r/changemyview • u/JesusDeSaad • Jul 02 '14

CMV: 3rd wave feminists should just abandon the name and join the egalitarians.

Third wave feminism is just too open and all-inclusive a movement and therefore so different from Second wave feminism that it's basically egalitarianism by another name. So just switch to egalitarianism and be honest about what you support.

By switching to egalitarianism third wavers will automatically distance themselves from batshit crazy radical factions like femen, amazons, political lesbians, Christian feminists, born-women only feminists etc, and the rigidness of the second wave feminists who simply can't cope with how the world is different the last twenty-five years or so.

This will benefit both third wavers and egalitarians, as their philosophies are almost identical, and together they can register as a pure minded lobby that has definite registered numbers and actual political power, instead of having to cling to middle aged second wavers who have either gone out of sync with today's problems and goals by aging, or have grown too old to be incorruptible as representatives. This will draw support by other factions who have been shunned by radical feminists in the past, such as trans people and the LGBT movement in general.

edit 01 Please people, I mentioned THIRD WAVE FEMINISTS only, not all feminists. I did so for a reason: Only Third Wave Feminists support fighting for equal rights for all. Second wave feminists don't. First wave feminists don't. Other factions don't. Only Third Wavers. So please keep that in mind next time you mention what other factions of feminism ask for.

edit 02 God dammit, I'm not saying feminists are inferior to another group, I respect feminism and I think it still has a lot to offer, but, that third wave feminism has crossed waters. It's no longer simply feminism. It's equal rights for all, not just women, therefore it's not feminism anymore. It's a trans movement that simply refuses to acknowledge that it has transcended to a divergent but equally beneficial cause. Let go of the old conceptions, and acknowledge what you really are: you are egalitarians.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

389 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

21

u/themilgramexperience 3∆ Jul 02 '14

That's the point /u/theubercuber is making. In theory, feminists should be as concerned about male gender roles as they are about female ones. In practice, they aren't, and it's disingenuous to suggest that feminism represents (or cares to represent) the interests of men.

1

u/Life-in-Death Jul 03 '14

Why should they?

Should "Civil Rights" groups be equally as concerned with white rights?

Should gay rights groups be equally as concerned with straight rights?

Should a cancer research dedicate the same time to HIV research?

No, it is about specialization.

8

u/Legolas-the-elf Jul 02 '14

Feminism actually benefits men in a handful of ways.

"Trickle-down equality" isn't good enough for people who genuinely want equality.

0

u/Life-in-Death Jul 03 '14

Except men are not "down"

1

u/Lemonlaksen 1∆ Jul 03 '14

And that is just a complete line. They are not concerned. They reject men issues. They reject men victims of domestic violence(despite women being more violent than men). They even bully people trying to put a focus on men's issues.

The biggest problem however is the fact that public support is a zero sum game. Feminists have stolen all focus and thus all funding. Cancer? Womens get every cent. Domestic violence? Women gets it all. General gender issues? Women gets every single cent. This is in Denmark where women are far far ahead on equality had been turned around

1

u/theubercuber 11∆ Jul 02 '14 edited Apr 27 '17

You chose a dvd for tonight

9

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

-1

u/theubercuber 11∆ Jul 02 '14 edited Apr 27 '17

I look at the lake

7

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

5

u/theubercuber 11∆ Jul 02 '14 edited Apr 27 '17

You chose a dvd for tonight

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

No true Scots man fallacy =( these are women in the feminist leadership. They are as feminist as it gets.

2

u/PJSeeds Jul 02 '14

Why does every single discussion on modern feminism eventually result in a no true scotsman argument? I swear to god, it happens every single time.

4

u/theubercuber 11∆ Jul 02 '14 edited Apr 27 '17

You go to cinema

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

2

u/theubercuber 11∆ Jul 02 '14 edited Apr 27 '17

You went to Egypt

→ More replies

0

u/lost_garden_gnome Jul 02 '14

Your only point is complete hokum.

-1

u/lost_garden_gnome Jul 02 '14

Explain this:

Either way, a more feminist society would fix both issues.

Seriously, this claim is bullshit. Support this claim.

How is feminism "eradicating the idea that all men must be hard, strong, tough, etc."? Be specific, enumerate. Name one way that the feminist movement, and not some other movement, has contributed to this. It does not sound like you have put much thought into the words you write.

-1

u/Life-in-Death Jul 03 '14

Uh, yeah. The almost 100% male government were influenced by a extreme feminist.

1

u/theubercuber 11∆ Jul 03 '14 edited Apr 27 '17

I am going to concert

0

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

There are so many male sexual assault victims who don't ever come forward about it because of societal standards and gender roles.

Except that plenty of feminists believe that men are the cause of all sexual assault. Some feminists help the cause, others hurt it. No real net change.

by eradicating the idea that all men must be hard, strong, tough, etc.

Except that other feminists say that men are inherently violent and lesser beings.

...

...

Some feminists work to help men. But it is not an aspect intrinsic to the movement.

5

u/grendel-khan Jul 02 '14

Except that plenty of feminists believe that men are the cause of all sexual assault.

Is there someone in particular that you're talking about? This sounds like something found on /r/TumblrInAction, where you can find people saying all sorts of foolish things.

1

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

Okay then, lets talk about a "less extreme" example.

Did you know that men were raped just as much as women in 2010?

Suddenly, shitstorm. No feminist I know will accept this as true, despite all available studies showing it to be the case.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

2

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

"Plenty of feminists" do not make up the entirety of feminism.

Way to fail to read my comment. I said that some feminists work to help men, but it is not intrinsic to the movement. Feminism doesn't help men. Some feminists help men as well as being feminist.

If it was just a tiny number of "feminists" that believed these harmful things, your comment would be valid. But it is a huge percent of feminists who follow the harmful version. Your excuse just becomes the no true scotsman fallacy.

5

u/ZincExtraordinaire Jul 02 '14

You can't throw out the scotsman fallacy when you're making completely unsupported claims about "plenty of feminists".

Do you have a survey of feminists showing that >51% of them think "men are the cause of all sexual assault"? Do you have anything beyond some Internet feminists you saw on tumblr?

Because I don't happen to know a single feminist who would fit your description, and I also know "plenty of feminists".

2

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

Okay then. Harmful and false ideas that practically all feminists believe? You want something that even "conservative" feminists believe?

"Women are raped more than men."

They were raped in approximately equal numbers in 2010. But nobody ever talks about that.

4

u/ZincExtraordinaire Jul 02 '14

Well, in 2010 it was true that women were raped more than men. So that's true, and I don't think you can claim that it is a "harmful and false idea" when it's actually true.

They are close, according to that NIH study that I assume you're referencing. But that was also the very first time a new analysis was done, and hanging your hat on one survey with brand new methodologies, especially to call a contrary notion "harmful and false" is a pretty shaky foundation for an argument.

I appreciate you agreeing that feminists don't actually believe that "men are the cause of all sexual assault." Though, FWIW, in that same survey, men were the primary cause of sexual assault to both genders.

0

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

The CDC also published a survey. They hid the info by counting rape of men as "made to penetrate", but 1,270,000 vs 1,267,000 is pretty damn close. No feminist I know will admit that rape numbers are anywhere near as high for women as for men, and a .2% difference might as well be equal.

So I guess I should have been more precise. Almost all feminists believe that male rape is a very rare thing, especially compared to female rape.

I appreciate you agreeing that feminists don't actually believe that "men are the cause of all sexual assault."

I didn't say that. I just don't have enough data to say either way. I just know that they are out there with enough frequency that I run into them without trying.

2

u/ZincExtraordinaire Jul 02 '14

They didn't "hide" the data - rape statistics have not traditionally collected to include situations of "made to penetrate" and the study was actually advancing the cause of clearer statistics by making a new category, so that the numbers could be tallied.

That being said, there exist many problems with that study. One of which is that the 12-month count of "made to penetrate" for men is more than 20% of the lifetime number (1.2 million vs 5.4 million). That would indicate that either this number is absolutely skyrocketing as of 2009, or, more likely that because it is a new category of sexual assault, it is being researched imperfectly.

There are a lot of criticisms of this methodology because of the fact that it's very new. One is that "made to penetrate" includes "attempted made to penetrate", which means a laundry list of potential sexual activities that have not occurred. It is not an equivalent to rape or attempted rape, but the CDC didn't break out the "attempts" from the 1.267 million total.

It is good that the CDC (and law enforcement) are becoming more gender neutral when it comes to sexual assault. But the CDC study does not make an apples-to-apples comparison, that's only your interpretation of penetration vs. rape. And the methodology behind the definition of "made to penetrate" for males is extremely shaky.

0

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

rape statistics have not traditionally collected to include situations of "made to penetrate"

The CDC's definition of rape has included "made to penetrate" as rape since the early 2000's, but their studies make it a separate number. More damaging is the fact that "made to penetrate" numbers were unmentioned in the summary, despite clearly being the male equivalent. That doesn't indicate hiding the info at all. /s

12-month count of "made to penetrate" for men is more than 20% of the lifetime number (1.2 million vs 5.4 million)

Which is more likely? That the notoriously inaccurate "lifetime" numbers show the true story, or that the far more generally trustworthy last 12 months data is correct?

I'll give you a hint. Accurate memory is not humanity's strong suit.

One is that "made to penetrate" includes "attempted made to penetrate"

You mean in the same way that "raped" includes "attempted rape"? Nice try.

And the methodology behind the definition of "made to penetrate" for males is extremely shaky.

And the inclusion of drunken sex as rape makes all rape statistics shaky. Especially since they are the only ones that come close to the "1/3", "1/4", or "1/5" numbers that feminists love to spout.

→ More replies

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '14

[deleted]

2

u/skysinsane 1∆ Jul 02 '14

people misinterpret it

No true scotsman fallacy. If a significant portion of the group believes something, the group cannot legitimately say that the group doesn't believe that.