Clairvoidance

Clairvoidance , 11 months ago (edited 11 months ago) to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

Assuming your colleague had gotten raises through merit, it's obviously silly to roll that back, I would've thought that they'd account for raises given that it wasn't actually implied that they had to act on this, just disclose the difference, and this reminds me I'm probably foolish in imagining such a thing would just be itself in a vacuum (ie not fuck up things that are kinda encouraging people to do their job better)

Could you give me the title of this specific paper

Sorry for the long wait, "Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist" (literature review) by Johnson MP. in 2011, which was a year before
I use this paper most of all to show what feminist academics thought even 10 years ago, since the video seemed to still have these misconceptions, and they mostly argue against Straus for misrepresentations and ill conclusions of others' works and beliefs.

Your second study doesn't seem to support the point based on its abstract, from point a to f

First Study: References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated
is a bit of a mess, as most of the things citing it doesn't really use it for the purpose of saying "women are as physically aggressive as men", and it for some reason brings a child-abuse study(?), a bunch of anecdotes, and an internet survey from the middle of a sociologist's book (not paper) up in its first part, but this put me down a further rabbithole of Gender Symmetry discussion which I hadn't delved into before, 1 2 and I'll admit it at the very least doesn't seem like a settled debate, so I retract what I have to say about Gender Symmetry itself since idk anymore

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that these aspects may skew the statistics on perpetration rates between men and women.

I fully agree, (think my wall even says so) but from any not-radfem feminist perspective, this seems to be parts we acknowledge, it's just also viewed as caused by Patriarchal society as it previously stood and perpetuated by how it currently stands

Thanks for your input as well, it forced me to learn a little more about what I don't know

Clairvoidance OP , 11 months ago to Politics in The left must embrace law and order | Slavoj Zizek

I think that misses the point of the post as Zizek argues the shaking of order as things are now will lead to more right wing authoritarianism.

Clairvoidance , 11 months ago to RedditMigration in What's your opinion on cross-posting?

If there's something that interests you or you think will benefit others, post it

Clairvoidance , 11 months ago to Politics in Activists sue Harvard over legacy admissions after affirmative action ruling

Crickets from the anti AA crowd

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

First off I want to say I never said that GravyMan refuted anything, they at best provide their own experience because they do not back up their claim with anything. They made clarifying statements as to how they see feminism as a feminist because they felt bad discourse abrew (probably)
The conversation became messy then, when it's the case that OP and OP's video didn't bring evidence, and then others complain that GravyMan who contends OP's synopsis don't bring evidence. Wowsers.
Why are we then still hammering on the 2nd person, and why do we write off my paragraphs as 'boldly spewing out bullshit' as if that's an argument. I could've easily said that's what OP is saying. This gives me an inclination that you (since you made this about me being ideological) are the one stuck in your depths.

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

From my viewing, he made unsubstantiated points almost every step of the way, ie even when he did imply evidence, he had an awful inclination not to cite it directly thus making it unlikely to be fact-checked.
could you remind me of his key points and their evidence?

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

Do I have to remind you that attacking a social movement for its bad policies is not the same as "hating women"?

and

Feminism is not “progressive”: It’s regressive; it is based on misandry, sexist discrimination, hate & bias; it suppresses science

cannot coexist if you bring self-awareness into the equation

'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. '

this entire video is asserted without evidence ya goof

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

Well that was a fun thing noone will read, my job here is done

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

Claim: Feminism is excusing and downplaying perpetrated violence
see https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006
Claim: The science on this matter is reasonably clear
you just said it'd been denied for 4-5 decades
Claim: and yet female perpetrated violence is downplayed and male domestic violence is overplayed
This could easily be argued to be part of patriarchial society, but there's still no source despite such large claims

---

Claims: These gender gaps exist 30:00
I agree. I think I've heard about the existence of almost all of these. But he's also just saying things without sourcing anything.
So consider your evidenceless claim dismissed.

---

Claim: No feminist is advocating for anything to be done about these gaps
Just..

---

Claim: Feminism is neither liberal, because it treats women as children
didnt even elaborate how this time, let alone name real examples
Claim: Undermine due process
doesnt elaborate how
Claim: Suppress freedom of speech because they say that they are being sexistly oppressed and use that to shut down free speech
I don't think they challenge the 1st amendment, but while I have you, Paradox of Tolerance

---

Claim: expanding state power
feminism is when you want the state to do its job I guess

---

Claim: Sex work is considered a form of oppression under patriarchy
There is a very loud SWERF group in feminism but I think most feminists already have come around to see that it's best for it to be legalized and protected

---

Claim: Mobbing/Vigilante Methods/Cancelling is illiberal
Paradox of Tolerance, and while there are obviously instances where I disagree with mob-rule type decisions, people generally rile up to hold others accountable - I don't agree with
retributive justice and hope society in general comes around, but that is not a feminism issue.

---

Claim: Authoritarian Control & Obedience
cant name a single policy that furthers this narrative

---

Claim: Feminism is not leftwing because Marxist-connected feminism is on the decline
I have no fucking idea whether or this is the case, outside of intersectional feminist spaces almost all critique Capitalism as part of what needs something done with

---

Claim: There's actually a lot more women doing super great, it's just that men are the top 0.01% while there are way more women below them [in like the top 10% i guess?] and Theresa May was a conservative prime minister
I don't see how the first part would make feminism not left wing, but yeah there can be conservatives that think they're feminist despite ignoring big feminist ideas I guess

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

Claim: Sexist discrimination against men exist in the education system
He'll back this claim later I guess (Addendum after the fact: he didnt)

---

Claim: Feminism suppresses science that goes against its narrative
Example: 5 decades of domestic violence science suppressed, this is called Gender Symmetry Estate
Research on partner violence consistently shows that women are more likely to be victims of severe physical violence, including injury, hospitalization, or death, compared to men. Studies have also consistently found that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of partner violence. These gender differences are supported by extensive empirical evidence and have been replicated across multiple studies and various countries. (CDC, WHO, NIJ, and various various scholarly journals are not just fake - There's also a very very good paper critiquing Straus and others' papers, you can read through and be the judge. paper's author also recognizes violence can go both ways, and woah woah hold on a sec, there's even substiation of feminism as being misrepresented?? This paper seems like a pretty open and shut case.)

---

Claim: The reason for the Gender Pay Gap is because men and women have different occupations and different choices, in lifestyles they have different patterns, and this reason is being suppressed
And do you think maybe we should prioritize so that jobs on both sides of the spectrum feel an inclination towards have decent pay? Why do we act like education, and nursery has so little value for instance
Also this isn't suppressed, and wasn't in the year he posted this, it's readily available. (There's an argument that people like Hillary Clinton misunderstood these studies or the real solution to them, but they have mostly been corrected over the years) occupational segregation should be addressed basically. You'd also think he'd link to things that are suppressed considering it'd be hard to find. idk, consider your evidenceless claim dismissed
Bonus Claim: Gender pay gap reportings are forced by governments
Gender pay gap reporting refers to the practice of collecting and disclosing data on the difference in average earnings between men and women within an organization or across a particular industry or sector, I don't see an issue with this being enforced.

---

Claim: the Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory because the leader in some countries and universities and police departments are women
I'm sorry.. But this is a clear misunderstanding about what Patriarchy is claiming.
the concept of the patriarchy asserts that societies are organized in a way that systematically privileges men and grants them greater power, authority, and control over resources compared to women. It suggests that this power imbalance is not merely a result of individual choices or preferences, but rather a result of deeply ingrained social, cultural, and institutional structures. This dominance is not limited to individuals but extends to systemic patterns and norms. It's argued that it perpetuates gender inequality by reinforcing traditional gender roles and expectation, and that it does this because it leads to disparities in opportunities, resources and decision-making power.
It posits women as being objectified and treated as commodities way more often. It argues that the on-the-book laws and cultural nroms perpetuate these unequal power dynamics. It does not imply that all men benefit equally from this system or that women are devoid of agency or power, and modern patriarchy theory generally recognizes that men suffer too under patriarchy (see former paper that I said was a slamdunk)

---

Claim: They believe in gynocentrism
radfem shit, again I thought we were here to shut down feminism as a whole, especially when the next sentence is "Feminism is Anti-Egalitarian", says it's an empirical fact

---

Claim: Women are given privilege in the legal system, not given the same responsibilities as men
Decidedly full of shit down to any level. What do you want me to say, he made it the fuck up. How is there 20 minutes left

---

Claim: Feminism sees men as disposable. People only cared when girls were suffering that one time when boys also suffered and in greater amounts
Feminism acknowledges men as being seen as disposable in current society and is one of the movements trying to work towards getting rid of that, it just so happens that feminism believes patriarchy's traditional-values teaching is the source of this. This also doesn't make sense if we take his claim that feminism is a minority belief seriously.

---

Claim: Feminists deny Due Process
Consider your evidenceless claim dismissed

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Feminism: Not “progressive”. Not “egalitarian”. Not “liberal”. Not “left-wing”.

This video is extremely slow and not concise, so you'll have to excuse everyone for not making it through your 1k view video from 2 years ago from a guy who advertises himself as a mathematician first. (Not to completely knock the guy, he at least has done a decent amount of research on what different sects of ideologies exist in relation to feminism, seems to recognize imaginary arguments (Blank Slatism) and is quick to throw away conspiratorial thought)

Does not define feminis as a "belief in gender equality", reasons:
1 Feminists reject gender equality, and is anti-equality (hes apparently only going to elaborate on this 20+ minutes in, but at least he knows gender-essentialist feminists are their own bag of worms and tries to narrow the topic to not-quite-blank-slatists)
2 Surveys show low amount of people define themself as feminist but large suport gender equality

2 does not really follow as an argument to dismiss feminism as a belief in gender equality, there's multiple ways of considering yourself a gender equalitist, in fact, I would say most people consider themselves to view everyone as equal, so gender equalitist becomes a very useless term very quickly due to the sheer amount of different worldviews on what that involves (like this video!). Numbers also don't exist in a vacuum, we have to consider stuff like the 2014+ conservative movement to argue against feminist ideas, I would personally argue that youtube was a popular space of discourse that had a lot of misrepresentation of feminist principles and end-goals through snappy clips of 'triggered feminist owned' videos.
Also as of 2020, 61% of American women defined themselves as feminist, I wouldn't compare that to schizophrenia??? but of course he says this without actually saying the number of people who identify themselves as feminist

---

Alright now that we spent 18 minutes talking about what intersectionalist feminism isn't, we are given a list of 'mumbo-jumbo jargon' that he attributes to cult behavior
That's weird considering I think you could make a list like this for most academic fields,

Claim: there's no recognizion that females engage in violence as well (19:00)
Tarana Burke has said MeToo is a survivor's movement

This is by a law professor who studied feminist legal theory writing a long justification for acknowleding women's acts of violence, this seems like a defacto case of the word contemporary (and is the first thing to come up on a search on 'feminist acknowledging women violence men')

Philosophy Tube, did not discover that her girlfriend didn't perform violence against her when she transitioned and is still a feminist as far as I'm aware

Jess Philips (mentioned in the video) in 2019 multiple times acknowledging female offenders' existence in parliament as she worked on the latest Domestic Abuse bill

could probably go on, especially because the closer you get to blank slatism you get, you'll see that it only makes sense to acknowledge female violence but I think it's established that being a feminist doesn't neccessitate not believing in female violence. Well that's annoying I had to provide all that evidence, and all he said for you to accept his terms is "there's very little recognizion that females engage in violence as well", when in the description he even cites #MeToohas been pathologizing masculinity as harmful.

---

Claim: This is mumbo-jumbo, because it is not scientific, this is the mumbo-jumbo jargon of a cult 19:40
Jargon is the specialized vocabulary of any profession, trade, science, or hobby, he has not specified anything that makes it cultish, and thinking soft-sciences has to have hard-science jargon just sounds like stem-brain (courtesy of smbc)

---

Claim: Misandry & Hate is perpetuated by mainstream feminists (goes on to name 'very well known people') 21:20
Judy Bindland(?) sorry i tried googling variations to make sure i got the name right, but I couldn't find any feminist by this name
Suzanne Moore who whined in 2016 how her movement isnt actually that popular, and I don't know why we're mentioning RADFEMs in the first place when we already acknowledged that we wanted to throw these accusations at all of feminism
"many many other examples", enlightening..
I think this is an appropriate time to use his own excuse of "drops in a small small ocean" exception

Clairvoidance , 1 year ago to men in Do we actually want vulnerable men? | Aba & Preach

Extreme analogies are often used in order to wake people up to the conversation they're having (or just for fun)
She put attacker into the literal sense which people could hopefully compare to regular situations of 'person who deals harm vs person who receives harm'