11/19/2016 81 Comments I Changed "Men" to "Black People" in an Everyday Feminism Post, And Here's What Happened.
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? 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.
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!
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.
Reply
David Rogers
11/23/2016 08:51:02 am
"I'm just going to imagine feminism means "equal rights and opportunities for everyone"
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! 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.
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.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses."
11/26/2016 10:40:53 am
Feminism has ALWAYS been about special rules for women.
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. "
Neroke
1/18/2017 10:33:51 am
Hey Mushin you say it's just a few bad apples huh
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.
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.
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?
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:
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/)."
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
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.
Reply
Anonymous
11/24/2016 01:31:06 am
>Saying you are in support of equality
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.
Reply
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.
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.
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.
Reply
Neroke
1/18/2017 10:31:23 am
Then EXPLAIN THIS!
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.
Reply
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.
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
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
Fiona
11/28/2016 03:18:01 pm
You should remove the bold; it would make it read better.
Reply
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
Reply
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
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
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.
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
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
Seriously? You have got to be kidding me right?
Reply
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Reply
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.."
Reply
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:
Reply
Leave a Reply. |