Why ordinary men find Feminism infuriating

  • 152 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by Articuno76 (18630 posts) -

Why ordinary men find Feminism infuriating

I remember back in 2003 when I started college. I was the only man in my philosophy class that put my hand up when the teacher asked if we were feminists. I was at the time, puzzled as to why the other guys in the class didn’t raise their hand…I mean, why wouldn’t you be pro-women’s rights? Who doesn’t’ empathise with being treated like dirt over something they have no control over and is a deep part of their identity? But looking back on it now I wonder I actually see something of what those other guys in the class might have been thinking when they didn’t raise their hands.

I’ve been following the feminism debate for a long time now and one thing that always strikes me is how infuriating it is to deal with feminists when you are a man. Now, being annoyed or antagonised by someone who you are fundamentally in opposition to is not all that strange, but what I find is striking about the issue of feminism is that it on principle myself (and many other frustrated men) aren’t fundamentally opposed to the tenets of feminism itself; This is frustration in spite of fundamental agreement.

What is also striking is that the same feelings of frustration from feeling judged and shamed are not something that I feel in response to any other movement. Case in point, my Facebook feed is clogged with weird and wonderful articles on issues facing the gay community, habitual on-going racism experienced by minorities and heart-warming talks that make us reanalyse our views of mental illness, poverty and so on. But none of these videos or articles strike the same nerve with me as feminism. None of them make me feel I am the (even in my ignorance) part of a problem even when I and if I am; instead I leave feeling enlightened and like part of a solution or a potential solution.

As someone who is mentally healthy, straight and well off you’d think I’d be just as incensed by those talks as I am by the kind of comments I see on feminist related posts that many women leave.

So…what is going on here?

So the first question you might be asking is this: If you are fundamentally in agreement why is it that you are in conflict?

See, the thing is whereas I agree with feminism in principle, I don’t agree with many of the off-the-cuff remarks that go unreprimanded that are often made alongside feminist assertions and I don’t agree with them because they vilify behaviours that are otherwise natural for men (but not for women). But in disagreeing with the smaller “problem” I open myself up to attack for being against feminists in everything they say.

For instance, take a look over this video: http://www.scoopwhoop.com/story.aspx?menuid=4&contentid=146#sthash.6mctaBPG.dpbs

For women this seems like a conscious attempt at perverse behaviour and a way for the man to psych the woman out and make her aware of some future attempt to rape her. She might use an expression like like ‘undressing with the eyes’… a uniquely female expression which strikes many man as an amusing alien concept (why would a man waste his time undressing a woman in his imagination when he can fast-forward to the good bits?); The thing is most (straight) men who view this only see fairly ordinary behaviour and they cannot convincingly explain why it is in fact normal (though they can feel it in their gut).

Now the science actually backs up why this is ordinary and for me feel free to read on (though this isn’t the crux of this article).

<<>>

-We know men decide on whether to look at someone with sexual interest almost immediately as that is the way their brains are wired. This is why they go into sexual look mode almost straight away so they can make a kind of 3D scan of the woman to determine her true body shape. It also explains why men do it considerably more frequently than women (they only need to be around a stranger for a second or so to be compelled to enter this mode and if you are around a lot of strangers…)

-We also know that men’s vision operates like a spot light (which is probably what a man’s gaze feels like) and has a considerably more constricted range of vision than a woman’s gaze. This means that he has to move his head to train his vision on a woman in order to get a clear look. In fact most men will be able to attest that if they hold they hand up in front of their face and move it down (keeping their gaze still) their range of vision simply isn’t good enough to make out anything but a blurry hand shape by the time the hand is at chin level (seriously, I can’t even make out how long my finger nails are…in fact I can’t even differentiate the colour of my nails from my hands!).

-The result is that a man’s gaze is extremely obvious to a woman as he has to crane his head to get a as good a look as she could having just kept her gaze appearing as if it was aimed elsewhere.

-Couple that with the fact that men are pretty dumb about this kind of stuff (men’s brains are not as well attuned as a woman’s’ to catch fine social cues like gaze) and you get the impression that the men who do this are actually massive perverts.

Ever noticed a guy who appears to be looking at you every time you look to check if he is looking? He probably isn’t, in all likelihood he is constantly looking away and ‘stealing’ glances so he can finish the scan of the woman’s body/features that he is compelled to make but can’t because he is afraid of being blasted out for being a massive perv. If there was no stigma to looking he’d just do a detailed once-over and get it out of his system after having made a complete scan (though if he has managed to make a scan and is still staring something else might be up).

<<>>

Women naturally find all this looking exhausting and normally blame the men involved (who are simply attempting to juggle social expectations that tell them not to look with their natural urges which tell them to ‘finish the damn scan’) and denounce their behaviour as unnatural and perverse. After all, you can’t strike out someone for doing something you acknowledge as natural. Well, not without appearing unsympathetic and irrational.

I think the truth behind the matter is that men’s behaviour was perfectly acceptable in the past when we lived in smaller communities with fewer strangers (which meant considerably less ‘scanning’ as most men would have scanned every woman in the community once and be done with it) and women were able to sustain that amount of looking without being exhausted by it. The problem in my eyes isn’t the men (who are doing what is natural) but the structures of the societies we live in that force us to live in close proximity to dozens, even hundreds of strangers and that in turn means a man is in ‘scanning mode’ a heck of a lot just to keep up.

Now this is the point many men get extremely upset for having what they know in their gut is natural behaviour be vilified. We’ve put up with jealous/insecure partners for generations because they just couldn’t believe it but now what is happening is men aren’t just being told it is uncomfortable (which is the point where most other movements the kind I mentioned earlier would stop) but actually being made out to be evil for having these urges acting as a kind of mental itch on them (an itch which ‘scanning’ alleviates).

What happens next is something that will likely stun and confuse readers a 100 years from now the same way the superstitions that fuelled the Salem Witch Trials leave us flabbergasted today. As if receiving judgement for simply doing what comes naturally wasn’t enough the man then ends up accused of something totally unrelated; being a rapist (or accessory to rape). This is actually quite similar to how women of the time were accused of being evil (and even dangerous) for having abilities that at the time were ill understood (we understand today that women’s seemingly super-powered perception comes about as the result of unique brain wiring) and made people feel uncomfortable; men took their fear of the unexplained and linked it to what seemed like the most rational, sensible evil they could; witchcraft and the devil. At the time the explanations seemed phenomenally convincing…enough so to put women to death. Now I’m not drawing a comparison of cruelty between the situation those women faced and what men face but trying to shock the senses into seeing how we, in the 21st century, are still capable of making massive leaps of logic when confronted with something scary.

I’d like to think that most modern people who view the situation I described above rationally realise that this kind of staring is not one and the same as rape. Nor are the two in either a sequential or causal relationship that is inevitable (or highly likely).

In fact I’ve yet to see a feminist actually join up the dots from ‘staring’ to rape in the way described above despite the two being treated as if they are linked that way. At best you get the blanket term ‘rape culture’ which most men on the receiving end see as a logical smoke-screen. If the man tries to logically reason with the feminist he finds himself accused of being a rapist (or chauvinist) on the basis that he is questioning an a hypothesis where the links are at best tenuous and the only reason he would question it is because, according to his accusers, because of his terrible character.

In other words the man cannot argue any minor points against a feminist because the feminist will often perform a kind of bait and switch; the man thinks they are simply arguing about ‘staring’ and when he looks down he finds the feminist has swapped the topic papers with a bomb emblazoned with the word ‘rape’ on it. Or at least that is what it feels like.

This kind of logical fallacy is one of the most overused and under-recognised around. So much so that I’m going to take the liberty of actually giving it name: The Greater Problem Attribution Fallacy. To understand why this kind of reasoning creates frustration take a look at the skit below:

A: God, I can’t believe people eat other people alive. Cannibalism is so wrong.

B: Uh-huh

A: I mean, think about it, those sick bastards eat people. God, just the idea of people eating meat grosses me out. You’d have to be sick to chew down on meat.

A: Whoa, I know you are a vegetarian and all but eating meat isn’t a sign that someone is messed up. That’s balls.

B: Well, you would say that, you’re fucking cannibal. I bet you eat babies alive you sick fuck!

A: Wha?

B: Down with cannibal culture. Down with meat eating!

A: Whoa, now hold on there put the torch down and maybe we can talk about this

B: No, maybe someone like ‘you’ wants to ‘talk’ about it. We all know this is just about you justifying your sick behaviour!

<END>

This is the way in which many of the comments sections in feminist articles reach a kind of deadlock where the meat-eater, frustrated and feeling unfairly judged of something only tangentially related to the particular thing he was talking about leaves feeling confused and angry.

But it isn’t just the unfair accusations and logical switcharoos that vilify otherwise neutral statements that are what frustrate men. It’s also the scrutiny under which feminism has placed (and judged) every single behaviour, interaction and word (and even non-behaviours, non-interactions and non-words) and the frequency with which in bombards men with the judgemental conclusions reached.

Why is this a problem you ask? Surely if the micro-behaviours of men reveal a problematic chauvinistic attitude then we should point it out?

Here is where things get messy. Feminism operates under the assumption that deterministic factors in human interactions do not exist…at least not ones that seemingly endanger the feminist message. That is to say, feminism rejects concepts like the domination-submission being a part of natural order (and even human nature) and finds any examples of domination (behaviours which men are naturally drawn to and so if you analyse them closely you will see them everywhere) as abhorrent when done by men….even though women also contribute to the same ‘bigger problem’ (but don’t receive the same scrutiny). This is a shame because these kinds of power dynamics are a natural part of human nature right down to the way it comes across in unconscious body language.

Now don’t get me wrong, are some extensions of this natural dominate-submissive part of human nature extremes that we should draw a line against (rape/power abuse in the corporate world etc)? Absolutely. The problem is that feminists attempt to justify where they draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable by framing the debate in terms of natural (acceptable) and socialised (potentially unacceptable). This would be fine if not for the fact that many of the things they put in the socialised category don’t belong there but are placed so that feminists can use the difference between nature/socialised as a way to give legitimacy to where they draw the line.

The real shame of it is that feminists don’t have to frame the debate in this way at all; it’s not a fight they have to fight (and not one they can win since it is against nature) in order to draw the lines they want to draw. We can accept that men striving for dominance and women striving for submissiveness is both natural (exceptions being precisely that; exceptions) and at the same time draw a line that stipulates what is and is not acceptable based on other criteria that are not only compelling, but grounded in fact. We do after all accept that it is okay for humans to be territorial (we wouldn’t villify people over wanting a home that separates them from others) even though we take issue with what can be seen as the natural consequence when that part of human nature overexerts itself (war). If we can do it there, why not here?

You might be wondering why I am even taking issue with this. If I don’t mind having lines drawn why do I take issue with the way in which they are drawn up? Well, because the current way feminism draws those lines up actually vilifies the natural behaviours even in their benign forms.

Imagine if every move you made, every word you said and every look you looked…in addition to every move you have never made, words you haven’t said and looks you haven’t looked…imagine that all of that was under close scrutiny. Now imagine someone combing over it pouring over it and looking for minute traces of anything that could conceivably be construed as ‘submissive’. Yes, everything. Now imagine that not only are you under close scrutiny, but that every time someone perceives a ‘submissive’ behaviour that you are judged for being part of a wider problem. The fact that you might be doing it unconsciously is irrelevant; you are evil for simply being part of the machine. Now imagine that articles judging you in this way were everywhere on all the websites you visited and all over your FB feed. You try an explain that you walk on the inside of the pavement sometimes (something men originally made women do as an act of chivalry should someone drop waste from the houses above) for reasons x,y and z. In fact you don’t even know why you have to explain this at all nor why you have to explain why you look down when a guy you like catches you looking. You are doing all of this in a benign way, often for no particularly conscious reason at all…heck you might just be shy. So, you try your best to explain this all the while angry that you would not only have to ‘explain’ it but justify it (answer to the angry mob); the people commenting in the articles aren’t having any of it; you walk on that side of the pavement to keep women down, you avert your gaze because you want to not only be raped but see rape proliferate….at least, so say the other commenters. Pretty soon you are in tears and wondering how so many people can be so cruel and so willing to take every minor thing you do and twist it so that you are not only part of a problem, but apparently, the source of the problem.

This frustration of having everything they do looked at looked at under a microscope is what men deal with and quite frankly it doesn’t matter quite how they respond because simply by nature of being human they are in the dominate-submissive power structure and so naturally it shows up to varying degrees in what they do. They can reduce it to its most benign levels (which is the sensible thing to do) but ultimately it will never disappear. That doesn’t mean they are an accessory to rape, it doesn’t mean they are bad people, it doesn’t really mean any of the accusations they have levelled against them; it just means they are a human caught up in…well, being human.

Now I do emphasise again that I feel looking at the power relationships in behaviour to pointing out where it is not benign is a worthwhile exercise. But taking everything that feeds into such a power relationship as equally malignant simply doesn’t make sense. And going one step further and vilifying men for all forms of domination no matter how benign also doesn’t make sense.

This article is a rare piece I was compelled to write because I realised I was unceremoniously gate-crashing feminist posts where feminists just wanted to created solidarity over an issue. Men do this because for men starting the conversation is difficult (we don’t want to do it). Start it rarely gets you much more than deafening silence; men don’t want to debate these issues when they aren’t presented in terms of a conflict as it feels too touchy-feely rather than productive or combative. I also wrote it for my piece of mind so I could get these ideas out of my head.

Having read so many feminist articles at this point I think I am pretty familiar with the issues women face, but how many women are familiar with that exposure to the judgements in feminist articles has on men? I hope this article enlightens people a bit on why ordinary men mind feminism so maddening at times.

#1 Edited by Nengo_Flow (9186 posts) -

Aint nobody gonna read that shit.

#2 Edited by JML897 (33101 posts) -

That post is 3,200 words.

#3 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

If you believe women deserve the same rights, status, pay and privileges that men have always received, you're a feminist.

If you don't, you're a time-traveler from the 1910s.

#4 Posted by thegerg (14152 posts) -

@Makhaidos: I believe that people deserve the pay that they earn, regardless of their sex.

#5 Posted by Articuno76 (18630 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow: I have never posted a blog on a forum before so I honestly would not be surprised it if were too much for most people to read (for what it is worth, I did paragraph it correctly :P).

But thanks for at clinking on the link and showing some interest all the same. It means a lot in and of itself.

#6 Posted by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

@thegerg: but do you think that people, regardless of sex, get the pay they should deserve?

#7 Posted by dominer (3311 posts) -

Read a quarter... But I bet the rest is a decent read.

#8 Posted by thegerg (14152 posts) -
#9 Posted by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

This was the first OP I read fully in a long while

#10 Posted by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

leering is a no go for me. A person should have enough control to not feel the need to "complete 3d scans" of women

#11 Posted by GazaAli (22384 posts) -

But thanks for at clinking on the link and showing some interest all the same. It means a lot in and of itself.

Too much Kant I see.

#12 Edited by SirSlimyScott (266 posts) -

@Articuno76: Maybe it's because the real problems that women face are not in the west, but in the east where women are subjected to bullshit,and what do many feminists do? Focus their efforts in the west, and not the east where the real problems. Instead of bitching about there not being many great female characters within Video Games when some of the most beloved characters are female, and focus on the fact that women can't leave their home without a man by their side.

#13 Posted by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

Regarding the article

also as part of the natural order for men and women, at what point does an act of dominance become too much?

#14 Posted by LexLas (4149 posts) -

Aint nobody gonna read that shit.

LMAO ! I scrolled down too. But i'll probably read it when its not close to punch out time from work. I'm Audi 5 G's, lol ..

#15 Edited by thegerg (14152 posts) -

This was the first OP I read fully in a long while

Really? Why skip over the shorter ones?

#16 Edited by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

@thegerg: I feel that I can get at the heart of the matter without reading things. But I don't ever try to address an OP without reading it first

#17 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13678 posts) -

If it's about equal rights, why call it feminism? Why not Equalitism?

#18 Posted by -Rhett81- (3552 posts) -

Where's the TL;DR version?

#19 Edited by Nengo_Flow (9186 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

If it's about equal rights, why call it feminism? Why not Equalitism?

cuz then you would have to acknowledge that men arent treated equally either. Feminist dont want equallity, they just want a secure advantage in everything or simply knock men down if woman cant do it either (like that time feminist wanted to remove piss stalls in men's bathrooms cuz men standing to piss means they have power over women, and since women cant piss standing up, neither should men.) (or that time when they wanted to stop moms from breast feeding boy babies cuz some shit about growing strong and woman arent able to be as naturally strong as boys when growing up.

#20 Edited by Barbariser (6693 posts) -

TLDR and fucking lol at SSS's argument that only filthy brown people and chinamen are truly sexist. Women still get the shitty end of the stick in most countries, Western or otherwise, and the main reason why they're generally better off in Western countries is because of their Feminist movements.

If it's about equal rights, why call it feminism? Why not Equalitism?

Man, this is just incredibly silly even for a semantics based attack. It's like claiming that the LGBT movement isn't truly about sexual equality because it doesn't rename itself LGBTS.

Gender equalityWikipedia: Gender equality, also known as sex equality, sexual equality or equality of the genders, implies that men and women should receive equal treatment, unless there is a sound biological reason for different treatment. TWikipedia: T (named tee) is the 20th letter in the ISO basic Latin alphabet.

#21 Edited by Sword-Demon (6836 posts) -

#22 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149315 posts) -

This was the first OP I read fully in a long while

I did not....

#23 Edited by thegerg (14152 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

If it's about equal rights, why call it feminism? Why not Equalitism?

Man, this is just incredibly silly even for a semantics based attack. It's like claiming that the LGBT movement isn't truly about sexual equality because it doesn't rename itself LGBTS.

Gender equalityWikipedia: Gender equality, also known as

Focusing on one segment of the population while claiming that you're advocating for the rights of all is kind of silly.

#24 Edited by supa_badman (16617 posts) -

i finished school two weeks ago, i ain't doing no extra readings

#25 Posted by hippiesanta (9710 posts) -

support these Ladies

#26 Posted by jcknapier711 (379 posts) -

Feminism is nothing but the political manifestation of penis envy.

If you believe women deserve the same rights, status, pay and privileges that men have always received, you're a feminist.

If you don't, you're a time-traveler from the 1910s.

I believe that women have different rights, status, pay, etc because they have different biology. Saying they deserve the same is akin to saying that a grass seedling deserves to grow up into a tree. It has nothing to do with trying to keep the 'sisterhood' down or whatever.

#27 Edited by -ParaNormaN- (643 posts) -

Was about 3 paragraphs in, scrolled down to see around 10 more paragraphs, shat my shorts, and decided to post about that instead.

#28 Edited by Barbariser (6693 posts) -
@thegerg said:

@Barbariser said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

If it's about equal rights, why call it feminism? Why not Equalitism?

Man, this is just incredibly silly even for a semantics based attack. It's like claiming that the LGBT movement isn't truly about sexual equality because it doesn't rename itself LGBTS.

Gender equalityWikipedia: Gender equality, also known as

Focusing on one segment of the population while claiming that you're advocating for the rights of all is kind of silly.

That's fantastic but irrelevant because feminism is not about "the rights of all" but gender equality. Therefore, focusing on the gender that is systemically disadvantaged in almost everything is perfectly reasonable.

@jcknapier711 said:

Feminism is nothing but the political manifestation of penis envy.

@Makhaidos said:

If you believe women deserve the same rights, status, pay and privileges that men have always received, you're a feminist.

If you don't, you're a time-traveler from the 1910s.

I believe that women have different rights, status, pay, etc because they have different biology. Saying they deserve the same is akin to saying that a grass seedling deserves to grow up into a tree. It has nothing to do with trying to keep the 'sisterhood' down or whatever.

You heard it here folks, women shouldn't have similar economic opportunities and political representation because vaginas. It has nothing to do with >10, 000 years of men generally preventing women from working a variety of important/high-status jobs, attaining positions of political leadership (or, in most cases, voting) or owning property.

#29 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1244 posts) -

Feminism is nothing but the political manifestation of penis envy.

@Makhaidos said:

If you believe women deserve the same rights, status, pay and privileges that men have always received, you're a feminist.

If you don't, you're a time-traveler from the 1910s.

I believe that women have different rights, status, pay, etc because they have different biology. Saying they deserve the same is akin to saying that a grass seedling deserves to grow up into a tree. It has nothing to do with trying to keep the 'sisterhood' down or whatever.

Didn't know we had many old-school psychoanalysts here in OT

#30 Edited by thegerg (14152 posts) -

@Barbariser: Genders are not equal. That is a fact. They are different. No one gender is better than another, but they are not equal things. Plain and simple. People of all genders deserve the same rights and protections as people, but to say that all genders are equal is simply incorrect.

#31 Posted by jcknapier711 (379 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Barbariser: Genders are not equal. That is a fact. They are different. No one gender is better than another, but they are not equal things. Plain and simple.

Exactly. Women get paid less because they are not as aggressive as men and therefor not as likely to demand a higher salary. It has nothing to do with us preventing the "sisterhood" from making money.

The fact is that women have risen to the highest status' of society even during the days when feminists claim we kept them down. Even people who failed high school history know who Cleopatra and Queen Victoria are.

#32 Edited by Shottayouth13- (6683 posts) -

I'm not in the mood to read a thesis.

#33 Edited by kille142 (59 posts) -

I've been stalking for years and I never had to read something that big...

#34 Posted by Barbariser (6693 posts) -
@thegerg said:

@Barbariser: Genders are not equal. That is a fact. They are different. No one gender is better than another, but they are not equal things. Plain and simple. People of all genders deserve the same rights and protections as people, but to say that all genders are equal is simply incorrect.

So what are you babbling about if you basically agree with feminists like myself? The aspect of gender inequality that feminism aims to solve is the fact that women are treated worse and have less privileges and rights than us men in almost everything. It's not like we're trying to stick tits on men and penises on women.

@thegerg said:

@Barbariser: Genders are not equal. That is a fact. They are different. No one gender is better than another, but they are not equal things. Plain and simple.

Exactly. Women get paid less because they are not as aggressive as men and therefor not as likely to demand a higher salary. It has nothing to do with us preventing the "sisterhood" from making money.

The fact is that women have risen to the highest status' of society even during the days when feminists claim we kept them down. Even people who failed high school history know who Cleopatra and Queen Victoria are.

Cleopatra, who had to share rule with two brothers and eventually beat them in a war to win sole rulership? Queen Victoria, who took the throne only because her brothers died, had very little actual power and who ruled over the 19th century U.K., which didn't give women the right to vote? Even if these examples were not utterly terrible, they don't change the fact that aristocratic systems in the past have preferred men over women sometimes to the extent of denying women the right to take the throne.

It's utterly bizarre that you would use them to argue against the fact that women have spent 99% of human history being politically repressed. I mean, 19th Century China also had an empress who actually wielded more power and influence than Queen Victoria, but nobody's going to argue that 19th century China wasn't pretty fucking sexist. The existence of powerful women doesn't prove that women haven't had it rough, it simply proves that despite severe discrimination, a few women were lucky/skilled enough to rise to the top tier of human society.

By your own logic, women aren't actually less aggressive that men. After all, we have so many examples of assertive and demanding women like Hilary Clinton, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Joan of Arc and the entire feminist movement which this thread is about. But that explanation for lower pay doesn't fly because if women actually were less demanding workers, employers would be flocking to hire women for reduced labour costs. They don't do this.

#35 Posted by BranKetra (47321 posts) -

@Articuno76: You made an interesting post. I anticipate the overall understanding of psychology by humanity will be greater than today in the future. Eventually, the furthering education about in favor of what you are saying is natural may be a catalyst for more balanced feminists. There will likely continue to be those who consider every act of courtesy by men for women to be male chauvinism and every attracted male to be a lecher, but I have hope that in time people will learn the truth. Carnal desire is a part of the human condition which I believe is best resisted and not considered apathetically or as a means to self-actualization. That said, I also believe in the potential good of the continuation of the human race. Lecherous behavior should be unacceptable and natural attraction should be acceptable. When people become passionate about sexual equality, scenarios like what you expounded upon can occur because a loss of self-control. Do you agree or disagree?

#36 Edited by Master_Live (13473 posts) -

Would be a start of a good essay. You should expand on the subject of dominate-submissive power structure so the reader has a clear definition of that entails (they might get the wrong impression). As for the topic: I will do my "scan" and she will deal with it and/or she can approach and we can discuss it. And that is that.

#37 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2747 posts) -

Not a single TLDR summary...?


Is such a long post really necessary to answer the thread title? I think it could be done with one sentence.

#38 Posted by Treflis (11345 posts) -

To me If Feminists are fighting to get Women equal rights, pay, benefits and chance to do the same thing as men, Then I'm all for it.

If Feminists either, Tries to dictate how women ought to behave and dress after feminists before them have fought to empower women in society so they can behave and dress however they want, Or they go out of their way to paint all men as horrible sex-starving potential rapists, wife beaters and murderer as so to try to stomp men to the ground, create a general mindset that we are all those things within the society and then stand ontop of them and claim superiority rather then working towards equality in life yet understanding and acceptance of the differences between Men and Women behaviour and nature, Then I have a issue with them.

#39 Posted by luke1889 (14617 posts) -

If you believe women deserve the same rights, status, pay and privileges that men have always received, you're a feminist.

If you don't, you're a time-traveler from the 1910s.

Or maybe some of us just think that because that's what's FAIR.

#40 Edited by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

@luke1889: isn't that the same reasoning of a feminist

#41 Edited by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

You may be a feminist and not even know it

#42 Edited by luke1889 (14617 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

@luke1889: isn't that the same reasoning of a feminist

Potentially. I don't like the word though because it doesn't resonate a sense of fairness and equality to me. Oh well, semantics, I guess. Also, you make it sound like wanting equality between the genders is a bad thing.

#43 Posted by themajormayor (25538 posts) -

I think most people doesn't have a problem with feminism itself but with (alot of) those people who happen to be seen as the representatives of feminism.

#44 Edited by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

Wanting equality is a good thing

#45 Edited by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@luke1889 said:

@Makhaidos said:

If you believe women deserve the same rights, status, pay and privileges that men have always received, you're a feminist.

If you don't, you're a time-traveler from the 1910s.

Or maybe some of us just think that because that's what's FAIR.

I don't see how that changes or contradicts what I said, but okay.

#46 Posted by Aljosa23 (24183 posts) -

Not reading that but to answer the topic title: don't know. Hilariously enough those that are "anti-feminist" are usually sad and pathetic virgins so it might have to do with their failures with women.

#47 Edited by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

I read the whole thing so more people should also do it

#48 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (683 posts) -

I read the whole thing so more people should also do it

that's a bandwagon I'll let pass.

I don't give a shit about feminism. If certain females are not happy with their status in my country (probably the most advanced in women's rights) then they are free to speak their voice, and i will politely ignore them.

#49 Posted by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

Equal rights are good is what I think people should take away from all this

#50 Posted by HuggyBear1020 (445 posts) -

@Articuno76: Damn, did you copy and paste a term paper for one of your classes?

Anyhow, I'm a big supporter of women's rights. However, I do get annoyed by hypocrites within the movement who support equal rights but do not support equal responsibility.