How come feminism is becoming so hated?

Post Reply New Topic

If you're a UK Cabinet Minister who holds an influential role within the UK Liberal Democrat Party and tweet out calling for male genocide, as in "srsly #killallmen..."... thereby putting autistic males directly in the firing line.. you have gone waaaay over the moral event horizon.

Some (Mary Daly, Cath Comins, Gearhart) literally call for the extermination of 90% of the male population.
We're talking bullets in backs of heads, gas chambers...

Nope. You're clearly an evil misogynist for even considering posting such criticism. Please report to the nearest correctional facility for reprogramming.

Maybe because feminists started exaggerating with feminism so people became sick of it

A common problem about some active feminists, is that they spend all day and energy reading news and stories of male abuse and domestic violence, they set their social media's online feed settings to get such news from over the world.

It is good to be aware of them, but when you are 24/7 watcher to news about men abusing women, every day, every moment, then yeah, while having little contact with men in life, then yeah, of course you will subconsciously end up hating all men, because you set an environment to hear nothing but bad things about the male gender- MRAs are very prone to this too (ending up hating women).

It is the radical man hating loud mouths who get most of the attention who drag feminisms name through the mud!

Well there are some feminist factions like trans-exclusionary radical feminists who truly suck for their own reasons. By and large, though, I'd say the problem is that a lot of men are as*holes. It's half of why I've stopped calling myself one. :/

Most people react without thinking to any sign of provocation.

I, myself, have been guilty of that many times in the past.

I dislike a lot of what the radical fringe feminists have to say. If I were to take that route, I would start by demanding the sterilization of breeders, for their neverending oppression of my civil rights as a gay man. See, that makes about as much sense as a lot of the self-proclaimed feminists who get the most attention.

But the reason why they get the most attention is because it is easier to sell headlines with people acting irrationally than it is to sell headlines with normal people who act and think like normal people. When was the last time any of us read about a Christian who did not discriminate against a gay man, a Muslim who did not want to murder all Christians, or a feminist who did not preach superiority over all men?

The fact is, most people in most groups are pretty damn normal, and most people want the right to be whoever the f**k they want to be without ridicule or discrimination.

And in today's world, everybody faces ridicule or discrimination. Without exception. The fans of these fires are always stoked by the people who get the most attention - and these people always are the fringe extremists. Without exception.

Why can't we all just crack open a beer and be the middle-of-the-road people we want to be? Identifying with extremes is part of the world's culture, because we really do not have any universal middle-of-the-road figures that we can talk to other people about without having most of the people in the room asking, "Who the f**k is that?"

Because it's female narcissism and gynocentrism politicized.

Men don't realise how little they feature in the worldview of a woman much less a feminist. That's why they don't care about men's rights beyond their ONE patented issue: "Men should have the right to be weak and feminine without ridicule! Because femininity is not something to be mocked!" Which is actually more of a woman's issue than a man's.

Seriously that is the only mens issue they bring up and believe is worth fighting for.

Feminists tell men constantly that men are the powerful masters of society and the planet, who oppress women who are in turn weak, vulnerable, scared, and are under the power of men. This feeds the male ego and is partly why feminism has gone unchallenged in the mainstream so long, where feminism is not hated, in fact go offline and publicly declare yourself a non feminist - you are taking risks with your career.

Because it's not about equality, if it ever even was; it's about superiority and hatred.

Firstly, I really don't see how anyone can call the male gaze "dogmatic nonsense". It's an obvious, well-documented phenomenon, and unlike privilege (also obvious and well-documented) it isn't used nebulously, as far as I have seen, and doesn't have any other connotations. You don't have to think that the male gaze is a bad thing, but it certainly exists. There just isn't nearly as much use of men as eye candy as there is of women, be that in terms of partial nudity or shot selections or the dress of background characters...

Also, that incident was not a "UK Cabinet Minister", it was an ordinary member of the Lib Dems who sat on a few committees. She acknowledged that the comments were unacceptable and resigned from her positions after facing widespread condemnation; she said her remarks were the result of a "significant period" of being the target of "misog­y­nis­tic online trolling and harass­ment of the most per­sonal and unpleas­ant kind".

(and fwiw, a quick read of her blog shows that this one feminist who has expressed extreme views also cares about secularism, Lords reform, AV, internet privacy, the freedom to offend religious people, judicial overreach, trans welfare, mental health, and climate change, all issues which affect men just as much as women if not more so. So cut the "feminists don't care about men" spiel)

Because it took all the credit for "equality."

What really brought about changes for women:
- The major weakening of the Christian Church and the fact that it became constitutionally separated from state affairs.
- The advent of increased socialism (social benefits) and large government.
- The ubiquity of labour saving technology resulting in the devaluation of the male dominated manual laborforce.
- The increase in scientific enquiry, resulting in the debunking of sexist myths ( ex. women are inherently less intelligent)
- The rise of secular philosophy and humanism.
-The two world wars forcing women to work due to male shortage.
- The corporate desire to increase the workforce pool, increasing competition for jobs, thus driving down salaries.
- The fact that women spend more than men, putting economic incentive to maximize transfer of funds from man to woman. (the courts are especially good at this).
Theres really no reason to believe that any equality is or was ever dependent on feminism. The notion that it was is a strategic move designed to make women feel like they have to be grateful and uncritical of feminism because of the past. Feminism has simply moved us from traditional gynocentrism to marxist/leftist gynocentrism.

When it's removed from its context and presented as something external to advertising - i.e. the way it's commonly used by feminists to, for example, describe what they refer to as "creeps" - then it's dogmatic nonsense. When a phrase is used almost exclusively by adherents of a single ideology - i.e. patriarchy, mansplaining, male gaze - it's dogmatic nonsense.



I can assure you that it is, indeed, used nebulously.



I don't think it's legitimately a "thing" in the first place, as Mulvey completely disregarded the possibility of a female equivalent on the grounds that men "cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification".



Taken from http://www.vogue.com/slideshow/1292975/ ... le-models/

As for the relative prevalence of the sexualisation of men and women in various media, I'm unaware that anyone is actually counting, but it seems that both sexes are strongly represented - albeit not always in the same manner. The suggestion, however, that there is anything inherently wrong with finding another human being attractive to look at, or that in so doing they somehow become akin to a disempowered object, remains a ridiculous and puritanical one.



Say what you like about Mussolini, right?

But seriously, were I to put forward a case for an analogous "female gaze" whereby men are defined primarily by how women perceive them, my starting point would be the popular trending of a #killallmen hashtag, and the relative obscurity of the equivalent #killallwomen.

My last two girlfriends have been bi-sexual...

Confused aspies maybe

but actually a betterpartner than the earlier straights i knew..

just have one now..

I've never seen it used in that context but I'll let it slide.


Mulvey had/has some pretty crazy ideas - I don't think most people would want to watch a film she approved of - and the concept now exists independent of her original formulation. I've certainly seen "female gaze" used by feminist critics of TV and film.



Disingenuous.


That's quite obviously a misrepresentation of my argument.

What I'm saying is more analogous to "Hitler increased pensions, so it's fair to say that moderate fascists also support pension reform".


#killallmen is hardly a popular hashtag. A quick browse of Twitter shows about 50 Tweets in the past 24 hours, 49 of them by people explicitly opposed to the tag, and one seemingly using it ironically. I don't think most seemingly-earnest uses are serious, and checking the media coverage backs me up. Essentially, it's an excuse for your fellow MRAs to cry misandry by deliberately misunderstanding a joke and then continuing it yourselves. Elevator Gate all over again.