Who Agrees Fourth Wave Feminism is Toxic Femininity And Should Be Abolished?

[laughing dog]

I suppose one's view of the accuracy of that claim depends on how one interprets "near-total", "control" and "across the Western World". In my experience in academia for over 30 years, that appears more like hyperbolic rhetoric or a delusional outburst than an accurate description of reality.

I'm shocked to hear this. Nobody has ever used hyperbole on a message board before.

Substitution of hyperbolic rhetoric for reasoned statements is an indication of a lack of substance.

 

[Arctish]

She "pretends" to care about men's issues? What makes you doubt her sincerity when she composed that list of common ground Feminists and MRAs share?

Her actions.

Oh, really?

She composed a list of issues where Feminists and Men's Rights Activists are natural allies and should be working together to resolve, and was frustrated that people were interrupting her as she tried to read it, and that makes you think she's only pretending to care about Men's Rights Issues? Because she was protesting a lecture sponsored by A Voice For Men, and you suppose that means she's against men having rights?

It wasn't the first time she said it. It was a catch phrase of hers that she said many times at many events and in interviews.

Please post the evidence that supports your claim.

I have a hard time believing you watched interviews of Chanty Binx or read articles that quoted her given your extreme reluctance to listen to her at all. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really did take an interest in Chanty Binx listened to her long enough to identify the catch phrases she likes to use.

Which one do you think has the best summation of her views?

Her initial reaction in the posted video was frustration that people kept interrupting her as she read her list of concerns Feminists and MRAs share that, in her opinion, they should be working together to address.

As I wrote above, she does this insisting it happen on her terms, within her framework of patriarchy, immediately after she interrupted an event she was invited to politely attend and instead she screamed at and protested it, and her group cheered after the fire alarm was pulled, ending the event. That you can take her at all seriously or see her "agreement that mens issues matter" says a lot more about you than me. Do you find Richard Spencer genuine when he says he likes black people and only wants to help them? Would you take Fred Phelps seriously had he said he isn't against homosexuality?

I don't think you put aside your preconceptions and negative views and actually listened to her.

I don't think you have checked your own bias. Have you watched Cassie's film yet? It may help you.

I watched before I commented, as usual with video links. I even paraphrased part of it in a subsequent post. Did you watch it all the way through?

The entire point of her talk was to encourage people to stop doing what you're doing here - refusing to listen because you dislike, or presume you will dislike, a speaker. The irony is, you linked to it in the same post where you once again vilified Chanty Binx. And when I said you should take Jaye's advice to heart and then watch Chanty Binx reading from her list, all you did was repeat your list of reasons why you dislike her and why you refuse to listen to her.

IMO Chanty Binx was being rude. But even if we both agree that what she did was wrong, your refusal to listen to her is entirely at odds with touting Cassie Jaye's TED talk on the importance of listening to your 'enemies'.

Cassie Jaye was talking to you as much as she was talking to anyone else. And she was telling you that putting aside your ego and opinions, and actually listening to what people like Chanty Binx have to say, is the better way to go forward. The question is, will you do it?

As much as Feminists may want to think Feminism primarily stands for equality, it very often seeks to oppose it.

You may want to acknowledge this. Your not doing so makes you look like an ideologue in denial of reality.

You haven't presented evidence your post describes reality.

How do you know how often Feminism seeks to oppose equality? What is the measure you're using? What are your sources of information, and how are they acquiring it?

Because she wasn't opposing equality, she was loudly pointing out areas where MRAs and Feminists can, and in her opinion should, work together to achieve it.

After she did her all to see to it such actual effort (CAFE) is shut down, and while demanding people listen to her instead of letting anyone else speak.

You have not commented on the shutting down of a "men's day" to call attention to these issues at York that Metaphor provided you a link to.

I haven't researched the issue at York. I'm still researching that MIAS controversy at Ryerson.

I don't typically comment on articles I haven't read, videos I haven't watched, or news stories I haven't checked against at least one other source.

Weird, I know.

 

[Metaphor]

She composed a list of issues where Feminists and Men's Rights Activists are natural allies and should be working together to resolve, and was frustrated that people were interrupting her as she tried to read it, and that makes you think she's only pretending to care about Men's Rights Issues?

There cannot be any such thing as "natural allyship" between feminists and men's rights advocates, because feminists (generally speaking) believe in patriarchy theory and MRAs generally do not. This is a fundamental world view difference and it fundamentally influences what you believe to be the sources of and solutions to problems.

Take, for example, a man who is a victim of statutory rape being forced to pay child support:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

Patriarchy theory cannot account for such a situation, because according to it, institutions are set up and maintained to privilege men at women's expense. This man, raped as a boy, now has the the State robbing him for 18 years as a result of that rape. If he killed himself over the manifestly unfair situation, feminists might say he did it because patriarchy tells men to suppress their emotions, rather than acknowledge the blinding obvious.

It would be something like a religious organisation who wanted to help drug addicts by encouraging religious surrender (like the 12 step program) would not be a model adopted by an atheist organisation who wanted to help drug addicts.

 

[Arctish]

She composed a list of issues where Feminists and Men's Rights Activists are natural allies and should be working together to resolve, and was frustrated that people were interrupting her as she tried to read it, and that makes you think she's only pretending to care about Men's Rights Issues?

There cannot be any such thing as "natural allyship" between feminists and men's rights advocates, because feminists (generally speaking) believe in patriarchy theory and MRAs generally do not. This is a fundamental world view difference and it fundamentally influences what you believe to be the sources of and solutions to problems.

It would be something like a religious organisation who wanted to help drug addicts by encouraging religious surrender (like the 12 step program) would not be a model adopted by an atheist organisation who wanted to help drug addicts.

One of the points on her list was that Feminists and MRAs both agree there is gender bias in the way courts affirm and award parental rights following a divorce, and both want to eliminate that bias. She said the common practice of awarding custody of children to their mothers is due to Patriarchy, which assigns women the role of homemaker and men the role of breadwinner. You might not agree with her on that part. I doesn't matter. She wasn't trying to force MRAs to denounce Patriarchy. She was trying to get them to acknowledge common ground with Feminists wrt custody, child support, and parental rights.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Oh, really?

Yes. Really.

She composed a list of issues where Feminists and Men's Rights Activists are natural allies and should be working together to resolve, and was frustrated that people were interrupting her as she tried to read it, and that makes you think she's only pretending to care about Men's Rights Issues?

When she does her all to disrupt an event she was invited to and could have presented her ideas at and asked questions at and worked with MRAs on the very issues she pretends to care about on, yes.... I call bullshit. When she sings "cry me a river" and tells the people she is pretending to care about to "shut the fuck up" because "a woman is talking"... yes I call bullshit. Enough said. If you want to pretend she's genuine, good for you.

It wasn't the first time she said it. It was a catch phrase of hers that she said many times at many events and in interviews.

Please post the evidence that supports your claim.

Google is your friend. It takes seconds to find her saying this repeatedly in different places and times. Again, If you want to hold her up as the kind of Feminist you support, then I've got my answer on what kind of Feminist you are and I see no reason to keep writing back and forth with you.

IMO Chanty Binx was being rude. But even if we both agree that what she did was wrong, your refusal to listen to her is entirely at odds with touting Cassie Jaye's TED talk on the importance of listening to your 'enemies'.

No it isn't. Cassie didn't say we should listen to people who scream at us, shut down our events, sing cry me a river at us and tell us to shut the fuck up because she is talking. Cassie was talking about merely hearing people out, which I don't see you doing, and which few Feminists do. She was talking about how her film, a reasoned measured and respectful film, was attacked viciously by people who never bothered to watch it.

Cassie Jaye was talking to you as much as she was talking to anyone else. And she was telling you that putting aside your ego and opinions, and actually listening to what people like Chanty Binx have to say, is the better way to go forward. The question is, will you do it?

Wrong. I haven't disrupted any feminist meetings, protested them calling them racist or homophobic, pulled fire alarms to shut them down, screamed at them and told them to shut the fuck up because I am talking etc. She was talking to people like Chanty Binx herself. Binx may pretend to care about men's issues, but her actions show she works against them. And even if she did in her own twisted way care about them, her poisonous attitude and tactics work against and not for them. Cry me a river, Arctish.

Cassie Jaye was talking about MRAs saying things that are NOT against or offensive to women unless such women add something of their own in their own heads. Chanty Binx supplies the offense herself. There is no need to imagine or project anything onto her. She does it herself with her telling people to shut the fuck up because a woman is talking, cry me a river, working to shut down what he pretends she endorses, etc.

As much as Feminists may want to think Feminism primarily stands for equality, it very often seeks to oppose it.

You may want to acknowledge this. Your not doing so makes you look like an ideologue in denial of reality.

You haven't presented evidence your post describes reality.

I shouldn't have to. That you can't see it for yourself speaks volumes. I've quite readily stated that there are plenty of men who are misogynist, that toxic masculinity exist, etc. But you can't bring yourself to admit that toxic feminism is a thing. I don't think there is anything left to say to or hear from you.

 

[Arctish]

Yes. Really.

When she does her all to disrupt an event she was invited to and could have presented her ideas at and asked questions at and worked with MRAs on the very issues she pretends to care about on, yes.... I call bullshit. When she sings "cry me a river" and tells the people she is pretending to care about to "shut the fuck up" because "a woman is talking"... yes I call bullshit. Enough said. If you want to pretend she's genuine, good for you.

It wasn't the first time she said it. It was a catch phrase of hers that she said many times at many events and in interviews.

Please post the evidence that supports your claim.

Google is your friend. It takes seconds to find her saying this repeatedly in different places and times.

I'm calling shenanigans.

First off, you're the one who made the claim so it's up to you to provide evidence to support it. It's not up to the readers to do your research for you.

Second, Chanty Binx was virtually unknown before the video of her at the 2013 event was released online and disappeared from public view for about 3 years afterwards due to the incredibly nasty misogynist backlash she suffered. She didn't resurface until some asshat posted store security video of her shopping. So I doubt you found videos or articles where she said a catch phrase "many times at many events and in interviews".

Third, even if she had, I don't believe you would have actually listened to the interviews or read the transcripts, so I doubt you would know about any catch phases she likes to use. But I could be wrong about that.

Show me your evidence, if you have any.

Again, If you want to hold her up as the kind of Feminist you support, then I've got my answer on what kind of Feminist you are and I see no reason to keep writing back and forth with you.

Again, this is the opposite of what Jaye said you should do in that TED talk. It's the opposite of what you said we should all do.

You're not listening.

IMO Chanty Binx was being rude. But even if we both agree that what she did was wrong, your refusal to listen to her is entirely at odds with touting Cassie Jaye's TED talk on the importance of listening to your 'enemies'.

No it isn't. Cassie didn't say we should listen to people who scream at us, shut down our events, sing cry me a river at us and tell us to shut the fuck up because she is talking. Cassie was talking about merely hearing people out, which I don't see you doing, and which few Feminists do. She was talking about how her film, a reasoned measured and respectful film, was attacked viciously by people who never bothered to watch it.

Cassie Jaye was talking to you as much as she was talking to anyone else. And she was telling you that putting aside your ego and opinions, and actually listening to what people like Chanty Binx have to say, is the better way to go forward. The question is, will you do it?

Wrong. I haven't disrupted any feminist meetings, protested them calling them racist or homophobic, pulled fire alarms to shut them down, screamed at them and told them to shut the fuck up because I am talking etc. She was talking to people like Chanty Binx herself. Binx may pretend to care about men's issues, but her actions show she works against them. And even if she did in her own twisted way care about them, her poisonous attitude and tactics work against and not for them. Cry me a river, Arctish.

All you're doing here is reposting your reasons for refusing to follow your own, and Jaye's, advice.

Cassie Jaye was talking about MRAs saying things that are NOT against or offensive to women unless such women add something of their own in their own heads. Chanty Binx supplies the offense herself. There is no need to imagine or project anything onto her. She does it herself with her telling people to shut the fuck up because a woman is talking, cry me a river, working to shut down what he pretends she endorses, etc.

You might find this article interesting. It's about the lecture in 2013 where Chanty Binx and her group were protesting. It indicates the lecture was briefly interrupted by the fire alarm being pulled (not by Binx, and apparently more of a surprise to her than to the reporter),but that it quickly resumed without a hitch. It also indicated the people there listened politely and saved their challenges to the speaker for the question and answer period at the end. If this report is correct and this was the lecture in question, most of what you accuse Binx of doing didn't happen. And anyway, the greatest offense you describe is her refusal to listen. IOW, you are criticizing her for doing the same thing you have been doing ever since.

As much as Feminists may want to think Feminism primarily stands for equality, it very often seeks to oppose it.

You may want to acknowledge this. Your not doing so makes you look like an ideologue in denial of reality.

You haven't presented evidence your post describes reality.

I shouldn't have to. That you can't see it for yourself speaks volumes. I've quite readily stated that there are plenty of men who are misogynist, that toxic masculinity exist, etc. But you can't bring yourself to admit that toxic feminism is a thing. I don't think there is anything left to say to or hear from you.

Whoa, there.

You said Feminism "very often seeks to oppose" equality. Now you're just hand waving away a request for evidence in support of your claim and are going to gallop off into the sunset on that high horse you're riding?

Adios, muchacho.

 

[ruby sparks]

You said Feminism "very often seeks to oppose" equality. Now you're just hand waving away a request for evidence in support of your claim.....

He does that quite a bit, regarding those sorts of claims. He's done it with 'most feminists are not egalitarian' and 'most feminists do not care about men'.

 

[ruby sparks]

She composed a list of issues where Feminists and Men's Rights Activists are natural allies and should be working together to resolve, and was frustrated that people were interrupting her as she tried to read it, and that makes you think she's only pretending to care about Men's Rights Issues?

There cannot be any such thing as "natural allyship" between feminists and men's rights advocates, because feminists (generally speaking) believe in patriarchy theory and MRAs generally do not. This is a fundamental world view difference and it fundamentally influences what you believe to be the sources of and solutions to problems.

Take, for example, a man who is a victim of statutory rape being forced to pay child support:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

Patriarchy theory cannot account for such a situation, because according to it, institutions are set up and maintained to privilege men at women's expense. This man, raped as a boy, now has the the State robbing him for 18 years as a result of that rape. If he killed himself over the manifestly unfair situation, feminists might say he did it because patriarchy tells men to suppress their emotions, rather than acknowledge the blinding obvious.

It would be something like a religious organisation who wanted to help drug addicts by encouraging religious surrender (like the 12 step program) would not be a model adopted by an atheist organisation who wanted to help drug addicts.

A LOT of people, including myself, would agree that the feminist theory of patriarchy is flawed, and often overstated by some and possibly even many Feminists. But it is silly, imo, to deny that patriarchy exists, and operated, and still does albeit to a lesser extent in 'western' societies, in broadly the ways described, even if not to the extent alleged and even if it is not as simple as putting this or that social phenomenon down to patriarchy, or even that patriarchy is necessarily involved, given that it's only one social process among several likely to be operating, in those situations when it is.

So if, as you suggest, MRA's take the view that patriarchy doesn't exist, that's not a reasonable position, imo. We could still critique the theory, which is not, of course, invalidated by counter-examples.

And I am not sure if ALL Men's Rights organisations are as intransigent as some are. I have in the past cited The Good Men Project as an example of what I think is a better model, because it does not generally seek to merely counter and criticise feminism, and it acknowledges issues that more entrenched MRAs don't readily take on board. I'm not saying I agree with everything put out by them. I don't.

https://goodmenproject.com/

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[
So if, as you suggest, MRA's take the view that patriarchy doesn't exist, that's not a reasonable position, imo.

Saying MRAs don't believe patriarchy exist is like saying atheists don't believe in the supernatural. It isn't true of all MRA and is not inherent to MRA.

And of course to even start to consider "patriarchy" one needs to define the term... Which has numerous meanings with different people (much like "feminism" does). Does it just mean gender roles? Does it mean viewing women as weak non-agents in need of protection (many feminists push for rather than against this)? Or does it mean some nefarious system men live by to repress and look down on women ?

And I am not sure if ALL Men's Rights organisations are as intransigent as some are.

Of course not. Saying all who claim the title MRA are toxic is as daft as saying all who claim the title of Feminist are toxic. Admitting both have people labelling themselves such who are toxic (Chanty Binx again for example) should be admitted and failing to do so is an indicator of one being unreasonable and likh an ideologue.

I have in the past cited The Good Men Project as an example of what I think is a better model, because it does not generally seek to merely counter and criticise feminism, and it acknowledges issues that more entrenched MRAs don't readily take on board. I'm not saying I agree with everything put out by them. I don't.

https://goodmenproject.com/

What from them do you disagree with?

 

[Metaphor]

A LOT of people, including myself, would agree that the feminist theory of patriarchy is flawed, and often overstated by some and possibly even many Feminists. But it is silly, imo, to deny that patriarchy exists, and operated, and still does albeit to a lesser extent in 'western' societies, in broadly the ways described, even if not to the extent alleged and even if it is not as simple as putting this or that social phenomenon down to patriarchy, or even that patriarchy is necessarily involved, given that it's only one social process among several likely to be operating, in those situations when it is.

Societies have not been set up to benefit men at the expense of women, which is the heart of patriarchy theory. It's an absurd claim. Many of the claims about the facts of the world that patriarchy theory makes (like that men hold the majority of formal power) are true, but patriarchy theory grossly mistakes the etiology of these facts.

For example, feminism makes the claim that heterosexual marriage arose to benefit men at the expense of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage arose as a way to make men accountable for the offspring they produced. In the late 20th century, when heterosexual marriages broke down and children born outside marriages increased, thus marriage losing its effectiveness in holding men accountable, the apparatus of the State arose to make sure women's welfare remained and men continued to be accountable.

 

[ruby sparks]

A LOT of people, including myself, would agree that the feminist theory of patriarchy is flawed, and often overstated by some and possibly even many Feminists. But it is silly, imo, to deny that patriarchy exists, and operated, and still does albeit to a lesser extent in 'western' societies, in broadly the ways described, even if not to the extent alleged and even if it is not as simple as putting this or that social phenomenon down to patriarchy, or even that patriarchy is necessarily involved, given that it's only one social process among several likely to be operating, in those situations when it is.

Societies have not been set up to benefit men at the expense of women, which is the heart of patriarchy theory. It's an absurd claim. Many of the claims about the facts of the world that patriarchy theory makes (like that men hold the majority of formal power) are true, but patriarchy theory grossly mistakes the etiology of these facts.

For example, feminism makes the claim that heterosexual marriage arose to benefit men at the expense of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage arose as a way to make men accountable for the offspring they produced. In the late 20th century, when heterosexual marriages broke down and children born outside marriages increased, thus marriage losing its effectiveness in holding men accountable, the apparatus of the State arose to make sure women's welfare remained and men continued to be accountable.

It is categorically and plainly the case, and widely acknowledged, that women have been socially disadvantaged throughout history, by and large and on the whole, compared to men. This really isn't even up for serious contention. All that can be reasonably discussed are the extent to which it was (and is, to a lesser extent, in many countries) the case, and the variegations and caveats, including the ways in which men were disadvantaged and women advantaged (or privileged, if you like). In the widest sense, this is to a large extent an ape thing. We are part of a bigger picture.

Any argument to the contrary is essentially a non-starter, denialism and untenable, and you should know better than to even try.

Bear in mind I am not endorsing feminist theory of patriarchy when I say the above. See my previous comments.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dp

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is categorically and plainly the case, and widely acknowledged, that women have been socially disadvantaged throughout history, by and large and on the whole, compared to men. This really isn't even up for serious contention. All that can be reasonably discussed are the extent to which it was (and is, to a lesser extent, in many countries) the case, and the variegations and caveats, including the ways in which men were disadvantaged and women advantaged (or privileged, if you like). In the widest sense, this is to a large extent an ape thing. We are part of a bigger picture.

Yes, it is an ape thing. There are multiple definitions being used for "patriarchy". One that actually holds true is that people have an innate tendency to take men more seriously than women. That cuts in both directions. It means that men are taken more seriously and women need to work harder to command respect as leaders. It also means that women can get away with a lot more negative behaviour and not be held accountable for it, as seen in the sentencing gap for example. Men are more often held as agents who do things to others, and held accountable accordingly, and women are more often seen as victims to whom things are done. Men often seen as disposable whereas women are seen as valuable insofar as they can produce children (this makes some evolutionary sense since one man can fertilize multiple women at one time). This seeps into many aspects of life. Its thought of especially heinous to hit a woman rather than a man, etc. This isn't a bias held exclusively by men, nor a bias that works exclusively to the benefit rather than to the detriment of men. I see no reason to gender this and call it "patriarchy" but many feminists do, maybe because they see only the one side of it.

I think it should also be noted that gender bias and prejudice works quite differently than racial bias and prejudice or other bias and prejudice between tribes. Men and women are by biological necessity within the same tribes.

 

[Half-Life]

There's a reason there are men and women prisons. If we were truly equal, feminists would be fighting to stay in the same prisons as men. Separate prisons would be considered sexist and evil. All of a sudden, "Don't drop the soap!" wouldn't be a funny joke to feminists anymore.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's a reason there are men and women prisons. If we were truly equal, feminists would be fighting to stay in the same prisons as men. Separate prisons would be considered sexist and evil. All of a sudden, "Don't drop the soap!" wouldn't be a funny joke to feminists anymore.

There is good reason for gender segregation in prisons. But that said, your mention of rape in prison brings up a good point regarding gender bias. Not much of anybody cares when men get raped in prison. Its turned into a joke. But man on woman rape is considered by many as worse than murder.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's a reason there are men and women prisons. If we were truly equal, feminists would be fighting to stay in the same prisons as men. Separate prisons would be considered sexist and evil. All of a sudden, "Don't drop the soap!" wouldn't be a funny joke to feminists anymore.

So, no one ever explained to you that by 'equality,' peopke are asking for equal opportunity.

That, or the difference is not something you're equipped to deal with.

 

[Metaphor]

Any argument to the contrary is essentially a non-starter, denialism and untenable, and you should know better than to even try.

I said society was not set up to advantage men at the expense of women, and I reject the feminist claims of patriarchy theory as a whole. If this is unbearable heresy for you, you of course have the right to close your ears to it. But I have every right to try to disabuse people of their false beliefs.

 

[ruby sparks]

If this is unbearable heresy for you, you of course have the right to close your ears to it. But I have every right to try to disabuse people of their false beliefs.

The problem is that you just don't have a tenable overall case. Nor do you even appear to have a familiarity with or a sophisticated understanding of the various theories involved in the first place, as is evident from your repeated posting of counter-examples which (you say) wouldn't happen if there was an underlying, general pattern of male dominance, which there nonetheless is and has been, in most if not all ape species, including us, most likely for many hundreds of thousands of years and even longer, in evolutionary terms. It may not be the sometimes simplistic or one-way pattern that feminist theories describe, but it's still there.

In my opinion, the theory of patriarchy became something of an ideology in feminism and in some cases a dogma. As such it's often been overstated as an explanation. Most of all, it resides mainly in theory, philosophy and polemic, not in empiricism (partly because it is not readily amenable to the latter). That's how I personally see it. But I still agree that a less all-encompassing or toned-down and nuanced set of concepts, which resembles or echoes feminist concepts in many ways, does a very good job of describing many of the complex realties of the social outcomes of gender in our species. It is widely acknowledged in other disciplines, well away from feminism, and has been for a long time. It's ultimately not really very viable to deny it and arguably foolish to try. That is not to say that some of your points and criticisms are not valid. It's just that your overall paradigm is very flawed indeed, and obviously so.

 

[Toni]

Any argument to the contrary is essentially a non-starter, denialism and untenable, and you should know better than to even try.

I said society was not set up to advantage men at the expense of women, and I reject the feminist claims of patriarchy theory as a whole. If this is unbearable heresy for you, you of course have the right to close your ears to it. But I have every right to try to disabuse people of their false beliefs.

Sure. You can go right ahead and be just as wrong as you want to be. That’s a good boy!

 

[Metaphor]

Any argument to the contrary is essentially a non-starter, denialism and untenable, and you should know better than to even try.

I said society was not set up to advantage men at the expense of women, and I reject the feminist claims of patriarchy theory as a whole. If this is unbearable heresy for you, you of course have the right to close your ears to it. But I have every right to try to disabuse people of their false beliefs.

Sure. You can go right ahead and be just as wrong as you want to be. That’s a good boy!

Get off the cross Toni, someone needs the wood.