Swapping genderswapping

[TerranceL]

What sort of behavior?

The feminist meme that is nothing more than laughing at the pain of men.

The repeated protests and criminal acts to stop people from meeting and talking about mens issues. Some of these videos, if I told you it was a group of scientologists trying to shame people to stop talking about a subject it would be believable.

The whole, "femnism addresses male issues" but when ever actually wants to address any of those issues he gets labeled a "MRA" as if wanting to discus mens problems is a sin. See the tag to this thread.

The fear mongering around rape and rape culture, given the propaganda you would think that rape is at an all time high instead of an alltime low.

The general demonization of men as a whole. I mean they even went so far as to attack how men freaking sit.

 

[Gadarene]

The feminist meme that is nothing more than laughing at the pain of men.

Not only that, but laughing at the notion that systematic discrimination and negative attitudes towards men exists, which it most certainly does.

The repeated protests and criminal acts to stop people from meeting and talking about mens issues. Some of these videos, if I told you it was a group of scientologists trying to shame people to stop talking about a subject it would be believable.

It's funny how for a group that claims it wants men to speak up about their issues it....doesn't want men to speak up about their issues.

The whole, "femnism addresses male issues" but when ever actually wants to address any of those issues he gets labeled a "MRA" as if wanting to discus mens problems is a sin. See the tag to this thread.

Haha, yeah, whoever did that is pretty clueless. I'm not an MRA, have never identified as one. And it never gets any less tiresome when people throw that term around as soon as criticism of feminism rears its head (although for consistency's sake I should say it's possible it wasn't a feminist who put that tag there).

The general demonization of men as a whole. I mean they even went so far as to attack how men freaking sit.

Yeah, imagine if women were creepshot and their faces posted on the internet for a public shaming. We'd never hear the end of it.

And not only that, but attacking what men wear too.

 

[Paradoxum]

The feminist meme that is nothing more than laughing at the pain of men.

I don't see feminism in general as in favour of laughing at people's pain. There are those who do, but there are also those who don't.

The repeated protests and criminal acts to stop people from meeting and talking about mens issues. Some of these videos, if I told you it was a group of scientologists trying to shame people to stop talking about a subject it would be believable.

I'm not sure you can condemn all feminism because some feminists do bad things.

I don't think feminism is one thing. There are different types.

The whole, "femnism addresses male issues" but when ever actually wants to address any of those issues he gets labeled a "MRA" as if wanting to discus mens problems is a sin. See the tag to this thread.

I don't have a problem with MRA's, or being in favour of equalism for all.

The fear mongering around rape and rape culture, given the propaganda you would think that rape is at an all time high instead of an alltime low.

Rape is still a thing worth worrying about, even if it's deceasing.

The general demonization of men as a whole. I mean they even went so far as to attack how men freaking sit.

I don't think all feminists are like that. Perhaps I assume too much good, but I wonder if radicals have loud voices for their number.

 

[DaisyDay]

Are they really feminists?

Yes.

To my thinking if you are NOT saying that humanity needs to eliminate men PERIOD, you are not truly a feminist.

Fortunately, you do not get to define feminism for me. I am for equal rights, not superior ones.

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

The Sixties were a different time. Back then, a woman could be fired just for getting married or pregnant (which was not a word used in polite society).

 

[DaisyDay]

Not only that, but laughing at the notion that systematic discrimination and negative attitudes towards men exists, which it most certainly does.

It does somewhat, but not to the degree that Jews faced in Nazi Germany.

It's funny how for a group that claims it wants men to speak up about their issues it....doesn't want men to speak up about their issues.

Funny, but that's not actually true. The OP wasn't about men's issues, it was anti-feminism only.

Yeah, imagine if women were creepshot and their faces posted on the internet for a public shaming. We'd never hear the end of it.

Apparently you haven't heard of "revenge inappropriate content" or [lady]-shaming (we can't use the actual term here).

And not only that, but attacking what men wear too.

The sitting issue is actually real if you ever had to ride a crowded subway or commuter train, you might run into these people who sit with their knees three feet apart, pressing into the legs of those on either side of them.

I hadn't heard that we feminists were attacking what men wear. What's the beef there?

 

[Gadarene]

It does somewhat, but not to the degree that Jews faced in Nazi Germany.

*sigh*

from page 1

I suppose I should nip this one in the bud pre-emptively, because you lot do love to make this mistake all the time, assuming it is a mistake and not deliberate obtuseness.

Read veeeery carefully now, m'kay?

I'm not saying that the consequences of these attitudes are the same. I'm saying that they are the same attitudes at root, and that is a problem - negatively generalising an entire group and de-individualising them. Often to blame them for a problem your group faces.

Funny, but that's not actually true.

Of course it is. Look at how feminist groups blockade and interrupt meetings of men's rights groups. Look at the acres of snark printed every year when International Men's Day rolls around. Look at the asinine chants of whatabouttehmenz when feminist mischaracterisations of men and how they are involved in particular issues are corrected.

I'm not convinced your movement overall actually wants real equality, and most of the adherents I have encountered are active obstacles to such.

The OP wasn't about men's issues, it was anti-feminism only.

And?

Sometimes they're the same thing. Feminists also have their share of responsibility for the status quo which harms men.

Apparently you haven't heard of "revenge inappropriate content" or [lady]-shaming (we can't use the actual term here).

Apparently you haven't heard of sarcasm.

Right - so creepshooting a girl and uploading it to the internet for public shaming is bad, right? I don't particularly want to risk that happening should I happen to exercise the mortal sin of sitting improperly according to feminists.

The sitting issue is actually real if you ever had to ride a crowded subway or commuter train, you might run into these people who sit with their knees three feet apart, pressing into the legs of those on either side of them.

And yet a surprising number of shots of men you see "guilty" of this crime don't have anyone sitting next to them. Heck, a fair few of them show men that are asleep. That's men for you - our mighty male privilege is so powerful we can oppress you in your sleep, presumably while we dream of raping women.

And as ever, it isn't just men that do this. There are plenty of women who take up their fair share of transport space, but curiously, they're not being singled out for public shaming. They're not being accused of patriarchal territorial displays or whatever BS bit of ideological claptrap feminists want to tag to it.

I cannot in all honesty believe that a woman who has an issue with "manspreading" doesn't have some deep-seated issues with men.

I hadn't heard that we feminists were attacking what men wear. What's the beef there?

Shirtstorm - the scientist who was allegedly keeping women out of science with his shirt.

Again, I think it's more than likely the women who take that nonsense seriously have some serious issues with men.

 

[TerranceL]

You would almost think that mens hips are smaller than womens and we have testicles and thus have a biological reason for sitting differently than women.

Haha nevermind that's just silly, lets demonize men!

 

[Gadarene]

You would almost think that mens hips are smaller than womens and we have testicles and thus have a biological reason for sitting differently than women. Haha nevermind that's just silly, lets demonize men!

Or the fact that two very pressure sensitive organs are regularly moving between the man's legs during walking/sitting and occasionally get crushed. But hey, let's whale on men for it anyway and call it privilege.

On the other hand, if women had a physical issue that affected how they sit, it'd be like so super muhsogynist to criticise them for it.

 

[Jade Margery]

Oh look, I can take someone's words out of context and switch some names and pronouns too:

Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for Jews is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says “Beware of VERY bad dog.” Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

Racists are not born, they are made.

I am still baffled at all the Jews who seem to expect Aryans to live on a steady diet of hatred and Aryan bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into “love” for Jews and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to Jews. I simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a Jew whine about being victimized, I simply tune them out and go elsewhere. When a Jew smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke – “What does a ______ say instead of “[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] you?” Answer “Trust Me.”

The founding essay of the Mens Rights Movement - Hate Bounces : MensRights

Isn't it kind of a problem that the attitudes espoused by some quite noteworthy men's rights activists in the public are virtually indistinguishable from some other quite nasty prejudices?


Or maybe you could just insert the words 'Aryan' and 'Jew' in place of any complaint about anybody - your annoyance at one of your neighbors, dislike of a certain political party - and immediately make things sound horrifically racist. What you're doing here is not gender-swapping, more like genre-swapping. It is a poor argument against those you disagree with to say 'WELL UNDER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND REFERENCING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SOCIAL ISSUE, WHAT YOU SAID IS MEAN.'

For example:

Of course it is. Look at how Jewish groups blockade and interrupt meetings of Aryan groups. Look at the acres of snark printed every year when International Aryan Day rolls around. Look at the asinine chants of whataboutteharyans when Jewish mischaracterisations of Aryans and how they are involved in particular issues are corrected.

I'm not convinced your movement overall actually wants real equality, and most of the adherents I have encountered are active obstacles to such.

or

Are they really Jewish?

To my thinking if you are NOT saying that humanity needs to eliminate Aryans PERIOD, you are not truly a Jew.

Now, just to be clear, and please read this very carefully:

I'm not saying that the consequences of these attitudes are the same. I'm saying that they are the same attitudes at root, and that is a problem - negatively generalising an entire group and de-individualising them. Often to blame them for a problem your group faces.

 

[Gadarene]

It's not the same to swap 'feminists' for 'Jews' as it is to swap 'men' for 'Jews'. You choose to be feminist, you don't choose to be male or Jewish. 'Feminist' is not an inherent trait. I think you're the one genre-swapping here, frankly.

If someone was making negative statements about women as a whole, then the swapping trick could well apply to them, and those statements are wrong too.

And no, swapping doesn't always work for every statement, though I'm not sure how that's a point against it. It was never claimed to.

But like it or not, the only group you can get away with saying something as hideous as 'it wouldn't matter if women did hate men' against is men. That sort of prejudice is acceptable and virtually mainstream given that it appears as a headline in a newspaper.

 

[Jade Margery]

It's not the same to swap 'feminists' for 'Jews' as it is to swap 'men' for 'Jews'. You choose to be feminist, you don't choose to be male or Jewish. 'Feminist' is not an inherent trait. I think you're the one genre-swapping here, frankly.

Haha, what? That's exactly what your first post was referencing. And I quote button:

In short, they swap terms like "men" or "cismen" to "Jews", and terms like "women" to "Aryans".

The results are rather interesting.

Taking a quote about gender and then changing it so that it's about race is pretty much exactly what the example you posted does.

If someone was making negative statements about women as a whole, then the swapping trick could well apply to them, and those statements are wrong too.

When people generalize feminists to be man-hating, anti-equal rights, or oppressive, they are literally referring to every woman I know, care about, and admire. My mother, my grandmother, all of my friends, all of my mother's friends, all of their daughters, all of my favorite professors and teachers and female co-workers, not to mention many activists whom I read and follow who fight for women's rights both in America and in much more dangerous places around the world. Women who want to feel safe to express an opinion without getting death/rape threats for it. Women who want to make as much money as men do for the same amount of work when they have the same skills and experience. Women who want to know that if they are assaulted, they won't be blamed for being victims, and there will actually be justice for them.

Not all of us are spending our time on 'the cause', and some of us are louder than others, but with the exception of women who grew up in oppressive cultures and are still mentally chained to the kitchen, you ARE making negative statements about women as a whole. When you try to turn a label like feminist into a dirty word to be ashamed of, when all it really means is someone who thinks that men and women should have equal rights (as we repeatedly, tirelessly tell you), then you are exactly the reason this fight isn't over yet.

But like it or not, the only group you can get away with saying something as hideous as 'it wouldn't matter if women did hate men' against is men. That sort of prejudice is acceptable and virtually mainstream given that it appears as a headline in a newspaper.

It's only hideous if you take it out of context. A perusal of the full article shows that it is a) written tongue in cheek, b) specifically points out that 'manhating' is not a real thing that feminists do, much like 'turning children gay' is not a real thing homosexuals do, except as an exaggerated parody of it for humor's sake, and c) there are definitely strong antagonistic feelings on both sides of this divide, but statistically one side is a lot more likely to be violently attacked or sexually harassed due to those feelings, which makes said side somewhat blazé about complaints from the other.

Plus, I'm pretty sure you could get away with saying the same thing about white people, straight people, or christians - ie, people who have large societal advantages and very few disadvantages compared to the person making the comment.

On a side note:

Sounds like you are an egalitarian.

A homosexual rights supporter isn't against heterosexual rights, and civil rights supporters aren't against unoppressed people having rights... that would make them all egalitarians, eh? There are many places where the scales need to be balanced, and a person can't effectively focus on all issues equally. There's nothing wrong with using more specific labels based on the subject at hand and the person's degree of commitment to the cause of their choice.

 

[TerranceL]

A homosexual rights supporter isn't against heterosexual rights, and civil rights supporters aren't against unoppressed people having rights... that would make them all egalitarians, eh? There are many places where the scales need to be balanced, and a person can't effectively focus on all issues equally. There's nothing wrong with using more specific labels based on the subject at hand and the person's degree of commitment to the cause of their choice.

What right do men have that women don't?

 

[Skavau]

Not all of us are spending our time on 'the cause', and some of us are louder than others, but with the exception of women who grew up in oppressive cultures and are still mentally chained to the kitchen, you ARE making negative statements about women as a whole. When you try to turn a label like feminist into a dirty word to be ashamed of, when all it really means is someone who thinks that men and women should have equal rights (as we repeatedly, tirelessly tell you), then you are exactly the reason this fight isn't over yet.

This seems unduly presumptuous. There's a difference between skeptical towards the direction of contemporary feminism and suggesting that all feminists everywhere are man-hating or oppressive (and I would argue that Gadarene is doing the former).

What you appear to be suggesting that a belief in equal rights is impossible without endorsement specifically, of the word "feminism".

 

[TerranceL]

Not all of us are spending our time on 'the cause', and some of us are louder than others, but with the exception of women who grew up in oppressive cultures and are still mentally chained to the kitchen, you ARE making negative statements about women as a whole.

Ahhh the wonders of feminism! Women you are allowed to make your own choices but if you choose to be a housewife well you are "mentally chained to the kitchen". Such lovely doublethink.

When you try to turn a label like feminist into a dirty word to be ashamed of, when all it really means is someone who thinks that men and women should have equal rights (as we repeatedly, tirelessly tell you), then you are exactly the reason this fight isn't over yet.

Yes, yes, feminism is all about equal rights. That's why talks about male suicide is protested, that's why men's pain and issues are ridiculed with "male tears", that's why every male action has to be studied and twisted to somehow be found wanting. If I'm wrong please explain to me how in the world there was feminist backing to make men sit a more feminist friendly way? Why do feminist insist upon making non-gendered issues gendered then shame anybody who brings up the male victims? Feminist seem to want equality with men much in the same way white nationalist want equality with non-whites.

 

[Dave-W]

I am all for equal rights, opportunities and equal pay. I am also anti-feminist.

For me to be pro-feminist would be like Jews in Germany and Poland circa 1940 being pro-Nazi.

I have been hearing catch-phrases from modern feminists such as "kill all men," and "reduce the male population by 90%."

So if I were truly pro-feminist, I would have to commit suicide.

 

[Jade Margery]

Ahhh the wonders of feminism! Women you are allowed to make your own choices but if you choose to be a housewife well you are "mentally chained to the kitchen". Such lovely doublethink.

You misunderstand my statement. Housewives can be feminists too, and housewife is a perfectly fine thing to be (as is househusband). By mentally chained to the kitchen, I was thinking of women in subcultures like the quiverfull movement or in those remaining mormon sects that practice polygamy and have distinctly cult-like aspects - women heavily conditioned to think that there is only one option for them and that men are literally their masters.

Yes, yes, feminism is all about equal rights. That's why talks about male suicide is protested, that's why men's pain and issues are ridiculed with "male tears", that's why every male action has to be studied and twisted to somehow be found wanting. If I'm wrong please explain to me how in the world there was feminist backing to make men sit a more feminist friendly way? Why do feminist insist upon making non-gendered issues gendered then shame anybody who brings up the male victims? Feminist seem to want equality with men much in the same way white nationalist want equality with non-whites.

Honestly, I've never seen feminists doing any of the things you are talking about. If you provide specific links to examples of these things, then I will be happy to discuss them, but what you're saying above is a bit like asking athiests why they want to send people to hell, hate god, make christianity illegal, and tear down cherished religious symbols and monuments that bring people hope and joy. It's a misunderstanding of another person's position so far from what they are actually saying that all they can respond with is 'um... no?' Certainly there are a few extremists in every group, but to insist that their fringe opinions represent the whole is just a way to dismiss and ignore the very real concerns that group may have regarding the state of the world, while conveniently vilifying all of the members due to the actions or opinions of a few.

So far Daisy Day and I have both told you guys, 'That's not what feminism is really about' and the response we have gotten is 'No that IS what it's about'. I KNOW that as an atheist, you are constantly having religious people try to tell you what atheism *really* is and ignoring you when you try to explain that they are wrong. That is what you are doing here, to us.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Yeah, this is why I find the whole thing about rights and crap to be ridiculous. It's everybody is oppressed by an evil white, heterosexual Christian male somewhere.

I think they should just stop with the whole "rights" thing, period. All of the stuff that our society treats as a right is really more of a privilege established by consensus, and even then only in Western society. Some people in non-Western countries manage just fine.

As for feminists, I kind of feel sorry for their movement. They weren't able to appeal to the emotions of people and get people to sympathize with them like gay people were, nor did they have influential speakers who sought peace like Martin Luther King. The fact that the "oppression" they faced pales in comparison to Jim Crow laws and slavery doesn't exactly help their cause.

Even the people of Tumblr and the Internet of my generation, the believers in sexual

 

[grandvizier1006]

Dang it, the post glitched

As I was saying, even my generation, the believers in sexual unrestraint and dichotomy and (limited) gender interchangeability, don't like feminism. They have absolutely no sympathy for it despite being so liberal regarding sexuality and gender. When people point out sexism, they hate it. When a woman claims that an ad is objectifying, they hate it (although that's probably because most of them are straight guys who like the ad and are worried about the feminists getting the ad removed, which they really shouldn't be so concerned about). They point out the hypocrisy in empowerment and objectification, and they are quick to point out how often women can be mean to men.

 

[Gadarene]

So for some reason my quote button isn't giving me the quotes in the text editing box, so apologies for the cutandpastes.

@Jade:

Haha, what? That's exactly what your first post was referencing. ...Taking a quote about gender and then changing it so that it's about race is pretty much exactly what the example you posted does.

Ah, well I don't consider that much of a change. As I said, it is still comparing inherent traits.

Feminist, however, is not an inherent trait. Not all women are feminists - thankfully.

When people generalize feminists to be man-hating, anti-equal rights, or oppressive, they are literally referring to every woman I know, care about, and admire. My mother, my grandmother, all of my friends, all of my mother's friends, all of their daughters, all of my favorite professors and teachers and female co-workers, not to mention many activists whom I read and follow who fight for women's rights both in America and in much more dangerous places around the world. Women who want to feel safe to express an opinion without getting death/rape threats for it. Women who want to make as much money as men do for the same amount of work when they have the same skills and experience. Women who want to know that if they are assaulted, they won't be blamed for being victims, and there will actually be justice for them.

Ok...you appear to be offended.

Literally, so what?

This reminds me of how Christians react when you tell them that you're not convinced their group isn't the last best hope for humanity that they believe it to be.

No, Jade, not all feminists are man-hating, oppressive, etc. - indeed I never claimed that, and I explicitly pointed that out to Paradoxum early on in the thread. But the level of misandry, oppressiveness, inegalitarianism and downright hypocrisy in your movement hasn't made me inclined to stick around to check out the rest - not least when you're using the same concepts and rhetoric as they are to back up your views.

Not all of us are spending our time on 'the cause', and some of us are louder than others, but with the exception of women who grew up in oppressive cultures and are still mentally chained to the kitchen, you ARE making negative statements about women as a whole.

Given that even in the comparatively progressive US, only 20% of people - nevermind women - call themselves feminists, then no, I'm really not. You can try and spin this into an anti-woman statement as much as you like, it's not going to work. Up your game and try something else

When you try to turn a label like feminist into a dirty word to be ashamed of, when all it really means is someone who thinks that men and women should have equal rights (as we repeatedly, tirelessly tell you)

It's rarely about that. If you don't repeat the same dogma and talking points as a feminist, they usually won't see you as one. I've lost count of the number of times I've said that I want equality, but I don't agree with the conceptualisations of the patriarchy, privilege, oppression, misogyny, and whatever the feminist topic du jour is - and guess what? I'm not presumed to be a feminist.

But I believe in equality, right?

Why should I bother to identify myself with a movement that I not only disagree with at a fundamental conceptual level on almost everything but one that also regularly doesn't consider me one of their own?

then you are exactly the reason this fight isn't over yet.

Surrre I am. Rather than feminists who wouldn't know equality if it was staring them in the face

It's only hideous if you take it out of context.

Let's stop you right there.

There is no way whatsoever commending or rationalising hatred of any group is justifiable.

The fact that you even think there is only proves my point.

Valenti's statement was disgusting because not only did it claim female misandry doesn't exist, it also claims if it were to exist it wouldn't be a big deal.

I don't really know how we're going to solve this whole inequality thing if we don't get rid of attitudes that invariably produce inequality - like hating another group based on innate traits - but this is, sadly, a mistake many so-called equality activists blunder into.

A perusal of the full article shows that it is a) written tongue in cheek

*sigh*...you're really just gonna power on through this one anyway, aren't you?

Since when does "it's only a joke" about an issue make it ok? Last time I checked, feminists were more than a little up in arms about sexist jokes and rape jokes.

b) specifically points out that 'manhating' is not a real thing that feminists do, much like 'turning children gay' is not a real thing homosexuals do, except as an exaggerated parody of it for humor's sake

I'd say singling men and only men out for their responsibility in a problem (like rape, for example), or giving men a hard time over completely inconsequential things like what they wear or how they sit falls well within the bounds of misandry.

Certainly if we compare it to what usually gets called "misogyny" these days by feminists, although that bar is set increasingly lower

and c) there are definitely strong antagonistic feelings on both sides of this divide, but statistically one side is a lot more likely to be violently attacked or sexually harassed due to those feelings, which makes said side somewhat blazé about complaints from the other.

"Due to those feelings"? Do you mean people being harassed because they are feminists, like online?

If that's the case, then you should take a closer look at some self-identified feminists behave online when confronted with people who challenge their views.

A homosexual rights supporter isn't against heterosexual rights, and civil rights supporters aren't against unoppressed people having rights... that would make them all egalitarians, eh? There are many places where the scales need to be balanced, and a person can't effectively focus on all issues equally. There's nothing wrong with using more specific labels based on the subject at hand and the person's degree of commitment to the cause of their choice.

True - but I don't judge certain feminists to be against equality based on what they claim to be in favour of. Rather, I base it on what they otherwise actually say and do.

Honestly, I've never seen feminists doing any of the things you are talking about. If you provide specific links to examples of these things, then I will be happy to discuss them, but what you're saying above is a bit like asking athiests why they want to send people to hell, hate god, make christianity illegal, and tear down cherished religious symbols and monuments that bring people hope and joy. It's a misunderstanding of another person's position so far from what they are actually saying that all they can respond with is 'um... no?' Certainly there are a few extremists in every group, but to insist that their fringe opinions represent the whole is just a way to dismiss and ignore the very real concerns that group may have regarding the state of the world, while conveniently vilifying all of the members due to the actions or opinions of a few.

So far Daisy Day and I have both told you guys, 'That's not what feminism is really about' and the response we have gotten is 'No that IS what it's about'. I KNOW that as an atheist, you are constantly having religious people try to tell you what atheism *really* is and ignoring you when you try to explain that they are wrong. That is what you are doing here, to us.

Wow....ok. Now, while this wouldn't make the same being done to you ok, your movement does this to men, critics of feminism and men's activist groups AAAAAALL THE TIME. You don't like being generalised and judged by the worst of you? Well, welcome to our world when many feminists talk about men. Sucky, isn't it?

But as I said earlier - I'm not claiming that all feminists behave this way, I'm saying that there is to my view enough of the crappy things I have mentioned within feminism to not consider the movement worth defending.

I'm going to post links in a separate post seeing as the editor is still misbehaving with me. Although I do have to go to work soon, so it might have to wait.

 

[Jade Margery]

Let's stop you right there.

There is no way whatsoever commending or rationalising hatred of any group is justifiable.

The fact that you even think there is only proves my point.

Valenti's statement was disgusting because not only did it claim female misandry doesn't exist, it also claims if it were to exist it wouldn't be a big deal.

I don't really know how we're going to solve this whole inequality thing if we don't get rid of attitudes that invariably produce inequality - like hating another group based on innate traits - but this is, sadly, a mistake many so-called equality activists blunder into.

The point of her article (linked here, for those who are wondering what we are talking about) is literally that feminists don't actually hate men. (It is also, by the way, NOT a headline of a newspaper as you earlier described, but the title of a short opinion column)

"...(A) younger generation of feminists has embraced what Slate writer Amanda Hess calls “ironic misandry”. Hess wrote last year that the rise in popularity of “male tears” mugs and man-hating inspired shirts and crafts serves as a sort of ****-you to the constant barrage of harassment that feminists often face: “On its most basic level, ironic misandry functions like a stuck-out tongue pointed at a playground bully.”"

Imagine you know a guy, and every time you have a disagreement, he claims that you eat babies because you once said you didn't like children. Eventually, you get so annoyed at being repeatedly called a baby eater that you get a T-shirt that says 'the tastiest part of a baby is the soft spot' with a picture of a baby on a plate to make fun of him. Upon seeing this, he screams "I KNEW IT! YOU ADMIT IT! YOU EAT BABIES! Cannibalism is terrible, how could you make fun of children being killed and devoured?"

You might rightfully face palm at the guy's complete lack of ironic awareness, the fact that any time you say anything that doesn't agree with his preconceived notion of your appetites he ignores it, and the stupidity of the entire situation in the first place.



Some feminists 'hate' men the same way some people say they 'hate' hipsters. You might groan when you see a guy in a flannel shirt riding a fixie down the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean you want to go on a shooting spree at an indie music store. There is a huge difference. Can you honestly say that you have never, in your entire life, said that you hated something or someone when you were actually just frustrated and annoyed? You are ignoring the nuance and context and focusing only on what you want to see - justification for your criticism of feminists.

There have been several misogynistic shooting sprees though. (Article) And while there have been a few female spree shooters (less than ten out of all 1314), none of their stated motivations were male hatred.

*sigh*...you're really just gonna power on through this one anyway, aren't you?

Since when does "it's only a joke" about an issue make it ok? Last time I checked, feminists were more than a little up in arms about sexist jokes and rape jokes.

So... let me see if I'm getting this right.

To you, a joke making fun of being accused of a ridiculous stereotype = a joke about a violent, traumatic attack that happens to nearly 300,000 innocent people every year, male and female. (Ref)

By that logic, we could never make jokes about anything, because everything is related to some kind of issue. Are you really saying that either everything is in bad taste, or nothing is? Different subjects have different levels of acceptability to the public for a reason.

And for the record, the 'rape jokes' I personally find most offensive are the ones about men being raped, because often there is no attempt whatsoever to be respectful or even indicate that it is wrong. Examples off the top of my head include the movie Wedding Crashers and the Amazon episode of Futurama, both playing sexual assault against men for laughs.

I'd say singling men and only men out for their responsibility in a problem (like rape, for example), or giving men a hard time over completely inconsequential things like what they wear or how they sit falls well within the bounds of misandry.

And I'd say that you have to start tackling a problem somewhere (regarding rape) and also... come on. (Regarding sitting and clothes.)

While female rapists do exist (and should be prosecuted just as male rapists are), the majority of rapists are male and the majority of victims are female. You will not find any statistics to refute that. Does it not make sense to try to focus on the larger group of aggressors?

"Due to those feelings"? Do you mean people being harassed because they are feminists, like online?

If that's the case, then you should take a closer look at some self-identified feminists behave online when confronted with people who challenge their views.

Links please.

True - but I don't judge certain feminists to be against equality based on what they claim to be in favour of. Rather, I base it on what they otherwise actually say and do.

Links please.

Wow....ok. Now, while this wouldn't make the same being done to you ok, your movement does this to men, critics of feminism and men's activist groups AAAAAALL THE TIME. You don't like being generalised and judged by the worst of you? Well, welcome to our world when many feminists talk about men. Sucky, isn't it?

Links please.

But as I said earlier - I'm not claiming that all feminists behave this way, I'm saying that there is to my view enough of the crappy things I have mentioned within feminism to not consider the movement worth defending.

Hilarious that in your previous paragraph you decry generalizing and judgement, and then in your very next paragraph you generalize and judge.

I'm going to post links in a separate post seeing as the editor is still misbehaving with me. Although I do have to go to work soon, so it might have to wait.

I'll wait. So far I have seen a lot of accusations in this thread against the 'feminist movement', but the only actual evidence of these accusations has been criticizing the public transit version of parking over two spaces and an article that literally starts with 'Feminists don't hate men.' Oh the horror.