Why so much hatred for feminism?

[crimresearch]

Oddly enough, no.

OK, then what percentage of the deaths in childbirth were men?

 

[tyr_13]

OK, then what percentage of the deaths in childbirth were men?

What I said was a joke.

However, if you want to be literal about it, probably between 30%-45% as a guess. Note that the mother isn't always the one to die during childbirth.

 

[epepke]

And what led to these changes? Magic pixie dust that caused the male bosses, deans, et al. to suddenly become magnanimous, or feminism?

Feminism did. Well, actually, Women's Liberationism did, until it retrospectively got called "feminism."

What is your point?

Feminism is useful and necessary and productive. It is also useless, unnecessary, and destructive. It depends on what kind of feminism we are talking about.

I have never been against feminism per se, However, I have been and am against some of the things done within feminism. That is, some kinds of feminism, kinds which (as I have clearly explained) came to the fore during the end of "second wave" feminism.

For doing so, I've been called an anti-feminist, whereas I think that the people and impulses within feminism I have criticized are IMO anti-feminist. That is, they represent the kind of genitalian mythmaking that all anti-sexist progress must logically oppose. When it gets to the extent of being against logic and reason themselves, at is has done, then it becomes the enemy.

But as I said, I explained this clearly. I've been explaining it clearly for 30 years. I also know that explaining it clearly never makes a dent, so I'm not going to put a lot of effort into it.

There is a seeming desire, perhaps even a compulsion amongst feminists, to argue that anyone who criticizes any aspect of feminism at all is painting feminism with a broad brush, when precisely the opposite is true. There is a seeming desire, perhaps because the cartoonish image of oppressed women rising up against The Patriarchy™, to believe that only the boneheaded misogynistic right can ever have any objection to any aspect of feminism at all and must necessarily be against equality of the sexes.

The only reason I even bother to criticize feminism is that I am in favor of equality of the sexes. I think that the basic feminist impulse as it was perceived in the heady days of the 1960s (which have been coming back) is good. I just think that feminism took a wrong and destructive turn that hurt women and delayed progress. If I didn't care about this, I wouldn't bother. It certainly isn't for my health or any latent masochism. At the same time, I have decades of experience about how little point there is, so if my clear statements don't work, there is a limit to how much argument I will give.

So, if you or anyone else chooses to mock what I am saying, as you just did, if it makes you smugly happy to think I'm against women, if you think that feminism is just One Big Happy™ like Joe Paterno or the Pope, or Marxism, or, well, pick something, or if, pace the Skepchicks, everything I say is "mansplaining," or if you want to think that I am some sort of dittohead with my tongue superglued to Rush Limbaugh's puckered sphincter, then knock yourself out. There is no way I can stop you.

Still, if you do so, you are making my point for me, demonstrating why "second-wave" feminism self-destructed leading to a time when few young women would identify with any form of feminism. I didn't turn feminism into what was perceived as an ugly word. Women feminists did.

 

[crimresearch]

What I said was a joke.

However, if you want to be literal about it, probably between 30%-45% as a guess. Note that the mother isn't always the one to die during childbirth.

Oh, that would require us to start defining when life/personhood begins in the womb... I'll pass, and just keep it at the people who are in labor.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Oh, that would require us to start defining when life/personhood begins in the womb... I'll pass, and just keep it at the people who are in labor.

i thought once you get to the point of childbirth the other definitions become obsolete [/nitpick]

 

[crimresearch]

Feminism did. Well, actually, Women's Liberationism did, until it retrospectively got called "feminism."
What is your point?
Feminism is useful and necessary and productive. It is also useless, unnecessary, and destructive. It depends on what kind of feminism we are talking about.

I would say that feminism, and not woman's libertion led to those changes, which *is* my point. Conflating the 2 makes it harder to track the progress of the former over the media image of the latter.


Sort of like using 'Black Power' and the civil rights movement as interchangeable terms. Interconnected certainly, but not all attributes of black power should define the whole of the civil rights movement, nor should all the aspects of women's lib set the parameters for feminism.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Oh, do feel free to explain how feminist actions like redoing the research on heart disease to find out that women are at risk as well as men *denigrates* women...

*yawn*

Another Feminist Manipulation University standard: diversion coupled with the rhetorical question.

Hitler was nice to dogs, and loved children so explain how that made him a bad man. Apologies to Godwin.

 

[crimresearch]

i thought once you get to the point of childbirth the other definitions become obsolete [/nitpick]

Unless women are delivering something other than a child, then it is childbirth... in other words how many people die because *they* go into labor. Universally, women.

 

[crimresearch]

*yawn*

Another Feminist Manipulation University standard: diversion coupled with the rhetorical question.

Hitler was nice to dogs, and loved children so explain how that made him a bad man. Apologies to Godwin.

Nice tap dance... In other words, you have nothing to back up your fallacies, and so are resorting to projection.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Hilarious. What fallacies have you proven and how?

 

[crimresearch]

Hilarious. What fallacies have you proven and how?

All I'm hearing is you running away from your own claim because I pointed out an obvious exception.

If you want to stay on Planet 'What?' instead of having a rational discussion, be my guest.

 

[curi0us]

.

All along? Or were the tests changed in the 70s and 80s to focus on upper body strength as a pretext for keeping women out, by adding a measure that favored even out of shape men?

I don't know the full history here (I was born in the seventies) but when it was a controversial issue in the nineties I never once heard/read the argument that the standards had only been introduced to keep women out. I also read the SFFD chiefs rationalization for waiving the requirements for women and I think if the standards had only been implemented to keep women out he would have known and just said as much. I can also recall my grandmother who was pro feminist on a lot of issues being very annoyed about the idea that feminists were fighting to have women firefighters with lower physical standards.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

All I'm hearing is you running away from your own claim because I pointed out an obvious exception.

Oh really? I noticed how you haven't been able to quote what claim you you've allegedly disproven.

I sure enjoy pointing out manipulative tactics...oooooh I'm "running away".

I take it you are a feminist, eh? I did indeed mention the use of manipulative tactics by feminists. Thank you for proving my point.

If you want to stay on Planet 'What?' instead of having a rational discussion, be my guest.

Ahhh... the manipulator paints the target as irrational. Emotional attacks don't work on me. But it is what they teach at FMU, obviously.

 

[timhau]

median income of FTYR workers (US 2009) - Men $47,127 : Women $36,278

And given that men work longer hours and more dangerous jobs, should the medians be the same?

A national survey over here also indicated that the ratio of women vs. men at work was at its highest from 9 am to about 3 pm, and at its lowest from 2 am to 4 am, which means men also have more inconvenient work hours. Should the medians be equal?

 

[Arcade22]

Well, why do (Swedish) feminists spout pseudoscience (like that genders are social constructions) and demand a male tax? I don't hate them, I just think they are stupid.

Well since men statistically earn more than women, and for what reasons is totally unimportant and we don't ever need to discuss that, it would seems fit that in the name of equality that men pay women a part of their wage to equalize it.

Right, feminists?

You are missing the point.

White men are paid more, on average, for the same work as women.

Evidence please. This isn't true in this country despite that feminist say this constantly. Why are feminists so dishonest?

And given that men work longer hours and more dangerous jobs, should the medians be the same?

A national survey over here also indicated that the ratio of women vs. men at work was at its highest from 9 am to about 3 pm, and at its lowest from 2 am to 4 am, which means men also have more inconvenient work hours. Should the medians be equal?

We all support equality and all that stuff right? Of course women should be paid the same as men, no matter what.

 

[Zelenius]

And given that men work longer hours and more dangerous jobs, should the medians be the same?

A national survey over here also indicated that the ratio of women vs. men at work was at its highest from 9 am to about 3 pm, and at its lowest from 2 am to 4 am, which means men also have more inconvenient work hours. Should the medians be equal?

This is my biggest problem with feminists. Their dishonesty. Suggest that the median wage difference between men and women is due to factors other than sexism and you're branded a misogynist. It seems on this wage disparity issue, the radicals and the "mainstream" feminists are mostly in agreement. It's always mentioned as if it says something very damning about society, and men in particular, but don't dare try to question it or examine it more closely to find any other explanation.

It has to be sexism. It can't be which gender, on average works longer hours, and many other factors. I realize that the reason so many women work less hours outside the home than men is because they have children to take care of(which is a lot of work). This in large part explains why Young, Childless, Single Women Earn More Than Men. If sexism and misogyny are so pervasive, how can this be?

Wait a minute, if childless women under 30 are out-earning men at the same age, this must be due to misandry!

 

[sgtbaker]

And given that men work longer hours and more dangerous jobs, should the medians be the same?

I think it's an unfair question considering a man is more likely to get those job over a woman.

A national survey over here also indicated that the ratio of women vs. men at work was at its highest from 9 am to about 3 pm, and at its lowest from 2 am to 4 am, which means men also have more inconvenient work hours. Should the medians be equal?

What are the types of jobs you are talking about and what is the likelyhood that a woman would have an equal opportunity to get the job? The office/business cleaning industry is female dominated and is most often done after normal business hours. The nursing industry is female dominated and the shifts continue beyond the convenient hours, so if women are willing and capable to work said hours, what other factors are coming into play; especially considering the pay is higher?

 

[sgtbaker]

This is my biggest problem with feminists. Their dishonesty. Suggest that the median wage difference between men and women is due to factors other than sexism and you're branded a misogynist. It seems on this wage disparity issue, the radicals and the "mainstream" feminists are mostly in agreement. It's always mentioned as if it says something very damning about society, and men in particular, but don't dare try to question it or examine it more closely to find any other explanation.

It has to be sexism. It can't be which gender, on average works longer hours, and many other factors. I realize that the reason so many women work less hours outside the home than men is because they have children to take care of(which is a lot of work). This in large part explains why Young, Childless, Single Women Earn More Than Men. If sexism and misogyny are so pervasive, how can this be?

Wait a minute, if childless women under 30 are out-earning men at the same age, this must be due to misandry!

The reason for this reverse gender gap is mostly attributed to education. Young women are more likely to have a college degree than young men. Married women, women with children, and women older than 30, however, all still make less than men.

It is explained quite clearly in the article. Just like if there are more men applying for the job, it is more likely to have a higher male to female ratio; if there are more qualified females for the job, it is more likely to have a higher female to male ratio. You have to ask, though, what the numbers would be if there were an equal amount of males getting college degrees. Given that the rest of the female population lags, it says to me that women have to choose either or where as men have the opportunity to have a family and a career. I think the main reason why is, despite the fact that more men want to play a bigger role in family life, when it comes to family the woman's job is still seen as more disposable.

 

[Complexity]

Okay I'm going to lay out my opinion as clearly as possible.
The reason men are expected to get jobs is because they CAN. The reason women an not expected to get jobs is because they CAN'T.

Nonsense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There also more likely to fail. More likely to fall through the system. More likely to work themselves to death. And, a number of other problems. Plus, more women vote than men, so why the disparity? Women are less likely to want those jobs or run for them.

The few advantages men have are outweighed by the many downsides for a lot of men. Also, when you start discounting facts you've delved into dogma and left critical thinking skepticism behind.

You are still ignoring the issue that privilege does not need to extend to ALL white men in order to exist. You simply repeated your position which I already addressed. Yes, we can argue all day about the definition of privilege. I am using the standard definition, you are quibbling with it.

Quibble all you want, it doesn't change the fact white male privilege exists.