How did Feminism become synonymous with hating men in the pop culture mindset?

[catsix]

Guinastasia said:
catsix, she wasn’t saying all men are chauvanists-nobody is. What we’re saying is, society in general has an under current of chauvanism, and that a lot of people act this way without realizing it.

What Johanna said was that men, not some men, but men have underlying chauvanism unless and until it is ‘examined’. So, it’s pretty clear that Johanna has made a generalization about an entire gender.

You like being able to vote, have control of your own reproductive health, control your own finances, right? Well, those are all due to feminism.

The right to vote was granted, at least US wide (Wyoming and a few other states allowed women the vote sooner so that they could become states) by Constitutional Amendment. Most of those who ratified the Amendment were men, because that’s who was in government at the time. If you want to believe the feminists ‘gave’ me that right, you go ahead. Reproductive freedom came from Supreme Court decisions regarding Constitutional law, not from feminists dictating policy.

AHunter3 said:
And yet, barring occasional use of sweeping generalizations phrased as absolutes, those feminists haven’t said that catsix is brainwashed, oppressed, or pressured into doing any of these things.

They’ve said exactly that, when they weren’t calling me either a tool of the patriarchy or a ‘wanna be man’ or just flat out calling me a man. I’ve also been told by people who did not experience entering a career that has a much higher population of men than women what my experiences were like when they clearly have no firsthand experience with that whatsoever. I’ve been told that I’m oppressed because, get this, I like having orgasms. Don’t you know that orgasms are yet another tool of patriarchal control by men over women? I’ve been told this first hand by feminists. Even in this thread, I’ve been told by someone else who doesn’t have any basis for knowing how it is to grow up as a girl what the ‘sisterhood’ has experienced. That’s why I think feminism is not about equality, but about a belief system that is shared almost religiously by its followers.

[AHunter3]

Well, they obviously weren’t the feminists I was talking about.

[catsix]

The ‘no true Scotsman’ argument?

[Ms2001]

@AHunter3

Then there are feminists who have said that the institution of marriage is historically a patriarchal structure, both in effect and in purpose, and that even largely cleansed of statutory inequities, its central axioms — exclusivity, monogamy, permanence, promises that preclude subsequent free choice — are still patriarchal;

Patriarchal? What’s so “male” about monogamy and permanent choices?

[Evil_Captor]

@Mr2001

Patriarchal? What’s so “male” about monogamy and permanent choices?

When it’s for the women and not the men, it’s pretty darned patriarchal. Remember the old double standard?

[Ms2001]

@Evil Captor

When it’s for the women and not the men, it’s pretty darned patriarchal. Remember the old double standard?

No, I guess I don’t. I thought marriage was supposed to be exclusive for both partners. The axioms AHunter3 listed are inherently gender-neutral, as far as I can tell. (The degree to which they were enforced on men and women may have differed historically, but that wasn’t the subject, and I’m not convinced it’s true anymore anyway.)

[AHunter3]

They are historically patriarchal, i.e., the reasons for institutionalizing fidelity were patriarchal.

You can disagree with that assertion (feel free, it’s off-topic). The point was that feminists make points x y and z which describe circumstances in which someone like catsix finds herself. Now, catsix may be in those circumstances simply because those circumstances appeal to her.

There are employees who are yelled at, subjected to draconic punishments for minor infractions, and humiliated on the job in front of others by their employer, who get off on it and wouldn’t have it any other way. (Or at least so says the film Secretary, who am I to doubt?) Creating a social movement against workplace oppression doesn’t (properly) say anything about whether or not the individual employee in Secretary is oppressed, it says that, categorically speaking, workplace oppression is a problem, and it does predict that if you find someone being treated that way, it’s due to an unfair and coercive power imbalance. (She would just be the exception to that observation, see?)

The world may be full of women who would prefer to take their husband’s name and have the kids take it as well even in a world without expectation, pressure, or tradition of doing it that way. Kinda hard to know, and there is reason to assume it mostly takes place due to expectation, pressure, or tradition, but sure, it might be. Therefore feminists have no business saying to one individual who takes her guy’s last name, “Hey, gal, you’re oppressed by the Man, you don’t see him changing his name to yours, not that you have a last name in the same sense, you can take the name that’s his and his father’s before him and his father’s before him, or you can keep the name that was your father’s and his father’s before him, but neither one of those is a woman’s name” — not because they are wrong in general (they aren’t) but because they may not be right in this particular case and it’s up to her, the individual, to make that judgment call.

The ‘no true Scotsman’ argument?

Aye, lass.

Anecdotes you may relate about individual feminists don’t detract from the fact that the thrust of feminist theory, and of feminists speaking it and writing it, has been to critique systems, to describe largescale patterns. Not to cut out a template for proper female behavior and impose it on women.

That some local Susie Libberton or Marianne Speakoutsky nevertheless acted that way to you in your lifetime, I don’t doubt. But if you’re going to pin that on the movement as a movement I’m going to have to ask for a cite. Someone other than Valerie Solanas

[Johanna]

I’m being told that just because I’m trans I have no right to talk about feminism. That is transphobia, it’s ugly, it’s unjustified bigotry, and my kind has to suffer it every day.

In fact, I have just as much right to be concerned about feminism and talk about it as you or anyone else. Disagree with me all you want, but don’t you dare take away from my humanity on the basis of my gender identity.

[Johanna]

@MGibson

using inflammatory language.

Hey, just look at the thread title. This whole thing was set up to be inflammatory from the start. Will cooler heads prevail?

[Malacandra]

@Johanna

I’m being told that just because I’m trans I have no right to talk about feminism. That is transphobia, it’s ugly, it’s unjustified bigotry, and my kind has to suffer it every day.

Piffle. What catsix said was:

@catsix

Even in this thread, I’ve been told by someone else who doesn’t have any basis for knowing how it is to grow up as a girl what the ‘sisterhood’ has experienced.

Not telling you that you have no right to talk about feminism. Vishnu on a unicycle, AHunter3’s a man and he hasn’t been told he has no right to talk about feminism. What catsix said was factually correct - that you do not know how it is to grow up as a girl - and it’s highly arguable that she is in a much better position to know first hand what females experience from birth onwards than any amount of gender studies can teach you, Johanna. Be slower to play the victim card; you’re articulate and informed enough to argue better.

@Johanna

In fact, I have just as much right to be concerned about feminism and talk about it as you or anyone else. Disagree with me all you want, but don’t you dare take away from my humanity on the basis of my gender identity.

Who did? :rolleyes:

I did note in your anecdotes above, btw, how quick you and/or the women you describe are to attribute negative behaviour patterns to masculinity:

@Johanna

I care about it because demanding to have your cake and eat it too is one of the less endearing characteristics of male chauvinism, and especially when that’s brought into women’s space, it really is offensive.

And it’s ballsachingly offensive to see “demanding to have your cake and eat it” associated with male chauvinism and being “brought into women’s space” - as though wanting it both ways were something no woman, trans, queer or else, was ever guilty of without being infected by men.

[catsix]

AHunter3 said:
The point was that feminists make points x y and z which describe circumstances in which someone like catsix finds herself. Now, catsix may be in those circumstances simply because those circumstances appeal to her.

The point is that what feminists are telling me definitely happened to me most certainly did not happen to me. I’m being told that my life experience is invalid because of what someone else read in a book.

That some local Susie Libberton or Marianne Speakoutsky nevertheless acted that way to you in your lifetime, I don’t doubt. But if you’re going to pin that on the movement as a movement I’m going to have to ask for a cite. Someone other than Valerie Solanas

They learned these viewpoints that seem so common from somewhere. Why else would so many of them from so many different places have exactly the same attitude?

Johanna said:
I’m being told that just because I’m trans I have no right to talk about feminism.

Nope. What I’m saying to you is that you have no basis from which to speak in such a firsthand way about what it’s like for a girl to grow up interested in the sciences, go through engineering school with a ten to one male to female ratio, and consider your viewpoint more valid than mine. I lived it, so for you to tell me what an uphill battle and what male oppression there is in those ranks is insulting.

In fact, I have just as much right to be concerned about feminism and talk about it as you or anyone else.

And I have every right to the opinion that someone who has never walked in my shoes inserting the word ‘we’ into my experiences and then telling me about the oppression is insulting. I don’t pretend to know firsthand what it’s like to be transgendered, and I wouldn’t put what I read in literature above your personal experience, so why do you do that to me?

Disagree with me all you want, but don’t you dare take away from my humanity on the basis of my gender identity.

Pointing out the fact that you were definitely not one of the 7 women in my class of 70some EE/CoE majors does not take away your humanity. It’s a fact, and no matter how much you use the word ‘we’, you weren’t there and IMO, shouldn’t speak as if you were.

Malacandra said:
What catsix said was factually correct - that you do not know how it is to grow up as a girl - and it’s highly arguable that she is in a much better position to know first hand what females experience from birth onwards than any amount of gender studies can teach you, Johanna.

Exactly. When I’m talking about my life as a girl who grew up intrested in math and science in a very conservative area (SW Pennsylvania) and then deciding to go into engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, I’ve got quite a basis for knowing how I (and other females like me) were treated through that in this area.

It’s analgous to someone who grew up in the Hamptons saying that it was so hard for ‘us poor kids from coal patches’ to go through college. They might’ve read about that exprience, but I lived it. The Kennedy clan has no more a basis for telling me they know firsthand what it’s like to grow up a poor coal patch kid than someone who didn’t grow up as a girl to tell me how that felt.

[Voyager]

I’m a male who grew up in the '50s and '60s, and I have to say that for my generation Johanna is exactly right. We were bombarded by what would now be called chauvinistic messages from the time we were born. I don’t remember one married woman on TV who worked. (Kids or no kids.) Men who did housework back then were shown emasculated, in aprons. Remember the old plot about men and women switching jobs? Sure, the superficial message was usually that women were smarter, and did a better job in the man’s role than the man in the woman’s, but a underlying message that men shouldn’t even try to do housework - and so were off the hook.

I don’t know what message kids today are getting - I’m sure it is a better one. And not all of us have to buy the indoctrination. But it was definitely there.

[Der_Trihs]

@Voyager

I don’t know what message kids today are getting - I’m sure it is a better one. And not all of us have to buy the indoctrination. But it was definitely there.

Well, I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s, and the message I got was “men are pigs”. I grew up assuming that vast majority of women hated me and wanted me dead or worse.

[Guinastasia]

@catsix

The right to vote was granted, at least US wide (Wyoming and a few other states allowed women the vote sooner so that they could become states) by Constitutional Amendment. Most of those who ratified the Amendment were men, because that’s who was in government at the time. If you want to believe the feminists ‘gave’ me that right, you go ahead.

The men in Congress were NOT the ones thrown into prison, beaten, and force fed with tubes down their noses after being arrested for demonstrating. Are you seriously arguing that the suffragists had nothing to do with the right to vote being extended to women?

Or that women didn’t fight for the right to control their bodies because it was the MEN on the Supreme Court who ultimately decided that?

:dubious:

[Malacandra]

@Voyager

Remember the old plot about men and women switching jobs? Sure, the superficial message was usually that women were smarter, and did a better job in the man’s role than the man in the woman’s, but a underlying message that men shouldn’t even try to do housework - and so were off the hook.

Fascinating. So if we purport to show that women can switch easily to doing men’s work, and do it better than the men, while men are utterly clueless when it comes to doing women’s work, this is in some way a slam on women? :dubious:

Y’see, I’d see a message that “men shouldn’t even try to do housework” as a short step from “men are useless, and should be grateful that women even deign to dictate terms on which they’ll put up with them”.

Guinastasia: Women being the ones who threw the tantrums does not detract from the truth that it was men who granted the rights.

[EllisDee]

@severus

This said, I’d also like Ellis Dee to explain why dead female soldiers are more unsettling than dead male soldiers.

I believe that more women than men tend to prefer being the primary stay-at-home caregiver to small children. This disparity is a primary reason that I’d hate to see a wartime draft include women…I don’t want a SAHM dragged away from her small children to lay face down in a foxhole. I guess I’m old school.

Also, even if there were an exemption that prohibited drafting anyone with children under the age of four, (good luck!), I’d still be uneasy about it. I believe men are simply more disposable than women. Biologically speaking, that is an indisputable fact; what’s the upper limit on offspring for a man and woman? Quite a bit lower for the woman, meaning that women are less disposable.

I don’t have any problem with women in the military, nor even that much of a problem with women on the battlefields, provided they are there voluntarily. The diversity of women is truly staggering, and while I’ve known women I’d gladly count on to have my back in a firefight, I’ve also known women I wouldn’t want within a thousand miles of any combat I was involved in. A draft would not distinguish between the two.

Also, generally speaking, men are easier to train and function in a hierarchy (chain of command) more naturally than women do, who tend to gravitate toward a more egalitarian approach. The former type seems better suited for being military conscripts than the latter, IMO.

I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m explaining why I’d feel uneasy about a wartime draft that included women. Basically, even though not all women are SAHMs, there are a lot of them, and I don’t want to see any of them drafted. There are so few SAHDs out there that I don’t hold the same concern for them. (And SAHDs don’t breastfeed, either. It’d be tough for mom to pump from a hotzone on another continent.)

Another thought just occured to me. Imagine if a small child had both parents drafted? That would suck, and seems to add an unnecessary complication for Selective Services to worry about.

And finally, we have seen how unusually distracting it is when a pretty girl becomes a POW. I can’t see that going away, and I’d hate to see that effect balloon up from a coed draft.

I guess when push comes to shove I agree with the family courts: when given a choice to care for the kids, default to the mom. In a wartime draft, this translates into drafting only men.

[Malacandra]

Mmf. Bottom line: it’s fine for women to go to war if they want to or be SAHMs if they want to. Sexism’s fine as long as it leads to women getting what they want.

You don’t want SAHMs dragged away from their children: but dads can be dragged away all anyone likes.

You view (correctly) women as having a lower upper-limit on their breeding age and argue that “therefore” they’re less disposable. Mmf again. Either they’re back from the war in time to breed, or not; but they’re hardly likely to spend their entire breeding window in a foxhole.

Women have “truly staggering” diversity (are men homogeneous?) and the draft would be unable to distinguish those who’d be worth their salt from those who wouldn’t. I’m really choking on this one.

Men will do as they’re told and women won’t? Arguably true. But the military has ways and means of dealing with those who won’t “train and function in a hierarchy”, and men who would prefer a more egalitarian approach can just suck it up. Why can’t women?

I seriously doubt we’d tear a breastfeeding mom away from her child, but you preclude even arguing for a draft that includes women who aren’t SAHMs simply because “there are a lot of <SAHMs>”.

If it’s distracting to see a pretty girl taken POW, well, perhaps we need to be a little desensitised. The first one’s the hardest. By the time a few tens of thousands of them have gone into the bag, you’ll find it easier to bear.

Thing is, I have no objection to clearly defined gender roles. On the whole, I’m rather in favour of them. What I’m not in favour of is picking and choosing: on this I’m the equal of you, on this I’ll hide behind my femininity. That’s just plain dishonest.

[Ms2001]

@Ellis Dee

Also, even if there were an exemption that prohibited drafting anyone with children under the age of four, (good luck!), I’d still be uneasy about it. I believe men are simply more disposable than women. Biologically speaking, that is an indisputable fact; what’s the upper limit on offspring for a man and woman? Quite a bit lower for the woman, meaning that women are less disposable.

It may be indisputable, but it’s irrelevant. We’re not facing a population crisis.

The diversity of women is truly staggering, and while I’ve known women I’d gladly count on to have my back in a firefight, I’ve also known women I wouldn’t want within a thousand miles of any combat I was involved in. A draft would not distinguish between the two.

The same is obviously true of men.

Another thought just occured to me. Imagine if a small child had both parents drafted? That would suck, and seems to add an unnecessary complication for Selective Services to worry about.

The child of a single father (or a gay couple) would face the same situation if his parent(s) were drafted.

I guess when push comes to shove I agree with the family courts: when given a choice to care for the kids, default to the mom. In a wartime draft, this translates into drafting only men.

What about childless women? Are you so concerned about being fruitful and multiplying that you wouldn’t even draft them?

[EllisDee]

@Malacandra

You view (correctly) women as having a lower upper-limit on their breeding age and argue that “therefore” they’re less disposable. Mmf again. Either they’re back from the war in time to breed, or not; but they’re hardly likely to spend their entire breeding window in a foxhole.

I don’t understand this. My objection was 50,000 bodybags. Agreed with Mr2001 that we’re not in a population crisis, so it’s not a major issue, but I still feel it relevant on general principle.

@Mr2001

The child of a single father (or a gay couple) would face the same situation if his parent(s) were drafted.

Are you joking with this rebuttal? If you’re serious, then please provide a cite showing that single fathers and gay male couples have anywhere near the number of children that mothers have.

I must say, I find all the objections to my opinion so far to be simpleminded and worthless. (Not that all my reasons are great; I just basically spit out a laundry list of everything that came to mind.) It just seems like you’re arguing (from the PC party line, no less) simply for the sake of arguing.

Just to be clear, you guys want to see women drafted, right? Because I’m stating a position I believe in. Are you? Or are you just playing devil’s advocate for shits and giggles?

In any case, you’re going to have to do a hell of a lot better if you are trying to convince me that 50,000 dead women would be a good thing. Sorry to men everywhere, but you are more disposable when it comes to matters of large-scale death tolls. That’s just the way it is.

[hildea]

Ellis Dee, since this thread started with a question about the term feminism: Do you consider yourself a feminist? In my opinion, both of the stances below are in direct contradiction with the the very definition of feminism:

@Ellis Dee

I guess when push comes to shove I agree with the family courts: when given a choice to care for the kids, default to the mom. In a wartime draft, this translates into drafting only men.

Feminism is about equal rights, about putting an end to discrimination based on gender. Discrimination against men is just as indefensible as discrimination against women.

@Malacandra

Women being the ones who threw the tantrums does not detract from the truth that it was men who granted the rights.

That is a joke, right? I mean, you’re not seriously describing a struggle for equal rights as a tantrum? And, to both Malacandra and catsix, are you really saying that the improvements in women’s rights the last 100-150 years were won independently from the contributions of the people who actually fought for those rights, or do I misunderstand you?