Okay, Feminism, It’s Time We Had a Talk About Empathy (2013)

She's a good writer

> rather it has just uncovered what was already there

I would disagree a little on this part (agree with the rest), by giving the example of "The Left". The Left Wing was primarily socialist and communalist. It emphasized the similarity between people, races, countries, sexes. What we have in common is more important than what separates us.

The Internet and the stcredzero's thesis says is that the Internet shows what defines groups as being different, as being the other. The Left has, along with the Internet and along with many of us here who may see ourselves as supporting social justice, focused on the differences between people. The group of persons is more and more defined, the individuals within a society is more and more defined. The differences between people and groups are more and more emphasized with the Internet.

The Internet has not led to an increase in communality, it has not led to an increase on people feeling like they are more similar to others. The Left used to and socialist used to work against a trend of group psychology to bring together peoples into a whole, to reduce differences. The successful politicians recognize the important of group thinking. In the recent UK election, the party who ran with the ideology of "all in it together" and "the party of the working people" was the right wing Conservatives! (They won)

Social justice cannot happen if we focus our energies as to what divides us.

If you're going to post an opinion that's a long way from other people's you need to step it out slowly and provide evidence for each mental leap.

If you don't do that you tend not to win many converts to your way of thinking.

A few examples:

  So then women are the ones who need to follow that advice. 

This is just confrontational, and seems to show resentment towards women. Women are the group you want to convince people to stop feeling sorry for, but you haven't done that yet. Peoples' backs are now up. You've already lost your audience.

  One only needs to look at CDC studies to see the socially wide 
  preferential treatment they receive to see how great... 

Here you're not properly identifying your new topic, but more importantly you're treating your conclusion as if it were so obvious it's not even worth explaining. This just makes you sound like someone suffering from confirmation bias.

  Oh, it is called 'beneficial sexism' in an attempt to paint it 
  as bad, but when you take a look at society as a whole, it is 
  clear which group is actually better off.

I had to Google this, I assume you mean 'benevolent sexism', which I now understand to be the assumption that (for example) women need to be protected by men. Again, you jump straight to the conclusion without stopping to reason, which is the same symptom of confirmation bias as above.

Hope some of this helps.

>> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.

> Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.

"Teach men not to rape."

"Teach your sons to respect women."

>> Men are violent.

> The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.

Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.

>> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.

> If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.

Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.

>> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.

> Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.

No arguments there. Unfortunately "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron I see as often as "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism") says otherwise.

>> Men should not have any reproductive rights.

> A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.

I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".

>> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.

> Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.

Again, "patriarchy" as a concept is farcical, and you're completely ignoring a woman's own personal responsibilities. You can either argue that women should be treated as equals, or that they should be treated like children in need of constant care, not both.

Also, men are not your personal ATM machines. If you see a man as only existing to please your handbag appetite, you are objectifying them.

>> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.

> There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.

You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".

>> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.

> Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.

Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.

>> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.

> Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.

So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?

>> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.

> Characters are often designed by men, for men.

Bayonetta was developed by a woman. Women are allowed to be sexual if they please, and even if the character is designed by a man, ignoring the potential for sexuality in a woman's personality would result in one-dimensional and frankly unrelatable characters.

The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.

>> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.

> Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.

You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.

>> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.

> This is bullshit, obviously.

Yes, obviously.

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender...

> And yet there may be a connection between a predisposition to work in tech and autism.

Maybe, or maybe wealthier folks are more likely to a) have computers for their kids b) have access to doctors for diagnoses and c) be white. We'll have to get the causation right.