"White anti-feminist men in Japan"

[ante]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Really? When studying feminism in relation to International politics we never used the term humanist to refer to some of the well known feminists throughout the past couple of centuries nor was the term considered derogatory or "tainted" by any means.

I was never talking about going back trough the past couple of centuries, I am talk about now, in my country. I'm just saying what is happening here, in the debate that I have been following and been a part of for years now. It's not something that you would be likely to learn in International Politics, or at any foreign university.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I simply don't believe you when you say feminists are so ashamed of feminism that they term themselves humanist. If that is the case then they misunderstand the definition of feminism as I've pointed out earlier in the thread. Ironically the social stigmatising of the terms feminist and feminism would be a concern for feminists. Many of the people who have commented in this thread alone, including women see it as a pro-female movement when in fact it is a gender equality and awareness movement.

I couldn't give a toss about what you believe, it's the way it is. A few rotten apples have used the feminist movement to voice some very unfeminist opinions. Like Enkidu22 said, Sweden has come very far when it comes to the gender gap, some people are now pushing it too far, where it turns into a pro-female movement, and are therefor giving it a bad name. I'm not saying I like it, but it's the way it is, and it's probably going to happen in other places as well. Feminism is still used, and the fight for equality is still going on, but everyone here is assumed to be a feminist now, in the sense that you want equal rights. Anyone openly calling themselves feminists, is more likely to be pro-women.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

As do I.. but the term humanist has too broad a definition. Feminist and feminism are more convenient in the right contexts.

Perhaps, I still prefer when you don't divide prejudice into different categories. That is automatically going to mean that the different labels are valued differently. A white guy who doesn't know any black guys, but has a little daughter could be interested in the gender question, and would be more likely to not care about the race question. If he has to understand prejudice as a whole to help understand the prejudice against his daughter, I believe that would be better.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

That's the thing though. It's not based on race/gender over merit. You have to be qualified for the job regardless of your skin colour. To assume you lost out to a black guy because of AA is racist because you're assuming that the only reason the black guy could get a job ahead of you is BECAUSE of AA. The black guy got the job because he was qualified.

That might be what you want it to be, it's not. It's not about making sure that two equally qualified people have the same chance regardless of gender. It's about having a fairer distribution of women and different races, in higher positions(any position), so it isn't just a bunch of old white guys calling all the shots. What you are talking about is fighting discrimination, that's not what affirmative action is.

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

I have to agree with Ronin on this. I learned about feminism in national university (I study political science) and I assure everyone that feminism isn't viewed as tainted or corrupted in academic circles.

That might be the case in other countries and some academic circles, I don't know. I can really only speak about Sweden, and here people have been pushing it too far. Just an example:

A famous Swedish journalist/author wrote a book about 15 years ago, describing what she called a true story, about a man who was abusing his wife. In recent months, it has come out that most of the story was made up(similar to the James Frey-story). What happened then was that the author came out, she and a few other feminists claimed that this was only a witch hunt because the author was a blond woman. When, in fact, it was a woman who outed her, and most of her harshest critics were women.

This is an example of how some people are using feminism to victimize themselves, and hide behind. "If something goes wrong, it's the big bad men who are out to get me". This gives feminism bad a rep.

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

And about Sweden, it's one of the fev countries where feminism really reached all or almost all of it's goals (Sweden is ranked 1th in Gender Gap index for fev years straight). So maybe it's really not needed there anymore.

A fight for equality is constant fight, that is always needed. Some people have just lost track of what they are fighting for, and have started kicking in open doors to find a reason.

[Sinestra]

Interesting discussion and very lively one at that with the usual heated banter but there were some very intelligent post to strengthen ones position or at the least make their position clear cheers to you MissMisa and Nyorin you might not agree but both your arguments were noteworthy and intelligent.

My response i will try to keep on track since i tend to get a little heated over these topics because to me the core basis not the radical feminism is very close to race rights as a Black American you can imagine my position on such a discussion.

There is always an extremist side to everything and that side never represents what the core purpose of the a moment, an idea or a way of thinking is intended. I have been to 15 different countries and majority of them i stayed in for more than a month and i feel a countries social status quo changes as needed but sometimes it also requires a little push and early feminist were the ones responsible for that push here in the US. I have met women in Japan who very content with their lives and ones that are very unhappy. I have had friends move here from Japan because they disliked the culture norm (yes they are native Japanese) I have friends move to other countries from the US because of the same feeling.

I dont feel there is anything wrong with feminism if its not taken to the extreme and expressed in the way that it was original intended not bringing down males or which sex is stronger or better but for the right to be treated a decent human. Make your own choices and stand by them if you think you are right.

The one thing i will not tolerate is the several post where people basically said well if feminists would shut up things would be better its the same as saying well if a Latino, or black, or Asian would shut up things might be easier for them. That is as ignorant as saying Separate but equal which does not and never will work.

Go with the flow or Fight the Power both choices are available to you why because somewhere in the past people fought for you to have that right weather its a woman or man. You have the rights you do because someone else put themselves out there under extreme prejudice and persecution so you can say "i like feminism" or "i hate feminism" you have that right because of them never forgot that or you wind up becoming just like those who you hate.

[Wasabista]

Ante, very well argued and relevant points. Everyone on this thread should read them.

I'd also like to say I agree with Sinestra that it's a pleasure to be able to discuss these issues intelligently with everyone interested in the real social trends unfolding around us -- and that just waiting and hoping for the best is no strategy at all.

Another example of how the feminist movement has gone astray is the Duluth procedures. This is a set of procedures police all over North America are supposed to follow when responding to a domestic violence report. Briefly, the police are instructed to arrest and remove the man, regardless of what they find at the scene and even if everyone on the spot says he did nothing wrong. The man is given five minutes to gather his personal effects (money and ID, but not furniture, keepsakes etc.) and led out in handcuffs. As the Wikipedia entry for the Duluth Model says:

the Duluth framework depends on a strict "patriarchal violence" model and presumes that all violence in the home and elsewhere has a male perpetrator and female victim. It explicitly rejects any concept of mutuality or symmetry in abusive relationships.

However, as I've demonstrated in response to Miss Misa's original post, the sociological studies on the phenomenon of domestic violence unanimously point out that women are just as likely to commit, initiate or escalate domestic violence as men. This comes as a surprise to most people, who have been pretty much brainwashed to accept the Duluth view summarized above.

And that is one way feminism is doing evil in the world. Its reputation is tainted as a result.

I accept that feminism has been and is a force for good in other ways.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by ante

I was never talking about going back trough the past couple of centuries, I am talk about now, in my country. I'm just saying what is happening here, in the debate that I have been following and been a part of for years now. It's not something that you would be likely to learn in International Politics, or at any foreign university.

If it's not discussed at university then I'm not interested in the discussion. It is beneath me as it is nothing but paranoid scapegoating in my opinion. Some people do something you disagree with and you blame feminism... or rather you misapply the term to describe these people.

Originally Posted by ante

I couldn't give a toss about what you believe, it's the way it is. A few rotten apples have used the feminist movement to voice some very unfeminist opinions. Like Enkidu22 said, Sweden has come very far when it comes to the gender gap, some people are now pushing it too far, where it turns into a pro-female movement, and are therefor giving it a bad name. I'm not saying I like it, but it's the way it is, and it's probably going to happen in other places as well. Feminism is still used, and the fight for equality is still going on, but everyone here is assumed to be a feminist now, in the sense that you want equal rights. Anyone openly calling themselves feminists, is more likely to be pro-women.

Eh? Enkidu actually sided with me and she is from your country. As I said before.... if you're going to insist on being stupid and keep misapplying terms then fine. If you think that anyone in academic circles is going to take you seriously then think again.

Originally Posted by ante

Perhaps, I still prefer when you don't divide prejudice into different categories. That is automatically going to mean that the different labels are valued differently. A white guy who doesn't know any black guys, but has a little daughter could be interested in the gender question, and would be more likely to not care about the race question. If he has to understand prejudice as a whole to help understand the prejudice against his daughter, I believe that would be better.

It''s only divided into categories for CONVENIENCE. Other than that feminism exists WITHIN egalitarianism and humanism. If you were an authority on the English language and had the power to change terms and their definitions then I might listen to you. You might as well argue that Muslim=Terrorist and that National Health Care=Socialism. Because that's what you look like to me from here. Ignorant.

Originally Posted by ante

That might be what you want it to be, it's not. It's not about making sure that two equally qualified people have the same chance regardless of gender. It's about having a fairer distribution of women and different races, in higher positions(any position), so it isn't just a bunch of old white guys calling all the shots. What you are talking about is fighting discrimination, that's not what affirmative action is.

I thought that you agreed it was a necessity? I'm not arguing that it's desirable. And AA isn't a tool to tackle discrimination on it's own. It's part of a wider effort implemented by various governments in various ways around the world.

Originally Posted by ante

That might be the case in other countries and some academic circles, I don't know. I can really only speak about Sweden, and here people have been pushing it too far. Just an example:

A famous Swedish journalist/author wrote a book about 15 years ago, describing what she called a true story, about a man who was abusing his wife. In recent months, it has come out that most of the story was made up(similar to the James Frey-story). What happened then was that the author came out, she and a few other feminists claimed that this was only a witch hunt because the author was a blond woman. When, in fact, it was a woman who outed her, and most of her harshest critics were women.

This is an example of how some people are using feminism to victimize themselves, and hide behind. "If something goes wrong, it's the big bad men who are out to get me". This gives feminism bad a rep.

Whatever... I don't know the full story but this isn't really relevant. Again you might as well say that all Muslims are terrorists because some of them insist on using their religion to motivate themselves into flying planes into buildings.

Originally Posted by ante

A fight for equality is constant fight, that is always needed. Some people have just lost track of what they are fighting for, and have started kicking in open doors to find a reason.

Maybe... But the dictionary definition doesn't change and I won't let you or the so-called extremists hijack the term (and the same goes for Islam/Muslim and Public services). Fortunately I have Academia on my side.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Whatever... I don't know the full story but this isn't really relevant. Again you might as well say that all Muslims are terrorists because some of them insist on using their religion to motivate themselves into flying planes into buildings.

Don't you think that Muslims have a bad reputation in this modern world? I know I do. I think that's what ante was trying to say. Feminism has a bad reputation amongst some because of a small percentage!

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

Don't you think that Muslims have a bad reputation in this modern world? I know I do. I think that's what ante was trying to say. Feminism has a bad reputation amongst some because of a small percentage!

No she was arguing that the term feminism was "tainted" and that other terms be invented or substituted in to replace it.

[Anemic]

Originally Posted by ante

A famous Swedish journalist/author wrote a book about 15 years ago, describing what she called a true story, about a man who was abusing his wife. In recent months, it has come out that most of the story was made up(similar to the James Frey-story). What happened then was that the author came out, she and a few other feminists claimed that this was only a witch hunt because the author was a blond woman. When, in fact, it was a woman who outed her, and most of her harshest critics were women.

This is an example of how some people are using feminism to victimize themselves, and hide behind. "If something goes wrong, it's the big bad men who are out to get me". This gives feminism bad a rep.

Well, she said that the story is based on true stories (diffrent cases etc) and not just ONE true story. Or am I taking a bike ride out of here? ; )

Ofcourse there will be bad apples.... There always is! But one must look beyond.

Just like you said, Sweden has come far but sometimes you ask yourself "is this crap really worth putting time/effort into" (like having a lady in the walk signs)? But still equal pay for equal work isnt true yet. Rapes are still beeing commited and so on...There is still a long way to go!

[Wasabista]

Another widely influential slander by the so-called "women's movement" was the "Superbowl Sunday rape" story. In 1993 an outfit called FAIR began circulating the story that rapes spike 40% on Superbowl Sunday. "Don't remain alone with him during the game," FAIR warned.

This story was widely reported in the MSM and was a huge PR success for the women's movement. Problem is, it isn't true. The FAIR people had made it up.

Slander like this continues to put good men in undeserved disrepute -- and undermines the legitimate work of people like the Mexican feminist somebody posted about above.

You can read about the "Abuse Bowl" fraud:
here

[Enkidu22]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Enkidu actually sided with me and she is from your country.

Well I'm not a girl :P And I'm from Poland not Sweden. Anyways I think that general opinion about feminism is very important. And if this opinion is negative in some countries it's probably because media today search for sensations and controversial opinions. They highlight only very radical feminists or crazy extremists that call themselves feminists. Mainstream feminists are rarely seen on TV because they are "boring". Because of that general opinion is made to think all feminists want to give men holocaust, and this is absolutely wrong. Everybody who do serious academic research about modern feministic movement knows that.

Originally Posted by Wasabista

However, as I've demonstrated in response to Miss Misa's original post, the sociological studies on the phenomenon of domestic violence unanimously point out that women are just as likely to commit, initiate or escalate domestic violence as men. This comes as a surprise to most people, who have been pretty much brainwashed to accept the Duluth view summarized above.

I'll repost what I have written before:

And about the "men are as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women" thing, this cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this "fact" tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.

But with that being said those Duluth procedures seems like overdoing it a bit.

[Wasabista]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

And about the "men are as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women" thing, this cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this "fact" tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.

Enkidu, thank you! Now we're getting somewhere. I missed your earlier post, and I'm sorry about that. Cool handle, by the way

You're right about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCS) -- it's a large-scale, two-gender study of crime, and it consistently finds that male perpetration is significantly higher than female perpetration of domestic violence. (I'll talk about the specific question of injury in a minute.)

However, Geller and Steinmetz do not find this. Basically, the emphasis on "crime" introduces methodological problems: female victimization of men does not generate police reports, and asking respondents about "crime" elicits very different answers than asking about "domestic abuse" -- basically, women are likely to regard domestic abuse as a crime (as they should!) while men are less so.

Now, BCD finds, as you say, that the rate of physical injury resulting from male partner violence is 3 times greater than from female partner violence. Also, women constitute three-quarters of the murder victims in domestic violence.

However, the authors of BCD also point out that:

1. There are as many, and possibly more, couples where the female partner is the only one to use physical violence as there are couples where the male partner is the only one to use violence.
2. Women initiate acts of intimate violence as often as men.
3. Male and female partner violence is overwhelmingly utilized as a method of coercive control.

So, basically, women are as likely as men to try it on. It's just that men are better at getting the job done.

Anyway, Enkidu, thanks for a valuable contribution. You forced me to crack open the books and do my homework!