Were does all the hate in this sub-forum come from?

Post Reply New Topic

So, have you outed yourself as a Brownmiller Feminist?

Well, that was quick, this thread has already spiraled out of control.
(Proves the OP's point, though.)

I don't consider myself a feminist in the way you apparently define the term, but as someone who lived through the days of Women's Lib and the Equal Rights Act, I am very disappointed by the recent resurgence of overt misogyny in the U.S. and the politically-based attempts to take away some of those long-ago hard-earned "equal rights."

I actually really do like (and always have liked) men as a subspecies and, as a rule, have always gotten along better with them than I have with most women; it is rather horrifying to find out that so many of you still think of women as objects who should be grateful to be "kept in their place" by some big, strong man. Keep talking - you may turn me into a "Brownmiller Feminist" yet!

Before I begin, I would like you to please note the use of 'many', or 'most' instead of 'all' used throughout my post.

There's plenty of reasons as well.

The first being that people are often (inadvertently) attracted to toxic relationships. The following is an overly-simplified example to stop me from writing a novel. Many women are attracted to confidence, with it being possibly the most important factor. Most of the men who have high confidence are that way because they're egocentric, and most of the time egocentric people are more selfish, and more likely to be jerks. This makes guys think that women are attracted to jerks. The truth is they're attracted to traits that are more common in jerks. This creates a common triangle, a 'nice' guy, a confident guy, and the women they're competing over. The woman goes with the confidant guy because she likes his confidence, but then often finds out he's a jerk, and the relationship takes a nosedive. The 'nice' guy gets upset because he sees the other guy treating the woman unfairly, and wonders why she picked a guy who's clearly toxic, the confident guy is too high on himself to realize he's toxic and the woman sees the guy she's dating treating her wrong. Similar things keep happening, and all three start seeing all men and all women as the same.

The second is simply the fact that relationships are a lot of work, and in today's world, people are taught to 'throw it away' instead of working on it. Because of this, most people (of both genders) find it easier to blame the other person instead of themselves. As with the first problem, this problem repeats often in many relationships.

Thirdly is simply, due to the fact that our issues on the spectrum often exaggerate both of the above issues here, as do our long dry spells

Most men I know favor the Equal Right Amendment, as I do. The National Organization for Women, which took leadership of the ERA, withdrew their efforts to the status of a working document. Adoption of the ERA would put a legal end to all gender discrimination, with legal recourse for victims and legal penalties for violators, without regard to specific gender. Hillary Clinton's "Year of the Woman," 1992, was when we expected ERA to be presented and passed. Instead, NOW cited "ambiguities" which would work to the disfavor of women. Essentially, the chant of "What do we want? Equal rights! When do we want them? NOW!" became "We're working on it. We'll let you know when we're ready."

http://now.org/resource/chronology-of-t ... 1923-1996/

The ERA isn't law simply because women's advocacies took control and dropped the ball. Well, they tossed the ball in the basement and slammed the door. When was the last time you heard anything about ERA from Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama? I don't think equal rights should be an item-by-item, person-by-person, issue-by-issue choice, it should be a right and obligation for all. If NOW handed advocacy of the ERA over to Playboy Magazine, that legislation would have a better chance.

In my life I've had one female friend and she stopped talking to me many years ago.

And being a person without sisters and a not so-great mother, I'm basically utterly ostracized from any female presence whatsoever.

If my life is any indication of what some of the other aspies are going through then yes, they're going to be sad/troubled/bitter, that just comes with the territory of being denied all those things. Bad enough that we're supposed to contend with NT's too, there's simply no benefit for a women to take me over a more fortunate male.

Although I wouldn't confused bitterness or sadness for hate, If I hated women I wouldn't want their presence, hell a person like me considers getting friend-zoned a very good place to be in. You mean this women is going to take time from her day to talk to me?! Where the hell do I sign up?!?

BTW, I think these discussions are of good value to the younger people. Essentially, they inherited the culture and social environment from previous generations. So, when us old folks relive the history of times past, the youngsters get an idea of how everyone got here.

I'd say it is most of them, either they have had no relationship at all. Or ones that have been frankly terrible. That build up a lot of resentment. Now put them altogether in a room to talk. Make starting topics which rub-in or self-concur. How is anything less than a ton of projection and griping going to happen given human nature?

It's pretty simple, really. Based on the complaints I see here, it seems they fall into two categories:

a) Men being abused by women who won't get into a relationship with them.

b) Women being abused by men who they're already in a relationship with.

The more that b) happens, the more that a) is likely to happen. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Ah! We have parallel theories that do not exclude or contradict each other! In fact, they are complimentary. My default interpretation theory interlaces with your abuse theory perfectly. Attitudes beget behaviors.

BTW, the ERA was passed by both houses and signed into law by Pres. Nixon. It failed only in ratification by a sufficient number of states. It is worth noting that the Constitution is silent on the matter of a Federal Constitutional Amendment being required to be ratified by the states, there is still question as to whether the language requiring ratification was even constitutionally legal, and the matter still comes up for vote with some regularity.

It is also worth noting that most states (even the ones that failed to ratify the Amendment) have amended their own Constitutions or passed laws which express the same intent as the ERA, thereby rendering moot the need to ratify the original ERA.

Also, technically, the most important issues addressed by the ERA were resolved by the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

There are still plenty of deficiencies. For instance, gender discrimination in the military draft, which is huge. And, discrimination in school activities is wide. I realize you see a set of "most important" issues. And, perhaps they are most important to women, but with ERA everyone is covered equally. I see it as a truly essential step that will help resolve lingering issues for all. In principle, many men are resentful of the way the ERA was swept under the carpet for The Year of the Women and put away in 1996. We really thought the ERA would put an end to a lot of problems.

Additional point: Most matters of fundamental rights are addressed in the Constitution, so Federal authority can be used for consistent regulation and enforcement. While I'm not a big government fan, there are times when a matter is best handled as interstate, rather than state-by-state. This isn't a situation where we should have disparities between states. Even laws with the same intent, but different wording can be a problem. Plus, the Federal government is not part of any state, nor are the territories, so if every state passes the ERA, there are still gaps. The ERA should be law.

I really hope the youngsters are reading this discussion from top to bottom.

It's all gobeldygook if you're not American.

I'm 34 and British, so this is meaningless to me.

I'm not much for history, but iirc it was the Spice Girls who really popularised feminism in the UK. Who can forget their haunting and ridiculing response to the vexed question 'what do women want?' with the profoundly nonsensical 'zig-a-zig-ah'.

zig-a-zig-ah is sex according to one of the Mels, B or C or D or whatever.

The Spice Girls popularised Girl Power not feminism. Girl power was just being a lad, but female.

Last edited by hurtloam on 22 May 2014, 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.