Friend has very conflicting views about women, politics etc

[dragontwo]

Came away feeling really depressed. A very old and dear friend has developed some political views that feel completely at odds with my own and I feel very conflicted.

I think I'm fairly left wing and a feminist (I'm not very well read about feminism but have educated myself a little through the boards here in recent times). Friend has always been traditionally similar in views to my own but has decided to "educate" himself about his views over the last few years by reading lots of right wing and more centrist materials which has changed many of his views. I find some of his views pretty offensive. Here are some examples:

• feminism is now unnecessary as we already have equality laws - it leads to communism (bad) and is inherently "anti-male"
• murder is more important to cover in the news (and socially a more important issue) than issues that affect everyone, such as the gender pay gap and equality or discrimination
• the gender pay gap doesn't exist, women just choose to do lower paid jobs (the jordan peterson / cathy newman interview "proved" this).
• he said that "the world is ruled by beautiful women who scorn men and look down their noses at them"
• inequality in the home (and outside) doesn't exist - women choose to do more housework etc because of their biological nature. He disputed the idea of the "mental load" when I showed him the cartoon and said "we need to hear the guy's side of the story, it's probably the opposite"
• the courts frequently rule in favour of the mother rather than the father as far as child contact goes as a result of institutional sexism against men rather than "doing what's best for the child"
• people on benefits shouldn't have widescreen TVs (ok, not really relevant to women but it did annoy me!)
• the fact that murders and DV happen more within families was more of a problem than the fact that they are usually male against women

Although I don't profess to know the full arguments for and against all the above, I did find many of his viewpoints quite upsetting and at times very offensive. However I'm not so good at arguing my point but I did try my best to educate him. But I don't think he went away feeling any different! I felt many of his views were quite misogynist and this upset me.

Does anyone have any advice? How would you cope with maintaning a friend whose viewpoints made you feel so uncomfortable, especially if they were a very old friend you really care about?

What do people think about some of his points? I would welcome any feedback / thoughts etc about if he is right on anything or where he is wrong!?

Sorry if this seems a bit ineducated on my part. I'm trying to find my voice and views and educate myself but I'm not so familiar with debating the subject so would welcome more experienced feminist viewpoints.

Many thanks

The discussion wasn't about "feminism", feminism related subjects such as the "pay gap" but they are not exclusive to feminism.

Why do you think he was "better at arguing"? What do you need to be a good debater? Facts would be helpful.

But ok, keep your blinkers on and your head in the sand. I'm sure hiding from your opponents arguments will be beneficial for you in the long run! Goddess Speed to you Sister!

If we are to defend feminism, then we need to deal I facts. Feelings, experiences and anecdotes are not enough.

Anyhow - here is a link to the Peterson/Newman debate for anyone that missed it.

10.2 million views so far.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Newman took entirely the wrong approach to the discussion. She was clearly let down (either by herself or by researchers) in her knowledge of what his arguments are, took an adversarial approach and couldn't respond to the way in which he was responding. So clearly, doing a lot more research and preparation would have made for a better discussion, along with trying a different style rather than being very adversarial. And yes, having more facts to hand and being able to defend their sources. All of that would have helped.

To a few people above - I presented all the facts I knew. I came on here to research further information and help me fill in some knowledge gaps, as well as find out opinion on maintaining friendships with people with very different viewpoints. I didn't say he was better at arguing. The discussion was about feminism (in parts, not all, but parts). I didn't "hide" from my opponent and gave it my best shot. I guess I put across that I was terrible, but I get the feeling from him whichever facts I put across to him he's never going to change his mind (become a zealot about his opinions, which I find depressing). Maybe I could have worded all this better.

I am just curious to learn more hence coming on here, asking, is there something wrong with that? (I was open about this in my initial OP).

But ok, keep your blinkers on and your head in the sand. I'm sure hiding from your opponents arguments will be beneficial for you in the long run! Goddess Speed to you Sister!

Seriously, why so combative and personal? That's the problem with the debate and the CN/JP youtube comments: the anti-feminists are so desperately gleeful to see a feminist get her comeuppance, it's all so "GOTCHA!"

You don't know me well enough to assume I've kept my blinkers on. The truth is I've spent all my life having these arguments and engaging with, being friends with anti-feminists. But I'm getting old and I don't have the energy for it anymore.

Anyway, I've watched the interview now and I agreed with him on trans issue but not on the lobster theory.. that was rather strange.

There was another video where he discussed with two women about feminism and he seemed fairly respectful.

To be honest, it's not so much him or his views, but the comments that come underneath it, the delight at feminists getting thrashed! The willingness to dismiss women and label them as hypocrites in their fight for equality, the desire to bash them rather than consider their claims. It feels like thinly-veiled misogyny to me.

Now, if you're going to respond to me fmsfms respond to me like a human being, who has a personal stake in all this, rather than a bra-burning man-hating caricature of a feminist, with all that nasty "goddess sister" piss-taking.

thanks IfyouseeRitaMoreno, I felt FMSFMS's last line was nasty too.

I guess I put across that I was terrible, but I get the feeling from him whichever facts I put across to him he's never going to change his mind

I think that is the key OP, he, like many others willingly misinterpret feminism and so you wonder if any amount of sensible debate will change their minds, so in the end it seems like a folly to keep trying.

I'm not sure where you go on to from there? Humour? Sarcasm? Ignorance? But I feel your dilemma. It's one all feminists face.

At the end of the day, it's not about having blinkers on, it's about working out the cost to your mental health of banging your head against a brick wall in the hope that there is some light and mutual understanding somewhere.

FWR isn't an echo chamber, but a respite from all that head banging!

OP, please don’t think my comments weee about you. I took your OP in the way it was intended.

My comments were really directed at the many other posters who were recommending that you move away from this friendship purely because of his views.

You can’t ‘sensibly debate’ a man who feels qualified to inform you that women are biologically programmed to enjoy doing housework.

You can’t ‘sensibly debate’ a man who feels qualified to inform you that women are biologically programmed to enjoy doing housework

I remember my ex bringing home a survey once showing that most women like housework because it releases oxytocin, so why didn't I? That pseudo-science is so harmful because it informs people's expectations of you and your expectations of yourself.

My life would be so much easier if I did enjoy housework.

Good god. Some of these posts. You aren’t obliged to keep people with such directly offensive (to YOU, as a human) views in your life in the name of debate. He basically thinks women (you) are “biologically” inferior. Healthy debate is one thing, but all the views you listed in your OP are ones we’ve all come up against literally countless times online and in real life. It’s exhausting. If your mind hasn’t been changed by these arguments before, it won’t be changed by them now.

The women being programmed to do housework thing is just so bat shit crazy that I wouldn’t even bother debating that one.

The only person I need to discuss the distribution of housework Is my husband. And we agree what works for us. I can’t see why anyone else is intestested in who unloads our dishwasher.

But there are other points that I think are worth debating - like the Gender Pay gap and how much is due to women and men’s choices about the careers they wish to peruse.

I know that my choices have affected my career. And that has probably led to the skewing if my organisations diversity stats.

But I lead my life to suit me. And not to improve my organisations diversity stats.

Pursue.

The only person I need to discuss the distribution of housework Is my husband. And we agree what works for us. I can’t see why anyone else is intestested in who unloads our dishwasher.

Well I quite agree, but many people are, else those Mars Venus type books wouldn't be so popular..

Gender pay gap - yes, but when you have a situation where elderly women are overwhelmingly poorer than men, does it matter why the choices were made?

Expecting the free market to reward morally good choices is clearly naive, but we live in a world where money determines well-being so something needs to be done.

What do you think “needs to be done.”?

I would advise women not to give up work and remain economically active (as I did, albeit I downshifted a level).

I also advise any young women I meet to make university choices based on earnings and flexibility. “Gender Studies” is not the path to economic independence!

But many actually do want to stop working when they have children. Should we force them to work?

Or do we let people make their own choices?

Doubt anyone is planning to force SAHMs back to work or deny people making their own choices. But we need to look beyond letting people make their own choice to see the background people are making those choices against. If women aren’t applying for X course or entering Z profession, it’s not enough to shrug and say “oh well nobody’s forcing them”, we need to be thinking about why they’re making those choices. Likewise why female parents are making different choices w/r/t balancing parenting and work than male ones.

If women aren’t applying for X course or entering Z profession, it’s not enough to shrug and say “oh well nobody’s forcing them”, we need to be thinking about why they’re making those choices.

Exactly! And we need to actually grasp the radical idea that women actually have something to offer those industries and that by not recognizing women's potential we are wasting a lot of talent.

These are typical men's rights/alt right rhetorical tricks. They are easily debunked. I spent years debunking MRA's and their ridiculous assertions.

- feminism is now unnecessary as we already have equality laws - it leads to communism (bad) and is inherently "anti-male"

Then why did Trump just reinstate the gag rule and why do Republicans continually roll back women's ability to access contraception and abortion?

the gender pay gap doesn't exist, women just choose to do lower paid jobs (the jordan peterson / cathy newman interview "proved" this).

Why are jobs that contain a majority of women, like teaching and caring jobs the lowest paid when it can be argued that these jobs are the most important in the world?

Also, see this lovely clip of Peterson in full MRA garb claiming that his son won't mate with a woman because he can't throw snowballs:

he said that "the world is ruled by beautiful women who scorn men and look down their noses at them"

LOL. This guy sounds like he's paranoid.

inequality in the home (and outside) doesn't exist - women choose to do more housework etc because of their biological nature.

Another baseless claim that is not backed up by any science. Ask him to tell you the biological mechanism responsible for this. He'll make up some whacky explanation that has no bearing on reality.

the courts frequently rule in favour of the mother rather than the father as far as child contact goes as a result of institutional sexism against men rather than "doing what's best for the child"

No. Custody goes to women because women are STILL the primary caregivers and WANT custody. It's only small minority of custody cases where there is conflict. See Liz Library re: custody.

the fact that murders and DV happen more within families was more of a problem than the fact that they are usually male against women

He gets this directly from MRA Erin Pizzey. It's patently false. See Duluth model research.

Otherwise, this guy is doing what many men do these days. They act like they're the most oppressed group on the planet. It's a mantrum.

I hate not being able to edit when I don't get my quotes in bold correctly.

grrrr

mancheeze thank you for your response! just what I was interested to learn about.

I've been feeling more and more angry about what he said! He's changed so much, I can't quite believe it. I think I am going to reconsider our friendship. I hate to do it and don't want to live in an echo chamber but that said I don't think I can bear to be around someone who believes some of this stuff to be true and is deaf to any other viewpoints.

But maybe armed with more facts I can change his mind. I need to do a bit more reseach.

I think when men get older and lose much of the power and privilege they had that was unearned for a large part, they become bitter and blame others.

@mancheeze "I spent years debunking MRA's"

"Why are jobs that contain a majority of women, like teaching and caring jobs the lowest paid when it can be argued that these jobs are the most important in the world?"

You've spent years debunking MRA's and that was the best you could come up with.

Nursing and Teaching are paid for by the government, if you want to pay nurses and teachers and other caring professions more then that would mean increasing taxes or/and diverting taxes away from other things.

Now you could make an argument that we could spend less on defence, foreign aid etc in order to pay nurses, teachers more and you could probably give them a small pay increase. I'm sure a lot of people would be happy with that.

But you seem to be questioning why nurses, teachers are paid less than other professions.

Reality is that a lot of professions are well paid because they contribute and are vital to the profits of a company.

R&D teams at a STEM company invent new products, advance new technology etc that solve problems or make things easier and are commercially valuable.

Marketing teams figure out how to launch those products and increase sales.

Sales teams then go out and actually negotiate the deals to sell those products.

All of these staff will have basic salaries and performance bonuses that are dependent on their output and contribution to the company.

This is really basic capitalism/economics and I'm not sure why it needs explaining.

"Custody goes to women because women are STILL the primary caregivers "

The irony of posting this straight after a comment 'debunking' biological differences.

What biological differences and physical differences do you think enable women to better play the primary caregiver role?

Tell us more about this strange concept known as 'economics', O wise one!

Meanwhile: agree, IfyouseeRitaMoreno. It's good to see more and more organisations in all sectors moving away from the idea that diversity is doing a favour to others, rather than something which makes the organisation itself stronger. Although it's still way behind where it should be. I really liked the government going full-on clickbait on the issue of women on boards recently: www.gov.uk/government/news/revealed-the-worst-explanations-for-not-appointing-women-to-ftse-company-boards

"Custody goes to women because women are STILL the primary caregivers "

The irony of posting this straight after a comment 'debunking' biological differences.

What biological differences and physical differences do you think enable women to better play the primary caregiver role?

The pps wasn't saying women are more suited to that role, but that they are either given it, or end up doing it primarily. Apart from giving birth and breastfeeding, which is only in the first couple of years at best (in general), there's no reason women should be primary caregivers other than societal expectations.