/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6273714]

Are there any actual academic critiques of feminism?

[Anonymous No.6273719]

Biology

[Anonymous No.6273723]

>Writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Lisa Lucile Owens and Daphne Patai oppose some forms of feminism, though they identify as feminists. They argue, for example, that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women.[219] Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence academic debate about feminism.[220] Lisa Lucile Owens argues that certain rights extended exclusively to women are patriarchal because they relieve women from exercising a crucial aspect of their moral agency.[221]

literally 1 minute of wikipedia

inb4 100 posts with shitty arguments arguing dumb internet virgin points

[Anonymous No.6273729]

>>6273723
But that only critiques radical feminist.

[Anonymous No.6273732]

No, op. And there won't be an accepted criticism of this (or any other left movement) for some time, I imagine.

[Anonymous No.6273733]

Doesn't explaining the content of a joke deprive it of comical value?

[Anonymous No.6273747]

>>6273729
There's no real criticism of the foundational notion that people should be judged on their merits, rather than the perceived characteristics of groups they have been placed in without any choice.

The criticism comes from the implementation.

It's like that old feminist adage that if you believe women should have equal opportunity to men, you are a feminist. In reality, no actual feminist would consider you a feminist merely for subscribing to that idea.

[Anonymous No.6273756]

It's called Tumblr

[Anonymous No.6273765]

>>6273747
So basically you're saying no one has ever questioned that women might actually be inferior?

[Anonymous No.6273780]

>>6273723
It's funny how the only people allowed to criticise feminism are women.

[Anonymous No.6273786]

>>6273765
Nietzsche and Schopenhauer both spoke at length on the subject, and they are much better thinkers than any modern academic.

[Anonymous No.6273811]

>>6273765
There have been scientific studies that show that men are better at some things and women are better at others

[Anonymous No.6273824]

>>6273786
Not just them, lots of other philosphers, though not in their spiteful way, but in a sense that each sex has its role.

[Anonymous No.6273830]

>>6273824
or lack thereof.

[Anonymous No.6273855]

>>6273811
Doesn't change biological inclinations.

[Anonymous No.6273863]

>>6273765
My wording was careful, because women are undeniably different. Inferiority is a separate question.

On a most basic level, most men are physically stronger than most women, but most women are more flexible than most men.

My main point is that few people would agree that anyone's demonstrable merits should be ignored in favour of generally applicable stereotypes.

[Anonymous No.6273879]

>>6273714
the misandry bubble is a good read

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

there aren't many critiques of feminism because anyone who cares call it out gets labeled as a misogynist, and Men's Rights Activists have become the laughing stock of patheticness for daring to point out favoritism where it exists

it would be career suicide to critique feminism

[Anonymous No.6273894]

>>6273863
I'm sure there's been works on the possible necessities of such stereotypes, not to mention how the ignorance of those differences can muck things up in the institutions and general notions of the populace

[Anonymous No.6273918]

>>6273879
>it would be career suicide to critique feminism

That really doesn't explain why though - it just says that a particularly dense concentration of intellectual-cultural resources have a corrosive effect on all reactions towards it.

"Why would it be 'career suicide' to 'critique feminism' " really is ignorant - it fails to frame the power reality behind the 'ideology' supposed to exist.

[Anonymous No.6273929]

There are women who criticize what we now call feminism. They consider themselves feminists of some kind of reformist variety, but I think that's just strategic.

[Anonymous No.6273931]

>>6273929
Why wouldn't it be strategic?

[Anonymous No.6273932]

>>6273756
>Tumblr
>Academic
You should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.6273938]

Yes, Womanism.

[Anonymous No.6273963]

i fcking hate bitches and whores

[Anonymous No.6274022]

>>6273747
There are plenty of criticisms of pure meritocracy, which it sounds like you're suggesting.

[Anonymous No.6274048]

>>6273879
>there aren't many critiques of feminism because anyone who cares call it out gets labeled as a misogynist

Which is, incidentally, because feminism has become mutually inclusive to the female gender, even though one is an ideology, and the other is a biological and social reality.

It's in other words, pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.6275149]

[Anonymous No.6275151]

>>6273786
appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.6275185]

>>6273719
>Biology
kek

[Anonymous No.6275206]

>>6273714

https://youtu.be/Do5zrdTb-yI

Every feminist idea has been blown apart in academia somewhere, egalitarianism and meritocracy for example get's trashed on all the time. The thing is that to properly attack Feminism as a whole you would need to write an insane amount because of how many presuppositions and theoretical concepts are worked into it. Then there is the issue of finding a "pure" feminism to critique that isn't incredibly vague, since feminism is heavily divided on many issues. I'm not even sure if feminism has a genuine lowest common denominator that you can critique. Stuff like rape culture, the wage gap, ect all can be factually disproven, but when you get into feminist theory there is often no argument being made, they just posit things and expect you to accept them- often they claim things about the subjective experience of men as a whole group( or at least the majority of them) which even a man could not know. It's hard to refute imagined concepts that someone has just intuited other than just pointing out that they have bad form and are'nt making a real point. They will just claim that your academic standards are patriarchal if you do that.

[Anonymous No.6275207]

>>6273811
This is so vague that it may or may not be sexist

[Anonymous No.6275221]

>>6275206
yes but soral is the no longer what he used to

[Anonymous No.6275222]

>>6273714
There are too many to list, however many of them take on a few points at a time, are covert or implicit, and are spread around in journals of various disciplines

[Anonymous No.6275392]

Why try to combat feminism? Even when you show statistics and hard facts they throw the m-word in your face. If you generalize, which is necessary because of course not every woman is going to act the same, they say you're being sexist. These people are inherently intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, feminism is just a symptom of female biology. I suggest looking into MGTOW videos on youtube, specifically Stardusk and Barbarossa. They have some pretty in depth stuff, they link to articles and sources, and they sure as shit don't mince words or shy away from the truth because of any PC bullshit.

Basically MGTOW is the opposite of MRA. They don't fight a never-ending war against feminists, and they don't let women co-opt the movement for attention. Also, they care about the facts, the stats, etc. Not just about being right, which I feel is the problem with so many of these retarded groups, MRA and feminists among them.

No it's not academia but the articles and sources they use might be traced back to that which is why I wrote this.

[Anonymous No.6275648]

>>6273714
Yes, but some comprehensive ones need to be written. It would be possible to do this just based on summarizing sources on the internet

[Anonymous No.6275671]

>>6275392
>promoting MGTOW unironically
kek, go back to masturbating in a corner. By far the most pathetic answer in this whole thread, congrats.

[Anonymous No.6275705]

>>6275671
it actually pisses off a lot of women, so they must be doing something right.

[Anonymous No.6275745]

>>6273714
It's a social justice movement that isn't egalitarianism, and thus is foundationally flawed as it claims to promote equality.

[Anonymous No.6275761]

>>6273723

there is no such thing as misandry. Misandry is only an oblique form of misogyny

[Anonymous No.6275770]

>>6275761
Elaborate?

[Anonymous No.6275781]

>>6275761
kek

[Anonymous No.6275785]

>>6275770

>Feminism is a conspiracy against women.

>The feminists have never aimed to promote healthy women in the world, on the contrary. They saw these women as too well provided for and sought to depose them from their place at the top of the female hierarchy. To this end they have poisoned the healthy woman with false ideas about her identity and slandered her enthusiasm so as to make her adopt their own. The crowning piece of malice was the invention and widespread distribution of hormonal contraception. This is the tool with which the feminists have tried to destroy all healthy, fertile women. They perverted social perceptions of a woman's role in society, created the lie of patriarch oppression, and turned the healthy women away from precisely that lifestyle which for thousands of years has guaranteed her security and prosperity in the world. And while this has been taking place, the feminist have gone to great lengths to find ways of correcting their own sterility, even while defaming the institution of motherhood.

>There are two things that a feminist will defend to the death. Can you guess what they are? The full weight of this conspiracy becomes apparent when you understand this.

>Firstly: A woman's 'right' to abortion
>Secondly: A woman's 'right' to infertility

>Credo experto

>There is also no such thing as genuine misandry. Misandry is only a more covert form of misogyny. Feminists who claim to despise men are lying: what they truly despise are healthy, fruitful women. But in order to give a discreet vent to this hatred (which otherwise would reflect badly on them and discredit their thesis that men are the entire problem and women are helpless victims) they choose to despise men, who are responsible for empowering these superior types.

[Anonymous No.6275819]

>>6273714
It's a bad spook

[Anonymous No.6276247]

>>6273929
>There are women who criticize what we now call feminism. They consider themselves feminists of some kind of reformist variety, but I think that's just strategic.
yes, this is the traditional shield for their ill-defined and woolly ideology

[Anonymous No.6276266]

>>6275785
I think OPs pic was for you.

[Anonymous No.6276271]

>>6273894
You know so little it would be funny if I didn't feel so inclined to explain to you how little you know.

Go study some sociology and philosophy, then come back. You're missing a lot of basic concepts without which I won't be able to successfully mock you.

[Anonymous No.6276295]

>>6275785
This is actually interesting. Source?

[Anonymous No.6277948]

>>6275206
pretty good video, and he makes a few points that we've discussed here on /lit/ before: the struggle of the feminists and other minorities represented by the SJWs ends up being a fight for more consumerism (at least in one way):

>wah... I want a hollywood blockbuster movie with women in the lead role
>Wah... I want the latest shitty EA vidyagame to star a woman
>Wah... I want more women to write shitty comercial novels for me to consume

[Anonymous No.6278476]

>>6273723
Christina Hoff Sommers isn't even a feminist. Other feminists don't consider her one, she rambles on using words like "agenda" regarding education and abortion and radical right wingers like Breivik love her. I've never seen her campaign for a single thing supporting women's rights, only complaining that the feminist movement needs to be stopped.

>>6275745
Should workers' rights call itself business egalitarianism? The name recognizes that one group is privileged in society over another, just like gay rights.
Regardless of that, check social movements outside of 4chan. Do anti-feminists seem overly concerned about other egalitarian causes? I hardly see it, they're generally allied with white nationalists and other kooks.

>>6273879
>Waaah, feminists call me a misogynist!

Most anti-feminists are. Why do bigots have such a hard time accepting this? White supremacists go absolutely batshit about being called racist, homophobes insist they're not afraid of gays despite panicking that they'll literally destroy humanity. It's clear as day.

>>6275392
MGTOW possess the exact same sentiment as MRAs, but whereas MRAs try to invert mainstream feminist dialogue, MGTOW choose to mimic radical lesbian separatists. They support hilarious science fiction scenarios where women are wiped from the Earth and replaced with cloning and prostitute robots. Cool, build an automated sex toy, but it's not going to start a gigantic social movement where every other male joins in. As much as epistemic closure and misogyny wouldn't have you believe, most heterosexual men legitimately enjoy romantic and social company with women.

>>6275705
A lot of women? What percentage of women even know it exists? Like the Men's Rights movement, it's an abject failure.

>>6275785
Feminists aren't against women being fertile, they're against childbearing and the status of housewife being pressured onto women. The simple fact is that many women don't want to be mothers, or at least be mothers early in life. Societal roles like this are not liberating or freely chosen. Women can choose not to have the pill if they don't want it, feminists aren't going to break into their houses and force them to have contraceptive implants.

>>6273719
>>6273855
>>6273811

You've demonstrated the abyssal depths of your scientific knowledge about differences between the sexes, bravo. Just say the magic word "science" and you gain credibility without posting any sources to back up your claims.

[Anonymous No.6278513]

>>6278476
Hey, quit avatarfagging

[Anonymous No.6278515]

>>6278476
>Should workers' rights call itself business egalitarianism?
They frequently do, as they promote equal opportunity.
>The name recognizes that one group is privileged in society over another, just like gay rights.
That's the point.
>Regardless of that, check social movements outside of 4chan. Do anti-feminists seem overly concerned about other egalitarian causes? I hardly see it, they're generally allied with white nationalists and other kooks.
Like hell they are. The idea of the current iteration of feminism as a annoyance is the norm among the majority of men and a decent percentage of women these days. These people aren't Nazis: they (very understandably) don't like shit being pushed in their faces, which is exactly what feminism is trying to do.

Now, if you tried to sell "the equality of mankind and peace for all peoples" to them, of course they would take it in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous No.6278519]

critique THIS!!
*cuts off your dong*

[Anonymous No.6278530]

>>6278519


*teleports behind you*

too slow!

[Anonymous No.6278584]

>>6275392
one day they'll know, brother

>>6275671
le virgin

>>6278476
le long fucking post with no substance

[Anonymous No.6278604]

>>6273729
because there is nothing to criticise in classical feminisim.

[Anonymous No.6278645]

>>6278515
>They frequently do, as they promote equal opportunity.

When has this term ever had widespread adoption in regards to workers' rights?

>That's the point.

Yes, that is the point. Reading comprehension, much? The term "gay rights" is important because it recognizes that society is skewed in favor of heterosexuals, much like workers' rights recognizes that business owners do not need the same push for egalitarianism and rights protection as workers do, and feminism recognizes the same for sexism against women being the more prevalent (although not the only) form of sexism.

>The idea of the current iteration of feminism as a annoyance is the norm among the majority of men and a decent percentage of women these days.

Most people don't think about these things a whole lot, honestly. You must spend a lot of time on the internet.

>These people aren't Nazis

No, but they whine about women like neo-Nazis whine about Jews.

they (very understandably) don't like shit being pushed in their faces, which is exactly what feminism is trying to do.

Yes, cognitive biases discourage people from re-assessing their world view. This applies to literally anything, it's trivial. How is argumentation a force of coercion and how is this unique to feminism?

>Now, if you tried to sell "the equality of mankind and peace for all peoples" to them, of course they would take it in a heartbeat.

You complain about feminism being alienating for not calling itself plain old equality, yet use "mankind" as a descriptor for the whole human race. These kind of ingrained thought patterns are the reason women-specific movements exist.

>>6278584

Yes, everyone can see how much substance your post has, with your jimmy rustling and your "ironic" use of le.

[Anonymous No.6278659]

>>6278645
tu quoque, I can be as ironic as I like but your post is still an empty vessel making a lot of noise

[Anonymous No.6278714]

>>6278659
You can say the same thing about any post. Of course if you don't agree with it you're probably going to think it's empty, yet you've given no refutation. Good luck convincing anybody with that strategy in a real debate.

[Anonymous No.6278793]

>>6278476
>being against myths such as the pay gap and rape culture makes you a misogynist
>not wanting to be blamed for things you had no part in because of your gender makes you a misogynist
>being against affirmative action makes you a misogynist

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this? Because all of the above are things feminism tries to push.

[Anonymous No.6278991]

>>6278793
>being against myths such as the pay gap and rape culture makes you a misogynist

The idea that they're myths generally originates from misogynistic tropes. Denial of rape culture often relies on a stereotype of women as lying sluts not to be trusted, and denial of the wage gap is based on stereotypes that men are simply more competent in the workforce. This denial often does not stand up to further investigation; rape as a crime is vastly more often not reported at all than it is falsely reported. As for the wage gap, it persists (although diminished) even when adjusted for occupation and hours worked, even for women with no children.
http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/gap-1.pdf

Identical resumes with male names are more favourably judged than those with female names:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

>not wanting to be blamed for things you had no part in because of your gender makes you a misogynist

No feminist says modern men are the initial origin of a discriminatory culture against women (which you're now admitting exists despite previously denying it) however, it's completely possible to perpetuate this discrimination with or without being aware of it, and this needs to be brought to conscious attention to be addressed. Yes, it's not comfortable to be told that the privileges you have in society due to your group allegiance aren't something you earned - overcoming this is a part of simple maturity. I'm a male and was formerly an MRA, but when I started listening to feminists' concerns and thinking about what unfair treatment women received (and men, too) I honestly got a lot more praise than a woman would have for being a feminist. An attack on group privileges does not have to be a personal attack on you, but if you defend or deny them in line with misogynistic movements, of course people are going to be hostile - just like a poor person would tell a trust fund kiddy to fuck off if he says luck had nothing to do with his success.

>>being against affirmative action makes you a misogynist

Not necessarily, but opponents of affirmative action often seem to not understand what it really is and use this ignorance to push a misogynistic agenda. Affirmative action does not put quotas on hiring unqualified women, this is illegal. In most cases, it applies to preferential hiring for women and minorities who are equally qualified as a member of an over-represented group, but may not even involve anything to do with hiring policies at all and simply involve attention towards discriminatory attitudes in the workplace. It's also often privately enforced, which anti-feminists complain about anyway despite having no qualms with private hiring favoring men.

>Are you trolling or do you actually believe this?

People disagree with your opinion. I don't see how this is a difficult concept.

[Anonymous No.6279030]

>>6278991
You still have not proved it makes you a misogynist, you are just parroting an argument designed to crush opposition by pulling the sexism card.

And affirmative action is prejudice pure and simple, if you support it when it comes to gender you are a sexist. Deliberately adopting a preferential hiring policy or for specific genders or races is prejudice and should be completely illegal if its also illegal to refuse someone a job because of those same things. And pretending quotas do not exist is ignorant or intellectually dishonest, even in countries where AA is supposedly illegal they exist. Anti-discrimination laws and policies are not the same as affirmative action.

[Anonymous No.6279037]

>>6278991
>rape as a crime is vastly more often not reported at all than it is falsely reported

The FBI statistics on rape show that approximately 1 in 5500 women are raped. And people are trying to push that it's 1/8 or 1/5 or 1/3 (the number gets more ridiculous every time the "fact" is spouted).

That means that over 99% of rapes go unreported. 99%? HMMM, NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT

[Anonymous No.6279043]

>>6278991
>An attack on group privileges does not have to be a personal attack on you

>check your privilege

sounds like a personal attack to me. Sounds like I should feel shameful for having such privilege

[Anonymous No.6279055]

>>6278476
>Most anti-feminists are [misogynists]
False. this type of thinking is poisonous and why most men who oppose what feminism has become are afraid to speak out, because there is nothing more harmful to your identity and sexual reputation than to be publicly branded a creep, a rapist, a misogynist, or violator of woman's rights in any shape or form

[Anonymous No.6279062]

>>6275151
appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.6279123]

>>6278991

I'm a practicing economist working for an economical policy group (we essentially inform investors in the local share market as to the effects of governmental policy)

I am now going to find all the wrongs with that pay gap .pdf that you linked.

>"Data from 2006 are used where possible, although sometimes
the most recent figures available are from 2004, 2005 or further back, with
2001 as the cut-off point."

So, off the bat, some of the information that is used is fourteen years old. That's almost a generation of difference.


>"The pay gap tends mainly to be higher in female-dominated work environments (such as health, education and social work) than in male-
dominated environments, which is probably due to the fact that managerial
positions in these sectors are often held by men, and women in these
sectors frequently work in the often lower-paid part-time roles"

This is a very problematic sentence. Firstly, it is using global numbers, which is unfair. There are initiatives in many Western nations to force women into managerial positions in business (take Germany for example). So, to apply it globally doesn't make sense for here. Say, you lived in a country with barely any murder violence, but then you applied the global average, it'd be wrong to state that your murderless country, due to global averages, incurs many murders per year.

Secondly, the information does not factually prove a managerial superiority to the men, it states "probably". No evidence = no argument.

Thirdly, if you look at universities. In many western countries, women are the majority in studiers, and of that, the majority of social work, education and health. (health = nutrition, nursing, not medicine). Higher amounts of people in those fields = an oversupply of workers and thus higher wage competition for business. That's why petroleum engineering, surgery, biotechnology etc are all paid better, less people attain their degrees, and as such, they can charge higher wages.
This reflects WOMEN's choices to get into these fields.

>"Eurostat and ILO base their figures
on national sources that use different methodologies to calculate individual
earnings. Because of this lack in consistency concerning data collection and
methodology, and the data deficiencies in a number of countries, caution has
to be applied when interpreting and comparing pay gap information from
different sources across countries. As is argued in the conclusion of this
report, international agreement on the gender pay gap definition and on the
methodology used for its calculation is necessary to deal with these issues."

Not only is the information flawed, so is the methodology. This is real bad.

To be continued.

[Anonymous No.6279175]

>>6278991
>>6279123

>"For the USA, 2007 data from the US Census Bureau points out that women are paid 77.6 per cent of men’s hourly earnings which indicates an average gender pay gap of 23 per cent"

Do I need to go through why this is wrong? Taking the averages of all men and women and dividing them by the amount of the people within the gender IS a good way to show the average difference, but it does not show a DISCRIMINATING difference, it merely shows an economical one. These differences can be explained by job choice, hours worked, maternity time.
Now, I implore you to read this: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
This is a US department of Labor report on the gender pay gap. In essence, it explains the pay gap to be almost all down to individual choice. It takes into account hours worked, job type, maternity leave etc.

Here's the thing, I really believe in some of what the feminists have to say. I most certainly agree with the fact that women are mistreated in some relationships, and that the can be demonised for defying some social situations. But, for feminism to truly achieve what it wants, it can't be intellectually dishonest and promote relentlessly disproven arguments.

I will continue.

"The most notable decreases have been recorded in Ireland, Hungary and Romania. The fall in Ireland is explained in part by rising female participation in the economy, falling unemployment and an increase in total employment."

Ireland's falling gender pay gap is explained by economical factors; rising employment, rising female participation. It hasn't been narrowed by anti-discrimination policy/feminist policy initiation.

>"Wage Indicator is an internet-based, self-reporting salary survey through which
people can compare their pay to people with similar jobs."

Firstly, Wageindicator is a very bad way to judge pay gap differences. It leaves people open to put in whatever information they want. It's not reliable evidence.
Secondly, "similar jobs" =/= same job/same experience/same economy.
You could work as a journalist for a car magazine, I could work as a journalist for a difference car magazine. Does that mean we'll have the same wage? Does the inherent quality of us both being sharing a similar job title mean that we must have the same pay/economical situation?
No. This is why the argument of similar jobs is flawed.

To be continued.

[Anonymous No.6279194]

Not particularly about feminism, but it easily applies:

>Fifteen years ago, when I found that almost the only other American academics who were reading the Hegel-Nietzsche-Heidegger-Derrida sequence were people who taught literature rather than philosophy, I optimistically assumed that this European cultural tradition would now, at last, be represented in American universities, to everyone's benefit. I foresaw a happy and harmonious division of labor between philosophy departments (which would stay analytic, and continue to neglect both the history of philosophy and Continental philosophy) and other departments (which would take up the resulting curricular slack). That was one of the reasons I switched jobs, moving from the Princeton philosophy department to a nondepartmental job at the University of Virginia (a university that has distinguished departments of literature, and that I thought might be filled with students who would want to learn about the Hegel-Derrida sequence).

>I did not foresee what has actually happened: that the popularity of philosophy (under the sobriquet 'theory') in our literature departments was merely a transitional stage on the way to the development of what we in America are coming to call "the Academic Left." This new sort of 'left' has been called, by Harold Bloom, "the School of Resentment," and the name fits. Its members are typically no more interested in the romance of the Nietzsche-to-Derrida tradition than in that of the Shakespeare-Milton-Wordsworth tradition or the Jefferson-Jackson-Teddy Roosevelt-John F. Kennedy tradition. They prefer resentment to romance. They view themselves as 'subverting' such things as "the humanist subject" or "Western technocentrism" or "masculist binary oppositions." They have convinced themselves that by chanting various Derridean or Foucauldian slogans they are fighting for human freedom. They see the study of literature and philosophy simply as a means to political ends.

[Anonymous No.6279197]

>>6279194
The political uselessness, relative illiteracy, and tiresomely self-congratulatory enthusiasm of this new Academic Left, together with its continual invocation of the names of Derrida and Foucault, have conspired to give these latter thinkers a bad name in the United States. This complicates my own situation, since I have to keep insisting that my admiration for these two men does not extend to an admiration for their disciples, the resentful specialists in subversion. Nevertheless, philosophical colleagues who have remained resolutely analytic often say to me: "See what you've done! You helped smooth the way for these creeps! Aren't you ashamed of yourself?"

I am, I must admit, chastened. But I am not ashamed. I can only repeat once again: Habent sua fata libelli. One cannot judge an author or a book by what a particular set of readers do with it. That would be like judging Pasteur by the development of germ warfare, or Aristotle by the Inquisition. There are other things to do with Foucault and Derrida than are currently being done with them by the School of Resentment, just as there are other things to be done with Nietzsche than to use him as the Nazis used him. There is no need to solemnly expel Derrida and Foucault from a temple labelled 'philosophy' in order to show one's dislike for the uses to which their work has been put by others. The question of whether they are 'really' philosophers is, for all the reasons I have offered above, without interest. The question of whether they provide a 'model' for philosophy should be answered by saying: of course they do, and so do Plato, Hobbes, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Davidson. There are as many models for participation in the conversation that Plato began as there are past participants. But there is no way to simplify one’s life and one’s philosophical activity by ascertaining, in advance of such participation, who the best models are.

[Anonymous No.6279206]

>>6279123
how's it feel being the world's dumbest cunt on 03/16/15

[Anonymous No.6279207]

>>6278991

>The idea that they're myths generally originates from misogynistic tropes

No the actual facts and people having IQs over 85 make them myths.

The fact of the matter is that when we deny rape culture we are not claiming that all women are "lying sluts who ought not to be trusted", we are simply asking for acceptable evidence to show that rape is as prevalent as feminists say it is and denying that it has been shown to be the case that it is. Feminist stats always equivocate vague terms like " alcohol facilitated penetration" with real cases of rape, radically increasing the numbers and increasing the myth that "women always know their rapists" which is simply a result of women getting drunk sleeping with men they know. These women do not believe that they have been raped ( because they weren't) but are marked down as having been because sensationalism and perpetual female insecurity is needed to justify the feminist mob and their barbarism. The very fact that you can use the sensationalist term " rape culture" to shock people into submission is a clear sign that we live in a culture that is against rape. The claims of persisting "she asked for it" comments show a failure to grasp the difference between evaluative and descriptive statements. No one ever claims that a woman deserved to be rape because she passed out in a strange house, but they will point out that if she had not done so that she would have not been raped. Finally when you say that " rape as a crime is vastly more often not reported at all than it is falsely reported.", you are committing an epistemic fallacy, if a rape is not reported then we have no way to determine if it actually happened or not, and we cannot say that "rapists go unpunished", if the police throw a case out and do not convict someone or the person is not considered guilty by a court of law. People are innocent until PROVEN guilty, all else is speculation.

Here is a better study on the wage gap myth btw. Though we should be clear of the differences between western countries and the rest of the world, few will doubt that other countries have massive inequalities stacked against women- the west only has ones directly related to natural inequality at this point.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

>Identical resumes with male names are more favourably judged than those with female names.

This is because it is rational to do so, women get paid maternity leave, meaning that they will have to deal with covering the woman's work while she is off, often by training others which is costly. Men do not have extended Paternity leave like women have extended Maternity leave, and even women deemed infertile can prove to not be and end up getting knocked up- it is always a possibility that such a situation will arise. So if all else is equal between a man and woman the man is a better choice due to biological reasons.

[Anonymous No.6279213]

Good academia mostly attempts to explain, rather than 'critique' its subjects. Philosophy is not a war of superiority, but rather a common project in which all scientists attempt to build upon the works of each other.

[Anonymous No.6279239]

>>6279175
>>6279123
>>6278991

>Gender pay gap by male and female oriented work environments In most countries, the survey results show a higher pay gap for work environments where most colleagues in similar positions are female. This may be due to the fact that men working in female-dominated work environments (cleaning, education, health) more often than women hold managerial positions. Moreover,
women in these sectors often work part-time, where the majority of lower-
paid work is often concentrated."

Firstly, the managerial argument is flawed. There's no basis for it. There's no information on people having managerial positions. But, let's assume that they are correct and that men hold a higher amount of managerial positions compared to women. Using the information that the .pdf cedes, it can be explained. Men tend to work in full time positions, men tend to join business/management courses more than women, men tend to work longer hours. In some fields, men are more qualified for managerial positions. A lot of businesses don't promote in house, because managing is far different from lower jobs. Just because you're the best teacher at a school, doesn't mean you should be the principal.
On top of that, the fact that women tend to work more part-time jobs in these fields means that they are less likely to acquire higher positions. Managerial positions are never given to part time workers, unless the entirety of the work is based off part-time work.


I take issue with the sample size too. For example, take a look at the Belgium figures for Agriculture; 95 people surveyed.
Health and social work; 1610 surveyed.
These are very small numbers, for the millions of people that work in agriculture or health and social work, a tiny percentage of the workforce leaves problem to interpreting the data.


>"The comparison of the gender pay gap found in the public data and in WageIndicator shows a mixed picture. For Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, both sources give a similar result. The Eurostat figures for Belgium, Hungary, Poland and Spain all show lower pay gaps than the WageIndicator, while the opposite is the case for Brazil and the United Kingdom. These two countries show a higher gap based on the public data than WageIndicator"

This shows that WageIndicator is an unreliable way to judge paygaps. Two countries (One including Brazil) showed higher pay gaps, some lower and same at the same. This, arguably, shows that WageIndicator does not reflect true wage gap information. This is extremely problematic as the report uses a lot of information from WageIndicator.

The end of the report really shows how it struggles to prove discrimination:

>"Within the part-time group, low pay is distributed evenly between men and
women and high pay is also fairly evenly distributed among a small proportion
of men and women working part-time"

I will finish in my next post.

[Anonymous No.6279245]

>>6279206
Explain?

[Anonymous No.6279254]

So, basically no?

[Anonymous No.6279259]

>>6279207

I'll clarify my last point. It is biological insofar as men do not get long paternity leave like women get long maternity because women actually need it biologically while men don't. This difference, the "vulnerability" that women have to pregnancy and the need to account for it if we are to survive as a species is the core thing going on in this case.

[Anonymous No.6279263]

>>6279213
>Good academia mostly attempts to explain, rather than 'critique' its subjects
[citation needed]
Analysis and cricitism aren't mutually exclusive and have never been so.

[Anonymous No.6279276]

>>6279239
>>6279175
>>6279123
>>6278991


Lastly:

"By law, equal pay for work of equal value must be applied, however the female-
dominated roles such as cleaning, catering and clerical work are generally
paid less compared to roles of equal value in which men dominate. "

Lower skilled jobs = Lower pay.
This is not due to gender discrimination but due to differences in work pay and work skill.
Cleaning does not require a Masters. Catering does not need a doctorate. Clerical work does not need a BA.
These jobs are entry level and do not require much training, and as such are paid less.
Women happen to work in these fields, for whatever reason, but to even suggest that they are paid less due to them being filled with women is incorrect.

>"Prejudices and stereotypes are a contributory factor in pay discrimination,
according to Chicha. There can be pay discrimination in two forms: firstly
different pay is awarded to the same job, for example, to a female and male
teacher with the same qualification, experience and responsibilities. This
contravenes equal pay legislation but has been witnessed frequently. This type
of discrimination is often associated with women entering traditionally male
occupations. Secondly, discrimination occurs when jobs that are different,
but job-evaluated to be of equal value, are paid differently. In this case, the
requirements of many female-dominated roles such as interpersonal skills are
valued less highly than those of traditionally male occupations. Chicha argues
that the ‘influence of prejudices and stereotypes on job evaluation methods
serves to reinforce and maintain gender pay disparities’, with ‘traditional job
evaluation methods overlooking or undervaluing important aspects of female
jobs"

Firstly, no evidence of unfair pay being rewarded. "Witnessed frequently" is not evidence. At the end of the day, if women are being paid less than their male counterparts for exactly the same work, then they have a multi-million dollar law suit on their hands.
Secondly, job-evaulated to be of equal value is a nonsense term, as it doesn't relate to anything concrete. Job values always change and as such, comparing pay in job positions that continually become less or more relevant is not a good basis for discriminatory pay.

Thank you!

[Muck P. Bulligan !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.6279282]

>>6275761
>there is no such thing as misandry
>misandry is
have you ever considered thinking about what you say before you say it

[Anonymous No.6279308]

>>6275785
How is abortion a bad thing? Do you want us to overpopulate and die?

[Anonymous No.6279316]

>>6279276

Good job!

You made me think of an interesting point. Can "equal work for equal pay" ever be anything but nonsensical? Two people can never actually work equally, there is always at least a slight difference in the job that is being done.

It seems like Feminists put all to much faith into the idea that women and men would magically equal out if we tallied up the actual aptitude of each person of both genders. There is no reason to think this though, nor is there any way we could ever figure it out either way.

Women tend to benefit from their choices to work lower paying careers anyways,work less hours, and be more willing to head off from work early. They actually have a life, develop more relationships, and live longer. I don't see how the fact that men are conditioned to be bread winners and work constantly to provide for their family should count as a facet of a particular privileged position. I mean really even if men are making more money than women, they certainly don't have the time to spend it, unlike those men's wives.

[Anonymous No.6279364]

>>6279037
The FBI uses a narrow view of rape to oppress rape victims.

[Anonymous No.6279386]

>>6279316
Thank you for your support.

To be honest with you, I don't want to discuss societal factors, as they're open to a range of interpretations. Feminists will argue 'patriarchy', MRA's will argue 'unfair burdens on men due to female pressure'. Etc, etc.

I am an economist and a financial analyst. I just look at the numbers and the data.
There are differences in men and women and how they work, as a whole. There are certainly some men who want part time work and certainly some women who want petroleum engineering-full time employment.

But yes and no for "Equal work for Equal pay". Yes, as in discrimination laws. If two people are truly working the same job, same hours, with the same experience. There should be no reason to pay them differently. However, this is rarely the case. Many women take maternity leave, which leaves time for men to gain more experience/qualifications and thus be paid more. Men put more time in on average than women. Women tend to hold lower degrees than men, due to persona decision.
Equal work for equal pay is absolutely a true statement, but it's a very specific term and difficulty to apply. Many times, the Feminist academics misunderstand the term, and apply "somewhat equal work for equal pay".

[Anonymous No.6279389]

>>6279316
All labour is reduced to socially average labour by machines and management attacks on limited domains of workers control. The wage relationship reduces human beings to labour.

[Anonymous No.6279408]

>>6279123
>>6279175

Where did you get your degree or training in economics from because it's people like you who make me feel awful for choosing it as a course of study.

All the credible econometric evidence either points to it not existing, existing in the fractions of a cent, or existing due to some residual. All this amounts to it being statistically insignificant.

tl;dr - Econometrics motherfucker, do you use it?

[Anonymous No.6279438]

>>6279364

Yes, the FBI's main goal is to oppress rape victims. The more sensible conclusion is that feminists broaden the definition of rape so they can manufacture crises and give off the illusion that they are still relevant.

[Anonymous No.6279445]

>>6279408

>All the credible econometric evidence either points to it not existing, existing in the fractions of a cent, or existing due to some residual. All this amounts to it being statistically insignificant.

But this is exactly what his point was.

[Anonymous No.6279460]

>>6279408

Did you even read my points? We agree with each other. I am using economical/statistical arguments to show how gender pay gap differences can be explained through economic instruments as opposed to social/discriminatory reasons.

tl;dr - Reading comprehension motherfucker, do you have it?

[Anonymous No.6279529]

muh girls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t0O-iV8KBI

[Anonymous No.6279549]

>>6279438
Wow m8 it's like you can't identify sarcasm

[Anonymous No.6279615]

>>6279438
What's your objection to a broader definition of rape? Even at it's most extremely loose fitting it still only encompasses fairly morally abhorrent acts.

[Anonymous No.6279619]

>>6279615
>stare rape
>morally abhorrent act
sure thing m8

[Anonymous No.6279626]

>>6279619
No one has ever claimed that the victims of "stare rape" should be factored in to rape statistics.

[Anonymous No.6279638]

>>6279626
Your only clarification was extremely loose fitting. Stare rape falls under this. Just about anything could be said to fall under that given that it just has to be worded in such a way. Not my fault you failed to consider the full implications of your statement

[Anonymous No.6279653]

>>6279638
It was stated in the context of a conversation that was specifically discussing rape statistics.

[Anonymous No.6279658]

>>6273714

There are plenty of very adequate responses to feminism and criticisms of feminism.

but due to the nature of feminism, these ideas are not allowed to be discussed because people who subscribe to feminist doctrine are, most of the time, fascists.

[Anonymous No.6279718]

>>6279653
And you were talking about expanding the definition of rape to more encompass rape statistics. As the conversation has flowed there is no reason not to include stare rape in this expanded definition.

[Anonymous No.6279733]

>>6279658
Stop diluting the term.
Fascists would have slaughtered feminist.

[Anonymous No.6279745]

>>6279615

When rape goes beyond "sex without consent" that is characterized by either resistance on the victims parts, threats of force by the accused or literal incapacitation on the victims part, by being passed out( which all count), then we are talking mostly about things like the woman feeling like she was being pressured whether the man meant to exert any "pressure" or not, or that a woman was "too drunk" when she pushed the man down and mounted him like porn star, while the man was equally drunk but "should have known better" and is called a rapist solely because he didn't have access to the magical "too drunk line" that is arbitrarily defined case by case, and is empirically unverifiable.

[Anonymous No.6279749]

>>6279733

neo-fascists.

happy?

[Anonymous No.6279751]

>>6279718
I was pretty obviously referencing the expanded definition that feminist organisations have actually built those figures around.

Hence the difference between what the FBI considers to be the figures and what organisations like RAINN consider to be the figures.

The daft things individuals have called rape is outside of the scope of this conversation.

[Anonymous No.6279758]

>>6279749
What are 'neo-fascists'?
Please don't say a general authoritarian.

[Anonymous No.6279761]

>>6279758

feminists

:^)

[Anonymous No.6279765]

>>6279761
You're basically admitting wildly misattributing a term.
It's like calling all American liberals Communists.

[Anonymous No.6279773]

>>6279751
>those figures
What like the 1 in 5? The most duplicitous figure which lumped just about everything they thought they could get away with as sexual assault (including kissing and fondling)?

[Anonymous No.6279774]

>>6279765

but liberals are communists

[Anonymous No.6279781]

>>6273714
>Are there any actual academic critiques of feminism?
Of course not - what is there to criticize? The closest you'll get to is >>6273723 because it goes after the "radical" feminists/misandrists who the feminists already denounce.


OP, that's like asking is there any "actual academic critiques" of people wanting the end of slavery.

However, I think one of the problems with feminism that does need to be addressed is this notion of abortion as a "women's rights" issue. I think that's clearly a non seqitur and is kind of hurting feminism's credibility as a movement. It's kind of disappointing to see so many liberals backing off on traditional liberal principles and embracing such a starkingly conservative idea like the "right to abort." It's kind of like the hijacking of morality by religion. It doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.6279785]

>>6279745
It's pretty interesting that you immediately jump to scenarios where the man is unfairly being maligned as opposed to having happily exploited a gray area for personal enjoyment.

But regardless, if your concern is the potential legal ramifications on these guys then I really wouldn't worry. The major reason most rape charges fall apart is because it becomes one person's word against another which is seldom enough to convict someone. It's also why the majority of successfully prosecuted rapes are ones that happened under such obvious circumstances. It's fairly easy to make a case that a woman probably didn't want to have sex with a complete stranger on her way home from work, but much more gray if both people involved were hammered at a house party.

[Anonymous No.6279796]

>>6278476
>Most anti-feminists are. Why do bigots have such a hard time accepting this? White supremacists go absolutely batshit about being called racist, homophobes insist they're not afraid of gays despite panicking that they'll literally destroy humanity. It's clear as day.

This is true. In order to be ideologically consistent, any right-wing movement must be openly anti-egalitarian. None will ever try because there is a powerful social stigma associated with the position. It's a real shame.

[Anonymous No.6279799]

>>6279773
No, last I checked the lowest considered was basically extreme forms of sexual harassment.

[Anonymous No.6279805]

>>6279799
That statement is so subjective and vacuous that it doesn't in any way invalidate what I've said.

[Anonymous No.6279827]

>>6279805
It's subjective and vacuous because it's coming from an organisation that has to clarify with every point that it makes that definition and terminology is interchangeable on a state by state basis.

Literally every point on their site finishes with the phrase "check the wording and terminology that your state's legal system employs."

[Anonymous No.6279834]

>>6279785

I do this because these scenarios are used in Feminist statistics to inflate rape cases and make "1 in 5" type numbers, which hurts victims ultimately, as a lack of accurate data hurts our ability to make preventative policies and give advice to women on how to make sure that they are safe. The CDC 2011 report that Obama used is very guilty of this, and since about the early 90's feminists have been counting the cases I listed above as cases of rape. Christina Hoff Sommers has written several articles and has included some of these issues in her more popular videos ( which are not the best source but she does point to the problem directly so you can check for yourself from that point).

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

See for normal people the point you mentioned holds, but for 3rd wave feminists we see an increasingly irrational push towards eliminating the general attitude of "innocent until proven guilty" and giving full benefit of the doubt to women on the grounds that they are women, and the more of these feminists get into positions of power the more men and the women in their lives by proxy will suffer.

>>6279781

>OP, that's like asking is there any "actual academic critiques" of people wanting the end of slavery.

Aristotle did that......

[Anonymous No.6279844]

>>6279834
>actual academic critiques
>Aristotle
pls

[Anonymous No.6279856]

>>6279796
Not really. Liberals and even conservative describe a difference between equality and equity.

[Anonymous No.6279861]

>>6279834
The reasons for that push are largely in reaction to a couple of issues though.

1)The legal system currently has absolutely no means of combating rape under various circumstances. If it's in a domestic or social context, as I explained, it will become one person' word against another's which favors the defendant. This protects the falsely accused and is a fundamentally important part of the legal system, but it still leaves a situation where halfway intelligent predators can exploit the legal system.

2) Said predators being disturbingly commonplace in either a serial or one off capacity. Those who are both aware of this ability to exploit the system and those who fumble in to it.

The problem is, no one has a sensible solution to this very real problem. Consequently activists who are attempting to solve this problem through fairly extreme means, one of which is a subversion of the legal system in this particular instance given the legal system's inability to solve the problem. I don't like the current failures or the proposed change, personally.

[Anonymous No.6279865]

>>6279856
I mean a movement that opposes both. One that wishes to make people unequal.

[Anonymous No.6279871]

>>6279844
John Green plz go. I can 100% guarantee you that you will not be cucked by Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.6279877]

>>6279827
You're just making excuses now. Philosophy drives politics, not the other way around. Don't pretend that any philosophical movement can be limited by simple legal boundaries.

[Anonymous No.6279900]

>>6279877
No, I'm explaining why the terminology employed by these organisations is so vague and why fairly earnest attempts at providing counselling and helping to facilitate prosecution are often misinterpreted as the pushing of a "philosophy" through poorly defined language.


Their organisation constantly says "check the terminology your local state employs. Check it out: https://www.rainn.org/

[Anonymous No.6279929]

>>6279861
>Said predators being disturbingly commonplace in either a serial or one off capacity

But how do you prove this ? Which is a point I made before, where is the actual hard proof that so many predators really do exploit the system or even exist ? Most women I know do not think that there are sexual predators all around them ( I am a White university student so of course I accept that other ethnic-economic conditions will have different situations), and really I don't see any grounds to think that it is all that common. I'm all ears for actual anti-rape activists who are honest and simply care for others well being, but Feminists, as far I can see, simply use a mythos of widespread sexual violence as a political tool and will willingly misrepresent the experiences of women so to push their agenda.Which is incredibly disrespectful to actual victims of sexual violence.

[Anonymous No.6279951]

>>6279900
I've been on RAINN before. They do very nice work. That being said we're not talking law or studies, we're talking about a specific definition for rape. YOU made the point that it could be expanded and provided a lousy definition. I highlighted a fault in it and you've been throwing up defenses and excuses to distance yourself from the mistake, rather than actually revamp your definition.

[Anonymous No.6279984]

Intersectionality and the critique of white feminism. Includes critiques of the very term and identity marker "feminism", insofar as it reflects an oppressive tradition. There you go.

[Anonymous No.6279992]

>>6279929
>Most women I know do not think that there are sexual predators all around them

So you're demanding proof from me but a personal anecdote is acceptable in your argument?

To stick with your standards, I've seen guys do a tonne of creepy shit which in retrospect makes me very uncomfortable.

Here's a quick thought to float. In the UK 15, 000 rapes were directly reported to the police of which roughly 1000 were convicted. 3500 were brought to court with the police believing that taking said case to court wouldn't be a waste of time. That means that even of the cases that the police deemed could be brought to court, 2500 didn't result in a conviction. So even after the cases were pushed forward by a police force who's reputation and effectiveness is gauged by their conviction rate, 2500 people avoided conviction. Even if we floated the idea that some of those cases were carried out maliciously or disingenuously by the women, how many of them could that possibly be?

[Anonymous No.6280001]

>>6279951
No, I was using their definition which encompasses relatively poorly defined "sexual assault." They count such cases as part of their often quoted "1/5" statistic.

[Anonymous No.6280015]

>>6279037
This
>>6279364
is an obvious troll post and phrased in a needlessly provocative way but it's actually kind of right. The 1/5 statistic is about SEXUAL ASSAULT, not rape, and it works from a theoretical/academic definition, not a legal one. That includes attempted rapes, as well as less strong forms of assault such as groping, forced kissing etc. The two statistics are entirely different beasts, dealing with entirely different things for different reasons.

[Anonymous No.6280016]

>>6279445
>>6279460

I am sorry. I fucked up. Shit the bed so to speak.

[Anonymous No.6280029]

>>6280001
Not true. RAINN used data from the CDC and DoJ in their very website where they give 1 in 6

[Anonymous No.6280030]

>>6279984
Oh great, another victim ideology.

[Anonymous No.6280035]

>>6280030
You mean slave morality

[Anonymous No.6280037]

>>6280030
C'mon man, being white and male is awesome.

[Anonymous No.6280050]

>>6275671

found the feminist

[Anonymous No.6280079]

>>6273714
>Has any academic attempted to refute a broad, ill-defined concept?

There are tons of critiques of any particular feminist. Most of them by other feminists.

[Anonymous No.6280104]

>>6273786
>and they are much better thinkers than any modern academic
saythattomyfacemotherfuckernotonlineseewhathappens

[Anonymous No.6280122]

>>6280037
Cuck

[Anonymous No.6280161]

Academia is the death of thought.

[Anonymous No.6280179]

>>6273719
lol

actually my exact thought, usually.

it's funny because I am in very intellectual and creative circles, and the majority - and the best among us - especially the women - are coming to the conclusion that feminism and other such political strains are getting beyond tiresome. the more inspired artists I find often quietly dislike politics in general, resenting the off-base faux-offenses it brings to discussions and critiques for lack of real insight, and the smarter, more vibrant women especially, having given it a shot, find feminism useless and dishonest. that's not to say there isn't that standard of equality we live by, that feminism claims to have sole claim to, the problem being feminism doesn't actually honestly represent that in any effective way.

[Anonymous No.6280192]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_2IFGBI7Y

[Anonymous No.6280231]

>>6280192
>france

[Anonymous No.6280267]

>>6279992

My point was that feminists don't speak for the large majority of women. Also, I don't need to prove a negative, where you do need to prove the positive claim.

As for your claim, it's simply not something we can know. But given that there are lots of reasons for a woman to lie about rape ( http://falserapearchives.blogspot.ca/2009/06/archives-of-sexual-behavior-feb-1994.html)) I would say anywhere from 25-75%( mind you this number is not to be applied to all cases in general- and certainly not all women in general- since those women who did get convictions I believe probably weren't lying for the most part and of course most women would not make a false claim and were not raped so they are not involved in this). I would lean higher in that case given that feminism has had such a large sway in Britain and this comes with an idealized victim narrative for women on all fronts, so many women may feel that making a false allegation may be justified, or that they really were raped when they were'nt. This rape culture hysteria has been a major aspect of feminist discourse since the 90's, so there are probably a fair amount of women who are really convinced that they were raped when they simply had a drunken fling that they felt uncomfortable with at the time of afterwards. Likewise with female hypergamy on the rise, which tends to involve more cheating, it makes sense that more women would try to excuse their infidelities by claiming rape, especially when their financial stability was at risk.

[Anonymous No.6280432]

>>6275671
This poster is a feminist.

[Anonymous No.6280437]

>>6278476
Nice pic of yourself, buddy.

[Anonymous No.6280496]

>>6280267
>Also, I don't need to prove a negative, where you do need to prove the positive claim.

>As for your claim, it's simply not something we can know

So you want me to prove something you know can't be proved? Even though this specific conversation is about a current system's inability to prove things to be either be true or false?

Also, again, given your insistence on me providing proof, I find it somewhat hilarious how much fucking lazy armchair psychologist conjecture you'll employ based on immensely tenuous logic.

Try taking in to account the fact the police do actively prosecute women they can prove have falsified a claim and that people making said claims are most likely aware of this. Also consider the ridiculously low conviction rate and ask yourself how many people would willingly put themselves through such a lengthy legal process that could result in their own imprisonment for such fucking frivolous reasons.

>25%-75%
You base this on what? The most charitable professional estimate is 8%. Where the fuck are you getting this shit?

[Anonymous No.6280645]

>>6280496

I don't think you can prove it, but If you want to claim it and be taken seriously you have to.

I never claimed that I had anything but conjecture at that level, you asked me "how many could possibly be false claims?" out of ones which we can have no solid data on, so I gave my opinion based on the best reasons I could.
> I find it somewhat hilarious how much fucking lazy armchair psychologist conjecture you'll employ based on immensely tenuous logic.

No need to swear and get hostile, replace this part with something of substance. If you see something wrong with the points I've made, just say what is wrong with them and leave it at that. Am I wrong about female hypergamy? Am I wrong that rape culture narratives has been around for a long time and has had time to change the way women think? I could be, but just dismissing my points rudely doesn't move this discussion any further.

8% comes when you have people only counting cases that we can tell for all but without a doubt were fake. It isn't representative of what we are mainly talking about,which is that big dark zone where we have no idea what really happened. The best we can do is look at the culture, potential motives,ect. Though I've read stats saying anywhere up to 60% personally, I'm very skeptical about how accurate those are as well though. But I do know from studying things from the Feminist side that the claims made about Rape by them are almost always false- I think most MRAs exaggerate in the other direction as well.

I've never heard of Police actually making a noticeable effort towards imprisoning those who make false claims, I'll look into that though, maybe there is something I've missed.

[Anonymous No.6280657]

>>6273714
>>6273879
>It would be career suicide to critique feminism

Extreme patriarchy masked as feminism. By siding with feminists, I can manipulate them into doubting themselves and then having sex with me.

works good so far im 4/5

[Anonymous No.6280668]

>>6273723
>They argue, for example, that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's
That is a common misunderstanding of feminism. Feminism stands against all forms of sexism, be it misandry or misogyny. To be a misandrist feminist is to be a bad feminist.
>and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women
Radical feminist position merely attempt to liberate people from patriarchy by abolishing gender roles, it is in no way harmful to men and women unless you enjoy unequal power dynamics. Radical does not mean extremist.

[Anonymous No.6280685]

>>6278991
>As for the wage gap, it persists (although diminished) even when adjusted for occupation and hours worked, even for women with no children.
>http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/gap-1.pdf

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT
Have you read the fucking report? I'm reading it right now and it repeats the same disproven lies we know.
>For the USA, 2007 data from the US Census
Bureau points out that women are paid 77.6 per cent of men’s hourly earnings
which indicates an average gender pay gap of 23 per cent.
they never adjust for anything.

Quoting more from your report:
>Men are generally more likely to work full-time hours than women.

>The breakdown also demonstrates the presence of occupational segregation
along gender lines: education and health and social work are particularly
female-dominated areas, while manufacturing and construction are typically
male-dominated work environments.
which pays more, the entry-salary of a health worker or the entry-salary of a construction worker? Nobody's keeping women out of these jobs but themselves.

>There is again a clear occupational
separation along gender lines, with clerks and service, shop and market sales
workers being mostly female, and craft workers as well as plant and machine
operators and assemblers being mostly male.

>The general assumption is that part-time work leads to a higher gender pay gap, because
women more often work part-time hours than men, and part-time work is often thought
to comprise more lower-paid jobs than full-time work
uh-oh, there it is again...

>In most countries, the survey results show a higher pay gap for work
environments where most colleagues in similar positions are female. This may
be due to the fact that men working in female-dominated work environments
(cleaning, education, health) more often than women hold managerial positions
that are better paid than the majority of the jobs in these sectors
this clearly shows that the study DOES NOT adjust anything at all, they compare wages only dividing by sector. Of course a manager working full-time is going to earn more than her part-time, female employee. As to why it is men who make it to the managerial positions... I'll leave that up to you.

[Anonymous No.6280843]

>>6280496
Just asking here, do you not find it extremely disturbing that women can now have sex while drunk and retroactively decide they were 'raped'. It makes a mockery of actual victims.

[Anonymous No.6280921]

>>6280645
>"how many could possibly be false claims?"
I asked rhetorically. The second you answered in earnest "25%-75%" I began to realise this was probably a massive waste of time. 25%-75% of the cases brought to court under the police system I described were potentially false?

>No need to swear and get hostile, replace this part with something of substance
I wrote that because there wasn't anything of substance. There was just deep and largely unfounded suspicion of the motives and mental health of people who most likely have been sexually assaulted. It's as easy and meaningful to say that you've been brainwashed by anti-feminist propaganda as it is to claim these people reporting being sexually assaulted have been brainwashed.

>>6280843
No. That's not a new thing. It's also the sort of thing that only an immensely scummy woman would do and to be frank, there's a lot less of them than 4chan would have you believe.

[Anonymous No.6280946]

>>6280921
It IS a new thing that you will be called a sexist and a victim blamer if you publicly call her a scumbag.

The mainstream feminist belief is that if a woman has been drinking having sex with her is rape. And if she decides she regretted it the morning after its also rape.

[Anonymous No.6280963]

>>6280946
>The mainstream feminist belief is that if a woman has been drinking having sex with her is rape.

No, the belief is that if she's been drinking to the point where she's incapable of giving consent then it's rape. In other words, if she's passed out or has no clue where she is or what's happening, then yeah, it's rape. If you can still hold an at least vaguely coherent conversation with her and she quite clearly wants to fuck you, then it isn't rape.