Comments by "I Hate Unicorns" (@ihateunicorns867) on "Charisma on Command"
channel.
-
2100
-
207
-
59
-
34
-
24
-
22
-
16
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
***** Now I'm in a difficult position. I really don't want to get into a YouTube comments debate about feminism. It'll go nowhere constructive and I've heard it all 100 times before. But on the other hand, what you've said is so easy to explain/answer.
This is all very basic-level stuff though. Some things take more study to understand and I probably can't easily explain them in a comment of this length.
Here goes:
1. No, it's a statement based on masses of evidence and countless studies by sociologists. It's not a controversial view, it's a view accepted by mainstream sociology. To argue that it wasn't the case would be a bold claim.
2. I'm not claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women — this is a common misconception/misrepresentation of feminist theory used by antifeminists. Our notions of gender roles are a mix of socially constructed and biological differences between men and women. Socially constructed such as: trousers/skirts, short hair/long hair, pink/blue etc. Biological being: logical intelligence/emotional intelligence, physically strong/physically weaker etc. However, the biological aspects are only general trends and men and women often don't conform. eg. You get strong, athletic women and you get emotionally intelligent, sensitive men. The part feminists have a problem with is the application of gender roles. eg: girls being discouraged from playing with "boys toys" and encouraged to play with dolls and make-up sets, boys being told that "boys don't cry" … "man up" etc. Feminists don't want a physically strong woman to feel she's less of a woman because of her strength.
3. This one is going to annoy you. I apologise, but I don't know how to say it in a nicer way. Firstly, you don't understand what intersectional feminism is. Secondly, you are falling into the classic trap of viewing your own culture as "the right balance" and everything from less-developed nations/past times as "needing progressive ideas" and anything that moves your own culture on as "going too far". This has always been a common psychological trait throughout history. It's what people thought when enslaving Black people was considered acceptable and normal.
4. Yes, you can find people who supported Solanas, but you are still anomaly hunting. Attempted murder is not part of feminist ideology. Sommers calls herself a feminist, but I feel she does this in a facetious way to make a point. She does not want to change women's position in society. She seems happy with things as they are and spends her time trying to discredit feminist theory. Believing in equality makes you egalitarian, not feminist. A feminist recognises that the way to achieve gender equality is to elevate women's position in society.
5. Being male makes you privileged in terms of gender, but there are many forms of privilege: ethnicity, gender, wealth, sexuality, disability etc. Each has their own problems. People get defensive when they are called privileged, but it doesn't mean you have it easy. It means you have it easier than someone else in exactly the same position as you, but who is female.
6. Many feminists are guilty of ignoring their own privilege. You are very right on that. This is what the notion of intersectional feminism is trying to counteract.
6
-
6
-
***** Well, I have two degrees in it so I'm fairly invested in the concept. Feminism is really an umbrella term for a wide spectrum of beliefs, but they are united by the desire to change women's position in society.
I really do think that most adversity to feminist discourse by people who truly believe that men and women should be equal comes through misunderstanding. Although, I do think a lot of the time, feminists are to blame for this. Anger at injustice seems to take over from persuasive techniques a little too often for my tastes (but then I'm in a position of privilege being male, and have the luxury of being to walk away should I wish). I can see how people could be outraged if they read those radical 'think' pieces and take them literally. Due to the difficultly people face in being objective about their own culture, people write 'think' pieces with radical content. These pieces may call for the death of all white men or to round up men and put them in camps etc. These are not meant to be taken literally — no-one actually wants this. They are a hypothetical scenarios designed to take people out of their comfort zone and allow them to view a situation from a different perspective and therefore gain insight they might not otherwise gain. Unfortunately, the people who really need to benefit from these are the ones that will take it literally and make a YouTube video about the 'crazy feminists'. So, while I understand the reason for these things' existence, I'm not sure I can completely get on board with them.
If you were referring to something else, then I apologise for rambling.
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Bad Man
Okay, This is going to be rambly and go off at tangents and not really form any kind of cohesive structure. Sorry. Any areas you want me to expand on, please ask and I'll do my best.
Top, top line:
I find the term Egalitarianism to be of very little use when you are trying to establish what someone believes. Speaking purely from a western perspective, pretty much all people believe that all people should be equal. The bigger question for me is recognising the problems that are getting in the way of forming an egalitarian society (or as near to it as we can get). For me, Feminism is recognising that women's position in society needs to be advanced to achieve equality for gender (again, for me. Many different strands of feminism. Some don't want to be advanced in a society with the current patriarchal framework… long story. Lots of theory. I've never met a feminist who wants superiority over men, but I'm sure they exist somewhere in the same way there are socialists who want the monarchy and the rich executed, but that doesn't really define what socialism is). But this is all just semantics really.
Gender inequality is so, so vast and so, so complex. I'm not sure it helps dividing it up into problems that negatively affect men and problems that negatively affect women. In a way it's lots of different problems but it's also one big problem. Men are in a more powerful position than women and this causes a lot of problems (for women and for men, but women suffer a lot more — although it's not a sympathy competition. It's a question of identifying what's wrong and fixing it). The majority of discrimination men face based on their gender is a fallout from patriarchy. If you want to fix this, fix it for women and the male problems will also be fixed.
It's very difficult for men to understand what it's like being a woman and vice verser. Empathy is hard. And when you are able to dip in and out of a discussion/problem as we are, it's difficult to understand what it's like being in that situation. As the great Jarvis Cocker puts it: "Still you'll never get it right, 'cause when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall, if you called your Dad, he could stop it all". I recommend following EverydaySexism on Twitter just to see how commonplace and normalised harassment and sexism is for women. Men do not experience discrimination anywhere near as frequently. I can almost hear you asking for evidence.
The problem with evidence for things like this is it is there but is doesn't take the form that people are asking for. It's like the creationist asking for evidence of "transitional forms" and using the lack of it as confirmation of intelligent design. I'm going to call it a "technique", because I believe it is a technique used to dismiss the struggles of women. People want to see scientifically tested or peer-reviewed evidence of things or else they don't believe them. Now, this is a great attitude to have for things that can be tested like that: medicine etc. But you can analyse sociological phenomena like this because you cannot isolate it, and if you could, it would lose all meaning because it's defined by its context. You have to listen to people's experiences. But some people take a leap of logic and conclude that if you can't prove it via rigorous scientific method, then it must not be true, and they take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. They can then explain away every instance they hear one by one with full-on confirmation bias while believing that they are upholding the scientific method. — this is a tangent sorry.
You are not being pushed to the right. You are pushing yourself. You don't have to align yourself to any movement. You can just believe what you believe and be critical of methodology you perceive as negative.
I recommend just trying to see life from the point of view of a woman. Read something lighthearted and funny like Caitlin Moran's How to be a woman. I like her a lot as a feminist. Her views are pretty in line with mine. She doesn't want to fucking ban everything like they all seem to want to do. Banning stuff is rarely the solution. Education, not legislation. If something is sexist, make better stuff and give people the choice.
Random side note: Massive generalisation, but I'll tell you something about 2nd and 3rd wave feminism: 2nd wave may seem all great and simple (hindsight is a wonderful advantage there, of course), but they were pretty anti-porn. 3rd wave on the other hand… a lot more pro-porn. I think porn can be feministic, although most of it isn't. But as a concept, great. Not that that's really got anything to do with anything. Apologies for the non-sequitur there.
2
-
2
-
2