Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

[epepke]

So...the ideas still have to be judged on their merits right?

Right. My point is that saying they are feminist ideas is useless. It's like saying American values. WHICH values? Actually, it's worse than useless, as violently opposed ideas, kept under the umbrella of feminism to give the false impression that feminism is One Big Happy, have scuttled every wave in history (of which there have been way more than two or three).

The people in this thread arguing that feminist organizations are working against equality are as correct as those arguing that they are working for equality. The reasons to hate feminists are as valid as the reasons to love feminists. Now, I've argued that one should not hate feminists today, but that's a political argument, not a factual one.

I agree with you that it is possible to evaluate individual ideas, and I would argue in favor of doing this. The very concept of feminism as a thing gets in the way of doing this. I keep saying this over and over, because I think it's important. It has been said, over and over again, even in this thread that feminism is primarily this, and any evidence you see of that is just the fact that there are going to be a few of those people in any large movement. This is not true of feminism.

For every feminist trying to move beyond traditional sexism, there is a feminist trying to enshrine traditional sexism. Depressingly often, they are the same feminist. Nor are the former in the majority, in numbers, popularity, or positions of influence and power, except temporarily and in limited contexts. Currently, they seem to be in the majority, as they were during the 1960s, but from about the middle 70s to the middle 90s, nope. It a delicate balance, and perhaps surprisingly, it always has been, even during times that we think of as different from our own.

This is important for another reason, a meta-reason. The historical pattern of movements that can be called "feminist" today itself can falsify some feminist rhetoric. But that's a bit tricky to explain, and this is already tl;dr.

 

[Naive1000]

After weeks of research and lastly trying to find those quotes for tyr_13, I've been surfing the feminist web. And, I just have to say, I'm done. I give up. Feminism can claim all day it's egalitarian, but after bathing in days of the worst misandry I've ever encountered, I see men have lost. Until we're fully second class citizens, those in the halls of power of feminism will not stop. Men are lazy worthless horrible simple vile violent loser monsters, and we've accepted that. It's now our label, it's who we are.

Well, today feminists can rejoice, because they've conquered this battle, they've slain this monster. I can't take the hate. I can no longer accept the blame for the actions of my forefathers that I had nothing to do with and have never perpetuated. I can no longer act like a white knight and still pretend that its equality. I can no longer act like the double standards are meaningless and have nothing to do with me.

I'll still talk to the few rational feminists I know, but never about feminism again. I know now that if it's hate against men, it's invisible to all the feminists I've tried to talk to about it. Feelings are only valid when a woman expresses them. And, every feminist seems to know what its like to be a man better than men do, while to even attempt to see life from their perspective is the hight of misogyny. Male suffering and death mean nothing. And, as I've been told many times now, male feminists do not really exist. They're a myth, a fairy tail (so good luck to you men trying out there). From CafeMom, where castration was lauded, to The New York Times, asking why men haven't just died off yet, men have been branded the root of all evil. I can find no way to rationally talk or even articulate a thought to them when, because of my maleness, my opinion means less than nothing. Polite words, facts, statistics -- meaningless.

Banned for being "disgustingly male" and having the nerve to politely ask questions. Being told, by being male, anything I say, by its very nature, is misogynistic. Berated that men no longer need or deserve the right of free speech. Videos of boys being abused, laughed at as being well deserved. And, told men should be locked away forever for any crime while women, never really being guilty, should avoid any punishment (because of it's good to society). It has literally made me ill today.

Since I'm not going to go through and post all the excrement I've been subjected to, I'll just post the last thing I read. This is not the straw, but the grain of sand, that broke the camels back, as these are probably the nicest things that I've read today:

* Author and journalist Natalie Angier begins an article in the New York Times by writing, “Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically … why doesn’t he just go away?”

* In a CNN interview with Maureen Dowd about her 2005 book, Are Men Necessary? Dowd says, “Now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know, we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’”

* Lisa Belkin, a blogger for the New York Times wrote, “We are standing at a moment in time when the role of gender is shifting seismically. At this moment an argument can be made for two separate narrative threads — the first is the retreat of men as this becomes a woman’s world.”

* In an article in The Atlantic titled “Are Fathers Necessary?” author Pamela Paul wrote, “The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution.” (Link)

To those feminists saying, "not all feminists are like that", I agree. But, lets be honest, how hard are you really looking at the views of those representing feminism to the world, from their positions of power. Now that I've said my peace, this hermit is crawling back into his hole for awhile. I hope other's will use their skeptic nature to truly look at the current feminist situation. But, a word of warning, don't be surprised when you too are tossed on the trash heap of misogyny if you dare to actually question any of their dogma. The feminism I've seen recently is religion, and thus impervious to critique and fact. Some skeptics can break through, but not I. So, I leave it to the better men/women skeptics out there.

 

[arthwollipot]

I would have thought that the best way would be to actually talk to some women, rather than trawling the internet, which as we know is a bastion of calm rational civility.

 

[epepke]

I would have thought that the best way would be to actually talk to some women, rather than trawling the internet, which as we know is a bastion of calm rational civility.

Doesn't make much of a difference. You can talk to feminists, look at books by feminists, or surf the internet, and you get a similarly mixed picture.

 

[bookitty]

Doesn't make much of a difference. You can talk to feminists, look at books by feminists, or surf the internet, and you get a similarly mixed picture.

That's called "people."

You can go to a large gathering of skeptics and ask them what skepticism means to them. Some will say it means looking for evidence, some will say it means fighting pseudo-science, some will say that it is protecting people from scam artists, some will say that it is promoting science, some believe that one can not be a skeptic without being an atheist, some think that it's perfectly fine to be a skeptical believer. Books and blogs will also give you this confused view. Were I to start trawling blogs written by people associated with skepticism or who self-identify as skeptics I could come up with some pretty strange stuff.

Within the skeptical blogging community, there is occasional discussion (some very heated) about who is/isn't really a skeptic and why. For example, the brouhaha around Hal Bidlack's faith.

Someone who was hostile to the idea of skepticism could easily make the argument that whatever message exists is mixed and unclear. Even hypocritical within its own movement. Skepticism as activism has nowhere near the number of self-identified that feminism does and yet it still can't manage to have a single, unifying voice.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

If you are searching the internet for feminist opinions, much like any political opinion, you're always going to find what you're looking for. And based on this thread's title/opening sentence, it looks like you did just that.

 

[Naive1000]

I would have thought that the best way would be to actually talk to some women, rather than trawling the internet, which as we know is a bastion of calm rational civility.

You know I find it odd that I'm some how trawling the Internet, when I find things that might disagree with your perception of feminism. I was on sites and in discussion with the women who write the books, influence the laws being written, and write the articles about what feminism stands for. How is finding the feminists that are egalitarian more valid than talking to the ones actually influencing the world? Is that not the definition of confirmation bias? And I have talked with women, in real life, most don't want to associate themselves with feminism, because it does seem misandric. So, how is talking with some rational feminists invalidate my conversations with the feminists who are actually pushing and passing the laws? I never claimed all feminists are like that, I said that specifically. But, the ones representing it to world are. It could be that 99% of feminists are egalitarian (and that would make me happy), but if they do nothing about the 1% passing the laws, influencing the laws, writing the books, and representing feminist values to the world what do they matter? And now I shall Godwin my own thread:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[bookitty]

You know I find it odd that I'm some how trawling the Internet, when I find things that might disagree with your perception of feminism. I was on sites and in discussion with the women who write the books, influence the laws being written, and write the articles about what feminism stands for. How is finding the feminists that are egalitarian more valid than talking to the ones actually influencing the world? Is that not the definition of confirmation bias? And I have talked with women, in real life, most don't want to associate themselves with feminism, because it does seem misandric. So, how is talking with some rational feminists invalidate my conversations with the feminists who are actually pushing and passing the laws? I never claimed all feminists are like that, I said that specifically. But, the ones representing it to world are. It could be that 99% of feminists are egalitarian (and that would make me happy), but if they do nothing about the 1% passing the laws, influencing the laws, writing the books, and representing feminist values to the world what do they matter? And now I shall Godwin my own thread:

Do you feel that your life (or even just your standard of living) is threatened feminists?

 

[Naive1000]

Do you feel that your life (or even just your standard of living) is threatened feminists?

No, though I have received some death threats from a few radicals.

 

[epepke]

That's called "people."

Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush.

If you want to say "people," that's fine. But then, therefore, "feminist" is useless as a designator. If it's not practically possible to distinguish a feminist position from another position, and if it is not practically possible to harmonize one feminist position with another on the basis of something, then saying something is a feminist idea is pretty much useless.

You can go to a large gathering of skeptics and ask them what skepticism means to them. Some will say it means looking for evidence, some will say it means fighting pseudo-science, some will say that it is protecting people from scam artists, some will say that it is promoting science, some believe that one can not be a skeptic without being an atheist, some think that it's perfectly fine to be a skeptical believer. Books and blogs will also give you this confused view. Were I to start trawling blogs written by people associated with skepticism or who self-identify as skeptics I could come up with some pretty strange stuff.

And this is a reason that I am reluctant to self-identify as a skeptic. Back in the heady days of Skeptical Inquirer as an advertising-free quarterly, it was fairly clear what it meant to be a scientific skeptic.

Nowadays, it isn't so clear. A friend of mine once said that skepticism has become a purveyor of "cargo cult science," and I cannot really disagree with that criticism.

Someone who was hostile to the idea of skepticism could easily make the argument that whatever message exists is mixed and unclear.

This is where I think we differ. I don't think that being hostile toward skepticism has anything to do with it. In fact, I think that people who love skepticism are better at criticizing it and have more reason to do so. The best thing that those hostile toward skepticism could do would be to sit back and smirk as splits amongst skeptics destroy any value that skepticism has.

If I were hostile to the goal of sexual equality, the most effective thing I could do would be to say "Yay feminism!" There's a strong historical trend of feminists shooting themselves in the foot. It would be much easier and more effective to stand by and cheer while they did it the next time, which history shows they probably will.

It is precisely because I am not hostile to the goal of sexual equality, and am rather very much in favor of it, that I make these criticisms, even to the point of enduring a great deal of guff for doing so.

 

[bookitty]

No, though I have received some death threats from a few radicals.

Yes, so have I. Of course they were a radical anti-abortionist and an MRA.

 

[bookitty]

Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush.

If you want to say "people," that's fine. But then, therefore, "feminist" is useless as a designator. If it's not practically possible to distinguish a feminist position from another position, and if it is not practically possible to harmonize one feminist position with another on the basis of something, then saying something is a feminist idea is pretty much useless.



And this is a reason that I am reluctant to self-identify as a skeptic. Back in the heady days of Skeptical Inquirer as an advertising-free quarterly, it was fairly clear what it meant to be a scientific skeptic.

Nowadays, it isn't so clear. A friend of mine once said that skepticism has become a purveyor of "cargo cult science," and I cannot really disagree with that criticism.



This is where I think we differ. I don't think that being hostile toward skepticism has anything to do with it. In fact, I think that people who love skepticism are better at criticizing it and have more reason to do so. The best thing that those hostile toward skepticism could do would be to sit back and smirk as splits amongst skeptics destroy any value that skepticism has.

If I were hostile to the goal of sexual equality, the most effective thing I could do would be to say "Yay feminism!" There's a strong historical trend of feminists shooting themselves in the foot. It would be much easier and more effective to stand by and cheer while they did it the next time, which history shows they probably will.

It is precisely because I am not hostile to the goal of sexual equality, and am rather very much in favor of it, that I make these criticisms, even to the point of enduring a great deal of guff for doing so.

You are a member of the skeptical community who supported skepticism when it was small and easily contained but refuses to be associated now that it has gotten all messy. That clears up a lot. I've taken a different road with feminism. I accept that it is messy and I try to make it better.

This doesn't mean that I feel my view of feminism is universal or that I should be a feminist poster child. Only that any cause worth dedicating myself to is worth a bit of hassle. Even though I get very frustrated when people say "Well you're just one feminist, this other individual says ____________. Therefore that is the more valid representation."

 

[Naive1000]

Yes, so have I. Of course they were a radical anti-abortionist and an MRA.

As I've said I think MRAs are most of the time misogynistic, I don't advocate for them. And I've also stated I'm all for a womans sanctity. I'm just for justice and equality. I'm egalitarian. And I've received threats for trying to bring awareness about female sexual abusers and the amount of male suicide.

Personally, I'm a depressive with suicidal tendencies, my life means little to nothing to me. To me, this is more of a way to distract myself from those tendencies. My philosophy is kill their argument with facts, not emotion. All my emotions are muted except for the negative ones I direct at myself. So its not like I hate feminism. What I do worry about is the law breaking in my door for false claims, and how that would hurt my family. My family is the only reason I'm still on this rock.

Sorry, I'm not doing good today.

 

[bookitty]

As I've said I think MRAs are most of the time misogynistic, I don't advocate for them. And I've also stated I'm all for a womans sanctity. I'm just for justice and equality. I'm egalitarian. And I've received threats for trying to bring awareness about female sexual abusers and the amount of male suicide.

Personally, I'm a depressive with suicidal tendencies, my life means little to nothing to me. To me, this is more of a way to distract myself from those tendencies. My philosophy is kill their argument with facts, not emotion. All my emotions are muted except for the negative ones I direct at myself. So its not like I hate feminism. What I do worry about is the law breaking in my door for false claims, and how that would hurt my family. My family is the only reason I'm still on this rock.

Sorry, I'm not good today.

If you would like to use facts instead of emotions, I would very much welcome the conversation. So far, you have primarily offered up a string of varying but mostly negative opinions and portrayals from individuals.

Suicide and depression are two very important issues. Treatment and support are unfortunately hampered by antiquated ideas of "toughing it out." It is easy to see how men could be more affected by these social stereotypes. I understand and empathize with wanting to bring awareness to this issues.

I just don't understand conflating men's medical issues with feminism. The only way this is possible is if one starts with a zero-sum premise - more for women means less for men or vice versa. In either case it is counter to the fight for gender equality.

When male sexual offenders are brought up, often times rape apologists & MRA's will bring up female sex offenders as part of a list trying to show that rape is either under-rated or worse, deserved. The existence of female sexual offenders has been so often paired with rape apologetics that it has become a trigger. You are being hit with flack from both parties. The MRA's are making it difficult for you to bring awareness of an important topic and the feminists are assuming that you are gearing up to say something else. This is unfair on both counts. I can only suggest that you raise the topic within its own sphere instead of trying to shoe-horn it into a general rape topic. It is important enough to command a separate conversation.

 

[epepke]

You are a member of the skeptical community who supported skepticism when it was small and easily contained but refuses to be associated now that it has gotten all messy. That clears up a lot. I've taken a different road with feminism. I accept that it is messy and I try to make it better.

This doesn't mean that I feel my view of feminism is universal or that I should be a feminist poster child. Only that any cause worth dedicating myself to is worth a bit of hassle. Even though I get very frustrated when people say "Well you're just one feminist, this other individual says ____________. Therefore that is the more valid representation."

I don't think there's really that much difference. I still work to improve skepticsm. I just don't take the tattoo on my forehead.

I could conceivably work to improve feminism, but I have a penis sticking out of me, and it really isn't something I'm allowed to do.

 

[tyr_13]

Right. My point is that saying they are feminist ideas is useless. It's like saying American values. WHICH values? Actually, it's worse than useless, as violently opposed ideas, kept under the umbrella of feminism to give the false impression that feminism is One Big Happy, have scuttled every wave in history (of which there have been way more than two or three).

The people in this thread arguing that feminist organizations are working against equality are as correct as those arguing that they are working for equality. The reasons to hate feminists are as valid as the reasons to love feminists. Now, I've argued that one should not hate feminists today, but that's a political argument, not a factual one.

I agree with you that it is possible to evaluate individual ideas, and I would argue in favor of doing this. The very concept of feminism as a thing gets in the way of doing this. I keep saying this over and over, because I think it's important. It has been said, over and over again, even in this thread that feminism is primarily this, and any evidence you see of that is just the fact that there are going to be a few of those people in any large movement. This is not true of feminism.

For every feminist trying to move beyond traditional sexism, there is a feminist trying to enshrine traditional sexism. Depressingly often, they are the same feminist. Nor are the former in the majority, in numbers, popularity, or positions of influence and power, except temporarily and in limited contexts. Currently, they seem to be in the majority, as they were during the 1960s, but from about the middle 70s to the middle 90s, nope. It a delicate balance, and perhaps surprisingly, it always has been, even during times that we think of as different from our own.

This is important for another reason, a meta-reason. The historical pattern of movements that can be called "feminist" today itself can falsify some feminist rhetoric. But that's a bit tricky to explain, and this is already tl;dr.

I'm sorry, but, FEMINISM.

Really, you can go around all day finding conflicting arguments from people identifying themselves or their ideas as 'feminism' and yes, it's a problem but what you can't do is claim that therefore feminism and feminist ideas are meaningless. Yes, the terms do get abused, mangled, and outright hijacked. This isn't unique to feminism.

 

[tyr_13]

I can only suggest that you raise the topic within its own sphere instead of trying to shoe-horn it into a general rape topic. It is important enough to command a separate conversation.

Now this I can strong disagree with. Female rapists are part of general rape and thus it would require no 'shoe-horning' to bring it in.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think there's really that much difference. I still work to improve skepticsm. I just don't take the tattoo on my forehead.

I could conceivably work to improve feminism, but I have a penis sticking out of me, and it really isn't something I'm allowed to do.

Don't let someone or even a group keep you from advocating what is right simply because of your sex. Yes, they make it hard, they make it uncomfortable, they make it hurt. However, that's the only way things change. Talking about many of these issues make me physically ill. My hands get cold, my stomach twists and turns, my eyes won't focus but damnit this is important. No one, man or woman, is going to invalidate my input based on my sex if I have anything to say about it.

Of course you don't have to work to improve feminism if you don't want to. Just don't think that having a penis is an automatic disqualifier.

 

[Naive1000]

Suicide and depression are two very important issues. Treatment and support are unfortunately hampered by antiquated ideas of "toughing it out." It is easy to see how men could be more affected by these social stereotypes. I understand and empathize with wanting to bring awareness to this issues.

just don't understand conflating men's medical issues with feminism. The only way this is possible is if one starts with a zero-sum premise - more for women means less for men or vice versa. In either case it is counter to the fight for gender equality.

When male sexual offenders are brought up, often times rape apologists & MRA's will bring up female sex offenders as part of a list trying to show that rape is either under-rated or worse, deserved. The existence of female sexual offenders has been so often paired with rape apologetics that it has become a trigger. You are being hit with flack from both parties. The MRA's are making it difficult for you to bring awareness of an important topic and the feminists are assuming that you are gearing up to say something else. This is unfair on both counts. I can only suggest that you raise the topic within its own sphere instead of trying to shoe-horn it into a general rape topic. It is important enough to command a separate conversation.

I was not the one to conflate the two it was self identified feminists. The discussions were before MRAs existed (when I was more social and not such a hermit). They were also brought up in their own context. Suddenly, though, women would jump in and claim that the problem was worse or more important because of its affect on women and that that should be the focus, and if we were not focusing on the women we were misogynists. We were minimizing the effects on women or trying to minimize rape. How is bring up other victims of rape minimizing rape? Feminists like to use the phrase "what about the menz?", but I've seen so much what about the women it seems hypocritical. I don't want to minimize the effect on women I want all the cases looked at, so who has the problem here?

 

[bookitty]

I was not the one to conflate the two it was self identified feminists. The discussions were before MRAs existed (when I was more social and not such a hermit). They were also brought up in their own context. Suddenly, though, women would jump in and claim that the problem was worse or more important because of its affect on women and that that should be the focus, and if we were not focusing on the women we were misogynists. We were minimizing the effects on women or trying to minimize rape. How is bring up other victims of rape minimizing rape? Feminists like to use the phrase "what about the menz?", but I've seen so much what about the women it seems hypocritical. I don't want to minimize the effect on women I want all the cases looked at, so who has the problem here?

I don't know, who? Here you are talking to a feminist who agrees that both of these issues are serious and deserve consideration. I've offered a few ways to make that happen, there are probably more. Instead of continuing that conversation, you're bringing up a bad experience from years ago.