Feminism is what you get when you assume that all gender differences are due to society. The manosphere/”red pill”/whatever is what you get when you assume that all gender differences are due to biology. Normal-reasonable-person-ism is what you get when you take into account the fact that we’re not sure yet.
Does this theory (or parts of it) seem true to you?
Feminism is one of those words that refers to such a diverse collection of opinions as to be practically meaningless.
For example, the kind of feminism that I tend to identify with is concerned with just removing inequalities regardless of their source and is also concerned with things like fat shaming, racism, the rights of the disabled, and other things that have nothing to do with gender, but there are certainly also people who identify as feminists and who would fit your description.
So feminism assumes that it is due to society that women can become pregnant and men can’t? Most feminists I know are normal-reasonable-people on your dichotomy, though you also ignore the fact that the category of whether differences are desireable and whether they can be influenced are far more interesting and important than whether they are at present mostly due to society or biology. I know people have a strange tendency to act as if things due to society can be trivially changed by collective whim while biology is eternal and immutable, but however common such a view, it is clearly absurd. Medicine can make all sorts of adjustments to our biology, while social engineers have historically been more likely to have unintended effects or no effect at all than they have been to successfully transform their societies in the ways they desire.
So feminism assumes that it is due to society that women can become pregnant and men can’t?
If men could get pregnant, they would already have invented a machine that would do the pregnancy for them. Or at least trying to invent such machine would be a high priority. But because it’s a “women’s job”, no one cares.
Yeah, now give me some mansplaining about why machine pregnancy would be “against the nature” (just like homosexuality, or votes for women), but sitting all the day by the computer is a natural order or things.
So while originally it was a matter of biology, it is a social decision to keep things the same way in the 21st century. Check your privilege!
(Not completely serious, just trying to impersonate a feminist.)
Does this theory (or parts of it) seem true to you?
The theory would be truer if it were weaker. I’m pretty sure most feminists believe that some gender differences are due to biology and most “manosphere” types don’t think all gender differences are fully biological.
Also I think the “normal-reasonable-person-ism” is not “we’re not sure yet.” On the contrary, we have overwhelming evidence biology and culture both play a role in observed sex differences.
Having said this, I think the main disagreement between feminists and manospheroids is not about facts but about values.
Another question is whether the fact that the average orange person is biologically more gibbrily than the average grey person justifies having a high-gibbriliness social role for orange people (without taking individual differences in gibbriliness into account) and treating orange people who fail to fulfil that role as ipso facto inferior, complete with slurs specifically for them.
Feminism is: “Society has gone too far in accomodating men (more often than not, or in more important areas).” Some might say that this is due to innate differences that were never addressed; some might say it is due to cultural norms that inculcate different tendencies which disadvantages women.
“Male Reaction” (to coin a term) is: “Society has gone too far in accomodating women (with the same caveat).”
In either case, some adherents will say the ideal end state is legal and social equality, and some will say the ideal end state is legal or cultural accommodations to overcome natural differences.
Normal person view is: There are not large enough gender specific problems for me to be an activist about it.
No one assumes all differences are bio or all cultural, but there is a lot of dispute for where the border is of course.
However, many other feminists can see there really are biological differences, differences on trend. These feminists I would say believe that the natural tendencies do not need to be further reinforced by laws. That the fact that more women than men will nurture children while more men than women will run corporations in the cutthroat way required for success does NOT suggest that we should have laws that make it harder for men to raise children or for women to be CEOs.
But you are correctly warning against the stupid end of feminism in my opinion.
In the manosphere you find concern about the fact that fathers are less likely to get custody over children after a divorce than mothers.
How courts think about giving custody to parents is obviously about how society does things, so people in the manosphere do see societal effects.
In a world where both genders engage in domestic violence feminists usually see domestic violence in a way where woman who are victims of domestic violence need support while there little thought payed to male victims.
There are many cases where the manosphere criticises society for treating males unfairly.
Feminism is what you get when you assume that all gender differences are due to society. The manosphere/”red pill”/whatever is what you get when you assume that all gender differences are due to biology. Normal-reasonable-person-ism is what you get when you take into account the fact that we’re not sure yet.
Does this theory (or parts of it) seem true to you?
Feminism is one of those words that refers to such a diverse collection of opinions as to be practically meaningless.
For example, the kind of feminism that I tend to identify with is concerned with just removing inequalities regardless of their source and is also concerned with things like fat shaming, racism, the rights of the disabled, and other things that have nothing to do with gender, but there are certainly also people who identify as feminists and who would fit your description.
I’m pretty sure that some gender differences are due to society, and others are due to biology.
So feminism assumes that it is due to society that women can become pregnant and men can’t? Most feminists I know are normal-reasonable-people on your dichotomy, though you also ignore the fact that the category of whether differences are desireable and whether they can be influenced are far more interesting and important than whether they are at present mostly due to society or biology. I know people have a strange tendency to act as if things due to society can be trivially changed by collective whim while biology is eternal and immutable, but however common such a view, it is clearly absurd. Medicine can make all sorts of adjustments to our biology, while social engineers have historically been more likely to have unintended effects or no effect at all than they have been to successfully transform their societies in the ways they desire.
If men could get pregnant, they would already have invented a machine that would do the pregnancy for them. Or at least trying to invent such machine would be a high priority. But because it’s a “women’s job”, no one cares.
Yeah, now give me some mansplaining about why machine pregnancy would be “against the nature” (just like homosexuality, or votes for women), but sitting all the day by the computer is a natural order or things.
So while originally it was a matter of biology, it is a social decision to keep things the same way in the 21st century. Check your privilege!
(Not completely serious, just trying to impersonate a feminist.)
No.
The theory would be truer if it were weaker. I’m pretty sure most feminists believe that some gender differences are due to biology and most “manosphere” types don’t think all gender differences are fully biological.
Also I think the “normal-reasonable-person-ism” is not “we’re not sure yet.” On the contrary, we have overwhelming evidence biology and culture both play a role in observed sex differences.
Having said this, I think the main disagreement between feminists and manospheroids is not about facts but about values.
Another question is whether the fact that the average orange person is biologically more gibbrily than the average grey person justifies having a high-gibbriliness social role for orange people (without taking individual differences in gibbriliness into account) and treating orange people who fail to fulfil that role as ipso facto inferior, complete with slurs specifically for them.
Feminism is: “Society has gone too far in accomodating men (more often than not, or in more important areas).” Some might say that this is due to innate differences that were never addressed; some might say it is due to cultural norms that inculcate different tendencies which disadvantages women.
“Male Reaction” (to coin a term) is: “Society has gone too far in accomodating women (with the same caveat).” In either case, some adherents will say the ideal end state is legal and social equality, and some will say the ideal end state is legal or cultural accommodations to overcome natural differences.
Normal person view is: There are not large enough gender specific problems for me to be an activist about it.
No one assumes all differences are bio or all cultural, but there is a lot of dispute for where the border is of course.
I think you describe SOME feminists.
However, many other feminists can see there really are biological differences, differences on trend. These feminists I would say believe that the natural tendencies do not need to be further reinforced by laws. That the fact that more women than men will nurture children while more men than women will run corporations in the cutthroat way required for success does NOT suggest that we should have laws that make it harder for men to raise children or for women to be CEOs.
But you are correctly warning against the stupid end of feminism in my opinion.
Hahahahahahaha, hell no. Read up on Shulamith Firestone!
(A longer review/liveblog of her Dialectic of Sex coming soon… honestly. I’m reading it right now, and loving it. Amazing book.)
It does seem that feminism requires the additional assumption that gender differences are bad, and manosphereness that they are good.
More than “good” in a moral sense, maybe just “useful” or immutable.
In the manosphere you find concern about the fact that fathers are less likely to get custody over children after a divorce than mothers.
How courts think about giving custody to parents is obviously about how society does things, so people in the manosphere do see societal effects.
In a world where both genders engage in domestic violence feminists usually see domestic violence in a way where woman who are victims of domestic violence need support while there little thought payed to male victims.
There are many cases where the manosphere criticises society for treating males unfairly.