A criticism of iFeminism

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0><script type="text/javascript" src="http://hb.lycos.com/hb.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ratings.lycos.com/ratings/lycosRating.js.php"></script> <script type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[//><!]]></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://scripts.lycos.com/catman/init.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://members.tripod.com/adm/ad/code-start.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://members.tripod.com/adm/ad/code-middle.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://members.tripod.com/adm/ad/code-end.js"></script> <noscript> <img src="http://members.tripod.com/adm/img/common/ot_noscript.gif?rand=345322" alt="" width="1" height="1" />  <iframe frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" width="728" height="90" src="http://ad.yieldmanager.com/st?ad_type=iframe&ad_size=728x90&section=209094"></iframe>  </noscript> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=160 BGCOLOR="#FFFBF0" TEXT="#080000" background="067f0f03.jpg"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Sex War"><U><B>Sex War</b></U></A></div> <div>  <A HREF="id5.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Essays"><U><B>Essays</b></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id35.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="What is a Hate Movement?"><U>What is a Hate Movement?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id50.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Just Sex War"><U>Just Sex War</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id129.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Equity feminism a contradiction "><U>Equity feminism - a contradiction </U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id34.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Extremists"><U>Extremists</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id52.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="No Good Feminists?"><U>No Good Feminists?</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id132.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The average feminist"><U>The average feminist</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Profeminism"><U>Pro-feminism</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Jokes"><U>Jokes</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id45.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Magic Y chromosome"><U>Magic Y chromosome</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id48.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="My Definition"><U>My Definition</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id41.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Censorship"><U>Censorship</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Once Upon A Time..."><U>Once Upon A Time...</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Lesbian Separatism"><U>Lesbian Separatism</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="51"><U>51%</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id46.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Humpty Dumpty Feminism"><U>Humpty Dumpty Feminism</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Child of the Glacier"><U>Child of the Glacier</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id133.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Open Letter to Mens Activists"><U>Open Letter to Men's "Activists"</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id135.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="A Letter to the Mounties"><U>A Letter to the Mounties</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id140.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Having your cake and eat it"><U>Having your cake and eat it</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id141.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Women are children"><U>Women are children</U></A></div> <div> <B>A criticism of iFeminism</b></div> <div> <A HREF="id147.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Male DV victims"><U>Male DV victims</U></A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#CCCC99" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="068f0f03.jpg"> <div> <B>A criticism of iFeminism</b></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <I>In reply to Wendy McElroy on the iFeminist board</I></div> <div> Wendy McElroy's <A HREF="http://www.ifeminists.com/interaction/forum/feminism0101/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ifeminists.com/interaction/fo"><U>iFeminist board</U></A> is probably the best and possibly the only example of the picture of feminism that many people seem to think is the "real" feminism. ie a movement for genuine sex equality, but with a focus on women only. Since I am against all feminism I felt I should criticise the best of it and not just the far more numerous explicitly discriminatory feminism.</div> <bR> <div> Wendy recently said, </div> <bR> <div> "<I>Individualist feminism embraces men as full and valued equals who have the same political interests as women -- that is to say, politically there is no validity to gender/class distinctions.</I>" </div> <bR> <div> But feminism is based on the idea that there is a validity to gender/class distinctions. Otherwise why would anyone create a movement for women only? Wendy admits that even ifeminism is biased towards women in the FAQ: </div> <bR> <div> "<I>Being a feminist is a form of specialization. In fighting for individual rights, some people focus upon injustice to women just as others focus upon injustice to gays or children.</I>" </div> <bR> <div> Is this a contradiction? Yes. iFeminism seems to be saying that its practical approach to justice will be the exact opposite (sex biased) of the theoretical point it is suposed to be making. </div> <bR> <div> Wendy attempts to make a analogy with groups that help only children for example. But no childrens sites claim to be fighting against the idea that children should be treated differently to adults, and indeed children *should* be treated differently to adults for many reasons which is often why these groups exist. </div> <bR> <div> Wendy attempts to make an analogy with pro-gay sites. But these groups have many issues where gay people are treated worse than heterosexual people in law still. They could also claim that gay rights were marginalised by other groups. The exact opposite is true of women. Women have more rights than any other group. Women's interests are over-represented and are more talked about and considered than any other group. </div> <bR> <div> You could argue on the "gay" analogy that a men's movement could be thought of as legitimate, although <A HREF="id50.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Just Sex War"><U>my personal assesment</U></A> is that it is not.</div> <bR> <div> However at least men's rights advocates can point out practical reasons for supporting only men--- that men as a sex are discriminated against and their issues ignored while women's rights are inflated and highlighted. </div> <bR> <div> This is so much the case that the iFeminist site has many articles underlining injustice against men despite the FAQ's suggestion that iFeminism "focuses" on injustice to women. </div> <bR> <div> This brings up another argument against concentrating only on women's (or men's) issues which is that in researching honestly any sex based uinjustice you have to research both sides of the story. There is no practical saving of time by excluding one sex from the "focus" unless you wish to dishonestly frame issues in favour of one sex or the other. </div> <bR> <div> This is unlike eg. child or gay groups. Issues which are highlighted by gay groups simply aren't issues for straight people. For example there is no issue for straight people in marriage because straight people can and always have been free to get married. With sex concentrating or "focusing" on on sex automatically means discriminating against the other. </div> <bR> <div> In practise the way things work out on the iFeminist board is that relatively obscure "issues" for women are presented alongside stories that highlight gross injustices against men. As per the answer the FAQ gives, the mention of male issues is not part of the "feminism" of iFeminism". Many issues for men are simply so important they are not ignored. However this obviously (and intentionally) means men are NOT treated "as full and valued equals who have the same political interests as women". </div> <div> --------------------------------------------- </div> <div> Now in the above I make no reference to the nature of the larger feminist movement and its implications for a label like "iFeminism". If we pretended for a moment that the word had no associations, a blank slate, then the above criticisms would be valid and the concept behind iFeminism would be sexist but not too bad. </div> <bR> <div> Unfortunately the reality is that feminism is associated with lies, discrimination and hate. This is true in terms of public opinion (feminists are always complaining that people say feminism means man-hating lesbians) and in terms of a careful evaluation of the movement on a factual level. Lies and discrimination are self-explanatory terms. <A HREF="id35.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="What is a Hate Movement?"><U>Hate</U></A> I define as follows:</div> <div> ----------------</div> <div> Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group </div> <div> Propagates discrimination against the target group </div> <div> Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral </div> <div> Teaches that the target group is a threat </div> <div> Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views </div> <div> Tolerates violence towards the target group</div> <div> ------------- </div> <div> As a movement feminism qualifies under this definition of political (not the emotion) hate. You can see that lies and discrimination form part of the definition. I should say that some people add that hate can only be directed towards a birth group, not for example, a political group. I didn't add this because so many people like to try and accuse me and others of "hating feminists". As you can see from the above I do not. For example I do not say feminists or other hate mongers deserve lesser rights, although many feminists do ironically! </div> <bR> <div> One narrow issue which is current, and of great importance to the feminist movement highlights all these points at once. The feminist support for the US Violence Against Women Act shows all these attitudes at work. Wendy has spoken out against VAWA calling it gender apartheid which it is. It is also unconstitutional denial of equal rights. Apart from Wendy I don't know of any feminist or feminist group that has condemned VAWA. On the contrary it seems to be almost universally proclaimed as a great victory for the movement even by those who are supposed to be moderates. </div> <bR> <div> I predict almost all the feminists on even this site will refuse to condemn VAWA. </div> <bR> <div> Given the nature of the feminist movement as a hate movement, the irrational support for feminism from iFeminism is transformed into something more than merely silly or contradictory or sexist and becomes deeply suspect. Given the nature of feminism as a movement anyone with a genuine desire for equality should be putting as much distance between themselves and that movement as possible, and loudly criticising the movement. </div> <bR> <div> iFeminism *does* loudly criticise the movement. </div> <div> So WHY on earth does iFeminism persist in using the name "feminist"? </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>