• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Some Feminists are Man-Haters"

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Yes, and because women speak up about the issues that concern us we get those slurs and told to shut up. And this doesn't have the same history with men. It happens in all backgrounds.

Yes it does have the same history. Men are not one monolithic groups. There are subgroups among us. And in those subgroups there are sometimes different or competing interests. And when those differences are discussed, debated or argued they do at times lead to name calling.

No, you have more privileges being a black man than a black woman most definitely. Just like white men have more privileges than me as a white woman. We're probably not going to agree and I don't do circle jerking anymore so we'll just agree to disagree instead of going round and round.

For someone who readily admits not knowing what is happening South Africa you sure do speak with a surprising amount of confidence. It makes one wonder whether your view is an evidence based view or one that is a product of an ideology. For all you know I could come from the Lobedu (in my country) tribe where only a woman is allowed to be queen*. And yet, without knowing the circumstances you vehemently assert I have a privilege over my female counterparts. I wonder why?

EDIT: Of course only women can be queens :). But in this tribe their only ruler is the queen.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think most posters who use the term, "circle jerk", don't know what it really means.
It is most definitely not about people arguing back & forth.
It's about......ew....I'll just post a link.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle+jerk
Having read that, do you really still want to use this term, & include yourself in it?
I hope not.
I'd like to never read the term again.
 

LittlePinky82

Well-Known Member
Yes it does have the same history. Men are not one monolithic groups. There are subgroups among us. And in those subgroups there are sometimes different or competing interests. And when those differences are discussed, debated or argued they do at times lead to name calling.



For someone who readily admits not knowing what is happening South Africa you sure do speak with a surprising amount of confidence. It makes one wonder whether your view is an evidence based view or one that is a product of an ideology. For all you know I could come from the Lobedu (in my country) tribe where only a woman is allowed to be queen*. And yet, without knowing the circumstances you vehemently assert I have a privilege over my female counterparts. I wonder why?

EDIT: Of course only women can be queens :). But in this tribe their only ruler is the queen.

Lol no men don't have the same background with the slurs. You're not told you're a whore or **** if you speak up and try to make changes. You're not degraded as being an idiot because you're a man.

And England has a Queen too. Women still have issues in England.

So because some place has a queen that means the rest of the country doesn't have issues regarding privilege? Huh what was that you said before about the 1%?

I'm sorry but we're just circle jerking now so we're just going to have to agree to disagree and say cheers I think or we're never going to end and it's just doing the same loops. I don't think we want get to page twenty with the same back and forth lol.


I think most posters who use the term, "circle jerk", don't know what it really means.
It is most definitely not about people arguing back & forth.
It's about......ew....I'll just post a link.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle+jerk
Having read that, do you really still want to use this term, & include yourself in it?
I hope not.
I'd like to never read the term again.

I think most posters who use the term, "circle jerk", don't know what it really means.
It is most definitely not about people arguing back & forth.
It's about......ew....I'll just post a link.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle+jerk
Having read that, do you really still want to use this term, & include yourself in it?
I hope not.
I'd like to never read the term again.

Lmao no-

http://www.definitions.net/definition/circle jerk

  1. circle jerk(Noun)

    A group of males masturbating ("jerking off") together (with or without interpersonal contact)

  2. circle jerk(Noun)

    A metaphor for any group activity performed for personal gratification

  3. circle jerk(Noun)

    A person who shares syringes when injecting drugs.

  4. circle jerk(Verb)

    to participate in a circle jerk
In terms of the internet a circle jerk is when you're going back and forth in conversations and your only doing so to self gratify. There's no purpose to it. You're just doing a loop.

Here's a good thread on Reddit about it-
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1yov1s/how_do_you_define_the_internetreddit_term/
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Lol no men don't have the same background with the slurs. You're not told you're a whore or **** if you speak up and try to make changes. You're not degraded as being an idiot because you're a man.

And England has a Queen too. Women still have issues in England.




Lmao no-

http://www.definitions.net/definition/circle jerk

  1. circle jerk(Noun)

    A group of males masturbating ("jerking off") together (with or without interpersonal contact)

  2. circle jerk(Noun)

    A metaphor for any group activity performed for personal gratification

  3. circle jerk(Noun)

    A person who shares syringes when injecting drugs.

  4. circle jerk(Verb)

    to participate in a circle jerk
In terms of the internet a circle jerk is when you're going back and forth in conversations and your only doing so to self gratify. There's no purpose to it. You're just doing a loop.

Here's a good thread on Reddit about it-
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1yov1s/how_do_you_define_the_internetreddit_term/
Eventually someone has to eat the cracker.
Ew.
Not an image we should endure in a discussion.
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Lol no men don't have the same background with the slurs. You're not told you're a whore or **** if you speak up and try to make changes. You're not degraded as being an idiot because you're a man.

No aren't you being degraded because you're a woman. They are trying to degrade you because they disagree with you. They call you a whore because you're a woman. If you were a man raising issues about women's right's you'd be called a white knight.

And England has a Queen too. Women still have issues in England.

So because some place has a queen that means the rest of the country doesn't have issues regarding privilege? Huh what was that you said before about the 1%?

I'm glad you point this out. I have heard it in the men's right's community being referred to as the Apex fallacy. That is the belief that since the top positions in the country are held by one particular group then it means the whole group is privileged. However this assumes that the few who are in charge care about the rest of their own group.

Since black people came into power in South Africa, by some accounts the income inequality has actually grown. In the end it doesn't matter what the demographic of the few is since the few don't usually care about anybody but themselves.

And therefore just as the Lobedu having only female rulers doesn't suddenly make woman a privileged group so a society having mainly male leaders in politics and business doesn't prove that males are the privileged group. The same group of males who rule America give men harsher sentences and didn't recognize male rape for ages. They drafted men for dubious wars and discarded them afterwards.

So counting the number of female politicians in relation to male politicians or counting the number of female CEOs in relation male CEOs really provides no useful means of determining privilege. What percentage of the US population do politicians and CEOs make? 0.1% maybe?

So when we talk about privilege we need to look at people's everyday lives and not look at the demographics of the 1%. And that is precisely what you do when you talk about "the structure of society".
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well you're the one who thought of it. Circle jerking on the internet isn't generally sexual from my experiences lol. Now, where has your mind been? :relaxed:
It's a very old term.
And it's always had one meaning.
Ew.

I run with a socially inept & rough crowd.
Example....
I did grounds work at a local nunnery.
(Yes, we really have one here.)
A novice went to the Mother Superior to complain about the crude language of the workers.
The M Superior explained....
"Sister, these men are the salt of the Earth. They're uncultured, but direct & candid in their speech. They call a spade a spade."
The sister replied.....
"Oh, no....they call it a 'f*****g shovel'!"
 

LittlePinky82

Well-Known Member
No aren't you being degraded because you're a woman. They are trying to degrade you because they disagree with you. They call you a whore because you're a woman. If you were a man raising issues about women's right's you'd be called a white knight.



I'm glad you point this out. I have heard it in the men's right's community being referred to as the Apex fallacy. That is the belief that since the top positions in the country are held by one particular group then it means the whole group is privileged. However this assumes that the few who are in charge care about the rest of their own group.

Since black people came into power in South Africa, by some accounts the income inequality has actually grown. In the end it doesn't matter what the demographic of the few is since the few don't usually care about anybody but themselves.

And therefore just as the Lobedu having only female rulers doesn't suddenly make woman a privileged group so a society having mainly male leaders in politics and business doesn't prove that males are the privileged group. The same group of males who rule America give men harsher sentences and didn't recognize male rape for ages. They drafted men for dubious wars and discarded them afterwards.

So counting the number of female politicians in relation to male politicians or counting the number of female CEOs in relation male CEOs really provides no useful means of determining privilege. What percentage of the US population do politicians and CEOs make? 0.1% maybe?

So when we talk about privilege we need to look at people's everyday lives and not look at the demographics of the 1%. And that is precisely what you do when you talk about "the structure of society".

And being a "white knight" isn't the same as being called a **** or a whore or a **** or a ***** because you raise your voice and are speaking and the men don't like what you're saying. And, again, if I was a man saying the same things they wouldn't go straight to calling me a **** or a whore etc would they?

So you pointing to there being a queen in South Africa can easily be moot and the rest of the women in society aren't as privileged as she.

Uh yeah it does. If you're the majority with power you're going to have more privileges. You're pointing to one woman who has a powerful position. Look here in the US with president Obama. He's one black man who has such great privilege and power but look at the rest of the black male's in society. How do they fare to him? They still are very low compared to this one person you can point to. It would be different if there was a more majority of the black male's in society had the same privileges as him but thus, here in the US, they do not yet have those same privileges.

And so why did you point to the woman being a queen than? Does that mean women in that country don't still have issues of lack of her privilege to deal with?

And in the structure in society men still have power. White men have more power than white women and black men. Black men have more power than black women and so on. As I said, we're all somewhere on the privilege pole. Where are you in comparison to people above and below you? You can't point to one person and say oh well there's no problem's here! You're pointing to one person vs a whole group of people. There's a reason why it's called the MAJORITY. One woman or man isn't a majority. So, of course, the MRA's would like this to be true so they don't have to reflect and challenge their own privileges in society and see there's still wrong issues whether it's with medical issues or issues dealing with labor. Men are a whole group. They're not just one person you can point to and say we're all cool! We're all equal now yay us! Uh no.

I think I'm pretty much out though. We're just both saying the same things so, unless there's something new, I'm going to say cheers and see ya round. It's been nice though.

Research into the various interpersonal, educational, socio-economic factors that best correlate with the gap has been conducted since the 1960s. At the very least.

You should read some.

Maybe you might want to jump in on this. :)
 
Last edited:

Thanda

Well-Known Member
And being a "white knight" isn't the same as being called a **** or a whore or a **** or a ***** because you raise your voice and are speaking and the men don't like what you're saying. And, again, if I was a man saying the same things they wouldn't go straight to calling me a **** or a whore etc would they?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that they will never call a man a whore or a b**** because they are a man. It is as simple as that. There are other words that are used to insult men. Men and women are not the same. So they will not receive the same type of insults. Who would call a black man a hillbilly? No one. It wouldn't be effective. But against a white man from the South in America it would be effective. And that is what it is all about - it's all about what is effective.

So you pointing to there being a queen in South Africa can easily be moot and the rest of the women in society aren't as privileged as she.

Uh yeah it does. If you're the majority with power you're going to have more privileges. You're pointing to one woman who has a powerful position. Look here in the US with president Obama. He's one black man who has such great privilege and power but look at the rest of the black male's in society. How do they fare to him? They still are very low compared to this one person you can point to. It would be different if there was a more majority of the black male's in society had the same privileges as him but thus, here in the US, they do not yet have those same privileges.

And so why did you point to the woman being a queen than? Does that mean women in that country don't still have issues of lack of her privilege to deal with?

Yes it is a moot point that she is a queen. As it is moot that Obama is black. As it is moot that most of our politicians in South Africa are black. It is not about the color, religion or gender of the people in power: it is about what they care about. How many men's shelters are in America? And how many women's? And yet most politicians are men. Can you see how there being more of one demographic in power doesn't automatically ensure that that demographic will be cared for?

Politicians care about one thing - being voted into power. And which group has the greatest voting power? Women. And in your country women have had this power for decades. So why do they keep voting for men in power instead of women? Well that's because women are not shallow and they will not vote for someone just because of what's between their legs. They will vote for someone who they believe represents the same values they do. Someone who they believe will further their agenda. They would rather vote for Sanders than Palin for example. This is what we are realising in South Africa. We're realizing that just because the color of the people in power has changed it hasn't really led to all the changes in our society that we were hoping for. The politicians care more about they're own pockets than their own people.

So all in all LP, the structure of a society, like the cover of a book, does not tell much. You actually have to go and look at the people's everyday lives and experiences to be able to judge who has privileges and who doesn't. And furthermore, we cannot simply say "such and such a group has privilege" since we all have privileges of some kind. We need to actually say what those privileges are. Then we need to say what privileges other groups have. Then from there we can maybe make an informed decision about who has more privileges than whom.

So you cannot know that I as a man have more privilege than a woman since, as you've admitted, you know very little about my country. You'd actually have to study the living situations of men and women and their struggles in South Africa before you can make a judgement. Then your opinion would be an informed opinion - it would be an evidenced based opinion. But right now all you're doing is projecting your ideology on everyone without any critical analysis. And that is always unfortunate when it's not dangerous.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Funny how "Some feminists are man-hatters" keeps coming up in conversations about feminism, even when the topic is not specifically about those relatively few feminists who are indeed man-hatters. Funny, because the same people who bring up the point are quite often not the sort of people to say things like, "Some Progressives beat their dogs" or "Some Conservatives are drunkards" in general conversations about Progressives or Conservatives, for instance.

It would be one thing if the point that "some feminists are man-hatters" only came up in conversations specifically about feminist man-hatters, but why does it come up so frequently in just about any conversation about feminism?

Do you think it's a clever slur? Why or why not?

Do you think there's a bit of a double standard here in the sense that all feminists, apparently, are expected to be decent people, but not all Progressives, Conservatives, etc? Why or why not?

What do you think?

I think it has little to nothing to do with expecting feminists to be uniformly morally superior, and more about the chaotic, conflicting, and confusing views about, and from within, feminism which seem to characterize the absolute non-uniformity of modern feminism.
 

LittlePinky82

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Thanda, post: 4627329, member: 25104"A]Why is it so difficult for you to understand that they will never call a man a whore or a b**** because they are a man. It is as simple as that. There are other words that are used to insult men. Men and women are not the same. So they will not receive the same type of insults. Who would call a black man a hillbilly? No one. It wouldn't be effective. But against a white man from the South in America it would be effective. And that is what it is all about - it's all about what is effective.



Yes it is a moot point that she is a queen. As it is moot that Obama is black. As it is moot that most of our politicians in South Africa are black. It is not about the color, religion or gender of the people in power: it is about what they care about. How many men's shelters are in America? And how many women's? And yet most politicians are men. Can you see how there being more of one demographic in power doesn't automatically ensure that that demographic will be cared for?

Politicians care about one thing - being voted into power. And which group has the greatest voting power? Women. And in your country women have had this power for decades. So why do they keep voting for men in power instead of women? Well that's because women are not shallow and they will not vote for someone just because of what's between their legs. They will vote for someone who they believe represents the same values they do. Someone who they believe will further their agenda. They would rather vote for Sanders than Palin for example. This is what we are realising in South Africa. We're realizing that just because the color of the people in power has changed it hasn't really led to all the changes in our society that we were hoping for. The politicians care more about they're own pockets than their own people.

So all in all LP, the structure of a society, like the cover of a book, does not tell much. You actually have to go and look at the people's everyday lives and experiences to be able to judge who has privileges and who doesn't. And furthermore, we cannot simply say "such and such a group has privilege" since we all have privileges of some kind. We need to actually say what those privileges are. Then we need to say what privileges other groups have. Then from there we can maybe make an informed decision about who has more privileges than whom.

So you cannot know that I as a man have more privilege than a woman since, as you've admitted, you know very little about my country. You'd actually have to study the living situations of men and women and their struggles in South Africa before you can make a judgement. Then your opinion would be an informed opinion - it would be an evidenced based opinion. But right now all you're doing is projecting your ideology on everyone without any critical analysis. And that is always unfortunate when it's not dangerous. [/QUOTE]

I had a whole post out but honestly speaking I'm just plain tired of repeating myself. See my previous posts.

You as a man anywhere in the world you're going to have more privilege. That's how it's been for many, many years.

Now, really, this feminist is moving on with her life. You're just going to have to find another one to argue with on this topic. Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Thanda

Well-Known Member
You as a man anywhere in the world you're going to have more privilege. That's how it's been for many, many years.

This is just perfect. It just shows just how lacking in honesty and critical analysis feminist ideology is. You know admittedly little about my country but you are willing to make judgement on my country and many other countries in the world because feminist ideology has told you what to think. Even the fact that there are matriarchal societies in the world where men have no property rights does not deter you from proclaiming that all men everywhere have more privilege. Yours is not an evidence based approach. Your approach is to draw conclusions first and then find ways to apply that conclusion to everyone in the world. Your approach is an example of why I believe gender studies are more akin to a religion (and a fundamentalist one at that) than a science.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Funny how "Some feminists are man-hatters" keeps coming up in conversations about feminism, even when the topic is not specifically about those relatively few feminists who are indeed man-hatters. Funny, because the same people who bring up the point are quite often not the sort of people to say things like, "Some Progressives beat their dogs" or "Some Conservatives are drunkards" in general conversations about Progressives or Conservatives, for instance.

It would be one thing if the point that "some feminists are man-hatters" only came up in conversations specifically about feminist man-hatters, but why does it come up so frequently in just about any conversation about feminism?

Do you think it's a clever slur? Why or why not?

Do you think there's a bit of a double standard here in the sense that all feminists, apparently, are expected to be decent people, but not all Progressives, Conservatives, etc? Why or why not?

What do you think?
I think it comes up the same amount as anyone who has any arguments or issues with any aspect of feminism being labeled as misogynistic. Absolutist, biased views don't engender open, reasoned discussion on either end, and tend to resort to dismissing views via ad hominems in order to quell opinions which don't fully and completely fall into line with whatever black and white perspective. I tend to view perspectives that rely on subjective rhetoric as inherently flawed and unproductive.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
You as a man anywhere in the world you're going to have more privilege. That's how it's been for many, many years.

So the half starved, filthy clothed, poverty stricken man sleeping under benches around my suburb is automatically more privileged than I, because he is male? How exactly? Is male privilege keeping the poor man alive? Keeping him warm and giving him solace as he struggles to survive day to day? Is he happy because of his privileged existence?
I don't mean to sound callous toward the man's unfortunate plight, but... I'd rather have my employment, money, food, house, car and clothes than "male privilege" any day of the week.
 

Kori

Dark Valkyrie...what's not to love?
I am a man and at the VERY most I can only tolerate men. For most though I hate. Yeah I hate most of my own kind. Why look at all the oppression we have caused to women. No I am not joking and no I am not getting a sex change because I wouldn't feel the same things as a woman if I did. So I am forced to remain a man.
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I am a man and at the VERY most I can only tolerate men. For most though I hate. Yeah I hate most of my own kind. Why look at all the oppression we have caused to women. No I am not joking and no I am not getting a sex change because I wouldn't feel the same things as a woman if I did. So I am forced to remain a man.

I think what people do not seem to grasp is what seems to be the same, is not always equal. Hating your oppressor is different from receiving hate from the oppressor. The second wave understood this. The 3rd wave seems to be entertaining these ridic conversations with men about "misandry."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This is just perfect. It just shows just how lacking in honesty and critical analysis feminist ideology is. You know admittedly little about my country but you are willing to make judgement on my country and many other countries in the world because feminist ideology has told you what to think. Even the fact that there are matriarchal societies in the world where men have no property rights does not deter you from proclaiming that all men everywhere have more privilege. Yours is not an evidence based approach. Your approach is to draw conclusions first and then find ways to apply that conclusion to everyone in the world. Your approach is an example of why I believe gender studies are more akin to a religion (and a fundamentalist one at that) than a science.
Remember though, that there is no single feminist ideology.
Like most feminists, I like some, & loathe others.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am a man and at the VERY most I can only tolerate men. For most though I hate. Yeah I hate most of my own kind. Why look at all the oppression we have caused to women. No I am not joking and no I am not getting a sex change because I wouldn't feel the same things as a woman if I did. So I am forced to remain a man.
It could be helpful to view "men" as a collection of diverse individuals,
instead of as a monolithic group.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Quiz time.....
In Americastan, who has the statistically greater privilege & why?
A) 80 year old man
B) 80 year old woman
 

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Quiz time.....
In Americastan, who has the statistically greater privilege & why?
A) 80 year old man
B) 80 year old woman

The answer is B

The 80 year-old man is a myth. No man lives that long! ***silently hoping you're not eighty yet***
 
Top