Facts Over Feelings
  • Blog
  • About
  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
  • Home
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

Objectivity  // Reason


​Facts Over Feelings
​
​An Extreme Moderate's Take on Current Events
Blog | About

11/19/2016 81 Comments

I Changed "Men" to "Black People" in an Everyday Feminism Post, And Here's What Happened.

Picture
I think we can all agree that Everyday Feminism is a Joke, and No One Should Ever Read It.  Not only do they give the worst advice to women and other marginalized people on the whole internet (for example, "networking is entitled white people crap"). Not only do they seem to view women as helpless, hopeless victims. But they're also racist and sexist as fuck.

Just take a look at this recent article: Think It's #NotAllMen? These 4 Facts Prove You're Just Plain Wrong.
To help demonstrate why a reasonable, objective person might find this post sickening... I've taken the liberty of changing the word "man" to "black person," "men" to "black people," and "patriarchy" to "black culture." I've left everything else intact. It's not a perfect parallel at every possible point in the article, but overall, the effect is quite disturbing. 

(Don't forget to Like the Banned By Everyday Feminism and Facts Over Feelings facebook pages, and if you can't make it through the whole EF article --it's pretty long -- scroll to the bottom of this page for my commentary.)

***

Dear Well-Meaning black people Who Believe Themselves to Be Safe, Thereby Legitimizing the “Not All black people” Argument,

Let’s start here, even though this should go without saying: We don’t think that all black people are inherently abusive or dangerous. Plenty of black people aren’t.

There are black people that we love very much – black people around whom we feel mostly safe and unthreatened; black people who, in fact, support, respect, and take care of us on familial, platonic, romantic, and sexual levels. Not every black person has violated us individually; for most of us, there are plenty of black people that we trust.

We know what you mean by “not all black people” – because on a basic level, we agree with you.

But the socialization of black people is such that even a good black person – a supportive black person, a respectful black person, a trusted black person – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through black culture.

And as such, we know that even the black people that we love, never mind random black people who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a black person, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

Of course, in most cases, it’s not a conscious thing. We don’t think that most black people move through the world thinking about how they can hurt us. We don’t believe black culture to be a boardroom full of black people posing the question “How can we fuck over gender minorities today?” You would be hard-pressed to find a feminist who actively believes that.

But what makes (yes) all black people potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all black people suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalized violating behaviors that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all black people” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of black culture without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

In truth, the only thing approaching defiance against this kind of violence is to constantly check and question your own learned entitlement – and that of other black people. But you can’t do that if you’re stuck in the space of believing that “not all black people” is a valid argument.
So we wanted to call you in, well-meaning black people, to talk about these four points that you’re missing when you claim “not all black people” as a way to eschew responsibility for black culture.

Because it is all black people, actually. And here’s why.

1. All black people Are Socialized Under (And Benefit From) Black Culture

Here’s the truth: Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word black people, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of black culture. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “black people are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which black people are socialized under black culture, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.”

But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use black people as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

And before you come at us with “But that’s generalizing,” it’s actually not. Because it is true that all black people are socialized under and benefit, to some degree, from black culture.

That is to say, the only thing that we truly associate all black people with is black culture – and that’s hella reasonable, even though it affects black people differently, based on other intersections of identity.

Because here’s how it works, my friends: Living in the United States, every single one of us is socialized under black culture – a system in which black people hold more power than other a/genders, in both everyday and institutionalized ways, therefore systematically disadvantaging anyone who isn’t a black person on the axis of gender. As such, we all (all of us!) grow up to believe, and therefore enact, certain gendered messaging.

We all learn that black people deserve more than anyone else: more money, more resources, more opportunities, more respect, more acknowledgment, more success, more love. We all internalize that. To say that “not all black people” do is absurd – because, quite simply, all people do.

For people who aren’t black people, this means that we’re socialized to feel less-than and to acquiesce to the needs of the black people in our lives. And this doesn’t have to be explicit to be true.

When we find it difficult to say no to our black bosses when we’re asked to take on another project that we don’t have the time for, or to our black partners when they’re asking for emotional labor from us that we’re energetically incapable of, it’s not because we actively think, “Well, Jim is a black person, and as a not-black person, I can’t say no to him.”

It’s because we’ve been taught again and again and again since birth through observation (hey, social learning theory!) that we are not allowed – or will otherwise be punished for – the expression of no. In the meantime, what black people are implicitly picking up on is that every time they ask for something, they’re going to get it (hey, script theory!).

A sense of entitlement isn’t born out of actively believing oneself to be better than anyone else or more deserving of favors and respect. It comes from a discomfort with the social script being broken. And the social script of black culture is one that allows black people to benefit at the disadvantage of everyone else.

And all black people are at least passively complicit in this black culture system that rewards black entitlement. We see it every single day.
The thing about privilege is that it’s often invisible from the inside. It’s hard to see the scale and scope of a system designed to benefit you when it’s as all-encompassing as black culture. And that might lead you to buy into the idea of “not all black people.”

To those on the outside, however, the margins are painfully visible. That’s why black people who really want to aid in leveling the playing field have a responsibility to listen to people who can see the things they can’t.

When gender minorities tell you that you’re harming them, listen. Listen even when you don’t understand. Listen especially when you don’t understand.
​

You can’t see all the ways in which your blackness distorts the fabric of society, but we can. And if you want to help dismantle black culture, you have to make the choice to accept that a thing isn’t less real just because you haven’t seen it – or don’t believe yourself to have experienced it. 
2. All Violations (Big and Small) Are Part of the Same Violent System

Picture this: A well-meaning black person offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into black people, she’s just not interested), the black person feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it.

This well-meaning black person would probably tell you that he’s not owed a woman’s affection; he knows that. But he still feels hurt that he didn’t get it. And that’s fair. Rejection hurts.

But maybe he believes himself to have approached her in a kind enough way that he should have at least gotten to talk to her a bit. After all, black people know that being gentlemanly is the “right” way to “get” women, and therefore expect on some level to be rewarded for that good behavior. But if that sentiment drives some of his disappointment, then that’s a sense of entitlement, however small.

Such a black person isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

As such, when we generalize and say, “Black people feel entitled to our bodies,” this black person would be wrong if he said, “Not all black people are like that – I’m not.” He just doesn’t connect the bitterness of rejection with the broader sense of entitlement he’s learned and internalized. Furthermore, he may not realize how this sense of entitlement is symptomatic of a larger aspect of black culture in which black people are taught that they’re owed romantic and sexual interest from women.

This may seem like a tiny sliver of the black culture pie, but it’s poisoned nonetheless.

Here’s another example: A well-meaning black person, in a conversation with a woman, talks over or black-splains to her without recognizing the behavior. He would probably never intentionally do this. Maybe he’s read Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit and wouldn’t dream of patronizing a woman. He just wants to voice his opinion. And that’s fair, right?

Here’s the thing about opinions, though: They’re actually not all equally valid or worth sharing, no matter what you were taught in grade school. You’re actually not automatically entitled to share your opinion; in fact, your opinion might be pointless or even harmful in some conversations.

This well-meaning black person thinks he’s contributing to a discussion, which he feels entitled to do, because he has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t see the pattern of being talked over, belittled, or dismissed that his female friend experiences daily, to which he’s just contributed.
And why would he? He was just offering his opinion. He wasn’t trying to make her feel small. From his perspective, it’s just a discussion.

How could this – in any way, shape, or form – be similar to something as potentially career-damaging as gender minorities not being invited to share their thoughts in academic or professional settings, or being passed over and not asked to sit on a panel of experts? How could this be similar to an intimate partner believing that his word is the end all, be all, never letting his partner get a word in to express her needs?

We hate “slippery slope” arguments, but that’s exactly what this is – a series of sometimes unintentional microaggressions that enables a larger culture of silencing and marginalizing people other than black people. In that context, all of these violations matter.

Think about it: If you never unlearn the entitlement inherent in offering unsolicited compliments or talking over a woman, will you really stop there?

One black person expects a reward for good behavior, the next for unsolicited “compliments,” the next for street harassment. One black person stays quiet about rape jokes, the next actively makes them, the next learns that if he commits rape, his friends will laugh it off. There’s a very clear line that leads from “benign” entitlement to harm and violence against us.

So sure, maybe “not all black people” street harass or commit sexual violence. But how have your own actions contributed to a culture that allows those things to happen?
Creation Crate

3. The Impact of Your Actions Is More Significant Than the Intent

Cool. You didn’t mean to contribute to the objectification of queer women when you made that lesbian porn joke. Perhaps you even think that you’re so “enlightened” as a “feminist black person” that we should just know that you “didn’t mean it like that.” In fact, maybe you even think that you were being “subversive” when you said it. Okay.

But from a woman’s perspective, that doesn’t matter, because we still have to feel the effects of that mindset every single day – and your bringing that to the foreground has a negative impact on us, no matter what the hell your intent was.

Many black people don’t do hurtful things maliciously. They may be doing them subconsciously, adhering to the ways in which they’ve been taught to behave, as all of us do.

Other black people, of course, are intentionally violent. But the effects of both can be incredibly damaging.

Surely, we’re less likely to harbor resentment towards someone who stepped on our toes accidentally than we are towards someone who stomped on them with malevolence – especially when accountability is had and an apology is issued. But our goddamn toes still hurt.

To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A black person who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

So no matter how well-intentioned you are, you’re not off the hook when you hurt people. And because of everything we’ve discussed above, you are likely (yes, all black people) to hurt and violate. And you need to be willing to take responsibility for that.


4. The Depth of Work to Be Done Is Avoided By Most black people

It’s understandable that we react by distrusting even “safe” black people as a rule when even safe black people can hurt us – because even “safe” black people have been raised in and shaped by black culture that both actively and passively harms us every day. There’s no escaping that, regardless of anyone’s best intentions, so it’s useless to talk about intent as a mitigator of harm.

Add to that the constant stream of disappointment and hurt we feel when self-proclaimed “safe” or “feminist” black people do turn out to harm us – which happens way too often to be treated like an anomaly – and it’s easy to see why women react with distrust or even outright hostility when “safe” black people show up in feminist spaces.

We want to trust that your good intentions will lead to positive actions, we do. But here’s what we need you to understand before that can possibly happen: What you’re asking us to accept from you will take a hell of a lot of work on your part – and we’ve seen over and over again that many self-proclaimed “allies” just aren’t willing to do it.

Being a “safe” black person – hell, being a feminist black person – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

Consider it like this: If you go through life assuming that your harmful behavior is appropriate and most of society provides a positive feedback loop, why would you stop to examine yourself? You’ve never been given any indication that you should.

If you never learn to see your behavior within the context of the broader harm done to gender minorities, what motivation will you have to change? And if you keep passively absorbing toxic attitudes towards male entitlement, will you really move to check bad behavior in other black people?

Because here’s the truth: Even when it’s not conscious, black entitlement is a choice – a choice to be uncritical, a choice to continue to passively benefit. And attempting to fight that entitlement is also a choice ­– one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.

But how many well-meaning black people are truly choosing that path, instead of just insisting that it’s “not all black people” and that they’re “not like that?”

Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting black culture. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate black culture – it enforces it.

Fighting learned black entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other black people. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.
It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

If you really want to stop the “all black people” cycle, that’s the only place to start.

***
Well-meaning black people, if we’re being honest, we love many of you. And those of you whom we don’t know, we want to believe and appreciate. We want to feel safe around you.

We don’t want to fear or distrust black people. We don’t want to have to perform risk assessments on every black person that we meet. Trust us – it’s a miserable life! We’d gladly abandon this work if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to our survival.

But it’s not our job to be vigilant against harmful behaviors that we can’t possibly hope to control, though. Nor is there anything that we alone can do about this. It’s incumbent upon black people to make themselves safer as a group.

And there’s no way that you can do that until you accept that yes, it is all black people – including you – and start working against it.

Love always,

Aaminah and Melissa
​_____________________________________________


That was super racist, huh? Aside from the obvious point -- you shouldn't judge an entire huge group of people based on the actions of a small minority -- I have a few problems with the argument, from an "is it good thinking?" perspective.

1. It's a contradiction -- something good thinkers try to avoid. Why is it racist for someone to hold their purse tighter when they see a black person walking down the street towards them... but it's not sexist for someone to say "yes all men" have the potential to be dangerous and violent?

Why do I get scolded by the regressive left for patting myself on the back for being mindful of racial biases and addressing them... but it's okay for the women in this article to talk about how open-minded they are because they "love" and "feel unthreatened" by many men?

I think social justice warriors are well-aware of this contradiction, so they try to offset it by making up new definitions of words that already have a clear and definite meaning. Racism is not "prejudice + power." Racism is hating or discounting someone based on their skin color.

Sexism is not "prejudice + power." It's hating or discounting someone based on their gender.

2. It speaks in absolutes. Good thinkers avoid thinking in absolutes -- and they use evidence to examine and refine their ideas. Let's go back to this "power" argument. The obvious argument that the regressive left often make to excuse their own bigoted behavior is, "Oh, the power structure!"

Here's the thing, though: if we've ever learned anything from psychology, it's that everything -- your mood, your behavior, your power -- is dynamic, responsive and situational. Context matters. 

You can't just say "power structure," because if I'm a little white lady walking down the street at night and I see three large black men walking my way... who do you think has the power in this situation? 

I'll give you a hint: it doesn't matter that in twenty minutes I'll be back in my white privilege apartment and the black men might maybe have someone call the police on them for "breaking in" to their own house. Because that's in twenty minutes. That's completely irrelevant to the situation that's happening right now. 

3. It absolves women of responsibility. According to Everyday Feminism, it's "gaslighting" to tell someone to get over something, try to ignore something, or try to have a thicker skin. But seriously, lady. If you're going to run out of the room sobbing over a perceived microaggression against you... you need to go work on yourself.

This article completely ignores the fact that women need to change, too.

There is too much evidence for me to accept that "rape culture is a myth." There are clearly very real, man-made problems in the workplace.

But women need to take accountability, too. They need to learn to stop using hedging/mitigating language. They need to learn to accept facts -- even ones they don't like. Like, seeing pictures of famous white men in a chemistry building shouldn't be enough to keep you out of science. Yes, historically, women have been kept out of academia and science, and those who did have the chance to contribute were largely erased. That sucks. I don't like that fact, either. But guess what? It's not 1760 anymore.

​Women need to learn to self-promote and stand up for themselves when they are threatened or slighted. 
Picture
From: The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt Gif All Women Need to See ASAP.
I do like that these authors are (ostensibly) making an effort to "call in," rather than "call out," since most of the evidence supports that call-out culture is toxic. But honestly... I don't think their approach to "calling in" is very wise or well thought-out. It's like, "Here, we're calling you in -- EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION OF VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION! YOU YES YOU! GUILTY!"

So... A for effort. But not so much on the execution. 

Edit: Since publishing the original article and reading some of the comments, I wanted to add two more thoughts:

4) Feminism should be a conversation, not a condemnation. I loved when the original #NotAllMen / #YesAllWomen hashtags went viral last year, because they sparked an interesting conversation. It's worthwhile for men to understand that, perhaps, women can be short-tempered, easily agitated or even just more cautious in certain situations because of their experiences. It's worthwhile for women to understand that men may be baffled by this behavior, because they have no ill intentions, no ides what you're so afraid of. 

It's also worthwhile to note that #YesAllWomen may have experienced some form of discrimination or harassment in their lifetime, but it makes no sense to say that #YesAllMen are responsible. Say there's some gross dude hanging around the corner store. He makes some gross comment to every woman who walks down the street -- meaning that #YesAllWomen who walked down that street were harassed, even though #NotAllMen harassed, or even knew harassment was happening.

There are some legitimate conversations we could be having about feminism. Feminism could be a very respectable cause. But when Everyday Feminism publishes something like this (or when Jezebel mocks the death of Mike Pence's dog, or when Feministing demands that men should "consciously and actively accommodate women" at all times) they are actively hurting their cause.

Let's not let extremists highjack our discourse. #YesAllMen have a right to be offended by these bullshit articles... but #NotAllFeminists are like this. #NotAllFeminists are "FemiNazis" -- most just want equality, and would be just as happy to be called an equalist.  


What did you think about this post? Let me know in the comments!
Little Ms. Crate -- A fun STEM subscription for girls!
81 Comments
Moliere Musa
11/23/2016 06:46:23 am

I love this article, it is so refreshing to read feminism called out for what it is - a hate-filled ideology. I'll be reading more and more. I hope to engage in discussion.

Reply
Magnus
11/23/2016 07:57:26 am

Ironical comment, since the author describes herself as a feminist.
You're referring to the "everyday feminists" who wrote the cited, but mangled article. I agree that yes, their version of feminism seems hateful. I also think it is not at all representative of feminism, but it is a type of feminism that's getting a lot of internet attention.

Anyway, I'm just going to imagine feminism means "equal rights and opportunities for everyone", which is a popular definition. In that case, being a feminist sounds a lot like being a decent person.
I'm a feminist. I hope.

Reply
David Rogers
11/23/2016 08:51:02 am

"I'm just going to imagine feminism means "equal rights and opportunities for everyone"

Then why use the exclusive term "feminism" to reference that concept. That term defines an inclusive concept with an implied superiority of one sex over another. That sex gets to label the concept.

Jamie
11/23/2016 06:37:57 pm

Ignore the dictionary, look to the actual world. How do feminists behave in the world? Are they about 'equal rights and opportunities for everyone'? Seriously no one should be buying that!

Karen Straughan link
11/24/2016 05:44:55 am

We've changed our cultural lexicon in dozens of ways, largely due to feminists. Chairman, fireman, policeman? All gender neutral now, because the gendering of these words allegedly makes women feel unwelcome or excluded from certain areas of life. Calling a firefighter a fireman discourages women from aspiring to those types of roles, and prevents others from seeing women as suited for them.

Heck, in Canada, at the behest of "intersectional" feminists and other activists, we're considering changing "mother and father" to "birth parent" and "second parent" on birth certificates, because the gendered language of mothers and fathers excludes same-sex couples and transpeople.

But "feminism" is synonymous with equality, fairness, liberation and justice, while "patriarchy" is synonymous with inequality, unfairness, oppression and injustice. And that kind of language has no implications at all, certainly not in the sense that it should be changed the way we changed chairman to chair, councilman to councillor, fireman to firefighter.

Think about that.

Feminism, this movement so focussed on the impact of language on how people perceive themselves and others, named everything they claim is good after women, and everything they suggest is bad after men. And if you suggest to them that this is sexist, they hand-wave and tell you to read the dictionary.

Malcolm N
11/24/2016 06:08:40 am

I would make the point to all, that feminism that was attempting to promote equality has passed on. You can talk about the definition, but real equality is the equality of opportunity. If you can gain the same access to employment, you have equality. If you expect day care workers to make the same pay as a truck driver especially long haul, you simply want your cake and to eat it too, (truckers make money due to isolation, and thus few people wanting the job), note this is a frequent comparator. If you think air conditioning is sexist, you miss the notion that men have less flexibility in clothing in most office environments. We are not allowed even dressy shorts, when women go to skirts. You can campaign for more flexibility for men, in what is deemed appropriate, but otherwise again you want you cake and eat it too.

Mike
11/25/2016 10:35:42 am

Feminists often say 'Yes but feminism aims to give equality to everyone', but their behaviours don't show this at all. Their claim is just a get out clause to not be accused of sexism.

Call yourself an equalist if you truly believe in equality for everyone. Don't like to yourself and others, and pretend feminism supports equality for everyone... it just doesn't.

IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses."
11/26/2016 10:40:53 am

Feminism has ALWAYS been about special rules for women.

At its heart, feminism isn't a fight with men... It's a battle between ugly chicks and beautiful chicks. This is obvious when you look at the vast majority of women on each side. The beautiful women know the current system favors THEM above all others, then attractive men, then all other women, with unattractive men getting BY FAR the shortest shrift.

Mushin
11/27/2016 04:58:12 am

I love feminists, the real ones that you just mentioned. Not the neo feminazi man haters that want to rule the world that have been getting all the attention. I almost never see any real feminists anymore. I mean i don't look for them but i dont look for these versions either they just pop up. Anyway real feminists a brave heros to the world who fought for equality and are still fighting anything thats not equal. We should all be feminists even us guys. Equality belongs to everyone regardless of anything.

Joe
1/15/2017 10:49:59 am

"Heck, in Canada, at the behest of "intersectional" feminists and other activists, we're considering changing "mother and father" to "birth parent" and "second parent" on birth certificates, because the gendered language of mothers and fathers excludes same-sex couples and transpeople. "

So how do you plan to decide which parent will be institutionally marginalized by being defined as the "second parent", when it clearly implies "second class parent", or "parent who is secondary"?

If you want to change language to be more equitable and exclusive, you need to put a bit more thought into the changes you suggest, so you are not just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Neroke
1/18/2017 10:33:51 am

Hey Mushin you say it's just a few bad apples huh

EXPLAIN THIS THEN!
https://theredpillnation.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/thirty-minutes-of-misandry/

Damn there goes your just a few bad apples excuse, you can stop with the BS anytime now

John Wickham
11/24/2016 07:07:21 am

I think this article was fantastic and it really helped to illustrate and articulate why it was, that I always had an upset feeling from these type of woman that would approach me with the sort of lecture of being guilty by association of my gender identity, and how I needing to learn to check my white male privilage and so forth. I had always sensed something very contradictory about it and it's incredibly helpful to find an article where it's layed out so clearly. I can't thank you enough

Reply
Gary trieste
1/18/2017 08:26:53 am

You are guilty by original sin of all men.
I believe that sin is, that men are physically stronger than women, and all interactions that flow from that fact.

TJ Thomas
11/25/2016 04:18:12 pm

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Sorry reposting on Salon and Huffing Post.

Reply
ADasau
11/23/2016 08:48:57 am

Another fun game you can play with feminist articles is replacing "whites people" or "men" with "Jews" and if it looks like something straight out of mein kampf, the writer is probably an asshole. Especially considering the #killallmen that goes around every little while. Wir müssen der Männer ausrotten

Reply
Cavin
11/23/2016 02:42:25 pm

This article demonstrates exactly why feminism is so evil. They are 100% blind to their own entitlement, and their own privilege. We should have equal rights for everyone... which is exactly why feminism is wrong.

Reply
Rich
11/23/2016 05:24:39 pm

Cavin, you are right in one theory, everyone should have equal rights but, White Males will not let that happen. White males are the ones suppressing everyone but themselves from equal rights. The United States government has been white male controlled since the the start of the United States, that is why White Males, and White Men decide who gets equal rights. States run by White Males did not pass the equal rights amendment in 1972 and the same white men have not passed it since. (http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/). You state "We should have equal rights for everyone...which is exactly why feminism is wrong" your statement is an oxymoron. One can not say we should have equal rights for everyone, then say, which is exactly why feminism is wrong. Your stating we should all have equal rights but, women. What do you really want equal rights for all, or equal rights for all but, when, blacks, etc.

Reply
Jamie
11/23/2016 06:35:47 pm

And yet, in this world 'controlled by white males', feminists run our govts, our academic institutions, our media. You can effectively call someone a misogynist and it has weight, and if you call someone a misandrist it doesn't. Women control, by population, over half of the voting, control 80% of the worlds spending money, and have more rights when it comes to reproductive rights, family rights, they get half the prison time for an identical crime. Women under 30 are more educated, and higher paid than men, and men are almost all of work related deaths, and nearly all of suicides. This is the world where 'white men' are in power, a world where every systemic difference favours women? If white men were in power, feminism wouldn't exist, you couldn't call anyone a sexist and have it have weight, and all the laws would favour men. What you say, just makes absolutely zero sense. It just does not bear out at all given any degree of analysis. And it, like the above article, reads a little like something the KKK would produce, if you substituted the words.

RobDog
11/23/2016 08:29:11 pm

"White males" invented the very morality which you are using to condemn them. White males are the only group in history who can be compelled by a vapid and transparent guilt trip auch as yours, to cede power simply due to a sense that they have not used the power they've earned, fairly and justly *enough* with respect to other groups. They are the only geoup who would willingly subjugate themselves since no other group has been able to subjugate them without their consent.

Jim
11/24/2016 01:15:16 am

Rich, the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated because women realized that it would cause them to lose their privileged position. Back then, many states had laws explicitly requiring husbands to provide for their wives, and also saying that mothers would receive the children (and thus child support payments) in case of divorce. There was also the issue of the draft.

Ironically, an amendment that was initially supported by many women was defeated because women did not want to accept true equality. Feminists want equality when it suits them, but they don't want to give up their privileges.

Anonymous
11/24/2016 02:45:47 am

If "The United States government has been white male controlled since the the start of the United States" and equal rights exist and are guaranteed by legislation from the government... how exactly do you reconcile those two facts?

Kathy link
11/24/2016 04:55:43 am

And do you know why those "white men" didn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Because after those "white men" had ratified it in almost all the number of states needed to pass it, a group of WOMEN, led by the great Phyllis Schafly, undid the entire process in one of the most incredible political upsets in modern American history. If you want to read about an incredible grassroots activist, read:
https://www.amazon.ca/Phyllis-Schlafly-Grassroots-Conservatism-Crusade/dp/0691136246/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479992085&sr=1-3&keywords=Phyllis+Schlafly

PS: Equality is a stupid goal. People aren't really equal. And as for "rights" a lot of things people like you think of as "rights" (marriage, freedom from feeling offended) aren't rights.

Karen Straughan
11/24/2016 06:05:45 am

"States run by White Males did not pass the equal rights amendment in 1972 and the same white men have not passed it since. (http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/)."

The person who almost single-handedly killed the ERA was a woman, Rich. Phyllis Schlafly. And she did it by successfully and convincingly arguing that the ERA would give women no rights they didn't already have under the law, but would take away rights, privileges and exemptions they enjoyed under the law--the then still legal privilege of a husband's financial support, the legal exemption women enjoyed in terms of marital debts, dower rights, the right to never be drafted, etc.

The ERA had gained enough momentum to pass, until several states changed their minds due to Schlafly's extremely effective campaign. Those white males who are only interested in suppressing everyone else somehow didn't want to take rights away from women, rights that men did not have, which the ERA would have done.

I will grant you, Schlafly was a conservative woman, and many hard core feminist leaders disagreed with her. But the amendment was defeated NOT because "white males" wanted to suppress women, but because "white men" wanted women to keep their by then equal legal rights, without having to be burdened with equal obligation to the state, and equal responsibilities.

As an anti-feminist and men's advocate, I would LOVE to see the ERA pass. 90% of men's rights issues would be ameliorated by it: parental rights, bodily autonomy/genital integrity, the sentencing gap another commenter mentioned, equal right to access domestic violence services and shelters, the ungendering of legislation on sexual assault and domestic violence, the right to not be forced into the obligations of parenthood, etc.

And yet those "white males" in charge of everything just can't be convinced. Because they're totally only looking out for men's interests, and want to suppress women. :/

Malcolm N
11/24/2016 06:36:41 am

Note the courts already recognized man - to mean person. The equal rights amendment, was in all reality written to ensure that in all places, women would get the rights without the obligations of men, by avoiding this reading, and achieving through direct language. Note that by saying "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." We are carefully permitting the notion that there may be differing obligations. However by sticking with the idea that man should be read to mean person, it also means that all have the same rights and obligations. I think the objection to a true equal rights amendment - to the effect of:"all persons of the age of majority, within the US, will be regarded as having the same duties, obligations and rights, regardless of gender, race, creed, color of religion" would be opposed mostly by "feminist" women, and men concerned with protecting women, not most men nor women who are today concerned with the exclusion of men from protection in DV or their demonisation on campus. The idea of teaching all women not to abuse children - for instance would be met with outrage. The simple expanding of consent courses to all students, not just men being taught not to rape, would also be resisted even though when we expand sexual assault beyond rape (a definition essentially designed to exclude the normal forms by women as it is penetration, and was in fact legally essentially impossible for a woman to rape until 2013 or so in the US) young women are as likely to do so as young men. However, setting up a course to teach all women, to not pressure men into sex, to not force themselves on men, would be deemed offensive beyond measure, because while women have equal rights, today, they also have special protections from discrimination, and group accusation that men simply do not have. The ERA was defeated mostly by women, who saw how transparent it was and thus how dangerous it was in the long run. Today, you can kid yourself, but the pursuit of equality under the name of feminism has largely degraded into a hate movement. Christina Hoff Summers is correct in saying the name was stolen, but well, a stolen, it is no longer under control of those who seek real equality, that of opportunity - in our society, and is being instead used by those who seek equality of outcome, only in the areas they do less well, and that largely because of choice. They want the benefits of the higher pay, without suffering the hours of work, the social isolation, the hazard, the loss of flexibility and the lack of emotional rewards. Teaching pays poorly in most places, because it is perceived to be emotionally rewarding. The Humane society could easily attract workers below minimum wage, because so many want to feel good about their jobs.

tourn
11/24/2016 09:26:26 pm

I'm sorry but are you sure you know what the term oxymoron means? If you were to say I believe in equal rights for all so I became a feminist that would be an oxymoron. Feminism is a specifically female centric movement which means that your contradicting the first statement, I believe in equal right for all, creating an oxymoron. Saying that feminism is wrong because the goal should be equal rights for all which is clearly what Cavin was expressing is the antithesis of an oxymoron. To put it in another way to illustrate the point and maybe get a laugh out of the examples absurdity. Given your usage of oxymoron you could say the phrase: I believe in the Axis Powers of Germany Japan and Italy but Nazism is wrong; is an oxymoron. It's not a contradiction to be against the idea of Nazi purism and still support the Axis coalition. It's not it just means that one aspect is wrong. It was the same on the other side. Every Allied nation was opposed to communism but we sure as hell joined forces with Russia. Still not an oxymoron. It's the same with Feminism the principle idea of equality isn't wrong but the methodology of only working toward female equality is. I mean imagine if Feminism totally won out and your a black woman. Your still a minority do you get less equality than other white women cause your black? If you believe all people should be equal regardless of race creed gender etc then you support Equalism not Feminism.

Richard Epperley
1/14/2017 08:20:35 pm

I find it ironic that yoi mention the ERA and even put a link. You are either real stupid or real young. The ERA was defeated by feminists.please look it up. Feminism is about special privelages and not about egalitarianism. Please do your ignornt ass a favor and read up on how and by whom the ERA was defeated.

Jamie
11/23/2016 03:07:26 pm

Now the author just needs to do the same thing with 99.9% of feminist writing/theory, read between the lines are realize they are in a paranoic supremist hate group, where victimhood is merely an expedient guise.

Reply
Eva (The Author) link
11/24/2016 10:08:53 am

It's coming! There is a lot of stuff about "feminism" right now that I find downright degrading and condescending. For example, the idea that we need to change the scientific method to include "alternative sciences," like folklore, to make science more appealing to women...

Reply
Megatrond
11/23/2016 08:38:02 pm

It is interesting to me that this blog is called "Facts over Feelings" when pathos is the sole weapon taken up by the author. By attempting to coalesce men - as a demographic - with dark skinned people he is trying to juxtapose a gender that has in (to my knowledge) every civilization throughout history been vastly over represented in positions of power, with a demographic that has been subjugated and persecuted for centuries.

There is no correlation.

Now, another misconception: Feminists don't want to send men to Auschwitz. There are loud and obnoxious assholes in every group and the entire movement cannot be held accountable for the statements of a few loudmouths. It's just like in the London Riots, most are fighting for their cause and then a few pillock will loot and throw molotovs for shits and giggles. Neither are they all Uggs-wearing and Latte-slurping urban rich girls complaining over neckbeards and creepers on the bus, (although their feelings are also need and need to be dealt with in an adult manner.)

Feminists want equal rights for men and women BUT (ah, here it comes, you think, now he'll reveal himself as a beta cuck SJW and women all want to reign as divine goddess-empresses over everyone,) this does entail the acceptance that women have traditionally been held back and more work needs done on their behalf to ensure that society can be equal. This is called equity - google it, there are some really good illustrations - and means that women will recieve greater attention and rights for a short period.

"Oh no!" You might think, "that's exactly what we've been saying! Then they'll assume leadership, institute matriarchy and make us all wear preggo-bellies for life!"

Yes! Just like black people, workers unions, homosexuals and other groups that have seen improvements of rights in the later decades have since become our overlords.
To quote a Tumbrl-post: You don't get a Blue Shell in Mario Kart when you're in first place.

Are there social injustices towards men? Yes! Certainly. I see several of them listed above, although I'd fact check some of those numbers. (I don't believe women "control 80% of the worlds spending money," unless the author of that comment have views on marriage from the 1950's.) However, the fact that these exist does not disprove that society by and large has been skewed horribly in favour of people with dangly bits between their legs. In fact it bolsters that notion. Why would prison time be harder for men? Why do they have fewer family rights? Why suicides?

It is because we've lived in societies where it was expected of a man to go to work, earn his fare, work hard and fucking deal with it. This is not feasible or sustainable, old views on masculinity are dying out for a reason. MANLY MEN BECOME MENTALLY ILL BECAUSE THEY BOTTLE IT ALL UP!
(Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161121130641.htm )

Luckily there are groups that fight to change that. They are called feminists.
(Source: http://www.global-briefing.org/2015/01/feminism-is-for-men-too/)

So please, fellow dudebros. Lay down your arms. We are winning this fight, together, hand in hand. (And it doesn't even matter which hand has nailpolish on any more!)

-Megatrond

PS: Oh, and another note on the name: Clever way of indirectly discrediting women for being emotional and whiny. Clearly, only a just, rational, factual, rigid, veiny and... potent... analyst could have the mental faculties to accurately perceive what would surmount to equality in our society.

Feminist and fly as fuck.

Reply
Anonymous
11/24/2016 01:31:06 am

>Saying you are in support of equality
>women will recieve greater attention and rights
Pick one

Reply
Aleator
11/24/2016 02:03:54 am

You seem to have missed the part about "women having been traditionally held back". Unless you're one of those "but women were historically more advantaged" people.

Anonymous
11/24/2016 02:27:50 am

The problem with the statement "women having been traditionally held back" is the "traditionally" part. Just because something was a certain way in the past does not mean it is happening now. In-fact considering the fact that more women are graduating university and women do indeed get into the highest paying jobs - albeit at a somewhat lower rate then men - proves the fact that there is not systemic sexual discrimination in our world today. Instead I would attribute those differences to the statistically different priorities that men and women possess and the decisions they make because of such differences.

Anonymous
11/24/2016 02:31:07 am

If a women is being "held back" (I take this to mean being paid less than her male counterparts for the sole reason of her genitalia) then she should absolutely sue her employer. She would win hands down. In part it is due to the lack of any such cases that I do not believe that women are "held back" in our modern society.

Anonymous
11/24/2016 02:43:58 am

The issue with equity (wherein I shall henceforth refer to as equality of outcome) in contrast to equality of opportunity is that you penalize people who realize their ambitions and reward people for nothing. It is antithetical to a meritocracy, as those are based on the person who is best for the job getting said job. To be logically consistent you must apply equality of outcome to jobs that have been traditionally affiliated with either gender. What this means is that you must fire millions of female healthcare workers and teachers and force them to work in jobs such as coal mining and sewage treatment, while relocating those men to the healthcare and teaching jobs. This is obviously not desirable. Additionally, those people will not work in those jobs unless you force them to do so, thereby removing their self-determination.

Magnus
11/24/2016 01:47:58 am

I mostly agree with you, but there are a few points that annoy me.

Point one: As far as I can tell, this is not an attack on feminism or feminists in general. The author is merely pointing out that "everyday feminism" in particular sounds hateful towards men, and that if "men" were replaced with something else, it would sound extremely hateful and unacceptable. The comments are a different matter.

Point two: It is true that we white dudes are in a position to tolerate - even laugh about - universal accusations, more than, say black people. It is also true that it makes us less cooperative and/or less than happy. It should not be acceptable to talk about any one that way.

Point three: You yourself are making heavy use of pathos in your comment, and I can't help but feel you are talking down at the reader when you so explicitly points out that “here is the place where you will brand me and SJW”, or “Now you might think...”
It makes me feel stupid. Who do you talk to like that, except someone thicker than a foot of lard?

Reply
Eva (The Author) link
11/24/2016 10:07:13 am

Good point -- thanks! I just added an edit to reflect that, #YesAllMen have a right to be offended by articles like this. But #NotAllFeminists are like that.

"There are some legitimate conversations we could be having about feminism. Feminism could be a very respectable cause. But when Everyday Feminism publishes something like this (or when Jezebel mocks the death of Mike Pence's dog, or when Feministing demands that men should "consciously and actively accommodate women" at all times) they are actively hurting their cause.

Let's not let extremists highjack our discourse. #YesAllMen have a right to be offended by these bullshit articles... but #NotAllFeminists are like this. #NotAllFeminists are "FemiNazis" -- most just want equality, and would be just as happy to be called an equalist."

Anonymous
11/24/2016 10:39:03 pm

> Feminists don't want to send men to Auschwitz. There are loud and obnoxious assholes in every group and the entire movement cannot be held accountable for the statements of a few loudmouths.

Meanwhile, Julie Bindel states, "It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back."

Just because radical feminists are a minority doesn't absolve feminism of the any and all responsibility for them. It's like saying Hitler's Nazi party is made of a minority in comparison to the German military population, so the German military isn't responsible for what they do, ex. concentration camps. Or perhaps because concentration camps for Japanese were set up by a minority of people, so it doesn't matter. Your statement is fallacious.

Reply
nim
11/24/2016 10:40:18 pm

> this does entail the acceptance that women have traditionally been held back and more work needs done on their behalf to ensure that society can be equal.
Even if the basis of your argument was true (which it is not) why would they need work done on their behalf ? I assume you say the same thing for black people, that they deserve special treatments because they've been oppressed for so long even though nobody alive today was ever a slave (legally) and even though slave owners were mostly black people ?

People like you are the reason the world is so messed up, you're the reason young males don't even want a relationship anymore.

Thanks to the threat of multiculturalism and all countries falling back on their conservative governments, real men will hopefully fix your mess in the coming decades. We're gonna getting rid of feminism, multiculturalism and while were at it I hope we do get rid of gay marriage and contraception.

Reply
Neroke
1/18/2017 10:31:23 am

Then EXPLAIN THIS!

https://theredpillnation.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/thirty-minutes-of-misandry/

Reply
Christine Tuhy link
11/24/2016 09:57:21 am

http://www.segmentsofself.com/blog/notallmen

Reply
Robert Fisher
11/26/2016 02:20:20 am

This article is fascinating as the first section really makes the authors point (I define as feminist so definitely think "not all men" a lot! However once it moves into explaining how our culture is skewed towards men and to benefit men, then changing it to a race discussion actually serves to highlight the original writers point. It is true that we live in a society which benefits men at every opportunity, men hate to have this pointed out because deep down they don't want to lose their privilege. Women do have a valid reason to fear men in a bar having been harassed or made to feel in fear by such a strange man a dozen times before. Usually when you say talk about culture, the power relationship between men and women is so ingrained that it is like trying to point out the colour of the air, people simply can't see it. By changing it to a discussionon race you realise that this IS something that is so obviously unacceptable and regularly obvious in day to day life (and if you cannot see how you've ever been rewarded by white privilege even if you can't see male privilege you're either completely blind or have never travelled!). Rather than railing against people who point out inequality in society we need to get behind it and do something about it, why be a dinosaur on the wrong side of progress? Yes making society equal will take away all those subtle little benefits men take for granted every day but it'll also free the next generation from being forced into a certain mold just because of their gender, having to be macho, proving themselves in a fight, being hugely at risk of male violence themselves, being a young man can be an angry scary place to be. I want my daughters and son to grow up completely free of this bullshit, I don't want men cat calling and groping my girls (I literally don't know a single woman who hasn't had this multiple times as a teenager and young woman), or not listening to them or passing them over for promotion and I don't want my boys feeling like they have to "fit in with the lads" or "man up" or feel pressurised to behave in anyway that isn't completely comfortable to them. I know it isn't all men because I'm certainly not one of them but to argue that it isn't engrained into our culture is beyond ridiculous, willful blindness and who willingly chooses to be blind?!

Reply
Justin
11/26/2016 07:49:30 pm

If you read the commentary by the author you'll see this post nor this site is anti-feminist. It is just against extremism. The author is a woman and she is very much pro moderate feminism. The perspective she and many other moderates like myself have is extreme feminism, just like extreme views on either side of the political spectrum hurt society and even their own causes more than they help. #NotAllMen #YesAllWomen was an attempt to get men to understand that feminists don't hate men as a whole, they just have an issue with a small percentage men that assault women. For Everyday Feminism to say #YesAllMen and tell men they are all bad and all violent because of the patriarchy yada yada makes men think feminists are crazy and don't need to be listened to. In my opinion, by publishing the original article Everyday Feminism is hurting women and feminism in general. There are plenty of examples of them publishing ridiculous stuff like this, for example a woman who blamed "the patriarchy" for her not having orgasms and not at all mentioning biological differences that might account for this (http://www.thehappytalent.com/blog/-the-orgasm-gap-is-real-but-dont-blame-it-on-the-patriarchy). They've recently published some very unscientific stuff, and stuff that is even opposed to science and the scientific method (http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/11/scientific-objectivity-myth/). Anyhow, that is what this post and this blog is against, not feminism but specifically extremist views and views not based on research like many of those published on Everyday Feminism.

Reply
Jeremy
11/26/2016 07:49:46 am

I'd argue that you'd have been fairer to replace "men" with "white people". Considering the argument from feminists is that women are oppressed by men, whereas when you talk about race, it is white people that are accused of being oppressive.

Although as men we may feel we're being attacked by feminism sometimes, it skews it in an unfair way to pretend we as a group are equivalent to the black community.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:48:06 pm

It's not a perfect parallel. The point was to demonstrate that when you apply their "social justice" logic in any other direction, it quickly turns into social INjustice.

And for what it's worth, it wouldn't surprise me at ALL if the hashtag #YesAllWhitePeople already existed. I mean, I've seen #YesAllWhiteFeminists several times. So...

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2017 03:51:08 pm

The problem there is that white people are left approved punching bags, so some people accept that it's okay to treat them like trash. You HAVE to replace "men" with something that gets people clutching their pearls because otherwise tons of ignorant racists will just agree with the new text since it's not considered taboo. Racist or sexist bullshit has no place in the world, no matter what

Reply
Nick
11/26/2016 11:25:23 am

Might help to change "gender" or references thereto to "race". Otherwise, a flawless demonstration of the logical fallacy that is feminism! Thank you for an excellent article.

Reply
Kyle
11/26/2016 02:48:36 pm

Simple demonstration. Clarity provided for anyone who hasn't already seen the point being made.

Reply
Gary
11/26/2016 09:28:14 pm

But you ARE less than us and white people SHOULD acquiesce to our needs, lol...

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2017 03:51:49 pm

Found the racist

Reply
Edmund
11/27/2016 03:43:10 pm

Funny, this. I read an article about the social structures of howler monkeys and replaced "howler monkeys" with "black people" and that sounded racist, too. Biologists are racists!!

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:45:29 pm

You jest... but I know a lot of biologists and geneticists who are afraid to discuss their knowledge, or to embark on certain kinds of research. Basically, anything related to race, intelligence, and environmental chemicals/hormones that may influence sexuality and trans-identities. Which is terrifying. Scientists should NOT be afraid to forward reasonable (though cautiously worded) and testable hypotheses.

Reply
AK
8/9/2017 10:30:07 pm

> geneticists
Holy shit. Your comment has no value.

Fiona
11/28/2016 03:18:01 pm

You should remove the bold; it would make it read better.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:40:56 pm

Thanks for the feedback! I wasn't sure the best way to handle this post. I wanted to make sure it was clear which parts I changed and which were part of the original Everyday Feminism article -- the stuff they say is crazy enough that I wanted to make sure people knew it wasn't satire, and I didn't make it up.

Reply
Sho
12/17/2016 10:38:47 am

Try replacing "men" with "white people". It doesn't read so strangely. The difference is that women and black people have historically been treated as second class people, and, to different extents, still are today.

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2017 03:54:22 pm

Racism is racism, sexism is sexism. If it sounds bad to you one way but not the other, congratualtions! You're a racist!

Reply
JacksonTeal
12/19/2016 08:33:12 pm

Go here: https://books.google.com/ngrams
Type in: sexism, sexist, misogynist, patriarch, patriarchy

Then go here: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/
Type in the same words, some of them didn't even exist until modern times - talk about changing the culture...

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:38:46 pm

The social justice lingo changes so quickly, I'm learning about 5 new words per week just by following their ramblings. Good think I studied Latin and Greek in high school :P

I do think that progress is important. But there's a HUGE difference between "progressive" and "regressive". #YesAllMen is definitely hysterical and regressive.

Reply
JacksonTeal
12/19/2016 08:49:39 pm

A couple of search terms I forgot to include: end times, apocalypse

Reply
Amy
1/2/2017 04:30:16 am

I disagree with the premise that you can replace a privileged group with a marginalised one and expect the same arguments to work as they clearly won't, very poor logic here.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:36:21 pm

Pretty sure it says very clearly in the post that this isn't a perfect parallel -- in particular, the part about a board room full of black people. However, if you're unable to see the hypocrisy and bigotry in the original #YesAllMen post, you've been brainwashed.

Regressives always "disagree" that you can use the logic they use in one situation in any other one. For example, the Hypatia controversy. Rebecca Tuvel basically did the exact same thing I did here, except using transgender logic to talk about transracialism.

Reply
Anonymous
11/14/2017 03:55:45 pm

So you're suggesting that people should not be equal and that some should be treated differently than others? Found the racist

Reply
Broccoli B. Anthony link
1/13/2017 08:47:38 am

A lot of people here are saying that if feminism is all about equal rights, then feminism should be discarded and all feminists become equalists. They say that feminism has become overburdened with extremists, that men's issues are not being addressed by feminists and that they don't feel welcomed in the feminist circles. Here's the thing. Ideally, equalism=feminism. Someone interested in empowering people of both genders to shoot for their dreams, get the health care they need free of judgement, and be appraised fairly by the courts and media could identify as an equalist or a feminist. Historically speaking, this person would be called a feminist. Yes, even if they were a man. The feminist movement has always had male support, and it has always had male and female opposition (thank you for bringing up Phyllis Schlafly), and the repercussions of the feminist movement have benefitted both males and females. This is one reason why, although I believe equalists are on the whole good people, I will always identify as feminist. Makes no sense to throw away that history. The other reason why I identify as feminist instead of equalist is that this is not an ideal world. There will be extremists in all political movements, and they will always be terrifying. In the early 1900s, radical suffragettes blew up mailboxes and lobbed bricks around. Today, extreme feminists write political pieces like the one above. But I could see myself having a conversation with the person who wrote this piece. I could see them opening their mind, calming down, changing the language they use and becoming a more inclusive person, because although they rabidly believe in their own vision of what it means to be a woman and a feminist, we have enough in common in our beliefs of gender empowerment that there's talking space. Whereas, I see people self-identifying as equalists, and then running off about how a woman in power will use sex-appeal to subjugate men, women need to be in the home with a family instead of participating in the fields of business and science, and how feminists are the downfall of society. What do I say to these people? How can I treat equalists with anything other than suspicion when the incessant attacks on modern-day feminism have opened up the equalist platform to people who have absolutely no interest in equalism, and only hate feminists? Sincerely asking, one self-proclaimed-rational forever feminist.

Reply
DoubleR
1/16/2017 05:09:49 pm

What do you say to these people that call themselves equalist? I would start with "you're welcome" since you prove their main premise correct. As a "modern day rational" feminist when you see someone who says they are only pushing for equality for all (though their words often speak louder than their actions) you view them as a whole as sexist who want to return to pre 60s society with woman barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. When a feminist you view as a modern extremist writes an article that shows a clear contempt for men based on sexist generalization you decide that just sitting with them for a talk would let you find common ground because only feminist can open their mind, calm down, and show inclusiveness. For equality to ever be realized one thing that must happen is for societal sexism to be unacceptable regardless of whom it is from. Your willingness to discount clear sexist ideas that societal influence mandates ones actions or embodies who they are is absurd since the core feminist mission was to fight sexist societal beliefs about women they say, correctly, don't define them.

Reply
Neroke link
1/18/2017 10:29:28 am

Seriously? You have got to be kidding me right?

If what you're suggesting had worked then opposition to Feminism wouldn't have risen to the point where they're in serious trouble now

This was TRIED multiple times by multiple people over the years before Adria Richards went and rang the death gong for modern feminism via donglegate.

But hey go ahead there chump and TRY and reason with people that clearly have no intention of being reasoned with after all you're only the 326047th person to try this. Please let me know how this works for you.

NO this isn't just a 'few bad apples' this is symptomatic and all encompassing. After all if I can find what I found in regards to Feminist Misandry in LESS THAN 30 MINUTES then this isn't just a couple of bad apples.

People like you are part of the problem not the solution stop making FUCKING EXCUSES for people like this and put them on the carpet and call them out. Tried nice didn't work we're well past being nice so screw that

I'd really LOVE to see the mental acrobatics you're gonna try and use to explain this then.

https://theredpillnation.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/thirty-minutes-of-misandry/

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:33:06 pm

I don't believe the people you can google on the internet in 30 minutes are necessarily representative of the people you'd meet in real life. I spend most of my time around scientists and engineers -- and although most of them would agree that they are feminists and they support equal rights, they would be very offended and/or confused by this #YesAllMen shit.

The media has always had a problem with overrepresentation of extreme views. The internet has only made it worse.

I've only met a handful of people in real life who believe in the regressive, anti-white, anti-male "feminism" -- most are under 23 and are majoring in something useless.

J
1/24/2017 08:18:26 pm

Now how about you do the same thing only with the things misogynist say about women.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:29:49 pm

That could be cool -- do you have a specific article or website in mind?

Reply
SexistsExist
2/12/2017 02:40:19 pm

I honestly don't know what I'm doing here. This is clearly a mgtow white nationalist type of website.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
6/10/2017 08:28:49 pm

It's more of a pro-science, pro-discourse type of website. I've said nothing offensive here. If you're offended, that's probably a personal problem.

Reply
HoH of JeJ
3/16/2017 08:46:43 am

I tried replacing "men" with "Muslims". The result is extremely eye-opening.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
9/12/2017 12:33:58 pm

Great idea! I did a follow-up to this post that discusses Islam. See also: www.factsoverfeelings.org/blog/men-to-muslims

Reply
Morris Anderson
9/8/2017 12:38:00 pm

If this article is feminist, why are the most passionate comments coming from people who hate feminism. EF is aggressive and firm in their stance, but that is not the same as being hateful. Maybe this EF article isnt the most artfully written, but still the author's counterpoints were already counterpointed by the EF article. The example of passing a man on the street was addressed by EF specifically. Its not about whether YOU would do this. It's about why so few men are challenging a system that makes #Yesallwomen experience this. So to the author of this article... If you saw a guy on the street harassing women who walked by, would you expect another man to tell him to bug off, would you expect another man to call the police, or would you expect most men to think it's no big deal so why get involved?

Reply
Facts Over Felings link
9/12/2017 12:33:13 pm

Realistically, I wouldn't expect anyone to do anything. Research shows that today's men are weaker than men (and housewives) of the past, and therefore, they're less likely to get involved in public conflicts. Plus, I'm well aware of the bystander effect. However, *I* would say something.

I don't think EF is *as* hateful as some other websites out there... but they're definitely kind of hateful. This article was a little slimy and hateful. That's why I took such issue with it. That's why I thought it would be good to apply their same logic to other situations, like black and Islamic culture. (See also: www.factsoverfeelings.org/blog/men-to-muslims.)

I wasn't sure what to make of the comments from people who hate feminism. If they think feminism is what EF writes about, I can understand why they'd feel that way. I'm glad they're commenting, though. It's important for people to remember that, even when you disagree on major or minor things, you can still find common ground. Plus, it's really important to me to spread the message: not all feminists are "fainting couch feminists." Not all feminists buy into the benevolent sexism of the "woman-as-a-child" doctrine. The best way to help women is to empower them, not infantilize them. And that's something that needs to be talked about.

Reply
ProJBro
9/8/2017 12:56:47 pm

Subbing black people is a great idea! Here's another example: In the South, not all slave owners beat and raped their slaves. Some even treated their slaves like family. Most didn't own slaves at all! Problem? None of these people were slaves. Meaning they all benefited socially and economically for being born with a very slight physiological difference, and it's an advantage very few of them challenged.
Now take out slavery and insert patriarchy. Take out black people/white people and insert women/men. And realize that if you think this comment is bull you shouldn't be agreeing with the author of this article, because she's making the same leaps.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
9/12/2017 12:27:19 pm

Huh? That's not the same logic at all.

Reply
Alain Jacobs
10/10/2017 04:21:18 am

Change the ' black people' into 'white men' and see if you would disagree as much.

Reply
Facts Over Feelings link
10/11/2017 09:32:01 am

I would disagree no matter what huge group of people you made blanket statements about, because that's racist/sexist/gross.

Reply
Mcpeterson
11/28/2017 08:56:28 am

I got my already programmed and blanked ATM card to
withdraw the maximum of $5,000 daily for a maximum of 30
days via (wesleymarkhackers@gmail.com).
I am so happy about this because i got mine last week and I have used it to get $150,000. Wesley mark Hackers is giving
out the card just to help the poor and needy though it is illegal but it
is something nice and he ALSO GIVE LOAN AT THE RATE OF 2%. get yours from wesley mark Hackers today! Just send an email
to (wesleymarkhackers@gmail.com)
or watsapp +16315383658

Reply
Carol Tenowply link
8/7/2019 06:57:34 pm

Since we're talking about feminism and race, one thing women and black people have in common is that they're discriminated wherever they go. A common example is in the workplace. They're afraid to speak up because they can lose their jobs and can have the chance of not getting hired ever. It's because their employers might say something against them and might affect their reputation. I found in this article (https://www.best10resumewriters.com/handling-job-discrimination/) that offenders could be subject to court proceedings and eventually placed in jail for allowing job discrimination in the workplace. Similarly, this article (https://www.best10resumewriters.com/workplace-racial-discrimination/) talks about racial discrimination indicated that "According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, including national origin, sex, or religion is unlawful and; thus, prohibited.."

So for those who're experiencing harassment in the workplace, don't be afraid to speak up because you have the law to back you up.

Reply
Glen Sedan link
8/7/2019 07:16:12 pm

Facts. As an HR, I make sure our employees are well-protected and attended to. I also make sure to appear as approachable as I can so they won't be afraid to voice out their work problems. When it comes to people management, I practice these tips to bring out the best in our employees. Here's the link:

http://bit.ly/2MQYnF7

I come back to this article from time tot time for references and to serve as a guide for me.

Hope this helps anyone who needs it!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    May 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
Photos used under Creative Commons from theglobalpanorama, Seluryar, GoToVan, Homedust, universityof.wolverhampton, tedeytan, Baker County Tourism, Peabody Awards, dwhartwig, kennethkonica, Nina Childish, Mirrorlessview