[Bobboau]

Well, how do they word it? This is not the first time I have seen these kinds of arguments levied against feminism as a whole and they turned out to be strawmen (strawwomen?).

differently, any wording of it I would do would be inaccurate, I give my perception of their position rather than trying to present their position because I know I will not do so accurately.
Which is kinda the opposite of strawmanning BTW. I hear people use the term strawman a lot when they have failed to convey their position and hear what made it across come back at them.

[MP-Ryan]

I know it's a thing. But it's a thing most feminists spend less time worrying about than the extinction of the lesser wattled umbrella bird. Let me put it this way. I've seen more articles from feminists complaining that pink razors cost more than blue razors than I've seen complaining about men being treated unfairly in divorce courts. Which one do you think really hurts women more?

Things like this are expressly why I don't identify as "feminist" in any sort of labeling exercise (moreover, I find labels irksome and group-think inducing, but that's a point for another day).

Many/most vocal feminists are very good at handwaving about equal concern over rights, but in practice I notice they spend far more time talking about how issue X affects women specifically than people as a whole (or even just marginalized people; issues are nearly-always discussed in gendered terms).  On other issues, I note a disturbingly gendered-slant to the approach toward an issue depending on the role of a male involved versus a female.  And yes, I have some very good examples, though I'm not going to single out any of the individual women making them.  Instead, I'll just mention a particular issue:

Criminal justice is a minefield at the best of times, but I've noted a disturbing trend away from due process rights when the trial involves a female accuser and a male accused.  Sexual assault trials are the most common example, but there was a recent criminal case involving criminal harassment charges here in Canada where this also stuck out.  When the accuser is female and the accused is male, we are asked to believe her and render judgment before a trial returns with a guilty finding.  No such bias exists when we are dealing with two female accused.  The same occurs with transgendered persons.  We have finally moved away from criminal justice institutions where the testimony of the male is automatically believed over the testimony of a female, to one in which we see active calls for an erosion of due process rights of the accused based on their gender.  That scares the crap out of me.  Many of the vocal feminists I follow online or interact with - who, let it be said, are great people and I believe do great work, which is why I follow and interact with them - have blinders on on this issue, where its no longer just a rush to support victims, but also a rush to condemn the accused solely on the basis of their story.  I'm happy to do the former, but not the latter.  I was concerned, after the disastrous RollingStone-UVA mess, to see people STILL rallying around cries of "I believe Jackie!" to condemn both the university and the fraternity despite the findings of multiple investigations, including a criminal one, that her allegations could not be substantiated and that many of the events detailed in the article were fabricated.

Sexual assault is another specific issue, especially outside the criminal context.  For far too long, women have been discouraged from reporting sexual crimes, improperly questioned/interrogated by authorities when they do, and subjected to detailed examinations of irrelevant details of their private lives when a case does actually make it to court.  Finally - FINALLY! - we are seeing something of a reversal (at least in the latter two), where authorities have developed more sensitive techniques for handling victims and shield laws on identity and history have been enacted to protect them in the court process, and along comes Title IX and civil disciplinary approaches.  Suddenly we've arrived at a process where an accused is essentially found guilty on the basis of the complaint without any due process protections.  Moreover, we've seen a shift to a seemingly ridiculous situation where it's a race - if you're both drunk, first person to make an assault complaint wins.  Impairment automatically means consent cannot be obtained from the accuser, while impairment simultaneously is an aggravating factor on the accused.

I fully believe there are a great many social problems where women face significantly greater burdens and discrimination than men, and that those issues should be challenged.  Feminists have a very large role in challenging those situations, but they also have a role in challenging others in which the gendered slant tilts against men, and there is far less evidence that that is occurring.  Doesn't mean that I don't think feminism and feminists aren't valuable, quite the contrary - I just don't think the movement is quite as intersectional and inclusive as it claims to be.

[Macielos]

The problem is that third wave has no really defined goals beyond an end to sexism. It's third wave because these are the people who grew up once all the obvious major cases of inequality in the West had been dealt with. So it's a very different from second wave which actually had defined goals. Beyond that it's impossible to define what it is. It's like if you ignore the religion itself in defining what is a Muslim or a Christian. You end up with extremists who make it the basis of their entire existence and are ready to lynch anyone who shows the slightest indication of different thinking. Then you end up with moderates who don't care about other people except when it infringes upon them. Then you end up with groups who consider certain things very important while ignoring other issues.

At this point anyone who talks about feminism as if it's a single entity is wrong. What you have is several movements with differing (and sometimes completely contradictory) goals all lumped under the same heading. Little wonder that most people find feminists to be confused, they seldom notice that it's not the same people who are arguing for different things. Funnily enough it's not actually 3rd wave feminism that is sexist so much as grouping every single feminist under one banner regardless of what they are actually protesting for or against just cause they are women.

I don't see third-wave feminism to be as diverse as you describe it. There are several basic ideas commonly shared among modern feminists. They include opposing discrimination in any form, fighting so called gender pay gap, supporting gender parities and quotas, opposing traditional patriarchal model of family.

I do not group EVERY feminist under this banner. I'm sure there are exceptions, but same would go for first and second waves too, basically for any ideology. At least I've never met a feminist who would not support ideas above.

How did you come to the conclusion that the gender distribution of whatever process you currently have in mind is natural?

Because it was going that way throughout history, without social engineering of any kind.

Various "specialists" regularly publish articles with thesis like "There are only 20% women in [put any profession here, e.g. CEOs, soldiers, IT specialists, politicians], we must change it!". How would we want to change it? Gender gap here shows mostly that men statistically suits better for the job. For same reasons vast majority of nurses or teachers are women - it requires skills that statistically are more common among women than men. It does not prevent man from becoming a nurse of women from joining the military. It's absolutely ok as long as there are no legal barriers for one sex.

[Bobboau]

or ignoring any of that issue of physical differences between genders sexes, it seems women just simply don't want certain jobs.

[karajorma]

I fully believe there are a great many social problems where women face significantly greater burdens and discrimination than men, and that those issues should be challenged.  Feminists have a very large role in challenging those situations, but they also have a role in challenging others in which the gendered slant tilts against men, and there is far less evidence that that is occurring.  Doesn't mean that I don't think feminism and feminists aren't valuable, quite the contrary - I just don't think the movement is quite as intersectional and inclusive as it claims to be.

I fully agree with that. But I'll point out another issue related to the above.

Various "specialists" regularly publish articles with thesis like "There are only 20% women in [put any profession here, e.g. CEOs, soldiers, IT specialists, politicians], we must change it!".

If the 20% is due to actual discrimination against women then feminists obviously have a reason to get involved. If people aren't giving women jobs in IT cause of old boys networks or because they believe that women can't be good programmers that is an issue.

However feminists also want to get involved when they think the root cause is cultural rather than due to actual discrimination. Now I can understand that if they feel that women don't get into IT because they feel it's a man's job then they also need to challenge this issue. IT is not a job that can't be done by women so I fully support any feminist who wants to make it more culturally acceptable for women to become programmers. Macielos and Bobboau are trying to claim that the differences might be down to the biological differences between the sexes. They might be partially correct. But if the difference is social, then it does need to be explored and looked at. If women don't want to be coders because they think women can't do that job. Or because they think that it's a job for fat, sweaty neckbeards then yeah, that should be challenged until the only differences left are biological.

BUT

Where is the charge to make being a nurse more culturally acceptable for men? Never seen it, never heard it, never even heard OF it. And the cultural perception that only women and gay men want to become nurses is far more damaging to women than the stereotype about women not being coders.

My basic point is that feminism in general is very reluctant to challenge any issue related to men's rights even when women would be better off as a result. I hear a lot of lip service to the idea but it's very rare that I see any action about it.

supporting gender parities and quotas {snip}

At least I've never met a feminist who would not support ideas above.

I might have agreed with you until that bit. I don't think supporting quotas is anywhere near as big a thing as you believe. I suspect you're confusing the issue I mentioned above (trying to bring about cultural changes) with supporting quotas to enforce them.

[Grizzly]

How did you come to the conclusion that the gender distribution of whatever process you currently have in mind is natural?

Because it was going that way throughout history, without social engineering of any kind.

Social engineering has been going on in human civilizations ever since they developed agriculture. To ignore that is to be ignorant of history.
But hey, let's give it a shot: Can you explain how the process described in this article is natural?

[Bobboau]

so has genocide. just because something has been going on for generations doesn't mean it should be considered acceptable.

[karajorma]

You don't beat an appeal to nature with an appeal against tradition. Both are logical fallacies. What matters is whether social engineering is a good idea or not.

[Bobboau]

I didn't say I won, I just said his defence made no sense.

so, agreed.

[Grizzly]

so has genocide. just because something has been going on for generations doesn't mean it should be considered acceptable.

Not my point: I am arguing that the gender inbalances we have now are just another result of social engineering being conducted, and not the result of some indescrible natural process. Hence the link: If one would make the argument that the current gender imbalances are a natural phenonom (like Macieclos is doing), they would have to explain why the female population suddenly lost the natural affinity with skills associated with computing in a space of 25 years.

[666maslo666]

This is a thing already: It's commonly referred to as "Toxic masculinity".

It very much is insufficient. Even the name, toxic masculinity, implies that males are toxic. More broadly, the entire feminism movement is derived from the word female and was originally about female rights. It just cannot effectively address the other side of the issue. Nor should it really try to address male issues, because this idea that male issues should be addressed through a female movement is quite insulting and demeaning. Male issues need a Mens rights movement, meninism, or whatever you want to call it. Of course, Id be the first to say that current MRM seem to have no less crazies than third wave feminism in its ranks..

[Grizzly]

This is a thing already: It's commonly referred to as "Toxic masculinity".

It very much is insufficient. Even the name, toxic masculinity, implies that males are toxic.

Only if you consider masculinity an inherent, unshakable and unredeemable trait to all males. Which it isn't: Masculinity (and the toxicity that derives from some of it's aspects) is a cultural phenonom.

[karajorma]

More broadly, the entire feminism movement is derived from the word female and was originally about female rights. It just cannot effectively address the other side of the issue. Nor should it really try to address male issues, because this idea that male issues should be addressed through a female movement is quite insulting and demeaning. Male issues need a Mens rights movement, meninism, or whatever you want to call it. Of course, Id be the first to say that current MRM seem to have no less crazies than third wave feminism in its ranks..

There's no reason a man can't be a feminist. In fact it's quite shockingly sexist of you to imagine otherwise.

Seriously though, I'd rather any sort of movement DID come from the feminist side of things. It would be much harder to for it to end up full of the kind of idiots who make up the men's right movement. And feminism was originally only about equal rights for the most part. If things have reached the point where something needs to be done about men's rights too, there is no reason anyone should be butt-hurt if the people who start it off are the people who have been studying gender politics for years.

I do agree with you about the name toxic masculinity though. If someone had used that term for anything women did you could bet that feminists would be up in arms about it. But it is worth remembering that it wasn't feminists who came up with the term.

[666maslo666]

There's no reason a man can't be a feminist. In fact it's quite shockingly sexist of you to imagine otherwise.

Of course a man can be a feminist, but you just cannot expect such man to address male issues effectively through his feminism. That is, unless he is also a meninist, egalitarian, or something like that. And ideally, there should not be any inner conflict between his feminism and meninism. But gender wars being as polarising as they are, that balance is hard to achieve.

[Macielos]

If the 20% is due to actual discrimination against women then feminists obviously have a reason to get involved. If people aren't giving women jobs in IT cause of old boys networks or because they believe that women can't be good programmers that is an issue.

I'm a programmer myself. In my company there is one female programmer (and about 20 males). At the Faculty of Electronics where I study there are circa 5-10% of girls (and most of them study one course - biomedical engineering). A friend of mine (a girl) is attending course of electronics, although I see she has no talent for it at all and she keeps failing her exams - but it seems she is afraid of admitting she chose the wrong studies and seeking something else. On the other hand, the few women working in IT I know are handling programming and generally computers pretty well.

I think we in this discussion are paying far too much attention to statistics and too little to individual cases. When we say that only e.g. 10% of programmers are women, this may sound like a discrimination. But let's ask ourselves a question "why should it be 50%?"

A job interview for a software developer usually looks like that: interviewer asks candidates some questions on theory, gives a simple algorithmic problem to solve. It is often preceded by a programming task a candidate does online. I don't think there is much place for any meaningful discrimination here. You just see if candidate is suitable for the job when you examine him or her.

However feminists also want to get involved when they think the root cause is cultural rather than due to actual discrimination. Now I can understand that if they feel that women don't get into IT because they feel it's a man's job then they also need to challenge this issue. IT is not a job that can't be done by women so I fully support any feminist who wants to make it more culturally acceptable for women to become programmers.

Encouraging women to take traditionally male jobs - I'm ok with that. Hell, I'd be more than happy seeing more girls studying and working with me .

The problem is when we try to enforce it - e.g. introducing a regulation so that an employer HAS to employ woman to satisfy a quota. Or a political party HAS to put 50% of women on the lists to meet the parity although political reality is that there are more charismatic and qualified male candidates (or more female - it may go both ways).

Even worse is that there are attempts to loosen requirements for some jobs to make women meet them more easily. There was a case in Germany (it was last year, I think) when police deleted part of the physical test for candidates because it was mostly failed by women.

Macielos and Bobboau are trying to claim that the differences might be down to the biological differences between the sexes. They might be partially correct. But if the difference is social, then it does need to be explored and looked at. If women don't want to be coders because they think women can't do that job. Or because they think that it's a job for fat, sweaty neckbeards then yeah, that should be challenged until the only differences left are biological.

I do not neglect role of social and cultural factors, but these also have some origins and in each case we should determine if there is any point trying to change them. E.g. in many families father works long hours (and as a result usually gets paid more) while mother takes up a less time-consuming job like a teacher. It's because a mother prefers a job that would allow her to spend afternoons and holidays with children. Nobody enforced that model, it was just formed naturally as it was the most suitable both for kids and family's financial situation. But nothing prevents parents from both working part-time or full time or even exchanging their roles to make father a "house-husband".

BUT

Where is the charge to make being a nurse more culturally acceptable for men? Never seen it, never heard it, never even heard OF it. And the cultural perception that only women and gay men want to become nurses is far more damaging to women than the stereotype about women not being coders.

My basic point is that feminism in general is very reluctant to challenge any issue related to men's rights even when women would be better off as a result. I hear a lot of lip service to the idea but it's very rare that I see any action about it.

I don't think there is much pressure on opening traditionally female jobs for men. If a man is really determined to become a nurse, he'll be a nurse.

A good example of clear men discrimination is divorcing. In Poland when a couple with children is divorcing, in circa 90% cases courts give mother a right to keep the kids and charge father with alimony.

I might have agreed with you until that bit. I don't think supporting quotas is anywhere near as big a thing as you believe. I suspect you're confusing the issue I mentioned above (trying to bring about cultural changes) with supporting quotas to enforce them.

As I said, I may have simplified a bit. But from my experience and knowledge, every meaningful feminist and every feminist organization in Poland is a strong supporter of gender parities.

so has genocide. just because something has been going on for generations doesn't mean it should be considered acceptable.

Genocide is not humanity's natural state. Normally you are not pushed to cutting your neighbour's throat unless you are brought to the limits by poverty, war or starvation or your neighbour is dehumanized by some collective ideology.

[AdmiralRalwood]

This is a thing already: It's commonly referred to as "Toxic masculinity".

It very much is insufficient. Even the name, toxic masculinity, implies that males are toxic.

Only if you consider masculinity an inherent, unshakable and unredeemable trait to all males. Which it isn't: Masculinity (and the toxicity that derives from some of it's aspects) is a cultural phenonom.

Also, "toxic masculinity" doesn't mean "all masculinity is toxic" any more than the phrase "man-hating feminist" implies "all feminists hate men".

[zookeeper]

I've read through a fair bit of the kind of feminist blogging referred to here and disagreed with more points than I can count, but even there I never got the impression that "toxic masculinity" was in any way used to imply that masculinity is toxic.

[karajorma]

No it isn't. But as an example try saying "man-hating feminist" to a lot of feminists. See what happens.

I think we in this discussion are paying far too much attention to statistics and too little to individual cases. When we say that only e.g. 10% of programmers are women, this may sound like a discrimination. But let's ask ourselves a question "why should it be 50%?"

Why shouldn't it be? On what basis have you formed the opinion that women don't want to be coders?

See the problem is that you're being fundamentally unscientific about this. You're looking at the state of affairs, making a hypothesis about why it is (women just don't want to be coders) and then not testing that in any way, shape, size or form. What I've said is that you need to separate out the cultural reasons until only the biological ones exist.

A job interview for a software developer usually looks like that: interviewer asks candidates some questions on theory, gives a simple algorithmic problem to solve. It is often preceded by a programming task a candidate does online. I don't think there is much place for any meaningful discrimination here. You just see if candidate is suitable for the job when you examine him or her.

You've confused discrimination with cultural issues here. I addressed both in my earlier post. What you're talking about here is actual discrimination. And although I disagree with you and suspect it does happen a lot more than you claim, I suspect the real reasons for women in IT being lower are cultural.

The problem is when we try to enforce it - e.g. introducing a regulation so that an employer HAS to employ woman to satisfy a quota.

Who said anything about enforcing it? Claims of quotas are exactly the same sort of bull**** argument people have tried to use against racial discrimination too. And they never existed there either. In the end, one of the best explanations of how affirmative action should work was from Chris Rock

Don't get me wrong with affirmative action.

I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I get a lower mark in a test.

I don't think I should get accepted into a school over a white person if I get a lower mark.

But if there's a tie, **** 'em.

****, you had a 400-year head start, mother****er.

I don't think there is much pressure on opening traditionally female jobs for men. If a man is really determined to become a nurse, he'll be a nurse.

I know there's no pressure. My point is that there should be. You said you were okay with encouraging women to take traditionally male roles, why shouldn't the reverse also happen?

[666maslo666]

Who said anything about enforcing it? Claims of quotas are exactly the same sort of bull**** argument people have tried to use against racial discrimination too. And they never existed there either. In the end, one of the best explanations of how affirmative action should work was from Chris Rock

Don't get me wrong with affirmative action.

I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I get a lower mark in a test.

I don't think I should get accepted into a school over a white person if I get a lower mark.

But if there's a tie, **** 'em.

****, you had a 400-year head start, mother****er.

You just proved his point by posting that BS. If there is a tie, there should be a random outcome. Giving preference to anyone based on race is racism, giving preference to anyone based on gender is sexism. If you support such policies, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

EDIT: also, affirmative action does not usually apply only if there is a tie. The bottom line is, supporting such affirmative action and also gender quotas is quite common among feminists. And this is a problem and a valid criticism, IMHO.

[karajorma]

It's not common at all. Seriously, this sort of argument has been proved false every single time it has come up in the race debate (quotas are actually illegal in most Western countries in fact) and I've yet to see an iota of evidence it's any more common when it comes to gender.