When did feminism go completely crazy?

[NovaKart]

I think there is a bit of a threat to it. Men are often told that the only point of view that matters in a discussion of sexism and gender is a woman's point of view. In addition to that, feminists sometimes take petty issues, such as "manspreading" as instances of sexism, despite the fact that it is equally inconveniencing to men as it is to women.

 

[Narz]

So when that woman in your video says she is for equality, but is not a feminist, she's wrong, because she's for neither. If she's not a feminist, then she's not for equality. Because feminism is the strategy for getting to equality. It's the road that needs to be followed.

No one has to follow any road.

Anyway, feminism is not one road, it means something different to every person who hears the word.

Not every person has to be an environmentalist for us to better manage the environment, people are bad at making good conscious choices most of the time, ideally we set up the structure of society to make be a bad steward of the Earth (or sexist) more of a pain in the ass than being good.

Trying to shame people into being good is certainly part of American culture (we were founded by Puritans) but its ultimately the slow road because the most sociopathic among us are immune to it anyway.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

t isn't, criticizing societal institutions is doing that, criticizing men is doing that. The reason so many double standards exist (see the pay gap as an example) is there are (surprisingly) just as many women that support these "old fashioned" way of doing things as there are men. It's an across-the-board societal problem, not a man problem. Based on how women in my area are answering their questions on OkCupid, you'd be surprised how many of them literally still believe men should be in charge of their households. Of course there are just as many men that agree with them, and that's the problem.

Most of those "old fashioned' beliefs, if not all, are relics of things men instituted. The system of men being bread-winners, women being home-makers, for instance. Women do critique other women! Sometimes harshly! But we get back to the point of why do men need a space in this, and why can't critiques of men and men's behaviour exist? Even IF women were just as guilty as men, that doesn't render said critique meaningless.

I think there is a bit of a threat to it. Men are often told that the only point of view that matters in a discussion of sexism and gender is a woman's point of view. In addition to that, feminists sometimes take petty issues, such as "manspreading" as instances of sexism, despite the fact that it is equally inconveniencing to men as it is to women.

If women want a space that is free from men's opinions, they should have it. They currently have fewer spaces as it is, and at the end of the day, most public and media voices are white men. So yeah. Sometimes, a men's opinion doesn't matter, and that's fine. My opinion also shouldn't matter on things that I have no experience with or relationship with. Why do men have to have a space and voice in everything? We don't need a WET because we have a BET.

 

[Narz]

I think there is a bit of a threat to it. Men are often told that the only point of view that matters in a discussion of sexism and gender is a woman's point of view.

Ah yes, its bemusing irony when a white male informs me of his opinion that my white male opinion does not matter. Its almost like a weird riddle trying to decipher how anyone could actually formulate such a post in a sober state of mind.

 

[caketastydelish]

Most of those "old fashioned' beliefs, if not all, are relics of things men instituted.

I'm not sure of that, in the caveman days it was mutually beneficial because the circumstances of day-to-day life were completely different... but that in and of itself is the point I'm making.

The system of men being bread-winners, women being home-makers, for instance. Women do critique other women! Sometimes harshly! But we get back to the point of why do men need a space in this, and why can't critiques of men and men's behaviour exist? Even IF women were just as guilty as men, that doesn't render said critique meaningless.

Men being bread winners= criticize men?

edit: not to be smug, we certainly have enough of that in that thread. What I really mean to say here is I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Men being bread winners= criticize men?

Hm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was trying to suggest that, irrespective of if people think that women are sometimes guilty of, in this example, "old fashioned" beliefs, isn't criticism of men still fair? This is still a world where most of the harm done to women is done by men.

 

[caketastydelish]

Hm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was trying to suggest that, irrespective of if people think that women are sometimes guilty of, in this example, "old fashioned" beliefs, isn't criticism of men still fair? This is still a world where most of the harm done to women is done by men.

Sure, but again the vast majority of men don't do these things, so criticizing men as a whole won't really be accurate (nor help because it only turns away people like me that would otherwise agree with you, and polarize an otherwise reasonable discussion).

Men are more likely to beat up and be violent to each other than women. I can prove this by pulling up statistics if you like. In fact the average man is more likely to die from a homicide than a woman. Sure we live in a world where women have it worse overall, but man bashing won't really help. Just criticize anyone and everyone who believes in the out of date way of doing things, regardless of whether they're male, female, white, black etc.

 

[NovaKart]

If women want a space that is free from men's opinions, they should have it. They currently have fewer spaces as it is, and at the end of the day, most public and media voices are white men. So yeah. Sometimes, a men's opinion doesn't matter, and that's fine. My opinion also shouldn't matter on things that I have no experience with or relationship with. Why do men have to have a space and voice in everything? We don't need a WET because we have a BET.

When talking about gender issues, it's normally only the viewpoint of women that is discussed and allowed. We should have the opinion of both genders.

 

[Narz]

When talking about gender issues, it's normally only the viewpoint of women that is discussed and allowed. We should have the opinion of both genders.

Actually it's of male posters speaking for women, in the old style of 'Shhh honey, let me do the talking here'.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Men are more likely to beat up and be violent to each other than women. I can prove this by pulling up statistics if you like. In fact the average man is more likely to die from a homicide than a woman. Sure we live in a world where women have it worse overall, but man bashing won't really help. Just criticize anyone and everyone who believes in the out of date way of doing things, regardless of whether they're male, female, white, black etc.

Ok, but do you understand how this can sound dismissive? We've spent a ton of pages here with a lot of people stating how women should "do" feminism, and at the end of the day, some women want to have a space to their own where they can criticize what they want because of wrongdoings. And then you (a man) want to suggest to them how they should be doing it, that, no, they need to criticize everything or everyone. It sounds like another man telling a woman what to do.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm just telling you as a man, if someone that criticizes men, collectively as a whole, is far less likely to gain my sympathy. I'm a supporter of free speech and women (and men for that matter) have the *right* to say whatever the hell they want. Saying something that will gain my sympathy is a different matter.

I'm persian you know. I think people should have the right to say all (or even most) middle easterners are terrorist bombers, but if they expect to gain my sympathy by making the comment it won't work. Likewise the majority of men are not rapists either.

 

[jackelgull]

I'm just telling you as a man, someone that criticizes men, collectively as a whole, is far less likely to gain my sympathy. I'm a supporter of free speech and women (and men for that matter) have the *right* to say whatever the hell they want. Saying something that will gain my sympathy is a different matter.

I'm persian you know. I think people should have the right to say all (or even most) middle easterners are terrorist bombers, but if they expect to gain my sympathy by making the comment it won't work. Likewise the majority of men are not rapists either.

Iran/Persia isn't technically part of the Middle East. Not really an important point, just feeling like being pedantic.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah, this thread has definitely out-lived its use. Although judging from the original post, there was no use to begin with.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ok, but do you understand how this can sound dismissive? We've spent a ton of pages here with a lot of people stating how women should "do" feminism, and at the end of the day, some women want to have a space to their own where they can criticize what they want because of wrongdoings. And then you (a man) want to suggest to them how they should be doing it, that, no, they need to criticize everything or everyone. It sounds like another man telling a woman what to do.

I'm a bit confused by all this talk of "spaces". If you mean actual physical places to meet and talk, or even virtual places like online forums, then of course women (or anyone) should be able to have such spaces where they can exclude men (or anyone) from intruding. But if you're defining an entire concept as a "space" and saying that men (or anyone) should not be allowed to express an opinion on that concept... that bonkers surely?

 

[caketastydelish]

The only thing good about feminism as a discussion on CFC OT is that we seem to have about a 50/50 ratio of people that support feminism versus people against it (or in my case, only partially against it).

That said, I would rather we have a productive circlejerk on the many topics we mostly agree with, than the mudslinging done around feminism.

edit: the past several pages have been all about who gets laid the most and who talks to the most women, way too much of that and way too actual little facts and statistics. No wonder no one changes their mind. With an argument like "you only support/oppose feminism because you can't get laid" who would actually change their mind?

 

[Evie]

Actually it's of male posters speaking for women, in the old style of 'Shhh honey, let me do the talking here'.

Beat male posters speaking against women, which is nearly all this thread would have otherwise (Maybe Valka would still post).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Citation for that fact? I've never heard anyone in real life ever express such an opinion. Obviously it happens, and I'd imagine it always makes for good sensationalist headlines whenever anyone publicly expresses such an opinion, but I really doubt it's in any way a common response.

Certainly. Please provide me with a time machine, video camera, digital camera, and a method of mind-reading so I can go back to my pre-internet life and find all those TV shows, newspaper articles, and personal conversations in which the topic came up.

In short: Just because you haven't heard it said, that doesn't mean nobody else has.

Edit: Sorry, I have now read your later post where you explained that it was actually the judge saying that, not the perp. But the fact that there is a Wikipedia article about it and, as you said, it caused "quite a fuss at the time" is precisely what I was talking about with my "sensationalist headline" thing above. Things like that wouldn't cause a stir if it they were as common as you make out.

I live in a conservative bible belt region. Of course there are people here whose first thought to hearing about a rape after the publicly-uttered "oh, how awful" is "what was she wearing?" Or "what was she doing to attract that kind of attention?"

Don't try to tell me that you know more about the society I live in than I know myself, or that you know more about what I've read and heard and experienced than I have.

Dunno warpus. Considering the possibility that the dour, frumpy, and judgmental middle aged lady was once a scared little kid getting violated usually holds me back from my really good rape zingers. I usually try to keep my really offcolor ones to bestiality references. I think it's relatively difficult to accidentally a horse.

I am fairly sure you are not implying that all middle-aged women are dour, frumpy, and judgmental, right?

After all, there are no middle-aged women on this forum, right? *looks at profile, notices that 52nd birthday is coming up in a few weeks* Oh, wait...

 

[Evie]

Edit: Sorry, I have now read your later post where you explained that it was actually the judge saying that, not the perp. But the fact that there is a Wikipedia article about it and, as you said, it caused "quite a fuss at the time" is precisely what I was talking about with my "sensationalist headline" thing above. Things like that wouldn't cause a stir if it they were as common as you make out.

The biggest fuss was when the supreme court overturned the appeal court judge's decision and criticized him in the process. The judge blasted the supreme court in a letter to the media accusing them of being anti-male (and stating that the anti-male attitude of the chief justice was responsible for the suicide rate of men in Quebec being the highest in Canada), and some of the most famous defense lawyers in Toronto followed suit accusing her of being unfair to the appeal court judge and of calling him a dominating pig in the ruling (which she did not).

 

[caketastydelish]

Considering the following:

A) You live in Canada and I don't live in Canada
and
B) You have a law degree (or are in law school as we speak)

I'm going to presume you know more about the Canadian legal system and the details within it than some average joe from another country. Unlike some other posters I won't mention from this thread that think even if they aren't remotely qualified with particular subjects but think they are the king via a five minute Google or Wikipedia search, I won't play that game with you. In other words, I'm going to say your personal and intricate knowledge with Canada and the Canadian legal system trumps any random dumbass looking up random pages on Google and Wikipedia.

So I'm going to say you're probably right about all this, unlike how other posters have been behaving throughout this thread.

edit: to expand on this, the people in this thread are astounding with their "google fu" snarkiness. Honestly, let's say you have something wrong with your body, and you're not sure what. You can A) go to a medical doctor whose spent years in medical school trained to help you or B) trust someone that looks up what might be wrong with you on Google or Wikipedia? Who do you trust?

Both sides of the debate are guilty of this, (this has happened on so many particular instances I've honestly lost count) when one particular person has intricate personal knowledge with a subject and someone else says "google fu, you're wrong" it really just makes me want to choke.

 

[BvBPL]

Just so we are clear, I use Bing rather than Google.