You love throwing out Nazi references.
Your argument against feminism requires you to make up crazy shit like this because you don’t have a legitimate argument against feminism.
This was your strongest argument yet, but I don’t think it was insane enough to truly convince me. For example, I noticed you only used the phrase “shrill insane harpies” a dozen times or so–I think another dozen times would have been far more convincing.
Nifty. After Max asked you repeatedly, you finally did it, and it descended into your usual diatribe about rejecting his reality and substituting your own.
Here, let me help you with some data. A 2013 Pew survey does say that 20% of Americans (23% women, 16% men) identify as feminist. It goes on to say, however,
The bolded part is the dictionary definition of feminism.
What’s that? This only applies to us silly Yanks? Not to worry, a few minutes spent actually looking for those numbers you were too busy to cite reveals global numbers too. New York Times article on another Pew Report
The rest of the article covers regional differences.
What do you know? In addition to the “anecdotal” data that you sneeringly dismiss, there is actual data. It supports the desire for equality and feminist ideals. Not by a tiny, tiny minority either. The vast majority, of both sexes, support feminist ideals.
Welcome to reality.
More projection, as you reject reality and substitute your own (and gloss over your previous post, which couldn’t have had better comedy timing if you’d tried).
Max directed a question to LK ‘and those who agree with him’. I’ve just explained why I didn’t think that addressed me. Then, much later, he asked me politely and directly to respond to that question. I did, promptly (while you were claiming I wouldn’t, in a characteristic unfounded personal slur).
Thanks again, though. Your ongoing demonstration of what even ‘mainstream’ ‘moderate’ feminism means is very helpful to me.
It also contributes to a nascent theory of mine: that feminists, perhaps male feminists especially, would very likely be bigots of some sort in another time or another place. But with the rise of civil rights they can’t be racist or homophobic or misogynist any more. Nevertheless, the need to establish a class of people they can spit on burns deep within them - and feminism gives a sheen of legitimacy to its bigotry. Men, white men, straight white men, these are now legitimate targets for bigotry, and any old toss can by typed up online about them, and directed at them - even here, a place once proud to be ‘fighting ignorance’ and now harbouring the ignorant.
Yep, that’s one of the polls I referred to. Thanks for confirming that.
Do try to keep up, we’ve dispensed with that nonsensical line of defence, in many ways.
What’s that, slipping in a xenophobic strawman? Or do you really think of yourself as a yank, and your compatriots as silly? No, I thought not.
We need a sort of shorthand notation, so I can more easily mark up all the examples of ‘mainstream’ feminists plumbing the depths of deceitful debate in a vain attempt to defend their hateful ideology.
Good for you. Finding numbers, of course, is only half the battle. Let’s see what you do with them…
Come now, you’re making up the ‘sneering’ bit, and it does you no favours. What would be a good mark, do you think, to sum up [‘mainstream’ feminists plumbing the depths of deceitful debate in a vain attempt to defend their hateful ideology]. It’s a lot to type out every time you do it.
No, it supports egalitarian ideals - do you have any names, by the way? EE is keen to correspond with egalitarians, apparently,
Feminist ideals are rejected by 80% of the US population - this despite the relatively recent campaign of parroting ‘dictionary definition! dictionary definition!’ in the hope that nobody will look at what feminism actually says and does. The desire is for equality - and that desire, in the majority, quite rightly rejects feminism.
It was ‘tiny tiny TINY minority’, but that was describing the proportion of invisible mainstream feminists.
No, they support egalitarian ideals, which is how feminism has survived so long. They explicitly reject feminism - how you can interpret data, that says 80% of your compatriots do not label themselves feminists, as support for feminism, I cannot say. I’ll have a guess though - it’s because you’re a feminist and that’s how feminists treat data.
[‘mainstream’ feminists plumbing the depths of deceitful debate in a vain attempt to defend their hateful ideology] < Still need a shorthand symbol of some sort for this. Any ideas?
Hahahahahahahahaha. You really don’t have any idea how you come across, do you? Seems like a problem for a ‘great writer’ such as yourself.
I’d love to read your book. I bet it’s a fucking trainwreck
Correct. You seem strangely unable to list any egalitarians, so maybe someone else can. The only egalitarian I know of is Anders Breivik, and it’s difficult to correspond with him right now.
Jack of Words, thanks for the prompt and verbose response. I’m going to pick and choose which parts to respond to, because I think there are a few key bits that are the crux of our disagreement. If there’s something I ignored that you want a response to, bring it back up, and I’ll respond…
Here’s the first key point. I do in fact think that the former (well, not my immediate friends, obviously, but people like my immediate friends) vastly outnumber the “shrill insane harpies”. You claim later in the post that that’s my position, so it’s my responsibility to test it. Trouble is… how would I go about doing that? What we really need, I suppose, is some national survey. Pick lots of women at random, ask if they’re feminists, and if so, ask them how strongly they agree with 5 or 10 specifically chosen statements, along the lines of “all heterosexual sex is rape” and “boys should be shamed for the crime of being born with a penis”. Granted, that would not be a decisive experiment, because there might be significant numbers of woman who would lie about their beliefs (intentionally or not), but it would be a start. And absent that, how can I convince you that you’re wrong? Or how can you convince me that I’m wrong?
The current US population is about 318 million. Let’s round down to 300 million to exclude babies. Half of that is 150 million women. 20% of that is around 30 million women who self-identify as feminists. How do you think those 30 million women are distributed on a scale from “reasonable and moderate” to “shrill harpies”?
That sounds very unpleasant. And if I frequently encountered people whose experiences matched yours, I would find it more likely that that was representative of significant chunks of modern American feminism. But not only do your experiences not match mine, they don’t match the experiences of just about anyone I’ve ever met. Again, this is all purely anecdotal (and how could it not be, without a survey as discussed above), but I want to explain why my reaction to your experience is just as baffled as your reaction to my experience.
Two things:
(1) Greenpeace is (as far as I know) a single hierarchical organization. It presumably has a mission statement. It might be analogous to NOW, but not to feminism as a whole. Greenpeace : Environmentalism :: NOW : Feminism (approximately).
(2) There’s certainly a possibility that moderates support and admire extremists without themselves being extreme. This is similar to a discussion that pops up in threads about Muslim extremism, where obviously the percentage of Muslims who commit violent acts of terror is tiny, but the percent who say they support those acts, depending on who you’re asking and how the question is phrased, might be disturbingly large. That said, do we have such a survey or such statistics for feminists as a whole? If we poll them and say “here’s a true story about a man who was mistreated by feminists, here are the details… do you support their actions?” what percentage say they do?
That’s an interesting issue. It looks like the suicide rate is about 4 times higher among men than women. How “should” feminists respond to that? How should anyone respond to that?
Here are a two things that I think would be troublesome:
(1) Upon learning of this stat, a feminist says “good, serves them right, men are scum”, or something like that.
(2) Feminists try to raise money to start a program specifically to reduce the suicide rate among women, particularly if doing so would take money away from a pre-existing program that tries to reduce the suicide rate among everyone, or among men
Here are some things that I think would not be troublesome:
(1) Upon learning of this stat, a feminist says “huh”, and then continues her research into the history of matriarchal cultures in the south pacific, or some other field which is totally unrelated to suicide stats in the USA at present, one way or the other
(2) Upon learning of this stat, a feminist says “huh”, and then fights to continue to keep funding for her Herstory Quilt project, at the expense of a newly proposed program to reduce suicide rates among boys (I’m not saying this would be ADMIRABLE behavior, just that it would be utterly typical behavior of everyone in all fields… I’m sure the math department would fight to keep their funding, etc.)
(3) A program already exists in a particular city to reduce suicide rates among teen girls, and it has been quite successful, with statistics proving that rates have dropped in areas where the program has existed. But the people running it believe that its particular methods and aims really only apply to teen girls, and resist an effort to expand it to include boys, or defund it.
Is there a specific reaction, or lack of reaction, that feminists have had that bothers you?
Feminists…and pretty much any decent person…would want to know why. Once we know, we can try to find a remedy for those specific causes that lead to higher male suicide rates.
It is even possible that a good feminist would want social changes – more women in positions of high organizational responsibility – that would lead to more women committing suicide. If suicide is part of the price people have to pay for success, that’s terrible, but it should be equal. Women should not be denied equal access to high-level managerial success, even if that success carries an ugly price.
The levels of success…and stress…should be as equal as possible.
For whatever it may be worth, while men’s deaths by suicide far outnumber women’s, females attempt suicide 3 times as often as males, suggesting that perhaps the difference in the death rates could be less about the slings and arrows directed at men in particular and more about the more violent mechanics of the methods employed by men in general compared to women. A man is almost certainly more likely to punch a wall and break his hand; it does not ineluctably follow that more upsetting things happen to men.
Interestingly, I have a similar not-so-nascent theory about you. You also seem to believe that majority of your correspondents are male.
I’d say “thank you”, but the way you proceed to ignore the rest of my post in this area is not really a “gift” I enjoyed. Because you need more help to unpack that study, despite the provided quote, here we go. Quote again:
82% of respondents stated that they support feminist ideals. How you get from 82% to tiny, tiny minority is one of life’s great mysteries.
No, you have dispensed with the use of dictionary definitions. The rest of us still find a common lexicon is useful.
I’ll admit that I anticipated your response. Thank you for calling me a liar, though. Ever the high class debater, you are.
Well, you seem to be confused by numbers. I’ll soldier on without your help.
I’d tell you to look up “sneering” in a dictionary, but we’ve already established that you don’t use them. Thank you for proving my point, however.
As previously noted, 82% of the population supports feminist ideals. There’s that tricky number thing again.
Uh-huh. :dubious:
I interpret it as support for feminist ideals because when presented with wording that matches the dictionary definition of feminism, 82% of respondents said they supported it.
Well, maybe if you call me a liar enough times, you’ll get a warning for it. Other than that, you’ll have to come up with your own term and definition. We already know you like to do that.
Considering many feminists **in this thread have stated that their ideals are in line with the dictionary definition of feminism, and the one self proclaimed egalitarian in this thread **has said that there are no areas where men have rights that women do not (and yet freely acknowledges many areas where men are oppressed) , I think I, as a feminist, will stick with “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals” as a feminist ideal, despite your attempts to define feminism as you see fit.
This post makes the thread worth reading.
Why are you so angry, Jack?
“Nascent”. Is-it!! (HA!)
Thank you for this brief and honest reveal. Tells anyone still reading your posts everything they really need to know about you and your “nascent theory”. The rest is commentary.
Well I trust you all had a restful festive season 
I’ve been so busy since boxing day I almost forgot to catch up with you all…
‘Verbose’, huh? You’re the only one who even pretends to be reasonable, but you can’t resist a dig… Stick to twitter, if you find brevity a convincing argument in itself.
Yet another rehash of the entirely unsubstantiated claim that a dozen self-professed ‘mainstream’ feminists (and iiandyiiii’s six imaginary friends) outnumber the…let’s stick with ‘shrill insane harpies’… Continually restating a claim that flies in the face of anything that might be drawn on as evidence is not a meaningful contribution to debate, even if you speak slowly and calmly…
Well let’s start by reminding ourselves that pretty much everyone in this thread has admitted that there are ‘some’ man-hating feminists. As I’ve said, we can look at twitter, for example (with the added benefit that tweets tend to be less ‘verbose’). Thousands of batshit misandrists to be found there. There’ll be some overlap, no doubt, with the hundreds of thousands who subscribe to ‘extremist’ youtube channels, and among the crowds of baying misandrists observable in youtube videos. Finally, of course, there’s my ‘lived experience’, both as a feminist and as a ‘survivor’ of feminism - or is that testimony (and that language) only available to women?
All that, pitted against you. And your mates.
I don’t actually have to convince you you’re wrong, by the way. It’s your claim. No, I take that back, it’s not even a claim, it’s just someone with their head in the sand saying they can only see sand and therefore the world must be mostly sand. As Pauli put it, “It’s not even wrong”.
For the record, though you do put up a good front (with the occasional slip, as noted above), I haven’t seen any ‘reasonable’ feminists in this thread.
I’m not sure any feminist can be described as ‘reasonable and moderate’, since reasonable, moderate people reject feminism - or at the very least, argue reasonably and moderately. That said, not all feminists are “shrill harpies”, of course.
‘Feminism is not a monolith’, as some of you keep saying - not sure it’s the same some of you who view MRAs as a monolith of misogyny? How could moderate discussion of men’s rights possibly upset so many dictionary-dependent feminists? It’s almost as though its not really about equality at all…
Focusing on the difference between two elements of an analogy is not helpful - if the two elements were identical, it wouldn’t be an analogy. The question was one of ‘extremists’ being propped up by ‘moderates’.
Another argument framing feminism as a religion - and I am prepared to believe (on the evidence of this thread alone) that it occupies the same place in the mind of its believers as a religion does for the faithful. Funnily enough, I just broke off from this to answer the door to a couple of Mormon missionaries - they were as reasonable in defence of their faith as you are (slightly more so, perhaps, since they didn’t even let a dig slip out).
On male suicide rates, I give you…
**
Max?** Maaaax! We don’t even have to look outside the thread…
Men commit suicide more often because patriarchy! (A ludicrous concept, which insults and diminishes most women who have ever lived. A conspiracy theory that only survived because the ‘powerless’ who push it have the power of story, of myth, behind them - and always have).
**
Max**…
Scroll back up, to the post where you came in with impeccable comedy timing and an equally fatuous remark about ‘me’ (by which I mean, the ‘me’ you’ve invented). That’s your credibility blown for all but the most credulous.
Because we can reasonably suppose those 82% have seen feminism in action - we know they reject it, which tends to support that supposition. Your mistake is to imagine that equality is only a feminist ideal, and that all non-feminists support inequality. Oh, and the obvious mistake of believing that feminism is about equality.
The ‘dictionary definition’ nonsense has been repeatedly debunked. What do you suppose a Nazi dictionary had under the entry ‘Jew’? What does your dictionary have to say about communism? Something fluffy about sharing resources, perhaps? No mention of what it actually was, and did.
Hang on, the ‘feminists’ are ‘self-proclaimed’ too, aren’t they?
Max! Maaax! It seems it’s just you with any claim to reasonableness
My attempts to define feminism as I see it. Can you see the difference?
You didn’t number your friends, Max, though I imagine they’re a trivial fraction of the ‘millions’ you were referencing (‘millions sounds’ so much more impressive than ‘20%’, or ‘one-fifth’ or ‘a tiny minority’, eh?) But can you at least tell me whether they’re outnumbered by all heathen-bashing, hateful extremists rocking up here to insult and misrepresent those who dare not to follow their religion?
It’s far worse than you think, Jack. It appears that Mother Nature herself is a misandrist bitch: Every American killed by lightning in 2014 was male.
Let’s hope that this time you’re not just going to repeat the same shit that’s so thoroughly failed to impress anyone so far…
Pity you don’t follow your own advice. I mean, doesn’t your entire argument consist of “continually restating a claim that flies in the face of anything that might be drawn on as evidence?” (I guess one difference might be that you don’t strike me as someone who speaks calmly.)
Uhhh…yeah. There’s tens of millions of feminists. There’s going to be crazy people in any group of tens of millions of people.
The exact same thing would happen to “egalitarianism,” if you could find 10 million people stupid enough to call themselves egalitarians. I mean, there’s only one person calling himself an egalitarian on this thread, and the crazy factor of *that *group is *already *pretty fucking high.
I think there’s a saying that may be applicable here: If you meet an asshole, you met an asshole. If *everyone *you meet is an asshole, you’re the asshole.
Having said that, I don’t believe any of your stories about your encounters with feminists.
Ummmm…you have the self-awareness to realize that you are a proponent of a philosophy that is entirely based on the dictionary definition of a word, right?
You realize that, right?
Right?
…
I’m not sure that I’m interested in having feminism defined by someone whose only interaction with feminists has been with (possibly imaginary) “shrill insane harpies.”
meh. It’s probably because men are massively overrepresented in the kind of jobs outdoor jobs where being struck by lightning is a risk. You know, the kind of jobs which there are not a lot of talk about girl quotas and gender imbalance issues.
I read this article on the Daily Fail: Are reluctant men to blame for so many women being childless? Record numbers are never becoming mothers - and not by choice
Blaming men for their own poor choices is of course moronic (but quite reflective of the kind of rationalisations which brought them to their pitiful state to begin with), but if this is the result of feminism then all that can be said is that hopefully you enjoy your ticket to the rat-race, because it came at the price of family and home.
This sort of manufactured quotation, even if you actually pulled it from various posts and strung it together, is a direct violation of the rules regarding the Quote feature.
Can I modify other poster’s quotes?
This is a warning to avoid such actions in the future.
= = =
ETA, I originally Warned QuickSilver, whose choice to quote Evil Economist was not well thought out, however, the actual infraction was that of Evil Economist.
[ /Moderating ]
As it turns out, the entire selection of words was collected, in order, from a single post.
I am reversing the warning.
This is the funniest warning reversal ever.
By a substantial margin.
Keep being you, Jack.