Outspoken male "feminists" are hypocrites

El_Duderino 09

CdeC wrote:

I don't really like the word feminism. To strive for equality it must be made with input from all people. If a sign for a feminist meeting is put up guaranteed that 99% will be women. We are moving into a new age of gender equality. I think we need some new terminology. Ps: I do not have a problem with feminists per se just I think the word is a bit outdated in my opinion. I would consider myself someone in favour of gender equality.

The change in word meaning does seem to have passed me by.

SterlingArcher wrote:

So you sit outside a court and protest at women getting very lenient jail terms solely because they are women.

No because I have a job and I've never sat outside a court protesting any sentence. I do support gender equality in things like prison sentences and child custody though.

Pat Mustard wrote:

She would like to see an all-woman United States Supreme Court.

Clearly said as a counterbalance to prevailing wisdom. Every female on the supreme court is suspected of being a token woman. Asking how many women is enough implies there should be a number of women cherry picked to fill the quota and then you can get back to the real business of picking proper male judges.

Good answer but I suspect it was lost on some. Triggered easily are we? (I don't really know what that word means because it has never come up in my real life)

Wibbs wrote:

I long disassociated myself from the label as for me it's gone full retard on a few levels. One of my main issues would be that the archetypal "woman" that modern feminism describes is a weak willed emotionally driven easily "triggered" perpetual potential victim girl woman forever stunted in teenaged angst. An archetype a society should be protecting for their own sake rather than giving them more responsibilities. These are not the vast majority of women I've known(or would deliberately associate with). The joke is this delicate flower "woman" is also an archetype of old stylee victorian chauvinism. The irony seems lost on the vocal feminists.

All that from the term 'feminist'. You don't know about me because I only talk about this stuff on the internet. The rest of the time I just treat people fairly and get on with life. What you said in that quote is not only off the mark but betrays a fairly blatant confirmation bias (and lack of awareness of that bias).

Wibbs wrote:

As for men saying they're feminists; I have generally found they're usually sound lads, but under informed about the main tenets of the modern politic and naively reckon "sure it's all about equality isn't it?". Hell most women I've known that use the label do so in an equally generalist and a la carte fashion. The sad sacks of men using the label hoping for the ride are generally the minority IME.

That sounds like me alright. I never encountered any if this guff in real life. Maybe you do. One poster said it manifests in men seeing each other as more of a threat than women in work. Maybe it's all happening under my nose and I don't see it.

Do you see it in your life or mostly just on the internet?

kunst nugget

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The rest of the time I just treat people fairly and get on with life.

This would be what I do and it's what everyone out there should be doing as well. I wouldn't label myself as a male feminist as it seems to be attracting more and more negative connotations from both sides of the fence with each passing day. I wouldn't have the time or inclination to try and justify my position that I'm not saying it because I'm trying to ingratiate myself in the eyes of women in my life in the hope of getting a shag.

ligerdub

Society has long since progressed as much so as that it should basically kill off the feminism movement.

It should have evolved into a gender quality movement (you may argue it is, but it is clearly with a slant towards positive discrimination towards women, and ignoring issues where men are slighted), but it hasn't. It's a very clear-cut thing for me. If you're a man or woman it doesn't really matter, if you're aligning yourself as a feminist then you're a lowlife. This is a movement which puts forward the idea that women should have equal status in the workplace (not equal opportunities), as well as other quota driven agendas (only in certain industries mind you), whereas it ignores issues such as child custody rights and criminal justice issues.

Interesting that this movement has increased in volume in an era where it is clear that women are being given a leg-up in employment opportunities and the narrative of promoting women to high power positions is bordering on fanaticism. I'm not surprised there are men out there looking to align themselves with the feminist movement, they are after all merely aligning themselves with the power group in society. If you are not inside you are outside. It has nothing to do with a moral compass or right-side of issues.

Hopefully this aggressive movement we now call feminism is seeing its dying embers in this growing hostility towards men. When people realise they sided with the wrong people we'll see them flock back to normality.

Pac1Man

Imagine if we still had to hunt for our food and defend our villages? These BS topics just wouldn't exist. Humans in a modern society have no true purpose anymore.

I miss 5000BC. Life was so much simpler back then.

desertcircus

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clearly said as a counterbalance to prevailing wisdom.

Clearly, she wants an all-woman Supreme Court. That's what she said and that's what is clear.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Every female on the supreme court is suspected of being a token woman.

Source please.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Asking how many women is enough implies there should be a number of women cherry picked to fill the quota and then you can get back to the real business of picking proper male judges.

You imagine the implications made by an unidentified questioner in relation to a question which has no source except by reference to the statement which purports to answer it. Complete fantasy.

animaal

Feminism is not about equality, it's about the furthering of womens interests.

Any particualar feminist may also believe in equality, but that doesnt mean feminism equates to a belief in equality.

E.g. a person could believe that all positions of power should be held by women, that women are mentally stronger than men, that women should have preferable treatment in the workplace or elsewhere. This person might be described as a feminist, even though what they are advocating is hardly equality.

It's not a bad thing that a group should lobby for their own interests - all groups tend to do so. But it should be recognised for what it is. Pretending it's about equality and rainbows is an attempt to frame any criticism of the movement (or of the aims of its members) as being unreasonable.

The King of Moo

My favourite part of every thread on feminism or sexism:

"If you believe in equal rights then why don't you campaign for fathers' rights, eh 'feminist!?'"

"I do actually. Just last week I attended a protest outside the High Court. I believe that fathers are discriminated under family law in this country."

"...
...
...
... yeah, well why do you call yourselves feminists then, that's sexist!"

Winterlong

Pac1Man wrote: »

Imagine if we still had to hunt for our food and defend our villages? These BS topics just wouldn't exist. Humans in a modern society have no true purpose anymore.

I miss 5000BC. Life was so much simpler back then.

To hell with that. They had no smart phones back then.
Getting a date was easy tough...provided you had a club.

Outlaw Pete

I've never met, nor ever read about, a male feminist that wasn't extremely sexist in word and deed. Every single one of them pander to women and treat them in ways they would not treat men. Very few them declare themselves male feminists because they believe women should be treated equally. What they really believe is that women should be treated better and do so... superficially at least. Main reason being of course is that there are huge societal pay offs for doing so... even on the interwebs.

Obama is good example of how in larger society men are pandering to women. Look at this recent nonsense:

As a parent, helping your kids to rise above these constraints is a constant learning process. Michelle and I have raised our daughters to speak up when they see a double standard or feel unfairly judged based on their gender or race—or when they notice that happening to someone else. It’s important for them to see role models out in the world who climb to the highest levels of whatever field they choose. And yes, it’s important that their dad is a feminist, because now that’s what they expect of all men.

According to him all men are expected to be feminists now. Not egalitarians, but feminists ffs. If that's now evidence of society being grossly manipulated by those at the wheel then I don't know what is. Young men are blind to it though. They are docile. Jumping through whatever hoops they have to in order to get young women's approval and attention. It's now 'right-on' for men to identify as feminist. The feminisation of western society is in full swing and most are blind to it. I don't however blame feminists all that much. For me the men who agree with them are a much bigger problem.

Dr Jakub

What kind of eunuch describes himself as a male feminist in these man hating days of third wave feminism?

Special Circumstances

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

I don't remember that quote.

I prefer the "get to da choppa" bit tbh.

ThinkProgress

Wibbs wrote: »

As for men saying they're feminists; I have generally found they're usually sound lads, but under informed about the main tenets of the modern politic and naively reckon "sure it's all about equality isn't it?". Hell most women I've known that use the label do so in an equally generalist and a la carte fashion. The sad sacks of men using the label hoping for the ride are generally the minority IME.

I think you're guilty of underestimating them. They might be irrational or deluded at times, but they're far from stupid or ill informed... in my experience!

Male feminists tend to be the types that have generally felt inferior to other men most of their lives... they're not comfortable in male dominant environments, because of that inferiority complex!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are those men you're referring to, male feminists? We're they feminists to begin with or does this behaviour make them a feminist?

Is any man who is unkind to other man a feminist? Either I missed the point of your anecdote or you're working from your own definition of 'feminist'.

You can label them whichever way you wish, but they frequently align themselves with the feminist agenda (or equal rights employers as they would prefer to term it)... but their motivation is remarkably similar - they dislike men!

The feminist movement is not picky about where they draw support from... weak-willed men with some misguided view of equality, or power hungry men looking to keep other men down!

Whether you self identify as a 'male feminist' or you just use feminism to further your own agenda, what's the difference?

Pat Mustard

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I don't remember that quote.

I prefer the "get to da choppa" bit tbh.

This one is my personal favourite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjfvx-k1Ms

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All that from the term 'feminist'.

Yep.

You don't know about me because I only talk about this stuff on the internet. The rest of the time I just treat people fairly and get on with life. What you said in that quote is not only off the mark but betrays a fairly blatant confirmation bias (and lack of awareness of that bias).

Oh really? So modern feminism isn't positively soaked in victimhood? I dunno what feminist literature you're reading. The basic tenet almost always comes down to "women are always victims, men are always to blame", or swap out "men" for "patriarchy" if the anti male angle is to be dialled down. Oh and patriarchy hurts men too. Even when men are getting it in the neck it's still the fault of men. Nice. As for this drivel in the public eye there is the risible and bereft of logic campaign that suggested men should stop other men being rapists. Even if it had any basis in common sense it would still mean that apparently I'm (all)my brother's keeper and have to protect my sister while I'm at it. Dunno where the equality is in that stuff. Oh and I'm somehow to blame if someone I know sexually assaults a woman. Get off the stage. There's plenty of that nonsense where that came from. The 1 in 4 sexually assaulted "statistic" is a complete nonsense. As is the so called pay gap. And for me anyone describing a liberal western society like Ireland as a "Rape culture" is a certifiable loon. "Trigger warning", which I have read on this very site BTW, is equally daft when addressed to apparent adults.

Do you see it in your life or mostly just on the internet?

I've come across it in conversation alright. It's become more common over the last few years as we seem to have imported the extreme nuttiness of American Reddit think spilling into the mainstream. "Rape culture" is just as daft as "cuck".

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

Hang on. My ears are burning.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Clearly, she wants an all-woman Supreme Court. That's what she said and that's what is clear.

Ah here. Now's not the time to explain how language works. Suffice to say that the literal meaning of words, isn't always the full extent of meaning.

Pat Mustard wrote:

Source please.

Look up news coverage of Sonia Sotomayor circa mid 2009. Pay attention to use of the word 'empathy' It was patched on to as a maternal feature and made her untrustworthy.

Pat Mustard wrote:

You imagine the implications made by an unidentified questioner in relation to a question which has no source except by reference to the statement which purports to answer it. Complete fantasy.

The literal implication of the question is that there is a right number of women on the court. Maybe you think there is a right number of women but the intelligent answer is that the best people should be appointed.

She took a stupid question which implies a bias to ask, and answered with a bias in the opposite direction. It's amazing that your upset about the answer but didn't even notice the ridiculous nature of the question.

twill

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

When you just can't make it to that Donald Trump rally, After Hours is always here...

Zillah

I'm a feminist from the 1970's. That's what I mean when I say I'm a feminist. The current batch of hyper-strident, tumblrite, professional victims do themselves and the movement more harm than good. They've ruined the term entirely, giving chauvinistic goblins ample ammunition for demonising all kinds of feminists, just like we've seen in this thread.

ThinkProgress

desertcircus wrote: »

Nothing like the word "feminism" to trigger the waves of absolute garbage from pontificating blowhards convinced that they're smarter than everyone else for hating feminism.

Translation: they're smarter/better informed on this subject than me... I shall take my leave of this discussion, for fear of being humiliated.

CdeC

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's a similar pattern to child-groomers. They tell their victims that they are different to all of the rest, that they understand you and your feelings, and they all have the ultimate intention of having sex with the person they are telling these things to. Even if it is subconscious, it has the same intent.

Another type to look out for are those men that need to advertise that they think it is wrong to hit a women. For normal people we dont need to advertise it, it is the done thing. For these folk, they have so much pent up aggression against women (both physically and emotionally) that they think it is an achievement not to hit women. And again, ultimately it is to enhance a womens view of them with the goal of having sex.

You wont see a male feminist in an all male environment.

I think this is grossly unfair. I think we need to acknowledge that not all heterosexual men are sexual predators.
Fair enough they may meet a partner through their social leanings. If a guy is into a majority female activity is he only doing it t try and get laid?
You would see a male feminist in an all male environment but he might keep a lower profile

Potatoeman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I've never met, nor ever read about, a male feminist that wasn't extremely sexist in word and deed. Every single one of them pander to women and treat them in ways they would not treat men. Very few them declare themselves male feminists because they believe women should be treated equally. What they really believe is that women should be treated better and do so... superficially at least. Main reason being of course is that there are huge societal pay offs for doing so... even on the interwebs.

Obama is good example of how in larger society men are pandering to women. Look at this recent nonsense:



According to him all men are expected to be feminists now. Not egalitarians, but feminists ffs. If that's now evidence of society being grossly manipulated by those at the wheel then I don't know what is. Young men are blind to it though. They are docile. Jumping through whatever hoops they have to in order to get young women's approval and attention. It's now 'right-on' for men to identify as feminist. The feminisation of western society is in full swing and most are blind to it. I don't however blame feminists all that much. For me the men who agree with them are a much bigger problem.

That's pretty much what Sean Moncrief said. He's a feminist because he only has daughters.

silverharp

Zillah wrote: »

I'm a feminist from the 1970's. That's what I mean when I say I'm a feminist. The current batch of hyper-strident, tumblrite, professional victims do themselves and the movement more harm than good. They've ruined the term entirely, giving chauvinistic goblins ample ammunition for demonising all kinds of feminists, just like we've seen in this thread.

where do "good feminists" draw the line?, its very rare to hear a feminist not step over the egalitarian line. Camille Paglia is about the only "second waver" still around that doesn't have men as some kind of enemy to be brought down.
At some level most feminists today think men should subsidise women in some way whether its quotas in traditionally male fields or by various other subsidies. What feminist is complaining about the gender imbalance against men in college going by gross numbers? All you will hear is moaning about men dominating the Maths depts.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah here. Now's not the time to explain how language works. Suffice to say that the literal meaning of words, isn't always the full extent of meaning.

So what? She said it. You are the one trying to imbue some special meaning to the statement.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look up news coverage of Sonia Sotomayor circa mid 2009. Pay attention to use of the word 'empathy' It was patched on to as a maternal feature and made her untrustworthy.

That's not the way reasonable argument works. I'm not going to research your point for you.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The literal implication of the question is that there is a right number of women on the court.

Her restatement of this question was "And when I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough?". You keep on referring to this question and saying what you think it means or what answer it begs. The fact is that Bader Ginsburg was the one who mentioned this question and she was one who delivered the reply.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe you think there is a right number of women

Strawman argument.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She took a stupid question which implies a bias to ask, and answered with a bias in the opposite direction. It's amazing that your upset about the answer but didn't even notice the ridiculous nature of the question.

This makes as little sense as anything else that you have written here previously. Again, you try to associate some special meaning to the words which were spoken.

padd b1975

Men hanging around women in the hope of getting a bit of action.

It's not exactly front page news now is it?

El_Duderino 09

ThinkProgress wrote:

You can label them whichever way you wish, but they frequently align themselves with the feminist agenda (or equal rights employers as they would prefer to term it)... but their motivation is remarkably similar - they dislike men!

I'm not labeling anyone. It's your example of feminists in real life. Some fellas are unkind to other fellas and they are equal opportunity employers. Is that the west example of feminism you experience in real life.

ThinkProgress wrote:

The feminist movement is not picky about where they draw support from... weak-willed men with some misguided view of equality, or power hungry men looking to keep other men down!

It seems you're not picky about who you label feminists.

ThinkProgress wrote:

Whether you self identify as a 'male feminist' or you just use feminism to further your own agenda, what's the difference?

No idea what you're on about or how it's relevant to the discussion.

Wibbs wrote:

Oh really? So modern feminism isn't positively soaked in victimhood? I dunno what feminist literature you're reading. [...] "Rape culture" is just as daft as "cuck".

I do t go out if my way to read feminists literature. It looks like you read a fair bit so I defer to you on that point.

Zillah wrote:

I'm a feminist from the 1970's. That's what I mean when I say I'm a feminist.

What was a feminist is in the 70s?

Outlaw Pete wrote:

I've never met, nor ever read about, a male feminist that wasn't extremely sexist in word and deed. Every single one of them pander to women and treat them in ways they would not treat men. Very few them declare themselves male feminists because they believe women should be treated equally. What they really believe is that women should be treated better and do so... superficially at least. Main reason being of course is that there are huge societal pay offs for doing so... even on the interwebs.

So many assumptions in that one post. How would you know anything about the quiet people who just get on with the business of treating people fairly? It's as good as saying 'people who openly behave poorly have come to my attention due to their poor behaviour'. It's not just meaningless, its bias filled and a bit harmful.

Dr Jakub wrote:

What kind of eunuch describes himself as a male feminist in these man hating days of third wave feminism?

I'm male and feminist. I'm not so good at hating men but you're dead right about me being a eunuch (rolling eyes smiley face).

Samaris

As usual, "feminism" is being reinterpreted as being man-hating.

I quite see how this is extremely upsetting to men seeing other men describing themselves as feminists.

Look, any movement has its wingnuts. ANY movement. On the internet, you will mostly see said wingnuts, because they're loudest. Many, probably even most, proponants of feminism (and I'm ignoring all this first wave, second wave, third wave Millennial crap, because it seems like a very handy way to say "well, it was useful in the PAST, but now they're just being greedy") believe just that gender should not be a category to subordinate a person.

So, yes, equality. Now, unsurprisingly, most feminists are women, because people tend to fight most for what affects them directly. Many men are also feminists, i.e. believe in equal rights for women. There are a few places where it all gets hairy based on physical strength - the army is still one that gets hotly argued. Many women, including the dread feminists, will also argue for mens' rights where men have more difficulty. Many men will do so too.

Idiots, however, will point to a civil rights movement, whine that they have problems too and demand that said civil rights movement do all the hard work for them as well, while bitching that they're mean to them AND DOING NOTHING THEMSELVES (bar bitch). These people are fools. I have no patience for them.

There is no point taking one label, cherry-picking the odd lunatic and dismissing anyone that falls under that label as anything based on your pet wingnut. That is short-sighted, unscientific and frankly, dishonest. So I have no time for those people either.

Btw, most men I know would either a) say yeah, they are feminists and/or b) say that they believe in equal rights for men and women, but avoid the term "feminism" because it sounds biased. I'm grand with either of those, tbh. No point in labelling someone against their will! None of them appear to be particularly pussywhipped, gay*, controlled, or trying to get into my pants based on it. Bar my partner, but he has other ways to do that rather than pandering :P

TL:DR: Don't label everyone based on the few idiots you know. I raise your anecdotal evidence that your feminist friends and acquaintances are pussy-whipped morons with my own that none of the ones I know are.

*I take that back, a few of them are, but I don't think that they are gay BECAUSE they are feminists/equalitarian/whatever. I suspect that...could it be? Because they are gay.

Potatoeman

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep.

Oh really? So modern feminism isn't positively soaked in victimhood? I dunno what feminist literature you're reading. The basic tenet almost always comes down to "women are always victims, men are always to blame", or swap out "men" for "patriarchy" if the anti male angle is to be dialled down. Oh and patriarchy hurts men too. Even when men are getting it in the neck it's still the fault of men. Nice. As for this drivel in the public eye there is the risible and bereft of logic campaign that suggested men should stop other men being rapists. Even if it had any basis in common sense it would still mean that apparently I'm (all)my brother's keeper and have to protect my sister while I'm at it. Dunno where the equality is in that stuff. Oh and I'm somehow to blame if someone I know sexually assaults a woman. Get off the stage. There's plenty of that nonsense where that came from. The 1 in 4 sexually assaulted "statistic" is a complete nonsense. As is the so called pay gap. And for me anyone describing a liberal western society like Ireland as a "Rape culture" is a certifiable loon. "Trigger warning", which I have read on this very site BTW, is equally daft when addressed to apparent adults.

I've come across it in conversation alright. It's become more common over the last few years as we seem to have imported the extreme nuttiness of American Reddit think spilling into the mainstream. "Rape culture" is just as daft as "cuck".

Hang on. My ears are burning.

One in four? My God, it's true... women are bad at math.

steddyeddy

I'll be the first to admit I was part of the cult of victimhood as Wibbs put it. I come from a low socio economic background and looked for people to blame. Most people aren't trying to hold you down. In fact I'd say confidence, or lack of it is at fault.

I'm all for equal rights. I'm a nice guy and I genuinely see women and men as equals. The most important person in my life was a woman.

Saying that, labels aren't for me. I'm not a fem or meninist, I just support equal rights. People may say feminism is about equal rights but then we'll see the same people say that "feminism is lots of things and isn't represented by certain views" when certain mainstream feminist views are criticised. In other words it's very vague.

My other concern is that some seem to think along the single variable that is gender. Some think that gender dominates how you will do in life. Well I beg to differ. Social status plays a part too. My latest experience of feminists was a girl on my Facebook page posting status about men needing to realise how priviliged they are in certain areas. That's true but this girl went to Oxford and one of the best private schools in the country. She is and always will be far more privileged than me in the Western world. In other parts of the world, like Saudi Arabia, it's a different story.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

So what? She said it. You are the one trying to imbue some special meaning to the statement.

Language is full of meaning. I really hope you dont take everything precisely literally

Pat Mustard wrote:

That's not the way reasonable argument works. I'm not going to research your point for you.

1 I'm On my phone and can't link
2 there's a great chance you would read links if I were to post them.

Google her appointment and filter google for around mid 2009. Do your own homework. Or remain ignorant on the topic. Completely up to you.

Pat Mustard wrote:

Strawman argument.

Yes it was a straw man when I asked you AND when anyone asked her. Glad you got there in the end.

Pat Mustard wrote:

Her restatement of this question was "And when I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough?". You keep on referring to this question and saying what you think it means or what answer it begs. The fact is that Bader Ginsburg was the one who mentioned this question and she was one who delivered the reply.

She's is repeatedly asked this question which implies there is an appropriate number of women to have on the court. As you pointed out, it's a straw man. Rather than try to answer the straw man question, she flips the question. Really common stuff.

Pat Mustard wrote:

This makes as little sense as anything else that you have written here previously. Again, you try to associate some special meaning to the words which were spoken.

Touchy touchy.

Words do have meaning though. Often more than one meaning. Her answer is an example of that.

Pat Mustard

Samaris wrote: »

I'm ignoring all this first wave, second wave, third wave Millennial crap, because it seems like a very handy way to say "well, it was useful in the PAST, but now they're just being greedy")

But this is the crux.