Wow.
I just read an MRA blog where they have the audacity to claim that
men are badly treated because they pay more tax than women. Yeah,
really. So there are some ridiculous arguments behind
this, showing the completely twisted and nonsensical thinking typical
of MRAs:
“Men
have a higher tax burden but get less back from the state” Well, if
women were allowed to earn more money, then that little problem would
go away, wouldn't it, because they would then pay more income tax? Using the
fact that men are better off, to argue that men are worse off, is a
blatant non-sequitur. This undermines the whole argument of the
article.
“Women
are not work-centred and don't work as hard as men” It is well
known that MRAs want to put women back into the domestic situation,
so they would say that, wouldn't they? I think that the disadvantages
that women experience mean they have to be more focused and hard
working to keep the same job as man, whilst getting paid less for it.
And men don't have to go through bearing children, either.
It
is argued that more women work in the public sector, so men should
get back more from the public sector. Um...no. Then, it states that
undergrad women outnumber men 3:2 and unemployed men outnumber
unemployed women 4:3, then tries to argue that women are less likely
to engage in paid employment. Sorry, it seems to me like these
figures just show women work harder. The arguments just don't make
sense.
The
rest of the article goes along the same lines: dodgy, selective,
arguable facts and irrelevant conclusions. The new party they set up
“Justice for men and boys (and the women who love them)” is an
entirely unironic title with obvious and unashamed misogynist
overtones. Males are put first, “women” are an afterthought
*made* to love them, and I shudder to think what “justice” they
have in mind. You can read this hatchet-job here if you really want:
I
hope you share my contempt for this reprehensible, one-issue “party”.
No! I don't share your contempt! I love them! Where can I join?
ReplyDeleteThat was an attempt at irony.
TBH I'm impressed by some of the points you mention here. It's true, damn it, that women reveive transfer payments from men, essentially. Just as Scotland is subsidised by England, and England by London. This had never occurred to me before. Of course the reasoning is flawed because it just so happens that individuals who are more likely to be men are subsidising individuals more likely to be women; it's not like people are taxed according to gender, and women are only subsudised in the sense that mothers are preferred to fathers as the primary carer. Still, it sounds good.
Another quibble is the assertion that men don't have to go through bearing children: strictly speaking, neither do women. I think the childless are effectively subsidising child bearers, and that female parents get better privileges (maternity leave etc) than male parents. Now maybe this is all well and good, but that's a legitimate subject for debate, I think.
My final quibble is this stuff about what women have to put up with in the workplace. Maybe where YOU work, in that male dominated industry, but not in my experience.
I like the article, but hear is a question, a serious one- Why the heck are we even bothering with the MRAs?
ReplyDeleteI mean that in all seriousness. Aren't they just a bunch of out-of-touch, misogynists banging away at their keyboards like demented chimps simply because they have got no other outlet for their frustration (probably sexual frustration).
There is no real suggestion or evidence that the rights of men are being undermined anywhere in the world (next they will be telling us we should feel sorry for those poor men in the Islamic world). So WHAT is the point in this ridiculous organisation? To me they are a bit like flat-earthers, they are wacky, don't have any arguments, don't have any good reasons to argue and are so few and far btw that there is no point in calling attention to them. I ignore flat-earthers and I have every intention of completely ignoring the MRA as well. To continue the analogy further, what we do need to worry about is the groups that are stronger in numbers (analogous to YECs). This is why the anti-women portion of the skeptical movement (I think it's a bit smaller than some do, but still worringly large) is far more worrying than some prats who want to call themselves MRAs.
There is no anti woman part of the sceptical movement! To oppose sloppy thinking or feminist ideology does not make you anti-woman. That is the sort of Orwellian twisting of language at which 'sceptics" SHOULD protest.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, that feminism, like all other ideologies which impose dogmatic psychological and social models on a complex reality, is, in the wrong hands, an enemy of the Enlightenment. If something is built on shaky premises (or even allegedly shaky ones) these ought to be attacked, and examined, on a rational basis. In the end, rational engagement with criticism will only make the women's movement stronger, and more rational, and more empiracally successful. And yes, I can spot my own misspelling. Don't get distracted!
The whole point is, that your sceptical movement/BRIGHT community, should be founded on empiracal rationality in particular, religious agnosticism/atheism in particular, and its main activity should be the attacking of dogmatism and, to a lesser extent, sloppy thinking. The feminist movement is a world away from this, dealing mostly with theoretical and untestable social theories whilst enforcing conformity withon its ranks. It's riven with conspiracy theory and self contradiction and presumption based upon received ideology. It's a political movement. It can coexist with scepticism, and a feminist can be a sceptic or vice versa, but it cannot be a part of scepticism (still less a prerequisite for scepticism) because a feminist needn't be a sceptic, nor a sceptic necessarily a feminist. The two ideas are seperate, for one, of a different nature, for another. The latter point is the most important. While Germaine Greer is ultimately committed to Enlightenment values, since she's prepared to change her mind upon empirical evidence, the feminist movement as a whole exhibits cant (it redefines the meaning of words so as to confuse discourse), ideological presumption without proof, sloppy examination of evidence ( for the perfectly acceptable reason that most womens groups are practical campaigning groups, seeking to alter policies and public opinion on various issues through dodgy evidence), and an intolerance of dissent.
Another thing which has struck me about the women's movement is the absurd mission creep onto completely unrelated subjects, and the very poor definition of the women's movement, and 'feminism' itself. All women believe themselves to be feminists, yet many women oppose particular feminist ideologies. For example, many women agreed with Dawkins over the lift incident, not Watson.
Chris, I'm afraid we're going to, in the main, agree to disagree. There IS a massive part of the atheist movement (I group it together with sceptics) that is blatantly anti-women. It all depends on how each individual became an atheist. If they have merely rejected religion, they could still retain any other discriminatory principles they once held while under its dogma. I have yet to hear a widely-held feminist argument that I strongly disagree with so I reject your assertion that they are dogmatic. As for Dawkins, he has shown with the recent abortion/pain debate that he is simply out of touch with a) the latest evidence and b) women's issues. He is right about religion, but sometimes wrong when he tries to interfere with areas he doesn't understand. Dawkins too often alienates people who would otherwise be allies to humanism. And as for women who go against feminism, there are theories about that. I disagree that all women believe themselves to be feminists. They may be "satisfied with their lot" and so don't speak up for other women. In a comfortable position, they could work against feminism for selfish reasons. Others may not view it as a priority or fear pushback if they make their opinions known.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with you a little regarding Dawkins position on abortion. I have sympathy for his position. Although I think our disagreement isn't very important, because in practice we have very similar positions on abortion. In order to see Dawkins point all you have to do is imagine a fictitious reality where all embyros, over the age of 1 month say, have the same sentience and ability to feel pain as a fully grown human adult. Ludicrous hyptothetical maybe- but just follow the logic.
DeleteIf we were to say that the women's right to choose trumps everything else and she can have an abortion whenever in this reality, we are effectively sanctioning the destruction of something with the sentience of a fully grown adult human. Regardless, of whether we want to call it "murder" or not, there is no escaping it's pretty bad! When we change the facts "on the ground" about embryological development, the acquisition of sentience etc.. the whole abortion debate looks different. To say that it doesn't is ludicrous to me- so I agree with Dawkins. The ability to feel pain- is a very important issue. It is also the reason why framing the debate as SOLELY a women's right issue is waaay off base.
Once we have established that these are the questions we need answers to, we can turn to what the "facts on the ground" actually are. Thankfully for the pro-choice movement these facts largely support their position, hence I consider myself mostly pro-choice. Facts like 'there is no point at which life starts' and the extremely gradual emergence of sentience are very useful for the pro-choicers. The more you look at these facts the more ridiculous the "abortion is murder" argument looks. However, we COULD (at least in theory) have lived in a universe where the facts were such that they supported the pro-lifers arguments!
OK, I see your concerns. But I still think the way Dawkins approached and then handled this was wrong. Twitter is not a tool well-suited to this type of theoretical argument. It was a poor public relations exercise which unfortunately reinforced some people's (unjustified) opinions that he is a woman-hater. Dawkins is very good at stoking the fire of debate, but unluckily, not so good at quelling the dissent in what could have been his ranks, as you said yourself. Getting back to the issue of foetal pain and if we can judge abortion as solely a woman's rights issue, I wonder if Dawkins had considered the possibility that some women might have considered the issue of foetal pain, seen the evidence in studies that it was not likely to exist, and THEN reached the conclusion that it was solely a woman's rights issue? This is an interesting topic for discussion so thanks for raising it.
ReplyDelete