Sunday, July 10, 2016

A Challenge to Feminists and Social Justice Advocates


This is a challenge to all self-proclaimed feminists and social justice advocates in the United States of America.  More specifically, this is a challenge to all of you who sincerely believe that institutionalized sexism is responsible for the gender wage gap in the United States.  I am personally giving this challenge in all sincerity to prove an important myth in popular feminist narratives across the first world.

Dear Feminists and Social Justice Advocates,

I defy you to cite for me a single example of anyone within the United States who satisfies the following conditions:
  1. Is a woman,
  2. Is performing equal quality/quantity of work to her male peers within the same company,
  3. Is being paid less per hour than those male peers,
  4. Is demonstrably being paid less than her male peers because she is female and they are male.
Seriously.  Name me a single example of this happening anywhere.  Give the names of any individuals involved, the work they do, and the companies they work for.  One.  Single.  Example.

Now before you even think about providing an answer, please consider the following proposition. By definition, the moment you satisfy my challenge, you will immediately have satisfied the necessary burden of proof for a lawsuit under the Equal Pay Act.  I therefore have to ask, why the fuck are you wasting your time with me when you should be out talking to a good lawyer?  Seriously guys, did no one ever tell you that it is officially illegal in the United States to pay women less than men for doing the same work?  You people love to rant and rave about all this institutional sexism and gender wage disparity, yet I don't see a whole lot of lawsuits being filed.  Did it never occur to you that, just maybe, the gender wage gap is a tiny bit more nuanced than men in power unilaterally discriminating against women under their employment?

Now to be fair, perhaps you believe that gender pay sexism is more subtle than that.  Maybe businesses are just really clever in hiding their reasons for paying women less than men, but dammit, the sexism is still there!

All right, fine.  Prove it.  The very nature of this argument is an open admission you don't have any evidence to back yourself up.  Ergo, you don't really "know" that sexism is the reason for some instance of gender pay disparity, and all you're doing is speculating blindly.  So get off your ass, do your due diligence, and prove it!  I cannot stress this enough, guys.  The moment you have the hard evidence necessary to prove any form of gender discrimination, you now have the legal ammunition required to stomp it out of existence.  The mere fact that any of it exists in the first place can therefore only be the result of your own personal inaction.

So honestly, guys.  What exactly is stopping you?  The entire weight of the United States federal government is standing by, ready to come to your aid.  All you have to do is back up your assertions with cold, hard, evidence.

Then again, that's exactly your problem, isn't it?

20 comments:

Cam said...

Check out EssenceOfThought's new video on SJWs. I think you'll find it interesting... And you'll probably be disagreeing a lot XD

Anonymous said...

Dude the wage gap doesn't mean that women are payed less for the same job than men. It means that the avarage women makes less than the avarage men.A wage gap can be caused by discrimination without women being payed less for the same job. Women are less likely to be hired for certain jobs because they may get a child and get maternity leave. http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/news/2014/08/slater-gordon-highlights-maternity-discrimination/.
so if you're a women that doesn't want to get a child than you're being screwed over because you happen to be a women. Thus you don't have equal opportunity. Also obviously menagers can just make up other reasons for not hiring a women. Proving that you're discriminated is very hard.

AnticitizenX said...

"Women are less likely to be hired for certain jobs because they may get a child and get maternity leave"

I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States of America, it is already illegal to discriminate against gender for hiring practices. So take the entire challenge and repeat it for employment discrimination. Also, women are far more likely to be hired in STEM professions than men are, so I have no idea what you think you're complaining about.

"so if you're a women that doesn't want to get a child than you're being screwed over because you happen to be a women."

This is both illegal and completely at odds with the facts.

"Also obviously managers can just make up other reasons for not hiring a women. Proving that you're discriminated is very hard."

Then by your own admission, you don't know that discrimination is actually occurring. You're just blindly accusing people of breaking the law without a shred of evidence.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States of America, it is already illegal to discriminate against gender for hiring practices."

In my country it's illegal to do that too.



"Also, women are far more likely to be hired in STEM professions than men are, so I have no idea what you think you're complaining about."

I didn't know that, so is this because of discrimination or are women just better at stem jobs? Also if this is due to discrimination than two wrongs don't make a right. And how am i complaining, i am just saying the truth.


"This is both illegal and completely at odds with the facts"

What facts. In the article I linked you to they talked about a survey of 500 managers of which a significant percentage admitted that they discriminate against women


"Then by your own admission, you don't know that discrimination is actually occurring. You're just blindly accusing people of breaking the law without a shred of evidence."

No i meant that proving discrimination in court is difficult. You can prove that discrimination is occuring by surveying managers, they will admit that they discriminate in annonimous surveys. But they won't admit that in court because than they're screwed.

AnticitizenX said...

Here: STEM women are given 2-1 hiring preference over men:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/

"What facts?"

The fact that women are given hiring preference over men in a very prestigious field.

"Also if this is due to discrimination than two wrongs don't make a right"

I never said it did. I just don't see a whole lot of feminists campaigning for social equality when women are the ones getting the better deal.

"In the article I linked you to they talked about a survey of 500 managers of which a significant percentage admitted that they discriminate against women"

Absolutely false. It said they would prefer to employ men over women. It did NOT say they were consciously making any hiring decisions on that basis. After all, just because you don't like it, that doesn't change the fact that it is still ILLEGAL.

"You can prove that discrimination is occuring by surveying managers,"

Like I said, even your own source doesn't fully support your own position. It certainly hints at it, but you still haven't proven a single instance.

You are also delving very heavily into the murky water of special treatment over social equality. If employers were not held responsible for maternity costs, then women would have a perfectly equal playing field with men to compete against. By forcing employers to pay maternity, your own argument dictates that we are biasing the costs by gender and thus forcing employers to make gendered decisions. So I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either women are a protected class (and thus lesser to men), or women are equal to men (and thus deserve no special treatment). Take your pick.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that women are given hiring preference over men in a very prestigious field"

You said that this: "so if you're a women that doesn't want to get a child than you're being screwed over because you happen to be a women" is at odds with facts. If men are discriminated when applying for a stem job than that doesn't prove that women aren't being discriminated against in other fields. This is a minor point though since i've got the burden of prove

"I just don't see a whole lot of feminists campaigning for social equality when women are the ones getting the better deal."

Feminism is female rights activism it has nothing to do with mens rights so why would you expect feminists to fight the inequalities that men face? Feminists do help create social equality though since they adress inequality that women face.

"Like I said, even your own source doesn't fully support your own position. It certainly hints at it, but you still haven't proven a single instance"

Oke, fair enough I haven't properly proven that discriminayion occurs. But the standerd of evidence that you propose is unreasonable. You can know that discrimination occurs without knowing about specific cases, and you can cite surveys.

You are also delving very heavily into the murky water of special treatment over social equality. If employers were not held responsible for maternity costs, then women would have a perfectly equal playing field with men to compete against. By forcing employers to pay maternity, your own argument dictates that we are biasing the costs by gender and thus forcing employers to make gendered decisions. So I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either women are a protected class (and thus lesser to men), or women are equal to men (and thus deserve no special treatment). Take your pick.

Oke a couple of points here

1- i agree that maternity leave shouldn't be payed for by the employers i think the government should pay parents a certain amount of money when they have children.
2- you seem to think that if we want to stop discrimination against women that we should get rid of maternity leave but this is obviously wrong since you can make things equal by introducing paternity leave
3- maternity leave doesn't mean that women are a protected class since working after getting a kid isn't really the same for men and women
4- if you're part of a protected class than how does that make you a lesser person?

AnticitizenX said...

"If men are discriminated when applying for a stem job than that doesn't prove that women aren't being discriminated against in other fields."

That's a fair point. However, the challenge still stands. Prove a single instance of this happening anywhere. Then when you do, stop wasting your time with me and call a lawyer. It's already illegal. What more do you want?

"Feminism is female rights activism it has nothing to do with mens rights so why would you expect feminists to fight the inequalities that men face?"

Because it's kind of hypocritical and deceptive to claim you fight for "equality," while summarily ignoring all the instances where woman are at a distinct advantage over men. I can also guarantee that a lot of self-identifying feminists will actively fight against you for promoting gender equality if it means bringing advantaged women down to parity with men.

"But the standard of evidence that you propose is unreasonable. You can know that discrimination occurs without knowing about specific cases, and you can cite surveys."

That's not my problem. It's yours. You can't claim that systemic sexism is a thing while simultaneously failing to a single, demonstrable instance of it actually happening. If that is something you physically can't provide, then by definition, your entire position is unverifiable, unjustified, and unscientific. It's "not even wrong" as the saying goes.

"1- i agree that maternity leave shouldn't be payed for by the employers i think the government should pay parents a certain amount of money when they have children."

I was actually just thinking after our previous comment that this might be a defensible view. Governments arguably have a reasonable interest in promoting families and social equality. Absorbing the cost of maternity seems like a consistent way to approach the problem. That is, if you can at least prove that it is a systemic issue in the first place.

"2- you seem to think that if we want to stop discrimination against women that we should get rid of maternity leave but this is obviously wrong since you can make things equal by introducing paternity leave"

Also a consistent view, though more libertarian-minded people might demand we remove all such "leave" in the first place.

"maternity leave doesn't mean that women are a protected class since working after getting a kid isn't really the same for men and women"

What I mean is that you have to acknowledge that woman are objectively "different" from men in a distinct, economic capacity. It's hard to demand perfect equality in such a world.

Anonymous said...

"Because it's kind of hypocritical and deceptive to claim you fight for "equality," while summarily ignoring all the instances where woman are at a distinct advantage over men. I can also guarantee that a lot of self-identifying feminists will actively fight against you for promoting gender equality if it means bringing advantaged women down to parity with men."

A lot of feminists live in a patriachy and therefor think that womens rights should be prioritised. And a significant part of the feminist movement is not in favor of equality.

"That's not my problem. It's yours. You can't claim that systemic sexism is a thing while simultaneously failing to a single, demonstrable instance of it actually happening. If that is something you physically can't provide, then by definition, your entire position is unverifiable, unjustified, and unscientific. It's "not even wrong" as the saying goes."

No it's not i provided you with a way of verifying the claim that women are being discriminated against when applying for a job without knowing about specific exanples: you can cite surveys that prove this if these exist.

AnticitizenX said...

"No it's not i provided you with a way of verifying the claim that women are being discriminated against when applying for a job without knowing about specific exanples: you can cite surveys that prove this if these exist."

What you provided is only indirect evidence. I can honestly and openly state that I want to punch people in the face for being stupid in public. That doesn't mean I actually do it. It's illegal. Likewise, if you force employers to pay for maternity leave for females and not males, then they will naturally prefer to employ men over women. However, they can also point out that basing any single hiring decision on that fact alone is patently illegal, and so they therefore make every effort to avoid doing so.

Granted, this is not a perfect world. It would be naive to think that absolutely no one is actually breaking the law by giving preferential hiring on the basis of gender. However, that's not really the issue here. The issue is how much you can actually prove to be happening. Maybe there's only a few dozen cases per year? A few hundred? Millions? You have no clue. That's why I gave the challenge. Don't just make vague, indefensible allusions to something that may or may not even be happening. Show me a single case. And then when you're done with that, stop wasting time with me and call a lawyer. I promise you right now that nothing will change if you can't muster the will to prove such claims with hard evidence.

Again, I really have to insist on pointing out that what you are suggesting is already perfectly illegal. It's not like we can enact laws to make it MORE illegal! So honestly, what more do you want? I am really not interested in hearing statistics. There is already an army of lawyers and policemen who will be more than happy to enforce the law if/when people actually perform their due diligence.

Anonymous said...

"
What you provided is only indirect evidence. I can honestly and openly state that I want to punch people in the face for being stupid in public. That doesn't mean I actually do it. It's illegal. Likewise, if you force employers to pay for maternity leave for females and not males, then they will naturally prefer to employ men over women. However, they can also point out that basing any single hiring decision on that fact alone is patently illegal, and so they therefore make every effort to avoid doing so. 

Granted, this is not a perfect world. It would be naive to think that absolutely no one is actually breaking the law by giving preferential hiring on the basis of gender. However, that's not really the issue here. The issue is how much you can actually prove to be happening. Maybe there's only a few dozen cases per year? A few hundred? Millions? You have no clue. That's why I gave the challenge. Don't just make vague, indefensible allusions to something that may or may not even be happening. Show me a single case. And then when you're done with that, stop wasting time with me and call a lawyer. I promise you right now that nothing will change if you can't muster the will to prove such claims with hard evidence."

I'm not saying that women are being discriminated anymore. You already refuted my evidence for that. I'm now saying that if women are being discriminated against than you can prove this without being able to answer your challenge and that your challege is therefor unreasonable.

"
Again, I really have to insist on pointing out that what you are suggesting is already perfectly illegal. It's not like we can enact laws to make it MORE illegal! So honestly, what more do you want? I am really not interested in hearing statistics. There is already an army of lawyers and policemen who will be more than happy to enforce the law if/when people actually perform their due diligence."

As i've said before discrimination is hard to prove and therefor hard to fight in court. Therefor it might be better if we create less insentive to discriminate by for example having paternity leave. If discrimination happens a lot that is wich i'm not saying anymore (though i still suppory paternity leave). Just curious, do you think we should adress male discrimination in stem fields? And if so why shouldn't they also take it to court than?

Also i noticed a mistake in my previous comment i said
"A lot of feminists live in a patriachy (...)"
That should have been: a lot of feminists believe we live in a patriarchy.

AnticitizenX said...

"I'm now saying that if women are being discriminated against than you can prove this without being able to answer your challenge and that your challege is therefore unreasonable."

Except you haven't really "proven" in any direct sense, have you? The best you can really say is that probably there's SOME gender hiring discrimination happening, but we have no idea how much, or how significantly it contributes to the gender wage gap. Remember that women are given overt hiring preference over men in STEM jobs. So is the discrimination against women overall greater than it is against men? Does it more-or-less even out on the grand scale? Are men actually being discriminated against more overall? We can't say with your evidence.

You don't seen to appreciate the deeper intent of my challenge. The wage gap is a really complicated issue that stems from more than just blatant gender discrimination. That doesn't mean none is happening, but it's not nearly as simplistic or systemic as the feminist narrative would have one believe. Plus, there's the issue that it's already illegal, and so what more can we do?

"As i've said before discrimination is hard to prove and therefor hard to fight in court"

And therefore, as I keep saying, hard to build a narrative on. You've basically just admitted that the entire feminist narrative over the gender wage gap is grounded on blind speculation and witch hunting. If you can't show it, then YOU DON'T KNOW IT. We can't take action against a thing we can't even show is really happening on any significant level.

"Therefor it might be better if we create less insentive to discriminate by for example having paternity leave"

I do like that you propose a balanced economic solution rather than witch hunting everyone across the board. The only problem I have with this is that, on a philosophical level, you are effectively acknowledging that men and women are unequal on a fundamental level. It requires you to implicitly admit that women tend to impose an intrinsic economic burden on employers that men do not, and that such burden stems from rote, biological causes (women give birth and men do not). Thus, we require an artificial skewing of the costs to come from the state in order to create parity. That doesn't mean women should be denied the right to vote, mind you, but I do suspect that most outspoken feminists and SJWs would rather pull out their own teeth than admit even this.

Thanks for the discussion!

Anonymous said...

"Except you haven't really "proven" in any direct sense, have you? The best you can really say is that probably there's SOME gender hiring discrimination happening, but we have no idea how much, or how significantly it contributes to the gender wage gap. Remember that women are given overt hiring preference over men in STEM jobs. So is the discrimination against women overall greater than it is against men? Does it more-or-less even out on the grand scale? Are men actually being discriminated against more overall? We can't say with your evidence. "

I'm not saying that women are being discriminated against.
You seem to think that feminists need to be able to answer your challenge if they want to prove that discrimination is occuring. So what i'm trying to say is that your standerd of evidence is unreasonable. If discrimination is occuring than it can be proven without answering your challenge. So i'm not saying that discrimination is occuring i'm saying that your standard of evidence is unreasonable.

"And therefore, as I keep saying, hard to build a narrative on. You've basically just admitted that the entire feminist narrative over the gender wage gap is grounded on blind speculation and witch hunting. If you can't show it, then YOU DON'T KNOW IT. We can't take action against a thing we can't even show is really happening on any significant level."

If discrimination is occuring (and i'm not saying it is), than it is possible that you can prove that discrimination is occuring through annonymous survey's. These survey's can't be used as evidence in court because they're annonymous, so you don't know who discriminates, you just know that some of the people who where surveyed discriminated. So these surveys can't help you in court because they don't prove discrimination in specific instances, they just prove that there are instances in which discrimination occurs. I have to stress that i'm not saying that there are studies that show discrimination. I'm just saying that if discrimination occurs, than surveys can prove it, and these surveys wouldn't be useful in court.

"I do like that you propose a balanced economic solution rather than witch hunting everyone across the board. The only problem I have with this is that, on a philosophical level, you are effectively acknowledging that men and women are unequal on a fundamental level. It requires you to implicitly admit that women tend to impose an intrinsic economic burden on employers that men do not, and that such burden stems from rote, biological causes (women give birth and men do not). Thus, we require an artificial skewing of the costs to come from the state in order to create parity. That doesn't mean women should be denied the right to vote, mind you, but I do suspect that most outspoken feminists and SJWs would rather pull out their own teeth than admit even this."

If managers discriminate women because women get maternity leave than the discrimination isn't caused by a biological feature women have but it is caused by society giving women a right that men don't have: parental leave. I don't know what you're trying to get at here. I wouldn't consider it fair if women are discriminated against because other women choose to have children. Than you're basicly being denied a job because of the choices of other people, because you happen to belong to the same demographic.

AnticitizenX said...

"So what i'm trying to say is that your standerd of evidence is unreasonable."

What "standard of evidence" are you even talking about? All I asked for was a single, demonstrable instance of sexist pay discrimination. If that's too much of a burden, then that's not my problem. It's feminism's problem. It means that major feminist narratives are little more than blind speculation grounded on paltry evidence.

"If discrimination is occuring than it can be proven without answering your challenge"

Except you haven't come close to proving a single instance of discrimination. At best, you can only conclude some indirect plausibility to the claim.

"These survey's can't be used as evidence in court because they're annonymous, so you don't know who discriminates, you just know that some of the people who where surveyed discriminated. "

No. You don't know that at all. You only know that employers in the UK suffer an economic burden when hiring women, and that they would therefore prefer to employ men. That does not men they are actively instituting discriminatory hiring practices on any significant level. At best, you can only say that you probably should do more research.

"I'm just saying that if discrimination occurs, than surveys can prove it, and these surveys wouldn't be useful in court."

That's not my problem. That's feminism's problem. If you want to enforce the law, then you have to meet a certain burden of proof. If you patently refuse to meet the burden, then all you've effectively said at the end of the day is that you don't care enough about gender-based discrimination to actually do anything about it.

"If managers discriminate women because women get maternity leave than the discrimination isn't caused by a biological feature women have but it is caused by society giving women a right that men don't have: parental leave."

Okay, that's a fair interpretation. But now you've just dug yourself into another corner. The narrative now requires you to believe that women are being discriminated against because they are being given special privileges! Thus, the only way to fix the problem is to either (1) remove the privileges from women or (2) give more privileges to men. Neither option is remotely feasible within mainstream feminist ideology.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your response

"What "standard of evidence" are you even talking about? All I asked for was a single, demonstrable instance of sexist pay discrimination. If that's too much of a burden, then that's not my problem. It's feminism's problem. It means that major feminist narratives are little more than blind speculation grounded on paltry evidence."

With 'standard of evidence' i'm refering to your challenge.
Oké so by asking for a specific example of discrimination you are implying that to prove systemic sexism one needs to know about a specific example of sexism. That would be falls. Oké so imagine a feminist walks up to you and shows you hundreds of annonymous survey's in which managers admit to have discriminated against women. Would you be convinced that systemic sexism is a thing. Because if yes than you just admitted that systemic sexism can be proven without answering your challenge. Feminists probably don't believe what they believe based on anecdotal evidence, so don't ask for it. Now you're probably going to say that i haven't showed you any studies proving sexism, which is correct, but I'm not trying to prove that women are being discriminated in hiring anymore because you already refuted my reason for believing that.

"Except you haven't come close to proving a single instance of discrimination. At best, you can only conclude some indirect plausibility to the claim. "

In the sentence after the one you're responding to i said this
"So i'm not saying that discrimination is occuring i'm saying that your standard of evidence is unreasonable."
I haven't proven a single instance of discrimination because i'm not saying that discrimination occurs.

"No. You don't know that at all. You only know that employers in the UK suffer an economic burden when hiring women, and that they would therefore prefer to employ men. That does not men they are actively instituting discriminatory hiring practices on any significant level. At best, you can only say that you probably should do more research."

I wasn 't refering to the study that i linked to in my previous comment. I wasn't refering to any existing study. I was saying that if annonymous survey's exist that prove systemic sexism, than these studies aren't useful in court. I didn't say that studies exist that prove systemic sexism. As i said: "I have to stress that i'm not saying that there are studies that show discrimination."

Anonymous said...

"That's not my problem. That's feminism's problem. If you want to enforce the law, then you have to meet a certain burden of proof. If you patently refuse to meet the burden, then all you've effectively said at the end of the day is that you don't care enough about gender-based discrimination to actually do anything about it."

I agree that managers should only be prosecuted for discrimination if a certain burden of proof has been met. However this would mean that if managers discriminate, than a lot of women would probably not know that they have been discriminated, and a lot of cases of discrimination would go unreported and unprosecuted because prosecution is difficult and women might not even know that they have been discriminated against. If we ever conduct studies that prove discrimination than we might want to fight it outside of the court room by giving managers less insentive to discriminate. By introducing paternity leave for example.

"Okay, that's a fair interpretation. But now you've just dug yourself into another corner. The narrative now requires you to believe that women are being discriminated against because they are being given special privileges! Thus, the only way to fix the problem is to either (1) remove the privileges from women or (2) give more privileges to men. Neither option is remotely feasible within mainstream feminist ideology."

How am I digging myself into a corner, i have already expressed suport for giving men the same rights by introducing paternal leave. And this doesn't go against mainstream feminism. Feminists have consistently expressed there opposition to traditional gender roles. Giving women maternity leave while not giving men paternity leave can be seen as a expresion of traditional gender roles: the idea that men have to provide the family with an income and women have to take care of children. If you look at the more feminist countries, like sweden, they tend to have paternity leave.

AnticitizenX said...

"And this doesn't go against mainstream feminism. Feminists have consistently expressed there opposition to traditional gender roles."

Name a single popular feminist leader in the US who has publicly gone on record demanding paternity leave and then backed up those words by openly lobbying the government accordingly.

Anonymous said...

"Name a single popular feminist leader in the US who has publicly gone on record demanding paternity leave and then backed up those words by openly lobbying the government accordingly."

Here's an american feminist organisation that advocates for paternity leave: http://www.momsrising.org/page/moms/our-work.
Again, countries with paternity leave tend to be feminist. And paternity leave will be a way of fighting traditionalist gender roles so how is this going against the feminist narrative. And even if feminists don't support paternity leave, and i have just shown you an example of a feminist organisation that does support paternity leave, but even if they don't, this wouldn't mean that it is going against the feminist narrative.

AnticitizenX said...

Thanks for the link. But would you really describe "Moms Rising" as a feminist organization? Or a social justice advocacy group? They aren't really campaigning so much for gender equality as much as they are for family friendly work reform. While that's certainly a worthy goal, they don't really strike me the kind of "feminist and social justice advocate" group that would openly self-identify as such.

Anonymous said...

"Thanks for the link. But would you really describe "Moms Rising" as a feminist organization? Or a social justice advocacy group? They aren't really campaigning so much for gender equality as much as they are for family friendly work reform. "

I suppose it depends on your definition of feminism. I would define feminism as female rights activism or the believe in a feminist filosofy. Maternity leave is a mothers rights issue, and mothers rights are female rights (mothers are women afterall). Therefor maternity leave is a feminist issue, and moms rising is a feminist organisation. It isn't really clear to me how you define feminism, in this sentence you seem to define it as gender egalitarianism: "They aren't really campaigning so much for gender equality as much as they are for family friendly work reform."
This is kind of strange because you have just stated that feminists aren't interested in helping out men in these sentences: "Thus, the only way to fix the problem is to either (1) remove the privileges from women or (2) give more privileges to men. Neither option is remotely feasible within mainstream feminist ideology"
If feminists aren't willing to give men the same rights as women, than they aren't gender egalitarians. In my opinion feminism shouldn't be defined as gender egalitarianism because eventhough there are a lot of feminists that support gender egalitarianism, it isn't what makes them feminist. And i have this deductive argument to show that:

P1 if feminism is gender egalitarianism than all feminists support equality between men and women.
P2 there are feminists who don't support equality between men and women
C therefor feminism isn't gender egalitarianism.

P1 is true because a feminist that doesn't suport gender equality would be a contradiction if feminism is defined as gender egalitarianism.
P2 is true because feminists like adrea dwarkins and femitheist divin are misandist.

"While that's certainly a worthy goal, they don't really strike me the kind of "feminist and social justice advocate" group that would openly self-identify as such."

At least some of there members identify as feminists: http://www.momsrising.org/blog/how-having-a-daughter-made-me-more-of-a-feminist
https://www.momsrising.org/blog/feminism-and-motherhood-are-not-incompatible

AnticitizenX said...

"Therefor maternity leave is a feminist issue, and moms rising is a feminist organisation. It isn't really clear to me how you define feminism"

That's a difficult definition to pin down. There is the "standard" definition of one who advocates for equality between genders. However, by that definition, we are pretty much all "feminists." In contrast, there is also the more fringe/modern definition of one who subscribes to wild views like patriarchy theory or banning the word "bossy" from public discourse. These are the people I was specifically trying to address with the gender wage gap challenge because these are the ones who specifically blame it entirely on society arbitrarily paying women less for the same work.

This is also one of the more maddeningly frustrating aspects about arguing with the extreme fringe of feminist thinking. You can't criticize feminism per se, because the dictionary definition of that word simply means equality between sexes. Yet we cannot deny the huge fringe of popular feminist/SJW rhetoric that espouses completely asinine ideas. However, any time we try to address their arguments directly, they simply retreat back under the cloak of "gender equality," such that any criticism of their views is, by definition, a defense of misogyny.