Discussion thread for the blog entry "Why I am a Feminist" by Inferno.

Permalink: http://blog.theleagueofreason.co.uk/reason/why-i-am-a-feminist/

Greetings,

Personally, given that radical feminists take it that there's an active "male oppression of women", I avoid the semantics of the definition by calling myself a humanist: I'm not a "feminist".

Humanism, by definition, is gender-neutral.

I would also take issue with the radicals' - and perhaps others' - notion that there's no such thing as male sexual inequality. Clearly, as you've noted, there are occasions when women are favoured over men. However, the radicals - in decrying social inequality of women - miss the most obvious example of this...

Due to evolution, females control sex and reproduction - males must compete for the opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation.

This is sexual inequality written in the stone of Nature.

Nothing can be done to redress this inequality.

Another minor point regarding the idea that men are seen as presidential - this should not be surprising since the primary role of the US president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, which is evolutionarily a more natural role for male competitiveness than female cooperation.

In a similar vein regarding job roles, there's this interesting video from Norway, which shows that the genders gravitate towards Nature-favoured gender-based roles, regardless of "equality of the sexes":



Kindest regards,

James

Great post and I guess this is as good a place as any other to say it; I am also a feminist for the same reasons as Inferno.

I am glad to hear that, HWIN!

DraganGlas:

Personally, given that radical feminists take it that there's an active "male oppression of women", I avoid the semantics of the definition by calling myself a humanist: I'm not a "feminist".

Humanism, by definition, is gender-neutral.

Sadly, a very worthy movement has been hi-jacked by so-called "feminazis". Don't let that detract the movement though. That's like saying "I'm not an atheist because people like Thunderf00t are atheists."

Feminism is a movement focused on a few issues and Humanism is the broader category. I'd consider myself a humanist feminist, for example. I wouldn't leave out the "feminist" for one reason: The name itself is important. Just think for a moment about the "atheist vs brights vs PEARLists vs atheism+" debate. Most agree on the issues, but the name is an important part to consider.

Think of the gay movement: They OWNED the label/name "gay" because that was the primary issue of their campaign. Once there was some acceptance of gays, other minorities (bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, etc.) joined the movement and the "gay parades" were changed to LGBTQ-parades. Lesbian/gay rights were both easier to achieve and concerned a larger portion of said minority.

I believe the same is true in this case: Yes, men's rights are equally important to address. As explained though, misogyny is far more widespread and, in my opinion, easier to rectify. Once some equality/equity has been established, the movement can (and already does, see Emma Watson) include men's rights.

For the moment, the label "feminist" is important.

Due to evolution, females control sex and reproduction - males must compete for the opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation.

On the other hand, society changed the way it all works: Men earned (and are mostly sill earning) money, so women had to compete for the men. That's still mostly true today.

Another minor point regarding the idea that men are seen as presidential - this should not be surprising since the primary role of the US president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, which is evolutionarily a more natural role for male competitiveness than female cooperation.

True, but this isn't the only study I could have quoted. I'm in the middle of my exams atm, but I'll get to that.

In a similar vein regarding job roles, there's this interesting video from Norway, which shows that the genders gravitate towards Nature-favoured gender-based roles, regardless of "equality of the sexes":

I'll get to that as well. I know that the studies on this are conflicting and it's often due to the research protocol.

Just saw this. It covers anti-feminists pretty well.

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Personally, given that radical feminists take it that there's an active "male oppression of women", I avoid the semantics of the definition by calling myself a humanist: I'm not a "feminist".

...

I would also take issue with the radicals' - and perhaps others' - notion that there's no such thing as male sexual inequality. Clearly, as you've noted, there are occasions when women are favoured over men. However, the radicals - in decrying social inequality of women - miss the most obvious example of this...

While "radical" feminists probably exist, this phrase is almost always used to criticize a straw version of feminism. Are there specific objectives feminists are working towards with which you disagree?

Dragan Glas wrote:Due to evolution, females control sex and reproduction - males must compete for the opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation.

Are you talking about humans here or one of the various species that can prevent impregnation from unwanted fathers? You are probably aware that human women continue to have to struggle for the ability to control their own reproduction.

If you look outside of humans, the picture of which sex controls reproduction is way more complicated than this.

Dragan Glas wrote:This is sexual inequality written in the stone of Nature.

...
which is evolutionarily a more natural role for male competitiveness than female cooperation.

In a similar vein regarding job roles, there's this interesting video from Norway, which shows that the genders gravitate towards Nature-favoured gender-based roles, regardless of "equality of the sexes":

An appeal to "Nature" supported by a YouTube video?

Respectfully, I think you aren't applying your usual degree of skepticism to this claim.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize this was a thread necro on my part. Feel free to let this thread stay dead. I'm not sure the internet really needs another debate about feminism between a bunch of men.

Greetings,

SpecialFrog wrote:

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Personally, given that radical feminists take it that there's an active "male oppression of women", I avoid the semantics of the definition by calling myself a humanist: I'm not a "feminist".

...

I would also take issue with the radicals' - and perhaps others' - notion that there's no such thing as male sexual inequality. Clearly, as you've noted, there are occasions when women are favoured over men. However, the radicals - in decrying social inequality of women - miss the most obvious example of this...

While "radical" feminists probably exist, this phrase is almost always used to criticize a straw version of feminism. Are there specific objectives feminists are working towards with which you disagree?

Recently Ireland had a number of government committee hearings on whether to change the law on prostitution.

[Whatever anyone's position is on this issue I should point out that, although I'm against coercion and/or exploitation, in the case of a "lifestyle choice" - where someone chooses to earn their living selling sex - I'm willing to allow a individual to make that choice. To borrow the words wrongly attributed to Voltaire, although I may disapprove of someone's choice, I'll fight to the death for their right to choose. For their part, radical feminists dismiss this and claim that, no matter how much a woman may believe she's doing this of her own volition, she is actually suffering from "false consciousness" - Stockholm syndrome: they're so much under "male oppression" that they don't realise they're simply doing what men want(!)]

The ideologically-driven anti-prostitution lobby, comprised of the radically-inspired feminist and religious organisations, who gave testimony, "re-framed" prostitution as "sex-trafficking" in order to shoe-horn the "Swedish Model" into Irish law.

They trotted out the usual rhetoric of the ideologically-driven - false statistics and secondary sourced claims about vast hordes of women and girls being trafficked for sex. These claims have been shown to be unreliable and, on occasion, completely invented falsehoods.

As a result of their efforts, it looks as if we're going to get yet another ideologically-driven policy turned into law instead of an evidence-based one.

This is the sort of thing to which I'm referring when I speak of my opposition to radical feminist ideology, which permeates what is usually thought of simply as "feminism" - as if this were a homogeneous movement. It is not and the radical element's dogma/rhetoric still colours a lot of the movement's thinking.

Christopher Hitchens famously declared that "religion poisons everything" - what he really meant was that (rigid) adherence to dogma poisons everything.

In this regard radical feminist dogma/rhetoric has poisoned feminism and, through it, the social sciences.

Hence you have such claims as "Nature has nothing to do with gender", "rape is all about power", etc.

SpecialFrog wrote:

Dragan Glas wrote:Due to evolution, females control sex and reproduction - males must compete for the opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation.

Are you talking about humans here or one of the various species that can prevent impregnation from unwanted fathers? You are probably aware that human women continue to have to struggle for the ability to control their own reproduction.

If you look outside of humans, the picture of which sex controls reproduction is way more complicated than this.

I'm speaking generally: males have to compete to pass on their genes - females essentially decide which ones do so.

SpecialFrog wrote:

Dragan Glas wrote:This is sexual inequality written in the stone of Nature.

...
which is evolutionarily a more natural role for male competitiveness than female cooperation.

In a similar vein regarding job roles, there's this interesting video from Norway, which shows that the genders gravitate towards Nature-favoured gender-based roles, regardless of "equality of the sexes":

An appeal to "Nature" supported by a YouTube video?

Respectfully, I think you aren't applying your usual degree of skepticism to this claim.

The point being made by the video was it appears that in a gender-equal society, the sexes appear to gravitate towards their natural roles.

More correctly it's Nature via nurture or, as Pagel's book title puts it, Wired for Culture - at least with regards to us.

SpecialFrog wrote:Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize this was a thread necro on my part. Feel free to let this thread stay dead. I'm not sure the internet really needs another debate about feminism between a bunch of men.

As Inferno indicated that he'd come back to properly address my earlier post when he had the time, I'd argue the post is simply quiescent rather than dead.

Kindest regards,

James

Dragan Glas wrote:Recently Ireland had a number of government committee hearings on whether to change the law on prostitution.

The ideologically-driven anti-prostitution lobby, comprised of the radically-inspired feminist and religious organisations, who gave testimony, "re-framed" prostitution as "sex-trafficking" in order to shoe-horn the "Swedish Model" into Irish law.

They trotted out the usual rhetoric of the ideologically-driven - false statistics and secondary sourced claims about vast hordes of women and girls being trafficked for sex. These claims have been shown to be unreliable and, on occasion, completely invented falsehoods.

Thanks for the additional detail.

I agree with you that there are feminists who are strongly opposed to liberalization of sex work and I agree this position is largely ideological (as evidenced by a willingness to make common cause with religious conservatives). I don't know that this position is inherently "radical" or makes the use of "radical feminism" a generally useful term.

As with trans-exclusionism, the opposition to liberalization of sex work can be countered without opposing feminists (as many feminists do).

I don't see the success of this lobby as evidence that this ideology has poisoned feminism as a whole. I would argue that this is an example of a marginal group within feminism allowing itself to be co-opted by opponents of the movement as a whole to increase its own relevance.

This also is far from sufficient to then claim that "radical feminism" has poisoned social sciences.

And while you may not be using it this way, in many cases the argument that "feminism is bad because of radfem" is used by men to ignore women's issues and defend the status quo.

Dragan Glas wrote:Hence you have such claims as "Nature has nothing to do with gender", "rape is all about power", etc.

I think "nature has nothing to do with gender" is largely a straw man. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that many characteristics commonly seen as being associated to gender are not biologically inherent.

Obviously there are biological differences (though even these are more complicated than some people pretend: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943) but brain development is complicated and evolutionary psychology is insufficiently robust, in my opinion.

I think the "rape is all about power" is more nuanced as well but I'd just as soon not get into that discussion.

Dragan Glas wrote:I'm speaking generally: males have to compete to pass on their genes - females essentially decide which ones do so.

This may be true for some species but is far from universal. This is an article rather than a journal, though it has references.
http://io9.com/natures-sneakiest-males- ... 1678927415

Dragan Glas wrote:The point being made by the video was it appears that in a gender-equal society, the sexes appear to gravitate towards their natural roles.

While I accept that Scandinavia probably leads the world in terms of gender equality it is far from a done deal even there.
Just from a quick look:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94f8872e-2ddb ... z3SgDnPunB
http://www.un.org/press/en/2003/wom1377.doc.htm

Besides, legal (and even economic) equality doesn't mean that kids aren't socialized to conform to established gender roles.

I have two kids -- one boy and one girl -- and in my experience, people have treated them differently from essentially day one -- even me, I suspect. This is borne out by studies such as this, which looks at gender bias in expectations of crawling infants:
https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/up ... 202000.pdf

Then there are findings like this:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... e-teachers

Kids model themselves on behaviour they see in other children and in adults. My son likes colours that he won't wear because by age 5 he'd already learned that they are not acceptable for boys.

I'm not going to claim there are no biological differences but I am suspicious of the claim that we have identified what is / is not down to biology with any degree of accuracy. Hormones certainly affect brain development but even hormone responses are not independent of environment.

Dragan Glas wrote:As Inferno indicated that he'd come back to properly address my earlier post when he had the time, I'd argue the post is simply quiescent rather than dead.

Fair enough.

Greetings,

Though not necessarily wishing to get into a diatribe on the more extreme views of the more vocal feminists, perhaps a quick overview of this aspect of it may clarify my position. I realise that this may not really address your own points ( - when I've calmed down I'll try and do so...)

Feminism has gone through several phases or "waves", one of which is generally referred to as "radical" - it's also been called "neo-feminism", "gender feminism" (as in anti-male) and "extremist feminism" - which held sway in the 90s, although it has since gradually subsided, it still lies under the surface of "feminism".

It also has crossed the lines of the biological basis for gender due to a unfortunate set of circumstances - Gardner's "Nature via Nurture" and Pagel's "Wired for Culture" covers most of this ground.

[I'm intertwining the above sources with my reading of a number of other books, articles, etc, too numerous to mention here.]

In the 50s, science held that gender was nurture-only: the sex of the baby didn't matter - if the baby was brought up male, it would think of itself as male and vice versa for females.

As a result of this view, male babies born with micro- or indeterminate genitalia underwent gender-reassignment surgery to turn them into girls. Needless to say, at puberty they required hormone treatment to grow breasts, etc. Their progress was followed throughout this process and due to the feedback from psychotherapy sessions, it became apparent that these "girls", far from thinking of themselves as female, actually thought of themselves as males, and had done so from a early age - despite having been brought up from babyhood as girls.

As a result of this, and to be safe, science did a volte face in the 70s and declared that gender was Nature-only - it was hard-wired.

A couple of things happened in the 70s.

Firstly, Post-modernism came into being, which held that no truth is sacrosanct - this is in contrast to how it's normally perceived, that "there's no such thing as truth", along with it's logical conclusion that "all opinions are equally valid", neither of which is correct.

Secondly, the more radical feminists within the 60s movement, seeing their dream of gender-equality disappear in the face of a Nature-only basis for gender, rejected this "essentialist" explanation and, more generally, rejected science itself as "men's way of knowing", as a "masculinist epistemology", in favour of what they called "women's way(s) of knowing", or a "feminist epistemology": "lived experiences of women". As Haack notes in one of her essays, "Even if there were such a thing as 'feminist epistemology' - what makes them think that it's right" (emphasis in original).

This is from where the claim that "Nature has nothing to do with gender" arose.

With further research, in the 90s science's understanding of the basis for gender altered to its current position: Nature via nurture.

The simplest way I can explain is to put it like this:

At conception, a may-pole appears in the genetic landscape determining what is and is not possible for that life-form. Nurture can modify it to the same extent as one can dance around the may-pole within the limit of the ribbon(s) but cannot (re)move the may-pole.

Since Nature still is seen as a important part of the process, the "radfems" still reject this as "essentialist".

It should also be noted that, as many women have gone into the social sciences at universities and colleges, where this attitude permeates the curricula, they've been exposed to this perspective, thus maintaining this rejection of science in favour of "women's ways of knowing" - "lived experiences (of women)".

For all intents and purposes, sociology is still stuck in the 50s on the basis for gender.

[Indeed, having recently read the 4th edition (2012) of "A Sociology of Ireland", where this "essentialist" explanation of gender was continuously questioned/rejected - including Baron-Cohen's research showing that gender differences in the brain appear as early as four weeks after conception - I felt at times that I was reading a book on dentistry where sections of it were written from the perspective that worms cause tooth decay! I found the rejection of the science excruciating. The one silver-lining on this dark cloud was that a suggestion that, going forward, Nature should be included in the social science's explanation for gender was mentioned towards the end of the section on gender.]

Another aspect of radical feminist dogma/rhetoric is their demand that all issues be viewed from the woman's perspective and since women are seen as "victims of male oppression", this means that all issues are seen from the perspective of a victim.

As a result, rape is perceived as being about power - and this is generally the view taken by the social sciences.

This is the victim's perspective - since a victim perceives rape as being about power (or rather their lack of it) this should not be surprising. Needless to say, from the perpetrator's perspective it's not about power but about the desire for sex ("I wanted to have sex").

If it were really about power, then rape statistics would be a flat-line across age groups - the elderly would be raped just as often as the young or middle-aged. This is clearly not the case - it's skewed towards youth: perhaps a better word would be "desirability".

You have other dogmatic claims that litter their literature:

"Sex is violence";
"Marriage is Church-sanctioned rape";
"Prostitution is rape that's paid for";

... and so on.

I apologise if I appear to have a bee-in-my-bonnet on this poison but I trust you'll understand given recent events in Ireland.

If the government actually addressed trafficking per se instead of just one or other form of it (sex- or non-sex-related), I'd be delighted - but this ideologically-driven nonsense is utterly pointless and harmful at a time when the country can ill-afford a waste of tax-payers' money.

[*Sigh* - I'm feeling much better now... ]

Kindest regards,

James

Dragan Glas,

I don't entirely agree with your overview. For instance the concept of "gender feminism" is a creation of Hoff-Summers and its validity is highly questionable, as is your assertion that "anti-male" feminism "held sway in the 90s" and "still lies under the surface of 'feminism'".

However, I can accept that mainstream feminism may support a view of gender that is less essentialist than is supported by the current research.

With that said, I think you are still asserting a position that is more essentialist than is supported by the current research. You are taking a hasty generalization about biology -- "males have to compete to pass on their genes - females essentially decide which ones do so" -- and drawing further unsound conclusions based on it. Baron-Cohen's findings in this area are not broadly accepted, as far as I know, and other studies have not agreed with him. At best, he makes some over-broad claims for the amount of data he has.

Even if we accept that there are significant inherent biological differences between different sexes (and / or genders) and can quantify exactly what they are (which is on even shakier ground, evidence-wise), what policy choices should this drive?

As I said, the argument that "feminism is bad because of radfem" is often used by men to ignore women's issues and defend the status quo. Unlike Hoff-Summers, I don't think the status quo -- even in the West -- is acceptable and I would like to see it addressed. I don't see anti-feminist humanists working to do so while at the same time I see feminists working to address some significant issues affecting men.

Anyway, I think I'm getting a bit worked up by this topic as well so my apologies if I'm being overly critical. I normally appreciate your posts on this site.

Regards

I agree with everything I heave read.

What do you think about the current India rape murder case from 2012?

This is absollutely horrifying to me

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Though not necessarily wishing to get into a diatribe on the more extreme views of the more vocal feminists, perhaps a quick overview of this aspect of it may clarify my position. I realise that this may not really address your own points ( - when I've calmed down I'll try and do so...)

Feminism has gone through several phases or "waves", one of which is generally referred to as "radical" - it's also been called "neo-feminism", "gender feminism" (as in anti-male) and "extremist feminism" - which held sway in the 90s, although it has since gradually subsided, it still lies under the surface of "feminism".

It also has crossed the lines of the biological basis for gender due to a unfortunate set of circumstances - Gardner's "Nature via Nurture" and Pagel's "Wired for Culture" covers most of this ground.

[I'm intertwining the above sources with my reading of a number of other books, articles, etc, too numerous to mention here.]

In the 50s, science held that gender was nurture-only: the sex of the baby didn't matter - if the baby was brought up male, it would think of itself as male and vice versa for females.

As a result of this view, male babies born with micro- or indeterminate genitalia underwent gender-reassignment surgery to turn them into girls. Needless to say, at puberty they required hormone treatment to grow breasts, etc. Their progress was followed throughout this process and due to the feedback from psychotherapy sessions, it became apparent that these "girls", far from thinking of themselves as female, actually thought of themselves as males, and had done so from a early age - despite having been brought up from babyhood as girls.

As a result of this, and to be safe, science did a volte face in the 70s and declared that gender was Nature-only - it was hard-wired.

A couple of things happened in the 70s.

Firstly, Post-modernism came into being, which held that no truth is sacrosanct - this is in contrast to how it's normally perceived, that "there's no such thing as truth", along with it's logical conclusion that "all opinions are equally valid", neither of which is correct.

Secondly, the more radical feminists within the 60s movement, seeing their dream of gender-equality disappear in the face of a Nature-only basis for gender, rejected this "essentialist" explanation and, more generally, rejected science itself as "men's way of knowing", as a "masculinist epistemology", in favour of what they called "women's way(s) of knowing", or a "feminist epistemology": "lived experiences of women". As Haack notes in one of her essays, "Even if there were such a thing as 'feminist epistemology' - what makes them think that it's right" (emphasis in original).

This is from where the claim that "Nature has nothing to do with gender" arose.

With further research, in the 90s science's understanding of the basis for gender altered to its current position: Nature via nurture.

The simplest way I can explain is to put it like this:

At conception, a may-pole appears in the genetic landscape determining what is and is not possible for that life-form. Nurture can modify it to the same extent as one can dance around the may-pole within the limit of the ribbon(s) but cannot (re)move the may-pole.

Since Nature still is seen as a important part of the process, the "radfems" still reject this as "essentialist".

It should also be noted that, as many women have gone into the social sciences at universities and colleges, where this attitude permeates the curricula, they've been exposed to this perspective, thus maintaining this rejection of science in favour of "women's ways of knowing" - "lived experiences (of women)".

For all intents and purposes, sociology is still stuck in the 50s on the basis for gender.

[Indeed, having recently read the 4th edition (2012) of "A Sociology of Ireland", where this "essentialist" explanation of gender was continuously questioned/rejected - including Baron-Cohen's research showing that gender differences in the brain appear as early as four weeks after conception - I felt at times that I was reading a book on dentistry where sections of it were written from the perspective that worms cause tooth decay! I found the rejection of the science excruciating. The one silver-lining on this dark cloud was that a suggestion that, going forward, Nature should be included in the social science's explanation for gender was mentioned towards the end of the section on gender.]

Another aspect of radical feminist dogma/rhetoric is their demand that all issues be viewed from the woman's perspective and since women are seen as "victims of male oppression", this means that all issues are seen from the perspective of a victim.

As a result, rape is perceived as being about power - and this is generally the view taken by the social sciences.

This is the victim's perspective - since a victim perceives rape as being about power (or rather their lack of it) this should not be surprising. Needless to say, from the perpetrator's perspective it's not about power but about the desire for sex ("I wanted to have sex").

If it were really about power, then rape statistics would be a flat-line across age groups - the elderly would be raped just as often as the young or middle-aged. This is clearly not the case - it's skewed towards youth: perhaps a better word would be "desirability".

You have other dogmatic claims that litter their literature:

"Sex is violence";
"Marriage is Church-sanctioned rape";
"Prostitution is rape that's paid for";

... and so on.

I apologise if I appear to have a bee-in-my-bonnet on this poison but I trust you'll understand given recent events in Ireland.

If the government actually addressed trafficking per se instead of just one or other form of it (sex- or non-sex-related), I'd be delighted - but this ideologically-driven nonsense is utterly pointless and harmful at a time when the country can ill-afford a waste of tax-payers' money.

[*Sigh* - I'm feeling much better now... ]

Kindest regards,

James

What?