Toxic Feminism

[Doctor Cringelord]

I agree. Equality of opportunity is at the root of my personal definition of feminism, which is giving to women the same opportunity, rights, and responsibilities given to men. This helps men, too, since, for example, it rules out an all-male draft, or the presumption in family court that child custody should go to the mother by default.

In the military, it helps nothing.

I know a lot of military and/or ex-military guys. Unfortunately, having no draft or a gender-blind draft won't really change much. It's common before deployment for many female soldiers to suddenly and coincidentally get pregnant, thereby ruling them out from active duty for a duration of time. This also means units often ship out without all of their personnel, therefore making everyone's else's jobs harder in said units.

Accuse me of generalizing if you want, it's just a common story I've heard from men who have served in recent tours of duty.


And the family court situation is a lot more complicated. A magic wave of a feminist wand won't and hasn't yet changed that. I argued with you in the past on how feminist organizations have actively fought against attempts to reform the family court system to be more fair and equitable. They've also fought against efforts in Canada and the USA to make DV services more accessible to male DV victims. In the UK, feminists fought to minimize sentencing of females in criminal court. A noble venture, except they already get sentenced less severely on average (when factors like prior criminal record and severity of the crimes are equal). So they essentially fought for a greater disparity in a system that is already not fair and balanced in its treatment of the sexes. They've compared male circumcision in the first world with female circumcision in the third world, muddying the facts and obscuring the fact that MGM happens just as often as FGM in the third world and is just as dangerous and traumatic due to often unsanitary conditions and bad medical science. They have supported the Gender Inequality Index, a ranking system that has been shown to use unfair metrics and leads to skewed views on the available data.


I never listen to feminist rhetoric. It's a nice sentiment and I wish they were serious about it. I always look at the actions of the organizations and individuals. If their actions are actually in support of egalitarian treatment and opportunities, then I am all for giving them credit and supporting them. Too bad that isn't the case most of the time.


I am all for it and any other political movements so long as they remain primarily humanist movements at the core. Lost sight of that element and any remaining intent is suspect.

 

[MPP]

That's not really true though...

We Dug Into Data to Disprove a Myth About Women in STEM

That article labels Jordan Peterson as a men's rights activist. That is absolutely ridiculous! Try a 30 year professor of psychology, 20 years as a clinical psychologist and a highly cited social scientist.
Slate.com is not a science website. Try https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ing-sex-differences-in-personality-seriously/

 

[MPP]

Impulsivity (Se or Ne) tempered by parental conditioning turn into self-control (Si or Ni), respectively. I think religion might serve to reinforce and maintain the conditioning once parental supervision is removed.

"God" serves as the omnipresent parental figure supervising the individual for bad behaviour.

As much as I like the MBTI, it's not mainstream psychology. I think in part religion was created to try and control and temper human nature. However, it can become very restrictive if the balance shifts too much in the favour of religion, also if it is distorted in order to favour certain members of a society, men for example.

 

[yeghor]

Feminism is the ultimate gaslighting tool for narcissistic and antisocial women and their gaslighted male minions/familiars.

It is their tool to hack the system in their favor to elevate themselves at the expanse of others and scapegoat their victims in the process.

Detoxifying the movement would require classifying it as sexism/hate speech and identifying and criminalizing adherents engaged in that kind of behaviour.

It would be much easier if it was possible to identify individuals (be it male or female) inclined towards biased/preferential behaviour thru brain scans and minimize their involvement in key decision-making or other influential positions in the society.

 

[Red Herring]

That article labels Jordan Peterson as a men's rights activist. That is absolutely ridiculous! Try a 30 year professor of psychology, 20 years as a clinical psychologist and a highly cited social scientist.
Slate.com is not a science website. Try https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ing-sex-differences-in-personality-seriously/

Slate isn't a science magazone, but the arguments are sound and can probably easily be found elsewhere as well.
I can't take Jordan Peterson seriously. His fans are much worse than he is tough, so one should distinguish the two, to be fair.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Peterson is OK when he stays in his lane of expertise--clinical psych and Jungian symbology.

I try to avoid mention of specific figures on either side of these debates because everyone gets so hung up on who said this and who said that--the discussion gets derailed. Like I really give two shits what Naomi Wolf or some conservative pastor had to say about abortion rights or family courts--also, half the time, it's scary how aligned the rad fems and traditional conservatives are when it comes to their instinct to coddle and treat women like children lacking agency. Plenty of both side (and yes I realize not all of them) opposed a female military draft when the debate came up a few years ago in the USA.

Peterson is cringe when he ventures into firebrand mode.


My favorites are the sex positive equality feminists. My least favorites are the ones who present in such a way you can hardly tell the difference from Anita Bryant styled tradcons

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Saying that Christianity is connected to giving some people a sense of morality is not glorifying it. There are good and bad things about Christianity, and religions in general. I'm not religious, I don't need a religion to be a moral person. However, that doesn't mean that others don't need it. The direction that western society is going in is evidence of that. You remove cultural programming, and what remains is biological instinct. Impulsive pleasure seeking and meaninglessness. Is that better? Maybe a balance is needed.

It could give some people a sense of morality, but it has often surprised me that it doesn't do more. I have been trying to get a sense of whether religion does more good or bad. I do think it keeps morality at the child-perception level where you obey whatever your parents say as right with a sense of idealizing them. When that relationship to authority relies on that arrested development combined with social group agreement on premises that are not provable, it does set up a population to follow political leaders in a childlike manner with magical thinking ready to believe absurdities because the leader says it and the group believes. I recognize churches have a lot of social programs, so is it worth the risk?

 

[Indigo Rodent]

It could give some people a sense of morality, but it has often surprised me that it doesn't do more. I have been trying to get a sense of whether religion does more good or bad. I do think it keeps morality at the child-perception level where you obey whatever your parents say as right with a sense of idealizing them. When that relationship to authority relies on that arrested development combined with social group agreement on premises that are not provable, it does set up a population to follow political leaders in a childlike manner with magical thinking ready to believe absurdities because the leader says it and the group believes. I recognize churches have a lot of social programs, so is it worth the risk?

I think that biggest problem is how many people who consider themselves to be progressive have been fully indoctrinated into nazi social Darwinism. One could consider it a sort of religious brainwashing in itself.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think that biggest problem is how many people who consider themselves to be progressive have been fully indoctrinated into nazi social Darwinism. One could consider it a sort of religious brainwashing in itself.

From what I understand, social Darwinism is a misunderstanding of Darwin's work. From former friends interested in science, I learned that a lot of evolutionary processes require group selection, cooperation among individuals within a species in order to survive. That whole notion of hyper-individualism that destroys everything in favor of self goes completely against nature and is irrational.

I think large-scale social structures do rely on "brainwashing", or at least some kinds of coercive measures to maintain stability in these groups that are larger than what is normal for human social cohesiveness - larger than a tribe. There isn't one approach that is required, but there needs to be some kind of submissiveness and fear established.

 

[yeghor]

From what I understand, social Darwinism is a misunderstanding of Darwin's work. From former friends interested in science, I learned that a lot of evolutionary processes require group selection, cooperation among individuals within a species in order to survive. That whole notion of hyper-individualism that destroys everything in favor of self goes completely against nature and is irrational.

I think large-scale social structures do rely on "brainwashing", or at least some kinds of coercive measures to maintain stability in these groups that are larger than what is normal for human social cohesiveness - larger than a tribe. There isn't one approach that is required, but there needs to be some kind of submissiveness and fear established.

Viruses are hyperindividualistic entities.

Multicell organisms are collectivist entities.

Collective entities require suppression of ego/individuality and id/impulses to a degree to maintain unity/cohesion. That suppression mechanism is the superego.

Encouraging hyperindividuality, i.e., egotism/narcissism (by means of eroding external and internal superego control mechanisms) leads to disintegration of the collective/society into tribes/factions and consequently to civil war.

 

[Totenkindly]

Saying that Christianity is connected to giving some people a sense of morality is not glorifying it. There are good and bad things about Christianity, and religions in general. I'm not religious, I don't need a religion to be a moral person. However, that doesn't mean that others don't need it. The direction that western society is going in is evidence of that. You remove cultural programming, and what remains is biological instinct. Impulsive pleasure seeking and meaninglessness. Is that better? Maybe a balance is needed.

It sounds like you didn't follow where I was coming from or I did not clarify well enough, so let me explain better.

1. There are many more structured faiths aside from Christianity that would provide moral structure. Singling Christianity out as the one that makes a difference is indeed putting it on a pedestal. Maybe in your head you were also lumping in some of the other structured faiths world-wide but just saying "Christian" as an example. I don't know.

2. There are many many variations of Christianity out there, even sometimes within a particular culture but also spanning the world. It's one reason why Christianity has proliferated -- it mutates based on its setting and can adapt to various environments to improve its relevance. Which one(s) do you mean? Some are very structured and authoritarian, some are not. To lump them all together to say the entire package of denominations is worth describing as providing a moral structure comes across as elevating that general faith.

3. Authoritarian structures are well-known for the ease of abuse within their ranks. Don't get me started on the Catholic church in general -- and while everyone was aware of it on a subjective level (depending on their experiences), finally within the last 2-3 years the Southern Baptists in the US have been determined to have covered up the abuse and degradation of women in its ranks. Usually these "structures" of moral codes that you are elevating also create hierarches that place particular demographics (often women, children, and cultural minorities) at a huge disadvantage and/or rife for abuse and limitation, which leads me to the next thing....

4. ... the veneer of looking uniform on the surface / functioning smoothly / keeping strict rules of morality in place doesn't always mean the morality is actually practiced as intended. It's like a decorative brick on your patio that you flip over, revealing worms and grubs and mud and parasites. Providing structure for people can also create chokeholds on actual living vibrant personal exploration of faith; you are not permitted to follow individual conscience, because the group structure is master. I have also known many needing structure assume and judge others for not sharing their particular faith structure as morally inadequate, because without their particular faith, one cannot possibly be a good person and/or be approved of by god / deity or whatever passes for it. I've seen some become even more deluded into thinking that because they follow the tenets of their own particular faith structure, they now think they are better than those who do not -- and remain unaware of the remaining "motes in their eye" so to speak. It's both sad and ironic how much the structured United States Christian orgs fail to recognize themselves in the Pharisees, or act antithetically to Jesus' own behavior and words, all while believing they are righteous because of their embracing a Christianity doctrine or social structure.

I'd have felt better if your statement had addressed some the realities of the above. I'm cool with your statement that you don't feel you need a religion to be a moral person. I agree. Some people do not. Yes, there are some people who need some kind of external constraints in order to put on the brakes and keep them from running off the rails -- but it really can become a double-edged sword. Ultimately the best faiths are things that one can internalize and make moral decisions on one's own. If you need a structure to give you a sense of that, then fine. But I would not condone religions just because they provide a structure. It is a tricky interplay between 'thinking for oneself' and 'learning from the world around you' in terms of arriving at a moral code that can provide clarity and consistency in difficult situations, as well as providing oneself moral values to aspire to -- although it has always been such. (Kierkegaard, etc.) Goodness is hard won, as is responsible self-autonomy esp if it is not being dictated to oneself by some external standard.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think that biggest problem is how many people who consider themselves to be progressive have been fully indoctrinated into nazi social Darwinism. One could consider it a sort of religious brainwashing in itself.

I don't even know what that means nowadays. I mean, isn't saying that one's particular demographic (for example, the rich/wealthy/corporate) has no responsibility to other social groups (like the poor or those without wealth) basically a tenet of social Darwinism? All the push for deregulation by the GOP and the 1%? Because those who deserve to win, will win; and those who don't win can just drown? Talk to people who have to daily deal with disabilities (usually causes championed by progressives) and hear from them how the 1% / corporate structure is still often treating them negligibly -- I mean, that's pretty close to social eugenics, right, perpetuated not by progressives but by corporations and deregulators.

It gets a little confusing because of all the supposed "progressive" practices by certain big companies nowadays. It's still all money talks; in most cases, they don't want to lose sales, so they are trying to keep the largest consumer base possible and/or decide which base to keep, while being cloaked with a progressive-looking approach in a world that is automatically becoming global and diverse. Maybe I'm cynical and on some level they are using their power to represent the under-represented, which is better than just hoarding all their shit and letting the disadvantaged dwindle and die.

I think I'd like more clarity on why you are trying to tie "progressivism" to "nazi social darwinism" when it seems more clear that conservative/traditional influence and wealth is more related to it at least within the United Statues. I'm not following you. who specifically are you talking about here? It's not the fucking general left-leaning demographic and independents that are attending rallies with their nazi salutes, wanting to cleanse the culture of diversity, give corporations tax breaks to make them even wealthier, and otherwise deregulate everything even if it will bite most of them in the ass eventually. So please clarify. Are you just talking about the extreme leftist outliers, or what? (Although I see them as less relevant to social Darwinism than the people I've already mentioned.)

 

[Coriolis]

In the military, it helps nothing.

I know a lot of military and/or ex-military guys. Unfortunately, having no draft or a gender-blind draft won't really change much. It's common before deployment for many female soldiers to suddenly and coincidentally get pregnant, thereby ruling them out from active duty for a duration of time. This also means units often ship out without all of their personnel, therefore making everyone's else's jobs harder in said units.

Accuse me of generalizing if you want, it's just a common story I've heard from men who have served in recent tours of duty.

And the family court situation is a lot more complicated. A magic wave of a feminist wand won't and hasn't yet changed that. I argued with you in the past on how feminist organizations have actively fought against attempts to reform the family court system to be more fair and equitable. They've also fought against efforts in Canada and the USA to make DV services more accessible to male DV victims. In the UK, feminists fought to minimize sentencing of females in criminal court. A noble venture, except they already get sentenced less severely on average (when factors like prior criminal record and severity of the crimes are equal). So they essentially fought for a greater disparity in a system that is already not fair and balanced in its treatment of the sexes. They've compared male circumcision in the first world with female circumcision in the third world, muddying the facts and obscuring the fact that MGM happens just as often as FGM in the third world and is just as dangerous and traumatic due to often unsanitary conditions and bad medical science. They have supported the Gender Inequality Index, a ranking system that has been shown to use unfair metrics and leads to skewed views on the available data.


I never listen to feminist rhetoric. It's a nice sentiment and I wish they were serious about it. I always look at the actions of the organizations and individuals. If their actions are actually in support of egalitarian treatment and opportunities, then I am all for giving them credit and supporting them. Too bad that isn't the case most of the time.

I am all for it and any other political movements so long as they remain primarily humanist movements at the core. Lost sight of that element and any remaining intent is suspect.

I have provided my working definition of feminism in many threads here, including this one. If someone is acting in such a way as to bring us closer to that goal, I consider them a feminist. If not, then they are no more one than those who claim to be Christian while ignoring the example of Christ. Zealots, bigots, or authoritarians of either stripe are a menace. I actually support universal conscription, with non-military alternatives like working in hospitals available for those with serious objections to military service. Women or men who really don't want to get deployed somewhere can either choose those options, or a stateside billet, with no excuses except actual disability. There are plenty of those roles to go around, freeing those willing and able to be deployed overseas to go. This can come at the "cost" of a longer service period, to deter its frivolous use.

Rhetoric is useful only inasmuch as it motivates and informs constructive action.

Feminism is the ultimate gaslighting tool for narcissistic and antisocial women and their gaslighted male minions/familiars.

It is their tool to hack the system in their favor to elevate themselves at the expanse of others and scapegoat their victims in the process.

Detoxifying the movement would require classifying it as sexism/hate speech and identifying and criminalizing adherents engaged in that kind of behaviour.

It would be much easier if it was possible to identify individuals (be it male or female) inclined towards biased/preferential behaviour thru brain scans and minimize their involvement in key decision-making or other influential positions in the society.

Techniques to correct for implicit biases are already being developed and implemented in many places. Of course, the first requirement is to recognize the existence of implicit bias, and that we can and should address it.

Sexism is sexism, regardless of which sex/gender it is directed toward. Feminism as I and many others see and practice it does not countenance it. I do not see how this is in any way gaslighting.

 

[yeghor]

I have provided my working definition of feminism in many threads here, including this one. If someone is acting in such a way as to bring us closer to that goal, I consider them a feminist. If not, then they are no more one than those who claim to be Christian while ignoring the example of Christ. Zealots, bigots, or authoritarians of either stripe are a menace. I actually support universal conscription, with non-military alternatives like working in hospitals available for those with serious objections to military service. Women or men who really don't want to get deployed somewhere can either choose those options, or a stateside billet, with no excuses except actual disability. There are plenty of those roles to go around, freeing those willing and able to be deployed overseas to go. This can come at the "cost" of a longer service period, to deter its frivolous use.

Rhetoric is useful only inasmuch as it motivates and informs constructive action.


Techniques to correct for implicit biases are already being developed and implemented in many places. Of course, the first requirement is to recognize the existence of implicit bias, and that we can and should address it.

Sexism is sexism, regardless of which sex/gender it is directed toward. Feminism as I and many others see and practice it does not countenance it. I do not see how this is in any way gaslighting.

Seeing it requires some level of self-awareness and consequently a capacity for self-criticism. Unfortunately narcissists are deficient in both, that's why they become narcissists.

 

[yeghor]

A feminist Ni-dom is an oxymoron because Ni-doms are centrists whereas prevalent version of feminists are not cause if they were they wouldn't be focusing on the needs of just one sex and would dissolve themselves.

 

[Coriolis]

Seeing it requires some level of self-awareness and consequently a capacity for self-criticism. Unfortunately narcissists are deficient in both, that's why they become narcissists.

Seeing what? You are not making much sense here.

A feminist Ni-dom is an oxymoron because Ni-doms are centrists whereas prevalent version of feminists are not cause if they were they wouldn't be focusing on the needs of just one sex and would dissolve themselves.

That "just one sex" represents over half of the human population. Many other social or political movements focus on much smaller fractions. Whether someone is centrist or not reflects less which subset of humanity they are engaging with, and more what conditions they would like to preserve or establish for them. Besides, levelling the playing field for women results in making it more level for men as well.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

I don't even know what that means nowadays. I mean, isn't saying that one's particular demographic (for example, the rich/wealthy/corporate) has no responsibility to other social groups (like the poor or those without wealth) basically a tenet of social Darwinism? All the push for deregulation by the GOP and the 1%? Because those who deserve to win, will win; and those who don't win can just drown? Talk to people who have to daily deal with disabilities (usually causes championed by progressives) and hear from them how the 1% / corporate structure is still often treating them negligibly -- I mean, that's pretty close to social eugenics, right, perpetuated not by progressives but by corporations and deregulators.

It gets a little confusing because of all the supposed "progressive" practices by certain big companies nowadays. It's still all money talks; in most cases, they don't want to lose sales, so they are trying to keep the largest consumer base possible and/or decide which base to keep, while being cloaked with a progressive-looking approach in a world that is automatically becoming global and diverse. Maybe I'm cynical and on some level they are using their power to represent the under-represented, which is better than just hoarding all their shit and letting the disadvantaged dwindle and die.

I think I'd like more clarity on why you are trying to tie "progressivism" to "nazi social darwinism" when it seems more clear that conservative/traditional influence and wealth is more related to it at least within the United Statues. I'm not following you. who specifically are you talking about here? It's not the fucking general left-leaning demographic and independents that are attending rallies with their nazi salutes, wanting to cleanse the culture of diversity, give corporations tax breaks to make them even wealthier, and otherwise deregulate everything even if it will bite most of them in the ass eventually. So please clarify. Are you just talking about the extreme leftist outliers, or what? (Although I see them as less relevant to social Darwinism than the people I've already mentioned.)

I'm talking about it in context of voluntary action. Progressives tend to practice altruism when it comes to spending other people's money. When it comes to their own money they still almost always practice nazi social Darwinism.

 

[ceecee]

I'm talking about it in context of voluntary action. Progressives tend to practice altruism when it comes to spending other people's money. When it comes to their own money they still almost always practice nazi social Darwinism.

This is ridiculous. I'm a unapologetic leftist and progressive and I do not subscribe to Social Darwinism when it comes to my own money. The Nazis murdered anyone and everyone that didn't fit their ideal. I understand you are disabled and in another country but you can't keep using this term to label everything.

 

[MaxMad244]

Someone started a thread on this that was kind of nonsensical so I thought I'd start a real one.

How do you feel about feminism? Are you for it, opposed or some other opinion? Maybe this has been talked about before but I was hoping to get some kind of vote.

I will provide my opinion. I have always been a person who believed strongly in equality. I have always been a supporter of women's progression and success in the workplace. I've been the same way with my kids. Those who know me IRL would attest to my actions which back up these words. I have always thought that discrimination in the workplace on anything other than performance is dysfunctional. I have always thought you should raise girls with an eye towards inspiring them to reach for the stars.

This all being said, when the word "feminism" comes up, I find myself having a strongly negative emotional reaction. I think it's a word that many people interpret differently and that many women appear blind towards the destructive factions involved. This is going to sound bad but when I think of the word, I think of some crazy bitch with a chip on her shoulder talking about misogyny, mansplaining, gaslighting, the patriarchy or some other drivel. I think about all the highly accomplished women in the world that don't feel the need to say they had to work twice as hard to get where they did and why the ones who aren't accomplishing things and complain in this way don't make something of themselves rather than provide excuses as to why they aren't able to. I don't think I would have noticed or cared about this if I hadn't been targeted by some women who have had a chip on their shoulder over the years or seen others targeted unfairly - characterized negatively because of they are white or male or made some money or express their opinions in a confident way. What bothers me the most has been those that silently watched behind the scenes, doing nothing while privately encouraging the crazy bitches that have attacked men unfairly or even been abusive towards them. I'm not sure I would have even have believed these things would happen if I hadn't experienced it firsthand because I am perhaps too much of an idealist. There is the small proportion of spoiled millennials that feel the world owes them a living and resent those who are in power - perhaps providing some convenient excuse as to why they are disadvantaged when maybe they should get off their ass and do something productive. Then there are those that lack the willpower, tenacity, grit or emotional intelligence to progress - all the while blaming their failings on someone else.

I wonder if women in general realize just how negative of a meaning this word has to a lot of men. I might be an aberration but I'm completely turned off. I wonder if women in general think it matters that people like me, who would otherwise be supporters, have been turned off for good by the dysfunctional extremists that many unwitting women appear to support.

I'm only one person. Maybe my experience is an aberration.

My primary issue with feminism, and I am very naïve to the different types of feminism so take this with a grain of salt, is that it entirely overlooks the primary concern of the modern soul which is class warfare. There is essentially one driving force that overrides all others in its progress towards increasing poverty, increasing misery, destroying life, killing children, societies, cultures, evolved the sex trade and slavery into Instagram and salaried employees (sub-categories of prostitution and slavery de facto). That force is power fueled by greed, or greed fueled by power. Power and greed is sexless.

If the warfare is between classes, the primary method or weapon used in this war is banking and the industrial complex as a methods of control, an evolution of the money launderers, goons, and thugs of the 1300's employed by the kings to multiply and dupe currency and gold, rape and kill the wives of enemies, etc. etc. Not many know this banking evolved out of the most corrupt and vile group of people during the early 1200's. They would make the mafia of the 1950's seem like gumby.

Feminism, by leaning into some strange idea of a patriarchy, which is like saying there was ever such a thing as a matriarchy (totally absurd we are not insects with a queen bee) ignores the mountains and points towards a button on the ground in an abandoned Sacramento parking lot filled with crack heads.

 

[MPP]

It sounds like you didn't follow where I was coming from or I did not clarify well enough, so let me explain better.

1. There are many more structured faiths aside from Christianity that would provide moral structure. Singling Christianity out as the one that makes a difference is indeed putting it on a pedestal. Maybe in your head you were also lumping in some of the other structured faiths world-wide but just saying "Christian" as an example. I don't know.

I live in a western country, so, naturally the first religion I think of is Christianity. It influenced laws and the legal system in western countries. Also, something that Jordan Peterson stated, Christianity puts the focus on the individual, which moves away from collectivist thinking. I haven't looked into this in much depth, so unless anyone proves overwise, for now, I will assume this is accurate.

I definitely agree with moving away from tribal collectivist thinking as much as possible. Genocides would have never been attempted if people were being judged as individuals.