Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a total lie. This comes from pushing an agenda. What "men" hold power over women? It's just a blanket statement thrown out to justify some agenda. The agenda is that women need society to push more for their rights and equality.

Workplace safety, recognition that nursing is a profession (you can get a doctorate in nursing yet people still believe all we do is follow doctor's orders), and artificially depressed wages were not things I had control over and took the feminist movement to change.

I see for example that most men in society are automatically expected to get a job, pay the bills pay for everything.

And so are women, I give you the negative stereotype of the welfare queen. Does that bring to mind a man who abandoned his family? No, it is a stereotype of a lazy women who wants a free ride. Notice it is men who also devalue the work of a homemaker.

Divorced men are expected to pay maintenance on wives that don't work.

This is a minority situation in modern society. However, if you, as an unpaid homemaker were abandoned after 15 years with 3 teenagers to take care of, do you get unemployment?

Men are expected to pay maintenance on unwanted children because women don't want to have an abortion.

Men have the option of vasectomies and condoms. Since when should demanding a women get an abortion also be their right?

There's a total economic set up in society that creates the hegemony that a man's job is to work.

So because they are expected to work, they often have more money. Then this is turned against them since we live in a capitalistic society. But many men I know have no time for personal development and interests and desires because they are working two jobs trying to pay for everything.

I actually feel a bit sorry for the pressures put on men, mostly because they are completely ignored in society.

No one suggested men don't also benefit from the feminist movement.

 

[truethat]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here's another thing. Try discussing men's issues and they are batted away with a sledgehammer of all the ails of women. Only discussing women's issues matter.

Women have the options of tying their tubes. Why should a woman be able to make a personal choice that says "I don't want to have a baby" and be able to have an abortion because it's her right to choose whether to be a mother. But if she does choose to have the baby and man says "I don't want to be a father, I can't afford it and I'm too young" tough titties baby.

I didn't state that men should have the right to demand women have abortions. I said they should have the right to not take care of a child he doesn't want and can't afford. Double standard all the way. My suggestion in the abortion thread that women should never have sex without a condom was treated like an unrealistic and evil suggestion. Also apparently "poor folks can't afford condoms" and so abstinence was considered ridiculous.

See what you wrote. If I suggested that women who don't want to have children yet go get themselves sterilized, people would go crazy. But you just said that to a man and it's fine and dandy.

Seriously Skeptic Ginger back on ignore you go. Your posts are THISCLOSE to being misandry.

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm all for equality of the sexes, with the recognition that men tend to be better at certain tasks (such as building and fixing things) by dint of physical strength and the processes of enculturation (IE, our dads might have taught us how to change the oil or spackle a hole in the wall), and women tend to be better at certain tasks (like infant nurturing, organizing parties and keeping the social network alive) by dint of instinctual behaviors and the processes of enculturation (IE, their mothers may have taught them to do certain things the guys didn't learn about).

My wife and I strive for an entirely equal partnership, with the acknowledgement that we each have our strengths and weaknesses, which are partly a result of our "gender" and the roles assigned to us by our parents, and society at large, as we were growing up. This gives each of us the majority vote in certain areas. I tend to know more about cars, for example, so my input on when and how to get the car fixed carries more weight than hers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here's another thing. Try discussing men's issues and they are batted away with a sledgehammer of all the ails of women. Only discussing women's issues matter.

Women have the options of tying their tubes. Why should a woman be able to make a personal choice that says "I don't want to have a baby" and be able to have an abortion because it's her right to choose whether to be a mother. But if she does choose to have the baby and man says "I don't want to be a father, I can't afford it and I'm too young" tough titties baby.

I didn't state that men should have the right to demand women have abortions. I said they should have the right to not take care of a child he doesn't want and can't afford. Double standard all the way. My suggestion in the abortion thread that women should never have sex without a condom was treated like an unrealistic and evil suggestion. Also apparently "poor folks can't afford condoms" and so abstinence was considered ridiculous.

See what you wrote. If I suggested that women who don't want to have children yet go get themselves sterilized, people would go crazy. But you just said that to a man and it's fine and dandy.

How many straw men? Let me count the ways......

Seriously Skeptic Ginger back on ignore you go. Your posts are THISCLOSE to being misandry.

Wow, and I thought my comments in post #70 were nom worthy.

 

[bookitty]

The kind of feminism I hate is the kind that tells me that raising my children properly as a stay at home mother and learning to cook very well were ways that I had been oppressed. There seems to be this idea that if I enjoy raising my kids and cooking, I'm a brainwashed idiot.

As a feminist, I support all stay-at-home parents (including fathers) as long as it is their choice and they are not forced into it. A woman who decides that staying home with her children is a rewarding way to live her life is to be applauded. She has been able to choose from many options and found the one which gives her the most satisfaction. That is one of the goal of feminism.

A woman who goes from father to husband at a young age, is denied a higher education and spends her childhood being groomed for the role of wife and mother to the exclusion of all else, is a very different situation.

 

[Weird Science]

And so are women, I give you the negative stereotype of the welfare queen. Does that bring to mind a man who abandoned his family?

No, perhaps because of the word "queen". Then again, "deadbeat dad" hardly brings to mind a woman, either.

 

[Weird Science]

As a feminist, I support all stay-at-home parents (including fathers) as long as it is their choice and they are not forced into it. A woman who decides that staying home with her children is a rewarding way to live her life is to be applauded. She has been able to choose from many options and found the one which gives her the most satisfaction. That is one of the goal of feminism.

A woman who goes from father to husband at a young age, is denied a higher education and spends her childhood being groomed for the role of wife and mother to the exclusion of all else, is a very different situation.

In theory you are correct. In practice, however, I remember the way a fellow student (I went to high school in the USA) was all but ostracized for daring to say in one of those "what do you want to be when you grow up" classes that she wanted to be a homemaker. Everything possible was done to make her feel stupid and wrong for saying that, and to make her change her mind so as to not "waste her life" this way.

 

[truethat]

As a feminist, I support all stay-at-home parents (including fathers) as long as it is their choice and they are not forced into it. A woman who decides that staying home with her children is a rewarding way to live her life is to be applauded. She has been able to choose from many options and found the one which gives her the most satisfaction. That is one of the goal of feminism.

A woman who goes from father to husband at a young age, is denied a higher education and spends her childhood being groomed for the role of wife and mother to the exclusion of all else, is a very different situation.

where does that happen in the US? More of your rare extremes bookitty.

 

[KingMerv00]

King Merv. You want to know why people don't like feminists. Because they did just exactly what you did. You made a statement and didn't back it up at all. This is a skeptics site. We're going to ask you to back up your statements.

If I ever don't support a fact or misrepresent a position of yours, please attribute it to human error not malice. If you don't accept that then at the very least attribute it to a PERSONAL malice. Attributing any mistake I make to "feminism" or "feminists" is an unwarranted generalization. When people debate, they make mistakes whether they be skeptics, feminists, conservative or liberal.

When confronted your response is akin to "Oh come on! You all know it's true!"

Being "employed" doesn't mean "employees" control things. Ok and so who are these "men" that control everything.

No, I don't mean "employees". I mean positions of power. See below.

Government:

While the partisan composition of the Congress is fairly close to that of the electorate, there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men.​

I'm sure I don't need to prove that every president and vice president in history has been a male. Only 4 of the 15 current cabinet members are women. Only 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are women. Here is some more info on women in the practice of law.

Business:

​

Wednesday, pharmaceutical firm Mylan said Heather Bresch will succeed Robert Coury as CEO. Tuesday, IBM tapped Virginia "Ginni" Rometty to succeed Sam Palmisano, making her the first female CEO in the company's 100-year history. Both appointments are effective Jan. 1.
If no women step down before the end of 2011, there will be 18 women running Fortune 500 companies in 2012. Previously, there haven't been more than 16 female CEOs at Fortune 500 firms at the same time.

18 of 500 is...not impressive.

As for liberal Hollywood:

Generally, women are approximately 22% of the membership and at approximately 22% of the working membership also. They do tend to get paid less than male writers on the whole-approximately 80% of what a male writer would get.

Also:
​

So, is this a new era for female film-makers? Unfortunately, the numbers suggest otherwise. In a study published last year, Professor Martha Lauzen of San Diego State University found that only 9% of Hollywood directors in 2008 were women – the same figure she had recorded in 1998. If Bigelow is nominated for the best directing Oscar in March, it will be only the fourth time a woman has been nominated, out of more than 400 director nominations altogether (the other three were Lina Wertmüller in 1976, Jane Campion in 1993, and Sofia Coppola in 2003). No woman has ever won. No wonder, then, that last year Campion entreated ­aspiring female directors to "put on their coats of armour and get going".
Once, the dearth of women directors could be traced to the small numbers entering film school. These days, that's not the case. Lauzen says women are now well represented in US film schools, while Neil Peplow, of the UK training organisation Skillset, says women make up around 34% of directing ­students in Britain. That translates into a large number of female ­graduates making short films, but few moving on to features.

​

​

 

[truethat]

How does the president exert control over women? How do the congress and senate exert control over women?

 

[bookitty]

Actually, I don't fully agree with that. The people with most money and power are mostly male, that is true, but that isn't quite the same. I find it ludicrous to claim that the male janitor who is now shoveling snow outside my window is somehow more powerful than the female shop clerk I bought my lunch from this morning.

If you want to claim that the mostly male group that has a lot of money and power uses that money and power to favor men, go right ahead, but I'd need some evidence and a few examples of what that means in practice.

The US congress and senate. Primarily males with money and power, focused on an agenda that primarily helps and supports other males with money and power.

 

[A'isha]

How does the president exert control over women? How do the congress and senate exert control over women?

By being in charge of the country, maybe?

 

[A'isha]

In theory you are correct. In practice, however, I remember the way a fellow student (I went to high school in the USA) was all but ostracized for daring to say in one of those "what do you want to be when you grow up" classes that she wanted to be a homemaker. Everything possible was done to make her feel stupid and wrong for saying that, and to make her change her mind so as to not "waste her life" this way.

Really? You went to a high school in the US in the late 80's that didn't have, for instance, Home Ec classes?

 

[bookitty]

In theory you are correct. In practice, however, I remember the way a fellow student (I went to high school in the USA) was all but ostracized for daring to say in one of those "what do you want to be when you grow up" classes that she wanted to be a homemaker. Everything possible was done to make her feel stupid and wrong for saying that, and to make her change her mind so as to not "waste her life" this way.

Do you have something a little more compelling than the memory of an incident between teenagers? What year was this? If it was the 1960's, that would have been normal for that culture. If it was the 1980's that would be completely counter to my experience during the same time. (which would negate your anecdote with another.) What was the background of the pro-homemakers? Was this in an urban setting or rural. (Rural areas tend to have higher teenage pregnancy and marriage rates.)

 

[truethat]

By being in charge of the country, maybe?

That's not what was posted. This is what I mean about cultural hegemony. The president and congress are not in "control of the women" if anything they are in control of society. So the sexist assumption is that just because they have a penis they will automatically favor men.

What evidence is this based on.

If someone posted that Obama is black so he obviously controls whitey and is making policy changes designed to oppress whitey, people would slam that statement as bigoted. Remember your example King Merv.

Ironic no? So the premise is that because men in charge are men all men are going to benefit from their "control" and women are going to suffer.

Just because.

Not really looking into any of the policies at all.

 

[bookitty]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here's another thing. Try discussing men's issues and they are batted away with a sledgehammer of all the ails of women. Only discussing women's issues matter.

Women have the options of tying their tubes. Why should a woman be able to make a personal choice that says "I don't want to have a baby" and be able to have an abortion because it's her right to choose whether to be a mother. But if she does choose to have the baby and man says "I don't want to be a father, I can't afford it and I'm too young" tough titties baby.

I didn't state that men should have the right to demand women have abortions. I said they should have the right to not take care of a child he doesn't want and can't afford. Double standard all the way. My suggestion in the abortion thread that women should never have sex without a condom was treated like an unrealistic and evil suggestion. Also apparently "poor folks can't afford condoms" and so abstinence was considered ridiculous.

See what you wrote. If I suggested that women who don't want to have children yet go get themselves sterilized, people would go crazy. But you just said that to a man and it's fine and dandy.

Seriously Skeptic Ginger back on ignore you go. Your posts are THISCLOSE to being misandry.

There are many threads in this section which deal with a father's prenatal rights. This post would be better suited to those.

 

[KingMerv00]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Here's another thing. Try discussing men's issues and they are batted away with a sledgehammer of all the ails of women. Only discussing women's issues matter.

Have I done that? No. Men have problems too. But feminists don't get credit when they acknowledge that.

Women have the options of tying their tubes. Why should a woman be able to make a personal choice that says "I don't want to have a baby" and be able to have an abortion because it's her right to choose whether to be a mother. But if she does choose to have the baby and man says "I don't want to be a father, I can't afford it and I'm too young" tough titties baby.

I didn't state that men should have the right to demand women have abortions. I said they should have the right to not take care of a child he doesn't want and can't afford. Double standard all the way. My suggestion in the abortion thread that women should never have sex without a condom was treated like an unrealistic and evil suggestion. Also apparently "poor folks can't afford condoms" and so abstinence was considered ridiculous.

See what you wrote. If I suggested that women who don't want to have children yet go get themselves sterilized, people would go crazy. But you just said that to a man and it's fine and dandy.

I've discussed my feelings on the issue earlier in the thread.

I am interested in the thread where you were told always using condoms was an "evil suggestion". Given the nature of this forum, it seems to be an exaggeration. By the way, I agree. Everyone should always use condoms when children are not the goal.

I ask because I feel you are suffering from confirmation bias in this regard. You seem to focus heavily on the disagreements but forget common ground.

 

[timhau]

To answer your question, I'll reverse the concept a bit. I said above, men are have a sizable majority in government, business, and in the media.

Top levels of government and business, yeah. I'm not so sure about media, but I'll take your word for it. However, my point is that the top level of goverment, business and media is a really small club. 99.99% of women aren't there, but 99.98% of men aren't there either. What advantages come to the guy who cleared our parking lot of snow from the fact that our Prime Minister is a man, just like the CEO and the President of Nokia are? How does that hurt the woman who sold me a bag lunch?

If women and men were granted equal opportunities at some unspecified point in the past, how do you explain for the male majority in those areas? Do you think women don't WANT to be politicians, billionaires, and writers?

First of all, I don't know how writers got into that bunch. I think there seem to be plenty of women writers. Some of them are enormously successful artistically and financially (J.K. Rowling has probably sold more books than the guy who wrote the Bible).

As for politicians and billionaires, I don't know. I wonder if a top-level success requires (or at least is aided by) an obsessive personality, which I think is more common among males. Maybe it's because male IQs form a lower bell curve than female IQs, leading to more male idiots and more male geniuses; this might be seen to lead to societies where the people at the very top and the people at the very bottom are overwhelmingly male, and that's pretty much what we seem to have (the sex distribution in homeless shelters and prisons is at least as heavily male as the one in corporate boardrooms, but only the latter seems to be an equality issue). Or it could be discrimination, even past discrimination; success usually takes time, so people who have made their billions in business are generally up there in years.

As an aside, one thing that troubles me is the fact that I can't name a single self-made female billionaire. I don't doubt they are there, but I could rattle off Gates, Allen, Buffett, Ellison, Zuckerberg, etc. I have some limited experience with young people who want to start their own businesses, and it seems that most start from the idea of what they'd like to do, while some start from an idea of what might make bucketloads of money. I've known only a few men who belong to that group, but zero women. I'm at a loss to explain why.

What's your answer? Is it all the Old Boys' Network getting new members and keeping women down?

 

[timhau]

The US congress and senate. Primarily males with money and power, focused on an agenda that primarily helps and supports other males with money and power.

And what agenda is that? How does it help men with money and power more than women with money and power?

 

[tyr_13]

There are many threads in this section which deal with a father's prenatal rights. This post would be better suited to those.

When discussing why people have a negative view of feminism, feminists who oppose father's parental rights or dismiss the plight of men when those are the topics would seem to be relevant. I believe the bulk of that post was supposed to be an example of that based on the lines, "Try discussing men's issues and they are batted away with a sledgehammer of all the ails of women. Only discussing women's issues matter."