How come feminism is becoming so hated?

Post Reply New Topic

But only by feminist critics of TV and film. Again, we're back to dogma. The rest of the world calls it voyeurism, and it's perfectly well understood without adding an unnecessary level of implied oppression.



Hardly. Male sexualisation is used in TV, film, print, etc and to sell products to both women and men. All can be considered art forms, and are fair reflections of common standards of human beauty, if not fair a fair reflection of Joe Average - which is kind of the point. There's nothing wrong with fantasy until a line is crossed and someone actually gets hurt.



Well no, it was simply a pithy joke - hence the "but seriously" immediately afterwards. That doesn't mean, of course, that there isn't some substance to it.



It has trended on multiple occasions. If it's fallen into disuse, brilliant. That doesn't excuse its former 'glory', however.



The popular media would also have you believe that all users of the gamergate hashtag are misogynist cyber-terrorists, hell-bent on coordinated campaigns of harassment. They're hardly infallible.



Wherein you demonstrate your own dogmatic thinking wherein any man who speaks out against feminism is a MRA. I encourage all reasonable people to eschew such close-minded black and white thinking. The politics of division are just one of many reasons I (and others) find fault with modern feminists.

I advocate the rights of both men and women. If you feel compelled to attach a label to me, go with egalitarian. N.B. the above was not an indictment of MRAs - I don't find anything intrinsically wrong with actively supporting a cause you believe in. Likewise there are more than a handful of feminists whose views I find largely tolerable. As I pointed out in my first post on this thread, the backlash is against feminists and their behaviours, not feminism as a concept.

You don't understand the concept.

This is irrelevant to my post.


And it would certainly seem that most of those Tweets are either ironic misandry - people playing up to the man-hating feminist boogeyman archetype so they can watch anti-feminists have a sense of humour failure - or, even greater in number, anti-feminists actually having a sense of humour failure, or even ironically using a tag that they don't realise is actually ironic.

Well, they were right about #gamergate - although I think you exaggerate somewhat, there was definitely an acknowledgement that there was at least a significant minority (I'd say a large majority, but that wasn't the media picture) who were tin-foil misogynists occasionally slipping the word "ethics" into 140 characters of non-sequiturs sparked by a non-event.


It's just my experience.
Egalitarianism is pretty much a dead philosophy because it's widely recognised that it is highly flawed. It isn't appropriate to treat people equally, you need to accept their differences and treat them appropriately as a result of those differences. Giving everyone stairs to climb up is egalitarianism; giving them access to a building is feminism. One of those is quite plainly a ridiculous idea.

Consequently, egalitarianism as a philosophy is pretty much only preached by anti-feminists (MRAs) with a superficial understanding of feminism and egalitarianism. We see something similar with humanism, although that isn't a bankrupt ideology and I consider myself one - it's complementary with rather than an alternative to feminism. As a result, I have come to learn that it is an excellent heurestic to identify anyone who identifies as an egalitarian as also being an MRA, and that any anti-feminist is an MRA.

I note you raise "the politics of division" as a flaw of feminism without a hint of irony.

This is ridiculous.

"Well, they were right..." According to who? Do 'they' have the authority to actually make a credible claim about that? At what point should an opposition have authority on the beliefs of the opposing force? For a clash between ideologies that are inherently unprovable it is absurd. To claim furthermore on the authority of the opposition the nature of the arguments on that which the opposing holds in even more absurd.

Egalitarianism is preached by many forms of Libertarianism and Communism. Egalitarianism is expounded by intellectuals of diverse leanings worldwide.

"Giving everyone stairs to climb up is egalitarianism; giving them access to a building is feminism."
That statement needs to be qualified and even still is categorically false. You confine an opposition to a box that you yourself have created in order to expound your own ideology. At the very least this is a question of implementation which makes little sense in the context of this conversation as the analogy fails to either accurately describe the differences between the two.

So, basically you deem a philosophy to be dead offhand and claim that those who disagree with you as being superficial? Your heuristic method is as intellectually dishonest as your claims. It is a simply a way to disregard the opposition.

I'm out. I'm done here. Goodbye to everyone.

I understand it perfectly well, thanks. Next time try an actual rebuttal instead of an ad hominem.



However it was relevant to mine, which you were responding to when you called it disingenuous. With another poster I might suggest this was ironic. In this case I rather suspect it isn't.



So, speaking as a feminist, your opinion is that #killallmen is just a bit of harmless fun, but #gamergate is a haven of misogynists masquerading as gamers desirous of ethical journalism, that feminists are beyond reproach but #gamergaters are a turgid mass of immorality.



Modern Egalitarianism, as with most philosophies, comes in a variety of forms - none of which match the fatuous definition you've provided. Liberalism, socialism and libertarianism are all examples of egalitarian philosophies, as is progressivism. Modern feminists, meanhwhile, practice puritanical gynocentrism, among other things.



Anti-feminist =/= MRA. You've already demonstrated your own lack of understanding of egalitarianism. Which specific sect of feminism do you believe is only superficially understood? We're not exactly talking rocket science here.



I find the idea that you call yourself a humanist rather odd, in light of how black and white your thinking is. Your heuristic is an act of bigotry, not enlightenment, as demonstrated by the above false dichotomy.



I did no such thing. I suggest you read my post again.

I think the poll and thread have failed to accurately identify the subject under discussion.

Also, what constitutes "feminism" and what people are reacting to varies by region.

For example I have a friend who is a female programmer in Houston Texas. She experiences overt sexism in the workplace on an almost daily basis.

I've worked in software in Utah for more than two decades. I've never seen the kind of BS that she routinely puts up with.

She complains that there are no senior female programmers, which is pretty annoying to her since she probably ought to be recognized as one. But every software company i have worked for has female senior programmers.

So, I would say, feminisim in Houston is not quite the same activity as feminism in Utah.

Not that Utah is without need of reform.

On the other hand, as with most movements, there are people within it who want to make the strongest point they can, even if it means being slightly dishonest.

For example, there was a recent study published claiming to have found that among male and female college graduates with the "same education", females earn $3/hr less.

It turns out that by "same education" they mean graduated from the same university.

Clearly, graduates from engineering, hard sciences, and some other disciplines are going to have higher starting salaries than some others, and some disciplines are graduating more males than females.

It's unlikely that the people who compiled the study were unaware of that. They probably know, to the penny, how much it skewed their results.

How much does it help their cause, and how much does it hurt it? Hard to say.

"There just isn't nearly as much use of men as eye candy as there is of women"

That's because men are encouraged to be utilities of work. Not sexual ornaments of eye candy. Men who look sexualized are usually considered homoerotic. Or the target of cheap jokes and laughter, or called vain and egocentric. When women go to see a male stripper, it's a bunch of laughing and jeering. When men see a female stripper, she's not treated like a clown at a birthday party.