Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

Actually mostly from women the same age as me or slightly older. You are younger than me I think. I'm 40. You say women aren't catty? Well no not all women. I did distinguish that it's not all women. It's feminists with an agenda to push.

I'm 31.

I know you didn't say "all women are catty". You did say women are their own worse enemy and then discussed their cattiness. This suggests that you think being manipulative and witchy are common female traits.

Again, if I had said "In my experience, black people are loud and like watermelon. Not ALL black people mind you, but certainly the ones the same age or slightly older." I'd be a bigot. Why can you say that about women?

However I encourage you to think about the number of men who have a "working dad" "stay at home" dad debate. Then look at the vitriol attached to the same conversation between women.

Big time. Any time a woman wants to push an agenda, "white privilege" "working mom" "breastfeeding" anything at all where an agenda is attached it gets ugly really really fast.

So feminism would be no different. If a feminist wants to push an agenda it can be brutal and some women will push back. So that's where it comes from.

I never seen that vitriol. I've only heard people SAY that mainstream feminists have that vitriol. At the very worst, I haven't seen feminists be any worse than any other movement but feminists seem to be especially disliked.

 

[truethat]

I would largely say it is because you are a guy. Honestly. I mean it's not a 24 hour a day thing. But it is definitely out there. The vitriol is subversive and passive aggressive in many ways. You can see it in the feedback on any sort of website that pushes a woman's agenda.


Also your comparison is rude. I did not compare black people liking watermelon to anything. I said women can be competitive and witchy (which was a nicer way of saying a curse word) and they CAN. Just like black people can often be defensive and angry when it comes to race. Do not try to twist my words into some sort of agenda.

But aha, as you can see you twisting and trying to push your agenda, you will likely create a backlash.


OBVIOUSLY if we are talking about a stereotype of why people don't like feminists it will be based on a generalization. Unless you are trying to say the dislike is justified? Which obviously you are not.

I feel a face palm coming on. I'm just going to give up now.

 

[ThunderChunky]

This is exactly my point. The first thing to pop into your head when you hear "feminism" are wackjobs.

So you're going with the no true Scotsman defense of feminism? Sorry, but if you are going to use the feminist title, you get all the baggage that comes with it.

There are two things I personally don't like about feminism. The first is use of judgmental attitudes and shame to dictate the behavior of others and the second is the victim mentality.

 

[crimresearch]

So truethat, your point is that some people hate feminism because of their personal experience with people who claim to be using feminist theory, but are simply using it as a cover for their other agendas such as misandry, correct?

It's OK, you can say Dworkin here.

 

[KingMerv00]

King Merv. I refer you to the thread where I say that people are flaming idiots for not being able to distinguish a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

Surely you do not expect individuals on this site to answer this question "for ril'

And so I am sharing with you some of the observations I have had over the years to answer why do so many people not like feminists.

You call them straw men, you can call them "stereotypes" etc. I have stated at the bottom of my very first post that other feminists can be wonderful human beings and friends. It's simply feminists with an agenda to push.

I listed a few of the agendas. Since feminists come in all different shapes and sizes, you will have to understand that people who push agendas are really what gives feminism a bad name. So I'm not sure what your question is. But if you started slamming and fighting with me as if I'm the National Spokesperson for People Who Hate Feminists, I am literally going to reach through the screen and rip your eye balls out through your nose.

Have enough intelligence to understand that your thread would be the equivalent of posting a thread that said

Why do Muslims have such a bad reputation.

Then some of us pointing out that a lot of people don't like Muslims because they associate them with terrorism.

Then you attacking US for being biased against Muslims. YOU ASKED A QUESTION. I'm giving you some of my own feedback and some of the other feedback I've heard from friends, women, peers and academics over the last 20 years.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just confused about how these two statements fit together:

I am not putting down feminism.

It's simply feminists with an agenda to push.

"Pushing agendas" is what movements do. They move. Surely you must be OK with people having an agenda that is inoffensive to you. It isn't that the agenda exists, it is the type of agenda that must bother you.

 

[truethat]

No. It's the demeanor of the person pushing the agenda. Like for example I have friends who are vegan who love to share their love of eating healthy. Doesn't offend me at all. Someone angrily saying we are monsters for eating meat. That can offend. I have offended people myself on here. Especially if they think I'm being judgmental and pushing an agenda. If people think you are judging them, they tend to get annoyed very quickly.

 

[KingMerv00]

Also your comparison is rude. I did not compare black people liking watermelon to anything. I said women can be competitive and witchy (which was a nicer way of saying a curse word) and they CAN. Just like black people can often be defensive and angry when it comes to race. Do not try to twist my words into some sort of agenda.

But aha, as you can see you twisting and trying to push your agenda, you will likely create a backlash.

My intention isn't to brand you a horrible person. Sorry, if it came out that way. I was trying to point the flaw in your thinking. I used an admittedly extreme example to show that generalizations are arbitrarily accepted in some situations but not in others. Why can one say something like "Women are the biggest thing holding women back." but not substitute the word "women" with a race?

OBVIOUSLY if we are talking about a stereotype of why people don't like feminists it will be based on a generalization. Unless you are trying to say the dislike is justified? Which obviously you are not.

I feel a face palm coming on. I'm just going to give up now.

I swear I am not trying to frustrate you. In fact, I see your point. I was asking why people dislike feminism and the answer would have to be a generalization I didn't like. I guess I just don't understand how that perception became so pervasive.

 

[crimresearch]

Claiming feminists "denigrated motherhood, home education, and home production" is crap. That was the reaction to feminists, not the feminists themselves. If I say I like other things than traditional female things, that doesn't mean I'm denigrating women who do enjoy traditionally female things. It gets tiring hearing this lie.

That was a media fueled reaction, and some of the sterotypes were borne out in some cases. That was of course seized upon by the media as well.

But how much hype did they produce over something like going back to review decades of medical resarch performed on male subjects in order to dispel the myth that heart disease wasn't a concern for women?

Because IMO, that's as feminist as anything else.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Again, if I had said "In my experience, black people are loud and like watermelon. Not ALL black people mind you, but certainly the ones the same age or slightly older." I'd be a bigot. Why can you say that about women?

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?
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.

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?


¹ Male feminist

 

[tyr_13]

You are but a single data point. You'll note that I said "on average". Power and wealth is a bell curve. Some white men are on the low end. Some black women are on the high end. On the whole, however, "black" and "female" tend to reduce future wealth and power. Doesn't that beg for an explanation?

I did say that I knew that wasn't the point, but it's too often forgotten that when statements like that are made, unfortunate implications can be made. This happens going both ways on this issue, which is why clarification is so vital. I almost posted, "who is this we kimosabi?" Everyone has power and privileged over someone.

And yes, it begs for an explanation, but how applicable and valid any explanation is, and how actionable a proposed fix is, are different related questions. The broad answers aren't generally contentious and you're right to call most feminism mainstream (and thus not often though of as 'feminism'), but the solutions and degree get disagreements and heated arguments.

I have no doubt. Everyone suffers from it. I am no exception.



I agree with this to some extent. Every so often, I saw a angry "anti-man" rant in the comment section of a blog. While I never saw anyone support the rant, counterposts weren't as common as I'd like. They treated the loons more like the weird shameful relative than an intruder.



I don't doubt it. Everyone has their freaky extremists. For example, here is an anti-feminist who is calling for all rape charges to be nullified by the jury...even if the perp is obviously guilty. Crazy ****.

Note that in my link it was certainly not freaky extremists Lessing was being critical of, but of fairly normal school teachers and the general public reaction to the 'rubbishing' of men.

And you'll get no objection from me that calling for nullification of rape charges is crazy ****.

Fair enough. I brought up youtube because the level of bias was so shocking to me. Google fairs somewhat better.

I'm still in general agreement with all your points, but am well aware through years of such discussions holes may be opened as battlegrounds. There is a special brand of anti-feminism and woman hating that ostracized groups such as 'geeks' breeds, fueled by denial of access to women. It's the same sort of treatment the more extreme feminists get on feminist groups; the rest of the group understands the feeling if not agreeing with the argument and is resistant to calling it out.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

From what I seen, feminists want to remove the stereotype that being childless or career focused is selfish.

...and this is exactly the kind of manipulative stuff I love: Feminists projecting a "stereotype" that does not exist in the first place.


King Merv - as you said:

From my point of view

Exactly. And your point of view is a manipulative "no true scotsman" fallacy. it also is manipulative for its "prove the negative" approach:

You want to start with this stupid canard that anyone who thinks like me is basing it on radical feminism, and try to put me in the position of proving the negative. No thanks. Anyone who takes that bait has already lost.


And the business about "for what it's worth"... it ain't worth 'nuthin. You have an agenda. It means nothing to me. The only interest I have is in spotting manipulative plays.

 

[truethat]

If you guys don't understand the simple debate between SAHM and working moms, then you are outside a very important paradigm.

As a stay at home mother I learned that I was never ever allowed to be proud of the fact that I stayed home with my kids. Doing so was considered being offensive to other working moms. Yes some of those moms had to work. But some of those moms wanted to work and had kids and put them in day care. The kids are all fine but some SAHM would not make the same choice for their kids.

This is skating dangerously close to judgment. What happens is that it is THERE but not overt, more hidden with a whole boat load of hostility between many women. It is right under the surface.

I also agree with ABP there's no man I have EVER met who has treated me like raising my kids was selfish or not work or whatever. Generally speaking I would say on average I get a TON more respect from men about my life choices than I do from women. And then as ABP points out, this cynical attitude is sort of blamed on men, when it is women who are the ones judging each other.

 

[tyr_13]

Hmmm that's one angle of it. Yes I would say that, I think. (I'm nervous there's a trick in here somewhere) But I don't actually think that these types of agenda pushing women are about hating men. Actually its their own personal kind of misogyny. Some women are very competitive with other women and want to put down other women's choices as bad, and theirs as correct. So they use feminist theory as a way to do it.

Ex "I don't cook, that's sexist, if he wants to eat he better learn to cook himself, I'll never be the kind of barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen woman."


I'm like "I'm sorry I know how to cook really well and enjoy feeding my kids homemade food rather than take out." (It didn't help that I was indeed barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen when this went down.)

Makes no sense.

As emotional as I can get over subjects involving gender, power, and feminism, I'll assure you that I wasn't trying to trick you. I saw what I thought was the argument you were making and trying to pin it down.

We can trade horror stories about this person or that person from this group or that group all day long, be they jocks, 'nice guys,' Republicans, romantics, mathematicians, or feminists, and believe me I have some choice stories involving people claiming to be feminists just applying feminist theory, but our own personal experiences are subject to an entire screaming host of perceptual biases and cognitive pitfalls. (WOW, look at the length of that sentence!) We can overcome those though. It gets tricky with the threat of, 'No True Scotsmen'.

I'm sorry for the things you had to go through because someone else saw implications from your life choices that simply weren't there. I agree that such experiences contribute to the negative perception of feminism. However, it's still subject to confirmation bias and 'squeaky wheel' issues.

Honestly it also varies location by location and generation by generation. I'm told there were some especially nasty problems during that 'wave' of feminism.

 

[KingMerv00]

So you're going with the no true Scotsman defense of feminism? Sorry, but if you are going to use the feminist title, you get all the baggage that comes with it.

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 also stated that feminists are out to remove arbitrary gender roles from the public consciousness to maximize choice and minimize stigma. Anyone who calls for women to feel bad for wanting to raise kids at home is just destroying one gender role and replacing it with another. I'd call that person "sexist".

If that doesn't satisfying you, fine. I'll to lump the wackjobs in with the moderates and call them all feminists. That doesn't explain why so many people hear "feminist" and immediately think of shrill, bra burners instead of the moderates.

There are two things I personally don't like about feminism. The first is use of judgmental attitudes and shame to dictate the behavior of others...

That describes every movement in history to some extent. I guess you mean that the movement comes across as excessive in these regards and looks self-righteous.

...and the second is the victim mentality.

If we agree that women are have less money and power, they are at a disadvantage. That disadvantage came about through social forces over hundreds of years. How does one go about correcting that disadvantage without appearing to foster a "victim mentality"?

 

[Lowpro]

I'm in a weird position on it. There are social equalities that I think are obvious, and feminism seems to tackle them rather well. But men and women are different and I think it's a smarter social policy to "give where you can." I don't think women deserve more because they're biologically different but I still think as a society we can agree that it makes sense to cater to their biological differences.

It's hard to explain for me, but if a person has no legs, it makes sense to help them when their lack of ambulance inhibits their desires. When a women is pregnant and has to take care of their kids (not that we're forcing them to, I imagine it's more complicated than that) it makes sense to help them too.

But that's how I was raised I guess. It's not chauvinistic, it's practical.

Now feminism recognizes that but I don't subscribe to a social policy that empowers anyone with a particular superiority "just because", be it their biological or ideological differences. I work best when an argument is reasonable, not "just because"

 

[timhau]

If we agree that women are have less money and power

Actually, I don't fully agree with that. The people with most money and power are mostly male, that is true, but that isn't quite the same. I find it ludicrous to claim that the male janitor who is now shoveling snow outside my window is somehow more powerful than the female shop clerk I bought my lunch from this morning.

If you want to claim that the mostly male group that has a lot of money and power uses that money and power to favor men, go right ahead, but I'd need some evidence and a few examples of what that means in practice.

 

[Quietus]

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?

My anecdotal two cents worth:

1. They are misogynistic morons. Plenty still exist.

2. They believe. for whatever reason, that the extreme elements represent the mainstream, totally unaware that the voices of feminism are as varied and diverse as Christianity. Could be that in some nations, the whackjobs are the loudest and therefore may be seen as the most representative. The Christian fundamentalists are usually louder then the mainstream, why not feminists?

And Youtube is flooded with idiots. You wont have look too far for posts that would make Stormfront regulars blush.

 

[Aepervius]

All I can say is theory vs practice. In theory feminism is great , in the sense to strive for women equality. In practice the few most vocal feminist I met in university were simply men hating, and wanted to reverse the trend much further than equality, to the point of "the men getting a taste of their own medicine" aka making them "less equal".

Also it does not help, that when pointing out to some of the moderate one, that in some domain like divorce and children, men get often shafted, or even at that time there was still the army roll call at 18 in France, women were exempted, but you don't see all feminist requiring equality there either. Some did/do through. I don't have enough data to say whether it is the majority or a minority.

Combine both and you can get to be very wary of feminism.

Personally in the mean time I will support sex/gender equality and applaud anybody wanting specifically equality in all BAD and GOOD aspects, but masculinism/feminism ? No. Such goal/though in my view tend to only see the disadvantage their gender have, and ignore all the advantage.

 

[Monkian1234]

"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.

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?

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?

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?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Strangely I was at a DV training about bullying, and there was a discussion of who is oppresed by dominant male behavior and as a consequnce subjected to agression, abuse and bullying.

Many of the young feminists were disappointed when the speaker said that men are often just as much victims as women. She cited some studies in fact that men are more likely to be the victims of battery.

I am a feminist because it is about equality, which raises all boats.