Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

[epepke]

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.

Also, at least back during the 1980s, mainstream feminists widely ran interference for radical feminists. Fortunately, that is no longer true (or at least as true), though it can seem that way on some university campuses. It used to be nearly universal.

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?

If your experience was similar to mine, the trump card involved saying that males had no say in what feminism was to be.

 

[tyr_13]

Also, at least back during the 1980s, mainstream feminists widely ran interference for radical feminists. Fortunately, that is no longer true (or at least as true), though it can seem that way on some university campuses. It used to be nearly universal.



If your experience was similar to mine, the trump card involved saying that males had no say in what feminism was to be.

I hated being told that. I knew from experience that pointing out how sexist that statement was would be met with, 'women can't be sexist'. It was a completely wall-banging and unproductive line of reasoning in most any conversation on the topic. The only utility in it was to identify someone who was simply not going to listen to your arguments.

Keep in mind that these radical feminists aren't all idiots either. I actually had more than one friend at one time who believed that women couldn't be sexist. My favorite response with the friendly ones was to say something along the lines of, "Are you saying men can do something that women can't?"

 

[epepke]

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.

You're using logic. There's nothing wrong with that, but some are commenting on the logic used by others, specifically, radical feminists.

There was a theory, popular in the 1980s, that oppression of women by men as social classes was both infinitely worse than and at the basis of all other forms of oppression. Neglecting for a moment the silliness of the idea that social class did not trump sexual oppression (I'm sure the young men sent to die in the Crimean war by Queen Victoria found this obvious), this also did involve downplaying other forms of oppression.

As a small example, the oppression of gay men was thought to be oppression of women. That is, gay men were thought to be sort-of women. This makes a twisted kind of sense in terms of feminist theory, but it seems to me a bit hard on gay men who are beaten or killed, many of whom probably don't think that being gay makes them women. The idea was sufficiently mainstream that Andrew Hodges included it, uncritically, into his otherwise excellent Alan Turing: The Enigma.

I suppose that it's natural and expected for a group with special interests to concentrate on those special interest. It is not necessarily true that pointing out someone's oppression minimizes someone else's, but that is in fact what a great deal of feminist thought and literature actually does. Even mainstream, liberal feminist literature paints a picture that largely excludes underclass men. Men are mostly rich and powerful and have great careers. If they aren't (or even if they are) they seldom feature as other than abusers of women. Stories of men working at jobs they hate and which will shorten their lives are few and far between.

Even when there is talk about equality, it's equal access to goodies and yummies. Again, this is perfectly natural. Everyone wants the good stuff and wants the manure to be shoveled on someone else. Still, equality isn't a la carte, and it is valid to point that out.

 

[HansMustermann]

Look, again: whatever theory or philosophy or pet peeve you might choose in the whole of time and space, there will be people who:

A) have some extremist version of it. I think it even follows naturally from expecting a gauss curve of human reactions and attitudes. Whatever the apropriate and balanced reaction or course of action you may imagine, there WILL be people falling to the left and right of that perfect centre, some even quite far off it.

In the women's case, yes, see some who think they should be goddesses, but equally on the other side you see some who actively opposed the right to vote for women and the like. And if you think I'm talking about the 19'th century, you can look as recent as Ann Coulter blaming a bunch of evils on letting women vote.

It's that gauss curve. People aren't clones of each other, so some variance is to be expected. It doesn't mean one can't pick the most extreme example and basically go, "see, THAT is what (second wave) feminism is all like."

B) think that it's far worse or more justified than anyone else's problem or pet peeve.

In a sense, it's even the default modus operandi of humans. You can see the same "my problems are worse than everyone else's problems" mentality even in stuff like the Noble Savage BS, or idealizing the crap-hole that was the Renaissance, or seeing everyone else's problems as having trivial hare-brained solutions (those barbarians could just solve everything by stopping fighting, for example), or conversely stuff like the White Man's Burden. "Oh, woe is us that we have to whip them to work for us, they're so happy that they don't have OUR problem there." That's the kind myopia that permeated all known history: everyone else's problems are more trivial than mine.

Or as Mel Brooks put it, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."

And frankly while some feminists do have such a myopic view, guess what? So does everyone else. A lot of opposition to it is based on equally myopic views where surely not only it's not a problem if you're a second class citizen, but you even don't know how privileged you are to be one.

C) think that any other issue is involving their pet peeve, or at least is a convenient soap-box for THEIR pet peeve.

Heck, just look at proponents of economic theories on both sides of the spectrum, and have a shot of whiskey for any seemingly unrelated problem that they reduce to a trivial case of their economic view. Collapse of Rome after centuries of plagues and invasions? Surely it's about class struggle and means versus relations of production. Stalin executing his political enemies? Verily it's because of not enough unrestricted private enterprise. Etc.

D) are fanboys (of both genders) and just HAVE to bark harder than everyone else, just to show that they're worthy members of the group.

E) are trolling for attention by taking it up to eleven.

Etc.

Life can be an exercise in dadaism like that, and it usually is.

And sure enough, feminism too has its fair share of all of those. But the key word is "too". So does everyone else.

One can't hold feminism to an unreasonable standard where they have to have no outliers whatsoever, when the rest of the species doesn't work that way either.

 

[citizenzen]

And sure enough, feminism too has its fair share of all of those. But the key word is "too". So does everyone else.

One can't hold feminism to an unreasonable standard where they have to have no outliers whatsoever, when the rest of the species doesn't work that way either.

HansMustermann, you have summed it up the perfectly.

 

[tyr_13]

And sure enough, feminism too has its fair share of all of those. But the key word is "too". So does everyone else.

One can't hold feminism to an unreasonable standard where they have to have no outliers whatsoever, when the rest of the species doesn't work that way either.

True, but it doesn't seem to be what anyone is doing.

 

[citizenzen]

True, but it doesn't seem to be what anyone is doing.

It's what the OP is based on.

 

[epepke]

It's that gauss curve.

The problem was that, as I and others keep pointing out, during the 1980s what you are calling extremist was very mainstream, smack dab in the hump of that normal curve, not on the tails. Now, the 1980s are over, and that's a good thing in many ways. Yet there was no magic reset button as in Star Trek, where no matter how much damage was done, it was all better by the next episode.

Now, you may not have come of age during that time, or not in the wrong place, of you may choose to deny it, but it happened Some of us remembered that time, and it really sucked. I think it set back any genuine vision of sexual equality back a decade or two.

Furthermore, when I got interested in the history of feminism (the precipitating event was my seeing a production of Moliere's Don Juan for which the women's studies department included a rather nasty "feminist countertext" via a chorus), I found that this conflict has troubled and scuttled every wave of feminism going back to the invention of the printing press.

Simply put, women and men who are interested in empowerment of women and equality of the sexes are eventually countered by women who find it more politic to enfeeble women in an attempt to manipulate men. It works, but only in the short term, and only because it takes advantage of traditional sexism. Eventually the wave of feminism collapses under its own conflicts, and that wave is over.

As a result, women really haven't experienced what America's waves of immigrants have experienced. Instead, it's two steps forward and one step back. Sometimes it's three steps back.

The collapse of "second-wave" feminism, by my reckoning, was pretty much complete by 1997. Now we have a "third wave." Maybe, just maybe, this one will work, which is why pages ago I advocated not hating modern feminists. But I do not think it is productive simply to get into a state of denial over the dangers. Hell, people can't even count the waves. There have been way more than three, but the earlier waves are forgotten.

Now, you don't have to care about this if you don't want to, but I do. I think that if I were a misogynist, which I'm not, I would be saying many of the things that you are saying. They're just extremists. Pay them no mind. I'd be confident, based on my reading of history, that women would eventually destroy this wave as well. Since I'm not a misogynist, and I want liberal feminism to succeed (preferably before I die), I don't.

 

[tyr_13]

It's what the OP is based on.

I went back and reread the OP just to make sure, and it sure appears that the justification for hating feminists isn't simply that they have radicals, but on the misconception that feminists tolerate and never speak out against the radicals.

This line of reasoning falls apart in that feminists do not today tend to tolerate radicals. They do speak out, just not with as much publicity as the radicals speak out, as mainstream feminism has become pretty mainstream overall. This isn't a problem unique to feminism.

 

[Naive1000]

All right, I guess I've skipped out on this thread long enough. To tell the truth, I was trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate. I do not hate feminism nor feminist groups, but I did at one point in my life. I was trying to ignite argument about the article I posted on in contrast to actual feminism. Obviously, that did not happen. What I really wanted to do was work on my rhetorical skills (they're a bit rusty), again not what happened. As they say, the best laid schemes of mice and men... I thought that a little prodding might get two sides of this argument going, but it would seem that the JREF forum has many vocal feminists and few, if any, who wish to argue against them.

A few comments directed at me really bothered me, and I realized at that point that I had made a mistake. This was not a subject that I could be detach from. I thought that my past experiences were, just that, in the past. But, they weren't, so bringing them up was my mistake. Let me add that when I went to college I probably would have considered myself a feminist, though I had never heard the word before that point. Equality was a given in my household. Both my sister and I were expected to follow the same rules, were both expected to go to college, and our grades were expected to be high. No one ever mentioned the possibility that their was a job a woman couldn't do just as well as a man. In fact, I was the one who convinced my sister to try for medical school and helped her study during all those late nights for her MCAT. Feminism was not a concept I had come across because in my family equality of the sexes was just a given. I can't count the number of female bosses and employers I've had, not because there were so many, but because I never really cared. One boss was like any other. In my mind, individuals are individuals -- gender just wasn't all that important to me.

It took me a little time, after college, to get back to my starting point. At that point, I would say I was sexist, but it didn't last long. It's just not who I am (plus it goes against my code). Even though my original post and a few after words were a bit hostile there were still some who were willing to be nice, put forth good information and discussions, and I just wanted to thank them: bit_pattern, ixolite, bookitty, MatildaGage, slingblade, gumboot, mike3, tyr_13, and epepke. I'm sure I've probably forgotten a few but to all those who were civil and willing to have a meaningful discussion, thanks. I won't go into my past but for anyone that is truly interested and not a troll just PM me I'm always willing to talk.

 

[bookitty]

All right, I guess I've skipped out on this thread long enough. To tell the truth, I was trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate. I do not hate feminism nor feminist groups, but I did at one point in my life. I was trying to ignite argument about the article I posted on in contrast to actual feminism. Obviously, that did not happen. What I really wanted to do was work on my rhetorical skills (they're a bit rusty), again not what happened. As they say, the best laid schemes of mice and men... I thought that a little prodding might get two sides of this argument going, but it would seem that the JREF forum has many vocal feminists and few, if any, who wish to argue against them.

A few comments directed at me really bothered me, and I realized at that point that I had made a mistake. This was not a subject that I could be detach from. I thought that my past experiences were, just that, in the past. But, they weren't, so bringing them up was my mistake. Let me add that when I went to college I probably would have considered myself a feminist, though I had never heard the word before that point. Equality was a given in my household. Both my sister and I were expected to follow the same rules, were both expected to go to college, and our grades were expected to be high. No one ever mentioned the possibility that their was a job a woman couldn't do just as well as a man. In fact, I was the one who convinced my sister to try for medical school and helped her study during all those late nights for her MCAT. Feminism was not a concept I had come across because in my family equality of the sexes was just a given. I can't count the number of female bosses and employers I've had, not because there were so many, but because I never really cared. One boss was like any other. In my mind, individuals are individuals -- gender just wasn't all that important to me.

It took me a little time, after college, to get back to my starting point. At that point, I would say I was sexist, but it didn't last long. It's just not who I am (plus it goes against my code). Even though my original post and a few after words were a bit hostile there were still some who were willing to be nice, put forth good information and discussions, and I just wanted to thank them: bit_pattern, ixolite, bookitty, MatildaGage, slingblade, gumboot, mike3, tyr_13, and epepke. I'm sure I've probably forgotten a few but to all those who were civil and willing to have a meaningful discussion, thanks. I won't go into my past but for anyone that is truly interested and not a troll just PM me I'm always willing to talk.

Thanks. It's good to know that my small contribution is recognized.

Humans are very weird critters and we are never so strange as when navigating gender equality. There's just so much outside stuff mixed in. I know that feminism is one of the topics that I am identified with on this forum and that sometime I come across as someone who wears combat boots to bed. But I still do all the cooking at home for a man who does all the computer and car repairs. Not that it makes either of us "traitors" to the ideals, just that gender roles go deeper than discussion.

 

[Verklagekasper]

So tell me, why should I support feminism at all, and where are the feminists willing to stand against radicals like these?

Ask a woman, and chances are that she opposes feminism. Just search for (video)blogs on feminism, and you will find what radical feminists hate even more than men: women who don't subscribe to their views. As for support, no, you should not support feminism. Never. Unless you want to become a feminized pussy that no woman has respect for.
Don't get me wrong, equal rights is a good thing, and feminism used to have its justification, and it's still justified in countries where women are oppressed. But in western countries it has turned into something else. It's no longer about equal rights but about forcing a certain life style on women, about making men obsolete, making women lose respect for them, and making men lose self esteem.
Yes, you may "impress" feminists by showing positive interest in their views. They will like you for it like they would like a puppy that they just taught a trick.

 

[bookitty]

Ask a woman, and chances are that she opposes feminism. Just search for (video)blogs on feminism, and you will find what radical feminists hate even more than men: women who don't subscribe to their views. As for support, no, you should not support feminism. Never. Unless you want to become a feminized pussy that no woman has respect for.
Don't get me wrong, equal rights is a good thing, and feminism used to have its justification, and it's still justified in countries where women are oppressed. But in western countries it has turned into something else. It's no longer about equal rights but about forcing a certain life style on women, about making men obsolete, making women lose respect for them, and making men lose self esteem.
Yes, you may "impress" feminists by showing positive interest in their views. They will like you for it like they would like a puppy that they just taught a trick.

I am one of the few self-identified female feminists on this board. If you ever catch me turning someone into a "feminized pussy" please let me know. It would be a pretty sucky super-power in the grand scheme of things, but it could come in handy. Like if I got mugged. "Give me your purse, bitch!" VAGAZAM! "You mean 'let me hold your purse while you go dancing?' don't you?" "Why yes, I guess I do. And may I say that you look particularly capable this evening. Oh my gawd! What's happening to me???!!! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

 

[Naive1000]

Funny, I thought this thread had passed into the nether-lands.

@bookitty: That was a good response, I laughed.

@Verklagekasper: You seem to have a problem with feminism, feel free to speak your mind on why, I'd like to hear it.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You speak for your culture/language and I speak for mine, okey?

Nice strawman, since I specifically targeted my statement to this country (mine), where collective punishment is law of the land. So you keep your little strawman to yourself, OK?

Naiive1000 -

All right, I guess I've skipped out on this thread long enough. To tell the truth, I was trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate. I do not hate feminism nor feminist groups, but I did at one point in my life. I was trying to ignite argument about the article I posted on in contrast to actual feminism. Obviously, that did not happen. What I really wanted to do was work on my rhetorical skills (they're a bit rusty), again not what happened. As they say, the best laid schemes of mice and men... I thought that a little prodding might get two sides of this argument going, but it would seem that the JREF forum has many vocal feminists and few,

"I am a manipulative liar and you are my sheeple; my pawns; my playthings... obviously I can't be honest about my intentions with people because, um, well then I would be treating others as my equals..."

 

[Naive1000]

..[snip].. "I am a manipulative liar and you are my sheeple; my pawns; my playthings... obviously I can't be honest about my intentions with people because, um, well then I would be treating others as my equals..."

Geez, harsh much? There is no rule against playing Devil's Advocate and I've seen many threads where people have. As I said this was my opinion at one time and I thought it would make an interesting conversation. You of course had no obligation to post in the thread if you didn't want to, so bite me . This is a board for discussion, debate, and arguing. So, attack all you want, it just means you have no valid arguments and little in the way of discussion. But, thanks for playing .

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Geez, harsh much? There is no rule against playing Devil's Advocate and I've seen many threads where people have.

Interesting triple play. In reverse order: two or more wrongs make a right. Minimizing one's behavior and magnifying the oppenent's.

Since you already admitted to being manipulative I have decided to view your posts within that framework. So carry on. It's already interesting

As I said this was my opinion at one time and I thought it would make an interesting conversation.

After establishing that you don't tell the truth, in order to manipulate people's responses, why should we believe this?

You of course had no obligation to post in the thread if you didn't want to, so bite me .

Excellent! Blame the victim: "It is your fault you trusted me. You should have assumed I was a liar..."

Capped off with a personal insult. Pretty typical in manipulators: try to incite your target. But I am having fun with this.

This is a board for discussion, debate, and arguing. So, attack all you want, it just means you have no valid arguments and little in the way of discussion. But, thanks for playing .

This is incoherent. Maybe you could disentangle it for me. You directy admitted to stating positions you do not hold in order to manipulate people's responses. It isn't a big deal to me, but it is rather trivially true that you lied and now you've got your panties in a wad for me calling it what it is.

Why so bent out of shape?

 

[Naive1000]

Interesting triple play. In reverse order: two or more wrongs make a right. Minimizing one's behavior and magnifying the oppenent's.

Since you already admitted to being manipulative I have decided to view your posts within that framework. So carry on. It's already interesting

I disagree with the premise that the action is wrong. In debate it is quite common to take a contradictory position and to represent it as your own for the purpose of exploring all sides of an argument. If a person admitted they were being a devil's advocate it's unlikely that one would take the argument seriously. So, I do not feel as if I did anything wrong, as I would assume others playing devil's advocate feel the same. And, I too enjoy a good argument .

After establishing that you don't tell the truth, in order to manipulate people's responses, why should we believe this?

Well I can only say its true and you get to decide, that's all up to you. I'm not sure what evidence you would find credible to prove a personal opinion at one time. If you have a clue on this feel free to fill me in.

Excellent! Blame the victim: "It is your fault you trusted me. You should have assumed I was a liar..."

Capped off with a personal insult. Pretty typical in manipulators: try to incite your target. But I am having fun with this.

Well it is true as a skeptic one should take most things with a grain of salt . Though, I do wonder how bite me is an insult it's more of a come back to the liar insult. Or, I should say perceived insult. I guess I did lie and represent this as my current opinion when it isn't (it's been a while so I forgot). Just to add, if you felt I insulted you, I do apologize.

This is incoherent. Maybe you could disentangle it for me. You directy admitted to stating positions you do not hold in order to manipulate people's responses. It isn't a big deal to me, but it is rather trivially true that you lied and now you've got your panties in a wad for me calling it what it is.

Why so bent out of shape?

Not bent out of shape ... though slightly out of shape, I am forty after all . I guess it was a bit incoherent. I had to go and rushed my response a bit. Didn't come out as I wanted it to.

Basically, I was trying to say that debating is all about manipulation. The point of it is to manipulate the opinion of others in a way that makes them receptive to your argument. Debate, arguing, and any type of discussion is meant to move peoples' opinions in the direction you wish. Skeptics are manipulators. It's what we do.

To keep this on topic. Here are some things about feminism.

Here is some anti-feminism woo:

Sexism?

Are men emasculated?

Reaction to women abusing men?

Misandry:

Institutional feminism and misandry:

 

[Naive1000]

Feminism - isn't the word itself sexist? If I claimed to be a masculinist, and told all the men and women who believe in equal rights that they have to be one to truly stand for equal rights; wouldn't people think I was sexist? If so, why is feminist and feminism allowed to stand. Should we all really be egalitarians?

 

[bruto]

Feminism - isn't the word itself sexist? If I claimed to be a masculinist, and told all the men and women who believe in equal rights that they have to be one to truly stand for equal rights; wouldn't people think I was sexist? If so, why is feminist and feminism allowed to stand. Should we all really be egalitarians?

I think the simple answer here is that if you could make a case that men are discriminated against in the matter of rights, employment, legal protection and so forth, then you could make a case for masculinism even if the discrimination were debatable. Feminism, at least in its non-radical form, has egalitarianism as its goal, but if it's women's rights that are coming up short, then it's women's rights that need to be addressed. You present a kind of double bind if you label as sexism any effort that is focused on the problem at hand rather than at the ideal. So it's sexism to push for women's rights, unless you append "and men's too," and presumably it was racism to campaign against lynching and miscegenation laws and segregation unless you say, "oh, and don't lynch white guys either."

When gay activists pushed for the right to marry, they did not have to push for the right of straight people to marry too. I don't think that was "gayism" on their part. Because guess what, we already could! Advocacy is wasted lip service to those who do not need it.

Back in Kindergarten we got that "do it for everyone or no-one" stuff, and it's a fine idea at a certain level, but it's not a very efficient way to address real problems.