Why ordinary men find Feminism infuriating

I think most people aren't feminists because woman are in many western societies pretty equal legally, the only deal is that you have a lot of gender stereotypes persisting in both ways. Legally there are some issues but they are on both sides - child custody disputes almost automatically favor mothers, sexual assault on male's is still pretty ridiculed (had a few cases of teachers forcing her pupils to have sex with her), I have heard some oddball stories about women falsely accusing people of raping them and getting away with it etc.
Feminism has this misandristic image to it now-a-days.

The problem is that society is still objectifying woman a lot more than men, so it seems very sexist when you see all the billboards plastered with half-naked female models. But I think this is mostly down to current human psychology, most girls I talk to aren't bothered by the billboards and admit to actually finding these more attractive than half-naked male models for advertising purposes. Men obviously usually prefer half-naked woman over men. Basically apparently (but again, this is from personal experience) women find a fit. good looking female model more pleasing to look at than some fit, good looking male in most cases.

I'd consider myself a feminist. Its quite obvious that men hold an advantage in this country whether we're willing to admit it or not.

I do see that spousal abuse, rape shaming, and misogyny has already been covered in this thread. You stay classy OT.

OT (or GameSpot in general for that matter) talking about any issues related to women=disaster.

Fixed.

This thread made me go back and watch this clip again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dFPC5FKuE

I do sometimes find feminism infuriating I'm not going to deny that nor do I have to actually. Favoritism of any kind is injustice and I'm not fond of injustice. What the world should be working for is equality not discrimination in favor of some group at the expense of another. And before someone says to me feminism does not equal favoritism, it does a lot of the time. For example, I find the concept of gender quotas in jobs, scholarships or anything of competitive nature to be absurd beyond anything I can put into words. Who says there have to be this number of women in this or that competitive context? Merit should be the only thing to be taken into account, anything else amounts for injustice in my book. I once had a job in an American organization and they wanted two people for two positions of the same kind. So they hired a female and a male, me. That female was hilariously unqualified. I remember once she wrote a press release and wanted me to proof read it. I took a look at it and felt so disappointed that I told her it doesn't need anything and go ahead and email it. At some point in the contract we had to do some data analysis in excel. I discovered that I use excel 2010 while she still used excel 2003. On top of all of this, she was the one with "experience" and I was the fresh graduate. It was absolutely pathetic. What made it even worse is how people treated her as if she was something admirable or as if she was a skilled professional of some sort. It was absolutely mind numbing. I have a shit load of similar experiences where a female was favored over me just for being a female and despite the clear difference of skills and abilities that were on my side.

That's one of the many things that can happen under feminism and "empowering women". Another thing is how feminism, at least the hardcore variation, puts men and women in antithesis to each other, rendering any attempt to have a productive and fulfilling relationship with the opposite sex impossible. A man in a relationship must make compromises to make the relationship work. There's nothing wrong with that, I approve of it and fully believe in it. But when a woman is asked to do the same thing, feminists' cries reach the sky "Oh my God he's oppressing you get out of that relationship dump his sorry ass naw!".

I'll most likely be labeled as a misogynist which doesn't bother me all that much. The way I see it is that if you really want to emancipate someone, makes no excuses for him and grants him no privileges. Instead, you teach him that his worth equals what he himself is capable of. I would never have a problem with having a female boss for example, if she was skilled and experience enough to hold her own. And I wouldn't feel bad about a woman taking a scholarship I applied for, as long as she's merit-wise actually better than me. Feminism is nothing but apologism for many of underachieving and self-entitled females. If a woman is truly capable of great things, there's no stopping her from doing them. She may face obstacles and all but we all do so that's moot.

You have no idea what your talking about.. Refusing to have sex is now considered sexual abuse? This takes the case for the most dumbass thing I have read today.. Thank you.

You simply did not understand my conclusion. I never said it wasn't possible for women to meet the standard...clearly 45% of women did in fact meet it already. However, when you compare the fail rates (55% vs 1% in males) there's a clear difference. BTW, women are receiving the SAME training, the fact they would need additional training to meet the samerequirements simply reinforces the point...there is a clear physiological difference between men and women. So to my point, the fact women fail in greater proportion in this case isn't discrimination, rather it's illustrating some differences (physical) in men and women.

I'm not sure why you are even arguing this...the physiological differences between men and women (on a whole) is fairly well documented as we are a sexual dimorphic species. For instance, males have something in the order of 40%-50% higher upper body strength than women pound for pound. There's also differences in lung capacity on average. While less pronounced, these differences are also present in trained athletes.

So in this case we would either have to accept one of the following:

a) Women simply will fail at higher rates then their male counterparts to meet the same standards due to the differences in female/male biology. There will be a discrepancy in the success rates, however, it is not due to discrimination.

or

b) In order for women to match male success rates, either they will be allowed longer/extended training times (which on it's own is not equal), or lowering of expectations (ie less required pull-ups). Both of these IMO are simply lowering standards in order to force equalization of success rates.

To be clear, I have nothing against women in the military (served with many awesome women myself), and I think any woman who is capable should be allowed to serve in combat as well. With that said, I do believe given the same physical requirements women will simply be unable to meet the same success rate as males.

Yeah... but it's not. Stuff238's post was incredibly ignorant.

@GazaAli: I disagree about the quota's. I'm not sure about Gaza, but in any western country, if you have 2 or more people applying for something, and they have (roughly) the same qualifications, the straight white male will always be chosen first. This makes it hard for women/minorities to find jobs/scholarships, so the quota's are there so that they have a chance too. And yes, sometimes it can mean that a less qualified person will get hired, but in the big picture it helps women/minorities a lot.

No it doesn't IF anything it solidifies how much he is full of it.. Sexual abuse is unwarranted groping, RAPE, etc etc.. Refusing to have sex shouldn't even be considered in the same category as these things.. I never heard of any one getting convicted for refusing to have sex.. That sounds like a crime a woman would be charged with in Saudi Arabia.

You're a big dumb fvck

Why would that be reasonable?

I highly doubt that in western countries women would be discriminated against in such a manner. In any case, I can't see how choosing less qualified persons over more qualified persons would be of utility to the state as a whole. Its an utter waste of resources and talents. But most importantly, it will never give any real incentive for these conceivably marginalized groups to actually emancipate and liberate themselves. If their perception of the status quo tells them that they will have it easy by virtue of being perceived as marginalized and vulnerable, I highly doubt they're going to feel the need to better themselves and claim their worth in society. On the contrary, they will be more interested in reinforcing the stereotype so that they can continue to be the receiving end of resources and opportunities.

That last part actually agrees to a great extent with how I perceive the current state of the feminist movement. In many of today's societies, the public opinion and the law, side by side with the current state of a globalized and technologically advanced world, have developed enough not to stand in the way of a capable female in her attempt to realize her full potential and claim her absolute worth. Yet the cries of feminists continue to get louder and louder. They continue to expand in volume and sophistication it seems. It could be the case that those feminists are either misandrists in disguise of women rights' activists or they'd rather maintain the image of discrimination and injustice against women to preserve certain privileges like, guess what, gender quotas.

Between the identity that feminists give to their movement and what feminists advocate in the real world stands an incurable contradiction. Favoritism is necessarily detrimental to equality and justice is largely synonymous with equality. If governments, academic institutions and the private sector believe that women are marginalized and oppressed and they feel the need to help them, no problem. Just don't do it at the expense of the more deserving and more capable, making their lives harder and putting them through unnecessary pain and suffering, and through wasting resources; there are a gazillion of other ways to go about doing this other than favoritism and "positive discrimination". Positive discrimination would be justifiable only in cases where the target group has been so marginalized and persecuted and has been the subject of so vicious and brutal of discrimination that it has been rendered broken and damaged to the point where they will never succeed in picking themselves up on their own, something that can hardly be said about women's mode of existence in many parts of the world.

Please learn the definition of insult.

A man doesn't have the right to have sex with his wife. If she doesn't feel like it for whatever -no matter how ridiculous- reason that's NONE of his business. Plus your comment is incredibly degrading towards men, like they can't function without sex so that's why they give in. Nobody is misusing sexuality, they are both consenting adults. If she is able to control him with her sexuality, then he is a pathetic loser, it's his problem, not hers. It's not abuse.

Who is forcing the man? Nobody is. This is a non-existent issue. Next.

How is it abuse when both parties willingly participate?!

The fact that there is indeed no force should be clue enough.

That's not really a good analogy to this matter.

Again: Nobody is misusing sexuality, they are both consenting adults. If she is able to control him with her sexuality, then he is a pathetic loser, it's his problem, not hers. It's not abuse.

I def think withholding sex/intimacy/affection as a method of controlling your partner (male or female) is a form of abuse. Don't take my word for it though (under sexual abuse):

http://www.cdh.org/medical-services/services-A-Z/emergency/domestic-abuse/abusive-behavior-checklist.aspx

To be clear, a partner not wanting sex isn't abuse...what is abuse is withholding sex/affection in order to control the other person. It's manipulative, controlling, and causes emotional hurt to the other person. Men do this too, though I'd imagine it's more common for women.

What do you base this assumption on?

I find thegerg infuriating too rofl

But feminism still by far wins.

You haven't been able to show that you know the definition of an insult. Maybe you should hire an English tutor.

In addition you didn't answer my question. "What do you base this assumption on?"

I never said that it'll always mean that a less qualified person will get the job, it just said that it could occasionally happen. The quota isn't there so less qualified people get the jobs, it's there to make sure everyone can have a fair shot at getting hired. And I think that maybe you've idolized the west too much, there's still a lot of bigotry and hatred and men still have the advantage in western society. If they could choose between a male and a female who are both equally qualified, they'll most likely hire the male. Also, these quota's don't mean that if you're a women/minority you're guaranteed a job, it simply means that you'll now have a fair chance of being hired.

No, I will not do a grammar check on your essay.

Except that when you account for the demographic size of women and add to it minorities and LGBT community its bound to happen rather often. And even if it doesn't happen that often, it should never happen at all let alone allowing it to happen with a predetermined plan that makes no secret of its potential to make it happen like a gender quota. A gender quota originally exists because those who adopt it in a certain context know beforehand that the favored group under it will not succeed in securing a significant representation if things were left to merit alone.

I have more than my fair share of criticism of western civilization. While what you say may be true, the western world still favorably caters to women, and the divorce laws of western countries speak of that. I'm in no way against empowering (God how much I come to hate this word) women or other marginalized groups, but this empowerment should not come at the expense of integrity, of justice and of undermining the concept of fair competitiveness. As I already mentioned, there are other ways that are far more effective and sustainable than affirmative action methods such as gender quotas or positive discrimination.

Did not read that whole essay. But I'm not at all opposed to women having equality. I just don't like the ones that act like all men are chauvenistic pigs or whatever, that just by being a man, you're against them. I'm not going to go to women's rights rallies but I'm not going to say they don't deserve equal treatment either. to me, being a woman doesn't make someone inferior to me. It's common sense to everyone but assholes.

You made the claim that I insulted someone, so the burden of proof is on you.

"To call someone "a big dumb fvck" is an insult.

->

What do you base this assumption on?

->

On the fact that I know what the definition of an insult is."

Clearly this is an insufficient answer. It really doesn't say what you base your assumption on, especially as based on what is known you don't know the definition of what an insult is.

I know there's this big circle jerk lately around messing with thegerg...but this is f'ing dumb.

I'm not really sure why you try to excuse perverse behavior from men as natural. It doesn't really justify it...

Even if I believed your assertion, which I don't because I almost never see people applying the term to accused rapists' defence lawyers, that doesn't make it "the issue".

TL;DR: OP thinks he should be entitled to blatantly stare women up and down because it's "natural." He thinks his desire to check out a woman overrides her desire to not feel objectified and threatened. He does not understand that 1 in 6 women are victims of sexual assault and/or rape. He doesn't understand the connection between male sexual entitlement, objectification, and the commodification of women's bodies and rape. There are literally thousands of studies on this if you did even the most superficial Google search. Learn to research, bud.

P.S. You are obviously "downloading" the image of women you meet to jerk off to later because you know looking is the closest you'll ever get, loser. 100% of women think you are a creep. Learn to have a little respect for women and one might actually let you touch her one day. Keep treating women like objects or trophies and you'll die alone.

I don't find it infuriating, but it is sometimes quite pathetic, and in certain manifestations, flat out sad.

This, plus first post is hyper tl;dr.