Why do feminist have such a bad rep?

Post Reply New Topic

EXACTLY!

Pandd: Pointing out double standards based on gender does NOT equate to sexism because pointing out such facts does not show favoritism towards men over women but apparently doesnt fit your worldview. That is why you and activebutodd have attempted to write off the counterexamples I have presented stemming from personal experience. The reality is that SEXISM is Bidirectional and I certainly HAVE witnessed sexism against men as well as sexism aimed at women.

No, the text you quoted is his defence of the sexist comments he made earlier.

The statement I called sexist is true? So in your view it’s not people who if given an inch will take a mile, but rather just females who do this? And you view this as not sexist, although if anyone here had said the same thing about males, I have no doubt you’d readily discern it as sexist.
I cannot complain without being thought worse of. I have followed complaints made by males present who were endorsed by people present for their complaints, only to have everyone present accuse me of being negative while listing reasons why the complained of thing is actually good. The fact everyone present was damning what they were earlier praising, just because I dared to complain, cannot be because I am a males, because I am not. That the complaints of those speaking before me were accepted and endorsed cannot be because they were female, because they were not.

I think it has to do with subjective and self centric perceptions of people determined to view themselves as victims, and is the sort of thing people commonly do regardless of sex/gender.

It was an attack on women as a group. If you were so balanced you would have noticed as much.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it is unbalanced for me to suggest that both men and women are inclined to take a mile when offered an inch, and there is no objective evidence whatsoever that only women do this.

I have done no such thing.

No, I did not. You chose to misconstrue comments as meaning that. You then claimed to understand the differentiation between the comments I did make and comments that would mean what you were misconstruing my comments as meaning, and carried on treating my comments as though they meant something other than they do. You ignored my comments further addressing what now looks like very deliberate and intentional misconstruction of my comments. If you cannot argue your point honestly perhaps it’s because you do not really have one.


Females and female feminists have no less insight into male-issues than males have into female-issues. This brings us back to how very sensible it is to have groups that bring the concerns of sub groups within wider society, to everyone’s attention; groups like feminism. As I have pointed out to you previously, peoples’ perception is always self centric. One’s own perception is immediate to oneself and access to any other perception is always mediated and second hand.

That’s not part of the female condition, but rather part of the human condition, as any balanced observer would realize.

I was told I was ugly every day I went to primary school predominately by a particular male, who was widely endorsed for doing so, and quite encouraged in routinely physically assaulting me to boot. I certainly do not go about the place telling people of either gender/sex that they are ugly, but if I do know that even when merely defending myself, any aggression I have ever displayed towards others has been viewed as a heinous crime. On one occasion a teacher walked in to find a boy kneeling on my chest driving my head repeatedly into the ground; this was considered quite acceptable other than the morning bell had gone so we should all return to our seats.

I am female and no one has ever been bothered by males insulting or physically assaulting me.
If that were true, I would have had a great deal less bruises in my life time. Not to mention less broken bones. It was a male who broke my nose when I was 12, and no one punished, censored, or even discussed this issue with the male involved. In fact the teacher prevented me from even talking about it.


You stated that the ugly truth about women is that when given an inch they take a mile. Since male people are no less inclined toward such conduct than female people, this comment of your’s was indeed sexist, and the only double standards it might indicate, would be your own.

No kidding. This is in fact a necessary implication of comments I have already made in this thread, so it is no revelation to me.

He made the statement that "in general" women will take a mile when offered an inch. This isn't sexist, it's an observation.


Men also take a mile when offered an inch. He was presenting a veiw from a male-centric veiw. Apparently it's okay to take a female-centric veiw, but male-centric veiws are sexist.


The comment is a generalisation, your personal experiences to not effect it.


No, it's a social contruct that on occasion sometimes discriminates against men. Wether this social construct came about because of sexist male veiws (women are weak) or sexist female veiws (we deserve more protection) is irrelevent. Both sexs show said behaviour towards men.


Most of your posts in this thread have been from a female centric veiw. The poster (who's veiw you attacked) never stated that women do not deserve equal rights. He merely made a criticism of feminism, and a generalised veiw of women, from a male-centric perspective.


Word-salad. (My way of saying i don't understand the implied meaning, as opposed to you talking crap btw )


You're right, people do have self-centric perceptions, that's why feminism is flawed. That's also why i'd also attack any group that any kind of paralel to feminism. (Father for justice for example, is extremely flawed.) Equality movements should have no bias or weighting in thought. They should merely attempt to degroup people, and state everyone is a human and deserves the same rights.


There are more than likely other reasons for the endorsement of his behaviour. Your autism, people not liking you, people being scared of said person, it's an endless list. Just because there is an inherrent bias towards a specific sex, it does not mean that other factors cannot affect the situation.


Yet again, other factors come into it. Just because it is true as a generalisation, it does not mean it will be true for everyone.


Uhhhhh what? You show a female-bias and it's okay, but when a male-bias is shown it's sexist? I believe this is the exact definition of the criticism that has been aimed at feminism the entire thread.

It is sexist to state this as though it were a female trait rather than a human trait when men are just as inclined to behave this way as women. Zornslemma is judging one sex for doing something members of both sexes are equally guilty of. If someone blanketly denigrated men for doing something women equally do, I do not believe you would fail to view this as unbalanced and sexist against males.


No it is not merely male centric view, it is targeting women and judging them for simply being people and acting like people. You are the one who has persistently accused others of being female centric and implying that this is sexist. Is not being female centric the very reason you accuse feminism of being sexist? It is.

So to summarize, it is female centric and therefore sexist to pursue female equality with males in your view, but unbalanced denigration of females is male centric but not sexist in your view? Very revealing.


The comments are without any evidence to begin with and supported by nothing other than personal anecdote. My personal anecdote is as evidentiary as anyone elses, unless you wish to also claim now that the personal anecdotes of males are somehow more evidentiary than those of females.

Actually I was referring to the baseless notion held by some that males are less able or socially entitled to complain than females.


Or so you state, and then claimed this was evidence of sexism. But this alleged female centrism of mine did not attack males for doing something all people do, but you seem to think things that are female centric and attack no one are sexist. Meanwhile a post that attacks females for a common human trait of both sexes is male centric and not sexist in your view. You absurdly assert that it is sexist to suggest that only those who have experienced being treated as a female have first hand experience of being treated like a female, but deem denigrating all females for a trait as common to males as anyone is not sexist just male centric.

Why is anything and everything you deem female centric (including pursuing equality with males) sexist in your views, but being male centric is not sexist even when it consists of targeting women for denigration rather than focusing on males or indeed anything to do with males, or anything other than targeting women for denigration?

Careful, your bias is showing.

The definition of feminism never stated men should be overlooked or their views ignored. It does state that what is pursued is equality which necessarily implies that men not be unequal vis à vis women.-None of this stops you construing feminism as female centric and sexist. Yet when a poster denigrates and targets all women for something as common to males as females this is not sexist at all to you. I respectfully suggest any pretence of being balanced and objective on your part, is beyond believability at this point.



No, he used criticism of feminism as an excuse to target women for unfair and obviously unbalanced criticism. Something I have no doubt whatsoever you would deem sexist if the target were men rather than women. But by all means, continue to display the extent to which your approach to sex/gender issues is prejudiced and unbalanced.

Your definition of feminism is seeking equality with men for women, and you deem this sexist. Someone attacks all females for doing something men do equally and that’s not sexist at all?


No. It is why it’s needed.


What you suggest is utterly unrealistic, and again I draw your attention to the fact that history has proven this again and again and again. The world is just to complex to work without focused dedicated efforts to represent and advocate for sub groups within society.

Further, from a pendantic semantic view point, if we take your definition of feminism, then whoever does it, whatever they call it, anything that prevents women from being unequal to men, is feminist. According to your definition either nothing is done by anyone to facilitate female equality with males, or feminism exists. Your definition of feminism posited in this thread excludes any other possibility.




No kidding, and in my observation there are other reasons than it is actually the case that you and Zornslemma believe females are allowed to complain and males are not, and males are not allowed to enact aggression towards females. I have had to argue with a group of males and females that it was not acceptable for a male in his late twenties we all knew to beat up his 17 year old girlfriend for acting immaturely. Different social groups and different contexts. Several of these same people argued exactly the opposite in a more formal academic environment.

Evidently everyone knew this person’s complaint about his girlfriend was that she acted immaturely (actually she acted just like a 17 year old), because he routinely whined and moaned about it to all and sundry, to widespread sympathy I might add.


No kidding other factors are relevant. That’s my entire point. See the further example above that does not relate directly to people with Autism.


Just because you and Zornslemma claim such a bias exists, does not mean it does.

My whole point is that other factors come into it, as can be demonstrated by the fact that males do get to complain and be endorsed, and females are negatively treated for complaining, and that males can attack females to endorsement and females can be censored for defending themselves against aggression. This proves sex is not determining these things, but there is no proof whatsoever that it is influencing them so that males are not allowed to complain as much as females.


So you accuse, but have never substantiated.

Is it not interesting that you choose to pretend that targeting females for unbalanced criticism is not sexist, but merely akin to pursuing equality with males for females, the latter being sexist, while the earlier is not? The difference I see is one is not passing unfair judgement on the basis of sex, not denigrating on the basis of sex, and in fact refers to equality between the sexes. You find the statement denigrating and targeting one sex/gender non sexist, but the one referring to equality is to you sexist, and this proclaims more about the lack of balance and the position of bias from which you argue than anything I could state does..

Let’s call it what it was. An unsubstantiated blanket denigration on the basis of sex. Now you can play silly word games and pretend this is male centric rather than actually ignoring males, and targeting females for attack. You can pretend that it is female bias and sexist to pursue and advocate for female equality with males, but male centric and not sexist to ignore males entirely while one specifically and exclusively targets women for denigration. By all means continue to prove the extent of your own bias and inability to even uphold a credible pretense to balance or objectivity.


I believe you have done very well to demonstrate the application of sex based double standards, persistently citing things you accuse of being female centric,-of being sexist because they are female centric. Meanwhile things that are male centric are to you not sexist.

Generalizations that both males and females who have only lived as one gender have less direct experience to compare being treated as either sex than those who have lived as both, are sexist and biased and demonstrate everything that is wrong with feminism, but insulting all women for doing what males do,-is not sexist, and calling it sexist is not only wrong but turning an attack on feminism into an attack on women?

Are you sure you are not working some weird “under cover” angle? Merely pretending to attack feminism for the real purpose of portraying its detractor’s negatively?

This entire topic is about feminism, so the information he was sharing was within context. The actual information he shared was not sexist. To be sexist he would have to specifically state that men do not have this trait, or that women were less deserving because they had this trait. He was actually just stating information from a male-centric veiwpoint (information that happens to be correct). The fact you call this sexist equates to you having a female-centric veiwpoint, not to mention a victim's mentality.


I've stated that taking a female centric veiw (despite having a goal of equality) will lead to discriminating against men. I've also stated that if there were a male version of the feminist group, it would be just as flawed. So yes, a group that advocates equality from a female centric veiw, pursues sexist polciies. A group that advocates equality from a male centric veiw, would also pursue sexist policies. But uniperspective comments are not inherrently sexist. Ironically that is why equal rights movements should seek to place everybody in one group, human.

Taking my old generalised comments from earlier in the post, and comparing them to my new more detail comments, not only lacks objectivity, but also smells suspiciously like point scoring!


Yet again, turning a comment into an attack against females in general. I thought you were aruging against having a victim mentality? If i were to go and ask 1000 people, 500 males and 500 females, wether it would be okay to hit a girl (if she had slapped me a few times first), and then asked the same about hitting a man. I can assure you that hitting a girl would be less acceptable than hitting a man. I'm surprised you would even try to argue this point.


Yet again, female-centric perspective. Men couldn't possibly be discriminated in any way, could they?


Said it to activebutodd, and i'll say it to you too. Context is a completely wasted word on you isn't it? Your aspegers really does shine through in some of your criticisms of me. Lack of context, extremely-literal speech... Pfffteh!


Men are taller than girls. OMG i've done it again! What a complete raging sexist i am! How unbalanced, unstable and unobjective i must be. Seriously though, he did not denigrate all women, he made a generalised comment. It would be like me saying, men have poor colour perception and then being accused of being a sexist because i did not claim that women can also have poor colour perception. In general, men as a group do have worse colour perception, it's not sexist to mention this!


Sigh! Every single quote of yours is talking about the exact same thing! Nice variation... not! Feminism has no direct male analogue, so of course the statement he made about feminism was one-sided. The vast majority of feminists also happen to be female, so his statement would obviously have bias towards females.


People are prone to self-centered veiws and are flawed. That's why an equal rights movement that only champions one groups right is needed? What?!? What kind of logic is that?


Actually the opposite is true. When first wave feminism began, most of the efforts were put into including females in the larger group of people, instead of leaving them as a subgroup. It's grouping people together that leads to discrimination, because with time, certain groups will be seen to be better than others. This happens because of unipolar perceptions, people only look out for their own group. Second-wave and third-wave feminism have went the complete opposite direction, and actually seek to keep women as a subgrouping while campioning said subgroupings rights.

Your second paragraph of that quote is incomprehensible.


Skipped most of the other stuff you wrote, since it's just the same idea repeated with the order of the wording slightly changed! You're entire arguement resolves around this one idea you have, and the only way you can present it, is by comparing my previous generalised veiws, with newer, more detailed in depth veiws. You're not comparing like for like, and your method of discussing seems to be telling me what my beliefs are, instead of reading what my beliefs actually are.

I hate to break it to you, but if you're on here chances are good that you are also on the spectrum....
Pandd's post makes sense to me. (MissConstrue does too ) Generally speaking, I don't think the untouchable rule is always as sacred as you believe it to be either. It's called Domestic Violence I believe.

Now, we could go back and forth all day -
Feminists 'ignore' men and only look out for women VS If feminists (M or F) don't work for women who else will?
Equality VS Discrimination
Less Parental leave for dads VS availability of Dads In Distress resources
Perceived bias towards women in some cases VS Lack of women's treatment facilities for certain addictions, while equivalent treatment is available for men...

But it all boils down to this- if you are going to completely deny the validity of an established philosophy and sociopolitical movement, or universally condemn/misrepresent it's followers, a solid objective argument is needed. Or possibly a thesis with sources provided.

And still you might not be able to convince people! Feminism has had a huge effect on the way the world works, and it's still a part of many people's consciousness. The aim of a movement is to solve social problems to the point where it renders itself obsolete, so if feminism is still such a struggle the issues that sparked it are probably still current and there is both a need and a constructive point to it's existence.

Michjo you should be aware that personal attacks are not acceptable on WP; I recommend you read the TOS.

You have played the victim throughout this thread, ignored context throughout this thread, and have been skirting the personal attack rules with your constant stream of accusations throughout this thread. Your last post in my view crosses the line of what I deem merits any thoughtful response, even if it does continue to skirt just within the rules (I am no moderator so I do not know).

My disability status is not the topic of this debate. This is the second time you have tried to turn the discussion to personal attacks about my disability status. If you cannot discuss the issue without turning to petty baseless accusations that better describe your own conduct than anyone else’s here, and finally stooping to insulting people over their disability status, then maybe you should refrain from posting until you can behave in a more responsible and mature manner.

Highlight where i have claimed i am not on the spectrum.


Oh of course! People should not post into forums without a thesis... Nice try, although i think nearly the entire population of wrongplanet would break such a rule.


Actually the question this thread asked was why is feminism criticised, i answered the original question. I even stated that discussing such veiws isn't really covered by this thread, or the threads question. It wasn't i who decided to take the thread in this direction, it wasn't i who changed the context of the thread. It was a bunch of people who self-identified as feminists who decided to skew my criticism of feminism into a criticism of females in general, ironically prooving my criticism of feminism. I never set out to proove anything, i set out to answer a question, and then i set out to defend said answer from off-topic, off-context attacks.


I don't see where i've insulted you and i certainly will not read the TOS because you have misinterpreted something as a personal attack.


I don't agree or understand where you are coming from.


They were not personal attacks, they were suggestions as to why you are misunderstanding the idea's i am trying to present. It is well documented that people with aspergers struggle with the contextual, prosodic, pragmatic and inotated speech. It is well documented that people with aspergers struggle with holistic and approximative representation of idea's. Likewise these are area's i am good at, whereas my literal, grammatical aspects of language are not so good, an exact representation of idea's is a struggle for me.

Since you are perceiving my posts are personal attacks against you, i shall not reply to anymore of your posts in this thread.

What I can't stand is when a guy will act like everything was just fine until those lousy feminazis came along and ruined it for everyone.

that sort of attitude - I mean where to start to explain? If they don't see the status quo as being the problem how do you get through to them?

Merle

Lemme say THIS pandd: Despite the fact that is indeed a Human Tendency to play the *victim* role and try to evade personality responsibility by blaming others for everything; its also pretty flippin obvious that societies rules apply Differently to Different People[well at least its obvious to me]. Its just a fact of life that certain people can get away with behaving *that* way while others cannot. Men and Women are human but society(which is comprised of both sexes) treats men and women differently!
It is against American Societies rules for a man to act like a victim and if he does he will receive SCORN from others instead of sympathy. When a woman acts weak and asserts her victim status, most people will be sympathetic towards her; especially men. Women have needs and wants that are DISTINCT from the needs and wants of men and I have no doubt that feminism seeks to put womens needs and wants First.

It's pretty damn funny that even feminist women scorn at those doormat feminist men who try to whiteknight them all the time and basically deny any wrong that feminist women could ever do. Why hammer in the idea that everyone is equal if just by looking you see that we aren't all equal? There are generalized patterns for men and women. No one says that any gender should be limited to something, but catering to male or females exclusively is pretty hypocritical

love it!! !

(now trying to read through the rest of this thread...)

so, that is your best shot? That it is hypocritical? how wonderful to live in a universe where being a hypocrit is the worst of your issues! Someday, when you might stumble into the real world, you might think otherwise.

Merle

I've always found woman that call themselves femnists are sexist and have a bit of an axe to grind.

I have learnt the best approach (if posible) is just to try and avoid them.

I agree. What angers me the most about self-proclaiming feminists is that they often have a sense of entitlement. They think that because the cosmos was unfair to them by making them female they are entitled to men kissing their asses.....
I often feel like women are just so ungrateful for all that we men do for them. I love a woman who has the guts to say lets hear it for the boys!

damned feminists! Everything was just fine until they came along!