Are Feminists Sexist?

[Ostroeuropa]

That's my stance, yes. And as for physical concerns, the damage caused by violence is a factor in determining punishment.
If someone has been damaged badly by being punched, you can use that as an aggrivating factor in sentencing.
Compare to someone just startled or mildly damaged.
The sex of the person damaged is irrelevant, only the severity of the damage and the initiation of violence.

You're discounting emotional damage.

Point taken.
(see bottom last page for other reply.)

[No true scotsman]

I'm wondering what this proves though....

Bias exists. It's a thing. We have whole warehouses of books and papers and studies that prove it exists.
Feminism, just like any other "movement" for lack of a better term, is subject to the same biases that come from being human.

How is this news?

It's actually not news. The thing is feminists generally deny that they are even capable of being sexist. The standard arguments range from the no true scotsman type argument to simple denial. it's not merely a bias, it's the general demonization of men done by feminists.

I don't think it's true that "feminists generally deny that they are even capable of being sexist". It seems like an unlikely claim for them to make - not just that they aren't sexist, but that they are incapable of it.

I also find it unlikely that feminists generally demonize men. Especially since many feminists ARE men.

[CVT Temp]

I think it's role is greatly exaggerated, and often times, extremely contorted logic is used to show how all porn is inherently bad. Some even use some strange arguments to show that even gay erotica of all types is actually secretly misogynistic.

The early redstocking radicals held that there are no actual gay men but rather men who secretly pretend to be homosexual as a way to express hatred and contempt for women.

I'm surprised that no one reacted to this.

[Tahar Joblis]

i don't want to keep on this discussion as it seems to recap the same claims and responses that never seem to get answered or go anywhere.

The reason why I keep recapping myself is because you keep saying things like this:

i already consider men to be significant victims of rape. especially men in prison, and gay men.

but i don't think women abuse men sexually, using violence, in rates that correspond to men abusing women. in other ways, such as intoxication, etc. maybe.

After I already posted data contradicting it. And, of course, when you fail to back up your assertions about MRAs after I've requested evidence, I'm likely to repeat requests for evidence.

except in drawing new, time-consuming misrepresentations of my posts. i've never said male rape victims should "man up".

i asserted that according to one CDC source you provided. adult men who claim abuse, don't believe themselves to have been impacted by it, as much as women.

The CDC source also says - when we add in anything that isn't zero for the "penetrated annually" category for men - that more men than women were subjected to non-consensual sex, i.e., rape, in the previous year.

If only half of those men took it as badly as the average woman, then that would still clearly be a very major problem.

But as the paper on adults who were victims of child abuse fairly clearly establishes, the link between how badly people claim to be impacted and how badly they actually are impacted is tenuous.

you likewise stated that the importance of abuse should be measured by seriousness. which the genders reported unevenly. i simply respect that.

rape is rape and is always wrong. but you can't falsely equivocate two values of differing severity. ignoring men's own judgements, in favour of your own subjective and external one. if men believe themselves harmed as women do, then i'd consider it the same.

and you don't have a source which unifies your many beliefs, making it unattributable.

Do you know whose research you just inadvertently implied was invalid?

Koss. Ground zero for the modern rape hysteria, which seems to have the intent of making all women afraid of being raped at all times by all men, and the first to make the claim that rape was a very common female experience. Whose groundbreaking research, when it hit the press in 1985, had a small issue: She found that nearly one in six college women had been raped by her standards, but only one in four of her alleged rape victims believed they had been raped. Many of her so-called rape victims went on to have uncontestably consensual sex with their rapists.

And yet it's figures derived using her methodology that feminists picked up on and ran with. And for the past quarter century, we've been telling women that they should believe in a very broad definition of rape [a little too broad, considering that applying gender symmetry to Koss's definitions makes accidental, mutual, and accidental mutual rape common]. And if a woman is raped and doesn't feel bad enough about it, she's told that it just hasn't hit yet; she'll feel cruddy soon enough oh you poor victim!

Conversely, if a man is raped, and feels bad about it, he's told he should man up. Even that he should have enjoyed the experience. "Free sex, dude, are you gay or some shit like that?" You're saying that the fact that men and women express opinions about their status as victims that conforms partially to gender stereotypes proves that men hurt less than women do when they're subjected to the same types of harm. I'm saying that it proves that these stereotypes are pervasive, harmful, and contribute to ignoring the real problem of rape.

the people who fixate about her most are antifeminists. most feminists follow Steinem and others mainstream voices who believe in men and non-violent protest.

Click here.

Yes, she's a magnet for anti-feminists, but she's also generally admired by a non-trivial segment of feminists, which is why there's the wholly unsupported idea floating around that her work was satirical and not actually an endorsement of gendercide. Remember what you said when I brought up Solanas as an example of a hateful individual? You said that her work has been blown out of proportion and that her SCUM Manifesto was satirical, not serious.

The reason you said this is because a number of feminists rallied to her defense. And very few feminists criticized her. Feminists' collective response to misandry within feminist ranks is appalling; it ranges from ignoring the problem entirely to shouting "huzzahs!" of congratulations for a woman "standing up to men" and defending the misandrist individual from "misogynists" attacking her for her blatant misandry. Even fairly mainstream "women's perspective" media often congratulate women who engage in dramatic anti-male violence. This is a problem.

no, i don't feel your response to claims of MRAs being involved in enforcing patriarchal gender roles evenly match the interest you have on feminist inaction or its supposed complicity, regarding the same issue.

do you rail against people on MRA sites who use sexist language when referring to women, with the same ire? or is that also, something you find hard to see? or not something that matters if a feminist does it too.

My argument-as-leisure time is spent here on NSG; and yes, I have been known to blast people for apparent misogyny.

Nobody really seems to care when I do, though.

least you found no reason to hold a grudge against NATAPOC. she's the bomb!

Oh, I have reasons, she just didn't make the short list. She's accused me of being afraid of women and has suggested I must be extremely unattractive to women IRL.

Personally, I'm more peeved about the way she clings to her ideological positions on the most tenuous threads of evidence [if any evidence at all] - e.g., holding to the idea that Femitheist was a middle aged man based on a word frequency analyzer, and doing so in spite of Femitheist voicing her own YouTube videos and posting pictures of herself that included her screen name. [Since then, Femitheist faked her own suicide and had her RL identity tracked down by suspicious MRAs after she resumed posting.]

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's role is greatly exaggerated, and often times, extremely contorted logic is used to show how all porn is inherently bad. Some even use some strange arguments to show that even gay erotica of all types is actually secretly misogynistic.

The early redstocking radicals held that there are no actual gay men but rather men who secretly pretend to be homosexual as a way to express hatred and contempt for women.

I'm surprised that no one reacted to this.

I didn't notice it.
Can you source your claims about homosexuals.

[The Emerald Dawn]

... "penetrated annually" category for men - that more men than women were subjected to non-consensual sex, i.e., rape, in the previous year.

Clarify, please.

Penetrated anally, or penetrated annually? Two VERY different things.

[Ostroeuropa]

... "penetrated annually" category for men - that more men than women were subjected to non-consensual sex, i.e., rape, in the previous year.

Clarify, please.

Penetrated anally, or penetrated annually? Two VERY different things.

It's October 9th, you know what that meaaaans!

[CVT Temp]

I didn't notice it.
Can you source your claims about homosexuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstockings

I'll try to find another source. I know what the source is. I just forgot the exact link.

[Tahar Joblis]

I don't think it's true that "feminists generally deny that they are even capable of being sexist". It seems like an unlikely claim for them to make - not just that they aren't sexist, but that they are incapable of it.

You're posting this after some self-identified feminists claimed that it is impossible for sexism to harm men, because PATRIARCHY and so only discrimination by men against women is sexism.

Start here, and if it's not clear, go read the FAQ on the website they link to.

Not all feminists hold that position, but I've interacted with a substantial number who do hold the position that sexism cannot refer to discriminating against men.

[Tahar Joblis]

... "penetrated annually" category for men - that more men than women were subjected to non-consensual sex, i.e., rape, in the previous year.

Clarify, please.

Penetrated anally, or penetrated annually? Two VERY different things.

Annually. The CDC survey only collected the "men being penetrated" figures on a lifetime reporting basis, rather than a "in the last 12 months" basis.

[Ostroeuropa]

I didn't notice it.
Can you source your claims about homosexuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstockings

I'll try to find another source. I know what the source is. I just forgot the exact link.

Hardly representative of the (mainstream) feminist cause today, but your source is valid enough. (Bottom wiki links from citations.)
It seems like a fringe movement, but it is strikingly similar to a lot of the rhetoric we've seen in this thread.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Clarify, please.

Penetrated anally, or penetrated annually? Two VERY different things.

Annually. The CDC survey only collected the "men being penetrated" figures on a lifetime reporting basis, rather than a "in the last 12 months" basis.

Ah, ok. I sometimes have a problem with the sentence structure and have to ask questions to make sure I'm not misconstruing the point. Because I have the dumb.

[Northern Anvils]

What you women need to understand is this,

Mankind built the entirety of civilization to impress his girlfriend. Civilization was made entirely for women, because men just don't give a shit.

my opinion in a nutshell. now watch the crap hit the fan.

[CVT Temp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_v ... n_feminism

Here's more. Unfortunately, the redstockings were not a fringe movement. They were some of the founders of the 2nd wave.

Another sad trend is transphobia, which a huge chuck of radfems exhibit.

[Not Safe For Work]

I don't think it's true that "feminists generally deny that they are even capable of being sexist". It seems like an unlikely claim for them to make - not just that they aren't sexist, but that they are incapable of it.

You're posting this after some self-identified feminists claimed that it is impossible for sexism to harm men, because PATRIARCHY and so only discrimination by men against women is sexism.

Start here, and if it's not clear, go read the FAQ on the website they link to.

Not all feminists hold that position, but I've interacted with a substantial number who do hold the position that sexism cannot refer to discriminating against men.

Perhaps the word 'generally' means something different where you and New Edom come from. Here in the English speaking world, it suggests some kind of trend that tends towards the majority. Not some random anecdotal 'substantial number' that some random guy claims.

[Sapiens Isles]

I think a lot of this would be cleared up if feminism was called gender egalitarianism instead. It seems that it's just the term 'feminism' itself that really confuses people. Feminism is all about giving more rights to women so that the rights they have are the same and are in equal amount as the rights men have. It's only called feminism because it's about giving rights to women, just like gay rights are called so because it's about giving rights to homosexuals. It has nothing to do with this weird "die cis scum" fringe group that actually hate white heterosexual males only because they're not homosexuals, minorities, or females.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You're posting this after some self-identified feminists claimed that it is impossible for sexism to harm men, because PATRIARCHY and so only discrimination by men against women is sexism.

Start here, and if it's not clear, go read the FAQ on the website they link to.

Not all feminists hold that position, but I've interacted with a substantial number who do hold the position that sexism cannot refer to discriminating against men.

Perhaps the word 'generally' means something different where you and New Edom come from. Here in the English speaking world, it suggests some kind of trend that tends towards the majority. Not some random anecdotal 'substantial number' that some random guy claims.

Well, there is a trend towards stating that there is no such thing as racism towards whites, sexism towards men, etc. etc. etc. because the dis-empowered groups have no means by which to initiate the negative prejudices and deny status or standing to the current order. While I am randomGuy1455213, I have noticed this trend on the blogs, wikis, and websites I frequent. Especially in echochambers/safe spaces.

[Not Safe For Work]

Perhaps the word 'generally' means something different where you and New Edom come from. Here in the English speaking world, it suggests some kind of trend that tends towards the majority. Not some random anecdotal 'substantial number' that some random guy claims.

Well, there is a trend towards stating that there is no such thing as racism towards whites, sexism towards men, etc. etc. etc. because the dis-empowered groups have no means by which to initiate the negative prejudices and deny status or standing to the current order. While I am randomGuy1455213, I have noticed this trend on the blogs, wikis, and websites I frequent. Especially in echochambers/safe spaces.

It's certainly fair to say that 'racism towards whites' is far less of an issue - for the reasons you said. Or that 'sexism against men' is far less of a deal. As you say - women are still hard-pressed to deny men status and standing.

I wouldn't say that making an argument like that was equivalent to saying that feminists 'generally' claim it's impossible to be sexist. For example.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, there is a trend towards stating that there is no such thing as racism towards whites, sexism towards men, etc. etc. etc. because the dis-empowered groups have no means by which to initiate the negative prejudices and deny status or standing to the current order. While I am randomGuy1455213, I have noticed this trend on the blogs, wikis, and websites I frequent. Especially in echochambers/safe spaces.

It's certainly fair to say that 'racism towards whites' is far less of an issue - for the reasons you said. Or that 'sexism against men' is far less of a deal. As you say - women are still hard-pressed to deny men status and standing.

I wouldn't say that making an argument like that was equivalent to saying that feminists 'generally' claim it's impossible to be sexist. For example.

Sexism against men isn't less of a deal it happens just as often and happens institutionally. Racism against white people happens less often and less institutionally, but is still bad.

[Tahar Joblis]

You're posting this after some self-identified feminists claimed that it is impossible for sexism to harm men, because PATRIARCHY and so only discrimination by men against women is sexism.

Start here, and if it's not clear, go read the FAQ on the website they link to.

Not all feminists hold that position, but I've interacted with a substantial number who do hold the position that sexism cannot refer to discriminating against men.

Perhaps the word 'generally' means something different where you and New Edom come from. Here in the English speaking world, it suggests some kind of trend that tends towards the majority. Not some random anecdotal 'substantial number' that some random guy claims.

Feminists generally fail to use the term "sexism" to apply to anti-male discrimination, typically when asked define sexism in terms of anti-female discrimination, and a loud vocal percentage deny that it's even possible for women to be sexist by definition.

According to my google search string "Can women be sexist" feminist:

#1: "Technically, yes, but it doesn't really happen."
#2: "No!"
#3-5: [Not feminist websites, respondents are general population types.]
#6: "No!"
#7: "No!"
#8: "Yes, but benevolent sexism."
#9: [Anti-feminist website.]
#10: [Not a feminist website.]

It is very common for feminists to deny that women can be sexist; and the ones who do admit that women can be sexist frequently go to great lengths to marginalize the idea that women actually are sexist in any non-trivial number. Or, in other words, liberal feminists generally duck the question, while radical feminists [generally the more politically powerful branch, thanks to their habit of allying with social conservatives across the aisle] generally say it's not possible for women to be sexist.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well, there is a trend towards stating that there is no such thing as racism towards whites, sexism towards men, etc. etc. etc. because the dis-empowered groups have no means by which to initiate the negative prejudices and deny status or standing to the current order. While I am randomGuy1455213, I have noticed this trend on the blogs, wikis, and websites I frequent. Especially in echochambers/safe spaces.

It's certainly fair to say that 'racism towards whites' is far less of an issue - for the reasons you said. Or that 'sexism against men' is far less of a deal. As you say - women are still hard-pressed to deny men status and standing.

I wouldn't say that making an argument like that was equivalent to saying that feminists 'generally' claim it's impossible to be sexist. For example.

I'm "translating" what I am hearing from the traditional hyperbolic sentiment. I could be entirely wrong in that translation. The contention that said sexism/racism (but sexism for the purposes of this thread) "just doesn't happen" becomes, when viewed through the lens of a person suffering from sexism/racism (whether real or imagined), a claim that such is impossible. Misinterpretation is rife in conversations like this, because we really are still (as I said) in the "storming" phase.

[Not Safe For Work]

It's certainly fair to say that 'racism towards whites' is far less of an issue - for the reasons you said. Or that 'sexism against men' is far less of a deal. As you say - women are still hard-pressed to deny men status and standing.

I wouldn't say that making an argument like that was equivalent to saying that feminists 'generally' claim it's impossible to be sexist. For example.

Sexism against men isn't less of a deal it happens just as often and happens institutionally. Racism against white people happens less often and less institutionally, but is still bad.

I'm not saying they are not bad - I'm saying they are less of an issue. The number of careers white people are institutionally kept out of, for example - is vanishingly small in comparison to.. .well, just about any other minority.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sexism against men isn't less of a deal it happens just as often and happens institutionally. Racism against white people happens less often and less institutionally, but is still bad.

I'm not saying they are not bad - I'm saying they are less of an issue. The number of careers white people are institutionally kept out of, for example - is vanishingly small in comparison to.. .well, just about any other minority.

Yeh, you are probably right.
But I disagree that this logic can be applied to misandrism. Imo, men are just as much victims of sexism in the modern day as women, give or take.

[Not Safe For Work]

Perhaps the word 'generally' means something different where you and New Edom come from. Here in the English speaking world, it suggests some kind of trend that tends towards the majority. Not some random anecdotal 'substantial number' that some random guy claims.

Feminists generally fail to use the term "sexism" to apply to anti-male discrimination, typically when asked define sexism in terms of anti-female discrimination, and a loud vocal percentage deny that it's even possible for women to be sexist by definition.

According to my google search string "Can women be sexist" feminist:

#1: "Technically, yes, but it doesn't really happen."
#2: "No!"
#3-5: [Not feminist websites, respondents are general population types.]
#6: "No!"
#7: "No!"
#8: "Yes, but benevolent sexism."
#9: [Anti-feminist website.]
#10: [Not a feminist website.]

It is very common for feminists to deny that women can be sexist; and the ones who do admit that women can be sexist frequently go to great lengths to marginalize the idea that women actually are sexist in any non-trivial number. Or, in other words, liberal feminists generally duck the question, while radical feminists [generally the more politically powerful branch, thanks to their habit of allying with social conservatives across the aisle] generally say it's not possible for women to be sexist.

You'll forgive me if I don't bother reading anything after you misrepresented the second source you googled for your own ends.

In all fairness. you probably just didn't read it. Actually checking your sources is such a chore.

[Not Safe For Work]

I'm not saying they are not bad - I'm saying they are less of an issue. The number of careers white people are institutionally kept out of, for example - is vanishingly small in comparison to.. .well, just about any other minority.

Yeh, you are probably right.
But I disagree that this logic can be applied to misandrism. Imo, men are just as much victims of sexism in the modern day as women, give or take.

Just as much? I doubt it. If only because less of the 'institutions' are dominated by women.