Defying belief.

Okay, I won’t bother responding to mohandasgandhi tonight, but I will go ahead and give a few brief replies to the seemingly more reasonable sinidentidades whose reply initiated the chain of feminist dissent against my video and the viewpoints espoused therein. If there’s time in the next few days, I may address some of the addendum of the re-bloggers as well. 

sinidentidades:

My response to theamazingatheist’s video on the alleged failure of feminism 

1. On his interpretation of feminism:

He never actually explained his interpretation that feminism focuses on one sex to achieve equality between the sexes. 

Feminism is very hard to define, because it doesn’t mean the same things to all feminists. I guarantee you that any definition I gave would be debated hotly among self-identified feminists. The definition in my head is something roughly akin to this: “A person who believes that gender inequality is caused by patriarchal rule and that only through the usurpation of said patriarchy can female social equality (or superiority) be attained.”

I’m sure you’d quibble with that definition, but I could easily find feminists that would quibble with yours. So, who gives a fuck? Let’s go beyond the semantics.  

2. On his rant about circumcision:

Hey, I’m not into circumcision being forced on newborns or non-consenting children either, but how is that even related to contemporary feminist issues? He acts like women are the ones who invented and decided that circumcision should be a usual practice, which we all know isn’t the case.

I never said women were the culprit behind circumcision. I never even implied it. 

3. On his rant about shorter prison sentences for women:

So, because women are allegedly given shorter sentences, they have some kind of privilege? Are you not aware that this alleged privilege doesn’t go beyond white women? Are you not aware that this alleged privilege comes at the price of women being forced to live in a patriarchal society that reduces them to tawdry sex objects, homemakers, and somehow made to think that it’s their fault when they’re victims of sexual assault? Also, I would contend that this is a product of patriarchy. It implies that women can’t be held entirely accountable for their crimes because they somehow have issues thinking through their crimes or something absurd like that. 

You argue that everything bad is a product of the patriarchy, so it doesn’t surprise me at all that I’ve helped you expand the list. Here’s the problem: if it doesn’t universally benefit men to the detriment of women, then how is it a patriarchy? Antiquated gender roles are the problem. But when you call it a patriarchy, you are essentially pinning the blame on men. 

4. On his rant about the selective service:

Men having to be the only ones to sign up for selective service is a product of that patriarchy. Patriarchy dictates that men are to be strong. Patriarchy dictates that men are to be fighters. Patriarchy dictates that men are to be made into cannon fodder. 

Yes. This is the brilliantly unfair system we devised. We like being the cannon fodder. We think it’s just peachy keen and awesome. That’s why we—the rulers—made things that way. Once again, you’re right. Gender roles say, “You men have to go fight the war. You women have to rear the kids back home.” I don’t like either of those things, but unlike you I don’t blame it on male-rule. I blame it on social development, class warfare, religion, short-sightedness, failings of the human condition, etc.

5. On his final rant about patriarchy:

First off, why is he even referencing wikipedia to begin with?

When he goes off about the patriarchy and how it doesn’t exist today or it doesn’t apply today, I pretty much laughed. Look, what he’s delving into is the paradox of patriarchy, which is that it does come to bite men back in the ass. It reduces men to nothing but mouth-breathing, warmongering, neanderthals, which we all know is a pretty rigid [and horrifying] role to even try to assume. Patriarchy is what dictates that this is what means to be a man, and it corresponds anything outside of that construct as feminine. The constructs of what’s feminine and masculine stems from the patriarchy, which as I’ve pointed out above, is oppressive.

Also, he assumes that patriarchy is an actively controlled thing, which really threw me for a loop. 

His comparison between men hitting women and women hitting men is an issue, that should be addressed because no one should be subject to abuse, but he seems to think that people just dismiss women abusing men for no reason. Do you know why women abusing men is perceived as less severe than men abusing women? Because of the patriarchy. The patriarchy is what dictates that men are impervious, and if you happen to get your ass kicked by a woman, it violates your manhood, which is why that kind of abuse is somehow more acceptable [when it shouldn’t be] and goes unreported to the proper authorities.

Also, what, why are we talking about the funding of breast cancer versus men’s cancer issues? I would contend that women’s cancer issues being more properly funded is a product of patriarchy. It implies that women are poorer than men, thus they need these charities and extra funding to overcome their illness. Plus, women receiving sympathy is a more commonly accepted response because the patriarchy dictates that men are strong, so to give them sympathy is reducing their value as a man. 

The child support thing about men having to pay more had me scratching my head as to what that had to do with anything once again. Men having to pay out more in child support also goes back to patriarchy, that men have all the wealth, that they’re the breadwinners etc.

When he tries to compare the alleged, perilous issues that men face in comparison to women’s issues, I had to laugh. Look, I think it’s great that he thinks that everyone deserves equal rights, but how can he say that when he doesn’t want to recognize that the patriarchy is the real problem? Because, when women continue to be paid less, continue to be treated like objects, and are forced to operate in a system that has institutionalized racism and sexism built into it, his idea that men’s issues are just as severe as women’s issues really falls short. Feminism attempts to bring equality by smashing the patriarchy, which would deconstruct the constructs of what’s feminine and what’s masculine, which addresses all of the inequalities he pointed out.

In short, you can achieve equality through feminism. 

I don’t think you understand my objection. I know that you don’t believe men all actively control the patriarchy. My point is this: since they obviously don’t, why call it a patriarchy? Women have been as complicit in the reinforcement of antiquated gender roles as men have. Equality should begin, in my opinion, with equal blame for the sorry state of the world and the increasing number terrible predicaments that our obsolete gender roles have created and are creating.

If you feminists would pull your heads out of your cunts for 10 seconds you’d see that I’m fighting for the same things you are 90% of the time. The big difference between us is that what you see as a male-dominated society, I see as a society whose gender stereotypes (which are enforced by both sexes) have created inequalities that adversely affect both sexes. 

I want to end sexism. And that means ending FEMinism. That means abolishing thinking that says the sorry state of things is the fault of a male society, when I have rattled off a plethora of ways in which gender stereotypes adversely affect men. But you don’t give a fuck. You’re brain is already shut off the my objections.

Inequality negatively affects women = patriarchy.

Inequality negatively affects men = patriarchy.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that that makes sense.