Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know, feminism covers a lot of ground. It's got victories, baggage, top names which can't agree with each other, all sorts contemporary and historical thought. It's a mass of people from hugely divergent backgrounds trying to agree on the best way to make things better from a social standpoint. The society they are working with is resistant to change but still being affected. When it is affected, the dialogue of feminism doesn't always catch up right away.

This^

In other words, it's kind of a mess.

But not this^. Rather feminist movements are attacked like anything else that promotes social change. You demonize the terminology and a few visible people and the sheeple can't help but buy it. (Not saying you are one of the sheeple Bookitty, I don't think you are.)

There are many accomplishments one can see if one looks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Feminism challenged established values. What better way to attract hate.

Bingo.

 

[Whiplash]

I think that the problem most people have with Feminism comes from extremism.

I mean, in general, I think that every level headed and intelligent person agrees that Men and Women are equal and share equal potential for intelligence and ability to compete in almost any field.

But as with most contentious debates that challenge traditional values, some go entirely overboard in the other direction. They over compensate in the other direction. They don't even realize that they are making this mistake, apparently. They are just too angry and committed against the old mentality. They are not rational about it.

And they give the rest of Feminism a bad name.

This is the same in so many other areas.. like religion, where so many Atheists are so completely anti-religion that they can't even give the slightest credence or respect to any aspect of it.. which is patently absurd.. as most religious beliefs are about peace and understand and tolerance.. despite the bad things that are done by idiots in the name of that religion.

What I find most ironic about this is the people who are usually the most irrational in these regards.. the ones that are the most black and white thinking in this regard.. are usually lefties who are otherwise very strongly in favor of believing in shades of gray and no absolutes.

Except when you are challenging their ideals. Then their ideas obviously and completely trump those old traditional values in every possible way. Those old values and beliefs have absolutely NO redeeming value whatsoever, and cannot even be mildly complimented or appreciated.

It's these types of absolutists that give a bad name to all these fields. Whether Feminism, Atheism.. whatever.

 

[Naive1000]

...[snip]... But you would appear to be in the camp taking a couple extremist newsmakers and wrongly stereotyping the bulk of the movement. It's hardly a silent majority.

No, I have experience to guide my opinion, but as I've said there is no way to have a rational discussion on this subject here.

 

[bookitty]

This^

But not this^. Rather feminist movements are attacked like anything else that promotes social change. You demonize the terminology and a few visible people and the sheeple can't help but buy it. (Not saying you are one of the sheeple Bookitty, I don't think you are.)

There are many accomplishments one can see if one looks.

Looking at something as a whole and not expecting perfection isn't demonizing. Feminism has gone through more trends than nearly any other social movement because it needs to adapt as society adapts. Each adaptation has it's own initial direction and then about 40 million branches from there. From the start, the only unifying factor is gender equality. Everything else depends on where you stand.

That's messy. It's also really necessary. New ideas rarely take hold on the first try. People need to hear a few different variations before they find something that they can relate to. Feminism will always need to be challenged because if it is being done right, it will always need to change.

 

[psionl0]

What I dislike about feminism is that it promises women the world but makes slaves out of them. A woman's "right to a career" is a case in point. Nobody would argue against this fine notion. Yet this has become twisted to mean a woman's "duty to earn money". Why? Because a household can not survive on one income any more.

Raising kids is hard work and, in spite of these enlightened times, still largely a woman's job - especially in the early years. Yet a woman who chooses to stay at home and raise her kids is considered lazy. She is expected to not only raise her kids but work at a low skilled job at the same time.

Would anybody have argued that a woman has a right to a career if they knew that this would be the outcome?

 

[bookitty]

Covert aggression is where you attack by underhanded, deceitful means - concealing your aggression with covert tactics.


So the OP comes out following the feminist script of painting himself as a victim of "hatred", when the covert agenda is pushing misandry.

I love the code word "power" used by our feminist because it exploits the insinuation that if more men are CEO's then evil men are abusing women - exercising power over them. Covert aggression always utilizes plausible deniability - you always deny the thing you are doing while you are in the middle of doing it. So it follows that will be denied of course, just as the OP denies being a bigot while busily painting men as evil.

It does not follow logically of course - that men are somehow the abusers and women the victims on account of more male CEO's. I am president and owner of a stupid little company and have run sole proprietorships since I was a teenager, whereas my wife does not work outside the home.

I have no "power" except to work and do contracts for clients. My wife lacks no "power" in this relationship, nor in anything she sets her mind to. That's just some stupid meme a covert aggressive uses to paint me as evil and my wife as a victim. I'm the one with "power". Pffft.

It illustrates that it is the feminist denigrating my wife, not me. Denigrating both of us. Under the covert cover of claiming victimhood as a feminist: look how we're so hated, poor little me.

Hi,
As part of the feminist hive mind, I speak for all of us when I say men are not evil. They just aren't. Except for Hitler.
Sincerely,
Your local Godwin-ing feminist

 

[bookitty]

What I dislike about feminism is that it promises women the world but makes slaves out of them. A woman's "right to a career" is a case in point. Nobody would argue against this fine notion. Yet this has become twisted to mean a woman's "duty to earn money". Why? Because a household can not survive on one income any more.

Raising kids is hard work and, in spite of these enlightened times, still largely a woman's job - especially in the early years. Yet a woman who chooses to stay at home and raise her kids is considered lazy. She is expected to not only raise her kids but work at a low skilled job at the same time.

Would anybody have argued that a woman has a right to a career if they knew that this would be the outcome.

So women should never have had a right to a career because some women want to stay at home? I'm not following you here, perhaps you could clarify.

 

[psionl0]

So women should never have had a right to a career because some women want to stay at home? I'm not following you here, perhaps you could clarify.

Having both partners in a relationship working means that households have more disposable income. This pushes up prices (especially property prices) so that both incomes become necessary.

I have no argument with women seeking a career if they wish to. However, the way this right is being implemented means that other women are forced to do menial jobs in order to keep the household as well as raise their kids. There is something very wrong about this.

 

[bookitty]

Having both partners in a relationship working means that households have more disposable income. This pushes up prices (especially property prices) so that both incomes become necessary.

I have no argument with women seeking a career if they wish to. However, the way this right is being implemented means that other women are forced to do menial jobs in order to keep the household as well as raise their kids. There is something very wrong about this.

There's really an awful lot of social issues getting tossed in with working parents. Inflation, stagnating wages, housing prices, unemployment, and so forth. These are serious issues but laying them all at the feet of working women is as overly-simplistic as blaming it all on immigration.

 

[epepke]

This^

But not this^. Rather feminist movements are attacked like anything else that promotes social change. You demonize the terminology and a few visible people and the sheeple can't help but buy it. (Not saying you are one of the sheeple Bookitty, I don't think you are.)

No. @bookitty is right.

The main thing that got me about the end of "second-wave" feminism, the central issue, was the notion that reason and logic themselves were patriarchal traps. That was everywhere in feminism during the 1980s.

This was not extremist. It was mainstream. Robin Morgan was even the editor of Ms. for a time. (Remember? It was the popular feminist magazine of the time in the US.) This is what was taught in the women's studies classes that were mandatory in many universities. This was what informed most of the feminist books of the time. I'd even go so far as to say that everything that sucked about "second-wave" feminism was a result of this. It is what caused "second-wave" feminism to self-destruct around 1997.

Personally, I believe that trying to teach young women that they cannot or should not use logic and reason, tools that are essential for science and engineering is a bad thing, and I oppose it. I am not even going to bother arguing the point. Believe me, I have been called every imaginable name for so believing, and there were certainly oodles of feminists who considered me the enemy.

But let's not pretend that the idea that logic and reason are male things is anything other than the traditionally sexist view of women as illogical earth mothers. Feminists carried the torch for that and most other forms of traditional sexism for more than a decade. Admittedly, they dressed it up a bit to make it seem more appealing to disgruntled women, but that is what it was.

"Second-wave" feminism didn't start out like this. It started out, in the 60s, with a genuinely egalitarian and liberating impulse. It was taken over by people who were diametrically opposed to it. Feminism became, for a time, its own worst enemy.

To put it bluntly, mainstream feminists were doing their damnedest to convince everyone that women are stupid. That was front and center.

This has happened before. If it happens again, it will probably happen for the same reason that it always has. People assume that feminism is just One Big Happy. They jab their fingers in the dictionary and say "Looky here! It's all about equality!" They pretend that anti-feminist feminists don't exist, or don't matter, or are at the margins, effectively clearing the path for a takeover.

Then there's always the assumption that anyone who doesn't like what is happening just doesn't want social change, or hates women, whereas precisely the opposite is true. The best strategy for someone who really hated women and/or wanted women perpetually to occupy an underclass would be uncritically to cheer feminism on, paying no attention to what is being said or what kind of feminism it is. Then accuse everyone who does make a distinction of painting feminism with a broad brush. Basically do all those things that feminists liked to do during the 1980s.

 

[Travis]

I must have been lucky because I've never encountered a "radical" feminist before.

And I went to a hippy liberal arts college. Heck I took a class called Female Sexuality even. It didn't help me get a date (my actual reason for taking the class I am ashamed to admit) but it did give me a good run down on many women's rights issues and a scientific type tour of the vagina.

While the class was taught by a woman who had lived most of the 80's in a teepee nothing too weird ever went down in there. The only odd thing was that she was quick to throw out compliments regarding how "sexy" someone was. To both the ladies and the guys. "Hey Greg, nice pants, wish my husband had a butt like that" and so on. It tended to make the guys a bit unnerved and I'm not sure how I would have reacted if she had ever thrown a compliment my way.

Anyways no man hating went down in there or anywhere else on campus that I ever saw.

 

[psionl0]

There's really an awful lot of social issues getting tossed in with working parents. Inflation, stagnating wages, housing prices, unemployment, and so forth. These are serious issues but laying them all at the feet of working women is as overly-simplistic as blaming it all on immigration.

True, there are more issues than just working wives here. However, one consequence of encouraging working wives is that it can end up removing the option for a mother to not seek external employment and you need to decide if you are OK with this.

The other issue with feminism is the way it denigrates women. It is not just about removing restrictive laws or changing social attitudes. Apparently women are not good enough to compete in a level playing field (especially if they are raising children at the same time) so we need pro-discrimination laws, unfair dismissal laws, quotas etc. I don't see why women don't see how paternalistic this attitude is.

 

[truethat]

I think that the problem most people have with Feminism comes from extremism.

I mean, in general, I think that every level headed and intelligent person agrees that Men and Women are equal and share equal potential for intelligence and ability to compete in almost any field.

But as with most contentious debates that challenge traditional values, some go entirely overboard in the other direction. They over compensate in the other direction. They don't even realize that they are making this mistake, apparently. They are just too angry and committed against the old mentality. They are not rational about it.

And they give the rest of Feminism a bad name.

This is the same in so many other areas.. like religion, where so many Atheists are so completely anti-religion that they can't even give the slightest credence or respect to any aspect of it.. which is patently absurd.. as most religious beliefs are about peace and understand and tolerance.. despite the bad things that are done by idiots in the name of that religion.

What I find most ironic about this is the people who are usually the most irrational in these regards.. the ones that are the most black and white thinking in this regard.. are usually lefties who are otherwise very strongly in favor of believing in shades of gray and no absolutes.

Except when you are challenging their ideals. Then their ideas obviously and completely trump those old traditional values in every possible way. Those old values and beliefs have absolutely NO redeeming value whatsoever, and cannot even be mildly complimented or appreciated.

It's these types of absolutists that give a bad name to all these fields. Whether Feminism, Atheism.. whatever.

This is a very good post. I agree!

No. @bookitty is right.

The main thing that got me about the end of "second-wave" feminism, the central issue, was the notion that reason and logic themselves were patriarchal traps. That was everywhere in feminism during the 1980s.

This was not extremist. It was mainstream. Robin Morgan was even the editor of Ms. for a time. (Remember? It was the popular feminist magazine of the time in the US.) This is what was taught in the women's studies classes that were mandatory in many universities. This was what informed most of the feminist books of the time. I'd even go so far as to say that everything that sucked about "second-wave" feminism was a result of this. It is what caused "second-wave" feminism to self-destruct around 1997.

Personally, I believe that trying to teach young women that they cannot or should not use logic and reason, tools that are essential for science and engineering is a bad thing, and I oppose it. I am not even going to bother arguing the point. Believe me, I have been called every imaginable name for so believing, and there were certainly oodles of feminists who considered me the enemy.

But let's not pretend that the idea that logic and reason are male things is anything other than the traditionally sexist view of women as illogical earth mothers. Feminists carried the torch for that and most other forms of traditional sexism for more than a decade. Admittedly, they dressed it up a bit to make it seem more appealing to disgruntled women, but that is what it was.

"Second-wave" feminism didn't start out like this. It started out, in the 60s, with a genuinely egalitarian and liberating impulse. It was taken over by people who were diametrically opposed to it. Feminism became, for a time, its own worst enemy.

To put it bluntly, mainstream feminists were doing their damnedest to convince everyone that women are stupid. That was front and center.

This has happened before. If it happens again, it will probably happen for the same reason that it always has. People assume that feminism is just One Big Happy. They jab their fingers in the dictionary and say "Looky here! It's all about equality!" They pretend that anti-feminist feminists don't exist, or don't matter, or are at the margins, effectively clearing the path for a takeover.

Then there's always the assumption that anyone who doesn't like what is happening just doesn't want social change, or hates women, whereas precisely the opposite is true. The best strategy for someone who really hated women and/or wanted women perpetually to occupy an underclass would be uncritically to cheer feminism on, paying no attention to what is being said or what kind of feminism it is. Then accuse everyone who does make a distinction of painting feminism with a broad brush. Basically do all those things that feminists liked to do during the 1980s.

I agree with most of this but especially the bolded. I have had this discussion with women on this site many times. I see them inherently pushing the meme that women can not be counted on or trusted to make intelligent decisions in their lives. Even all the way down to always using a condom. The "feminists" push the "reality' that somehow women are incredibly stupid. But not as being stupid, but as being "victims" of male patriarchy.

It's incredibly annoying.

 

[Weird Science]

I tend to agree with Whiplash. Take atheism. I'm a Jew, and an atheist to boot, but those atheists who are fighting to get manger scenes removed from the public square are idiots. They say they are fighting for "freedom of religion", but they're fighting really for their own self-importance, for their "freedom" to not be "forced" to see something they dislike. This isn't freedom, it's totalitarianism.

 

[Weird Science]

The main thing that got me about the end of "second-wave" feminism, the central issue, was the notion that reason and logic themselves were patriarchal traps. That was everywhere in feminism during the 1980s.

(Scratches head) Isn't this really chauvinism? "Don't worry your prettly little head about math and logic, honey, women don't understand these things"?

Anyway, I would say most women and men in the USA are feminists in their VIEWS, in the sense of thinking women and men should have equal legal rights, equal educational opportunities, etc., etc. They don't identify themselves as part of the feminist MOVEMENT, due to the intolerable self-important humorless totalitarian streak it developed since the 1970s, but that's not quite the same thing.

By the way:

- How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
- That's not funny!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having both partners in a relationship working means that households have more disposable income. This pushes up prices (especially property prices) so that both incomes become necessary.

I have no argument with women seeking a career if they wish to. However, the way this right is being implemented means that other women are forced to do menial jobs in order to keep the household as well as raise their kids. There is something very wrong about this.

There's a chicken and egg argument here as well as causation vs coincidental association. You seem certain you know which is which, I'm not so confident of any conclusion.


What has driven wages down? Do you seriously blame feminism? I certainly don't.

It would seem to me that like Rosie the Riveter, certain social events drive women in and out of the workplace. Birth control, war, the economy all have their own impact on social change.

The social revolution of the 60s and 70s allowed an increase in awareness of certain things that influence society. People became more aware of things like children's books rigidly depicting male and female roles, language which reflects and influences perception and social standards, and more basic things like unequal wages for the same work.

I don't think one can claim the evidence shows women's desire for access to careers led to a depression of wages. I think the power of the rich owner class had more influence depressing wages than the feminist movement.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Having both partners in a relationship working means that households have more disposable income. This pushes up prices (especially property prices) so that both incomes become necessary.

I have no argument with women seeking a career if they wish to. However, the way this right is being implemented means that other women are forced to do menial jobs in order to keep the household as well as raise their kids. There is something very wrong about this.

Evidence? I've only read this before in a parody, I didn't think people actually believed it.

 

[Arcade22]

Or it could be that the Nordic countries have been experimenting with different implementations of gender equality for decades. Some of those ideas worked, some didn't.

Yes, giving women the right to vote and so forth worked pretty well. Now apparently men are second class citizens who have to sit in the back of the buss, behind women. In fact i remember a newspaper article where someone in charge of university admissions explicitly said that it was impossible for men to get discriminated in favor of women when they always got places in universities against men, since discrimination was man against woman.

I guess these people are just a harmless minority with zero influence, unlike the real feminists.

In this case, I would guess that the ban on pornography was an attempt to reduce sexual exploitation.

Nope. It's because it was about MEN exploiting WOMEN because they were 'objectified' I.E standard crazy feminist (perhaps not of the one true variety) rhetoric. They also banned strip-clubs and so on for the same reason. Then again this isn't real feminism if i understand it correctly, so who gives a crap?

While there are many people for who pornography is a valid choice and satisfying occupation, that is not true in all cases. The viewer has no way of knowing if the participants have fully consented to being filmed.

Sure you do.

As both men and women are shown in pornography, they are both equally protected from exploitation if pornography is banned. Unless you believe that men can not be exploited, this ban did not primarily benefit women.

As i said before it was all about how WOMEN were 'objectified' and 'exploited' by MEN, not the other way around. It's the same 'argument' here in this country too. You honestly don't think these feminists give a **** about men do you?

I don't really care whether or not you call me a feminist.

I'm sorry, but that is the only form of feminism that is politically and socially relevant. I'm sure equalist might fit you better.

If you insist the word best describes the radicals, fine.

Radicals? These are the moderates!

Call me a "bleebo" if you like.

Well if you want to be called a feminist it seems good form to call you that.

However, when I start talking about equality, like I do in the OP and don't accompany it was a battlecry to ban porn or USE ALL CAPS, I'd thank you not to associate me with crazy misandrists and actually address why or why not my points are valid. Fair?

I thought the thread was called "Why is there so much hatred for feminism"? Should i also be able to take up why feminist (perhaps not of the one true variety) deserve scorn? Equal rights are a good thing. Too bad feminists use 'equality' as way to discriminate against men.

Some people are apparently not going to be happy until Humanity is a gray, sexless and faceless mass that reproduces by cloning. Eating the same food, earning the same wages, looking exactly the same... true equality at last!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. @bookitty is right.

The main thing that got me about the end of "second-wave" feminism, the central issue, was the notion that reason and logic themselves were patriarchal traps. That was everywhere in feminism during the 1980s.

This was not extremist. It was mainstream. Robin Morgan was even the editor of Ms. for a time. (Remember? It was the popular feminist magazine of the time in the US.) This is what was taught in the women's studies classes that were mandatory in many universities.

Where is your evidence women's studies were ever mandatory in any university?

This was what informed most of the feminist books of the time. I'd even go so far as to say that everything that sucked about "second-wave" feminism was a result of this. It is what caused "second-wave" feminism to self-destruct around 1997.

Personally, I believe that trying to teach young women that they cannot or should not use logic and reason, tools that are essential for science and engineering is a bad thing, and I oppose it. I am not even going to bother arguing the point. Believe me, I have been called every imaginable name for so believing, and there were certainly oodles of feminists who considered me the enemy.

I'm confused about what you are saying here.

But let's not pretend that the idea that logic and reason are male things is anything other than the traditionally sexist view of women as illogical earth mothers. Feminists carried the torch for that and most other forms of traditional sexism for more than a decade. Admittedly, they dressed it up a bit to make it seem more appealing to disgruntled women, but that is what it was.

"Second-wave" feminism didn't start out like this. It started out, in the 60s, with a genuinely egalitarian and liberating impulse. It was taken over by people who were diametrically opposed to it. Feminism became, for a time, its own worst enemy.

Not buying this nonsense. I see no evidence of this claim.

To put it bluntly, mainstream feminists were doing their damnedest to convince everyone that women are stupid. That was front and center.

I hate to sound like Claus Larson but, evidence, please.

This has happened before. If it happens again, it will probably happen for the same reason that it always has. People assume that feminism is just One Big Happy. They jab their fingers in the dictionary and say "Looky here! It's all about equality!" They pretend that anti-feminist feminists don't exist, or don't matter, or are at the margins, effectively clearing the path for a takeover.

Then there's always the assumption that anyone who doesn't like what is happening just doesn't want social change, or hates women, whereas precisely the opposite is true. The best strategy for someone who really hated women and/or wanted women perpetually to occupy an underclass would be uncritically to cheer feminism on, paying no attention to what is being said or what kind of feminism it is. Then accuse everyone who does make a distinction of painting feminism with a broad brush. Basically do all those things that feminists liked to do during the 1980s.

Again, what is your evidence of this narrative?