Is feminism a dirty word?

S.L.F · 14-10-2014 09:26PM

I have to say thought feminists are beginning to realise they are under severe criticism overall and so they are gradually removing all traces of the really awful feminists from people's sight.

It is very well known that Andrea Dworkin has some really awful thought processes going through her mind about women and men.

Her writings showed a side of hatred the Nazis would be proud of.

Just put 'Jew' where she had 'man' and you'll see what I mean.

I give you exhibit A in their efforts to clean up their act....nothing found.

Then I give you exhibit B since 2005 when she passed away until last October they were honouring her.

S.L.F · 14-10-2014 09:33PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The very terms "MRA" and "Feminist" imply a specific focus on only one gender, which is why neither is a movement I support. However, the MRM started as a counter to feminism when feminism began going too far, therefore in my view it's feminists who need to extend an olive branch and not the other way around.

Hmmm no....feminism has nothing to do with gender equality, it is a Marxist based ideology

In the MHRM we acknowledge that women suffer domestic violence at similar rates to men.

We acknowledge that women suffer the worse domestic physical violence because men are generally bigger and stronger than women are.

However women are also 70% of instigators of IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) and also around 50-60% of all IPV is mutual.

They will never at any time accept those facts other than men are bigger and stronger than women are.

All abuse is wrong.

P. Breathnach · 14-10-2014 09:50PM

S.L.F wrote: »

Hmmm no....feminism has nothing to do with gender equality, it is a Marxist based ideology

...

Jaysus, man, make up your mind: is it a Nazi ideology, or is it Communistic?

Up to now, I have seen myself as opposed to Nazism and to Communism. But, as I see myself as a feminist, it seems that I must be at least one of them.

S.L.F · 14-10-2014 10:08PM

More of Dworkins quotes.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, I know, in this room, some of you are the women I have been talking about. I know that. People around you may not. I am going to ask you to use every single thing you can remember about what was done to you - how it was done, where, by whom, when, and, if you know - why - to begin to tear male dominance to pieces, to pull it apart, to vandalize it, to destabilize it, to mess it up, to get in its way, to **** it up. I have to ask you to resist, not to comply, to destroy the power men have over women, to refuse to accept it, to abhor it and to do whatever is necessary despite its cost to you to change it.[/FONT]

S.L.F · 14-10-2014 10:09PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Jaysus, man, make up your mind: is it a Nazi ideology, or is it Communistic?

Up to now, I have seen myself as opposed to Nazism and to Communism. But, as I see myself as a feminist, it seems that I must be at least one of them.

You can also add Maoism in there as well.

Marxism is the problem

KomradeBishop · 14-10-2014 10:14PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

in my experience, and I appreciate this may just be assholes hijacking the word for their own nefarious purposes, feminists and more specifically SJWs tend to use the word "intersectionality" to justify focusing only on women when referring to a problem which is common to both genders, IE discrimination.

I would say that would definitely count as hijacking the word - the ways it gets misused/hijacked, doesn't invalidate the concept itself - it's effectively just a tool/way-of-analyzing things, which isn't focused on any one social group.

woodoo · 14-10-2014 10:16PM

The west is the test case for feminism, will they just seek equality or will they seek to dominate. If its the latter the west will die. The cultures of Africa, China, Middle East, Russia etc will look at the west with disdain and scorn. They won't repeat what we have done. A lot of those places already hate what we have become. I think feminists need to be careful what they wish for. True equality fine, but privileged and domination will backfire.

SeanW · 14-10-2014 10:28PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Jaysus, man, make up your mind: is it a Nazi ideology, or is it Communistic?

Up to now, I have seen myself as opposed to Nazism and to Communism. But, as I see myself as a feminist, it seems that I must be at least one of them.

If SLF is confused about Naziism and Communism he is well justified in being so. Yes, they are markedly dissimilar in that one is left wing and one is right wing, but identical in as much as they were both evil, totalitarian ideologies bent on murder, destruction and ultimately genocide against entire peoples. Naziism and Communism were different mainly in their economic models and the finer points of their perspective world views. On the important things they were identical.

The more correct way to look at it is authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. An authoritarian supports large scale government, abuse of power, large scale interference in the lives of ordinary people. An authoritarian is more likely than anyone else to support repression, totalitarianism and injustice, either against everyone or against groups they choose to target. For the Communists, it was the "bougrouis" and ended up becoming a campaign of genocide against the people of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Tibet etc. The Nazis were the same, only they hated "untermenschen" mainly with Jews.

A libertarian does not agree with a leviathan state, does not favour any kind of discrimination, and actively seeks to protect all people against injustice.

Feminism is not as evil as either of the above totalitarian ideologies, but it's on the same spectrum - a somewhat evil, deeply authoritarian movement. It's based on hatred and a desire to promote and prepetuate injustice and to interfere in peoples live on a massive scale to achieve a deranged goal. In that sense, it can be compared perhaps to a non-violent form of fundamentalist Islam or the Catholic Church - indeed I've observed significant overlap between the views of feminists and religious fruitcakes. Ruhama is a case in point.

P. Breathnach · 14-10-2014 10:38PM

SeanW wrote: »

If SLF is confused about Naziism and Communism he is well justified in being so. Yes, they are markedly dissimilar in that one is left wing and one is right wing, but identical in as much as they were both evil, totalitarian ideologies bent on murder, destruction and ultimately genocide against entire peoples. Naziism and Communism were different mainly in their economic models and the finer points of their perspective world views. On the important things they were identical.

The more correct way to look at it is authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. An authoritarian supports large scale government, abuse of power, large scale interference in the lives of ordinary people. An authoritarian is more likely than anyone else to support repression, totalitarianism and injustice, either against everyone or against groups they choose to target. For the Communists, it was the "bougrouis" and ended up becoming a campaign of genocide against the people of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Tibet etc. The Nazis were the same, only they hated "untermenschen" mainly with Jews.

A libertarian does not agree with a leviathan state, does not favour any kind of discrimination, and actively seeks to protect all people against injustice.

Feminism is not as evil as either of the above totalitarian ideologies, but it's on the same spectrum - a somewhat evil, deeply authoritarian movement. It's based on hatred and a desire to promote and prepetuate injustice and to interfere in peoples live on a massive scale to achieve a deranged goal. In that sense, it can be compared perhaps to a non-violent form of fundamentalist Islam or the Catholic Church - indeed I've observed significant overlap between the views of feminists and religious fruitcakes. Ruhama is a case in point.

So I'm just an authoritarian fruitcake, then, and not a Marxist or a Nazi?

That's all right, then.

Potatoeman · 15-10-2014 07:25AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

in my experience, and I appreciate this may just be assholes hijacking the word for their own nefarious purposes, feminists and more specifically SJWs tend to use the word "intersectionality" to justify focusing only on women when referring to a problem which is common to both genders, IE discrimination.

Always be suspicious of people that create new words to explain something as its usually not worth explaining.

Potatoeman · 15-10-2014 07:30AM

S.L.F wrote: »

We in the Irish Men's Human Rights movement are 100% behind reproductive rights for women.

If women want to take birth control they have the right to.

If they wish to take the after morning pill they have the right to.

If they choose to have the child they have the right to.

If they choose to adopt the child out they have the right to.

None of these things can be stopped by the father of the child even if he does not choose that course of action.

If a man choose not to be a father and not want anything to do with a child what are his choices.

He can be forced to pay child support if he makes enough.

Why can't the father of a child be allowed to make the choice of not being a father and have no legal, financial or moral obligations just like a mother can choose it if it is what she wishes.

Women have the right to decide whether they wish to be mothers or not.

When will feminists choose to fight for the right for men to decide whether they wish to be fathers or not.

I do find it odd that prochoice people use prolife arguements when it comes to men. It usually comes down to 'he had his chance' or 'he should have thought about the consequences. It a blatant double standard.

SeanW · 15-10-2014 08:54AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So I'm just an authoritarian fruitcake, then, and not a Marxist or a Nazi?

That's all right, then.

If your idea of feminism is like this below, then no, you're neither. If on the other hand, you have feminist leanings in any other areas, (feminist views on sexuality, advocacy of "positive" discrimination in any area of life, as just a couple of examples of this vile ideology) then yes, you are on the authoritarian spectrum, and like most other authoritarians, most likely for dubious reasons.

FactCheck wrote: »

Surely an Ireland that contains Miss Y, Miss C, the TFMR campaign, Savita Halappanavar, no compensation for the victims of symphysiotomy or the Magdalen Laundries, State cover-ups of our maternal death record, inadequate medical care including feotal abnormality scans for pregnant women, and Constitutional clauses that deny women the right to protect their health in pregnancy and state that married women's place is in the home, still has room for old-style 1970s second wave feminist improvement?

You are using "Western countries" as though they are all the same, but in regards to women's medical choices the Irish State still places massive restrictions on women's freedom. We are entirely out of step with the rest of the West. Indeed, Saudi Arabia, India, and Pakistan actually offer women MORE liberty than Ireland in several of the above respects.

...

The most popular feminist movement in Ireland concerns reproductive rights and it's hard to argue with it that Ireland is in desperate need of a more liberal regime.

If this is all feminism was about, I'd be all for it. But this is simply not the case.

hatrickpatrick · 15-10-2014 10:56PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So I'm just an authoritarian fruitcake, then, and not a Marxist or a Nazi?

That's all right, then.

Given how many feminists want to ban things that hurt their feelings, from magazines to songs, do you not find it reasonable to accuse many of them of being ideologically authoritarian?

A most basic defintiion of authoritarianism is the belief that one has the right to impose one's own rules on others. A lot of feminist campaigns would definitely fall under this category. To put it another way, if I as a Catholic tried to get Life of Brian taken off the air because I found it offensive, I'd be rightly labels an authoritarian gobsh!te. Why should feminists who try to get Blurred Lines taken off the air be labelled any differently?

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2014 12:16AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Given how many feminists want to ban things...

You lost me there.

nokia69 · 16-10-2014 12:31AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You lost me there.

then you need to wake up and open your eyes

hatrickpatrick · 16-10-2014 01:45AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You lost me there.

On Lads' Mags:

http://womensenews.org/story/media-stories/130913/uk-feminists-tell-stores-lose-the-lads-mags
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jun/23/uk-feminista-kat-banyard-lads-mags
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/24/lads-mags-tesco_n_3809009.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-demise-of-lads-mags-and-the-rise-of-feminism-9584882.html

On Page 3:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100203047/iceland-banning-porn-page-3-on-the-way-out-the-feminists-are-winning-thankfully/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/14/sun-page-3-visible-tip-misogynys-iceberg
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022500175_tabloidcoverupxml.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/page-3-caught-up-in-a-feminist-boobytrap-readers-of-the-sun-are-in-for-an-eyeful-8772716.html

On Blurred Lines:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-banned-another-university
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/10427870/More-universities-ban-Blurred-Lines-over-fears-it-promotes-rape.html
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/09/17/blurred-lines-banned-at-university-of-edinburgh/
http://www.gigwise.com/news/84376/5-universities-ban-robin-thickes-blurred-lines
http://www.thegloss.com/2014/04/11/culture/north-carolina-dj-firing-blurred-lines/

To name just three.

And these campaigns are making waves and achieving things. I have seen very, very few self styled feminists actively denouncing such campaigns.

Still want to claim that feminists aren't trying to ban things they don't approve of?

Duggy747 · 16-10-2014 02:05AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jun/23/uk-feminista-kat-banyard-lads-mags

A quote from that link:

Banyard says she wouldn't lose sleep if the magazines did close. "I think for too long we've failed to worry about the women and girls who are bearing the brunt of the consequences of how these magazines portray women. What about their rights to be safe, and to participate as equals in society? That's what the board of Tesco should be worrying about. It's high time we started prioritising the safety of women and girls over profit."

Always bugs me when I hear the woes of what mens magazines supposedly do to women yet hear next to nothing about the sheer toxic output from womens magazines that paint them as braindead, diet-obsessed, relationship suffering, child-bearing vessels whose only aim in life is finding Mr. Right and popping out more children.

Bonus points for a man-hating "love rat" section and the odd story about a woman in Yorkshire who shagged an angel or saw her dog's ghost eating her cat.

I do think magazines like Nuts, Zoo, etc, are trashy muck but in any shop or supermarket, stand at a magazine section and just look at the overwhelming women magazines and the headlines they have while repeating to yourself that those mens magazines are the real problem that some feminists claim them to be.

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2014 08:20AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
Still want to claim that feminists aren't trying to ban things they don't approve of?

I never made such a claim. Earlier in the thread I suggested that there are extremists and nutters in the feminist movement, and that they are not representative of the mass of feminists.

So when you found an argument on "how many feminists want to ban things" as a given, my first reaction is to ask questions like "how many?" and "how representative are they?". And then there is the more fundamental question: "have they got a point worth considering?"

But if you are disposed to dislike feminism, you probably don't consider questions like that.

Frank Lee Midere · 16-10-2014 08:37AM

If American feminists really believed in intersectionality and how privilege relates to class, ethnicity and nationality as well as gender then maybe everybody outside America should invite them to quit their Yanksplaining.

SeanW · 16-10-2014 09:08AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I never made such a claim. Earlier in the thread I suggested that there are extremists and nutters in the feminist movement, and that they are not representative of the mass of feminists.

In feminism's case, I would say it's a case of the lunatics running the asylum.

So when you found an argument on "how many feminists want to ban things" as a given, my first reaction is to ask questions like "how many?" and "how representative are they?". And then there is the more fundamental question: "have they got a point worth considering?"

Speaking only for myself, the answers as I understand them would be:
1) "How many?" and "How representative are they?" The answer to both is the same - they appear to be the driving force.
2) "Have they got a point worth considering?" They are vile ultra-authoritarians who want to control people and ban stuff they don't like, just because they want to control people and there are things they don't like. History is full of this kind of scum, so ... worth considering? Not so much.

But if you are disposed to dislike feminism, you probably don't consider questions like that.

I dislike all unjust authoritarian ideologies. Feminism is just one of many.

hatrickpatrick · 16-10-2014 10:19AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I never made such a claim. Earlier in the thread I suggested that there are extremists and nutters in the feminist movement, and that they are not representative of the mass of feminists.

So when you found an argument on "how many feminists want to ban things" as a given, my first reaction is to ask questions like "how many?" and "how representative are they?". And then there is the more fundamental question: "have they got a point worth considering?"

But if you are disposed to dislike feminism, you probably don't consider questions like that.

Does it matter how many or how representative they are when they are achieving their goals, claiming them in the name of feminism, and there is virtual silence from other feminists in terms of opposing them? Again, if it isn't tacit support, it's apathy at most towards free speech, which unfortunately still makes feminism a movement I can never get behind.

As for whether they have a point, as far as I'm concerned they're (a) hypocritical (all of the things they want banned are practised by women towards men as well and they never say anything about that) and more importantly, as far as my own political ideology is concerned, anyone who wants to have things banned or censored is automatically anti-freedom.

You said "you lost me there" when I stated that many feminists want to ban things, which implied you didn't agree. I have just provided sources to back up my claim - if I misinterpreted your post, then please clarify what you did in fact mean?

Furthermore, your original post which started this side debate referred to accusations that feminism is authoritarian. Whether you agree with it or not, censorship is an authoritarian ideology. It's stating that these feminists have the right to not only not consume media they find offensive (which they do), but tell other, non-feminists what media to consume or not to consume (which they don't).

Once again, how is this any better than religious people who want blasphemy outlawed? There aren't many people here who will argue that they are not authoritarian fruitcakes, but - and this is the crucial point - there has been loud, persistent opposition to such laws by other religious people, and certainly in Ireland the number of Catholics who want the blasphemy law struck down seems to outweigh the number who want it kept.

Feminists, on the other hand, almost never seem to stand up and say "hang on, we can't go around banning things just because we find them distasteful, that's not compatible with a free society" - so it must be assumed that most either agree with censorship, or just don't care about it.

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2014 10:59AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does it matter how many or how representative they are when they are achieving their goals, claiming them in the name of feminism, and there is virtual silence from other feminists in terms of opposing them? Again, if it isn't tacit support, it's apathy at most towards free speech, which unfortunately still makes feminism a movement I can never get behind.

So it doesn't matter if it is only a small minority who act in ways that you disagree with? You think every feminist should be held responsible. And you seem to regard it as incumbent on moderate feminists to get into dispute with extremists. I imagine they regard it as more useful to continue advocating feminist concerns in a temperate way than to engage in internecine strife. They probably think that they have better things to do than get into rows with extremists.

...
You said "you lost me there" when I stated that many feminists want to ban things, which implied you didn't agree. I have just provided sources to back up my claim - if I misinterpreted your post, then please clarify what you did in fact mean?

I thought I had clarified: you lost me on the matter of how many, and the related issue of how representative they are.

Furthermore, your original post which started this side debate referred to accusations that feminism is authoritarian. Whether you agree with it or not, censorship is an authoritarian ideology. It's stating that these feminists have the right to not only not consume media they find offensive (which they do), but tell other, non-feminists what media to consume or not to consume (which they don't)....

I don't much like the idea of censorship, although I believe there are areas in which it can be justified - but generally those areas are outside the feminism debate, so let's leave that to one side.

But I think feminists have a right to advocate a point of view, and if that point of view is that "Lads' Mags" promote values that causes them concern, they have the right to say so, and say so loudly if they wish. To deny them such a right would be censorship.

grundie · 16-10-2014 10:59AM

Both sexes are discriminated against in different, but equally serious, ways.

E.G.
Female discrimination...
No total control of their bodies (i.e. abortion) in Ireland.
Workplace discrimination.

Male discrimination...
Difficulty in getting equal access to their children after a divorce.
Being expected to be 'tough' and able to deal with life's difficult problems - leading to high suicide rates.

Working to solve all inequality, regardless of gender, is the morally acceptable path. Working to solve only one sides problems is discriminatory and it is wrong.

We're all in this together and the sooner the "ists" learn this the better.

ancapailldorcha · 16-10-2014 11:25AM

grundie wrote: »

We're all in this together and the sooner the "ists" learn this the better.

+1.

Call me naive but I truly believe that the only way forward is for everyone to focus on everyone's rights. Focusing on one demographic creates the illusion that the "other half" have it rosy. Movements like feminism were needed in the past but now, while I wouldn't say women and men are equal, I would only feel comfortable supporting a movement campaigning for gender equality for both.

RWCNT · 16-10-2014 11:28AM

COYVB wrote: »

Easy: A society where gender, race, creed, sexuality or any such irrelevant information about a person has no bearing on how they are perceived within society. The best person for the job should always be hired, man or woman, black or white, muslim or christian.

In a truly equal world, there could be 100 job openings, which are filled by 100 women, because the 100 women were the 100 best people for the job.

In a world where quotas force you to have 50 males and 50 females taking up those 100 jobs, equality is not in play

That sounds amazing but is impossible at the moment due to the effects still felt from years upon years of injustice. We don't have a magic wand to whitewash away all of that, to follow your idea is to act as though we do.

Flasche · 16-10-2014 12:02PM

grundie wrote: »

Both sexes are discriminated against in different, but equally serious, ways.

E.G.
Female discrimination...
No total control of their bodies (i.e. abortion) in Ireland.
Workplace discrimination.

Male discrimination...
Difficulty in getting equal access to their children after a divorce.
Being expected to be 'tough' and able to deal with life's difficult problems - leading to high suicide rates.

Working to solve all inequality, regardless of gender, is the morally acceptable path. Working to solve only one sides problems is discriminatory and it is wrong.

We're all in this together and the sooner the "ists" learn this the better.

Neither does anyone have "control over their bodies". Who will remove my liver for me if I want it removed?

Women do have control over their bodies, they just don't have control over medical practice carried out.

ALiasEX · 16-10-2014 12:17PM

Flasche wrote: »

Neither does anyone have "control over their bodies". Who will remove my liver for me if I want it removed?

Want your foreskin removed instead? No? Tough.

KomradeBishop · 16-10-2014 12:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does it matter how many or how representative they are when they are achieving their goals, claiming them in the name of feminism, and there is virtual silence from other feminists in terms of opposing them? Again, if it isn't tacit support, it's apathy at most towards free speech, which unfortunately still makes feminism a movement I can never get behind.

Are there examples of prominent mens rights groups, speaking out against the extremists in the mens rights movement? I've gone looking, and it's hard to find any examples, so just want to bat that down, as it seems like an unquestioned assumption.

I'm not sure that is a reasonable line of argument/narrative, for pouring doubt on feminism's credibility.

ancapailldorcha · 16-10-2014 12:24PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Are there examples of prominent mens rights groups, speaking out against the extremists in the mens rights movement? I've gone looking, and it's hard to find any examples, so just want to bat that down, as it seems like an unquestioned assumption.

I'm not sure that is a reasonable line of argument/narrative, for pouring doubt on feminism's credibility.

These MRA extremists tend to frequent specific forums and sites. Extremists on the other end of the spectrum are given voice by mainstream newspapers.

KomradeBishop · 16-10-2014 12:42PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

These MRA extremists tend to frequent specific forums and sites. Extremists on the other end of the spectrum are given voice by mainstream newspapers.

If that's the only difference, then it's not really a credible criticism of feminists - that's a problem with media balance, and the complaints should be directed at the newspapers/media-outlets, that select for controversy - they get to decide what is and isn't published.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments