Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

bookitty there is no way in hell they are outlawing abortion. To suggest otherwise is dishonest. You often post things like this without backing it up with evidence. What laws are being put forward about a "Woman's body" that are likely to change any time soon?

The fringe can always push laws through, it doesn't mean they get passed. ....

Personhood amendments are hardly supported only by the "fringe". In multiple states these amendments have come very close to passing and polls show while the majority don't favor them a very large minority does. The SCOTUS deck is currently stacked to overturn Roe v Wade. Abortions are very difficult to come by in many local communities and women who need them have to travel great distances to get them.

Personhood Bill Resembling Failed Mississippi Measure Advances In Virginia House

And while it failed in Mississippi, the vote was close.

Poll: Mississippi’s ‘Personhood Amendment’ will be a close vote

The final vote was 55-45. So according to you 45% of Mississippians are 'fringe' voters.


You also seem to have your head in the sand.

 

[bookitty]

The opening years of this century; and no I don't.


Yeah, it's an acknowledged problem.
My attitudes towards other organizations also reflect how they were represented in college. The most compassionate, polite, and articulate students were libertarians and pro-lifers. The most nasty, polarizing, offensive students were the "feminists" and the race-based organizations (black student union, Asian alliance, etc). It's been hard for me to listen to any of those groups going forward with all the misandry and racist rhetoric ringing in my ears.

In a way, that's a good thing. Everyone (seriously, every single person) who is passionate about something will occasionally go overboard. Getting called on that can lead to introspection which can balance passion. I, personally, have never learned a single thing from being right and I'm willing to bet that experience is universal.

And in a way, it's not so good. If you are judging content from a memory that is many years old and not related to the current discussion, you may be unnecessarily hostile. This sets up a system of confirmation bias in which ideas that fall beyond your definition are ignored and those that conform are used to bolster the bias.

I am not saying that you are doing this, only that it is a possibility. I have seen that reaction in myself and although I work to overcome it, it's not always easy.

 

[KingMerv00]

... but I didn't do that. I didn't add a topic at all...

Eh, whatever. I think some people are going to see sexism in every Rorschach.

You are right. You didn't add a topic. Sorry.

The pattern not just an ink blot, though. The examples I gave were real and you'll see there are more if you read the thread. I jumped on you because the pattern has been getting to me.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And in a way, it's not so good. If you are judging content from a memory that is many years old and not related to the current discussion, you may be unnecessarily hostile. This sets up a system of confirmation bias in which ideas that fall beyond your definition are ignored and those that conform are used to bolster the bias.

It's true.
One thing helps me, though -- I'm constantly looking for ways to accurately provide the counterpoint to the views of my community, which is deeply conservative Christian. Nothing helps you to listen to an argument quite as much as wanting to be able to accurately argue the position yourself.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You are right. You didn't add a topic. Sorry.

The pattern not just an ink blot, though. The examples I gave were real and you'll see there are more if you read the thread. I jumped on you because the pattern has been getting to me.

I concede your point. I'm just concerned that the counter-reaction of "leave men out of this!" is just as destructive.

Especially on a thread that's supposed to be about the reason behind the hostility to feminism.

I think, if you look closely, you'll find that most topics end up having a "let me throw in my issue too" moment into the pile -- the difference is whether the OP is hostile to it or accepts it to further the overall point.

 

[bookitty]

Personhood amendments are hardly supported only by the "fringe". In multiple states these amendments have come very close to passing and polls show while the majority don't favor them a very large minority does. The SCOTUS deck is currently stacked to overturn Roe v Wade. Abortions are very difficult to come by in many local communities and women who need them have to travel great distances to get them.

Personhood Bill Resembling Failed Mississippi Measure Advances In Virginia House

And while it failed in Mississippi, the vote was close.

Poll: Mississippi’s ‘Personhood Amendment’ will be a close vote

The final vote was 55-45. So according to you 45% of Mississippians are 'fringe' voters.


You also seem to have your head in the sand.

Virginia has also joined Texas and Iowa in forcing women to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. This procedure is has no medical basis and is incredibly invasive.

Penetrating a woman by coercion is now state-sanctioned.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Virginia has also joined Texas and Iowa in forcing women to undergo trans-vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. This procedure is has no medical basis and is incredibly invasive.

Anecdotally - those are not fun, particularly if you suffer from vaganismus.

 

[bookitty]

Anecdotally - those are not fun, particularly if you suffer from vaganismus.

or have been sexually assaulted at any point in your life.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoops: Dems decry all-male oversight hearing on WH contraception rule.

 

[KingMerv00]

I concede your point. I'm just concerned that the counter-reaction of "leave men out of this!" is just as destructive.

It's not about leaving men out of discussions, it's about not forcing men into EVERY discussion.

Especially on a thread that's supposed to be about the reason behind the hostility to feminism.

The thread has changed course since the OP. I don't expect newcomers to slog through the whole thread and when they voice their reasons for disliking feminism, I understand why...I asked them to. But some people ignore the OP or the title, see a woman's topic and think it's license to talk about about how much it sucks to be a man.

I think, if you look closely, you'll find that most topics end up having a "let me throw in my issue too" moment into the pile -- the difference is whether the OP is hostile to it or accepts it to further the overall point.

I asked why people dislike feminism. I didn't ask people to channel that anger into accusations that I don't care about male suicide rates. Asking for your feelings on a topic is different than venting them all over the board.

 

[KingMerv00]

Whoops: Dems decry all-male oversight hearing on WH contraception rule.

Hmm...

...men on average have more wealth, governmental representation and business power. This is a bad thing and we need to do something about it.

Why?

Why indeed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I asked why people dislike feminism. ....

There are three variables here (bolded) that most likely play the biggest role.

There are extremists with causes like this and they can, because of our news media that sells sensation much more than information, get much more media attention than the bulk of the movement. That give the appearance to many that the extremists are the movement.

And like anything that challenges the social status quo, it is human nature that some people will resist. That resistance often takes the form of backlash and negative emotions toward the people pushing change.

Not too exciting of an answer, but it is a well known pattern in the historical record.

 

[KingMerv00]

There are three variables here (bolded) that most likely play the biggest role.

There are extremists with causes like this and they can, because of our news media that sells sensation much more than information, get much more media attention than the bulk of the movement. That give the appearance to many that the extremists are the movement.

And like anything that challenges the social status quo, it is human nature that some people will resist. That resistance often takes the form of backlash and negative emotions toward the people pushing change.

Not too exciting of an answer, but it is a well known pattern in the historical record.

I suddenly feel like an American muslim.

 

[Dipayan]

Both of these are contrived straw men. The almost all white male leadership of both countries where women are relatively more liberated than in the countries with the worst conditions for women is evidence women have not achieved sufficient equality even in countries where conditions have improved.

Hi Skeptic Ginger. The majority of the power brokers in politics in India are women. The game-changers and kingmakers are women. India has had 2 women who have led their parties to a national win, with one of the leaders taking on the prime ministership role in the 80s and the other handing over the role to another in the 2000s. Would you say that this means that India is more developed when it comes to women's rights than, say, the US or UK? Remember the PEW poll said that 84% of people thought that when the going gets tough, the women should get going to the kitchen...

Yes the leadership of the country and the dominant white male composition of all positions of power in a country do indeed reflect on the social conditions in a country.

I guess India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are great countries for liberated women since all 3 of them have had at least one woman leader...

 

[KingMerv00]

Hi Skeptic Ginger. The majority of the power brokers in politics in India are women. The game-changers and kingmakers are women. India has had 2 women who have led their parties to a national win, with one of the leaders taking on the prime ministership role in the 80s and the other handing over the role to another in the 2000s. Would you say that this means that India is more developed when it comes to women's rights than, say, the US or UK? Remember the PEW poll said that 84% of people thought that when the going gets tough, the women should get going to the kitchen...

I guess India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are great countries for liberated women since all 3 of them have had at least one woman leader...

Measuring equality is not a matter of measuring a single factor. You have to measure it across multiple categories, geographical regions, and over a long period of time. You have to measure wealth, executive power, health, education, etc. etc. Governmental representation is only one part of a larger whole. Your sarcasm stems from a false assumption feminists only care about one data point.

 

[Dipayan]

There are extremists with causes like this and they can, because of our news media that sells sensation much more than information, get much more media attention than the bulk of the movement. That give the appearance to many that the extremists are the movement.

Just a comment on this. Couple of days back, i was following the Jessica Alqhuist story on JREF, and followed a link to a blog that was written by a woman named Rebecca Watson. I lurked there for a bit and realized that the forum members slightly resembled rabid dogs frothing at their mouths. I also saw approximately 4 posters being banned for making thoughtful, though contradictory, arguments. There was a lot of high fives and general back-patting after each banning. I remember a post from KingMerv on that topic too saying how he had finally figured out what patriarchy is all about. Of course he got a big round of pats on his head.

Going through this thread I can see that Merv is an intelligent, well mannered individual. True, sometimes he seems to suffer from a bout of confirmation bias, but who among us doesn't?

Now I think that Rebecca Watson and most of her vocal followers are 'extremists'. They seem to be acting exactly like fundamentalists - if you agree with them it shows that other people too can recognize the patriarchy and so it must be true, don't agree with them and it clearly shows that you are a part of the patriarchy and so it must be true. Now why is it that a 'moderate' feminist like KingMerv feels that he needs to receive acknowledgement from 'extremists' like Watson and gang? Unless Watson is actually not a fringe player, but a virtual spokersperson?

(Note: I understand that there is a possibility that Ms. Watson is not an extremist. I have yet to see evidence of it though...)

 

[Dipayan]

Measuring equality is not a matter of measuring a single factor. You have to measure it across multiple categories, geographical regions, and over a long period of time. You have to measure wealth, executive power, health, education, etc. etc. Governmental representation is only one part of a larger whole. Your sarcasm stems from a false assumption feminists only care about one data point.

I didn't bring up the single factor. The two of you did.

If you had read through the quote I was responding to, Skeptic Ginger specifically says that the fact that US and UK still haven't had a woman premier/women dominated parliament is 'evidence women have not achieved sufficient equality'.

Shouldn't this mean that in a country which has had women premiers/women dominated parliaments, it is 'evidence that women HAVE achieved sufficient equality?'

 

[KingMerv00]

Just a comment on this. Couple of days back, i was following the Jessica Alqhuist story on JREF, and followed a link to a blog that was written by a woman named Rebecca Watson. I lurked there for a bit and realized that the forum members slightly resembled rabid dogs frothing at their mouths. I also saw approximately 4 posters being banned for making thoughtful, though contradictory, arguments. There was a lot of high fives and general back-patting after each banning.

Just know that your personal view of that is only opinion. For what it's worth I thought some of the behavior in there was pretty awful.

Many years ago, I wanted to understand Christians better so I went to the biggest Christian message board I could. I debated them at length about atheism in the same manner you see here. The discussion went on for quite awhile but I was ultimately banned. A lot, if not most, were bastards. To this day, I don't consider Christians to be bastards. No personal anecdote, no matter how vivid or personally important gives you the right to paint a group of people with a single brush.

I remember a post from KingMerv on that topic too saying how he had finally figured out what patriarchy is all about. Of course he got a big round of pats on his head.

Last I checked, I think that "big round of pats" totaled 2 people.

Going through this thread I can see that Merv is an intelligent, well mannered individual. True, sometimes he seems to suffer from a bout of confirmation bias, but who among us doesn't?

Thanks but you forgot handsome.

Now I think that Rebecca Watson and most of her vocal followers are 'extremists'. They seem to be acting exactly like fundamentalists - if you agree with them it shows that other people too can recognize the patriarchy and so it must be true, don't agree with them and it clearly shows that you are a part of the patriarchy and so it must be true. Now why is it that a 'moderate' feminist like KingMerv feels that he needs to receive acknowledgement from 'extremists' like Watson and gang? Unless Watson is actually not a fringe player, but a virtual spokersperson?

Your scare quotes around "moderate" and your insinuations about my motives are nothing more than veiled insults. Not a good way to start a conversation.

I've known Rebecca since about 2004, many years before I self-identified as a feminist...Maybe even before SHE self-identified as a feminist. I'd even go so far to call her a friend. It shouldn't surprise you then that I showed up in her forum, regardless of her beliefs.

I doubt you took the time to search through the archives put if you did, you'd find a post from me to someone I'd we'd both agree is an extremist. I tell her how wrong she is and harmful her anger is. Guess I'm a wingnut.

(Note: I understand that there is a possibility that Ms. Watson is not an extremist. I have yet to see evidence of it though...)

You've put her in the position of proving a negative.

If you want evidence, look at one of her recent updates. She links to an article that tries to debunk the idea that men are biologically more violent. If that's the sign of an extremist, I feel sorry for you.

You have to look to find.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

There was a lot of high fives and general back-patting after each banning. I remember a post from KingMerv on that topic too saying how he had finally figured out what patriarchy is all about. Of course he got a big round of pats on his head.

I was alluding to this very early in the thread, in the vernacular, and it is always so obvious to me when a guy is licking boots like this. But he denied it. So thanks for that.

Going through this thread I can see that Merv is an intelligent, well mannered individual.

I'll have to make this disagreement with you, with respect: the magic taught at Feminist Manipulation University is to conceal antisocial behavior behind a mask of victimhood, playing the servant role, playing dumb, selective attention/inattention, etc. in short, mastering covert aggression. The so-called "extremists" are merely more open and above-board in their misandry.

So he's cunning about "well-mannered" antisocial conduct. What is there to dislike about feminists? Antisocial conduct. It is not excused because it has a smiling face pasted on the malicious act.

Now why is it that a 'moderate' feminist like KingMerv feels that he needs to receive acknowledgement from 'extremists' like Watson and gang? Unless Watson is actually not a fringe player, but a virtual spokersperson?

You are going to get nothing but denial, but I think it an important question what the ends are for our "ends justifies the means" champion. Why adopt all the deceptive terminology, misuse of statistics, class hatred, logical fallacies, etc.

We learn from literature on this that nobody knows better than the person deploying these tactics that they are illigitimate. You can never convince them it is wrong because they already know that. They just don't care. The ends are all-important.

So it isn't that a person comes to realize that females are victims of omnipresent male suppression - it is coming to the realization that adopting these tactics are the means to an end. Thinking about what his ends are is much more interesting than the tedium of dealing with manipulative interaction.

 

[Naive1000]

It's not about leaving men out of discussions, it's about not forcing men into EVERY discussion. ...[snip]...

This is what I hate (well dislike) about many feminists. Every time I've brought up subjects that effect men they have to throw their hat in, but the opposite is considered some penultimate crime. When I bring up female-on-male rape it's, but the "real" problem is that women are raped. When I bring up domestic violence against men, it's but the "real" victims are women. When I bring up suicide, but women "try" more. On all of these, they were the subject of discussion, but some feminist always pops in and tells me men's problems are inconsequential when compared to women's problems. I'm not going to "their spaces" they're coming in to mine yelling I'm a misogynist for bring up issues I feel need to be addressed. So, guess what I'm all for men now saying "what about the men..." every time as the reverse has been done to me over and over again over the years. If the issue effects both genders how about "what about the humans" for a change, why does everything have to break down to gender? Why does one gender's problems have to be more important? Why can't they all be addressed, then there's no need for "what about my gender"?

Sorry, I haven't had time to read everything else that's been posted (RL things). I'll try to address your criticism next week when I have more time. But, just to state I do think there's a wage gap just nowhere near what's commonly claimed. My source is biased, just a little less so than the others I've read. I'd prefer if gender politics were taken out and we let a little real science be done to address the issue, but that seems impossible at the current time. You keep mentioning the need to be equal in all the positions in the government and business, but that's completely illogical to real equality. What we need is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. Forcing parity is a bad idea, as the best people don't get the positions, jobs, etc... The idea should be that people get the right to choose.

That leads to my next point; you keep asking why men aren't becoming stay at home dads, well that seems obvious. It's not his choice for one. In fact, feminist have been pushing for years that it's always her choice. Stay at home or work -- she decides. Isn't it odd that it's not their choice? When did relationships become so one sided? But, no, it's just hers. If he stops her from working he's a misogynist. If he makes her work he's oppressive and denying her her motherly rights. Heck, even if she's the one who does decide he's still commonly thought of as having forced her to choose one or the other. And say he does become a stay at home dad, now he's either a dead beat bum who won't work or pedophile that likes children too much. It's a no win with the current gender roles men are trapped in.

Back to R/L.