# Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> Quite a few feminists (fourth-wave, I think they're called?) are pro-sex.


 I know, but i still feel there is progress to be made on that front.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

crazyeddie said:


> What if a corporation with, say, a one million person payroll, pays its women employees less than men by some statistically significant amount? Might that require some kind of legal action to correct?


I think I know what you are referring to. And I still do not believe legal action to force employers to change payrolls is the right move. The root of the problem would be dependent on the business itself. The solution would most likely be education for those in charge on concrete differences in men and women, both psychologically, emotionally, and physically so they can make an educated determination on which is better for the job. 



crazyeddie said:


> And those jobs typically are not terribly well paying. And if we see systemic pay-gaps in professions that don't require upper body strength?


 It depends on the profession. I have seen people also argue men to naturally be better logically, so tacticians, technicians, high-end businessmen/women, would meet that definition. It is not a matter of whether it is true or not, it is simply a very well known stereotype. This on its own could be influential. 



crazyeddie said:


> Yes, the government _should_ regulate the economy, which is not the same as controlling it.
> 
> 1) The free market does not handle externalities well. All free transactions benefit both parties to the transaction, but a transaction might affect some third party that did not consent to the transaction. Think pollution. Government regulation is required in order to ensure that free transactions between private individuals do not harm the commonwealth.


But then it comes down to 'commonwealth'. Everyone has their own dream for that, and that is what we are arguing. 



crazyeddie said:


> 2) Free markets tend to degenerate to monopolies or near monopolies, which are no longer free markets. I refuse to buy anything at Walmart, and it is _very_ difficult to purchase certain goods and services in my town unless I buy them from Walmart, even given that I'm willing to pay a stiff premium for this.


The problem is that this is just action taken in retaliation to the premise of a matter. The choice is up to you on this one.



crazyeddie said:


> 3) Even if both parties benefit from a free transaction, the benefits are often unequally and unfairly distributed. The power in employment is very much on the side of the employers, since there are relative few employers and a very large pool of potential employees. Unionization helps address this power imbalance, but it can make management-employee relations overly confrontational. Government regulation in employment practices provides a middle ground between laissez faire exploitation of workers and unionization.


But once again, if the transaction is mutual, it does not matter if one gains more than the other. This has really turned into "this isn't fair, so we should fix it". A better question is how the country as a whole is being affected.



crazyeddie said:


> 4) Unfortunately, corporations are not as rational as economists would like to believe, and sometimes engage in discriminatory practices even when this negatively affects the bottom-line. In some cases, government regulation might actually enhance shareholder value.


 I never stated them to be completely rational. They are predictable. Corporations will do what gives them the most gain. Make a system where they can do that, and by winning, they do what you want. Put the carrot where you want the horse to go.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

> Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.


Any argument against feminism based on the spectacularly incorrect assumption about feminism -- that it holds men and women to be identical -- is profoundly misguided, and probably intentionally so, but likely to be widely published anyway because such is the world. Is it wrong to argue against racism because races are not identical?

That article, though short, contains such a profound density of stupid that I find it pointless to actually spend time addressing its "points"; every sentence could be easily rebutted. The kind of people who believe tripe like that, if not swayed by innumerable amounts of sexism in the world that are _blindingly_ obvious, are unlikely to be swayed by any reasoning I or anyone else puts forth.











[But for people who are actually interested in learning more about feminism, I'd recommend this blog. And if someone's genuinely interested in learning more about feminism from me -- I don't hate men and I love sex, if it matters -- I can be PMed.]


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Signify said:


> And I still do not believe legal action to force employers to change payrolls is the right move. The root of the problem would be dependent on the business itself. The solution would most likely be education for those in charge on concrete differences in men and women, both psychologically, emotionally, and physically so they can make an educated determination on which is better for the job.


One would hope that the threat of legal action would encourage corporations to change their corporate cultures, in order to avoid damage to shareholder value. Action at the level of civil society and corporate culture is needed, but so is action at the level of government. It's not much different from the government intervening to make sure private businesses do not deny services to consumers on the basis of their race.



Signify said:


> I have seen people also argue men to naturally be better logically, so tacticians, technicians, high-end businessmen/women, would meet that definition. It is not a matter of whether it is true or not, it is simply a very well known stereotype. This on its own could be influential.


And this stereotype would explain why corporations discriminate in ways that hurt shareholder value. 



Signify said:


> The problem is that this is just action taken in retaliation to the premise of a matter. The choice is up to you on this one.


The point is that, in this case, the power is not in the hands of me, the consumer. I have no choice, except to buy from Walmart, or do without. (And I do rather like wearing pants - even if I have to wait until I visit my parents to buy them from a non-Walmart store.) The power is in the hands of the corporation, not the consumer or the employee.



Signify said:


> But once again, if the transaction is mutual, it does not matter if one gains more than the other.


The hell it doesn't! Fairness does, in fact, matter.



Signify said:


> This has really turned into "this isn't fair, so we should fix it".


Yes, that is _exactly_ what the debate is about. 



Signify said:


> I never stated them to be completely rational. They are predictable. Corporations will do what gives them the most gain.


On the contrary, thanks to widespread prejudice, corporations often make decisions that do not make them the most gain. I don't watch the show myself, but I've heard that Mad Men gives plenty of examples of how corporations were pretty clueless when it came to marketing to women.



Signify said:


> A better question is how the country as a whole is being affected.


I would say that discrimination negatively affects the country as a whole. If corporations are less likely to hire the best person for the position, regardless of the color of their skin or their gender, then they are not going to be providing the most efficient service to their consumers. The consumers won't notice this (thanks to informational asymmetries), but they will be less well off as a result. 

And there is more to morality than utilitarianism. There is also the matter of fairness and rights.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

crazyeddie said:


> One would hope that the threat of legal action would encourage corporations to change their corporate cultures, in order to avoid damage to shareholder value. Action at the level of civil society and corporate culture is needed, but so is action at the level of government. It's not much different from the government intervening to make sure private businesses do not deny services to consumers on the basis of their race.


Because doing so loses them money. By simply giving a threat of a lawsuit, they would obey like blind sheep. The prejudice would still exist. They don't know why, they just don't want to lose money. Keep the government suing people out of this. 



crazyeddie said:


> And this stereotype would explain why corporations discriminate in ways that hurt shareholder value.


So would you not agree that further research and education on the differences may be more beneficial than a large scale lawsuit?



crazyeddie said:


> The point is that, in this case, the power is not in the hands of me, the consumer. I have no choice, except to buy from Walmart, or do without. (And I do rather like wearing pants - even if I have to wait until I visit my parents to buy them from a non-Walmart store.) The power is in the hands of the corporation, not the consumer or the employee.


But from the perspective of everyone else where you live, the people get things they want for a price they agree on. If this was not the case, that Walmart would no longer be standing. Businesses run because of the majority of the buyers, not just one. You may be at a loss, but there is still a large majority that agrees, so that Walmart will still stand.



crazyeddie said:


> On the contrary, thanks to widespread prejudice, corporations often make decisions that do not make them the most gain. I don't watch the show myself, but I've heard that Mad Men gives plenty of examples of how corporations were pretty clueless when it came to marketing to women.


That is just corporate ignorance. I also never claimed them to be all-knowledgeable. As for prejudices, they exist because of ignorance. 



crazyeddie said:


> I would say that discrimination negatively affects the country as a whole. If corporations are less likely to hire the best person for the position, regardless of the color of their skin or their gender, then they are not going to be providing the most efficient service to their consumers. The consumers won't notice this (thanks to informational asymmetries), but they will be less well off as a result.
> 
> And there is more to morality than utilitarianism. There is also the matter of fairness and rights.


But once again, you cannot just weight whether a new system would be better, the requirements to completely create a new economic system for one group of feminists sounds a bit extreme. That is like completely changing a government system just for vegetarians. Implementation (cost) is just as important as the benefit itself.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Signify said:


> Because doing so loses them money. By simply giving a threat of a lawsuit, they would obey like blind sheep. The prejudice would still exist. They don't know why, they just don't want to lose money. Keep the government suing people out of this.
> 
> So would you not agree that further research and education on the differences may be more beneficial than a large scale lawsuit?


You are assuming that corporations are ignorant naifs when it comes to gender discrimination. We have known about this problem since the '70s. Holding them accountable for gender discrimination is just forcing them to make changes in their corporate culture that they should have made decades ago. I agree that a lawsuit should be the last step. But if we have actual hard evidence that a corporation is practicing gender discrimination, it is time to use that last step. I will grant you that gender discrimination is often not the result of conscious discrimination, but often the result of the 'good old boys' network used to hire employees. Still, corporations should have long since put into place practices that overcome or at least alleviate this problem. There is no excuse, in this day in age, for a corporation to have gender discrimination in its hiring practices. 



Signify said:


> But from the perspective of everyone else where you live, the people get things they want for a price they agree on. If this was not the case, that Walmart would no longer be standing. Businesses run because of the majority of the buyers, not just one. You may be at a loss, but there is still a large majority that agrees, so that Walmart will still stand.


You are assuming that this market is a free market. It is not. Instead, the market in my town is being dominated by a monopoly or a near monopoly. If a competitor opens up in a town where there is a Walmart, the Walmart corporation can afford to sell at a loss in that one, single location, in order to put the competition out of business. Once that competition is gone, then Walmart goes back to charging monopoly prices. If there was another corporation that could compete with Walmart on the national level, then they might not be able to get away with this (they can't sell at a loss on the national level forever...), but there isn't.

A monopolized market is not a free market, and there is a natural tendency for free markets to decay into monopolized markets. That is one reason why the free market needs to be regulated by the government.



Signify said:


> But once again, you cannot just weight whether a new system would be better, the requirements to completely create a new economic system for one group of feminists sounds a bit extreme. That is like completely changing a government system just for vegetarians. Implementation (cost) is just as important as the benefit itself.


What is at stake is not the rights of feminists but the rights of _women_. ~51% of the population. Objecting to equal pay for equal work on the basis of utilitarianism is like objecting to the abolition of slavery on the same grounds. Furthermore, we are not talking about revolution, only enforcing the reforms that have been mandated long ago.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

I think feminism isn't as needed today, but I do love equality, so I think the old fashioned sort is needed.
New feminism seems to be hating men and loving women, not the original ideology of 'equal rights for all'. 
I'd believe in it if it was equal rights for everyone, but I don't hate men or love women more, so I guess I can't be a modern feminist XD


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Yes, modern feminism is unnecessary and evil because it has freed some men to have NO RESPONSIBILITY WHAT SO EVER. There's NO dearth of single mothers and wayward men who expect sexual gratification free of any kind of responsibility, including not raising their own children. In essence, forms of modern feminism has actually made some men into even more worthless pieces of shit. You can do it all honey? Well then I'll let you. This doesn't always apply to ghetto brats, either, or working class men cum drug dealers - even in middle class households, women are working, raising children, and cleaning the house while men ONLY work.

It's a bunch of garbage. No wonder some modern women are unhappy. Men have viewed feminism as a free ride to be eternal boys, placing all worldly responsibility upon the shoulders of women.

That being said, I don't think men have a shorter life span than women because they are more "fragile"...it's because they take more risks, and historically are more inclined even to do things like drink, smoke, gamble, live the high life, etc. while women lived boring but healthy lives at home, sheltered, controlled and raising children.

Honestly, I do think it's sad that men deal with their emotions through things like alcoholism and violence more than women, because they're taught to be "tough" and not to cry, but on the other hand, to say women control men is a big ol LOL. Jesus christ, what is this journalist smoking. 

As if men never control women, not just socially or financially, but also emotionally and sexually.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Unfortunately, chauvinism and feminism lead to bigger differences seen between men and women. Not all men want women to be under their control and not all women would be under men's control. It's all a massive generalisation.

Feminism isn't 'evil', but neo-feminism is just as bad as chauvinism. If we're talking about 'equality for everyone' then it is still needed, but not just for men and women - for everyone. Gender shouldn't matter this much. It's very confusing.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

Yesterday at the UN Youth conference we were being taken through various scenarios with the Australian Youth Ambassador and one of the scenarios was building a house with a male vs female builder, and how society would view it and even the young feminist types were against the idea that there was bias towards one or the other now. We all now believe that we have the rational and critical capacity with which to make our own decisions based on the person's credentials and ability more so over gender

I wouldn't say that Feminism today is evil, on the contrary i'm sure alot of feminists are pure in heart but they have conned themselves or others have conned themselves into believing a dead issue and perpetuate issues that are not on the scale they were and that issues for the opposite gender match theirs. 

This is why I believe in Egalitarianism in western countries. Masculism and feminism should stick to places where there is a huge difference in the sexes. 

Also to note is that when i say "Feminism" I mean "Equity Feminism" which has much more 1st wave style beliefs.

I have talked about feminism a bit, especially in another thread so I won't go any further than this.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vaan said:


> Also to note is that when i say "Feminism" I mean "Equity Feminism" which has much more 1st wave style beliefs.


Except that 2nd wave feminism was crucial as to things like breaking down of traditional gender roles, enacting domestic violence laws (um there weren't any until the 1970's you couldn't testify against your own spouse), and even had something to do with gay rights apparently.

We cannot knock out 2nd wave feminism, because it gave us what we have now, and it was absolutely necessary considering the way the world was at the time.

As for 3rd wave feminism, it became more sex positive, more racially equal, and more open to women being able to choose traditional feminine roles (such as wife, stay-at-home mom, or sex worker) and still be a feminist if she wanted.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

TreeBob said:


> This is my favourite part
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL at the notion that I could be "controlled" by anyone, let alone for the simple fact that I have a Y chromosome. I am immune to manipulation of any kind, including feminine manipulation. The last time someone tried that, she was coldly rebuffed, as I find it insulting that anyone would think that my being a man makes me vulnerable to feminine wiles. If other men would stop being so weak and take control of themselves then they wouldn't need to whine about being "taken advantage of" and how bad women are. I control myself and thus cannot be controlled by others, regardless of gender.

But I recall that Satoshi Kanazawa was the guy involved in a controversy regarding a _Psychology Today_ article entitled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”, which was repudiated by the psychology community, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt without even knowing what he's writing about.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Master Mind said:


> But I recall that Satoshi Kanazawa was the guy involved in a controversy regarding a _Psychology Today_ article entitled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”, which was repudiated by the psychology community, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt without even knowing what he's writing about.


Thank you for sharing this extremely pertinent info.

It makes sense for him to espouse these two beliefs, as it belies a particular mindset i.e. blacks and women are coming to carry me away from my throne. 

OH DEAR.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Oh, this guy is something else:



> It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others. In Wave III, Add Health asks its respondents to rate their own physical attractiveness subjectively on the following four-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately, 4 = very. As you can see in the following graphs, both black women and black men rate themselves to be far more physically attractive than individuals of other races.


EVEN THOUGH BLACK WOMEN ARE _OBJECTIVELY _LESS ATTRACTIVE THAN OTHER WOMEN?

This guy needs to be fired. Now.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Except that 2nd wave feminism was crucial as to things like breaking down of traditional gender roles, enacting domestic violence laws (um there weren't any until the 1970's you couldn't testify against your own spouse), and even had something to do with gay rights apparently.
> 
> We cannot knock out 2nd wave feminism, because it gave us what we have now, and it was absolutely necessary considering the way the world was at the time.
> 
> As for 3rd wave feminism, it became more sex positive, more racially equal, and more open to women being able to choose traditional feminine roles (such as wife, stay-at-home mom, or sex worker) and still be a feminist if she wanted.


2nd wave Feminism is probably one of the most destructive of the movements and was highly radical. It got some things done yes, but i'd say it is a great case of a social phyrric victory

3rd wave feminism is most certainly not about acceptance of women in the household in any form, just one tiny case of this is a Feminist more or less defaming Christopher Hitchens for insinuating that a woman could ever be in the household, even in a positive way.

Not to mention that Feminism is alot more fractures in the sense of ideologies on contraversial issues. So they still debate on those contraversial issues.

3rd wave feminism is probably the worst i'd have to say for the two principle reasons that are 

1: they have dared to add males into thier definition to seem more altruistic
2: Do not adress internal issues properly

I'd be much less disgusted by Feminism if they could at least be honest and not add insult to injury.

In any case I did make a big post about this somewhere, probably in my type forum if you wish for a slightly more elaborate look at the views.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> What on earth is the "war against boys"?


I agree with your entire post, but this sentence literally made me laugh out loud. I've asked the same question, reading a masculinist's blog which claimed that no one is defending the rights of boys. I don't get this, because typically, mothers are equally defending the rights of their children - male or female. He said that boys are being diagnosed with ADHD more frequently and this proves that maleness is inherently being discriminated against in children. As a feminist who actually prefers my nephew (a male child) arbitrarily to female children, I cannot say I agree with this person in the slightest, and I would be hyper aware of it because of my intense attachment to my nephew. If anything I've noticed women preferring their sons in many cases over their daughters, having an irrational soft spot for their sons. 

If the education system is fucked up, it's fucked up for all children, not just boys.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vaan said:


> 2nd wave Feminism is probably one of the most destructive of the movements and was highly radical. It got some things done yes, but i'd say it is a great case of a social phyrric victory


While the radical "heterosexual sex is rape" off-shoots of the second wave had to be reigned in, no it's not at all destructive because of its obvious contribution to fighting domestic violence, and also benefitting the gay/bi/trans gender community as well as breaking down traditional, generic sex roles. To say it got "some things done" is a gross understatement implying to me that you thought things were A-OK when you could legally rape your wife, not testify against your abusive husband in court, and defying gender stereotypes is something that people only shamefully dreamt about in fear in their homes. 

The world as we know it, today, in the civilized Western world would not be possible without 2nd wave feminism. However, 3rd wave feminism was necessary to come along with its sex positive message to combat the hostility toward heterosexual sex of some 2nd wave feminists, as well as being more inclusive to the working class and minorities rather than just the white middle class.



> 3rd wave feminism is most certainly not about acceptance of women in the household in any form, just one tiny case of this is a Feminist more or less defaming Christopher Hitchens for insinuating that a woman could ever be in the household, even in a positive way.
> 
> Not to mention that Feminism is alot more fractures in the sense of ideologies on contraversial issues. So they still debate on those contraversial issues.
> 
> ...


Feminism isn't about men, sorry to interrupt your fantasy. Add insult to injury? You seem to think feminism is some kind of attack on your manhood, which is a total misunderstanding of what the three waves of feminism actually are. Just because you've met some extremist feminists who were asshats doesn't mean that the core philosophy is flawed.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

fourtines said:


> While the radical "heterosexual sex is rape" off-shoots of the second wave had to be reigned in, no it's not at all destructive because of its obvious contribution to fighting domestic violence, and also benefitting the gay/bi/trans gender community as well as breaking down traditional, generic sex roles. To say it got "some things done" is a gross understatement implying to me that you thought things were A-OK when you could legally rape your wife, not testify against your abusive husband in court, and defying gender stereotypes is something that people only shamefully dreamt about in fear in their homes.


I don't deny the good aspects, however the radical aspect was the movement more or less not most of the movement was mostly from privaleged, older white middle class women who did not accept females of other races and they created thier own groups to feelings of marginalisation. 2nd wave was good but it had many negatives that can't be glossed over. Most movements have thier own good points, but that dosen't make thier conduct excusable.



> The world as we know it, today, in the civilized Western world would not be possible without 2nd wave feminism. However, 3rd wave feminism was necessary to come along with its sex positive message to combat the hostility toward heterosexual sex of some 2nd wave feminists, as well as being more inclusive to the working class and minorities rather than just the white middle class.


The world as we know it today wouldn't have been possible without many things, including ancient greece and the industrial revolution. Ancient greece was one of the worst times for women but it is still a founding block of the whole western world. The industrial revolution enabled new inventions and the explosion in wealth, yet the industrial revolution marked some of the worst possible working conditions in history, if not the worst. In fact working conditions were so bad that it led to the formation of Unions which fought for workers rights including the rights of working women and children(yes women did work before WW2).

We can look back at history and find hundreds of factors that made 2nd wave Feminism possible and thus overwhealmingly they were the catalysts for change and I believe that change would have happened anyway. 



> Feminism isn't about men, sorry to interrupt your fantasy. Add insult to injury? You seem to think feminism is some kind of attack on your manhood, which is a total misunderstanding of what the three waves of feminism actually are. Just because you've met some extremist feminists who were asshats doesn't mean that the core philosophy is flawed.


It's not my fantasy, it's the fantasy of every Feminist I have met that seems to love to believe that it is. Those asshats make up pretty much the entire mainstream movement. It is so blatant in society, the media and politics that even if one was blind, deaf and dumb they would be able to escape it because it is almost palpable. And core philosophy is hard as well considering there is no one school of feminist philosophy, perhaps you'd like to outline those philosophies.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

fourtines said:


> It's a bunch of garbage. No wonder some modern women are unhappy. Men have viewed feminism as a free ride to be eternal boys, placing all worldly responsibility upon the shoulders of women.


Well put, this however is also largely caused by the feminist movement in the first place.

A self-feeding cycle. 

Enjoy the show!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Well put, this however is also largely caused by the feminist movement in the first place.
> 
> A self-feeding cycle.
> 
> Enjoy the show!


Yes I know. I've often referred to it as the unfortunate unforeseen consequence of feminism.


----------

