Everyday Feminism

Do you have anything substantial to offer beyond tone policing? http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/ If you actually read the article, you'd realize that the claims I've made come from reputable academic sources cited in this survey article. For example, my claim about oxy and TV/video games comes from here: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/great-recove…

There are people who actively wish ill on all kinds of groups and the “woke” are no exception. Plenty of people hate their political enemies and have no great concern if they are hurt and some take real joy in the idea. Yale invites speakers who talk about their fantasies of killing white people. Mainstream feminist websites do backflips trying to sugarcoat that they think every single man is a threat. > Yale speaker says comment about killing White people was meant to spark deeper talk about race https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/09/yale-lecturer-talk… > But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy. > And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism. > So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm. https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/yes-actually-it-is-all-men/ More narrowly the demographic that loves censorship is of the left now. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/professor-terminated-art-history-pai… > In a controversial move, an adjunct…

> In what jurisdiction is this? I live in NY, USA, I don't know about other areas. I did find this while googling the Tricare thing: "The military does not recognize Common Law marriages or domestic partners unless they are legally married." I don't know if this applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex partners, though, but being a US vet of 4 years in the USAF, I'm not terribly surprised if that's true, although it looks like the courts are slowly coming around. > How do you enter such a relationship? Signing a single piece of paper at the office of your local government > How does dissolution work in such a relationship? You sign another single piece of paper at the office of your local government. No lawyers necessary. > What sort of "cruft" does marriage have that a "domestic partnership" lack? Oh, where do I begin? The history of marriage is mostly the story of men owning women. Marriage is perversely incentivized against if the male has a vastly disproportionate net worth from his would-be spouse (this is the case in my case). Marriage has a 30-50% failure rate despite the fact that 100% of people, on their wedding day, would never imagine getting a divorce in a million years (why else would you get married and toss away all future romantic options, right?)... This speaks to a certain lack of realistic behavior on the part of humans who engage in it. Marriage dissolution is biased in favor of women and especially against fathers (see this Everyday Feminism…

First of all, obviously no one in this thread wants to discredit real people's real struggles. "I have just gotten home from treating a member of Group X who attempted suicide"---these are problems that deserve addressing, and I'm glad that the clearly very capable Scott is working hard on them. > His counterpoint to you, which I would say has some traction, would likely be that those thinkpiece writers are deploying constructs like "privilege" as a way to discredit the very real struggle of people in groups that don't fall under the accepted rubric of privileged and oppressed, for the very reason that their issues' existence is either ignored or defined out of the category of "systemic oppression." The problem with this counterpoint is that it's easy to misconstrue, even mischaracterize, "acknowledging the distress while continuing to point out the difference in scale" (from an essay I'm about to extol) as "a way to discredit the very real struggle" of privileged people. While the latter is reprehensible, the former is crucial to the healing of society, as explained in one of the best essays I've ever read: http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/ (Maybe THE best essay I've ever read. This essay provided the single most significant clarification of perspective I've had in the past several years, though I guess I'd been on this path for a while due to the people and schools of thought I was immersed in.) Indeed, while I'm sure there's no shortage…

I don't think the left thinks of privilege solely as racial or gender privilege. Here's an article on "everydayfeminism.com" about the broad view progressives take on it: https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/income-vs-wealth/

Acting like the don't exist either, isn't either. I coincidentally found this yesterday, and while it is on the topic of racism, you can just as much transpose races for classes, and still be on point: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/colorblindness-adds-to-racism/

Third-wave feminism is about including and respecting everybody who has been made unequal by systems of power and privilege, and that very much includes men. https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/01/feminism-now/

We certainly seem to have different definitions of violence, yes. If 'violence' has been re-defined to the extent that mis-gendering someone is an 'act of violence' (https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/misgendering-trans-people-is-viol… then you could certainly argue that ER have acted violently. EDIT I see I'm being downvoted. Are we not allowed to have a conversation about re-defining words and being intellectually consistent with the re-defined meaning?

No, it doesn't. https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/difference-between-gay-queer/

As a society, we should talk about sex. Otherwise, it is something between a hidden topic and a fuel for inappropriate jokes. With the taboo mindset, it is hard to tackle problems (lack of sexual education, mental and physical problems, miscommunication, consent, boundaries, etc) in a meaningful way. I support sex-positivity. It does not require one to like it (I know asexual sex-positive feminists), but to believe that all consensual, in-good-faith practices are fine. We may not be interested in them at all, or personally find them repealing, but it shouldn't be different from not liking a particular food. Vide "10 things sex-positivity is not" (https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/10-things-sex-positivity-is-not/)… Among other points: "7. Making Other People Listen to Your Sex Stories." (Which goes both ways, so you don't need to like hearing others' sexual life details.)

It's fallacious to presume that — because gender, sex, race, etc. shouldn't impact peoples' opportunities — that we should treat is as though it doesn't impact them. This is a good article on the concept: https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/dont-see-race/ [Edit:] Or this, as a complementary one: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-see-race

The article is in the context of Appelbaum tho: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum#Allegations_of_sexual_mi… And 'rape culture' is a term of art: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/examples-of-rape-culture/

Just googling "a good ally" I get things on the front page like http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/things-allies-need-to-know/ Even a quick skim shows several references to shutting up as well as how it's not an ally's place to discuss racism. I frequently see similar idea whenever a discussion of what being an ally is, comes up. I'd say that being an ally is being asked/told to be silent

On my side, it calmed down because people criticized call-out culture.[1] How does one criticize reflexive fury toward social justice activism without being lumped in with the "warriors"? [1] For example: http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/call-out-accountability/

"...if you think having privilege means that you’re a bad person, or that you haven’t had struggles, or that you haven’t worked hard for what you have – then I can totally feel why you might be frustrated. If that were the case, then yes, it’d be completely unfair of me to claim that all white people or straight people or men or people of any other dominant group are living easy off their unearned privileges. But having privilege doesn’t mean any of those things." Maisha Z. Johnson, http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-privilege-really-means/

If people are invalidating your hardships because of your privilege, they are wrong. But that doesn't mean the term isn't useful. "Having Privilege Refers to Systematic Benefits for Your Identity (But the Same Identity Trait May Still Attract Incidents of Prejudice)" http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-privilege-really-means/

I wonder if this (and other things like it) is just a product of human beings being very prone to ideological influence/groupthink and the internet providing an effective medium to transfer that? Consider a publication with 2m+ hits per month on their website that posts about how outrageous it is that people "Never Wonder Why Tampons Aren’t in Men’s Restrooms"[1] and the crowd cheers. The question I wonder is "How did these people get where they are now, to be outraged by this?", and I think the answer is incremental internet influence. [1] http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/common-examples-cissexism/

Please. I'd be happy to hear what steps you believe are more productive. I'm kind of sick hearing men dismiss anything women (and other men!) are trying to do to raise awareness to these inequalities, as if they have nothing to do with it. We (men) need to actively work to resolve gender inequalities in our workplaces and in any place, and the least we can do is be supportive allies. [1][2][3][4] [1] - http://www.scn.org/friends/ally.html [2] - http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/things-allies-need-to-kn.... [3] - http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Allies [4] - http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Resources_for_allies

Gender-based prejudice is a separate thing from sexism (but they are interrelated). Point one and three from this page [1] do a good job explaining, but here's the crux of the argument: "The first important thing to understand about sexism is that it is systemic. Gender-based prejudice, on the other hand, is individual, although it exists in the context of a sexist system." "But men who experience oppression based on the way they express their gender are still not oppressed on the basis of their gender itself. That is to say, they’re not experiencing that oppression because they’re men. Non-men, on the other hand, experience gender-based oppression because they aren’t men." [1]: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/sexism-vs-prejudice/

> Never in my life I've seen an article named I'm teacher and I'm a male!; Life as a male nurse;…

If you’re straight, consider a commitment ceremony but don’t get married until all people can share in that legal right should they so choose. If you’re a white person with wealth and children, choose to invest in and send your children to a local, public, neighborhood school or at least a private school with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion rather than a lily-white private place with connections to the Ivy League. http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-about-privi…

> So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? Well, yeah – or familiar with that kind of thought, at least. Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives. Just look at the SEP page on qualia,[0] and that's a summary of part of that question. It simply doesn't matter to most people. I don't have to know what, exactly, a Hindu is, in order to respect Hindus; the question simply doesn't have all that much relevance to my life. > Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? I mean, you can. How you use language is up to you. But, rightly or wrongly, "man" and "woman" are very salient social categories in our society, and pressuring people into social boxes without their consent harms them. (It's a form of violence, for some senses of the word "violence".) If you can use the terminology how you want to, without forcibly social-categorising people, then more power to you! And please teach me your ways, if you have the time. > But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? That isn't discriminating. Discriminating is discriminating. Such insistence on such terminology can be part of discrimination, but the essence of the discrimination is not in the words. > It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. Me too. The world is large, and confusing. Especially with social topics, people are inclined to…

> What if the lower class is getting simultaneously bigger and also better off? Do you think the bottom 10% is living as bad as they were in 1940? 1980? Things that used to be luxuries are now normal across all income brackets... That's a good thing. :-) Ah yeas, the good ole "TV's and refrigerators" argument[0]. They have luxuries! Even homeless people have cell phones, what a world! Now how about things that actually matter: * Housing * Healthcare * Education * Transportation * Income security All these things are less accessible now than they used to be. As for the "luxuries": when everyone is expected to have something, it's not a luxury anymore, it's a necessity. Before most people had a fridge and a car, daily grocery delivery and grocery stores a walk away were the norm. It isn't now because cars and fridges changed the infrastructure. You are screwed without either in most places (and yes, relying on McFoods instead of a fridge is "being screwed"). Public bathhouses aren't the norm because most people aren't homeless and have access to those at home. In that regard, the very poor are worse off than a hundred years ago when a lot of tenements didn't have showers/bathtubs[1]. Before everyone had a cell phone or a computer, people weren't expected to find jobs online. Now this is a requirement to be a member of the society in most cases. And so on, and so on. In short, "Poor people now have ________, so we're better off!" is a bad argument. If these people…

First, that things have "always been" one way does not mean they should remain so. And "people are people" is not excuse for bad behaviour. People can choose to be good or bad. Second, there are a really big bunch of clear rules about how to talk and the things it is okay to say and think that are being worked out right now. It doesn't equate with talking "nice". I'll give some examples: - Use the name and pronoun and non-binary person requests you use, [1] - Don't ask a transgender person what their "real name" is. [2] - Stop Using Diminutives [3] - Do not say racism is over because we have a black president. [4] - Don't say #AllLiveMatter, nor that you can where whatever you want, nor that black culture is disrespecting women [5] - Don't think reverse racism is a thing [6] - Don't say things that suggest physical contact or simulated physical contact [7] - Do not say, “Hey baby,” or “Hi cutie.” [8] - Acknowledge your privilege [9] - Do not center yourself, tone police or victim blame [10] For twitter examples of people policing ways of talking and thinking ( but bearing that burden without legislative support ), see: and [11], and [12] for some examples, and see [13] for it beginning to happen with the help of law enforcement at the intersection with civilian-enabled speech policing. This is not fascism because this was created by the American and UK left, these are the same people who railed against Trump, drive changes in the civil rights and social justice…

Well, there's two issues I would have with your statement. The first is that "pointing out" is not where the story ends; like parent said, there is a small minority of people who use this "average man"(an amalgamation of features that doesn't actually exist in reality) to shame specific individuals(e.g. calling out novel authors for being "privileged" and thus shouldn't write characters with a different skin colour). This usage opens you up to an obvious reciprocal attack you would probably object to - one could point out that the average black person is much more likely to be arrested(https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/table… and use this to call specific black people "dangerous". In both cases, you are prejudging based on a stereotype. The second objection is that once you start to delve into the "privileges", the label just doesn't seem to fit the actual things being described. Actually searching for "white male privileges" leads me to articles that are so easy to fight that I feel like I'd be addressing a strawman[0][1][2], so if possible, could you provide a list? My general contention is that the lists of "privileges" end up being a mix of: significant outcome benefits which have controversial correlation-not-causation interpretations(e.g. is blacks being arrested more "white privilege" or simply the amalgamated effect of high poverty, low education and latent racism?); things you would not really describe as "privileges" but…

>if she's exactly the same member of the society as everyone else, she should still pay the same percentage as everyone else. Flat percentage is not a fair tax scheme. Equal doesn't always mean fair ( http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Untitled1-300x2… ). E.g. 40% tax for someone making $1000 a month is a huge sum eating into his food, rent etc, but even 80% tax for someone making 100.000 a month leaves them with enough to live extremely luxuriously. >She provides something that I want, so I trade my money for her product - the "quality" of the product has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only reason you provide that much for her product is not it's cost or some inherent value you see it in, but an artificial constraint of distribution. If it was $0.2 or $1 per book you'd be equally happy to pay that instead of $10. It's like with recorded music -- the era where people made fortunes from it was just an accident of available reproduction techniques. Artists weren't paid for that before, and people stopped spending in the era of mp3 and youtube too.

Stuff white people like: Yoga, tacos and pretending the white supremacy that fuels cultural appropriation doesn't exist -- https://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/stuff-white-people-like-yoga-tacos-an… Cultural appropriation of Māori traditions is an exercise in entitlement and privilege -- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/04/cultural-appropr… What makes cultural appropriation different from cultural exchange. Why white models sporting dreadlocks at Marc Jacobs fashion show just isn't OK -- https://www.salon.com/2016/10/01/how-to-explain-cultural-appropriation… 5 things white people need to learn about cultural appropriation -- https://www.dailydot.com/via/5-things-white-people-cultural-appropriat… As a white female rapper mistakes appropriation for artistry, black women remain pushed to the sidelines -- https://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/iggy_azaleas_post_racial_mess_america… Tamara Eagle Bull: Stop Appropriating My Culture. Use of Native American symbols, knowledge, and practices pervades the building, entertainment, and media industries. Here's why it needs to stop. -- https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/tamara-eagle-bull-stop-appr… Stop appropriating Native American culture --…

Because in postmodernism, rationality and logic is a tool of the patriarchy, the (various types of) establishment, or otherwise a construct of those in power, against those who are not in power. Thus we must balance it out https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is-irrational/ http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

I'm posting these links as someone else with an open mind might take the time to read and absorb them: * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/opinion/research-shows-white-privile… * http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/lessons-white-privilege-poc/ * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-foster/a-guide-to-white-privileg… (there are many more good resources -- the bottom-line is that if you're white, you have been privileged by that fact. What you do with this knowledge is of course up to you.) You can keep on insulting my person, but instead my suggestion is that you read as much as you can about this important topic. P.S. here's more on women (another non-white-and-male group) having to suffer online abuse: * http://theconversation.com/abuse-of-women-on-twitter-no-quick-fix-but-… * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry/twitter-harassment-women_n_61225… * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/twitter-apologizes-to-wome… Denying that online abuse is a massive problem is not defensible, especially when you are comfortably outside of the targeted groups.