Carbon Fiber Masculinity WTH is this?

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you; that was a precise, concise explanation.

Which feminists? The overwhelming majority of feminists I encounter would be best described as creating polarisation, not struggling against it. The remainder are lukewarm feminists at worst, who dismiss most of the ideological fluff and would be better described as egalitarians.

So I repeat: Which feminists? It'd be genuinely heart-warming to see a group of them who celebrated the incredible achievements of our species rather than focusing on the negatives and blaming them exclusively on the menfolk.

This is a tail waging the dog argument.

It is really little to do with materials.

Also physical gender is a spectrum which by numbers is heavily polarised. This is just the reality in humans. Of course there are those that don't lie on the poles, as long as we accept them I don't see what the problem is.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we are ok with the idea of gender or we are not. Nobody has the right to dictate their own idea of gender on others just becuase it doesn't suit them. Then tell them their use of materials is misogynistic.

So the idea that a material or an atheistic is either like or seen as male, that is the way it is.

If you don't like it, then find a way to attract interest from females.

There is a large differnce male preferences for materials and misogyny. Collation doesn't equals cause. Just like yellow teeth don't cause cancer.

You argument about feminist struggling against gender poliarisation would make sense if they weren't so confused about what they want.

Depending on what day of the week it is, they complain about how real femininity is undervalued and masculinity is toxic, on the other hand they want to be able to be seen as either masculine, without gender or gender queer.

If they are truly choice feminists that is cool. That the best kind of feminist. This is not what we are dealing with here unfortunately.

These people aren't struggling , they aren't fighting for real issues. There are real issues concerning women, but these are largely overshadowed by ideology like this. They are in a position of power, they are middle class and privlaged, they have been accommodated more than many other groups. They are setting the curriculum. They are far from oppressed at this stage.

They could choose to pursue more male dominated field such as those related to carbon fibre. Some when are doing just that but not these, becuase fundamentally they aren't alike. People who peruse humanities degrees aren't likely to excel in technical careers. In some cases you may have a polyglot, but generally speaking the neurological differnce is such the they are specialised. Technical women exist, I can care about thier concern in those careers, not what somebody else with no clue on the subject has to say about it.

These groups are not only dictating to men their own ideas of identity, they are dictating to women too also arguably moreso. As I already stated, they haven't liked the result of choice from the sexual revolution, and some have said as much.

I have lived in 4 developing counties these people are spoilt rotten, they have never had it so good. Sorry but I call a spade a spade. I am liberal in the classical sense live and let live or socially libertarian.

A lot of the feminists/people who have expressed feminist ideas that I have spoken to here on WP are not very priveleged (other than being white--most of us are disadvantaged in other ways like being working class/poor, disabled, etc). That does not change your perspective on "most feminists" at all? Are the feminists on WP "spoiled", or do we understand marginalisation like other autistic males (some of the feminists here are male, too!) do because of our similar circumstances of being marginalised?

It seems like the people who like to go on about feminists and how evil and dangerous and misguided by ideology they are don't really seem to know many feminists up close and personal and are making assumptions based on things they read online from other people who don't like feminists and aren't feminists themselves. The feminists I have spoken to here seem pretty well informed and diplomatic in their approach to sharing their ideas, so I don't know what crowd is being described in this thread--it's a crowd that doesn't seem to be well-represented at WP anyway, so I'm not sure why they are such a problem.

Well.... I guess feminism is a difficult phrase, because it collects all sorts of value systems that only have in common that they reject traditional patriarchy.

And yes, within this large group of people, some want clear matriarchy, some just equal pay, and again others push for gender queerness etc.

Problem is not so much what feminists, whoever we are talking about here, want, as much as this woman points out in her article, how this material has become, purely through marketing strategies, this uber-gendered substance- which allows disabled people to become superhuman, - but also, through these artificially produced connotations, - super-male.

I can't find anything inherently wrong with this statement (yet), but I do think that any statement like this is too definite to fit reality- reality is always a bit more murky.
After some thinking, I might disagree with her argument at some point, but not based on who she is or what these "feminists" want.

I still have to do that thinking though.

This is exactly my point. Feminism is not the obvious way to gain solidarity with these causes, or at least they is no reason why it should be at the centre necessarily.

The reason why people are making judgment is to do with language ideas used which are similar to the type of groups I'm talking about.

The main reason why I would be critical of feminists on WP, would be if they suggested idea that would be counter to basic freedom becuase they think it will help their cause. This is very easy to do and it is not just feminist that are guilty of this.

People who support safe space and trigger warning, or flawed ideas like that I'm going to be critical of that. I'm going to be critical of that.

I'm also going to be critical of idea that seeds division rather than actually helping.

Btw did you read the paper, what did you think of it. Do you think such research will do anything to help the women's movement?

Except intersectional feminism is the way that many of us do gain solidarity with others who share our disadvantages and with others who have disadvantages of their own. I have met (mostly online) a lot of people this way, and have had lots of discussions with people who have disadvantages that I don't and learned from those discussions, all in feminist online communities and a few times in group settings IRL that occurred in "feminist-friendly" spaces like women's shelters. So maybe intersectional feminism has not worked as a way to gain solidarity for you, but it can work for some (like me). So maybe it's not so bad?

You're part of the in-group, therefore it benefits you, therefore it's "not so bad"?

Do you apply the same metric to all groups that provide such inclusive solidarity to their members?

Only you do just that in saying this:



(ETA: I read the paper. In the end, there's not much to say about it I didn't say in what I said about the abstract or that shlaifu hasn't put much more concisely than I could. I thought it was interesting and thought-provoking, and that it would work better with more pictures.)

Obviously, feminism is a broad church. Two individuals who call themselves feminists may yet have very different aims and approaches. I wouldn't hold you responsible for everything anyone who called themselves a 'classical liberal' said, nor would I be confused if they said something that seemed to contradict something you said.

However, I think there is a conceptual muddle at large around gender and sex and sexuality at the moment, from all angles.

Mary Midgley compares philosophy to plumbing:



Concepts of and around gender and sex and sexuality and personal identity and social and interpersonal relations and responsibilities are all askew, particularly at a lay level, and it would go a long way to sorting out problems if they were attended to. Otherwise we just end up talking (and occasionally shouting) at each other.

I don't understand your question. Because I am a woman, talking about women's issues makes life harder for those who aren't women? If I am advocating for women I am advocating AGAINST others--is this what you are saying? What metric? Your question is very confusing.

I'm not dictating anything. People can believe what they want, I'm not setting or influencing social policy.

We are not slugs or frogs, fish which can be gender amorphous. I'm talking about physical gender. Biologically we are polarised as the majority of us have polarised chromosomes and sexual anatomy.

If someone wants to believe otherwise that is up to them. I'm not denying genetic condition, neurological differnce or hormonal conditions. That is part of the ritch tapestry of life, but we are still are broadly polarised.

You could argue that gender identity is different, but I'm not really making a point about gender identity. Identity is personal and individual.



The idea that concepts like those in this paper can be attended to especially without talking is laughable. That is just a reason not to accept criticism of their ideas. I've heard this before: "You can't talk because you are triggering me. I need a safe space, you can't violate my rules", etc. This is being unable to to accept different point of views or seeing diversity of thought as somehow harmful.

The only thing we is need is tolerance, forcing people to do things or to change how they think of thing is not going to work. We need to "accomdate" everyone not manipulate people in order to suit one or other minority. By "accommodate" I mean not intervening unless there is real harm and definition of harm can't be so subjective, becuase that intervention harms other people's freedoms.

Often lack of opportunity or discrimination is confused with outcome. Outcome can be a for a number of reasons, including choice.

Then you should, without hesitation, make illogical guesses as to what I'm asking. Bonus point for every time you suggest that you're the victim of an entirely imaginary slight.





Oh, and you get another bonus point for "advocating against".

Your argument was that intersectional feminism provides solidarity for some, and from this starting point you concluded with "So maybe it's not all bad?" as if this were justification for the existence of a group who share an ideology. In order to challenge this assertion-disguised-as-a-question, I asked a question of my own (technically two, but the first was clearly rhetorical).

So I'll rephrase the question. Are all groups that provide solidarity to their in-group justified merely by the fact that they do so?

Like I said it is a question of how it is is done.

Btw one the first people to set a domestic violence shelter in 1964 (considered the first dedicated women's refuge/shelter) is called Erin Pizzey. She founded is not what became Refuge a very famous charity working with domestic violence victims.

She made a pariah by feminist groups for pointing out her own experience both personal and through her work that domestic violence had a tendency to be inter-generational and was passed both through men and women. She advocated the need to for shelters and help for men experiencing domestic violence which is a lot more common than people think.

She set up shelters in the US, she was hounded by feminist groups and left the US.

She has experience death threats an boycotts becuase of her views.

She runs an educational charity now having taken some years out, unfortunately she is not is good in health. Both her parent came from a long long line of violent families and alcoholism and she was abused buy both of them. There is an uncomfortable truth that some people seek out abusive relationships and are often abusive themselves.

The original organization that she founded all those years ago Refuge is now headed by a feminist who is very disparaging about her, and has a policy which excludes men.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 08 Jan 2016, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I obviously think it's not so bad for more than the reason that it helps me learn about and empathise with the plights of others with similar challenges to my own. But that is one of the reasons I think it is not bad, yes. But it's the inclusivity of others outside my "in-group"--like people who aren't white, or people who have money/social status--that I find the most rewarding about intersectional feminism and talking to intersectional feminists. It's not about "solidarity with my in-group" as you say, at least that's not the point for me; it's about learning about what I share with people who seem different from me and thereby learning to empathise with them and make myself a more understanding and compassionate person. When I am more compassionate towards others and more aware of their challenges, the world gets a little bit better for them too; and if we all do this, the world continues to get a little bit better for all of us each day, which I thought was supposed to be the point of having a society at all. If I were simply a pure feminist and only cared about women's issues and women who were exactly like me and in my "in-group", I would not get any better at understanding people who are different from me and the world will be a worse place for my being less understanding. That's why I prefer intersectional feminism to pure feminism that is concerned with the issues of women and nothing else, and why most of the feminists that I have talked to are also intersectional feminists and recognise other issues than just "women's issues." I hope this clears up where I'm coming from and answers your question.

OK? That has not been my experience at women's shelters and abuse support groups, so I don't know what to say.

No one I ever spoke to denied that men can suffer from domestic violence as well or can't be abuse victims (in fact, in the support groups I attended it was discussed frequently, because many participants had male siblings/cousins that were abused as well and it can effect them differently because of unfair expectations put on men to protect themselves or to be immune from trauma and to hide their feelings). It was openly acknowledged that abuse is a generational problem and it cycles through families and communities until individuals begin to behave differently to break the cycles of abusive behaviour--usually by seeking some kind of help like the support groups we were in. The groups I was involved in were women only because many of the victims still had a lot of fear of men especially in regards to talking about their abuse that was usually at the hands of men (and because I was more comfortable in that environment, to deal with my own past trauma), but there are support groups that are either all-male survivors or mixed gender that a person can choose from depending on their particular needs and comfort levels. It was talked about that if anyone had male friends or family members experiencing abuse or dealing with trauma that help could be found for them and here are some numbers they can call for those groups. The organisations responsible for the groups worked together in this regard, providing help and information to whoever (male or female or anything else) needs it in appropriate ways.

The kind of divisiveness you describe wasn't part of my experience. I guess either I was lucky not to encounter that, or perhaps it's not as widespread outside of academic circles through the feminist movement as you might believe.