You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
Wow. Patriarchal reversals brought to you by the WAVAW Rape Crisis Centre.
“As a trans-inclusive anti-violence organization, we feel a sense of responsibility to provide a counter-narrative to this trans-exclusionary radical feminism. It’s no secret that there is a long, difficult history between feminism and trans people.”
Local Transactivists lobbied Vancouver city council to defund the Vancouver Rape Crisis and Woman’s Shelter because they had a female only policy. Sex is a protected characteristic under the Canadian Charter. Dr. Jones clearly illustrates the problem:
Let’s go through and do a rough line by line response to the highly inclusive blog post put put by the WAVAW.
“This history is rooted in the right wing ideology that queer and trans people and their issues are somehow oppositional to the issues of cisgender women and feminism as a whole.”
There would be less strife and problematic history between transactivism and radical feminism if we could all agree on material, biological reality. Human beings cannot change sex. A woman is correctly defined as an adult human female.
Bullshit. – What Radical Feminist Analysis of Gender looks like…
“[…] Disagreeing with someone, however, is not a form of violence. And we have a big disagreement.
Radical feminists are critical of gender itself. We are not gender reformists–we are gender abolitionists. Without the socially constructed gender roles that form the basis of patriarchy, all people would be free to dress, behave, and love others in whatever way they wished, no matter what kind of body they had.
Patriarchy is a caste system which takes humans who are born biologically male or female and turns them into the social classes called men and women. Male people are made into men by socialization into masculinity, which is defined by a psychology based on emotional numbness and a dichotomy of self and other. This is also the psychology required by soldiers, which is why we don’t think you can be a peace activist without being a feminist.
Female socialization in patriarchy is a process of psychologically constraining and breaking girls—otherwise known as “grooming”—to create a class of compliant victims. Femininity is a set of behaviors that are, in essence, ritualized submission.
We see nothing in the creation of gender to celebrate or embrace. Patriarchy is a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power, and we want to see it dismantled so that the category of gender no longer exists. This is also our position on race and class. The categories are not natural: they only exist because hierarchical systems of power create them (see, for instance, Audrey Smedley’s book Race in North America). We want a world of justice and equality, where the material conditions that currently create race, class, and gender have been forever overcome.
Patriarchy facilitates the mining of female bodies for the benefit of men – for male sexual gratification, for cheap labor, and for reproduction. To take but one example, there are entire villages in India where all the women only have one kidney. Why? Because their husbands have sold the other one. Gender is not a feeling—it’s a human rights abuse against an entire class of people, “people called women.”
We are not “transphobic.” We do, however, have a disagreement about what gender is. Genderists think that gender is natural, a product of biology. Radical feminists think gender is social, a product of male supremacy. Genderists think gender is an identity, an internal set of feelings people might have. Radical feminists think gender is a caste system, a set of material conditions into which one is born. Genderists think gender is a binary. Radical feminists think gender is a hierarchy, with men on top. Some genderists claim that gender is “fluid.” Radical feminists point out that there is nothing fluid about having your husband sell your kidney. So, yes, we have some big disagreements.
Radical feminists also believe that women have the right to define their boundaries and decide who is allowed in their space. We believe all oppressed groups have that right.”
So try a little harder to argue honestly and charitably against your opponents.
“This conflict often shows up in the realm of gender-specific spaces, in shelters and anti-violence organizations. Feminism has been used as a means of spreading hatred against trans people, particularly trans women, and has co-opted the anti-violence movement to implicitly and explicitly exclude trans women.“
No kidding. Male violence is endemic in society. Keeping men away from women and protecting hard fought for female only spaces is a priority in effective feminism. You should try it some time.
“It’s difficult for WAVAW to grapple with this history, especially as feminists doing anti-violence work.“
What part of male violence don’t you get? That is the root of the problem and thus what much of radical feminism works to change in society. That is the material reality of the situation, class based male violence against female people. Idealistic, individual solutions – see pretty much all of gender identity – do not address these systemic issues. They may be important, but do they are not inherently feminist, and thus do not merit centring in female spaces and effective feminist activism.
“This is especially true as trans-exclusionary radical feminism is alive and well in Vancouver; it’s no secret that we’re working amongst a hotbed of transmisogyny that has a global reach.“
Feminists are rightly calling you on your male-centric, misogynistic approach. Get used to it.
“One of the things we hear most often is that by making space for trans women in our feminism we will dilute our politics. We hear rumours of trans women taking over and forcing an anti-feminist agenda on us. “
No, this is about Transactivists successfuly lobbying Vancouver City council to remove funding for the ONLY rape crisis centre that is Female only. Because a refuge from male violence is somehow unacceptable to your ‘woke-ness’ on high. Every other shelter allows men in, but apparently having a female only option is unacceptable, and your particular brand of handmaiden feminism is the only one that should be funded.
“This is factually incorrect. We know this is incorrect because trans women have never accessed WAVAW in large numbers, despite the fact that we have been expressly open to trans women since 2000.”
Fine and dandy. How about respecting woman’s boundaries when they prefer not to be around those members of the class of people that rape them? You prioritize male feelings over female safety and it is a travesty.
“As a rape crisis center committed to supporting survivors, we want them to access our services […]”
No one is stopping you. This is about your support of taking away female only safe spaces for rape survivors. This is you promoting ideology that actively hurts vulnerable women in the name of inclusion.
“Perhaps the most dangerous thing trans-exclusionary rhetoric does is to erase difference by insisting on some shared experience of womanhood.Kimberlé Crenshaw’s hugely influential theory on intersectionality informs our understanding that people embody different intersecting identities that get compounded under systems of oppression. For example, a queer, working class, woman of colour experiences the world in a much different way than an upper middle class, straight, white woman would. Intersectionality shows us that women across race, class, gender, ability, etc., are more different than alike. To say that all women have a shared lived experience based on biological sex erases these differences and upholds white supremacy, patriarchy, and the status quo.”
What is it with redefinition of feminist terminology? Can we get back to what Kimberlé Crenshaw theory addresses in context? Please, and not the queer bastardization that supports your post modern neo-liberal hogwash?
“The term intersectionality theory was first coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.[3] In her work, Crenshaw discussed Black feminism, which argues that the experience of being a black woman cannot be understood in terms of being black and of being a woman considered independently, but must include the interactions, which frequently reinforce each other.[19] Crenshaw mentioned that the intersectionality experience within black women is more powerful than the sum of their race and sex, and that any observations that do not take intersectionality into consideration cannot accurately address the manner in which black women are subordinated.”
On to what Carly Thomsen says:
“I recently asked my students in an upper division Gender and Women’s Studies Feminist Engaged Research course—in which all students are Gender and Women’s Studies majors or minors—a question about that day’s reading we were discussing in class. A student responded with: “It’s all about intersectionality.” My initial question is not particularly relevant, as I have found that students will attempt to answer nearly any question by referencing (the need for and value of) “intersectionality.” I followed up to ask: “What is intersectionality?” My students looked at me blankly. All of my students had been exposed to what they would describe as “intersectionality.” Yet, not one had read the original theory of intersectionality. Not one could accurately describe the theory. Not one had a sense of the genealogy of the term. Not one could think of limits to intersectionality. Some thought that the term refers to moments in which activism and scholarship “intersect,” while others insisted that it refers to the moment when any two or more marginalized identities meet within one person’s life. Not one knew its roots in black feminist theory or critical race theory. I raise this point not because these moments gesture toward some type of feminist pedagogical failure—if only the students learned the material properly!—but because these moments point to the hegemony of discourses of “intersectionality” within Gender and Women’s Studies. In these moments, we can see that, as Ahmed (2012a) suggests, “intersectionality can be used as a method of deflection,” as a way of re-directing attention away from race and racism (195)—and, by extension, from whichever form of marginalization one is working to address—by bringing up other forms of social exclusion. The failure here lies with neither an individual instructor nor student but with a field that has produced so little critical reflection on the limits of “intersectionality” that it figures as that which is largely beyond contest.”
“Becoming Radically Undone: Discourses of Identity and Diversity in the Introductory Gender and Women’s Studies Classroom” – -Carly Thomsen
The too tl;dr is this. The primary axis on which females are oppressed is SEX. Intersectionality describes the interlocking challenges facing women and particularly women of colour, but in no possible reality-based world does it append the category of sex.
“Therefore, as feminists, we cannot speak to a universal experience of womanhood, and we will not exclude trans women by claiming that there is one.“
That is problematic because sex based oppression – female human trafficking, female sex selected abortions, prositution, domestic violence, FGM, objectification, et cetera – all revolve around the sex based axis of female subjugation in the world. Plugging your ears and not seeing this fact especially in service male gender feels is particular abhorrent.
“For those of us who aren’t trans women, we have work to do. Our responsibility as a feminist organization is to push back against transmisogyny in meeting rooms, and in the movement, and right now, we’re re-committing to doing just that.”
Your responsibility as an ostensibly feminist organization is to centre the needs of females in your organization.
Period.
Shame on you for throwing women (adult human females) under the bus in your nebulous quest for ‘inclusivity’.
“The days of complicity with transmisogyny and trans-exclusionary feminism need to come to an end, as more trans women are speaking up and more organizations are willing to listen.”
Transmisogyny doesn’t exist. Queer theoretical terms often don’t apply in reality, go figure. The actual problem, male violence and the misogyny that goes along with it needs to be addressed. Try starting there.
“We need to be vocal and to encourage our friends, family, and colleagues to examine their transmisogyny. We need to stop excusing it under the guise of feminism.”
Falling over yourself to meet male needs is nothing new in society. It isn’t part of meaningful feminist action. When you’ve worked through your reality problems, please come back and give effective feminism a go.
“Right now, we need to push back against trans exclusionary rhetoric, stop calling it feminism, and remember what revolution we’re working towards.“
Do you even realize the level of newspeak going on here? You issued this response in terms of the only rape crisis centre in Vancouver that explicitly catered to females and a female only space – losing their funding – and the furor it justifiably caused. From your high-horse of ‘inclusion’ you are speaking against the choice of women, who chose not to associate with men in a RAPE CRISIS CENTRE.
Read that again.
Take your proclamations drenched in bullcookery elsewhere. There is feminist work to be done and until you can realign your priorities with material reality, please sod off at your earliest convenience.
Support women in Vancouver go and donate to the Vancouver Rape Relief and Woman’s Shelter here.
“Most girls, however much they resent their mothers, do become very much like them. Rebellion can rarely survive the aversion therapy that passes for being brought up female. Male violence acts directly on the girl through her father or brother or uncle or any number of male professionals or strangers, as it did and does on her mother, and she too is forced to learn to conform in order to survive. A girl may, as she enters adulthood, repudiate the particular set of males with whom her mother is allied, run with a different pack as it were, but she will replicate her mother’s patterns in acquiescing to male authority within her own chosen set. Using both force and threat, men in all camps demand that women accept abuse in silence and shame, tie themselves to hearth and home with rope made of self-blame, unspoken rage, grief, and resentment.”
It is ever more apparent that Women need to fight this battle without the help of the dudely left, as usual they’ve done gone and made a mess of things.
Hey, gonna post my reply here as well in case reality is a problem over at Dear the People.
Apparently ‘dear the people’ is adverse to reality and being exposed to opposing points of view, so here is my response to their assertions. May as well copy/paste the original to maintain context.
Dear the People,
Today I woke up to find myself a “beleaguered dude”.
My most recent post The War on Women, was responded to by fellow WordPress user The Arbourist. Their post Clueless Commentary I Find on WordPress is public and I would encourage you to go read it if you would like to understand my rebuttal in context. For those of you who endeavor to be mature and refrain from enduring profanity, I would caution that their content is most disagreeable in nature.
That having been said, I’d like to address the major points that I thought required a response. Firstly, I’d like to formally introduce myself to my audience. For those of you who are under the mistaken impression that I am a middle-aged white dude who can remember the good old “white hood days”, let me set the record straight. I am not only not a “dude”, I am a woman and a third-generation American from a family of mixed Hispanic heritage who also happens to be conservative. So for the Arbourist, I’d encourage you to not make false assumptions about the identity of the person you’re attacking just because their views happen to be more “traditional”.
My original post was for those who recognize that radical feminism can often be toxic towards men. If one believes in modern feminism, of course one will not understand nor acknowlegde the problem of reverse sexism.
Give me an example of where women in America are oppressed by a systemic patriarchy? The notion of a systemic patriarchy is an ideological constituent of modern feminism, not a demonstrable fact defended by the author by either argument or evidence. Of course, one can always find anecdotal examples of oppressed women in both America and elsewhere. Just look at Muslim communities in the US and abroad where woman are treated as property. This is, of course, a glaring example of true oppression that is almost never addressed by modern feminists.
Conspicuously, the author seems incapable of writing without profanity or insulting those with an opposing point of view, a sign that her position suffers for want of a rational argument, e.g.“Buckle in tight, because the [sic] nothing good can come when your argumentative building blocks are made of high-octane stupid.”
Without going off on a tangent, there are two points on the point of female bodily “autonomy” I’d like to address. If a man used his “bodily autonomy” to beat and/or rape a woman, would that be acceptable, since the body is his own? If the response is that his autonomy harms another, then why does this principle not apply to a child? No one has bodily autonomy. The entire point of civil laws is to restrain some from attempting to affirm “bodily autonomy” as a pretext for harming others. And second – a point that always seems to be missed – a child’s body is not YOUR body, a scientific fact not in dispute (i.e., unborn children have their own unique DNA and are biologically alive at the moment of conception, regardless of their stage of development, which are all established facts of science).
“[No,] you’ve demonstrated an astonishing allergy to even the most basic features of society and how it works.” This claim is made without any argument or evidence offered in its support, a habit the author repeatedly makes throughout her polemic. The author claims that I make statements based on “sheer ignorance and the power of your uniformed [sic] opinion”, while dismissing the evidence provided rather than responding to it with counter arguments and evidence. It’s one thing to be skeptical of conclusions drawn from research; it’s intellectually disingenuous and intentionally obtuse, however, to state that I did not cite evidence when readers can clearly see that I cited sources.
While men have held the majority of political and economic power for most of history, women have certainly held positions of power, especially within the last century, and yet women’s lot hasn’t necessarily improved. Take, for example, abortion. The 50+ million children, statistically mostly female, who have been murdered were not killed because of men. They were slaughtered because their mothers believed in the destructive ideology of “bodily autonomy”.
More importantly, on what grounds does the author issue moral judgements? She wants to claim that a patriarchy is wrong, abortion is good, and that an equal society is a good value. Why? Why should anyone care about the author’s personal values if they are not grounded in some objective authority. I ground my values in God, because I am a Christian, a Theist, and thus take my values from a creator who has laid down a law in the interest of His creation. If the author wants others to give her moral pronouncements any serious intellectual consideration, she’ll need to provide an objective ground by which one can assess her moral judgements (assuming she has any standard at all beyond her own subjective preferences).
The author added as one of the tags on the post “they do not necessarily want to understand”, a clear act of projection.
The author is fair in calling me out on the choice of my word “designed” when referring to competition over the best resources. That was poor wording. A better statement would be to say that as a species, it can be shown that many women tend to compete for the best resources, a trait that is not singular to females.
The Arbourist cites that radical feminists don’t believe in an abusive male, but then continually repeats that there is a patriarchy that needs taking down. The author continues to insist that the patriarchy exists and needs to be toppled, but fails to support her belief. What we’re treated to is a polemic on the doctrines of feminism, about which we’re already aware. The question is, why should we believe her ideology when she constantly fails to provide a cogent, substantive defense to any of her claims? We’re givan no reason to believe such a system of “patriarchy” exists. “[Because] male violence is endemic within the structure of society”. Again, a claim made without any shred of supporting facts. I’m a woman; I don’t “mould [sic] my life around reducing the threat of rape and male violence”.
“For bonus points, historically speaking, our societies have been based around the principle of cooperation. Only when hierarchical structures have been introduced (see patriarchy) do we see competition become a virtue.”Historically speaking, societies have not been based on cooperation. For most of history, the way it worked was this: one group did what they wanted and forced their subjects to submit. In socialist, communist, monarchical, and totalitarian societies, one group with more power forced the little (and often purportedly “equal”) man to do as they liked. There was no voluntary cooperation involved. Even today we see these kinds of systems – look at Venezuela. The people and government hardly cooperate in that socialistic country. If societies were cooperative, this contradicts the notion that men oppressed women. Which way is it? Have men cooperated with women or not? This is a direct contradiction to the author’s entire ideology.
Everyone – men, women, and children – can exhibit competitiveness and ambition, regardless of a patriarchy. Most humans will naturally look to their own self-interest. These qualities are not the issue; the issue is when one seek one’s own self-interest in the absence of moral restraints.
“Oh, so if women would just shut up and let men do their thing, the problem of violent male behaviour would fix itself.” The author is attacking a straw man. My point is that radical feminism tends to shift the focus away from female violence and place the blame of all mental, emotional, and physical damage squarely on the shoulders of men.
“[,]the problems of society need to be identified, deconstructed, and replaced with ones that acknowledge the base humanity of all members of society.” If that’s the case, why does the author take issue with my article which discusses how radical feminism can harm women and that women can and do inflict harm on their fellow women? They’re committing an either/or fallacy. The argument is not that only women bully women, but that both genders are guilty.
“Being educated, or allowed to vote, or have a credit card/bank account in their name was once only in the domain of males. So one must look with a certain amount of skepticism to ‘all-guys’ clubs or organizations.” This is a non-sequitur. What does the past exclusion of women have anything to do with an all-guy or all-girl group being perfectly fine? My brother hardly finds Girl Scouts sexist. Why does this not go both ways?
“Feminists realize though that each woman must strike her own patriarchal bargain within society and do what she must to survive.” Will you die if you don’t strike a bargain with this purported patriarchy? I’m a female. I don’t find myself harmed by the so-called patriarchy. “The choice women face is how to deal with the fact that they are treated as the submissive class in society and their base humanity is always in question.” Really? When in American history did women ever face a question to their humanity? If women are viewed as so sub-human, why is it that crimes against females are considered much more horrifying than those committed against men? Yes, women are submissive – to the law. Men, women, children, adults, old, and young must submit to authority of one form or another.
“Feminists ask the question, why should there have to be a sacrifice in the first place?” To this, I have on response: sacrifice is a part of the human experience. ALL people sacrifice and none more so than men. In the case of the sinking ship, women and children are first to be saved. In the case of a military situation, men are put in danger first. In the case of a burning building, women and children are rescued first. Why? Because at the end of the day, the understanding is that someone has to make the sacrifices. And if feminists don’t want to make them, then who will? I’ll tell you: men.
In conclusion, the Arbourist’s article is less of a rational response to my article, which detailed how feminism can harm women, and instead more of a personal attack and a repetition of her ideology. Moreover, the author deals in projection. She made an assumption about my identity based on my beliefs, and then attempted to dismiss my arguments based on her false assumption, as if one’s sex or skin color has anything to do with the rational merits of their arguments.
—–
Hey, thanks for the response. Rebutting can be fun, let’s do it!
“I am not only not a “dude”, I am a woman and a third-generation American from a family of mixed Hispanic heritage who also happens to be conservative. So for the Arbourist, I’d encourage you to not make false assumptions about the identity of the person you’re attacking just because their views happen to be more “traditional”. “
Cool. In the post in question, you sound like every other generic male who has ‘important wisdom’ to share with those darn irrational females. Whether by stylistic choice or the sententious content, that is exactly how you came across.
“those who recognize that radical feminism can often be toxic towards men.”
Radical feminism threatens male privilege and status in our society. It (Radical Feminism) seeks to dismantle the patriarchal structures and norms of society the oppress women. So, if losing their ‘leg-up’ in society is toxic toward men, so be it.
“If one believes in modern feminism, of course one will not understand nor acknowlegde the problem of reverse sexism.”
See also the burgeoning problem of reverse-racism… No, it doesn’t work that way. People in the subordinate classes may indeed demonstrate discrimination, or discriminatory practices toward the dominant classes, but do not have the backing of society and its set of normative values to classify their discrimination as reverse-sexism, reverse-racism et al.
“Give me an example of where women in America are oppressed by a systemic patriarchy?”
In the Sciences -” […] brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.” – Article:Scientific American. Citation.
From Birth, but specifically in this study kindergarten age – “[…] Bias against women and girls in contexts where brilliance is prized emerges early and is a likely obstacle to their success.” Article:Pressherald. Citation.
We can go on, if you’d like. The fact we live in a systemic patriarchy is evident, whether you choose to acknowledge facts and evidence is solely your decision. If you’re at all curious a good study to peruse can be found on the University of Chicago Legal forum: Patriarchy and Inequality: Toward a Substantive Feminism. It contains suggestions and valid criticisms of some of the branches of feminism.
“Conspicuously, the author seems incapable of writing without profanity or insulting those with an opposing point of view, a sign that her position suffers for want of a rational argument, “
Better to insult people to than ignore readily available facts.
“If a man used his “bodily autonomy” to beat and/or rape a woman, would that be acceptable, since the body is his own?”
Umm. Dude (dude-(ess)? The concept of bodily autonomy deals with the concept of actions and freedoms regarding the individuals. When you involve another autonomous human being, it is a question of rights.
“And second – a point that always seems to be missed – a child’s body is not YOUR body, a scientific fact not in dispute (i.e., unborn children have their own unique DNA and are biologically alive at the moment of conception, regardless of their stage of development, which are all established facts of science).”
Horsepucky.
Evince your claim. And anyways, the status of being alive or not is irrelevant. If you believe that females are autonomous human beings then indeed they have the right to decide what goes on in their bodies, including being pregnant or not.
If you are into the fetus-fetish, please by all means; but do not ascribe your patriarchal ‘morality’ on other women. Thanks.
“It’s one thing to be skeptical of conclusions drawn from research; it’s intellectually disingenuous and intentionally obtuse, however, to state that I did not cite evidence when readers can clearly see that I cited sources.”
Your cited research was from dubious sources and even with a charitable reading only weakly supported you assertion. Clearly, if your readers critically evaluate the source material they will come to the same conclusion – your sources are shit.
“While men have held the majority of political and economic power for most of history, women have certainly held positions of power,[…]”
You come so close to making a good point. Half marks for sure.
“Take, for example, abortion. The 50+ million children, statistically mostly female, who have been murdered were not killed because of men.”
Your buddy jesus has killed quadruple if not quintuple that number. As this is a corollary, let’s not get into your hatred of women’s rights here. But see this paper on the murderous aspect that makes jesus the #1 abortion king.
” I ground my values in God, because I am a Christian, a Theist, and thus take my values from a creator who has laid down a law in the interest of His creation.
Ahhahahaha. Erm.. pardon me. Your pronouncements have more weight than mine because of a magic book written by scared, ignorant shepherds? Riiiiiight.
Can we please keep the risible religious nonsense out of fact based discussions? The two do not mix.
“We’re givan no reason to believe such a system of “patriarchy” exists.”
Awesome. Just a start for you, from Robert Jensen: “Complex systems produce complicated results, and still there are identifiable patterns: Patriarchy is a system that delivers material benefits to men—unequally depending on men’s other attributes (such as race, class, sexual orientation, nationality, immigration status) and on men’s willingness to adapt to patriarchal values—but patriarchy constrains all women. The physical, psychological, and spiritual suffering endured by women varies widely, again depending on other attributes and sometimes just on the luck of the draw, but no woman escapes some level of that suffering. And at the core of that system is men’s control of women’s sexuality and reproduction […]” –
Another great source to learn about patriarchy is by bell hooks called Understanding Patriarchy: ” Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.”
Evidence for Patriarchy, provided.
“Again, a claim made without any shred of supporting facts. I’m a woman; I don’t “mould [sic] my life around reducing the threat of rape and male violence”.”
Hey good for you. You are in the slimmest of minorities because most women, world wide do.
“Historically speaking, societies have not been based on cooperation.”
Bullshit. You’re wrong.
“Many unique aspects of human sociality such as language, theory of mind and cultural norms have been proposed to provide the framework for human cooperative behaviour1,2,3,4, which stands alone in its scale and ubiquity between unrelated individuals5. Cooperation has been fundamental to the demographic success of our species – resource exchange, collective action and specialisation have increased our efficiency at surmounting a vast array of environmental pressures6,7.” – Nature: Competition for Cooperation: Variability, benefits and heritability of reations wealth in hunter-gatherers. Sci. Rep.6, 29120; doi:10.1038/srep29120 (2016).
Most of human history has been spent in a cooperative societal structure: – “Hunting and gathering was humanity’s first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.”
“There was no voluntary cooperation involved. Even today we see these kinds of systems – look at Venezuela.”
Perhaps not using a country under US embargo and economic sanctions to illustrate ‘socialism evil’ would be good. It would seem that you are trying desperately to sound like you know things, but then don’t do the work to prove it.
Please illustrate how your arguments work by charitably choosing the best cases of socialism in action. In other words, please use Norway, Finland and Sweden to demonstrate your points as opposed to countries in which the US is actively trying to overthrow the government (economic sanctions, political meddling et cetera).
“The people and government hardly cooperate in that socialistic country. If societies were cooperative, this contradicts the notion that men oppressed women. Which way is it? Have men cooperated with women or not? This is a direct contradiction to the author’s entire ideology. “
People in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and even to a lesser extent Canada and the UK, all demonstrate a social democratic model of governance that foregrounds cooperation and the belief that society should work for the benefit of all the individuals with in it.
No contradictions present in my arguments. What is evident is your bias toward the current neo-liberal craze that dominates the US body politic. It’s a bad look, by the way.
“My point is that radical feminism tends to shift the focus away from female violence and place the blame of all mental, emotional, and physical damage squarely on the shoulders of men.”
Males account for the majority of violence in society. Fact. Please remove your head from your ass.
STATISTICAL SOURCES
1.Males are most often both the victims and the perpetrators in 90% of homicides.Source:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Gender.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
2.Over 85% of the people who commit murder are men, and the majority of women who commit murder usually do so as a defense against men who have been battering them for years. Ninety percent of the womenin jail for murder are incarcerated for killing male batterers.Source:Bass, A. (Feb 24, 1992).“Women far less likely to kill than men; no one sure why.”The Boston Globe: p. 27.
3.Women commit approximately 15% of all homicides.Source:Stark, E. (1990).Rethinking homicide: Violence, race, and the politics of gender. International Journal of Health and Services. 20 (1): 18.
4.More than 90 women were murdered every week in 1991; 9 out of 10 were murdered by men.Source: Violence Against Women: A Majority Staff Report. Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,102nd Congress. October 1992, p. 2.
5.Ninety percent of people who commit violent physical assault are men. Males perpetrate 95% of all seriousdomestic violence.Source:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online.http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
6.The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of reported assaults on spouses or ex-spouses are committed by men against women.Source:Douglas, H. (1991).Assessing violent couples. Families in Society, 72 (9): 525-535.
7.It is estimated that 1 in 4 men will use violence against his partner in his lifetime.Source:Paymar, M. (2000).Violent no more: Helping men end domestic abuse. Alameda, CA: Hunter House Publications.
8.Close to all – 99.8% – of the people in prison convicted of rape are men.Source:National Crime Statistics.
9.Some 81% of men who beat their wives watched their fathers beat their mothers or were abused themselves.Source:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
10.Studies have found that men are responsible for 80% to 95% of child sexual abuse cases whether the childis male or female.Source:Thoringer, D.; Krivackska, J.; Laye-McDonough, M.; Jarrison, L.; Vincent, O.; & Hedlund, A. (1988).Prevention of child sexual abuse: An analysis of issues, educational programs and research findings.SchoolPsychology Review. 17(4): 614-636.
11.The majority of victims of men’s violence are other men (76% M, 24% F).Source:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.12.Out of 10,000 cases of road rage, over 95% of them were committed by men.Source:AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, “Aggressive Driving.”
The focus of Radical Feminism is to name the problem, and that problem is male violence and male socialization.
“Will you die if you don’t strike a bargain with this purported patriarchy? I’m a female. I don’t find myself harmed by the so-called patriarchy.”
Glad you don’t see it. Must be nice. However, for the rest of us, who have not internalized patriarchal norms, it is quite evident, and most definitely exists. You talk of skepticism, and rational inquiry yet you don’t put their basic strictures into practice. I have a positive claim – patriarchy exists and is fundamental to how society operates. Your argument is anecdotal – I don’t see it or experience it therefore it doesn’t exist… Well bully for you. Please cite the evidence that contradicts my claim.
“Really? When in American history did women ever face a question to their humanity?”
Till the 1970’s it was legal for a husband to rape his wife.
“In the United States, prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws. The exemption is also found in the 1962 Model Penal Code, which stated that “A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: (…)”.[5]” – Wikipedia.
Yeah. A little problematic don’t you think. And yes, I’m using the wikipedia, because basic grasp of the groundwork knowledge necessary in this argument seems to be beyond you.
“If women are viewed as so sub-human, why is it that crimes against females are considered much more horrifying than those committed against men?”
Irrelevant. Clutch your pearls on your own time. The fact of the matter is that rate of which males perpetuate violence against females and other males in society. It is the root of the problem, and what Radical Feminism aspires to change in society.
“In conclusion, the Arbourist’s article is less of a rational response to my article, which detailed how feminism can harm women, and instead more of a personal attack and a repetition of her ideology”
My article is a response to the intellectual skullduggery you displayed, and continue to display. You repeat patriarchal talking points, make baseless arguments, and don’t back up your points with evidence.
“Moreover, the author deals in projection.”
You missed the sentence, “deals in verifiable fact”. A slight oversight, but given the depth of argumentative rigour demonstrated, quite unsurprising.
Sorry for the reproduction folks, but DtP isn’t really big on answering direct assertions. So, DtP… evidence provided for patriarchy, and a second round of popular, scientific, and scholarly ones waiting in the wings. Not gonna go further until this is addressed, because educating the demonstrably ignorant pro bono isn’t my cup of tea. :>
I imagine putting a local pub out of business with his wine trick, cheeky little bugger.
Did you ever just boggle at a comment? This snippet is from the ‘Dear the People’ blog. DtP and I are having a discussion of sorts about radical feminism and what it purportedly is, and is not. The discussion is quite, erm… interesting as DtP doesn’t seem to realize that they live withing a patriarchal society and it has, whether they acknowledge it or not, shaped who they are and how they act within said society.
Read the quote, the statements in bold are mine.
“Feminists realize though that each woman must strike her own patriarchal bargain within society and do what she must to survive.”
Will you die if you don’t strike a bargain with this purported patriarchy? I’m a female. I don’t find myself harmed by the so-called patriarchy.
“The choice women face is how to deal with the fact that they are treated as the submissive class in society and their base humanity is always in question
Really? When in American history did women ever face a question to their humanity? If women are viewed as so sub-human, why is it that crimes against females are considered much more horrifying than those committed against men? Yes, women are submissive – to the law. Men, women, children, adults, old, and young must submit to authority of one form or another.
*record skip…*
How does one even get to this place? Asserting that patriarchy hasn’t harmed them personally and what is the big deal with it? Where does one even start with that and what society did you grow up in? I want in.
Let’s be clear here, this is not to criticize DtP for the views she holds. That is not our place, but rather, how can the case be made respectfully to illustrate how patriarchy affects us all, and there is little to be gained from not acknowledging its role in society.
I think that in many cases it is easier to choose not to see the systematic obstacles and biases that severely curtail the experiences and life trajectories of women in our society. After all, who wants to plumb the depths of their subordinate status, witness their oppression, and realize that they are not regarded as fully human in society? Certainly not happy rainbows and unicorns revelations, but is it worth the psychic energy necessary to sublimate these societal realities into a happy patina of ‘things are okay in society and I’m mostly not a part of class of people who are treated as less then human’?
Patty Ramsen wrote this on internalized misogyny:
“Women all over the world are dealing with internalized misogyny that puts them in opposition with other women and themselves. Some of them think less of women as a whole and place their faith in the opinions of men. Others have been raised to believe that men are superior and women are inferior. Women receive misogynistic messages from all fronts, so battling against it is constant. The fight never ends. You can excise your misogyny, but first, you have to admit that you have it so that you can pinpoint the toxic behaviors and belief systems that created it in the first place.”
And of course, Andrea Dworkin from Right Wing Women:
“Right-wing women have surveyed the world: they find it a dangerous place. They see that work subjects them to more danger from more men; it increases the risk of sexual exploitation. They see that creativity and originality in their kind are ridiculed; they see women thrown out of the circle of male civilization for having ideas, plans, visions, ambitions. They see that traditional marriage means selling to one man, not hundreds: the better deal. They see that the streets are cold, and that the women on them are tired, sick, and bruised. They see that the money they can earn will not make them independent of men and that they will still have to play the sex games of their kind: at home and at work too. They see no way to make their bodies authentically their own and to survive in the world of men.
They know too that the Left has nothing better to offer: leftist men also want wives and whores; leftist men value whores too much and wives too little. Right-wing women are not wrong. They fear that the Left, in stressing impersonal sex and promiscuity as values, will make them more vulnerable to male sexual aggression, and that they will be despised for not liking it. They are not wrong. Right-wing women see that within the system in which they live they cannot make their bodies their own, but they can agree to privatized male ownership: keep it one-on-one, as it were. They know that they are valued for their sex— their sex organs and their reproductive capacity—and so they try to up their value: through cooperation, manipulation, conformity; through displays of affection or attempts at friendship; through submission and obedience; and especially through the use of euphemism—“femininity, ” “total woman, ” “good, ” “maternal instinct, ” “motherly love. ”
Their desperation is quiet; they hide their bruises of body and heart; they dress carefully and have good manners; they suffer, they love God, they follow the rules. They see that intelligence displayed in a woman is a flaw, that intelligence realized in a woman is a crime. They see the world they live in and they are not wrong. They use sex and babies to stay valuable because they need a home, food, clothing. They use the traditional intelligence of the female—animal, not human: they do what they have to to survive.”
I couldn’t find who said the quote about women not wanting to accept the reality of their situation, only because in doing so would only reveal how deeply misogyny is rooted in society. Feel free, kind readers to help me out. :)
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
Your opinions…