Why do feminist have such a bad rep?

Post Reply New Topic

Believe me, I have read all the text.
You seem to say one thing and then change your mind as it suits you. You say Valerie Solanas/Alice Walker did this, so this is what feminism is and so it deserves a bad reputation. Then later.... it's just one element of the push for gender equality (feminism) that is the problem, and feminists are wrong! I merely highlight inconsistencies.

(Edit. To clarify ^ my point, you twisted an isolated incident into a generalisation to support your postulated argument, but when facts don't suit you they are minimised and explained away onto a scapegoat. Exaggeration and smearing versus denial and quarantine. Pick one!)

On that note... you are vocally concerned with getting equality for men, but...

Last edited by activebutodd on 19 Jun 2009, 3:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

It's because someone who doesn't know precisely what feminism is can't make a clear argument against it.

You mention a book by Dr. Seuss so i'm assuming you have a basic understanding of psycology. Should i ever have any need to explain to someone how displacement works as a pyscological defense mechanism, i shall point them to your post. Thank you for such a perfect example.[/quot

In psychology, displacement is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind redirects effects from an object felt to be dangerous or unacceptable to an object felt to be safe or acceptable.[1] For instance, some people punch cushions when they are angry at friends; a college student may snap at his or her roommate when upset about an exam grade.

Displacement operates the mind unconsciously and involves emotions, ideas, or wishes being transferred from their original object to a more acceptable substitute. It is most often used to allay anxiety.

In scapegoating, aggression is displaced onto people with little or no connection with what is causing anger.

Displacement can act in a chain-reaction, with people unwittingly becoming both victims and perpetrators of displacement. For example, a man is angry with his boss, but he cannot express this so he hits his wife. The wife hits one of the children, possibly disguising this as punishment (rationalization).

Though displacement is usually used to refer to the displacement of aggressive impulses, it can also refer to the displacement of sexual impulses



............ I'm displacing what? Your posts on this thread has been frankly pissing me off for days so I replied to your post on this thread. If I read your post then yelled at my husband that would be displacement.

What do you imagine is the relevance of that? I agree with all kinds of people quite routinely. Just some hours ago I read a thread where I strongly agreed with comments made by you, and was nodding at your points as I read along. This does not mean I will necessarily agree with you on some other thing.

So what of it? Why are you not then accusing them of mislabling themselves given the definition of feminism that you posited? Why quote Alice Walker’s view on marriage rather than Caryl Rivers (who describes herself as a card carrying feminist)? Why judge the whole by any flaw you can find in the parts?

Is this fair and balanced? Do you judge egalitarianism by the same kinds of standards? Do you look and see how egalitarian movements were really only about equality for people of the right sex, ethnicity and sometimes even religion, and judge egalitarianism according to the worst associations you can make between it, it’s proponents and anyone or anything that could be associated with it? Not at all. But with feminism you do nothing but.

But why is this criticism of your’s justified anyway? Do you have any evidence what so ever that without specialist efforts to ensure their inclusion females and their views will be equally included?


I routinely do not make outcries about all kinds of things. I do not make outcries more often than I do actually. There are comments in this thread on both sides of the debate that I disagree with but have not made any comment about.

As to activebutodd’s particular views on how they feel they can best manifest feminism? Firstly it’s not actually up to me to dictate how other people should enact their ideals. Secondly, activebutodd is not stating feminism cannot or should not address issues of gender/sex inequality generally, but rather that issues of concern to males is not what activebutodd views as the primary concern for feminists. To construe this as exclusion makes no more sense than construing disability rights activism as excluding non disabled people, rather than construing it as being focused on the inclusion of a particular group. You’ve yet to substantiate any cause whatsoever for believing that targeted inclusion efforts are anything but necessary to the inclusion of the targeted. Any argument you make about dedicated efforts to include a specific group, are frankly empty until you address this issue.

Just as feminism is needed to target gender/sex equality in a specialized fashion, so too within feminism is specialization needed. I for instance, although not considering it necessarily less important, would place less emphasis on maternity vs paternity leave, than I would family court issues. This is because, like every other human being, I am shaped by my experiences. I have more first hand experience with problems caused by gender/sex stereotyping in relation to family courts than I have direct experience of problems caused by maternity vs paternity leave. There are a multiplicity of approaches and views within feminism (despite your earlier attempts to frame feminism as being a single methodology). The reality is simply much more complex than you are willing to view it as.



These comments are quite ironic.

If you do not believe me with regards to the meaning of equal, then I suggest you check out a dictionary. You’re rather wasting your time to suggest I both lack command of the English language yet am so adept at manipulating it, I twist and turn it with the fluidity and ease your comments imply. The two positions are mutually contrary in my view.


Your definition states quite plainly that feminism refers to equal rights. Unless you fail to comprehend what equal means, you necessarily comprehend that the statement “I want women to have equal rights to men” conveys an identical meaning to the statement “I want men to have equal rights to women”. By definition of equal it must be so. No twisting or ignoring needed on my part. But unless you do not comprehend the meaning of equal, nothing but twisting and ignoring on your part.

You choose to infer such a weighting and bias because otherwise your criticism is obviously baseless.


Perhaps it is Aspergers that causes you to be unable to look at this issue with any nuance, being limited to either characterizing feminism as all white or all black. Either it is entirely pure unflawed and white, or entirely black; black and white thinking is quite common in the Asperger population.

Or perhaps you are now so desperately unable to substantiate your point given the plain English meaning of the definition you posited, that you have been reduced to making personal attacks on the disability status of someone rather than admit your views are undermined by your own definition. After all, you seem able to differentiate between the egalitarian ideals of non feminist egalitarianism and the racist views of some egalitarianists, or the violent excesses of some egalitarian movements. So while I could cop out and point to disability status, I think I’ll just put this down to your personal choices.


Right, because unlike feminism you choose to not judge egalitarianism according to dead people, or the rantings of any disturbed mind that happens to think itself egalitarian. That would be unbalanced if applied to something other than feminism. The problem is, for the life of me, it seems no more balanced when applied to feminism.

Talk about a “no true feminist fallacy", as bold as brass. Arguably the exact same argument applies to anyone calling themselves a feminist but not really pursuing strict sex/gender equality.


Right because a racist who calls themselves egalitarian is not a true egalitarian but a sexist who calls themselves a feminist, despite this being contrary to the definition you posited for feminism, is not mislabling themselves, and despite being widely rejected by those who do hold views consistent with the definition of feminism you posited, they somehow are representative of the whole, in your view.


So what? Feminism existed. Some people come along, make an unproven and asinine assumption, borrow a premise from feminism and much to the objection of feminist decide to apply the word feminist to themselves, and this to you means it is sensible to claim that these Joany -come -latelys now define feminism? Ridiculous, and frankly desperate.


I am very interested in seeing you specifically name the premise these separatists adopted from feminism that in your view is sufficient to categorize them as feminist. The only such premise I can see is that females should be equal to males. If this is the premise you refer to, you are necessarily assuming in their case that they are feminists because believing the sexes should be equal necessarily implies being a feminist. That would make everyone either a feminist or a sexist. So which are you? Do you hold the sufficient to be described as feminist view that the sexes ought to be equal, and therefore are at least as much a feminist as these separatists?

Evidently if we apply this reasoning more widely, then we can say feminism is certainly egalitarian. Feminism took the base premise of equality from egalitarianism and if taking a base premise of X makes a version of X, (as you claim it does with separatists), then feminism by this reasoning of your’s, must be egalitarian.


How is it female centric to point to out that the situation is not as bad with the accommodation as before? Do you disagree? Do you think parental leave for no one is as good as or better than accommodations for both parents? Who is worse off? It looks to me like both sexes are better off for this accommodation. Please explain who is worse off, or why viewing people as being better off across the board, as an improvement, is female centric.


I did not minimize it at all. Of course if you think for most people their careers are necessarily more important than their children and work is more meaningful than their families, I suppose you could choose to view it that way. But do not assume I share these particular values. I think being alienated from ones’ rightful place in the family, is far from minimal. I struggle to think of more powerful and weighty considerations. To me, this cuts to the very of core of what really matters, in other words, these things to me are the essence of quality of life, and anything but minimal.


Really? And where do you get your numbers from? And would this majority be drawn from the wider group of all those who you construe as feminists who do not fit the definition of feminism you have given, and those whose ideals and intentions are consistent with the definition? The smaller group of only those whose intention and ideals are consistent with the definition (however far short they may fall of their ideals), or the much smaller group of those who do not even fit the definition you gave of feminism, but are easy to criticize and can be associated with feminism?

Men do not experience more discrimination as a result. What previous right or benefit were men deprived of? What additional burden was applied to them? What other than gaining a benefit they did not previously have, changed in regards to the rewards and costs of becoming a parent as a male person?
It is justified because it effects benefits for both sexes/genders, without depriving either of any benefit they previously had, while mitigating some disparity and not enhancing disparity for either sex/gender. It is justified because it is a step in the right direction, and one I view as likely to be followed by further positive steps. Who was advocating sex/gender equality in parental leave accommodations before maternity leave was posited? There is more chance of equality of parental leave because of the enactment of unequal parental leave, than there was in the absence of any such accommodations for anyone.

What is not justified about everyone being better off and no one being worse off, with no actual increase in disparity but actually a reduction in disparity, and significantly, an increased likelihood of actual equality being the eventual outcome, when the alternative is everyone being worse off than they currently are, greater disparity than there is now, and no likelihood of this changing for the better?

Surely you mean “no true feminist”, as defined by being someone who does not fit the definition of feminism posited by you?

But why would you want this to not have happened? In your mind is the fact that now both sexes can choose to be parents without giving up their jobs, and both parents can choose to be present in the home rather than at work, for a limited time without losing their jobs, worse than females never being able to choose both parenthood and keeping their jobs, while men could have both, but without the option of at least having those first two weeks in the home? In your view is everyone being worse off, and greater disparity between the sexes/genders preferable so long as in every single measure, the inequality oppresses females more than males?


If this is true, then your accusation was very dishonest. The fact is, without being deaf, while I might be able to relate to or even understand about discrimination as a deaf person, I cannot directly experience it without being a deaf person. I can readily admit that I will never experience discrimination as a male, without hysterically remonstrating that I have been discriminated against for characteristics other than being a male.

Why would suggesting you cannot experience discrimination as a female without being a female, somehow be negated in your view by the fact that you’ve experienced discrimination for being something else other than a female? How does this give you direct experience to compare between the level of discrimination and inequality that exists between the sex genders/sexes? It simply does not. Those who have lived and being treated as both, have better insight into the direct experience of discrimination as a male than I have, and as a female than you have. Yet on the basis of my stating so you start in again with the accusations, responding as though I had suggested you could not experience or-understand discrimination because you are a male. This kind of response does not bolster any impression of you as someone who is making reasonable and balanced interpretations.

That is ridiculous. The point was that those who have experienced how society treats males by being perceived as males socially, and have also experienced how society treat females by being socially perceived as females, have the most relevant body of experience for comparing the level, extent, and kinds of discrimination experienced in regards to sex/gender identity. To suggest that anyone who has ever been discriminated against for anything ever, by anyone, suddenly as if by magic, will in function, have the same insight into comparative treatment based on sex/gender identity, is simply fantasist.


And this causes you to magically know whether males or females experience more less or the same level of discrimination on the basis of sex/gender identity, when seeking jobs, how exactly?


And this causes you to magically know whether males or females experience more less or the same level of unwanted sexualized touching and harassment, how exactly?


And again I remind you that I have never stated otherwise.


Aha, and someone who campaigns for sex/gender segregation is not necessarily a feminist, and someone who is a feminist does not necessarily campaign for sex/gender segregation. None of which prevents you from tarnishing them with the same brush, inconsistently with how you separate animal rights activism from the worst excesses and associations that could be linked to such.


No, some animal rights activists tarnish themselves and some movements within the wider movement tarnish themselves. Any tarnishing thing associated with feminism, tarnishes the whole in your mind, including the paranoid, incoherent rantings of someone known to have been so disturbed of mind they tried to kill Andy Warhol on the delusional belief he was stealing their opus magnus.


However-willing-people-might-be-to-deliver-equality-for-transsexuals,-it-will-not-happen-without-targeted-advocacy-and-representation.-I-am-horrified-at-the-thought-of-a-person-transitioning-to-female-being-incarcerated-on-arrest-with-males-rather-than-females.-But-in-all-honesty,-despite-the-chilling-effect-thinking-of-this-has-on-me,-without-self-advocacy-by-transsexuals,-I-would-never-have-known-to-think-of-this-possibility.-It-just-would-not-occur-to-me-to-wonder-what-happens-in-such-situations,-much-less-to-guess-the-barbarous-answer-to-such-wonderings.

This-is-why-targeted-intervention-is-not-extra-to-wide-spread-equality,-but-rather-a-necessity-to-achieving-such.

The two are not mutually exclusive. As it happens Mill was a feminist, a utilitarian an egalitarian, a sexist, and a racist. The latter two arising because Mill was flawed and limited as all humans are, a product of his time, and more easily able to conclude the rightness of his ideals than the full scope and ramifications of their pure, uncompromised application.

Wether or not my beliefs regarding feminism are correct or not is irrelevent to your post. I have clearly stated that women should have equality. I have made it clear that my criticism is directed at the feminist movement and not the female race. You have attributed traits and beliefs to me that i do not have and that i have made clear i do not have in this thread. You are clearly displacing traits you do not like onto me, because you know that i'm a safe target to displace them to.

I have no issue with women, i am not judging the entire female race, i am judging the feminist movement.

Nope Michjo having just reread the whole 7 pages of this thread and I still disagree with you. Why it should matter so much to you I have no idea. Maybe I was too harsh when I said it seemed to me that you had issues with women. I'm sorry if I offend you.

There are areas in which women are still at a disadvantage (employment-related issues in many sectors, for example) - simultaneously, there are cases of female privilege (regardless of whether it originated as privilege or not) or sexism against men (that misandry is at least in Britain completely socially acceptable (and spell checkers even claim the word doesn't exist), that the man is still expected to pay for a date, the bias of courts in custody disputes in favour of women, etc). Now, many self-labeled feminists (whether they meet the dictionary definition is irrelevant, the point is they call themselves, and others call them, feminists*) are keenly aware of sexism directed against women, but refuse to recognise, or actually even promote, sexism directed against men - the sort that would go ballistic at a misogynous joke but would laugh at a misandrous one. This hypocrisy does not go down well with everyone, obviously (though there are also plenty of men that will suck up to misandrous women, which is as pathetic as a woman sucking up to a misogynistic man).
Other things that irritate people about self-professed feminists are hyperbole (like comparing the condition of women in the West to that under the Taliban), claiming victim status for things suffered by other women, etc. Hence 'feminist' has negative associations for many.


*I believe in equality but loathe the word 'feminist' - it insinuates that somehow it implies siding with women - 'fem' as in female and 'ist' as meaning partisan of something, like 'socialist' is a supporter of socialism. Being in support of equality does not mean automatically siding with women.

Well put. I agree with most of this, and after my life situation, I think courts need to look at men and women more equally. My family situation, my mom and dad divorced, my mom was a sociopath, still is, my dad fought long and hard to keep me and my siblings living with him. Had we have lived with our mom, we would have suffered much abuse. For that, I am quite grateful my dad fought like he did. I have nothing against men, my only problem is that there still is discrimination everywhere, amoungst everyone. My view on feminism is that it isn't exactly about rights, but about the right to be who we are, and be fully accepted for it, equality just happens to be a key factor in this goal.

So you are judging people just for being feminist? That seems like a bit of a
Odd.






Same here. And that includes point scoring outcry against rights gained by women 'because then they discriminate against men'. Or insisting that feminists attend exaggeratedly to making sure they offend/'exclude' no man, while still needing to work tirelessly for the interests of women.

It would appear that the word context is completely wasted upon you.

Seems like different *feminists* have their own personal definition of what feminism is all about.....
Now I am not pointing the accusing finger at anyone in this thread but I am SICK and TIRED of women who expect to be put on a pedestal and feel entitled to sympathy just for being female, ugh.

Just as animal rights activists, environmentalists, mens’ rights groups, supporters of democratic processes, educators….etc, all have different ideas, feminists too are not a monolith.

None of which has anything to do with anything but the fact that some humans just happen to be like that.

Why post this comment here? Plenty of non feminists have a sense of entitlement just because they happen to have a sense of entitlement. Why genderize the comment? Such people are as likely to be men as to be women. It looks suspiciously like you perhaps are taking a very common human trait and quite sexistly pretending that it has more to do with females than males, and then trying to blame this on feminism.

I think people who take very common human traits (such as a sense of entitlement) and pretend that this constitutes a reason to disparage a group that is no more characterized by such traits than everyone who is not in the group, indicate plenty about themselves and their prejudices and nothing whatsoever about the group.

The reason why I genderize this commment has to do with the fact that in the society which I live in(the USA), men and women are treated differently and there are PLENTY of double standards regarding gender and behavior. That is, there are attitudes and behaviors which are tolerated from women but NOT from men. One of those is whining and having a sense of entitlement(what they call *victim status*). I have found are the hard way that whenever I whine and complain about my issues and claim to be a *victim*, people mock and sneer at me. Men who claim to victims are branded as losers and not respected.

Take someone, treat them really well in their youth, then as soon as they turn 18, force them into a situation where they will be abused and discrinated. This person may come out of it alright and make a good world for him or herselg, but they will always feel some entitlement to the life they once had, and will strive to achieve it, and that is the key to their sucess. Entitlement only is a bad thing when it goes too far, I have seen more males with this type of entitlement attitude than females in my life, and that's not because of who I have been exposed to, as I have been exposed to a fair sample of both genders. Entitlement is normlly part of the driving force tht brings a person to achieve great things.

Just as it is plenty more acceptable for "women" to cross the gender barrier and "become" men. The other way around is far less acceptable, and that is because men have one role, women have all the roles. I'm sorry, but men created the one role mentality over many centuries, and people who differ from that role are different and wrong. The only way for men to break this one role view is to act outside it, which not many men are willing to experience the social consequences of. Women had nothing to lose, so to escape the one role we had, feminism was born. Do the same for men if you don't like living in a one role world, or do what the gays and transsexuals do well, break the mold and risk criticism.