-ism's on tumblr

[Single Shot]

But by calling yourself feminism you align yourself to the most vocal aspects of the group. This is simply because the most vocal parts are the most public. So by calling yourself a feminist you add a number to the perceived acceptance of the group, and thus it's most vocal/extreme parts becaue it's most vocal parts are also the most extreme.

An extreme organisation with 100commited members is a fringe, an organization with an extreme voice of the same 100 but a total of 100,000 members (even if said members are quietly mumbling about equality to themselves) is something else entirely.

You have to see that FEMinismis a female-centric view of the equality issue, and that's what breeds the anti-male subculture. It's not the majority of feminists that believe that, but they are the most vocal.

Well to you id call myself an equalist because you use feminism in a way I dont. My language is fluid depending on who im talking to. Personally I think feminism is centered on the fact the patriarchy (Which i define as a set of sociatal values based on defining what a man(tm) should be, a man shouldnt cry, a man shouldnt cook, a man works ect) causes a lot of the problems for both men and women. I think the patriarchy (Which AGAIN is a set of societal values propagated by men telling other men what they should measure up to and by extension telling them to NOT be like women because women are lesser) hurts men equally as it does women. I see no problem calling the movement to de construct these random unnecessary social standards feminism. Its a little poetic seeing as this set of standards pretty much uses the general rule of "If a man does ANYTHING we usually assign to women it is weak and bad". I think a core part of femenism is that it shouldnt be frowned upon or hated for a man to act in a way traditionally womanly. Thus i dont see any reason to call the fight for my ability to enjoy baking without being seen as "weak" or "Not into MANLY interests" feminism. It's my fight too to be allowed access to the things men previously have been steered away from because they BELONGED to the "weaker" caste of "women". Similarly it has a duel purpose in spearheading the idea women have as much right as men to take part in and enjoy "manly" activities and roles without judgement.

But hey if you dont see how thats fitting at all im happy to swap to equalism when talking about it with you. The word really accounts for NONE of my opinion. And if peoples think me using a handy word to describe my views means i have anything to do with the same people who might try and use that label to describe an OBVIOUSLY different view thats just stupid and they are within their right to consider me something else entirely.

You seem quite open to the ideas I put forwards and willing to understand them. Thank you.

I also see the problems caused by what you chose to term as 'patriarchy' (I'd use a different term for social standards but you agreed to use equalism so I'll make a concession too.), but I also see the problems inherent in the solutions feminism has provided.
Employment quota's create jobs that can never be filled my men because an office is already at it's limit, this also creates social splits in offices between those seen as employed to fill a quota, and those who are actually the est fit for the job.
Child custody is bias towards women because early feminism fought for that change, but men still have the responsibility for financial care because early feminism didn't want that responsibility.
Men can still be abused by their female partners in relationships because feminism got "the size and muscular stature" of the abuser written into the abuse laws. Feminist groups also campaign and argue against help centres for male victims (making themselves the most vocal parts of the feminist community around the issue)

These and other reasons are what I have a problem with, and why I cannot in good conscience call myself a feminist despite the constant reminder that I agree with most of what they say at the very moderate level to some extent.

You seem to believe in true equality though, so I will respect whatever you choose to call yourself as long as you respect my right to call out the more vocal and extreme sections of your claimed movement.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Employment quota's create jobs that can never be filled my men because an office is already at it's limit, this also creates social splits in offices between those seen as employed to fill a quota, and those who are actually the est fit for the job.

Well, yes, but as as opposed to those there because of informal discrimination, who aren't best for the job either. Now, positive discrimination is by no means a permanent or perfect fix, however it may be useful to alleviate the problem until a better solution can be implemented.

Child custody is bias towards women because early feminism fought for that change, but men still have the responsibility for financial care because early feminism didn't want that responsibility.

Men still have that responsibility (as a rule), chiefly because they still earn more money than men. Once that problem is overcome, the problems with child custody should be greatly reduced.

 

[derprimus]

If you'll forgive the melodrama: being expected to die is not a privilege. What is the draft but an institutional expression of a systemic framework of male disposability?

It's not women who oppress and draft men - it's military male leaders who insist on doing so. It's them who insist that women can't participate in combat, so yes, enjoy your patriarchy, while media and society try hard to minimize the info about women's participation in military activities. All these male nerds who whine about how Gal Gadot (who served in IDF) is not fit/strong enough to play Wonder Woman in Batman vs. Superman movie is nice example of this information vacuum. Woman who served to protect her country was dissmised by males as "that b---h from the Fast and Furious" on this very forum.

Also, in many western countries conscription is abolished. It's still present in Finland, but not in USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. So whenever I see western male mo-a-ning about draft, I roll my eyes hard. Like yeah, absolutely horrible, bro. This one instance of discrimination which you won't encounter absolutely undermines everything women experienced for thousands of years and have to tolerate still. Wow, much pain, so disposable.

OP, a tumblr "social activism" is the only logical answer to all the cis-white-priviliged-male (see what i did there) circle-jerking that happens pretty much on every forum or social outlet in the internet, you just fail to see it because you normalize this type of behaviour. Boo hoo, evil feminists ate my iicecream, I'm such a nice guy. Read MRAs forums/sites first, and dare to describe tumblr as more extreme after that

I always keep hearing from people how places like Tumblr and Reddit are hives of scum and villainy, but if so, why do you go there? Just ignore them. I manage to use Tumblr for finding fandom-related things or cute stuff and never run into this.

This human in wise and deserves much respect.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

snippersnap

I think the problem for you isn't by what name you call your set of ideals (one's I share, mind you), but rather how you view them as just that, a set of ideals.
Feminism isn't that, or at least, not restricted to that, it is a social movement that sets to change society for the better, hopefully.

Hopefully, being the key word here, the movement has proven in the past that it does have the power to change things, and the greatest cause for concern is vocal extremists that affiliate themselves with the movement, these individuals can harm the integrity or goal that the movement set out with, or worse, bring about changes that are not for the best.

There is always so much bad blood and heat in discussions like these, and for good reason, men feel accused over offences they didn't give, or weren't aware were an offence, women don't feel like they're taken seriously, or affiliated too much with extremist nutcases.
Some people are concerned for the feminist movement, some don't view it as a movement at all, but rather, an ideoligy.

I would like to recommend you a book: "The world according to Garp", it's about a writer that throughout his career get's swept up in the whole feminist phenomena, in both it's good, bad and ugly faces.

 

[Single Shot]

Employment quota's create jobs that can never be filled my men because an office is already at it's limit, this also creates social splits in offices between those seen as employed to fill a quota, and those who are actually the est fit for the job.

Well, yes, but as as opposed to those there because of informal discrimination, who aren't best for the job either. Now, positive discrimination is by no means a permanent or perfect fix, however it may be useful to alleviate the problem until a better solution can be implemented.

Child custody is bias towards women because early feminism fought for that change, but men still have the responsibility for financial care because early feminism didn't want that responsibility.

Men still have that responsibility (as a rule), chiefly because they still earn more money than men. Once that problem is overcome, the problems with child custody should be greatly reduced.

1) So you're totally okay with discrimination against men? Expecting, by law, a 50:50 split in all jobs when the split in qualified people isn't 50:50 seems insane to me. In IT for example up to 70-80% of people qualified for a job can be male, but legally the maximum divide is a 6:4 ratio split per team. This means women are more likely to be employed then men when both are equally qualified.

2) Looking at statistics from the official government website shows that men are on average paid more. but it also shows that when you compare the same jobs after the same time they pay is equal. Men are on average paid more because 1) the generally take the more dangerous jobs (that rightly pay more than non-dangerous jobs) and 2) men are more likely to get into the highest positions because they are able to work their entire lives almost without break. No maker how you look at it taking a few months to a year off work to have a baby will slow your promotion prospects. - yes, I'm sure I'm oversimplifying that, but it's just a few examples for why.
But again, you are in favour of putting off sorting out this issue until 'later'? Even when women on very high pay's ($500,000 per year) can claim support from an equally paid partner? Seems like that's just taking money because they can, not because they need it.

And all of that's before I get into the issue of women deliberately getting pregnant (usually after lying about taking the pill) so they can live an easy life off child support from the state and the farther. Or the bias towards the woman having custody that you don't seem to have a problem with.

 

[Thaluikhain]

1) So you're totally okay with discrimination against men?

There is a big difference with working towards ending discrimination against women, and discriminating against men, unless you've accepted that men ought to be doing that.

This means women are more likely to be employed then men when both are equally qualified.

As opposed to the current system, which is the reverse? Why is that automatically better?

Men are on average paid more because 1) the generally take the more dangerous jobs (that rightly pay more than non-dangerous jobs)

Not true. While women are generally excluded from the more dangerous jobs, those don't actually tend to pay more than safer ones.

men are more likely to get into the highest positions

Yes.

because they are able to work their entire lives almost without break.

No, that's a rationalisation, not a reason. The glass ceiling remains a real problem.

Even when women on very high pay's ($500,000 per year) can claim support from an equally paid partner?

If they are the one raising the child, yes, they should be supported by someone equally paid.

 

[Phasmal]

Congratulations, you've discovered there are extremist assholes on the internet.
Tomorrow's lesson: Water, is it wet?

Also the forever irony of people in the gamer community dismissing tumblr as being horrible because it's an `echo chamber`.
Just don't engage people like that. You guys are anti-censorship, right? So they're gonna have a place to be assholes in.

I manage to use tumblr for fandom stuff without running into this crap, and if I ever run into something sketchy, just roll my eyes and move on.

As for the `die cis scum` crap- seriously, you're offended by that? I'm not. Trans people get murdered a hella fuckin lot, and if they're pissed at cis people I can't really say I blame them.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

Can we all agree that privilege only exists when features in which the individual has not control are discriminated against by society?
This is why thin privilege is bullshit.
No matter how fucked up your thyroids are there is no legitimate for an able body person (who isn't pregnant, paralyzed, afflicted with some other condition which prevents them from effectively maintaining themselves) to ever be obese.

The body is a machine, the calories that go in are reflected in an individual's condition. The end result is due to active decisions made by the user, not (in most cases) by their physical disposition.

If one's metabolism is slow, that person just has to adjust their diet to take into account their condition, it isn't some free pass to claim irresponsibility over one's own condition and than expect everyone to continually garner them with sympathy and later support when their health inevitably fails.

If your fat, deal with it. You've sacrificed some degree of societal acceptance and adoration for comfort, its an active decision on your part to desecrate your own body.

 

[Something Amyss]

I really don't get the fixation on Tumblr. So many of the complainers appear to be regular readers. If it's that horrible, why are people still looking?

 

[Single Shot]

1) So you're totally okay with discrimination against men?

There is a big difference with working towards ending discrimination against women, and discriminating against men, unless you've accepted that men ought to be doing that.

This means women are more likely to be employed then men when both are equally qualified.

As opposed to the current system, which is the reverse? Why is that automatically better?

Men are on average paid more because 1) the generally take the more dangerous jobs (that rightly pay more than non-dangerous jobs)

Not true. While women are generally excluded from the more dangerous jobs, those don't actually tend to pay more than safer ones.

men are more likely to get into the highest positions

Yes.

because they are able to work their entire lives almost without break.

No, that's a rationalisation, not a reason. The glass ceiling remains a real problem.

Even when women on very high pay's ($500,000 per year) can claim support from an equally paid partner?

If they are the one raising the child, yes, they should be supported by someone equally paid.

1) Yes, there is a big difference. But in this case you're literally saying it's okay to discriminate against men in employment opportunities if women benefit.

2) The current system IS quota based ina large chunk of the western world either enforced through law or lawsuits.

3) I'm not sure what you call a dangerous job but I know of unskilled jobs that can earn up to 40k and involve danger compared to the 17.5k minimum wage for full employment.

4) A little sample of what I mean from someone with a vagina. It shouldn't make a difference, but you might listen to them http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shanna-b-van-ness/does-the-glass-ceiling-exist-_b_3208384.html
The glass ceiling may well exist, as I said in my post, but the reason isn't what you're implying.

5) Can you answer my question about women tricking men into having children then claiming support. If not i'll assume you're in favour of it.

 

[TekMoney]

Well, it's more complicated than that. Fat people face discrimination in various forms. You get simple stuff like not being able to find clothes in your size, but then you get very sinister medical issues as well. If you look around, you'll see lots of stories about people who've gone to the doctor for one reason or another, and they automatically get a diagnosis of "you're too fat, lose weight". Which has predictable results when it turns out they had some serious, unrelated ailment the doctor didn't bother checking for.

The reason for the medical side of that is that being obese gives so many symptoms that makes it hard to tell the causes apart.
Surgery on fat people is very hard, takes loads of extra time, increases risk of complications, and exponentially increases infection risks among other things.

There are countless stories of people with undiagnosed problems because doctors assumed weight was the issue. I'll give you an example, it's not medical but it's in the same vein.

When my dad died I sought therapy for it. The first therapist I saw decided that rather than grief and such, I was unhappy because of my weight. And we focused on that. We focused on that so much that she actually forgot my dad was dead and asked if he was helping to support me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

1) Yes, there is a big difference. But in this case you're literally saying it's okay to discriminate against men in employment opportunities if women benefit.

Excepting, of course, that's not at all what I said.

2) The current system IS quota based ina large chunk of the western world either enforced through law or lawsuits.

Assuming that to be true, the system that was and would still be without it then.

Again, why is informal discrimination against women worse than legalised (and statistically rather less) discrimination against men?

3) I'm not sure what you call a dangerous job but I know of unskilled jobs that can earn up to 40k and involve danger compared to the 17.5k minimum wage for full employment.

Yeah, and? Minimum wage shouldn't be used as a benchmark.

4) A little sample of what I mean from someone with a vagina. It shouldn't make a difference, but you might listen to them http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shanna-b-van-ness/does-the-glass-ceiling-exist-_b_3208384.html
The glass ceiling may well exist, as I said in my post, but the reason isn't what you're implying.

Er, that article says little more than "there's a problem, and we'll have to deal with it ourselves". So?

5) Can you answer my question about women tricking men into having children then claiming support. If not i'll assume you're in favour of it.

You didn't ask a question, you just stated that that happened sometimes, and implied it was a serious problem.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

As for the `die cis scum` crap- seriously, you're offended by that? I'm not. Trans people get murdered a hella fuckin lot, and if they're pissed at cis people I can't really say I blame them.

It's needlessly confrontational.
And as much as many try to say that's its meant in a humorous 'ironic' way there is never a joke invoked, its a blunt statement of aggression against a majority group mainly ambivalent to their existence.
Is it fine for Islamic groups to demand "death to the infadels" whenever they face discrimination or confrontation?
Seeing as those who are posting this have access to the internet, unless they live in some second world Theocracy, they're not facing institutional oppression.
According to the Trans Murder Monitoring Project 238 trans people are murdered each year, according to wikipedia not more then 6 per year are determined to be motivated by the trans status of the victim , far from the genocidal conditions implied.
Its melodramatic at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst to say that they get killed a 'hella fuckin lot'. Gays get it worse, blacks get it way worse but trying to rank privilege levels is unhelpful.
Main point is the statement is unhelpfully polarizing to cis people and melodramatic in origins. Do the people who wield this statement believe that after being called 'scum' that people will converge to their side and reflect on their attitudes? Or would it provoke potential hostility further perpetuation negative attitudes about trans people and potentially fueling more violence against them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

a majority group mainly ambivalent to their existence.

Well, yes, that is the problem.

they're not facing institutional oppression.

Yeah, going to disagree with that.

Not being murdered in massive numbers, yes, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Burnswell]

... I saw a post that said "Patriarchy backfiring on men is not sexism against men" with thousands of notes and it bothered me that people could be so sexist when fighting for feminism.

You have to keep an eye out for how 'Patriarchy' is used. It has multiple meanings which is why it's such a flexible word.

In the normal lower case sense it basically just means traditionalism. Traditions which make perfect sense back in the days when all you ever did was try to survive. (Traditions which are still useful in some countries today)
Now that our predecessors have spent their lives building up enough infrastructure to guarantee our survival those traditions that helped protect women and children are no longer as useful. Lower case patriarchy says women should dress conservatively so they don't attract unwanted attention, says men should look after them so that they are better able to look after the children and that women shouldn't be anywhere near violence.

Patriarchy with a capital P though is essentially how hormonal teenage girls who think their dads hate them because they won't let them stay out after 10pm view the idea of patriarchy. Part of the reason for it seems to be giving gender studies classes to students who don't have nearly the life experience or perspective to comprehend what they're being told. Some of the more ignorant feminists like to call this type of feminism "straw feminism" and pretend it doesn't exist.
You're entirely correct The_Clown, the 'Capital P Patriarchy' feminism is completely sexist and bigoted.
Feminists really have to denounce that kind of sexist bigot rather arrogantly "correct" you that "no, that isn't real feminism, we're an ideology of equality!" while being completely oblivious to the damage they have done to feminism and are still doing. It's comparable to Muslims who said 'no, the few terrorists aren't real Muslims, we're a religion of peace!". Once the public has seen people sharing your label commit such huge violations against equality, they want to hear you actually denounce the sexist bigots who are still hiding behind your ideology.
Actual feminists who are unwilling to openly and publicly denounce that kind of sexist bigotry is precisely the real problem here, assuming they don't want feminism to publicly burn and die. The radical feminists are getting far too much public attention to ignore.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

Yeah, going to disagree with that.

Not being murdered in massive numbers, yes, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not saying trans repression doesn't happen, just that those complaining about it aren't being repressed institutionally. Rather that they face negative attitudes and actions by individuals and groups.
Thus the militant response is well overblown.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, going to disagree with that.

Not being murdered in massive numbers, yes, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not saying trans repression doesn't happen, just that those complaining about it aren't being repressed institutionally. Rather that they face negative attitudes and actions by individuals and groups.
Thus the militant response is well overblown.

Er, what do you mean by "institutionally"? Because, as I would use the term, it would cover individuals and groups motivated to act that way by societal institutions, even if it's not legalised (though they do face legal discrimination in many places).

As for the militant response...I think "militant" is an exaggeration, but assuming, for sake of argument, that it wasn't...I'm very wary of auditing the way people being persecuted view or talk about the privileged groups they aren't part of.

Certainly, I would say we could do without stuff like that, but to actually say that people who disagree are wrong...that is rather reminiscent of the tone argument.

 

[Liam Barden]

Warfare has long been regarded as this wonderful boys only club that girls weren't allowed in. Only nowdays people don't see it as wonderful nearly so much.

Thats just a ridiculous thing to say. People have never believed that war is wonderful, you're showing a severe lack of basic history knowledge here.

Women likely weren't allowed in war for very simple reasons.
1) Girls aren't as strong as men and therefore make poor soldiers (at least before guns were invented).
2) Men have a biological bias to want to protect women (and will therefore do things like shield them from war).
Those 2 facts are pretty indisputable, and explain why women aren't soldiers without resorting to some conspiracy theory that men have just always hated women and want to keep them out of their 'fun boys clubs'.

Secondly, what does "equalist" mean? Equal for who? Unless you specify, the term is meaningless, you can't just assume it to be for "everyone".

Uh, yes you can. Thats the whole point of equalism, we give everybody equal rights. I mean seriously, that's the definition of 'equal'! You cant make one group of people more equal than another!

 

[Angelowl]

Yeah, going to disagree with that.

Not being murdered in massive numbers, yes, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not saying trans repression doesn't happen, just that those complaining about it aren't being repressed institutionally. Rather that they face negative attitudes and actions by individuals and groups.
Thus the militant response is well overblown.

What state was it that fairly recently tried to pass a bill that made it illegal to use the bathrooms of another gender than the one on the birth certificate? I can't remember, but I think it counts.