Feminism and confirmation bias

[jennyvstheworld]

It is an incontravertible truth that equality of opportunity is still often lacking in the UK and continues to require our attention. It is also true that power in society is achieved by adopting attributes more often found amongst men. Let us say, therefore, that the general tenets of feminism are correct.

Some people, however, seem to believe that because they are feminists (and because there is veracity in the notion of feminism), they themselves are incapable of making either an incorrect or even tenuous statement.

Mass generalisations are habitual, statistics - cherry-picked blindly from research without consideration of context or criteria - are thrown about to support dubious claims and the most minute and inconsequential event can be twisted to demonstrate conspiracy and oppression.

I offer the following as a statement made on this thread that no one saw fit to challenge:

"but where are the "good" male role models going to come from? men show no interest in teaching, little interest in community work, they are en masse opting out."

There are no good male role models? Men show no interest in teaching?? Men are not interested in community work? They are en masse opting out? (opting out of what - society? Community?) All four of these statements are erroneous and offensive and yet not one person - from all those who claim to believe in fairness and an end to the judgement of a person based on their gender - took issue with this.

This is just one of many examples. I have also seen opprobrium levelled at single-mothers and SAHMs. I have seen praise offered to successful women concurrent with condemnation of their male peers despite both forming part of the 'patriarchy'. There have also been a hundred other ill-conceived ideas that are accepted or condoned through silence because they fall under the feminist banner.

So my question is this: we are all guilty of confirmation bias to some extent; how guilty is feminism?

I will be interested to see how many replies demonstrate the hypothesis.

No, clearly not all. I know that this will recieve all manner of scoffing, but I consider myself a feminist; it's just that my version seems to come in a different shade from the version officially approved on here by some of the self-appointed guardians of the term (some). If you check my history, you'll see that I am usually the one arguing against homogenisation.

Yes, confirmation bias is clearly a natural human behaviour and I wouldn't seek to exclude myself from it - however, I want to consider the question that one should expect more reasoned debate from those committed to a social issue. The attitudes that I highlight are only sporadic and not universal by any means; I am challenging those attitudes and also those who let extreme positions pass.

I would also suggest that one can be so entrenched in one's views that it is possible to be as prejudicial as those being criticised - with the consequences that you create an increasingly polarised 'war'. Just look at the idiots on 'Mumsnet Sucks' for an example. I don't think this helps.

It's a shame, but because I want to discuss this I am labelled as a troll; I guess some people like to think they own the issue and you can't have credibility unless you subscribe fully. Catch 22?

I also post regularly on a far-right forum arguing for what I feel is a more enlightened and liberal view. Clearly we are talking different ends of the political spectrum here, but the defence mechanisms there are much the same as they are here.

Leningrad, I wouldn't disagree with anything you have said there. It is, however, an illustration of my point.

Do you think such 'contraversial posters' as you cite have any credibility on this board? Obviously not - and people are entitled to their opinions. Surely leaving it to these contraversial posters (I'm guessing you include me within that) is a strange position to take though isn't it? If I criticise someone for going over the top, my criticism is easily dismissed. Whether you think that's fair enough or not is up to you, but this is the Catch 22 I just mentioned; I can't be in the gang unless I subscribe to certain positions, but if I'm not in the gang, my points can't be discussed seriously.

Having illustrated my points already, I'll not go through them again. If you want me to think about your point, I certainly shall. It'd be nice if someone could consider my points, though, rather than commenting on me personally (and lumping me in with every other person that causes a fuss including the Mumsnet Sucks nutters et al). It's interesting that it's me that is often accused of failing to 'engage'!

Jenny, feminists on a feminist section of MN, i should imagine want to discuss female issues. I should also imagine that if they do not correct such as "but where are the "good" male role models going to come from? men show no interest in teaching, little interest in community work, they are en masse opting out." it is because they have little or no interest in mens issues and correcting them?

I completely agree, Claw, that this is a feminism board and no one is here to talk about men's issues except that many men's issues are related directly to feminism. There are indeed many areas where men are completely irrelevant to the point in question. However, feminism is largely about equality (women's opportunities as compared with men's) and society's attitudes to roles - meaning both men and women. It therefore seems to me that male attitudes to women is a central tenet of feminism. To that end I believe that men should be included within the discussion and that is difficult where elements of the discussion's culture and language create barriers. I come back, therefore, to my point that surely feminists should challenge divisive statements whomever they relate to.

If I frame this another way, feminists raising boys would hopefully work with their child in a positive way to ensure the DS has a respectful and responsible attitude towards women.

"It's interesting how the people complaining about my attitude only ever reply to my 'off-approved-feminist-message' posts and never to those where we seem in broad agreement. Such replies as I do get are often considerably more personal and aggressive than anything I post."

I agree Jenny, that men's issues are used to demonstrate the conflict ie womens rights are not equal to mens and this has to be done to demonstrate equality.

What you are asking feminists to do is to challenge every statement made about men if its incorrect. I understand where you are coming from, but i dont see the motivation for a feminist to defend mens issues, when they obviously feel that men are more than well catered for.

Similar to how disability discrimination use the rights of people who are not disabled to demonstrate the conflict. I would however not feel the need to challenge every incorrect statement that was made about an able person, as i would feel the need to correct incorrect statements made about disabled people.

That's fair enough, Claw; I've probably worded my posts ill-advisedly if it looks as though I'm trying to lay down the law. I'm interested in having a discussion about whether 'excessive' sentiment remains unchallenged because:

• other (more moderate posters) do not view it as being so;
• because they feel it isn't their place (hadn't considered that one previously)
• do not agree that there is a self-defeating* aspect to it.

• When I say 'self-defeating' I am referring to the divisive and polarising effects I mentioned before.

I'm considering now your statement about men's right being well catered for. This is interesting. Just thinking aloud still, are they not catered for by the patriarchal system that we are trying to adjust? Do those who want to challenge the system not want to define their own view of rights holistically?

I must say that I genuinely don't find your statement regarding men's withdrawal from roles in which they can be role models to be a solid example of an excessive statement.

Thinking aloud myself, personally I don't consider it my role to be responsible for the behaviour of anyone else except my dependants. Politically, I don't consider it my role to be responsible for the behaviour of those men who benefit from patriarchy and decline to recognise that. This isn't the same as refusing to engage or explain to those individuals; I post on another very male-dominated forum and am frequently the lone female, never mind feminist, voice. This is me recognising that my energies are better off directed at women's causes. Plus, frankly, it's what I want to do with my time: we all know how feminist voices are treated in the mainstream world and I don't want to face that 100% of the time.

Well, that's all completely fair VG.

It did seem previously, though, that you interpreted the original quote as meaning that men were decreasingly involved. I'm not sure that this would be wholey correct, but the statistics showing a decline in male teachers would certainly suggest that it might be (wrt education at least). However, I took exception to the rather more generalist interpretation of men having no interest in teaching, which I consider to be a very different statement. Teaching was also only part of what was said.

'Wholey'? Oh dear

Ah. It appears then that you're not interested in a conversation with me. My use of data wasn't in response to your OP. If you're not on a wind-up then you might like to know that your constant corrections are tiring. I said 'withdrawal from roles', ie roles in the community, in teaching, as role models.

What? I'm sorry, you've genuinely lost me. Yes, 'withdrawal from roles' is the same as there being a 'decreasing amount of' isn't it?

If your use of data wasn't in response to my OP then what on earth was it in response to?

Can I ask you a favour? Could you please re-read some of what I have written and pretend for a second that I'm not an MRA troll on a wind-up, but assume for a second that I'm just another human being trying to communicate their feelings on a subject. If it all still looks the same to you then maybe we should desist from talking to each other. Much as I disagree with many things that are said (and find you a bit tireome too) this would be a shame.

My use of data regarding secondary school teachers was in response to sunshineandbooks post and your post of 19.54 on 15th August. The conversation had shifted to teaching and the comparison between male teachers and female directors.

My post of 14.18 today spoke about 'withdrawal from roles' with reference to the original statement in your OP. In your OP, you quoted yourself and stated that this statement was erroneous and offensive. You then, today, referred to 'excessive' sentiment going uncorrected, echoing that which you wrote in your OP.

I don't think that your original 'test' statement regarding roles in which men can be role models is so excessive so as to flag up either a case of confirmation bias or feminism's disinclination to enagage with men.

You then corrected me by saying that you weren't just talking about teachers. I know you weren't. Which is why I wrote 'roles'.

I have never called you a troll, an MRA, nor have I been discourteous to you (please note that I did not call you tiresome). Before today, I have replied to your posts in the spirit of academic rigour for which your OP calls. I returned to this thread today in the spirit of moving the conversation on and discussing it from two seperate viewpoints.

Given that you're so quick to characterise me as someone attacking you - rather than pointing out the gaping flaws in your methods - I think it's probably best that we no longer engage.

I don'T think men's issues are related at all to feminism.

Except for when men fight tooth and nail to stop feminists from making even the tiniest changes. And use violence to achieve their means, either politically (wars/mass rape) or personally (DV, wife-battery, spousal murder)

Fighting the existence of women's liberation to the bitter end is a summary of men's issues with regard to feminism.

The only way men's issues relate to feminism is to the extent that we, as feminists, believe they do (or don'T, as the case may be)

Right you are VG; you're a paragon of virtue and objective debate whilst I have gaping flaws in my methods and can't tell the difference between being tiresome and being constantly tiring.

Cheerio then.

I'm genuinely sorry that it's come across like that, but given that you constantly correct me (and not just me) and force me to clarify each and every sentence that I respond to, about the same things over and over again (like teachers and roles and whatnot) rather than anything else. I drew a line under all that today, only to have you spent one sentence on what I feel about feminism and a paragraph on telling me how to react to what you have written in this thread thus far.

Anyway, this really isn't getting either of us anywhere.

As is usual in any bad-tempered exchange, I feel much the same about how you treat my posts, but there you go.

Is that 'one sentence' the one where I said "that's all completely fair VG". How completely miserable of me.

If you genuinely are sorry about how this has gone, then thank you. Ditto.

'I consider myself a feminist; it's just that my version seems to come in a different shade from the version officially approved on here by some of the self-appointed guardians of the term (some). If you check my history, you'll see that I am usually the one arguing against homogenisation.'

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're all out to get you"

I think you have been a tiny little bit guilty here of confirmation bias yourself. First you set up a straw man (or let's say person) -- the 'version officially approved'. You see your ideas as being a bit different from 'officially approved' feminism and your stance as an anti-homogeneity one.

Have you stopped to examine whether those you perceive as homogenised really are? Or do you start with the idea that you are different from the herd and therefore if people disagree with you, they are expressing the thoughts of the herd -- confirmation bias much?

'Could you please re-read some of what I have written and pretend for a second that I'm not an MRA troll on a wind-up, but assume for a second that I'm just another human being trying to communicate their feelings on a subject.' This is more of the same.

Yes, again, I'm quite sure that I'm as guilty myself as anyone else...

In order to help me understand your post math, could you tell me what you mean by me perceiving someone as being homogenised? I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking me to consider.

I'm not sure why I am the focus of attention instead of the questions I ask and points I make and can only conclude that a certain element are very keen on 'taking down' anyone who dares criticise the manner in which some people express their feminism.

The fact that no one seems very willing to actually talk about anything other than me personally seems to support this view (Oh gosh, I bet that's more self-pity. Damned any which way aren't it?)