Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Several of the posters in this thread, myself included, have already had lengthy discussions with Skeptic Girl and bookitty in several other threads over the years. Their angle always seems to be to segregate women into victims and men into perpetrators by the nature of having the "privilege" of being a white cisgendered male.....

What garbage.

 

[tyr_13]

I did miss that post. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Not sure I'll be motivated enough get to it but I'm glad to know it is there.

To be clear, I don't think everyone ignored my bell curve comments.

I didn't ignore it. It's a much better way of explaining things than I've used in the past.

 

[crimresearch]

I guess you are not actually READING the thread then. I am not the only one who disagrees with them very strongly.

Appeal to authority or to popularity is a fallacy, no matter what the numbers are... even with appeal to invisible emails that agree with you

 

[AvalonXQ]

Appeal to authority or to popularity is a fallacy, no matter what the numbers are... even with appeal to invisible emails that agree with you

Introducing the opinions of third parties is not always the fallacy of popularity.
For instance, if someone accuses you of poor reading comprehension for interpreting a post a certain way, and you respond that the post is reasonably interpreted the way you read it, introducing others who have read it that way is valid evidence and not a fallacious appeal.
That's what she did in this case. Your assessment is incorrect.

 

[truethat]

The invisible emails are there but of course I don't expect you to believe them. And it's quite true. Even if these posters don't feel this way in their hearts, if this is how they are coming across to so many people, it behooves them to consider their approach. In fact the OP could learn from that. If people are attacking you for being a "feminist" it's probably because you are coming across as a misogynist. Change your approach.

 

[KingMerv00]

Appeal to authority or to popularity is a fallacy, no matter what the numbers are... even with appeal to invisible emails that agree with you

I got some encouraging PMs too. Not kidding.

 

[Morrigan]

I got a bunch of PMs saying "truethat is a <insert insult here>", I win!

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a worthless and irrelevant argument...? Or in fact, it's not even an argument at all? Just saying.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that the claim that bookitty, KingMerv and SkepticGinger "segregating women into victims and men into perpetrators" is a complete and utter fabrication. Calling it a strawman or misrepresentation would be doing a disservice to strawmen and misrepresentations, really.

 

[Dipayan]

You are making a lot of false assumptions and trying to support it with less than complete data.

See, I can read this statement, but I am befuddled as to why you would claim this. I made two claims, and asked one question.

1st Claim: India has had 2 woman premiers till now - FACT
2nd Claim: PEW polls claimed that 84% of Indians feel that a woman is not the natural breadwinner - FACT
Question: Since you believe that appointment of a female premier/majority in government is 'evidence women have achieved sufficient equality', what are your thoughts about India? - FROM YOUR QUOTE

Would absolutely love it if you could me how any of the above are false assumptions.

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.

Thank you, that was an interesting read. Unconnected to our conversation, but interesting nonetheless.

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

I think you have forgotten what your earlier claim was... From quote #574

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.

 

[Dipayan]

Oh, funny, you are new aren't you?

New to JREF? No. New to Rebecca Watson? Yes.

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.

Yes, I happened to look into the whole elevatorgate fiasco - it was an entirely surreal read. Coming back to Rebecca Watson, it appears that you are saying that though Watson seems to be an 'extremist' in her views, she enjoys a fair amount of support among the feminist groups. If that is so, would it be fair to surmise that a significant percentage of feminists are of the Watson frame of mind?

 

[Dipayan]

Firstly, KingMerv, appreciate your response to my somewhat snarky comments. Am just going to repsond to one point of yours.

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".

I was reacting to this post that you had made on the Skepchick site.

...I will say that I “saw the light” about 6 months ago as a direct result of something that rhymes with “shmelevatorgate”. Thanks Rebecca/Skepchick, I now proudly call myself a feminist.

This, plus the fact that all your arguments seem to be entirely lifted from the skepchick pages made me feel that you were promoting the Watson brand of feminism. It is entirely possible that I misunderstood the situation, and if so, I apologize.

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

Hope you're rested now!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I got a bunch of PMs saying "truethat is a <insert insult here>", I win!

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a worthless and irrelevant argument...? Or in fact, it's not even an argument at all? Just saying.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that the claim that bookitty, KingMerv and SkepticGinger "segregating women into victims and men into perpetrators" is a complete and utter fabrication. Calling it a strawman or misrepresentation would be doing a disservice to strawmen and misrepresentations, really.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See, I can read this statement, but I am befuddled as to why you would claim this. I made two claims, and asked one question.

1st Claim: India has had 2 woman premiers till now - FACT
2nd Claim: PEW polls claimed that 84% of Indians feel that a woman is not the natural breadwinner - FACT
Question: Since you believe that appointment of a female premier/majority in government is 'evidence women have achieved sufficient equality', what are your thoughts about India? - FROM YOUR QUOTE

Would absolutely love it if you could me how any of the above are false assumptions.

I already pointed out this was a straw man. It's even worse when you repeat someone else's straw man and continue arguing it.

Please find where I've ever said anything as stupid as I "believe that appointment of a female premier/majority in government is 'evidence women have achieved sufficient equality'".

I've never said nor believed any such thing. Do you think we have racial equality in the US now because Obama was elected? It's ludicrous and definitely not something I've ever said.

I think you have forgotten what your earlier claim was... From quote #574

No, I think you need to re-read it.

...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. It is not evidence of the side track you are off on. .....

You need to check your math:

"Almost all white men" does not change by adding one or two women anymore than it changed by adding one black man.

 

[Dipayan]

I already pointed out this was a straw man. It's even worse when you repeat someone else's straw man and continue arguing it.

I'm happy to hear that you think it's a straw man. However, I would be much happier if you could just explain WHY it is a straw man.

Please find where I've ever said anything as stupid as I "believe that appointment of a female premier/majority in government is 'evidence women have achieved sufficient equality'".

You were claiming that the fact that the US has not had a single female premier shows that there is not sufficient gender equality. I would assume that this would mean that when a country has female premiers, it is evidence that there is sufficient gender equality. Otherwise, do let me know if there is a certain percentage of women premiers that are needed as clear evidence of a gender neutral society.

No, I think you need to re-read it.You need to check your math:

"Almost all white men" does not change by adding one or two women anymore than it changed by adding one black man.

I have been talking about India. There has been 3 women prime ministers (one got elected twice) out of a total of 14 prime ministers. That's about 22% representation. The most important portfolios in India are mostly controlled by female politicians. The 5 most influential politicians in the country would include 4 who are women. You are free to check for yourself, or you can believe me when I say that when it comes to top-flight politics in India, women are definitely not weak or vulnerable.

Which is why I disagree with your statement that the appointment of a woman premier/strong representation in parliament is somehow evidence of sufficient gender equality. If you accept this, we have no more argument. If you do not, and want to continue your claim that the number of female presidents/representation in parliament is relevant to the equality of men and women in society, you're going to have to justify it a little better than simply saying "there's none, it's unequal, problem."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

New to JREF? No. New to Rebecca Watson? Yes.

Yes, I happened to look into the whole elevatorgate fiasco - it was an entirely surreal read. Coming back to Rebecca Watson, it appears that you are saying that though Watson seems to be an 'extremist' in her views, she enjoys a fair amount of support among the feminist groups. If that is so, would it be fair to surmise that a significant percentage of feminists are of the Watson frame of mind?

No, that would not be an evidence supportable assumption.

Watson is a very popular member of the JREF and has been for a very long time. She has been a speaker and an organizer at many skeptical events including at most (all?) TAMs. She runs the Skepchick blog and was one of the producers of the Skepchick and Skepdude calendars. Perhaps one reason you don't know any of that is she was banned from the forum for serious rule breaking.

It's my opinion (and that's all any of us have here unless you can produce a significant sociology study on the subject) that Rebecca's initial feminist leanings were reasonable. But elevatorgate seemed to represent a direction of feminism that was extreme. In particular her comments about Dawkins were ridiculous. And if you go back to the discussion in this forum you'll see my view was polar opposite of Rebecca's. And there were plenty of women who consider themselves liberated who agreed with me.

It's also my opinion that some people jumped on the Watson bandwagon because they agreed with her, but others did so because they were 'followers'.

As for majority of feminists, no, a group of skeptics already followers of Rebecca, yes. But it was not a majority it just seemed that way because it included a group of dedicated supporters.

 

[Dipayan]

Perhaps one reason you don't know any of that is she was banned from the forum for serious rule breaking.

For unlawfully using mod privileges, yes. I am a thorough researcher

And if you go back to the discussion in this forum you'll see my view was polar opposite of Rebecca's. And there were plenty of women who consider themselves liberated who agreed with me.

Yes, I have seen those posts.

As for majority of feminists, no, a group of skeptics already followers of Rebecca, yes. But it was not a majority it just seemed that way because it included a group of dedicated supporters.

Fair enough, I was just wondering... I guess like in a lot of other groups, the ones who feel the need to let you know that they are feminists are probably going to be the ones that get on your nerves the most.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm happy to hear that you think it's a straw man. However, I would be much happier if you could just explain WHY it is a straw man.

I did. Pretty hard to be more clear.

You were claiming that the fact that the US has not had a single female premier shows that there is not sufficient gender equality. I would assume that this would mean that when a country has female premiers, it is evidence that there is sufficient gender equality. Otherwise, do let me know if there is a certain percentage of women premiers that are needed as clear evidence of a gender neutral society.

Just re-read my post. How does ONE or TWO women presidents or premiers change "ALMOST ALL men?" It doesn't. Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense?

I have been talking about India. There has been 3 women prime ministers (one got elected twice) out of a total of 14 prime ministers. That's about 22% representation. The most important portfolios in India are mostly controlled by female politicians. The 5 most influential politicians in the country would include 4 who are women. You are free to check for yourself, or you can believe me when I say that when it comes to top-flight politics in India, women are definitely not weak or vulnerable.

Straw men above FALSE ANALOGIES here.

The two countries and cultures are very different and one would look at different measures of gender inequality in each country. Would you say none of the leaders in India were white therefore there is no ethnic inequality in India?

But even if you ignore the differences in culture and ethnicity, I can go back a decade and make it look like we had 50% black Presidents in the US. India has hundreds of years of all male leadership. You used an arbitrary cutoff.

Which is why I disagree with your statement that the appointment of a woman premier/strong representation in parliament is somehow evidence of sufficient gender equality. If you accept this, we have no more argument. If you do not, and want to continue your claim that the number of female presidents/representation in parliament is relevant to the equality of men and women in society, you're going to have to justify it a little better than simply saying "there's none, it's unequal, problem."

You just can't stop yourself arguing with this straw man I never said.

It's even worse here. Now you are trying to say all one needs is a single measure to rate gender inequality. The lack of women in leadership positions can be demonstrated with many different examples. Taking a single one, President, as if that is all one needs to prove change, is not reasonable. Taking a single woman President out of almost 50 and claiming that evens things up is ludicrous.

 

[Moss]

Which cutoff would be useful to measure inequality? Not just when it comes to representation but gender inequality in general? I think that is a tricky issue because there are a lot of factors that play into that.

 

[Meed]

I'm pro sex/gender equality and anti-sexist (although disagreement can be had on what constitutes sexism). I don't hate feminism overall. But there is a certain flavor of feminism I hate. I don't know if there's a name for it, but I've encountered it often enough in different areas of the internet to conclude that it's not just a few whackos. I associate it with words and phrases including "maleprivilege.txt", "mansplaining", "check your privilege", "patriarchy", "'what about the mens??'" and "learn feminism 101", the incorporation of theory drawn from psychoanalysis and postmoderism and often a distrust of science (i.e. it's biased, because men are the ones doing most of the research).

A lot of so called Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) seem like idiots too, but I'm less familiar with them.

There are lots of feminists I like, I'm just saying it's not surprising to me that there is so much hatred, because there's so much poor representation of feminism out there.

ETA: None of that has anything to do with radfems BTW
2nd ETA: I also haven't really seen it on JREF and don't mean that to apply to anyone in this thread

 

[Dipayan]

I did. Pretty hard to be more clear.

Maybe I missed it. Could you please point me to the post?

Just re-read my post. How does ONE or TWO women presidents or premiers change "ALMOST ALL men?" It doesn't. Why do you insist on repeating this nonsense?

I'm not even talking to you about the States. I'm talking about a different country altogether, where it's not just 'one or two presidents or premiers'. The government is heavily influenced by female politicians. Your claim was that more female representation in Congress means more gender equality. My example was to show you that that is not a fact. It might just mean that gender inequality is not a factor among a certain segment of females.

The two countries and cultures are very different and one would look at different measures of gender inequality in each country.

When you read the PEW report, you said this -

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.

If I may paraphrase this, you are saying that women in the US and UK are more liberated than some of the other countries on the list. But the 'almost all white male leadership' is evidence that even in these countries, women do not have sufficient equality.' What you are doing here is directly connecting more leadership positions -> more equality.

Then when I presented India as an example where women hold multiple leadership positions and yet there is gender inequity, you say that the two cultures are very different?

Is it not a more plausible explanation that women in leadership positions may not say much at all about the gender equality situation in a country?

Would you say none of the leaders in India were white therefore there is no ethnic inequality in India?

A completely pointless question, but just for fun, the current leader of the ruling party is actually an Italian who took Indian citizenship.

India has hundreds of years of all male leadership. You used an arbitrary cutoff.

Hundreds of years? India gained its independence in 1947. There have been 14 prime ministerships since then. 3 of them were by women candidates. It's ok to not know something. Not ok to just wing it.

It's even worse here. Now you are trying to say all one needs is a single measure to rate gender inequality. The lack of women in leadership positions can be demonstrated with many different examples. Taking a single one, President, as if that is all one needs to prove change, is not reasonable. Taking a single woman President out of almost 50 and claiming that evens things up is ludicrous.

I'm not sure if you are having trouble parsing my arguments. This is not at all what I said. YOU brought up the point that US has not had a woman President. Hence, I pointed out similar positions in India. You said that more women in parliament means more rights for women. So again I pointed you to India. I'm not saying that the one position shows the gender situation. I'm merely trying to show you that it does not. You were the one who connected 'presence in parliament' to 'equality'. See the two following comments, one from you., and one from me -

Skeptic Ginger
The almost all white male leadership...SNIP... is evidence women have not achieved sufficient equality even in countries where conditions have improved.

Dipayan
Which is why I disagree with your statement that the appointment of a woman premier/strong representation in parliament is somehow evidence of sufficient gender equality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which cutoff would be useful to measure inequality? Not just when it comes to representation but gender inequality in general? I think that is a tricky issue because there are a lot of factors that play into that.

Cutoff of what? The number of women Presidents elected?

You have the right answer: "here are a lot of factors that play into" what constitutes gender equality.