I listen to those guys regularly. The word hatred is vague but I assume what is meant is the clear sense of anger, resentment, and hysterical defensiveness. It’s absolutely pervasive in practically every segment.
You’ve got to be joking. I do listen to them, often enough to know the ugly taste of hatred. Michael Savage is one of the most hate-spewing radio hosts in the history of the medium.
You do get the irony of saying this, then pointing out the actions of a single right-wing talk pundit like it means anything below, right?
Innocent until proven guilty! First let’s see the definition for right-wing talk radio members, then the data collection requirements, then we can talk about the actual study. Surely you wouldn’t be making unproven accusations on the basis of a few meaningless data points just because you don’t like the group in question, do you?
Again, this ties back my original post. It sure looks like people have absolutely no solid criteria for determining the qualities of a group; they insist on rigor versus statements of negative behavior and use point examples of positive behavior if they like the group, and do the opposite if they don’t.
And until we’ve worked out how we can talk about feminism, trying to discuss it at all seems awfully pointless.
“Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, Hedgecock, a hundred others.”
Five examples is not “a single” example.
You do get the irony of saying this, right?
Yes: an example of feminism. not an example of her specific brand of feminism.
You are continuing in the vein you began. You are quoting a member of one faction of a movement and using the name of the entire movement to voice your disapproval. If that one interview–or even the complete body of one person’s work–“turns you off of feminism” when feminism has factions that are more in agreement with your position than with hers, then your expressed view is silly. If you look only at the words of Fred Phelps and say that his words “turn you off of Christianity” while ignoring the words of Pope Francis, you are being silly. One may certainly oppose the views of feminism, Christianity, socialism, or any movement for whatever reason one chooses. However, when there is a large social movement with many different factions and philosophies and one declares that they are “turned off of the” movement because of the words of one member of one faction, one is clearly engaged in unthinking stereotyping that does nothing to fight ignorance.
One is perfectly free to criticize any specific line of thought within feminism. If one wishes to criticize any movement in its entirety, it makes sense to criticize it for a philosophy that is embraced by the entirety of the movement. A debate about “feminism” as a large, vague movement probably is pointless, (if one is not a firmly committed patriarchist). It is rather like “I’m turned off of baseball for the designated hitter rule” when one lives in Atalanta where it is not even seen. If there is a line of thought embraced by one or more groups within feminism, it can certainly be debated. However, anti-male views (to the extreme of promoting a male free lesbian world), the view that all heterosexual sex is rape, the idea that only men are capable of spousal abuse, and any number of other views do occur within various feminist writings, but it is silly to attack “feminism” because those views–opposed by the vast majority of feminists–occur within it.
The key comment in your original post was:
And this attitude was what I explicitly addressed. You acknowledge that you are only talking about a single instance of some belief, yet you go on to say that you bundle the entire movement up and dismiss it for that one view. There is nothing disingenuous in my response. You admitted that you condemned the movement for a single opinion and I challenged that approach.
Feminism means a lot of things to a lot of people. Much of it is laughable rubbish. True feminism to me is a liberation ideology, and anything and everything which doesn’t 100% overlap with libertarianism is rubbish. Voting rights and the right to own property = good; women’s quotas and mattress girls whining about rape culture = rubbish. Unfortunately the latter do seem to make up the bulk of the noise if not the actual content of what feminists care about these days. It’s one thing to proclaim yourself a feminism, but if your own definition is hostile to what 99% of other people who call themselves feminists thinks its all about, it’s time to realize that although you may not have left feminism, feminism has left you.
Name-dropping is assertion, not evidence. And still isn’t statistically significant. You want us to believe that right-wing talk radio is bad? Define it, define how to test for badness, and show us the test.
I’m sure you mean liberalism, not libertarianism.
It is absolutely true that feminism has left you, but you’re a bit of a special case.
Edit: lest this sound like an ad hominem, it’s not–I’m just saying that your definition of feminism as synonymous with libertarianism is the sort of thing that is going to put you completely outside the realm of discussion.
But what do 99% of feminists think it’s all about?
I mean, I’m pretty sure that in areas where women don’t have voting or bodily autonomy rights, they care about that a whole lot more than the gender ratios of certain desirable professions. Don’t we need to actually look at who’s calling themself a feminist and what they’re advocating for, before we can declare the movement 99% unreasonable, or 50% unreasonable, or 5% unreasonable?
I’d say that 99% of feminists believe it’s about changing society such that society is not limiting people’s choices based on their gender. This manifests in different ways in different societies and social settings: in some cultures it’s about voting, in others it’s about CEO numbers. But the underlying idea is the same.
I think the “I choose my choice” feminism has come under fire for a while now.
One of the doctrines of MGTOW, unlike MRA, is “don’t get sucked into an argument with feminists.” Where they’re right, there’s no reason to. Where they’re wrong, there’s no point in it.
I work in an environment that has a generally egalitarian ethos (academia). I don’t think I’ve ever encountered sexism that would rise to the level of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. And yet it would be inaccurate to say that sexism has been eradicated, simply because I’ve never experienced any egregious examples.
I’ve certainly dealt with low-level sexism. For example, when I was hired for my current position, the university also offered my husband a part-time position. When we arrived on campus we attended a university-wide reception for faculty members. It was astonishing and eye-opening to note the number of people who assumed that my husband was the new faculty member and I was the spousal hire. I also know that when I walk into a classroom at the beginning of the semester I will not receive the same initial respect from students that a male professor automatically commands. That can generally be overcome but the difference in student response to men and women in the classroom certainly exists.
I have no problem whatsoever with supporting and encouraging other women in academia. If I worked in the business world, I’d have no issue with an organization that recognized women’s achievements in business. Like it or not, the power structures still favor men in both overt and subtle ways.
I believe more girls than men are getting a college and higher education. How does that translate into a power structure that overall favors men? I’m sure women have it hard in some aspects of life which are specific to their sex, the facts just don’t see to support a theory that they overall face more problems or have it harder than men. Women are not only getting better educations, they live longer, have fewer suicides, are vastly less likely to be involved in work accidents, less likely to be the victim of homicides and violence in general, less likely to end up in jail/homeless, less likely to become killed/maimed in combat, etc. I see no reason women as a group should be favoured by society.
Women are more likely than men to live in poverty in the US. The wage gap is still extremely large. There are all sorts of ways that women are still discriminated against.
As for education, I am heartened by the fact that more women than ever are receiving college degrees, though saddened that even a degree is not enough to prevent discrimination in the workplace. This report states that a year after graduation, women are paid 82% of what men in the same category earn. The Simple Truth about the Pay Gap And the pay gap grows with time.
I recently returned to my alma mater, a small private liberal arts college. A former professor told me that the college makes an effort to balance each incoming class in terms of roughly half men and half women. Without that effort, he said that women would make up a huge majority of the classes. Yea, more affirmative action for (almost exclusively white) males.
Aah, but what are the numbers for women vs boys? Chicks vs dudes? Dames vs fellas? :dubious:
I’m on the run, and don’t have time to address all of these, but a couple easy ones stand out:
And as chaika points out, are not commensurately benefiting from it.
Have vastly more suicide attempts. Are twice as likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and somatic disorders.
Are dramatically underrepresented in dangerous professions.
More likely to be imprisoned or homeless with children. More likely to live in poverty. Hooray for living longer while destitute, I guess.
No shit. :rolleyes:
Favored over men? No. Favored equally? Yes.
Thanks for pointing that out! 
There is no wage gap. It is due to different work choices and salary negotiations expertise. It also would make little sense. Business in general do not want to hire a person with the same qualifications and experience as another person and pay a significant higher salary for it. It’s just not the way it works. In any case, even if 100% true it’s still an insignificant problem compared to the other issues I listed (in my book, being murdered and in general dying earlier trumps not getting the same paycheck). Women face some problems men don’t face, and men face some problems women don’t – but overall the facts do not give evidence to the theory that women should be worse off as a group and require protection or support by society. And especially not in academia where more women than men graduate.
Well I don’t consider a suicide attempt as bad as a suicide. YMMW
Yes, that’s part of why men earn more than women. Still bad for men of course that they’re killed in work accidents and something that should be addressed.
And men are less likely to be awarded custody in family court. But lets send destitute women to euthanasia then, since it’s so much worse. Hooray.
Yes shit. It’s a unique male privilege to get your guts shot out. But lets throw a smile at it.
This is not a pity competition. We as a society should adress the problems after an objective measurement of their individual gravity. Not after which sex they predominantly harm.