Philosophical Vegan Forum

About what you said about male privilege Kyron, what?
I can't help but see that as a huge overreaction, and like you're taking the idea personally. Saying a group is more privileged than another isn't an attack on those in the group said to be more privileged.

I'm not even saying that there is male privilege; I'm just confused at why you got so offended by the idea of it. Is acknowledging white privilege an attack on white people? Is it "insensitive", and does it "promote prejudice against white people for actions that aren't their own"?

Obviously not all white people are the problem, but saying that there is white privilege isn't saying that they are. It's just saying that white people generally are more privileged race-wise than non-whites. It's the same way with saying that there's male privilege.

[quote="RedAppleGP"
you got your facts backwards brudda'!. If you pay attention to feminist movements, they don't only focus on womens rights, they believe that men and women deserve equal rights. .[/quote]
In very rare cases as far as I've seen. I mean, Survivors UK (the only major male-rape charity in the UK) had it's funding cut to nothing fairly recently... There was very little (I haven't seen any) outrage from Feminists, even about this very serious issue. However, maybe I'm missing a lot of Feminist campaigns for men that you can tell me about? o:

RedAppleGP wrote:But if you see a sexist campaign, the people involved are not feminists unless they've been mislead or something. And justa nitpick, bt egalitarians haven't really brought anything new to the table in terms of equality. But hey, that's just me

That seems very much "no true scotsman"-like. There is no authority on a movement. There are many different books and interpretations of what the Feminist movement stands for. Unlike major religions, there's not one book you can turn to and say "THAT'S what feminism means" - you can only really define it using the actions of its members. And sadly, a lot (most) of it's members are the same people who support those sexist campaigns who get x amount of shares/reblogs/blog-posts/media-articles. Feminism has become somewhat of a "dirty word" due to this, because unfortunately, it's progressed into more than just the actions of a few.

brimstoneSalad wrote:How can you establish equal rights around child birth and abortion?

You are completely correct in that, certain biologies require us to decide on certain rights specific to sex. I agree and that is my position also.

EquALLity wrote:Saying a group is more privileged than another isn't an attack on those in the group said to be more privileged.

It's dependent on the context I suppose. In somewhere like Saudi Arabia, it would not be incorrect at all to say something like "males are privileged" - However, I did specify that it was wrong to say in a western world where women/men have equal rights (as equal as it can get) and where sexism is not an issue that effects one sex. In this context, using such phrases is not a very accurate generalization, and it is most accurate to think of people on an individual level. Though, come to think about it, there are still cases in which one could be considered privileged, such as financial position.

It is actually used by many as an attack on the perceived "more privileged" to dismiss points of view, and in a subtle way, glamorizes the idea of being a minority, which I highly disagree with. People should be proud of who they are no matter what sex/ethnicity/sexuality/etc.

RedAppleGP wrote:I think I over worded it, my bad. Caught in the heat of the moment you know what I'm saying?

This is the danger of politics. Rhetoric shuts down the portions of the brain responsible for critical thinking; iirc, on FMRI you can see them go dark with reduced activity.

RedAppleGP wrote:And I know what I know true Scotsman is, & I don't really see how I'm making one here. I'm just saying, in this particular situation, someone who is complaining about men sitting in a weird position on the subway, is not a feminist at all, or rather someone who's just complaining about something so idiotic. Also a women who believe they deserve better rights than a man or what not are not feminists because they don't believe in equal rights. Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know.

Is a Christian who bombs an abortion clinic not a Christian?
Is a Muslim who hijacks and plane not a Muslim?
Is a Vegan who commits arson not a Vegan?
Is an Atheist who promotes religion and hates atheism not an Atheist?

At what point do we get to define people for them, based on what we think they should be doing? At what point do we get to deny them title to an identity they openly claim, because we don't think they represent that identity properly?

In some of these cases there are stronger arguments to be made than others, but it's very important to think about.

Kyron wrote: That seems very much "no true scotsman"-like. There is no authority on a movement. There are many different books and interpretations of what the Feminist movement stands for.

Right, but:

Kyron wrote: Unlike major religions, there's not one book you can turn to and say "THAT'S what feminism means" - you can only really define it using the actions of its members.

This is only partially true of religion.

For something like Catholicism, if the Pope says you're not Catholic and excommunicates you, that's it -- you're not Catholic, however much you complain about it. It's a club, and he's the gatekeeper.
We can also talk about people not really being Catholic if they disagree with any important canonical point of doctrine as decreed ex cathedra (under papal infallibility).

For many denominations, they aren't that organized or consistent in their authoritative interpretations, so in many cases there's substantial flexibility there and it's much more difficult to define the essential points of doctrine or rank them in any manner that allows such clear judgement. It becomes more of an issue of whoever yells the loudest or makes the most persuasive argument.

Kyron wrote: you can only really define it using the actions of its members. And sadly, a lot (most) of it's members are the same people who support those sexist campaigns who get x amount of shares/reblogs/blog-posts/media-articles.

Based on what data?

Kyron wrote:

EquALLity wrote:Saying a group is more privileged than another isn't an attack on those in the group said to be more privileged.

It's dependent on the context I suppose. In somewhere like Saudi Arabia, it would not be incorrect at all to say something like "males are privileged" - However, I did specify that it was wrong to say in a western world where women/men have equal rights (as equal as it can get) and where sexism is not an issue that effects one sex. In this context, using such phrases is not a very accurate generalization, and it is most accurate to think of people on an individual level. Though, come to think about it, there are still cases in which one could be considered privileged, such as financial position.

It is actually used by many as an attack on the perceived "more privileged" to dismiss points of view, and in a subtle way, glamorizes the idea of being a minority, which I highly disagree with.

How is stating one group is privileged the same as attacking that group? Stating that one group is privileged means that group enjoys rights (not just on paper) or incidences (less suffering/more positives) disproportionate to other groups, it doesn't mean one group members are all bigots/sexists.

Any data on gender wise frequency of getting raped, and who are the rapists in each case?

Strange how in being strong critics of feminism one finds strong allies with social conservatives and fundie religious folks. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminism#Backlash

Is the reverse ever as populous? http://allmalepanels.tumblr.com/

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Feminists ARE for women's rights over men's. MRA ARE for men's rights over women's. And that's the way it should be -- the way it needs to be -- in order for things to work out.

Huh? I know 0 feminists online or in real life that are for women's right OVER men's. Where's you source for this rather paranoid sounding claim?
Feminism definition is for equality only. What kind of crazy women have you been hanging out with or websites have you been frequenting?!!

Kyron wrote:In recent years, and even though-out history, self-identified Feminists have gotten the complete wrong idea. Thing such as:

Labeling things like, pornography, or any sexually-themed photograph/media, sexist.

This ^
You made the above post. Now you seem to be backpedalling.

Kyron wrote:
Pornography, has been shown to have little effect on teenagers. Teenagers are aware that it is just fantasy and most teenagers even use it as a form of sexual education. (though, probably not the best source.) - The worst thing that comes from pornography is self-consciousness. People are worried that they may not be as attractive for their partner. However, this is not directly linked to pornography, more so comparing yourself to others.
The number of sexual assaults per year is always dropping significantly. You'd assume that with the recent, easily-obtainable amount of pornography on the internet, that, if it was effecting people, that rate would have gone up once the internet was introduce, however, that is not the case. There were very similar talks around the time violent video games were introduced, and that it may be effecting their children. Yet, many studies proved otherwise. It's nearly the exact same case.

Sources, citations?
New research into video games show it does have an effect. I can show my source if you wish.

knowledge is power wrote: Huh? I know 0 feminists online or in real life that are for women's right OVER men's. Where's you source for this rather paranoid sounding claim?
Feminism definition is for equality only. What kind of crazy women have you been hanging out with or websites have you been frequenting?!!

I appreciate that you feel passionate about this subject, it's good to care about things, but as long as you're using rhetoric I can't engage in this discussion because it will not likely be fruitful. Rhetoric like this involving such absolute and one sided claims, as any dogma, can be shown to shut down the parts of the brain responsible for critical thinking.

It's essential to understand that both sides of any political disagreement may have some valid points.

As I have said before, here and in many other threads, I'm not interested in political rhetoric, I'm interested in moral philosophy. I'm completely open minded to both sides, as it must be.

The answer to this question can be found in my prior posts if you're interested. Or, ask again more nicely and without the rhetoric, and I'll be happy to elaborate or explain it again.

garrethdsouza wrote: Based on what data?

The Feminist Movements' huuuge backlash at a joke-advertisement, branding it "sexist" regardless of the fact that there was both male and female versions of the advertisement. Yes, it's somewhat inappropriate for a bus-advertisement, however it was certainly not a "sexist" thing, however many turned a blind eye to that..
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sout ... s-32690534]
[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ri ... ts-5679644]

The whole "Teach Men Not to Rape" thing... I mean. Really?
[http://feministactivism.files.wordpress ... =490&h=349]
[http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/we-ca ... t-to-rape/]

Targeted Advertising is sexist... Except if it's targeted to me and I like it.
(tl;dw In one video, she says that beer is sexist because it's for the most part, advertised to/using males. In the second video, she says that make-up is only sexist in certain contexts, like, if it's enforced in the workplace.)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0hSkKIR0CY]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeMmkCBE37g]

There are many many more social media posts/comments that I could spend a while looking for, however, I'm not sure if that would suffice to prove my point.

Note: I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying this is what Feminism is. I'm just showing that these points of view are very prevalent within the movement.

garrethdsouza wrote:How is stating one group is privileged the same as attacking that group? Stating that one group is privileged means that group enjoys rights (not just on paper) or incidences (less suffering/more positives) disproportionate to other groups, it doesn't mean one group members are all bigots/sexists.

"It is actually used by many as an attack on the perceived "more privileged" to dismiss points of view, and in a subtle way, glamorizes the idea of being a minority, which I highly disagree with."

I wasn't stating that saying that a certain group is privileged, is attacking that group. However, the contexts in which it is often done, to dismiss people's arguments as "you can't understand" because they're in a "privileged group" both dismisses their argument on false claims and glamorizes the idea of being a minority. So your word will mean something among these people, when trying to partake in active discussion.

garrethdsouza wrote:Any data on gender wise frequency of getting raped, and who are the rapists in each case?

Yes. I'm very aware that on paper, women are raped more than men, and usually by men. Other than the many unreported cases and stigma that "men can't be raped by women" - What does that mean?... Really? Because I could show you some statistics that show that black people kill more white people than white people kill black people. Should we draw conclusions from this?
[https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... r_2013.xls]

These are all horrible offenses. However, we should not be drawing conclusions between race/gender/sex/sexuality/etc. We should be tackling the problem itself. As we all know, correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

garrethdsouza wrote:Strange how in being strong critics of feminism one finds strong allies with social conservatives and fundie religious folks.

I'm neither?... I'm a left libertarian, leaning towards socialism..

garrethdsouza wrote:Is the reverse ever as populous? http://allmalepanels.tumblr.com/

If your belief is that we should impose quotas to solve this perceived inequality. This is my take on the whole deal - We should have quotas for our equality departments, that they can use to monitor workplace/panel/etc diversity rates. The quota will be used as a trigger for suspicion. And to conduct investigations to how those people were chosen. However, if those people were chosen under legitimate circumstances, then, it's left at that. No, authoritarian forcing of companies to hire someone based on their sex/race/sexuality/etc rather than their suitability for that position..

It really sounded like you saw it as an attack, based on the quote in the attachment (using a mobile; I'm not going to try to type that out).

It sounds like you said that saying males are generally more privileged sex-wise is insensitive to men, and holds them in contempt for actions that aren't their own.

What did you mean by this if that wasn't what you were saying? If you meant that it just isn't a valid argument, I don't see why you'd say that it's insensitive etc..

You also mentioned that the idea shouldn't be used to dismiss arguments, but that's not really all that you said.

I agree that it can't be used to dismiss an argument. I think that'd be a fallacy from genetics. Obviously it doesn't make sense to judge an argument based on the source.