Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

No true scotsman.

People need to stop using this incorrectly.

NTS is only a fallacy if you intentionally and arbitrarily redefine a term to exclude or include specific bits of data after the fact. Simply clarifying you what kind of feminist (or atheist or democrat or chef) you are is not a fallacy.

 

[crimresearch]

You made no argument. I'm still waiting.



Even if "dodging" were true, it does not follow that you prove yourself right this way.

A feminist using logical fallacies? I'm shocked! Shocked!




No true scotsman.

The type of feminsim I am pointing out is rampant throughout this thread: relentless painting of women as victims. Have you no self-respect? You don't gain respect by relentlessly framing yourself as a victim.

The best way to gain respect from other people is to start showing respect for yourself.

The very example you tried to appeal to does just that: women are victims because there is a kind of cancer that privileged men did not spend enough time on. You can't just say "We do breast cancer research" or whatever.




I'm observing the kind of feminism rampant in this thread. The OP in particular, but you as well - using logical fallacies pointed out above and this last one

So I bid you goodbye, and by all means have the last word and declare victory. Thank God I am not married to this.

That's right, I made no argument, I just asked a question that you can't answer about your assertion... (the one that I quoted, and that you are pretending to not be aware of).

I do agree that you using the label feminism in an assertion, and then when an obvious exception is pointed out, flopping around in denial is a 'no true scotsman'. Glad to see you finally admit it, as you run away some more, again.

But you might want to spend a little bit of the time you've wasted playing internet denial games, on learning the difference between breast cancer and heart disease. And getting someone to teach you the basics of how scientific research works wouldn't hurt either.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Um, no? That's the mantra of some obviously, but general feminism has been so successful that most don't even realize they're employing feminist theory.

Um...yes. Today, if a woman announces she's a feminist - expect man-slamming. Expect large dollops of blame to be doled out. If it doesn't happen? Be perplexed.

Today, in the United States of America: Women can go after whatever the living hell career they want, same as men. And it's been that way for decades. Let's not blend this with other issues, such as economics. I couldn't afford to go to college, for example (Hey I'm a White Male I Shoulda Got Free College To Give Me My White Man Leg Up on STuff) so I joined the Navy, stayed 5 years, got the Vietnam Veterans GI Bill and went to college on that.

 

[KingMerv00]

While I admit to not following every link in this thread, in past threads I can think of maybe two studies that didn't comment on lack of good data and a need for better data. Of course many studies in many fields do the same thing even when drawing conclusions. I sung back and forth before settling on my current, "I don't know, and it isn't especially important because either way there are still specific problems."

That's your prerogative. Can't make you discuss it.

Well that's not actually the case here though. We have many studies measuring different things that may indicate X. The limitations of the studies doesn't mean they should be dismissed, but neither should they over-reach.

I disagree but there really isn't a point to debating it if you don't want to discuss stats. That's not meant as an insult, just a statement of fact.

Which is a much different measurement than the wage gap. It's also a much more direct measure of a much more specific and actionable problem.

Same as above.

Of course. See the military. They could be in much more active combat rolls, but there is stupid opposition to it.

Heh...only men get shot at. That's usually seen as a form of sexism against men. Works both ways I suppose.

Also, see rape in the military and the 'what did they expect' FOX News 'lady' Liz Trotta. The not seeing women as leaders is one too.

Thanks.

If women being kept from certain jobs is harmful, and the wage gap is harmful, then what I advocate in part helps.

It has been claimed that working dangerous jobs is a bad thing. That's why men think it's sexist. Giving women the jobs men are complaining about seems an odd reward.

I agree with your overall goal. Gender ratios should be normalized because men shouldn't be exposed to more danger than women arbitrarily. I just think there is something funny in the way you phrased the argument. It seems like regifting a fruitcake.

Why start there? What not CEO jobs?

Why don't women go there now? Men are socialized to be 'providers' and such, which is harmful to both genders in modern life.

Wow. I'm a little teary-eyed. You admitted that so readily. I've been working truethat for days. Not sure what to say.

I'm not assuming that and I'm confused why you think I am. Wasn't that part of some of the data you presented?

Hope you're not referring to the CONSAD study. That thing is...questionable.

Women take more vacation, work fewer hours, work more convenient hours which would indicate they value these things more than their male counterparts. Men work jobs that lack these things but earn more, indicating that they value the pay more.

I think you are treating the symptoms, not the cause.

You say men are more willing to accept danger than women. That's a socialization problem. Instead of paying women to settle for something they are supposedly trying to avoid we should tell them they can handle danger as well as men.

I suppose the plans aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[psionl0]

Feminists, let's say that gender inequality exists and it is much more severe for women. What do you want done about it and by who? What specific actions could help lead to that goal?

If you are referring to the workplace then why is any action needed? There is no more institutionalized discrimination against women in the workplace nor is it believed that women belong in the home anymore.

Women face two natural barriers in the work place. First, landing a high paid job requires the sort of competitive nature more commonly found in men (women who have this nature have no trouble succeeding in a "man's world"). The bigger problem is that motherhood and a career are in competition with each other. Any woman wishing to do both (even if she has a stay-at-home husband) must necessarily make compromises.

I don't see any necessity to skew things in favour of women so that we can have more women in the work force. There are consequences to that - even economic ones. The more working women there are in society the more the society will depend on keeping the women working. This devalues motherhood and creates an artificial demand for institutionalized childcare.

 

[KingMerv00]

Um...yes. Today, if a woman announces she's a feminist - expect man-slamming. Expect large dollops of blame to be doled out.

Edit: Misread your post.

Still not relevant.

Today, in the United States of America: Women can go after whatever the living hell career they want, same as men. And it's been that way for decades.

Can they? Sure, most of the time. The question is do they? If not, why not? If not, should we do something about it?

Let's not blend this with other issues, such as economics.

Kinda have too. Wealth is one measure of power.

I couldn't afford to go to college, for example (Hey I'm a White Male I Shoulda Got Free College To Give Me My White Man Leg Up on STuff) so I joined the Navy, stayed 5 years, got the Vietnam Veterans GI Bill and went to college on that.

Good for you.

What's that have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Moss]

Edit: Misread your post.

Still not relevant.



Can they? Sure, most of the time. The question is do they? If not, why not? If not, should we do something about it?



Kinda have too. Wealth is one measure of power.



Good for you.

What's that have to do with the topic at hand?

I think the irony detector wants replacement...

 

[KingMerv00]

...nor is it believed that women belong in the home anymore.

...

The more working women there are in society the more the society will depend on keeping the women working. This devalues motherhood and creates an artificial demand for institutionalized childcare.

How do you know that the current state of affairs it not "artificial"? By implication, is SEEMS like you are claiming what we have now is the "natural" state of affairs. By extension, that means women should continue to stay at home more often than men. Doesn't that devalue fatherhood?

Women face two natural barriers in the work place. First, landing a high paid job requires the sort of competitive nature more commonly found in men (women who have this nature have no trouble succeeding in a "man's world").

How do you know "competitive nature" is more present in men? Is it part of men's biology or is it socialized?

The bigger problem is that motherhood and a career are in competition with each other. Any woman wishing to do both (even if she has a stay-at-home husband) must necessarily make compromises.

Discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[KingMerv00]

I think the irony detector wants replacement...

Entirely possible. Feeling a bit off.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Edit: Misread your post.

Still not relevant.



Can they? Sure, most of the time. The question is do they? If not, why not? If not, should we do something about it?



Kinda have too. Wealth is one measure of power.



Good for you.

What's that have to do with the topic at hand?

King! Yo King, the best you can hope for in a society is to provide opportunity for... well, pursuit of happiness, who could say that better? It does NOT mean a guarantee of happiness - just a shot at going after happiness, howsoever an individual defines such. Women - today in the USA - have that shot. It's great! Hain't it terrific? Yer damned right it is. I'm happy as all get-out. Took wayyyyyy too long between penning the words "pursuit of happiness" and seeing success at least on the gender side of the story.

Therefore: If women have the opportunity to go for it (and they get to define the "it"), then what exactly are you "fighting" for? Seems like you're trying to invent a conflict where essentially none exists. You want to do some real good in the world, Kingster, women's-rights-wise? Go to the myriad of countries lacking such and get on a soapbox. THAT is the squeaky wheel.

You confused me, Kingster, when you underscored how wealth is a key factor - and then commented on my anecdote about lack of money for college not being germane? KING???? Did you miss my point? Economics stops both genders from higher education immediately out of high school - and I used me as an example. Do you not accept this because - ye gads - it warn't on the innerwebz?????

 

[tyr_13]

Because a discussion about power and money doesn't cover everything. For one, the only way to talk about gender roles is to discuss gender.

But those are separate topics. Talking about power and money and who can do what to change things isn't gender dependent, where talking about societal gender roles are.

What is the utility in repeatedly and in every topic about feminism or even related to feminism that white men generally hold more power and money than women or minorities? Is there something different white men should be doing regarding gender inequality that doesn't apply to other groups? If focusing on them is because they tend to have power and money, then singling them out as white men is the wrong metric to be using for that purpose. Money and power is a much more accurate metric of money and power than gender is. Is a black man running a business and making hiring decisions held to a different standard? No, that's not what's being argued. Would a woman CEO be safe in ignoring the messages of gender equality? No, that's not what's being argued either. However, the effect of focusing on men, specifically white men, is to hit a whole bunch of targets who don't have money or power, most white men, and miss a lot of people who do have money or power. And to what end?

The only effect seems to be reinforcing the radical feminists who hold that only men can be sexist, which isn't a view most feminists want to reinforce, and fostering resentment and yes, hate, among those who feel singled out. It's one of the things Lessing was criticizing.

Obviously most of us want the same actions and views from all people regarding gender equality (or feminism) regardless of race, status, gender, sexual orientation or hair length.

This subject kept me up way past my bedtime. I'm hope you're satisfied with yourself.

 

[bookitty]

Um...yes. Today, if a woman announces she's a feminist - expect man-slamming. Expect large dollops of blame to be doled out. If it doesn't happen? Be perplexed.

Today, in the United States of America: Women can go after whatever the living hell career they want, same as men. And it's been that way for decades. Let's not blend this with other issues, such as economics. I couldn't afford to go to college, for example (Hey I'm a White Male I Shoulda Got Free College To Give Me My White Man Leg Up on STuff) so I joined the Navy, stayed 5 years, got the Vietnam Veterans GI Bill and went to college on that.

It's not just job stuff. When was the last time you had an entire political faction campaigning on taking away your bodily autonomy? Or reducing your access to birth control?* Once this country has that settled, I can relax and start calling myself an activist humanist.

(*for the record, I really do think that all health insurance should cover condoms for both sexes. It's a cheap, easy way to prevent illness.)

 

[ConspiRaider]

It's not just job stuff. When was the last time you had an entire political faction campaigning on taking away your bodily autonomy? Or reducing your access to birth control?* Once this country has that settled, I can relax and start calling myself an activist humanist.

(*for the record, I really do think that all health insurance should cover condoms for both sexes. It's a cheap, easy way to prevent illness.)

Yeahp, BK, you got that right. I think I purposely veered away from politics but the hell with it: CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS ARE BULL GOOSE LOONY! Stop being that way, you idiots, and let women run the show, body-wise. Too many scared, deliberately ignorant folks in this country and that is who the Repubs pounce upon.

Health insurance. Hoo boy. One day a human being will be born and nowhere on this planet will be health insurance. We'll have grown up as a species. On that day, if you get sick - you get fixed, not broke. That'll be a fine day, and then Condoms For Everyone!

 

[cyborg]

Sidebar: with the use of statistics is one really supposed to conclude "utopia" if various statistical measures on aspects of male and female lives are numerically identical?

For example the fact that it is possible to have men and woman being paid the same amount for the same jobs and yet the average wages be different does not seem to have been acknowledged as a mathematical reality by those presenting the statistic in the first place.

 

[KingMerv00]

Sidebar: with the use of statistics is one really supposed to conclude "utopia" if various statistical measures on aspects of male and female lives are numerically identical?

Of course not.

For example the fact that it is possible to have men and woman being paid the same amount for the same jobs and yet the average wages be different does not seem to have been acknowledged as a mathematical reality by those presenting the statistic in the first place.

Sure it has. Occupational segregation is one of the variables that has been controlled for but the wage gap remains.

 

[KingMerv00]

But those are separate topics. Talking about power and money and who can do what to change things isn't gender dependent, where talking about societal gender roles are.

They are all related. Societal gender roles determine who has the power. People with power help determine what societal gender roles are.

What is the utility in repeatedly and in every topic about feminism or even related to feminism that white men generally hold more power and money than women or minorities?

It isn't the focus of every topic. Plenty of feminism focuses on male stereotyping and how women stigmatize each other. When it IS the focus, it helps people realize how much farther is left to go. The goal is gender equality. You won't know if you have gender equality unless you compare the genders.

Is there something different white men should be doing regarding gender inequality that doesn't apply to other groups?

If focusing on them is because they tend to have power and money, then singling them out as white men is the wrong metric to be using for that purpose. Money and power is a much more accurate metric of money and power than gender is. Is a black man running a business and making hiring decisions held to a different standard? No, that's not what's being argued. Would a woman CEO be safe in ignoring the messages of gender equality? No, that's not what's being argued either. However, the effect of focusing on men, specifically white men, is to hit a whole bunch of targets who don't have money or power, most white men, and miss a lot of people who do have money or power. And to what end?

The only effect seems to be reinforcing the radical feminists who hold that only men can be sexist, which isn't a view most feminists want to reinforce, and fostering resentment and yes, hate, among those who feel singled out. It's one of the things Lessing was criticizing.

Obviously most of us want the same actions and views from all people regarding gender equality (or feminism) regardless of race, status, gender, sexual orientation or hair length.

Let me explain.

In any nominally free society, there is power stratification. We expect to find some people are powerful and wealthy and others are poor and weak. That is the price we pay for living in a country that donesn't have state thought police. To test whether or not the society is egalitarian, we take arbitrary factors like race or gender and see where they fall on that strata. If everything were equal, we'd see women distributed in the same way as men. But the results say men on average have more wealth, governmental representation and business power. This is a bad thing and we need to do something about it.

You suggest we appeal to and people with the power to fix it regardless of gender. Unfortunately, when people go into board rooms or Congress they enter rooms containing mostly men. They then have no choice but to tell them they have more power. The responses range from "Didn't we fix that years ago?" to "It can't be fixed." to "It's best this way." In the worst scenarios, they use rhetorical judo and play the REAL victim. They scream "Stop picking on men! SEXIST!" Men with lesser power, like you and me, look over at the argument and immediately think it is an attack on your entire gender because we think they are coming to take power we don't have.

The day I can stop "picking on men" is the day I won't need to.

This subject kept me up way past my bedtime. I'm hope you're satisfied with yourself.

I am. It makes me happy to see a man suffer.

 

[KingMerv00]

King! Yo King, the best you can hope for in a society is to provide opportunity for... well, pursuit of happiness, who could say that better? It does NOT mean a guarantee of happiness - just a shot at going after happiness, howsoever an individual defines such. Women - today in the USA - have that shot. It's great! Hain't it terrific? Yer damned right it is. I'm happy as all get-out. Took wayyyyyy too long between penning the words "pursuit of happiness" and seeing success at least on the gender side of the story.

You made it clear that you don't want to discuss whether or not the inequality exists because you don't want to discuss statistics. Fine. But if you choose to be dismissive you give up the right to act like the argument has been settled in your favor.

Sorry to say this, but you are being naive. Most of the legal and overt societal barriers have been smashed. That doesn't mean the story is over. As an analogy, an atheist has ever "opportunity" to be president but one would almost certainly not get elected. Why do you suppose that is?
Open atheists have been provided the opportunity to be president for a long time now but they probably won't succeed in my lifetime.

Edit: I've seen people use the lack of atheist presidents as proof of predjudice against atheists. Why is it the lack of a female president is indicative of nothing even though women make up a much larger segment of the population? Why do I never hear arguments like "Atheists just don't want to be president?" or "Atheists just don't have the 'competative nature' that Christians have?"

Therefore: If women have the opportunity to go for it (and they get to define the "it"), then what exactly are you "fighting" for? Seems like you're trying to invent a conflict where essentially none exists. You want to do some real good in the world, Kingster, women's-rights-wise? Go to the myriad of countries lacking such and get on a soapbox. THAT is the squeaky wheel.

There has to be a name for this logical fallacy. "There are bigger problems elsewhere so..."

You confused me, Kingster, when you underscored how wealth is a key factor - and then commented on my anecdote about lack of money for college not being germane? KING???? Did you miss my point? Economics stops both genders from higher education immediately out of high school - and I used me as an example. Do you not accept this because - ye gads - it warn't on the innerwebz?????

Class problems are absolutely important. I am not ignoring them. I am just focusing on a different issue at the moment.

 

[cyborg]

Of course not.

Then why bring up irrelevant statistical information you don't think would indicate whether or not society is actually in a good state or not? How am I supposed to be interpreting your numbers exactly?

Why is it the lack of a female president is indicative of nothing even though women make up a much larger segment of the population?

Is this a relevant statistic then? What number of female US presidents would indicate a healthy US society?

 

[truethat]

Because a discussion about power and money doesn't cover everything. For one, the only way to talk about gender roles is to discuss gender.

So why focus on gender generalities rather than addressing the more relevant characteristic of power/money? I'd say arguing about how white men generally have it better based on one end of the curve does more to drive people away from the discussion than it adds to it.

See King Merv you are ignoring what a lot of us are saying. Many of the things that you consider unimportant are actually in our opinion the crux of the "problem"

I pointed out one earlier and you totally ignored it because you want to focus on generalities about socialization and how white men have privilege.


Think in more practical terms. Simple things like a woman needing to have children before the age of 40 if she wants to have healthy children, a woman breastfeeding being the reason that she's the one who is the one who stays home

A big one I've mentioned that you keep ignoring does have to do with the basic foundations of capitalism in the US. That is that schools let out at 3 and parents are often stuck as to how to get their child home from school.

This is a major problem in the US and you don't want to consider it. Why? I don't know, maybe because it's not as fun as bashing white guys, but let's think about schools. If jobs would allow parents to leave in time to pick up their kids then it would make things a whole lot easier for parents.

Consider, why do so many women go into teaching. Because the hours will match those of their childs.

You say you want to discuss it but when suggestions are made you ignore them and say they don't matter.

This is what I meant about being agenda driven, if you really want to have a discussion then have one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Why so much hatred for feminism?"

Clearly the thread has revealed that said hatred exists. I'm curious though, King Merv, when you said,

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?

were your encounters akin to the general backlash as we have in the thread, or was there was something more current going on?

I have heard the hypothesis (from 30 year old vague memories of sociology classes in college) that there is some evidence as unemployment goes up, there are social pressures for women to leave the workforce and as unemployment goes down, elements of women's lib tend to emerge. I'm wondering if we are seeing any of that now.