Why so much hatred for feminism?

[Mark6]

During my web travels, I came across a lot of anti-feminist hatred. I don't use the word "hatred" lightly. Search "feminism" on youtube and watch a few videos at random and you'll see that most vids are anti-feminist screeds. The few videos that are pro-feminist receive tons of negative votes and are flooded with trolls. Most of the anger seems to be directed at radical misandry rather than more moderate feminism which, as far as I can tell, is the majority viewpoint. Most people hear "feminist" and think of wackjobs like Valerie Solanas. Why?

Because whackjobs are more visible. Because whackjobs call themselves "feminists" and their entire identity is defined by that word (whatever they mean by it), whereas sane feminists identify themselves in other ways -- they may be professionals, mothers, game players, whatever. They do not spend every waking moment proclaiming "I am a feminist!"

I went to two colleges, and in both "feminism" was dominated by active man-haters. These women did NOT want equality -- they wanted women to be in priviledged position, and were quite open about it. Statements like "falsely accusing man of rape is a good thing because it makes him think" and "all hetero sex is rape" abounded. I was sufficiently broad-minded to understand the difference between these nuts and "feminism" as understood by KingMerv00 and other people on this thread, but not everyone is so charitable. I am sure some men went to these colleges, and became forever convinced feminism is evil.

And not just men. All women I knew in these schools genuinely liked men and thought the abovementioned were crazy or evil or both. But the mere presence and volume of anti-male propaganda made it very difficult for them to articulate a more nuanced "feminist" position. Most did not bother.

 

[HansMustermann]

I would be deeply grateful if someone could send me a link to any video or feminist blog where a woman decries the injustice of an unmarried man having to pay child support to a women for 18 years when abortion is legal. Abortion being legal and the fact that the man quite literally has NO legal grounds to contest an abortion means that it is the sole decision of the woman involved whether or not a man has to pay child support. How is that fair? How is that just?

I dunno, it seems to me like you'll get to decide on a medical intervention, not to mention one which seems to have a pretty devastating psychological impact AND in some parts of the world carries a LOT of stigma AND has a risk of complications ranging from short term infections to life-long complications (e.g., there seems to be even a small risk to be left infertile for life), when it's your body.

Sources for complications, for example:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795001-clinical
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html

When even the pro-choice sites list a 0.5% chance of serious complications, and a 1 in 160,000 cases resulting in death, I can't imagine any possible rationalization for giving you any vote in forcing someone to do that. We don't give other people the choice to decide whether or not you should just get a tooth pulled out instead of making them pay more (via insurance) for longer term care for that tooth, nor to make you have your stomach stapled if you're overweight and avoid paying more (again, via insurance) for your heart medication later. And, hey, those didn't even get an orgasm out of it.

Or how about a feminist who claims that ALL women should be subjected to lottery drafts and placed into front-line positions in times of war?

So far the problem is getting even those who want to serve, allowed to do so. Even in first world countries, there are whole branches of the armed forces that don't allow women in at all. E.g., write to the Navy under a woman name and say you want to enlist. See how far that gets you. We'll worry about draft after we get at least those who actively want to fight allowed to enlist.

Besides, I can't believe I'm hearing a version of the same "but they don't go to war" canard, as if that made up for all other injustices. To see why that's silly consider just this: well, the slaves in ancient Rome or the serfs in medieval times also weren't supposed to go to war, and in fact were often prevented from taking up arms even in self-defense. Having or using any weapon was cause for crucifixion in ancient Rome slaves, and medieval peasants were often even prevented from forming ad hoc militias to fight Viking raiders and such. That didn't make them equal to the knights.

Or how about a feminist who demands more research about men's health issues than women's because women tend to live longer than men? It's all about equality right?

By that line of thinking, we should dump the most money into veterinary research, because cats and dogs live an order of magnitude shorter

Seriously, unless you have some data that suggests that there actually are medical conditions that threaten men more and that medicine could actually do more about, that seems to me silly. You can't expect medicine to treat something that isn't there. We're not talking magic there.

 

[Lithrael]

I think Quietus, Mark6 etc have it dead on. The situation reminds me of Christianity too; the crazy people making everyone think the group is full of hateful nutjobs, even when the true majority are far, far more moderate. The difference in the US at least being that the public doesn't really tar Christianity in general with the brush of the gaybashing, fire and brimstone nutter Christians the way it thinks of all feminists as misandrists.

In both groups the hateful, unreasonable elements certainly do exist and are not shy about their opinions. And in both groups the reasonable elements certainly do exist and could probably stand to do more as far as letting everyone know the people standing over there and yelling hate till they're red in the face don't really represent their views. Still, it's not really the moderates' job to fix anybody's perceptions, even though it would be good for them from a PR standpoint.

 

[timhau]

I agree with Hans that paying child support and undergoing an abortion are not comparable, but not being allowed to enlist in certain branches of military and being forced to a military service isn't, either.

 

[Delvo]

I found a huge barrier was my understanding of the term "patriarchy".

That's because feminists insist on pretending it means something it doesn't mean, and that's one thing setting feminism apart from other social movements.

Obviously, that wasn’t ME so I felt unfairly attacked.

I believe that's the key to anti-feminist reactions. The feminist version of reality consists of false accusations against me, all other men, and some fraction of women (those who ever disagreed with something a feminist said) so consistently that I'm not even sure it would be possible to express it in a way that wasn't like that.

On average, men have more money and power than women because we are lucky enough to have been born into a world where we have a disproportionate amount of control. Success begets success. Money begets money. It is the same reason white Americans hold more power than African Americans.

That's just plain silly. It could only make sense if boys only inherited stuff from their fathers and girls only inherited stuff from their mothers.

Most of the anger seems to be directed at radical misandry rather than more moderate feminism which, as far as I can tell, is the majority viewpoint.

Majority in the general populace, or among feminists? If the latter, then based on what? I don't even recall any evidence that it exists at all.

Where does your impression of feminism come from? Are you seeking out information or just remembering the most vile bits you come across?

I'll ask the same question I did to truethat: Where does your impression of feminism come from? Are you seeking out information or just remembering the most vile bits you come across?

Why are we obligated to seek out extra hidden stuff somewhere out there regarding this particular movement? If they're really out there, why isn't it up to them to do something different from the fringe freaks to distinguish themselves from them, as rational racial civil rights advocates distinguish themselves from the "kill whitey" types?

On the whole, however, "black" and "female" tend to reduce future wealth and power. Doesn't that beg for an explanation?

Not a simply made-up one that requires rabid bigotry to believe because the evidence is against it. Why is it that feminists only accept the explanation the feminists push and go straight from there to hate-speech about "mansplaining" when any other explanation is offered, while some black civil rights advocates at least give consideration to alternatives and the evidence for and against them and what can be done about them?

Why can one say something like "Women are the biggest thing holding women back." but not substitute the word "women" with a race?

I can and do say that black people are held back more by black people than by anything else. Sometimes that's called racism and sometimes people consider the reasoning behind it and acknowledge that it's reasonable and credible. Why does feminism only have a counterpart for the former reaction, not the latter?

I define "feminism" as people who are out to establish legal and social equality for both genders with the caveat that women are farther from the center than men.

Then you have defined it as something for which I see no evidence of existence.

 

[Lithrael]

Then you have defined it as something for which I see no evidence of existence.

*waves hand and jumps up and down* Hi

So I guess this is the same problem as the people that show up here saying they identify as Christians but they really only like the love thy neighbor parts and aren't that big on God as such, and a quarter of the forum members tell them they don't count as Christians because a quarter of the Christians wouldn't count them as Christians.

 

[sgtbaker]

I recently became a feminist...it took some effort.

As a guy, I found a huge barrier was my understanding of the term "patriarchy". It conjures up images of laughing misogynists chomping on cigars and telling the "little woman" to “get back in the kitchen”. Obviously, that wasn’t ME so I felt unfairly attacked. I also I felt like feminists were intentionally ignoring harmful and pervasive male stereotypes while harping on their own misery. It took a bit of reading on feminist websites to get how wrong I was. People need to understand the modern state of feminism is less about explicit misogyny and more about implicit sexism against women AND men.

Why call it FEMinism? Isn’t that in and of itself, sexist? No. Women have suffered to a greater extent in this environment while men have reaped more of the tangible benefits. On average, men have more money and power than women because we are lucky enough to have been born into a world where we have a disproportionate amount of control. Success begets success. Money begets money. It is the same reason white Americans hold more power than African Americans. That doesn't mean men or white people are vile. It just means they need to be socially aware and use their power to change the status quo.

Ultimately, the separation of powers leads to horrible sterotypes by assigning men and women into different roles: Men who cry are “fags”. Women with short hair are “dykes”. Men are loudmouthed slobs. Women are shrill and embarrassed to fart. Men unfairly lose child custody battles. Women get raped and people ask how she was dressed. EVERYONE pays the price and everyone needs to work together to stop it.

During my web travels, I came across a lot of anti-feminist hatred. I don't use the word "hatred" lightly. Search "feminism" on youtube and watch a few videos at random and you'll see that most vids are anti-feminist screeds. The few videos that are pro-feminist receive tons of negative votes and are flooded with trolls. Most of the anger seems to be directed at radical misandry rather than more moderate feminism which, as far as I can tell, is the majority viewpoint. Most people hear "feminist" and think of wackjobs like Valerie Solanas. Why?

What I am really sick of, and I find it quite often in the arguments against feminism are the claims of male disposability. To prove that it is not or has not been a patriarchal society, they cite the women and children first rule, divorce settlements, drafts, and dating rituals. Now, I will be the first to agree that it is not fair for men. What I completely disagree with is the idea that it's evidence of anything other than a male dominant society viewed women as weaker and possibly viewed themselves as disposable. I do not feel like I live in a purely patriarchal society, anymore but those practices are remnants of an archaic belief that women were weak, women belonged at home raising the children, women can't handle combat and/or a man couldn't handle seeing a woman's life at risk in combat, and that women are supposed to wait to be asked (the last one I can't rightly blame necessarily on the patriarchy because women taught young girls to behave properly, whether that was female created or expected by men remains to be seen). That's not to say that male disposability isn't real but sometimes it seems people are more motivated to make people hate "the other side" than taking a rational approach to fixing the problem.

 

[Brown]

Forgive me if I echo what others have said.

I don't consider myself a "feminist," because I don't care for labels for myself, especially when those labels don't come with an agreed-upon definition. But it also may be valid to say that I was a feminist before I realized I was, since my definition of feminism is different today from what it used to be.

It used to be defined by people who were loudmouths and ridiculous. They denounced all men as evil or stupid. Some declared that sex was imposed upon women and was almost never consensual. Some even announced that women didn't enjoy sex at all. Loudmouths demanded pay raises with the mantra "Equal pay for equal work," when in fact many of them weren't doing anything like "equal work," or when dynamics other than gender were affecting pay scales. Some declared that God was a woman. Others engaged in demonstrations that seemed to be without any meaningful message, favoring "liberation" but not saying from what they would be liberated or how they would be liberated. Still others bawled about "rights" but were awful damn quiet on the flip side of the coin, responsibilities. Still others insisted upon equality while maintaining certain social or legal benefits that women enjoyed (notably child custody in divorce cases); in other words, they were hypocrites.

Looking at these folks, I would say that I was adamantly NOT a feminist. And I can understand why there would be such a distaste for feminism, if this was the face of it.

What I didn't realize, though, was that I was living in a family where my parents were equal partners, where my mother was university-educated and held a job, where the opinions of women in the family were heard and valued on equal footing with those of men, where spouse-beating was not just taboo but unthinkable, where girls and women were NOT expected to be homemakers but were encouraged to (and DID) become professionals .... In a sense, my upbringing was feminist. Never mind the rhetoric; in practice, women and men were equals. That's how I was raised, and that's how I thought things ought to be.

If THAT is feminism (and it took me a while to realize that it indeed might be), then I would say YES I am a feminist.

 

[KingMerv00]

"I define "feminism" as people who are out to establish legal and social equality for both genders with the caveat that women are farther from the center than men."

I can't agree with this definition because every person I have ever met or read of that describes themselves as a feminist has never ONCE conceded that men are disadvantaged in certain areas. The focus is always on the disadvantages that women have as compared to men.

Except that I did just that in the OP. It happened right in front of your eyes and you ignored it. I'm sure it wasn't intentional but it was definitely confirmation bias.

I would be deeply grateful if someone could send me a link to any video or feminist blog where a woman decries the injustice of an unmarried man having to pay child support to a women for 18 years when abortion is legal. Abortion being legal and the fact that the man quite literally has NO legal grounds to contest an abortion...

I'm certain you will find no support for the idea from feminists for the reasons cited by others. It is an unfortunate fact of reality that women carry the entire physical cost of pregnancy and of abortion. Men's legal authority over the zygote/fetus end at sexual consent because that is the final time his physical autonomy is directly affected. If fertilization occurred externally, the situation would be different.

...it is the sole decision of the woman involved whether or not a man has to pay child support. How is that fair? How is that just?

Forced child support is the unfortunate result of protecting the constitutional right to physical autonomy. Being stuck in a "man trap" sucks...a lot...but a man's fundamental rights are unaffected during pregnancy. I'm pro-CHOICE. That means I also the right to NOT have an abortion.

As a legal side note, neither parent has control over child support. Say we have a middle-class working couple and they both agree that the mother is a terrible parent and shouldn't be involved in the child's life. The father agrees to accept full custody of the child and promises not to seek child support from the mother. That contract is void becaue the state presumes financial support from both parents is in the best interest of the child.

Or how about a feminist who claims that ALL women should be subjected to lottery drafts and placed into front-line positions in times of war?

I don't suppose it would help if I told you that I feel that way? Probably not.

In any event, the National Organisation of Women has supported that exact notion for over 30 years:

BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.

The question is, now that you've seen feminists can and do support draft equality, will you stop using it as an example?

Or how about a feminist who demands more research about men's health issues than women's because women tend to live longer than men? It's all about equality right?

If I'm not mistaken, men die younger on average because they are more likely to be overweight and thus suffer its side effects. Ironically, I suspect this is because the stigma against male obesity not as severe as it is against women. I'm not sure how calling for medical research would help in this regard.

If feminists called for research that increased heart attack survivability for example, at best it would raise life expectancy for everyone and the gender gap would remain.

 

[KingMerv00]

I went to two colleges, and in both "feminism" was dominated by active man-haters. These women did NOT want equality -- they wanted women to be in priviledged position, and were quite open about it. Statements like "falsely accusing man of rape is a good thing because it makes him think" and "all hetero sex is rape" abounded. I was sufficiently broad-minded to understand the difference between these nuts and "feminism" as understood by KingMerv00 and other people on this thread, but not everyone is so charitable. I am sure some men went to these colleges, and became forever convinced feminism is evil.

I don't consider myself a "feminist," because I don't care for labels for myself, especially when those labels don't come with an agreed-upon definition. But it also may be valid to say that I was a feminist before I realized I was, since my definition of feminism is different today from what it used to be.

It used to be defined by people who were loudmouths and ridiculous. They denounced all men as evil or stupid. Some declared that sex was imposed upon women and was almost never consensual. Some even announced that women didn't enjoy sex at all. Loudmouths demanded pay raises with the mantra "Equal pay for equal work," when in fact many of them weren't doing anything like "equal work," or when dynamics other than gender were affecting pay scales. Some declared that God was a woman. Others engaged in demonstrations that seemed to be without any meaningful message, favoring "liberation" but not saying from what they would be liberated or how they would be liberated. Still others bawled about "rights" but were awful damn quiet on the flip side of the coin, responsibilities. Still others insisted upon equality while maintaining certain social or legal benefits that women enjoyed (notably child custody in divorce cases); in other words, they were hypocrites.

Looking at these folks, I would say that I was adamantly NOT a feminist. And I can understand why there would be such a distaste for feminism, if this was the face of it.

I suppose the disconnect is a generational thing. I'm 31 so I wasn't around for women's lib which, as far as I can tell, gave birth to some dangerous strains of misandry. The radical kooks went out of fashion by the time I came around it seems.

 

[Brown]

I suppose the disconnect is a generational thing. I'm 31 so I wasn't around for women's lib which, as far as I can tell, gave birth to some dangerous strains of misandry. The radical kooks went out of fashion by the time I came around it seems.

The term "women's libbers" had (thankfully) a fairly short life. It led to this exchange, though (recited from memory, and not guaranteed to be accurate):

Bill Cosby: What do you think of women's libbers?
Groucho Marx: I'm a leg man, actually.
Bill Cosby: No, what do you think of women's rights?
Groucho Marx: I like BOTH sides of 'em.

 

[Brown]

In virtually any social movement, there are some who are nuts and cranks and hypocrites and dead-heads, and these folks can give the movement a bad reputation.

It's important, therefore, to try to identify what the movement actually is, what its goals are, and how it proposes to achieve those goals; and to separate these things from the personalities of some of the individuals advocating those goals. In other words, some thinking and critical analysis is involved.

 

[truethat]

When I first started on here I got into it big time for suggesting that there should be "paper abortions" for men who did not want to have a baby and the woman did not want to have an abortion. That went over like a lead balloon.

Also feminism needs to take it's name back. Nowadays I see more and more men and women talking about it as equality for everyone. But back in ye old days it was more about more rights for women with the "caveat" that men had it easier.

I don't necessarily agree with that statement.

 

[Resume]

I suppose the disconnect is a generational thing. I'm 31 so I wasn't around for women's lib which, as far as I can tell, gave birth to some dangerous strains of misandry. The radical kooks went out of fashion by the time I came around it seems.

In graduate school my thesis advisor was a radical feminist poet-in-residence with a lazy eye and a bad attitude. In her classes she openly criticized the female students who wore make up; dresses and skirts were right out and high heels, don't get her started. I thought I was pretty progressive for a guy, but learned I was lacking in a number of areas, including my ideas about sex and marriage; it seems it was very likely that I chosen my wife because she espoused no particular feminist viewpoint and I wanted to be the domineering male. None of this had a thing to do with her class subjects of contemporary poetry or creative writing.

I didn't finish my master's and while I can't blame it on this woman, she certainly made it easier for me to quit.

 

[truethat]

I also had a professor like this. Because I was a pretty tall blonde who wore make up and had a "traditional" home life she treated me like an idiot. I got the only B minus of my entire academic career because of this chick.

 

[GreyArea]

...radical kooks...

I've noticed in this thread very few people making an explicit distinction between liberal feminism and radical feminism. Do you all understand the differences?

Most of the people posting here appear to be liberal feminists. I think that is all to the good. And most of the caricatures people have mentioned are about radical feminists (or perceptions of them).

But I would like to accurately understand your perceptions of radical feminism, beyond off-the-cuff descriptions like "kook". Do the people in this thread genuinely think that radical feminist ideas stem from psychiatric illness and not simply a different (possibly erroneous, but not insane) perception of how society operates?

 

[Resume]

Do the people in this thread genuinely think that radical feminist ideas stem from psychiatric illness and not simply a different (possibly erroneous, but not insane) perception of how society operates?

Let's establish what you mean by radical. When I think of radical feminist, my paradigm (besides my thesis advisor) is someone like Andrea Dworkin.

You go.

 

[truethat]

I've noticed in this thread very few people making an explicit distinction between liberal feminism and radical feminism. Do you all understand the differences?

Most of the people posting here appear to be liberal feminists. I think that is all to the good. And most of the caricatures people have mentioned are about radical feminists (or perceptions of them).

But I would like to accurately understand your perceptions of radical feminism, beyond off-the-cuff descriptions like "kook". Do the people in this thread genuinely think that radical feminist ideas stem from psychiatric illness and not simply a different (possibly erroneous, but not insane) perception of how society operates?

I was thinking that a fundamental problem with feminism for me is that they tend to treat "society" as controlled by white men in power.

They seem to ignore Cultural Hegemony as something that is controlled by everyone in society.

One of the reasons I think Kooky Feminists started wigging out is because they seemed to think that all women wanted to be "Free" of some of the more mundane aspects of female life. Like cooking cleaning child rearing. When women got the ability to choose and some women still chose more traditional roles they wanted to blame someone. So they turned on women themselves and started acting as if women were brainwashed.

I did an informal study years ago about women who wear the Hijab. Many women I spoke to felt that we should force women to uncover because they felt the only reason a woman would want to wear a Hijab was because they were oppressed or didn't know they could do otherwise. They rejected anything that told them otherwise. Confirmation bias. No matter if a woman wearing the Hijab had a Phd and was highly intelligent, they treated her like a fool and said her "husband" forced her to wear it or that she was a victim of patriarchal domination. Whatever.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's because feminists insist on pretending it means something it doesn't mean, and that's one thing setting feminism apart from other social movements.

This is a semantics game. The meaning of words depend on who is using them and in what context. I more or less define "patriarchy" in the OP and make it clear that it does not refer to intentional oppression by men against women (though raging misogyny would certainly fall under the concept as a whole). I don't doubt that there are misandrists out there who do not share my definition but that doesn't mean you get to substitute their definition for mine to discover what I "really" intend.

I suppose you could object that misusing words causes misunderstandings but that criticism is only valid against the manner in which the message is delivered, not the message itself.

I believe that's the key to anti-feminist reactions.

Agreed. Those reactions come from an instinctual desire to defend oneself. Admittedly, I wish more feminists understood that the negative reaction to feminism isn't always due to misogyny, but rather the perception (right or wrong) that you SPECIFICALLY are being accused of bad behavior.

The feminist version of reality consists of false accusations against me, all other men, and some fraction of women (those who ever disagreed with something a feminist said) so consistently that I'm not even sure it would be possible to express it in a way that wasn't like that.

Except that I and others have specifically done that. You just don't consider us true scotsmen.

That's just plain silly. It could only make sense if boys only inherited stuff from their fathers and girls only inherited stuff from their mothers.

Human history is the history of one group arbitrarily maintaining power over another. Whites passed power to whites and ignored blacks. Men passed power to men and ignored women. In America, Christians STILL pass power to christians and ignore atheists. Even if you think it's wrong, "silly" is a excessive. What's "silly" is the idea that this kind of behavior came to a screeching halt some time in the last 150 years.

There is a grain of truth in your statement. Money and power can be inherited across gender boundries. It helps level the playing field somewhat but it obviously isn't enough. Why is it men dominate "most wealthy" and CEO lists? If wealth and power were being equally inherited by both genders, shouldn't women be equally represented?

Majority in the general populace, or among feminists? If the latter, then based on what? I don't even recall any evidence that it exists at all.

I meant the general populace but many feminists like myself and Lithrael oppose misandry as well. Here we (metaphorically) stand in front of you. Please don't say we don't exist.

Why are we obligated to seek out extra hidden stuff somewhere out there regarding this particular movement?

My question was not intended as an order to seek out anything but a genuine attempt to understand. I wanted to know if their view of feminism was the result of passive absorption or active study.

As an analogy, some Christians find atheists to be bitter, hate-filled, bigots because they accept their preconceptions and media portrayals at face value. As an atheist, I find that to be unfair. Sure, some atheists are bastards but people shouldn't condemn such a large group without taking serious effort to explore the culture and be aware that the bad is mixed with the good.

If they're really out there, why isn't it up to them to do something different from the fringe freaks to distinguish themselves from them, as rational racial civil rights advocates distinguish themselves from the "kill whitey" types?

You mean like start threads and trying to explain that the group is more diverse than people realize? You mean like the NOW denouncing discrimination in the draft? (See above)

I feel like you are ignoring moderate elements of feminism because it doesn't fit into that mold. Once again, I (metaphorically) am standing in front of you.

Not a simply made-up one that requires rabid bigotry to believe because the evidence is against it. Why is it that feminists only accept the explanation the feminists push and go straight from there to hate-speech about "mansplaining" when any other explanation is offered, while some black civil rights advocates at least give consideration to alternatives and the evidence for and against them and what can be done about them?

"Feminists only accept..."

"feminist...hate-speech"

Don't tell me what I think. I am a feminist. Please point out where I have resorted to rabid bigotry or hate-speech.

As far as considering opposing views... I agree "mansplaining" is a terrible, divisive word that only serves to drive a wedge between men and women. It attributes negative characteristics to men for no go reason. But then again, I'm not REALLY a feminist because I disgree with the TRUE feminists who are by definition, hateful.

I can and do say that black people are held back more by black people than by anything else. Sometimes that's called racism and sometimes people consider the reasoning behind it and acknowledge that it's reasonable and credible. Why does feminism only have a counterpart for the former reaction, not the latter?

Again..."only". Once again, I present myself as a counterargument.

If that isn't sufficient, I've read plenty of feminist which say women are sexist against women. Cosmo magazine, for example, is I believe owned and operated by a woman yet Cosmo gives women HORRIBLE sexist advice and misrepresents men all the time.

You ask who is MORE responsible for changing the status quo? That will vary from person to person but I admit the majority will say men because they currently have a near monopoly on government, executive business power, and are over represented in the media. Note, this doesn't mean men have a near monopoly on blame since social sexism can be just as damaging as "top down" sexism.

Personally, I don't have enough information to assign guilt and it doesn't matter. Men have the strings of official power and need to act.

Then you have defined it as something for which I see no evidence of existence.

*Continues to (metaphorically) stand in front of you*

 

[KingMerv00]

Hmm.. well, perhaps you could likewise explain how your self-description as a feminist excludes you from being just another (slightly less traditional, probably hugely more fashionable¹) kind of bigot?

...

¹ Male feminist

I do believe that's the first time I've ever been called "fashionable". Thanks.

I am to prove that I am not a bigot? How exactly am I supposed to prove a negative? It would be far easier if you pointed out my bigotry.

My understanding of bigotry is that it applies to people happy to seek to apply judgments to human beings based on crude externally visible categories. The crudest externally visible human category I can think of is that of male/female.

The pedant in me wants to tell you that "bigotry" applies to religious beliefs as well as physical characteristics...but I'll ignore him for now.

I'm not out to judge people or assign blame. I just want problems rectified. Some people view social and economic repairs as damage. I believe they are misguided.

Have you ever wondered that by implicitly accepting the implied importance of the gender divide - that is so ubiquitous in feminist thinking - you're unsuspectingly turning yourself into just another kind of bigot?

Indeed I have. The OP tells about how I came to terms with feminism being the exact opposite of bigotry. The gender divide casts a wide shadow over the world and in that respect it is "important". That does not mean it is "good". I want the divide closed by destroying stereotypes that tells us we are different when we aren't.