---

[faysalnals]

lij

[J. D. Stembal]

Not all feminists are like that? I've never ever heard that one before.

 

Just ask a feminist how they would feel if 60% of women were still genitally mutilated as infants.

 

I find the claim that feminists challenged the DoD policy regarding selective service to be false. There may have been some discussion around the water cooler back during the Supreme Court case in 1981, but you'll find no feminists seriously discussing the issue today.

 

https://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm

 

 

 

The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA’s gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DoD’s policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

[prolix]

Looks like you got a well thought out reply in response to your, sorry, very short generalizations. So what exactly are you asking of the community here? The reply doesn't look like it is overtly feminist as much as it is going into more depth and counterpointing the points and themes you brought up in your short original statement. It would be helpful to tag a little bit at the end about why this is interesting to you to give us a starting point. Do you want us to refute this "Feminist" talking points? Or something else? I just think it would be helpful to tell us a little bit about your thoughts and feelings about this exchange? Do you have opposing views and/or facts concerning these topics? What are they?

[MMX2010]

Two things before my reply.  (1) The personality changes I'm advising are ones which I'm only beginning to undertake, and you may feel annoyance/snarkiness directed from me to you.  Rest assured that such annoyance and snark is directed twenty-fold towards myself for failing to realize these personality changes are necessary.  (2) You'll need to remember this analogy: An angry lion is fighting an unarmed man; after ten minutes of back-and-forth physical attacks, both parties leave exhausted and unhurt.  Who won the fight? 

 

--------------------------------

 

 

Anyway, here are my rules for dealing with these sorts of discussions. 

 

Rule #1 - If this was a Facebook debate, I question why you'd even do that.  We tell ourselves that "other people are watching", but that's a time wasting delusion.   

 

Rule #2 - If this was a face-to-face conversation with a feminist or a White Knight, do you know why this conversation was important?  If your answers focus on either: (1) drawing a wider audience, or (2) helping the Feminist / White Knight self-improve, those are wrong reasons.  Valid reasons focus on your entertainment and your self-improvement, not around anyone else. 

 

Rule #3 - This rule is highly important, but hard-to-grasp.  Facts should only be discussed with people-who-already-agree.  This allows you to both strengthen your perspective and to continually evaluate your commitment to your values.  But a fact-focused discussion should never be used on Feminists / White Knights. 

 

Why? 

 

Because you're the lion!  You've got the facts on your side.  You listen to Stefan Molyneux.  You are philosophically rigorous.  So you're the lion. 

 

But when you get into a fact-focused discussion with a Feminist / White Knight, you always get stale-mated because: (1) They never agree with you, and they make you think their agreement is valuable to you.  (2) When the conversation ends, you both walk away somewhat annoyed - BUT no better and no worse.  Stale-mates are losses. 

 

Instead, your goal is to dominate the conversation by making her feel small, weak, and wrong.  And it's harder to convince ourselves that this is right and good than it is to learn how to do it. 

 

Rule #4 - Ultimately, you dominate these discussions by being happy AND dismissive.  (Ironically, they try to win these discussions by being unhappy and dismissive, which never works.)  So the real Rule #1 is "never discuss this stuff unless you're happy with your life, your choices, and your future opportunities".  She'll see your misery and self-doubt as a sign that she's right, which will make you lose.  Instead, you have to subtly but firmly make her realize that YOU ARE BETTER THAN HER. 

 

------------------------------------------

 

So, I'd like to imagine that your conversation took place in a bar.  And I'm that invisible dude at the table, sitting next to you, minding his own business.  But you're both talking loud enough for me to hear, and I'm not saying anything until your feminist friend says: "Just because men face problems too does not mean feminism is useless or that we think your problems don't matter.  Male privilege doesn't mean everything is easy, it means overall, in general, you aren't systematically oppressed. There are places around the world where women aren't allowed to go out in public without being chaperoned by a man, where if a man cheats his wife is blamed, where little girls are forced to marry, where women are gang raped as punishment for "crimes," etc.  Women in America have it easy compared to those women, but we still face problems because of our gender."

 

The moment she finishes her final sentence, your hear this dismissive and fakely-long belly laugh.  It's a laugh that makes everyone go silent and look at me.  Is he reading a book?  (No.)  Browsing the internet?  (No.)  Over-hearing the conversation?  (Yes.) 

 

And then he looks directly at your Feminist friend, shakes his head regretfully and says, "You're right.  Women in America face problems because of their gender." - but the confusing thing is that I'm agreeing with her in words but disagreeing with her in my voice and body-language. 

 

It doesn't matter what she says / does next, because I'm going to say, "Women in America faces problems because of their gender."  Only this time, I'm going to draw out that word "because" really long and slow - with very solemn overtones. 

 

And then I'm quickly going to say, "Thanks for buying my meal (or coffee)..." - and act like I'm leaving. 

 

When she says, "But I didn't agree to pay for that!", I'm going to reply, "Well, shit.  You complain about gender discrimination in places you've never lived in, but you don't have the balls to grab either a gun or a microphone to protest those injustices.  Meanwhile, when men decided they didn't like the fucking Nazis, they grabbed their guns and beat them back.  Now, I assumed (again, long....and....slow to make her feel small and weak) that you'd be so grateful to the men who make your life better than those of the women you complain about that you'd be willing to buy my meal.  Guess you're just one of those 'feminists' (finger quotes in air, super long and slow....mocking voice tone...extremely dismissive BUT happy) who don't know how to say 'thank you'."

 

Then I'm going to turn to you, smile warmly, and say, "The most important thing we can do is be happy.  How does hanging around with....that (points thumb to your feminist friend, doesn't look at her, ignores anything she has to say at this point) enhance your happiness?"  *pauses, smiles*  "You have a nice day now." 

 

------------------------

 

And that's it.  You don't convert the Feminist / White Knight.  You just score an over-arching point, and then leave. 

 

Ideally, she resorts to very angry insults (which I win by happily ignoring).  Or she doesn't challenge me, which also means I won. 

 

And you leave with a better appreciation for the value of your time, effort, and personal happiness.

 

 

***********************************

 

If you prefer one-liners, "Women blame male society, even though they mean government, and even though women are the majority of voters." 

 

"Women loudly claim that they don't need a man, but government is the biggest man around.  Soon, he'll be the biggest deadbeat." 

 

"A woman's curse is to derive the majority of her power from her youth and good-looks, and a man's curse is to derive the majority of his power from his wealth and experience.  A man who marries the wrong woman becomes a self-blaming harmless fool, but a woman who marries the wrong man (or doesn't marry at all, or chooses the wrong career) blames everyone but herself and wants the government to rescue her." 

 

"The only problem that women face because of their gender is their unwillingness to self-improve.  Sadly, that only problem is a huge, huge one." 

 

"The best of men face every challenge with bravery, stoicism, and healthy self-blame.  (Self-blame is required for self-improvement.)  These men call this FREEDOM and LIFE.  Women loathe these men because they're a constant reminder of what they'll never be: FREE and HAPPY." 

 

"Men gather their power from their own decisions and values.  Women gather power from their men, and they use it against them." 

 

"Have you noticed how the better American society gets, the more women are depressed and the more idiotic their complaints are?  Eighty years ago, she complained that she didn't have enough to eat.  Today, she complains that women in countries she's never been to are suffering problems she'll never, herself, experience." 

 

"Do women complain about sufferings in third world countries because they want to fix those problems, or because they want to make men fix those problems for them?" 

[Kevin Beal]

Feminists don't blame men. Some do, but they're those whack extremists. We blame a "patriarchal society." when I think of it I actually rarely EVER see a feminist saying "MEN" are the problem. Men aren't the problem. General societal habits are the problem, and both men AND women are the cause of those things.

This is a distinction without a difference.

 

If men run patriarchy, they are logically to blame. It doesn't make sense to divorce a rapist from his rape, as in "I don't blame rapists, I blame rape". The word "blame" implies moral agents who made decisions. I can't blame my tree that fell on my lawn this morning.

 

Either patriarchy is not run by men, or it is. If it's not, then it makes no sense to call it a "patriarchy". If it is, then this is just pedantic nonsense.

 

 

Just because men face problems too does not mean feminism is useless or that we think your problems don't matter.

Male privilege doesn't mean everything is easy, it means overall, in general, you aren't systematically oppressed. There are places around the world where women aren't allowed to go out in public without being chaperoned by a man, where if a man cheats his wife is blamed, where little girls are forced to marry, where women are gang raped as punishment for "crimes," etc.

Women in America have it easy compared to those women, but we still face problems because of our gender.

So, they're just saying that they care more about women's issues, which is not really different from the general criticism. I mean, the phrase "you don't think men's issues matter" is meant in comparison to women. Not a stand alone statement without context. And I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Do I get to point out examples of uniquely male oppression around the world and get to say that men's issues matter more?

 

Again, just sort of agreeing with you while pretending there is a misunderstanding, and that you are making it.

 

 

About men being drafted into wars:

ACTUALLY. In 1980 Jimmy Carter tried to make it so women had to sign up for the draft. 

At the time, here were the male/female numbers in the Congress:

Senate: 98 Men / 2 Women 

House: 423 Men / 12 Women 

 

The House and Senate voted to keep the draft a male-only thing.

A group of attorneys challenged this ruling, saying it was gender discrimination and you know who was on side with the attorney's?

The American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project

 

So we tried to force women AND men to sign up for the draft, but a male-dominated Congress didn't allow it to happen. And then Women's Rights groups fought the ruling, and lost. 

Did you say that the male only draft was put there and supported by feminists? No. I believe you were saying (and rightly so) that this is an example of uniquely male disadvantage and disregard. And it's not like feminists actually do support women being drafted. Typically they talk about this issue with contempt for men, as in "boo hoo, you get drafted, so what?! I have to sit next to a guy with his legs spread slightly apart on the bus! Friggin' cry babies, ugh"

 

 

Have no reproductive rights? No, you can't force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want and you shouldn't be allowed to.

However, I also think that men should not have to pay child support if they agree that they don't want to during the time the woman is allowed to have an abortion. If a woman can choose to not care for a child or put it up for adoption, the man should also be able to choose whether or not to care for it financially.

However, in places where abortion is not allowed and the woman HAS to go through the process of having the baby, if she has to be responsible for it then the man should be too. If she has the choice, then the man should too.

This is a great response and this person should be applauded. They are in a microscopic minority, but good on 'em!

[PatrickC]

Kevin, as usual (sigh) replies with good reason to these points.

 

I'm of the vein to ask what the heck is 'equality'. What does it mean in reality and what would be its effects?

 

People throw out these terms like democracy or fairness too without any thought as to how they are erected or the consequences to them.

[NotDarkYet]

Wow.

 

I wrote that original youtube comment you're quoting

[vlbk]

From what I can tell, the conversation started off about is feminism equal rights?, and drifted into a series of facts/arguments that have nothing to do with the original subject. 

[MMX2010]

I'm grinning my ass off reading this loooooooooong, but insightful and deep essay. 

 

Best one-liner so far, "Liberal women want all the benefits of socialism and all the brand names that come with capitalism.  When she can't have it, the problem is misogyny." 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

And this is their reply:

 

"Feminists don't blame men. Some do, but they're those whack extremists. We blame a "patriarchal society."

 

This is the point where I quit reading. Unless the author can somehow specifically differentiate between "blaming men" and "blaming a patriarchal society", then the rest can't help but be trash.

[hannahbanana]

 

"Feminists don't blame men. Some do, but they're those whack extremists. We blame a "patriarchal society." when I think of it I actually rarely EVER see a feminist saying "MEN" are the problem. Men aren't the problem. General societal habits are the problem, and both men AND women are the cause of those things.

 

I hear this all the time, and it also infuriates me. But here are my thoughts on the subject:

People who say this, I call "soft-core" feminists, because they usually only hear the "good" things about feminism, but make no effort to do their research to learn about the history and full scope of the feminist movement. It's kind of like Christians who deny that the Westborough Baptist Church has anything to do with "real" Christianity.

Basically, they are told that feminism=equality, then think "I support equality, therefore I support feminism," but do not question whether feminism really IS equality. If they admitted that later, their entire lives would be thrown upside-down, just like a Christian who realizes there is no god.

 

It doesn't matter how many people THEY'VE heard condemn men, it matters WHO condemns men in the feminist movement, and that is often the intellectual feminists, who write books and tour around the country giving lectures. The stuff they call the work of whack-jobs is taught in college, in Intro to Feminism classes, and was spoken by many historically prominent feminists, so I highly doubt that it's simply the work of some outlying crazy person.

 

All of what I just said seems so simple, yet it is almost impossible trying to get people to see it, if they are not the tiniest bit skeptical from the beginning. Unless the person I was talking to was even a little bit doubtful, I would consider the discussion useless, sadly enough.

[PatrickC]

Hannah I think you should remove the banana from your name. Nothing bananas about your arguments.

 

Unless it's your real surname, then oops, for shame.  (nothing to see here)

[Jack]

I'm surprised at how well thought out the feminist arguments are in this case. I think they are deserving of a rational reply. Kevin did a great job dissecting each of the arguments. If you get the opportunity to talk with the feminist again, I'd be interested to hear what they have to say to Hannah's comparison between the Westborough Baptist Church and feminism. Although, this won't work on someone who isn't an atheist. I think you got lucky with this feminist and found someone who might be converted... might. 

[J. D. Stembal]

I hear this all the time, and it also infuriates me. But here are my thoughts on the subject:

People who say this, I call "soft-core" feminists, because they usually only hear the "good" things about feminism, but make no effort to do their research to learn about the history and full scope of the feminist movement. It's kind of like Christians who deny that the Westborough Baptist Church has anything to do with "real" Christianity.

Basically, they are told that feminism=equality, then think "I support equality, therefore I support feminism," but do not question whether feminism really IS equality. If they admitted that later, their entire lives would be thrown upside-down, just like a Christian who realizes there is no god.

 

It doesn't matter how many people THEY'VE heard condemn men, it matters WHO condemns men in the feminist movement, and that is often the intellectual feminists, who write books and tour around the country giving lectures. The stuff they call the work of whack-jobs is taught in college, in Intro to Feminism classes, and was spoken by many historically prominent feminists, so I highly doubt that it's simply the work of some outlying crazy person.

 

All of what I just said seems so simple, yet it is almost impossible trying to get people to see it, if they are not the tiniest bit skeptical from the beginning. Unless the person I was talking to was even a little bit doubtful, I would consider the discussion useless, sadly enough.

 

There are two stages to any discussion with a feminist.

 

1) You have to reason out whether or not feminism stands (or ever stood) for equality between the genders. The genders aren't equal by any stretch of the imagination so feminism ether missed the stated goal or equality wasn't the goal in the first place.

 

2) You have to determine what equality is as a practical matter, and ask ourselves if we really want or need it. Should everyone get paid the same amount because that would be economic equality?

[DaviesMa]

I would suggest that you are fighting on too many fronts at once. You a core thread of an argument, i.e. men are oppressed just as much or more than women, but she has brought up a lot of fog and not provided much evidence. She brings up other societies, which has no relevance to the west, she brings up a court case where male politicians were accommodating female voters, which again proves nothing.

 

She says 'just because men face problems too, that doesn't mean feminism is useless'. This is an attempt to sweep away the evidence that you have provided by saying that your evidence isn't relevant, to feminism. Essentially, she is saying that men and women have problems but only women have the right to complain about it, because only female concerns are valid. If she ignores the importance of inequality towards men, then it is easy to see how she feels that women are the victims.

 

You could approach this by asking her to define the goal of feminism, if she says that it is to have equality of the sexes then she must surely agree that areas where men are subjugated are also important. If she doesn't agree at least to this then she does not believe in universals, so unless you want to try to convince her of the merits of universality, I would end the debate. 

 

You could skip this bit and ask her to define patriarchy and to provide evidence for this. Once you get onto singular hard facts then it should be easier to see what evidence she provides. The burden of proof would be on her, as she is the one stating that a cultural phenomenon called the patriarchy exists, so there should be hard evidence for it.

 

This is not a debate on 'do men or women get  a worse deal in society.' It is her putting forward a hypothesis that there is a society wide oppression of women, for which she should be able to provide evidence. Of course, if there are huge disadvantages to men as well as women, this would go towards invalidating the hypothesis, so she should try to explain why the patriarchy isn't alive and well for instance in the family courts, in the sentencing of prisoners, in the Armed Services or in the media. If she talks about other countries, then remind her that we are debating whether the patriarchy still exists in the West.

 

I suspect that she holds men to a different and more disposable standard than women. If this is so then you can point this out to her and she may become annoyed, but unless she is incredibly fair minded, you will not change her mind.