Toxic Feminism

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I was thinking of that Naomi Wolf Karen Straughan debate and how every time a positive quality of feminism was mentioned Wolf replied with something like "all feminists believe that" but if a negative quality, aspect or instance of feminism was mentioned she talked about how there's thousands of different forms and not all feminists believe in the bad negative stuff.

It seemed like some no true Scotsman rationalization. I'm not sure that counts as toxic. I've seen religious people react similarly when criticized. "All Christians believe in compassion" vs "nope only those crazy baptists or evangelicals would believe that"


I'll try to think of some positive non toxic aspects to mention at some point

 

[Mole]

Hint: There is little difference between socialism and communism.....and feminism is just another manifistation of both.

There is a vast difference between National Socialism and Democratic Socialism. National Socialism, like International Communism, is totalitarian, while Democratic Socialism is part of Liberal Democracy.

 

[Coriolis]

I was thinking of that Naomi Wolf Karen Straughan debate and how every time a positive quality of feminism was mentioned Wolf replied with something like "all feminists believe that" but if a negative quality, aspect or instance of feminism was mentioned she talked about how there's thousands of different forms and not all feminists believe in the bad negative stuff.

It seemed like some no true Scotsman rationalization. I'm not sure that counts as toxic. I've seen religious people react similarly when criticized. "All Christians believe in compassion" vs "nope only those crazy baptists or evangelicals would believe that"

There is some minimum set of qualities or values that someone has to have to be considered a feminist, at least by mainstream definitions. The one I generally use is the fundamental notion that women should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as men. If you don't accept this, you shouldn't call yourself a feminist, so most/all feminists will believe this. On the other hand, there are likely to be more ways to be a bad or toxic feminist than to be a good or constructive one. However significant a fraction of the feminist population you think this might be, there is probably far less uniformity in it.

(This is sort of like listing all the ways in which Christians can be "bad", but pointing to belief in the divinity and example of Jesus as things they all believe.)

 

[Starry]

I'll try to think of some positive non toxic aspects to mention at some point

In all honesty I would be interested in hearing of toxic aspects that can be directly linked to Feminism and Feminism alone as its cause. This to me would be most constructive. In this thread...like every thread we've had on this topic...for each condition and every plight blamed on Feminism...it's often quite easy to identify...not merely the true cause of the condition (or multiple true causes)...but the reasons why Feminism is the "preferred scapegoat" in that instance as well.

What I'm about to say now is not necessarily tied to what I just stated above...but the behavior you mentioned with regards to Naomi Wolf Karen Straughan... that's not limited to Feminists by any means. That is a common social strategy that we see public figures do with regards to their affiliations every night in the evening news and is as old as the first social strategy ever put into play. (You can align yourself with all the good and distance yourself from all the bad like a dream. I was recently reading something that indicated that very behavior will become more and more common to witness as we are all so close via technology and yet so far away from each other's actual lives and space to be challenged and/or held accountable to what we say and do.)

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

In all honesty I would be interested in hearing of toxic aspects that can be directly linked to Feminism and Feminism alone as its cause. This to me would be most constructive. In this thread...like every thread we've had on this topic...for each condition and every plight blamed on Feminism...it's often quite easy to identify...not merely the true cause of the condition (or multiple true causes)...but the reasons why Feminism is the "preferred scapegoat" in that instance as well.

What I'm about to say now is not necessarily tied to what I just stated above...but the behavior you mentioned with regards to Naomi Wolf Karen Straughan... that's not limited to Feminists by any means. That is a common social strategy that we see public figures do with regards to their affiliations every night in the evening news and is as old as the first social strategy ever put into play. (You can align yourself with all the good and distance yourself from all the bad like a dream. I was recently reading something that indicated that very behavior will become more and more common to witness as we are all so close via technology and yet so far away from each other's actual lives and space to be challenged and/or held accountable to what we say and do.)

Well, I think there are some problematic or toxic aspects to certain core beliefs such as patriarchy theory that have led to toxic or uneven policy such as the implementation of the Duluth Model, to name one example.

I don't think all feminism is bad, which is why I voted Somewhere In The Middle in this poll.

I have recognized not all plights and conditions that are blamed on feminism are feminism's fault, for instance I think traditional conservatism is also to blame and sometimes critics of feminism don't acknowledge or consider that; however I think in some cases feminism, despite attempting to alleviate said conditions and plights, winds up exacerbating them.

I personally see the current reactionary third wave brand as very similar to reactionary social conservatism, two sides of the same coin, but I know that isn't a popular viewpoint or widely accepted. The insistence on a thousand genders, which is popular with a lot of third wavers, I think exacerbates the limitations and problems with the two genders approach favored by social conservatives. I'd instead agree with the feminists who regard gender as a social construct (although I still think biological sex is largely binary, while recognizing some ground inbetween for a spectrum of people who are exceptions, i.e. transpersons, hermaphrodites, et al). In that respect, I think we place way too much emphasis on gender identity whether we're taking a tradcon or a third wave approach to defining gender. It doesn't and shouldn't matter and we should be recognized primarily as individuals, in my opinion. I was never great at keeping up with traditionalist ideas of what men and women "should or should not do" and I'm certainly not going to start trying to worry myself with hundreds of fabricated gender labels such as demiboy, genderqueer, demiagender, et al. The latter creates just as many mental prisons for people as the old binary gender model.

 

[anticlimatic]

In all honesty I would be interested in hearing of toxic aspects that can be directly linked to Feminism and Feminism alone as its cause.

As a non emotional forum member I can point to a few very simple and logical ways that feminism is toxic inherently in modern times.

First point- If it was originally introduced as a societal cure for a disparity in legal rights and was effective as such, then it has fulfilled its mission, and to continue "taking it" is likely to have similar effects as the continued use of other "cures" after the targeted illness has passed: opiates for headaches, antibiotics, cough syrup, etc- which can quite literally be toxic in unnecessary doses.

Second point- establishing itself as a religion more than a pragmatic tool installs circular logic that renders it immune to external criticism. Someone who became addicted to opium after initially using it for headaches is not going to see that they are addicted- instead they will claim, especially to themselves, that it is now helping with all matter of other ailments as well.

Third point- despite claiming to be for gender neutrality it can't even adopt a gender neutral title, which is extremely telling considering how obsessed it is with the power of labels. Keeping the focus deliberately on "femme/women good" and "men/patriarchy bad" is clearly deliberate, and indicates absolute hypocrisy regarding the assertion that "feminism is about equality." Not only does this alienate men who do believe in equality (not to be confused with feminist men who believe women to be the superior sex), but it makes feminists look like they can't even see their own feet in front of them- and who would want to throw in with a group that blind with absolutely nothing to gain from doing so anyhow?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

despite claiming to be for gender neutrality it can't even adopt a gender neutral title, which is extremely telling considering how obsessed it is with the power of labels. Keeping the focus deliberately on "femme/women good" and "men/patriarchy bad" is clearly deliberate, and indicates absolute hypocrisy regarding the assertion that "feminism is about equality." Not only does this alienate men who do believe in equality (not to be confused with feminist men who believe women to be the superior sex), but it makes feminists look like they can't even see their own feet in front of them- and who would want to throw in with a group that blind with absolutely nothing to gain from doing so anyhow?

Indeed

I'll repost that Karen Straughan vid

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Cassie Jaye: Why I Stopped Being A Feminist

 

[jixmixfix]

There is a vast difference between National Socialism and Democratic Socialism. National Socialism, like International Communism, is totalitarian, while Democratic Socialism is part of Liberal Democracy.

There is a vast difference between National Socialism and Democratic Socialism. National Socialism, like International Communism, is totalitarian, while Democratic Socialism is part of Liberal Democracy.

"Democratic" socialism is no different because like other forms of socialism all sovergnty is allocated towards a single entity. When this happens you have corruption of power. It's just a rebranding of socialism to give the impression that it's moral for someone to take resources away from you for a the common "Good" which is ultimately toltalitarian.

 

[Starry]

As a non emotional forum member I can point to a few very simple and logical ways that feminism is toxic inherently in modern times.

I'll be honest with you... you often seem quite emotional to me.

Additionally, your questions/comments/analogies... I can't. If I thought they were merely uninformed but presented in earnest I'd gladly take the time but...haha no. There's just no way I could respond without sarcasm so I'll pass. Thanks though.

 

[Starry]

Well, I think there are some problematic or toxic aspects to certain core beliefs such as patriarchy theory that have led to toxic or uneven policy such as the implementation of the Duluth Model, to name one example.

I don't think all feminism is bad, which is why I voted Somewhere In The Middle in this poll.

I have recognized not all plights and conditions that are blamed on feminism are feminism's fault, for instance I think traditional conservatism is also to blame and sometimes critics of feminism don't acknowledge or consider that; however I think in some cases feminism, despite attempting to alleviate said conditions and plights, winds up exacerbating them.

I personally see the current reactionary third wave brand as very similar to reactionary social conservatism, two sides of the same coin, but I know that isn't a popular viewpoint or widely accepted. The insistence on a thousand genders, which is popular with a lot of third wavers, I think exacerbates the limitations and problems with the two genders approach favored by social conservatives. I'd instead agree with the feminists who regard gender as a social construct (although I still think biological sex is largely binary, while recognizing some ground inbetween for a spectrum of people who are exceptions, i.e. transpersons, hermaphrodites, et al). In that respect, I think we place way too much emphasis on gender identity whether we're taking a tradcon or a third wave approach to defining gender. It doesn't and shouldn't matter and we should be recognized primarily as individuals, in my opinion. I was never great at keeping up with traditionalist ideas of what men and women "should or should not do" and I'm certainly not going to start trying to worry myself with hundreds of fabricated gender labels such as demiboy, genderqueer, demiagender, et al. The latter creates just as many mental prisons for people as the old binary gender model.

You actually listed some of the same issues I have with the movement...

And I have more but perhaps I'll add them another time.

 

[anticlimatic]

I'll be honest with you... you often seem quite emotional to me. Additionally, your questions/comments/analogies... I can't. If I thought they were merely uninformed but presented in earnest I'd gladly take the time but...haha no. There's just no way I could respond without sarcasm so I'll pass. Thanks though.

This ties into the problem of it being a religion I mentioned: the more obvious and logical the flaws, the more its members will mentally short-circuit around those obvious flaws and render them incapable of even seeing them.

 

[Starry]

This ties into the problem of it being a religion I mentioned: the more obvious and logical the flaws, the more its members will mentally short-circuit around those obvious flaws and render them incapable of even seeing them.

Interesting. Especially the part about religion seeing how you are likening yourself to God in this post.

Do tell... How do you know that I didn't prepare an entire response...read it...felt it belittled you and would get me in trouble so I trashed it and wrote what I did instead? I am very much looking forward to your answer in this regard...

lol "logical". you are clearly working with an alternative definition of logic.

 

[anticlimatic]

Interesting. Especially the part about religion seeing how you are likening yourself to God in this post. Do tell... How do you know that I didn't prepare an entire response...read it...felt it belittled you and would get me in trouble so I trashed it and wrote what I did instead? I am very much looking forward to your answer in this regard... lol "logical". you are clearly working with an alternative definition of logic.

I'm not likening myself to God in this analogy, but rather a critic of the feminism religion. A feminism atheist, so to speak- I lack faith in its utility, dogma, and benefit to mankind. Notice how your first reaction to the issues I addressed skipped right over them without so much as a passing thought and jumped immediately towards attacking ME, the threat to avoiding cognitive dissonance, in a belittling and typical ad hominem fashion. This should also be telling, and is far from an isolated incident.

If my logic is so alternative then by all means, in as simple of terms as I provided, explain how a movement that defines itself as being gender equal refuses to adopt a gender equal title. Start there.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

There is a religious component or quality to many ideologies. I don't find many religions or feminism to be particularly healthy for me, maybe for other people though. I found a lot of the red pill groups to be similarly toxic and unhealthy like feminism, although there's certain tenets or truths espoused by either that I can agree with, as there are certain pieces of various religious dogma that might survive my scrutiny. I have my personal ideology or systematized understanding of the world, as I suppose most people do, informed by what I think works and what doesn't work. It's open to change as new information is determined to be logically sound. So I will never automatically dismiss a feminist or some piece of feminist theory or philosophy without considering it. I've caught flak in the past for vocalizing that approach--a guy in college once chastised me for "picking and choosing" what to believe and discard of various religions.

 

[Starry]

I'm not likening myself to God in this analogy, but rather a critic of the feminism religion. A feminism atheist, so to speak- I lack faith in its utility, dogma, and benefit to mankind. Notice how your first reaction to the issues I addressed skipped right over them without so much as a passing thought and jumped immediately towards attacking ME, the threat to avoiding cognitive dissonance, in a belittling and typical ad hominem fashion. This should also be telling, and is far from an isolated incident.

If my logic is so alternative then by all means, in as simple of terms as I provided, explain how a movement that defines itself as being gender equal refuses to adopt a gender equal title. Start there.

^^Yah see this is merely another example of why so many members have developed an opinion of you that you're not upstanding and it isn't worth their time to engage you. And as I alluded to in my first response to you...I feel the same. I mean, you go right ahead and continue with this line of smoke-and-mirrors. Feel free to continue making up a bunch of shit concerning things you couldn't possibly know and calling that logic without feeling profoundly embarrassed when doing so...that's cool. But idk...perhaps consider the possibility you aren't as good at this as you may think (maybe if you were it would be fun engaging you but to me this is just so obviously fraudulent that it's to the point of being boring.) Better luck in all your future manipulations of the truth.

 

[ceecee]

There is a religious component or quality to many ideologies. I don't find many religions or feminism to be particularly healthy for me, maybe for other people though. I found a lot of the red pill groups to be similarly toxic and unhealthy like feminism, although there's certain tenets or truths espoused by either that I can agree with, as there are certain pieces of various religious dogma that might survive my scrutiny. I have my personal ideology or systematized understanding of the world, as I suppose most people do, informed by what I think works and what doesn't work. It's open to change as new information is determined to be logically sound. So I will never automatically dismiss a feminist or some piece of feminist theory or philosophy without considering it. I've caught flak in the past for vocalizing that approach--a guy in college once chastised me for "picking and choosing" what to believe and discard of various religions.

I think of all the men here, your outlook is probably the most healthy and has the least amount of under the surface agenda. I think feminism can be an ideology for some women - so can the virulent hatred of it by some men. I still feel that taking the word at it's definition is something that shouldn't have to be explained, it shouldn't have any -ism attached to it at all. Picking and choosing is how ideas form and progress is made. The people that complain about that method are the people who can't do it for themselves and need to be told what to believe.

 

[Amargith]

Really would be conducive to discussions like this if being emotional about something wasnt thrown around like an insult - there is no harm in that as long as one is aware if it. Its vilification however leads to people convincing themselves they are beyond such a thing and using it - often ironically - in an emotional eay to shut others up and discredit them instead of actually discussing the issues at hand

The whole 'being emotional' thing suffers from the same thing the word 'feminism' does - ot's become this taboo thing that no longer is allowed to be what it is, causing dissonanse between the different warring factions that would harness the power of its definition- the definiton they choosenit togave- for their own gain, ironically often due to fear and other emotions motivating them.

And then we get into this yes/no bickering match instead of a proper acknowledgement and encompassing discussion of the actual topic, getting us effectively nowhere

All because of 'im right/you're wrong' bullshit that is about as subconsciously driven by self-preservational fear and power-seeking from both sides as it comes.


There would be a certain kind of symmetric beauty to it if it wasnt' so mindbogglingly frustrating, futile and harmful to go through/observe. The idea of a rat running in its wheel comes to mind.

 

[Abcdenfp]

Really would be conducive to discussions like this if being emotional about something wasnt thrown around like an insult - there is no harm in that as long as one is aware if it. Its vilification however leads to people convincing themselves they are beyond such a thing and using it - often ironically - in an emotional eay to shut others up and discredit them instead of actually discussing the issues at hand The whole 'being emotional' thing suffers from the same thing the word 'feminism' does - ot's become this taboo thing that no longer is allowed to be what it is, causing dissonanse between the different warring factions that would harness the power of its definition- the definiton they choosenit togave- for their own gain, ironically often due to fear and other emotions motivating them.
^^Says it all for me ,
toxicity is injected into any ideal, religion or concept when the motives of those applying it aren't pure. It's all in the application really.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Really would be conducive to discussions like this if being emotional about something wasnt thrown around like an insult - there is no harm in that as long as one is aware if it. Its vilification however leads to people convincing themselves they are beyond such a thing and using it - often ironically - in an emotional eay to shut others up and discredit them instead of actually discussing the issues at hand

The whole 'being emotional' thing suffers from the same thing the word 'feminism' does - ot's become this taboo thing that no longer is allowed to be what it is, causing dissonanse between the different warring factions that would harness the power of its definition- the definiton they choosenit togave- for their own gain, ironically often due to fear and other emotions motivating them.

And then we get into this yes/no bickering match instead of a proper acknowledgement and encompassing discussion of the actual topic, getting us effectively nowhere

All because of 'im right/you're wrong' bullshit that is about as subconsciously driven by self-preservational fear and power-seeking from both sides as it comes.


There would be a certain kind of symmetric beauty to it if it wasnt' so mindbogglingly frustrating, futile and harmful to go through/observe. The idea of a rat running in its wheel comes to mind.

You make a good point. Emotion informs all individuals, no matter how logically sound their arguments and thinking. From a typological perspective this is also true, though many thinkers might be less aware of or in touch with their emotions, but emotions are still playing an influence