Why shouldn't I hate feminists?

[whatthebutlersaw]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Note that there is no corresponding term for men, e.g. "Masculinist", other than male chauvinist, and were there one it would have about the same disdain as male chauvinist. In a country where collective punishment is law of the land, with racial and gender preferences, it became acceptable to have militant man-haters pushing their agenda with not even much of a pretense of equality as their objective.

You speak for your culture/language and I speak for mine, okey? Swedish has the term "mansaksman" or "mansrätt" which translates roughly to "men's right/-er" and which isn't any more loaded than "kvinnosakskvinna" or "feminist" (same word as English although we stress the last syllable instead of the first). There are also men's shelters which receive municipal funding just as women's shelters do. I give you that there are far fewer of the men's shelters but the demand on the existing ones is not huge as it is. Generally, some of the men who find their way there have not always been abused but simply have no where to go after being kicked out. It is also up to each municipality how to spend their budget so not every part of the country will have one, but the same goes for women's shelters.

At the moment the area where inequality is perceived to be to the disadvantage of men is mostly concerning custody issues and that is mainly where most of the efforts of the "mansrätts"-movement are spent for now. It should also be pointed out that some of these initiatives are not only directed to men who have been abused in a relationship or who feel they are unfairly treated in regards to custody issues, but also does outreach to men who physically abuse their spouses and who want help stopping on a completely voluntary basis. (You can not be court ordered to this. It's for those who ask for that particular help.)

While there is still a long way to go and while there are pockets of backwoods parts of the country where these groups have a hard time finding a footing, they do exist, they are, to a degree, funded by public money and they are not silenced out of the public arena.

It may be that I have been fortunate to live in areas where both were visible of course but national news outlets regularly feature representatives of these.

Just like with radical feminism, there are fringe groups with odd ideas. I would not judge a desperate father, trying to get visiting rights to a loved child by the agenda of those groups any more than I would judge feminism by Dworkin.

I don't even know if your assertion holds true for the anglophone parts of the world but it does not hold true for the whole world.

As for the OP. Hate who you like. It is not very important that you, in particular, like feminists. You are allowed to feel any way you like, as are others regarding you. Unless you plan to make your point with semtex, I don't care.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Explain what you mean by the following quote and you may find your answer ...

I can't answer for him, but I'd say it's pointing out that anecdotal experience can lead one to the conclusion that 'feminists' don't want equality because there are people who identify as such who don't want equality. I'd say it's the wrong conclusion but for a while in college, I would have considered it a possibility.

Really, when the only people you know who self-identify as feminist talk about the details of keeping men out of any elected office, such as if it would be faster achieved through educating the public about how much better women are at governance, making it illegal for men to run for office, or removing men's voting rights, it's not a crazy conclusion. It's a problem of the 'squeaky wheel' sort that's difficult to understand if you simply weren't exposed to those types of people or you were able to observe closely enough to figure out that they were not representative of the movement as a whole. It's a mistake, but it's an understandable one.

I'm well aware that the response to this is going to be, 'Well I've never heard of that!' or, 'I've never seen it personally.' That's essentially the same mistake as ignoring the mainstream feminists because all one can see is the feminazis. Great for you if you've never actually been exposed to those people, but they do exist. Chances are good that you actually have been exposed to them, and have met them, but confirmation bias means you didn't connect them to the feminist movement, or ignored them outright. Perhaps you were focused on the acceptable, reasonable parts of their message and missed the unfortunate implications.

You don't have to believe me that such feminists exist who can cause people to come to the wrong conclusions. Lessing agrees with me.

My point is that one doesn't need to be a misogynist asshat to hate feminists, one simply need to be human and fall for all too common and universal pitfalls of perception. One can simply be mistaken, and reacting by spouting about privileged and guilt trips about oppression are simply going to convince a lot of people that they were right in their assessment of feminism. (That and moaning about every female that isn't portrayed in a positive light makes lots of eyes roll, not that I'm accusing anyone here of that.)

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I can't answer for him, but I'd say it's pointing out that anecdotal experience can lead one to the conclusion that 'feminists' don't want equality because there are people who identify as such who don't want equality. I'd say it's the wrong conclusion but for a while in college, I would have considered it a possibility.

Really, when the only people you know who self-identify as feminist talk about the details of keeping men out of any elected office, such as if it would be faster achieved through educating the public about how much better women are at governance, making it illegal for men to run for office, or removing men's voting rights, it's not a crazy conclusion. It's a problem of the 'squeaky wheel' sort that's difficult to understand if you simply weren't exposed to those types of people or you were able to observe closely enough to figure out that they were not representative of the movement as a whole. It's a mistake, but it's an understandable one.

I'm well aware that the response to this is going to be, 'Well I've never heard of that!' or, 'I've never seen it personally.' That's essentially the same mistake as ignoring the mainstream feminists because all one can see is the feminazis. Great for you if you've never actually been exposed to those people, but they do exist. Chances are good that you actually have been exposed to them, and have met them, but confirmation bias means you didn't connect them to the feminist movement, or ignored them outright. Perhaps you were focused on the acceptable, reasonable parts of their message and missed the unfortunate implications.

You don't have to believe me that such feminists exist who can cause people to come to the wrong conclusions. Lessing agrees with me.

My point is that one doesn't need to be a misogynist asshat to hate feminists, one simply need to be human and fall for all too common and universal pitfalls of perception. One can simply be mistaken, and reacting by spouting about privileged and guilt trips about oppression are simply going to convince a lot of people that they were right in their assessment of feminism. (That and moaning about every female that isn't portrayed in a positive light makes lots of eyes roll, not that I'm accusing anyone here of that.)

Yep. Also, when issues are brought up where men are disproportionally affected (university graduation rates, suicides, homelessness, workplace injuries/fatalities, etc.) concerns are brushed aside or rationalized away. Anecdotal, I know, but I can't be the only one who has experienced such things.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I'm well aware that the response to this is going to be, 'Well I've never heard of that!' or, 'I've never seen it personally.'

I'm not going to suggest that you haven't run into women with radical points of view.

But I wonder why you'd let them define feminism.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'm not going to suggest that you haven't run into women with radical points of view.

But I wonder why you'd let them define feminism.

If they're the only women you meet who identify as feminists it seems like an understandable (though wrong) conclusion.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'm not going to suggest that you haven't run into women with radical points of view.

But I wonder why you'd let them define feminism.

I thought I explained in that post exactly what was going on.

There's a perceptual phenomenon called confirmation bias that is partly at play here, so if you haven't learned about what that is yet, it would help if you did. There are several links I can give you, but wikipedia's one isn't bad. If one is exposed to the idea that feminism is about hating men and only elevating women before other views, then it's easier to discount examples of non-radical feminism and only pay attention to the wackjobs. The reverse is also true. If one identified mainstream feminist ideas as 'equality for all', it's easy to discount any evidence contrary to that idea, even to the point of disbelieving that others could have possibly seen any such evidence. This is further exacerbated for feminism by the radicals loudly and proudly self-identifying constantly as feminists, where the mainstream ones don't even think to mention it. I don't assume that I have to mention that I'm against slavery and rape very often, just like I don't go around saying 'I'm a feminists,' very often. It's a similar problem atheists face. The only people widely known as atheists are some loud abrasive ones who others see as asshats. People don't even realize that many of the nice people they see every day are atheists because there is no particular reason to identify as such. It's similar with the homosexual community and 'flamers' verse less obvious homosexuals. Please note that I'm not saying it's bad to be an outspoken atheist or 'flamer' homosexual the same way I'd say it's bad to be a radical feminist sexist.

Think back to my earlier example of my experiences in college with some feminists. Those fringe feminists were very loud and public, and the more mainstream ones supported my speaking up in private. Now imagine how someone viewing these conflicts from the sidelines would view feminism. On one hand you have the radicals who self-identify as feminists espousing pretty obvious sexism and on the other I'm there challenging it. How those watching supposed to just know that my views were the ones that were most in line with mainstream feminism?

That's how someone can come to a reasonable, if wrong, conclusion about feminism. The desire to label such mistakes as caused by misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw is also very human, and equally wrong.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

That's how someone can come to a reasonable, if wrong, conclusion about feminism. The desire to label such mistakes as caused by misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw is also very human, and equally wrong.

That last point is the only one I'll disagree with. This is a skeptic's forum, and one of its primary points of focus is to call out perceptual biases, idiocy, or other character flaws regardless of the issue.

If you can explain why someone should be immune from skeptical criticism because their perceptual bias revolves around feminism, I'd love to hear it.

It doesn't matter to me if we're talking about dowsing, Bigfoot, politics, feminism, or whatever. If an argument is based on 'woo' in one of its many forms, then there's nothing wrong about pointing that out.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

That last point is the only one I'll disagree with. This is a skeptic's forum, and one of its primary points of focus is to call out perceptual biases, idiocy, or other character flaws regardless of the issue.

If you can explain why someone should be immune from skeptical criticism because their perceptual bias revolves around feminism, I'd love to hear it.

It doesn't matter to me if we're talking about dowsing, Bigfoot, politics, feminism, or whatever. If an argument is based on 'woo' in one of its many forms, then there's nothing wrong about pointing that out.

Tyr_13 didn't say it was wrong to point out said mistake. They said it's wrong to assume the cause of the mistaken point of view is due to "misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw".

I'm a firm believer that people who express incorrect views should be given the benefit of the doubt, and you should assume their position is built out of a lack of proper exposure to the facts.

The appropriate response is to initially offer those facts. If the person resolutely ignores the evidence and continues with their position you may begin to entertain alternative explanations.

Sadly, all too often in this forum people are immediately rude, cruel and dismissive towards people who express incorrect views. Let's try remember that the JREF is dedicated to education and you don't educate people by belittling them, you educate them by respectfully demonstrating where their views are wrong.

If, after you've provided the facts, they still don't agree with you, move on.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Sadly, all too often in this forum people are immediately rude, cruel and dismissive towards people who express incorrect views. Let's try remember that the JREF is dedicated to education and you don't educate people by belittling them, you educate them by respectfully demonstrating where their views are wrong.

If, after you've provided the facts, they still don't agree with you, move on.

Very nicely put.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Tyr_13 didn't say it was wrong to point out said mistake. They said it's wrong to assume the cause of the mistaken point of view is due to "misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw".

You spun that in a very subtle way. But here's what tyr_13 really said ...

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The desire to label such mistakes as caused by misogyny, idiocy, or other sever character flaw is also very human, and equally wrong.

Post after post in this forum is all about identifying [labeling] flaws in one's argument, whether it is due to perceptual bias, flaws in logic, deduction, or whatever cognitive brain fart finds its way into posts. Flaws in one's argument should be pointed put.

The leap that one needs to be very careful to make is to assume we know the character of the person posting. These posts are poor at revealing the motivations behind our arguments or the make-up of the person writing them. However, even that can be deduced to a degree if a poster is resistant to applying logic to their thought process.

For instance ... take a person claiming to have ESP because they thought about someone who then called on the phone a second later. If after a discussion where matters like confirmation bias were put forth that person still insisted they had ESP, then people would and do call them out for being idiotic.

In a discussion where someone continues to insist that 1.5 billion Muslims are all terrorists because of the acts of a few violent radicals, they are being bigoted.

It doesn't make that person evil. It just means their argument or thought process is flawed. And again, as a skeptical community, our duty is to point these flaws out. I'm sure both try_13 and gumboot have done the same many times in other threads. I again have to ask, why would you not do the same concerning this issue?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

You spun that in a very subtle way. But here's what tyr_13 really said ...

Post after post in this forum is all about identifying [labeling] flaws in one's argument, whether it is due to perceptual bias, flaws in logic, deduction, or whatever cognitive brain fart finds its way into posts. Flaws in one's argument should be pointed put.

The leap that one needs to be very careful to make is to assume we know the character of the person posting. These posts are poor at revealing the motivations behind our arguments or the make-up of the person writing them.

That's exactly what I said. Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or what?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by gumboot

That's exactly what I said. Are you just arguing for the sake of it, or what?

Is it too difficult for you to say, "it looks like we're in agreement here"?

Go on ... you can say it.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Is it too difficult for you to say, "it looks like we're in agreement here"?

Go on ... you can say it.

I already said we're in agreement. "That's exactly what I said".

I then asked you a question, which you've ignored.

Why did you feel the need to "disagree" (your words) with tyr_13's point, if you actually agree with it?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Why did you feel the need to "disagree" (your words) with tyr_13's point, if you actually agree with it?

I agreed with most of it. I said I disagreed with the last part.

It seemed to me that there was reluctance to call out idiocy in a forum rife with people calling out idiocy.

So I just had to as why there should be an exception in this case.

[tyr_13]

Not every mistake is caused by being an idiot. This case isn't an exception. One can be mistaken without being an idiot.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I agreed with most of it. I said I disagreed with the last part.

It seemed to me that there was reluctance to call out idiocy in a forum rife with people calling out idiocy.

So I just had to as why there should be an exception in this case.

It's actually a breach of the membership agreement to do so. I'd remind you that you said yourself:

"These posts are poor at revealing the motivations behind our arguments or the make-up of the person writing them."

Many people on this thread seem willing to use Naive1000's posts to determine Naive1000's motivations and character make-up, despite how poor said posts are at indicating this.

As I said, the only appropriate response is to demonstrate to the poster where their argument is wrong. If they ignore or reject your points, move on or present additional points to demonstrate why they are wrong.

Resorting to calling the poster stupid or idiotic or any other variance on the theme is not only a breach of your membership agreement but totally unproductive.

If you don't think the poster is willing/capable of registering and accepting your points, why on earth would you keep discussing the matter with them?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I agree, it is hilarious.

Here you are ... a man who can barely defend himself in a forum, who has definitely benefitted from from the very unnatural construct that all men are created equal. Yet when it comes to women seeking that same equality says, "In my equally anecdotal experience their definition of "equality" is preferential treatment in law."

You should be quite thank for preferential treatment in law, because without it people like you would never enjoy the life that you so blithely take for granted. What a shame it is that you lack the self-awareness to understand that, or possess the generosity of spirit to extend that largess to women.

And how often do you see a feminist fighting for equal rights for fathers? It seems more common that they take issue with any recognition that all the imballaces do not disadvantage women.

For example it is way more acceptable for women to verbally abuse their male partner in public than the other way around.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And how often do you see a feminist fighting for equal rights for fathers?

I think you'll find in general that advocacy groups focus on the segment of the population that they are advocating for.

That said, if you search feminism + fatherhood, you'll find no shortage of feminist viewpoints that acknowledge and honor the role of fathers.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I think you'll find in general that advocacy groups focus on the segment of the population that they are advocating for.

That said, if you search feminism + fatherhood, you'll find no shortage of feminist viewpoints that acknowledge and honor the role of fathers.

And how often is it phrased in terms of more rights and not responsibilities? Shaming deadbeat moms shunning women who do not inform fathers of their child?

And the competitive victimhood nature that occurs sometimes is harmful as well. You rarely see gender neutral appeals to stop domestic abuse while someone interested in equality would frame it that way.

But there frequently seems to be that admitting an advantage undermines the disadvantages women have un our society.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And how often do you see a feminist fighting for equal rights for fathers? It seems more common that they take issue with any recognition that all the imballaces do not disadvantage women.

For example it is way more acceptable for women to verbally abuse their male partner in public than the other way around.

Actually there are more than a few feminists fighting for equal rights for fathers. Like what appears to be bookitty's view, I believe one of the most productive current avenues of gender equality is making it both socially and economically acceptable for men to utilize many of benefits women currently do with regards to vacation time, new child time, and other time spent with the family. That isn't to say that other avenues don't need work or are invalid, but a great many feminists, most of the quieter type I described earlier, do not actually ignore issues that seemingly benefit women more than men. Verbal and physical abuse of men by women is another avenue that isn't being ignored. In fact Dr. Drew had that issue discussed just the other day.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

This is further exacerbated for feminism by the radicals loudly and proudly self-identifying constantly as feminists, where the mainstream ones don't even think to mention it.

Also, at least back during the 1980s, mainstream feminists widely ran interference for radical feminists. Fortunately, that is no longer true (or at least as true), though it can seem that way on some university campuses. It used to be nearly universal.

Quote:

On one hand you have the radicals who self-identify as feminists espousing pretty obvious sexism and on the other I'm there challenging it. How those watching supposed to just know that my views were the ones that were most in line with mainstream feminism?

If your experience was similar to mine, the trump card involved saying that males had no say in what feminism was to be.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by epepke

Also, at least back during the 1980s, mainstream feminists widely ran interference for radical feminists. Fortunately, that is no longer true (or at least as true), though it can seem that way on some university campuses. It used to be nearly universal.



If your experience was similar to mine, the trump card involved saying that males had no say in what feminism was to be.

I hated being told that. I knew from experience that pointing out how sexist that statement was would be met with, 'women can't be sexist'. It was a completely wall-banging and unproductive line of reasoning in most any conversation on the topic. The only utility in it was to identify someone who was simply not going to listen to your arguments.

Keep in mind that these radical feminists aren't all idiots either. I actually had more than one friend at one time who believed that women couldn't be sexist. My favorite response with the friendly ones was to say something along the lines of, "Are you saying men can do something that women can't?"

[epepke]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

E.g., one could equally note that serfs were not as oppressed as slaves in medieval Europe. So? That doesn't mean the former weren't oppressed too, nor that there's any problem with noticing that they WERE oppressed and it DOES explain peasant resentment and occasional uprisings. Just being not as oppressed as another group doesn't mean one loses any claim to being oppressed. Nor do they lose any reason to hate their oppressors.

Same about women, way I see it. Other groups being oppressed too, well, so what? It's not like only one group gets to resent it.

You're using logic. There's nothing wrong with that, but some are commenting on the logic used by others, specifically, radical feminists.

There was a theory, popular in the 1980s, that oppression of women by men as social classes was both infinitely worse than and at the basis of all other forms of oppression. Neglecting for a moment the silliness of the idea that social class did not trump sexual oppression (I'm sure the young men sent to die in the Crimean war by Queen Victoria found this obvious), this also did involve downplaying other forms of oppression.

As a small example, the oppression of gay men was thought to be oppression of women. That is, gay men were thought to be sort-of women. This makes a twisted kind of sense in terms of feminist theory, but it seems to me a bit hard on gay men who are beaten or killed, many of whom probably don't think that being gay makes them women. The idea was sufficiently mainstream that Andrew Hodges included it, uncritically, into his otherwise excellent Alan Turing: The Enigma.

I suppose that it's natural and expected for a group with special interests to concentrate on those special interest. It is not necessarily true that pointing out someone's oppression minimizes someone else's, but that is in fact what a great deal of feminist thought and literature actually does. Even mainstream, liberal feminist literature paints a picture that largely excludes underclass men. Men are mostly rich and powerful and have great careers. If they aren't (or even if they are) they seldom feature as other than abusers of women. Stories of men working at jobs they hate and which will shorten their lives are few and far between.

Even when there is talk about equality, it's equal access to goodies and yummies. Again, this is perfectly natural. Everyone wants the good stuff and wants the manure to be shoveled on someone else. Still, equality isn't a la carte, and it is valid to point that out.

[HansMustermann]

Look, again: whatever theory or philosophy or pet peeve you might choose in the whole of time and space, there will be people who:

A) have some extremist version of it. I think it even follows naturally from expecting a gauss curve of human reactions and attitudes. Whatever the apropriate and balanced reaction or course of action you may imagine, there WILL be people falling to the left and right of that perfect centre, some even quite far off it.

In the women's case, yes, see some who think they should be goddesses, but equally on the other side you see some who actively opposed the right to vote for women and the like. And if you think I'm talking about the 19'th century, you can look as recent as Ann Coulter blaming a bunch of evils on letting women vote.

It's that gauss curve. People aren't clones of each other, so some variance is to be expected. It doesn't mean one can't pick the most extreme example and basically go, "see, THAT is what (second wave) feminism is all like."

B) think that it's far worse or more justified than anyone else's problem or pet peeve.

In a sense, it's even the default modus operandi of humans. You can see the same "my problems are worse than everyone else's problems" mentality even in stuff like the Noble Savage BS, or idealizing the crap-hole that was the Renaissance, or seeing everyone else's problems as having trivial hare-brained solutions (those barbarians could just solve everything by stopping fighting, for example), or conversely stuff like the White Man's Burden. "Oh, woe is us that we have to whip them to work for us, they're so happy that they don't have OUR problem there." That's the kind myopia that permeated all known history: everyone else's problems are more trivial than mine.

Or as Mel Brooks put it, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."

And frankly while some feminists do have such a myopic view, guess what? So does everyone else. A lot of opposition to it is based on equally myopic views where surely not only it's not a problem if you're a second class citizen, but you even don't know how privileged you are to be one.

C) think that any other issue is involving their pet peeve, or at least is a convenient soap-box for THEIR pet peeve.

Heck, just look at proponents of economic theories on both sides of the spectrum, and have a shot of whiskey for any seemingly unrelated problem that they reduce to a trivial case of their economic view. Collapse of Rome after centuries of plagues and invasions? Surely it's about class struggle and means versus relations of production. Stalin executing his political enemies? Verily it's because of not enough unrestricted private enterprise. Etc.

D) are fanboys (of both genders) and just HAVE to bark harder than everyone else, just to show that they're worthy members of the group.

E) are trolling for attention by taking it up to eleven.

Etc.

Life can be an exercise in dadaism like that, and it usually is.

And sure enough, feminism too has its fair share of all of those. But the key word is "too". So does everyone else.

One can't hold feminism to an unreasonable standard where they have to have no outliers whatsoever, when the rest of the species doesn't work that way either.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And sure enough, feminism too has its fair share of all of those. But the key word is "too". So does everyone else.

One can't hold feminism to an unreasonable standard where they have to have no outliers whatsoever, when the rest of the species doesn't work that way either.

HansMustermann, you have summed it up the perfectly.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And sure enough, feminism too has its fair share of all of those. But the key word is "too". So does everyone else.

One can't hold feminism to an unreasonable standard where they have to have no outliers whatsoever, when the rest of the species doesn't work that way either.

True, but it doesn't seem to be what anyone is doing.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

True, but it doesn't seem to be what anyone is doing.

It's what the OP is based on.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It's that gauss curve.

The problem was that, as I and others keep pointing out, during the 1980s what you are calling extremist was very mainstream, smack dab in the hump of that normal curve, not on the tails. Now, the 1980s are over, and that's a good thing in many ways. Yet there was no magic reset button as in Star Trek, where no matter how much damage was done, it was all better by the next episode.

Now, you may not have come of age during that time, or not in the wrong place, of you may choose to deny it, but it happened Some of us remembered that time, and it really sucked. I think it set back any genuine vision of sexual equality back a decade or two.

Furthermore, when I got interested in the history of feminism (the precipitating event was my seeing a production of Moliere's Don Juan for which the women's studies department included a rather nasty "feminist countertext" via a chorus), I found that this conflict has troubled and scuttled every wave of feminism going back to the invention of the printing press.

Simply put, women and men who are interested in empowerment of women and equality of the sexes are eventually countered by women who find it more politic to enfeeble women in an attempt to manipulate men. It works, but only in the short term, and only because it takes advantage of traditional sexism. Eventually the wave of feminism collapses under its own conflicts, and that wave is over.

As a result, women really haven't experienced what America's waves of immigrants have experienced. Instead, it's two steps forward and one step back. Sometimes it's three steps back.

The collapse of "second-wave" feminism, by my reckoning, was pretty much complete by 1997. Now we have a "third wave." Maybe, just maybe, this one will work, which is why pages ago I advocated not hating modern feminists. But I do not think it is productive simply to get into a state of denial over the dangers. Hell, people can't even count the waves. There have been way more than three, but the earlier waves are forgotten.

Now, you don't have to care about this if you don't want to, but I do. I think that if I were a misogynist, which I'm not, I would be saying many of the things that you are saying. They're just extremists. Pay them no mind. I'd be confident, based on my reading of history, that women would eventually destroy this wave as well. Since I'm not a misogynist, and I want liberal feminism to succeed (preferably before I die), I don't.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's what the OP is based on.

I went back and reread the OP just to make sure, and it sure appears that the justification for hating feminists isn't simply that they have radicals, but on the misconception that feminists tolerate and never speak out against the radicals.

This line of reasoning falls apart in that feminists do not today tend to tolerate radicals. They do speak out, just not with as much publicity as the radicals speak out, as mainstream feminism has become pretty mainstream overall. This isn't a problem unique to feminism.

[Naive1000]

All right, I guess I've skipped out on this thread long enough. To tell the truth, I was trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate. I do not hate feminism nor feminist groups, but I did at one point in my life. I was trying to ignite argument about the article I posted on in contrast to actual feminism. Obviously, that did not happen. What I really wanted to do was work on my rhetorical skills (they're a bit rusty), again not what happened. As they say, the best laid schemes of mice and men... I thought that a little prodding might get two sides of this argument going, but it would seem that the JREF forum has many vocal feminists and few, if any, who wish to argue against them.

A few comments directed at me really bothered me, and I realized at that point that I had made a mistake. This was not a subject that I could be detach from. I thought that my past experiences were, just that, in the past. But, they weren't, so bringing them up was my mistake. Let me add that when I went to college I probably would have considered myself a feminist, though I had never heard the word before that point. Equality was a given in my household. Both my sister and I were expected to follow the same rules, were both expected to go to college, and our grades were expected to be high. No one ever mentioned the possibility that their was a job a woman couldn't do just as well as a man. In fact, I was the one who convinced my sister to try for medical school and helped her study during all those late nights for her MCAT. Feminism was not a concept I had come across because in my family equality of the sexes was just a given. I can't count the number of female bosses and employers I've had, not because there were so many, but because I never really cared. One boss was like any other. In my mind, individuals are individuals -- gender just wasn't all that important to me.

It took me a little time, after college, to get back to my starting point. At that point, I would say I was sexist, but it didn't last long. It's just not who I am (plus it goes against my code). Even though my original post and a few after words were a bit hostile there were still some who were willing to be nice, put forth good information and discussions, and I just wanted to thank them: bit_pattern, ixolite, bookitty, MatildaGage, slingblade, gumboot, mike3, tyr_13, and epepke. I'm sure I've probably forgotten a few but to all those who were civil and willing to have a meaningful discussion, thanks. I won't go into my past but for anyone that is truly interested and not a troll just PM me I'm always willing to talk.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Naive1000

All right, I guess I've skipped out on this thread long enough. To tell the truth, I was trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate. I do not hate feminism nor feminist groups, but I did at one point in my life. I was trying to ignite argument about the article I posted on in contrast to actual feminism. Obviously, that did not happen. What I really wanted to do was work on my rhetorical skills (they're a bit rusty), again not what happened. As they say, the best laid schemes of mice and men... I thought that a little prodding might get two sides of this argument going, but it would seem that the JREF forum has many vocal feminists and few, if any, who wish to argue against them.

A few comments directed at me really bothered me, and I realized at that point that I had made a mistake. This was not a subject that I could be detach from. I thought that my past experiences were, just that, in the past. But, they weren't, so bringing them up was my mistake. Let me add that when I went to college I probably would have considered myself a feminist, though I had never heard the word before that point. Equality was a given in my household. Both my sister and I were expected to follow the same rules, were both expected to go to college, and our grades were expected to be high. No one ever mentioned the possibility that their was a job a woman couldn't do just as well as a man. In fact, I was the one who convinced my sister to try for medical school and helped her study during all those late nights for her MCAT. Feminism was not a concept I had come across because in my family equality of the sexes was just a given. I can't count the number of female bosses and employers I've had, not because there were so many, but because I never really cared. One boss was like any other. In my mind, individuals are individuals -- gender just wasn't all that important to me.

It took me a little time, after college, to get back to my starting point. At that point, I would say I was sexist, but it didn't last long. It's just not who I am (plus it goes against my code). Even though my original post and a few after words were a bit hostile there were still some who were willing to be nice, put forth good information and discussions, and I just wanted to thank them: bit_pattern, ixolite, bookitty, MatildaGage, slingblade, gumboot, mike3, tyr_13, and epepke. I'm sure I've probably forgotten a few but to all those who were civil and willing to have a meaningful discussion, thanks. I won't go into my past but for anyone that is truly interested and not a troll just PM me I'm always willing to talk.

Thanks. It's good to know that my small contribution is recognized.

Humans are very weird critters and we are never so strange as when navigating gender equality. There's just so much outside stuff mixed in. I know that feminism is one of the topics that I am identified with on this forum and that sometime I come across as someone who wears combat boots to bed. But I still do all the cooking at home for a man who does all the computer and car repairs. Not that it makes either of us "traitors" to the ideals, just that gender roles go deeper than discussion.

[Verklagekasper]

Originally Posted by Naive1000

So tell me, why should I support feminism at all, and where are the feminists willing to stand against radicals like these?

Ask a woman, and chances are that she opposes feminism. Just search for (video)blogs on feminism, and you will find what radical feminists hate even more than men: women who don't subscribe to their views. As for support, no, you should not support feminism. Never. Unless you want to become a feminized pussy that no woman has respect for.
Don't get me wrong, equal rights is a good thing, and feminism used to have its justification, and it's still justified in countries where women are oppressed. But in western countries it has turned into something else. It's no longer about equal rights but about forcing a certain life style on women, about making men obsolete, making women lose respect for them, and making men lose self esteem.
Yes, you may "impress" feminists by showing positive interest in their views. They will like you for it like they would like a puppy that they just taught a trick.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Verklagekasper

Ask a woman, and chances are that she opposes feminism. Just search for (video)blogs on feminism, and you will find what radical feminists hate even more than men: women who don't subscribe to their views. As for support, no, you should not support feminism. Never. Unless you want to become a feminized pussy that no woman has respect for.
Don't get me wrong, equal rights is a good thing, and feminism used to have its justification, and it's still justified in countries where women are oppressed. But in western countries it has turned into something else. It's no longer about equal rights but about forcing a certain life style on women, about making men obsolete, making women lose respect for them, and making men lose self esteem.
Yes, you may "impress" feminists by showing positive interest in their views. They will like you for it like they would like a puppy that they just taught a trick.

I am one of the few self-identified female feminists on this board. If you ever catch me turning someone into a "feminized pussy" please let me know. It would be a pretty sucky super-power in the grand scheme of things, but it could come in handy. Like if I got mugged. "Give me your purse, bitch!" VAGAZAM! "You mean 'let me hold your purse while you go dancing?' don't you?" "Why yes, I guess I do. And may I say that you look particularly capable this evening. Oh my gawd! What's happening to me???!!! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

[Naive1000]

Funny, I thought this thread had passed into the nether-lands.

@bookitty: That was a good response, I laughed.

@Verklagekasper: You seem to have a problem with feminism, feel free to speak your mind on why, I'd like to hear it.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

You speak for your culture/language and I speak for mine, okey?

Nice strawman, since I specifically targeted my statement to this country (mine), where collective punishment is law of the land. So you keep your little strawman to yourself, OK?

Naiive1000 -

Quote:

All right, I guess I've skipped out on this thread long enough. To tell the truth, I was trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate. I do not hate feminism nor feminist groups, but I did at one point in my life. I was trying to ignite argument about the article I posted on in contrast to actual feminism. Obviously, that did not happen. What I really wanted to do was work on my rhetorical skills (they're a bit rusty), again not what happened. As they say, the best laid schemes of mice and men... I thought that a little prodding might get two sides of this argument going, but it would seem that the JREF forum has many vocal feminists and few,

"I am a manipulative liar and you are my sheeple; my pawns; my playthings... obviously I can't be honest about my intentions with people because, um, well then I would be treating others as my equals..."

[Naive1000]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

..[snip].. "I am a manipulative liar and you are my sheeple; my pawns; my playthings... obviously I can't be honest about my intentions with people because, um, well then I would be treating others as my equals..."

Geez, harsh much? There is no rule against playing Devil's Advocate and I've seen many threads where people have. As I said this was my opinion at one time and I thought it would make an interesting conversation. You of course had no obligation to post in the thread if you didn't want to, so bite me . This is a board for discussion, debate, and arguing. So, attack all you want, it just means you have no valid arguments and little in the way of discussion. But, thanks for playing .

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by Naive1000

Geez, harsh much? There is no rule against playing Devil's Advocate and I've seen many threads where people have.

Interesting triple play. In reverse order: two or more wrongs make a right. Minimizing one's behavior and magnifying the oppenent's.

Since you already admitted to being manipulative I have decided to view your posts within that framework. So carry on. It's already interesting

Quote:

As I said this was my opinion at one time and I thought it would make an interesting conversation.

After establishing that you don't tell the truth, in order to manipulate people's responses, why should we believe this?

Quote:

You of course had no obligation to post in the thread if you didn't want to, so bite me .

Excellent! Blame the victim: "It is your fault you trusted me. You should have assumed I was a liar..."

Capped off with a personal insult. Pretty typical in manipulators: try to incite your target. But I am having fun with this.

Quote:

This is a board for discussion, debate, and arguing. So, attack all you want, it just means you have no valid arguments and little in the way of discussion. But, thanks for playing .

This is incoherent. Maybe you could disentangle it for me. You directy admitted to stating positions you do not hold in order to manipulate people's responses. It isn't a big deal to me, but it is rather trivially true that you lied and now you've got your panties in a wad for me calling it what it is.

Why so bent out of shape?

[Naive1000]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Interesting triple play. In reverse order: two or more wrongs make a right. Minimizing one's behavior and magnifying the oppenent's.

Since you already admitted to being manipulative I have decided to view your posts within that framework. So carry on. It's already interesting

I disagree with the premise that the action is wrong. In debate it is quite common to take a contradictory position and to represent it as your own for the purpose of exploring all sides of an argument. If a person admitted they were being a devil's advocate it's unlikely that one would take the argument seriously. So, I do not feel as if I did anything wrong, as I would assume others playing devil's advocate feel the same. And, I too enjoy a good argument .

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

After establishing that you don't tell the truth, in order to manipulate people's responses, why should we believe this?

Well I can only say its true and you get to decide, that's all up to you. I'm not sure what evidence you would find credible to prove a personal opinion at one time. If you have a clue on this feel free to fill me in.

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Excellent! Blame the victim: "It is your fault you trusted me. You should have assumed I was a liar..."

Capped off with a personal insult. Pretty typical in manipulators: try to incite your target. But I am having fun with this.

Well it is true as a skeptic one should take most things with a grain of salt . Though, I do wonder how bite me is an insult it's more of a come back to the liar insult. Or, I should say perceived insult. I guess I did lie and represent this as my current opinion when it isn't (it's been a while so I forgot). Just to add, if you felt I insulted you, I do apologize.

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

This is incoherent. Maybe you could disentangle it for me. You directy admitted to stating positions you do not hold in order to manipulate people's responses. It isn't a big deal to me, but it is rather trivially true that you lied and now you've got your panties in a wad for me calling it what it is.

Why so bent out of shape?

Not bent out of shape ... though slightly out of shape, I am forty after all . I guess it was a bit incoherent. I had to go and rushed my response a bit. Didn't come out as I wanted it to.

Basically, I was trying to say that debating is all about manipulation. The point of it is to manipulate the opinion of others in a way that makes them receptive to your argument. Debate, arguing, and any type of discussion is meant to move peoples' opinions in the direction you wish. Skeptics are manipulators. It's what we do.

To keep this on topic. Here are some things about feminism.

Here is some anti-feminism woo:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sexism?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Are men emasculated?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Reaction to women abusing men?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Misandry:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Institutional feminism and misandry:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Naive1000]

Feminism - isn't the word itself sexist? If I claimed to be a masculinist, and told all the men and women who believe in equal rights that they have to be one to truly stand for equal rights; wouldn't people think I was sexist? If so, why is feminist and feminism allowed to stand. Should we all really be egalitarians?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Naive1000

Feminism - isn't the word itself sexist? If I claimed to be a masculinist, and told all the men and women who believe in equal rights that they have to be one to truly stand for equal rights; wouldn't people think I was sexist? If so, why is feminist and feminism allowed to stand. Should we all really be egalitarians?

I think the simple answer here is that if you could make a case that men are discriminated against in the matter of rights, employment, legal protection and so forth, then you could make a case for masculinism even if the discrimination were debatable. Feminism, at least in its non-radical form, has egalitarianism as its goal, but if it's women's rights that are coming up short, then it's women's rights that need to be addressed. You present a kind of double bind if you label as sexism any effort that is focused on the problem at hand rather than at the ideal. So it's sexism to push for women's rights, unless you append "and men's too," and presumably it was racism to campaign against lynching and miscegenation laws and segregation unless you say, "oh, and don't lynch white guys either."

When gay activists pushed for the right to marry, they did not have to push for the right of straight people to marry too. I don't think that was "gayism" on their part. Because guess what, we already could! Advocacy is wasted lip service to those who do not need it.

Back in Kindergarten we got that "do it for everyone or no-one" stuff, and it's a fine idea at a certain level, but it's not a very efficient way to address real problems.