492 karma · joined February 15, 2013
But you're still right—like anyone, my biases can color my judgement of things, often causing me to prejudge a written piece based on its author. This time, I was right; often, I am not.
That said, to answer your question, my answer is no. Someone responding to "guys, elevator come-ons are not such a good idea" with "fair enough" doesn't remotely make someone a radical, post-modern feminist.
Why do you ask?
Why not afford to the men and women who respond to her that same privilege?
Some people accuse others of logical fallacies for the wrong reasons—they want avoid responding to one or more points they know the other person is trying to make, so they lazily hide behind extraneous non-arguments to avoid confronting any substance.
At the same time, some people employ logical fallacies to push an agenda and make it effectively impossible to respond without dismantling their entire argument... by pointing out the logical fallacies. Hmmm.
Unsurprisingly, the author of this piece is a dishonest shill who wants free reign to use logical fallacies to advance his agenda.
When I clicked the link, I was certain the author would find a way to push his radical, post-modern feminism. As @realtalker has pointed out, the author almost certainly wrote this in response to the stinging criticism he received for this piece the Islamaphobia section in particular): http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html#islamophobia
Radical, post-modern feminists like the author do not pepper their otherwise-reasoned arguments with logical fallacies; their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. As I said, the only way to respond to inherently dishonest arguments like that is to point how the arguments are dishonest.
The author wants full immunity.
[And to be abundantly clear, by "author" I don't mean @mindcrime. I mean the author of the linked piece.]
If it's legal to have your neighbors over for dinner, but it becomes illegal if they pay you back, something's wrong.
Good for you, Ben.
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, it's almost always hyper-privileged men who triumphantly make these (and similar) pronouncements. And as always, by urinating on lower-status men, Ben risks very little social standing; his potential social benefits, however, are enormous.
When it comes to even daring to open a discussion about false rape/paternity accusations, the current mantra is:
If you hate and distrust feeeeeeemales soooooo much, please don't associate with them, have sex with them, or marry them. Thx! But you're probably alone in your parents' basement, like all MRAs.
"You don't deserve a safe space, John, because people with your genitals are the ones committing violence."
They have disturbingly collectivist notions of guilt.
You can use the word "Patriarchy". You can use the phrase "male domination". But it doesn't change the fact that men at the bottom have to watch the men at the top stomping all over them while preening themselves.
[1]: http://goatinahat.tumblr.com/post/45265637509/behaxrant-wesh...
Also: Why are women more valuable than stutterers at conferences?
Your use of the word "dominates" is disingenuous. Let's imagine:
- - -
There exists a country in which 95% of all leadership in government and industry is male. There are a few women here and there, but for the most part, it's all men at the top. And at the top, people are pretty protected. They can generally get away with whatever they want, as is often the case.
This country has gender roles. Legally enforced gender roles. Women are viewed as more fragile caregivers. Men are viewed as sturdier providers. People at the top of society are pretty insulated, but for everyone else, these gender roles are a fact of life.
For a given crime, men are held to higher standards, and they are subjected to more brutal punishments. Men overwhelmingly find themselves in dangerous, thankless jobs.
Young men tend to work menial jobs, while young women tend to attend university.
Men do not live as long in this society. An overwhelming amount of public money and attention is spent on issues that primarily affect women.
And when a woman is perceived to be slighted, men and women are expected (and socially rewarded) for rushing to her aid. Men, being sturdier, are expected to fend for themselves.
- - -
Every well-off feminist man I've encountered would say that men in that society are not victims of sexism—they are simply victims of patriarchy.
Why on Earth would one call that system "patriarchy"? Aside from the top of society, men have it worse in this society. Men have it much worse. Why lump the men at the top in with the men at the bottom just because they all have penises?
Please realize that men can be sexist toward other men. Men can actively oppress other men on the basis of their gender. Men love competing with other men. Men love one-upping other men. Men love protecting women from those other, less civilized men. In short: Many men love oppressing other men.
For poorer, underprivileged men, it's incredibly marginalizing to hear a hyper-privileged man display his plumage and say it's alright to hate males, because males "dominate" society.
Unfortunately, repeating that mantra costs that hyper-privileged man nothing, yet it can potentially increase his social standing among other hyper-privileged men. So why wouldn't he?
> "As a man, let me explain to you why this thing you've experienced as sexism isn't really sexism."
> Thanks, Hacker News, that's so helpful.
It is helpful.
Rachel explained her experiences and her interpretation of those experiences. That's her right.
David has that right too. Got it?
Look—I realize it's trendy for feminist men to declare (or to passive-aggressively imply, in your case) that other men aren't allowed to discuss certain issues unless they express compliant views. I realize men are supposed to myopically defer[1] to women in every discussion about gender, even when those discussions can result in policies that could negatively affect large demographics.
But we need to stop giving in to those (male) bullies and realize that it's okay to have and share your opinion.
[1]: http://z33r0.tumblr.com/post/39855895875/dear-fellow-white-p...
That link is a wonderful window into the appallingly anti-intellectual worldview of modern "social justice warriors".
Third-wave, post-modern feminists believe in a neat, well-defined hierarchy of sexes and races; regardless of the specifics of a given case, members of a "lower" group can by definition never be sexist or racist to a member of a "higher" group.
Is that your interpretation?
If I sleep 9 to 10 hours, I do feel groggy/sleepy for several hours—it's not pleasant, but mellow grogginess/sleepiness is wonderful compared to the demoralizing mental and physical exhaustion I feel when I've not slept enough.
Really. I'm not even talking about the self-labeled "radfems"—the ones who say that no heterosexual sex is truly consensual. Though those monsters clearly exist, too.
Hackers don't know foolish it is to give in to third-wave-feminist bullying. They have no idea what they're getting themselves into.
My remarks aren't commentary on this particular contemporary dance; I'm simply responding to the labeling of feminism an equality movement.
Women aren't fragile creatures who need constant protecting. The author of the article is not your personal damsel in distress. She is a human who feels she has faced challenges.
So is edw519.
Situations are rarely black and white.
It is uncivilized to always assume that the person taking offense is automatically correct. We're all people, and people are capable of dishonestly taking advantage of the sympathies of the mob du jour.
It is always okay to discuss whether someone is actually guilty, and it is always okay to discuss whether someone is actually making false accusations.
You took this opportunity to dismiss his personal experiences, and bizarrely, you implied that one's insight regarding a situation is entirely unwelcome without having personally experienced that exact same situation. If that's the case, take your own advice and leave him alone.
You're poisoning this discussion. Just stop.
> People in a privileged position are obligated to be more inclusive, because their position is different.
> immoral and wrong
If you're not with us, you're against us. And you're obligated to be with us.
Postmodern feminism is a remarkably authoritarian ideology, leaving very little room for individual choice and expression.
The world is not as absurdly simple as you make it out to be. The world cannot be easily broken down into neat, calming, convenient divisions of "oppressed" and "privileged", "good" and "ungood". That sort of worldview is great for sewing division, segregation, and hatred, but it's awful for accurately modeling society or for setting policy.
It's absurdly difficult for a non-authoritarian to have a coherent discussion with a postmodern feminist, because PMFs dishonestly redefine words (such as "society", "group", "privilege", and "oppression") in an attempt to impose their ideology on the discussion. Both sides end up talking past each other, but I'm going to do my best.
Anyone could construct a "group" to which they belong that is "oppressed" according to PMF ideology. Gluten-intolerant people are oppressed and excluded by a society that markets wheat products to them at every turn, for example. Instead of living in a free society, we could all construct chains by which to bind everyone else to our particular differences.
As I pointed out, young women have significantly higher college graduation rates and are paid better than young men, even taking into account young men's. Is it the right (your words) of young men to use exclusion (your word) to young women when it comes to college or money?
People have no obligation to include anyone in their writings. It's not immoral or wrong for someone to use language that does not include 100% of people.
It was you who wrote:
> And such a reminder would be completely appropriate. If someone else didn't remind him, then you should step up and do so yourself.
That said, your comparison is absurd, especially considering young women handily beat young men in college graduation rates and beat them in pay, even taking into account the predominance of young men in tech.
Could a particular essay make men feel less than included, many of whom are disenfranchised by the specifics of their situation? Yes? That's perfectly fine! Not all essays' audiences have to include men, so stop being so selfish and demanding.
Could a particular essay make disenfranchised women feel less than included, many of whom are disenfranchised by the specifics of their situation? Yes? Oh, that's just wrong. Step up, make a difference, and accuse that author of casual misogyny.