They really are a chosen people.
Riiiight. Because you’ve clearly been silenced. :rolleyes: The martyr shtick is similarly tedious, FYI.
But sure, I’ll bite:
Do you really not understand why that might be? If you’re going to argue against, say, civil rights expansion, you’ll be lumped in with racists. If you argue against same-sex marriage, you’ll be lumped in with homophobes. If you claim to be anti-feminist, you’ll be lumped in with misogynists. I’m sorry that offends you, but how can it be a surprise?
So…you’re opposed to something that doesn’t exist? Right there with you.
I believe this is not true. In this very thread I’ve seen people who identify as feminist willing to take on both individual feminists and “feminist positions.”
So yeah, it’s really easy to be an “anti-feminist” when the thing you oppose is a straw construct of your own imagination.
Ah, so this is your working definition of “feminism?” Thank you, that makes a little more sense. I disagree with it and think you’re having a problem with confirmation bias, but I at least finally start to understand your position.
For some people, this might be the case. On balance, I think you’re entirely wrong.
Glad you’re not exaggerating or anything. You’re saying that feminism, which you define as consisting of white women of privilege who are dedicated to totalitarian oppression of men, is a hate group. Can’t imagine why you’d have trouble getting people to listen respectfully to that viewpoint.
Ahhhhh, I think I understand. *Your *experience is being diminished. I’m sorry you feel that way.
Again, this is IME broadly incorrect, and also a product of pretty severe confirmation bias.
If I say something that people don’t understand, I accept that I did not explain myself clearly, and try not to blame it all on my interlocutors.
You’ll excuse me, but I’d thought you said “He’s trying to do the “You’re intolerant of intolerance!” gag.” I don’t believe I went on to do that, though I did in passing make note of some of the ways some feminists (in common with others who hold treasured beliefs) exercise their intolerance of criticism.
Mostly I went on to make some points, and link to a woman (not that that should matter, surely…?) who made some more for me.
What you went on to do was ignore the points (fair point - there’s no point engaging with ideas that don’t support your own, I suppose) and settle for a woefully inaccurate misrepresentation. Why?
You’ll be relieved to know, by the way, that I’m not bringing any gluten, derailing of racial equality, or derailing of QUILTBAG (do try to keep up!) equality. Nor am I, as a crip, planning on derailing the lamentable progress the truly oppressed are making in equal rights for disabled people. I’m also a wholehearted supporter of egalitarianism. I used to be a radical feminist (or so I was occasionally told). Now I’m occasionally told I’m a misogynist. The interesting thing is that my position hasn’t changed one jot. (By the by, I’m also occasionally called a paedophile, by children who’ve learned that they can throw that accusation about and evade attention while the mob responds. ‘Misogynist’ has taken on much the same role for some feminists, who can’t seem to separate a political philosophy from a gender/sex.)
I’m sorry, I don’t follow you - what are you trying to say?
For those who are saying anyone who criticizes feminism is a misogynist, and that feminism isn’t to some extent a hate group, there are mainstream feminists who express open, explicit hatred of men. Not the implied misogyny that “anti-feminists” or MRAs, etc are accused of. These are famous, mainstream feminists with major websites and columns, not obscure Internet cranks. There’s Jessica “I Bathe in Male Tears” Valenti, for instance.
There’s a British feminist named Julie Burchill who has had columns in the Guardian and the Sunday Times and who is famous enough that her son’s recent death was widely reported in the British press. In 1999 she wrote a column (link) attacking some football [soccer] campaign against male suicide. It includes the delightful quote:
“Indeed, the more callous among us would say that it was quite nice for young men finally to find something that they’re better at than girls.”
She didn’t lose her job, she continued for the last 16 years as a public figure with major columns and so forth. Any man who wrote anything half as hateful towards women would be considered an extreme misogynist and would never have any job in the public eye again. Her son just committed suicide. She has given interviews about her grief but she hasn’t stated whether she still thinks other male suicides are funny.
And yet, somehow it’s the feminists who are stereotyped as not having a sense of humor.
Considered an extreme misogynist? Sure. Never have any job in the public eye again? I take it you’ve never heard of Rush Limbaugh.
I looked at the photo. I’m a male. I don’t feel threatened by the shirt even one iota. I don’t sense that anyone is trying to threaten me by wearing that shirt, not even a little bit. I get the sentiment, and I cheer her on. Anyone who is crying about the shirt? She’s bathing in those tears. Go her.
You, meanwhile, need to get a sense of humor…
I just read the article. She wrote zero things that are hateful towards men. She used hyperbole to make a point (a point I’d tend to agree with, btw) about the values being expressed by a society that shows a lot of concern for a small number of deaths in one class of people while practically cheering on a larger number of deaths in another class of people. There surely can be much more nuanced discussions to be had, but in this short article, hyperbole and cheekiness-with-bite have made their point. I don’t feel hated. I feel educated and reminded. Do you feel hated? Maybe you are her target then. But it’s not on account of your gender, because I’m a dude too.
In any case, again, you need to get a sense of humor…
I didn’t say anybody was threatened by the shirt, I said it was hateful towards men. Which it is. Feminists do not have a sense of humor and they wouldn’t consider a shirt that says “I Bathe in Female Tears” to be a joke. They attacked the scientist Matt Taylor as a misogynist for wearing a shirt with drawings of scantily clad women on it, but “I Bathe in Male Tears” isn’t misandrist? What is, then?
That is quite the article. She put some serious work into that one. If you ever need cites for this type of thing, she has got them by the hundreds right there.
… no one, then?
I’ll cop to that. Feminism is not a “hate group” (I’m not sure it’s a “group” of any kind – to me it’s a shared philosophy that women should be treated equally by law and by society).
I don’t know if they’re mainstream, but so what? I know that there are nutty feminists. These are a fringe, and don’t represent most feminists.
Right here, in this thread. None so blind…
Now if you’d said people should be treated equally regardless of gender, I might take you seriously. But equality for one side of the equation? We need a new dictionary 
No True Scotsman, eh? Check my earlier link, which, inter alia contains examples of the profound hatred of men proudly present in the Founding Mothers of feminism.
I sympathise (empathise? I can never remember). When I was young and dumb and full, I swallowed it whole - that’s how it works. Luckily, I clung to the idea of equality, which necessarily makes me an anti-feminist. My insistence on evidence and such helped too - facts, not propaganda.
Where? Who said everyone who criticizes feminism is misogynist?
And I suppose Civil Rights activists were racist for suggesting that black people should be treated equally? This is a silly bit of “gotcha”. It’s reasonable to say “women should be treated equally”. It’s also reasonable to say “men should be treated equally”. One needn’t always add the latter when saying the former (or vice versa).
No – I never said they weren’t real feminists. I wouldn’t presume to tell someone that they are or are not a feminist.
Not sure which link you mean. If it’s a video, I probably won’t watch it.
I suspect that we have different understandings of the facts, and I suspect that we both believe we are supporting equality. Your smugness doesn’t offer any additional reason to believe your assertions. What you say about feminism mostly does not apply to my feminism, and the beliefs of most feminists I know, hear from, and read about. With this in mind, why would I ever accept that your version of feminism is somehow the true version, and mine is not?
Yep. Watch this!
Feminists generally don’t talk enough about how many women buy into and reinforce harmful stereotypes about both men and women.
Feminists often gravitate toward the easy conversations rather than the tough ones.
Feminists are often more interested in pointing out problems than offering solutions.
Feminists often don’t do a good job explaining why certain attitudes, behaviors, or trends are worrisome.
There. I have just been critical of feminism. I am still a feminist. I’m not worried about being called misogynistic for my criticism.
Me either 
I meant that we’d seen, right here in this thread, some kneejerk responses from feminists assuming that an attack on a political philosophy is an attack on women. But we’ve already stumbled over your comprehension issues.
Civil rights activists called for racial equality, not ‘equality for black people’. The conflation of ‘sexism and racism’ is a handy marker for when people got engaged with feminism (as if, when the Titanic went down, anyone called out “Niggers and pakis first!”). What’s reasonable, when calling for sex equality, is to fight for the underdog (or at the very least to call for equality regardless of gender).
Yay, I’m a feminist! A feminist anti-feminist! We have so much in common…
The one I posted. Good job engaging with the argument! It’s not a video, by the way (we have so much in common! Are you single?)
I don’t have a version of feminism. Nor am I ‘smug’ - I just confidently disagree with you, while you avoid engaging with any argument that doesn’t suit you and slide slowly towards the expected ad hominem. ‘Smug’? So, you know some nice feminists who are busy fighting for equality for men (but less than busy policing those misandrists who dominate the representation of feminism). Good for you. Check the link - you’re all doing feminism wrong…
Nor do I feel hated, of course.
Absolutely they could consider it to be a joke–a joke that reveals the teller to be a misogynist.
You are puzzled that this should be a misogynist joke while the shirt is not (necessarily–and should generally be assumed not to be) a misandrist joke. But the difference is, everyone knows the woman wearing that shirt is being sarcastic and does not actually mean she hates anyone, because everyone knows an internet blogger feminist type will often
*Insist that they do not hate men, and give articulate arguments for this claim,
*Use sarcasm,
*Rightly enjoy baiting misogynists,
and other things along that line.
But if a man were wearing such a shirt as you propose, why should anyone think he is doing anything other than expressing hatred towards women?
There’s plenty of context available to everyone likely to see the linked picture which makes it clear she is not giving a straightforward expression to her beliefs. Not so in the alternative case you’re proposing. That is the difference introducing the asymmetry in judgments between the two situations.
You need to provide links or post numbers or, best of all, quotations.
That’s at least the second time in the thread you’ve insisted some feminists should be “policing” other feminists.
This notion is without support.