Toxic Feminism

[tinker683]

I generally tend to think of feminism in postive terms.

When I think of feminism I think of a few things of which, like all things involving an ISFJ, are personal anecdotes

1) I think of my mother who started her real estate career at an office where the men expected her to just sit up front at the front desk and "look pretty", decided that wasn't enough for her and got her own license and started kicking all the men's asses in terms of sales and performance. The men dismissed her still, so she left that brokerage firm and started her own which became the largest of its particular franchise in Northeast Florida (before the market crashed that is)

2) I think of my old job at Publix while I was in college (in my opinion the greatest grocery store chain that exists in the south east United States) where women were actively discouraged from taking up positions as Stock Clerks (given how labor intensive it was) and instead shuttled toward being Cashiers. A couple ladies I knew bucked this trend and went on to be stock clerks alongside me and some of the other swinging dicks in the back and they did the job quite well. I remember these ladies were dismissed as being "too manly" and "butch". Neither of which was true.

3) I think of how women, especially single moms, are held to a stupidly higher standard than their male counterparts. I have a few single mother friends and tenants and all of them are expected to stay home all the time when they're not working focusing 150% on their kids. I remember when one of these female friends was publicly criticized because of photos she posted on her Facebook of her going out to a party and having a good time with her friends. Evidently the fact that she had hired a babysitter wasn't good enough, she wasn't supposed to go out partying she was supposed to be HOME.

On the same vein, one of my tenants was holding a birthday party at the home she was renting. The owner of the house showed up unannounced at 7:30pm because he felt the need to confront her directly over the fact that she hadn't paid her rent yet. According to the owner, she answered the door in her towel and the male-to-female visitors was higher than he personally approved of. In his eyes, this made her a slut and to hear him tell the tale, you would think an orgy was going on there!

I chastised the owner for showing up late at her house, unannounced as he did and informed him that her and I had worked out a plan for her rent so that was taken care of AND that if he had any issues with her, he was to direct those concerns to me and I would address with him in the proper manner.

4) Finally, I am reminded of Hillary Clinton and how she was treated during the 2016 campaign. She was ACTUALLY criticized for being 'overprepared' and if she raised her voice for ANY REASON AT ALL she was called "shrill". Meanwhile, if Donald Trump refrained from shitting all over himself for a 20 minute span of time, he was lauded of looking "presidential".

There is a gender bias in this country. Sure, we've made loads of progress since Womens Sufferage and sure there are elements of 'toxic' feminism that we have to deal with today. But I'll take toxic feminism any day of the week if we means we continue to move the meter forward for women everywhere.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's amazing that we don't hear anything about .... Feds drop bombshell: Up to 100 girls may have had their genitals cut in Michigan

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

It's amazing that we don't hear anything about .... Feds drop bombshell: Up to 100 girls may have had their genitals cut in Michigan

Isn't this exactly the problem we are trying to fix? Why the derogatory reference in the earlier post when you have clearly presented you are conscious of an example of the serious problems currently related to the issue of feminism in modern society?

The problems I am trying to fix are also related to extreme violence against women.

 

[Bush]

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a good light and get behind it

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a bad light and fight against it

The two camps don't even speak the same language, will never speak the same language, and are doomed to have endless discussions on feminism that are no better than crosstalk, and probably twice as pointless

eta: probably time to throw that word in the garbage and come up with something that encapsulates something tangible that can actually be pinned down and discussed

When I hear the word 'feminism' I always think "Here we go again..", and so I suppose the word itself makes me want to stab myself in the brain. So..I don't look at it positively.

 

[ceecee]

I know many christians, who the left incidentally characterizes as evil, who travel to those parts of the world to lend medical/construction aid while engaging the native people, forming relationships with them, and providing them human examples of female agency and the product of feminine liberties- and if you don't think a thing like that could help inspire people to work towards improving their lives from within their own culture then you possess a level of horse blinders that I don't think even a suicide bomb could liberate you from.

They could stay right here, there is plenty medical/construction aid needed all over their own fucking country. Every foundation (Clinton included), organization and group that wants to help doesn't need to leave US borders to do so. As a left leaning person, there is nothing wrong with Christians (or Jews or Muslims) as long as their constitutionally protected practice stays within the boundaries of themselves. I suspect the reason the focus is on other countries is that it's easier to proselytize when the native people have no idea who they are. The evangelicals that seek to convert Jews in Israel is probably the most pretentious example.

The whataboutsim pertaining to feminists and that they should do something to promote it in other countries is laughable, since it's already been happening forever, but men persist in touting the lies that it's not happening or that the only ones doing it are religiously based women or others that agree with them.

 

[Lark]

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a good light and get behind it

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a bad light and fight against it

The two camps don't even speak the same language, will never speak the same language, and are doomed to have endless discussions on feminism that are no better than crosstalk, and probably twice as pointless

Yeah, I'm finding that's more and more the case.

Sort of why I despaired of politics some time ago.

For me the watershed was the whole LGBT movement and what they did to marriage, there's no talking to people when they get the blinkers out, even less then they protest they dont have any. You just got to live your life and ignore it or avoid it as best you can. If you're lucky they'll keep to their live and let live word. If you're lucky.

 

[Starry]

Some women take such interventions as if we want to relegate women to inferior status. Respectful men have the highest regard for women and always have. Not only the women I frequent, but it is also clear that throughout history women can be and are brilliant scientists and thinkers and effective business and political leaders as well and that is to be admired. In fact some such women are among those that I admire most, especially if they manage to do so without subverting their femininity. Yes, I love feminine woman, and I'm a psycho by feminist standards.

What's omitted here, is that no one wants to discuss the naturally evolved roles of male and female from a biological and psychological perspective. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with either individual men or women breaking out of those roles or redefining them today in any truly positive way.The problem comes when societies as a whole attempt to subvert the natural biological roles of male and female in their relationships with each other, and most importantly in the family. Generally this distorsion is due to the misguided policies of the legislators who impose laws and ethical values which may seem to be well intentioned measures to correct real problems, but which being poorly formulated, either by ignorance or design, actually cause severer unintended consequences than the problems they were designed to remedy. When that is done there is grave danger that primitive evolved psychological imperatives will be directly triggered and lead to significant and even severe problems for society.

Men slowly relinquished their role to fit in and be validated by the newly agenda roaming in society about how men should treat women, and how women should treat men, added to a huge double standard hoax and inane rationnalization. Yeah, I never had any problem with feminist women directly, because they adjust their behavior with me since I'm respectful, genuinely caring, and takes no shit from anyone.

Feminists who complain about relationship problems are in a constant struggle. They say they want a man, but what they want is actually closer to describe a doormat, then they talk about feelings, about insecure men, about this and about that. Of course there are insecure men everywhere now. Though they are responsible for their behavior, you gotta give it up to the state and laws who contributed in shaping them for you into this new male breed that is loyal to the description of a man you have been instructed.

Laws and policies that lead men and women to blame each other for their problems naturally divert attention from the failures of the state and its leaders who are too often the real cause of the problems affecting both.

We're social animals naturally gravitating around the establishment of long term relationships for the final benefit of our family and children. Just like women crave security and care, men crave a certain level of emotional support to validate his being a man which prompts them to love them even more. There are many instances where a woman who can lead steps out and lets the man handle things because she's aware of this inclination in the natural psychological needs of a man. Likewise it is the man's responsibility and duty to do the same for his woman to make sure she receives the praise and appreciation and love to feel she is worthwhile as a woman and as a person. That is absolutely essential to a good relationship, and by each partner doing so they in turn incentivize the other partner to do likewise and thereby strengthen the bonds of the relationship.

This is one of those posts I will have to read many times with rising, kneading and baking periods in between... But I appreciate it so much - thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

I want to say this for now though as your own comments gave me an opportunity to say it...


It stands out to me that you mention you have never encountered feminists that have had a negative reaction to you. In my experience...from everything I've seen in my time... men that are truly, authentically strong and powerful never do. Seriously.

 

[rav3n]

Meh, the nuclear family model isn't innate in humans so the entire 'naturalistic' fallacy argument collapses because of it.

 

[Coriolis]

It's a tough problem to deal with when you are more concerned about the feelings of muslims than the welfare of women.

Exactly which "you" did you have in mind here?

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a good light and get behind it

I'll choose a definition of feminism that paints it in a bad light and fight against it

That is why, when I mention feminism I generally define it myself, so people need to address what I actually mean, and not whatever baggage they have associated with some less mainstream definition of the word.

The code of honor of the gentleman is of moral rectitude, loyalty, courtesy, compassion, respect and self-respect, to help those who need your aid, to protect those who need protection, to honor your principles and your oaths, to show humility, to show confidence and courage at the risk of appearing arrogant, to fulfil your duties, and if needs be, to sacrifice what needs to be sacrificed.

What part of the above would not apply equally well to women?

 

[Bush]

I'd be more sympathetic to first world feminists if they personally took their values and ideology to places like Africa India Saudi Arabia etc and put their lives on the line defending them, but of course they don't and I have no sympathy or solidarity for selfish hypocritical luke warm 'talk much-do little' wimps.

The first world needs feminism as much as the little pig who built his house out of bricks needs decorative ornaments on his handrails. If all pigs are truely equal then time can be better spent down at the straw house. Unless you grow a pair your values and ideology are worthless.

A pretty good amount of second-hand (more like one-and-a-half-hand) experience has told me that, yes, other countries absolutely need feminism more than we do. Many other countries need a lot of things more than we do.

But do feminists truly need to go off and do mission work in foreign countries -- or put their lives on the line, or something equally egregious -- in support of feminism? What about anyone who holds any particular conviction at all? Should they also be considered wimpy and weak if they're not willing to die in support of their convictions, too? Should (read: can) we ship off Cernovich to go fight the Amazons?

Ideologies and values are worth squat if they're not applied. So are ideas and theories. But I'd set the bar on what counts as application to be much lower. Enacting change at home -- or at least in one's own country -- seems like it'd be acceptable, so long as it's somewhere above and beyond rabble-rousing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in most STEM fields; Native Americans especially so. Can we assume, then, that they just don't want to enter those fields? Can you think of anything that might explain this relative lack of desire?

I can, in that case. I guess I see a lot of effort to reach out to women with regard the STEM education. I suppose my main question is why those efforts aren't more effective. I suppose I'm inclined to support the idea of sexism being a cause, but I feel motivated to play devil's advocate on this issue, probably to feed my own 6 wing.

Where I live there is a nationally acclaimed composer who is Native American and has lived in this community for years, and yet instead of someone like him being a professor at the local university, they bring in people from Germany trained on the East Coast, and I would say it is perceptually (possibly subconsciously) because that *feels* the closest to hiring Bach or Beethoven, our idealized role models. Change the role models, change the choices and outcomes. This has to do with the natural flow of society and culture and it not a matter of "fault", but of unacknowledged perceptual assumptions.

As a general rule, people tend to need to see concrete examples of possibilities. The issue with lack of interest between certain demographics and fields of study has a lot to do with culturally not seeing it as an option or possibility. This has to do with lack of role models and the response of family and authority figures when interest is expressed. The majority of these imbalances are perpetuated at a subconscious level resulting from shared perceptual assumptions.

Do you think if we promoted more female role models in STEM, then things would change, or are additional efforts needed? Again, just playing devil's advocate.

 

[INTJMom]

...
Well, I hope you continue to life free of the gender bias that affects so many women (and men). I have experienced very little of it directly myself, though many friends and colleagues have not been so fortunate. If we have been able to enjoy relatively equal opportunity and respect, it is due largely to the efforts of generations of feminists man-haters who came before us, and worked to make it so.
...

One does not have to HATE people in order to change society.

 

[anticlimatic]

A pretty good amount of second-hand (more like one-and-a-half-hand) experience has told me that, yes, other countries absolutely need feminism more than we do. Many other countries need a lot of things more than we do. But do feminists truly need to go off and do mission work in foreign countries -- or put their lives on the line, or something equally egregious -- in support of feminism? What about anyone who holds any particular conviction at all? Should they also be considered wimpy and weak if they're not willing to die in support of their convictions, too? Should (read: can) we ship off Cernovich to go fight the Amazons? Ideologies and values are worth squat if they're not applied. So are ideas and theories. But I'd set the bar on what counts as application to be much lower. Enacting change at home -- or at least in one's own country -- seems like it'd be acceptable, so long as it's somewhere above and beyond rabble-rousing.

Hmmm, I suppose no one is really required to be any particular level of involved with their ideology as long as they don't feel guilty about it- which is really the entire point of acting on ones ideology. I only know that if I were a self identified feminist I wouldn't be able to live with myself unless I was tangibly contributing to the evolution of women's rights where it was either needed the most, or at least needed more than literally any other place in the world (coincidentally, where I live- the states). There's a big subjective factor at play of course. I for instance don't have more than two bits of respect for the current first world feminist agendas, so I'm fairly biased in the same vein as highlander towards considering American feminism trite and frivolous (at best). The amount of concentrated indignation first world feminists inject into their cause could only be warranted if it was a serious issue- which it is, just not here- so the hypocrisy of tone and behavior really rubs me the wrong way. What can any armchair slactivist American feminist say they've ever done for women? Marching and protesting with your pals to no avail doesn't count for anything.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I can, in that case. I guess I see a lot of effort to reach out to women with regard the STEM education. I suppose my main question is why those efforts aren't more effective. I suppose I'm inclined to support the idea of sexism being a cause, but I feel motivated to play devil's advocate on this issue, probably to feed my own 6 wing.

Do you think if we promoted more female role models in STEM, then things would change, or are additional efforts needed? Again, just playing devil's advocate.

Role models are a start, but the dynamics that cause under-representation of certain demographics of people are complex. It also helps to address the history of science and acknowledge the scientists from various demographics who are part of our history. I'm not in the sciences, so I don't know all the specifics of how to solve issues in each context. Perhaps everything doesn't have to result in equal representation from everyone, but when there are noticeable imbalances it seems worth addressing without this idea that someone is consciously trying to make that happen. There is no need for "fault" with any of these discussions.

I'm comfortable with my experience and career, but have faced pressure on the basis of gender that could have had a negative impact for some. For example the older generation of women in my family criticized me for pursuing graduate school and told me it was selfish (even though I don't even have children, so it was simply a choice of how to spend my own time). I studied a history in my field that consisted mostly of men, although I created my own sense of history by researching all the historical women in my field. When I was 18, I had some feeling of not belonging in my field because of looking and being so different from the norm. Think about how anyone feels during training - you get critiqued so much, the pressure is intense, and it is easy for anyone to doubt themselves. Now add to that an entire historical record that says people "like you" can't or don't do this. There are assumptions of sometimes intelligent, but prejudicial people who make a "compelling" argument that you were never meant to be good at this. Now imagine choosing a field that everyone just assumes you will do great at and so comments from known and unknown people all support this. To venture into an area of skill not associated with people who look like you requires the ability to keep going even when pressured that you are 'objectively wrong because so many think otherwise'. I could do it because I have a natural lack of caring that much what people think, but my long years of training were a barren path in terms of cultural support, and my case wasn't that bad. There is also a kind of contempt I have encountered that often has a sexual component professionally that has been very stressful for me. I have not benefitted from any kind of demographic based funding during school or later. I once lost funding to a man with lesser skill, but that was because he had the ability to brag himself up in a way I don't. He never created new work while in the program, but kept pulling up work from the past, so he shouldn't even have been there. The person who gave me the best career opportunities has a world-class professional reputation and is female, and the person who did most of my training was brilliant, open-minded and male. That is how the cards played out for me and some of those details may not relate to how it typically goes, but it is listed as events.

A lot of the issue is basic behavioral modification at the cultural level - rewards and punishments for choices that do or not not align with norms, assumptions, and expectations.

 

[Starry]

It made me sad to read your post.
I was accepted to a college only because I was a female (B average student).
My guidance counselor told me the college had a quota they had to meet (Technical school).
I found it insulting to be used to meet a quota.
I am not interested in having something I don't deserve.

So I'm assuming you did not attend college then? Or immediately dropped out upon hearing this news or did not accept your technical degree or certificate?


I would like to add that in no way am I a man hater and take offense to being called one. I spent a large portion of last year working with a class of all boys in an effort to improve boys experiences in the classroom. This was based on my personal interest and subsequent repeated requests to my superiors.

 

[anticlimatic]

The biggest purpose feminism serves in first world nations is virtue signaling.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Exactly which "you" did you have in mind here?

Any feminist more concerned about Islamophobia than the treatment of women in muslim society, so like 95% of em.

 

[Starry]

Whenever I start to question whether or not Feminism should continue on or be abandoned...all I need do is come and read the sentiments in these threads.

 

[Coriolis]

I can, in that case. I guess I see a lot of effort to reach out to women with regard the STEM education. I suppose my main question is why those efforts aren't more effective. I suppose I'm inclined to support the idea of sexism being a cause, but I feel motivated to play devil's advocate on this issue, probably to feed my own 6 wing.

Do you think if we promoted more female role models in STEM, then things would change, or are additional efforts needed? Again, just playing devil's advocate.

Making role models available is very important. If few people from your background are in a particular activity or career, it can be hard to see it as a viable alternative for yourself. This can be either a practical recognition of known or suspected barriers (e.g. bias in hiring, hostile work environment), or the less conscious internalization of the idea that "that just isn't for me". My father thought this way about college originally, until the example of some army buddies showed him otherwise.

Even so, change will be long in coming. This is because we are working not against a law, that can be repealed with a single legislative vote; or a company hiring policy, that can be revised with the stroke of the CEO's pen; but rather against expectations ingrained in our culture. As we have seen with attempts to keep kids off drugs, all the outreach and publicity in the world (DARE, anyone?) has a hard time competing with peer pressure, culture, family expectations, and the practical realities of needing to get by every day. The increasing numbers of women in historically male careers and pursuits shows what happens when artificial impediments are reduced. We are on the right track, we just need to keep going.

One does not have to HATE people in order to change society.

My point exactly.

Role models are a start, but the dynamics that cause under-representation of certain demographics of people are complex. It also helps to address the history of science and acknowledge the scientists from various demographics who are part of our history. I'm not in the sciences, so I don't know all the specifics of how to solve issues in each context. Perhaps everything doesn't have to result in equal representation from everyone, but when there are noticeable imbalances it seems worth addressing without this idea that someone is consciously trying to make that happen. There is no need for "fault" with any of these discussions.

Exactly. Insisting on actual parity is overdetermining the solution. Identifying external (to the individual) forces that disproportinately impede participation by one demographic or another and addressing them allows each person to proceed, constrained as much as possible only by his/her intrinsic limitations.

IME, the elephant in the room where STEM is concerned, and also some other careers especially in business/finance, is the division of home labor. Many of these careers still require a level of effort that is often incompatible with even the 50/50 sharing of domestic work held up as the modern ideal. The men who traditionally pursued such careers had wives who took care of everything at home. The answer is to improve the work/life balance for everyone, something that will benefit not only women, but also the many men whose wives are pursuing careers of their own.

Any feminist more concerned about Islamophobia than the treatment of women in muslim society, so like 95% of em.

Please provide the source for this statistic.

Prejudice against a Muslim just because he/she is a Muslim is no more justifiable than prejudice against a woman, Muslim or not, just because she is a woman. Muslims, women, and everyone else should be judged by their actions and not by group membership.

 

[Cellmold]

It's difficult to tell when a person is sublimating others they interact with and replacing what is there with what is more useful to any agenda they carry.

Abstracting out our experiences into the templates for our interactions is very difficult to avoid and nearly always a damaging element to both the subject and those around them. You might call this "looking for an excuse".

I realised a lot time ago that you can't really avoid being subject to the world, that is to say that the world you are part of (as an existent object of activity) takes primacy over your want to control everything in it. You can attempt to control how people act, perhaps even set the stage for how they think, but you will always encounter contrary position and opinion.

And sometimes their evidence is better.

This is something that many under the umbrella of feminism don't understand, on the other hand it's also what many isms don't understand. But feminism has the backing of being a generally sponsored position in many areas of the West, particularly in areas of prosperity and business (who understand how to tow the line when it benefits them).
I don't care who I work with usually. Can they do the job to an acceptable standard? Are they holding themselves personally accountable and responsible for their actions and consequences?
Then who cares what gender they are?

If there are genuine prejudices involved that affect people, beyond just an unpalatable opinion, then go.... combat it, expose it and work to change it for a better outcome.

But otherwise, discuss, debate and deliberate. Don't be a victim, everyone is pretty much a victim in some way or another and this is as harsh a judgement against myself as anyone else. Which isn't to say don't empathise. But don't sit by wallowing either.

Why aren't businesses hiring women by the lorry-load? They get away with paying them less, right? Although maybe there might be obscure examples of a business being so against women in a field that they will just refuse to have them, cheaper pay or not. That has to be a rare occurrence though, because even with the inundation about subjects like equal pay, there are very few stories of such a situation, relatively speaking.

I'm getting side-tracked; there are other issues to discuss. Mistreatment due to cultural trappings might be the most egregious one, it's a bit over-talked in this thread and others, but it's a valid point, I think, to challenge where a person wants to focus their attention on the issues in the world.

Is it so hard to believe that many who claim feminism as their doctrine, are only in it for profit, reward and gain? That's not saying all are, but a lot of the more well known names have shown themselves up to be exactly that. I'm not sure I'd want those people to be the visible representations of my ideology.

I don't want to hate anyone though, at most I say the word out of anger with individuals, but the necessity of feminism, at least the necessity based on its most common representations and focuses, is not a convincing one.

Conversely I subject men's rights movements to the same scrutiny; be careful not to turn your arena's into abstracted hate loops for men or women. Accept there are issues, accept that your opposing force is more lateral than divisional and accept that there are valid points on all sides worth considering and working towards a solution for.... just be careful in how that can get away from a person and shouting down ideas we simply don't like.

That's a dangerous step towards authoritarianism and thought control.

But I guess some kinds of personalities (non-typologically speaking) gravitate towards the extremes, regardless of the focus. Other times the ideology itself actively encourages it... be careful and responsible in your beliefs.