"Some Feminists are Man-Haters"

[Sunstone]

I think it often is an instinctive attempt at disregarding the subject matter as poisoned and unworthy of attention.

I agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

In that sense, I just realized, it is also usually sincere. A variation of "I don't trust that group enough to want to go out of my way to accomodate its expectations".

 

[Erebus]

The same technique is still applied to more than just feminists.
Conservatives are even more so the the red headed step children of RF.
Many seem to expect that there are no positive examples.
A representative thread.
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...conservative-news-source.174918/#post-4207606
And then there are even threads about science showing their brains are of lower quality.

We all get challenged & even attacked at times.
We just notice it more when it's "us" rather than "them".
But when we have friends on the other side, eg, ssainhu & Smart Guy, we notice when other groups (Muslims) are targeted.

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing that other groups don't get criticized, or even that other groups don't get criticized unfairly. However, a lot of criticism leveled at conservatives, liberals etc tends to at least attempt to tackle the content of their philosophies. In a discussion about the economy for example, it tends to be a minority who will say something to the effect of, "yeah, well conservatives hate gays." There will be the odd one, but in my experience most will criticize conservative economic policies.

With feminism, it's depressingly common to see what, in my opinion, amounts to a non-sequitur. In my opinion, this is because the core of feminism is hard to criticize without effectively arguing for inequality.

 

[Sunstone]

They as well could be saying it in an impulse really meaning it that not all feminists are bad.

I think you might be missing the point of the OP, SG, so I'll put it this way:

How would you feel, SG, if you had a "friend" who thought it was appropriate to bring up the fact you once screwed up an important assignment at work at every occasion? What would you honestly think about that "friend"? Suppose you got a promotion and he reminded you of your screw up at an office party celebrating your promotion? Suppose you came back from a successful fishing trip and when you told how much you had caught, his response was to say something along the lines of, "Not like that time you screwed up your boss's assignment, eh?" Suppose you introduced him to your mother, and he said, "We all love SG at the office, even though he screws up now and then"?

Would you consider him to "really mean you are not all that bad"? Or perhaps, would you think he might be a bit too clever, a bit too artful, in his allegedly "fair-minded criticism" of you?

The point of the OP is not that feminists are criticized for the few among them who hate men, but that such criticism of them is so frequently brought up in contexts where it does not belong.

 

[Revoltingest]

You persist in misunderstanding -- perhaps artfully misunderstanding......

No, I'm not quite as dumb or dishonest as you seem to believe (& so regularly tell me).
I was responding to another's post in a related line of thought. Perhaps you missed that.

-- the argument made in the OP. The OP is not discussing cases in which criticism that groups contain "bad apples" is the focus of a conversation, but rather cases in which criticism that groups contain bad apples has so little to do with the focus of a conversation that it is all but irrelevant, or even wholly irrelevant.
The difference is the equivalent of someone criticizing someone's excessive drinking when the subject is that person's excessive drinking, and someone criticizing someone's excessive drinking habits when the subject is that person's recent promotion at work.
Do you really find that distinction too difficult to understand? I ask because you persist in treating this discussion as if it was about any and all criticism leveled at a group, and not just irrelevant or nearly irrelevant criticism.

Geeze Louise....please try not to be so miffed at mere conversation with a little disagreement.

Very well then, to address only the narrow aspects of the OP.....
It is not a "slur" to criticize.
This is because there is legitimate criticism.
One reason it comes up is that some vocal feminists are prone to claiming their
competition (egaliltarians, MRAs) are either feckless, misogynists or both.
Such sanctimony inspires a countering response.
Moreover, this kind of criticism is treated as generally acceptable in all analogues.

Is the frequency of criticizing feminism extraordinary?
That's a matter of perception.
But it appears related to the frequency of their criticizing non-feminists with standard techniques....
- Making the bad examples writ large.
- Inferring personal attack from mere disagreement over issues.
- Broadly painting all critics as misogynistic.
- Denial of any merit in those who disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I'm certainly not arguing that other groups don't get criticized, or even that other groups don't get criticized unfairly. However, a lot of criticism leveled at conservatives, liberals etc tends to at least attempt to tackle the content of their philosophies. In a discussion about the economy for example, it tends to be a minority who will say something to the effect of, "yeah, well conservatives hate gays." There will be the odd one, but in my experience most will criticize conservative economic policies.

I see criticism of them as being very often quite personal.
Especially in the political arena, it becomes more about the person than the issues.

With feminism, it's depressingly common to see what, in my opinion, amounts to a non-sequitur. In my opinion, this is because the core of feminism is hard to criticize without effectively arguing for inequality.

There are many different flavors of feminism, & "equality" means different things to different people.
A "libertarian feminist" (yes, it's a thing I found on the web) would differ from those who would exclude
trans women from the movement, or from those who favor more authoritarian corrections to equality problems.
Sometimes criticism is cromulent.
Sometimes it's just hostility.
The two must be treated separately.

 

[Erebus]

I see criticism of them as being very often quite personal.
Especially in the political arena, it becomes more about the person than the issues.

There are many different flavors of feminism, & "equality" means different things to different people.
A "libertarian feminist" (yes, it's a thing I found on the web) would differ from those who would exclude
trans women from the movement, or from those who favor more authoritarian corrections to equality problems.
Sometimes criticism is cromulent.
Sometimes it's just hostility.
The two must be treated separately.

Clicked like instead of quote by mistake, sorry for the false notification!

I agree that personal attacks are too common in political discussion, but I feel that's a slightly separate issue (and one worth addressing elsewhere). This thread is more about a particular criticism applied to feminism as a whole that also crops up too often.

I will confess though that I'm not too well learned about the different flavours of feminism. To my mind, the baseline for feminism as a whole is essentially, "men and women should enjoy the same social, economical and political opportunities." That's a statement I personally agree with and it's a position that I see as fairly standard on RF.

Now, should misandry and anti-transgender sentiments be challenged? Yes, of course. However, they're not something that should be challenged in every thread discussing feminism. @Sunstone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the sentiment I took from the OP.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In that sense, I just realized, it is also usually sincere. A variation of "I don't trust that group enough to want to go out of my way to accomodate its expectations".

That's quite an accurate perspective of the behavior of anti-feminists.

 

[Sunstone]

Geeze Louise....please try not to be so miffed at mere conversation with a little disagreement.

I have observed over a long period of time that it is your nearly fixed habit to presumptuously accuse so very many people you debate of being "miffed", "angry", "mad", or in someway out of temper. It's both a cheap debate tactic and a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well", and as such, deserves to be dismissed.

It is not a "slur" to criticize.

Agreed, but the OP is not discussing mere criticism. That is a red herring. A misdirection. The point of the OP -- to repeat myself for the benefit of anyone, such as yourself, who has not yet grasped the point -- is that the specific criticism "Some feminists are man-haters" is frequently raised in circumstances and contexts where it is largely or wholly irrelevant, and thus serves mainly as a slur.

One reason it comes up is that some vocal feminists are prone to claiming their
competition (egaliltarians, MRAs) are either feckless, misogynists or both.
Such sanctimony inspires a countering response.

At the very least, such "countering responses" should only be made when circumstances and context render the responses relevant to the conversation. Otherwise those responses can be as irrelevant as, say, an American in a conversation with the British over a contemporary trade agreement bringing up the time the British burned Washington in the War of 1812. Such irrelevancy is legitimately open to challenge.

 

[Sunstone]

To my mind, the baseline for feminism as a whole is essentially, "men and women should enjoy the same social, economical and political opportunities." That's a statement I personally agree with and it's a position that I see as fairly standard on RF.

In a nutshell, that's how I understand core feminism, too. Well said.

Now, should misandry and anti-transgender sentiments be challenged? Yes, of course. However, they're not something that should be challenged in every thread discussing feminism.

Precisely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Clicked like instead of quote by mistake, sorry for the false notification!

No worries.
Happens to me too.

I agree that personal attacks are too common in political discussion, but I feel that's a slightly separate issue (and one worth addressing elsewhere). This thread is more about a particular criticism applied to feminism as a whole that also crops up too often.

I don't see it as entirely separate.
I know you're addressing red herring criticisms, & so am I.
Feminism isn't unique in this regard.
Example:
Tea Party types endure the continual criticism of there being isolated bad actors at their rallies.

I will confess though that I'm not too well learned about the different flavours of feminism. To my mind, the baseline for feminism as a whole is essentially, "men and women should enjoy the same social, economical and political opportunities." That's a statement I personally agree with and it's a position that I see as fairly standard on RF.

I agree completely about this larger goal.

Now, should misandry and anti-transgender sentiments be challenged? Yes, of course. However, they're not something that should be challenged in every thread discussing feminism. @Sunstone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the sentiment I took from the OP.

I agree here too.
Alas, discussing feminism is no different from discussing other important issues.
I've experience the same thing, ie, threads I've started have been derailed & even locked, no matter how much we try to keep it on topic.

 

[Erebus]

No worries.
Happens to me too.

I don't see it as entirely separate.
I know you're addressing red herring criticisms, & so am I.
Feminism isn't unique in this regard.
Example:
Tea Party types endure the continual criticism of there being isolated bad actors at their rallies.

I agree completely about this larger goal.

I agree here too.
Alas, discussing feminism is no different from discussing other important issues.
I've experience the same thing, ie, threads I've started have been derailed & even locked, no matter how much we try to keep it on topic.

It would appear we're largely in agreement then, the only thing we're clashing on here is the section I've highlighted. Even there, I think the primary disagreement we have is in frequency and relevance. In my experience, this particular criticism of feminism occurs more often and usually in a less relevant fashion to red herring criticisms of other political positions

That's a difference in experience that's going to be hard to reconcile. Partly this is because I live in the UK and so don't have the same investment in following American politics as you may have. In the UK, both the politics and the discussions surrounding them tend to be a little different (from what I've observed).

Agree to disagree on that particular point?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have observed over a long period of time that it is your nearly fixed habit to presumptuously accuse so very many people you debate of being "miffed", "angry", "mad", or in someway out of temper. It's both a cheap debate tactic and a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well", and as such, deserves to be dismissed.

Not people in general.
A few have been particularly hostile when disagreeing.
The symptom....
Your penchant for quickly resorting to the ad hominem (eg, post #36) with not just me, but with so many.
IMO, this loss of control bespeaks anger.
(If not done in anger, then this would be even more disturbing because it would be a tactic.)

Agreed, but the OP is not discussing mere criticism. That is a red herring. A misdirection. The point of the OP -- to repeat myself for the benefit of anyone, such as yourself, who has not yet grasped the point -- is that the specific criticism "Some feminists are man-haters" is frequently raised in circumstances and contexts where it is largely or wholly irrelevant, and thus serves mainly as a slur.
At the very least, such "countering responses" should only be made when circumstances and context render the responses relevant to the conversation. Otherwise those responses can be as irrelevant as, say, an American in a conversation with the British over a contemporary trade agreement bringing up the time the British burned Washington in the War of 1812. Such irrelevancy is legitimately open to challenge.

I agree about challenging irrelevancy.
But much criticism is relevant.
IMO, the OP over-estimates the frequency of the problem.
Moreover, the reasons behind such criticism are important.
To understand that one reaps what one sows is the beginning of a solution.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would appear we're largely in agreement then, the only thing we're clashing on here is the section I've highlighted. Even there, I think the primary disagreement we have is in frequency and relevance. In my experience, this particular criticism of feminism occurs more often and usually in a less relevant fashion to red herring criticisms of other political positions

That's a difference in experience that's going to be hard to reconcile. Partly this is because I live in the UK and so don't have the same investment in following American politics as you may have. In the UK, both the politics and the discussions surrounding them tend to be a little different (from what I've observed).

Agree to disagree on that particular point?

Aye, there's a lot of subjectivity due to different perspectives, especially in meta-discussions.
Disagreement is OK.
And we have detente on the larger issues.

 

[Erebus]

Aye, there's a lot of subjectivity due to different perspectives, especially in meta-discussions.
Disagreement is OK.
And we have detente on the larger issues.

That "like" was deliberate this time

 

[Revoltingest]

That "like" was deliberate this time

And I would've thanked you on your profile if permitted.
So you must settle for here.....
Thanx for the friendly disagreement frubal!
(It lessens the stress.)

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think you might be missing the point of the OP, SG, so I'll put it this way:

How would you feel, SG, if you had a "friend" who thought it was appropriate to bring up the fact you once screwed up an important assignment at work at every occasion? What would you honestly think about that "friend"? Suppose you got a promotion and he reminded you of your screw up at an office party celebrating your promotion? Suppose you came back from a successful fishing trip and when you told how much you had caught, his response was to say something along the lines of, "Not like that time you screwed up your boss's assignment, eh?" Suppose you introduced him to your mother, and he said, "We all love SG at the office, even though he screws up now and then"?

Would you consider him to "really mean you are not all that bad"? Or perhaps, would you think he might be a bit too clever, a bit too artful, in his allegedly "fair-minded criticism" of you?

The point of the OP is not that feminists are criticized for the few among them who hate men, but that such criticism of them is so frequently brought up in contexts where it does not belong.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

If I get you right, you're saying that some use a mistake feminists did as individuals as a clever way to attack feminism itself as an ideology?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I wonder if anyone is up to the challenge of finding a thread on women's rights here at RF in the open forums where somebody does NOT say something like "I just think because some feminists are man-haters, feminism as a whole has lost it's relevance."

Or just outright say "modern feminism is bull****".

Or counter every single issue with claims that women really don't have anything to complain about and that men are the real victims in our society.

That's expanding on the OP, Phil, I realize, but it reminded me of how much feminism is trolled on the 'net. The non-sequitur in the OP is one example.

 

[Sunstone]

Your penchant for quickly resorting to the ad hominem.

I don't perceive this. Perhaps your definition of ad hominem extends to such things as taking note of, and criticizing, your cheap debating style? Or dare I call your debating style "cheap" without you taking it personally as an ad hominem? What do you think?

IMO, this loss of control bespeaks anger.
(If not done in anger, then this would be even more disturbing.)

I guess I will never be able to convince you of how it cheap of an argument it is --- never mind how often irrelevant it also is -- to ascribe "anger" and other negative emotional and mental states to your debate opponents. And yet, you wantonly accuse others (not just myself!) of launching ad hominems against you!

IMO, the OP over-estimates the frequency of the problem.

That strikes me as a genuine criticism of the OP -- genuine in the sense it is straight-forward and substantial, rather than merely a resort to logical fallacies and cheap debate tactics.

However, I happen to disagree with you: I have observed the problem is what I would call, "significantly frequent". Moreover, I think it is more frequently a problem with criticisms of feminists than with most other groups. It seems likely we'll never see eye to eye on this.

Moreover, the reasons behind such criticism are important.
To understand that one reaps what one sows is the beginning of a solution.

Your suggestion that feminists have brought this problem upon themselves leaves me sadly shaking my head in disbelief. In the first place, why rush headlong to make it a problem that feminists are responsible for solving? Why not ask those who actually say in irrelevant contexts that "Some feminists are man-haters" to cease and desist?

Second, aren't you in effect justifying those who harp on some feminists being man-haters? After all, you are representing them as in some way provoked by feminists -- what other meaning is there to your notion that feminists "reap what they sow"?

Last, are you really prepared to assert as a genuine fact that the non-sequitur use of "Some feminists are man-haters" is motivated primarily by a desire to payback feminists for their criticisms of, say, men's rights groups? How on earth could you even begin to demonstrate such a wild speculation?

 

[Buttercup]

I think that the label "man-hater" is the product of a great generalization towards the feminist movement. Two feminists can be the exact opposite of one another, and yet males tend to consider feminism and feminists as something monolithic.
Feminism is a very generic term. I can be a feminist because I want to fight for women's rights; this doesn't mean I hate men. I can be very diffident towards those men who think that women should have less rights, but I don't hate them.

Agreed. If people want to be mean, sometimes they use feminists as a crutch to vent anger at women in general.

I think we don't live in a patriarchal society any more. Most "aggressive" feminists believe we still do: that's why their diffidence towards men can turn into hatred....because they think that the "war" is not over yet.

The 'war' isn't completely over. I can't speak with authority for a country other than the US, but we still feel the lingering effects of a patriarch dominated society. If we stick with a classic definition of patriarchy as, "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." one aspect that still applies is the continuing disparate pay rates. Some sources say women earn 77-93% compared to their male counterparts for the same job. Sure, we've been complaining about the gap for years and it's a boring topic to all those who aren't affected by it. It's still a hurdle to overcome and the process has been long and arduous, but progress has been made. According to one source, young women entering the workforce today are up to a 93% pay rate compared with men who hold the same job. It's ridiculous that it's not 100% equal yet and we can't retire the subject until that gap is closed altogether. That's a lingering effect largely contributed to by a patriarchal system.

Another example, and one that is blindly dismissed by many women who consider themselves feminists, is the power hold men have in churches across the country. I don't see how a woman can call herself a feminist and then have a clear conscious attending a religious service that she's forbidden to lead. Through the years of my Christian affiliation, I attended many semi-liberal, non denominational, conservative evangelical and Baptist churches. The common doctrine is that a woman isn't allowed to lead the "flock". Women are barred from having a dominant leadership role. The same rules apply for the RCC and LDS churches. I don't foresee that patriarchal dominance changing anytime soon. @Parsimony

Generalization is quite wrong because women are very different than one another. There are very sensitive, submissive and sweet women who have dominant and bossy male partners. And these women may develop a sort of fear or diffidence towards the entire male gender. (this happened to me too).
And there are sensitive and patient men with aggressive, petulant and a bit misandric women. These men can perceive them as "man haters" and develop diffidence towards the entire female gender.

Agreed.