"Some Feminists are Man-Haters"

[LittlePinky82]

Elliot Rodgers hadn't gone out and done anything either... until he did, and then he became a living nightmare.


Nothing you could possibly say would make me accept hating half or "barely tolerating" half of the human race. And I have no interest in having a rational discussion with you about it because I can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason theirself in to.
And for the record, I did read your post about women, how you're "VERY anti-rape", but unfortunately for you, the post I read immediately before that was you saying you don't care about male rape victims, so theirs no white-knight title for you from me, it's hypocrite at best.


You said you have no problem with being sexist. You ARE one of the evils in the world.


I didn't label you anything, you walked into the label and wore it with pride.
I am completely and apologetically willing to stand against someone that thinks hating men = pro-woman.


A losing battle? Look at the title of this thread. That's you dude. You are the man-hating feminist, feminists here on these forums constantly denounce. I know because us non-feminists bring it up every discussion. You might have better luck at tumblr, they're more accepting of your "kind".

I understand your concern I just agree with Rev on this one.

 

[freethinker44]

I understand your concern I just agree with Rev on this one.

Would you feel the same if it was someone saying they barely tolerate women and don't care if they are raped, because this is the type of "unconventional thinking" you're defending right now.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Would you feel the same if it was someone saying they barely tolerate women and don't care if they are raped, because this is the type of "unconventional thinking" you're defending right now.

When someone says that ask me then. I understand because it goes to a mental issue he has and knows and hasn't acted on it. Until otherwise I'm staying with my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you feel the same if it was someone saying they barely tolerate women and don't care if they are raped, because this is the type of "unconventional thinking" you're defending right now.

Jumping into this conversation.....
When the poster admits that such beliefs are rooted in trauma, & that one wants to change, I'll cut some slack.
It's disturbing, but I think we help the poster more by discussion rather than fulmination.
I understand your view though...it's cromulent criticism.
Tough call, eh?

 

[Kori]

Elliot Rodgers hadn't gone out and done anything either... until he did, and then he became a living nightmare.


Nothing you could possibly say would make me accept hating half or "barely tolerating" half of the human race. And I have no interest in having a rational discussion with you about it because I can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason theirself in to.
And for the record, I did read your post about women, how you're "VERY anti-rape", but unfortunately for you, the post I read immediately before that was you saying you don't care about male rape victims, so theirs no white-knight title for you from me, it's hypocrite at best.


You said you have no problem with being sexist. You ARE one of the evils in the world.


I didn't label you anything, you walked into the label and wore it with pride.
I am completely and apologetically willing to stand against someone that thinks hating men = pro-woman.


A losing battle? Look at the title of this thread. That's you dude. You are the man-hating feminist, feminists here on these forums constantly denounce. I know because us non-feminists bring it up every discussion. You might have better luck at tumblr, they're more accepting of your "kind".

You are really providing me with a lot of amusement. If I am evil for realizing the fact that men have a huge lead in the "Art" of Rape then so be it. A man sexist against men? Yeah that's a winning argument. I do not deny my hatred for a wreathed race that contributes to War, Oppression, all kinds of slavery. Yeah there have been some evil women but they do not hold a candle to men. Want proof of the Evils of men look at Saudi Arabia, look at the nations that put in jail rape victims. Look at corrective rape. I do not need to provide links to the stories it's all well known unless SOMEHOW you are unaware and you seem like a smart person, but since I so mental I get compared to a woman killer I maybe in a fantasy world. Tumblr? I have only been there like what 3 times maybe only to get pics like that Soviet Steven Universe pic. Let me ask you: When was it ok to stand so hardened against someone who recognizes the evils of Men? Who is able to say: Yeah men have done some messed up things to women. Who can tell the truth about the past.

 

[Kori]

Jumping into this conversation.....
When the poster admits that such beliefs are rooted in trauma, & that one wants to change, I'll cut some slack.
It's disturbing, but I think we help the poster more by discussion rather than fulmination.
I understand your view though...it's cromulent criticism.
Tough call, eh?

The last place I went to to get help bullied and mistreated the Woman I love and me for defending her. She got it bad and she's a great person.

 

[Revoltingest]

The last place I went to to get help bullied and mistreated the Woman I love and me for defending her. She got it bad and she's a great person.

Dang, people can be mean.
I hate that.

Buckaroo Banzai said it best....

 

[Thanda]

It's very easy for the sociological types (specifically Gender/Women's studies) to pontificate on the tragedies of our society. Lament over things like privilege and the like. But I find it rather interesting that they refuse to listen to any sort of dissent from the very minorities they speak on behalf of. Speaking generally, of course.

This! Well said.

 

[Thanda]

So you admit to being anti feminist which means nothing I say you will acknowledge. Tsk.

According to its current incarnation and modus operandi, I am anti. Nevertheless I will continue to support women's right to better life circumstances without polluting my mind with feminist dogma.

 

[Thanda]

It isn't so obvious to me.
He's an interesting guy (very different background from mine), & I'd like to hear him expound upon his views about gender related rights.
Hear that, @Thanda ? You're invited to tell us all more about your philosophy.
We won't bite.
(I won't, anyway.)

Well I have already gone first - tell me what you think about what I said (I have edited my post - just the grammar errors).

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I have already gone first - tell me what you think about what I said (I have edited my post - just the grammar errors).

I find you fair, thoughtful & interesting.
While you didn't specifically state it (that I recall), I'd say you're
egalitarian (who supports feminism....just not its public persona.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Feminism (as a collection of movements) is not a monolithic singular thing.
Here's an example of a feminist who greatly differs from the Gloria Steinems & posers like Hillary....
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/sex...new_hampshire_women_broke_for_bernie_sanders/

 

[LittlePinky82]

According to its current incarnation and modus operandi, I am anti. Nevertheless I will continue to support women's right to better life circumstances without polluting my mind with feminist dogma.

And that's fine and good . At "polluting your mind" if I may I suggest reading material from Angela Davis, Helen Keller (in her adult life she was a socialist), Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsburg (her opinions are worth so much with information the justice system), Eleanor Roosevelt and when specifically talking about economic issues Mother Jones (the woman not the magazine she's named after). I don't know but I think you might like Mother Jones.

Feminism (as a collection of movements) is not a monolithic singular thing.
Here's an example of a feminist who greatly differs from the Gloria Steinems & posers like Hillary....
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/sex...new_hampshire_women_broke_for_bernie_sanders/

Hillary is definitely more of a poser. Did you know when she was on the board for Walmart they had a slave shop in Bangledesh that had little girls working? I was really disgusted with that. And she said nothing. She didn't even stick up for employee's of Walmart with the unions and women who are involved in that. Bernie definitely has lots of women supporters. He's just more on women rights than Hillary is.

 

[Thanda]

I find you fair, thoughtful & interesting.
While you didn't specifically state it (that I recall), I'd say you're
egalitarian (who supports feminism....just not its public persona.)

Indeed. I was thinking about something this morning. One of the things cited by feminism as a proof that the patriarchy is alive and well is the wage gap. Of course the wage gap is a result of a variety of things but it is important to understand the implication of judging whether women are oppressed by how much they make outside the home. Before you can decide that a wage gap (which is caused by, among other things, men working longer hours than women and having less breaks in their careers) shows women are oppressed, you first have to make the value judgement that it is more important to be in the workplace making money than to be home raising and teaching your own, especially young, children.
Having made that judgement it then becomes easy to view women as victims for their larger roles in the homes and their consequently smaller roles in other spheres of society such as the workplace. On the other hand it also becomes easy to view men as privileged for the smaller roles in the home and their larger roles in the workplace. Yet the assumption that underpins this whole perspective is itself questionable.
Is it really more important and fulfilling to make money than to watch your children grow, have sufficient to time to engage with them and teach them important values? Is going to work everyday to answer phone calls, capture data, clean the streets and work under dangerous conditions (as happens in so many cases still today and more so in times past) really all that superior?

I believe the current perspective is fueled by the culture of individualism but especially materialism that has been steadily growing for the past two hundred years. People are now tending to value "things" more than people and relationships. And with that perspective it makes sense to judge a group that spends more time taking care of their kids and their elderly (women traditionally) more than making money as oppressed.

If however the argument is changed to say that issue is really about choice and that women were not given a choice - well it is very easy to show that men were also not given a choice. Inasmuch as girls as young twelve were at times victims of child marriage so boys just as young would sometimes have to leave their homes to go and work to help support their families. Clearly the roles were quite defined and there was little room for anyone, man or woman, to manoeuvre. Even career choices were very limited once upon a time so that when you grew up you had to become a blacksmith if your father was a blacksmith, a miner if he was a miner, a farmer if he was a farmer and politician if, and usually only if, your father was from an acceptable class.

And lastly for the rejoinder that usually goes along the lines of "men made the rules" it is easy to show that society today and especially society in times past relied very little on the laws of the country to govern their interpersonal relationships and everyday activities. In fact it can be shown that laws a more the product of society and its circumstances than society is a product of its laws. And society includes men and women in roughly equal numbers. Individuals opinions are formed in the home where women had (and still have) the most influence and impact. Thus women have always been instrumental in the formation of society and its values. There can be no effective argument therefore that the structure of society (most societies), when considered in its totality, is not a product of the collective influence of men and women at roughly equal levels.

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed. I was thinking about something this morning. One of the things cited by feminism as a proof that the patriarchy is alive and well is the wage gap. Of course the wage gap is a result of a variety of things but it is important to understand the implication of judging whether women are oppressed by how much they make outside the home. Before you can decide that a wage gap (which is caused by, among other things, men working longer hours than women and having less breaks in their careers) shows women are oppressed, you first have to make the value judgement that it is more important to be in the workplace making money than to be home raising and teaching your own, especially young, children.
Having made that judgement it then becomes easy to view women as victims for their larger roles in the homes and their consequently smaller roles in other spheres of society such as the workplace. On the other hand it also becomes easy to view men as privileged for the smaller roles in the home and their larger roles in the workplace. Yet the assumption that underpins this whole perspective is itself questionable.
Is it really more important and fulfilling to make money than to watch your children grow, have sufficient to time to engage with them and teach them important values? Is going to work everyday to answer phone calls, capture data, clean the streets and work under dangerous conditions (as happens in so many cases still today and more so in times past) really all that superior?

I believe the current perspective is fueled by the culture of individualism but especially materialism that has been steadily growing for the past two hundred years. People are now tending to value "things" more than people and relationships. And with that perspective it makes sense to judge a group that spends more time taking care of their kids and their elderly (women traditionally) more than making money as oppressed.

If however the argument is changed to say that issue is really about choice and that women were not given a choice - well it is very easy to show that men were also not given a choice. Inasmuch as girls as young twelve were at times victims of child marriage so boys just as young would sometimes have to leave their homes to go and work to help support their families. Clearly the roles were quite defined and there was little room for anyone, man or woman, to manoeuvre. Even career choices were very limited once upon a time so that when you grew up you had to become a blacksmith if your father was a blacksmith, a miner if he was a miner, a farmer if he was a farmer and politician if, and usually only if, your father was from an acceptable class.

And lastly for the rejoinder that usually goes along the lines of "men made the rules" it is easy to show that society today and especially society in times past relied very little on the laws of the country to govern their interpersonal relationships and everyday activities. In fact it can be shown that laws a more the product of society and its circumstances than society is a product of its laws. And society includes men and women in roughly equal numbers. Individuals opinions are formed in the home where women had (and still have) the most influence and impact. Thus women have always been instrumental in the formation of society and its values. There can be no effective argument therefore that the structure of society (most societies), when considered in its totality, is not a product of the collective influence of men and women at roughly equal levels.

Aye, it's complicated.
But I don't think individualism is at the root here.
If anything, the bigger problem is the combination of groupthink.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
.....& thinking of people as groups instead of individuals.
How many people convince themselves that they're victims just
because they're told of statistics about their demographic?
And yet, their own success is determined by their choices.

I think of Marla, a co-worker at Black & Decker. She complained
of discrimination their against black folk (her). But it was never
caused by her showing up an hour late for work every day.
(OK, twice she arrived on time....cuz I drove her there.)

 

[Thanda]

Aye, it's complicated.
But I don't think individualism is at the root here.
If anything, the bigger problem is the combination of groupthink.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
.....& thinking of people as groups instead of individuals.
How many people convince themselves that they're victims just
because they're told of statistics about their demographic?
And yet, their own success is determined by their choices.

I think of Marla, a co-worker at Black & Decker. She complained
of discrimination their against black folk (her). But it was never
caused by her showing up an hour late for work every day.
(OK, twice she arrived on time....cuz I drove her there.)

I suppose there is a good side and a bad side to individualism. The bad side of individualism that I was referring to was is when a person rails against society because its structure isn't tailor made for their specific needs. There are societal goals and individual goals. And the structure of a society will usually represent a comprise of both and it is important for each of us to understand that there are goals and needs beyond our own.

 

[Kori]

I suppose there is a good side and a bad side to individualism. The bad side of individualism that I was referring to was is when a person rails against society because its structure isn't tailor made for their specific needs. There are societal goals and individual goals. And the structure of a society will usually represent a comprise of both and it is important for each of us to understand that there are goals and needs beyond our own.

It's all about the priories in life. Being United has the strength in numbers but also realizing that you will have to accept some terms and conditions that you do not like of that group. Being alone is well being alone but you have no one's terms to force yourself to accept (from a organizations point of view that is).

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Not once have I ever encountered a feminist who wanted to force me to wear a hat. I've been to places where men have to wear jackets and ties, but women don't. So, there's a double standard that needs to be addressed.

Seriously though, I don't think feminists are man-haters, but even if they were, I don't know what purpose it would serve to use it as some kind of slur. I was just replying in another thread about wordsmithing and labeling people in order to evoke some kind of emotional reaction and how some people can get upset if their labels don't really stick or have the desired effect. It's indicative of a political culture where soundbites and rhetoric prevail over reasoned discourse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've been to places where men have to wear jackets and ties, but women don't. So, there's a double standard that needs to be addressed.

How is it a double standard? In those situations, women have not only a dress, but they have to coordinate shoes, make-up, and jewelry with their dress, wear slips and hose, hair styled and eyebrows shapped, well trimmed and manicured nails, and walk in heels. If anything, it's a double standard that men get off so easily with just a suit and tie, which is pretty much impossible to mess up.

 

[Stevicus]

How is it a double standard? In those situations, women have not only a dress, but they have to coordinate shoes, make-up, and jewelry with their dress, wear slips and hose, hair styled and eyebrows shapped, well trimmed and manicured nails, and walk in heels. If anything, it's a double standard that men get off so easily with just a suit and tie, which is pretty much impossible to mess up.

I didn't say it was a double standard favoring men. Why can't women just wear suits and ties as well? I guess they can if they want to. I don't think they would get turned away if their nails weren't manicured or if they weren't in high heels, make-up, or jewelry. "Jackets and ties required" is a pretty specific directive, but I don't know of any place that requires women to wear make-up or high heels or jewelry. In most cases, women choose to do that voluntarily, not because of any written requirement or directive.