Is feminism an INSULT to real women?

[BotanyBoy]

Cool!

So I can give voice to any misogynistic utterance that I want as long as I have some character in a novel think or voice it after they've been done wrong by some woman? I'm sure that would be well received and totally not seen as misogynistic at all.

I'm sure it applies to race as well.......that would fly great!!

 

[Que]

I'm sure it applies to race as well.......that would fly great!!

Didn't they burn copies of Huck Finn?

 

[CandiCame]

I don't consider myself to be "the weaker sex". But... I also don't think I am the same as a male. We do have differences and I think we should embrace those things.

What's the difference? People who say this always have a hard time finding the differences.

There was a cross-cultural neroscience study I read as an undergrad that was unpublishable- because it pointed out that every single study ever done showing these differences were not statically significant. And in a publish or perish industry "No difference" is unpublishable.

Any time you look at a study that has been sensationalized, you see that the authors aren't actually claiming a real difference. They see small statistical anomalies like, "Women are better at facial recognition" and you read and see that women raised in certain cultures that prize facial recognition skills among women but not among men have a statistically insignificant advantage in that one narrow area, but by less than a Z-score. Or you'll see really REALLY specific differences that aren't generalizable to the whole sex by any stretch of the imagination such as "Women who are pregnant report a heightened sense of smell". Like that's interesting and those scented candle companies latched the fuck onto it, but in the real world there's no like... practical application to that except to sell scented candles at baby showers. And I might not have as heighted a sense of smell but I, too, would like to cover up the funk of cigarette smoke and dog so those don't really need to be pink. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

Unless you're talking physical differences, but again, those aren't generalizable. Like men have an average height about 2in taller than women, but full blood siblings will have much more similar phenotypes in everything, including height than if you compared the brother to a random dude off the street and the sister to a random chick off the street. There are tons of women taller than me, for example, and I'm not exactly an outlier. I'm on the shorter side of the "average" height.

And a lot of those "differences" exist ONLY because we "embrace" them. Like men have been shown to have a lifting capacity in excess of a X-score higher than women- a statically significant difference that I've actually seen women use against us. They say shit like, "You guys don't understand what it's like to date someone physically stronger than you" - which is blatant erasure because my man can, without exaggeration, just pick me up and throw me over his shoulder when I get mouthy so that is not exclusive to women, that's heteronormative bullshit- but also we have the same muscle groups, and other studies have shown that the REASON that difference is a thing is because when men and women work out they do so for different reasons- so you've trained one group to work out for weight loss and another for strength gain so you can't act fucking shocked when one group is stronger than another.

I'm not trying to victim blame and say that someone was abused by their boyfriend because they didn't work out enough. I realize it kind of came off like that. I'm just saying that that difference is largely cultural and not my fault. Like I'm not strong.

And pretty much every difference that people try to say is biological apart from obvious reproductive shit is actually cultural. Those differences are manufactured and actually fairly recent. Like physical strength being associated with masculinity is a VERY recent thing in the woodlands of the US, because it requires a certain culture to prize daintyness in women. And you actually see it show up in sexual partner selection in this area to this day. When generations before you needed women who were strong and sturdy to work the farm, to fight off wild animals, to do physical labor that needed to be fuckin done or you went cold and hungry, we didn't see these drastic differences in the sexes in regards to strength, because people weren't trying to fit into those boxes, they were trying to live. When shit needs doing it needs doing and whoever is there is who is going to do it, so you selected mates based on their strength rather than their thinness. There's, to this day, a redneck concept of a "sturdy woman" or "hearty woman" that basically translates to "butch but straight". Like there's not a whole lot of difference between some people's memaw's and other people's "obvious butch lesbian". Because the strength thing is mostly cultural.

My point is- those differences ONLY exist because we embrace them. You've got it backwards. It's not that the differences exist and then we embrace them.

Except for pregnancy. I can't do that, and it does take a lot out of you, so that's... that's the one. And it is, interestingly, the one that we're not actively embracing as a culture. If you can't go three months without pay and come right back you can fuck right off in god's America. And that is the only really physiological difference so like... we need to do better with that? By a lot?

 

[CandiCame]

Cool!

So I can give voice to any misogynistic utterance that I want as long as I have some character in a novel think or voice it after they've been done wrong by some woman? I'm sure that would be well received and totally not seen as misogynistic at all.

Yeah, as long as the context supports it. That's rampant in literature to the point that it's a trope. There are tons of characters who do this because they've been wronged by a woman.

I'm watching squidbillies so the first one who comes to mind is Early Cyler. He does that shit all the time, and that show's not considered controversial because of the way it's presented, because of the context.

Best to submit to your husband least your flesh be devoured

Women's just gonna take your money anyway

April does this on Parks & Rec, as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWXXH8dU2r8

Here's a TV tropes page of ladies who do this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemaleMisogynist

And one for the guys: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawMisogynist

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MistakenForMisogynist

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeManWomanHater

Like... I feel like you were going for 'gotcha' but the answer is 'Yes, of course, absolutely if you're a good writer. We do it literally all the time and so often that we need several wiki pages to even scratch the surface of examples.'

 

[HelpImLost]

Candi , the difference is that God made men to lead! It's pointed in the numerous scriptures you posted.

Women were made to be their wives , and I have to be honest , TO HAVE CHILDREN. Yes. We were MADE and our purpose Is to have children. And if a woman doesn't want children she can of course devote her life to Christ , which is equally important. And yes , women who can't have children were for some reason slighted. But the good news is the Church teaches us women in that case can adopt children, which is just as good.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, you explained why you were not answering a different question then the one he asked.

I can't say I blame you for not wanting to defend feminism on the general board the entire idea feminism is indefensible anywhere.

Men really should get together and form the patriarchy; refer to ourselves as patriarchists, maybe have some meetings.

A secret handshake would be a nice start.

(a) No, I explained precisely why I wasn't answering exactly the question he was asking. There was a further statement, but my initial sentence was an exact response to his actual question.

(b) It's not that 'I don't want to defend feminism' - I'm just sick of offering explanations that no one reads, linking to references that no one reads, etc. Anyone who says 'define feminism' already knows what they think it is, and has no actual interest in my response except in terms of how they can twist it, misinterpret it, or otherwise fuck with it in order to support their own definition.

(c) Feminism doesn't actually need defending.

(d) I think you'll find the reason there isn't 'masculinism' is because that's kind of been the default setting for centuries - that's why it didn't need a 'name'. (That's actually response to a prior point, but also, tangentially, to your final statement above.)

 

[KimGordon67]

Cool!

So I can give voice to any misogynistic utterance that I want as long as I have some character in a novel think or voice it after they've been done wrong by some woman? I'm sure that would be well received and totally not seen as misogynistic at all.

Good grief. Do you actually understand how fiction works?

Let's take a recent example you may be familiar with - Game of Thrones. Full of misogyny - like, bursting at the seams with characters who hate women, violent acts against women, all kinds of hateful acts, words and everything directed against women, frequently because they ARE women.
Also pretty feminist.

 

[butters]

Wow.

"Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich history of over 35 years of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. There’s a cultural battle raging across this country and CWA is on the frontline protecting those values through prayer and action."

1 Timothy 2:11
A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness.

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for they are not allowed to speak, but to be in subjection, just as The Written Law also says.

Like... no one is gonna call this out? I guess?

wow indeed - i guess there are a whole bunch of older (for the most part) men out there who feel threatened by the fact women have a voice now, and don't just 'obey, as they ought'. rather, they should be welcoming the fact that not all the responsibility in the world to feed and clothe and educate their children rests only on their narrow shoulders and they have someone of equal worth to share this with! the details about who should go to work & who should stay home with the children are also a matter of personal choice, though a whole lot of personal choice has been removed by the need to pay off mortgages and urban living. why the hell are some men so scared of accepting women as their equals, if not for past cultural exposure or simple insecurity? it must bite some of their arses that they can't simply beat their wives into submission and get away with it any more...

In answer to the OP, real feminism isn't an insult to anyone.
That's kind of the point.

I am a real woman who has always hated that word! I had a BF back in the 80's and he was shocked when I told him I was not a feminist. So this isn't a new thing for me. Although in more recent years, I do think the term has grown to represent a type of person I really don't want to be.

I was not raised in a traditional family. We were about as non-traditional as we could be. As in sometimes bordering on hippie. My mom did work at the church. They did pay her a small amount but she gave it all back to the church. I was required to go to church. Church is not my thing. I am spiritual. Not religious.

My mom did sew. She made a lot of her clothes and most of mine. I was scrawny and tall and nothing in the stores fit me. I also danced and she made all of my costumes save for a purchased tutu. She even made ties for my dad. He was into wacky ties for a while. Hated wearing ties but was required to wear them to work so he went for wild ones. My mom loved to sew.

I can sew but I hate it. I am rather artsy/crafty so I have sewn things but would prefer to do other things. I do love to cook. My mom hated it. I started cooking at age 8 and by 12 was pretty much doing all of the cooking/baking for that family. My brother loved Salisbury steak. He could make that meal but wasn't into cooking other than that. That being said, we did dine out a lot. And I spent a goodly portion of my teen and young adult years being too busy to mess with food so my diet was mainly salad and trail mix. I did make my own trail mix and only put in things that I liked.

I have worked a variety of jobs including driving a forklift, slinging bags of steer manure and cement blocks into the backs of people's vehicles. I worked at a golf course, taught dance, even had a desk job. I also felt that I should be equal to my male coworkers in terms of pay. We did the same exact things so I didn't think they should be paid more than me just because they were male.

I remember the days when a woman couldn't buy a car without her husband's permission. Not could she enter some bars/pubs without having a male with her. Things were just that way in those days. I didn't agree with that stuff.

I don't consider myself to be "the weaker sex". But... I also don't think I am the same as a male. We do have differences and I think we should embrace those things. I also don't split hairs when it comes to household tasks. If one of us is better at doing certain things and enjoys it, then that's what they should do.

I'm no longer married. But when I was, I was the one who assembled stuff, did repairs, etc. Why? Those things come easily to me and I enjoy doing them. He hated doing that stuff, couldn't figure out directions and it took him next to forever to finish certain things like that. If he did in fact finish. More often, he would do a botched job or break the thing totally.

He loved cleaning things. I hate cleaning. I just let him do that. It all worked out.

That's just my take. I don't expect everyone to think the same.

so, all these things means you are living and breathing feminism nowhere in true feminism does it say men and women are 'the same' - each to their own, and some women enjoy just the same stuff as men whilst some like different things, EXACTLY the same as some women like doing things other women don't like doing!

if it wasn't for 'feminism', you would never have had some of those same choices i bolded in your text - you'd have had to do it and like it, too, god dammit

Candi , the difference is that God made men to lead! It's pointed in the numerous scriptures you posted.

Women were made to be their wives , and I have to be honest , TO HAVE CHILDREN. Yes. We were MADE and our purpose Is to have children. And if a woman doesn't want children she can of course devote her life to Christ , which is equally important. And yes , women who can't have children were for some reason slighted. But the good news is the Church teaches us women in that case can adopt children, which is just as good.

you're nothing but an attention-seeking troll, looking to stir things on the forum by posting this kinda baiting crap.

 

[butters]

Good grief. Do you actually understand how fiction works?

Let's take a recent example you may be familiar with - Game of Thrones. Full of misogyny - like, bursting at the seams with characters who hate women, violent acts against women, all kinds of hateful acts, words and everything directed against women, frequently because they ARE women.
Also pretty feminist.

well, damn, kim - does that mean that every novel i read isn't the pure, unadulterated, split-personalitied voice of its author? fuck me sideways. real life's screwier than i knew

right now i'm reading fire & blood, the g.o.t's story set 300 years before the books we've already read. plenty of misogyny and feminism in there, too - martin must be so, so confused, bless 'im.

 

[Oblimo]

Cool!

So I can give voice to any misogynistic utterance that I want as long as I have some character in a novel think or voice it after they've been done wrong by some woman? I'm sure that would be well received and totally not seen as misogynistic at all.

C'mon, Que. There's a much better way to counter my point than that.

You should have countered with the novel The Turner Diaries.

But I'm not going to do your trolling for you.

 

[KimGordon67]

so, all these things means you are living and breathing feminism nowhere in true feminism does it say men and women are 'the same' - each to their own, and some women enjoy just the same stuff as men whilst some like different things, EXACTLY the same as some women like doing things other women don't like doing!

if it wasn't for 'feminism', you would never have had some of those same choices i bolded in your text - you'd have had to do it and like it, too, god dammit

^^ this ... it's reflective of the argument that I've been having with LJ for some time, when he rabbits on about the feminism 'brand' being so tainted that great swathes of American women (I can't remember the stat he pulls out to prove his point) won't identify as 'feminist'.
It pretty much doesn't matter whether they do or not, if they're still actually living the lives that feminism made possible, and arguing for gender equality. It's a pity people can't be bothered learning what feminism actually is, and instead decide it 'obviously' means 'hating all men' ... but I can't be bothered learning how to change my own oil, so I guess we make choices about the things we do.

 

[RoryN]

The space between "Rory" and "N" doesn't help you avoid the search engine. (Dumbass amateur troll.)

*exposed*

*pissed that I exposed him*

I taught a valuable lesson yesterday.

 

[KimGordon67]

well, damn, kim - does that mean that every novel i read isn't the pure, unadulterated, split-personalitied voice of its author? fuck me sideways. real life's screwier than i knew

right now i'm reading fire & blood, the g.o.t's story set 300 years before the books we've already read. plenty of misogyny and feminism in there, too - martin must be so, so confused, bless 'im.

Clearly he's a feminist who hates women ... he probably writes 'lesbian' porn on the side as well.

 

[butters]

Clearly he's a feminist who hates women ... he probably writes 'lesbian' porn on the side as well.

...and the incest, oh boy... come to think of it, there's plenty of mentions of that whole age thing in it that shall not be mentioned on this site. what does that make him? he must be soooo screwed up.

speaking of which, can't wait to see that new movie Glass - james macavoy really impressed me in Split

 

[InsightRiot]

Cool!

So I can give voice to any misogynistic utterance that I want as long as I have some character in a novel think or voice it after they've been done wrong by some woman? I'm sure that would be well received and totally not seen as misogynistic at all.

Take note of the cunty passive-aggressive tactics.

 

[HelpImLost]

I taught a valuable lesson yesterday.

What was the lesson? That you're a pink hat wearing sissy who needs to more than one account to be heard ? Your alter ego VON definitely has more balls than you , kill off rory and keep only von!

you're nothing but an attention-seeking troll, looking to stir things on the forum by posting this kinda baiting crap.

 

[butters]

What was the lesson? That you're a pink hat wearing sissy who needs to more than one account to be heard ? Your alter ego VON definitely has more balls than you , kill off rory and keep only von!

i said you were

looking to stir things on the forum by posting this kinda baiting crap.

- that's far from saying you were achieving any measure of success. you're just a boring fake.

 

[BotanyBoy]

so, all these things means you are living and breathing feminism nowhere in true feminism does it say men and women are 'the same' -

Again with "True feminism" whatever the fuck that is.....

It's a pity people can't be bothered learning what feminism actually is,

Maybe if someone would put an actual definition to it instead of worming the fuck around so they could excuse and bullshit about the raging bigot man haters among them, that would be less of a problem.

Maybe if you quit letting the loony left re-define it and fly the 'feminist' banner people wouldn't roll their eyes at it so hard.

But that would get you labeled an alt-right wife beating Nazi....so you better not.

It pretty much doesn't matter whether they do or not, if they're still actually living the lives that feminism made possible, and arguing for gender equality.

Gender equality has been covered, what they are after is gender EQUITY.

Not the same thing and it's why the only people who are active modern "feminist" are bat shit SJW lefties.

and instead decide it 'obviously' means 'hating all men' ..

You let them speak loudest for you....that's the message they carry in your name.

 

[bellisarius]

Exactly what is today's 'Feminism?' And exactly what do today's feminists want?

Let's start there.

 

[HelpImLost]

i said you were - that's far from saying you were achieving any measure of success. you're just a boring fake.

Oh ok then.. cunt

 

[CandiCame]

(a) No, I explained precisely why I wasn't answering exactly the question he was asking. There was a further statement, but my initial sentence was an exact response to his actual question.

(b) It's not that 'I don't want to defend feminism' - I'm just sick of offering explanations that no one reads, linking to references that no one reads, etc. Anyone who says 'define feminism' already knows what they think it is, and has no actual interest in my response except in terms of how they can twist it, misinterpret it, or otherwise fuck with it in order to support their own definition.

(c) Feminism doesn't actually need defending.

(d) I think you'll find the reason there isn't 'masculinism' is because that's kind of been the default setting for centuries - that's why it didn't need a 'name'. (That's actually response to a prior point, but also, tangentially, to your final statement above.)

I'm sorry, I just didn't know that Que wasn't coming to the patriarchy meetings. I missed that in his initial quote.

Dude I made traditional gender rolls and everything for the last luncheon. He missed the fuck out. I mean, they weren't that good but we all knew that going in.

Your point D just kinda hit me pretty hard. Because there's a difference between what a male "feminist" movement would be and what the patriarchy actually is. Those things aren't the same at all. The patriarchy shits on us, too. Just in different ways that I guess are less 'in your face'.

The reason that there isn't "masculism" or that MRA's are really, really shitty at what they do is not that there's doesn't need to be. It's because the things that we need to do are also caused by the patriarchy. Toxic masculinity, gender roles, heteronormity- those are actual problems that actually fuck people up. It's not that men don't have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. And to be fair, there's some fucked up shit that people who claim to be feminists have done, like protesting men's shelters to the point that they shut down and the founder committed suicide.

The issue is really that these are problems within the movement and need to be addressed within the movement, not used as asshole 'gotcha' cards- because these are real people's real lives. Bringing up the fact that, for example, male sexual assault survivors are much less likely to be believed or face any kind of justice despite existing in pretty much equal numbers with their female counterparts is something that needs to happen- but it needs to happen because people are concerned about those guys, especially those kids, and not to shut down discussion on female survivors- which is a tactic I often see MRAs use.

Like the issue isn't that we don't need to address men's issues or that they don't exist- it's that we don't need to do that at the expense of women. The patriarchy actually hurts everyone. Like advocating for men is NOT the norm and never has been- the norm is advocating for the status quo- which has built in sexism. But advocating for sexism is not the same thing as advocating for men, it's the opposite. Just like how "feminism" does not equal "women", the "patriarchy" does not equal "men".

Male privilege exists, but it's a double edged sword. Yeah, I can get a job easier when they see my name is a dude's on the application, but I'm also way more likely to get assaulted or be the victim of any violent crime. Yeah, I make more money for no particular reason, but I can also lose my kid at a moment's notice if my gf decides to take her away. In my state, there's literally a law that the father does not have to agree if the mother wants to give a baby up for adoption after it's born- we have that few rights. You can absolutely want your kid, never imply that you didn't, and you still don't even have to be consulted before she gives the kid up to strangers.

Because men aren't REAL parents, we're not REAL caregivers. Because the patriarchy damages everyone. Men need feminism, and need to be active in feminism, because abolishing gender roles would help us all. I don't know why people are fighting against that, because the shit we get is not worth the shit we lose under the current system. Like oh I can get a cheap car and people don't interrupt me when I speak but people are out here every single day killing themselves because they lost their whole-ass family in the divorce and have no social support structure because guys aren't allowed to have emotionally supportive friends.

You don't even have to like women to understand why men need feminism. That attitude, that anti-feminist attitude some guys have is fucking bizarre to me.

 

[CandiCame]

wow indeed - i guess there are a whole bunch of older (for the most part) men out there who feel threatened by the fact women have a voice now, and don't just 'obey, as they ought'. rather, they should be welcoming the fact that not all the responsibility in the world to feed and clothe and educate their children rests only on their narrow shoulders and they have someone of equal worth to share this with! the details about who should go to work & who should stay home with the children are also a matter of personal choice, though a whole lot of personal choice has been removed by the need to pay off mortgages and urban living. why the hell are some men so scared of accepting women as their equals, if not for past cultural exposure or simple insecurity? it must bite some of their arses that they can't simply beat their wives into submission and get away with it any more...

My point is that they're hypocrites. Abrahamic religions are inherently sexist and as long as we pretend that they're worthy of consideration, let alone that they belong in our children's education (like that group advocates on their site) there's going to be an excess of sexism in our society because we're breeding that mindset for no good reason.

And it is hypocritical for a women's organization that claims to be founded on biblical principles to lecture male congressional representatives on how they should be living and working (something that their site is very proud of) because that goes AGAINST biblical principles. They, a group of women, are speaking in public over men to educate them- something that their religion strictly prohibits.

In a secular society we wouldn't have this issue because there wouldn't be that inherit sexism. It's not an issue of individual older men being sexist because they're intimidated or whatever- it's an issue of institutionalized sexism taught from a young age by an archaic belief system from the bronze age, and those ladies don't have a leg to stand on when they advocate for it because they're not allowed to advocate for anything under it.

I don't like the sexism or the hypocrisy.

This mindset is worked into the very fabric of our society by this intense religious identity. There have been tons of studies that show that when religiosity goes down, so does sexism. Religion CAUSES sexist thoughts. It's been established as a causational link in the United States. The more religious you are, the more sexist you are. Those people may also be insecure, but their belief system is structured around a text that is inherently sexist, that rewards sexism, so of course they're going to think like that.

And it's not just exposure- it is baked into life in the culture. It's not even just repeated exposure. It's a fear tactic used to indoctrinate people from the time they're young impressionable children.

Like this isn't a hypothetical question like you're presenting it here. We've studied this. We have a concrete answer. Religion causes sexism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045317/

Here's an article about it that no one's going to read that compiled several cross-cultural studies, and even with the bias of the researcher (read the abstract, you can tell that they're obviously biased) they were still forced to admit that there is an evident (that is, there's too much evidence to deny) causational relationship in one direction. Religion CAUSES sexism.

So to see a group of women advocating in this manner is hypocritical in a "laugh so you don't cry" kind of way. That was my point. I wasn't advocating FOR sexism.

 

[toeskr]

Can Kim, candi or big butt respond to ANY thread with less than 50 words and try to get their point across?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Exactly what is today's 'Feminism?' And exactly what do today's feminists want?

Let's start there.

They can't answer either of those questions.....questions which just make them mad because they FEEL you are attacking them.

 

[toeskr]

The space between "Rory" and "N" doesn't help you avoid the search engine. (Dumbass amateur troll.)

Luk and Ror.

Keeping the vanity option alive and well.

Pathetic! But also hilarious.