Why so much hatred for feminism?

[DavidByron]

I have noticed this board uses the expression "confirmation bias" like a lucky rabbit's foot.

Please tell me the name of this rally you attended. Actually, never mind. Even if such a rally did exist, your confirmation bias would have honed in on what you were already looking for.

I thought it was part of a national series of events, but I guess maybe not. There's a national coming up later this month with events planned in all the state capitols. I wouldn't normally have attended due to the content, but I am with the local Occupy and we decided to show up with a low profile.

Here's a photo of the event and you can see an Occupy "99%" banner at the back and I am the one holding the right hand side of the banner.

Now let's talk about confirmation bias.

You actually doubted that the rally even existed even though it wasn't a big part of my argument and what I said stands or not regardless. To me that seems rude and indicated a level of suspicion and "confirmation bias" that is quite notable. But there's more.

Let me see if I can sort this out. You say that men don't have "abortion rights" i.e. the right to force a women to have/not have an abortion. You do not believe that women have the right to bodily autonomy, to medical privacy, or the right to health. (That's what I meant by tipping your hand. Although I hardly expected you to be so blatant.)

You've assumed four things about me that are false and I never said. In addition you claim that these facts are "blatant" by which you presumably meant that you saw a great deal of evidence where in fact none existed. That seems like a big indication of "confirmation bias".

Just for the record I don't mean men should be able to force women to have a surgery when I say "abortion rights". I'm sure you are aware that the term usually means "paper abortion" rights or the ability to sever parental liabilities. I believe in the ideal of bodily autonomy although it's not the right you seem to think. The government reserves the right to force people to do things at certain times. Just this month my wife was forced to testify under oath by subpoena and had to travel to a certain place and take up most of her day with it under penalty of law and this was in a civil case by someone who's basically just messing with her. Where was her right to bodily integrity? Jury duty is the more usual example. I'm fine with medical privacy (and more broadly) and a right to health as you say.

Because you believe that women have no right to autonomy, you do not believe that there is a reason for a feminist movement.

False premise due to your lucky rabbit foot. The conclusion false anyway because I can see that plenty of things if they were true would justify some sort of feminist movement.

I agree with the civil rights objectives of the so-called War on Women lot, but I think they are being played (tricked into voting Democratic), and I think the framing is sexist.

Please throw away the rabbit foot.

 

[bookitty]

I have noticed this board uses the expression "confirmation bias" like a lucky rabbit's foot.



I thought it was part of a national series of events, but I guess maybe not. There's a national coming up later this month with events planned in all the state capitols. I wouldn't normally have attended due to the content, but I am with the local Occupy and we decided to show up with a low profile.

Here's a photo of the event and you can see an Occupy "99%" banner at the back and I am the one holding the right hand side of the banner.

Now let's talk about confirmation bias.

You actually doubted that the rally even existed even though it wasn't a big part of my argument and what I said stands or not regardless. To me that seems rude and indicated a level of suspicion and "confirmation bias" that is quite notable. But there's more.


You've assumed four things about me that are false and I never said. In addition you claim that these facts are "blatant" by which you presumably meant that you saw a great deal of evidence where in fact none existed. That seems like a big indication of "confirmation bias".

Just for the record I don't mean men should be able to force women to have a surgery when I say "abortion rights". I'm sure you are aware that the term usually means "paper abortion" rights or the ability to sever parental liabilities. I believe in the ideal of bodily autonomy although it's not the right you seem to think. The government reserves the right to force people to do things at certain times. Just this month my wife was forced to testify under oath by subpoena and had to travel to a certain place and take up most of her day with it under penalty of law and this was in a civil case by someone who's basically just messing with her. Where was her right to bodily integrity? Jury duty is the more usual example. I'm fine with medical privacy (and more broadly) and a right to health as you say.



False premise due to your lucky rabbit foot. The conclusion false anyway because I can see that plenty of things if they were true would justify some sort of feminist movement.

I agree with the civil rights objectives of the so-called War on Women lot, but I think they are being played (tricked into voting Democratic), and I think the framing is sexist.

Please throw away the rabbit foot.

So this feminist rally was actually a separate table at an occupy event? And you stood there for 4 hours? At my time with Occupy LA, I spoke with 9/11 truthers but I didn't come back and say that occupy thinks that Bush was behind the attacks. In any case, your biased retelling is irrelevant because it is hearsay. "Well, I totally heard these women say something anti-men, therefore all feminists..."

Child support is not about women, it is about the child. I know the meme - women are trying to sperm-trap men because the average amount of child support will allow them to roll around in bonbons for the rest of their life. The stats for single mothers do not support this.

Children have no way to support themselves, they have needs. Our society has decided that the support of children is more important than the needs of either parent. This is not about feminism.

Which is not to say that the system is perfect or that no issues need to be addressed. There are many flaws and in many cases one or both of the parents are treated unfairly. There are cases in which the government has gone after a birth father for child support if the mother is on public assistance*. Worse, a biased court system makes it difficult for these fathers to be in their children's life. That needs to be changed. With the exception of proven abuse, men need to be involved in their children's life. This is why I am very supportive of the father's rights movement.

*ETA: It is interesting to note that supporters of the religious patriarchy movement like Rik Santorum are in support of passing laws which force a woman who is receiving public assistance to give the name of the father or get cut off. This is not being pushed by feminists.

 

[DavidByron]

So this feminist rally was actually a separate table at an occupy event? And you stood there for 4 hours? At my time with Occupy LA, I spoke with 9/11 truthers but I didn't come back and say that occupy thinks that Bush was behind the attacks. In any case, your biased retelling is irrelevant because it is hearsay. "Well, I totally heard these women say something anti-men, therefore all feminists..."

I am going to loooove talking to you I can see

I stand corrected. You don't use confirmation bias you just make stuff up despite all the evidence pointing the other way. "Making stuff up" doesn't sound cool and trendy like "confirmation bias" but its a thousand times worse as a crime against "the truth" and skepticism.

I don't know who organised it. it claimed to be non-partisan but it was obviously very Democratic party influenced. There were a lot of self-professed proud feminists there. Does that make it a feminist thing? As I already said it was not an Occupy event. We just decided to support.

Four hours is not all that long for Occupy to hang around somewhere is it? I actually sat down after about three hours. But I don't have a watch. Does it matter?

You don't know what the word "hearsay" means. I am a witness to these events. I was right there and I am telling you. If you were to now go and tell someone else about what I told you then that would be heresay. It doesn't matter that I am reporting what someone else said.

You know what? You might be right about my having "confirmation bias" or for that matter just "bias". I am biased and that's fine. I am going to hear things you don't because your privilege as a white woman means you ignore anti-male statements. According to what you yourself have said on this topic that means you ought to listen to what I am saying and believe it. In fact you are reacting with a very powerful prejudice according to your privileged position.

Yes of course the oppressed will be better at seeing oppression than the privileged. Is that news to you? If it is you might want to go back and read all your own comments on privilege because apparently you only believe all that stuff when you are in a position where you think you're the downtrodden not the one standing on peoples necks. Again none of that is surprising.

Child support is not about women, it is about the child. I know the meme - women are trying to sperm-trap men because the average amount of child support will allow them to roll around in bonbons for the rest of their life. The stats for single mothers do not support this.

That's completely irrelevant. Has nobody pointed that out to you before now? If it is injust to charge a person a fine then it's injust whether the fine is small or large, whether it goes to a good cause or not.

This is why I am very supportive of the father's rights movement.

But very much against men's rights.

ETA: It is interesting to note that supporters of the religious patriarchy movement like Rik Santorum are in support of passing laws which force a woman who is receiving public assistance to give the name of the father or get cut off. This is not being pushed by feminists.

Not seeing your point... both are conservative movements. They've allied over stuff before now. Both are anti-choice for men.

 

[bookitty]

I am going to loooove talking to you I can see

I stand corrected. You don't use confirmation bias you just make stuff up despite all the evidence pointing the other way. "Making stuff up" doesn't sound cool and trendy like "confirmation bias" but its a thousand times worse as a crime against "the truth" and skepticism.

I don't know who organised it. it claimed to be non-partisan but it was obviously very Democratic party influenced. There were a lot of self-professed proud feminists there. Does that make it a feminist thing? As I already said it was not an Occupy event. We just decided to support.

Four hours is not all that long for Occupy to hang around somewhere is it? I actually sat down after about three hours. But I don't have a watch. Does it matter?

You don't know what the word "hearsay" means. I am a witness to these events. I was right there and I am telling you. If you were to now go and tell someone else about what I told you then that would be heresay. It doesn't matter that I am reporting what someone else said.

You know what? You might be right about my having "confirmation bias" or for that matter just "bias". I am biased and that's fine. I am going to hear things you don't because your privilege as a white woman means you ignore anti-male statements. According to what you yourself have said on this topic that means you ought to listen to what I am saying and believe it. In fact you are reacting with a very powerful prejudice according to your privileged position.

Yes of course the oppressed will be better at seeing oppression than the privileged. Is that news to you? If it is you might want to go back and read all your own comments on privilege because apparently you only believe all that stuff when you are in a position where you think you're the downtrodden not the one standing on peoples necks. Again none of that is surprising.



That's completely irrelevant. Has nobody pointed that out to you before now? If it is injust to charge a person a fine then it's injust whether the fine is small or large, whether it goes to a good cause or not.



But very much against men's rights.



Not seeing your point... both are conservative movements. They've allied over stuff before now. Both are anti-choice for men.

You have not defined your view of Men's Rights or what these rights are. You bring out pieces here and there but nothing that can be nailed down. Until you clearly define "men's right's" I have no idea whether I can support them or not.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

So to sumarise the last 25 pages......

This thread started out as the feminist equivalent of George W Bush's "They hate us for our freedoms" speech.

Sure. It is the exact same tactic.

Feminist Manipulation University teaches to be on the offense attacking men while loudly proclaiming victimhood to conceal their aggression. Nobody likes deception, bad-faith argumentation, lying, etc. That is why they are disliked, as so many people pointed out.

The condescension and paternalism too - we can't "see" how we are victimizing women without their manipulative help.

As a result anyone who actually attempted to answer the original question was immediately attacked by KingMerv and all the other feminist except tyr_13. As a result of that, the thread quickly became a defence of feminism thread and after about page 12 KingMerv was actually attacking people who tried to answer the original question still, usually with passive aggressive attempts to present himself as the victim of their attacks .

The better term is "Covert Aggression" instead of passive aggressive because they are actively promoting an agenda, on the attack, but concealing all of their actions underneath this halo of victimhood. So we start a thread pretending to want to know why these poor feminist victims are "hated" - when the purpose of the thread is offensive: peddling of manipulative feminist propaganda. Hence, covert aggression - which is a character disorder when someone becomes increasingly dominated by this mode of interaction with others.

A feminist is not by definition a person with a covert aggressive character disorder, but rather the tactics these feminists have used in this dozens-of-pages thread are all covert aggressive tactics. If they act this same way towards everyone, not just in their covert feminist war, then yes they do have this personality disorder. Self-selection bias has covert agressives gravitating towards feminism, and others training how to be one through the feminist tool kit of underhanded war weapons.

truethat I thought was very interesting up to around lets say page 8 when she was increasingly distracted by barbs from Skeptic Ginger.

Manipulators are incessant at emotional attacks. The game is to be extremely unreasonable, but smile sweetly while doing it in order to get your target angry so that you can point to them and say how unreasonable they are.

There are a number of books written about manipulative people, and all the books have pejorative titles like "Nasty People" or "Snakes in Suits", etc - and we are trained by reading them that manipulative people are empathy-free predators that look upon others as objects to attain ends. It isn't realy an irony finding sociopathic personalities in an alleged "rights" organization.

You will find them concealing themsevles beneath the religious cloth, membership in charities, social services like crisis line counselors (Ted Bundy) or John Wayne Gacey the clown, etc. - because they know intellectually they have to feign empathy for others and conceal their sociopathic identity. An ideal spot for a manipulative sociopath is feminism. You get the cloak of "equality for everyone" while carrying on an aggressive hate agenda.

There is sexism in that situation but the sexism is against men, not women. That's pretty obvious when you consider that the societal pressure on men is giving them fewer choices than women, and so, less power. So the conclusion is that the gender wage gap is caused by men and women having different work patterns, and that this is due to our society's sexism and discrimination against men and is a sign of men's relative powerlessness compared to women.

Their "power and wealth" assertions are nothing more than manipulative ad-hominem tripe. Power over what? Not over women.

All of my earnings are joint income. That is the law. So how do I have more wealth than her when by law our assets are owned 50-50 and the income belongs to both of us? It is trivially stupid on the face of it.

I asked this question, but they practice selective attention/inattention - you ignore what is inconvenient to your agenda. That is just one of many reasons why dealing with covert aggressives is so tedious.

Tyr_13's comment said that the use of "what male privilege" was likely to spread resentment and hatred. That's a great observation which of course I am saying because I have long agreed with it but so rarely seen anyone else realise independently. In my opinion much of what feminists say is hate language designed to divide men and women and stir up hatred of the other sex. That argument basically went nowhere because only KingMerv replied and only with the most half-baked comment of his in the entire thread. I'd love to see him or anyone else try to refute that line of thought.

I've been banging the drum of feminists as malicious manipulative predators from the beginning, and it is based on the science of personality disorders being applied to their behavior.

It is a message that isn't well received in part because of the politically correct environment we live in, but also as this literature points out, anyone with knowledge of manipulative tactics needs to be discredited by manipulators. Too many people also do not wish to believe the world is full of serial killers, rapists, con-men, etc. so they want to rationalize away feminists manifestly bad intentions.

Feminists having bad intentions? *gasp*

For example one statement KingMerv said was completely agreed upon many times was "that there is a raw wage gap". Sorry KingMerv but I disagree. I disagree with that framing. How about we say instead that "there is a raw work gap"? Women are too lazy to work as hard as men, why is that? Now that's every bit as true as presenting that same data as a "wage gap" isn't it? But it doesn't sound quite as good for trying to make out women are oppressed. Or if you think that's too nasty how about we talk about the "death gap" of workplace fatalities?

Or too stupid, etc. But modern political correctness has us all taking the default position against men.

These manipulators are adept at framing everything as "men are bad". It actually takes no skill to be this way: what it takes is a lack of scruples.

There is nothing men do that is free from a negative connotation by someone with bad intentions. King Merv needed to be schooled at Feminist Manipulation University to "understand" how working hard and providing for your wife and children was evil power-and-wealth victimization of your wife.

How much more malicious can you get than that? Framing love and cooperation, mutual sharing and sacrifice in hateful, abusive "power and wealth" verbage!

But they deny they're doing that, under the maxim of covert aggressives who always deny the very thing they are doing at the same time they are doing it. No, no - it's the radical feminists you are mistaking me for. No, no you just don't understand power. Etc.

 

[Piggy]

You know, as I've said, I'm not a feminist, but I do get tired of the "victim card" card.

In a free society, if you're done wrong, it's your responsibility to set things right, and you can't do that unless you point out that something's wrong.

And sure, there are folks who are more than willing to climb up on a cross any time the ice melts in their tea, but let's not paint everyone who seeks change or redress of grievances with the same broad brush.

I mean, come on, what's next? "Oh, that whiner Jefferson with his Declaration, always playing that victim card!"

Working for improvement or reform or simply standing up for yourself in the face of abuse is not "playing the victim card". It's how our system works. In the marketplace of ideas, like the marketplace of business, you have to take care of yourself, and sometimes that means calling foul on cheaters.

So if anyone wants to play the "victim card" card, it would help if they explain just how it is that the problem someone seeks to correct isn't really a problem. Because yeah, there are folks who cry "woe is me" over nothing, but the mere fact that someone's complaining isn't a justification for that accusation.

 

[DavidByron]

The Declaration of Independence is a HUGE piece of whining. "Oh the mean King isn't letting us slaughter as many Indians as we want to - just because they're out "allies" and they have a "treaty" boohoo poor us."

Don't think Jefferson wrote that part of it though, did he? He wrote the high minded part that sounds good, but was latter repudiated by the founding fathers when democratic uprisings like Shays' Rebellion were aimed at THEIR rule.

 

[DavidByron]

You have not defined your view of Men's Rights or what these rights are. You bring out pieces here and there but nothing that can be nailed down. Until you clearly define "men's right's" I have no idea whether I can support them or not.

Bookitty, I am not an MRA, I am not a Republican, I am not a member of the religious right, I am not pro-life. In fact at this point it would probably be a good idea to assume that anything you had assumed about me -- I'm the exact opposite. I'm an atheist and a communist, I am pro-choice for both sexes, and I believe in equality but I don't feel the need to call myself some label that says I have some sort of bias towards either men or women.

I'm anti-feminist because I think feminism is (probably) a popular hate movement. I realise this is a little confusing for you and I don't especially blame you for jumping to conclusions but hopefully we can get this settled.

I have no interest in defining men's rights. I believe in civil rights for people not rights for some specific subset of people. I do think that MRA complaints, and a bunch of complaints they fail to make but ought to, are legitimate as civil rights that people ought to have (and that women already have).

Example.
A young person has sex and there is a pregnancy from this despite suitable use of contraception. The young person is in a panic because they suddenly realise that their entire life might have been derailed by the need to raise a kid for twenty years. They don't feel they are ready to be a parent. They are little more than a child themselves. They had wanted to go to college. All that is now under threat. The question is this: should that young person be forced by the state to become a parent? or should they have the right to make that decision for themselves?

I say: they should have the right to make that decision for themselves. The government has no business in that decision.

You say: I can't answer until you tell me if the person is a man or a woman.

Conclusion? You're sexist. But I don't want to make this about you. That always happens doesn't it with these discussions? I don't doubt your claims to be helping young homeless people and all that. or your participation in Occupy LA. Or your alleged support of some father's rights. This conversation started when I pointed out that the "War on Women" slogan is false and sexist and I said that was typical of feminism. So mentioning that you are an example is a only rhetorical device to illustrate how popular this is within the movement. I'm saying this is a good example of how falsehood and sexism are rife in the feminist movement among normal "nice" not particularly political feminists who are not "radical" or leaders.

You went on about abortion rights and I pointed out the hypocrisy in suggesting women are oppressed on an issue where women are far better off than men.

So. I am not that interested in men's rights. I am simply using that as an illustration of sexism and falsehood about men within the feminist movement, and how this happens very broadly and is not limited to so-called "radical" feminists.

Do you still endorse the concept of a "War against Women" after what we've discussed and if so do you want to try and address any of my criticisms that it is (1) false and (2) sexist?

 

[Piggy]

The Declaration of Independence is a HUGE piece of whining.

Okay then... you can live in your world, I'll live in mind.

I hope the view is good from ThankyousirmayIhaveanotherland.

 

[DavidByron]

It's certainly your right to hold an uninformed opinion that you can't back up and insult people who disagree with you. But the Declaration of Independence really was a load of whiny complaining. Let's cut to the best and most high minded part of it and ignore the easy targets like the stuff about killing Indians:

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Did the founding fathers actually believe that the people have a right to abolish a government like that? If they did then they had forgotten about it within a few years of the end of the war when the people of Massachusetts were already rebelling against the new bosses (over high taxes, ironically). It's not like they turned around and said, "Hey what you gonna do, the people have a right to abolish a form of government that they consider corrupt - we said that ourselves just a few years ago"

No, they raised an army so they could crush the rebellious sentiment quickly.

 

[rustypouch]

You know, as I've said, I'm not a feminist, but I do get tired of the "victim card" card.

In a free society, if you're done wrong, it's your responsibility to set things right, and you can't do that unless you point out that something's wrong.

And sure, there are folks who are more than willing to climb up on a cross any time the ice melts in their tea, but let's not paint everyone who seeks change or redress of grievances with the same broad brush.

I mean, come on, what's next? "Oh, that whiner Jefferson with his Declaration, always playing that victim card!"

Working for improvement or reform or simply standing up for yourself in the face of abuse is not "playing the victim card". It's how our system works. In the marketplace of ideas, like the marketplace of business, you have to take care of yourself, and sometimes that means calling foul on cheaters.

So if anyone wants to play the "victim card" card, it would help if they explain just how it is that the problem someone seeks to correct isn't really a problem. Because yeah, there are folks who cry "woe is me" over nothing, but the mere fact that someone's complaining isn't a justification for that accusation.

Generally, I've no problem with women playing the victim. They do have some legitimate gripes, especially with the GoP tripling down on craziness in the last few months.

What bothers me is when the issues and concerns of other groups are disregarded or trivialized because women are also slightly affected, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Marcus]

I don't support the occupocalypse, and I'm pro-choice, but the paper abortion thing makes sense to me. If the man is forced to be a father against his will, fine. It's the womans body, it's her choice. Part of that decision should be how the baby will be supported, if the woman wants to have the baby despite the mans unwillingness to be a father she should be able to support it.

 

[psionl0]

You say that men don't have "abortion rights" i.e. the right to force a women to have/not have an abortion. You do not believe that women have the right to bodily autonomy, to medical privacy, or the right to health.

Is abortion really just a feminism issue? That view seems to ignore the fact that a new life has been created.

I'm not about to interfere with a woman's right to her own body but it must be said that morally, abortion falls somewhere between "get rid of this infection in my body" and "murder this human being growing inside me".

 

[Piggy]

Generally, I've no problem with women playing the victim. They do have some legitimate gripes, especially with the GoP tripling down on craziness in the last few months.

What bothers me is when the issues and concerns of other groups are disregarded or trivialized because women are also slightly affected, either directly or indirectly.

Well, yeah, same here, I mean, sometimes it's like, come down off the cross now we could use the wood.

But I don't guess there's any group or cause that's not vulnerable to that kind of thing.

 

[000063]

So to sumarise the last 25 pages......

This thread started out as the feminist equivalent of George W Bush's "They hate us for our freedoms" speech. "Why do they hate us?" ask feminists / Americans? It's pretty obvious they do hate us but we're so nice. Gee, that is a tough question....

I feel that quote has been misrepresented; it's a sentence fragment, not even a full sentence.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

The war didn't turn out well, but in context the quote is actually pretty inspiring and comprehensive.

And that's pretty much the only sort of contribution I will allow myself to make to this thread.

 

[psionl0]

The war didn't turn out well, but in context the quote is actually pretty inspiring and comprehensive.

Yes, Dubya had some pretty good speech writers (none of them feminists I bet).

 

[DavidByron]

I feel that quote has been misrepresented; it's a sentence fragment, not even a full sentence. The war didn't turn out well, but in context the quote is actually pretty inspiring and comprehensive.

It doesn't seem a misrepresentation at all to me. I'll grant you that the exact words in that exact order were not there in that exact speech-- he did other speeches.... but the sentiment and meaning is every bit as manipulative and empty headed.

It's reassuring slogan to dismiss the concerns of people asking a very sensible question. Why do they hate us? That's a sensible question to ask. The answer is rubbish. Nobody hates democracy. Nobody hates freedom. It's cliché politician speak to pretend that only you represent support of apple pie and warm puppies. "Why do they hate us?" is asking for an explanation. Bush's answer says there is no explanation. These people are just plain crazy. These people do things without any motivation. You cannot understand them. You cannot reason with them. You cannot deal with them.

It's standard war time propaganda. He even pulls a Godwin. There was a real answer which explained the history of prior violent actions by the USA. Bush didn't want the American sheeple to understand those things.

I am shocked to find someone on a skeptics board who doesn't understand all this. Are you saying you still believe this nonsense from 12 years ago even in view of events that happened later? I thought even Republicans had repudiated Bush? Even if you still endorse Bush AND his wars anyone sensible knows that Bush's pro-war speeches were not true let alone inspiring.

At any rate I stand by my comparison of "they hate us for our freedoms" with this feminist thread.

 

[epepke]

Since about half of all women in the USA are pro-life you'd have to say it was obvious that half of women are misogynists.

If the term "misogynist" were accurately used, then yes.

About 58% of women and 54% of men in the US are in favor of legal abortion under all or nearly all circumstances. This has been about the same for the approximately 40 years I can remember.

My interest is why is this distortion... literally a conspiracy theory... being put out there?

I agree that this is far more interesting. I find polemic rather boring. It just tells you what people think, not why. You know what opinions are like. I can't write it here, but everyone has one, and they all stink. Why people think that way is much more interesting to discuss.

I see two possible explanations which are not incompatible. One, Democrats are putting this out there as a way to stir up hatred and paranoia and make people identify with the corporate party duopoly ready for the elections. But that doesn't explain the gender aspect really.

I was at a rally today about all this stuff and almost uniformly all of the speakers (regardless of their sex) were hostile towards men. Almost uniformly "men" were blamed for this "War against women". Democratic party speakers would even concede that some Democratic legislators had helped pass these laws, but not one speaker used wording that recognised that female legislators helped (and in some cases initiated) passing these laws.

Men were the enemy throughout the entire event and the closest that anyone came to saying anythign positive about men was one speaker who said something like, "We're here for women's rights so men don't have any skin in this game" (which is utter sexism) but then continued "so I'd like to thank the men who have turned out for this anyway". And that was the most male positive moment of the entire three or four hours. This speaker immediately followed up by saying, "They're probably here thinking they can get laid" as a joke.

So there's a thick anti-male message behind this "War on Women" framing. It might be deliberate or it might just be a reflection of the general anti-male hatred of the sort of people (ie feminists for the most part) who have been pushing this meme. The framing is "Women! Men are trying to oppress you again. Men are evil and powerful and they use their power to hurt poor oppressed women every chance they get!" It's complicated by the fact that it's obviously also being used as a corporate party recruiting tool to say that Republicans = men.

Since you believe that the feminist movement is no longer full of anti-male hate I wonder if you could comment upon this sort of behaviour?

Sure, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

First, a clarification. I don't quite think that feminism has changed. I think it self-destructed around 1997. There still are anti-male feminists, but you don't hear about them so often. They aren't front-and-center any more. But that's as maybe.

Also, I don't think that feminism per se can explain this. It's informed by feminism, but I think there's something more general going on.

To know someone's opinions isn't enough to understand them. You also have to know the basis for it. Everyone has a basis, and it colors, even defines how they think. Marxists will look for explanations in terms of social class, feminists will see things in terms of sex war, capitalists see things in terms of money, religionists see things in terms of grace and sin, etc.

The problem comes when they assume that people who disagree with them have the exact same basis. This is, of course, rather stupid, but people do it all the time.

In this particular case, it goes like this:

1) I support legal abortion because of individual (women's) rights, therefore, people who oppose it must want to reduce women's rights.

It only takes a little extra rhetoric to conclude that it must be men who are doing this.

Before explaining why this conclusion is so unbelievably stupid, I need to point out that there are other possible bases for exactly the same opinion:

2) I support legal abortion because I dislike abortion, and I notice that countries with legal and readily obtainable abortion have less of it, therefore, people who oppose it do so because they like lots of abortions.

3) I support legal abortion because it keeps the population of undesirables from breeding like rabbits, therefore, people who oppose it want the country to be taken over by undesirables. (For undesirables, substitute whatever you want.)

4) I support legal abortion because otherwise women will get back-alley abortions, therefore, people who oppose it probably make profits from back-alley abortions.

5) I support legal abortion because it is safe compared to pregnancy, therefore, people who oppose it want women to die.

Now, all these are arguments I've seen. Some of them seem silly, but that's only a matter of the times. Number 4 used to be the most popular back in the 1970s, way more popular than number 1. (It turns out that the rate of back-alley abortions was exaggerated, but it was popular then.) Note that all agree on the policy, none on the basis, and all miss the point of opposition.

Number 1 is most popular now. Maybe because it relies on the most conservative-seeming, libertarian arguments, and the US took a hard right about 10 years ago. Whatever the reason, it's the argument of the moment, and of course, it's totally stupid.

So, my answer to your question is that various factors, right now, indicate a kind of rhetoric that appeals to a basic American libertarian impulse, and it pretty much requires hatred of men.

I don't think that fully answers your question, though, which would be why do people put up with that amount of misandry? My answer is that it's traditional chivalry, which has been exploited by feminism before. (It's one of the things that feminism always seems to exploit, the willingness of men to put up with shaming by women.)

 

[000063]

Hang on.

...

It's standard war time propaganda. He even pulls a Godwin. ...

You do realize that Godwin's does not make the comparison in question incorrect, right? It's broadly used as an indicator someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Bush could've omitted "Nazism" from the sentence, and it would still say essentially the same thing.

I am shocked to find someone on a skeptics board who doesn't understand all this. Are you saying you still believe this nonsense from 12 years ago even in view of events that happened later? I thought even Republicans had repudiated Bush? Even if you still endorse Bush AND his wars anyone sensible knows that Bush's pro-war speeches were not true let alone inspiring.

1. I made no statements as to the validity of the claims made, only the fact that the quote is commonly taken out of context and made to look like just something dumb that Bush said when it is, in reality, more complex and comprehensive. Quoting sentence fragments is the same kind of thing Fox News does, for Pete's sake.
2. Inspiring, of course, is subjective. I didn't say it would've inspired me; I'm not even an American. It sure inspired Congress, judging by the videos of them applauding the speech you can find easily on Youtube.

At any rate I stand by my comparison of "they hate us for our freedoms" with this feminist thread.

As you are free to. Bush's post was, overall, intended to get hearts beating fast and boots on the ground, but I still think the quote is not as it seems.

Okay, I lied earlier about my contributions. Let's look at these posts from Feministing.

http://feministing.com/2007/04/12/you_will_not_shame_me/
http://feministing.com/2009/09/18/hofstra-rape-culture-and-the-bigger-picture/

The only real difference is that in the Hofstra case, the alleged rapists were black. This blog has no problem demanding the heads of white men, but when black people are involved, it suddenly becomes much less clear cut. I also note the hypocrisy of getting angry at people for even questioning the victims' stories or merely thinking the suspects were innocent, but have no problem doing so themselves when one recants to find some way it's a rape. There's also the common technique of declaring the issue at hand irrelevant, and wanting to talk about the "bigger picture". And, of course, the complete lack of concern for the men accused of rape, or for future men accused of rape (unless they're black). No, it's often about what it means for the next genuine accusation, along with trying to find excuses for the accuser much in the same way people make excuses for alleged rapists.

I hope this sort of thing isn't representa--oh come on!

You want to know why? It's stuff like this. These are two of the most popular feminist blogs on the Internet, and if I was masochistic enough to wander over to Shakesville, I could find more. Oddly enough, most feminist blogs, even those that had been castigating the suspects, went silent on the matter once the DA's office dropped the case, and still don't like to talk about it. A good deal of feminist and social justice dialogue seems more interested in reinforcing convictions and the Movement than actually changing things. In fact, I have seen several feminists literally say they have no responsibility to discuss things with people who ask them about gender relations. If someone is denigrated for not knowing, and denigrated for asking, then they are probably going to try to stay away from the subject entirely. Such actions are actively destructive to the alleged cause of feminism, yet no one is willing to say it's a bad idea.

 

[DavidByron]

So, my answer to your question is that various factors, right now, indicate a kind of rhetoric that appeals to a basic American libertarian impulse, and it pretty much requires hatred of men.

I don't think that fully answers your question, though, which would be why do people put up with that amount of misandry? My answer is that it's traditional chivalry, which has been exploited by feminism before. (It's one of the things that feminism always seems to exploit, the willingness of men to put up with shaming by women.)

Yes there's a lot of people who would not identify as feminists who share the background sexist assumptions that in many respects feminism has helped to encourage (although I think they were often there even before feminism to some extent).

So you said you had studied the feminism of the 1980s / 1990s and read about 250 feminist books and you seem to have a lot of interesting comments. I asked you some questions in a different thread if you wouldn't mind having a look at them?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224369&page=8

As above my theory is that feminism today is a popular hate movement; ie like the KKK in the 1920s when "all the best people were in the Klan" and not like the KKK nowadays who are a ridiculous joke and know it. Your views confirm in part and contradict in part.

I had to study the history of feminism too somewhat and I get a lot of the references you make.

A lot of these inquisition threads where feminists basically end up defending and justifying themselves try and make a defence about so-called "extremists" (a deliberately ambiguous term) and try and prove that feminism is OK by claiming that "ordinary" feminists are nice people. It seems to me that much the same argument would "prove" that any popular hate movement was a nice bunch of people. And in some sense that is actually true. The distinction is between the character of the lowest ranked members and the character of the movement as a whole - which is more informed by what the leadership does.