Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

As much as I can't stand a lot of the ultra-extremist feminists out there in the internet, this kind of behaviour (doxxing, cyberhunting) is beyond unacceptable, it's dangerous to society.

Anyone who ever has engaged in "slut shaming" or whatever the current term is for hunting down/doxxing activists, please go, take a 9mm and shoot yourself.

And to Google/FB: please, make it possible for victims of doxxing/cyberhunts to contact a real human in your organization who has the authority and ability to track and remove such abusive content.

View on HN

What is an ultra-extreme feminist? Given that feminism is the advocation of social and political equality twixt genders, what is extreme feminism? What's the difference between social and political equality, and extreme social and political equality? How can two things that are equal be even more equal?

I'm referring to the kind of people like Alice Schwarzer, who thinks for example that all prostitution is inherently bad for the women and that there cannot be anyone working in prostitution out of his/her own will, or those "womyn" folks who think they have to change the word "woman" because it contains "man"... this is just ridiculous.

Also, by providing just-for-women courses in tech, for example, you're creating an inequality for men at the same time... you can't fight men-focusing with only focusing on women.

Well that's not feminism. Sounds like someone who wants to discredit feminism has hung a whole lot of other things on it, hoping to slur feminism by association.

The first one - thinking that all prostitution is inherently bad for the women and that there cannot be anyone working in prostitution out of his/her own will - is basically a mandatory part of being feminist here in the UK. Essentially every major feminist activist organisation thinks this way, and they refuse to accept groups or individuals who disagree as feminists. If you go looking for a feminist group near you, you'll find a list set up by UK Feminista, a joint effort between all the major feminist organisations which refuses to list any group which doesn't think this way. Oh, and they're the feminists who have all the contacts in the press, which they use to smear women who disagree with them.

Interestingly, I've basically never seen anyone refuse to accept feminists who think this way as feminists, except when it's inconvenient for some argument they're making about feminism being all sunshine and roses and equality. The net effect of this is that nominally reasonable feminists - like presumably yourself - are actually supporting these extremists by protecting them from criticism.

While you are correct that people looking to discredit feminism often cast aspersions and claim that xyz behavior is the work of the feminist movement, which it is clearly not, there are plenty of self proclaimed feminists who are nutters. I doubt they want to discredit feminism, but by their acts they certainly fall into what people might call "extreme feminism". I call them what they are, which is man hating. Feminism (as I know it) is about establishing both sexes on equal footing.

A prime example of the nutters below; If you are not familiar with Dworkin, she is famous for many stupid, stupid things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Intercourse

"In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform""

"Well that's not feminism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

What can I say. All I have is a stack of dictionaries to check. Your beloved Wikipedia itself begins its feminism article "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights" which agrees with the dictionaries I have and also with the simple definition I used above. If you think that using that definition means I'm guilty of No True Scotsman, our methods of rationality are so far apart that we are literally incapable of communicating.

Take another look at the definition you cited. Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining...equal political, economic, and social rights. All you are doing is excluding people whose definitions of "equality" you think are too extreme using a classic No True Scotsman argument.

Arguing this angle is pointless. I'm a marxist, and so face the same battle of the tons of people who use the term in a completely different way to myself. Including people who self-identify as marxists.

I've had conversations with people who also considered themselves marxists where our only point of agreement was that in "their" ideal society I'd probably be considered a criminal dissident, and would probably be involved in armed uprisings, and that they'd very much enjoy to see me locked up.

For a while I tried to fight the "wrong" usage of the term and related terms. Then I thought about picking other terms myself.

But eventually I realized that what worked best was simply to acknowledge the "wrong" usage, and distance myself in suitable way depending on what I write. E.g. by also using a more descriptive term, such as liberal socialist or left-communist, that most people either know or have to look up, that does not have the same immediate connotations.

As Friedman said, the ultimate end is the search for the acceptable means, and I think your little exchange highlights this pretty well.

Turns out, ideologies are rather good at branding themselves to appeal to all kinds of people, and at first blush, most ideologies sound eminently reasonable. That in no way implies that the actions of adherents to such ideologies are the same, or that the overall structure of the ideology couldn't lead to disagreeable outcomes.

The whole declaring equality and rights for all is the easy bit; that's just the ultimate end. The means, the dirty work of "defining, establishing, and defending", is where everything can and does go to hell. Feminists are just as susceptible to this problem as everyone else, and when they get it especially wrong, they create the blowback you are seeing.

It's the extremists who self-identify as feminists who create that association, not "someone who wants to discredit feminism".

While it is disingenuous of critics to treat those as representative of feminism in general, it is equally disingenuous for feminists to act like they don't exist.

I get what you're trying to say, but the people were discussing self identify as feminists. And IMO poison the well for actual feminists.

> Given that feminism is the advocation of social and political equality twixt genders, what is extreme feminism?

People who don't define it that way. Or people who (as in pretty much any controversity) feel compelled to see everyone who doesn't agree with them as an enemy to be taken down.

The normal term is 'radical feminism'. Andrea Dworkin for example has said:

"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women"

From her Wikipedia page:

In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform".[59]

Wikipedia citation for that is a b Dworkin. "Occupation/Collaboration". Intercourse. Retrieved February 14, 2013.

People who don't define it that way.

Well, if we're going to just redefine words we can say anything. I hate those ultra-vegetarians insisting that static typing is the only way to go.

In the face of people redefining words to mean whatever they want, all I can do is suggest that without a clear definition, communication becomes meaningless anyway because I will just redefine "feminist" to mean "a kind of blancmange popular in the former Yugoslavia", so in the absence of anything better I'll use a series of dictionaries as my first stop. In this instance, they're pretty clear on the definition.

So who gets to make the official definition of what "feminism" means? And how do you enforce that nobody uses it any other way?

Good luck with that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

The goal for some self-proclaimed feminists is not gender equality, but raising women above men. They still call themselves feminists for political reasons, so some deserve the hate.

The problem is real feminism got stained.

> Given that feminism is the advocation of social and political equality twixt genders,

I'm afraid that isn't actually given.

That is your working definition, however, over the years there have been numerous "waves" of feminism and numerous often contradictory interpretations of what feminism and, even equality means.

Andrea Dworkin for example identified as a feminist, and is identified by some others as such, yet has written extensively about things that are far from simple equality. (Quite frankly, in some cases, anti male hate-speech)

Erin Pizzey, the founder of UK's first domestic violence shelter for women received bomb and death threats when she realised that equal protection from dv meant men should have shelters too. The self identified feminists who campaigned against her did not have the same definition of equality.

Even online dictionaries disagree with you on the meaning of feminism.

Google define feminism and you'll see that it says that it is the advocation of women's rights with respect to men.

Equality is in the definition, but what it leaves out is the acknoedgement that there are some conditions where women have significant advantage over men.

There are branches of (self proclaimed?) feminism that have different interpretations of that.

There are some branches that blame men for all the worlds woes.

Some that say a woman could never have as much privilege as a man.

The definition of feminism is so diluted as to be virtually meaningless without secondary descriptors.

What 'wave' or type of feminist? Radical? Radical trans exclusionary? Sex positive? Second wave? Third wave?

I'm sorry, I can't accept that "feminism means"

Why what about the campaign "feminism is simply the belief that women are people"?

Yet another definition.

Stienham through Paglia to Hanna Roisin (who recently declared men not equal but obsolete), feminism means a lot of things.

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray

See her views on general relativity and fluid dynamics (both of which are apparently inherently sexist).

The sad part is a lot of contemporary feminists on the web think in very similar terms as this crackpot. They're histrionic and have discarded all forms of critical thinking in favor of their emotions. This type of thinking, which is not motivated by facts and reason, leads to statements like those of Irigaray.

Sometimes feminism, as practiced by those who call themselves feminists, is the advocation of social and political equality regarding areas where women are disadvantaged, ignoring and even opposing those areas where men are disadvantaged.

Source: here's[0] the best example I've seen, skip to minute two to see a man get physically prevented from entering a talk about some men's issues. You can also watch the actual event[1] and decide for yourself if it was or was not misogynist. You can also read about Warren Farrell, the speaker, and decide for yourself if he is for or against rape.

I am a feminist by your definition, but I am also concerned with, e.g., statistically more men seem to commit suicide and thought that talk was interesting, so those feminists in the video might say I was a rape apologist.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

Those feminists who hate Trans-people. They are the ultra-extreme feminists.

Such feminists exist?! Please tell me you're joking. That's even more horrifying than Alice Schwarzer...

Not only do feminists who hate trans people exist, from what I can tell they're more widely supported and considered more feminist than trans women who criticise them for it. Even some of the more prominent trans feminists[1] think that way, presumably because the ones that don't get rather less support from other feminists.

[1] See for instance Natalie Reed's blog post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/12/13/complicit... Bear in mind that Cathy Brennan publicly outs trans women, encourages others to harass them, contacts their workplaces in order to try and get fired and their doctors in order to get them denied treatment. Somehow this is less objectionable - and more feminist - than the people she's targetting complaining about it.

Yes and it's loathsome (speaking as a woman and 'feminist/humanist' who isn't interested in elevating any gender upon another).

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200311/?read=article_tea

http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2013/05/28/it-w...

Yes, they exist. I Follow people on Twitter who have made me aware of that issue. There's one prominent columnist in particular whose name I can't recall that seems to have it in for trans people and restrooms, for example.

> Such feminists exist?

Yes, the range of people with radically divergent, often incompatible, and sometimes nearly diametrically opposed views fighting for control of the word "feminism" is pretty broad.

You see the same thing with, say, "socialism". Or "Christianity". Or, really, lots of other things.

"Feminism" is sometimes somewhat more problematic than many of the rest because, for a variety of reasons, there hasn't been as much development of secondary terminology that is less contentious which helps discuss and identify the various competing factions clearly, so, when we try to discuss them, we end up having to say things like "Feminists who believe x, y, and z" and then half or more the discussion gets sidetracked into an argument of whether or not belief x, y, or z is necessary to, compatible with, or opposed to "true feminism" and whether, therefore, it is correct to use "feminist" to describe people with that view (or, OTOH, whether it is redundant to qualify "feminist" with reference to those beliefs.)

All kinds of feminists exist. Valerie Solanas and Luce Irigaray should have thought you that.

It starts out that way. But then it turns out that to achieve equality, you mostly need to improve women's position in society. And then people only remember the second part and forget about the equality thing.

And finally, this happens: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939

> please go, take a 9mm and shoot yourself

Don't joke about that. Peer pressure induced suicide is much more dangerous than "slut shaming".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com