Anti-Feminist Anger

[Acid Rainbow]

Yeah, we all know that a right-wing news source like the link in Post 10 will have a balanced and fair view of feminism.

And it does seem like the guys who hate feminism most are the ones who've been recently rejected by a girl.

I think that most women don't like feminism because of the femist label. At least

our culture, the "stereotypical feminist" has short hair, wears manly clothes, and is sometimes a lesbian. Few women are into that image. Maybe this is an exaggeration, but many feminists seem to think that masculinity is superior to femininity, and that all traditionally feminine things are bad.

I know this is the wrong place to bring up the "Catelyn debate", but many readers (both male and misguided females) loathe the feminine Catelyn and blame her for things that aren't really her fault. Likewise, Sansa used to be widely hated for heing an airheaded girly-girl, while the tomboyish Arya is popular. Even though both of them, at least in AGOT, are arrogant spoiled brats.

[Ser Reptitious]

a wooden chair,

I'd also venture to suggest that your friends who have difficulty getting into relationships are just bad with people in general and looking for any excuse not to evaluate and analyze their own shortcomings. What do those same friends say when they want to make friends or get along with another guy and it fails?

No, they get along with other guys just fine, for the most part.

[Tempra]

Fixed.

Tempra, what sort of -isms do you associate with? Conservatism perhaps? If so, does that mean you and everyone else that roughly shares your beliefs is responsible for every nut-job radical ultra-conservative out there?

I am told this on a routine basis by a great many people on this message board. Not a good example. :)

[Ser Reptitious]

I am told this on a routine basis by a great many people on this message board. Not a good example. :)

Why not? Does the fact that people here assert that make it true?

[Chaldanya]

To frame it using the current example: I think that the people campaigning to change Canada's anthem are as silly as the people resisting the change.

See, I don't think that is an extremist action. As a woman when I hear a sentence that uses male as the default i.e. the word father for parent; son for child; man for humans I feel excluded. Men are not the default and the more the language in our everyday lives is changed to reflect that the more society can inch towards true equality.

An example of true extremism from a feminist angle is someone who espouses the idea that women as a whole should just drop out of society and stop doing all of those things that women do but aren't valued or seen as important.

N

[Galactus]

I think the issue is that feminism is a very... Uncompromising ideology (and rightly so, IMHO) it points out (often quite effectively) how YOU are helping perpetuate the system. While it discusses structures it tends to point out that YOU, personally, are a part of these structures. A lot of people react violently to this.

[Ser Reptitious]

Freerider,

I think that most women don't like feminism because of the femist label. At least

our culture, the "stereotypical feminist" has short hair, wears manly clothes, and is sometimes a lesbian. Few women are into that image.

I agree with you that this image is out there, but I think that is by and large the result of the same relentless attacks that turned "Liberal" into a dirty word in the United States.

A bad image is not necessarily self-created!

[The hairy bear]

I agree. Radical feminists tend to blame everyone that doesn't act as they would like the world to be of being misogynistic. If my daughter likes to play with dolls, I will buy her a doll and I don't want anyone accusing me of being a but father.

[Tempra]

Why not? Does the fact that people here assert that make it true?

In some sense it is true. If you are part of a group and you turn a blind eye to the radical wing of your group, you are somewhat culpable. It doesn't matter whether you are feminist, conservative, islamic, a non-slave holding white in antebellum America, a non-jewish German in Nazi Germany, etc, if you don't take affirmative steps to denounce and retake your group, you can hardly complain when people start to identify the whole group as radical.

[kungtotte]

See, I don't think that is an extremist action. As a woman when I hear a sentence that uses male as the default i.e. the word father for parent; son for child; man for humans I feel excluded. Men are not the default and the more the language in our everyday lives is changed to reflect that the more society can inch towards true equality.

I agree that men are not the default, and I agree that we should strive to be inclusive rather than exclusive, but I think you also have to pick your battles. The line is "True patriot love in all thy sons command.". Honestly, the way it is written is more denigrating to men, as it implies that they have an obligation to fall in line and have patriotic love for their country simply based on what's between their legs. It doesn't say Canada's daughters can't also have patriotic love, it doesn't paint men as something more or better than women.

There's got to be thousands of other things more worthy of attention, things that have an actual impact on people's lives, things that will actually serve to promote the cause (i.e equality) rather than polarize society by highlighting what is a fairly trivial matter.

That is why I think both the vocal parties are silly in this case. There's no reason to oppose the change, but the basis for the change is also pretty damned thin and diverts resources from the actual gender equality struggle.

What's more, I think that going at it from this angle is completely backwards. You are essentially trying to solve the symptoms of a patriarchial society and hope that by doing so you will address the root cause, instead of going after the root cause and dealing with the symptoms afterwards.

[Ser Reptitious]

Tempra,

In some sense it is true. If you are part of a group and you turn a blind eye to the radical wing of your group, you are somewhat culpable. It doesn't matter whether you are feminist, conservative, islamic, a non-slave holding white in antebellum America, a non-jewish German in Nazi Germany, etc, if you don't take affirmative steps to denounce and retake your group, you can hardly complain when people start to identify the whole group as radical.

What kind of affirmative steps are we talking about here? What sort of steps have you taken, for example, to dissociate yourself from the radical fringe of your group?

[Ser Reptitious]

kungtotte,

I agree that men are not the default, and I agree that we should strive to be inclusive rather than exclusive, but I think you also have to pick your battles. The line is "True patriot love in all thy sons command.". Honestly, the way it is written is more denigrating to men, as it implies that they have an obligation to fall in line and have patriotic love for their country simply based on what's between their legs. It doesn't say Canada's daughters can't also have patriotic love, it doesn't paint men as something more or better than women.

There's got to be thousands of other things more worthy of attention, things that have an actual impact on people's lives, things that will actually serve to promote the cause (i.e equality) rather than polarize society by highlighting what is a fairly trivial matter.

That is why I think both the vocal parties are silly in this case. There's no reason to oppose the change, but the basis for the change is also pretty damned thin and diverts resources from the actual gender equality struggle.

What's more, I think that going at it from this angle is completely backwards. You are essentially trying to solve the symptoms of a patriarchial society and hope that by doing so you will address the root cause, instead of going after the root cause and dealing with the symptoms afterwards.

See, this is exactly the thing: if it's such a trivial matter, then why not just change the bloody line? If it's all the same to you, but making the change seems to be important to someone else, why not just accomodate them?

[Tempra]

Tempra,

What kind of affirmative steps are we talking about here? What sort of steps have you taken, for example, to dissociate yourself from the radical fringe of your group?

It can be as simple as denouncing that conduct. Contrast that to the "deny, deny, deny" approach espoused above.

[Galactus]

I think another point is this: Feminism is a very... Holistic? Ideology. It breaches straight through the nice compartmentalizations of liberal thought: It points out things that are wrong in every sphere, even those conventional political thoughts won't touch.

[Guest Raidne]

At some point, feminists need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Jesus, Tempra, that's a quote from Simone de Beavoir. She's a marxist. And she wrote half a century ago. Of course she rejects any world where a single male wage earner economically supports a stay-at-home mother. It's not anathema to her worldview because of gender alone.

Way to set it up so it looks like a quote from a respected modern feminist (who, in the course of the article) argues for women having that very choice as a necessary part of the feminist project.

Gods, you're an ass.

I think the issue is that feminism is a very... Uncompromising ideology (and rightly so, IMHO) it points out (often quite effectively) how YOU are helping perpetuate the system. While it discusses structures it tends to point out that YOU, personally, are a part of these structures. A lot of people react violently to this.

Agreed, but I would add:

I agree. Radical feminists tend to blame everyone that doesn't act as they would like the world to be of being misogynistic. If my daughter likes to play with dolls, I will buy her a doll and I don't want anyone accusing me of being a but father.

Generally, as seen here, they reduce the actual argument (that maybe parents shouldn't only buy their daughters "girly" things, but could actually enhance their mental development but giving them trucks and legos in addition to My Little Pony) to something untenable and silly (you shouldn't buy your daughter dolls).

Then they get defensive.

After all, it's hard to defend the idea that only buying your daughter one kind of toy is good for her mental development.

[kungtotte]

kungtotte,

See, this is exactly the thing: if it's such a trivial matter, then why not just change the bloody line? If it's all the same to you, but making the change seems to be important to someone else, why not just accomodate them?

I'm not resisting the change. I don't care either way about it. It changes or it stays, my feelings about the Canadian anthem remain the same. What you just said is exactly why the people resisting it are silly.

What I am saying though is that both parties are silly, because they're fighting over a trivial matter in the face of many things that are far from being trivial. Such as women making much less money than men in identical positions, that women are almost automatically awarded custody over men, that rape is marginalised, or even the fact that indoctrination into the traditionally male and female roles begin almost as soon as we are born what with the whole marketing concept of pink dolls for girls and blue cars for boys.

It's like watching two people fight over which order to put the condiments on the hamburger when we know that the meat has crushed glass in it.

[Tempra]

Jesus, Tempra, that's a quote from Simone de Beavoir. She's a marxist. And she wrote half a century ago. Of course she rejects any world where a single male wage earner economically supports a stay-at-home mother. It's not anathema to her worldview because of gender alone.

Way to set it up so it looks like a quote from a respected modern feminist (who, in the course of the article) argues for women having that very choice as a necessary part of the feminist project.

Miss the forest for the trees much?

Gods, you're an ass.

And that will help the image of feminists. :)

[Chaldanya]

I agree that men are not the default, and I agree that we should strive to be inclusive rather than exclusive, but I think you also have to pick your battles. The line is "True patriot love in all thy sons command.". Honestly, the way it is written is more denigrating to men, as it implies that they have an obligation to fall in line and have patriotic love for their country simply based on what's between their legs. It doesn't say Canada's daughters can't also have patriotic love, it doesn't paint men as something more or better than women.

But is it excluding half of the population with men being mentioned in the national anthem and not women. I've just told you on a personal level that I find it exclusive as a woman. It doesn't matter if the language is negative or positive - I don't care. I want to be represented.

There's got to be thousands of other things more worthy of attention, things that have an actual impact on people's lives, things that will actually serve to promote the cause (i.e equality) rather than polarize society by highlighting what is a fairly trivial matter.

You're assuming that these women aren't also campaigning about healthcare, violence against women, other sexist media, pro-choice. And that's just plain false. In any one day I can (and have) written letters to my MP about the lack of Rape Crisis centres in London funded by the government, written a complaint to the BBC about their terminology when reporting on various things, challenged a close friend or family member on their underlying sexism and examined my own sexist thoughts. I was capable of doing all of these things in one day. I'm sure these women do as well. And even if they didn't this is important to them and it's not up to you to tell them otherwise.

That is why I think both the vocal parties are silly in this case. There's no reason to oppose the change, but the basis for the change is also pretty damned thin and diverts resources from the actual gender equality struggle.

I'd like some proof that the resources for the gender equality struggle is a zero sum game. That in campaigning from this resources are being taken away from other things.

What's more, I think that going at it from this angle is completely backwards. You are essentially trying to solve the symptoms of a patriarchial society and hope that by doing so you will address the root cause, instead of going after the root cause and dealing with the symptoms afterwards.

I don't see why we can't do both. The root cause of the problem is that this society still values things that are identified as feminine/woman's things as less. That the female is less than the male. This is re-enforced by language, books, tv, news reporting. The less of this we can get in general society the more it will seem outdated and just flat-out wrong.

Maybe this is an exaggeration, but many feminists seem to think that masculinity is superior to femininity, and that all traditionally feminine things are bad.

Feminists eschewing all things feminine is also wrong on a general level. The feminist blogs I read and agree with actually want to get to a place where male and female options are seen as having equal value. And that if a girl can play with a stereotypical boy's toy without criticism then a boy can play with a stereotypical girl's toy without the rampant sexist and homophobic criticism that comes with that.

I know this is the wrong place to bring up the "Catelyn debate", but many readers (both male and misguided females) loathe the feminine Catelyn...

Not for nothing, but just wondering why the women are misguided but the men aren't?

N

[Guest Raidne]

Miss the forest for the trees much?

Please, define the "forest" in this current discussion.

And that will help the image of feminists. :)

Well, tbh, I don't think you're doing much for the image of asses, either. ;)

[Galactus]

I'm not resisting the change. I don't care either way about it. It changes or it stays, my feelings about the Canadian anthem remain the same. What you just said is exactly why the people resisting it are silly.

What I am saying though is that both parties are silly, because they're fighting over a trivial matter in the face of many things that are far from being trivial. Such as women making much less money than men in identical positions, that women are almost automatically awarded custody over men, that rape is marginalised, or even the fact that indoctrination into the traditionally male and female roles begin almost as soon as we are born what with the whole marketing concept of pink dolls for girls and blue cars for boys.

It's like watching two people fight over which order to put the condiments on the hamburger when we know that the meat has crushed glass in it.

My point is that it probably started along the lines of someone saying "You know, maybe we should change those lines in the national anthem? It is kind of sexist you know..." Someone will then raise the rallying cry of how evil feminists are destroying our natioanl heritage, and then the fight is on.

Basically, it didn't turn into a fight until people started *defending* this minor issue. At that point it's no longer about this minor issue, but about the fact that people feel the need to defend it: A symptom of something much darker.