Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Why do people on this site hate feminism so much?

luciie

Any reason? :confused:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

monk1324

too many to type it all out. Do some research.

Misinformed?

I have no idea why there's such an out-pour of anti-feminist threads today :confused:

Reply 4

acupofgreentea

I have no idea, but I tend to avoid most feminist-related threads for this reason - 5% will be related to feminism, the other 95% will be unwarranted snarky comments about "feminazis."

It frustrates me to no end.

Reply 5

BobbyFlay

I personally disagree with many of the core concepts perpetuated by feminism. Such as patriarchy, rape culture, wage gap and positive discrimination. All of which do not exist, there is simply to evidence of it.

No idea is above scrutiny, that goes for feminism too.
I want to achieve equality across the board but not using fake concepts and non-factual arguments. These concepts are exclusive to feminism, hence I do not support the movement.

Reply 6

wildleaves

Consistently being told women are oppressed and to check my privilege isn't helping.

Reply 7

Zweihander

Original post by luciie

Any reason? :confused:

Because modern day feminism is more about misandry than equality.

/thread

Reply 8

College_Dropout

Not enough women in the kitchen :ahee:

Reply 9

Ehmb

I guess it is just a trend, there are a lot of people on tsr who are anti-religion and anti-feminist. Maybe people see it as the 'cool' thing to do.

Reply 10

AntgoneRJ

I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about feminism. It is hard for people to see that feminism is not about superiority but infact about equality.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 11

Ehmb

Original post by AntgoneRJ

I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about feminism. It is hard for people to see that feminism is not about superiority but infact about equality.

I guess they just don't realise how much good feminism has done.

Reply 12

Rorschach II

@TheCitizenAct

He'll gladly explain it all for you.

(He sniffs this stuff.)

Reply 13

MrsSheldonCooper

I don't think it's hating feminism. It's more to do with women saying they're entitled to more rights than men without any good reason

Reply 14

TheCitizenAct

Original post by XcitingStuart

@TheCitizenAct

He'll gladly explain it all for you.

(He sniffs this stuff.)

As much as I'd like to, I don't do brevity and I have no time.

I've argued incessantly about this over two threads in 'news and current affairs' and 'society.' It should be fairly evident to anyone who wants to know.

Those who don't will never be persuaded otherwise and will continue to adhere to their socially acceptable religion.

Reply 15

Rorschach II

Original post by TheCitizenAct

Link those two threads please? ;puppy eyes;

Reply 16

Philbert

Lots of reasons, firstly becausse as with any movement, the people with the most radical views tend to be noticed more and are therefore seen as representative.

Interestingly, if you look at anti-suffragette posters from the turn of the 20th century, you'll see that many of the tropes that are used to criticise feminists were being used back then. Some people just can't accept that women a) don't just want to be men and b) women are disadvantaged in some ways and that there is still some way to go before true equality is acheived.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 17

TheCitizenAct

Original post by XcitingStuart

Link those two threads please? ;puppy eyes;

Gender, like religion, ethnicity and sexuality, is nothing more than a proxy for the class war and a socially acceptable religion. Nay, identity politics is a proxy for the class war. In almost all instances I observe, feminists prioritise the identity ('equality for women') ahead of the principle (equality), outcomes over opportunities (which, argued down, is illogical - see first linked to thread), and generalisations (imagined identities or collectives like 'women', or 'the female vote') over data.

It basic divide and rule. Corporations get great PR, politicians gets votes, the charity sector gets funding, the HE sector gets admission fees, everyone is happy...except those who hanker after individual liberty.

Feminists: make a legitimate point about feminism. Any point will do.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3795923

Here's the basis:

Seriously, I want a legitimate argument from feminists.

Here's your challenge, should you choose to accept it:

1. Make a point which isn't about me as a person.
2. Make a point which isn't orientated around comparing women relative to men.
3. Make a point which isn't orientated around how men can or should be 'better men' (while simultaneously adopting a position of synthetic outrage any time any male tells you how to be a 'better woman'.
4. Make a point which doesn't orientate around stereotyping the entire population of males, or the entire population of females.
5. Make a point which doesn't prioritise outcomes over opportunity or absolute equality.

Any point will do. Ready? Go!

The result? Five pages. No arguments.

Gather round one and all. Vice: 'the year in male tears.'
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1

Other threads I've created (which help hammer the point):

Switch the context! Why I hate identity politics and progressivism.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3626791

I'm truly sick of the patriarchy discriminating against women. Let's fix it.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3510357

Or here's an argument I made before against the commonly referred to 'historical female oppression':

Genuinely oppressed? Would you like one thousand examples to the contrary (you know, the one's no-one ever talks about)?

1. The white feather campaign. During WW1, and because the draft was politically toxic, thousands of women would volunteer to go around towns and cities and pin white feathers on men who weren't wearing military uniform. During the early 20th century, the white feather was a symbol of cowardice. Thousands of men voluntarily put themselves in the line for mass slaughter in the face of your purported 'female oppression.'

2. Women were given the vote the same time as men - 1918. However, it was only extended to upper-class women and women over the age of 30 (40% of women). Men had to die in their hundreds and thousands to be given the vote (this is why they were given the right, not because of 'patriarchal oppression), women merely had to campaign. Other than Emily Davison (who jumped in-front of a horse, an act which has been proven to be an accident, i.e. she didn't martyr herself), not a single suffragette died for the right to vote, it was handed to them.

3. Women were never compelled to go to war and die in their millions for their country. They didn't have the same employment rights as men but for a very, very obvious reason which modern day feminists like to cloak as 'historical gender oppression' - the vast, vast, vast majority of jobs were manual labour and, as women were far more important to society in the reproductive sense (one man can impregnate thousands of women, women only have a small number of eggs), they were sheltered and protected.

4. Even look at punishments - women were never subjected to anything like the same levels of brutality and humiliation men were subjected to on a daily basis. Take something like the Skimmington ride, if a man was found to have 'bested' his wife in a fight, he would be tied to a pole and lashed relentlessly (this is 'patriarchal oppression', apparently - the only reason they didn't shoot him was because he was legally obligated to provide for his 'oppressed' wife). If a woman was found to have bested her husband in a fight, he would be tied to a cart and driven through the village so the villagers could smack him about the head with pots and pans.

5. In the vast majority of instances all throughout history, courts were overwhelmingly lenient towards women relative to men. In the 18th and 19th century in particular, the vast majority of murder charges against women (for murdering their husbands) were reduced to 'manslaughter'. Even taking something like property rights, men were under a legal obligation to preserve their wives, to the extent courts could seize his property and assets on his wife's behalf (typically if the man failed to provide for his wife).

Even if a woman was wealthy, she would never, ever be obligated to contribute a single penny of her wealth to her husband, even if he was incapacitated, or unable to work.

It really does go on and on and all you've been sold is one side of the narrative, most of which is cherry-picked and fictitious.

Ernest Bax (1890): "the bravest and strongest man is as weak as a child against the overwhelming force of the state" and "any woman can at will summon to her a power no man can resist... the whole power of the courts and the community, backed up by the press and public opinion"

Sound familiar?

Or here's an argument about the pay gap:

No, they don't. They really, really don't.

Much like The UK, the US lacks any purposeful framework for national job evaluation. However, the $0.77 to $1 statistic Obama likes to cite is fallacious at best and malicious at worst, for all the same reasons The ONS data is utterly fallacious.

Of course, if you'd typed 'wage gap myth' into a search engine you'd be presented with hundreds of millions of results detailing why the wage/pay gap is a myth, and all of them are backed up by an extensive amount of research conducted by leading female and male academics and economists the world over, and over the last 5 decades.

Even looking at The ONS reports would highlight a point of concern (I imagine you just read the headlines, like most gender ideologues): 'this data is not to be used to determine whether women receive EQUAL pay for EQUAL work.' They state that - in the reports!

Why? Because there are so many variables at play. For example, as The ONS stipulate, men work far more overtime than women. Men are also more likely to relocate and take on more hazardous professions and thus qualify for hazard pay. Men don't take months out of their career - or even years - to look after children. Women are far more likely to work part-time.

Heck, we don't even compare like with like - we could be comparing chip shop workers to CEOs for all we know. It's just as 1% sample of the population.

Want to look granularly? It's pretty evident women choose lower paid careers. For example, it's widely known that, ON AVERAGE, male Doctors earn more than female Doctors. However, a cursory look at the data would tell us men are far more likely to enter into the medical specialism 'heart surgery', and women are far more likely to enter into medical specialisms like 'paediatrics.'

They make these decisions consciously and while fully aware of the varying pay scales. Guess which specialism pays more?

Of course, if we were to take The ONS reports as gospel, we'd have to look at the median around part-time work which has men trailing behind women (a statistic which isn't reported on). I wonder why? Anyone?