Anti-Feminism

[Jack_of_Words]

@Frylock

You need to provide links or post numbers or, best of all, quotations.

@Frylock

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.

I tend to assume anyone genuinely interested in the context of this exchange (rather than just pecking at red flags) will have spotted it. Claim there is no such evidence, I dare ya…

And yes, I do think feminists should be keenly interested in protecting their brand from misandrists. Do I need support for that notion? They show great fervour in policing men.

[wonky]

@Frylock

You need to provide links or post numbers or, best of all, quotations.

Oh, I will willingly offer up myself as an example of someone who says that if you are anti-feminist, you are anti-women.

This is not equivalent to the originally asked-for cite that if someone criticizes feminism they are a misogynist.

[Frylock]

@jsgoddess

Oh, I will willingly offer up myself as an example of someone who says that if you are anti-feminist, you are anti-women.

Actually, I misread him, partially due to butting in without having read the whole conversation he was involved in. My mistake!

[Frylock]

@Jack_of_Words

I tend to assume anyone genuinely interested in the context of this exchange (rather than just pecking at red flags) will have spotted it. Claim there is no such evidence, I dare ya…

Sorry, I withdraw what I said–I misunderstood what you were saying.

And yes, I do think feminists should be keenly interested in protecting their brand from misandrists. Do I need support for that notion? They show great fervour in policing men.

Personally I think the, for lack of better terms, “gentler” feminists and “rougher” feminists need to cultivate each others’ existence to keep us men on our toes.

[wonky]

@Frylock

Actually, I misread him, partially due to butting in without having read the whole conversation he was involved in. My mistake!

I’m pretty sure I get to bathe in your tears now, human male.

[LinusK]

Normally, I try to respond to most posts in threads I start. But I’m currently about 200+ posts behind. So it’s obvious I’m never going to catch up. I just don’t have time.

Instead, I’m going to quote from some of the comments that I thought were most topical or enlightening, or whatever. It’ll have to be piecemeal, because right now I don’t have time for long posts.

Frylock:

Originally Posted by LinusK
Where we differ is that you see the incoherence of feminism as defense against criticism. I see it as a criticism of feminism.

Given that feminists represent is a real social force that has real consequences in the real world, I think their incoherence is a problem for feminists. But it’s not a reason to give them a free pass.

This doesn’t make even a single lick of sense.

Do I recall correctly that you’re an atheist? There are atheists all over the map, when it comes to political and social issues. And plenty of them, from all these stripes, see their political and social views as tied to, or even a logical extension of, their atheism. Yet it is no valid criticism of atheism that it is in this sense “incoherent.” It’s a bunch of people who have different ideas as to what the fundamental idea of atheism means in different contexts. This happens on the regular, with all the big ideas.

If I’m wrong that you’re an atheist, that’s okay, pick whichever religious tradition you like instead and apply the same criticism.

I’m sure there are atheists from all over the map. But atheism is not incoherent. It’s just means you don’t believe in God. An atheist wouldn’t say, “You can’t criticize atheism, because atheists don’t agree about anything”. Because they do agree about something - specifically, the thing that defines them as atheists: that there is no God.

In other words, it’s a poor analogy.

[LinusK]

@even_sven

Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
To the extent the video is related to the thread it’s this: that he got arrested and she didn’t was patriarchy. No way the police come to a bar and see a video where man #1 punches man #2 and man #2 punches him back and they arrest the only the second guy. That she didn’t go to jail that night was because she was a woman.

What’s funny is that you are wrong about this. The idea that women play by different rules is, for lack of a better word, patriarchy. The idea that feminists are fighting for women to be able to punch men all the time is bizarre.

What you’re doing here is twisting something I said into something I didn’t say.

Here’s what I didn’t say:

…feminists are fighting for women to be able to punch men all the time…

You’re right it would be a bizarre thing to say. The problem is, I didn’t say it.

Purposefully distorting someone else’s words is a deceitful, immature tactic.

I hope you’ll stop doing it.

[LinusK]

@robertliguori

I’d also like to add Ozy of Thing of Things, Cliff of Pervocracy to the rolls of vocally reasonable feminists. Hell, Ozy ran for a while a a blog called No, Seriously, What About the Menz?, which covered areas of gender equality which affect men and which weren’t getting a lot of air time in the broader feminist movement.

And then there’s that famous Jezebel article on domestic abuse. To quote:

According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us.

One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck… “partially open handed.” Another editor slapped a guy when “he told me he thought he had breast cancer.” (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.

To claim that Jezebel and anyone who reads it are nuts would not be particularly wrong, in my opinion, but it’s also a very widely-read feminist publication.

Again, I think you really do need to do the surveys and the legwork if you want to talk about who feminists are in a statistical sense. On the other hand…do we need to? Whether or not feminists are 5% nuts or 95% nuts has absolutely no bearing on whether any given feminist policy is a good idea or not. Can’t we just address the policies in isolation?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The idea that it’s ok for women to hit men is a disastrously horrible idea. If it’s true that a popular, supposedly feminist website is OK with it… I think that’s a pretty damning statement about the nature of feminism today.

I’ll add that I’m only going off your quote. I haven’t personally tried to research it, and at the moment don’t have time.

[Frylock]

@LinusK

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The idea that it’s ok for women to hit men is a disastrously horrible idea. If it’s true that a popular, supposedly feminist website is OK with it… I think that’s a pretty damning statement about the nature of feminism today.

I’ll add that I’m only going off your quote. I haven’t personally tried to research it, and at the moment don’t have time.

I heart the way you just completely skipped over the parts where it was pointed out to you that these are widely-acknowledged feminist authors who spend at least some time worrying about men’s issues, and instead zoomed right to the passage that could be taken on a completely boneheaded reading to support violence against men, when in this latter case even then you’re just showing (as has happened before) that you have no idea how to understand sarcasm and irony in writing.

And I still haven’t seen what you think of the fact that NOW has called for steps to be taken to reduce rape of male prisoners, by both men and women, on feminist grounds. Because of course I haven’t seen what you think because you literally never respond to a post that actually cites an example of a thing you’ve bet didn’t exist.

[LinusK]

@even_sven

It’s funny, because I’m about to do exactly that- enter a situation where my husband probably won’t work, and where he would likely get the children and at least half the house is a contested divorce.

Of course there is some risk. But if God forbid I end up in a divorce, I know my daughter is in good hands and frankly child support would be the least of my worries, especially considering the time+expenses I put in to raising my kid now. The child support formula here doesn’t even pay for half of her day care-- it’s crazy.

(Also-- joint custody is the norm in the vast majority of states. The scenario you describe is not likely to happen unless it’s voluntarily entered in to.)

Good for you: that you’re breaking gender norms by supporting your husband while he raises the kids.

On a different note: I’ve heard the statement that 50/50 custody is the norm a number of times in this thread. I’ve asked for cites or evidence, but haven’t gotten any. What research I’ve been able to do doesn’t support the idea.

[LinusK]

@iiandyiiii

There’s many things I don’t understand about LinusK’s arguments – chiefly the straw-man assertions about feminists. But it’s also incoherent in other ways, at least to me: for example, I think he’s claiming that men and women really are intrinsically biologically different in many ways that at least partially explains some statistical differences – like men tend to be stronger and more aggressive (according to him), so that might explain why they may be more representative in military roles and other occupations, and why they’re more likely to be involved in violence. But then at the same time he’s complaining that feminists aren’t paying attention to the differences in murder stats, or crime stats, or stuff like that… and I don’t get how he can assert the first and complain about the second. If women really are treated unfairly in many ways, it doesn’t necessarily logically follow that the fact that men are more likely to be murdered is due to some sexist and anti-male bias in society.

Men and women are different. One is not, however, inherently better or worse than the other.

I’m not “complaining” that feminists aren’t paying attention to things like the occupational death rate: I’m asserting it as a fact in support of my argument that feminism is not about equality, but about whatever is best for women.

As some feminists in this thread have already argued, it’s not the job of feminists to worry about things that hurt men.

As far as society’s bias in favor of women, I’ve already argued that we’re biologically programmed to favor the safety, needs, and concerns of women above those of men.

The “women are wonderful” effect is the phenomenon found in psychological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with the general social category of women compared to men. This effect reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Eagly & Mladinic (1994) after finding that both men and women participants tend to assign exceptionally positive traits to women (men are also viewed positively, though not quite as positively), with woman participants showing a far more pronounced bias.

Link.

In an experiment in which male and female respondents evaluated the social category of women or men on several types of measures, analysis of respondents’ attitudes toward the sexes and of the evaluative content of their beliefs established that they evaluated women more favorably than men. In addition, analysis of respondents’ emotional reactions toward women and men did not yield evidence of negativity toward women at the emotional level. Nor did it appear that respondents’ very positive evaluations of women masked ambivalence toward them. This research, therefore, provides strong evidence that women are evaluated quite favorably—in fact, more favorably than men.

Link.

Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Link.

[Slithy_Tove]

LinusK, you have, pages ago, drawn from my posts to support you position. Yet you haven’t told us what you, personally, not philosophically, have against feminism. I will tell you why I can’t consider myself a feminist.

It’s because of Cheryl Dahlen, who was briefly my girlfriend when I was in 7th grade. I was being bullied mercilessly (the reason being that I admitted I’d smoked weed, so I was the evil addict) and she was bullied too, as the designated school slut. In 5 years everyone who trashed our lockers and spit on us and tripped us on the stairs and dumped trash over the bathroom stalls onto each of us would be smoking weed and fucking too, but that never mattered. Seventh grade was one big, vicious animal that had singled us out. Girls wouldn’t accept her as a friend, boys treated her barbarically, and I dialed it down to platonic soulmate when it was obvious she was using sex to get away from the pain that sex dumped on her. (There’s irony: I friend-zoned myself. Go figure).

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the most misandrist feminist capture, much less try to understand the disgusting mix of lust and contempt that the boys treated Cheryl with. I could write a book, but instead of a long, dreary post I’ll assume you’ve seen this story yourselves.

At age 16, she was killed in a car full of drunks. Since I worked at the Catholic cemetery, I had to bury some of them, but luckily not her. Then , to my even greater disgust, she became a tragic legend and everyone felt bad about how her mom beat her and mom’s boyfriends fucked her, etc. etc. One classmate, who had also fucked her, was at least honest enough to chortle “is she really dead? Good!”

So the person who was my female counterpart in that ordeal was killed while I lived. I hate them and I always will. Not enough to go back and kill them, because it’s not worth losing what I was able to build of my life despite their efforts. But I don’t hate boys who haven’t done those things yet. And what’s this has to do with feminism. Feminism, IMHO, says that boys are naturally like this. It perpetuates the cycle by giving them the role of bastards, just like they gave Cheryl the role of slut. And people will take on their roles, just out of perversity and spite.

And I feel feminism assumes I’m like those people I hate, just because I share their sex. All feminism does then is tap into my hate and get some of it directed back at itself.

The political is always personal. So what’s your story?

[LinusK]

@Larry_Borgia

I’m sorry all those women were so mean to you, LinusK. Can you show us on the doll where they didn’t touch you?

Larry, if you want to attack me personally, you’re free to do so in the pit.

Otherwise these kinds of ad hominem attacks only show that you’re incapable of making coherent, logical arguments.

[Trinopus]

@LinusK

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The idea that it’s ok for women to hit men is a disastrously horrible idea. If it’s true that a popular, supposedly feminist website is OK with it… I think that’s a pretty damning statement about the nature of feminism today. . . .

Anyone can hit anyone in self defense. I’m okay with that, and so is nearly everyone here.

Otherwise, feminism does not hold that it’s “ok for women to hit men.” You may have found one or two extremist web-sites that say so, but, then, I can point to web-sites that say it’s ok for Christians to kill gays.

[wonky]

@Slithy_Tove

But I don’t hate boys who haven’t done those things yet. And what’s this has to do with feminism. Feminism, IMHO, says that boys are naturally like this. It perpetuates the cycle by giving them the role of bastards, just like they gave Cheryl the role of slut. And people will take on their roles, just out of perversity and spite.

And I feel feminism assumes I’m like those people I hate, just because I share their sex. All feminism does then is tap into my hate and get some of it directed back at itself.

So when I say that I’m opposed to men being assumed to be uncivilized brutes, and I say this because I’m a feminist opposed to that sort of horrible cultural stereotyping, your reply to me would be what? Honestly, in my experience on this board (to use an example), conservative men tend to talk about what boys are “naturally like” and feminists talk about how we are products of our cultures, for good or ill.

I’m sorry about your friend, though. I hope your friendship eased her pain, in the short time she had.

[Frylock]

@Slithy_Tove

Feminism, IMHO, says that boys are naturally like this.

What.

The fuck.

Are You Talking About?

[Slithy_Tove]

Thanks jsgoddess, and I believe you to be a genuine human being and a fully credible feminist.

What do feminists think of Tolstoy? He believed we should just try to be happy and join to stop the bad people who arise among us. What more lines need to be drawn than those?

[Slithy_Tove]

@Frylock

What.

The fuck.

Are You Talking About?

Are you such a blind idealoge that you deny this message has been made in the name of feminism?

Or no, you just type stuff on the internet like a lot of people do.

[Frylock]

@jsgoddess

So when I say that I’m opposed to men being assumed to be uncivilized brutes, and I say this because I’m a feminist opposed to that sort of horrible cultural stereotyping, your reply to me would be what? Honestly, in my experience on this board (to use an example), conservative men tend to talk about what boys are “naturally like” and feminists talk about how we are products of our cultures, for good or ill.

Exactly god damn it!

I mean, there are feminists who believe in natural distinctions between the sexes. They do exist. Most of these feminists are of an older generation, and this school of feminism has largely been supplanted in mainstream feminist thought. But sure, they’re there.

But in the main, Feminist analyses these days are about how social forces construct gender identities, and about finding ways to get past and beyond these constructions.

[LinusK]

@ZPG_Zealot

Actually, many feminists like myself have been saying for years we need to educate (actually retrain is probably a better word) men about not doing stupid stuff that makes them prime victims for murder and on-the-job death injury. Part of the problem that causes such statistics is that boys are often socialized to take risks, lots of risk, or they are perceived as “not being real men”. Girls are told to think twice and socialized to always consider risk. And quite frankly, calculating risk is something that is engrained in our everyday lives once it becomes obvious who easily we can be victimized. Oh, and which gender is the most likely victimizer? The one with the Y chromosome.

[Bolding mine.]

Just so I’m clear: Are you saying that men and women are the same, other than socialization? Or that the Y chromosome turns men into victimizers?

Also, while I realize you have no idea how patronizing and insulting it sounds when you say it, but: men do not need to be “retained” by feminists, any more than women need to be “retrained” by men.

Furthermore, it is simply a fact that some things are inherently dangerous. Say, for example: fishing, farming & ranching, drilling, logging, construction, etc. If men aren’t going to take those risks that keep the food on your shelves, and provide the shelter you live in, who is?