Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkassis | Hacker News Reader

Feminism at it's core is about equal treatment of the sexes. You aren't anti-feminism if you believe that is a valid goal. Some identify themselves as feminists but don't align with the core goal and take it way further in the other direction. They also might do things that hinder the core goal of feminism but you can't equate them and the larger idea. I believe you are against what those people are doing but not against the true goal. Saying you are anti-feminism does not clearly identify your position and what you are really against.

View on HN

A movement is defined by what it does, not by the image it puts up when people question it.

The trick of throwing up a super-acceptable cover story when questioned, while returning to hate-oriented attack patterns when secure, is called the "motte and bailey doctrine":

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...

You can't just believe every movement is what they say. Otherwise we might as well say Kim Jong Un is a champion of economic equality, and Mexican drug cartels are brave militias defending the people.

>A movement is defined by what it does

Can we really attribute what a noisy minority does to the movement's actions, though? Even if said minority claims to be part of the movement. At what point do we draw the line?

Most feminists, admittedly talking from experience here, are moderates.

Comparing this to Kim Jong Un's actions isn't fair, as you're comparing the actions of a specific individual to those of a non-representative group of people.

Who says it's a noisy minority? I'm not talking about extremist actions like pulling fire alarms at university talks.

I'm talking about really basic things, like campaigning for more women to enter university (and not more men) despite the fact that women already greatly outnumber men in university. This isn't a fringe thing, it's core mainstream feminism. And it's exactly the opposite of "pushing for equality".

(You're right about Kim. Instead of writing his name, I should've written "North Korean government/society", to clarify that I'm talking about these groups and highlighting the gap between their stated principles and their actual actions.)

Right. And muslims are terrorists.

If you try to tell a decentralized group that you have them figured out based on the data you've collected from your personal surroundings, you're gonna get eye rolls.

I'm a feminist. Care to tell me what my flaws are?

Ah, the old, "We can't say X about this group because doesn't apply to every single member" fallacy?

Of course we know you don't believe that, otherwise you'd be unable to have any opinion about any large social group (which would make it impossible to be a feminist, for example).

I only ask that you apply a single standard to your beliefs, instead of "general trends OK" for things you want to believe, and "one exception disproves any general statement" for things you want to disbelieve.

People are diverse and you are lumping large groups of people based on the actions of the ones _you_ are noticing.

I don't understand what kind of standard you expect to have. Can you please give me an example, and say, how it might have applied to civil rights?

You're treating a movement as a monolithic entity, and then saying it should be represented by its most extreme and vocal advocates, who inevitably make up the vast minority.

No, he's demanding that a movement be represented by the actual actions of its members instead of what they claim to be trying to achieve. He didn't restrict this to its most extreme and vocal members. He doesn't have to, because anyone whose understanding of feminism genuinely doesn't go beyond "equal treatment of the sexes" is not actually considered a feminist by other feminists; there are a whole bunch of other beliefs that feminists are expected to hold, some more important and universal than others, many of which require treating people differently based on their sex/gender. (One of the more common beliefs is that feminism's tactics and beliefs are the only way of achieving equality of the sexes, and that anyone who doesn't support them is therefore opposed to equality. Relying on this argument would, of course, be begging the question.)

It's hard to get far in this conversation, because I say "most feminists believe X", and you say "no most feminists believe Y", and is there any way to find out the truth?

Some identify themselves as feminists but don't align with the core goal and take it way further in the other direction. They also might do things that hinder the core goal of feminism but you can't equate them and the larger idea.

The problem is, these individuals seem to be the primary voice attached to that label. Which is how such labels are defined.

That's motte-and-bailey.

Since "feminism" has no actual fixed definition, people arguing about it will define it as they see fit at any moment. When feminism is under attack, its defenders will retreat to a safely defensible position like "feminism is about equal treatment if the sexes". Once the attack has gone away, they will expand the scope of "feminism" considerably to encompass far less sensible and uncontroversial positions.

The "feminism" which gets attacked is not the same "feminism" that gets defended, making the word useless in an argument. Like "racism" the word "feminism" has become so overloaded that it no longer has any use in actual communication.

I usually compare feminism with the black movement. Black people are seriously disadvantaged in modern society, they are behind in everything! Wages? Check. Educational attainment? Check. Lifespan? Check. Crime rates? Check (high crime rate is a sign that you are a social outcast). Crime suspicions? Check. Sentence lengths? Check.

This is what it looks like when one group is privileged compared to the other. Note that men are behind women in many of these categories so it is hard to say that they are clearly the privileged sex. Black women have lower incarceration rates and longer lifespan than white men, so being male is even more disadvantageous than being black in some circumstances.

Yes, we have the wage gap which is a huge issue and I as a male am privileged in that regard and I think that it needs to get fixed, but I will never accept that feminism is for equality until they acknowledge that women are privileged in many categories as well. Instead what I hear from them is basically "Men are behind due to lifestyle choices while women are behind due to social structures". I don't buy that, either you say that both are social structure problems or you say that both are individual choices, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Personally I believe that feminism will never get any further until they start framing things in a male positive way. For example instead of saying "We need to force men to take more responsibility at home to allow our women to succeed with their careers" say "We need to stop judging men by their salaries so that they can take time off to bond more with friends and family without feeling guilty or stressed out". It isn't a choice if society pushes you to do it so as long society pushes men to achieve even more they will continue to work even harder. Or do people really believe that men work themselves to death for fun?

Two things:

http://m.imgur.com/h2bYMVE?r

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/98/fd/1d98fd34b...

Trying to frame gay-hating as misogyny summaries quite well what is wrong with current feminism and why many avoids calling themselves feminists even though it is a noble cause in theory. Not everything is about women.

I mean, when an assertive female is called "bossy" is that misandry? She was shamed for displaying male traits, right?

> Personally I believe that feminism will never get any further until they start framing things in a male positive way.

Those two links were meant to demonstrate that many feminists are already trying to frame things in a male positive way.

to clarify, most forms of feminism are about equal treatment of the sexes. Some forms are not.

(Personally, I identify with about one and one-half waves of feminism, and see a lot of overreach coming out of other waves.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com