Why do feminists hate women?

On TSR I am often like that I admit, I don't know why I bother go on these threads it just gets my blood boiling.

Aw, social psychology isn't all that bad!

Not that is egalitarianism.

You statement would be true if you put the words "advocacy" and "for women's rights" in there.

Not that is egalitarianism.

You statement would be true if you put the words "advocacy" and "for women's rights" in there.

The core ideology of feminism is egalitarian, whether the actions of feminists reflect that is another matter.

The patriarchy was never something considered to only oppress women. It oppresses people, it just does it a lot more violently to women.

It's not necessarily some evil corporation pulling the strings of society, it's just the remnants of a tribal, hunter-gatherer society where the only role of women was to bear children and look after the men during their relatively short, unhappy lives.

I'm sorry I don't buy that last part. Society developed to feed the economic and political interests of the elite and push everybody else, including women, to the margins. You can't blame the neolithic folk for everything.

An analogy from a different but related controversial topic: atheism, as a movement.

Would you assert that there is a single statement which can be applied to all members of this movement? If you did you would be foolish; the atheistic movement involves people who would happily see religion continue so long as it was dialed down, people who would see it removed from all public society, people who would see every theist shot, and a myriad of perspectives in between.

The same can be said of feminism.

But a true generalisation for Atheists is that they don't believe in a deity. The same way a true generalisation of Nazi's is that they believe in the superiority of the Aryan race.

There are extremists in all groups of people, so obviously feminists are not an exception. Feminists advocate women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. I am therefore not a feminist, as I don't advocate women's rights, I advocate both women and men's rights of equality of opportunity, respect and rights.

Egalitarian for women, not men. That is why I can't support feminism. I'm a egalitarian of both sexes, of support women's right and men's rights, and I don't focus on either. So by definition I am not a feminist.

Okay, whatever, I was just speculating, I'm perfectly happy with your version (which is just as unsubstantiated) so long as you realise that the elite were always men because the women were only there for child-rearing and servitude.

Having said that I don't want to imply that cultural heritage means anything to me. I'm not suggesting modern day men should feel bad for the manner in which their ancestors acted, only, along with women and everybody else, attempt to change it today.

I think to be honest, we are all human, and so unless you are a strong, unbiased individual who is able to withstand the (arguably innate) motivation to support your own social group, then you will always be more likely to support fairness and improvement of your own social group. It makes sense that to humans, their own social groups come first. It's adaptive. Hence why so many girls identify themselves as feminists, and why so many males disagree with the idea.

As a general rule we all want what's best for our group, be it gender, race, sexuality, class etc. That doesn't mean you want worse for other social groups, but I think we all have a general tendency to protect and to focus on our own groups.

And this is why I despise humanity as a species. Please don't ever make out as though this sort of behaviour is acceptable. "It's human nature" is such a bull**** excuse for idiocy

Do you not agree then that what I just described is general human nature? I don't think it's acceptable, but I don't want to make out my reasons behind feminism aren't motivated and have a slight bias, because of course they do!

I think to be honest, we are all human, and so unless you are a strong, unbiased individual who is able to withstand the (arguably innate) motivation to support your own social group, then you will always be more likely to support fairness and improvement of your own social group. It makes sense that to humans, their own social groups come first. It's adaptive. Hence why so many girls identify themselves as feminists, and why so many males disagree with the idea.

I deliberately specified the atheistic movement because I knew you would say this. I had hoped you would realise that.

I've been reasonable happy debating this with you, because at first you seemed relatively reasonable. You don't say **** like "radical feminists ugh". But you continue to repeat the same unthoughtful things. You don't see that generalisation doesn't help you or anybody else. You disregard "extremists" and then continue to make unfounded generalisations.

I do advocate equality of the sexes in the perception of them by the media and society, and do not believe that there are irreparable biological differences between all men and all women that make people unqualified for a certain position from birth. I am a feminist.

You do not necessarily agree that the sexes are biologically equal, but you do advocate equality. You advocate ideas that most would consider feminist, but you don't label yourself as such for...some reason

I think to be honest, we are all human, and so unless you are a strong, unbiased individual who is able to withstand the (arguably innate) motivation to support your own social group, then you will always be more likely to support fairness and improvement of your own social group. It makes sense that to humans, their own social groups come first. It's adaptive. Hence why so many girls identify themselves as feminists, and why so many males disagree with the idea.

As a general rule we all want what's best for our group, be it gender, race, sexuality, class etc. That doesn't mean you want worse for other social groups, but I think we all have a general tendency to protect and to focus on our own groups. I think that's why so many males hate the idea of feminism, because they gain nothing from it, so why like it? I think they'll always try and come up with ideas to demoralise feminism, but their motives are selfish, just like the motives of feminists. That's why I don't think in reality, pure egalitarianism exists, just like pure altruism arguably doesn't really exist.

The reason males don't have a male equivalent of the feminist movement is because they've always been the dominant, more successful gender. It would be like white people having a white equality group in Southern American states.


Maybe in the future there would be one! But ask yourself, would you rather have the need for a group to fight for equality and fairness and have such a group, or would you rather not have the need and not have such a group?


But hey ho, maybe in the future like I said there will be one.

Everyone is prejudiced to an extent. There is no such thing as an un-prejudiced human. Not everyone is full raging Nazi, but people do have their opinions and bias. Rightly or wrongly, it is a fact. Maybe this sways my opinion, I don't know. Possibly, I hope not though.

I want what is best for humans, and I put that above everything else. (probably bias) If that is to be achieved through force or peaceful means then I'm not to concerned, but the underlying point is I believe everyone regardless of disability, sex or race should be given the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. It is then up to the individual to use these opportunities to better themselves.

The best way to fight inequality is not to advocate the removal of them. Just ignore the barriers the obstruct you. If everyone ignored the stereotypes and carried on regardless, people will be much happier. It would be like one man trying to stop hundreds of football fans getting to the stadium. Pointless, and the fans would win.

I don't know what "human nature" is. I would be loathe to accept its existence without mountains of biological evidence.

This genuinely affects me. We got into social conformity and influence in my psych class, and throughout the topic I grew a darker and darker perspective of humanity. I was willing it to be untrue. If certain social conformity theorems are founded in truth, then my vehement misanthropy is completely founded, which is something I don't really want. I would like to, at some point in the future, not despise the species with which I must interact most.

Have you ever had a bad thought? Have you ever done anything that wasn't 100% for the good of others and was a little selfish? Have you ever insulted a person intentionally or unintentionally? Of course you have!

Humans aren't perfect, in fact we're the opposite, we're messes, vulnerable to conformism, prone to bias, and selfishness and jealousy.

But we also have good bits. I don't think you need to be a misanthropist to see the fault in humans and to accept the fact that we can be idiots a fair bit of the time. Unless you're Jesus, or a narcissist, then you're perfect.

I realise that, but the "human nature" thing makes it as though striving for perfection is pointless, and gives excuse to people who do unexcusable things. I mostly just have problems with the notion of "human nature"