Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

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

NOW, one of those feminist groups you have a problem with, officially stands against discrimination in the draft. It was posted earlier in this thread.

 

[TheJim]

NOW, one of those feminist groups you have a problem with, officially stands against discrimination in the draft. It was posted earlier in this thread.

I stand against any anti choice or anti birth control bill. Its one of the things I have wrote my sentators about and would have wrote my congressman but he is voted one of the 5 least effecitive ones every session.

I pointed out NOW in my other post because of there stance on family court reform. But, this might not be fair as it might just be the NY NOW chapter but they are still to blame because that Dowkinite is still there representing their orginization.

 

[truethat]

Personhood amendments are hardly supported only by the "fringe". In multiple states these amendments have come very close to passing and polls show while the majority don't favor them a very large minority does. The SCOTUS deck is currently stacked to overturn Roe v Wade. Abortions are very difficult to come by in many local communities and women who need them have to travel great distances to get them.

Personhood Bill Resembling Failed Mississippi Measure Advances In Virginia House

And while it failed in Mississippi, the vote was close.

Poll: Mississippi’s ‘Personhood Amendment’ will be a close vote

The final vote was 55-45. So according to you 45% of Mississippians are 'fringe' voters.


You also seem to have your head in the sand.

And...........it didn't go through, as I stated. You have your head in fantasy victim land. I have my head in reality.

 

[truethat]

this is what i hate (well dislike) about many feminists. Every time i've brought up subjects that effect men they have to throw their hat in, but the opposite is considered some penultimate crime. When i bring up female-on-male rape it's, but the "real" problem is that women are raped. When i bring up domestic violence against men, it's but the "real" victims are women. When i bring up suicide, but women "try" more. On all of these, they were the subject of discussion, but some feminist always pops in and tells me men's problems are inconsequential when compared to women's problems. I'm not going to "their spaces" they're coming in to mine yelling i'm a misogynist for bring up issues i feel need to be addressed. So, guess what i'm all for men now saying "what about the men..." every time as the reverse has been done to me over and over again over the years. If the issue effects both genders how about "what about the humans" for a change, why does everything have to break down to gender? Why does one gender's problems have to be more important? Why can't they all be addressed, then there's no need for "what about my gender"?

Sorry, i haven't had time to read everything else that's been posted (rl things). I'll try to address your criticism next week when i have more time. But, just to state i do think there's a wage gap just nowhere near what's commonly claimed. My source is biased, just a little less so than the others i've read. I'd prefer if gender politics were taken out and we let a little real science be done to address the issue, but that seems impossible at the current time. You keep mentioning the need to be equal in all the positions in the government and business, but that's completely illogical to real equality. What we need is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. Forcing parity is a bad idea, as the best people don't get the positions, jobs, etc... The idea should be that people get the right to choose.

That leads to my next point; you keep asking why men aren't becoming stay at home dads, well that seems obvious. It's not his choice for one. In fact, feminist have been pushing for years that it's always her choice. Stay at home or work -- she decides. Isn't it odd that it's not their choice? When did relationships become so one sided? But, no, it's just hers. If he stops her from working he's a misogynist. If he makes her work he's oppressive and denying her her motherly rights. Heck, even if she's the one who does decide he's still commonly thought of as having forced her to choose one or the other. And say he does become a stay at home dad, now he's either a dead beat bum who won't work or pedophile that likes children too much. It's a no win with the current gender roles men are trapped in.

Back to r/l.

standing ovation man!!!!!!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And...........it didn't go through, as I stated. You have your head in fantasy victim land. I have my head in reality.

As is your pattern here you ignore everyone but yourself and forget what you recently posted.

...there is no way in hell they are outlawing abortion.... What laws are being put forward about a "Woman's body" that are likely to change any time soon?

The fringe can always push laws through, it doesn't mean they get passed. By continuing to pretend that the fringe issues are a pressing threat to female freedom and so that's why you don't care really so much about men's issues is also dishonest....

The final vote was 55-45. So according to you 45% of Mississippians are 'fringe' voters.

Oklahoma close to becoming first state to enact 'personhood' bill

 

[curi0us]

The final vote was 55-45. So according to you 45% of Mississippians are 'fringe' voters.

Well, it is Mississippi. The USA has never even had a Mississippian president.

More seriously, Mississippi has a population of 3 million while US has a population of 312 million so you are dealing with the minority of voters in a state the represents less then 1% of the US population.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, it is Mississippi. The USA has never even had a Mississippian president.

More seriously, Mississippi has a population of 3 million while US has a population of 312 million so you are dealing with the minority of voters in a state the represents less then 1% of the US population.

But these abortion abolition views are held by large minorities in many states. It's not some fringe which by definition is a small number of people. The anti-abortion believers are close to half the population in the US.

 

[curi0us]

But these abortion abolition views are held by large minorities in many states. It's not some fringe which by definition is a small number of people. The anti-abortion believers are close to half the population in the US.

I agree enough people are anti-abortion for it not to be a fringe belief but Mississipi really is something like a fringe state with a horrible history for civil rights in general. So when an anti-abortion bill can't even pass in Mississipi it's an indication of how poorly such a bill would do most places.

I was curious about the percentage of people who actually opposed abortion and the gender breakdown. From a 2003 CBS poll:

40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be. 20% of men think it should not be permitted, and slightly more women, 24%, agree.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

I wonder if this really even something that should be considered a feminist issue. If it is what does it mean that slightly more men support abortion rights then women?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree enough people are anti-abortion for it not to be a fringe belief but Mississipi really is something like a fringe state with a horrible history for civil rights in general. So when an anti-abortion bill can't even pass in Mississipi it's an indication of how poorly such a bill would do most places.

I was curious about the percentage of people who actually opposed abortion and the gender breakdown. From a 2003 CBS poll:

40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be. 20% of men think it should not be permitted, and slightly more women, 24%, agree.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

I wonder if this really even something that should be considered a feminist issue. If it is what does it mean that slightly more men support abortion rights then women?

It means you looked at a single poll, 8+ years old and a news poll at that.

In a Gallup poll conducted in 2010: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time. In 2009 it was a close call with pro choice barely beating out anti-abortion by only 1%.

Then in 2011 a Harris poll found: Americans Show Rising Support for Abortion Rights: Poll

Multiple polls are reported here showing he divide fluctuates around even regardless of the shifting from poll to poll.

 

[Supernaut]

I'm no authority but I see hatred as a more irrational, personal, and intense form of anger.

Why?

Because of the use of the word "hatred" in the OP.

"Feminists" (another word that needs defining, BTW) often anger me but I don't hate them.

Or does my being angered by someone axiomatically mean that I hate them?

 

[KingMerv00]

Or does my being angered by someone axiomatically mean that I hate them?

Nope.

Unless you are on the internet. Nuance seems to die out here.

 

[KingMerv00]

If it is what does it mean that slightly more men support abortion rights then women?

Nothing as far as I can tell.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because of the use of the word "hatred" in the OP.

"Feminists" (another word that needs defining, BTW) often anger me but I don't hate them.

Or does my being angered by someone axiomatically mean that I hate them?

Anger and hatred are related emotions. Parents don't typically hate their kids when they are angry at them. But some of the comments in this thread sound like the emotion of hate is in there. Just because you are angry, not hateful, doesn't make KingMerv's thread title inappropriate.

 

[Folly]

I'd note that amongst other things feminism has taught us, it's that feminism probably shouldn't be called feminism. Words like "fireman" should (rightly, I believe) be retired in favour of words like "firefighter". Gender equality movements/studies/knowledge needs a new short, snappy name...

 

[KingMerv00]

I'd note that amongst other things feminism has taught us, it's that feminism probably shouldn't be called feminism. Words like "fireman" should (rightly, I believe) be retired in favour of words like "firefighter". Gender equality movements/studies/knowledge needs a new short, snappy name...

Call me whatever you want...maybe it will stop people from jumping down the throats of others for using the "wrong" label.

If I hadn't called myself a "feminist" I probably would have gotten more rational, calm resonses.

 

[Folly]

Call me whatever you want...maybe it will stop people from jumping down the throats of others for using the "wrong" label.

If I hadn't called myself a "feminist" I probably would have gotten more rational, calm resonses.

Quite possibly, yes

 

[truethat]

Call me whatever you want...maybe it will stop people from jumping down the throats of others for using the "wrong" label.

If I hadn't called myself a "feminist" I probably would have gotten more rational, calm resonses.

You started a thread asking why people hate feminists and you are confused about the vitriol?

 

[truethat]

As is your pattern here you ignore everyone but yourself and forget what you recently posted.




The final vote was 55-45. So according to you 45% of Mississippians are 'fringe' voters.

Oklahoma close to becoming first state to enact 'personhood' bill

No according to me they will ALWAYS be out numbered which they were. This is just pandering nonsense of fear and drama when you know full well it will never go through.




Let's focus on what "might" happen to women, even though we know it never will, and ignore what IS happening to men.

 

[crimresearch]

No according to me they will ALWAYS be out numbered which they were. This is just pandering nonsense of fear and drama when you know full well it will never go through.




Let's focus on what "might" happen to women, even though we know it never will, and ignore what IS happening to men.

So are 'slightly outnumbered' and 'fringe' interchangeable?

Because someone]/i] used your computer to post the word 'fringe' as the label for all of those who would support an abortion bill or referendum, so it is easy to see where someone would get the perception that you are asserting equivalency.

 

[truethat]

So are 'slightly outnumbered' and 'fringe' interchangeable?

Because someone]/i] used your computer to post the word 'fringe' as the label for all of those who would support an abortion bill or referendum, so it is easy to see where someone would get the perception that you are asserting equivalency.

probably didn't pay attention and was responding to someone else's post. But my point is that feminists like to present the idea of women as victims, and if they aren't victims now, then they could be "'potential victims" IF this or that happened.

Ex. If abortion is overturned which ain't ever going to happen and we all know it.

Men are complaining about things happening to them NOW and we're being told that even though it's important it doesn't effect as many men as the POTENTIAL things that could happen to women.

The post above nailed it beautifully.


Right now we say it is unfair for women to be forced to have a child for which she is not prepared to raise. That if she chooses not to have a child for economic reasons it is a violation of her rights to force her to have a child.

Funny thing though, even if she didn't have an abortion she can have the baby and give it away, abdicating all responsibility for it.

ALL

A man currently is FORCED to take care of a child he does not want if a woman he slept with elects not to have an abortion. He cannot give the child up for adoption. If the woman wants to keep and raise the child he is forced to take care of it for 18 years. If he doesn't he can be arrested and thrown in jail.

This is happening NOW. But no lets brush it off as nothing. Why? Because the woman must always be kept in the spotlight as a victim. The guy not.


Man and woman go home drunk and have sex together. The woman initiates it and jumps on the guy seducing him. They both go for it. She wakes up the next day and regrets it and accuses him of rape.

He is accused, not her. He is the one who is expected to have total control even when drunk. He can't say "Well you raped me." Nope, if she's drunk she is the victim. If he is drunk he is always still the perpetrator. She can't consent while drunk. But if he is drunk he is still supposed to be in control.

Why haven't they both raped each other? Because the woman must always be kept in the spotlight as the victim.

These aren't potential problems. These things happen NOW. Men's lives are ruined because of them. Do feminists care? Nope.

Let's talk about a potential law that wasn't passed in Michigan instead.