This is going to be fun.
Jamie Stick wrote: In case anyone isn't aware, this article is utilizing the
strawman fallacy
.
One must also be aware (much to Jestor's glee) that the use of a logical fallacy only condemns the logic itself, not the truth or falsehood of the argument.
An argument based on the hearsay of some people claiming to be a part of one ideological camp does not make an argument valid. In fact, there are feminists who argue that circumcision, whether it be on the penis or the vulva is morally and ethically wrong. You can find a feminist who will say the exact opposite. Feminism isn't a unified ideology. So no, women do not have genital integrity because FGM still exists in many parts of the world. Just because it doesn't exist here doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
FGM is a problem. It's a major problem in many parts of the world. But the OP clearly stated that they were unsure of the truth of these claims outside the US.
Within the US, FGM is considered barbaric and heinous, while circumcision is considered a choice based on health, religion, or aesthetics and normalized.
Ah, I love me some ahistoricism. Do you know why women are not included in the draft conscription agreements? Because women were deemed to be unfit for combat and needed at home to care of children. There are a dozen other ways the needs of the society could have been handled without going straight down the gender lines, but they didn't see it that way. Men didn't want to fight alongside women and now they're griping about having to die in pointless wars all by their lonesome? Zero sympathy. I would suggest that, rather than putting women in the draft, we end war and conscription altogether.
I'm straight up gonna call you on your BS here because the way you've tried to make this point is actually more offensive to me than the point you're trying to make, which isn't based on any kind of factual evidence whatsoever.
Men buy franchise with service. This is a near-universal constant, even in 2015. Whether that service is actual or theoretical, men (and transwomen) in the United States must still register for that service, which could potentially end their life. Women are not required to do so, no matter the sweeping changes made toward military equality in the last twenty years. Furthermore, when asked about it, literally every feminist I've ever spoken to thinks they should remain exempt. Explain to me how that is fair? Men are expected, through social and legal pressure, to die for the rights and safety of women and children in order to have a say in their governance. When women wanted suffrage, they protested a bunch and a group of men (commonly called "the government" at that time) handed it to them without any of the costs normally associated with it.
Furthermore, the way you frame your response to this point, Jamie, implies that men have any say whatsoever in the involuntary nature of conscription. Not only are we eligible for prison time, our citizenship can be revoked entirely, if we fail to fall in line with a requirement women do not have held over their heads. There are a metric f***load of reasons that men would not want to fight alongside women in the military, and many of them are actually ridiculously logical, so turning the fact that for the entirety of human history men have been forced to lay down their lives for women and children (through compulsion) into an argument in favor of a misogynistic view of combat is really, really uncalled for, I believe.
Couple things about this one: first off their source is dubious anecdotal evidence at best, please be aware that just because it has a link doesn't mean it links to anything reliable. Secondly, to suggest that women have the right to choose parenthood is about as honest as saying gay people can get married. Yes, due to widespread reforms in laws regulating birth control, a person who is capable of being pregnant now has greater access to birth control. It is still difficult to get in many places and the cost for effective birth control, especially if you don't have insurance can be prohibitive.
...
This is only true on the misconception that women are better caregivers, but also because women ask for it. In cases where men ask for it, more likely than not; they receive equal or primary custody (
source
).
False.
The link I just dropped states that "The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional protection of such a father's parental rights
when he has established a substantial relationship with his child." I've italicised the part that is utterly nonsense, because there seems to be popular, social, or legal requirement that a woman do the same; she is assumed to have done so simply through the act of birth.
Furthermore, while there is no denying the biological bias toward women in regards to the actual gestation and birthing process, this has caused women's issues of the 20-21st centuries to be very clearly focused on women's reproductive rights. Women have a plethora of birth control options available, access to medically safe abortions, government assistance, preferential adoption status, more comprehensive health coverage, and public sympathy. The extent of men's rights in regards to reproduction consist of condoms and the decision on where one chooses to stick their equipment.
That's it, unless you count the choice to walk away and be saddled with judicially-mandated financial support for something you were unprepared for. Men's reproductive rights end the moment the reproductive act begins, and if you think that is any kind of fair then you have a very unique definition of the word.
While not entirely unrelated, this is still a
red herring
. This insidious fallacy (in this context) presumes that because rape also happens to men and the definition of rape has also silenced men that that somehow means women are in positions of power.
This is a very unpopular opinion, but women have always been in positions of power. They are the sole limiting factor in human reproduction, and have been the voice in the ear of every male ruler in the history of the species at one time or another. Perhaps they have not been socially equivalent (which is something that should be rectified), but they have
always held power.
This goes back to that social pressure I mentioned before. As a man, if a woman tells her that another male did something awful to her, you are socially pressured and considered obligated to take her side on the matter until it can be verified she is lying. If not, you risk being ostracized among your peer group at best, and being grouped in (and possibly charged or beaten) with the offender. The problem is not that women lie; everyone lies. The problem is that
when women lie, until such a lie can be proven airtight (even in cases where such proof is impossible to obtain), men are considered obligatory defenders of her position and story if they want to maintain their standing among their peer group. And this is all without discussing male rape at all, which is a whoooole other can of worms I'm not prepared to discuss at the moment.
If anyone bothered to read a book on feminist critiques of rape, they would know that the underlying criticism is not only against rape but against a culture that places emphasis on toxic masculinity. It is through this toxic masculinity that such things as male rape go unnoticed, dismissed, and silenced. Men are presumed to want sex all the time and therefore they couldn't possibly have a situation where they were forced to have sex against their will, could they? This is a patently false presumption and I know quite a few men who have come forward with their stories. The fact that male rape gets ignored doesn't dismiss or downplay the overall criticisms of rape culture.
Toxic masculinity is very much a problem, but so many feminist notions these days reinforce it without actually realizing they're doing so. That's why masculinists and MRAs have sprung up. Are they misguided? Yes. Are they problematic? Yes. But you would be utterly amazed at exactly how many things they get right when you can weed through the neckbearded fedora-nonsense.
Women cannot help men be better men. Only men can do that. If the entirety of the feminist movement is for women to have agency over their own choices and their own definitions of feminity, trying to do anything about "toxic masculinity" at any time it does not actively harm women's agency is actively working against equality. If feminists don't want men deciding what womanhood means, they lose their right to butt in on masculinity. Show us the problem and walk away. Let us fix it.
Next time someone wants to try to criticize feminism, or say that women have power and privilege over men, I suggest they do it with something other than tumblr feminism.
I am always willing to criticize feminism. Always. We should have this discussion at some point. Bring popcorn.
Topic Author
