"Some Feminists are Man-Haters"

[Sunstone]

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?

That's close to what I'm saying, SG, but not exactly. Some people use the mistake (i.e. bigoted man-hating) of a very few feminists to attack both the ideology of feminism and feminists as a whole. Only it's a little more deceitful than that, for they pretend to be attacking only the man-haters

 

[Sunstone]

I question whether a man-hating bigot can actually be a feminist, for that very premise seems to contradict the core ideology of feminism -- that men and women ought to have equal social, political, and economic rights and opportunities. Rather than "feminists", I think they might be more akin to female supremacists.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I question whether a man-hating bigot can actually be a feminist, for that very premise seems to contradict the core ideology of feminism -- that men and women ought to have equal social, political, and economic rights and opportunities. Rather than "feminists", I think they might be more akin to female supremacists.

Correct. Feminism and Misandry are two completely separate ideologies and psychologies. They have nothing to do with each other. Feminism wants nothing to do with Misandry, and Misandry wants nothing to do with Feminism.

Can a person be both? Sure. They can also be vegetarian pagan ***holes too, but who really cares about that? It's completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Let's see... if my female feminist friend tells me her male partner raped her in her sleep and then proceeds with "I hate men" is that her feminism talking?
If my female non-feminist friend tells me her male partner raped her in her sleep and then proceeds with "I hate men"
Where is that coming from?
Some of my female friends hate men... some of them have been feminists and some of them haven't. They don't go out of their way to hurt men though...most of the time, their man hating just involves avoiding men.
So I hate to break it to the anti-feminists but in private women in general often "hate" men over a cup of tea with their other female friends. Peace!
P.'s as my home girl Audre Lorde said, this is just a tactic to keep the oppressed preoccupied with the master's concerns.

Hey, good to see you! It's nice to have your voice here again.

(I was getting bored of Facebook. We don't get to be called "man-haters" nearly as often there. )

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

The above exemplifies lashing out instead of addressing issues.
"Cheap" is mere insult, & devoid of real commentary, ie, the worst form of ad hom argument.

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!

Note that you were the first (I noted the post#) to make it personal.
I pointed out this violation. Broadening it to unnamed others isn't cromulent.

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.

Note here that even in apparent return to topic, you still lace it with insults.
This is a willful violation of both the rules & spirit of RF.

A challenge....
I double dog dare you to converse with me, without personal insult, unless I start with the same.
We may be as adamant as we wish, but not make it about the other's faults.
Are you up for it?
You'd find that we can be civil with each other, despite significant disagreement.

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.

There's no need to agree.
To understand others' perspectives is a fine goal.

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?

When animosity is shown, one should expect it in return.
One should not be blind to the consequences of misbehavior.
Turning the tables, should MRAs claim they've not brought upon themselves hostility from feminists?

Second, aren't you in effect justifying those who harp on some feminists being man-haters?

No.
As I said, some criticism is inappropriate, & some is perfectly appropriate.
The latter should not be subsumed into the former.

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"?

Some feminists do indeed provoke it, eg, being too quick to hurl "misogynist" & "rape apologist" at people who clearly aren't, but disagree over some issue. One should not expect to insult others with impunity.

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?

I assert that such a statement would depend upon the intent behind it.
This seems an intent to claim malevolence whether it's there or not.

 

[Sunstone]

The above exemplifies lashing out instead of addressing issues.
"Cheap" is mere insult, & devoid of real commentary, ie, the worst form of ad hom argument.

Note that you were the first (I noted the post#) to make it personal.
I pointed out this violation. Broadening it to unnamed others isn't cromulent.

Note here that even in apparent return to topic, you still lace it with insults.
This is a willful violation of both the rules & spirit of RF.

A challenge....
I double dog dare you to converse with me, without personal insult, unless I start with the same.
We may be as adamant as we wish, but not make it about the other's faults.
Are you up for it?
You'd find that we can be civil with each other, despite significant disagreement.

There's no need to agree.
To understand others' perspectives is a fine goal.

When animosity is shown, one should expect it in return.
One should not be blind to the consequences of misbehavior.
Turning the tables, should MRAs claim they've not brought upon themselves hostility from feminists?

No.
As I said, some criticism is inappropriate, & some is perfectly appropriate.
The latter should not be subsumed into the former.

Some feminists do indeed provoke it, eg, being too quick to hurl "misogynist" & "rape apologist" at people who clearly aren't, but disagree over some issue. One should not expect to insult others with impunity.

I assert that such a statement would depend upon the intent behind it.
This seems an intent to claim malevolence whether it's there or not.

If you are going to persist in the cheap, illogical tactic of taking criticisms of your arguments and their style as personal criticisms of you, then I have nothing more to say to you, except have a good day.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are going to persist in the cheap, illogical tactic of taking criticisms of your arguments and their style as personal criticisms of you, then I have nothing more to say to you, except have a good day.

Not up for my dare to keep it civil & strictly about the issues then?
(No one is ever supposed to refuse a double dog dare.)

 

[Smart_Guy]

That's close to what I'm saying, SG, but not exactly. Some people use the mistake (i.e. bigoted man-hating) of a very few feminists to attack both the ideology of feminism and feminists as a whole. Only it's a little more deceitful than that, for they pretend to be attacking only the man-haters

Hmm... isn't that happening to all other ideologies and people themselves? It is the same feeling I get from some comment (sarcastic and direct), memes, threads, videos... etc. against Islam, Arabs, and Saudis. I see similar stuff all over Facebook, Youtube and here on RF; stuff referring to events, speeches and laws done by some Muslims inserted into the discussed subject at had at that time; e.g. an irrelevent "aren't Muslims the ones who do this and that" said out of no where.

Ah, if I still didn't understand the OP, please ignore this. I'm not really that smart in real life

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm... isn't that happening to all other ideologies and people themselves? It is the same feeling I get from some comment (sarcastic and direct), memes, threads, videos... etc. against Islam, Arabs, and Saudis. I see similar stuff all over Facebook, Youtube and here on RF; stuff referring to events, speeches and laws done by some Muslims inserted into the discussed subject at had at that time; e.g. an irrelevent "aren't Muslims the ones who do this and that" said out of no where.

Ah, if I still didn't understand the OP, please ignore this. I'm not really that smart in real life

On an old forum (long gone), we had a problem that any time we'd discuss Islam,
it always came up that the prophet was a pedophile. Jeebus...it just wouldn't go away.
And IRL, it often comes up that Muslims are really Satan worshipers. It makes me
want to tear out what's left of me hair. You guys don't really worship Satan, right?

 

[Sunstone]

Not up for my dare to keep it civil & strictly about the issues then?

I do keep it civil and strictly about the issues. Rev. Apparently, you simply refuse to see that at least in part because you believe that my criticisms of your arguments are both personal attacks on you and against the rules. Yet, Rule 1 explicitly contradicts your view of the rules: "Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff." If I were to play by your rules, and thus not attack your arguments, it would amount to debating you with one hand tied behind my back. I would much rather play by the Forum rules than yours. In fact, I see myself as under no obligation whatsoever to play by your rules. Until you cease to insist that I do, I will simply refuse to discuss the issues of this thread with you.

 

[Sunstone]

Hmm... isn't that happening to all other ideologies and people themselves?

It's my contention that it happens to certain groups more than others. For instance, I believe it happens to Muslims and feminists more than to most other groups. But even if it happened to all groups equally, it would even then still be both a cheap debate tactic and a red herring fallacy of logic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do keep it civil and strictly about the issues.

No, you should read your posts. I have.
Sure, some are merely insults of posts.
But many are direct insults of posters (including yours truly).
The common thread is that you resort to insults when you disagree.

If I were to play by your rules, and thus not attack your arguments, it would amount to debating you with one hand tied behind my back.

Is this what you really infer?
I recommend you think of countering arguments, instead of attacking.
I feel no difficulty conversing & arguing while eschewing personal attacks & insults.
I do so without presuming motives, & maligning your intelligence & honesty.
Certainly, you're more capable than I.

 

[Sunstone]

No, you should read your posts. I have.
Sure, some are merely insults of posts.
But many are direct insults of posters (including yours truly).
The common thread is that you resort to insults when you disagree.


Is this what you really infer?
I recommend you think of countering arguments, instead of attacking.
I feel no difficulty conversing & arguing without making personal attacks & insults.
I do so without presuming motives, & maligning your intelligence & honesty.
Certainly, you're more capable than I.

I'm afraid we thoroughly disagree, Revoltingest. Your definition of a personal insult strikes me as far too encompassing. Time and again you have taken personal offense at posts made by me and others that I do not believe warrant taking personal offense at. We also strongly disagree about other aspects of your behavior. For instance, you apparently see yourself as not personally maligning other posters, but I have repeatedly observed you attempt to cast other posters in a negative light by accusing them of such things as uncontrolled anger. I don't see you as willing to take my advice to refrain from such things, so this discussion seems pointless. Hence, I'm dropping it. You can have the last word.

 

[psychoslice]

Its sad when women who get bashed by their husband or whatever man, and end up not liking all men, it can happen the other way around also, men are mentally abused by women, and some of those men end up hating women. I myself when a young man was looking forward to marring a girl I loved, but she left me for a lesbian, and after that I never trusted women again, in fact I became gay, but today I don't think that way anymore.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm afraid we thoroughly disagree, Revoltingest. Your definition of a personal insult strikes me as far too encompassing. Time and again you have taken personal offense at posts made by me and others that I do not believe warrant taking personal offense at. We also strongly disagree about other aspects of your behavior. For instance, you apparently see yourself as not personally maligning other posters, but I have repeatedly observed you attempt to cast other posters in a negative light by accusing them of such things as uncontrolled anger. I don't see you as willing to take my advice to refrain from such things, so this discussion seems pointless. Hence, I'm dropping it. You can have the last word.

Perhaps you forget having called me "the most dishonest poster" here, or saying I just "regurgitate right wing propaganda".
And "Do you really find that distinction too difficult to understand?" is about the issues...yeah, right.
Despite your denial, this is your style.
(I'm far from alone in seeing it.)
Use it on me, & I'll call you on it.
Keep it civil, then we're good.

 

[Smart_Guy]

On an old forum (long gone), we had a problem that any time we'd discuss Islam,
it always came up that the prophet was a pedophile. Jeebus...it just wouldn't go away.
And IRL, it often comes up that Muslims are really Satan worshipers. It makes me
want to tear out what's left of me hair.

Yes, that's one example for that. People sometimes even use such controversies as a facts just because they think it is.

You guys don't really worship Satan, right?

We ah... nope, I don't think so.

It's my contention that it happens to certain groups more than others. For instance, I believe it happens to Muslims and feminists more than to most other groups. But even if it happened to all groups equally, it would even then still be both a cheap debate tactic and a red herring fallacy of logic.

Agreed. My point was that we should not let this bother us and if we can't just let it go, we can at least answer in a more clever way.

You know, this teaches me to not use such methods against others since I don't like it to happen to myself. I still do it sometimes tho to prank those doing it to me and my beliefs in things they show stubbornness in and in a friendly way in things not that sensitive

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, that's one example for that. People sometimes even use such controversies as a facts just because they think it is.

It's an easy thing to believe (because it provides ammunition for the opposition).
I find it easier to doubt.

 

[Thanda]

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.

This is interesting because I was actually about to say a similar thing in reverse.

The OP states that in many or most (if not all) feminist threads there comes people who declare feminists or some feminists hate men. It (the OP) implies that this happens very frequently (subjective), too frequently (also subjective) and that it happens more frequently than with other groups (objective).

The issue of course is that the two subjective things he implies are not falsifiable (who knows what the standard for too frequent or very frequent is?). The third (objective), that it happens more frequently than with other groups, is stated without any evidence. We are expected to argue on the premise that it happens more frequently than it does with other topics without it having actually been proven by him/her/anyone to be so.

For all we know @Sunstone might just happen to be a feminist, and as a result notices "slurs" against feminism more often than they notice it against other groups - as one would expect. And those who agree with Sunstone also appear to notice have a similar profile - they appear to also be feminists who are more likely to notice "slurs" against their own than they are to notice those against others - again as expected.

Therefore the anecdotes and opinions expressed by this group appears to be inherently biased and in truth offers us no indication at all of whether their claims have a likelihood of being true. I suggest therefore that, before we go further with this debate, the author of the OP actually shows us some evidence that this happens more commonly than it does with other groups (they have already admitted that it does also happen with other groups). Otherwise this is like someone starting a thread in about why America staged the moon landing without first providing evidence that they did so.

 

[Thanda]

That's close to what I'm saying, SG, but not exactly. Some people use the mistake (i.e. bigoted man-hating) of a very few feminists to attack both the ideology of feminism and feminists as a whole. Only it's a little more deceitful than that, for they pretend to be attacking only the man-haters

Sunstone, I notice that you use words like "very frequent", "very few" etc in a some of your posts. Do you have a benchmark for these assertions (e.g. very few is anything below 10%) and how have you arrived at the conclusion that these terms accurately describe the prevailing reality?

 

[LittlePinky82]

This calling feminists "man haters" is rooted in the same type of societal pressure women have put up with for ages when we don't act sweet and pleasant all the time. Women get accused of being *****y, man haters, unpleasant, touchy or troublesome when we don't conform to the lingering effects of a patriarchal society. We aren't acting they way "we should". I see this name calling of "man haters" in largely the same frame of reference.

Basically. It's along the same slurs of telling women you're being shrill when you're speaking your mind about something the rest of the group doesn't agree with. It's just a way to shut people up.