I fail to see any reason to hate her, what reasons are there?
It wasn't just a violation of the "free speech" promised by the original founder, but it was a selective "free speech" which indicated to affected individuals that they were offending the management/Admins while arguably even more offensive groups which targeted minorities that were not composed of management/Admin groups received a pass. Indeed, there was some schadenfreude with their wanting the same ill on these other offensive subs out of being selfish, but they did highlight a major inconsistency with Admins.
There was plenty to dislike about Pao's actions as CEO (as well as the KP lawsuit), but I think the real lesson is that the Internet Hate Machine is very difficult to slow down or stop once it flies out of control. Every nuance or worthy consideration is drowned out by waves of rage at even the smallest worthy object of complaint.
If there's real substance to the allegations, there will be another copy somewhere more respectable.
What? No. When a source is that biased, then the "list of topics covered" (and the keywords associated with them) do not somehow magically escape that bias; it is not a "great resource" for anything except the viewpoints of r/MensRights
But I'm also pretty sure that painting these broad brush strokes of men who want to see their kids or women who don't want to be harassed at work unnecessarily tarnishes a bunch of people trying to make things better.
I mean this sincerely: if you feel like there is a war on men, or that as a man in tech you're persecuted, you should find a professional to talk to. I'm not qualified to diagnose you and if I was I wouldn't do it over the Internet, but my suspicion is that a lot of MensRights activists are really experiencing pathological anxiety --- an extremely common ailment --- and that it's just expressing itself as a feeling of persecution.
Not nearly enough people take advantage of mental health care. It's possible that most(!) people should, in some fashion, just like we all see doctors. We live in crazymaking times.
You mention that the world isn't linear, but you seem to want to replace it with a simpler black and white model.
> The idea that MRA's and feminists are two ends of a single spectrum is one of those cognitive line-fitting traps we nerds fall into.
While I'm all about detecting and uncovering cognitive biases (hardcore LessWrong expat, reporting for duty!), I don't believe GP's analysis was wrong.
Just a guess, but I expect the people you're using to mentally represent MRAs are the equivalent of tumblr feminists (who also should consider treatment options in my opinion). Here's my line based model that attempts to not straw-man either group:
Fringe-MRA: war on men
Reasonable-MRA: there are some men's issues worth talking about (circumcision, work related injury and fatality rates, prison over-representation, gendered divorce laws, etc).
Middle: Meh, what's on TV?
Reasonable-Feminist: there are some women's issues worth talking about (FGM, right to drive/vote/work, right to serve in the military, pay equality/glass ceiling, etc).
Fringe-Feminist: patriarcy!
I don't see why this way of arranging the data should qualify as falling in to a line fitting trap. It seems like there are genuine issues on both sides, and a significant paranoid delusional component to be found at both ends of the spectrum. What am I missing?
Because its a nice, convenient, abstractly appealing linear arrangement that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues?
"There is general, society-wide, active oppression of men" is a view that opposes and is mutually exclusive with the comparable view with "women" replacing "men", but "there exists issues specific to men that are worth addressing in society" is not exclusive with the comparable view toward women, and in fact they are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.)
The model was an attempt at describing what the mental states were, rather than the distribution of individuals over those states.
> in fact [interest in gendered issues] are frequently found together
This was quite useful, thank you!
> are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.)
I disagree with this -- most feminist views on men's rights issues are of a different character than MRA views on men's rights issues in my experience. So while I believe the views are strongly anti-correlated, I disagree that anti-correlation should be the basis for the specific line I drew above, as there's nothing in principal that prohibits a belief in both at once.
I don't think that's a basis for calling it a cognitive trap though. Like, the similarity at the fringes is absolutely there.
Completely agreed. Not sure how people self label is particularly relevant: someone who understands both sets off issues and is male wouldn't generally want to be labelled as an 'MRA' or 'male feminist' either as both have awful reputations.
However, perhaps #1 is the case, so I'll try to clear the air. Here's my take on what the two of you are saying:
> I'm responding to your claim that both MRAs and feminists have "awful" reputations, which is false
I have personally heard more complaining about feminists, though I take that to be more an indication about the relative numbers of Feminists and MRAs in the world.
In my experience people with a strong ideological viewpoint have bad reputations outside of social circles dominated by that ideological viewpoint (Conservative Christians, Scientologists, Anarchists, Hard-Line Libertarians, MRAs, Feminists, etc) <-- hopefully you're not all of those, and so at least one was a good example.
Which is to say I think you're saying that in the circles you personally hang out in, feminists are generally highly regarded... which is to say you mostly hang out with feminists... and that GP is saying that in the circles he hangs out in feminists are not highly regarded... which is to say there are fewer feminists per capita than in your social circle.
I think both GP and you should have been more careful about misrepresenting your personal experiences as somehow universal. If you had, you would probably have avoided this back and forth.
> Feminism, on the other hand, is one of the more important social movements of the last 150 years
Feminism and feminists aren't the same thing. For example, Capitalism was an incredibly important idea globally, and is widely regarded as a good thing. Capitalists on the other hand are generally viewed as greedy. Incidentally, capitalists will often try to frame themselves as part of capitalism to subvert this negative impression... roughly the same thing you're doing here with respect to feminism.
That is a false equivalence. Anyone who supports feminism, that is equal rights for women, are feminists, the noun. Capitalists, the noun, are not just people who support capitalism, they are in fact wealthy people who take advantage of capitalism.
Finally, the idea that MRA & feminism have equal historical provenance is laughable. MRA is largely attributable to the last 5 years & is plainly a recent reactionary movement.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... ... which is to say I feel like most people understand the word feminist to mean something other than "99.9% of people living in a western democracy"
> the idea that MRA & feminism have equal historical provenance is laughable
Completely agree here, and am confused where I might have implied otherwise.
This whole thread on the other hand is about how feminism & MRA do not exist as opposites on a spectrum. Feminism, as you say, is an exceedingly common position. MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick.
My point was mainly about your incorrect statement that feminist was to feminism what capitalist is to capitalism. They are not the same thing and thus any extrapolation about negative connotations is unlikely to be correct.
As Thomas says, even anti-feminists usually categorize their antagonism with terms line "third wave".
Ahh, apparently the post was less clear than anticipated. Here's a quote from it that evokes what I was trying to say with the link:
"I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way."
Which is to say that I disagree with your definition of feminism in this context.
According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_309... 80% of people should identify as feminists by your definition, yet only 20% do. This means that at least 60% of the respondents to that survey disagree with your definition of feminism. I think that I (and the gentleman who's position in this conversation I took pity on) am using roughly the same definition of feminism as the 60% of the population from that HuffPo survey.
That definition is harder to put into words, but is something along the lines of "someone who primarily sees the world through the lens of gendered power struggles." Kind of like a Marxist, only for gender rather than class.
Using this definition, likening the reputation of Feminists to that of Capitalists is not a false equivalency (Capitalists here are people who primarily see the world through the lens of economic life).
> MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick.
Agreed, I was not trying to imply it was particularly common. My main point was that, in my experience, the more hardcore ends of both groups share a lot of psychological problems and cognitive errors.
I think you're mistaking your experienced distribution for the true distribution. Like, I'm very willing to believe that of the MRAs you're aware of, they are all hardcore -- it's a demonized subculture, you'd have to be a zealot or have fuck-you money to come out supporting it.
If instead of defining MRAs as "people posting crazy things to (insert website here)" you simply call an MRA someone who's primary political activity is toward fixing issues MRAs discuss, you'll be able to find a large number non-hardcore MRAs with a couple of google searches. Heck, I think most people working professionally with prostate cancer would qualify. The guy in this thread who mentioned lurking on MRA forums for interesting ideas absolutely qualifies (or rather, he didn't sound hardcore to me on first read).
Similarly if you go looking for the equivalent of (insert MRA website here) for feminists, you will also succeed in that endeavor. Your comment re: hardcore Roman Catholics & Branch Davidians makes me think perhaps you haven't gone looking for these sorts of sites.
Which is to say, yet again, that I do not believe the equivalence is false. I'd even go so far as to say that I expect the rates of hardcore ideologues in each group to roughly correlate with the rates of paranoid delusion in men and women respectively.
But having concerns about family law does not make you an MRA. People with family court problems want to fix the family court system. MRAs are people who feel like women are locked in a zero-sum contest with men, and that women have obtained more than their fair share of concessions in that contest. That's a problematic view, not widely believed to be based in fact, and held only by a fringe.
It is not at all comparable to feminism, which is based on the clear historical truth that women have been disfavored both by custom and by law in truly outrageous ways: not being given the right to vote, having the state make coercive medical decisions for them, having no protection from spousal rape, being overtly and deliberately paid less for the same work, &c. We can argue about the state of play on these things today. We cannot argue about the historical context of feminism.
> you should see how unfair and, in fact, terrifying the domestic violence legal situation is for women
Seems bad, though I'm not familiar enough with the situation to say anything specific. I've only recently started looking at politics/ideologies after having managed more or less 10 years of living by an overly literal interpretation of http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ 's title :p
> But having concerns about family law does not make you an MRA.
As you say there are reasonable people doing things related to men's rights. If you choose not to include these people in what I'll now call the "MRA spectrum" (since you've just narrowly defined "MRA" here), that's fair -- I agree the parallel with feminism breaks. If we try to compare a narrowly scoped group of awful people against a much broader and diverse loose coalition of less awful people, it's an apples and oranges situation.
However, we can also create a narrowly scoped subgroup of feminists. I think MRAs might be using the term "3rd wave feminist" for this, but to be on the safe side I'll coin a new term for our use here: FRA (TERF may also work, but I'm playing it safe).
We now have two narrowly defined groups of awful people, sitting inside and more or less agreeing with a broader, more diverse coalitions of politically active less awful people. The broader groups dislike the smaller groups, though are less harsh on their own. Both smaller groups suffer from seeming psychological problems, have a strong ideological streak, and are rather awful to interact with online. This is to say that the relation between FRAs and feminists has a similar feeling to that of MRAs and "MRA spectrum individuals".
If the parallel now makes sense to you, I believe you may have been mistaking a recurring semantic disagreement (namely: people on forums not realizing you have an extremely specific definition of MRA), for a widespread cognitive error (namely: people thinking MRAs-by-your-definition and feminists are similar).
> We cannot argue about the historical context of feminism.
I think we're in broad agreement on the history of feminism. My discussion was about feminists as a group of individuals, rather than an intellectual lineage. (Similar to meaning "people who live in the us" when discussing Americans, rather than "the philosophical descendants of the US founding fathers").
> your claim that both MRAs and feminists
I didn't claim that. Read my post again. I've included it above to help you. 'Male feminists' have a very different reputation than feminists per se.
Similarly, I didn't claim there was a 'war against men'.
You make up awful things I don't write and then respond to them. It's lazy and rude.
Now please disengage.
Thomas, the correct response to:
- a) strawmanning me
- b) being this rude
is to apologize.
I'm very comfortable with the two of us simply disengaging.
> I mean this sincerely: if you feel like all men should be killed you should find a professional to talk to. I'm not qualified to diagnose you and if I was I wouldn't do it over the Internet,
Obviously:
- You didn't write that
- It couldn't be interpreted from what you /did/ write
- It looks like an attempt to change the tone of the conversation by creating a straw man and attacking that rather than actually contributing anything to the conversation
- It's a thinly veiled and childish insult