Why so much hatred for feminism?

[KingMerv00]

Sorry, I thought it would be clear I was referring to the timeframe. I think anyone would be hardpressed to say that human history does not have huge stretches of gender inequality. (I pondered whether social inequality has been a bigger inequality, but actually that is a pretty useless question as equality or a lack thereof are always the result of a combination of factors including race, religion, gender. Often they are so intertwined it makes not that much sense to take one out and cry "that's the perp!")
But I don't think you get an accurate picture of inequality today when you use the last 500 years as the time period under scrutiny.

I definitely think 500 years is way too much. A better timeframe might be the last 50 years or so. The critics of feminism often claim that was when we supposedly opened the doors to equal opportunity and got women out into the workplace.

Even by those standards, all sorts of inequalities exist.

Sidenote of questionable value: When I think about "white male privilege" and feminism I always get the gut reaction "they accuse me of something and they are going to take something away from me". Which leads to the second gut feeling of slight resentment. I think part of the reaction of is based on "hey, what exactly did I do wrong? And what am I still allowed to do?" I'm not sure if I am annoyed by the vagueness of the term itself (and "The Patriarchy" gets the same "Do I have to take this faceless something serious or does it get more specific?" reaction) or because I have the vague notion I might benefit and therefore get away with something that I actually shouldn't.

Yup. If you read the first paragraph of the OP you'll see that my initial reaction was basically identical. A few posts ago, I mentioned that I don't like the term "patriarchy". It comes across like an accusation instead of an explanation.

 

[Moss]

I definitely think 500 years is way too much. A better timeframe might be the last 50 years or so. The critics of feminism often claim that was when we supposedly opened the doors to equal opportunity and got women out into the workplace.

Even by those standards, all sorts of inequalities exist.

I'd never try to dispute that.
But it looks brighter in most parts of the world than 50 years ago. Gender inequality has at least become an issue when before it wasn't. Depending on where you talk about it's still a long way to go.
I think looking at the time period during which a nation has been a democracy is quite useful as it reduces the arbitrariness of autocratic rule and better reflects the general attitudes of the populace.

Yup. If you read the first paragraph of the OP you'll see that my initial reaction was basically identical. A few posts ago, I mentioned that I don't like the term "patriarchy". It comes across like an accusation instead of an explanation.

That's what I meant when I wrote "I suppose it's quite complicated" about India. I think it is more productive to look at specific regions and (sub)cultures. "The patriarchy" comes off as a blanket statement, which is easier to dismiss than specific actions by named institutions/organizations and individuals.

 

[KingMerv00]

*Struggles to not...get...dragged...back in.*

*Fails*

Sigh. I have no will power.

Did you really want to know the answer to the OP? Or did you want to debate feminist ideology?

If you'd been paying attention, I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that I had gotten the answer to the OP, more or less. The thread then evolved into a discussion about the specific claims of feminism. You took part in both topics so I know you know this.

I didn't answer your questions because see what's going on up there ^^^^^^^^ I do not engage in that kind of discussion partly because it's completely pointless to me. I do not discuss things with people motivated by an agenda because they are completely blind to their own biases.

Intentionally not discussing something is a type of bias too.

Once again for the billionth time (ok 8th) I am answering the OP and ONLY the OP.

Except you haven't been. We've talked about how you think men are put upon, whether or not the "check engine" light means anything, why stay-at-home parents are almost always women, and paper abortions.

Whenever someone enters the thread to say why they hate feminism, I've tried my best to grant them that. However, when someone (LIKE YOU) starts talking to me about specific things I've said, I expect them to address me and my point of view not their preconceptions.

If you say "Why do so many people not like Christian Fundamentalists" and I say


"Because whenever I've gotten into discussions with them they are dishonest about the way they present their information and are biased to the point that they are pushing their agenda"


Then you look at me and start debating and trying to have a discussion that I JUST SAID I don't want to have? Not only are you going to annoy me with the conversation, you're going to annoy me for ignoring what I just said.

I understand that you think you are coming across loud and clear but I don't think you have been. You waffle back and forth. Sometimes you discuss what you dislike about feminism in general but other times you criticize the viewpoints of specific people. Several times you quoted a specific feminist claim and said something like "SEE? THIS is what a hate about feminists." The target of your hatred responds and you try to claim you were "only discussing the OP".

Anyway. You've made your opinion of feminism quite clear and you've explained why. If you don't want to discuss specific issues or talk to specific posters, there is no need to keep posting in this thread.

There is no conversation to be had here.

I agree. The door is over there. Don't let it collide with your divide on the way out.

 

[truethat]

Check out bookitty's post in the Fox News military thread where she talks about "rape statistics" with a blog entitled "Meet the Predators" and then maybe you'll understand what I and some others in the thread have been saying on both sides. People have had discussions with me in other threads and hate my perspective and vice versa and so when it's come up like that, if you were not in the other thread you will miss the nuance. You are taking on a lot of vitriol that is not specifically being aimed at you. Rather it's directed towards the non stop agenda mongering of misogynists on this site who pretend they are fair and open when it comes to men, yet repeatly paint women as victims of men.

It's annoying. That's part of why you aren't understanding some of the posts.

You can say I'm biased if I don't want to debate the Rapture with someone, that's fine. Doesn't mean it's worth having the conversation.

 

[KingMerv00]

Check out bookitty's post in the Fox News military thread where she talks about "rape statistics" with a blog entitled "Meet the Predators" and then maybe you'll understand what I and some others in the thread have been saying on both sides. People have had discussions with me in other threads and hate my perspective and vice versa and so when it's come up like that, if you were not in the other thread you will miss the nuance. You are taking on a lot of vitriol that is not specifically being aimed at you. Rather it's directed towards the non stop agenda mongering of misogynists on this site who pretend they are fair and open when it comes to men, yet repeatly paint women as victims of men.

It's annoying. That's part of why you aren't understanding some of the posts.

Fine, I'll accept I'm not privy to all of the context.

You can say I'm biased if I don't want to debate the Rapture with someone, that's fine. Doesn't mean it's worth having the conversation.

So I guess you and I have nothing left to talk about then?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Err, would you please actually read what I wrote and not what you assumed I was knowledgeable about?

I would appreciate if you would address the following or explain how I misread your post:

There's also this logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.) But one key indicator cannot prove inequality does not exist. (Proving the negative in this case you have to look at all indicators overall.)

More comprehensive measures of gender inequality in India, link in post above: Women hold more positions of power in the Indian government relative to the US. Good for them. That's progress. But at the same time India has severe class divisions and one has to look at women's conditions overall. Despite being illegal dowries still exist and brides are still burned when the in-laws want more money. Child brides are still a problem as is de facto slavery. Apparently female infanticide is still a serious problem. Can you compare all those gender issues to the US and conclude women are doing fine in India compared to here?

 

[cyborg]

There's also this logic problem: One key indicator can prove gender inequality exists. (Proving the positive one only needs a single example.) But one key indicator cannot prove inequality does not exist. (Proving the negative in this case you have to look at all indicators overall.)

So if the make-up of the US presidents is a "key indicator" (and what is one to presume otherwise since you brought it up) there's really nothing more to talk about here is there? You get to choose any statistic you like and "prove" gender inequality. Which means a minimum of two centuries of female presidents before the US could ever be said to be gender equal.

Congratulations - you have your permanent victimhood.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if the make-up of the US presidents is a "key indicator" (and what is one to presume otherwise since you brought it up) there's really nothing more to talk about here is there? You get to choose any statistic you like and "prove" gender inequality. Which means a minimum of two centuries of female presidents before the US could ever be said to be gender equal.

Congratulations - you have your permanent victimhood.

Yawn.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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?

Feminism comes as a reaction to machism. A reaction against the injustices.

In the process, values get mutated and you do have the kind of feminists you say most people associate with the word feminist. The ones that have an exaggerated, victimized idea of the situation. A vision that is a bit too emotional and a bit stereotyping in its own way.

I'm sure there are lots of feminists who are actually just trying to fight for equality. Who aren't just repeating the Machist dogma but in favor of women, because that's just infantile. I wish people didn't think of it in terms of feminism or machism. I wish people thought more of humanism and equality. When you create the concept of "black", then you create the concept of "white" and so you have the same thing with racism. You have blacks who stereotype white people and say "Such and such thing is so white", etc.

I have friends who are so reactionary against sexism and racism, that they become the exact opposite. And so, they believe that just because you are poor, or just because you are gay, then you are automatically a better person. I think that mentality is childish, because in the end you're doing the same thing: stereotyping.

The danger of any reactionary ideology, of any ideology that comes as a reaction against another one, is that because of its extreme position, it's in the danger of becoming exactly what it is fighting against.

 

[KingMerv00]

So if the make-up of the US presidents is a "key indicator" (and what is one to presume otherwise since you brought it up) there's really nothing more to talk about here is there? You get to choose any statistic you like and "prove" gender inequality.

What large scale measure of power would you like to discuss? I chose government, business, personal income, and the media because they are important ways of determining self-agency and executive power. Do you have any useful suggestions instead of just criticizing? What would you like to look at?

Which means a minimum of two centuries of female presidents before the US could ever be said to be gender equal.

What? Really?

No. Not at all.

Two centuries of female presidents wouldn't be equality, it would be immoral, sexist revenge. You either don't understand what we are saying at all or you are being sarcastic. Either way, you aren't helping.

 

[KingMerv00]

Feminism comes as a reaction to machism. A reaction against the injustices.

In the process, values get mutated and you do have the kind of feminists you say most people associate with the word feminist. The ones that have an exaggerated, victimized idea of the situation. A vision that is a bit too emotional and a bit stereotyping in its own way.

I'm sure there are lots of feminists who are actually just trying to fight for equality. Who aren't just repeating the Machist dogma but in favor of women, because that's just infantile. I wish people didn't think of it in terms of feminism or machism. I wish people thought more of humanism and equality. When you create the concept of "black", then you create the concept of "white" and so you have the same thing with racism. You have blacks who stereotype white people and say "Such and such thing is so white", etc.

I have friends who are so reactionary against sexism and racism, that they become the exact opposite. And so, they believe that just because you are poor, or just because you are gay, then you are automatically a better person. I think that mentality is childish, because in the end you're doing the same thing: stereotyping.

The danger of any reactionary ideology, of any ideology that comes as a reaction against another one, is that because of its extreme position, it's in the danger of becoming exactly what it is fighting against.

Thanks for your view. I don't have much to say about it since I moved past the title question about 17 pages ago.

 

[truethat]

Wait, if that was your intention then surely, you should be able to address it? So you really didn't want an answer to the OP. You just wanted to debate feminist ideas. Gotcha.

 

[epepke]

My problem with extreme feminists and those who are swayed by them is the way it's perpetuated that women are oppressed by "society" and "men" and "patriarchy" A very good example of this myth is the way we are told that women are oppressed with body image. Now who is doing the oppression here? Frankly most men I know like women with more curves. They are not fond of "skin and bones" type body shapes. Yes there are some ideals but the fact remains that the people oppressing women about their body image are usually other women.

This also affects who gets called a hater, as in "Why so much hatred for feminism?"

I don't think there's that much actual hatred for feminism. There are criticisms, and they are interpreted by lots of feminists as hatred. Most of the criticism are of things like what you have mentioned.

If one believes in those things, though, if one starts off with assumptions about men and misogyny and The Patriarchy, then one is going to see everything in terms of hatred.

 

[KingMerv00]

Wait, if that was your intention then surely, you should be able to address it? So you really didn't want an answer to the OP. You just wanted to debate feminist ideas. Gotcha.

Yes, you got me. You all fell into my brilliant trap. BWHAHAHAH!

Please.

Early in this thread, I got the answer to the thread title. Apparently, people think feminists hate men and victimize women. I can't "address" those concerns because apply to radical feminists who I also hate. Once I understood how people felt, I moved on to more factual discussions.

 

[truethat]

Well the decent thing to do would be to at least acknowledge that to your new poster or change the title of the thread.

Btw I thought I'd leave this right here. I'm sure the feminists will find it amusing.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-stupidest-defenses-against-accusations-sexism/

 

[Dipayan]

It has been said at least twice, no one is suggesting that governmental representation is a magical issue that embodies all of the inequality in America.

EDIT: Almost complete edit to simplify position.

I understand that KingMerv, and I of course agree with it. And I don't believe my post suggested otherwise. Let me rephrase in simpler terms.

SG's claim is:

More Gender Equality = More women in parliament
Less Gender Equality = Less women in parliament.

While this seems like common sense, the logic does not compute for countries such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, which actually have much less gender equality than in the US and still have more political representation for women.

So if anybody has any evidence that the American political situation is a direct result of the equality imbalance , I will of course accept it and end this discussion. I hope my position is crystal now.

 

[Whiplash]

delete, I don't actually want to be in this.. I knee jerkishly jumped in again.

 

[Dipayan]

And regarding your second issue: The argument history isn't relevant (hundreds of years of Presidents, for example) would only hold water if...

Well, I guess it wasn't a brain fart and you actually want to go down this seemingly incredulous path. I presented you the data from independence, when India could actually elect their government, just like how you had presented data from when the US gained its independence (why did you do that?).

But for some reason you want to go back during colonial times. Ok, India was ruled by the British monarchy - which included both Kings and Queens. Before that there was the Mughal rule which was exclusively male-led. And before that there were....

Is there any point in going down this rabbit hole?

Claiming all of Indian culture was tossed out and society went through instant gender equality change when the Brits pulled out is unrealistic.

Please point out where I claimed this or recant this statement.

Explain the significant problem of female infanticide if women have equal status in India.

Repeat strawman and a red herring to boot. I have never said that women have equal status in India. If anything, I have claimed the opposite.

Post #739

Then when I presented India as an example where women hold multiple leadership positions and yet there is gender inequity, you say that the two cultures are very different?

Post #746

As evidence I presented the Indian government which has a fair representation of women in politics but has a wider gap when it comes to gender equality

If you honestly want to understand my position, feel free to check my post above to KingMerv.

 

[Dipayan]

What large scale measure of power would you like to discuss? I chose government, business, personal income, and the media because they are important ways of determining self-agency and executive power.

I don't know if this has been posted before, but there was a study in 2010 that showed that single, childless women have higher salaries than men in 147 of the 150 cities that were polled. I cannot get my hands on the study itself, but here's a write up about it in the Times.

Thoughts?

 

[truethat]

the article says that its only unmarried childless women, so geeee I think I said something about "having children" and "getting married" having a lot to do with the wage gap because of childcare issues. And that was totally blown off. Hmmm