Toxic Feminism

[jixmixfix]

I feel like the members arguing for some kind of dog-eat-dog, "survival of the fittest" purge/thinning type world...really shouldn't be.

That doesn't really address my question. It sounds like circular reasoning. I don't think we're in disagreement here. I'm just wondering how you jumped to the conclusion that there were less male domestic violence victims back then. Guess what, no one gave a shit about the majority of men back then either. Have you read Warren Farrell? He suggests we've been looking at gender relations in the past wrong. Rather than looking it as an absolute case where one oppressed the other, he suggests considering how both sexes were bound by their own unique responsibilities. It was a trade off for either sex. Why are his books not on gender studies reading lists? I do not know. It's a different perspective than the usual narratives, but he does as good a job as any feminist theorist in making his case and backing it with data and statistics.

Because I think there was less domestic violence in general. Domestic violence comes with unstable relationships and the most unstable relationships have been of the result of post modernism.

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like the members arguing for some kind of dog-eat-dog, "survival of the fittest" purge/thinning type world...really shouldn't be.

I'm arguing for personal responsibility.

 

[Amargith]

Depending on how one might define "thrive," everything suggested here could be easily filed under equality of opportunity. Outcome and opportunity with finite resources to balance the two always come at the expense of the other. Too much equal outcome diminishes potential opportunities and leads to stagnation and ultimately collapse. Too much equal opportunity expands potential disparity, but while some collapse others at least have the chance to thrive. Right now the US is a combination of both, steadily moving in the equality of outcome direction- and look what's happening to us.

Considering the wealth first world countries generate, it really shouldnt be impossible toguarantee that all of its citizens are fed, watered, have heating and a comfortable roof over their head, a clinic to go to for illness, the ability to express themselves and exercise natural behavior for their well-being (like have time off in order to exercise and have down time to recharge)

These are basic needs for all people. Id ideally add education to provide them with some extra support for that equal opportunity thing and tou re set.

Now, how that comes to be, ill admit to being naive on, but im not advocating anything beyond the basics to cover these needs for all. I think of it as ine large group insurance that everyone pays into in order to keep infighting over vital resources and suffering that stems from that to a minimum abd even out tge financial risks for everyone.

Again, im not talking about full blown communism where everything is obsessively equally divided, just a system where everyone gets the opportunity to thrive and build their lives without worrying about these 5 essential basic needs as they would cause chronic suffering and therefore both physical and mental damage long term which becomes a negative loop and contributes to crime, mental instability and infighting over essentials. It destroys a society from within.

That said, people who dont chronically worry about everything can do two things: be happy with the bare essentials and/or take it and build whatever extras they would like in life - like 2 vacations a year to a foreign country, a bigger home abd so on.

I guess...for me, ive seen what not having one of those five freedoms/needs fulfilled can do to any animal - and its heart breaking and always debilitating to that animal long term - and we humans are very much just as vulnerable to those 5.

It would be inhumane to knowingly and willfully condemn someone to that due to circumstance for whatever reason. So yes, equal opportunity regarding thriving, but equal bare essentials. Is a principle that im happy to execute or implement inwhichever way is best for the current society, but it isnt one id ever stop fighting for as it makes no sense to do so given the damage it would do to a people.

And again, to me, those ideas really dont have to be each others opposites

 

[Stanton Moore]

I have never found feminists to be toxic. It's intellectually dishonest to say it is. It belies a poor understanding of women, equality and the need for same.

 

[Lark]

I feel like the members arguing for some kind of dog-eat-dog, "survival of the fittest" purge/thinning type world...really shouldn't be.

I know right?!

 

[anticlimatic]

Considering the wealth first world countries generate, it really shouldnt be impossible to guarantee that all of its citizens are fed, watered, have heating and a comfortable roof over their head, a clinic to go to for illness, the ability to express themselves and exercise natural behavior for their well-being (like have time off in order to exercise and have down time to recharge)

I know it seems that way, and it's really tempting to associate national wealth with first world technology and modern secular values, but it was equality of opportunity that generated that wealth. In other words (and I know this is a dirty word in certain circles), capitalism. Taking that and pivoting towards an equality of outcome type of governance (like socialism) would erase it, and plunge us back into the third world. It's happened to other first world countries, and it could happen to the US. Economically we are not currently doing so well, in part because of how much we spend on social programs and subsidies (that are still woefully inadequate in their goals of providing some of those basic needs you listed). If we didn't have so many enemies globally maybe we could divert some resources from our defense budget, but currently that's not an option. I think that was one of Obama's end-game goals abroad when he was president- the pacification of our global enemies for the sake of being able to safely redirect some of our defense money, but I'm not sure it's ever going to be possible.

Again, im not talking about full blown communism where everything is obsessively equally divided, just a system where everyone gets the opportunity to thrive and build their lives without worrying about these 5 essential basic needs as they would cause chronic suffering and therefore both physical and mental damage long term which becomes a negative loop and contributes to crime, mental instability and infighting over essentials. It destroys a society from within.

The problem with those five basic needs is that they are too expensive to maintain, even if everyone contributed their most and their best, it still wouldn't cover it- and what incentive would anyone have to contribute that anyway if such things were provided automatically? I'm sure you've heard talk about Venezuela lately, which is a prime example of a wealthy first world nation implementing a (socialist) equality of outcome policy of governance, and then spiraling back into the third world. Minimum wage there was boosted 60% recently, and everyone is given basic food rations from the government- but a carton of eggs now costs 150 dollars, and everyone there is starving. There just isn't enough resources to save everyone. The best a nation can do is give people the freedom to save themselves if they are able. It's a sad fact of life, and nature, but so it goes in all kingdoms- animal and human alike.

 

[jixmixfix]

Considering the wealth first world countries generate, it really shouldnt be impossible toguarantee that all of its citizens are fed, watered, have heating and a comfortable roof over their head, a clinic to go to for illness, the ability to express themselves and exercise natural behavior for their well-being (like have time off in order to exercise and have down time to recharge) These are basic needs for all people. Id ideally add education to provide them with some extra support for that equal opportunity thing and tou re set. Now, how that comes to be, ill admit to being naive on, but im not advocating anything beyond the basics to cover these needs for all. I think of it as ine large group insurance that everyone pays into in order to keep infighting over vital resources and suffering that stems from that to a minimum abd even out tge financial risks for everyone. Again, im not talking about full blown communism where everything is obsessively equally divided, just a system where everyone gets the opportunity to thrive and build their lives without worrying about these 5 essential basic needs as they would cause chronic suffering and therefore both physical and mental damage long term which becomes a negative loop and contributes to crime, mental instability and infighting over essentials. It destroys a society from within. That said, people who dont chronically worry about everything can do two things: be happy with the bare essentials and/or take it and build whatever extras they would like in life - like 2 vacations a year to a foreign country, a bigger home abd so on. I guess...for me, ive seen what not having one of those five freedoms/needs fulfilled can do to any animal - and its heart breaking and always debilitating to that animal long term - and we humans are very much just as vulnerable to those 5. It would be inhumane to knowingly and willfully condemn someone to that due to circumstance for whatever reason. So yes, equal opportunity regarding thriving, but equal bare essentials. Is a principle that im happy to execute or implement inwhichever way is best for the current society, but it isnt one id ever stop fighting for as it makes no sense to do so given the damage it would do to a people. And again, to me, those ideas really dont have to be each others opposites

Feeding the poor used to be the goal of the church but now the goveenment has taken over and created a welfare state. In order to get the eutopia you dream of resources need to allocated to the state. Or there needs to be voluntary donations given to those in need.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I gotta duck out of this thread for a bit. I'm tired of seeing Ayn Rand's fugly face staring back at me.

 

[Lark]

I wonder why the whole hating/fearing women thing is such a staple of the right wing.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I wonder why the whole hating/fearing women thing is such a staple of the right wing.

My reasons for not considering myself a feminist have nothing to do with some hatred, and frankly I find that argument to be a strawman shaming tactic. It's no more fair to call all anti or non feminists woman haters than it would be to call all feminists man haters. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest, or the sign of delusional thinking, and says just as much, if not more, about the person accusing making that sort of accusation as it does about the supposed woman hater.

I'm not even a right winger, although I'm sure from where you're standing, most people look like right wingers.

 

[Starry]

I wonder why the whole hating/fearing women thing is such a staple of the right wing.

Not just women.... It seems like anyone that doesn't fit into a very narrowly defined role. So sad.

 

[Starry]

It's hard to think beyond the box...

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

"You r () the company you keep."

or rather;

The company you keep is what you r.

Meaning, if you hate men/women because of X behavior, it's simply a reflection of your own behavior. A projection of your own dysfunction onto the "other." Like attracts Like. If you are a miserable man/woman, you will only experience other miserable men/women.

Healthy men/women don't hate each other, rather they compliment one another.

Don't get hung up on the rabbits. Go find your complimentary wolf.

 

[anticlimatic]

I wonder why the whole hating/fearing women thing is such a staple of the right wing.

Yeah, that's a strawman alright. Ignorance of evidence is not evidence of ignorance.

 

[Starry]

gross

I need to leave this thread too.

I see men that are single for a reason.

 

[Starry]

"You r () the company you keep."

or rather;

The company you keep is what you r.

Meaning, if you hate men/women because of X behavior, it's simply a reflection of your own behavior. A projection of your own dysfunction onto the "other." Like attracts Like. If you are a miserable man/woman, you will only experience other miserable men/women.

Healthy men/women don't hate each other, rather they compliment one another.

Don't get hung up on the rabbits. Go find your complimentary wolf.

I'm sorry, but it is difficult to take someone who equates feminism with "women who won't make sandwiches for their spouse that is busy doing something else" seriously.

 

[Lark]

Erectile dysfunction.

D'ya think? I wonder why it'd be the woman's fault though.

Its one of the tropes of the right wing, especially the far right, its almost certainly a detector for fascism of some description in my experience too.

There's similarly bad tropes on the left too but that'd be a different thread.

 

[Lark]

Not just women.... It seems like anyone that doesn't fit into a very narrowly defined role. So sad.

I do agree with you but it does seem to be that there's a unique loathing of the woman types, I've even read about misogyny being correlated with sex offending by UK profilers, although I've not been able to find the news reports or articles since the time I originally heard that reported in the news.

I also remember hearing some pretty bizarre reports in relation to vandalism and attacks upon breast screening vans in the UK and NI, the perpetrators had those same bizarre grudges against women and whole outraged masculinity thing going on.

In my own experience, direct experience, most of the people who I've heard peddling the whole women hating, sometimes as seemingly rational discourse to do with the allocation of resources within health services for instance, have turned out in time to pretty shady characters, explosive rage, gaslighting their partners or others, drug habits, you name it pretty much.

For me its a sign of something, generally a red flag, the same as when you meet individuals who appear to be nice people but exhibit rude, abrasive or even aggressive dispositions towards anonymous others, such as reception staff, clerks, tellers or baristas. I've known all sorts of people and you can observe a lot of things and make connections, its not always a matter of jumping to conclusions either.

 

[Starry]

I do agree with you but it does seem to be that there's a unique loathing of the woman types, I've even read about misogyny being correlated with sex offending by UK profilers, although I've not been able to find the news reports or articles since the time I originally heard that reported in the news.

I also remember hearing some pretty bizarre reports in relation to vandalism and attacks upon breast screening vans in the UK and NI, the perpetrators had those same bizarre grudges against women and whole outraged masculinity thing going on.

In my own experience, direct experience, most of the people who I've heard peddling the whole women hating, sometimes as seemingly rational discourse to do with the allocation of resources within health services for instance, have turned out in time to pretty shady characters, explosive rage, gaslighting their partners or others, drug habits, you name it pretty much.

For me its a sign of something, generally a red flag, the same as when you meet individuals who appear to be nice people but exhibit rude, abrasive or even aggressive dispositions towards anonymous others, such as reception staff, clerks, tellers or baristas. I've known all sorts of people and you can observe a lot of things and make connections, its not always a matter of jumping to conclusions either.

I think women are the easiest/closest/least foreign targets. Men that would do this kind of thing feel most entitled when it comes to women is what i believe.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I do agree with you but it does seem to be that there's a unique loathing of the woman types, I've even read about misogyny being correlated with sex offending by UK profilers, although I've not been able to find the news reports or articles since the time I originally heard that reported in the news.

I also remember hearing some pretty bizarre reports in relation to vandalism and attacks upon breast screening vans in the UK and NI, the perpetrators had those same bizarre grudges against women and whole outraged masculinity thing going on.

In my own experience, direct experience, most of the people who I've heard peddling the whole women hating, sometimes as seemingly rational discourse to do with the allocation of resources within health services for instance, have turned out in time to pretty shady characters, explosive rage, gaslighting their partners or others, drug habits, you name it pretty much.

For me its a sign of something, generally a red flag, the same as when you meet individuals who appear to be nice people but exhibit rude, abrasive or even aggressive dispositions towards anonymous others, such as reception staff, clerks, tellers or baristas. I've known all sorts of people and you can observe a lot of things and make connections, its not always a matter of jumping to conclusions either.

Of course sex offenders would be misogynists. Saying that is about as obvious as pointing out that those guys who dragged that black fellow behind a truck some years back in Texas probably had racist views.

 

[anticlimatic]

Of course sex offenders would be misogynists. Saying that is about as obvious as pointing out that those guys who dragged that black fellow behind a truck some years back in Texas probably had racist views.

I think what he is saying is that if you're not a feminist you're probably a sex offender.