a piece of meat. You're aiming at the wrong target entirely. I've never been a m'lady type.

What are psycho-social relations like between the sexes in the non-privileged layers of society? — Bitter Crank

Rape, alimony, infidelity. Reality of the dimorphism of the sexes that upper-cass people can't comprehend because they've never experienced it.

This isn't a result of "feminism" or "feminist theory". It's a result of economic flat-lining for many people. Economically, they're dead meat. Neither men nor women hold up well under these circumstances. — Bitter Crank

We're all dead meat; but men are especially dead and especially meat. And the suffering of men and the success of women are deeply entwined. The reverse may also be true, and we can even agree with feminists on that. But as a man I think it's fair to present it from a male perspective.

It seems like you won't believe me, and I don't know how I can make you believe me, but it's really not an 'act' for the benefit of women (It is for some people, sure, but not for most) — csalisbury

I don't really think it's an act, I think these things are part of the air people breathe. You believe and do whatever you were born into. Ingratiation with women by men (and self-denigration by men) is just a cultural trope, that becomes more prevalent the whiter, more liberal, more educated, etc. the demographic. There is a kind of falsity to it, but it's a deeply ingrained falsity. You've gotta have the 'man bad woman good line' somewhere in a popular work in the media, that's just how it works, it's like the invocation of the muses, part of the cultural makeup. I don't doubt that you don't experience yourself as part of any such thing.

But I understand a little bit better where you're coming from though. You're pinning me as the sensitive guy who, listen, I understand you, you as a person, you as someone with a soul, unlike those other animals, those jocks for whom you're just a piece of meat. You're aiming at the wrong target entirely. I've never been a m'lady type. — csalisbury

I don't think it's a m'lady type, so much as, a David Foster Wallace fan, I guess would be the best way to put it. However you want to interpret that. There is a kind of misogyny that the m'lady type buys into that the DFW fan sees himself as above (because he is more sincere, self-critical, and empathetic than that).

I don't really think it's an act, I think these things are part of the air people breathe. You believe and do whatever you were born into. Ingratiation with women by men (and self-denigration by men) is just a cultural trope, that becomes more prevalent the whiter, more liberal, more educated, etc. the demographic. There is a kind of falsity to it, but it's a deeply ingrained falsity. You've gotta have the 'man bad woman good line' somewhere in a popular work in the media, that's just how it works, it's like the invocation of the muses, part of the cultural makeup. I don't doubt that you don't experience yourself as part of any such thing. — TGW

Again, though, I'm not a fan of the man bad woman good thing. I'm not sure if I'm getting through. let me try it in italics. Women are as shitty as men. They're also as nice to hang out with as men, if you click. Again, I think you're severely missing the mark here. Women self-denigrate all the time, even in the company of men, and women who don't, or can't, or won't, drive me crazy. You can only relax and enjoy the company of people who are as aware of their flaws as they are confident in expressing their strengths. That's what makes a good fire or dinner or whatever.

I don't think it's a m'lady type, so much as, a David Foster Wallace fan, I guess would be the best way to put it. However you want to interpret that. There is a kind of misogyny that the m'lady type buys into that the DFW fan sees himself as above (because he is more sincere, self-critical, and empathetic than that) — tgw

Ok, that's fair. But that's only one side of me (the side probably most on display here.) I certainly don't do a DFW routine to pick up women, because that'd be stupid. (though maybe it works in academia?)

Again, though, I'm not a fan of the man bad woman good thing. I'm not sure if I'm getting through. let me try it in italics. Women are as shitty as men. They're also as nice to hang out with as men, if you click. Again, I think you're severely missing the mark here. Women self-denigrate all the time, even in the company of men, and women who don't, or can't, or won't, drive me crazy. You can only relax and enjoy the company of people who are as aware of their flaws as they are confident in expressing their strengths. That's what makes a good fire or dinner or whatever. — csalisbury

Alright, if I was one of those leftist types, I'd say this is classic petit-bourgeois or whatever, you get the idea. It's not just a matter of individuals -- there is a way in which men are expected to be self-denigrating (and in virtue of their being men, this is the crucial part; we are all called on by women to collectively make fun of men on our own behalf for the amusement / appeasement of women, and devalue our own lives in various ways) that is not expected of women, and men are expected to take jokes and insults at their own expense (and physical harm!) in a way women are not. Surely you'll admit that's a trend that transcends individual people not being able to take a joke etc.

I certainly don't do a DFW routine to pick up women, because that'd be stupid. (though maybe it works in academia?) — csalisbury

I think what works in academia is being stable and attractive an unthreatening, which most people in academia are, and then complaining that it's soooo hard to have kids and the travel is just ugh! and why don't we get paid more for being literally the most valuable people in society? You probably also want to make smug comments about poor and uneducated people disguised as comments about 'republicans' or whatever, and then behave in such a way in public that it's not always clear to people who don't know you that you're a couple, since romance and friendship are all equally flaccid and indistinguishable.

That's all just in good fun. ^

Alright, if I was one of those leftist types, I'd say this is classic petit-bourgeois or whatever, you get the idea. It's not just a matter of individuals -- there is a way in which men are expected to be self-denigrating (and in virtue of their being men, this is the crucial part; we are all called on by women to collectively make fun of men on our own behalf for the amusement / appeasement of women, and devalue our own lives in various ways) that is not expected of women, and men are expected to take jokes and insults at their own expense (and physical harm!) in a way women are not. Surely you'll admit that's a trend that transcends individual people not being able to take a joke etc.

Yeah the dumb dad is a common mainstream-media trope, sure. (Modern Family would be the perfect example. The dad in Beethoven. Clark Griswold) The ditz and the oprah-mom are both, also, common mainstream-media tropes. The real sin, today, is taking your societal/familial role seriously. Jim & Pam, from the Office, provide the non-gender-specific mainstream ideal.

I think what works in academia is being stable and attractive an unthreatening, which most people in academia are, and then complaining that it's soooo hard to have kids and the travel is just ugh! and why don't we get paid more for being literally the most valuable people in society? You probably also want to make smug comments about poor and uneducated people disguised as comments about 'republicans' or whatever, and then behave in such a way in public that it's not always clear to people who don't know you that you're a couple, since romance and friendship are all equally flaccid and indistinguishable.

That's all just in good fun. ^ — tgw

That makes sense to me. I'm a bit confused, though, because dropping 'all in good fun' usually means that you think the person to whom you're speaking might have been offended.

Yeah the dumb dad is a common mainstream-media trope, sure. (Modern Family would be the perfect example. The dad in Beethoven. Clark Griswold) The ditz and the oprah-mom are both, also, common mainstream-media tropes. The real sin, today, is taking your societal/familial role seriously. Jim & Pam, from the Office, provide the non-gender-specific mainstream ideal. — csalisbury

I think the dumb dad trope is part of it, but only at its most superficial and benign. It's an increasingly important part of virtue signaling, social acceptance, and displaying culture for young men, especially liberal and/or educated young men, to engage in non-trivial self-flagellation for being a man that goes beyond jibes and gets into legitimate self-hatred, and it seems like this trend is only going to get more severe and mainstream as time goes on. And I think this is linked to the violence and death men are expected as a routine to suffer, while women are seen as 'metaphysical victims' with a birthright that protects them even from insult just as it does from violence, and their privilege of being the 'better half' both of the marriage and of humanity.

That makes sense to me. I'm a bit confused, though, because dropping 'all in good fun' usually means that you think the person to whom you're speaking might have been offended. — csalisbury

No, it's in case I get audited at some point in the future and some poor schmuck is reading through my whole online history.

I think the dumb dad trope is part of it, but only at its most superficial and benign. It's an increasingly important part of virtue signaling, social acceptance, and displaying culture for young men, especially liberal and/or educated young men, to engage in non-trivial self-flagellation for being a man that goes beyond jibes and gets into legitimate self-hatred, and it seems like this trend is only going to get more severe and mainstream as time goes on. — tgw

Ivory Tower seems v scary if that's the case.

Well, I'm not being funny about it. And yes the epicenter is college campuses, but it's all over the internet too, if you go to the right places. If you want to see what he cutting edge of history is you look at what the Protestants or I guess post-Protestants are doing. *shrug*

All this rhetoric has nothing to do with philosophy, though your remarks about this topic have undermined my interest in anything philosophical you might have to say.

Shucks, I was really hoping to talk to you about philosophy, too.

Seriously, I have no clue what the hell feminism is supposed to be these days. You can't get an adequate definition without someone calling bullshit.

So what is feminism? A common definition is that of a desire for gender-equality, and yet this is often a ridiculed position within certain feminist circles. If we can come to an agreement as to what feminism is, has feminism accomplished its goals? Is the notion of the Patriarchy a legitimate notion? Is feminism still needed today? — darthbarracuda

Feminism is a political and social movement which focuses on sexual equality, obtaining power for women, and dismantling patriarchy (generally speaking). Most histories of the movement begin with what is termed "first wave feminism", which was the fight for female suffrage but has flowered into a much wider umbrella.

There are many kinds of feminisms and feminists -- it's good to be mindful of that. There is no monolithic feminism to contend with -- feminists disagree with one another. Pleasing one group of feminists, if such is your goal, won't please another group and vice versa.

I am a feminist for several reasons. But what began my identification down that path a long time ago was a desire to not play out certain male roles and to not be constrained by certain male roles which I think are damaging to healthy living. In addition I generally believe in equality, and so find that to be a worthwhile goal on all fronts.

Some of the things which feminists have set out to do have been accomplished, and some haven't -- again, depending on the feminist group you are talking to. Since it is a social and political movement it's not quite amenable to sharp definition, or even to clear-cut consensual goals. But this is true of any social or political movement, and is far from unique to feminism. So to answer the title question -- wtf is up with feminism is feminism is a social and political movement, and not a singular philosophical thesis, and so it's going to contain a multiplicity of viewpoints, opinions, desires, expressions, goals, and so forth, and probably won't be amenable to the clean-cut treatment -- at least, as a movement, if not for a particular feminist philosophy -- which we tend to enjoy as philosophically inclined people.

As a dude, what do feminists want me to do exactly? — darthbarracuda

Burn your bra.

I like some of the Riot Grrrl bands who were influenced by third wave feminism: Bratmobile, Heavens to Betsy, Bikini Kill, L7, Jack Off Jill, Bitch Alert.

Thank you. What do you think the patriarchy is?

From the perspective of many gay men, women are sexually irrelevant, and can be considered as real people--likable, funny, annoying, boring, whatever. From the perspective of observing some of the relationships where straight men and women are interacting, I think The Great Whatever has a point.

There is a lot of low-grade conflict. There is this expectation of service, for instance. Men are supposed to take care of women, while at the same time the women maintain they are fully equal and capable. It's a no win situation for either party. A lot of young women seem to want husbands (or partners) who are like their mature fathers. Except of course, their parents are 20 to 30 years older, and have had time to work out roles with each other. The boys and girls are not mature yet, and won't be for quite some time (sometimes never), so it is another no-win situation.

In the US, women who can manage it are attending college in ever larger numbers--the ratio is roughly 55/45 to 60/40, with women in the majority. The ratio used to be reversed, and was much more extreme, with relatively few women attending college. Are women driving out the men, or are men opting out on their own? Most men are, I think, opting out, and some feel like education has become a women's enterprise. It's a big mistake for men to devalue their own education, of course, but some think they get an early start in business of some sort and beat the curve. A few might, most will not.

The effect of many more women in the work place, as supervisors and professional co-workers, isn't always an agreeable experience for men. Women are socialized differently then men, and largely male environments work differently than largely female environments do.

So, make a long story short, in certain circumstances there is fairly regular conflict, and I don't find a lot of women's complaints--as grievances unique to women--justified.

None of this has all that much to do with "feminism" per se -- it has more to do with economic and social changes which are only somewhat related to feminism with respect to employment equality.

I think mcdoodle is right, "has his mind at home" (a romanian idiom we have), saying that "All this rhetoric has nothing to do with philosophy, (...though your remarks about this topic have undermined my interest in anything philosophical you might have to say)".

I think that's a pretty big question ;). I doubt my answer would elucidate much. Generically it is a social construct, but of the big variety -- larger than any one institution, it is multi-generational and moves across borders. It's similar, in many ways, to racism. The violence which women experience, the way rape is handled in court, the manner in which women's health issues are political issues to be discussed in the first place, the earning gap, and the way women are portrayed in the media are all evidence of the patriarchy. But there are many books available to read which are better than this hap-dash explanation. Heck, there's an entire field of study dedicated to this sort of thing.

I'm fond of https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Kate-Millett/dp/0252068890 because its theory of patriarchy is very clearly stated and makes a good deal of sense of many aspects of patriarchy, but there's a huge selection of readings out there on women's studies. The best way to understand it is to just dive into the theory, history, and so forth. Then you'll have a better view of what isn't quite amenable to easy to think about and clearly stated theses :)

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson — Wosret

Makes me wonder what the Feminist definition of "Pat Robertson" woud be?

Meow!

GREG

That about sums it up.