Is feminism a dirty word?

Frito · 18-10-2014 09:48PM

paddy1990 wrote: »

Wow, those quotes by the Saudi women brought a tear to my eye.

Brought to my mind the prisoners in Plato's cave analogy.

S.L.F · 18-10-2014 10:19PM

paddy1990 wrote: »

Wow, those quotes by the Saudi women brought a tear to my eye.

Amazing women.

Women in Saudi according to Shari law have no responsibility, the question really is are they better off or not.

Feminists have been pushing for women to do more and to be more than they are.

So are women happier than they were say 40/50 years ago?

According to this link they are not happier.

So men are not happier (as evidenced by the suicide rate) and women are not happier either.

S.L.F · 18-10-2014 10:38PM

Minera wrote: »

youtube emma watson addresses u.n. its the most unbiased view ive seen yet!

Just to remind people.

Have a look at the heforshe campaign she supports.

You'll note that their action statement includes the phrase,

I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.

Those icky things who happen to be male can whistle as far as feminists (incl those who control the UN, WHO and EU are concerned).

S.L.F · 18-10-2014 11:01PM

Minera wrote: »

I put this in AH to garner different opinions from people if i had put it in e.g. The ladies lounge it may be somewhat biased.

What do you expect from feminists>

Minera wrote: »

I already knew why feminism had a bad name, but the way I see it extreme feminism (my view) is definitely anti men. I believe many women will not admit they believe in feminism as they are considered as being 'sexist'. I also believe that there will be a movement away from extreme feminism due to this which I think is the way forward for both sexes

The problem is that feminism is an anti-male movement and ultimately anti-female as well.

The serious problem is the inability of ordinary decent women to stand up to the horrible leadership of the feminist movement and to reclaim it as an equal rights movement.

Right now it is a movement concerned with privileges for women and for shaming males.

Minera wrote: »

I'm truly disheartened to find that a lot of opinions are against feminism, it done a lot for women and continues to do so maybe in the current climate a more pro equality approach is needed

Feminism has done nothing for women other than to make them more unhappy.

mrkiscool2 · 18-10-2014 11:04PM

Again, I have no problem with feminism as long as it stops claiming to be a movement for equality. I say the exact same thing about the MRM. Once you put a gender bias to something it cannot be for equality. Sure, it can claim it is but you can never get equality by focusing on one side first. You have to look at the overall picture and address inequality on both sides.

S.L.F · 18-10-2014 11:13PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Again, I have no problem with feminism as long as it stops claiming to be a movement for equality.

Does this apply to Nazism???

Maoism???

Communism???

I ask because they all claimed to be for making society 'better'.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I say the exact same thing about the MRM. Once you put a gender bias to something it cannot be for equality. Sure, it can claim it is but you can never get equality by focusing on one side first. You have to look at the overall picture and address inequality on both sides.

It is not as simple as that.

No one cares about men or their needs other than the MHRM.

Regarding 'sides'....there is only one side and that is the human race, now if we could get feminists to accept that both mothers and fathers are necessary to make a good future generation it'd help loads.

One eyed Jack · 18-10-2014 11:16PM

S.L.F wrote: »

Does this apply to Nazism???

Maoism???

Communism???

I ask because they all claimed to be for making society 'better'.

It is not as simple as that.

No one cares about men or their needs other than the MHRM.

Regarding 'sides'....there is only one side and that is the human race, now if we could get feminists to accept that both mothers and fathers are necessary to make a good future generation it'd help loads.

What would actually help loads more is if you would stop peddling your nonsense talk like the above.

mrkiscool2 · 18-10-2014 11:59PM

S.L.F wrote: »

Does this apply to Nazism???

Maoism???

Communism???

I ask because they all claimed to be for making society 'better'.

It is not as simple as that.

No one cares about men or their needs other than the MHRM.

Regarding 'sides'....there is only one side and that is the human race, now if we could get feminists to accept that both mothers and fathers are necessary to make a good future generation it'd help loads.

Please stop comparing feminism to Nazism. They are nothing alike and doing so actually makes Men's Rights Activists seem a. Petty and b. undermines their cause.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure most egalitarians (such as myself) are concerned with the needs of men and how they are discriminated against and perceived by Western Society. We also care but we care about solving both sides of the gender inequality spectrum. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for MHRM and feminism as long as it's
1. Not claiming to be for equality between genders. It's not, it wants to fix areas in which it's focus is unequal and forget about the rest.
2. Doesn't look to put the other gender down
3. Actually has solutions to problems rather than just blaming the other side for said problems.

SoupMonster · 19-10-2014 12:03AM

S.L.F wrote: »

Those women were not killed because they were studying engineering, they were killed under the pretext that they were feminists.

However the truth is they were not killed because they were feminists it would be fairer to say that a mentally ill man got access to a gun and killed them.

I am certain that a good look at his family history would reveal some stuff feminists would rather was kept quiet.

Did you know that the majority of mass murderers come from single mother households?

Wow. You are on a roll. Most mass murderers are male, yet you manage to blame their mothers.

His family history is right there on Wikipedia.
Marc Lépine was born Gamil Gharbi to a French-Canadian mother and an Algerian father. His father, a mutual funds salesman, was contemptuous of women, and was physically and verbally abusive to his wife and son, discouraging tenderness between mother and child. When Gamil was seven his parents separated; his father ceased contact with his children soon after. His mother returned to nursing to support the family, and due to her schedule the children lived with other families during the week. At 14, he changed his name to "Marc Lépine", citing his hatred of his father as the reason for taking his mother's surname.
What should feminists keep quiet about, his abusive father, his abandonment, his mother raising him?

"You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." He then opened fire on the students from left to right, killing six, and wounding three others...
So you don't think they were killed because they were studying engineering or because he believed they were feminists. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion about the huge feminist conspiracy ruining everything.

And some reading for you here and here , since you seem to know little about the sex industry, how trafficking works, or what happens to victims.

"No one can ever convince me that the johns, these filthy rapist scum—AND their handmaidens, their supporters, protectors and enablers—are not the biggest part, if not the entire cause, of the problem here. Because not a single pimp or human trafficker would be in business if not for privileged people’s dollars enriching them in the first place while the victims of this crime against humanity are stigmatized and repeatedly punished and ostracized, FOR LIFE." - Jacqueline Homan, orphaned, homeless, trafficked and pimped at age 13.

Should Jacqueline Homan class you as an enabler or should she put you into the filthy rapist scum category?

KomradeBishop · 19-10-2014 06:39AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What would actually help loads more is if you would stop peddling your nonsense talk like the above.

He's only here to soapbox at this stage - every single one of his posts contains a sweeping generalization about 'feminists', as if they are homogenous, so it's an utter waste of time trying to engage him in anything - just gives him a platform for more soapboxing.

19-10-2014 06:51AM

S.L.F wrote: »

Does this apply to Nazism???

Maoism???

Communism???

I ask because they all claimed to be for making society 'better'.

It is not as simple as that.

No one cares about men or their needs other than the MHRM.

Regarding 'sides'....there is only one side and that is the human race, now if we could get feminists to accept that both mothers and fathers are necessary to make a good future generation it'd help loads.

Mod

S.L.F you are of course entitled to your opinion which is why you have been allowed to continue to post despite the fact you are here for no other reason them to soapbox.

However, we won't tolerate your comparisons of feminism to naziism etc. it's inflammatory at very best.

You will not receive any further warnings. Any further inflammatory posts will see you banned.

S.L.F · 19-10-2014 12:28PM

SoupMonster wrote: »

Wow. You are on a roll. Most mass murderers are male, yet you manage to blame their mothers.

His family history is right there on Wikipedia.
Marc Lépine was born Gamil Gharbi to a French-Canadian mother and an Algerian father. His father, a mutual funds salesman, was contemptuous of women, and was physically and verbally abusive to his wife and son, discouraging tenderness between mother and child. When Gamil was seven his parents separated; his father ceased contact with his children soon after. His mother returned to nursing to support the family, and due to her schedule the children lived with other families during the week. At 14, he changed his name to "Marc Lépine", citing his hatred of his father as the reason for taking his mother's surname.
What should feminists keep quiet about, his abusive father, his abandonment, his mother raising him?

"You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." He then opened fire on the students from left to right, killing six, and wounding three others...
So you don't think they were killed because they were studying engineering or because he believed they were feminists. Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion about the huge feminist conspiracy ruining everything.

And some reading for you here and here , since you seem to know little about the sex industry, how trafficking works, or what happens to victims.

"No one can ever convince me that the johns, these filthy rapist scum—AND their handmaidens, their supporters, protectors and enablers—are not the biggest part, if not the entire cause, of the problem here. Because not a single pimp or human trafficker would be in business if not for privileged people’s dollars enriching them in the first place while the victims of this crime against humanity are stigmatized and repeatedly punished and ostracized, FOR LIFE." - Jacqueline Homan, orphaned, homeless, trafficked and pimped at age 13.

Should Jacqueline Homan class you as an enabler or should she put you into the filthy rapist scum category?

I would argue that children (both genders) need the influence of a father and a mother in order to have a healthy outlook in life.

I am not blaming mothers I am just saying boys in particular need a fathers influence.

Here's a link to do with a fatherless society

You are confusing sex work with sexual slavery.

There is a major difference between the two.

One is people being forced to have sex with individuals and the other people making free choices to engage in sexual activity for money.

Since you've brought child abuse into the discussion, here's a link for you to look at

Results Among 747 males the risk of being a perpetrator was positively correlated with reported sexual abuse victim experiences. The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators. Of the 96 females, 43% had been victims but only one was a perpetrator. A high percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female relative became perpetrators. Having been a victim was a strong predictor of becoming a perpetrator, as was an index of parental loss in childhood.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

He's only here to soapbox at this stage - every single one of his posts contains a sweeping generalization about 'feminists', as if they are homogenous, so it's an utter waste of time trying to engage him in anything - just gives him a platform for more soapboxing.

The problem here is you assume that by me attacking the ideology of feminism that I am also attacking feminists which is not true.

I have several feminists on my facebook friend list and they know my views on the feminist ideology.

I don't attack them personally and I have not attacked any feminists on here either.

I have attacked their belief structure using facts.

MOD SNIP: PM the mod if you are questioning moderation

Lyger · 19-10-2014 12:30PM

I suppose feminists haven't systematically slaughtered millions of people.

paddy1990 wrote: »

Wow, those quotes by the Saudi women brought a tear to my eye.

Amazing women.

Yes, it's very moving indeed when people display that they have been brainwashed.

P. Breathnach · 19-10-2014 12:37PM

S.L.F wrote: »

...
The problem here is you assume that by me attacking the ideology of feminism that I am also attacking feminists which is not true....

How do you rationalise this comment on men who identify as feminists (specifically, this man, whose position was being attacked in the post to which you were responding)?

My personal belief is that they don't respect women at all.

Pawwed Rig · 19-10-2014 12:40PM

Lyger wrote: »

Yes, it's very moving indeed when people display that they have been brainwashed.

Without supporting the previous post I would point out that brainwashing is a matter of perspective. Religion in general encourages women to take traditional roles and religious people tend to have high certainty that their opinion is the only correct one. Many people in the world see western women as victims of advertising 'forcing' them to conform to a set standard of looks and beauty and dictating how they should dress.

S.L.F · 19-10-2014 12:46PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How do you rationalise this comment on men who identify as feminists (specifically, this man, whose position was being attacked in the post to which you were responding)?

Feminism infantilizes women.

Anyone man who thinks feminism is needed for women obviously cannot think they can do anything without the power of feminism to help bring them up a step.

I respect love, adore and respect women.

I don't think they are powerless.

P. Breathnach · 19-10-2014 12:54PM

S.L.F wrote: »

Feminism infantilizes women.

Anyone man who thinks feminism is needed for women obviously cannot think they can do anything without the power of feminism to help bring them up a step.

I respect love, adore and respect women.

I don't think they are powerless.

So, on the basis of simplistic and debatable assertions, you believe that you can make a judgement that people like me don't respect women at all.

Yet you seem to believe that your arguments should be taken seriously.

One eyed Jack · 19-10-2014 12:55PM

S.L.F wrote: »

I would argue that children (both genders) need the influence of a father and a mother in order to have a healthy outlook in life.

I am not blaming mothers I am just saying boys in particular need a fathers influence.

Quick one for you SLF, shouldn't be too hard to answer -

How do you personally feel about homosexual men raising a child? I'm not asking for the Men's Human Rights Movement's position on the issue of gay men becoming or being fathers, I'm asking for your personal opinion on the idea of two homosexual men raising a child.

Lyger · 19-10-2014 01:09PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Without supporting the previous post I would point out that brainwashing is a matter of perspective. Religion in general encourages women to take traditional roles and religious people tend to have high certainty that their opinion is the only correct one. Many people in the world see western women as victims of advertising 'forcing' them to conform to a set standard of looks and beauty and dictating how they should dress.

Oh absolutely - this is why I don't support banning of the burqa. Even though I don't like it, banning of a garment is going too far.
And western women can often feel "obliged" to wear these crazy high heels that will surely only cause back/foot trouble down the line!

However I don't think the poster I quoted was coming at it from that perspective.

And I am still critical of Saudi Arabia's treatment of women and always will be. The stuff about Saudi women living like royalty and so on too, only applies to RICH Saudi women.

BrokenHero · 19-10-2014 01:23PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no difficulty in declaring myself to be a feminist.

I decline to be held accountable to you for taking that position.

Given that your idea of holding me to account includes this sort of nonsense:

I think my decling to discuss my reasons with you is justified.

lol.

You do realize that what you have just said with the above is that in Post #636 you refused to answer a question I put to you because of what I later went on to say in Post #649.

Mystic Meg eat your heart out

Oh and I wasn't the only user who asked you the question and so even if what you posted made sense (it doesn't) then that would only be reasoning for not answering me. What's your excuse for not answering the other user?

Oh I remember: you don't want the thread to become about you.

Well, guess what. It wouldn't need to. You thought it pertinent enough to the discussion to identify yourself as a male feminist on the thread in four different posts and so you'll have to excuse me if I find it rather convenient for you to believe that posting the reasons which you feel the need to identify a male feminist are not.

How about I reframe the question for you (and throw in a few others):

What is it about the term 'Male Feminist' that says more about a man's views on inequality, than just declaring himself an Egalitarian would?

Why do you think a man would go out of his way to declare himself as a 'Male Feminist, yet not also as an MRA?

I mean, I know some MRAs are "nuts" and all but surely that same guy would know that some feminists are nuts too (S.C.U.M., the 'all sex is rape' crowd etc) and so why would a guy refuse to identify as an MRA as a result of the extremists therein but yet happily call himself a male feminist, ignoring the wackos in their ranks. Seems kinda odd to me.

S.L.F · 19-10-2014 01:29PM

I'm in the middle of something important right now right now so I cannot continue this much more.

I'll leave you with a few google trend searches I and others have done for the purpose of this thread.

Feminism (interest is going down but is on the rise again),

feminist (same as feminism),

misandry (hatred of men, more people becoming aware of it now thankfully),

a voice for men (good to see they are being searched for on the net more),

femnazi (you'll note that Spain has the highest search for that phrase hardly surprising there)

Lyger · 19-10-2014 01:43PM

S.L.F wrote: »

I respect love, adore and respect women.

Except for the ones who have any feminist views! No "respect love" for them.

Gelatomela · 19-10-2014 01:44PM

Lyger wrote: »

Except for the ones who have any feminist views! No "respect love" for them.

It's hard to respect a man or woman with ridiculous views.

Lyger · 19-10-2014 01:53PM

Gelatomela wrote: »

It's hard to respect a man or woman with ridiculous views.

Yeh not wanting people to be affected because of their gender - ridiculous all right!

(Seriously though, I know lots of feminism is ridiculous but that doesn't mean every feminist view is invalid - some issues affect only one gender, male or female, so that's why it just has to be the case sometimes that there are causes and issues only coming from the perspective of one gender; I know lots are ridiculous or actually affect both genders, but some are valid).

One eyed Jack · 19-10-2014 01:54PM

S.L.F wrote: »

I'm in the middle of something important right now right now so I cannot continue this much more.

I'll leave you with a few google trend searches I and others have done for the purpose of this thread.

All you've basically shown is that any idiot can use a search engine. What purpose has that served?

You've avoided any direct question with regard to the welfare of men who don't fit your particular movements 'profile', so you really can't say at all that "only MHRM care about men", or pretend that they give a fcuk at all about the welfare of women in society.

Your hatred of feminism is abundantly clear at this point, but what hasn't become apparent to you, even at this late stage in the discussion (or perhaps more likely you're wilfully ignoring facts in order to soapbox), is that your opinions are no different from the likes of Dworkin. You're just pointing fingers from you're perspective in the same way as she has done from hers.

Thankfully, nobody with any ounce of cop on regards such individuals as representative of any ideology but their own twisted perspective on society, and that's why nobody takes those extremist individuals seriously.

They're not the majority in society, and they never will be, but there will always be the few weak minded individuals who cannot think for themselves who will parrot such nonsense rather than actually take time to examine their own thinking on what they're putting out there.

Lyger · 19-10-2014 01:57PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All you've basically shown is that any idiot can use a search engine. What purpose has that served?

Gotta agree. I was wondering all right about just a bunch of links to putting a term into Google. Not sure that that demonstrates any particular patterns.

Gelatomela · 19-10-2014 01:59PM

Lyger wrote: »

Yeh not wanting people to be affected because of their gender - ridiculous all right!

(Seriously though, I know lots of feminism is ridiculous but that doesn't mean every feminist view is invalid - some issues affect only one gender, male or female, so that's why it just has to be the case sometimes that there are causes and issues only coming from the perspective of one gender; I know lots are ridiculous or actually affect both genders, but some are valid).

On what basis do you identify yourself as a feminist assuming you do?

There is no hive feminist mind as we've been repeatedly told so identifying oneself as a feminist seems pointless as no one knows what you mean by it as there appears to be infinite definitions.

Lyger · 19-10-2014 02:02PM

Gelatomela wrote: »

On what basis do you identify yourself as a feminist assuming you do?

I don't at all. As I said, I think a lot of it is ridiculous, and it's just creating a divide between the genders, but that doesn't mean there aren't any views within it that I agree with.

paddy1990 · 19-10-2014 02:24PM

BrokenHero wrote: »

lol.

You do realize that what you have just said with the above is that in Post #636 you refused to answer a question I put to you because of what I later went on to say in Post #649.

Mystic Meg eat your heart out

Oh and I wasn't the only user who asked you the question and so even if what you posted made sense (it doesn't) then that would only be reasoning for not answering me. What's your excuse for not answering the other user?

Oh I remember: you don't want the thread to become about you.

Well, guess what. It wouldn't need to. You thought it pertinent enough to the discussion to identify yourself as a male feminist on the thread in four different posts and so you'll have to excuse me if I find it rather convenient for you to believe that posting the reasons which you feel the need to identify a male feminist are not.

How about I reframe the question for you (and throw in a few others):

What is it about the term 'Male Feminist' that says more about a man's views on inequality, than just declaring himself an Egalitarian would?

Why do you think a man would go out of his way to declare himself as a 'Male Feminist, yet not also as an MRA?

I mean, I know some MRAs are "nuts" and all but surely that same guy would know that some feminists are nuts too (S.C.U.M., the 'all sex is rape' crowd etc) and so why would a guy refuse to identify as an MRA as a result of the extremists therein but yet happily call himself a male feminist, ignoring the wackos in their ranks. Seems kinda odd to me.

OWNED

Good post.

Lyger · 19-10-2014 02:28PM

paddy1990 wrote: »

OWNED

Good post.

It's very nice of you to keep quoting people you agree with to tell them that their post is good. What's handy too is, there's a "thumbs-up" button at the bottom of every post, which conveys this also - might be something you'd find useful as well.

Is feminism a dirty word?

Comments