[video=youtube;mGfEcNO6K48]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfEcNO6K48[/video]
Description:
[quote]Just to clarify, I oppose the phrase 'check your privilege' being used as a conversation-stopper, and sometimes it is used in this way online. However, you really can't make accurate judgements about a social movement based on what you see on the internet and in the cess pit of YouTube comments sections (which are usually a mixture of abuse and casual racism). I mean, if you could predict things about a social movement based on what you see on the internet, then AnCaps would be a relevant social force. Enough said.
The issue of patriarchy furthering other systems of oppression opposed by anarchists is something I'd like to touch upon in other videos. Rest assured though I suspect this will generate enough of a shitstorm.
Oh, and if anyone's curious, my t shirt says, 'Jesus is coming - look busy'.[/quote]
[IMG]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/IMG][U][B]KEEP YOUR COOL, LETS NOT MAKE THIS A SHIT-FEST[/B][/U][IMG]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-siren.gif[/IMG]
Actually a lot better and more intelligent than I expected. Hopefully this guy can relay the concept of real feminism to angsty neckbeards without having to endure a bunch of rape threats.
I came into this thread expecting a mindless deluded rant
but a whole lot of the stuff he said makes an insane amount of sense to me
[QUOTE=Virtanen;45227119]I came into this thread expecting a mindless deluded rant
but a whole lot of the stuff he said makes an insane amount of sense to me[/QUOTE]
I'm quite a fan of Libertarian Socialist Rants. He's very well worded, does his research, and has a great voice, of course. I actually messaged him about his feminist views a couple of months before he uploaded this, and I'm glad he expanded on it.
While I'm not in favour of anarchism, this guy brings up some good points.
I agree with most of this video but his discussion of egalitarianism or equalism is misguided. Obviously by definition egalitarianism is opposed to pre-existing gender roles and is opposed to the patriarchy. Egalitarianism does not deny the existence of the patriarchy, anyone who does is a fool. Citing the Amazing Atheist as representative of an ideology he evidently disagrees with on a fundamental level is unfair. There are idiots who claim to be representative of all ideologies, using him as exclusive representative of egalitarianism is tantamount to a straw man. Yes some people use egalitarianism as a way to mask their sexism but this is also true of Feminism. The Guardian Journalist Ally Fogg wrote an interesting piece about why he doesn’t identify with feminism but instead identifies more broadly with social justice. It’s too long to quote here but it is worth reading:
[url]http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/05/28/why-i-am-not-a-feminist/[/url]
I think the real problem with the video is that he on fundamental level misunderstands why there is so much anti-feminist feeling on the internet. It is not that everyone on the internet is a far right reactionary who wishes to see the suppression of the female sex. Most people I have encountered who are opposed to feminism are not opposed to gender equality, they are opposed to the methods which feminism employs to try and achieve this goal. When there was a feminist campaign to censor newspapers and ban page 3, the response wasn’t; women should know their place, that gender roles are great, three cheers for the patriarchy etc. it was anti-censorship feeling. If a private company wants to print legal things that you disapprove of in a product that it sells the appropriate response is to not buy that product, there are lots of newspapers that are free of pornography you can buy instead. The appropriate response is not to advocate mass-censorship of newspapers. Similarly the recent “Ban Bossy “campaign did not attract such vitriol because most people believe women should be oppressed through sexist vocabulary but rather that the campaign was both misguided ( is there any evidence that bossy actually has any impact and is it really a gendered term? ) and again pro mass-censorship. Though in its defence I think in this particular instance it was a case of marketing trumping message, i.e the alliterative and shock value of “Ban Bossy” was seen as more important than getting across the slightly more nuanced message of the campaign. There are similar problems with attempts to ban prostitution and positive discrimination. These aren't straw feminists they are major campaigns supported by mainstream feminism. Things like this rather than the underlying message of equality is why feminism has such an image problem.
Most of these so called anti-feminists and supposed crypto-misogynists aren't opposed to the equality of the sexes, they're opposed to the clumsy counter-productive methods employed by mainstream feminists to try and achieve these goals.
There also seems to be a few logical inconstancies in the video. How can he say “class is a red herring” just after saying “so long as some women are rich and some women are poor there can be no women’s liberation.” Class can be used as a divide and rule style distraction but it is not a “red herring”. Also the part when he says The Amazing atheist can’t believe in equality because he believes in capitalism and the state suggests that he also believes the vast majority of feminists also don't believe in equality.
You sound like you're fae Edinburgh ya cunt.
I enjoyed this video a lot. Even though I'm not a supporter of Anarchism his points on feminism make sense to me. He was however grouping egalatarians into this internet extremist group. I said this in another thread but I believe that a Feminist is just an Egalitarian who is currently focusing on women's opression.
The guy says that feminism and anarchism are bound by principle, yet he constantly bashes egualitarianism.
Dude what
I don't think the guy actually did his research on egualitarianism or men's rights, or has actually bothered trying to understand why exactly there's such a huge stigma on feminism on the internet.
[QUOTE=omarfr;45229616]I said this in another thread but I believe that a Feminist is just an Egalitarian who is currently focusing on women's opression.[/QUOTE]
I don't consider myself an egalitarian, but that's how I always thought it is too. It just makes sense this way. On the other hand, would a person, who believe that, say, ethnic minorities shouldn't have equal rights with general population, and at the same time thinks that women should be equal to men, be a feminist?
[QUOTE=gudman;45230341]I don't consider myself an egalitarian, but that's how I always thought it is too. It just makes sense this way. On the other hand, would a person, who believe that, say, ethnic minorities shouldn't have equal rights with general population, and at the same time thinks that women should be equal to men, be a feminist?[/QUOTE]
Not if you're the sort of person who grasps at straws trying to conflate ideologies to make them sound better or worse, and as if anybody who belives one shoukd believe the other.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45228590]I agree with most of this video but his discussion of egalitarianism or equalism is misguided. Obviously by definition egalitarianism is opposed to pre-existing gender roles and is opposed to the patriarchy. Egalitarianism does not deny the existence of the patriarchy, anyone who does is a fool. Citing the Amazing Atheist as representative of an ideology he evidently disagrees with on a fundamental level is unfair. There are idiots who claim to be representative of all ideologies, using him as exclusive representative of egalitarianism is tantamount to a straw man. Yes some people use egalitarianism as a way to mask their sexism but this is also true of Feminism. The Guardian Journalist Ally Fogg wrote an interesting piece about why he doesn’t identify with feminism but instead identifies more broadly with social justice. It’s too long to quote here but it is worth reading:
[url]http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/05/28/why-i-am-not-a-feminist/[/url]
I think the real problem with the video is that he on fundamental level misunderstands why there is so much anti-feminist feeling on the internet. It is not that everyone on the internet is a far right reactionary who wishes to see the suppression of the female sex. Most people I have encountered who are opposed to feminism are not opposed to gender equality, they are opposed to the methods which feminism employs to try and achieve this goal. When there was a feminist campaign to censor newspapers and ban page 3, the response wasn’t; women should know their place, that gender roles are great, three cheers for the patriarchy etc. it was anti-censorship feeling. If a private company wants to print legal things that you disapprove of in a product that it sells the appropriate response is to not buy that product, there are lots of newspapers that are free of pornography you can buy instead. The appropriate response is not to advocate mass-censorship of newspapers. Similarly the recent “Ban Bossy “campaign did not attract such vitriol because most people believe women should be oppressed through sexist vocabulary but rather that the campaign was both misguided ( is there any evidence that bossy actually has any impact and is it really a gendered term? ) and again pro mass-censorship. Though in its defence I think in this particular instance it was a case of marketing trumping message, i.e the alliterative and shock value of “Ban Bossy” was seen as more important than getting across the slightly more nuanced message of the campaign. There are similar problems with attempts to ban prostitution and positive discrimination. These aren't straw feminists they are major campaigns supported by mainstream feminism. Things like this rather than the underlying message of equality is why feminism has such an image problem.
Most of these so called anti-feminists and supposed crypto-misogynists aren't opposed to the equality of the sexes, they're opposed to the clumsy counter-productive methods employed by mainstream feminists to try and achieve these goals.
There also seems to be a few logical inconstancies in the video. How can he say “class is a red herring” just after saying “so long as some women are rich and some women are poor there can be no women’s liberation.” Class can be used as a divide and rule style distraction but it is not a “red herring”. Also the part when he says The Amazing atheist can’t believe in equality because he believes in capitalism and the state suggests that he also believes the vast majority of feminists also don't believe in equality.[/QUOTE]
His point with the egalitarianism thing is that using that name doesn't address the reality: that the system of oppression that we're fighting is patriarchal in nature. It's not so much to do with the end goal (equality) as it is to do with the specific criticism of our society (that it disenfranchises women). Any movement for equality that doesn't address the underlying cause of the inequality is going to fail.
I also think you're not getting what he means when he says class is a red herring. Saying it can be used as a divide and rule distraction is essentially saying the same thing he is with different words.
is the oppression of black people "patriarchy"? Is that a goal of feminism in particular? Because in other related it was said that it's about raising up women.
I'm just being a devils advocate here so i'm just asking these questions because i'm curious what people think.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45232213]is the oppression of black people "patriarchy"? Is that a goal of feminism in particular? Because in other related it was said that it's about raising up women.
I'm just being a devils advocate here so i'm just asking these questions because i'm curious what people think.[/QUOTE]
Patriarchy isn't the only social structure that results in oppression. The concept of intersectionality is pretty well entrenched in modern feminism and it more or less simply states that oppression comes in multiple forms, and that individuals can be oppressed by certain social structures and privileged due to other ones.
As an example, a white woman will simultaneously experience the advantages of being white and the disadvantages of being a woman. Her potential social mobility will statistically be higher than that of a black woman [i]or[/i] man, while her lifetime earning potential will statistically be lower than a white man. She'll be more likely to experience sexual assault than the vast majority of straight men, but less likely than a black woman.
Race, sex, gender, sexuality, disability, education, wealth, religion, political affiliation, age, physical appearance etc; all result in each person's experience with oppression and privilege being vastly different. It's for this reason that coming up with a single metric (on a scale of oppressed to privileged you score a 5.9182!) is impossible, and why phrases like "check your privilege" are best left for ironic use.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.