How does Feminism view Men?

[freethinker44]

I think a more important question to ask is whether they are malicious or harmful. If the answer is no, that's what matters most to me.

They are being malicious and harmful. They're helping to perpetuate sexism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, it does.
You've literally just described the relationship between Islam and western countries. Are western countries wrong to reject Muslims because a few of them hurt us severely?

Coming from someone who has described feminists as "professional victims" and criticized the movement as a result of the actions of a few, I find your statement quite interesting.

Countries are different from individuals. An individual separatist who is not in a position of power is in no way as influential as someone who drives the policies of an entire nation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that not acting or thinking in a reasoned or logical way is bound to lead to harm in various ways, eventually. Rejecting someone as a friend merely because of their religion is harmful and bigoted, yes.

They are being malicious and harmful. They're helping to perpetuate sexism.

We disagree about this, then, at least partially, because I don't think a person is necessarily malicious in this particular hypothetical situation. I'm not a separatist of any kind, myself, but I refuse to label all separatists as malicious people without considering their experiences and situations.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We disagree about this, then, at least partially, because I don't think a person is necessarily malicious in this particular hypothetical situation. I'm not a separatist of any kind, myself, but I refuse to label all separatists as malicious people without considering their experiences and situations.

Just because someone has been a victim themselves does not exempt them from being hurtful towards others. They are responsible for their own actions, even if it is a result of trauma.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just because someone has been a victim themselves does not exempt them from being hurtful towards others. They are responsible for their own actions, even if it is a result of trauma.

I forgot to ask about something: are we talking about sexual separatism or separatism in general in the case of the member you've been debating? (Please keep in mind that negative comments in the third person are a Rule 1 violation.)

 

[freethinker44]

We disagree about this, then, at least partially, because I don't think a person is necessarily malicious in this particular hypothetical situation. I'm not a separatist of any kind, myself, but I refuse to label all separatists as malicious people without considering their experiences and situations.

Well, then I'm sorry you don't understand how sexism caused by irrational fear is malicious. One day I hope you will for the benefit of those who have to interact with you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, then I'm sorry you don't understand how sexism caused by irrational fear is malicious. One day I hope you will for the benefit of those who have to interact with you.

I'm talking about the separatist, not separatism. Not all irrational positions (in general, not just separatism) are based on malicious intentions.

 

[freethinker44]

I forgot to ask about something: are we talking about sexual separatism or separatism in general in the case of the member you've been debating? (Please keep in mind that negative comments in the third person are a Rule 1 violation.)

Oh geez, here we go again.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh geez, here we go again.

I'm asking because I would like to clarify something regarding a certain member in case Frank is talking about separatism in general and not just sexual separatism.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm talking about the separatist, not separatism. Not all irrational positions (in general, not just separatism) are based on malicious intentions.

Their intent is irrelevant. A lot of well meaning people have done horrible things with good intentions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I forgot to ask about something: are we talking about sexual separatism or separatism in general in the case of the member you've been debating? (Please keep in mind that negative comments in the third person are a Rule 1 violation.)

In general, including the sexual sort.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm asking because I would like to clarify something regarding a certain member in case Frank is talking about separatism in general and not just sexual separatism.

What does it matter if it's sexual separatism or in general? Are we not allowed to question sexual separatism now?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Their intent is irrelevant. A lot of well meaning people have done horrible things with good intentions.

In my experience, harmful stances are easier to change when the person assuming them is not malicious. I know because I used to be quite homophobic, misogynistic, and religiously bigoted. I later realized that my holding all of those beliefs was a result of indoctrination, not malice.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In general, including the sexual sort.

Okay, I would like to clarify something concerning @Horrorble, even though I rarely do this kind of thing (talk about someone so personally) in the middle of a debate. I feel it is needed in this situation, however.

Horrorble and I are close friends--very, very close friends. We have talked quite a lot recently, too, and she has mentioned to me in detail some of the reasons for her considering female separatism. I acknowledge that her posts sometimes might come across as sexist or even misandrist, but I can testify from first-hand experience that she is not a hateful person. Far from it. And the way she treats and trusts me is absolutely not how a misandrist would treat or trust a guy... not this much. You don't trust someone with your deepest weaknesses if you hate or distrust their gender.

I just thought I would clarify all of this because it was painful to me to see her being attacked as if she were some sort of raging misandrist when my experience has shown me otherwise.

I hope this explains why I have refused to call all separatists bigoted, hateful, or malicious in this thread.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay, I would like to clarify something concerning @Horrorble, even though I rarely do this kind of thing (talk about someone so personally) in the middle of a debate. I feel it is needed in this situation, however.

Horrorble and I are close friends--very, very close friends. We have talked quite a lot recently, too, and she has mentioned to me in detail some of the reasons for her considering female separatism. I acknowledge that her posts sometimes might come across as sexist or even misandrist, but I can testify from first-hand experience that she is not a hateful person. Far from it. And the way she treats and trusts me is absolutely not how a misandrist would treat or trust a guy... not this much. You don't trust someone with your deepest weaknesses if you hate or distrust their gender.

I just thought I would clarify all of this because it was painful to me to see her being attacked as if she were some sort of raging misandrist when my experience has shown me otherwise.

I hope this explains why I have refused to call all separatists bigoted, hateful, or malicious in this thread.

I am not attacking her as a person. I'm pointing out how her arguments are wrong. If her posts are viewed as bigoted, transphobic and misandrist by some, that is for her to address. I am sure she can defend herself, anyway, so don't feel as if you have to protect her.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am not attacking her as a person. I'm pointing out how her arguments are wrong. If her posts are viewed as bigoted, transphobic and misandrist by some, that is for her to address. I am sure she can defend herself, anyway, so don't feel as if you have to protect her.

I never said I had to "protect her." Instead, I thought it would be good to point out that some of the things implied about her here are false--from a third party's viewpoint, since her word for it would probably be rejected.

Like I said, I rarely do this kind of thing; I only did it here for clarification.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never said I had to "protect her." Instead, I thought it would be good to point out that some of the things implied about her here are false--from a third party's viewpoint, since her word for it would probably be rejected.

Like I said, I rarely do this kind of thing; I only did it here for clarification.

Well, that's nice but I'm more interested in what she has to say in regards to my arguments, if she ever wishes to respond to them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, that's nice but I'm more interested in what she has to say in regards to my arguments, if she ever wishes to respond to them.

Cool. I just hope what I said clears the air regarding the "malicious" part.

 

[freethinker44]

Cool. I just hope what I said clears the air regarding the "malicious" part.

It doesn't. It's still malicious. It's entirely possible to be a nice, well intentioned person and despite that do or believe something that is malicious.
History is filled with good people doing horrible things. Just because you're a good person doesn't mean you aren't saying, thinking, or doing something that is messed up.
But even so, assuming you are correct, that only applies to someone that is ignorant of their absurd/harmful ideas.
Once they are made aware of the maliciousness of it all, if they persist in their ways they are no longer good, well intentioned people, they are bigoted racists/sexists/whatever other ism applies.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It doesn't. It's still malicious. It's entirely possible to be a nice, well intentioned person and despite that do or believe something that is malicious.
History is filled with good people doing horrible things. Just because you're a good person doesn't mean you aren't saying, thinking, or doing something that is messed up.

Good: Now we agree that a person can be well-intentioned despite believing something malicious (I'm speaking generally here, not about any specific person).

But even so, assuming you are correct, that only applies to someone that is ignorant of their absurd/harmful ideas.
Once they are made aware of the maliciousness of it all, if they persist in their ways they are no longer good, well intentioned people, they are bigoted racists/sexists/whatever other ism applies.

I don't think a person has to have no prejudices to be "good." I know people who believe that atheists will burn in Hell for eternity, but they treat me well. I don't call them horrible people because of their belief.