Saturday, April 21, 2007

Aborting Feminism, Adding Links

Not surprisingly, some feminists framed this week’s Supreme Court decision allowing states to limit second- and third-trimester partial-birth abortions as an attack on women’s rights. Like a lot of Americans — though not the ones you tend to see arguing about abortion on television, for reasons more aesthetic than political — I’m fairly moderate on the abortion topic, inclined to think that fetuses are less than full persons but more than, say, tumors and thus arguably due some degree of moral concern and legal protection, particularly the farther along they are in the development process. Rough, centrist legal remedies like, say, allowing abortion in the first trimester but limiting partial-birth abortion in the third trimester are thus OK by me, though inevitably we will always be without a perfect solution on this topic. So I’d rather talk about feminism instead.
I mentioned my opposition to feminism in an earlier post called “Brief Statement of Principles,” which is now also posted as one of the Permanent Things in my right margin, as is my half-joking Personal Ad — something you should read instead of the current post if you happen to be a feminist who might be willing to date me but will cease to be willing if you read my denunciation of feminism. Also among the Permanent Things is information on the monthly Debates at Lolita Bar that I organize and host, which next month (May 2) will feature an intra-feminist argument between comedian-debaters Charles Star and Jen Dziura over the question “Does the Beauty Industry Oppress Women?” So come hear them and, if the current blog entry upsets or inspires you, come give me a piece of your mind while you’re at it.
There’s bound to be something in the following Ten Complaints About Feminism you disagree with (all that I really have time for now, though one could write a multi-volume encyclopedia with tiny little footnotes):
1. Making A Priori Moral Assertions About Thoroughly Empirical Questions
This is really my main complaint about feminism, as philosophy, and I mentioned it in the Principles post already. I get the sense whenever listening to feminist arguments that there are conclusions I am being morally goaded into drawing about how the world works even before I have been allowed to investigate — that women and men’s intelligence “must” be found to be equal, or that if men are smarter at some things, women “must” be smarter at others in such a way that it all evens out (in some grand, ill-defined metaphysical sense) so that everyone feels like an equal partner in democracy at the end of the day. That’s just bad science.
And speaking of science, I should preface this entire list of complaints with the comment that I am well aware that individuals frequently defy the broad, relatively subtle generalizations made about them, and in my own life I’m lucky enough to have frequent contact with highly rational female colleagues, for example both ones with science expertise greater than my own (at work at the American Council on Science and Health) and ones with phenomenal writing skills in my off-hours existence, which so often involves rubbing elbows with various media folk.
Yet the data suggest that there are intelligence differences between males and females, and without going into each sub-category of intelligence (ability to negotiate three-dimensional spaces, ability to read emotions from faces, recall, math, etc.), I will say that there seem to be both more male geniuses than female geniuses and more male idiots than female idiots. For a moment, the reader hoping (for whatever a priori reasons) to find “balance” in evaluations of the two sexes might feel relieved that in some sense the IQ differences appear to “even out” — but a tendency for women to bunch near the norm while males are more likely to rise to the top and to end up in prison is hardly, I think, the sort of simple “equality” that underpins most traditional, idealistic feminist thinking. Those differences have huge implications that we’re still sorting out and may render, for example, the application of affirmative action laws to gender “balance” absurd (and unjust).
2. Refusing to Define “Feminism” Clearly Enough to Judge Its Value
If people are going to say “I am a feminist” — or be outraged by someone’s statement “I am not a feminist” — you’d think they’d have some sort of definition of the term in mind. Yet in my experience, defenders of the term are perfectly content to give slippery reformulations of it that to a less than fully magnanimous listener might seem to be offered more for moment-to-moment strategic purposes than for clarity — usually for the purposes of either reading someone out of the feminist movement (if, say, they find that someone unattractive) or insisting that someone is indeed a feminist whether he likes it or not (perhaps, for instance, because he is deemed attractive).
This problem of amorphous, not terribly useful definitions crops up repeatedly on the left — as in the case of the term “global warming” being craftily and strategically replaced in much recent discourse by the ludicrous catch-all “climate change,” no doubt in part so that anything that happens (since climate is not, and never has been, unchanging) can now count as evidence for “climate change” — which either implies business as usual or an imminent crisis demanding takeover of the global economy, depending on rhetorical circumstances (this sort of terminological chicanery tends to be closely associated with another of the sophist’s favorite tools, cherry-picking of data — the sort of selective attention that now leads to each hurricane being spoken of as “possibly” caused by “climate change” but does not, of course, lead to headlines this month saying, as they might well have: COLDEST EASTER IN SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS: DOES PLANET FACE “FREEZE PERIL”? [but for more on climate change, see the recent debate about it posted on the blog I edit at my real job, HealthFactsAndFears, which often examines the way weak data is turned into overblown doomsday rhetoric]).
One female friend and past commenter on this fledgling site has summarized feminism as the belief that “women are people too,” to which I am tempted to say that perhaps Black Nationalism, then, is the view that “black people have lungs and circulatory systems,” in which case I’m a Black Nationalist and a feminist. But it seems as if feminism is supposed to be something more than that, certainly something that implies a moral veto power of some sort over aspects of traditional male behavior.
3. Feminism Often Demolishes the Very Traditions That Could Solve Our Problems.
Fittingly, I once had a notion that turned out, like most good conservative ideas, to have been better stated by someone else before me, in this case Irving Kristol. He observed, back in the 70s, before we’d even gotten in the habit of calling politicized campus speech codes “political correctness,” that feminist and leftist taboos are not so much opposed to traditional etiquette rules as they are a hastily-constructed, ramshackle substitute for traditional etiquette. To take a collegiate example: tradition dictated that young men shouldn’t walk around half-naked in front of women they hardly know, and the left demolished that taboo with the result that women — even smart, “liberated” women — found themselves quite alarmed by the naked men walking around their dorm rooms but unable to articulate their objections in (hated) traditional language (“boorish,” “unseemly,” “not gentlemanly”) and so had to concoct (proper) leftist rationales — not always terribly good ones — for a de facto return to the old order and in some cases separate bathrooms (“All those men are potential rapists!” “If we’re all naked, they may objectify me!” “I can see his patriarchy hanging out, for goodness’ sake!”). Being a lefist means, above all else, never admitting you made a mistake — or rather that predecessors thinking along the same lines as you made mistakes — and so we “progress” on to a new set of rules, learning almost nothing from the experience of abandoning the older, more nuanced set that preceded them. So it is with liberalism, always.
4. In Any Truly Useful Gendered Analysis, Ineradicable, Natural Inequalities May Well Matter Most.
I think the degree to which people prefer pleasant illusions to truth is often underestimated. In the specific case of relations between the sexes, it is largely the women’s delicate sensibilities that determine what illusions we will all agree to use, the main one being the pretense that humanity isn’t driven largely by the animal impulse to be what the hip-hop community refers to as pimps and hos. But lest that comment be misinterpreted, let me first describe the psyche, as near I understand it (never having hired any), of the prostitute.
Libertarians tend to look upon prostitutes — hos for present purposes — as simply another sort of worker engaged in financial transactions. Liberals tend to see them as among the downtrodden, indeed perhaps the patriarchy’s lowest victims. Conservatives see them as sinners and threats to the social fabric. All those analyses fly out the window, though, if we are to believe the claim made by multiple pimps in the documentary American Pimp that their hos receive no money for doing their “jobs.” All the money goes to the pimp. And, if anecdotal psychological evidence is to be believed, this is not simply because the ho gets paid by the pimp in diamonds, shelter, and fur. Rather, many hos are psychologically dependent on their pimp in more the way we expect of cult members orbiting a revered father-leader. Many even get started on their “careers,” apparently, by doing sexual “favors” for the pimp’s friends. Something less pristine and far more sad than a cold transaction is taking place — or so it reportedly is in at least some cases (I don’t mean thereby to rule out the possibility of some hos being just as strong and sane as the rest of us and simply deciding to take up the most easy, lucrative line of work available to them at the time — people vary).
But what it comes down to is that most men, far from needing to dominate women, may actually be more naturally prone to seek out an equal, an attainable partner, while women are naturally inclined to throw themselves in huge clusters at the one alpha male — or at a tiny handful of alpha males — at the top of the social heap. This makes evolutionary sense, since the one alpha can easily impregnate them all, especially if he’s already killed off all his male rivals (whereas women basically can’t have babies any faster no matter how many rivals they displace, so there’s less point in a woman trying to amass a he-harem of ready males). Why settle for a lower-caste male, girls, when you can be one of countless harem-girls who gets a tiny portion of the endlessly-flowing sperm of The Best Guy? And, yes, some small minority of men will calculate — or simply feel on a gut level, as a result of instincts produced by evolution’s mating calculus — that they have a better shot at flourishing in a competition to become the pimp-daddy themselves than in a culture that strongly encourages permanent pair-bonding. But most males, I think, simply want an acceptable, normal girlfriend.
This is the fundamental asymmetry at the heart of all human life, and any philosophy that purports to show that the two sexes are “equal” — or that they would behave the same way if only the cruel, arbitrary rules of the “patriarchy” were somehow abolished — is as hopelessly at odds with fundamental human nature and social reality as a theory that says deer “ought” to live in an aquarium in the same tank as the octopus. Any honest examination of human life ought to start from this evolutionary psychology insight about the differential behavioral implications of wildly different sperm and egg production/usability rates.
Otherwise, feminists are doomed (and the rest of us along with them to the extent we have to listen to them or abide by the laws they inspire) to be shocked and offended anew each time, say, a Bill Clinton (or someone else with the most resources or power) amasses an army of fellatrices even while talking the talk of feminist empowerment, or all the female interns sleep with the same male partner at the law firm, or all the women in some ostensibly egalitarian art- or free-love-oriented collective all rotate through the bed of the one male guru in charge in part because all the other women have so it must be the most desirable thing to do, or half the parish women throw themselves at the priest, or countless amoral she-yuppies become mistresses to one rich already-married businessman while turning up their noses (and instinctively protecting their vaginas from entry by the genetically inferior) at more sincere romantic overtures from lower-caste, single, monogamous males.
The power of women to delude themselves into not noticing these patterns even while engaging in them would be breathtaking were it not by now so familiar. But all talk of “equality” is nonsense so long as women continue to behave like harem-girls, and the evidence is ample that their doing so has nothing to do with some slight income disparity or tragic but temporary bought of low self-esteem — this, Dr. Freud, is what women want. Having failed to hold the attention of the CEO, football captain, or other pimp-daddy at the top of the social heap, they will eventually settle (marriage rates would be far lower otherwise), but whether de jure or merely de facto, harem-formation will always be a natural tendency among mating humans.
And who knows, if I were sleazy enough to lie, behave callously, or jockey for position, perhaps I too could one day become a pimp-daddy (surely it’s at least natural for all males to think so).
But the tragic thing is that I am perhaps more feminist in one narrow sense than anyone: I want one truly equal (intellectually, emotionally, morally) partner and had assumed since imbibing the feminist messages pervading pop culture in the 70s and 80s that that was a natural, relatively easily-found thing. And while I was in effect being a naive feminist and trying to engage women in respectful conversation about philosophy, women were sleeping with the callous football captain and the even more callous professor (hey, beats dating your equals). So it shall ever be, and it’s time men stopped letting women dupe them into feeling guilty about it and time we all stopped denying it. They may try to silence you, boys — call you bitter, even oppressive — but we have to start breaking the silence if things are going to get better. Though they won’t. Ever. Not with this species — and the pattern is roughly identical in almost all others, as zoologists know (but probably never admit in front of their feminist spouses), right down to the male dung beetles competing to see who can offer the coy female the biggest piece of dung. (Species that don’t fit the pattern are usually abnormal in some other way that does not fit the human pattern, as with seahorse males being the ones to carry the fertilized eggs. On a related note, I think that people who worry that awareness of evolutionary theory will lead people to behave like animals have it exactly backwards — those who forget evolutionary theory are most likely to passively follow evolution’s dictates, as with religious fundamentalists who don’t believe in the centrality of reproductive drives to human behavior but “coincidentally” claim that God wants us to “be fruitful and multiply.” Cretins.)
I am reminded of a female co-worker in my ABC News days, one who considered herself both a libertarian and a feminist, who said she resented men so often choosing to date younger women, as though this were entirely up to the (icky) men. “When you were a high school freshman,” I asked her, “Did you want to date the freshman males or the seniors?” The seniors, she admitted. “Well, then, think of this as payback time,” I told her. Truer words were never spoken, if I do say so myself. In a sane world, the Women’s Studies departments would close and classes would instead be built around my words. Maybe someday.
5. The Feminsts Often Recapitulate Traditional Patterns While Demanding that No One Point This Out.
Only days ago, as it happens, I heard a left-leaning feminist of my acquaintance, one not only trained in psychology but philosophically inclined to claim some sophistication on sexual matters, express surprise that a man she’d kissed is a Republican. How did this philosophical interloper win over our sophisticate? From what little I observed, it had a great deal to do with him (a) talking about money and (b) using (consciously or not) the infamous “negs,” or offhand insulting comments, seemingly delivered without ill intent, that lower the woman’s self-esteem enough to make her think the guy must be her superior — someone from up near the top of that aforementioned alpha-male-capped heap — and thus to be desired (this technique is apparently all the rage with men who teach courses and write books about how to pick up women, and more than that I’d just as soon not know — though I’ve already witnessed it working its magic in at least two cases in my extended social circle and I’m sure it goes on all the time).
Imagine how insulted these people would be, though, if I were to suggested they’d simply repeated the widespread pimp-ho behavior pattern written (as at least one mating strategy among many, the human brain being admirably flexible) into our genes and celebrated by countless abrasive rappers. If modern women behave like hos, feminism tends to insist, the blame must belong to men, the evil capitalist system with its income disparities, or some aberrant self-esteem problem on the part of select females. But what happens to feminism’s egalitarian worldview if this is simply the way women tend by nature to like it, absent lots of rationalistic or religious haranguing to behave otherwise?
Traditional, 70s-style feminists have spent the past four decades honing their arguments against conservatives and capitalists, but I suspect their cause is ultimately going to be done in instead by a rising generation of trashy hos.
6. Feminists Tend to Disparage Current Social Arrangements Even When They Are in Fact Working to Women’s Advantage.
To what extent, I wonder, will monogamy (including marriage, so often depicted as something of a trap by feminists) be looked back upon as the chief cause of the egalitarian-feminist impulse in the past two centuries? The male-female diatom does, after all, lend itself to thinking of two equal partners. As that diatom becomes less common, I suspect the illusion of equality will also naturally erode — though that illusion will not go quietly. Liberals, being naturally inclined to totalitarianism, are willing to expend a great deal of (other people’s) resources trying to shoehorn social reality into their mental picture of how it ought to operate. As women end up poor, without husbands but saddled with children, liberals are perfectly willing to denounce traditional ideas of marriage in one breath (Who needs a male breadwinner?) and call for ever-increasing wealth redistribution with the next breath — to pick up the shattered pieces of the society they’re destroying. (I don’t pretend any of this was fully intended on the left’s part — the left, to my mind, is not so much a sinister conspiracy as a grand tragedy in which we are all players as participants in modernity.)
On a similar, though perhaps less consequential, note, I think feminists often tote up as patriarchal wrongs things that were produced precisely by the leftist/feminist sense of irony, as with an upcoming movie that might as well be entitled Vagina Dentata: The Motion Picture. If everything in pop culture that’s stupid (say, sunny weather girls with no real knowledge of meteorology) automatically counted as conservative or patriarchal, then opponents of conservatism and patriarchy would indeed have a strong case. But stupidity is transpartisan.
7. In Its Recent Manifestations, Feminism (While, Thankfully, Less Ideologically Rigid) Seems to Encourage Women to Insist They Are Not Only as Good as Men But as Bad.
What exactly is this “girl power” (for lack of a better term) form of feminism that the Generation Y members now fall for if not simply the usual feminist hypocrisy — regard us as equals even while giving us special treatment — gussied up in its latest form, in which we are ordered to believe that in addition to being exactly as smart and employable as men they are also just as macho (until they cry)?
Lately, it almost seems that “feminism” is now mainly a brand of spunky pugnacity — like they’ve gone from trying to “be men” (becoming lawyers and whatnot, as was the ideal back in the 60s and 70s) to simply trying to “be boys” (loutish, crude, oversexed, drunk, etc.).
Why is everything that’s supposedly wrong when men do it OK when women do it? Having heard for decades about how crude and exploitative it is for men to look at women’s bodies, for instance, are we now supposed to think at the same time that it’s cool when lesbians or bisexuals do it? I’m inclined to think that if it’s OK for the lesbians to do it, feminism owes a memo of apology to Hugh Hefner and company. (“But when I do it, it’s cute!” as Homer Simpson once insisted, in one of the most succinct summaries of moral double-standards ever written.)
As always, what the feminists seem most to want to be liberated from is…intellectual consistency. So if you say women today still behave in a more feminine manner than men, you are condemned by them. If you then say women behave in a more masculine manner than they used to, you are condemned. If you say that they deny the validity of such categories as “masculine” and “feminine,” you are condemned for depicting them in an outmoded, straw-(wo)man form. And on it goes, never arriving at a point where one can comfortably describe reality in anything resembling a familiar form without the feminist seeking some sort of leg up on discourse by asserting that more respect must be paid to them and their (vague) cause. And even if they found that last sentence accurate, they would most likely just assert that it is a moral triumph of some sort to perpetually complicate and render problematic all attempts at discourse — until you asserted that that was the effect they were having, at which point they would probably assert that you’re overreacting and switch back to the “we’re just ordinary women who want the usual, non-radical things” mode. It’s all quite mercurial, in my experience.
8. Feminism Seems Increasingly to Point to Worst-Case Scenarios as Evidence Feminism is Still Needed.
As evidence their movement has some point, feminists trot out things that (virtually) all non-feminists already agree with, such as opposition to rape. Claiming that opposition to rape — or intense forms of verbal abuse, for that matter — makes one a feminist is a bit like saying that opposition to the Klan makes one a Democrat.
They will also try these days to take credit for the most basic, nigh-universal rules of civility, as if thinking that listening to what people have to say and refraining from punching them in the face were feminist moral innovations (indeed, tolerance and not hitting people in the face seem to me principles that, if consistently observed, make one more eligible for inclusion among libertarians than among feminists, since libertarians are the only philosophical faction aside from pacifists to consistently condemn the initiation of force).
9. Feminism Is Quite Plainly, Though No One Ever Seems to Point This Out, Self-Interested Rather than Dispassionately Just.
Is a woman being a feminist really any more admirable — weighed purely in terms of altruistic motivation — than a white guy becoming a white supremacist? After all, I don’t think even the white supremacists these days hold out much hope of passing anti-black laws…but they are always fighting for their tribe against others and seeing the world in those terms, even while condemning others for acting as self-interestedly. What has feminism become if not self-interested, tribalist pleading on behalf of a group that has already won all its morally relevant battles? Far from feminism being a feather in the cap of all respectable “intellectuals,” perhaps it should be a sign that someone has wholeheartedly immersed herself in naked partisanship and is unfit for the polite, civil, and disinterested discourse that makes philosophy and (rational) politics possible.
The goal of the movement, one suspects, isn’t to make sense of the world or to push some coherent model of justice — the whole thing is just one more guilt-tripping tactic, no more indicative of them holding the moral high ground than their ability to make males feel bad by crying (a tactic that I think has finally completely lost its power over me — if they’re crying, they may well deserve to be crying).
If I may, by way of compensation, plead on behalf of my own sex for just a moment: it is worth remembering that there is consistent, constant state violence (in the U.S.) against men, in the form, for instance, of affirmative action laws, tax-funded set-asides for women, and speech-restricting sexual harassment laws far more likely to be deployed against males, all enforceable by fines and (like all laws) ultimately by forcible imprisonment when people refuse to pay fines (though so pervasive is the legal threat that the guns rarely need to be displayed) and no such state violence (in the U.S., as opposed to many Islamic countries) uniquely directed at women. (Even abortion laws, of which there are precious few, apply in principle to both sexes — it’s just that biology, not law or society, has placed fetuses inside only one sex, but we’re skipping that topic and its endless complexities for now.)
And to those of my fellow libertarians who covet the “feminist” label — some calling themselves “individualist feminists” or “iFeminists” to show their opposition to the socialism so common in feminist writings: if some would contend that “conservatism” is too much entangled with the use of coercion for anyone of a libertarian bent to want that label, what on Earth are we to think of the label “feminist,” which seems to me almost invariably bound up with some of the most intrusive statist schemes ever devised, from legally policing what can be said in the workplace to what the composition of our workforce can be and, in many instances, what its members can be paid — not to mention the ever-looming threat of using vast, aggregate statistics regarding social power as a moral-legal trump card for demanding more spending or further changes in the law, rather than “letting the chips fall where they may” in terms of social power and marketplace performance, based on individual achievement (as laissez-faire thinking would counsel, and as most men, I think, would naturally prefer, competitive sorts that they are)? (The oft-cited “income disparity” stats about how much women earn vs. how much men earn are Marxist nonsense of the most presumptuous sort, based once again on the a priori assumption that women ought to be making the same career choices and displaying the same work habits and thus making the same amount of money as men — have we forgotten all those chaos theory lessons about how tiny initial differences can lead [without chicanery] to vastly different outcomes?)
Rather than pleading in a tribalistic fashion for women and feminists, intellectuals would be wiser to condemn all sorts of legal and intellectual double standards as a system of anti-male oppression — a matriarchy, if you will. Luckily for feminists (or at least, luckily for the handful of feminists who really mean it rather than just deploying feminist arguments as one more weapon in the quiver when, say, wiles or crying fail), men are less inclined to this sort of self-serving, tribalistic whining than women are, so an organized men’s movement — largely for reasons of chivalry — is never likely to become very aggressive. I may not even bring it up again myself, as fighting with girls seems mean.
Oh, and that raises a side point that I think is worthy of a few books and doctoral theses: far from feminism being the opposite of chivalry, it should by this late juncture in history be obvious that both chivalry and feminism are just systems for getting men to treat women more gently than they treat other men. The difference is that under chivalry, both sexes admitted this was the arrangement and under feminism, we are supposed to pretend women are being held to the same standard even when they aren’t.
If I am nice to women — and some will probably say that this post itself means I am not, itself an interesting and all too common argumentative tactic in feminist discussions — it may be precisely because I am not a feminist and recognize, chivalrously, that (for instance) when, on rare occasions, I make the mistake of arguing with women as vigorously as I would my male acquaintances, bad emotional consequences are likely to ensue.
10. Feminism Unwittingly Inspires Some Downright Bizarre Postmodern Arguments.
Getting back to abortion again, just briefly, there’s the absurd argument that men can’t have an opinion on it, since they can’t get pregnant. This seems roughly as absurd as (though of course not perfectly analogous to) saying, in the 1850s South, that only blacks can oppose slavery. This is a postmodern parody of argument, designed to discredit arguers instead of arguments — and what then happens if the same argument is made by people of both sexes? Is it at least potentially valid when women utter it but inconceivable when men do? Nonsense — and I say this regardless of the correct position on abortion. I say it merely to preserve something about as fundamental as life — the freedom to form moral opinions.
And some surveys suggest, by the way, that women are in fact more pro-life than men, so consider that before you make your next (unprincipled) strategic decision, pro-choice sistas.
I think that’s enough for one short blog post, though obviously volumes could (and ideally should) be written. I am just one man, though.
UPDATE 5/7/07: Well, in defiance of the critics, I have a new girlfriend, who you can read about here — though I admit that as I write this, she hasn’t yet read the above blog entry.

136 comments:

Red Stapler said...

I need to read this a couple more times, as I want to address each of your points individually, however, here is my initial response:

Big legal events like this week’s SCOTUS ruling aside, women have as many rights as men do, according to the law.

Unfortunately, in actual behavior and reactions to behaviors, there are too many examples of women not being believed or trusted. This stretches as far as from the decision for tubal ligation to how womens’ arguments are received in discussions.

According to the law, yes, “women are people.” However, this is not the way we as a society behave yet, and that’s what needs to be addressed.

Kate said...

I want to leave you an intelligent reply. I want to respond point-by-point. But first, I really have to get over the feeling that you need a sound fucking beating.

T.A.B. said...

Todd, I thought your arguments were well-thought and I have to say that Kate’s comment disturbed me and is an example of the sort of emotional manipulation you touch upon in your article. If I ever posted on a woman’s blog that she needed “a sound fucking beating”, I think the authorities would be called. I feel she should apologize.

Red Stapler said...

TAB: Comments like the one Kate left, and ones worse, often including sexual violence are posted on feminist blogs around the world and no one listens or considers it “threatening.”

I refer you to the lambasting of Kathy Sierra for feeling threatened on her own blog.

That is the sort of thing I mean when I make the “according to the law vs. reality” statment.

T.A.B. said...

So since it’s done on feminist blogs, it’s okay to do?

Sorry, that logic doesn’t work for me.

Christopher said...

“So since it’s done on feminist blogs, it’s okay to do?

Sorry, that logic doesn’t work for me. ”

I don’t believe that was the point of Red Stapler’s comment. You claimed that “If I ever posted on a woman’s blog that she needed ‘a sound fucking beating’, I think the authorities would be called.” RS pointed out that such things and worse are posted on women’s blogs all the time and no, they don’t call “the authorities.” It was an appeal to fact, not logic. And RS also did not seem to be endorsing Kate’s comment at all. In fact, RS was lamenting the fact that such postings are made, as they show, according to RS, that while women are treated as equals under the law, they are still treated unfairly in other contexts.

More to the point, one should never threaten to give Todd a sound beating as he can set things on fire with his mind.

Red Stapler said...

TAB-

I didn’t excuse the behavior, I merely pointed out that your statement was incorrect.

I think statements like Kate’s fall into the “stop being on my side, your making us look bad” category.

Todd Seavey said...

Whether Christopher’s motives are feminist or patriarchal, I know he can bestow no higher compliment than likening someone to Drew Barrymore, and I am honored. He shall not burn.

T.A.B. said...

Ms. Stapler, fair enough. I will acknowledge that sometimes I (usually unintentionally) type incorrect things.

And as a result, Todd will see me burn.

Red Stapler said...

Christopher-

I mis-typed.

When I said that “no one cares,” I didn’t mean that people don’t take such comments seriously. I meant that women who do contact authorities, or make public the fact they feel threatened, have their sentiments belittled or ignored.

Again, this is an example of women being treated differently in action rather than under the law.

Allie said...

If I may, by way of compensation, plead on behalf of my own sex for just a moment: it is worth remembering that there is consistent, constant state violence (in the U.S.) against men,

I see this line of thought a lot, and it bothers me. I disagree that, for example, a law against sexually harassing speech is equivalent oppression to experiencing the sexual harassment. For one thing, sexual harassment is wrong. If you don’t like sweeping moral judgements, it’s rude and has negative consequences for the harassed which are not outweighed by positive consequences for anybody else. I don’t think that a law telling you not to do something you shouldn’t be doing anyway is a) violence or b) comparable to harassment. I was going to make a second point about the relative prevalence of the two sides of this, but I can’t find solid statistics to back it up, so I’ll leave it with the above.

Sara no H. said...

I’m a bit too sleepy to comment on the post in full, but your second point — about “refusing” to adequately define feminism — did catch my eye. I’m not sure how many feminists you’re familiar with, but I only know a handful and they almost always disagree with one another. It’s not so much a refusal to define feminism as an inability to do so, owing to the many, many disparate minds that comprise the movement.

I’m sure it’s not a problem really unique to feminism, either. Social movements aren’t exactly easily quantifiable.

Tlönista said...

Came here from Red Stapler, via Feministe.

I’m not quite sure what to say to this long diatribe, except that you aren’t very well-informed about what feminists actually think, and as a result you’ve written a devastating rebuttal of the imaginary feminist inside your head. I suggest reading through the archives of Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog, and also read The Male Privilege Checklist. Chris Clarke’s How not to be an asshole: a guide for men”, which was written for men entering women’s discussions about harassment, is also a great post.

Before you go there, you need to chuck your assumptions that feminists are just arguing in bad faith or just want to make things hard for men. Please recognize that while our (feminists’) viewpoints are not the same as yours, we too have put careful thought into this and feel that we have good reasons for holding the opinions we do.

Just to address one point: You say you feel feminism must mean more than “women are people too”. It really doesn’t. It’s just that “women are people too” has astonishingly profound, wide-ranging and radical implications.

Hawise said...

Getting back to abortion again, just briefly, there’s the absurd argument that men can’t have an opinion on it, since they can’t get pregnant.


You’re right they can have opinions on it. I would just like to see the five of the men on the SCOTUS have an opinion that cannot be described as ‘eeew, that’s icky, we can’t let the poor women do THAT!’

As for feminism, women and men come to it from different points and it can hardly be a monolithic structure when it still involves every choice, every decision and every moment of the lives of 50+% of the world’s population.

Irene Kaoru said...

I’m here via Red Stapler. I would not have bothered to read all of this annoying post, but she is a friend of mine who insists that you are often intelligent and a good guy, but I’m going to have to agree with Tlönista here–this rant seems too irrelevant to even make me mad because you have “written a devastating rebuttal of the imaginary feminist inside your head.”

I know a lot of self-proclaimed feminists. Most of them disagree with each other on some things and agree on others. Replace “feminists” with Democrats or Republicans or Anarchists or Libertarians and you also have a true statement. Feminists, like pretty much any other group, disagree on a lot, but remain a group because of some binding, basic principles. In the case of feminists, the binding principle is that women are people, like men are people, and should be treated as such. In a world like ours, that has profound implications and feminsts disagree on the best ways to get to full personhood. I’m surprised that you, a self-proclaimed Libertarian, would have a problem with this idea.

Dave said...

I think the second point makes the rest of the entry moot. If there isn’t a clear definition, basically, you’re able to rebut any concieveable argument.

I also think that a few of these above rebuttals are speaking to you as though you’re criticizing women, rather than feminism. But since feminism doesn’t have a definition, what else can you be doing?

Kate said...

First of all, I want to apologize for the stridency of my comment – it had been a long day (nee, a long week), but that’s no excuse. Secondly, I realize that things like sarcasm don’t carry over, so please take my word that it wasn’t meant in earnest. Thirdly, I commented that it was a feeling, and not a desire. I’m not actually a violent person, and I just want that to be made clear.

As to the meat of your argument: I think your arguments are generally specious. Many of your viewpoints on feminism seem to be based on what other people tell you they believe feminism to be, and I think you’re correct that the term has been twisted significantly since it was first introduced. From my point of view, feminism is simply the believe that all men and women should be treated equally: judged soley on their accomplishments and failures as people, without reference to gender. That a male math teacher who was trying to avoid giving my mother (who’d been a math teacher for a decade, and head of her department for 7 of those years) an honest answer about my difficulties in his class could feel it alright to tell her that, “Kate’s a girl, and I think she should focus on english & history more than math” is a problem.

I am particularly distressed that you attempt to be empirical, but fail to take into account social pressures and realities. Your hooker versus pimp example is a place where this failure was particularly glaring (to say nothing of the fact that you seem very willing to take the pimps, men who make their living taking advantage of the weak, at their word).

Frankly, I think the point should be made that every group, when arguing their point, can be guilty of manipulating data to make it seem to support their view of reality. That doesn’t change the fact that things are still unequal, and shouldn’t be.

Roy said...

The problem with this post is that you largely string together a series of anecdotal, unsupported straw-man claims about what feminism is, and proceeds to argue against them. Most of your criticisms aren’t problems with feminism, they’re problems with any socio-political movement. Some of them are completely at odds with what most feminists seem to believe, and you frequently slide into criticisms against liberalism, rather than feminism. Your major complaint doesn’t seem to be with feminism, it seems to be with liberal thought, in general.

Honestly, I’m forced to wonder if you’ve actually done any real research into feminist thought/feminist philosophy. Some of your claims about feminism are ridiculous cliches and laughable parodies of actual feminist thought.

For someone who listed his “main complaint about feminism” as being, essentially, making unfounded assertions about facts, you do that a lot in this post.

It’s not hard to argue against feminism like this. But, then, it wouldn’t be hard to argue against any socio-political movement when you do it like this.

Xine said...

Without addressing Todd’s lengthy post, I’d like to note that I visited some of the sites listed above for his putative edification (Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog; The Male Privilege Checklist; Chris Clarke’s “How not to be an asshole: a guide for men”). In my opinion, they absolutely themselves perpetuate what Roy criticized in Todd: “anecdotal, unsupported straw-man claims.” In fact, what’s also interesting is that generally they seem to *perpetuate* Todd’s rather heated stereotypes.

It seemed to me that in all these various sites–and what I imagine partly agitates Todd in real life–is the not-so-subtle intimation that all men fit the stereotype of the loutish, potentially violent oaf–staring at our breasts, possessing penises that constantly bear the threat of violence, making more money than we do for shoddier work, telling us not to walk about at night alone because they blame the victim, getting away with it if they are ugly, and (said repeatedly) are “guilty until proven innocent” re: the possibility of a spectrum of sexual violence from harrassment to rape. They might hide it cleverly by being nice to us at work and by complimenting our intelligence, but get a couple of beers into them, scratch the surface, get a raise when they don’t, and kerblang! sexist comments and a smack. Oh, and guys, if the woman you love isn’t admitting her fear of male violence, it’s because she’s afraid of *your* violence.

How is this portrait of men *inherently* as “guilty until proven innocent,” because they have penises, any more intellectually fair and empirically sound than Todd’s supposed caricature of feminists?

Of course, if you come back and say that these sites don’t prove Todd’s points because, well, they’re basically accurate as all men really are that way, then we’re back at square one.

To be blunt, some of the articulations of feminism on these sites were to me both specious and risible: one of the “male privileges” on the checklist is that men have better choices in cheap clothes that don’t have to be tailored! And, as postmodernists know, every absence equals a presence–many of these male privileges (can be ugly with impunity–debatable in itself) could be countered by a female one (can wear both pants and skirt!). And every major world religion teaches that men are the head of the household and women subservient? Can be problematized, and outright denied, in dozens of ways.

There’s also a sense here that feminists, at least as represented in these (again, supposedly Todd-turning) sites, are, yes, still arguing as if it’s 1967. One of the male privileges is to read the newspaper and see people who look like you, while women don’t?

“”Women are people.’ However, this is not the way we as a society behave yet, and that’s what needs to be addressed.” Red Stapler, do you really think that “society” (whatever that means–in the United States? the world? difference in social class? race?) does not behave as if women are people? Do you really, genuinely, believe that? If so, I am sorry for it, and sorry for your experience.

I’m genuinely curious: What, exactly, would have to change for you to believe that “society” *did* behave as if women were people?

Todd Seavey said...

[...] But what is more important is that the burrito in Captain America’s pants is a reminder that responses to my most recent post, criticizing feminism, boil down in the end to the complaint that women get a lot of nasty comments from anonymous online commentators or encounter lewd behavior by men and thus feel intimidated a lot (this strikes me as either a pre-feminist or post-feminist complaint — at least in so far as feminism proper was an apparently temporary pretense of equality, versus the current frank recognition that women scare more easily or are intimidated by different things than men are). And I am not defending Captain America (or any of those louts) now, merely noting that I am unaware of any pre-feminist philosophy that committed one to supporting his behavior. People have been saying we must protect the womenfolk against boorish men since the Victorian era or perhaps the dawn of time, so it’s not clear to me how one needs feminism for that — and despite several people accusing me of having an unrealistic view of feminism, no one really did (as of this writing) spell out what we do need it for — but let’s leave the rest of the feminism discussion for bar conversation on May 2, at Lolita Bar (when one of our debaters will herself be someone known to have a thing for superhero costumes but perhaps not burrito-crimes). In the meantime, I find that the Captain America incident also turns my mind to national electoral politics, since America, mostly for ill, increasingly defines itself through elections. I recently concluded that in the next year’s primaries it would be foolish of me not to seize a rare opportunity to vote for a full-fledged libertarian who is also a major party candidate — Republican Ron Paul — thus sending a clearer signal than ever to the GOP that it should be moving in a libertarian, fusionist direction. In the general election, by which time Paul will probably have been defeated, I can always do the sensible thing and vote for Giuliani or McCain or whoever survives the whole ugly process — unless McCain gets still more “maverick” left-leaning ideas instead of sticking to budget cuts, or Giuliani loses his newfound interest in federalism and just starts acting upon his authoritarian impulses, in which case I may end up voting for a libertarian in the GOP primary and then a Libertarian in the general election, which will really mean losing with my purity intact, by my political standards. [...]

Allie said...

I’m genuinely curious: What, exactly, would have to change for you to believe that “society” *did* behave as if women were people?

I’m not Red Stapler, but I’ll take a crack at this. A society — and by this I mean, approximately, the prevailing attitudes and practises in the United States, since that’s where I live — where women were treated like people, like equals, would look something like this to me:

We’d have an approximately equal number of male and female presidential candidates. And Supreme Court nominees, and congresspeople, and state governors…

An equal number of men and women would be raped every year (and that number would, I’m guessing, be rather smaller than it is now). Ditto the numbers on sexual violence perpetrators. If there were a disagreement on the consensuality of a sexual act, one party’s word would not be taken over the other’s as a matter of course without other evidence.

Advertisements would be equally as likely to use a man as a woman in an attempt to use sex to sell the product, and they’d be dressed equally skimpily.

There would not be a significant difference in pay between women and men, overall. I’m not saying all jobs would be evenly split between the genders, but that if you took a slice of people doing similar (education requirements, position in the company heirarchy, experience generally required to reach that position, etc) work, you wouldn’t see a difference in pay between men and women. And that the “most traditionally female” jobs would not pay, as a rule, less than the ones with the most men working them. One would be equally likely to encounter women as men at any point in a given hierarchy, and as many men would have a female boss as women would have a male one.

It would be equally normal for a man as a woman to be the stay-at-home parent. Women would not be discriminated against in hiring because it was assumed that they would take time off or leave to have children.

Women and men who chose to have a lot of casual sex would generally be treated equally because of it. Ditto people who chose to have no sex. Both sexes would receive equal education on and be considered to bear equal responsibility for practicing safer sex.

I’m sure there are several more important things that would be different in a country or world where we behaved like the genders were differentiated mostly by their plumbing and not by their intrinsic social status, but I can’t think of them at the moment. I hope these provide food for thought on the ways in which women are *not* treated like this right now in the US, and why that might be.

Red Stapler said...

Allie-

Thank you for writing that. It was much more organized and eloquent than I would have managed. :)

Allie said...

Wha thank yew ma’am. It also generated some nifty discussion on my livejournal, it turned out to be a fantastic question. Thank you Xine.

Todd Seavey said...

Having moved on to the important burrito issue in the next blog entry, I’ll try to make this my last comment (at least prior to spoken ones at Lolita Bar on May 2, 8pm) on this feminist debate, but I will just briefly say that if (1.) feminists now accept that men and women are not the same and do not necessarily have the same capacities, then (2.) they should not react to differential outcomes in the marketplace — even, possibly, quite drastic ones — as if they are somehow injustices to be rectified. Similarly, if we are all agreed that women are more easily harrassed and raped, we can abandon all the “girl power” pretenses that they’re just as tough as men, that “sistas are doin’ it for themselves,” and the like. Or to put it all more broadly, you’re either (a) demanding that differential outcomes be treated a priori as evidence of injustice rather than as just outcomes of differential capacities and (b) demanding gentler treatment for the weaker sex, or (a’) accepting differential outcomes as just and (b’) claiming women can handle the rough and tumble world of discourse, aggression, and combat as easily as men, thank you very much. But you can’t logically be doing all four things at the same time, and if you pick (b) and (a’), which seem the most reasonable to me, I’d say you’re not a feminist as it is normally understood, since I take the term to imply — even more so after reading Red Stapler’s surprising seconding of Allie’s litany of thoroughly egalitarian grievances — believing that equal outcomes (regardless of initial natural differences) are normative goals. I think any further conversation about this is just going to lead ’round and ’round the same Mobius strip and make me feel more sad than triumphant, like watching a possum spin futilely, trapped in the glare of headlights.

Red Stapler said...

Allie-

Please to be linking? I wish to read this. :)

Red Stapler said...

Todd-

Please be specific about which points of Allie’s you disagree with.

I’m surprised that you don’t think “It would be equally normal for a man as a woman to be the stay-at-home parent. Women would not be discriminated against in hiring because it was assumed that they would take time off or leave to have children” and “Women and men who chose to have a lot of casual sex would generally be treated equally because of it. Ditto people who chose to have no sex. Both sexes would receive equal education on and be considered to bear equal responsibility for practicing safer sex” are desirable goals?

Joseph Brennan said...

“A society — and by this I mean, approximately, the prevailing attitudes and practises in the United States, since that’s where I live — where women were treated like people, like equals, would look something like this to me:”

Allie, you slipped something into the above that is significant. That is putting “like equals” after “like people.” The examples you give seem to bear this out. You seem to be assuming that for women to be treated like “people,” they must be treated the same as men.

I suspect Todd might be of the opinion that women and men are different. While they are both people, traeting them the same and ignoring their differences, constitutes a disservice to both. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that people are comprised of men and women, who differ and who therefore shouldn’t be treated identically.

Red Stapler said...

Joseph:

I don’t have a link, but I read about a study where people who wanted to invest in the stock market were given the resumes of several brokers. The qualifications of each broker were identical.

The brokers who were men got picked more.

Short of personal reasons like, “That guy went to the same college I did,” or similar, why would the men get picked more?

cb said...

Allie writes we lack a society were women are equals/people unless:

[...]An equal number of men and women would be raped every year (and that number would, I?m guessing, be rather smaller than it is now). Ditto the numbers on sexual violence perpetrators.[...]

That statement is very problematic.

Is the presumption that we must train the deviant element to prefer male targets equally to female? Unless we do so, we have failed? Um…haven’t we already failed in some deeper way with them that they’re targeting anyone?

Just running with the example, as concreteness may help — Todd’s point of differential capacity here might correspond to a natural male-bias to violence and a natural heterosexual bias. There is probably a bias in physical strength of females and bias in attackers toward a physically weaker component, especially in non-premediated attackers/defenders. It may simply physically be easier for a man to be a rape-er (of men or women) due to erectile issues (unless women rapists of the future have very good premeditation and super-viagral technology, but that just elaborates “easier” and regardless is more science-fictional than relevant). There are any number of plausible natural biases.

Allie’s standard is so strong as to deny any and all of them truth status or argumentative bearing now or even in the future. This would be the “a priori evidence” issue Todd was complaining about. It is an very strong scientific claim to assert that unequal outcomes imply unjust treatment by society. It is no less than an assertion that “social controllable treatment” alone completely determines the outcome. That is a rather extreme “way beyond BF Skinner” hyper-behaviorist claim. Without the claim, you have a real argumentative problem since some portion of outcomes arise from uncontrolled elements and some from controlled elements that might be made “more fair”. In order to use outcome statistics like rapes/year to detect unfairness you need a quantitative model of what situation fair treatment would generate. That is very tricky indeed, tricky enough that the discussion rarely proceeds to this level. Rather, people switch tactics to less model-intensive means to define/identify/engineer fairness.

If we agreed that attack bias was unfortunate and wanted to work against it, this leads naturally to Todd’s (b) of coddling the gentler sex. If we resolved to not work against it, but accept it with resignation that would be his (a’). His b’ is basically a little askew/about something else…it’s sort of (but not quite) like backing up to saying we don’t mind the attack bias in the first place.



Consider this. Why not take the “unequal outcomes imply unequal treatment” line of reasoning ONE step further — from victims to perpetrators. If there is gender bias in who a perp is, strong heterosexuality bias should surely suggest an ineliminable bias in the victim population. So, you really need to take this extra step in your standard if you believe sexual preference in any way biases victim selection. { I.e., sure there may be some equal opportunity attackers. So? There’s still a very likely bias in the overall perp population to be men and to be heterosexual. }

Would Allie & Red Stapler sign on to the idea that “we have an unjust society unless the number of male rapist perps equals the number of female rapist perps”? If they would, and they also stick to the original standard in outcomes, then with a bias in perps and no bias in outcomes implies a non-hetero bias in victim selection — a strange conclusion to be sure. If they would not extend the standard to perp populations, why isn’t the original standard already overzealous? They might two steps..CONT..

Allie said...

It was pointed out to me elsewhere as well that my statement about rape is poorly worded. It would be closer to my intent to say that the number of victims of sexual harassment, assault, molestation, and rape would be the same, due to plumbing differences and the other things mentioned. I do not think that the best way to do this is by increasing the number of male-targeted sex crimes (there’s an education program!), but by getting rid of the aspects of our culture that make it “ok” to target women for sexual violence, thus reducing the perpetrators of sex crimes to the truly deranged — this was also the reason I had in mind for the numbers of perpetrators to be equal. Please google “rape culture” if you’re interested in knowing more, I don’t know that I’d be the best at explaining it.

The points about males being more prone to violence, and about the prevalence of heterosexuality, are also very valid ones. It’s less punchy to say something like “The numbers of men and women sexually assaulted, harassed, molested, and raped each year would be much closer to equal than those that currently exist” but it’s a better point. I was being idealistic in the original, and didn’t take into account these factors. My essential point is that women are disproportionately the victimes of sex crimes, and I refer you here to google again for some of the reasons.

It was also pointed out to me that putting “like people” and “like equals” together as if they were synonomous is not a good choice. The popular phrase about treating women like people is, in my opinion, largely hyperbole designed to raise awareness about the fact that unequal treatment exists at all. As it was mentioned to me, looking back historically in this country we have some pretty good examples of human beings not being treated like people, and holding the current state of things up to that, it becomes clear that women are treated like people, just not always like the good kind of people. I am of the opinion that “equals” in this sense has a broader meaning than “things that are the same”. I consider my boyfriend to be my equal not because we have the same abilities or even because we agree on everything, but because I believe that we are deserving of the same treatment and the same expectations in the same circumstances, which, granted, come up less often between the two of us than between some individuals somewhere in a large population like the US. I believe that we have these rights because we are equal in a fundamental way that surpasses things like the nine-inch height difference and the differences in skills.

Todd, I’m pretty confused by your logic there. I do agree that there are fundamental differences between men and women, and even that some of them are inborn. However, for this to be responsible for the pay differential between men and women — for the pay differential between men and women in essentially identical jobs — I would have to assume that women are in some way intrinsically inferior to men. I have a vested interest in this not being the case ;)

Allie said...

Ok, taking a closer look here:

(a) demanding that differential outcomes be treated a priori as evidence of injustice rather than as just outcomes of differential capacities and (b) demanding gentler treatment for the weaker sex

I don’t follow how these two go together. The only thing I can think of is that you’re equating “abolishing injustice” with “demanding gentler treatment”, and I’m pretty sure that if you actually thought that you’d be phrasing it in some other way than “injustice”. I would appreciate clarification from anybody who thinks they understand this better than I, if Todd has left the thread.

(a’) accepting differential outcomes as just and (b’) claiming women can handle the rough and tumble world of discourse, aggression, and combat as easily as men, thank you very much.

It really seems to be that a’ here would go much better with b above, and could be rephrased as “women are intrinsically inferior to men and would appreciate being treated more gently than men as a result”. Now that I think of it, a and b’ go together rather better as well (“women are as capable as men at doing -foo- and are not currently recognized as such due to social injustice”), leaving me utterly confused as to what you meant by any of this. Do let me know if these are unfair rephrasings.

I don’t know that all feminists “accept that men and women are not the same and do not necessarily have the same capacities”. I believe that (and also believe that “accept” is a rather loaded term to use here, with its implications that the accepted is fact), but I would not be surprised to learn that people, even many people, believe that men and women are, in fact, identical, this being an idea that posits that men and women deserve equal treatment but that doesn’t require a lot of thought on the matter, making it attractive to people who believe in a fundamental equality (by which I do not mean “sameness”) of the sexes but doesn’t consider it to be something with which they are or need be particularly concerned.

I’m also, upon closer reading, offended by this most recent comment of Todd’s, but will continue to take on faith that he’s a good guy. In case it’s biased the above, I figured I should make it clear. *shrugs*

cb said...

..CONT.. further to demand that there “should not be” any male bias to who is an aggressor at all, or even how frequently they attack and so on.

This line rapidly regresses into crazy strong “neutrality of nature” claims. People seem to mistake “influence by both nature and society” for “total determination by nature or society”. As long as there is an “and” then reasoning about much of anything from outcome statistics is really a very tricky quantitative problem. So, you probably should just avoid differential outcome statistics as any kind of argumentative point.

Brain said...

I really hate it when a bad argument is couched in overly complex terms to mask its falseness. Social causes of male heterosexual sexual violence are absolutely and noticeably distinguishable from biological causes. One need only remark that rates of rape differ between countries. While reporting bias plays a role in these statistics it can be greatly reduced by careful sampling. I also welcome any argument that biological differences make any but the smallest differences in these rates. While absolute certainty in degree may be impossible to achieve, it is obvious to assert that broad and useful social trends may be noticed, and learned from.

However, from the classical feminist point of view, my analysis is deeply troubling. Saudi Arabia is the country where a woman is least likely to be raped.

P.S. Todd: For a while, I’ve wanted to have a debate on the question: “Was the Roman matriarch Lucretia right to have killed herself?” Do you think that we could get Victor David Hanson would argue the “Yes” position?

James B. Shearer said...

“… since libertarians are the only philosophical faction aside from pacifists to consistently condemn the initiation of force).”

This is kind of a side issue but considering the number of libertarians who supported the Iraq War I doubt the above.

Todd Seavey said...

All right, I haven’t quite stopped commenting, but I will try to keep this brief: I was indeed suggesting that a and b (or a’ and b’) do not go together as well as b and a’, though I would claim feminists do not tend to opt for the b-a’ combo that seems to me the most realistic — and traditional — combination, that is, treating women gently and assuming most differential outcomes are just.

The overarching point is that you can’t claim to want equal treatment/respect, which entails competing without special favors, and then insist that every time you “lose the race,” as it were, that is sufficient proof that society must have rigged things against you and must strive to change its ways so that you win more. You may just be slower. Likewise, Kenyans don’t keep winning those marathons because of their long history of oppressing stocky Andean Peruvians — and even if Kenyans _had_ oppressed Peruvians, that would not make it rational to point to aggregate statistics of Kenyan vs. Peruvian marathon victories as “evidence” for society to think long and hard about changing its ways and its thinking about Peruvians.

The fact that this sort of differential-outcomes evidence is so often pointed to by feminists — and it is — suggests to me that, as I’ve said all along, a presumption of the injustice of differential outcomes (and a corresponding desire for affirmative action, whether legislated or simply accomplished by moral persuasion) is indeed central to most feminist thinking, and so I am not a feminist. I think people vary and, to a large degree because of this, so do outcomes.

Tradition and capitalism seem to me to have a better handle on the implications of this observation — including _some_ perfectly rational differences in etiquette rules, expectations, aesthetic norms, and degrees of deference and gentle treatment — than anything I normally hear from feminists, who either explicitly or (with less logical consistency) implicitly take equality of outcome as their standard.

It is a step toward rationality for feminists (or former feminists) to acknowledge that males and females differ — the next rational step is to recognize that therefore outcomes will as well, and that there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with that.

Rape, I should add, is wrong regardless of the ratios of the victims, and while social changes (such as adopting Islamic totalitarianism along Saudi lines or, far more preferably, simply restoring a large measure of traditional Western civility and moralism, updated as necessary) could alter the rate of the crime, it is hard to imagine any social change that would so erase the biological reasons for males to do more of the raping than females as to achieve equity by that bizarre standard. But then, only feminism would even contemplate so stretching nature and circumstance upon the Procrustean bed of abstract equality — as opposed to building traditions, morals, and markets upon the sloppy and inegalitarian facts of life. You might as well start a movement called mindism that insists there _must_ be veiled injustice at work if smart people keep pulling off more of the successful bank heists than the retarded do.

Allie said...

I cannot come up with a comment in any depth that is not nasty. I am getting the strong sense that your message is that women are inferior or else they would not keep “losing the race”, and that attempts to change the system are, in fact, whining. If I am misinterpreting your statement, my apologies. I’m pretty sure that I have exhausted both my ability and my desire to continue this line of conversation.

It’s also true that at this point I haven’t slept in thirty hours, so if I’m actually being a rabid, completely out-of-touch-with-reality bitch, we have an excuse.

Julian Sanchez said...

I think we can separate some of the core points here from what may be an unnecessarily obnoxious framing. Taking for granted that, that as things now stand, women face plenty of purely cultural barriers to (for instance) more equal pay or representation in certain professions, or more equal division or household labor, we can still ask the separate question: Is all inequality in these realms per se evidence of inequity?

Put more concretely: Might it be the case that in the most equal possible culture, women would still be less disposed than men to enter politics, or more disposed to want to be primary caregivers of children (with whatever professional tradeoffs that involves)? If it might, just because of intrinsic average differences in how we’re wired, then it doesn’t make sense to assume there’s something amiss unless 50 percent of all Senators or top lawyers or whatever else are women. You still want to point to and eliminate bias wherever you find it, but you can’t just infer bias from differential representation.

It seems to me like these are distinct issues. You could point out all sorts of particular kinds of bias against or barriers for women, and work to eradicate these, without assuming that in a culture lacking any such bias, 50 percent of top lawyers would be women, and 50 percent of stay-at-home parents would be men. And we can imagine two corresponding types of feminism: One that focuses on specific procedural inequities, and one that aims at eradicating all outcome disparities, on the assumption that only inequity is the source of disparity. I think Todd’s target is the latter, and that he’d be happy to endorse the former. Todd?

Ryan W,. said...

Women and men who chose to have a lot of casual sex would generally be treated equally because of it.

So hopefully women will start stigmatizing men who sleep around?

Or if we’re arguing for wholesale promiscuity, what do we do when someone has a litter of kids they can’t take care of and give them up for adoption?

I am getting the strong sense that your message is that women are inferior or else they would not keep “losing the race”

I don’t like the ‘winning/losing’ metaphore. It smacks of materialism. Why is choosing a career that’s better for raising children and offers flexibility synonymous with “losing.”

To Todd -

My only problem with wholesale acceptance of differential outcome is that, historically, differences were both encouraged by societal rules and also considered as prima facie evidence that those rules were correct.

It may very well be that certain differences are due to discrimination. But we cannot automatically assume whether those differences are just or not. However there’s a good, simple test. The effect of glass ceilings of any variety, whether externally or self imposed, is that people who are discriminated against and overcome that discrimination tend to be far more capable than their peers who haven’t overcome difficult barriers. The first few women to graduate from German universities, for instance, were unusually acomplished and at the tops of their class. Discrimination culls the weakest of the herd. So we should ask, in each instance, whether evidence of this effect exists.

James B. Shearer said...

The evolutionary psychology in 4) is really unconvincing. Paternal support of children after birth is important in humans meaning women won’t be just seeking the best genes.

And complaints about the way the opposite sex ranks potential mates tend to come across as motivated by self interest.

tigtog said...

I don’t like the ‘winning/losing’ metaphore. It smacks of materialism. Why is choosing a career that’s better for raising children and offers flexibility synonymous with “losing.”

The current structure means that women fall behind in financial independence, a strong disadvantage given the marriage/partnership failure rate. Not just income raises due to seniority, but pension plans etc as well. For any woman to ignore the possibility that the marriage might fail would be imprudence of the most sentimentally romantic sort, and despite the best intentions of marrying couples women would be fools not to work for their own independent financial security.

So, what would be so wrong with spouses sharing childraising – alternating one partner works, one partner stays at home?

Generally, recovering from pregnancy (and breastfeeding) means the mother is better placed to take the first stay-at-home stint. But if mother stays home the first year, why not father stays home the second year?

Then both partners’ financial security from their careers is on a par, and both parents have the advantages of the special close bonding that only full-time parenting brings.

Neumatikos » Ten Complaints about Feminism said...

[...] Todd Seavey is a writer of apparently some standing in New York City. He calls himself a libertarian, which is a philosophical tradition I can only moderately agree with, but he has written a critique of Feminism (as opposed to something like “traditional conservatism”) that I think is well worth reading. An excerpt: far from feminism being the opposite of chivalry, it should by this late juncture in history be obvious that both chivalry and feminism are just systems for getting men to treat women more gently than they treat other men. The difference is that under chivalry, both sexes admitted this was the arrangement and under feminism, we are supposed to pretend women are being held to the same standard even when they aren’t. [...]

Slocum said...

“Why settle for a lower-caste male, girls, when you can be one of countless harem-girls who gets a tiny portion of the endlessly-flowing sperm of The Best Guy?”

Why not? Because humans have a high level of ‘male parental investment’. For most of our history, humans have lived close to the margins, and a woman trying to raise children alone was much less likely to succeed and have her children survive to adulthood. So a woman doesn’t need just a dose of sperm, she needs a lifetime partner. And although there are cases of rulers rich enough to support hundreds of wives, that kind of concentrated wealth and power is a relatively recent development in human history (and even then, the wives of great rulers were still only a tiny fraction of the female population), so it cannot have been a standard female strategy.

Why not get sperm from ‘The Best Guy’ and child-rearing help from some poor schlub? Some women do, in fact, try that. But there’s considerable risk involved (the schlub may find out and leave leaving the woman alone with her brood).

The bottom line is there are excellent evolutionary reasons why most women ’simply want an acceptable, normal husband’.

Shouting Thomas said...

In the mid-90s, my daughter got the full nutjob indoctrination in feminism at Antioch College.

She called me on the phone to announce that women are “oppressed” and insisted that I agree with her.

“Give me an example of how they are oppressed,” I asked her.

“Well, women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920,” she answered.

“My great-grandparents came to the U.S. in the 1880s,” I answered. “Before that they had been serfs in Germany and Wales. Neither the women or the men had the right to vote before they came to America. So, in about half of one human lifetime, women gained the same rights as men in my family. I think it shows just how fair minded men are that change came so quickly.”

I’ve solved the problem of dealing with crazy, chip on the shoulder feminist women by refusing to associate with them outside the workplace. My late wife was as anti-feminist as you can get. She also had a great job and she was my partner in the music business. My girlfriend also doesn’t care a whit about feminism and she has a great job. She sings with me, too. In the workplace, I’ve solved the dilemma of putting up with feminist twits by going into a technical field. There are virtually no die hard feminists in technical fields. They were too busy taking the basket weaving and grievance courses in college.

If you want to tell me about your feminist complaint… well, take a hike.

TW Andrews said...

This is a badly-argued connection of ramblings that’s too clever by (at least) half.

The author touches on somethings which, if he brought in actual data, or even a carefully reasoned argument, might make for an interesting discussion.

Sadly, what we get are the ridiculous musings of a guy who sounds like he’s still bitter that he didn’t get to sleep with the cheerleader in High School

Frank said...

I think that most of the arguments about this are being made much more complicated than they really ought to be.

The basic argument that inequality of outcome must equal oppression is the basic argument for most of feminism, and is outlined perfectly by Allie’s view of the perfect world. She points out that in a perfect America, both genders would be represented equally in every aspect. However, anyone who has ever had children can tell you there are inherent biological differences between males and females, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. I have 2 daughters, who were given just as many Tonka trucks and guns as they were tea sets and Barbie dolls, and invariably the Barbie dolls would be having a tea party in the back of the dump truck. My 3 year old nephew, on the other hand, was given more gender neutral, and traditionally “girly”, toys than trucks or guns, and he still manages to turn the tea pot into a weapon, and to make his dolls wrestle.

Arguing that giving both men and women equal opportunity at the beginning of the race (for this example, we’ll use graduating from college) should equal equality of outcome (position and pay) at the end of the race (say, 20 years into their career) denies the other factors involved in the outcome.

Todd is not saying that because women, as a whole, do not achieve as well in the long run that they are inferior. What he is pointing out is that women make different choices. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. But the bottom line is that women are going to be more apt to stay at home with the children, or take lower paying jobs which allow them more time at home. Thus a man and a woman entering the work force at the same time, with the same qualifications, will end up with a large disparity of income, all through the choice of the woman.

There are, of course, millions of examples of women who choose not to have children, or to not stay home with them, and they make every bit as much as men in equal positions. But one has only to look at the large number of “mommy blogs” to see example after example of strong, educated, career-driven women who got married, had children, and subsequently abandoned that career, or dramatically altered its course, all resulting in lower incomes.

On the flip side, men are less likely to alter their careers in order to accommodate children, and they are more likely to be the aggressors in any type of sexual crime. Women may be less likely to be raped in Saudi Arabia (a fact I will dispute, but we’ll let it stand for this argument), but they are also not allowed to vote, drive, speak to men other than their immediate family, show any part of their bodies except their eyes, and are much more likely to have experienced female genital mutilation. I don’t know many women in this country who would make that trade.

anony-mouse said...

I find it quite impressive that after a rousing demarche of ‘the sophist who cherry-picks data’ under point (2), you then proceeded to write point (4) as though to be a demonstration of what that looks like. I regularly reviewed better polemics back when I was commentary editor of my high school’s monthly fish wrapper.

First, as essentially noted by Mr. Shearer, humans are not dogs — impregnating every female on the lot (including your aunts, sisters, and any other available fertile entities) is neither the scope nor extent of paternal duties in a healthy community of humans. Every successive generation in the past thirty or forty years is increasingly demonstrating the results of being raised in a society where, as often as not, at least one of the parents doesn’t feel any strong commitments or obligations to the offspring s/he progenated. It’s not healthy for a society to go that way, and it readily explains why many of the keepers of the more extreme traditions that sparked your rant were not nipped in the bud, and their energy redirected toward more constructive pursuits.

Second, your closing snear at religious conservatives — coupled with a citation of ONE biblical passage, taken out of context and without respect for broader physical evidence on the matter, and which therefore in NO way demonstrates your thesis — is far beneath the level of someone who (as noted above) seems to hold contempt for sophistry and cherry-picking.

In fact, more’s the pity that you didn’t abort point (4) entirely and compile the limited amount of reason it contained into points (3), (5), (6), and (7). Any more irony, methinks, and there would be rust forming on your keyboard.

CAL said...

I more or less agree with the thoughts in this post but what do you mean by, “…is a bit like saying that opposition to the Klan makes one a Democrat?”

The Klan, like Bull Connor and Governor Wallace, is a Democrat thing. 99% of its membership has been Democrats.

ChE said...

In point 1, you mention that there are both more male geniuses than female geniuses and more male idiots than female idiots. Some scientists hypothesize that some genetic coding for intelligence occurs on the X chromosome. Since men have a single copy, they have all their eggs in one genetic basket, so to speak. If you got a smart X, you’re smart. If not, too bad. Since women have two copies, the law of averages makes it less likely that they would receive two genius X’s, but also less likely to receive two idiot X’s.

Brandon Berg said...

They will also try these days to take credit for the most basic, nigh-universal rules of civility, as if thinking that listening to what people have to say and refraining from punching them in the face were feminist moral innovations…

That’s funny. This thread is filled with feminists complaining about how civility is a tool of the patriarchy.

Justin said...

Why not? Because humans have a high level of ‘male parental investment’. For most of our history, humans have lived close to the margins, and a woman trying to raise children alone was much less likely to succeed and have her children survive to adulthood. So a woman doesn’t need just a dose of sperm, she needs a lifetime partner.

There is a “freerider” problem. At the level of *societies* encouring male investment in offspring produces a healthy and successful society. As Tyler Cowen put it, you’ll never hear of an Amish Cad. However, at the level of *individuals* the opposite is true. For those blessed with alpha male genes, you will suceed at the individual level if male parental involvement is optional. Thus the best interests for society as a whole are at cross purposes with the best interests of the most powerful men in society.

Thus, dovetailing into Todd’s point, the challenge for successful societies is to empower the masses of non-alpha males enough to keep the alpha males in check. This is traditionally done through strong marriages.

However, I think there is truth to the feminist’s point: at a reductive genetic level, non-alpha females benefit from a caddish society in which the spoils accumulate to the alpha male. They get a chance to carry the superior alpha male genes rather than the inferior beta male genes. But in a society with strong marriages, only the alpha females get to carry those genes.

Sasha said...

I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I’ll try to keep this short.

You suggest that feminists are too eager to point to outcome differences (such as, I imagine, the low female representation among top scientists) as evidence of discrimination, when there may well be other less sinister causes. Essentially, you think that feminists start from an assumption that women and men have equal intelligence and similar motivations, and they make it anathema to question whether that assumption is accurate.

I think you raise an interesting point, but I also think you discredit yourself by not acknowledging your own assumptions. For example, you use anecdotes, and present them as patterns, to show that it’s natural for women to all seek out an alpha male. You say that feminists are against monogamous marriage (what feminists have you been talking to?) and present this as evidence that feminists are working against women’s self interests. You seem to have an attitude that there’s a reason traditional societal structures existed, and that they’ll usually provide the best outcomes for men and women. In short, you believe we should proceed from the assumption that society was never that biased against women to begin with, that outcome differences are usually just.

I find this assumption to be at least as “unscientific” as the assumption that outcome differences are usually unjust. Ideally, a scientist would manage to avoid either and attempt to make an unbiased judgement on the relative fairness of each outcome difference independently. You seem to believe that you possess this unbiased judgement, and that empirical evidence supports a lot of things that it’s just not clear it does. For example, I believe you’d support the idea that the traditional role of females as solely primary caregivers has “stood the test of time” so there must be some intrinsic qualities in women that make them like this role when men do not. Even if it is true that women are more nurturing on average, I do not think it’s clear that given the choice, women would prefer to go back in time and give up the independence to have careers and identities outside the confines of their families. I do think that in general, the advances that feminism has made for women have made most women happier, and I’d hazard that making half the population happier has had a net positive effect for society.

anonn said...

Allie said:

We’d have an approximately equal number of male and female presidential candidates. And Supreme Court nominees, and congresspeople, and state governors.

And an approximately equal number of male and female prisoners, suicides, murder victims and victims of industrial accidents?

Men are currently about 10 times as likely as women to fall into one of these catagories. Is this proof of discrimination in favour of men or women?

If you wish to argue that these statistics can be explained by claiming that men (on average) act differently to women (less risk averse, perhaps) surely this argument can also explain the excess of male presidential candidates.

anonn said...

Allie claims that in a feminist world:

We’d have an approximately equal number of male and female presidential candidates. And Supreme Court nominees, and congresspeople, and state governors.

And prisoners, suicides, murder victims and victims of industrial accidents? Men are currently ~ 10 times as likely as women to fall into one of those categories. Is this evidence of discrimination against men or women?

If it is not due to discrimination it must be due to men acting differently from women (less risk averse, perhaps). But that argument can just as easily explain differing numbers of presidential candidates.

Clara said...

My first thought is, “Well, duh. Couldn’t agree more.” You laid the most eloquent smackdown on feminism that I’ve ever read or heard. Bravo.

I’ve never met a perfectly consistent feminist. They claim to want equality, but then they turn around and ask for special help — extra coaching in coddling, all-girl math camps; freedom from being “objectified” in magazines they don’t even read; and an end to stereotyping, even as they stereotype All Men as Evil. Hel-lo?

LIBERTY BELLES » Feminist or Female Supremacist? said...

[...] From Todd Seavey’s scathing indictment of modern feminism, published this week on his blog: What has feminism become if not self-interested, tribalist pleading on behalf of a group that has already won all its morally relevant battles? Far from feminism being a feather in the cap of all respectable “intellectuals,” perhaps it should be a sign that someone has wholeheartedly immersed herself in naked partisanship and is unfit for the polite, civil, and disinterested discourse that makes philosophy and (rational) politics possible. [...]

Bella Lu said...

Todd, your feminist smackdown is so cute. I can’t imagine why you don’t have a serious relationship with some nice city girl. And your cheeks! So squeezable!!!!

David Cohen said...

Or, we could just reject the entire basis of feminism and argue that culture has always been the result of a consensus of men and women that, as a general rule, men would tend to take on certain roles and, as a general rule, women would take on different roles. These roles were largely influenced by biology and technology. When technology, including control over biology, changed sufficiently to allow the sex-tied roles to change, they did change — quickly and peacefully, unlike, for example, changes in racial power relations.

Which brings us to the real purpose of feminism: to keep white women “ahead” of black men.

B's Freak said...

Allie,

Would you consider women more or less likely to commit to a job only until they find something better than men would? Would a woman be more or less likely want career stability than a man? Would she be more or less aggressive in negotiating her position? Would this impact salary? I know in my daughter’s case, I had to push her to demand what she was worth, and she got it. If I hadn’t pushed she would be representative of your pay inequality argument, but not for the reasons you sited. This is obviously anecdotal and doesn’t, in and of itself, prove the worth of your argument one way or the other but it does show that there can be other possible causes for the same outcome.

woodland sunflower said...

I note some feminist commenters have taken you to task for assertion #2, but I think we need to back up to #1. Feminism is the radical notion women are people (too), but I don’t think you get that, because you’re too busy attempting to defend all the good reasons you think they might not be: why, you ask do we have to accept on faith that they’re just as smart/capable/good as men?

As someone, probably Amanda Marcotte pointed out, it doesn’t even matter if they’re not as good/smart/wonderful as you because in this country, once you’re an adult, you’re a citizen, and you get a vote. One vote. Not 67%, nor 3/5ths, nor even 10x because you’re contributing so much more to society.

So I was reading some PoC site a couple of days ago, and it was about how this other blogger was persecuting them because they felt pigs were smart and we should be vegetarian, and oh yes that burka thingie, and my basic reaction was that her argument was a rambling, poorly defended mess. In fact my thoughts were eerily like your writing in this post, which is what inspired me to take the trouble to write this.

But two things I noticed: one, angry as she was, it was deeply clear even more that she was hurt and in tremendous pain at the injustices she’d experienced. The other was that her commenters, whom I recognized from other PoC blogs, even though they were kinda all over the map — black women, latino men, etc — immediately and strongly identified with her.

Now, with feminists, I can say, this assertion’s a pile of crap, that’s one’s a little over the top but still making a good point, the other is dead-on. With the anti-racists’ concerns I couldn’t get into it, except to realize I wasn’t getting it. I’ve read enough to know that, when in doubt, the best thing is simply to listen. You’re not listening, you’re too busy defending all the problems with feminism.

Being in one privileged and in one oppressed group, any time I start thinking “those brown people are complaining too much” I just check my feelings against “those women are complaining too much” and that usually stops me in my tracks.

Red Stapler says you’re a good guy. I think you probably are. So’s my brother, who despite his liberal upbringing has become a fundamentalist style Christian who thinks women are too irrational to vote. But, yanno, it really hurts to have random white guys spewing crapola all over what I am, what I do.

I will give you credit for this: you’ve posted your views on your own blog, not all over the feminist blogosphere. That is your right as well as your privilege, and I thank you for it.

Here Be Anti-Feminist « The Asylum of TerminalFrost said...

[...] Here Be Anti-Feminist Check out this rambling but entertaining critique of feminism (via Asymmetrical Information). Some excerps: [...]

D said...

heh, Todd, you would probably find it substantially easier to simply define yourself, and let the rest go. Essentially you fall into the smae trap you decry, by worry over the difference between intellectual thought and evolutionary practice. Perhaps what you say is true, does it make one whit of difference in your life? I understand your descriptions, and have seen them as well, but you seem to think that pointing out logical inconsistancies to someone is all it take to get them to say ‘oh, my bad’, Yeah, no. The big thing is that humans in general, can think logically while their instincts go the other way. The effort to understand that and find a way to compromise the instinct with the intellect is difficult but worthwhile. But you can only do that for yourself, you can’t make others do it. You MAY get other people to think on it, to go on their own quest to figure out their internal drive, but you can’t MAKE them.

Oddly enough, those very same people may get you to think as well.

Equality itself is an ethereal idea. No-one is the same as me, so how can they be equal? We have laws to do some of the heavy lifting there, but they won’t apply in every situation, and indded why should they? That’s just on our side of the gender line. Once you look across that divide, there are a great load of things that ARE NOT THE SAME. This is the way it is supposed to be. If it were not to be that way, then humans would be designed to self reproduce. Then we could all be more or less identical. Since it isn’t like that, compromises will have to be made.

By both parties. For what it’s worth…

Anne E said...

Maybe isms are the problem, not feminism.

People band together to believe stuff and this always happens. Arguments fraught with internal contradictions. Self-righteousness, often founded on accidents of birth rather than proof or deeds. Collective emotion dwarfing rational discussion and thought.

It’s not a male/female thing, it’s an us/them thing that happens in all religious and political movements.

Solidarity provides comfort and gets attention, leads to cultural change and even saves lives. But the core philosophies eventually spin in all different directions, “meaning” gets lost, emotion-based groupthink and fascism can take over.

Sigivald said...

Woodland: Given your question about “why do we have to accept that women are as smart as men”, it seems you didn’t read what he actually said, but immediately tried to “decode” it to reveal the oppression beneath.

Todd was not saying women are stupider than men.

He was saying they’re not identically smart as a group. He was talking about distributions, not the mean.

Combine that with your focus on how you feel about it, rather than whether or not he’s right about what he actually said, and I can’t help but wonder if you’re very subtly trying to prove his point for him.

Probably not.

Red Stapler said...

The problem with all of this is that the political, in this case, is very personal.

Many men don’t have that experience, and therefore don’t have emotional reactions to politics.

If a policy that restricts women is enacted, women will get angry because by its very wording affects them personally.

I’m not saying that men aren’t personally affected by laws, but very often, the effects aren’t tied to their very identities.

To put it in more Libertarian terms:

Taxes on stuff hurt in the wallet.

Restrictions on abortion mean I’m personally in trouble if I get pregnant and can’t afford pre-natal care, let alone to support a child.

Todd Seavey said...

You shouldn’t assume I take attacks on my wallet less personally than you do attacks on your womb — I’m a libertarian, after all.

Seriously, though, while I’m briefly back here, let me add that I should perhaps have made clearer in item #4 above, which bothered commenters over on JaneGalt.net even more than it did the commenters here (and over there they’re much more willing to diagnose my whole position as a result of not having sex, which seems to me about the most retrograde and unfeminist analysis of an opponent’s position one could come up with), that I’m not saying the pimp-ho dynamic is necessarily the whole story on the human race but that it’s the kind of highly contingent, physical, evolved _sort_ of tendency that might be at play in society that makes it ridiculous to talk about us as if we’re equal, tabula-rasa abstractions or (worse) should simply be _trying to act as if we are_.

Again, why not be different and simply accept the consequences (aside from violent ones already proscribed by other philosophies and political regimes, but let’s avoid getting into other political issues — like the Iraq War, which may have been this thread’s least-relevant tangent)?

One minute (though, believe me, I’m well aware feminism is not a single, easily-defined position and need not speak with one voice) I’m told, sure, of course, feminists accept differences and their consequences, the next one of them (sometimes the same one) tells me men should be doing more of the parenting. Why isn’t the differential parenting pattern one of the acceptable sorts of differences? _Who cares about this differential pattern_, unless one makes (some version of) the a priori assumption we should be aiming for sameness? And if the answer is merely that “well, _some_ people, such as the feminists themselves or women they purport to speak for, care,” I would only add that it’s unclear the _rest of us_ have a moral obligation to care, and feminism certainly speaks the language of moral obligation, not merely preference (few feminists would see a statement such as “I want to see more female CEOs in this town” as morally equivalent to a mere statement of preference such as “I want to see more Arby’s open up in this area and would like it if a new Psychedelic Furs album came out”).

Because of this I am very hesitant even to embrace Julian’s bias-eliminating formulation of feminism, as it seems to me to derive much of its psychological appeal from the still-lingering assumption that we ought to be doing _something_ to promote _some_ sort of greater sameness (or a somewhat closer approximation to equality of outcome), when that’s the underlying assumption I think we ought to reject. As long as (preferably minimal, basic) legal rules are the same for all, our work in this area may well be done — and the game of life is afoot, let the chips fall where they may, even if it means that every CEO from now until the end of time is a fat man with a beard and all the women decide to become low-paid jazz musicians, as I would myself be more likely to do.

dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » I can see his patriarchy hanging out, for goodness’ sake! said...

[...] http://toddseavey.com/2007/04/21/abortin… [...]

All Men Are Rapists And That's All They Are said...

Red Stapler The problem with all of this is that the political, in this case, is very personal.

Many men don’t have that experience, and therefore don’t have emotional reactions to politics.


Being told that because you have a Y chromosome you are a rapist is pretty personal. If you object to that, you are whining, if you do not object you are assenting. Maybe you haven’t read anything by Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and other, similar-thinking feminists, but other people have.

Remember, men are not supposed to show their emotions; it’s unmanly. So just because you don’t see us taking things personally, it doesn’t mean we aren’t doing so. We just don’t let you, or anyone else that cannot be trusted, see such things.

Red Stapler said...

All Men Are Rapists And That’s All They Are:

Aww, it’s so nice of you to troll Todd’s blog.

1) I am not a Dworkin feminist. I, for one, like penis in my vagina.

2) I strive for a world where men can show their emotions and not be accused of being umasculine.

3) I never called Todd a rapist.

D said...

—Restrictions on abortion mean I’m personally in trouble if I get pregnant and can’t afford pre-natal care, let alone to support a child.— red stapler

This statement takes us down an interesting path. Why is the father of that child NOT equally in trouble? Naturally there is a basic difference because it grows inside you and not him, but that is where the laws requiring his support are supposed to provide some redress. It’s a thorny issue to be sure, but it certainly also points up an idea, that he as the father, has no say in the matter. On the one hand, since it is your body, you should be in control of it. On the other, if the guy has no say anyway, why would he give any support [emo, or monetary]. If you hold him accountable, seems like you have to give him the right that accountability goes with.

I would say this is where you see a breakdown, where both things cannot be true, where equality is not in the cards. Much the worse it is. Having both known women who kept the child regardless, and men who had no input at all, over the decision to abort what would have been their child too…

I’d like to hear takes in that, just because the must be an inherently unequal condition…

Peter Bessman said...

Feminism defined: All sexes are equal, but some sexes are more equal than others.

Red Stapler said...

D:

Why is the father of that child NOT equally in trouble?

He very well may be.

If I get pregnant, and the man I slept is just as financially or emotionally ill-equipped to support a child, then we’re back at square one.

Naturally there is a basic difference because it grows inside you and not him, but that is where the laws requiring his support are supposed to provide some redress.

I think there should be an escape clause for the involuntary fathers of such children. A legal form they sign and notarize saying that they rescind responsibility for said child, but in doing so, remove them from the child’s life entirely.

That being said, a woman, in bare science, becomes an incubator at the time of conception. However, to treat any woman as such is reprehensible. The child she carries has no more importance or value than she does, and in fact, carries quite a bit less.

The “innocence” and “potential” of such a life is a manipulative tool to shame people into keeping children they may otherwise have aborted.

Adoption is a wonderful thing and a wonderful opportunity for couples incapable of bearing their own children, however, that is useless to many women who spend three-quarters of a year in need of expensive medical care.

Pregnancy should be a voluntary situation.

virginia said...

I see a lot more women dating normal, acceptable men than scrambling for the alpha.

What the schlubs who get the girl seem to have that perhaps the anti-feminist libertarians don’t is empathy. When they hear “getting raped messed me up” or even “fear of being raped affects my actions” they don’t leap to protest “There you go again, accusing me of being a rapist/hating men for their desires/saying you’re better than me.” or “You little weakling, whining about the world the way it is.” They’ll take our word for it that something they haven’t experienced (not just being raped, but the fear of it, the heckling by groups of men, etc.) is painful and can feel like part of a bigger rape culture.

Women have extended men this same empathy for centuries. We haven’t had a choice. We’ve lived by your laws, read your books, looked at your art, defined much of our worth by your standards of female desirability, narrowed ourselves to fit into your world (which is what the women bunching up into the middle, away from genius or sociopath categories is about IMHO).

So all feminists are asking is how about we get half a say in how the world works. That’s what Allie’s list of characteristics of an equal world looked like to me, though I would amend the rape point to “How About Nobody Rapes Anybody?”

I’d also add that the cost of all dates be either split evenly or according to income. Women don’t have the right to be considered equals as long as they expect men to pay for them.

Dean's World said...

On Feminism…

I really quite enjoyed this Todd Seavey article. I don’t agree with all of it, but I do agree with an awful lot of it.

I found a lot of the co……

T.A.B. said...

I’d like to amend Virginia’s last suggestion with my own opinions. Whomever initiates (i.e. asks) should pay for dates. For the first few anyway. If the couple can make it to the fourth date then there should be some give and take.

The trick is, in our society, men are expected to ask. If true feminism is to be successfully practiced, this can’t be the case. Women (in half of the instances of dating) should intiate, plan and pay for the first few dates.

Red Stapler said...

TAB:

Occasionally, my boyfriend treats me to a meal. Occasionally, I treat him to meals. Usually, we split it.

That’s how it’s been since Date One.

I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I realize I am in the minority, and that makes me sad.

Adam C said...

One note. I really enjoyed your writing. But I’d like to note that when you say “a bit like saying that opposition to the Klan makes one a Democrat” you’re perpetuating an inaccurate history. The Klan was almost entirely a Democratic organization throughout the South for almost all of its history.

All Men Are Rapists And That's All They Are said...

All Men Are Rapists And That’s All They Are:

Aww, it’s so nice of you to troll Todd’s blog.

I see, so because my life experience, and my opinions, differ from yours I am a troll. Is that correct?

1) I am not a Dworkin feminist. I, for one, like penis in my vagina.

Where did I say you were a Dworkin feminist? I pointed out that

Dworkin/MacKinnon feminists exist, and that their effects upon men also exist. Do you deny these facts? Can you address them like an adult?

2) I strive for a world where men can show their emotions and not be accused of being umasculine.

Gee, that’s great, but when I expressed my emotions, your response is condescending and sarcastic. Thus you contradict yourself rather quickly.

3) I never called Todd a rapist.

That’s true, you didn’t. But guess what? I never claimed you did. IYou claimed that men don’t take politics personally, because it does not affect them in a personal way. I provided an example of a feminist political position that’s been around for well over 25 years that at least some men take very personally, although you may not want to see it, or may not be capable of seeing it, or may not be trustworthy enough to see it. I gave you a serious discussion, and you give me snark.

Thanks a whole lot.

All Men Are Rapists And That's All They Are said...

Red Stapler I think there should be an escape clause for the involuntary fathers of such children. A legal form they sign and notarize saying that they rescind responsibility for said child, but in doing so, remove them from the child’s life entirely.

That’s interesting, but in the real world this isn’t going to happen. In the real world, a woman who is pregnant can put the putative father (who may or may not actually be the father, although paternity testing is more powerful than it used to be) on the hook for 18 years of payments that she doesn’t even have to actually spend on the child, while denying him all real access to the child, and collecting money from other sources including government aid. Or she can have an abortion, and he has no say in that, either. She holds all the power, even if she lied to him about having an IUD, being on birth control pills, etc. prior to having sexual intercourse. Maybe this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the neat, tidy world you live in. But it does happen in the wider, messy world that other people live in.

I’m curious to see what your response is this time.

Peter Bessman said...

http://fastseduction.com

This site explains what you need to do to reliably pick up women. It’s insane, and effective. I know, because I went down that path (specifically, http://mysterymethod.com). All my life, I had been earnest, empathetic, and respectful of women — just like my momma raised me to be. After reading the above, I became a guy who I never ever would have thought I would be — what I would consider an asshole — but the results were ridiculous.

There’s no formal statistics out there about the general efficacy of this stuff, but for me, it worked very well. As it has for many other AFC’s (average frustrated chumps). Any curious guys can give it a shot and verify it for themselves.

Personally, I’m not interested in convincing women of any of this. The reason is that one of the fundamental axioms of the seduction community is that women are inherently illogical. Given how well the stuff works, I’m inclined to agree with that proposition. But the corollary is that it ain’t worth it to try and reason with them on anything — especially not this.

I’ve also become a complete loner. Like Todd said, things just aren’t gonna get better with this species. The way it looks to me, I can be myself and be alone, or I can be a person I don’t want to be and have female company with all its concomitant insanity. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are just that — exceptions. Given reality, I’d rather be alone.

And really, that’s the best defense against feminism — just don’t associate with women. It’s hard as hell, obviously, but it’s possible. Thank god for prostitution and HD porn.

One last thing: that book Todd said should be written? It’s already been done, and it’s awesome. It’s called “The Rantings of a Single Male” by Thomas Ellis. Every guy should read it.

Clara said...

We’ve lived by your laws, read your books, looked at your art, defined much of our worth by your standards of female desirability, narrowed ourselves to fit into your world

For the record, not all women feel this way. I don’t appreciate (nor burn with resentment at the cultural dominance of) the books, art and music of “menfolk.” Rather, I enjoy the creative works of the world’s brightest and most productive people, who happen (with notable exceptions) to be men.

If a woman had invented the polio vaccine, written Clair de Lune or formulated the theory of relativity, rape would still be a problem today. Incidentally, the number of men willing to defend women against rape far outweighs the number of male rapists; one can’t, in good conscience, pin rape on the male gender as a collective scarlet letter.

Peter: Women are attracted to confidence, talent, status and looks (in that order). Don’t let anybody tell you different. Wit has particular appeal, as it’s proof of both intelligence and confidence — even self-deprecating humor. Women also enjoy being appreciated, not berated and criticized for being high-strung, capricious or unreasonable (least of all in personal ads). For low strings and cool rationality, buy a wooden marionette.

Peter Bessman said...

Women are attracted to confidence, talent, status and looks (in that order). Don’t let anybody tell you different. Wit has particular appeal, as it’s proof of both intelligence and confidence — even self-deprecating humor.

There’s no way I can say this without being an asshole: you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I can guarantee you that I and the other males in the seduction community have put way more thought and research into what it takes to pickup women, and stand to have a much higher probability of knowing how it works. That’s really not surprising, considering that if we aren’t right, we don’t get late. You, on the other hand, can hold any notions you want about how women should be picked up — it will have zero impact on your sex life.

First, women are attracted to confidence and talent because they are indicators of status, so those three words really refer to the same thing. The same can be said for wit. As for looks, you’re right that they are generally last on a woman’s list. My experience as a good looking dude has been that it’s merely a foot in the door. In the long run, though, unless she is completely wasted, it will not help you at all in getting laid.

As for self-deprecating humor, the correct application of it is highly context dependent. If you are a good looking guy and you’re gaming an average looking girl (say a 5 or 6), and you also have conveyed a high status image, she might lock up and shut you out rather than face what she perceives to be an inevitable rejection. One commonality between the sexes is the presence of an ego. So, in this scenario, self-deprecating humor can be crucial. But, if you’re gaming a 9 or a 10, it will kill you. A 10 knows that she can have the pick of the litter, so if you try to lower your status through self deprecating humor, you’ll either succeed and she won’t be attracted to you, or you’ll fail because she’ll think you’re a fake alpha-male and still not be attracted to you.

A great piece of advice you learn early on in seduction is to not listen to any woman when it comes to picking up other women. They simply do not know what they talk about, and will rattle off what they think should happen, as opposed to what really does. Every woman thinks she’s a relationship expert. Every woman also cannot stand to see her gender ripped on “unfairly,” so to balance this out, I’ll also point out that every guy thinks he can fight, fuck, and drive.

Another piece of advice is learning how to deal with female neuroses, which is just part of the deal. You’re right, no woman wants to be berated, ever. But, if you tolerate bad behavior, you’ll lower your status in her eyes and that’s game over; plus, it just ain’t right to be a doormat. The trick is to be the guy with options — if she acts shitty, you just call another girl. This is the way to roll, because then the target doesn’t feel busted on, but you don’t have to deal with her shit, and to top it all off, the fact that other women are attracted to you makes you seem more attractive to the target, so she’s even more likely to behave in the future.

I’m sorry to pick on you Clara, since you seem to have a ridiculously good head on your shoulders. But I think that one of the fundamental fractures between the genders is the fact that women can’t or won’t come to grips with their actual mating drives. Guys know that for them, it’s all about looks and loyalty, but women seem to be just as clueless about what women want as men are — either that or they’ve suppressed the unpalatable truth. Personally, coming to grips with this reality — painful though it was, since I was hoping for many years to find the kind of girl you read about in Robert Heinlein novels &#..CONT..

Peter Bessman said...

..CONT..8212; has given me a sort of zen understanding of humanity. YMMV.

Red Stapler said...

Peter:

But I think that one of the fundamental fractures between the genders is the fact that women can’t or won’t come to grips with their actual mating drives.

What do you define as a “mating drive”?

Is it different than a sex drive?

Clara said...

First, women are attracted to confidence and talent because they are indicators of status, so those three words really refer to the same thing. The same can be said for wit.

I don’t think so. I listed those attraction criteria and ordered them with particular care. Self-deprecation is important because it signals that you’re not putting yourself above everyone else (e.g. above a potential girlfriend). Someone like Donald Trump, who’s got money, power and confidence in spades, nevertheless seems like a complete buffoon because of his ego. (Yes, he married a model, but she might have married Fort Knox if it asked her.) I don’t believe self-deprecation lowers status in any way. Done correctly, it raises it. Woody Allen, Stephen Merchant and lots of other comedians have used it effectively. And it takes tremendous confidence to laugh at yourself.

There’s also the vulnerability component. Women like to be needed – by children and by men – so if a guy seems completely self-sufficient, that’s dull and off-putting. If you look at the protagonists in literature enjoyed by generations of women, there’s Pierre Bezuhov, Rhett Butler and Fitzwilliam Darcy, all rich and powerful men who were needy little boys inside.

Self-deprecation can also be a ploy to get people to see your good points. It’s like when Hugh Laurie does an interview with a celebrity magazine and says, “I’ve never thought of myself as a particularly good-looking chap,” and five million female readers swoon and say, “Oh, but you are!”

the fact that other women are attracted to you makes you seem more attractive to the target, so she’s even more likely to behave in the future.

I know this to be the case with men, but women don’t usually find someone more attractive if other girls like him. In fact, the surest way to prevent me from being interested in a guy is to tell me that someone else is in love with him. Girls love finding a diamond in the rough, seeing something in a guy that no one else can detect. Also, we are far too lazy to compete for anything.

Another thing I’ve noticed about my gender: Generalizations about women’s preferences are difficult. Men can usually agree on which famous women are appealing, but women disagree about their favorite male celebrities. For example, I’ve never found Brad Pitt the least bit interesting (or Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom or Jude Law… and I could go on). I won’t list my favorite male celebrities here, but they do exists, and each has a fan base of respectable size. So women’s preferences are less easily explained, and they vary more within the gender. (This is my way of hinting that my thoughts here probably don’t apply to all women — maybe just 25%, myself included.)

I was hoping for many years to find the kind of girl you read about in Robert Heinlein novels

Someone who would say, “Hi, my name is so-and-so,” and kiss you on the lips by way of introduction? Good luck with that. ;-) I wouldn’t call Heinlein a misogynist — let’s not mistake hatred with childlike naivete — but he certainly did not know women.

Peter Bessman said...

What do you define as a “mating drive”?

Is it different than a sex drive?


No, they mean the same thing to me, although “in the parlance of our times,” the connotations might be different. To wit, “sex drive” connotes the pursuit of purely recreational copulation, whereas “mating drive” connotes an intent to have children. But both of these drives run on the same underlying principles of attraction, and attraction is not a choice. Obviously, higher level thinking means that these “rules” can be broken, and frequently enough, they are. However, just as the existence of monks does not invalidate the fact that most guys want to pork a ton of chicks, the ability of a woman to consciously steer her sex drive does not invalidate its underlying machinations.

This post may well be more than you bargained for, and for that I apologize. “It’s long because I lack the time to make it short.”

Peter Bessman said...

I don’t believe self-deprecation lowers status in any way. Done correctly, it raises it.

If true, then you’re an outlier. I’d love to meet you — I might actually be able to get away with being myself. As it happens, I’m a huge fan of making fun of myself, for the simple fact that I think I’m quite funny in a pity-evoking sort of way. But, for the overwhelming majority of 9s and 10s that I meet, if I want to actually succeed in putting it in, I can’t do that. At least not in the early goings, after the first pork the rules change.

Really, there’s not much point is us going further in a debate about what actually gets guys laid. The techniques I endorse work well for me and everybody else who has used them. As I said previously, we must be right, or we go home and make love to our hands. You have some interesting theoretical points, but until they are grounded in reality — that is, empirically verified — I’m not going to put any stock in them.

To continue along my arrogant-snot line of discourse, I’d say that the burden of proof is on you. If you can somehow prove that, say, Mystery Method doesn’t work (unlikely, and probably impossible), or that you’re methodology works better (possible, but still unlikely), you will have my attention. But until that time, I will continue to see the world of male-female interaction as Mystery has framed it, get laid until the grip of existential despair becomes unbearable, and then watch Heat a few hundred times to make myself feel better. It’s just how I roll.

Someone who would say, “Hi, my name is so-and-so,” and kiss you on the lips by way of introduction? Good luck with that. ;-) I wouldn’t call Heinlein a misogynist — let’s not mistake hatred with childlike naivete — but he certainly did not know women.

Yeah, no fuckin’ shit.

Seavey on Aborting Feminism « Dispatches From Southeast Portland said...

[...] Read the whole thing here.  I would be interested to hear the thoughts of our female bloggers. [...]

Earl said...

When I read the phrase “seduction community”, I am left with the impulse to point and laugh uncontrollably. Or to shrug and say there’s a community for fucking everything on the internet.

“Seduction community.”

Gina Duclayan said...

Todd, OK, it’s a little late to comment on this post, but here goes. I have to side with the person who defined feminism as “women are people, too.” You say this is obvious, and I agree that great strides have been made in developed countries. However, I work at an international organization and it is quite plain that this simple assertion is not obvious to most of the people in the world. For this reason, feminism is very relevant today. (BTW, I think it’s totally wrong-headed to compare white supremacists with feminists. Feminists don’t think women are better than men, just that women and men deserve the same rights.)

What I mean by “women are people, too” is that women (and all adults) have a right to agency and autonomy, particularly in controlling the integrity of their own bodies, but also in being able to vote and drive a car, for example, two things that women in Saudi Arabia cannot do.

Society (and in this I include both women and men) seem overly concerned with controlling women’s behavior and lives, particularly our sexuality. I don’t think this comes only from men. Studies in Africa have shown, for example, that women are largely the controllers of female genital cutting (FGC), for example. In the US, there are obviously many women who are against abortion at any point in gestation, as well as contraception.

While an inequality in rights/agency/autonomy between males and females is most obvious in the developing world–as evidenced by FGC, child marriage (which by and large involves the involuntary marriage of girl children to much older men), honor killing, bride price, veiling, sex-selective abortion, and many more inequities–it also still exists in the United States.

Because women can bear children, feminism as a philosophy distinct from the idea that “all adults deserve the right to agency and autonomy” is truly needed.

There is no possibility of freedom for women unless we have control over our fertility. I am talking about abortion here (though I think it’s legitimate to take exception to late-term abortion). I think at the very least women will not be free unless we have access to at the very least first and early 2nd trimester abortion, in addition to contraception. Contraception does fail. If you don’t believe that anti-abortion activists aren’t out to get rid of contraception entirely, then you aren’t reading their material or analyzing their philosophies closely enough. If you don’t think that access to first trimester abortion is already severely limited in many parts of the US, then you haven’t read enough about this issue.

You of all people, a libertarian and a person who is very solid in the knowledge that he does not want children, should be able to understand the perilous situation of a woman who does not have access to contraception, or to early abortion for that matter.

I don’t want to get into a whole conversation about pimps and hos and what women really want, etc….. The main point is that women have a right to legal access to methods of controlling our own reproduction. We have a right to have a say in what happens to our bodies. In this society–and even more so in other countries–this right is questioned. That is why feminism is relevant.

Brain said...

Gina, I wonder if in the end ,the meddling of First World feminists in Third World lives does not become counterproductive. These developing societies, already undergoing the massive social upheaval inherent in rapid industrialization, only respond contrarily to the well-intentioned efforts of international agencies.

Barbaric customs like female genital mutilation and honor killings are partially meant to protect women from the demeaning effects of modern hyper-sexualized popular culture. Demeaning effects that are also derided by a large part of the feminist community. You must also admit that there is a great deal of handwringing among feminists and other guilt-laden progressives when they are forced to criticize other cultures, no matter how odious many of the practices of these cultures are.

It’s an unhappy position for the modern feminist. On the one hand, at least historically, American feminism has been most critical of American society. On the other hand, it is this modern American society that most closely resembles the feminist ideal.

The past 60 years of well-intentioned Western charity to the Third World has coincided with greater misery for the Third World, as tyrants and a kleptocratic elite loot the gifts of the west. I really wonder if the ancillary notion of respecting Non-Western non-liberal cultures does not fundamentally contradict the prime feminist motive of giving women equal standing in the world’s society

One last thought:

FFFFFFFFRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEYYYYYYAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Gina said...

Counterproductive? Hardly.

FGM and honor killings have been around for so long that I hardly think one could seriously argue that they were created to “protect women from the demeaning effects of modern hyper-sexualized popular culture.” This customs evolved purely to control women’s sexuality, not to do what you claim.

I also think it would be impossible to argue successfully that giving women control over their reproductive lives–ie, giving them access to birth control–has worsened their lot. No matter how you slice it allowing a woman to prevent herself from having 7 to 10 children, if not more, can only be seen as a positive thing.

I’m not talking about Western charity (whatever that is, you’re not specific), I’m talking about giving women the tools, skills, and ability to control their reproductive lives. I totally disagree that this has resulted in more misery for women. Can there be anything be more miserable than having your genitals cut off and sewn up? Can there be anything more miserable than obstetric fistula? Can there be anything more miserable (for most women, that is) than being forced to bear 10 or more children?

X. Trapnel said...

Libertarians inclined to sympathize with Seavey’s view might want to take a look at Roderick Long and Charles Johnson’s well-argued essay [ http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/ ] on why libertarianism and radical feminism can and should be seen as complementary. I think it provides a useful counterweight. It’s long, but I’ll just quote one nice paragraph here:


Libertarian temptations to the contrary notwithstanding, it makes no sense to regard the state as the root of all social evil, for there is at least one social evil that cannot be blamed on the state — and that is the state itself. If no social evil can arise or be sustained except by the state, how does the state arise, and how is it sustained? As libertarians from La Boétie to Rothbard have rightly insisted, since rulers are generally outnumbered by those they rule, the state itself cannot survive except through popular acceptance which the state lacks the power to compel; hence state power is always part of an interlocking system of mutually reinforcing social practices and structures, not all of which are violations of the nonaggression axiom. There is nothing un-libertarian, then, in recognizing the existence of economic and/or cultural forms of oppression which, while they may draw sustenance from the state (and vice versa), are not reducible to state power. One can see statism and patriarchy as mutually reinforcing systems (thus ruling out both the option of fighting statism while leaving patriarchy intact, and the option of fighting patriarchy by means of statism) without being thereby committed to seeing either as a mere epiphenomenon of the other (thus ruling out the option of fighting patriarchy solely indirectly by fighting statism).

X. Trapnel said...

Re: Mr. Bessman and the ’seduction’ stuff:

Given that your experience with ‘fast seduction’ techniques has left you, by your own admission, thoroughly jaded towards half of the species and in the grip of “existential despair,” perhaps you should entertain the possibility that even *if* it is the best method for maximizing the probability of sex with a random stranger on a given night, it is a terrible method for maximizing the genuine pleasures that romantic and sexual interaction can provide? Just a thought. [That was certainly what I took to be the moral of Neil Strauss' entertaining book, 'The Game.']

X. Trapnel said...

Finally, to Todd: statistical indicators of unequal outcomes aren’t conclusive by themselves; what makes them meaningful is that we have very real knowledge about the pervasive social, economic, and cultural mechanisms that distort outcomes in ways harmful to women. (Yes, much of this research is done by feminists. Yes, much of it is in academic disciplines outside economics. It’s still real.) And I think one reason that feminists take dismissals of their critiques as evidence of lack of empathy is that women experience these mechanisms personally, painfully, and often, such that it seems only a lack of empathy could explain a refusal to come see them, or at least to acknowledge the glaring selection bias that distorts male perspectives on these issues. (Example: as a guy, I’ve never been subject to street harassment. I rather like being verbally sexually objectified. It simply does not follow *at all* that I should therefore believe that women who feel threatened or demeaned by pervasive street harassment are either imagining things or being unreasonable.) Obviously I’m only speaking to what I’ve heard from various feminists I’ve read or talked with, but it seems sound.

Natalie said...

Hmmm…. well I think what it boils down to is that guys /are/ different to girls. They just are. There’s no arguing with that, and ergo, ofcourse naturally, they take on different responsibilities. That’s probably why society evolved the way it did.

I don’t think it’s fair that women weren’t allowed any say in things like voting in the past, but to be honest, now girls can do as much as they want to and so can men. If there was something they couldn’t do legally, then [in England or America] they could campaign for it and probably be allowed.

I mean, I’m a girl and I can do pretty much everything I want to – can’t think of anything that I couldn’t do by law that a man can. In fact, if anything I find girls [at least myself, anyway] have a fair few perks. Like not having to do as much manual labour. Then again, there are downsides. You barely ever see a guy get wolf-whistled at or harrassed in the street -_-.

What I mean is… why strive for men and women to be the same? We’re not the same! Equal rights? Yes. Equal everything else? No.

And arguing that men are better than women or vice versa is just ridiculous. “Oh, well women are better at this”, “Yeah, well, men have to put up with that!”. It’s not a competition. ¬_¬. Thinking on a higher level is all well and good, but I have to say, it can just overcomplicate matters.

The only thing that brings out the feminist in me is religion. But then again, I’m an athiest, so for the most part, I just disregard it.

[quote]Women are attracted to confidence, talent, status and looks (in that order). Don’t let anybody tell you different. Wit has particular appeal, as it’s proof of both intelligence and confidence — even self-deprecating humor.

There’s no way I can say this without being an asshole: you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I can guarantee you that I and the other males in the seduction community have put way more thought and research into what it takes to pickup women, and stand to have a much higher probability of knowing how it works. That’s really not surprising, considering that if we aren’t right, we don’t get late. You, on the other hand, can hold any notions you want about how women should be picked up — it will have zero impact on your sex life.

[/quote]

Right, as a girl myself I can tell you that it varies – the only thing that is a complete must-have is fairly good looks and an intrest in you [the girl]. Some guys are attractive because they’re quiet and mysterious and good-looking – even if they’re unpopular and unsuccessful career-wise and shy. Some guys are attractive because they’re open and kind and charismatic and good-looking even if they’re predictable or loud or unruly.

Obviously it needs to be someone who can hold a conversation.

Also, it has to be said that some girls are slags and will just cop off with anyone with a penis when they’re feeling a bit sexually fustrated, so just because you can get laid, doesn’t mean you’re particularly attractive or good at pulling or anything else, if it’s a girl who’s mission that night is to get off with someone it just means that you’re putting it about a bit [or you can spot the girls who are]… or both.

But now I’m off-topic.

Anyway, I just have to say I /love/ *heavy sarcasm* the way that everyone makes underhanded little jibes about everyone elses points of view. To be honest, that’s not exactly neccessary and hardly helps anyone come across as knowing what you’re talking about or rational or anything else, really.

Anyway, empathy and understanding is a very nice quality in a guy and I have to say, as a typical kind of vunerable submissive girl who likes to be looked out for by nice boys [someone standing up for you when a..CONT..

X. Trapnel said...

[Err, awkward wording--I just mean I can't pretend to speak for everyone who claims to be a feminist here, obviously.]

Clara said...

If feminism is egalitarianism, why not call it that?

And if feminists care about the truly oppressed women of the world, why don’t they speak up more often? The author of Reading Lolita in Tehran dedicated her novel not to Barbara Ehrenreich or Gloria Steinem — no, she dedicated it to Paul Wolfowitz — a genuine feminist by the egalitarian definition.

Why not acknowledge that today’s American woman is the wealthiest, healthiest, most liberated female in the history of human civilization? Other countries and cultures would do well to imitate our legal system, which protects individual liberties and allows for radical income mobility.

It seems America’s feminists are too busy trying to prod middle- and upper-class women back into the office after maternity leave to care about, say, brutal mistreatment of human beings around the world.

Brain said...

Gina,

We do not disagree that the various odious practices against women are awful. You will recall that I referred to the practices as barbaric.

We do disagree that certain societies have not regressed in their horrible treatment of women in reaction to Westernizing forces. Some examples: Iran, Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, The fundamentalist insurgencies in Iraq and Algeria, the Islamic politcal movement is secular Turkey. I am not grasping at straws with this point. While much good has been done in some developing countries to advance the well-being of women, it is by no means universal. India has had some success but that is only thanks to over a hundred years of civilizing British rule.

As regards the “charity” I spoke of, one can look to almost all of Sub-Saharan Africa as an example. Living standards have plummetted over the last 40 years as corrupt rulers have siphoned off Western aid in to their own personal bank accounts. Zaire is perhaps the best, and certainly the biggest, example of this.

Perhaps one point that I did not make, and should have, was that military force, or at least the credible threat of it, is often necessary to back up the attempts to improve the lot of women, and to civilize a country in general. Liberalizing forces in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Palestine, Afghanistan and Algeria are need security in the face of reactionary forces. Where they have it, to some degree, liberalizing forces are stronger. The best thing an American can do to improve the lot of women in Afghanistan is kill Taliban.

So yes, horrible things happen to women outside the developed world. Yes, the situation for women is actually getting worse for women in many parts of the world in reaction to Western liberal influences. And when Western nations try to help out, things often gets worse, unless the good intentions are backed up with guns. But guns, sadly, are so patriarchal.

X. Trapnel said...

Clara, I’m not sure you were looking for answers, but here are some possible ones. Obviously others would offer different ones.

1. As somebody famous put it, any moral philosophy worth the name will be egalitarian on some dimension. For libertarians it’s equal liberty rights, for utilitarians it’s that everyone counts equally, &c. It still is very useful to individuate them. The feminist label highlights a concern with the oppression and disadvantages facing women in particular; whether this is just ‘egalitarianism (or libertarianism, or utilitarianism, or Rawlsian liberalism) rightly understood’ is an interesting question, but regardless of the answer, this concern is not universal and hence worth calling attention to.

2. “One cares about X if and only if one speaks up often about X” is not a valid statement. Even if it were, you might be surprised at what you’d find: western feminists were hating on the Taliban long before it became cool. But again, it’s not valid: “speaking up” varies dramatically in efficacy. Sometimes westerners “speaking up” about 3rd world oppression actually gives local credibility to the oppressors; causation in politics and culture is very tricky, and it gets trickier the farther away you get from what you know. Often it is far wiser to devote one’s resources towards local problems where one’s voice is less likely to have negative unanticipated consequences. This is all the more true insofar as there are many wonderfully noncoercive, voluntarist ways to support social change at home; foreign policy, tragically, seems to rely heavily on the less-libertarian violence option.

3. Acknowledging the successes of the past is wise and good, but, A, that shouldn’t blind one to the oppression that persists, and B, it’s not always clear how to translate “be more like us” into something helpful. Again: “be more like us *or else*”, oddly enough, is often *not* helpful.

Natalie said...

..CONT.. fat old bloke is groping you -_-, or being walked home really is appriciated in my books, rather than 'I'm an independant woman - get away!'], I do get intimidated by rowdy drunken gangs of guys. Nice boys stand up for you and help you out and look out for you in my eyes.

I suppose I’m not very feminist at all, really, but I still don’t agree with everything in this post.

This post is more ‘OMG, poor men – being victimised by these big nasty feminists!’ -_-. I think you can disagree with feminism without blaming it for all the crap guys get.

I went out with a bloke a few years older [7 years, I think - me being 16] than me once [actually, about 3 months ago, XD] and he got shouted at for it as if he was some sort of pervert. Actually – I probably liked him more than he did me, but I knew it at least -_-. And it was men on the whole that shouted at him, saying that he should know better than to try it on with me – that I didn;t know what I was getting myself in for.

The bottom line is that whatever point of view there is in life – there are extremes and a lot of the time, those extremes are just ridiculous.

Peter Bessman said...

X.Trapnel:

Given that your experience with ‘fast seduction’ techniques has left you, by your own admission, thoroughly jaded towards half of the species and in the grip of “existential despair,” perhaps you should entertain the possibility that even *if* it is the best method for maximizing the probability of sex with a random stranger on a given night, it is a terrible method for maximizing the genuine pleasures that romantic and sexual interaction can provide?

Indeed, it is a “terrible” method, in my evaluation. But, the problem is that — again, speaking from my experience — it is less terrible than the alternatives. I’ve been around the world and na-yah-yah when it comes to my penis/heart. As I’ve seen it, being a “romantic” means, in practice, being a dangerously undersexed emotional tampon. On the flipside, being a pickup artist means being a well sexed fraud. Although the word “fraud” belies my biases. The seduction folks have a long list of justifications (what I would consider rationalizations) for their techniques, and the ultimate goal is to fundamentally change your personality so that you’re no longer pretending. Still, the whole thing is quite some distance away from how I think the world ought to work.

Fuck it, I’m going bowling.

That was certainly what I took to be the moral of Neil Strauss’ entertaining book, ‘The Game.’

Well, in all likelihood, Neil intended to broaden the potential audience by including that “happy ending.” He’s still remained quite active in seduction. Observe:

http://stylelife.com/

Brain:

But guns, sadly, are so patriarchal.

Speaking of, what’s with the gun-penis connection that feminists yammer on about so much? Or phallic symbols in general? It seems like a phallic symbol is anything that is longer than it is wide. And the gun-penis thing doesn’t make any sense if you’ve been paying attention to the history of firearms. Specifically, the trend has been to smaller guns (from Garands to M4’s) and smaller bullets (from .45’s to 9mm’s). I mean, what’s the phallic implication here? That we men are trying to shrink our cocks?

Shit like this is the reason I have chronic hematuria.

To all bystanders:

The value of what I’m saying is that it is individually verifiable, not that it is proven. If you are male, I encourage you to explore the links I’ve laid out and see if it pans out for you. If you are female, I dunno. I’ll get back to you on that.

Todd Seavey said...

[...] As if my recent blog entry denouncing feminism weren’t controversial enough, two talented comedian-debaters will tackle the question “Does the Beauty Industry Oppress Women?” at the next of our monthly Debates at Lolita Bar. [...]

Brian Graham said...

It looks like it’s science that men’s intelligence is subject to greater variance than women’s — more data points both high and low, with women’s data more centrally located.

It is interesting to note that given two resumes for stock brokers that are identical, people choose men over women. My question is: why wouldn’t they? One would expect stock brokers to be particularly intelligent, above the average intelligence of the population. Given no other difference between two stock brokers besides gender, why wouldn’t gender become the deciding factor? Aren’t the odds stacked in favor of men at the extremes of the intelligence spectrum? Isn’t the “safe bet” going with the man, given that the two choices are otherwise identical?

A more interesting survey would question who investors would select given that the woman was materially better — for example, how much higher does her average ROI need to be for the population to express favor for her? 1%? 2%? 5%?

The same logic would apply to other high-achievement positions such as president.

As for the actual tirade against feminism, I agree that #2 ruins the rest of the points. Let me get this straight: Todd is saying, Feminism is not sufficiently defined to have enough value to assert, but it is sufficiently defined to have enough value to refute — and specifically, with 9 distinct reasons?

As someone above mentioned, this series of strawmen arguments could be directed at almost any group. Maybe the post could just be replaced with, “Welcome to 1700! Warning: Your grand theories about Everything may be refuted by science!”

Borat said...

To follow up on Peter Bessman’s timeless advice — Veeery nice, how much?

Peter Bessman said...

Feminism is not sufficiently defined to have enough value to assert, but it is sufficiently defined to have enough value to refute

No, the problem is that feminism as it is practiced is never promulgated. It’s not that “feminists” want an endless pile of privileges… except that they do. The technique is simple evasiveness.

Feminists say that feminism is about some vague hand-wavey mess of ideology — making it difficult to debate them — but if you ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do, it’s easy to pick out the points that Todd addresses.

Incidentally, this revolutionary notion of paying attention to women’s actions, as opposed to their words, is a large part of what got the ball rolling in the seduction community. I say “revolutionary” with a straight face. Whether it’s cultural or genetic, I don’t know, but men seem to have a strong propensity to take women at their word, what privilege is certainly not extended to other men.

Gina said...

Brain,

First you blame the worsening of the lives of Third World people (and women specifically) on “the meddling of First World feminists,” then on “well-intentioned Western charity.” However, when asked to give examples, you site Iran, Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the fundamentalist insurgencies in Iraq and Algeria, the Islamic political movement in secular Turkey.

What do any of these have to do with First World feminists or Western charity? Certainly one could argue (and I agree) that they are in large part a response to the worldwide dominance of Western culture (which includes freedom for women), but I don’t think you’d suggest that we should thus work to reduce the dominance of our culture.

Besides, “Western charity” and “feminism” are not synonymous terms and, in any event, I was not speaking of Western charity (ie, giving dollars to governments) per se, but of working with grassroots organizations within countries to reduce the incidence of FGC, child marriage, sex-selective abortion, etc… and increase the number of girls who complete school, and increase women’s autonomy. It is a long process, but there have been notable successes (eg, the success of the group Tostan at reducing FGC in Senegal).

Finally, my main point–and I stand by it–was that women in the world at large have not “already won all [their] morally relevant battles,” as Todd put it. Thus, feminist philosophy is still very relevant. And, I would argue, a good amount of feminist awareness is still warranted in the US where Christian culture would like to reverse the outcomes many of these “won battles.”

Kyle said...

D wrote: “On the other, if the guy has no say anyway, why would he give any support [emo, or monetary].

(Emphasis added.)

Now we’re bringing Bright Eyes into this?

Giana v. said...

Connor is my bitch.

DG said...

As someone who has known Todd for about twenty years, I must say that I think that the most interesting part of this dialogue (from a sociology of ideas perspective, anyway) is the ten or fifteen different posts (on both this blog and janegalt.net) that insist that Todd’s ideas can be dismissed because he lacks female companionship. This is not only demonstrably untrue (I can casually recall that Todd has had a reasonable number of girlfriends who struck me as interesting and attractive, as irrelevant as that may be), but also extremely revealing as to the mindset of his critics. I do not think it is typically acceptable in 2007 to say dismissively of a feminist theorist that her views arise from her lack of a social life and that she just needs a good man or a good banging or whatever, and it is surprising and disturbing to see the currency of this false and irrelevant personal attack on Todd in not one but two comments sections. My own opinion is that the reflexive switch from the discussion of Todd’s post to the discussion of Todd’s putative lack of a social life by so many critics is most revealing.

Red Stapler said...

DG:

While I am in no way defending those who say “Oh, he just can’t get a date,” I have ask why that’s any different than saying of a woman, “Oh, she just needs to get laid”?

(I, too, know Todd in real life, so I agree: he is not wanting for female companionship.)

Brain said...

Gina,

Your one example, in Senegal, proves my larger point, that feminism is largely irrelevant outside the context of a civilized society. Senegal is one of the few Sub-Saharan African states that is not a complete basket case. So while women’s lives might be improving there, it is only thanks to the aegis of a strong, stable and humanitarian government. General human rights and living standards are rising there, so it is only natural that women also benefit.

Ari Gold said...

Red Stapler,

Isn’t that what DG just said?

My quibble with Todd is that his personal ad reveals a misogynistic bent. He describes the typical woman and then says he’ll have nothing to do with any of that. Let’s face it: All women are at times flighty, unpredictable, unreasonable, oversensitive and overemotional. It’s a common stereotype because it’s true. Tonight’s episode of “The Office” actually ended along these lines, with Michael Scott using the same adjectives I’ve used to generalize about women.

Neither gender, and certainly no living person, is perfect. Mature love requires coming to terms with this and accepting people despite their flaws and differences from oneself. Maybe loving them *because* of these traits, even. It’s what makes heterosexuality so interesting, and so different from homosexuality, if you ask me. The same behaviors that try one’s patience in one moment can, on another day, seem incredibly endearing and endlessly fascinating.

derek rose said...

Todd has always tended to do very well with the ladies, I daresay.

the derek rose blog » Blog Archive » todd seavey on feminism said...

[...] My friend Todd Seavey is one of the most engaging, hilariousand socially-connected people I know. And he finally has a blog! This denunciation of feminism has gotten a lot of comments. I don’t agree with everything he says — and “feminism” is one of those fuzzy words that can mean a lot of different things to different people — but I wholeheartedly agree with his first point: 1. Making A Priori Moral Assertions About Thoroughly Empirical Questions [...]

Gina said...

Brain,

What, exactly is your definition of “civilized”? Seems much more mushy than “feminist” to me.

Does Saudi Arabia rate? Egypt? Is it only non-Islamic countries?

Brain said...

Gina,

My definition of “civilized” in the context of this discussion has been a closed and provincial one. “Civilized” being any culture very like mine, a liberal democratic society. I can’t think of a significant Islamic country that would fit that description.

cb said...

Perhaps one might fall-back to Todd’s notion that in such societies feminism “has already won all its morally relevant battles”? [ Though policies inspired by such victories/standards may or may not be perfectly effective, that is a separate argument. ]

Peter Bessman said...

Mature love requires coming to terms with this and accepting people despite their flaws and differences from oneself.

You presuppose that “mature love” is something worth having. Not necessarily so.

Maybe a person isn’t in love with the idea of being in love. Perhaps a person doesn’t think a loving partner is needed for children. Possibly, they don’t even want children to begin with.

Note that none of the above applies to me, although Todd explicitly doesn’t want children. My point is that we tend to assume everybody wants the same things we do, and that’s not necessarily the case.

Personally, when it comes to my social life, regardless of gender, I build bonds based on common ground. The closest thing to a “soul mate” that I have is my best friend, with whom I have a ton of common ground. Lesser friends only have a few overlapping interests. And with nearly every woman I’ve ever met, we’ve had only two things in common, one of them being sex, and the other being something random that provided the plausible deniability needed to make the venture psychologically feasible for her (i.e., shared politics, similar musical tastes, sartorial interests, whatever).

Speaking from my own experience, love develops — and by love, I mean that condition where someone else’s happiness is essential to my own — by spending a lot of time with another person, until one day you realize you’ve been through a fair amount together and, consciously or not, decide that you’ve each got each other’s back. This has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with compatibility — that is, common ground. And given how little common ground I tend to have with women, it’s no surprise that I tend not to have loving relationships with them.

So for me, “mature love” is something forced and unnatural, and not anything I want a part of. In essence, it’s a double standard, whereby I cut women slack that I don’t grant to men, giving them a greatly lowered love-threshold. Not only do I not think I am psychologically capable of that sort of thing, I find the notion repulsive. Perhaps I’m more feminist than most feminists, since I don’t believe in making exceptions for anybody, regardless of what’s between their legs.

Now, as it happens, I am very much in love with the idea of finding a woman who I can love and build a family with. If I had to guess, all that would be necessary would be a shared political-philosophical perspective, compatible life goals, and good character. But libertarianism is a sausage fest to an overwhelming degree, and so many women actively disdain the notion of being a “mere” stay-at-home mom. To top it all off, the modern woman seems to have no notion of honesty, reliability, responsibility, integrity, honor, or any of the other bedrock characteristics of good character (good game feminism). Granted, my anecdotal observations should not be taken as gospel, but I can only reasonably base my life on my own experience — and it simply has not been positive.

Still, I haven’t given up. I’ve met some wonderful women in my time, although being so few in number they’re nearly always taken. But I’ve got hope. It may not be much, but it gets me through.

Peter Bessman said...

Jesus christ, my comments are way too fucking long. Lo siento, mis amigos.

Todd Seavey said...

Haters, supporters, and seducers alike might want to read my 5/7/07 blog entry instead of debating further here, by the way, since there (at the end) I describe my new girlfriend, not that that resolves all outstanding issues, of course.

Todd Seavey said...

[...] Despite all the violence and trauma in Girlbomb though — and a few well-earned poignant moments like Janice’s brief glimpse of her vicious, seemingly inhuman, teen-girl attacker’s teddy bear — Janice turned out to be a swell human being as an adult and, as the book does not say but as I’ve seen with my own eyes, she has become a talented stand-up comedian in addition to being a successful writer and volunteering at a shelter for homeless teens. In fact, despite my recent anti-feminist blog entry, I liked Janice’s act the first time I saw it in part because it was overtly feminist, resulting in a couple memorable jokes such as (this may not be verbatim, and my text won’t hold a candle to her delivery): “It bothers me when people call lesbians man-haters — I mean, what do lesbians know about hating men?” and “My feminist demands aren’t that extreme; I just want the simple things — like to be able to eat a banana in public without feeling self-conscious.” [...]

Anonymous girl said...

Now, as it happens, I am very much in love with the idea of finding a woman who I can love and build a family with. If I had to guess, all that would be necessary would be a shared political-philosophical perspective, compatible life goals, and good character. But libertarianism is a sausage fest to an overwhelming degree, and so many women actively disdain the notion of being a “mere” stay-at-home mom. To top it all off, the modern woman seems to have no notion of honesty, reliability, responsibility, integrity, honor, or any of the other bedrock characteristics of good character (good game feminism).

Where did you come from? Are there more like you? I like what I’m hearing.

jack dumas said...

good post overall. To me your most important point is point 2 “Refusing to Define “Feminism” Clearly Enough to Judge Its Value”.

This is important because it means that they can say anything and not be touched. For example feminist can say things like these and know they have nothing to fear because they will be protected by Feminism and other feminists.

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student

“Men are animals. Don’t you think so?” — Ireen von Wachenfeldt, radical feminist leader in Sweden

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” — Sheila Jeffrys

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” — Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” — Andrea Dworkin

“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” — Ti-Grace Atkinson

Any attempts to attribute quotes like these to feminism will be unsuccessful because feminists will say, your only speaking about a few radicals, you cannot generalize, there is a lot of diversity in feminism etc… Then they will turn around and generalize about men with no problem. (Feminism has enough diversity for the late Andrea Dworkin to be a card carrying feminist but not enough diversity for Christina Hoff Sommers)

I like the idea of equality and fairness, but frankly I will never support the feminist that define equality as women’s best interest. (i.e. the one that will say men and women are equal if its is in a women’s best interest, and men and women are different if it is in a woman’s best interest). I have come to call this doctrine The Wimbledon equality principle. I came up with it after reading scores of articles like the one below saying how great it was that women are now paid the same as men for the Wimbledon tennis tournament.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2774876

One thing you might not notice from reading such article is the fact that men have to play a best of 5 while women play best out of 3. Over the length of a tournament it means that men will play many more set then women. It is interesting to note that only 2 things had to be done to make things equal, pay them the same and make them play the same number of set. Of course they only chose to pay the same for less work. Of course the article does not even mention that the top money makers at grand slam tournament like Wimbledon are women already!!! Since they play less sets than men, top women can actually afford to play doubles and make money from that as well, something top men cannot do because of the longer schedules and number of sets they might have to play. From that perspective its easy to see why equality did not mean working the same for women in this area because if they had to play 5 sets like the men and have to give up playing double, many top women players would end up making less money than before.

So to give a concrete example of the type of feminists I don’t support, I don’t support any feminist that believe in the Wimbledon equality principle. You know who you are. If you are a feminist and think that women should also have had to play best of 5 to make equal pay, then, I will listen to you(after I ask why no feminist made tha..CONT..

Todd Seavey said...

[...] Ah, you academics, with all of your words and your ideas.  It’s ironic that Christine, who was one of my defenders in the “Aborting Feminism…” post’s response thread — where I was also faulted for lumping diverse forms of the criticized philosophy together — is now my harshest critic in the first “Atheism…” thread, on the charge of lumping diverse forms of religion together. [...]

jack dumas said...

..CONT..t point in the media and why so many a so publicly supported the Wimbledon equality principle since feminism is supposed to be so diverse) . I have yet to see even one feminist come out against Wimbledon equality principle in the media but I have seen so many for it. The Wimbledon equality principle seem to work for feminist and justifications can are many (based on many articles you can google it for yourself) but for men these justifications would not work.

Jack D

Francis said...

Very very late on this thread, but I just caught up on all the comments. I only want to bring up one point that seemed particularly specious to me: “The overarching point is that you can’t claim to want equal treatment/respect, which entails competing without special favors, and then insist that every time you ‘lose the race,’ as it were, that is sufficient proof that society must have rigged things against you and must strive to change its ways so that you win more.”

My question is, why can’t you do that, exactly? To say “I want equal treatment” can be a way of saying “I want to eventually live in a world where woman and men are treated with equal fairness, but we’re not there yet.” Institutional sexism entailing men in positions of power tending to promote other men to join them in other positions of power is not inherent proof that women aren’t capable of holding those positions; it may just as well be caused by the people holding the reins of power liking the status quo perfectly well. But arguing that maybe women don’t do as well in the corporate rat race as men because they actually don’t deserve to seems a bit like claiming your conclusion as an assumption.

GenderWar Webmaster said...

Hello,

I have created a pro-men website and was wondering if you would consider listing it as an external link on your site. I will be happy to add a reciprocal link back to your site in return. Thankyou for your consideration.

http://www.genderwar.org

Todd Seavey said...

[...] A very special guest-blogger (with whom I’ll be at Niagara Falls over the weekend, so debate politely in our absence) weighs in on the comments of Peter the “seduction community” member who commented so intriguingly in the long thread resulting from my earlier post on feminism (I should say that while I stand by pretty much everything I said in that entry, I acknowledge that this is a vast terrain of never-ending debate, and I emphasized the select areas I felt were being overlooked, often annoyingly so — but, hey, my account of things is arguably far more nuanced than, say, MenAreBetterThanWomen.com): [...]

Todd Seavey said...

And for a reply to Peter Bessman and the seduction community, you might want to check out my aforementioned girlfriend’s post at ToddSeavey.com’s 5/25/2007 entry.

Todd Seavey said...

[...] He was even more urgent in requesting that I not read his antifeminist post until I got to know him a little better. This gave me pause. The discovery that he actually has an “antifeminist post” made me think twice about agreeing to get to know him at all. But he seemed to be a good guy and a thoughtful guy, so I said to myself: what the hell? [...]

Michel.Evanchik.Net » Blog Archive » Good Political Correctness said...

[...] Yet we are all, if we are not psychopaths, aware that some words might offend others.  Even if no offense is intended, we generally try to avoid giving this offense.  Airing our views publicly, in a protected forum, often makes us insensitive to the hurt feelings our speech may produce. My friend Todd Seavey has spoken on the subjects of feminism, child-raising, and dating provocatively online in a manner I would be shocked to see him speak in person-to-person. [...]

Peter Bessman said...

Be sure to watch me argue with myself profusely in this follow on post.

Koli said...

For any who may be interested, check out the recent comment to Todd’s Statement of Principles, where a reader called E6 weighs in with a definition of feminism.

http://toddseavey.com/brief-statement-of-principles/#comment-1295

Todd Seavey said...

[...] That teen-girl-butt-kicker archetype in turn echoes his character Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and she’s as good as any starting point for talking about tensions within “third wave” feminism (for many people, this entry just got a lot less fun fast). Long philosophical story short: feminism is an amorphous thing that may have some good points (despite my ten-point critique of it in a prior entry that generated so many negative comments), but I’m not sure that pretending that girls can routinely beat up boys is its strongest suit. [...]

Eduard Blutig said...

Well, I could spend all day writing responses to each and every point above, but that would probably be really exhausting a really, really long. So there’s just one issue I want to commit myself to for now.

It’s that even if men and women are fundamentally, innately different, they’re also really, really similar. Even in testing that found sex differences in general intelligence, men and women overlap A LOT on a bellcurve (there’s a research article by Jackson and Rushton (I forget the year it was written) that takes the position that women have less intellectual potential than men, but even their graphs and numbers betray a large overlap). What this means is that sex differences in intelligence are actually really worthless to understanding how to better educate either sex. The fact that the discrepancies, like men who are good at writing and women who are good at math, make research on differences useless and even detrimental. If you assume a student is going to be in one category when they are, in fact, predisposed to another, then you’ve just basically looked at someone’s chromosomes or genitalia and doomed them to a life of studying in a way that does not suit or benefit them at all (like forcing lefties to write right-handed, for a loose sort of example). I see less of a threat to social/political policy when examining specific cognitive abilities in men and women. But general intelligence research is both flawed and possesses a lot of potential to do great harm to either or both sexes (particularly women, as this research happens to be conducted predominantly by those with an investment in maleness).

Other than that, I feel like a lot of the statements above fundamentally misunderstand the role feminism plays in my life, though I can’t speak for others. Clearly women are treated as less-than-equal in the public sphere of life, but it’s interesting to observe that men faces similar, complementary challenges in the private realm. Not to mention those who do not fall into either category, male or female.

But perhaps that’s neither here nor there.

Brutal Libertarian Attack Against Feminism - antimisandry.com said...

[...] permalink ToddSeavey.com Blog Archive Aborting Feminism, Adding Links This is the best article I have ever read against Feminism. Not only does it batter Feminism mercilessly, it conclusively proves that Feminist thought is entirely contrary to Libertarianism. Many women and manginas are trying to say that not only can Feminism be mixed with Libertarianism, but Feminism is actually essential to Libertarianism. I also believe this shows that there is no place for women in Libertarianism (except for Ayn Rand, who is dead). Women will try to Feminize any movement they become a part of. Real men hate women [...]