Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

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

Actually, I've brought up maybe a half dozen factors over the course of the thread. She's discussed more but I haven't really followed all of her posts.

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'.

I think that's a nitpick. The wording MIGHT be off a bit but I don't think it is all that unclear. Personally, I think the lack of a female president is moderately strong evidence in favor of inequality but not absolutely indicative in and of itself.

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?'

Actually no. A female president is neither necessary nor sufficient. (I think I'm using the terms correctly.)

A fingerprint at a crime scene may be evidence of guilt but the lack of a fingerprint is not always a sign of innocence.

 

[Dipayan]

Just know that your personal view of that is only opinion.

Is there any point in stating a truism? All our personal views are only opinions. Otherwise they would not be personal views. They would be objective facts.

For what it's worth I thought some of the behavior in there was pretty awful.

Our personal views match.

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.

Interesting anecdote. I don't see the relevance, though. Could you please elaborate?

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 think you might find that I have complete right to consider what I want of any group of people. Even then, I shared the link to the particular page so that people can make up their own minds. If anything, you should charge me with courage and honesty, for putting my views up here for people to judge and criticize

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

Heh, I guess you didn't search hard enough. Your announcement reverberated through a lot of posts!

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.

Oh shush, stop being a surly baby. What you chose to ignore in order to take offence is that I even put 'extremist' in scare quotes. Confirmation bias much?

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.

Thanks for sharing. However I don't see how this is an answer to my question to Skeptic Ginger.

SG: 'Extremists' are a fringe lot
D: I think Rebecca is an 'extremist'
D: I think KingMerv is a 'moderate'
D: KingMerv is thankful for learning about a foundational basis of feminism from Rebecca
D: Therefore, is Rebecca an 'extremist', or a mainstream spokesperson?

That last one is the question

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

Because I asked her to prove it, right?. And because, since it is impossible to prove a negative, you are not going to try and do so, right?

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.

Oh wait.... never mind.

If that's the sign of an extremist, I feel sorry for you.

If feeling sorry for me is a limited commodity, I would implore you to save it for something more meaningful

You have to look to find.

Not when you can just ask and receive!

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wait, is someone claiming Watson is NOT a misandrist and a bully?

 

[Dipayan]

Actually, I've brought up maybe a half dozen factors over the course of the thread. She's discussed more but I haven't really followed all of her posts.

Apologies, I should have said 'I didn't bring up THIS single factor'. Emphasis on 'this'.

I think that's a nitpick. The wording MIGHT be off a bit but I don't think it is all that unclear.

Fair enough, that is possible. I wanted to be sure.

Personally, I think the lack of a female president is moderately strong evidence in favor of inequality but not absolutely indicative in and of itself.

And the presence of a female president? Would you say that is 'moderately strong evidence in favour of equality but not absolutely indicative in and of itself'? Or would you then say that there are X number of other things that we need to look at? I'm just trying to understand the importance of this single factor.

A fingerprint at a crime scene may be evidence of guilt but the lack of a fingerprint is not always a sign of innocence.

Your analogy is singularly defective. Let me rephrase it:
'A fingerprint at a crime scene may be evidence of guilt, and the lack of a fingerprint may be a sign of innocence

Please tell me how this is different from your above statement. Then please let me know which is the necessary and which the sufficient bit. And then I would really appreciate it if you could do the same from SG's claim and my retort.

I know I am asking a lot from you, but it would be quite a lesson for me.

 

[bookitty]

Wait, is someone claiming Watson is NOT a misandrist and a bully?

Oh yay! Let's focus on one single person and draw some conclusions from that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Oh yay! Let's focus on one single person and draw some conclusions from that.

I don't use Watson to generalize to "all feminists". It's enough for me that it's made clear that the conduct and rhetoric Watson uses is an example of bad, misandrist-style bullying radical feminism. She embodies that; that doesn't mean anyone else using any label is automatically "like that" as well.

 

[Dipayan]

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.

I just read this and I must say that I see the situation very differently from you. Agreed that the article does not make Rebecca look like an 'extremist' but neither does it do anything to make her more 'moderate'. She merely linked to an article that helped her stance of privilege through power and wealth.

The article speaks about how power and wealth came because of man's propensity towards violence. The suggestion was that violence in males may not be completely biological but might also be cultural in nature. Cultural situations made men violent and resulted in women becoming second class citizens to the men - which is what Rebecca espouses.

So what exactly did you want me to get out of this?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Something I think is very clearly an example of objectification of women -- when you Google "Rebecca Watson", it automatically brings up Images as the first result.

I tried Googling other skeptic names, and always a link/profile first. Never a fricking picture.

How shallow are we?

 

[psionl0]

I responded to a post of yours earlier in the thread and you never got around to writing back. I'd appreciate it if you did before I start on something new.

If you put up a link to the post I failed to respond to I will fix up the deficiency.

 

[crimresearch]

If you put up a link to the post I failed to respond to I will fix up the deficiency.

Same game, different thread, hmmm?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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...

You are making a lot of false assumptions and trying to support it with less than complete data. India's sociology experiment, which I just now read about so I'm not claiming expertise, is not comparable one to one with other cultures. Slate had a good article addressing some of the issues.

It Takes a Village … to fail to thank its female leader, no matter how good she is.

...Countries that come closest to gender parity in government, like Sweden and Finland, are economically advanced democracies with universal health care, child care, and generous maternity and paternity leave policies. Contrast this with the list of nations with zero women in national legislatures—Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, for example—and the pattern becomes clear: Women in government are associated with lots of good things (PDF). But the obvious problem with this sort of exercise is that Scandinavians are different from Saudis in lots of ways. Their progressive attitudes—not to mention all that free child care—may be what allows women to get elected, not the other way around....

...India's decision to put women in charge was an economist's manna from heaven, and the reason that Duflo and Topalova [researchers] went there for insight on the effects of female leadership. In 1991, almost none of India's village councils were headed by women; the 1991 constitutional amendment passed to redress this imbalance mandated the election of women as pradhans, or council heads, in a third of villages that were chosen entirely at random. This means the villages reserved for female candidates were no different from other villages before the women-only elections.
By 2000, many village councils had been led by women for several years. ...

...communities with women as pradhans had larger quantities of key public services overall. Nor was quality sacrificed for quantity—facilities in the women-led villages were of at least as high quality on average as in the communities with traditional male leadership. The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)—with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps in the women-pradhan villages. So while the female pradhans were working for the general good, they were working particularly hard to provide the services valued by their fellow women. They were also less corrupt—villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.
Now, the bad news. India's female pradhans were remarkably unappreciated for their efforts. ....

Why this disconnect between the performance and recognition of female leaders? Duflo and Topalova are engaged in further research to try to figure this out....
[Further research] ... In an experiment on gender perceptions, psychologists Cameron Anderson and Francis Flynn gave one group of MBA students the original Heidi Roizen case for later in-class discussion, while the other half received a copy that was identical in every way, except that "Heidi" became "Howard."
In a study currently under review, Anderson and Flynn report that while both Howard and Heidi were rated as equally competent (they were the same person, after all), students described the female version of the character as overly aggressive, and were much less likely to want to work with or hire her. So the decisive, assertive traits that are often valued in leaders are received very differently when observed in women than when seen in men. Howard was a go-getter. Heidi was unlikably power-hungry.

India has a long way to go. Obviously the burning of brides whose in-laws don't pay a big enough dowry continues to be a problem. And there is a HUGE discrepancy between the destitute poor and everyone else.

I would bet, however, that in the next 50 years, India's financial progress and the liberation of women will go hand in hand. Historical evidence shows that economies improve in countries as women's rights improve. Whether it is causal or just correlates remains to be seen but as economies improve women have fewer kids. Clearly there are connections involved.

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

Don't try to put Cyborg's words in my mouth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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...)

Oh, funny, you are new aren't you? Try Googling elevatorgate for some insight on the Skepchick radical feminism brouhaha. IMO, Watson is a radical feminist though she wasn't always and a whole lot of us in the skeptical community did not take her side in elevatorgate. However, to be fair, half the community did seem to. One must also consider that a lot of people were friends with Rebecca and that (again IMO) had an influence on the positions they took in the debate.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Oh, funny, you are new aren't you? Try Googling elevatorgate for some insight on the Skepchick radical feminism brouhaha. IMO, Watson is a radical feminist though she wasn't always and a whole lot of us in the skeptical community did not take her side in elevatorgate. However, to be fair, half the community did seem to.

I would theorize, without evidence, that it only takes about 5% of the community to say enough to fill up one side of any argument. So as long as you have at least that much strong support, it can seem like half is on either side.

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

Sorry to hear about your experiences. They differ from mine but I don't doubt them. I don't think the solution is to respond to rude behavior by delivering the same behavior on strangers. It perpetuates the cycle.

Internet mentality is part of the problem. People say things to one another on here they would never say in real life.

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"?

I wish it were that simple. Some problems are gender problems and the only way to fix them is to talk about gender. What sucks is that people flip out when it happens.

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.

No rush. It's not exactly the most interesting topic in the world.

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.

But "equal opportunity" is sometimes an illusion. Atheists have had the "opportunity" to become president but predjudice has kept them out of office for hundreds of years.

Opportunities feed on outcomes too. The forced integration of southern schools helped later generations learn the races weren't so different.

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.

Heh. You look at the world and you see men get bullied. Earlier in the thread, Truethat (not a feminist) said SHE felt pressured for deciding the way she did. The "mommy wars" rage on.Other women say they are pressured into having children in the first place. Everyone is looking at the same world and everyone feels like a target. Goes to show you how the human mind works.

Back to R/L.

Have fun.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would theorize, without evidence, that it only takes about 5% of the community to say enough to fill up one side of any argument. So as long as you have at least that much strong support, it can seem like half is on either side.

It was more than 5%. Believe me, I was deep in that one. It may not have been 50:50 but there were plenty of people entrenched on both sides.

 

[KingMerv00]

*Snip*

It's pretty clear that there is nothing I can do to convince you I am not full of hidden hatred and agendas. No point in trying.

I won't be responding to your posts. I know you don't care. I'm just letting you know so you waste energy trying to start a conversation.

 

[curi0us]

But "equal opportunity" is sometimes an illusion. Atheists have had the "opportunity" to become president but predjudice has kept them out of office for hundreds of years.

Would you support a law that required votes for atheist presidents to count for more then votes for Christian presidents in order to equalize the opportunity?

 

[KingMerv00]

Is there any point in stating a truism? All our personal views are only opinions. Otherwise they would not be personal views. They would be objective facts.

Some people forget the difference. Not saying that applies to you. I don't know you well enough.

Interesting anecdote. I don't see the relevance, though. Could you please elaborate?

I think you might find that I have complete right to consider what I want of any group of people.

You have the right. I'm just saying that if you spend enough time on internet message boards you will find some feminists hating men, some "men's rights advocates" despise women, some atheists hating Christians and some Christians hate atheists. Everyone feels like a target. Everyone is convinced they are "moderate" and "reasonable". I wish everyone would stop with the generalizations, learn to question their beliefs, be civil, learn to admit then you're wrong, and stop thinking so badly of their opponents.

The internet is tiring me the **** out.

Sorry, just ranting.

Even then, I shared the link to the particular page so that people can make up their own minds. If anything, you should charge me with courage and honesty, for putting my views up here for people to judge and criticize

You've certainly done better than most.

Heh, I guess you didn't search hard enough. Your announcement reverberated through a lot of posts!

Business must have picked up since I left.

What you chose to ignore in order to take offence is that I even put 'extremist' in scare quotes. Confirmation bias much?

Fair enough.

Thanks for sharing. However I don't see how this is an answer to my question to Skeptic Ginger.

SG: 'Extremists' are a fringe lot
D: I think Rebecca is an 'extremist'
D: I think KingMerv is a 'moderate'
D: KingMerv is thankful for learning about a foundational basis of feminism from Rebecca
D: Therefore, is Rebecca an 'extremist', or a mainstream spokesperson?

I didn't learn my foundational basis from Rebecca. Something involving her got the ball rolling but she's only had an indirect influence. I've only started reading her website on a regular basis fairly recently. I told you about our friendship because it shows I had other motivations for going on her site. I was popping in to say hi to a friend, not to thank a "mentor".

Gonna stop this post here. Feeling a bit worn out after such a long and angry thread.

 

[TheJim]

It's frustrating. I've just told you that I DO care and I'm NOT fighting against you but I suspect you will leave this thread and continue to say things like "feminists don't care about male problems". How many times do you have to hear it before you stop lumping all feminists into one pile? At the very least, take care to add a caveat when you insult a large group of people.

I guess I am not being clear enough my problem mostly steams from organized feminism groups like AAUW, NOW, women studies departments, Amanda Merchett (sp), and the like.

You sure that accurate? I thought the problem came up because some courts have an irrebuttable presumption that husbands always father their wife's children. That presumption doesn't exist if they aren't married.

I am not 100 on this specific case but cases similiar to this happen more then you think. For the most part what happens is a mother* names a random father a letter is sent to show up to a family court date. The man named either does not show because he thinks its a joke or does not receive the letter. A summary judgement is given and the man is now the father. In some states there is not even this much to it all that has to happen is the women places the name in a newspaper and its now on the man to see the ad and fight it. Utah is the worst where every time you have sex you have to list your name and address in order to fight it later if you are named the father.


*seems mostly because of welfare rules that require a father to be named.

 

[TheJim]

I answered with proof that women are being treated differently under the law. This is not a fringe belief. This is one of the main talking points of the GOP party in the US. There were over 1000 new pieces of legislation against abortion and birth control introduced last year alone. Without access to birth control and abortion, women have no bodily autonomy and a no chance at personal freedom.

ETA: Access to birth control and abortion and the attitudes that allow government intervention in private medical care affect all women. The horrific abuses of the court system do not affect all men. It does not affect men who are with their child's mother, it does not affect men who come to a reasonable custody agreement, it does not affect men who are childless.

What do you call selective service? We can go all night long on how the law treats the sexes different in specific instances. The point I was making is women can vote, own property, run for office, stand in jury, and well just about everything else a man can do under the law.