CounterFeminism on Reddit
And I don't completely know what to think of it (yet), since I haven't looked very far into it (yet).
Here is the self-description blurb which they use:
Overall, that sounds pretty good -- although I could take exception to a few small points."No sexism or hate speech.
"This is not about attacking feminists or bashing women. This is about debate about nature/nurture, sex/gender, and the balance of male/female power. Please remain respectful. The use of the word "Feminazi" (or similar) as an insult is a ban-able offense.
"Feminism is broadly defined as follows: Belief in the existence of Patriarchy and/or that gender roles are completely or almost completely socially constructed.
"For the purpose of discussion, Feminism is NOT defined as "Equality between sexes". "Equality" is a subject so broad that it would include almost everybody's beliefs in some way. Further, no particular ideology has a monopoly on the word "Equality", only their particular view of what equality means to them.
"Discussions about men's rights, problems, and issues are not regarded as "whining". The pervasive existence of inequalities for males is used as evidence against a patriarchy. In some cases it is also evidence of the hypocrisy of feminism in that feminism often advocates women's advancement at the expense of men while simultaneously claiming to be for "equality". Responses such as "be a man", "stop whining", or "quit bitching" are ban-able offenses."
For example, the part where it says "not about attacking feminists": I, the original counter-feminist, am sometimes guilty of that crime myself! However, I note that they do NOT say anything about attacking feminISM, which is a critical distinction. So, I'll assume that they DO attack femininISM. At any rate, they certainly appear to undermine it!
Also, where they give their "definition" of feminism, they say nothing about female supremacism -- which is the crux of the biscuit as far as I'm concerned! (What they DO include in their definition is not bad so far as it goes, but it feels incomplete.)
Also, where they talk about "feminazi" as an insult, I hope they mean, quite specifically, as an insult directed toward a private individual on the forum -- and not as a form of generic abuse against a generically understood group, or as a specific barb against some heinous celebrity. Personally, although I avoid the word feminazi for stylistic reasons, I have no squeams or qualms against it per se.
I particularly like their paragraph about "equality". I wish I'd thought of that, that no particular ideology has a monopoly on the word "equality"! (Although, I do think that mathematics has such a monopoly, if anything does. But then, math is not an "ideology".)
All right, go and check out Reddit CounterFeminism, HERE:
http://www.reddit.com/r/CounterFeminism/
posted by Fidelbogen at 3:13 PM
17 Comments:
By banning "hate speech" and then defining feminism as a belief in a patriarchy, they have more or less banned any discussion of feminism. since patriarchal oppression is the basis for feminism and it is decidedly misandrist, any discussion of feminism should be banned as "hate speech." Gotta like this site.
TDOM
I've wondered more than once about the meaning of the term 'counter-feminist' and what it conveys to someone who has never heard it before.
Most of us have heard of 'counter-spies', and understand them to be spies that are ostensibly working for your side, but are really working for the opposition.
So a newbie might well assume that a counter-feminist was someone ostensibly feminist, but really promoting the interests of the other side (ie men). Kind of like Wendy McElroy.
"So a newbie might well assume that a counter-feminist was someone ostensibly feminist, but really promoting the interests of the other side (ie men)."
That indeed might be a possibility, although the person involved would run a risk, since I advocate that anybody< who even claims to be a feminist should be taken at their word, so to speak! ;)
But here is something that might be helpful as per "counter-feminist":
The Counter-Feminist Meme
Note the link given at the bottom of that post, which ought to be followed.
@TDOM:
Eh. . you serve pretzels. I'll wash it down with beer for a bit and see how it goes! ;)
@ fidelbogen
Yes, pretzel logic. It's a bit salty and more than a little twisted, always served with mustard, and best washed down with beer.
TDOM
@TDOM:
Feminism is hate speech - you are spot on. The opening statement is absurd to begin with.
I am going to wait a while...
Once it grows, I am guessing that "feminazi" will not appear on it at all...
However, I betcha dollars to nickels that the word "mangina" ends up being all over it...
"feminism as a belief in a patriarchy,"
Initially I took issue with it too, but then I realized the definition (for what it's worth, I can't say I agree with the definition) states feminism is "Belief in the existence of Patriarchy and/or that gender roles are completely or almost completely socially constructed." I believe in patriarchy and the necessity of patriarchy, but does it exist any longer amongst the average family or in society at large, no? Feminists do believe that, despite that one has to mentally bend over backwards to do so.
"Initially I took issue with it too, but then I realized the definition (for what it's worth, I can't say I agree with the definition) states feminism is "Belief in the existence of Patriarchy and/or that gender roles are completely or almost completely socially constructed." I believe in patriarchy and the necessity of patriarchy, but does it exist any longer amongst the average family or in society at large, no? Feminists do believe that, despite that one has to mentally bend over backwards to do so."
Well Trent, this gets tricky because the feminists mean something a bit different than you do by the word "patriarchy".
Although their definition and yours do share a lot of core material in common, I would have to say that THEIR definition is far more expansive and fuzzy around the edges than yours.
And as you may know, MY definition of THEIR definition is, that Patriarchy = Male Power of absolutely any kind whatsoever. Meaning that a man doesn't even need to be the official head of a household to be a "patriarch". Why, even a monk living in the middle of a forest can be part of this thing which the feminists call "patriarchy".
Any time a man speaks sharply to a woman, and takes her to task for something, or holds her accountable for something, he is being "patriarchal". He doesn't need to be even remotely her husband!
And he can be "patriarchal" for being chivalrous, or. . .
for NOT being chivalrous!
@TDOM:
Okey-dokey, your initial statement is beginning to click for me.
And. . the trouble here, I'd say, is that the author of the original 'essay' didn't phrase himself as clearly as he might have.
I sense a contradiction, an inconsistency, in the message. I am not sure of the reason for this.
Whether it bespeaks ambivalence in the writer, or simply a failure of clarity in the writing, is not immediately evident to me.
@ Fidelbogen
My comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but also valid observations. I have a quirky sense of humor where I like to twist things slightly to point out inconsistencies in a mildly humorous manner. Your pretzel analogy was pretty much right on.
One thing I noticed was that the articles were all posted over a month ago. I posted my Legally Obscene article just to see what would happen. So far it has 4 votes, but no comments, though it has generated a lot of traffic to my blog.
TDOM
Thanks for the note on the new channel.
Question...do you think feminism exists, in part anyway, because feminists project their own dark side...which they really do not want to admit...onto men?
"Question...do you think feminism exists, in part anyway, because feminists project their own dark side...which they really do not want to admit...onto men?"
While one hesitates to assume that correlation is causation in every case, the massive accumulation of pots calling kettles black, and the clone-like consistency of such behavior from one episode (or individual) to the next, leaves a mighty narrow roadway for any other conclusion.
Of course, as you suggest, other factors, too, might weigh in. In part, any-weigh. . .
"Well Trent, this gets tricky because the feminists mean something a bit different than you do by the word "patriarchy"."
I would agree with you F, although I have heard it argued otherwise (by MRM guys I might add).
"Why, even a monk living in the middle of a forest can be part of this thing which the feminists call "patriarchy"."
In a certain sense I agree with this, much like I would say that I take part in patriarchy, as do all the men and women in my parish, married or single. If a people as a whole believe in patriarchy (men having dominion over women) that it is a good thing and the best for society, it would apply to single, married, monks, priests, nuns, etc. everyone, not solely to those men who get married and might acquire the name "patriarch" by the fact of their having a family. St. Teresa of Avila is a perfect example. She was incredibly humble and submissive towards her confessors and priests, not only upon the basis of their sacred character, but precisely b/c they were men and as such it was her happy duty (as a woman) to follow their lead.
"If a people as a whole believe in patriarchy (men having dominion over women) that it is a good thing and the best for society, it would apply to single, married, monks, priests, nuns, etc. everyone, not solely to those men who get married and might acquire the name "patriarch" by the fact of their having a family."
Ahhh...but here, the feminists are beyond you once again! Oh sure, they would hate what you have said in this description. They would hate to hear you talk about women being "submissive" to men. BUT. . .
. . their idea of "patriarchy" doesn't stop there!
Oh no!
It is not ONLY male power 'over women' which they object to. It is ANY male power over ANYTHING which they want to whittle down as far as they can!
Even a man's personal autonomy, his proper self-power, the 'power' to think his own thoughts.
The feminists don't like ANY form of male power. . .
And why? Because: it could potentially thwart women in the fulfillment of their caprices.
All of it is "patriarchy" to them. And they want to see it gone. Ultimately, anyway.
So, the boundaries of feminist "patriarchy" go a lot further than what you are discussing, and fade off far more gradually.
"It is ANY male power over ANYTHING which they want to whittle down as far as they can!
Even a man's personal autonomy, his proper self-power, the 'power' to think his own thoughts.
The feminists don't like ANY form of male power. . .
And why? Because: it could potentially thwart women in the fulfillment of their caprices.
All of it is "patriarchy" to them. And they want to see it gone. Ultimately, anyway."
I don't think that the average female views patriarchy in such terms, but the radical feminist definitely so. For the sake of determining whether or not feminism is bad, breaking down feminists into different groupings is purposeless, but when discussing the common understanding of patriarchy (and thus how far removed average women are from "true patriarchy" and what means might be taken to bring them closer to "true patriarchy") it can be useful.
Even the argument that "lesser feminism" ultimately concludes in "radical feminism" (female supremacism, wherein -IMO- patriarchy would be defined according as you have defined it for them) would not change that the majority of women have a different understanding of patriarchy than the radicals do. I just don't think they go that far, at least not statedly so, or even self-admissably so.
In practice what the ideology concludes in may come out more easily, but if it is not embraced as as what they believe is part of their core beliefs, I think that is a good thing b/c it means they would consider that feminism takes its ideology too far.
"I don't think that the average female views patriarchy in such terms, but the radical feminist definitely so."
The average female has not thought deeply enough about the issues (or been sufficiently informed about them) to understand truly 'where it's at' with all of this. (Ditto for the average male.)
"For the sake of determining whether or not feminism is bad, breaking down feminists into different groupings is purposeless, but when discussing the common understanding of patriarchy (and thus how far removed average women are from "true patriarchy" and what means might be taken to bring them closer to "true patriarchy") it can be useful."
Breaking down feminists into different groupings is useful for another reason, when you consider that it is possible to break them down into groupings which they themselves do not officially wish to be broken into. This develops a system of categories for alien purposes -- mostly to facilitate sociopolitical operations against feminism by defining a target area. Call this a tactic in the battle for feminism's soul!
Also: I would say that breaking the feminists down into groupings can be a natural 'teaching aid', so to speak, toward gaining an understanding of WHY feminism is bad. For ex., I don't see how it's possible to fully illustrate (or demonstrate) feminism's badness without at least breaking it down into the groupings of "rad" and "lessrad". Perhaps there is a better way to schematize the dynamic, but I haven't found one yet. . .
"Even the argument that "lesser feminism" ultimately concludes in "radical feminism" (female supremacism, wherein -IMO- patriarchy would be defined according as you have defined it for them) would not change that the majority of women have a different understanding of patriarchy than the radicals do. I just don't think they go that far, at least not statedly so, or even self-admissably so."
Agreed, although it is still the case that they (the majority of women) will ignorantly pluck the poison fruit of feminism when it dangles in front of them on a conveniently low-hanging branch. In fact, feminism depends on that effect as much as it depends on artificial life-support from the state.
"In practice what the ideology concludes in may come out more easily, but if it is not embraced as as what they believe is part of their core beliefs, I think that is a good thing b/c it means they would consider that feminism takes its ideology too far."
In practice I believe it is safe to say that women are advantage maximizers, and can be depended on to abandon a sinking ship when it is no longer advantageous to remain on board.
I think "feminism is hate speech" is a fair comment, and I'm a woman! If a feminist is in doubt whether her words constitute hate speech (and feminism is indeed a hate movement, like it or not), she should consider whether she'd make the same offensive comments about Jews, blacks, or gays. Society shouldn't tolerate discrimination against males. Feminists needsto grow up and learn some love and compassion. It's sad to see feminist women are now the biggest bigots in society.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home