[jb17]

I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man.

The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.

[s_baby]

Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male".

I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.

[phaer]

> Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male".

I am sorry, I don't see how that would be the same as "denying any difference between men and women". Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"?

A lot of clothing conventions for males in past centuries would pass as "female" today. Until the late 19th century it was common for small boys to wear dresses, see [1] for an example.

Besides, I myself played with dolls as a small boy and as far as I can tell did take no harm. That might be different if those boys grow up around homophobic people who bully them for playing with dolls or wearing dresses.

[1]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-st...

[s_baby]

If it's wrong to force traditional roles/identities onto those with a "queer" predisposition then the opposite is also true.

[phaer]

That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case.

Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Does someone have recommended readying about that?

[s_baby]

>Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference.

A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas.

B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature.

C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.

[phaer]

A response would be even more appreciated than a down-vote ;)

[cwaniak]

Sexual preference is hardcoded in genes, right? Aren't you homophobic when you state otherwise? ;-)

[phaer]

I don't think so, there's a vast amount of LGBT authors who advocate the idea of sexuality as a social construct, be it homo-, hetero- or other sexualities

[vacri]

I also played with dolls as a boy, if you count Lego minifigures. I played around with them in a fantasy world where they did things and interacted with each other socially.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"?

I belive there were some experiments with babies by Trond Diseth that showed that babies have a natural tedency towards interacting with gender specific toys.

[stcredzero]

I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict.

Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.)

We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.

[yaddayadda]

I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!

[s_baby]

>My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender.

That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists.

Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point.

>I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!

Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice.

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia

[yaddayadda]

I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.

[s_baby]

I hear what you're saying. Let me show you how it looks from my perspective.

Imagine if the History department had an aggregation of white supremacists. They were allowed to have their own department, their own academic journals, and even held positions of power like Dean. Would their more inclusive peers not hold some responsibility in enabling these bigots? I know you're pointing out the good side of gender studies but you're also being apologetic and enabling radicalized feminism.

Every feminist and their mom is quick to point out how feminism is inclusive whenever this discussion comes up. Very few of them actually stand up to transphobia, misandry, and countless other forms of bigotry in their circles.

[vezzy-fnord]

This ignores the fact that "feminism" is not a coherent movement.

To be a feminist, one must advocate for women's rights at a bare minimum.

Everything else is completely up to the individual, and the fact is there exist lots of schools with contradictory opinions on major social issues. Sex-positive/sex-negative, pro-traditional femininity (lipstick feminist)/anti-traditional femininity, pro-trans/transphobic (TERF), political lesbian, separatist, postmodernist (the prevailing type of feminism in mainstream journalism and academia today), pro-life/pro-choice, complementarian and so on.

Bottom line is, let's stop treating feminism like some omnibenevolent movement for equal rights, and as if radicals are just "fringes who don't make a difference". This is not true anymore. Feminism got derailed decades ago. Go read any large feminist publication like Feministing or Jezebel, and it embraces the toxicity of postmodern feminism.

[magicalist]

> Bottom line is, let's stop treating feminism like some omnibenevolent movement for equal rights, and as if radicals are just "fringes who don't make a difference". This is not true anymore. Feminism got derailed decades ago. Go read any large feminist publication like Feministing or Jezebel, and it embraces the toxicity of postmodern feminism.

This ignores the fact that "feminism" is not a coherent movement.

[stcredzero]

Actually, the gp comment's point is precisely that it's not a coherent movement. There are smaller factions within it, and some of these are coherent and harmful, IMO. (Same goes for MRM. Angry people sometimes do harm. Fancy that.)

[vezzy-fnord]

It's not. That doesn't mean postmodern/radical isn't the most influential currently.

[einhverfr]

> This ignores the fact that "feminism" is not a coherent movement.

Bingo.

BTW, anyone who thinks it is a coherent movement needs to read this feminist critique of obstetrics(which expands to a critique of modern medicine and mainstream feminism):

"Birth as an American Rite of Passage" by Robbie Davis-Floyd. Better to read the second edition than the first.

[philwelch]

The term "feminism" is derived from the Latin "femina," for "woman".

[tomp]

Here is nice explanation of why men's rights movement is important: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jt1u5/cmv_i_t...

You might not find it as enlightening, but it offers a pretty rational approach.

[Dewie]

Yes, most will not say that they are for equal rights of men as well. But some have found that a lot of that is just lip service at best.

> I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!

In my opinion and based on my own readings, I think that feminists want to maintain a monopoly on philosophy of gender equality. Yes, I said philosophy; feminism is an ideology. And while there is nothing wrong about ideologies, there can be many ideologies about the same subject. Thankfully for feminists, though, ideologies about gender can be divided into:

- Different feminist paradigms - Sexists and homophobes

At least as far as most people are concerned. But maybe somebody wants to create a new philosophy of gender, a philosophy that might be in part mutually exclusive w.r.t some feminist "dogmas"? Well, great; now the feminists can readily shoot down these ideologies because they are "sexist", merely because of the fact that some of their views oppose some of the common feminist views. Hey, if it's not feminism, or it contradicts some feminist viewpoints, then it surely must be sexist, since feminism is the perfect incarnation of egalitarianism... right?

It isn't surprising that some women want to have a wider forum for discussing things that pertain to women in particular (that is; people that identify as women). Gender equality or not, most women probably have experiences that are different from men in some regards, and vice versa. So how about men have something like a Men's Right's movement, or whatever you want to call it? Nope, they say; we already have this thing called feminism. You shouldn't need anything else. OK, so say you give up on having a male community, even though women can have their own female communities, and try to assimilate into some feminist community. Now you have to just hope that they accept you as an equal, not just as a male ally.

But yeah, feminism is all you'd ever need. A real swiss knife for tackling anything related to gender...

[philwelch]

I've called this the Ayn Rand fallacy before. According to rumor[1], Ayn Rand believed that she lived her entire life based upon the principles of rationality, therefore if you disagreed with her you were irrational. Ayn Rand didn't like beards or Mozart, so the men in her circle learned to shave and no one expressed a fondness for Mozart in fear of being deemed irrational. But condemning a bearded man for being irrational because Ayn Rand doesn't like beards says more about Ayn Rand than the bearded man.

Likewise, feminists believe their ideology is based upon the principle of not hating women, therefore disagreement with their ideology amounts to misogyny. But they aren't revealing their interlocutors as misogynists; they're revealing themselves as Ayn Rand.

[1] There is considerable controversy about the lengths to which Ayn Rand would go to condemn people for their irrationality due to personal disagreements, but treat this story as a parable; its literal truth is beside the point.

[stefantalpalaru]

> part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender

If that were true, it would be called "humanism".

[adamnemecek]

Sounds a bit like child abuse. And when I say a bit I mean a lot.

[phaer]

Care to elaborate?

[tdfx]

They've made a determination that supporting their sociological viewpoints is more important than the high potential of social integration issues that will likely come from having raised their child that way. When you prioritize your opinions on social issues ahead of the welfare of your child, to that child's enduring detriment, that's definitely bad parenting. And, depending on who you ask, could be considered abusive.

[adamnemecek]

"... couple that forces their boy to ..."

Is that sufficient?

[sjtrny]

"...eat their vegetables"

is that abuse?

[adamnemecek]

Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?

[im3w1l]

>Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios?

I basically agree with you. But, please do it anyway. It could be interesting.

[phaer]

Depends on what 'forces' means exactly in this case.

[stcredzero]

Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America.

How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles.

If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.

[AutoCorrect]

It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.