Hacker News Reader

Comment by sliverstorm | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a gender studies major, but to me it seems safe to say feminism is rampant with sexism. Not necessarily in the hateful way, but in the way that affirmative action is fundamentally racist.

So, while I may not always agree, it is never a surprise.

View on HN

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." - Rebecca West

There's nothing sexist about feminism; it's simply wanting equality for women -- that does not mean that women and men are the same (as is often claimed), but that they are treated the same. Comparing feminism to affirmative action is incredibly misleading.

Pretending that the definition you gave is actually what drives all the "feminism" movement isn't being honest: it's certainly true for most people, but there is (and always has been) a not-small branch of feminism that is staunchly sexist.

Kinda like Hacker News. CHECKMATE.

Rebecca West does not speak for all feminists. She wasn't even alive for the mess of the third wave we're still in. I'm just replying to say your comment on a first reading comes across as naive in the subject of feminism. But it can also be seen as disingenuous, for it's a classic propaganda technique to hide behind a reasonable claim made by a proponent of X_1 to further along some goal of X_2, all while using the undifferentiated label X. (See https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm on 'democracy'.) I also can't ignore that, left unqualified, an uncharitable reader may interpret your claim for men and women to be treated the same as a claim to be treated the same in all contexts, which is obviously a stupid idea, because men and women aren't the same.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to encourage you to be less sloppy if you're going to reply to comments like sliverstorm's with intent to change minds. At best, your reply is just an argument over a definition (http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/), let's all try to do better.

The core ethos of feminism is that simple, yes. But how do we get there?

That's where things like affirmative action routinely work their way into the discussion, and I hope you don't mean to pretend otherwise.

Feminism, in general, is biased against men in the same sense that giving a short person a box to stand on at a concert so he can see the stage, and not giving a box to a tall person who can see just fine already, shows bias against tall people.

This is brilliant. I'm going to have to steal this whenever possible.

And what if the small-person-on-box now blocks the view of the tall person?

For purposes of this overstretched analogy, it's much more common for the short person to be beside the tall person and not blocking their view at all, but the tall person starts screaming that they deserve a box anyway.

That is wrong, that suggests women are inferior to men and need help permanently.

In reality the real goal should be making the short person grow to be equal height.

That's my point. Don't overthink the analogy. Or, feel free to substitute "give a ladder to a person stuck in a hole, but not to a person on solid ground," if you prefer.

This is a great metaphor - on a concert, it doesn't matter who sees the stage - the important thing is the music, there is really no difference between short and tall people, and noone needs a box. The only reason the small person might need a box is because (s)he feels inferior compared to the large one.

This is just like a lot of feminism. Feminists arbitrarily decided that men's lives were better than women's, and wanted to make it possible for women to lead men's lives. Personally, I consider that being at home is better than being at work, but feminists hardly ever fought for the ability of men to be stay-at-home dads.

I'm not condemning box-giving. I'm just pointing out that only giving boxes to short people is by definition discriminatory (I hope you agree or we need to have another conversation).

It's positive discrimination (which, coincidentally, is how affirmative action is described) but discrimination nonetheless.

I'm not judging. I just thought I would share because I find it useful to remember.

Hmm. How would you categorize, say, giving powered wheelchairs only to people who have difficulty walking, and not to people who can walk fine by themselves?

This is the most patronizing thing I've read in a while. Women don't magically have some (ableist) disadvantage that prevents them from participating.

The thing that keeps them from participating is men bullying them and forcing them out.

You're reading way too much into my analogy. The point is just that lifting up someone who's been pushed down does not also require you to lift up someone who's doing just fine in order to be "fair." This applies whether the disadvantage is due to outside bullying (as in the case of feminism and affirmative action) or an actual disability (it's not "unfair" to make special allowances for an autistic office worker, for example).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com