Why so much hatred for feminism?

[crimresearch]

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.

Did you hurt yourself with that pretzel?

 

[crimresearch]

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.

So if a number of people are bleating knee jerk responses at the mere mention of the word 'feminism', instead of bothering to read what the OP has said repeatedly, then he needs to change?

That's truly fantastic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Last time I answer this. Three times is enough:
ONE or TWO women presidents or premiers doesn't change the statement: "ALMOST ALL men"

You keep claiming I said once there were 1 or 2 women leaders elected that would indicate gender equality had been reached. I never said any such thing. But you keep lying saying I did.

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.

India has a higher percentage of women in positions of power than in the US. But they most certainly are still an extremely male dominated society. They are further from gender equality than in the US. And you cherry picked a single indicator to compare the two cultures.

When you read the PEW report, you said this -

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.

Almost all male leadership in the US and in the UK (a fact) is indeed evidence we have a long way to go.

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?

Well, back to the same problem you can't get past. I cited an example of inequality (almost all white male leadership of both countries). It's a single important indicator that documents a gender equality deficiency. It is NOT the SOLE indicator, nor would changing that single indicator automatically mean all other indicators also changed.

You want to use the same single indicator as if it were the sole indicator. That is not how one measures gender equality. But it is how one cites an example of inequality.

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.

You think India didn't exist during or before British rule?

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 -

The parsing problem is yours. I cited ONE example, ONE indicator. The rest of your interpretation here is nonsense. When did I ever say that ONE example was all the evidence one needed?

However, your logic is also a fail here. If we had gender equality in this country everywhere except the office of President, that would mean a significant inequality remained.

If we had gender equality in the office of President and everything else remained the same, we would still have significant inequality in many other places.

 

[truethat]

So if a number of people are bleating knee jerk responses at the mere mention of the word 'feminism', instead of bothering to read what the OP has said repeatedly, then he needs to change?

That's truly fantastic.

No. If you ask "Why so much hatred for feminism" then people start saying the bad experiences they've had and explaining "Why" and then you turn around and attack the poster for being narrow minded and start raging debates in the thread, you aren't being sincere.

The OP was simply then, just a ruse to create a dynamic to attack people who don't like extreme feminism. Also to post lots of misogynistic crap.

 

[Moss]

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.

Sorry, I thought it would be clear I was referring to the timeframe. I think anyone would be hardpressed to say that human history does not have huge stretches of gender inequality. (I pondered whether social inequality has been a bigger inequality, but actually that is a pretty useless question as equality or a lack thereof are always the result of a combination of factors including race, religion, gender. Often they are so intertwined it makes not that much sense to take one out and cry "that's the perp!")
But I don't think you get an accurate picture of inequality today when you use the last 500 years as the time period under scrutiny.

Maybe I am totally misreading you, but to me it seems like you dismiss Dipayan's example based on a large timeframe. Which I think is somewhat unfair to India as there seems to be a higher number of women involved in politics than in a lot of other countries. The timeframe Dipayan thinks about is actually an interesting one as it represents the period where Indians are able to democratically select their government and their representatives. So I think it does tell us a bit about gender inequality. I'm aware that does not show the whole picture of gender relations in India. I suspect they are highly complicated due to the many different ethnic groups, castes and religious movements.

Sidenote of questionable value: When I think about "white male privilege" and feminism I always get the gut reaction "they accuse me of something and they are going to take something away from me". Which leads to the second gut feeling of slight resentment. I think part of the reaction of is based on "hey, what exactly did I do wrong? And what am I still allowed to do?" I'm not sure if I am annoyed by the vagueness of the term itself (and "The Patriarchy" gets the same "Do I have to take this faceless something serious or does it get more specific?" reaction) or because I have the vague notion I might benefit and therefore get away with something that I actually shouldn't.
I think part of the hatred is actually based on that the people reacting understand that at least some of the criticism delivered by feminists is quite correct and that things that have been the status quo for a while will change again. (Fore example I seriously wonder why some people think men should be the breadwinners, for most of humanity's history women worked as hard as men for the continued survival of their families. That women only do the household chores and look after the children wasn't even practical.)
I also think that feminism and other analytical movements make life more complicated than traditional gender roles in that you have to think more about what you do instead of being somewhat guided by tradition(or boxed in as it may be). But I think that is overhead that is necessary.

 

[Dipayan]

Skeptic Ginger,

It seems like we are talking past each other which is only serving to lengthen our posts. Let me try and put down my disagreement as concisely as I can.

You took the low representation of women in parliament and connected it directly to gender inequity. My contention is that this might be a tad simplistic and maybe we should explore if there are other forces at work too. As evidence I presented the Indian government which has a fair representation of women in politics but has a wider gap when it comes to gender equality. This is all that I am suggesting.

You think India didn't exist during or before British rule?

I will assume you had a momentary brain fart and ignore this

 

[KingMerv00]

Skeptic Ginger,

It seems like we are talking past each other which is only serving to lengthen our posts. Let me try and put down my disagreement as concisely as I can.

You took the low representation of women in parliament and connected it directly to gender inequity. My contention is that this might be a tad simplistic and maybe we should explore if there are other forces at work too. As evidence I presented the Indian government which has a fair representation of women in politics but has a wider gap when it comes to gender equality. This is all that I am suggesting.

It has been said at least twice, no one is suggesting that governmental representation is a magical issue that embodies all of the inequality in America. Just like inequality against men in child custody against doesn't embody all of the inequalities against men. Statistics that show inequality are indicators of a problem. The lack of women in government in a "equal opportunity" society is like a "check engine" light.

 

[truethat]

Maybe some of us are more interested in driving the car and going somewhere then spending hours standing around the car trying to figure out what all the "check engine" lights mean.

Especially since the car seems to be working fine except for the "check engine lights." The nay sayers are certain there's a great problem occurring with the engine of the car. And that any moment the car is going to break down. The rest of us are saying that it's not the engine that's the problem, it's the electrical wiring. The way one thing has been mistakenly wired to another and all the "check engine" lights are coming on when really there isn't anything wrong with the car. The problem isn't the engine, it's the people standing in front of the car checking the engine who won't get the eff out of the way and let us go.

 

[KingMerv00]

*Removes truethat from ignore*

Ok, here goes.

I still think I had every right to be annoyed with you but I am sorry about the insults earlier. I do my best to avoid that sort of behavior but no one is perfect. I also hate using ignore because it blinds me to opposing views...also I'm too curious and I end up clicking "view post" most of the time.

Back to slamming my head against the wall...

Maybe some of us are more interested in driving the car and going somewhere then spending hours standing around the car trying to figure out what all the "check engine" lights mean.

Who wants to stand around? I want to go to a mechanic.

Especially since the car seems to be working fine except for the "check engine lights." The nay sayers are certain there's a great problem occurring with the engine of the car. And that any moment the car is going to break down. The rest of us are saying that it's not the engine that's the problem, it's the electrical wiring. The way one thing has been mistakenly wired to another and all the "check engine" lights are coming on when really there isn't anything wrong with the car. The problem isn't the engine, it's the people standing in front of the car checking the engine who won't get the eff out of the way and let us go.

Perhaps the check engine light alone was too subtle. What if I add the fact that steam is coming out from under the hood, the car constantly pulls to the right (pun intended), you can't get out of first gear, and you spot three of your tires in your rear view mirror? Multiple bits of evidence all suggest something is wrong.

Enough with the imprecise metaphors. I know people disagree with me. We can discuss that rationally. I was trying to tell Dipayan something but it appears I misunderstood his point.

 

[truethat]

My problem with extreme feminists and those who are swayed by them is the way it's perpetuated that women are oppressed by "society" and "men" and "patriarchy" A very good example of this myth is the way we are told that women are oppressed with body image. Now who is doing the oppression here? Frankly most men I know like women with more curves. They are not fond of "skin and bones" type body shapes. Yes there are some ideals but the fact remains that the people oppressing women about their body image are usually other women.

Ex go on any gossip site and look at all the posting about female celebrities. Women will tear each other apart. Men aren't the one's sitting around knocking Kim Kardashian as being plastic and ugly, they aren't the ones mocking her for her "fat ass" or her fake boobs. Women are the ones that do that.

All those magazines that are used to talk about the way body image is messed up are purchased by women. Women feed the system that they say is oppressing them. Then they try to blame it on "society" as if "society" is other people. This is what I mean by women presenting themselves as victims all the time.

This is just one example.

 

[KingMerv00]

My problem with extreme feminists and those who are swayed by them is the way it's perpetuated that women are oppressed by "society" and "men" and "patriarchy"

You specified you were talking about extremists...I'm not sure if that means me or not but I'll respond with my POV.

A very good example of this myth is the way we are told that women are oppressed with body image. Now who is doing the oppression here? Frankly most men I know like women with more curves. They are not fond of "skin and bones" type body shapes. Yes there are some ideals but the fact remains that the people oppressing women about their body image are usually other women.

Ex go on any gossip site and look at all the posting about female celebrities. Women will tear each other apart. Men aren't the one's sitting around knocking Kim Kardashian as being plastic and ugly, they aren't the ones mocking her for her "fat ass" or her fake boobs. Women are the ones that do that.

You keep using anecdotes. In a skeptic forum, you can't do that and expect to remain unchallenged. If I found someone to say that it's usually men who insulted women, would you accept that is good evidence? No. You'd fairly reject it. No person, no matter how honest and fair they seem, has the authority to make statements about society as a whole without at least trying to objectively measure what's going on.

This applies to me too, of course. Honestly I don't know which gender is harder on women. I know what my personal experience tells me but I am aware personal experience does not always reflect of reality. Perhaps there is a survey out there that can gives us useful data.

All those magazines that are used to talk about the way body image is messed up are purchased by women. Women feed the system that they say is oppressing them. Then they try to blame it on "society" as if "society" is other people. This is what I mean by women presenting themselves as victims all the time.

I'm not a fan of the word "patriarchy" or using "men" collectively when distributing blame. I've said before I think on gender has more power than the other on average but the words (intentionally or unintentionally) suggest that men only benefit and should receive all the blame for the status quo. This idea is inaccurate, unhelpful, and not representative of the feminist communities I've seen. All of the feminists I have been following are more than happy to slam a woman when she supports an unrealistic body image.

Feminist PR isn't what it should be and lots of people think feminists only blame men. Maybe it is the obsession the media has with extreme views or maybe it's something else. All I know is that nuanced views get overshadowed or ignored.

 

[truethat]

Actually I would. So skip off and find some evidence, I will wait. A generalization I know of course, but in my experience men look at women to find something they like, women look at women critically. Still objectification in both regards, one is not necessarily better than the other.

On the other hand, I think you aren't quite getting my point. My point is that when you talk about "society" you will need to remember that women make up a larger percent of society than men do. Not by much but they do. Then you want to consider why the word "society" and "socialized" are thrown around as if there's this "group" that doesn't include the women that are being "oppressed" by "society."

People oppress each other in different ways. So for example a cisgendered Christian fundy will probably oppress the GLBQT groups. A racist white woman is going to oppress a black woman. We all make up "society." You keep saying you don't treat women as victims of men, but when you lump all men together in a category and talk about "male privilege" that is exactly what you are doing.

Who has the privilege?

An educated black woman who makes over $100,000 a year or a white redneck who works at McDonalds?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-84.stm


This article perpetuates the idea that the average "wealth" of a black woman is $5 compared to $41,000 for white women.

It doesn't take much thinking to understand that there is something seriously wrong with the way they compiled the data in this. Yet it's perpetuated as some sort of truth.

This is what irritates people about "statistics." Even if you are shown statistics you understand that there must be something amiss in the way the data was evaluated. So people tend to shut down agenda driven people because they are suspicious about their motives and information.



http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

 

[KingMerv00]

Actually I would.

You would what?

So skip off and find some evidence, I will wait.

I might, the idea is interesting. If I don't the point still remains unproven either way.

Still objectification in both regards, one is not necessarily better than the other.

It is wrong when either gender does it. Agreed.

On the other hand, I think you aren't quite getting my point. My point is that when you talk about "society" you will need to remember that women make up a larger percent of society than men do. Not by much but they do. Then you want to consider why the word "society" and "socialized" are thrown around as if there's this "group" that doesn't include the women that are being "oppressed" by "society."

What makes you think I use "society" to mean any group in particular? I think you've read a connotation into the word because you think that feminists always blame "men". I don't THINK I've used the word "society" to suggest one gender over another. If I have, it was wrong to do so.

People oppress each other in different ways. So for example a cisgendered Christian fundy will probably oppress the GLBQT groups. A racist white woman is going to oppress a black woman. We all make up "society." You keep saying you don't treat women as victims of men, but when you lump all men together in a category and talk about "male privilege" that is exactly what you are doing.

Have I ever suggested that women aren't part of "society"? I'm genuinely confused about what you think I believe and if you can separate that from what you see as "feminism".

We keep going around and around and I keep trying to correct you about my opinions. Seriously, what do you think I believe? How do you define feminist?

Who has the privilege?

An educated black woman who makes over $100,000 a year or a white redneck who works at McDonalds?

I think the questions is worded suggestively because we have different ideas of what "privilege" means. I haven't talked about privilege in this thread so I obviously don't expect you to know what I think of it.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-84.stm


This article perpetuates the idea that the average "wealth" of a black woman is $5 compared to $41,000 for white women.

It doesn't take much thinking to understand that there is something seriously wrong with the way they compiled the data in this. Yet it's perpetuated as some sort of truth.

Don't just say ignore data because it surprises you or conflicts with your gut. Actually LOOK at it. How do you know it's wrong? Because it is shocking? Maybe it is wrong, maybe it isn't but if you dismiss things that "must be wrong", you'll never learn.

That's being a skeptic.

This is what irritates people about "statistics." Even if you are shown statistics you understand that there must be something amiss in the way the data was evaluated. So people tend to shut down agenda driven people because they are suspicious about their motives and information.

"Statistics" is a real thing. Scare quotes don't help. Some statistics are twisted to score rhetorical points, others are not. If you want to learn the truth you have to dig. It sucks but that's how life is sometimes.

If people shut down a failing of the "people". They need to take data and critically analyze it instead of giving in to "truthiness". If they shut down, they need to wake the hell back up because preconceptions of the world are not good enough.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

I don't know why you cited this.

 

[truethat]

Statistics are always twisted. As a skeptic I'm going to be leary of someone with an agenda who throws out statistics because I know they have probably been assembled under a biased lens.

A racist would point to the same statistic as proof that black women are incompetent. It's pointless.

 

[KingMerv00]

Statistics are always twisted. As a skeptic I'm going to be leary of someone with an agenda who throws out statistics because I know they have probably been assembled under a biased lens

A racist would point to the same statistic as proof that black women are incompetent. It's pointless.

I'm encouraging you to be leery, to dig through the data and look for evidence to the contrary. That's skepticism. You aren't being cautious or skeptical, you are being completely dismissive. Case in point, you'll note you ignored almost all of my questions and concerns. No acknowledgment that you agree with a feminist that women can harm women, no attempt to understand what I mean by "society", no interest in how I define "privilege", and no effort given to describe what you think my POV is. If you don't want to have a conversation, that's fine. At least do the polite thing and tell me so I don't waste my time.

Know what? Never mind. I'm sorry I gave you a 22nd chance. I won't put you on ignore but there is no why in hell I'm going to try to talk to you in this thread. You've just disqualified yourself from rational conversation when you admitted you'll ignore something that "just seems wrong" because...well....uh...because...agenda...victim...and...Chewbacca lives on Endor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, I thought it would be clear I was referring to the timeframe. I think anyone would be hardpressed to say that human history does not have huge stretches of gender inequality. (I pondered whether social inequality has been a bigger inequality, but actually that is a pretty useless question as equality or a lack thereof are always the result of a combination of factors including race, religion, gender. Often they are so intertwined it makes not that much sense to take one out and cry "that's the perp!")
But I don't think you get an accurate picture of inequality today when you use the last 500 years as the time period under scrutiny.

I think I see the problem here. The status of women in the US and in India are well known to me and I've made assumptions these things were common knowledge. But maybe you guys aren't aware that in India gender inequality is severe. If you were you'd see right away why Dipayan's single example didn't make his case.

There's also this logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.) But one key indicator cannot prove inequality does not exist. (Proving the negative in this case you have to look at all indicators overall.)

I cited a single example not comprehensive evidence. But it stands as a single example because most people are well aware of dozens of other examples.

Which I think is somewhat unfair to India as there seems to be a higher number of women involved in politics than in a lot of other countries. The timeframe Dipayan thinks about is actually an interesting one as it represents the period where Indians are able to democratically select their government and their representatives. So I think it does tell us a bit about gender inequality. I'm aware that does not show the whole picture of gender relations in India. I suspect they are highly complicated due to the many different ethnic groups, castes and religious movements.

I didn't want to get into posting an educational piece about India but it would appear you both are unaware of the appalling status of women's rights in that country regardless of the cherry picked measure Dipayan chose.

Women hold more positions of power in the Indian government relative to the US. Good for them. That's progress. But at the same time India has severe class divisions and one has to look at women's conditions overall. Despite being illegal dowries still exist and brides are still burned when the in-laws want more money. Child brides are still a problem as is de facto slavery. Apparently female infanticide is still a serious problem. Can you compare all those gender issues to the US and conclude women are doing fine in India compared to here?

Maybe I am totally misreading you, but to me it seems like you dismiss Dipayan's example based on a large timeframe.

You are. I'm dismissing Dipayan's argument because he wants to cherry pick a single indicator (as opposed to citing one example while there are other obvious indicators one could cite) and in this case, it's also an indicator that does not translate 1:1 across the cultures we are discussing.

The argument history isn't relevant (hundreds of years of Presidents, for example) would only hold water if, 1), you could show things had changed and the historical record was no longer relevant, and 2), if social issues weren't typically steeped in tradition.

Sidenote of questionable value: When I think about "white male privilege" and feminism I always get the gut reaction "they accuse me of something and they are going to take something away from me". Which leads to the second gut feeling of slight resentment. I think part of the reaction of is based on "hey, what exactly did I do wrong? And what am I still allowed to do?" I'm not sure if I am annoyed by the vagueness of the term itself (and "The Patriarchy" gets the same "Do I have to take this faceless something serious or does it get more specific?" reaction) or because I have the vague notion I might benefit and therefore get away with something that I actually shouldn't.
I think part of the hatred is actually based on that the people reacting understand that at least some of the criticism delivered by feminists is quite correct and that things that have been the status quo for a while will change again. (Fore example I seriously wonder why some people think men should be the breadwinners, for most of humanity's history women worked as hard as men for the continued survival of their families. That women only do the household chores and look after the children wasn't even practical.)
I also think that feminism and other analytical movements make life more complicated than traditional gender roles in that you have to think more about what you do instead of being somewhat guided by tradition(or boxed in as it may be). But I think that is overhead that is necessary.

And herein lies one of the problems. People don't want gender equality if they perceive some cost to them. But you are faced with the fact an equal number of people may feel the opposite, why should they have less because women are relegated to second class citizen?

I get it that a white male who loses out in an affirmative action is annoyed. So was the woman or black who lost out for the same gender/ethnic disadvantage previously. No one likes it if they are the person on the disadvantaged end. If one could eliminate the original discrepancy without affirmative action the white male complaint would be valid. It would be nice if blacks and women could simply take a step forward and white men lose nothing.

But because the disadvantages are ingrained in multiple levels in the system it isn't possible to simply eliminate discrimination. Continuing the disadvantage among blacks or females because white males have to take a step back is not acceptable. In that case, how would you change the system? Would you say, screw your disadvantage, I'm not giving my advantage up? Well, then you can expect people to also say, screw your refusal to give up your advantage, the disadvantaged aren't going to let you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger,

It seems like we are talking past each other which is only serving to lengthen our posts. Let me try and put down my disagreement as concisely as I can.

You took the low representation of women in parliament and connected it directly to gender inequity. My contention is that this might be a tad simplistic and maybe we should explore if there are other forces at work too. As evidence I presented the Indian government which has a fair representation of women in politics but has a wider gap when it comes to gender equality. This is all that I am suggesting.

I will assume you had a momentary brain fart and ignore this

I answered this above and I like KingMerv's answer.

But to summarize if you don't want to read the above answer: There's also this logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.) But one key indicator cannot prove inequality does not exist. (Proving the negative in this case you have to look at all indicators overall.)


And regarding your second issue: The argument history isn't relevant (hundreds of years of Presidents, for example) would only hold water if, 1), you could show things had changed and the historical record was no longer relevant, and 2), if social issues weren't typically steeped in tradition. Claiming all of Indian culture was tossed out and society went through instant gender equality change when the Brits pulled out is unrealistic.

Explain the significant problem of female infanticide if women have equal status in India.

 

[Moss]

Err, would you please actually read what I wrote and not what you assumed I was knowledgeable about?

 

[truethat]

Give up.

 

[truethat]

I'm encouraging you to be leery, to dig through the data and look for evidence to the contrary. That's skepticism. You aren't being cautious or skeptical, you are being completely dismissive. Case in point, you'll note you ignored almost all of my questions and concerns. No acknowledgment that you agree with a feminist that women can harm women, no attempt to understand what I mean by "society", no interest in how I define "privilege", and no effort given to describe what you think my POV is. If you don't want to have a conversation, that's fine. At least do the polite thing and tell me so I don't waste my time.

Know what? Never mind. I'm sorry I gave you a 22nd chance. I won't put you on ignore but there is no why in hell I'm going to try to talk to you in this thread. You've just disqualified yourself from rational conversation when you admitted you'll ignore something that "just seems wrong" because...well....uh...because...agenda...victim...and...Chewbacca lives on Endor.

Did you really want to know the answer to the OP? Or did you want to debate feminist ideology? I didn't answer your questions because see what's going on up there ^^^^^^^^ I do not engage in that kind of discussion partly because it's completely pointless to me. I do not discuss things with people motivated by an agenda because they are completely blind to their own biases.

Once again for the billionth time (ok 8th) I am answering the OP and ONLY the OP. There is no conversation to be had here.

If you say "Why do so many people not like Christian Fundamentalists" and I say


"Because whenever I've gotten into discussions with them they are dishonest about the way they present their information and are biased to the point that they are pushing their agenda"


Then you look at me and start debating and trying to have a discussion that I JUST SAID I don't want to have? Not only are you going to annoy me with the conversation, you're going to annoy me for ignoring what I just said.