Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

[whatthebutlersaw]

Note that there is no corresponding term for men, e.g. "Masculinist", other than male chauvinist, and were there one it would have about the same disdain as male chauvinist. In a country where collective punishment is law of the land, with racial and gender preferences, it became acceptable to have militant man-haters pushing their agenda with not even much of a pretense of equality as their objective.

You speak for your culture/language and I speak for mine, okey? Swedish has the term "mansaksman" or "mansrätt" which translates roughly to "men's right/-er" and which isn't any more loaded than "kvinnosakskvinna" or "feminist" (same word as English although we stress the last syllable instead of the first). There are also men's shelters which receive municipal funding just as women's shelters do. I give you that there are far fewer of the men's shelters but the demand on the existing ones is not huge as it is. Generally, some of the men who find their way there have not always been abused but simply have no where to go after being kicked out. It is also up to each municipality how to spend their budget so not every part of the country will have one, but the same goes for women's shelters.

At the moment the area where inequality is perceived to be to the disadvantage of men is mostly concerning custody issues and that is mainly where most of the efforts of the "mansrätts"-movement are spent for now. It should also be pointed out that some of these initiatives are not only directed to men who have been abused in a relationship or who feel they are unfairly treated in regards to custody issues, but also does outreach to men who physically abuse their spouses and who want help stopping on a completely voluntary basis. (You can not be court ordered to this. It's for those who ask for that particular help.)

While there is still a long way to go and while there are pockets of backwoods parts of the country where these groups have a hard time finding a footing, they do exist, they are, to a degree, funded by public money and they are not silenced out of the public arena.

It may be that I have been fortunate to live in areas where both were visible of course but national news outlets regularly feature representatives of these.

Just like with radical feminism, there are fringe groups with odd ideas. I would not judge a desperate father, trying to get visiting rights to a loved child by the agenda of those groups any more than I would judge feminism by Dworkin.

I don't even know if your assertion holds true for the anglophone parts of the world but it does not hold true for the whole world.

As for the OP. Hate who you like. It is not very important that you, in particular, like feminists. You are allowed to feel any way you like, as are others regarding you. Unless you plan to make your point with semtex, I don't care.

 

[tyr_13]

Explain what you mean by the following quote and you may find your answer ...

I can't answer for him, but I'd say it's pointing out that anecdotal experience can lead one to the conclusion that 'feminists' don't want equality because there are people who identify as such who don't want equality. I'd say it's the wrong conclusion but for a while in college, I would have considered it a possibility.

Really, when the only people you know who self-identify as feminist talk about the details of keeping men out of any elected office, such as if it would be faster achieved through educating the public about how much better women are at governance, making it illegal for men to run for office, or removing men's voting rights, it's not a crazy conclusion. It's a problem of the 'squeaky wheel' sort that's difficult to understand if you simply weren't exposed to those types of people or you were able to observe closely enough to figure out that they were not representative of the movement as a whole. It's a mistake, but it's an understandable one.

I'm well aware that the response to this is going to be, 'Well I've never heard of that!' or, 'I've never seen it personally.' That's essentially the same mistake as ignoring the mainstream feminists because all one can see is the feminazis. Great for you if you've never actually been exposed to those people, but they do exist. Chances are good that you actually have been exposed to them, and have met them, but confirmation bias means you didn't connect them to the feminist movement, or ignored them outright. Perhaps you were focused on the acceptable, reasonable parts of their message and missed the unfortunate implications.

You don't have to believe me that such feminists exist who can cause people to come to the wrong conclusions. Lessing agrees with me.

My point is that one doesn't need to be a misogynist asshat to hate feminists, one simply need to be human and fall for all too common and universal pitfalls of perception. One can simply be mistaken, and reacting by spouting about privileged and guilt trips about oppression are simply going to convince a lot of people that they were right in their assessment of feminism. (That and moaning about every female that isn't portrayed in a positive light makes lots of eyes roll, not that I'm accusing anyone here of that.)

 

[rustypouch]

I can't answer for him, but I'd say it's pointing out that anecdotal experience can lead one to the conclusion that 'feminists' don't want equality because there are people who identify as such who don't want equality. I'd say it's the wrong conclusion but for a while in college, I would have considered it a possibility.

Really, when the only people you know who self-identify as feminist talk about the details of keeping men out of any elected office, such as if it would be faster achieved through educating the public about how much better women are at governance, making it illegal for men to run for office, or removing men's voting rights, it's not a crazy conclusion. It's a problem of the 'squeaky wheel' sort that's difficult to understand if you simply weren't exposed to those types of people or you were able to observe closely enough to figure out that they were not representative of the movement as a whole. It's a mistake, but it's an understandable one.

I'm well aware that the response to this is going to be, 'Well I've never heard of that!' or, 'I've never seen it personally.' That's essentially the same mistake as ignoring the mainstream feminists because all one can see is the feminazis. Great for you if you've never actually been exposed to those people, but they do exist. Chances are good that you actually have been exposed to them, and have met them, but confirmation bias means you didn't connect them to the feminist movement, or ignored them outright. Perhaps you were focused on the acceptable, reasonable parts of their message and missed the unfortunate implications.

You don't have to believe me that such feminists exist who can cause people to come to the wrong conclusions. Lessing agrees with me.

My point is that one doesn't need to be a misogynist asshat to hate feminists, one simply need to be human and fall for all too common and universal pitfalls of perception. One can simply be mistaken, and reacting by spouting about privileged and guilt trips about oppression are simply going to convince a lot of people that they were right in their assessment of feminism. (That and moaning about every female that isn't portrayed in a positive light makes lots of eyes roll, not that I'm accusing anyone here of that.)

Yep. Also, when issues are brought up where men are disproportionally affected (university graduation rates, suicides, homelessness, workplace injuries/fatalities, etc.) concerns are brushed aside or rationalized away. Anecdotal, I know, but I can't be the only one who has experienced such things.

 

[citizenzen]

I'm well aware that the response to this is going to be, 'Well I've never heard of that!' or, 'I've never seen it personally.'

I'm not going to suggest that you haven't run into women with radical points of view.

But I wonder why you'd let them define feminism.

 

[gumboot]

I'm not going to suggest that you haven't run into women with radical points of view.

But I wonder why you'd let them define feminism.

If they're the only women you meet who identify as feminists it seems like an understandable (though wrong) conclusion.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm not going to suggest that you haven't run into women with radical points of view.

But I wonder why you'd let them define feminism.

I thought I explained in that post exactly what was going on.

There's a perceptual phenomenon called confirmation bias that is partly at play here, so if you haven't learned about what that is yet, it would help if you did. There are several links I can give you, but wikipedia's one isn't bad. If one is exposed to the idea that feminism is about hating men and only elevating women before other views, then it's easier to discount examples of non-radical feminism and only pay attention to the wackjobs. The reverse is also true. If one identified mainstream feminist ideas as 'equality for all', it's easy to discount any evidence contrary to that idea, even to the point of disbelieving that others could have possibly seen any such evidence. This is further exacerbated for feminism by the radicals loudly and proudly self-identifying constantly as feminists, where the mainstream ones don't even think to mention it. I don't assume that I have to mention that I'm against slavery and rape very often, just like I don't go around saying 'I'm a feminists,' very often. It's a similar problem atheists face. The only people widely known as atheists are some loud abrasive ones who others see as asshats. People don't even realize that many of the nice people they see every day are atheists because there is no particular reason to identify as such. It's similar with the homosexual community and 'flamers' verse less obvious homosexuals. Please note that I'm not saying it's bad to be an outspoken atheist or 'flamer' homosexual the same way I'd say it's bad to be a radical feminist sexist.

Think back to my earlier example of my experiences in college with some feminists. Those fringe feminists were very loud and public, and the more mainstream ones supported my speaking up in private. Now imagine how someone viewing these conflicts from the sidelines would view feminism. On one hand you have the radicals who self-identify as feminists espousing pretty obvious sexism and on the other I'm there challenging it. How those watching supposed to just know that my views were the ones that were most in line with mainstream feminism?

That's how someone can come to a reasonable, if wrong, conclusion about feminism. The desire to label such mistakes as caused by misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw is also very human, and equally wrong.

 

[citizenzen]

That's how someone can come to a reasonable, if wrong, conclusion about feminism. The desire to label such mistakes as caused by misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw is also very human, and equally wrong.

That last point is the only one I'll disagree with. This is a skeptic's forum, and one of its primary points of focus is to call out perceptual biases, idiocy, or other character flaws regardless of the issue.

If you can explain why someone should be immune from skeptical criticism because their perceptual bias revolves around feminism, I'd love to hear it.

It doesn't matter to me if we're talking about dowsing, Bigfoot, politics, feminism, or whatever. If an argument is based on 'woo' in one of its many forms, then there's nothing wrong about pointing that out.

 

[gumboot]

That last point is the only one I'll disagree with. This is a skeptic's forum, and one of its primary points of focus is to call out perceptual biases, idiocy, or other character flaws regardless of the issue.

If you can explain why someone should be immune from skeptical criticism because their perceptual bias revolves around feminism, I'd love to hear it.

It doesn't matter to me if we're talking about dowsing, Bigfoot, politics, feminism, or whatever. If an argument is based on 'woo' in one of its many forms, then there's nothing wrong about pointing that out.

Tyr_13 didn't say it was wrong to point out said mistake. They said it's wrong to assume the cause of the mistaken point of view is due to "misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw".

I'm a firm believer that people who express incorrect views should be given the benefit of the doubt, and you should assume their position is built out of a lack of proper exposure to the facts.

The appropriate response is to initially offer those facts. If the person resolutely ignores the evidence and continues with their position you may begin to entertain alternative explanations.

Sadly, all too often in this forum people are immediately rude, cruel and dismissive towards people who express incorrect views. Let's try remember that the JREF is dedicated to education and you don't educate people by belittling them, you educate them by respectfully demonstrating where their views are wrong.

If, after you've provided the facts, they still don't agree with you, move on.

 

[Multivac]

Sadly, all too often in this forum people are immediately rude, cruel and dismissive towards people who express incorrect views. Let's try remember that the JREF is dedicated to education and you don't educate people by belittling them, you educate them by respectfully demonstrating where their views are wrong.

If, after you've provided the facts, they still don't agree with you, move on.

Very nicely put.

 

[citizenzen]

Tyr_13 didn't say it was wrong to point out said mistake. They said it's wrong to assume the cause of the mistaken point of view is due to "misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw".

You spun that in a very subtle way. But here's what tyr_13 really said ...

The desire to label such mistakes as caused by misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw is also very human, and equally wrong.

Post after post in this forum is all about identifying [labeling] flaws in one's argument, whether it is due to perceptual bias, flaws in logic, deduction, or whatever cognitive brain fart finds its way into posts. Flaws in one's argument should be pointed put.

The leap that one needs to be very careful to make is to assume we know the character of the person posting. These posts are poor at revealing the motivations behind our arguments or the make-up of the person writing them. However, even that can be deduced to a degree if a poster is resistant to applying logic to their thought process.

For instance ... take a person claiming to have ESP because they thought about someone who then called on the phone a second later. If after a discussion where matters like confirmation bias were put forth that person still insisted they had ESP, then people would and do call them out for being idiotic.

In a discussion where someone continues to insist that 1.5 billion Muslims are all terrorists because of the acts of a few violent radicals, they are being bigoted.

It doesn't make that person evil. It just means their argument or thought process is flawed. And again, as a skeptical community, our duty is to point these flaws out. I'm sure both try_13 and gumboot have done the same many times in other threads. I again have to ask, why would you not do the same concerning this issue?

 

[gumboot]

You spun that in a very subtle way. But here's what tyr_13 really said ...

Post after post in this forum is all about identifying [labeling] flaws in one's argument, whether it is due to perceptual bias, flaws in logic, deduction, or whatever cognitive brain fart finds its way into posts. Flaws in one's argument should be pointed put.

The leap that one needs to be very careful to make is to assume we know the character of the person posting. These posts are poor at revealing the motivations behind our arguments or the make-up of the person writing them.

That's exactly what I said. Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or what?

 

[citizenzen]

That's exactly what I said. Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or what?

Is it too difficult for you to say, "it looks like we're in agreement here"?

Go on ... you can say it.

 

[gumboot]

Is it too difficult for you to say, "it looks like we're in agreement here"?

Go on ... you can say it.

I already said we're in agreement. "That's exactly what I said".

I then asked you a question, which you've ignored.

Why did you feel the need to "disagree" (your words) with tyr_13's point, if you actually agree with it?

 

[citizenzen]

Why did you feel the need to "disagree" (your words) with tyr_13's point, if you actually agree with it?

I agreed with most of it. I said I disagreed with the last part.

It seemed to me that there was reluctance to call out idiocy in a forum rife with people calling out idiocy.

So I just had to as why there should be an exception in this case.

 

[tyr_13]

Not every mistake is caused by being an idiot. This case isn't an exception. One can be mistaken without being an idiot.

 

[gumboot]

I agreed with most of it. I said I disagreed with the last part.

It seemed to me that there was reluctance to call out idiocy in a forum rife with people calling out idiocy.

So I just had to as why there should be an exception in this case.

It's actually a breach of the membership agreement to do so. I'd remind you that you said yourself:

"These posts are poor at revealing the motivations behind our arguments or the make-up of the person writing them."

Many people on this thread seem willing to use Naive1000's posts to determine Naive1000's motivations and character make-up, despite how poor said posts are at indicating this.

As I said, the only appropriate response is to demonstrate to the poster where their argument is wrong. If they ignore or reject your points, move on or present additional points to demonstrate why they are wrong.

Resorting to calling the poster stupid or idiotic or any other variance on the theme is not only a breach of your membership agreement but totally unproductive.

If you don't think the poster is willing/capable of registering and accepting your points, why on earth would you keep discussing the matter with them?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And how often do you see a feminist fighting for equal rights for fathers? It seems more common that they take issue with any recognition that all the imballaces do not disadvantage women.

For example it is way more acceptable for women to verbally abuse their male partner in public than the other way around.

 

[citizenzen]

And how often do you see a feminist fighting for equal rights for fathers?

I think you'll find in general that advocacy groups focus on the segment of the population that they are advocating for.

That said, if you search feminism + fatherhood, you'll find no shortage of feminist viewpoints that acknowledge and honor the role of fathers.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you'll find in general that advocacy groups focus on the segment of the population that they are advocating for.

That said, if you search feminism + fatherhood, you'll find no shortage of feminist viewpoints that acknowledge and honor the role of fathers.

And how often is it phrased in terms of more rights and not responsibilities? Shaming deadbeat moms shunning women who do not inform fathers of their child?

And the competitive victimhood nature that occurs sometimes is harmful as well. You rarely see gender neutral appeals to stop domestic abuse while someone interested in equality would frame it that way.

But there frequently seems to be that admitting an advantage undermines the disadvantages women have un our society.

 

[tyr_13]

And how often do you see a feminist fighting for equal rights for fathers? It seems more common that they take issue with any recognition that all the imballaces do not disadvantage women.

For example it is way more acceptable for women to verbally abuse their male partner in public than the other way around.

Actually there are more than a few feminists fighting for equal rights for fathers. Like what appears to be bookitty's view, I believe one of the most productive current avenues of gender equality is making it both socially and economically acceptable for men to utilize many of benefits women currently do with regards to vacation time, new child time, and other time spent with the family. That isn't to say that other avenues don't need work or are invalid, but a great many feminists, most of the quieter type I described earlier, do not actually ignore issues that seemingly benefit women more than men. Verbal and physical abuse of men by women is another avenue that isn't being ignored. In fact Dr. Drew had that issue discussed just the other day.