Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

[citizenzen]

It did matter, and there's reading material out there that covers this issue, if you care to go find any.

The whole argument of ... Which oppressed group suffered more? And if you weren't experiencing the worst suffering, then your suffering doesn't count. ... simply seems idiotic to me.

Oppression is oppression.

Women have know this all too well for centuries.

 

[Robrob]

Reading At Home by Bill Bryson and found several passages that might be of relevance here:

In 1856, when a young housewife in Boston, from a respectable background, tearfully confessed to her doctor that she sometimes found herself involuntarily thinking of men other than her husband, the doctor ordered a series of stringent emergency measures, which included cold baths and enemas, the removal of all stimulus, including spicy foods and the reading of light fiction, and the thorough scouring of her vagina with borax. Light fiction was commonly held to account for promoting morbid thoughts and a tendency to nervous hysteria. As one author gravely summarized: ‘Romance-reading by young girls will, by this excitement of the bodily organs, tend to create their premature development, and the child becomes physically a woman months or even years before she should.’

Ever notice the similarity between European/Christian attitudes toward women a 150 years ago and Muslim attitudes toward women today?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Noted. So? If you see a need for such a term, then coin one and define it and get it into the lexicon. I don't perceive such a need for myself, as I no longer look at classes or groups of people in terms of polar opposites.

Nor do I. Strawman much?

 

[mike3]

When I said MRA guys, I meant groups. Well, to tell the truth I really don't care if you think I'm an egalitarian or not. You've already made up your mind and nothing I say is going to change it, I have no reason to fight with you about what I label myself as, so peace be upon you.

@ixolite: Well that's extremely messed up. Never claimed the other side wasn't messed up too.

@KoihimeNakamura: What I said was that all the feminists I've ever personally met where like this, so they seem representative. And, I asked to be shown differently, but so far I've only been attacked -- not much good in that. Not helping their arguments for why I should change my mind on the feminist movement.

Just so you all know I've never met one of the so called "real" feminists, ever. Could be that they only bread the wackjob types down here in the south. I don't know. Also, I was looking at an extreme case that other feminist sites pointed too but never disavowed. Just find it strange.

You have to remember that radical feminism is just that: Radical. Meaning it is Not Mainstream. As for why you keep running into radicals, perhaps your sample is biased somehow, or your cognition -- maybe the radicals are the only ones you remember due to their obvious disagreeability. Normal, i.e. "mainstream" feminism is really EQUALism.

One "mainstream" organization's mission statement says:
http://feminist.org/

Feminism n. the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women.

The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) was created to develop bold, new strategies and programs to advance women's equality, non-violence, economic development, and, most importantly, empowerment of women and girls in all sectors of society. All programs of the FMF endeavor to include a global perspective and activities to promote leadership development, especially among young women. Along with reproductive rights and access to reproductive technology, the FMF's programs have focused on the empowerment of women in law, business, medicine, academia, sports, and the Internet.

 

[mike3]

I disagree. My feeling may be irrational, but it is mine derived from experience. You can not change my experience, but you can change the feeling by showing why I shouldn't feel that way I do. So far, no one has done that. Just people saying I can't feel that way because they see it as wrong. But, just say that it's wrong with out proof isn't really going do any good is it? As skeptics we need proof for changing our opinion, but none has been provided. Also, no one has identified themselves as feminists, so how would I know who is or isn't. Most people here like to argue, so one can not assume whom is what just because they're arguing some point. Devil's advocates and all.

However, are you willing to consider the possibility that "experience" may not be as good a form of evidence as it is cracked up to be?

To answer the question, "why shouldn't you feel the way you feel?" -- well, if your feeling is based on a biased/distorted view of reality, that would render it suspect, no?

 

[slingblade]

The whole argument of ... Which oppressed group suffered more? And if you weren't experiencing the worst suffering, then your suffering doesn't count. ... simply seems idiotic to me.

I imagine it does seems so.

Good thing no one was making that argument.

Oppression is oppression.
Women have know this all too well for centuries.

Indeed, perhaps. Nevertheless, some interesting dynamics appeared at certain points during the various struggles for recognition and rights. The dichotomy created in being one person with more than one major cause for which you could legitimately fight, with sometimes opposing goals, was but one of them.

Think about it: what do you do when you're a black woman fighting for civil rights, and also fighting for the right to safe, legal abortion, and your husband opposes your right to abortion? Now he's trying to deny you one of your rights, while you're both fighting for other rights, another cause? Wow, this could be kind of intense, don't you think?

It's simply wrong, however, to state that women didn't find themselves torn, by their own consciences, and by the attitudes and demands of their peers, during these struggles. They did, and then they and others wrote about it. I found some of these essays, ethnographies, and personal accounts quite fascinating.

 

[citizenzen]

Good thing no one was making that argument.

No one?

While women have certainly not had equal treatment in western society for much of our history, their treatment has been nothing like as bad as other suppressed groups such as blacks, non-Christians, lepers, and so forth.

To equate the oppression of women with the oppression of these groups is to belittle the deprivations that were heaped on these more unfortunate groups.

Perhaps most crucially, these other groups were oppressed because they were disliked by society, and worse than the legal disenfranchisement they suffered was the every-day abuse, distrust and rejection by the rest of society.

Women have never been broadly disliked, and have never suffered that same methodical and unrelenting rejection by society.

 

[gumboot]

For those with short memories, I was merely responding to HansMustermann's post where they excused Radical Feminists by arguing that when oppression ends it leads to a backlash (French Revolution style).

But those backlashes are proportional to the severity of the oppression, and by the 1960s oppression of women really wasn't anywhere severe enough to even conceivably justify the Radical Feminist backlash agenda.

I think that argument's without substance.

My view is so far removed from arguing that the oppression of women over history "doesn't count" that the suggestion isn't even worth responding to.

I'd also like to point out that I've made my position re the OP clear, and to reject a group because of fringe radicals who claim association with that group, or to reject a group because they fail to criticise said radicals is nonsensical. "Normal" feminists seek equality of the sexes and that's a good thing, not something that should be hated.

 

[gumboot]

Ah, but it did matter to women, and to both the men and women around them.

How much flak did a black woman take for choosing women's rights over civil rights? Was she ever told to pick one, because her efforts were perceived as "more important to the cause" by one faction or the other?

Did anyone ever say to her, "We'll worry about your equal pay for equal work as soon as we've ended racial segregation and job discrimination, attained an equal voice in politics, can attend the schools we want...if we don't have these things, what do the things you want even matter?"

Or maybe she heard, "Oh, it's all well and good to fight for 'your' civil rights, but equal pay is a civil right, too! We need legal abortions, birth control, the right to do 'man's work' in the shipyards or on the docks or construction sites. What good's it going to do your daughter to attend the school of her choice if all she can look forward to is getting coffee for her boss between answering the phones and taking dictation?"

It did matter, and there's reading material out there that covers this issue, if you care to go find any.

During the time when the sort of oppression I was talking about was occuring, no one would have said anything to her because no one would have talked to her at all. I'm not talking about 1960s USA here...

 

[gumboot]

Again, you're missing the point. Comparing oppression of women to other groups to say women didn't have it so bad is a red herring - it ignores that women in all those groups suffered discrimination vis a vis their own male counterparts on top of the discrimination piled on by the rest of society. Being beaten with a stick by a police officer does not "dwarf" being beaten with a stick by your husband.

At the risk of having to repeat myself yet again the discrimination minority groups suffered at the hands of the majority was substantially worse than anything women ever suffered. I'm not talking being beaten for talking back. I'm talking being killed in horrific and agonising ways on site by anyone who saw you, being sold into slavery, having your children snatched from your grasp, being burned alive, being driven from ancestral lands, cast out of society and forced to scratch out survival in a desolate wilderness.

The only thing that comes close is the medieval backlash against women after the Crisis of the 14th Century but even that was sporadic and limited in scope compared to the systematic persecution that minority groups suffered.

 

[citizenzen]

At the risk of having to repeat myself yet again the discrimination minority groups suffered at the hands of the majority was substantially worse than anything women ever suffered.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your point. Both women and minority groups have dealt with oppression for centuries. Acknowledging the suffering of one of those groups doesn't "belittle" the other. Why can't you simply say say that both groups have experienced oppression without trying to compare exactly who has experienced the most? Why do you think that is significant?

And if you do think it is significant to compare the amount of oppression any group has experienced, does that disqualify white men from voicing any complaints about reverse discrimination or abuse? Because that would certainly "belittle" the suffering of both women and minorities.

How thoughtless of white men.

 

[gumboot]

I'm afraid I still don't understand your point.

My point, basically, is that you can't compare radical feminists wanting to exterminate men with slaves breaking free and killing their masters.

Both women and minority groups have dealt with oppression for centuries. Acknowledging the suffering of one of those groups doesn't "belittle" the other.

I didn't say it did.

Why can't you simply say say that both groups have experienced oppression without trying to compare exactly who has experienced the most?

I was responding to someone else's attempt to compare them. Not my fault it was brought up.

Why do you think that is significant?

In the context of this discussion I don't think it's significant at all.

And if you do think it is significant to compare the amount of oppression any group has experienced, does that disqualify white men from voicing any complaints about reverse discrimination or abuse?

You're attributing to me an argument I have never expressed.

Because that would certainly "belittle" the suffering of both women and minorities.

How thoughtless of white men.

I really wish people would actually read threads instead of just trawling for posts they don't like and then responding to their own speculation about what is being discussed.

The discussion about the historic treatment of women was raised because a poster excused the views of Radical Feminists with the following statement:

Let's put it like this, if group X had oppressed group Y for millennia, when it blows over, you expect some overreation and some wanting to see heads on pikes. You don't expect the slaves to go "can I have another 10 ft of chain on my leash please? I promise I'll still be good. Or maybe only 5 ft if 10 ft is too much to ask? kthxbye." You expect to see a wall of pitchforks and torches and some wanting to see blood.

The point of exploring the historic treatment of women since then has been to assess whether that comparison is valid. It has not been to dismiss the inequality experienced by women through history as insignificant.

 

[citizenzen]

I really wish people would actually read threads instead of just trawling for posts they don't like and then responding to their own speculation about what is being discussed.

I'd feel more sympathy for your plight, but the trawling you've experienced pales in comparison to the trawling experienced by others and your complaining about it belittles the deprivations that were heaped on those more unfortunate.

 

[varwoche]

In Santa Cruz, CA in the early 70's, feminists protested against male sea lions because sea lions are "rapists". No joke.

However unlike Naive1000, I was/am able to distinguish these frothing nutcases from the vast majority of feminists who are not frothing nutcases.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Nobody has established what the majority of self-identified "feminists" think or feel with empirical studies. We have apologists for the "radical" feminists saying that those do not represent "feminism" in general and suggesting with anecdotes or their mere opinion that run-of-the-mill feminists are not as bad or even favor (duh) equal treatment.

In my equally anecdotal experience their definition of "equality" is preferential treatment in law. It is also the feminists, not men, who denigrated motherhood and home management, as if a woman had less value when she acted as wife and mother.

 

[citizenzen]

In my equally anecdotal experience their definition of "equality" is preferential treatment in law.

Unlike men who've given each other preferential treatment in law for so long that they completely take it for granted. If we lived like sea lions, I could **** your mate, kill your pups and beat the **** out of you simply because I was bigger and stronger than you. Humans, however, have through laws given preferential treatment to weak males, giving them the ability to hold territory, procure mates and bear young where nature would not have allowed this to happen.

Once one segment of the population receives preferential and unnatural treatment under the law, others are bound to seek the same privilege. I tell you what ... I'll agree with your desire to put women in their place, just as soon as you're willing to base your ability to hold territory, mate and bear young on your physical prowess and ability to defeat an endless line of male challengers.

I'm sure you'll agree ... seeing how you hate to see anyone receive preferential treatment.

 

[gumboot]

Unlike men who've given each other preferential treatment in law for so long that they completely take it for granted. If we lived like sea lions, I could **** your mate, kill your pups and beat the **** out of you simply because I was bigger and stronger than you. Humans, however, have through laws given preferential treatment to weak males, giving them the ability to hold territory, procure mates and bear young where nature would not have allowed this to happen.

Once one segment of the population receives preferential and unnatural treatment under the law, others are bound to seek the same privilege. I tell you what ... I'll agree with your desire to put women in their place, just as soon as you're willing to base your ability to hold territory, mate and bear young on your physical prowess and ability to defeat an endless line of male challengers.

I'm sure you'll agree ... seeing how you hate to see anyone receive preferential treatment.

What constitutes "strong" in sealion society is not the same as what constitutes "strong" in human society. For all but the last ~100 years of western history, power has primarily resided with the strong. Let's not forget that men and women got universal suffrage about the same time.

 

[epepke]

I'd feel more sympathy for your plight, but the trawling you've experienced pales in comparison to the trawling experienced by others and your complaining about it belittles the deprivations that were heaped on those more unfortunate.

LOL

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

..snipping strawman drivel...

Hilarious!

Captain strawman swashbuckling his way through a huge pile of his own straw and bovine excrement.

Don't get too much on your face now, champ!

 

[citizenzen]

Hilarious!

I agree, it is hilarious.

Here you are ... a man who can barely defend himself in a forum, who has definitely benefitted from from the very unnatural construct that all men are created equal. Yet when it comes to women seeking that same equality says, "In my equally anecdotal experience their definition of "equality" is preferential treatment in law."

You should be quite thank for preferential treatment in law, because without it people like you would never enjoy the life that you so blithely take for granted. What a shame it is that you lack the self-awareness to understand that, or possess the generosity of spirit to extend that largess to women.