"I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff"
What?
What?
Without carefully measured responses, the larger moment will steamroll the dissent with guilt by association (the last many years) until it becomes unavoidable (the last year-ish?) when the ideas are presented in non-hitpeices by The Atlantic and Vox.
That's not something I'm going to do. I don't subscribe to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and I want nothing to do with misogyny. We're not doing ourselves any favors by associating with terrible people just because they agree with us on some issues.
When feminiism has become a movement against truth and against half the population, what do you expect?
Some things said by feminists:
* "Men weren’t really the enemy — they were fellow victims suffering from an outmoded masculine mystique that made them feel unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill." -- Betty Friedan
* "Women and men communicate differently, often on entirely different planes. But just as men have failed us, we have failed them. It has been one of our great collective female shortcomings to presume that whatever we do not perceive simply isn't there, or that whatever is not communicated in our language is not intelligible speech." ― Norah Vincent
* I can't find the reference, but I seem to remember that the first person to widely spread the idea that it's possible for men to be raped was a feminist.
Remember that the college kids at Yale are exactly that: kids. I remember a time shortly after I became an atheist where I was angry at everyone religious for wronging me. It took me a while to realize that many religious people weren't horrible people, they were just humans, who were doing the wrong thing while trying their best to do the right thing. College students who are newly finding their voices are defining the conversation here, but they're not bad people, they just haven't realized yet that the people who they're attacking are just humans, too.
Tell me all you want that feminism isn't a harmful force in society today. That idea is not consistent with my experience. When modern feminists hear that boys are doing worse in school than they used to, they just say "good; it's about time". These days, every time I hear someone arguing against equal treatment, against free speech, against due process, and again diversity of opinion, that person is a self-proclaimed feminist.
Modern feminists really believe that today's men, especially white men, should suffer for imagined crimes of our ancestors. It's perfectly fine to have women-only conferences and events, but if we even think of a men-only club, that's backwards and sexist. Feminism is about double standards and about setting the genders against each other. The idea that feminism benefits men too is a lie.
If you're incapable of recognizing that feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas, you're just as bad as those who espouse the Duluth model. You accuse all feminists of declaring men guilty until proven innocent, but in doing so, you're declaring all feminists guilty even despite the fact that I've already shown some of them to be innocent. And what's more, you're alienating a lot of feminists who would be on your side.
> That idea is not consistent with my experience.
Which is why I tried to expand your experience by quoting major feminist writers. Do you not realize that your experience is limited?
> These days, every time I hear someone arguing against equal treatment, against free speech, against due process, and again diversity of opinion, that person is a self-proclaimed feminist.
Every time I see a rapist on the news that person is a self-proclaimed man. If you're going to (correctly) complain about being judged by a few poor examples of our gender, you should recognize the hypocrisy of judging all feminists by a few poor examples of their movement.
Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.
More likely, the path to reason is for reasonable feminists to hear how important this issue is from reasonable men, and start taking our side.
It's political suicide for a man to publicly stand against radical feminism. It's not political suicide for a moderate feminist to stand against radical feminism.
Standing against feminism is becoming more and more viable. The amazing thing about these radicals is that they only have the power you give them. If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Is your ideology beach body ready?
> for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.
Strawman, and you know it. I want equal treatment for all. Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.
It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.
Or, you can get fired. You don't have to look far for examples of this happening. I don't support radical feminism, but I'm also not ready to martyr myself over it if that can be avoided. Losing your job and social standing does nobody any good.
> > for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.
> Strawman, and you know it.
You literally said:
> > feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas
> Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.
You literally said that all the feminists who are not the feminists you're railing against are irrelevant. If that's a strawman, it's a strawman that you said, and I can only respond to what you say.
> Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.
"Today's feminist" as you claim, a single entity, does not exist.
> It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is equally not useful to suggest that women either give up the title and role of feminism or support female superiority.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/17/oh-snap-campus-kids-dro...
https://twitter.com/womcam/status/580389025892175872
I must admit I dont understand the motivations and it does seem like the onion to me but I dont want to dismiss it unreasonably.