Had a dinner with an SJW (did not know beforehand). What the hell? Questions at the end.

[Pekka]

I had a chat with someone identifying themselves as a feminist. It is not even that I disagree with that. At all. She was a bit extreme in my opinion. She seemed smart, and yet so full of contradictions it wasn't even funny.

OK, so we were eating (not the PT, going out with her this Sat), and somehow it got out that I am interested in counter terrorism work, though I do not do that. Next step, so what do I think about Christian terrorists. Well: to me they are the same. Religion is not important as a motivator. Someone else might be interested in it, but personally it's just one factor of the person or group. There can be many. These acts are not limited to one religion or deity, nor are mental illnesses, motivations, struggle for economy, dominance, ideology, etc.

In my mind, reasonable statement.

She says she is an atheist, and a second wave feminist (adn then she went on a long description of what that means, (which I knew, but of course let her elaborate). She was all intellectualised about it, yet none of her exaxmples or opinions reflected on the more moderate, useful notions of equality, and just reasonable thinking.

edit: lots of text missing, see the next post for the whole text.

[Berzerker]

we have a resident expert on these people

[Kidlicious]

By Christian terrorist did she mean people who eat bacon in front of muslims?

[Pekka]

Lots of text missing, here is the original post in its entire form:

I had a chat with someone identifying themselves as a feminist. It is not even that I disagree with that. At all. She was a bit extreme in my opinion. She seemed smart, and yet so full of contradictions it wasn't even funny.

OK, so we were eating (not the PT, going out with her this Sat), and somehow it got out that I am interested in counter-terrorism work, though I do not do that. Next step, so what do I think about Christian terrorists. Well: they're bad, just like any groups that would use violence against innocents as a method. And while some of the more radical thinkers think it is the method of war for poor people, I do not agree it is acceptable, nor is "rich violence". Religion is not important as a motivator. Someone else might be interested in it, but personally it's just one factor of the person or group. There can be many. These acts are not limited to one religion or deity, nor are mental illnesses, motivations, struggle for economy, dominance, ideology, etc. I'd be interested in stopping violence against innocent people, no matter who they are, or who the perpetrators are.

In my mind, reasonable position.

She said she is an atheist, and a second wave feminist (and then she went on a long description of what that means, (which I knew, but of course let her elaborate). She was all intellectualised about it, yet none of her examples or opinions reflected on the more moderate, useful notions of equality, and just reasonable thinking. So quickly, it turned from a discussion to an awkward debate. This time though, I did not want to back up, just tried to keep it friendly. Usually, I'd just nod and go along with it.

Then the notion of immigration comes, and how we are biased in terrorism work against non-Christians and if I think it's a problem, as in do we ignore Christian violence, which is "by far the worst group ever". Well, that I don't know, just that religion should not be the motivation for who is investigated. And how intelligence apparatus is totally racist, how media always depicts muslims as a unified group, insofar that they act as a group or at least tolerate the murder of non-Muslims, a setting that is perpetuated by the media as they ignore Christian violence and hold Islamic violence as the biggest threat.

Now it got personal, in terms that it was clearly stupid, emotional arguments, and not fact-based. I was a bit irritated by the stupidity of this, not to mention that it was supposed to be a nice friendly get to know dinner, turned into something else. Parts of this was also a personal catharsis from Doctor Lovely, who shared the same views as a misandrist, but since I did not even know this person, I wanted to continue and direct. So at this point the motivation was not so pure anymore, but more sinister (if she wants to debate, let's, and yes, it felt good).

I questioned her line of reasoning as I already made it clear my motivation is not in the religious aspect at all. I do not care. I am just a nerd, interested in networks and security. A-ha! But the apparatus is occupied mainly by men. And historically, is it not so, that those males are also Christian and in power? Well.... yes, sure... and do they not, as part of their position, want to keep that power? Well... I guess they would...

Then some actual eating but back to it quite soon, "Not saying ALL the men are bad, in fact I think you are a male feminist, and I think you're a good guy". (As opposed to all the other guys, and besides thanks for labelling me. Is it not the categorisation that was the root of most evil? ) Even a bit sexist?

Cannot remember how, but it got to wearing a hijab, to which I decided to bring up the term patriarchy. And that it is difficult to reconcile wearing a hijab and equality. Of course, hijabs were a cultural choice and important for identity. A total paradox to all the previous arguments. Skipped that one altogether. Logic fails so badly, I just did not want to dislike her more for the lack of it. She made NO attempts to explain that in any other way, so left the topic altogether.

My final attempt on establishing a position against her discrepancy was to say that hey, if you want to wear it, do. Just consider the point that it might also have its roots in male-dominance, and since we both want equality, then IMO we'd be better off if everyone had a free choice outside of religion, patriarchy or any other institution of power that affects the way we think of ourselves in the society. It is natural to have at least one belief system, and once they're extreme, it leads to exclusion, oppression and violence. Chaos, from which order is brought, or authoritarianism, or state violence. Even right wing fascism. Or just fascism. In which free speech is prohibited.

This got her triggered to no end. She was not stupid, just very selective. Fortunately, that was the end of our first and last dinner.

Genuine questions: is it not dancing with racism to think that Muslims cannot think for themselves and have to be "guided"? They're people, just like the rest fo us with a functioning brain. This would imply that they just can't "hack it", and as our Western culture is different in terms of values, then it must follow that it is the fault of our culture that these groups of oppressed unfairly, the values must be wrong.

Furthermore, those wrong values derive from the evil patriarchy (which IMO does exist), inhabited by Christian males, who are inherently racists, hate immigrants, women, and all that is threatening to their dominance because of who knows why. The answer is always patriarchy.

Is it not foolish to attribute every single action of any individual or group to their oppression, and worse, judge the same action as bad or worse depending on who does it?

How does a white female, well educated and 1% in global well-being and opportunity think they are not part of the oppressing force against other groups of people? What makes it better, and is that not sexist and counter-productive to the very useful goal of feminism itself?

Is it not obvious that by pitting oneself against others with no attempts of even providing a resolution, as in, "OK, so what are we supposed to do?". The answer cannot be "agree with my every statement or you are not one of us". I am genuinely interested in what the hell these people are thinking and do they not see all the paradoxes in their own line of reasoning. You can't go back to an emotional argument when it suits one, you cannot say, "you can never understand it, as you are a participant in it, unless you join us".

I am not one of them, one of you, I am just me. A group of one. I will go as far as to agree that I might be a racist to a point, that there is patriarchy, that the society is sexist, often against women, that I've not experienced the prejudice that many others have. I admit that by using the term SJW I am contributing to groups that are sexist, racist and so forth. I've seen the arguments and the counter-arguments. To me, a lot of it is nonsense. If I was forced, I'd label myself egalitarian, agnostic, and logical, and often wrong. I just fail to see how the above thinking leads anywhere, so I conclude it is not really a group thing but personal, perhaps psychological issues. Particularly, a need to feel special, or have the ultimate trump card and free pass, to blame it on society that is against one, and that is why one failed their own expectations. A sort of handy mental tool to shift blame and be unified with others who need that very same tool. To express anger at something. All the while these above things I believe do exist and should be dismantled. As one of the most bewildering relations is the rape culture, which I do not deny (in terms that women are blamed for dressing the certain way, and blaming the victim). Absolutely happens, absolutely wrong. I sincerely don't believe most men really think the woman is to blame though. Just because some sexist idiot puts it out there, it is not representative of my opinion, or the opinion of others. And of course the extreme opinions of a one self-proclaimed second wave feminist is not really accurate, or representative of all women or feminists, either.

So, what is the resolution? And how the hell did we get here? I was not oppressed during the dinner, I felt it was of poor taste from her part to take my job dreams into a dark path and being nonsensical, not defending her own claims logically.

[Kidlicious]

Well I'm not very familiar with Foucault, and not too familiar with Sartre, although I know he was an existential philosopher. Would you consider Foucault existentialist?

I'm more familiar with Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was very critical of The Crowd, which in my view characterizes the SJW movement to the T. But of course Kierkegaard was a critic of the Christian church in Denmark to be specific. I don't think Sartre was that critical of group thinking like that, but I'm not sure. It sounds like Foucault dealt with reforming society, which Kierkegaard would say can't be reformed (maybe).

I do have a big problem with Postmodernism, especially when they claim to understand Kierkegaard and things like that. I think it's the driving force behind so much craziness in western society.

[Kidlicious]

Well they feel that they can bring up politics and religion during a first date but not you. In fact you can never say anything that they disagree with. She was checking you to see if you are a SJW. If not she hoped to convert you to her crypto-religious cult.

When she asked you if you agree that white Christian males work together to control the security apparatus she didn't mean to imply that only white Christian males do that, but that's what she meant. But the fact is that muslims also do that. They don't just oppress women, but they oppress all non-muslims. Also, SJWs do that. They are a bunch of little fascists running around trying to intimidate people. And they actually get people fired and so forth. Be careful around those people. It's a good thing that you didn't sleep with her.

[Pekka]

I do like your comment, especially where you say that they in fact do harm to their own cause by excluding the functioning of partriarchy to exclude one of the more visible ones. And yes, I am talking about stereotypical Islamic nations.

I guess I do have a beef with the SJWs. I feel they took one of the authors I actually love, namely Foucault and other post-modernists and twisted it. I have seen some of the more radical idiots on Youtube. I just hoped they are not representative of the movement of feminism. If someone would ask me, am I a feminist, I'd be pressured to say yes, but I'd have to say No. Egalitarian is better. It could be argued that the principle is the same, but it is not enough - it doesn't bring down the patriarchy. While this is true, it is a whole different argument from ideology and value to means and methods.

I would be more worried that feminism, or certain elements of it is actually bringing it down. I will make an attempt to reason why and how (yes, I was triggered during the dinner, because of the logical fails):

Suppose modern feminism had a good start. I'd draw it differently than most. I'd see how Sartre (yes, a man) would be coming up with existentialism, causing ruckus in Paris. With Simone De Beauvoir, they'd make giants of intelligence. Same school, same class, big minds, big ideas. The reason I start from here is to get from Existentialism to Post Moderism, which is probably the cornerstone of feminist theories. Also, Foucault and the likes would heavily influence Bulter and other feminist/queer theorists today. Foucault would come up with a way to reveal power structures. How Power/knowledge _functions_ in society. In not so visible ways. This is an intriquing idea, the manifestations of this could be seen in institutions such as the government, military, police, school, prison, science (especially psychiatry and medicine), church, etc etc. Now these institutions would label (give names, categorise) things, i.e. police and justice system can make laws, and exclude those who are criminals, and therefore taking them in and "fix" them. Back to what is normal. This would make the others abnormal, until fixed with techniques, by technicians of these institutions (prison, hospital, etc.).

Now, this as an example of a clear power structure and its function. It is tempting to reason that partriarchy is a power structure (it's true), and its devious technicians are invisible, and mostly it's just historical and we have lost track where it functions from. We just see its effects.

So, SJWs look like they have taken the radical notion, that they must be treated differently, because they are oppressed by these invisible power structures. In fact, some of them (on Youtube), must be treated individually so, that everyone around must accommodate to their idea of themselves. Otherwise we are oppressive. This fairly narcissistic idea of oneself (as the center of the universe), and childlike demands of how the world works, is easily depicted as patriarchy, racism, sexism and what ever it can be attributed to. If one genuinely inquires, how does this make me a racist/sexist/biggot, the answer eludes automatically to me not being able to see it, being part of it. Maybe brainwashed, who knows.

So there, the SJWs themselves are doing the exact same thing, using methods of oppression (we include you by excluding you, and we will fix you until you become docile and normal). The irony of this is almost enraging, as their own theory contradicts them. It would not, and does not contradict more sensible feminism. That is valid stuff.

Of course there are other contradictions as well. But in a nutshell, here is the theoretical point it fails in from its roots and is destined to fail. And yes, I do not like it when people hijack authors and misuse them. I guess the shortcut is that SJWs feel the patriarchy is oppressing them by words, labels and enforcing variety of opinions to be heard, even those against their ideology. An ideology cannot be that we are right, you are wrong, and therefore you must shut up. Then clearly we are not equal. More worryingly, SJWs seem to want to defend everyone, but if they miss one group (those who argue against for any reason), they cannot be excluded as enemies or having the wrong thinking. If so, they aren't thinking that we are all equal, and are also using the very same techniques of the invisible patriarchy. IMO it all lies in the dialogue. And with dialogue, we need language, we need to have logic and rules of how debate goes. And this is where I think Prof. Jordan Peterson fails in acknowledging post-modernism as mumbo jumbo. Just because SJWs are unwilling to engage and change things reasonably, it does not make all post-modernism unwilling for dialogue, even when few are worried that it is impossible. And if it is impossible, then I guess they were right. Not SJWS, but post-modernists.

By making a radical group, being loud and obnoxious, it gives a bad name to all feminists. And have we seen this phenomenon somewhere else? Yes, all fringe groups are loud, they hijack the good thing, and crap it out, creating more opposition, conflict, and in the end, I think it might set back the feminist goals quite a bit. Which is another reason not to join the group or agree with them. For equal society, I think it is more useful to have the idea of what it looks like, establish a dialogue, and proceed rather than be loud and demand the world understands you. The world has no obligations to understand you.

This is what I learned from almost dying: The universe does not care about you. And why should the people bow down and change their lives to accomodate yours, the reasoning has to be really compelling.

[BeBMan]

Ppl allowing their ideologies/world views to cloud their judgement, which happens in all kinds of variations (left/right/religious/non-religious/nationality/whatever_else_there_is). For more expert answers I'm waiting for Kid or AAAHZ...

[Pekka]

Coming to think of it, isn't it clear that the patriarchy benefits from the SJWs? So maybe it is a secret operation from the patriarchy to destroy feminism from inside? A devious plan, and it would work!

With the above reasoning, I am egalitarian because I support feminism. And I am NOT a male feminist for the very same reason.

[Kidlicious]

Coming to think of it, isn't it clear that the patriarchy benefits from the SJWs? So maybe it is a secret operation from the patriarchy to destroy feminism from inside? A devious plan, and it would work!

With the above reasoning, I am egalitarian because I support feminism. And I am NOT a male feminist for the very same reason.

They both benefit each other. There are still more men in leadership roles, but they obey all the rules that the SJWs create, and it's the nonconformists that suffer, even women and minorities. Actually women and minorities suffer more for not conforming. They are stripped of their actual identity and given a new one, just the opposite of what the SJWs claim to be fighting for.

[Proteus_MST]

Radicalization is never good.
Example Feminism:
It is very good to fight for women getting paid equal to men and also get not treated worse regaring their job opportunities (and this is a fight hat is not over yet).
It goes too far, however, if radical feminists attack women because they prefer to dress in a certan way (for example sexy/revealing), if they totally voluntarily work in certain professions (like striptease) or even, because they live out a certain kink in their private bedrooms (like BDSM)
Likewise, of courseit never is good if smeone (like the girl in Pekkas OP) just pains the majority of men a evil.

(which is why I like Emma Watson ... she also sees herself as feminist ...but she sees gender equality as a task which both genders have to work upon ... and doesn't see the inequality as something that is forced by the evil menkind on the poor womenkind)

[Pekka]

They both benefit each other. There are still more men in leadership roles, but they obey all the rules that the SJWs create, and it's the nonconformists that suffer, even women and minorities. Actually women and minorities suffer more for not conforming. They are stripped of their actual identity and given a new one, just the opposite of what the SJWs claim to be fighting for.

Might be, but I disagree to some extent. I think the rational world will reject SJWs and their demands to be treated as the centers of the world. The struggle between men in leadership and SJWs is that they both seem to have the same diorder; that they are Gods gifts to the world, and right.

Both of these groups would deny each other, and as I do think the patriarchy exists, the male leaders are stronger than the SJWs. The SJWs would have to gather so much more legit support, and Universities alone is not going to be enough. They can take over the popular culture, shape values and what is accepted thinking. Even language. But it will not last forever. That will lead to a conflict that might be violent and chaotic, and it will be ordered by the internal or external forces. But importantly, this kind of fragmentation will hurt the ones who have the least to begin with the most, and confuse the hell out of others. Any kind of social division that threatens group identity or cohesion is dangerous. And many people are aware of that. And for that reason as well, I think SJWs are not allowed to flourish for much longer.

It will only ignite the "other side", yet to be emerged. Once you go radical, be it left or right, there will be opposition. The bigger the groups grow, the more dangerous it will be for external takeover (no cohesion). And the less it will be about the original idea, equality, well-being, opportunity. More about power and taking it all to yourself. During which the radical group will start to argue over the agenda and leadership (as it did not have it ready), splinter into smaller factions, some more radical, some less. And, ironically, these resemble the steps of any road to tyranny or fascism. Might as well say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of course SJWs would call anyone a nazi, and get triggered by any notion that they are looking more like nazis than the right wing. And like any other cult, they have their own belief system, making them special, while others should just see the light and become like them. I'd see them as the agent-provocateurs on a riot for feminism.

[Dry]

Pekka, you might be interrested in what Prof. Jordan B. Peterson has to say about this phenomenon. http://jordanbpeterson.com/
It is difficult to point you at a specific first video or article of him, as all his videos are great material for thought.

He is a professor in pschology and is very scared of the consequences that SJW culture might generate for future generations.
To summarize what I understood from what he says:
The SJW is an extreme example of the hyper-protective mother archetype. In the christian tradition, this archetype is symbolzed by statues of Mary with baby Jesus in her arms and the serpent under her heel.
In psychology, people with this archetype divide the world in 2 categories: victims (=babies in need of protection) and pretadors (serpents that need to be crushed). Victims need to be protected from predators at all cost.
While this behavior is necessary and helpful for infants at the very beginning of their life, it becomes harmfull if the mother continues to behave that way after the todler has become a child and catastrophic when the child becomes a teenager and later a young adult.
Pathological protective mothers will either try to have new babies every 2 years, or they will do everything so that their babies never gain independance. The stereotype of the overprotective jewish mother comes to mind.
This pathology is encoutered more in females, but some males can adopt this way of reasonning too.

The danger of these mothers is: who can blame them? How can you criticize them?
Yet the consequences are awfull for the child that never grow up, never becomes an adult. Overprotective mothers are intrisencly egocentrical. While claiming they protect the child, they harm its growth, they fobid them to become adults. It is not a healthy behavior, it is a pathology.
And that is what happening in today's society. The overprotective mothers are trying to take control. It happens through SJW and PC speach. And it is very difficult to fight.
Because of the binary vision of the world, victims vs predators, you may easily fall in the predator category when you criticize too much. No word then will be strong enough to describe you. They might even go in mother bear mode to rip you appart.
Be very careful around these people.

In a healthy family, this motherly instinct is compensated by the fatherly instinct that more naturally wants an independent child. A balance between father and mother needs to be reached. Fathers generally want their children to be independent too soon, "But he is only 5, begs the mother" and the mother who want to keep the children too long "No problem my little one, come back whenever you want, I'll do your laundry".

SJW have definitevely taken the pathological protective mother appraoch. And they have no idea how much harm they do to, how much this is in fact the opposite of altruistic. They don't want to help, they want children to take care of.

[Kidlicious]

Radicalization is never good.
Example Feminism:
It is very good to fight for women getting paid equal to men and also get not treated worse regaring their job opportunities (and this is a fight hat is not over yet).
It goes too far, however, if radical feminists attack women because they prefer to dress in a certan way (for example sexy/revealing), if they totally voluntarily work in certain professions (like striptease) or even, because they live out a certain kink in their private bedrooms (like BDSM)
Likewise, of courseit never is good if smeone (like the girl in Pekkas OP) just pains the majority of men a evil.

(which is why I like Emma Watson ... she also sees herself as feminist ...but she sees gender equality as a task which both genders have to work upon ... and doesn't see the inequality as something that is forced by the evil menkind on the poor womenkind)

Emma Watson receives a lot of criticism from both sides because of her privilege. Personally I don't care if people are privileged until they start complaining about how they are victims. Many men are victims, much more so than her, if you want to call her a victim at all.

But she is typical. Just like the government campaign to teach men not to hit women. Why not teach people not to hit PEOPLE? But as soon as you say something like that you will be rejected by feminists, even if you identify as a feminist. In actuality if you are not rejected by feminists then you are not a feminist. And you could never bring up problems such as feminists demonizing men to feminists without picking a fight, even if you said that you like Emma Watson.

[Kidlicious]

Might be, but I disagree to some extent. I think the rational world will reject SJWs and their demands to be treated as the centers of the world. The struggle between men in leadership and SJWs is that they both seem to have the same diorder; that they are Gods gifts to the world, and right.

Both of these groups would deny each other, and as I do think the patriarchy exists, the male leaders are stronger than the SJWs. The SJWs would have to gather so much more legit support, and Universities alone is not going to be enough. They can take over the popular culture, shape values and what is accepted thinking. Even language. But it will not last forever. That will lead to a conflict that might be violent and chaotic, and it will be ordered by the internal or external forces. But importantly, this kind of fragmentation will hurt the ones who have the least to begin with the most, and confuse the hell out of others. Any kind of social division that threatens group identity or cohesion is dangerous. And many people are aware of that. And for that reason as well, I think SJWs are not allowed to flourish for much longer.

It will only ignite the "other side", yet to be emerged. Once you go radical, be it left or right, there will be opposition. The bigger the groups grow, the more dangerous it will be for external takeover (no cohesion). And the less it will be about the original idea, equality, well-being, opportunity. More about power and taking it all to yourself. During which the radical group will start to argue over the agenda and leadership (as it did not have it ready), splinter into smaller factions, some more radical, some less. And, ironically, these resemble the steps of any road to tyranny or fascism. Might as well say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of course SJWs would call anyone a nazi, and get triggered by any notion that they are looking more like nazis than the right wing. And like any other cult, they have their own belief system, making them special, while others should just see the light and become like them. I'd see them as the agent-provocateurs on a riot for feminism.

There is something to be said about control over institutions. The left knows all about this, and others usually nothing. Institutions matter, although I do tend to agree with you that it's hard to keep men down.

[kentonio]

But she is typical. Just like the government campaign to teach men not to hit women. Why not teach people not to hit PEOPLE? But as soon as you say something like that you will be rejected by feminists, even if you identify as a feminist.

Yeah, its like when people used to hang black people from trees and they made all that fuss about it NOT being ok to hang black people from trees. Why didn't they campaign for not hanging ANY people from trees, I mean surely that would be more fair right!?!

For christs sake, people campaign for things that are large scale problems. When a high proportion of women were suffering from domestic violence, then its hardly a ****ing surprise that women campaigned for men to not act in that way, and to start thinking and behaving differently. That doesn't mean no man has ever suffered domestic violence, and it doesn't mean that every man commits domestic violence, but the simple fact that it was happening a huge amount and vastly disproportionately towards women means that that's going to be the focus of campaigns.

I'm struggling to see what it is you're most offended by, the idea that lots of men actually do act like violent *******s, or just because you're not the centre of attention.

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, its like when people used to hang black people from trees and they made all that fuss about it NOT being ok to hang black people from trees. Why didn't they campaign for not hanging ANY people from trees, I mean surely that would be more fair right!?!

Black people we're terrorised to keep them from having hope to one day be treated as equals. That is not anything like the case with gender inequality. In some tragic cases women are terrorised as such, but it affects those women as individuals, not collectively. Women ARE treated as equals. Actually they receive much more protection from society and the government than men do. The argument here is whether or not they should receive even MORE protection. Black men were not given MORE protection than whites. They were given LESS!

For christs sake, people campaign for things that are large scale problems. When a high proportion of women were suffering from domestic violence, then its hardly a ****ing surprise that women campaigned for men to not act in that way, and to start thinking and behaving differently. That doesn't mean no man has ever suffered domestic violence, and it doesn't mean that every man commits domestic violence, but the simple fact that it was happening a huge amount and vastly disproportionately towards women means that that's going to be the focus of campaigns.

I'm struggling to see what it is you're most offended by, the idea that lots of men actually do act like violent *******s, or just because you're not the centre of attention.

You miss the point completely. Women are not taught how to act, period. I mean you could say that girls are taught such and such by their parents or teachers, but you will never see any organized campaign like that to teach girls anything except crap like stand up to symbols of male masculinity.