• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

citizenzen said:
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.
Click to expand...

:) Hate much?

I'll bet there's a long line of men waiting on your favors. ;)
 
citizenzen said:
For those of us who can't read minds, feel free to explain.
Click to expand...

You're being very dismissive to the point of ad-hom to some posters, because they're men. You use what appears to be a stealth insult, 'a man who can barely defend himself in a forum,' that relies on sexist attitudes about how men are supposed to be able to defend themselves. You would have said 'someone' instead of 'a man' if that wasn't the point. You're using the privileged argument not to examine privileged and build equality from there, but to guilt and bash specific men who's life you claim comes having advantages over women, basically saying they couldn't have had nearly as nice a life if they were not male. Or put another way, that they don't deserve any consideration because as men, they couldn't have earned any or as much as women.

In short, please stop using valid feminist concerns and terminology just to attack people who happen to be male. It doesn't help feminism.
 
tyr_13 said:
You're using the privileged argument not to examine privileged and build equality from there, but to guilt and bash specific men who's life you claim comes having advantages over women, basically saying they couldn't have had nearly as nice a life if they were not male. Or put another way, that they don't deserve any consideration because as men, they couldn't have earned any or as much as women.
Click to expand...


I'd say you're close ... but perhaps in need of a little clarification.

Men have lived for a long time under the enlightened view that "all men are created equal" despite the fact that this is a very artificial construct. It is only human law that creates equality. There are a great number of men that because of their physical or mental deficiencies are far from equal ... but the law provides them the privilege to live as if they are.

So when any man claims that women are seeking "preferential treatment in law" it strikes me as odd. It's odd because either that man is unwilling to acknowledge the preferential treatment that many of his male counterparts have enjoyed for centuries, or it is odd because he is unwilling to extend this same privilege to women.

Perhaps he or you could explain that to me. I'd be quite interested to hear your perspective.
 
citizenzen said:
I'd say you're close ... but perhaps in need of a little clarification.

Men have lived for a long time under the enlightened view that "all men are created equal" despite the fact that this is a very artificial construct. It is only human law that creates equality. There are a great number of men that because of their physical or mental deficiencies are far from equal ... but the law provides them the privilege to live as if they are.

So when any man claims that women are seeking "preferential treatment in law" it strikes me as odd. It's odd because either that man is unwilling to acknowledge the preferential treatment that many of his male counterparts have enjoyed for centuries, or it is odd because he is unwilling to extend this same privilege to women.

Perhaps he or you could explain that to me. I'd be quite interested to hear your perspective.
Click to expand...

One could just as easily apply what you've said to legal standards of equality artificially instituted among women... i.e. following your approach, the 'weaker' women disproportionately benefit from the legal protection afforded to them vis-a-vis the 'stronger' women.
Maybe you're a 'weaker' woman and wouldn't be here but for that...etc..etc..:rolleyes:

Therefore, regarding comparative application to the sexes, your argument is null.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
In Santa Cruz, CA in the early 70's, feminists protested against male sea lions because sea lions are "rapists". :D No joke.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe sea lions were raping radical feminists, even in the early 70s.
Mainly because I've never seen a radical feminist anywhere near a beach.
 
citizenzen said:
Could you (or anyone else) try to explain that more clearly?

I'm afraid that I don't understand the point you're trying to put forward.
Click to expand...
The approach you're trying to use to attack men in this thread applies equally to women, and therefore doesn't get you anywhere if trying to score points in the "battle of the sexes".
 
Last edited:
phildonnia said:
What would be the long-term effect of sex-selective abortion anyway? Any bias in the sex ratio could only be maintained by continuing the practice indefinitely. And in the long run, evolution would restore the balance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher's_principle)
Click to expand...


Well the short term effect would be that the human race would become extinct. I suppose a long term effect of that would be an end to global warming?
 
citizenzen said:
I'd say you're close ... but perhaps in need of a little clarification.

Men have lived for a long time under the enlightened view that "all men are created equal" despite the fact that this is a very artificial construct. It is only human law that creates equality. There are a great number of men that because of their physical or mental deficiencies are far from equal ... but the law provides them the privilege to live as if they are.

So when any man claims that women are seeking "preferential treatment in law" it strikes me as odd. It's odd because either that man is unwilling to acknowledge the preferential treatment that many of his male counterparts have enjoyed for centuries, or it is odd because he is unwilling to extend this same privilege to women.

Perhaps he or you could explain that to me. I'd be quite interested to hear your perspective.
Click to expand...

Have I missed something that would explain the highlighted part? I would like to point out that some radical feminists have proposed preferential treatment in law above and beyond what it appears you are talking about, so quoting such views wouldn't jive with your reaction.
 
Captain Obvious said:
The approach you're trying to use to attack men in this thread applies equally to women, and therefore doesn't get you anywhere if trying to score points in the "battle of the sexes".
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me. For one, I'm not trying to attack men ... being one myself. If I'm attacking anything, it's the illogical basis to some opinions put forth in this thread. And I don't claim to profess to know the gender behind either of these opinions ...


gumboot said:
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.
Click to expand...

AlaskaBushPilot said:
In my equally anecdotal experience their [feminists] definition of "equality" is preferential treatment in law.
Click to expand...


These opinions, and not any specific gender are what I'm "attacking". If you'd like to support them, you're more than welcome to. I choose to argue otherwise.

(I should add that it's getting near my bed time. I'm sorry that I won't be able to address any follow-ups until tomorrow.)
 
Last edited:
citizenzen said:
I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me. For one, I'm not trying to attack men ... being one myself. If I'm attacking anything, it's the illogical basis to some opinions put forth in this thread. And I don't claim to profess to know the gender behind either of these opinions ...
Click to expand...
You tried to attack at least one man, using these rather asinine arguments:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that your argument that the law gives preferential treatment to 'weak' males in comparison to 'strong' males, applies equally to females.
The law equalises the rights of 'weak' and 'strong' females too.
So 'weak' females get preferential treatment too.
 
citizenzen said:
I tell you what ... I'll agree with your desire to put women in their place,
Click to expand...

You love strawman arguments obviously, as you have used them against multiple posters. But in retrospect you need to be called to answer for it. So do it. Show us exactly what my "desire to put women in their place" means and where above I said it.

Better still, show us you aren't just a troll and retract.


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.
Click to expand...

I'd do far better on that score than any other: state champion and all-american in wrestling; state finalist in boxing (two different states), and midwest ABF finalist; 2nd degree black belt Tae Kwon Do and national quarterfinalist; 1st degree black belt Judo, state and midwest champion. I'd talk about firearms and hunting but that would take far more space and I realize it was just a personal insult based on whatever delusions you are operating under.

It is pretty funny because I made my living teaching combat sports for many years and hunted & fished as the primary source of my protein for a couple of decades.

But your description is a very inaccurate portrayal for Survival of the Fittest, at least as it pertains to Homo Sapiens. Because it's the brains much more so than brawn that make men fit. The ability to produce wealth is far more important than the ability to destroy. You must not have done very well when the class was covering Darwin's Origin of Species.
 
gumboot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even after reading the clarifications on the next page, I still can't for the life of me figure out WTH does that have to do with anything or what would it change.

E.g., one could equally note that serfs were not as oppressed as slaves in medieval Europe. So? That doesn't mean the former weren't oppressed too, nor that there's any problem with noticing that they WERE oppressed and it DOES explain peasant resentment and occasional uprisings. Just being not as oppressed as another group doesn't mean one loses any claim to being oppressed. Nor do they lose any reason to hate their oppressors.

Same about women, way I see it. Other groups being oppressed too, well, so what? It's not like only one group gets to resent it.

gumboot said:
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.
Click to expand...

No offense, but that's BS, and you should know that better.

A LOT of historical oppression has been more motivated or at least rationalized by paternalistic views, than by outright hatred or even dislike.

Trivial example: you wouldn't find almost anyone in the middle ages saying that they HATE peasants, nor even blanket dislike them as a matter of principle. It was rationalized as a natural division of society and roles, and a reflection of one's abilities and piety, and basically it's all for their (and everyone's) good as long as it stays that way. The justification wasn't based on dislike, but on a paternalistic view where the more able (militarily or otherwise) get to protect and lead those less worthy. The only times peasants were vilified was when they asked for more rights or revolted against their "betters". Then the vitriol came out. But as long as they knew their place and obeyed, everyone liked the peasants a lot.

I notice the exact same pattern with women, really.

Another example is Aristotle, whom I mentioned already. While he did in fact hate all non-greeks, he doesn't actually write that in his rationalization of slavery. What he did write was simply that some people are objectively inferior, are really able to contribute only in certain roles, are naturally ending up in those roles, and need a Real Man to guide them for their own good. Again, what it was packaged like was paternalism, rather than hate or even dislike.

Blacks too, since you mentioned them. As long as they obeyed on the farm and stayed in their assigned role, some people were actually quite fond of blacks. It's only when they started wanting, or worse yet GETTING, rights beyond that, that the hatred really comes out.
 
Last edited:
OP: Over the years, I have found myself drifting from the anti-feminist attitudes I was raised with, to becoming more sympathetic to feminism, to the point where now I guess I would consider myself feminist.

But you wouldn't necessarily know that if you knew me. I don't introduce myself by saying "I'm a feminist." I don't, in the course of a conversation, say "as a feminist, I think ___ about this topic." Labeling myself just doesn't come up very often. For that matter, I don't know who among my family & friends would consider themselves a feminist, as I just don't frequently have conversations where people label themselves. For that matter, I can't say that I've ever met someone who identified herself as a feminist, although I certainly know and have known women who hold feminist views. Maybe because I never spent much time as a full-time student on a traditional college campus?

Could it be that your sample is skewed by the fact that you have encountered a lot of people who feel the need to identify themselves as a feminist? And you are perhaps unaware of how many women you know who don't do so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom