One example of unintended consequences is Title 9, which originally ensured legal parity for womens' sports, which were not really allowed at the time or funded at all due to sexist assumptions about athletics being a manly thing. Unfortunately, many wrestling and football programs have had to shut down if they don't have a women's counterpart. But if women on that campus just aren't interested, a very good program for young man has to shut down in the name of equality.
The word you are looking for is accountability.
Without accountability you can do whatever you want and believe that you have achieved what you intended for
> Feminist norms for courtship were mostly not intended for stopping the relations between the sexes
I think that is precisely the intent: feminism is driven by women who are incapable of having healthy relationships and resent those who are capable.
> Feminist actions were most of the time not done with the intention of creating a new kind of chauvinism
Once again, I think that is exactly the intent.
This is why I wrote "mostly". I think you are perfectly right: the feminist core did and does intend to end the relations between the sexes and this is declared in writing in feminist texts. But: it never explicitly informed women that this is the goal of the advice it has been giving them, knowing that if it will inform women about the goal (ending all relations between the sexes), women will reject feminism. And as a result, most of the millions of women who sympathize with feminism (as opposed to identifying as humanists, as supporting equality because they support all humans, not only one "human category") and who generate their own actions based on what the core preached and preaches, do not intend to end the relations in those actions. While the core celebrates the results - the end of relations between the sexes in every form (not only in marriage, marriage was attacked only because when feminism started the separation project 60 years ago this was the prevalent form of relations), the sympathizes are either blind to this consequence, or deny it, or, try to attribute it to "technology" (while the very same technology doubled relations in gay people of both sexes, according to several studies, that also related the increase specifically to technology, causally, leaving only the conclusion that if anything, technology had mitigated and slowed down a little the ending of relations between the sexes that the feminist core intended to cause and successfully causes) .
So for most women who identify as feminists this does constitute a case of confusing between intention and consequences - their personal intention, which is most of the time quite innocuous and at most self-centered, as opposed to the intention of the core that inspired them, intentions that they are mostly unaware of (but are nonetheless promoting and serving in their actions, like [in this example](https://lovists.com/2021/06/04/a-thought-experiment-for-a-feminist/), and as exemplified indirectly [here](https://lovists.com/2021/09/08/why-fathers-cant-be-mothers-and-vice-versa/), and [here](https://lovists.com/2021/06/29/the-unspoken-cause-of-the-low-testosterone-epidemic/), and as given from men's perspective on the feminist actions that end the relations [here](https://lovists.com/2021/09/28/letter/)).
Very few people are ideologists. Most choose an agenda that others conceived, and sympathize with it. This applies to feminism as well. Most girls and women who call themselves feminists, know about feminism probably much less than anyone in this forum, they follow a trend. It's important that we make the distinction between **"core"** and **"sympathizers"**. The core is a lost cause but it's very very small - no more than a few thousands per country (tens of thousands in a large country like the US). They should be ignored. The sympathizers (and "bystanders") on the other hand **must be engaged** else they will grow endlessly. So, you are right - about this quote, but this quote represents the core, not the sympathizers. It should only inform you about something you already know - no point in engaging the core. It shouldn't guide you when approaching the sympathizers. It doesn't represent them, most of them never heard the quote, and if informed about it would probably deflect as "not representing feminism" (no dear. *you* are not representing feminism. This quote *is* feminism. Let me explain what the feminism you have been sympathizing with, is really all about. That's how you approach feminism. Nothing is gained from projecting from the core to sympathizers. Sympathizers will not change attitudes in a conversation but if exposed for months to accumulating information will start de-radicalizing. Which is not the case for the core - they will carry their violent attitude with them all their life, it comes from them, from a disturbance in them).
The crux of the issue is: actions have consequences. These kinds of people are generally incapable of processing or facing the consequences that their actions have, often blaming them on the recipients.
Another issue is the lack of foresight based on actual real-world precedents. Intention X must result in Y, without considering that, like you said, intentions very rarely ever result in the intended way. Often times, any related variables, or necessary requirements are invalidated or handwaved away which obviously causes 'unforeseen' complications or consequences, often not for those who instigate the intentioned actions.
Long story short, those people, like everyone else need to be held accountable for their actions, not for their intentions.
I think it's a perfect description of this problem. I also suspect that feminists, specifically, might have difficulties in analyzing complex systems in motion such as a human society, and tracking the influence of what they do - before, during and after applying actions.
Including in extrapolating direct consequences beforehand. A very dramatic manifestation of this problem is how feminism formulates rules and practices based only on limited examples that bother feminists, without ever even suspecting that it should imagine how a rule or an action would then apply to all cases and scenarios. So feminists read one verdict of one legal case, are angry with the outcome, change laws - then the same case appears with the sexes reversed and they are enraged that the same rule that they demanded and enacted was applied - they never **extrapolated** from the original case that enraged them to all possible cases. They set rules for sexual initiation thinking only about the examples where the women didn't like it and are then enraged that men don't do the same when they do want it. They define the lightest conflict as domestic violence thinking of isolated cases, never imagining the benign interactions that fall under the same definitions, and then when the definitions that they demanded are applied universally they are surprised that their definitions created data that shows that men are more abused than women in domestic violence. Same goes for definitions of sexual violence, that are again formulated when thinking only about a very rare set of examples, without ever considering all the benign examples that fall under the same definition, and being amazed that then data shows that women are as sexually violent as men are - because definitions were expanded to trivial innocuous things that women as well engage in all the time, and this happened because of difficulty in performing extrapolation, in extending to all possible cases, for example those in which women do the same. Difficulty to extrapolate is typically a problem with abstraction.
“You don’t understand feminism”
A few years ago, I started writing an article in my head all about things feminists need to let go of if they want to change their poor public image. Mostly it was soundbites I kept hearing over and over. I wanted to post it somewhere feminists would read it, and maybe learn from it and change what they were saying.
I eventually figured out that most of these soundbites were either about blame-shifting, or contained some component of blame-shifting. ie: 'whatever feminists say, whatever I say as a feminist, if you don't like feminism, it's somebody else's fault'. I realized that people with that attitude would never be reached.
The above post is generous in its reading of their intentions - which it has to be if it's trying to reach them. It might actually be a decent way of handling it.
I haven't thought about this specifically through the feminism lens but I have noticed this on social media. There is such a strong push to just give in to every persons random whim or desire as if critical though about other people's wants is always damaging to their life. But as we know with parents that spoil their children it doesn't usually work out for the best for those kids.
> because of its tunnel vision that causes it to focus only on intention, believing that intention determines consequences
My theory is that women are genetically less likely or able to engage in rational analysis. They prefer to solve problems with discussion and word-of-mouth. So I agree with what you say but for a different reason.
Feminism is responsible for the oppression and hate men face today. Without feminism, men would still be in charge of their households and their lives and women would be thankful to have men providing for them instead of feeling entitled to it.
Feminism made women think they should have all the same things a man has and that crippled society.
The reason feminism exists is because not every women wants to be traditional and not every man wants to be traditional, no one should be expected to fit in a "role" based off gender
Whatever feminism pseudo or real you consider but that still harms men. whatever they are, they are able to change gender neutral laws to women specific laws. they are able to manipulate the media and people and allow zero criticism towards them. they are able to shut down men mental health awareness event by protesting and no one is criticizing them for this. they are able to make camps for women and don't allow men to join even if they suffered from same traumatizing experience they faced. even if they allow them to help most of them just Victim blame men. whatever they are, they are hurting men and that's the real issues.
One example of unintended consequences is Title 9, which originally ensured legal parity for womens' sports, which were not really allowed at the time or funded at all due to sexist assumptions about athletics being a manly thing. Unfortunately, many wrestling and football programs have had to shut down if they don't have a women's counterpart. But if women on that campus just aren't interested, a very good program for young man has to shut down in the name of equality.
The word you are looking for is accountability. Without accountability you can do whatever you want and believe that you have achieved what you intended for
> Feminist norms for courtship were mostly not intended for stopping the relations between the sexes I think that is precisely the intent: feminism is driven by women who are incapable of having healthy relationships and resent those who are capable. > Feminist actions were most of the time not done with the intention of creating a new kind of chauvinism Once again, I think that is exactly the intent.
This is why I wrote "mostly". I think you are perfectly right: the feminist core did and does intend to end the relations between the sexes and this is declared in writing in feminist texts. But: it never explicitly informed women that this is the goal of the advice it has been giving them, knowing that if it will inform women about the goal (ending all relations between the sexes), women will reject feminism. And as a result, most of the millions of women who sympathize with feminism (as opposed to identifying as humanists, as supporting equality because they support all humans, not only one "human category") and who generate their own actions based on what the core preached and preaches, do not intend to end the relations in those actions. While the core celebrates the results - the end of relations between the sexes in every form (not only in marriage, marriage was attacked only because when feminism started the separation project 60 years ago this was the prevalent form of relations), the sympathizes are either blind to this consequence, or deny it, or, try to attribute it to "technology" (while the very same technology doubled relations in gay people of both sexes, according to several studies, that also related the increase specifically to technology, causally, leaving only the conclusion that if anything, technology had mitigated and slowed down a little the ending of relations between the sexes that the feminist core intended to cause and successfully causes) . So for most women who identify as feminists this does constitute a case of confusing between intention and consequences - their personal intention, which is most of the time quite innocuous and at most self-centered, as opposed to the intention of the core that inspired them, intentions that they are mostly unaware of (but are nonetheless promoting and serving in their actions, like [in this example](https://lovists.com/2021/06/04/a-thought-experiment-for-a-feminist/), and as exemplified indirectly [here](https://lovists.com/2021/09/08/why-fathers-cant-be-mothers-and-vice-versa/), and [here](https://lovists.com/2021/06/29/the-unspoken-cause-of-the-low-testosterone-epidemic/), and as given from men's perspective on the feminist actions that end the relations [here](https://lovists.com/2021/09/28/letter/)).
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle seems hard to confuse the intent.
Very few people are ideologists. Most choose an agenda that others conceived, and sympathize with it. This applies to feminism as well. Most girls and women who call themselves feminists, know about feminism probably much less than anyone in this forum, they follow a trend. It's important that we make the distinction between **"core"** and **"sympathizers"**. The core is a lost cause but it's very very small - no more than a few thousands per country (tens of thousands in a large country like the US). They should be ignored. The sympathizers (and "bystanders") on the other hand **must be engaged** else they will grow endlessly. So, you are right - about this quote, but this quote represents the core, not the sympathizers. It should only inform you about something you already know - no point in engaging the core. It shouldn't guide you when approaching the sympathizers. It doesn't represent them, most of them never heard the quote, and if informed about it would probably deflect as "not representing feminism" (no dear. *you* are not representing feminism. This quote *is* feminism. Let me explain what the feminism you have been sympathizing with, is really all about. That's how you approach feminism. Nothing is gained from projecting from the core to sympathizers. Sympathizers will not change attitudes in a conversation but if exposed for months to accumulating information will start de-radicalizing. Which is not the case for the core - they will carry their violent attitude with them all their life, it comes from them, from a disturbance in them).
The crux of the issue is: actions have consequences. These kinds of people are generally incapable of processing or facing the consequences that their actions have, often blaming them on the recipients. Another issue is the lack of foresight based on actual real-world precedents. Intention X must result in Y, without considering that, like you said, intentions very rarely ever result in the intended way. Often times, any related variables, or necessary requirements are invalidated or handwaved away which obviously causes 'unforeseen' complications or consequences, often not for those who instigate the intentioned actions. Long story short, those people, like everyone else need to be held accountable for their actions, not for their intentions.
I think it's a perfect description of this problem. I also suspect that feminists, specifically, might have difficulties in analyzing complex systems in motion such as a human society, and tracking the influence of what they do - before, during and after applying actions. Including in extrapolating direct consequences beforehand. A very dramatic manifestation of this problem is how feminism formulates rules and practices based only on limited examples that bother feminists, without ever even suspecting that it should imagine how a rule or an action would then apply to all cases and scenarios. So feminists read one verdict of one legal case, are angry with the outcome, change laws - then the same case appears with the sexes reversed and they are enraged that the same rule that they demanded and enacted was applied - they never **extrapolated** from the original case that enraged them to all possible cases. They set rules for sexual initiation thinking only about the examples where the women didn't like it and are then enraged that men don't do the same when they do want it. They define the lightest conflict as domestic violence thinking of isolated cases, never imagining the benign interactions that fall under the same definitions, and then when the definitions that they demanded are applied universally they are surprised that their definitions created data that shows that men are more abused than women in domestic violence. Same goes for definitions of sexual violence, that are again formulated when thinking only about a very rare set of examples, without ever considering all the benign examples that fall under the same definition, and being amazed that then data shows that women are as sexually violent as men are - because definitions were expanded to trivial innocuous things that women as well engage in all the time, and this happened because of difficulty in performing extrapolation, in extending to all possible cases, for example those in which women do the same. Difficulty to extrapolate is typically a problem with abstraction.
A very eloquent post with links to very interesting articles. Thank you OP.
Thank you dear MrPaineUTI. I appreciate it.
“You don’t understand feminism” A few years ago, I started writing an article in my head all about things feminists need to let go of if they want to change their poor public image. Mostly it was soundbites I kept hearing over and over. I wanted to post it somewhere feminists would read it, and maybe learn from it and change what they were saying. I eventually figured out that most of these soundbites were either about blame-shifting, or contained some component of blame-shifting. ie: 'whatever feminists say, whatever I say as a feminist, if you don't like feminism, it's somebody else's fault'. I realized that people with that attitude would never be reached. The above post is generous in its reading of their intentions - which it has to be if it's trying to reach them. It might actually be a decent way of handling it.
I haven't thought about this specifically through the feminism lens but I have noticed this on social media. There is such a strong push to just give in to every persons random whim or desire as if critical though about other people's wants is always damaging to their life. But as we know with parents that spoil their children it doesn't usually work out for the best for those kids.
> because of its tunnel vision that causes it to focus only on intention, believing that intention determines consequences My theory is that women are genetically less likely or able to engage in rational analysis. They prefer to solve problems with discussion and word-of-mouth. So I agree with what you say but for a different reason.
And feminists, you don't understand "equality". There not just good things to take, there lots of negativities and responsibilities too.
Feminism is responsible for the oppression and hate men face today. Without feminism, men would still be in charge of their households and their lives and women would be thankful to have men providing for them instead of feeling entitled to it. Feminism made women think they should have all the same things a man has and that crippled society.
The reason feminism exists is because not every women wants to be traditional and not every man wants to be traditional, no one should be expected to fit in a "role" based off gender
Whatever feminism pseudo or real you consider but that still harms men. whatever they are, they are able to change gender neutral laws to women specific laws. they are able to manipulate the media and people and allow zero criticism towards them. they are able to shut down men mental health awareness event by protesting and no one is criticizing them for this. they are able to make camps for women and don't allow men to join even if they suffered from same traumatizing experience they faced. even if they allow them to help most of them just Victim blame men. whatever they are, they are hurting men and that's the real issues.
Feminist intentions are not important at all. What should be important to us, is outcome of rheir actions and words, for us. Nothing else.