Fun fact: White Nationalists define themselves as a movement to end the genocide of white people. Therefore, if you oppose White Nationalism, you support the genocide of white people. That's how definitions work, right?
Feminism is a cultural Marxist ideology which tries to explain the world through the lens of class conflict - an overclass (male) which is oppressive and therefore evil and an underclass (female) which is oppressed and therefore good. This is why it is not considered oppression when men die young or go to prison more often than women and it is not a problem when men are underrepresented in higher ed - men can't be oppressed by definition.
In a perfectly fair world, men and women would behave differently due to comparative advantage and specialization based on sexual dimorphism. Feminism, in seeking an equal world, denies reality and quite a bit of science. Also, like most Marx-derived groups, feminists are humorless killjoys
> which is oppressive and therefore evil and an underclass (female) which is oppressed and therefore good
If you think Marxism considers classes to be evil and good, you have already demonstrated that you don't know Marxism. Marx was very clear that he saw the members of the different classes as effective slaves of circumstance, who acted out their roles in history out of necessity.
The capitalist, to Marx, not only is not evil, but is seen as a historical necessity that drives progress: Only through the development of advanced capitalist economies does production reach sufficient levels to be able to eradicate common wants, thus making socialism possible.
I'll not disagree with you that there are some feminist groups that follow the same twisted idea of what marxism is that you describe above, but they're by no means the only feminists out there, nor does their views have much of anything to do with marxism.
> If you think Marxism considers classes to be evil and good, you have already demonstrated that you don't know Marxism. Marx was very clear that he saw the members of the different classes as effective slaves of circumstance, who acted out their roles in history out of necessity.
Marx clearly did describe things that way but the movements that called themselves Marxist (particularly Leninism and those Marxist groups influenced by Leninism, which given the influence of the USSR were pretty common among "Marxists") did tend to take the capitalist = evil approach (which fits more in with Leninism than Marxism, since Leninism major point of divergence was adapting Marxism to justify "socialist" revolution in pre-capitalist societies, thus rendering capitalism unnecessary.)
The word "feminism" describes a lot more that just that one ideology. There are lots of feminist movements and "agendas" and the only thing they have in common is advocating equality for women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
Oh, I’m so very sorry that you have to do a tiny bit more work and find out specifically what someone stands for before you can coherently argue against them instead of slapping the feminist label on it and being done with it.
First, I would suggest that when you attack feminism in the abstract, you attack views that are actually currently and widely held by feminists. It’s a diverse movement, but there are actual mainstream views. Frequently even that will not be very helpful, so you will have to find out specifically which group of people you are addressing with your criticism.
If feminists can and do frequently criticise feminist views then so can you.
In that regard feminism is kind of like, say, conservatism or liberalism or socialism or nationalism.
Now, I myself do not have a problem with chucking even big and complex concepts like that on the trash heap of history if they actually do have a consistently disastrous history. You won’t find me putting much work into arguing against fascism or royalism or racism or antisemitism. I’m willing to dismiss those wholesale.
Feminism, whatever its faults may be in your view, is about a million miles away from clearing that, however. It’s absurd to even think it could approach that same standard of wholesale dismissal. It has no history of harm at all.
It’s an extremely narrow, extremely small ideology with little diversity. It doesn’t have much history or historical importance and the specific views I’ve encountered were firstly nearly always the same or similar and secondly not very convincing or just blatant untruths. As such to me many proponents of MRM views often felt like a tight knit group with a very specific worldview without much subtlety in their argument.
I.e. if feminism were the concept of atheism, the MRM would be the Westboro Baptist Church and not Christianity or belief in some deity as a whole. (That’s a slightly shitty metaphor since the frequent conflict MRM activists dream up between them and feminism is pretty absurd. Men getting harsher prison sentences? Men being disadvantaged during divorces? That’s often based on strict and old-fashioned gender roles, something many feminists abhor.)
I don't see Horvath, or anyone else in this conversation, using tw268's definition of feminism. That's why it's misleading for this conversation. Horvath is criticizing her own feminist framework, so obviously it's not all good.
You have not the faintest trace of an idea what feminism or Marxism are. This is the most idiotic thing I have read all week. OK, it's Monday morning, but I give it a good chance to stand...
"Cultural Marxism" is an academic offshoot possibly inspired by Marxism. Though I'm not quite sure why it's called "cultural".
As for feminism, what's your definition, and do you think other people are practicing that definition in particular? Look at tumblr posts discussing patriarchy theory sometime; somewhere amidst the paranoid depressed teenagers is a pretty well-defined belief system, and it's not yours anymore.
While technically true, today "Cultural Marxism" is mostly a label that the extreme far right use to try to brush centrist and moderate leftists with associations of Stalinism.
Beware whenever the term is brought up - it's usually used as an ad hominem.
GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture. If they want to be a standard bearer for feminism in tech, the transition is going to be difficult and they are going to take some hits. The two cultures don't mix well.
It sounds like GitHub is going to have to become more stale and corporate to survive as a larger company, which is inevitable, but hastened by their own choices.
They will have to move to a MDMA/THC based culture fused with early 90's pop + Mid 2000's minimal techno. This is a small step for a dubstep IPA culture. It's like moving from the Midwest to NYC.
> GitHub is known to have a dubstep and IPA culture.
What point are you trying to make here? Are you a classical music and hefeweizen type of employee typically? Or maybe based out of Seattle, in which case you'd prefer a more grunge/PBR culture?
A couple hundred mostly-males built a company that was wildly successful where they loved to work. Now it sounds like they have to destroy that, build a culture that is professional and antiseptic, to make feminists feel welcome.
It doesn't have to be "antiseptic" at all - there are plenty of thriving, wildly-successful, mostly-males companies with great cultures where women feel comfortable too.
Also, it wouldn't be changing it "for feminists" - it's changing it to welcome any people, of either sex, who aren't comfortable in that environment. Just because feminists might be the most vocal about it doesn't mean it doesn't affect others too.
They don't even have to change their culture at all; all they need to do is to tone down the more aggressive parts of that culture towards certain people. Which shouldn't be difficult - I'm sure all of them have friends with whom they're more calm and less aggressive, or family members. They just need to transfer a bit of this thoughtfulness to the office.
It's not about changing because feminism, it's just the human decency of being reasonable and respectable to everyone, as far as is possible.
The modern world was invented in a cosmopolitan Europe. I think we should recognize that and preserve the best parts of that legacy, and yes, even be proud of it.
There are plenty of scientifically well-documented cognitive differences between men and women, though the OP doesn't sound informed on them, and yes it is considered impolite to know about them if you're not working in a psychological research lab.
