Why do you call yourself an anti-feminist?

[Yupun]

That's my main problem with feminism - it's not positive equality. It's negative equality. Rather then, for instance, trying to change the fundamental viewing of women, some feminists (Not by any way the majority, but very loud nonetheless) try and bring down men. Thinking in any remotely sexist way gets you vitrolicaly attacked.

If you recognize that a majority of feminists do not think that way, why are you claiming feminism as a movement does? We may as well call the Democratic Party racist against black people because it has a handful of racists in it.

Exactly the majority of feminists will not cut your dick off for a simple kitchen joke...

[The Enclave Government]

That's my main problem with feminism - it's not positive equality. It's negative equality. Rather then, for instance, trying to change the fundamental viewing of women, some feminists (Not by any way the majority, but very loud nonetheless) try and bring down men. Thinking in any remotely sexist way gets you vitrolicaly attacked.

If you recognize that a majority of feminists do not think that way, why are you claiming feminism as a movement does? We may as well call the Democratic Party racist against black people because it has a handful of racists in it.

What we do know is they are the most powerful, the loudest, and the most prolific in the movement. That they control the institutions and have the biggest influence in the media and academia, both of which are useful tools with which to spread your ideology.
I'd say it's easily possible they are the majority.

Ostro answers quite nicely.

[Wallenburg]

If you recognize that a majority of feminists do not think that way, why are you claiming feminism as a movement does? We may as well call the Democratic Party racist against black people because it has a handful of racists in it.

What we do know is they are the most powerful, the loudest, and the most prolific in the movement. That they control the institutions and have the biggest influence in the media and academia, both of which are useful tools with which to spread your ideology.
I'd say it's easily possible they are the majority.

Ostro answers quite nicely.

Except he himself admits that there is no evidence that such people are the majority of feminists. Hell, what few indications there may be are quite well countered by those who actually know the feminist base. Assuming that radfems are the majority is dangerous and unfair to the movement.

[The Enclave Government]

Ostro answers quite nicely.

Except he himself admits that there is no evidence that such people are the majority of feminists. Hell, what few indications there may be are quite well countered by those who actually know the feminist base. Assuming that radfems are the majority is dangerous and unfair to the movement.

Radfems do however shape the message more then the base. It's simple mathematics - the outliers change the mean far more then the average person. Radfems are the most energetic and in some cases influential fems, and therefore shape the movement.

Like how the Tea Party pushed the GOP farrrr off the scale in 2010, radfems do much the same.

[Wallenburg]

Except he himself admits that there is no evidence that such people are the majority of feminists. Hell, what few indications there may be are quite well countered by those who actually know the feminist base. Assuming that radfems are the majority is dangerous and unfair to the movement.

Radfems do however shape the message more then the base. It's simple mathematics - the outliers change the mean far more then the average person. Radfems are the most energetic and in some cases influential fems, and therefore shape the movement.

Like how the Tea Party pushed the GOP farrrr off the scale in 2010, radfems do much the same.

Hmm. I suppose that analogy actually holds up. Although the Republican Party was already heading in that direction, so Ostro's claims that feminism is inherently misandrist are still inaccurate and unfair to the vast majority of feminists.

[The Enclave Government]

Radfems do however shape the message more then the base. It's simple mathematics - the outliers change the mean far more then the average person. Radfems are the most energetic and in some cases influential fems, and therefore shape the movement.

Like how the Tea Party pushed the GOP farrrr off the scale in 2010, radfems do much the same.

Hmm. I suppose that analogy actually holds up. Although the Republican Party was already heading in that direction, so Ostro's claims that feminism is inherently misandrist are still inaccurate and unfair to the vast majority of feminists.

That is (sadly) how most well intentioned movements go - Communism started as Collectivism for a greater purpose and ended up with totalitarian government control - and you can't really say Marx wanted that.

[Liriena]

I consider myself a feminist, actually, but I can understand why so many people are put off by it. It's a very broad movement, both in terms of the ideas that can integrate themselves into it and of the sort of people who can integrate it, so it lends itself to some pretty awful stuff (genuine misandry, transphobia, etc.).

[Frenline Delpha]

I consider myself a feminist, actually, but I can understand why so many people are put off by it. It's a very broad movement, both in terms of the ideas that can integrate themselves into it and of the sort of people who can integrate it, so it lends itself to some pretty awful stuff (genuine misandry, transphobia, etc.).

Because of actions of prominent feminists. The movement is only as good as it's figureheads.

At least to the general public.

[Sanctissima]

-sigh-

What data? Give me some actual hard data that says 1/5 women who go to college are raped, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, you're just spouting BS.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/ar ... ge-women-/

And yes, the presenter is a woman. It's PragerU, what do you expect? They aren't even a university, as is suggested by the name. But that's not the point, because the information they present is true, and they present it succinctly. Like I said, that's why I linked it.

I highly doubt it is all true. My point with the presenter being a woman is that, despite being conservative, PragerU is still too concerned with political correctness to let their claims stand on their own two feet, rather than scoring brownie points by having a woman talk about rape or a black person talk about racism.

Like I said, PragerU is what it is, but in this case they got all the facts right and presented the information in a succinct manner. It still reeks of pandering, but that doesn't make the information they're presenting wrong.

That aside, the link you gave me doesn't help your point much. For starters, it does, to a certain extent, try to support the claim that an unwanted kiss is sexual assault. Which is so ridiculous, I don't know how anyone could take it seriously. Whether it fits the current legal definition in the US or not, if you legitimately think that unconsented kisses are a form of sexual assault then I think that's indicative of an extremist mindset. The whole gravity of the term 'sexual assault' gets thrown out the window and becomes nothing more than a token word.

Furthermore, the article basically claims that women don't know whether or not they've been sexually assaulted, which is akin to saying that most women are too stupid to know the difference, and that they need a guiding hand to tell them how to live their lives. The entire notion is flawed and heavily demeaning. The legal definition aside, I'm pretty sure most women are smart enough to know whether or not they've been sexually assaulted.

Ultimately, your linked article isn't very good. It's supporting a survey and mindset that took some already questionable information and twisted it into a terrible lie.

[New Edom]

I consider myself a feminist, actually, but I can understand why so many people are put off by it. It's a very broad movement, both in terms of the ideas that can integrate themselves into it and of the sort of people who can integrate it, so it lends itself to some pretty awful stuff (genuine misandry, transphobia, etc.).

You're a rare example among today's feminists and I commend you for that. I have never disagreed with the idea that women's rights and situations peculiar to women. What I have found extremely frustrating is that many popular feminist spokespersons and leaders say things that people disagree with, and they feel little need to respond to these things with any fairness, instead accusing people who disagree with them of being anti-woman. This is no different from people who are disagreed with about a government policy accusing their political opponents of treason.

Frankly, this is a general flaw I see in women's behaviour . If men need generally to be curbed in a tendency towards violence (testosterone does increase one's physical confidence a great edeal) then women need I think to be curbed in their tendency to be manipulative and inclined to be more emotionally controlling. I think that is fair. However it's general taken to mean that women should not take part in public life or should be subservient to men--and that is NOT what I mean.

[New Edom]

Radfems do however shape the message more then the base. It's simple mathematics - the outliers change the mean far more then the average person. Radfems are the most energetic and in some cases influential fems, and therefore shape the movement.

Like how the Tea Party pushed the GOP farrrr off the scale in 2010, radfems do much the same.

Hmm. I suppose that analogy actually holds up. Although the Republican Party was already heading in that direction, so Ostro's claims that feminism is inherently misandrist are still inaccurate and unfair to the vast majority of feminists.

A great many radical feminist ideas from the 1970s have taken root in poular wide spread feminism. Ideas like patriarchy theory, objectification, rape culture, glass ceiling, etc are actually part of 2nd wave radical analysis. A lot of these things are taught as a form of ideological orthodoxy in Women's and Gender Studies programs.

1st Wave Feminists in Canada, for instance, relied on the system of justice and the concept of fair play to challenge the system, claiming that if women had the merit to serve in politics and in the judiciary system, why shouldn't they? This took a great eal of activism, planning, study and petitioning before it was recognized. And so without a system of justice that could be chalenged, on its very basis, of the necesity of inclugin women in public life it iwas to truly be fair, it would have been a very different sotry. Mroeover it required men in public office to recognize that fairnes. So the heroes of early feminist egalitarianism for women in Canada do not merely include Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Emily Murphy, for instance, but also Sir Robert Borden, Charles Cross and Lord Sankey.

Every major parliamentary motion and act passed which increased the rights of women in Canada until the late 1960s required women petitioning and doing activism and men making decisions to acomodate them. So realistically the pursuit of women's rights in Canada has been a partnership.

This is not how radicals of th 2nd Wave have presented things. According to radicals of the 2nd Wave, ,men hate and look down on women, want to control them, treat them with contempt, abuse them sexually and exploit their labour. When men do support women it is only because they are forced to do so. This is very clear in the writings of Catherine MackInnon, Andrea Dworkin, Shulamith Firestone, Robin Morgan, Germaine Greer, Eve Ensler, ,and their disciples. While some, like Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolfe, are more 'lipstick' than those others, they generally agree with them. There is little recogntion of the partnership I have mentioned. According to these women and the men who support them, the socio-political-economic sytem of the West is so inherently corrupt it must be done away with. According to these women and the men who support them, men hate women and treat them badly.

In a 2014 debate between Wendy McElroy and Jessica Valenti, Valenti refused to use any statistics, any actual information, instead relying on emotional appeals about some individual rape cases to suggest that there is a Rape Culture which must be fought, and that re-education of pepole (men most particularly) must be undertaken. McElroy supported the claims of the Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network that improvement rof police and judicial work againsts rape, stronger support for rape victims by communities and victims having better education about their rights and safety needed to be done. Why was this even an argument? Because of ideology. RAINN is hardly a conservative organization--it is an organization devoted to helping rape and abuse victims.

The problem is that Wendy McElroy is what she calls an individualist feminist, and she believes in rule of law. She had said that rape was basically a crime, and that it was not being dealt with very competently. This is also RAINN's position, and is mine also. RAINN has stated in a report to the White House that talking about Rape Culture is unhelpful and divisive, and I think they're right. RAINN focuses on the fact hat as with most crimes, most of them are done by selfish idiots and socipaths, not by ordinary people. The Rape Culture theorists propose that no, our society TOLERATES rape and abuse of women, and therefore the society needs to be re-educated and this will reduce rape. And Rape Culture is founded on the notion that men despise women and look down on them.

The drive to support Rape Culture has become a popular one. Activism, books, llectures, increasing mandatory programs at universities with financial incentives, and an increased push for it in the law.

RAINN makes a further point in that Rape culture theory pathologizes male sexuality and makes all women victims. There is a serious issue with feminsits generally (not all, but generally) pushing aside females as initiators of violence or sexual misconduct. So male victims, adult or child, invalids, the elderly and lesbians are ignored when they are victims of women. False accusations are ignored because they aparently form a tiny percentage. This is the equivalent of saying that because people are raely attacked by sharks that it should never be discussed because it might make people afraid to swim. Because women MIGHT be afraid to come forward if false accusations are talked about, we should never talk about how false accusations do happen. According to feminists, women would never lie about this issue.

When there are false cases, many feminists then try to justify the lies or insist that they wer probably not lies.

So in short, no there isn't much of a sense of justice and fairness in all this. Justice and fairness are prsented as being that women are victims and ought to get what they want. But it is only justice and fairness if there is impartiality and it is possible for everyone to have an even chance. If the idea central to modern feminism is patriarchy as a kind of original sin, then this i impossible, because it is a view of life that says that there is evil and good. Eve Ensler for instance has actually said this--that the spirit of woman will save the world. So do Gloria Steinem, so does Hilary Clinton. It is clear from their writings and speeches that they see women as good and men as bad.

[Wallenburg]

Well, thank you for that explanation. It was certainly educational. That part about "individual feminism" seems to match pretty well where I sit. I recognize that sexism is still a serious issue, but that there isn't some patriarchy scheming to oppress women, nor are the genders a pair of monoliths, one always good and one always bad. Hell, most of the radical feminists you mentioned I've never even heard of, and the ones I have I sometimes wish that I hadn't. I know that feminism has fallen from what it once was, but I grew up learning that feminism was good and egalitarian, and that's the feminism I've known almost all my life. And since I support gender equality, I call myself a feminist.

[The Emerald Legion]

I am. Because it was utterly irrelevant.

And it is entirely possible to point out their hypocrisy and bullshit without descending into their own level of idiotic tribalism. It's not reality. It's a perception of it. Feminism is no more a law of nature than Slytherin is.

Refuse to acknowledge it and it goes away.

Utterly amazing. Every now and then someone like you comes along and basically spreaeds a bunch of ridiculous platitudes that are untrue. Like this is just some airy fairy theory floating in the ether and everyone is an idiot but you

Tell this to people who lose their jobs, get humiliated in public, lose their opportunities in higher education, lose custody of children, are profiled as rapists or molesters, tell this to people who have to deal with policies created due to some ideology. You'd just ignore it, right?

"Oh well, I lost my job and was hounded out of my town, but I will not identify what did it, I'll just let it roll off my back." I didn't realize I was dealing with a zen monk. You have no help, you have no solution. But enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. meantime, I will actually be conerned with the civil rights and freedoms of other people.

Hilarious.

And what gives them that power? What grants them the power to humiliate people and take jobs and opportunities?

The fact that people have granted the movement power. If you take that power away. By say, oh I don't know, completely destroying the identity based discourse it's founded on and abuses to maintain it's powerbase.... Well then there we are.

By naming ideas we create camps. You build a box and let people identify 'everything in this box' as good or bad. Then it simply becomes a game of throwing your opponents into the bad boxes while putting yourself in the good box.

[Des-Bal]

I don't think we have achieved gender equality but I fundamentally do not believe feminism is the way we get there. It's not as simple as feminism not doing enough for men it's feminism approaching problems through a lens that's too narrow to helpful for a lot of people and a lot of problems.

[New Edom]

Utterly amazing. Every now and then someone like you comes along and basically spreaeds a bunch of ridiculous platitudes that are untrue. Like this is just some airy fairy theory floating in the ether and everyone is an idiot but you

Tell this to people who lose their jobs, get humiliated in public, lose their opportunities in higher education, lose custody of children, are profiled as rapists or molesters, tell this to people who have to deal with policies created due to some ideology. You'd just ignore it, right?

"Oh well, I lost my job and was hounded out of my town, but I will not identify what did it, I'll just let it roll off my back." I didn't realize I was dealing with a zen monk. You have no help, you have no solution. But enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. meantime, I will actually be conerned with the civil rights and freedoms of other people.

Hilarious.

And what gives them that power? What grants them the power to humiliate people and take jobs and opportunities?

The fact that people have granted the movement power. If you take that power away. By say, oh I don't know, completely destroying the identity based discourse it's founded on and abuses to maintain it's powerbase.... Well then there we are.

By naming ideas we create camps. You build a box and let people identify 'everything in this box' as good or bad. Then it simply becomes a game of throwing your opponents into the bad boxes while putting yourself in the good box.

Explain exactly how you do this destruction.

[New Edom]

Well, thank you for that explanation. It was certainly educational. That part about "individual feminism" seems to match pretty well where I sit. I recognize that sexism is still a serious issue, but that there isn't some patriarchy scheming to oppress women, nor are the genders a pair of monoliths, one always good and one always bad. Hell, most of the radical feminists you mentioned I've never even heard of, and the ones I have I sometimes wish that I hadn't. I know that feminism has fallen from what it once was, but I grew up learning that feminism was good and egalitarian, and that's the feminism I've known almost all my life. And since I support gender equality, I call myself a feminist.

I run into this all the time. People support equality between men and women (most people in Western Society do) and are told that that is called feminism. It is the dictionary definition, after all. What they often don't realize is that in academia, among policy makers and lobby groups there is a kind of war going on for people's hearts and minds. So of course when someone like yourself hears 'anti feminist' it simply means "a person against gender quality'. Feminism is not an ideology to the average practitioner.

But we also often don't know what ideas trickle down to us, and it's sometimes very important to track them back. I'm glad I was able to get some understanding betwen us. I think it's very important to now and then step back and look at where common values lie and work on that more than on what side everyone claims to be on--we may find we have more in common than we thought we did.

[Wallenburg]

Well, thank you for that explanation. It was certainly educational. That part about "individual feminism" seems to match pretty well where I sit. I recognize that sexism is still a serious issue, but that there isn't some patriarchy scheming to oppress women, nor are the genders a pair of monoliths, one always good and one always bad. Hell, most of the radical feminists you mentioned I've never even heard of, and the ones I have I sometimes wish that I hadn't. I know that feminism has fallen from what it once was, but I grew up learning that feminism was good and egalitarian, and that's the feminism I've known almost all my life. And since I support gender equality, I call myself a feminist.

I run into this all the time. People support equality between men and women (most people in Western Society do) and are told that that is called feminism. It is the dictionary definition, after all. What they often don't realize is that in academia, among policy makers and lobby groups there is a kind of war going on for people's hearts and minds. So of course when someone like yourself hears 'anti feminist' it simply means "a person against gender quality'. Feminism is not an ideology to the average practitioner.

But we also often don't know what ideas trickle down to us, and it's sometimes very important to track them back. I'm glad I was able to get some understanding betwen us. I think it's very important to now and then step back and look at where common values lie and work on that more than on what side everyone claims to be on--we may find we have more in common than we thought we did.

That makes sense, and I can agree with that. I too am glad we have established common ground. It's quite easy to agree when people aren't throwing around personal attacks and generalizations, eh?

[Settrah]

I don't think we have achieved gender equality but I fundamentally do not believe feminism is the way we get there. It's not as simple as feminism not doing enough for men it's feminism approaching problems through a lens that's too narrow to helpful for a lot of people and a lot of problems.

It's difficult to put faith in something as a tool for a better future, when it's lens is looking at society as if it's still in the 1950s.

I.e. Apparent certainty of an adversary of sexism as a normalised culture, and the only woman that apparently matter are Caucasian wives.

[Des-Bal]

Hilarious.

And what gives them that power? What grants them the power to humiliate people and take jobs and opportunities?

The fact that people have granted the movement power. If you take that power away. By say, oh I don't know, completely destroying the identity based discourse it's founded on and abuses to maintain it's powerbase.... Well then there we are.

By naming ideas we create camps. You build a box and let people identify 'everything in this box' as good or bad. Then it simply becomes a game of throwing your opponents into the bad boxes while putting yourself in the good box.

That's a facile understanding of group dynamics and it's lead you to a conclusion that is illogical and has no practical value. Ignoring a group limits their ability to act effectively in certain circumstances but when you're talking about something that's fully established and very large that's just not how it goes. See you ignore the sore on the roof of your mouth you address the bullet hole in your thigh.

[Chessmistress]

Didn't noticed such thread.
It seems there's, in the poll, a good amount of men openly admitting that they hate women or that they think that women don't deserve equality.
Pretty telling.

I don't think we have achieved gender equality but I fundamentally do not believe feminism is the way we get there. It's not as simple as feminism not doing enough for men it's feminism approaching problems through a lens that's too narrow to helpful for a lot of people and a lot of problems.

It's difficult to put faith in something as a tool for a better future, when it's lens is looking at society as if it's still in the 1950s.

I.e. Apparent certainty of an adversary of sexism as a normalised culture, and the only woman that apparently matter are Caucasian wives.

More misogynistic stereotypes, seems to me.

If feminists are about equality than a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility the same as a woman can abort a baby.

Financial responsibility = / = bodily autonomy.

[Tahar Joblis]

The overwhelming majority of deaths on tv are male. Like, it isn't even close.

If they are gonna kill 100% of the female protagonists I demand the same for the male protagonists! And the female protagonist was considered a joke from start to finish. The fans of the show used the joke "the character who can not fight anyone who can fight back" while the male characters was all bad-ass and never made fun off!

I don't know what show you're talking about, but if you look at television as a whole, male characters die overwhelmingly more often. For all the talk of "women in refrigerator syndrome," the reason it sticks out as a trope is because of how rare female deaths of any kind are.

[Settrah]

More misogynistic stereotypes, seems to me.

Didn't noticed such thread.
It seems there's, in the poll, a good amount of men openly admitting that they hate women or that they think that women don't deserve equality.
Pretty telling.

Like, the smallest, teeniest tinest minority. Ony 3% say they hate woman. But ok yeah, let's focus solely on the small bad apples that inevitably will lead to any sort of bigotry, and entirely skip over the facts and issues that the 97% majority on the poll feel distances them from the feminist movement, so we can ride on the strawman that all anti feminists are automatically misogynist.

Also, I just want to add that 8% aren't saying they don't want equality, the option refers to the view that men and women have different places in society, as such it is erroneous to judge one in the field of another, so straight up treating both exactly the same isn't productive.

[Acarn]

Didn't noticed such thread.
It seems there's, in the poll, a good amount of men openly admitting that they hate women or that they think that women don't deserve equality.
Pretty telling.

I agree its... very frightening to say the least.

[Philjia]

Didn't noticed such thread.
It seems there's, in the poll, a good amount of men openly admitting that they hate women or that they think that women don't deserve equality.
Pretty telling.

Those people are knobs. Still, I can't say I'm exactly enamoured with the direction feminism is going in. (IE Anti facts, anti liberty, paranoia, and lashings of sexism)

[Frenline Delpha]

Didn't noticed such thread.
It seems there's, in the poll, a good amount of men openly admitting that they hate women or that they think that women don't deserve equality.
Pretty telling.

I agree its... very frightening to say the least.

Are you kidding me? The most answered options are ballparks away from Chess's strawman. But please, keep encouraging her bullshit statements.