Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

as an Equalist, I find both feminism and MRM to be stupid.

I think this is a good explanation of why your position is imbalanced:

I think that people that construct feminism as wanting "more" than equality (or at least by implication do so) are really having a hard time understanding why they're perceiving that. Why for example is the issue not just about equal pay for equal work? Where do sexual norms and sexual ethics fit in? Why does it seem like feminists are obsessed with the culture?

Well, I think actually a related comic might help this explanation.

Now I'm not making a one to one comparison (though I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes offense at this even being brought up) but I think it illustrates the point pretty well. People with privilege tend to believe that everyone is about on their level with the same opportunities and advantages they have. They're so used to having them that they construct a narrative where they achieve their success and live their life as a self made person.

What feminism is about in part is not merely the belief that everyone is equal, it's about identifying and seeking to change the structural imbalances in our society that leads to disparate treatment between the sexes. In other words, it's not enough to merely give lip service to the idea that "everyone is equal" because it perpetuates the lie that society gives equal opportunities to all.

In reality women in our society are treated as objects for male satisfaction. They do face pay imbalances and other difficulties entering certain fields of study due to prejudice but the basic problem is that the way men (and to some extent other women) are socialized to treat women is as "lesser" and THAT is the imbalance that needs to be fought against. Society has been constructed to be male dominated and in the course of that our socialization marginalizes women. THAT is why if you feel feminists want more than just "equality" there is an imbalance. Because the scales are already unequal and it's disingenuous to just pretend this is all a clean slate now.

 

[leadbelly]

Personally, I don't see why a person has a right to your money simply for being in a marriage with you. Obviously there are some good reasons for a spouse being awarded money, but getting a big pay-off simply because they were married to that person seems wrong to me. I remember hearing about the details of John Cleese's divorce. It was fucking ridiculous the amount of money she got. Why should she be entitled to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQHmH7Z1k0

 

[Devolution]

Personally, I don't see why a person has a right to your money simply for being in a marriage with you. Obviously there are some good reasons for a spouse being awarded money, but getting a big pay-off simply because of being married to someone seems wrong to me. I remember hearing about the details of John Cleese's divorce. It was fucking ridiculous the amount of money she got. Why should she be entitled to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQHmH7Z1k0

It's almost like people could write pre-nups or not get married since once you do you essentially create community property.

 

[Atrus]

Gender and group specific ideologies can target specific problems. General Egalitarianism wouldn't even bother to help minorities within minorities because they simply get ignored if they don't make their presence and problems known.

There's nothing about egalitarianism that overlooks the rights of minorities. The generalized concept is the foundational basis of the concept of equality amongst humans and a basis from which law is interpreted.

Agenda driven subtending of rights most often involves itself in political gamesmanship and is woefully antagonistic, seeking equality at the expense of others. I would suggest the opposite of what you are implying because by fracturing the concept into smaller groups you invariably end up splitting the capital investment so that minorities amongst minorities will have their issues under-represented as compared to others, and such groups will never sit at the table as equals. This then creates a combative attitude between some groups and others, which ultimately brings the rest of society down.

Rights should be based on impartial, empirical, and secular analysis and advancement. Tuning key outcomes with empirically supported solutions to empirically understood problems.

 

[Devolution]

There's nothing about egalitarianism that overlooks the rights of minorities. The generalized concept is the foundational basis of the concept of equality amongst humans and a basis from which law is interpreted.

Agenda driven subtending of rights most often involves itself in political gamesmanship and is woefully antagonistic, seeking equality at the expense of others. I would suggest the opposite of what you are implying because by fracturing the concept into smaller groups you invariably end up splitting the capital investment so that minorities amongst minorities will have their issues under-represented as compared to others, and such groups will never sit at the table as equals.

Rights should be based on impartial, empirical, and secular analysis and advancement. Tuning key outcomes with empirically supported solutions to empirically understood problems.

You're spouting off a lot of idealistic rhetoric in which the law doesn't even apply to certain groups because they're not even recognized as persons under the law or that should be recognized by the law. How would they even make their issues or discrimination known if they're not a protected class in the first place?

 

[Gaborn]

There's nothing about egalitarianism that overlooks the rights of minorities. The generalized concept is the foundational basis of the concept of equality amongst humans and a basis from which law is interpreted.

Agenda driven subtending of rights most often involves itself in political gamesmanship and is woefully antagonistic, seeking equality at the expense of others. I would suggest the opposite of what you are implying because by fracturing the concept into smaller groups you invariably end up splitting the capital investment so that minorities amongst minorities will have their issues under-represented as compared to others, and such groups will never sit at the table as equals. This then creates a combative attitude between some groups and others, which ultimately brings the rest of society down.

Rights should be based on impartial, empirical, and secular analysis and advancement. Tuning key outcomes with empirically supported solutions to empirically understood problems.

Yes, but the problem is society is STRUCTURED in a way so that is not the case.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It's almost like people could write pre-nups or not get married since once you do you essentially create community property.

Pretty much.

Alimony on the other hand looks like it needs a rehaul.

 

[MutFox]

It's almost like people could write pre-nups or not get married since once you do you essentially create community property.

In this day and age where everyone works,
pre-nups should just be built into marriage in the first place.

 

[Devolution]

In this day and age where everyone works,
pre-nups should just be built into marriage in the first place.

Visitation rights should be something someone can acquire without a marriage too.

Yes, but the problem is society is STRUCTURED in a way so that is not the case.

Seriously how does equalism even cover trans and gay issues? You have to rewrite laws for them. Without their "self-serving" interest groups they'd be ignored.

 

[FutureZombie]

What they say about reproductive rights makes a lot of sense. Men need protection against unwanted pregnancies that are out of their control.

What are you supposed to do if you get a woman pregnant because she purposely lied about being on birth control? Is there any current protection from this?

Also, divorce needs to be reformed. There is nothing dumber than someone having to give up 50% of the money they made while they were married. When a woman divorces a rich man, and she is getting tens of thousands of dollars a month without having earned it, that is an awful miscarriage of justice. And if that happens to a rich woman, it's just as bad, for the record.

 

[leadbelly]

It's almost like people could write pre-nups or not get married since once you do you essentially create community property.

I think people tend not to write prenups because they feel it takes the romance out of the marriage. Like it is somehow a sign that they are not fully committed.

 

[Devolution]

What they say about reproductive rights makes a lot of sense. Men need protection against unwanted pregnancies that are out of their control.

What are you supposed to do if you get a woman pregnant because she purposely lied about being on birth control? Is there any current protection from this?

Also, divorce needs to be reformed. There is nothing dumber than someone having to give up 50% of the money they made while they were married. When a woman divorces a rich man, and she is getting tens of thousands of dollars a month without having earned it, that is an awful miscarriage of justice. And if that happens to a rich woman, it's just as bad, for the record.

Condoms. But what should we do? Society would have to cover the cost if not the father. Either way the real issue is sex ed, availability of birth control and abortive services as well as better overall class structure.

I think people tend not to write prenups because they feel it takes the romance out of the marriage. Like it is somehow a sign that they are not fully committed.

Ironically it's probably the biggest sign that they're mature and able to realize that shit doesn't last sometimes. To me it's the most realistic and forward thinking option.

 

[MutFox]

Ironically it's probably the biggest sign that they're mature and able to realize that shit doesn't last sometimes. To me it's the most realistic and forward thinking option.

And that's why it should be built into marriage.

 

[Gaborn]

And that's why it should be built into marriage.

Actually that's exactly why it SHOULDN'T by default.

 

[Jburton]

This shit really rubs me the wrong way. I say that as a straight white male. Really gross.



Yeah, I guess this really sums it up for me.

Nonsense, there are plenty of issues of gender bias against men in regards to certain issues ..... Why is it wrong or in bad taste for men to contest and raise awareness in regards to these issues?


For example the inequality in funding and awareness in regards to prostate cancer in comparison to breast cancer is wrong and there's nothing wrong in saying that.


The crimes of the past in regards to how men treated women should not make it in bad taste or offensive for the men of today to raise awareness / have concerns about the issues that affect today's men ........ Nor should they be made to feel bad for doing so.


Equality for all, not just for some ...... Or it's not equality at all.

 

[leadbelly]

Ironically it's probably the biggest sign that they're mature and able to realize that shit doesn't last sometimes. To me it's the most realistic and forward thinking option.

Thing is, in the UK it is no guarantee you won't get fucked over in the courts. Historically prenups have not been considered legal in the UK.

Prenuptial agreements have historically not been considered legally valid in England. This is still generally the case, although a 2010 Supreme court test case between the German heiress Katrin Radmacher and Nicolas Granatino,[2] indicated that such agreements can "in the right case" have decisive weight in a divorce settlement.[3] The Law Commission is due to consider whether a change should be made to the letter of the law, recognizing prenupts in a more general way; they will report on the matter in 2012.

I think the law might be changed though.

 

[ArynCrinn]

There's nothing about egalitarianism that overlooks the rights of minorities. The generalized concept is the foundational basis of the concept of equality amongst humans and a basis from which law is interpreted.

Agenda driven subtending of rights most often involves itself in political gamesmanship and is woefully antagonistic, seeking equality at the expense of others. I would suggest the opposite of what you are implying because by fracturing the concept into smaller groups you invariably end up splitting the capital investment so that minorities amongst minorities will have their issues under-represented as compared to others, and such groups will never sit at the table as equals. This then creates a combative attitude between some groups and others, which ultimately brings the rest of society down.

Rights should be based on impartial, empirical, and secular analysis and advancement. Tuning key outcomes with empirically supported solutions to empirically understood problems.

In theory this works, for a idealistic sense. And I agree that empirical, impractical analysis should drive most of the conversation when it comes to broad social issues. But you also have to concede that the moral and ethical argument is just as important, if not moreso as it pertains to "human rights". We're not robots after all, we can't just punch in data, find the square root of fair and call it equality. There has to be a fundamental morality and virtue too. And this covers almost every human issue you can think of.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Equality for all, not just for some ...... Or it's not equality at all.

No but you see, Jburton, somebody, somewhere who calls himself a men's rights activist thinks that rape should be legal, and therefore there are no legitimate issues.

 

[Atrus]

You're spouting off a lot of idealistic rhetoric in which the law doesn't even apply to certain groups because they're not even recognized as persons under the law or that should be recognized by the law. How would they even make their issues or discrimination known if they're not a protected class in the first place?

Which group would that be today? If there is any issue it's that other ideologies, namely religion, are confounding the interpretation of basic laws, which throughout the Western world, is secular.
The very attitude of civil rights came from the application of the generalized notion, and for some that came out of Christianity whilst others Natural Rights, of humans overall.
This is why there is no specification for Blacks, Mestizo, Javanese, Blind, Deaf, etc. But an application on human rights to all that are recognized as being the same.
The one sided approach has led to the under-representation of issues of other minorities because they simply are not able to gather the numbers and therefore capital, to address their rights.

The same issue is found in fundraising for illnesses. The most money and attention is not directed at the causes where the funds may be most needed, but to the causes that has the best marketing.
Have aboriginal rights benefited as much as the rights of African-Americans? Hasn't the splintering of minority issues affected politics in the United States?

 

[tiff]

This line of reasoning is so fucked up. Are men and women now competing against each other in a battle of civil rights?

Of course. You see this line of thinking with all sorts of "privileged" classes. White people, Christians, the affluent, anyone who isn't a starving child in Africa, etc. can't complain about anything because the other side has it worse. It's oppression olympics and its purpose is to retard progress in areas that don't suit their needs.

No but you see, Jburton, somebody, somewhere who calls himself a men's rights activist thinks that rape should be legal, and therefore there are no legitimate issues.

I'm glad I'm allowed to make fun of feminists now because one time I heard a feminist say something particularly misandric.

 

[Jburton]

No but you see, Jburton, somebody, somewhere who calls himself a men's rights activist thinks that rape should be legal, and therefore there are no legitimate issues.

Well fuck the people who gladly point out these assholes who do nothing but destroy the work of legitimate activists (and therefore can not be considered activists) as a means to discredit and ignore the legitimate issues.


Agendas are plain to see in people like this.

 

[Onemic]

I think people tend not to write prenups because they feel it takes the romance out of the marriage. Like it is somehow a sign that they are not fully committed.

Unfortunately most people still think this way. Every person I've talked to in rl has said something along the lines that prenups are pretty much assuming the relationship is destined to fail

 

[Femmeworth]

She is right on the "women and children first, men last"-mentality.
Getting through the other video now.

Not completely right. Someone in another thread brought to my attention that there has been recent evidence to suggest that "women and children first" wasn't true, at least in regards to maritime disasters. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-sinking-ship-manners-20120731,0,197854.story While I find her videos interesting, she most definitely has a bias against feminism.

 

[LuffyZoro]

How precious and what have equalists put forth or managed to gain for anyone?

They managed to overtake Republic City.

 

[squidyj]

That's a big problem though.
From a societal perspective, it makes sense to make a father pay for the child even if he did sign a contract like this and took pretty much every sensible step possible to ensure that he did not impregnate her, because in the end it's better if he pays instead of society as a whole paying for him.

For what?
The ability to not end up responsible for a child that is yours?

why is it better for a genetic donor to shoulder the financial burden than for society to contribute to the financial welfare of it's children, nay it's citizens? how is that superior?

Consider this. If a lesbian couple used a male friend's sperm to become pregnant and later became financially distressed (maybe they split up, who knows) would that male donor be responsible for paying for the child? Likewise should he have any rights with respect to that child should he decide once it's born that he really wants to be a daddy?

 

[Angry Fork]

How precious and what have equalists put forth or managed to gain for anyone?

In the 20th century communist parties did more for women's rights than any organization throughout the world. It was one of the major bullet points and goals of proletarian revolution. Stalinism curtailed some of the benefits however. America needed feminism though since socialism never took root.

I think feminism is still necessary given the constant threats from republicans and religious fanatics, still being paid less, victim blaming etc. (only talking about America, obviously things are much much worse in other parts of the world and better in some as well) but I think feminists should call it what it is which is a defense for women's rights. This recent whitewashing and calling it equal rights etc. gives off a silly vibe since it still has feminine in it's term instead of civil rights which is actual equal rights for everyone no matter who you are.

To look at it from another view, blacks are still disenfranchised in many regards but I think many would scoff at a 'blackism' movement being started because it's obvious favoritism and doesn't address the core issue which is now poor vs. rich rather than black vs. white. Rich women will always be able to get abortions, birth control etc. without a problem. I think it's naive for women to assume feminism attracts the attention of all women when it's obvious it's a class issue of ordinary/poor vs. rich/elite. Women like Ann Romney will step on your toes and limit your rights at a moments notice rather than risk her skin (or her husbands) for universal women's rights because the status quo is much more fortunate to her kind.

 

[poppabk]

Is it possible there was a facet of your life that you benefited without realizing it? Perhaps for example you bought a car? It is VERY likely that whatever dealership you did so from charged you less at less interest than a black person for example.

The first car dealership I went to wanted to charge me 35 percent interest, tried to get me to sign without telling me that interest rate and then when I wouldn't sign they left me stranded 30 minutes from anywhere. White privelidge is awesome.

 

[Christine]

"I haven't experienced privilege" = "I am privileged"? What on Earth?

One of the more substantial and pervasive classes of privileges is the ability to remain unconsciously insulated from the experiences of people who do not possess the same privilege. It is by comparative lack that we define privilege. No-one is or can be the best judge of their own privilege, which will always be more readily seen by those who feel its absence. A person who claims not to have experienced any privilege and also to be the best judge of said privilege is speaking from a place of insular naiveté that can only be the result of possessing a relatively expansive and comprehensive suite of privileges.

 

[THRILLH0]

I'm sure his science also shows that biologically women naturally gravitate to working in a kitchen like environment and taking care of her husband and children. Cult of domesticity is biological. FACT.

Why dey got smaller feet if not to stand closer to the sink then huh?

 

[pigeon]

One of the more substantial and pervasive classes of privileges is the ability to remain unconsciously insulated from the experiences of people who do not possess the same privilege. It is by comparative lack that we define privilege. No-one is or can be the best judge of their own privilege, which will always be more readily seen by those who feel its absence. A person who claims not to have experienced any privilege and also to be the best judge of said privilege is speaking from a place of insular naiveté that can only be the result of possessing a relatively expansive and comprehensive suite of privileges.

My favorite post in the thread.

 

[Devolution]

Why dey got smaller feet if not to stand closer to the sink then huh?

Oven bruh, oven.

 

[cutmeamango]

One of the more substantial and pervasive classes of privileges is the ability to remain unconsciously insulated from the experiences of people who do not possess the same privilege. It is by comparative lack that we define privilege. No-one is or can be the best judge of their own privilege, which will always be more readily seen by those who feel its absence. A person who claims not to have experienced any privilege and also to be the best judge of said privilege is speaking from a place of insular naiveté that can only be the result of possessing a relatively expansive and comprehensive suite of privileges.

Intersectionality and its flaws.

 

[Yaboosh]

Oven bruh, oven.

Can't it be both? Quit trying to restrict what women can stand in front of.

 

[Christine]

Intersectionality and its flaws.

I'm not asking for a dissertation, but that's a sentence fragment. What about intersectionality and its flaws, mango?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

How precious and what have equalists put forth or managed to gain for anyone?

Only the whole of western philosophy I guess

 

[Forceatowulf]

Reproductive rights In the US in 2006, the court case Dubay v. Wells concerned whether men should have an opportunity to decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Supporters said that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women.

I've always been a huge advocate of similar ideas such as this. It really needs to happen.

 

[cutmeamango]

I'm not asking for a dissertation, but that's a sentence fragment. What about intersectionality and its flaws, mango?

The divisive approach of classes (sexes, races, economics) entails that every element, that are bound to belong to a triad of sets, will be oppressed and oppressive.

So when you question his ability to perceive the benefits he has (to have), it will conflict with the deficits (or neutralities) he does perceive, which are true knowledges.
The problem lies in estabilishing that because you pertain to one set you are passible of all privileges, even if it does not hold true inter-set.

 

[Perspicacity]

Only the whole of western philosophy I guess

Go on...

 

[Etrian Oddity]

It's almost like people could write pre-nups or not get married since once you do you essentially create community property.

Good luck getting 20% or whatever arbitrary number of women there are out there to not be outraged when you ask them for a pre-nup. Unless they have all the money. Unless you have someone who worships the ground you walk on, pre-nups are seen as a slap in the face. Come now.

 

[Devolution]

Good luck getting 20% or whatever arbitrary number of women there are out there to not be outraged when you ask them for a pre-nup. Unless they have all the money. Unless you have someone who worships the ground you walk on, pre-nups are seen as a slap in the face. Come now.

Not my problem. Date some practical women.

 

[Etrian Oddity]

Not my problem. Date some practical women.

Lovely answer there. Believe it or not, not everyone is practical.

 

[Devolution]

Lovely answer there. Believe it or not, not everyone is practical.

Believe it or not if you marry someone who refuses to sign one and complain after the fact, who the fuck should bother to pity you.

The answer is no one.

 

[MisterNoisy]

Jesus, this thread is a goddamn minefield. Why is anyone posting anything but 'GO AWAY' warnings to their fellow GAFers?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Not my problem. Date some practical women.

I don't understand. It's not an issue because "you should date practical women"? C'mon son. It becomes even worse when De Facto relationships are considered, since you don't even have to be married.

 

[Devolution]

I don't understand. It's not an issue because "you should date practical women"? C'mon son.

Again, if you want to complain about it, then don't marry her. You are under no obligation to deal with (or marry!) someone who refuses to acknowledge facts and how you feel about the situation.

 

[Gaborn]

I don't understand. It's not an issue because "you should date practical women"? C'mon son. It becomes even worse when De Facto relationships are considered, since you don't even have to be married.

You can wear a condom if you're worried about pregnancy and you can find a woman who wants to sign a prenup if you won't. I don't understand your problem with Dev's position. Take some responsibility for YOURSELF

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Go on...

Equality is the cornerstone of western civilization and the most important idea humanity has come up with since feudalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

 

[Gaborn]

Equality is the cornerstone of western civilization and the most important idea humanity has come up with since feudalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Yes, and in philosophy 101 that is very impressive to the students I'm sure. In the real world are you claiming that things are structured equally for all groups?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

are you claiming that things are structured equally for all groups?

nope but neither has it done "nothing for nobody"

 

[TUROK]

Yes, and in philosophy 101 that is very impressive to the students I'm sure. In the real world are you claiming that things are structured equally for all groups?

You are incredibly dense. He's not claiming that at all. He's posting evidence of the progress Egalitarianism has gained for society.