The failures of anti-feminists (especially men)

[Fugue]

A) Women have always been oppressed, and continue to be oppressed, even in the developed world. Men have traditionally been patriarchs lording over women, with women having to fight for equality, to this day. To question any of that equals being a misogynist.

B) The genders have historically always worked together. Feminism introduced gender warfare, whereas before there was a gender collective of responsibilities. Men and women were already equal but different, and the rise of feminism upset that balance.

You may identify with one of those two ideologies, in varying degrees, or a varying mixture of both, but one thing's for sure: hostility towards either has never led anywhere, and most likely never will. Genuine discussion on these issues is already rare enough, but when people start yelling insults, the possibility of it is virtually non-existent. Many feminists check their brain at the door the moment you suggest that the movement they identify with, or what is has become is misguided, even harmful. A man suggesting it will typically be called a whiny loser that can't get laid and is not a "real man", or some variation of that. At least that will be done by a loud minority, but loud voices have the tendency of ending up as the representatives of movements. In general, they're not going to change anybody's mind with that dishonesty, but they might prompt more anti-feminists to join the other side of the frenzy.

The backlash to feminism seems to be the other side of the coin to loud feminism, or at the very least sailing rapidly in that direction. Far right reaction to anti-feminism was dead on arrival, just like most mainstream conservatism. They will always be limited to preaching to the choir, loudly. The cutesy slur "feminazi" was coined by Rush Limbaugh. The only legitimate criticism against feminism, in my opinion, can only come from those that value true equality, and especially the enforcement of it, as a virtue. I have seen many people (men, basically) that appear to be socially progressive, liberal - or whatever else you want to call them - shout some of the same mindless knee-jerk nonsense in response to the blind spots of feminism that comes from the far right. This won't do. All that ever achieves is promulgating the agendas of the charlatans. Sarkeesian and her ilk will have an easier job of cherrypicking rhetoric when there is so much mindless and hostile reaction, instead of rational arguments.

So, if you actually care about equality and fairness, but you recognize the pitfalls of "feminist" rhetoric (in the developed world), reign in the passion. Choose your words carefully. The feminist charlatans are especially good at choosing theirs, so they can shape the perception of being the victim. Most of them are not like this:

That woman stands out for various reasons. Feminists like that are a tiny minority within feminism. A larger percent might believe similar things, but they will not articulate them like that. The problem for anti-feminists is the fact that the same doesn't hold true for them. Loud, obnoxious and hostile anti-feminists are a dime a dozen. So, if you just want to kvetch with feminists so you can indulge your emotional outbursts, keep doing it. If you care about the issue, check yourself and your rhetoric against being shrill or hostile reactions, instead of well thought out ideas.

[heavensgift2girls]

"Women have always been oppressed, and continue to be oppressed, even in the developed world."

This is the root of what is wrong with feminism. It is this kind of thinking that has kept feminism from being a true movement for equality. It teaches people that only women have problems and that in order to be equal, we don't need to focus on the issues men face. Unless the movement is committed to everyone's issues it can not be a movement for equality. This is the reason why people today are rejecting feminism. People placed their faith in feminism to be a movement for equality, and it isn't delivering on that promise.

Women throughout history wielded a lot of power. It was just typically a different kind of power than what men had. The power men and women had were directly tied to the responsibilities they had. Men were bound by law to provide for women as a primitive sort of welfare system. The power men had, was so that they could fulfill their legal obligation to their families. That was a legal obligation that women did not share, so they did not have the same kind of power.

There were things that were unfair to both genders throughout history. It doesn't mean that one gender enslaved the other, or that only one gender should have their issues listened to today. When feminism first started they needed more political power to make some changes for equality. I can see why they fought for women's issues at that time so they could fight for equality. The problem is that once they had the political power, they failed to be the movement for equality they had promised us they would be.

Its time to move on to a new movement, that will focus on equality for everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. That movement is not feminism. At best feminism is splintered off in too many directions, and watered down to be of any use to anyone seeking equality.

I really wouldn't care if feminists would just admit it was a movement for women's issues and not a movement for equality. I understand there are issues that women have that men don't. It is the fact that feminism continues to pretend to be for equality that bugs me. It prevents a new movement from getting started, because too many people are still placing their trust in feminism to get the job done.

[GirlsLie]

Doesn't this shit ever get old.

[Fugue]

What? Existence?

[GirlsLie]

The feminist/anti feminist topic.

[Fugue]

It's p;art of life.

[GirlsLie]

I guess.

[Rawrzz]

I more or less like your post. I might equate it to what I call religious atheists or, since that's already a term, absolute atheists. Atheists with absolute knowledge--sound familiar?--that there is no God. They act much in the same manner as Christians or religious people they so oppose and claim ultimate knowledge based on nothing. I haven't seen the anti-feminists you speak of, however. Though, I'm sure those sorts of people exist on either side of any argument.

That might fit my idea. Male power is overt and in-your-face. Female power is subtle and insidious, harder to spot. Generally.

"Women have always been oppressed, and continue to be oppressed, even in the developed world." Women are, then, the only group of people who were always subjugated. Is there any better argument for their innate inferiority? Being the only group of people to never rise up against their oppressors in the entirety of human history? At least, not until a virtual eyeblink ago? In essence, to believe in feminism, you have to believe in male ultra dominance and aggression, along with female weak inferiority. It's curious to me how anyone can accept that. But I think you can see that idea at work in society. Expecting women not to take responsibility for their actions. It's not that they make bad decisions sometimes, it's that evil men oppress them and make them do it.

I do care about the issues. I'm sure like anyone else I get heated at times, but that's sorta the human condition.

But, I also determined that it is not my place to fight for men's rights. I have seen many women who take up the torch for what I believe in. As you say, men are called whiny pussies for mentioning pretty much anything relating to having shit rough in places. Men aren't listened to, for the most part, because they're expected to handle their own problems. Much like my father did when my mother would grab anything in sight and try to fuck him up. No matter the scrapes and cuts and bruises, he never called the police or went to the hospital. Because it was his job as a man to handle the situation. Oh, and I don't hate my mother. She simply had issues back then. She wasn't in her right mind.

Pretty good post. Though, I feel like you might notice the loud, obnoxious male anti-feminists more so than the more objective ones? In other words, is it really so pervasive as you say? On GAG probably.

[Fugue]

Sorry for the late reply, but for some reason i wasn't notified. I see the belligerent anti-feminists literally on any forum where gender issues crop up. I wasn't talking about objectivity vs subjectivity. That's a hard topic to judge. I was talking about tone, and the PR attached to it. I would add to this take that it's likely that biologically, society is prompted to see women as victims and men as aggressors. Assuming that bias exists, it is even more essential that male anti-feminists go out of their way to not seem belligerent, but instead well-meaning and rational.

And I would agree with the idea that committing to being an activist for "men's rights" is not the best idea in the world. People can do what they want, but I wouldn't take part in that, myself. At least not decidedly. I would prefer to just kick ass and take names on a 1 on 1 basis vs stupid events I come across - with utmost politeness, of course.

[Rawrzz]

Maybe biologically and sociologically. My idea is female value vs male value. It's more natural to protect a woman, because they are more biologically valuable, via population issues 20,000 years ago. Sperm is infinite, eggs are one per 9 months per woman. So, sperm is cheap; eggs are valuable. I think that ultimately transitions to male and female value in society. Then sociological attitudes which enforce female weakness, inferiority: typical lady-ness.

But yeah. I agree. I have trust in women that they'll get shit right. Surprisingly, since I usually don't have much trust in humans, whatsoever.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Feminism is at an unusual place nowadays.

It's a great example of slacktivism. Many people believe in the base concepts of feminism and denounce the radicals, but do not meet the radicals in force. Therefore, the radicals use a lot of media, social media, and other things to be loud and obnoxious with their radical views.
Feminists may denounce these views, but these viewpoints exist in feminist philosophy. Just like radical viewpoints that sanctify murder of non-believers and homosexuals exist in Abrahamic theology. Many moderates do not believe or follow those tenants, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and some people do follow them.

That brings me to another issue with feminism. Feminism has a lot of philosophical dissonance. When properly cherry picked, it can all work in harmony. But each philosophy, when separated and read as a whole, tends to clash with other parts of feminism. Like Separatist feminism and Equality feminism. This does not make feminism bad, but it does make feminism split.

Another issue is that there is a very strong lack of leadership in feminism. There are a lot of people who lead within feminism, but it's in no way cohesive. It's a divided front. They work separately on varying ideologies, but do not communicate to ensure they're working collaboratively. As well, due to the split ideologies, a single leader has no chance of emerging.

My final issue with feminism is that while they're open and welcome to males, if the issue is not directly and pointedly a woman's issue, it gains little to no recognition despite the importance it has in gender equality. Thus, it is no place for men to bring up their issues with societies gender discrimination. That isn't bad. As an empathetic person I like exploring and understanding the plight of others. However, it is limiting to males.

And one of the biggest issues is that feminism has been hijacked by anti-femists. Anti-feminism has ensured that only radical feminism is heard because it gives anti-feminists more credibility. Radical feminists have always existed in feminism, but they were given little attention or credibility. Thanks to anti-feminists, they are painted as a majority and treated as credible. Anti-femists want feminists to denounce these radicals, which is ridiculous because there are very few of them, and they aren't taken seriously by feminists. But it has successfully derailed the feminist movement and made it appear less credible.

[SomeOtherGuy]

I do consider myself a feminist. But I would describe myself to a non-feminist as a "feminist-lite." There is a lot of great people in feminism, and a lot of good things that still need to be done. I could write a laundry list on the important things feminism is still working towards.

However, men face many issues that affect both genders. If those issues are not met, then women will continue to face prejudice and will not gain equality. It's becoming more and more apparent that certain men's issues need to be addressed if society is to continue to push towards gender equality.
I do not join MGTOW or MRA though because there is a rather large, vocal group that are toxic and exclusive.

And egalitarianism, while great in philosophy, is too broad and is apathetic to facing the issues of society. Egalitarians are blindly optimistic.

I'm honestly just wondering when a moderate, problem solving group that practices inclusivity will come along.

[Entity]

"Women have always been oppressed, and continue to be oppressed, even in the developed world. - > Men have traditionally been patriarchs lording over women, with women having to fight for equality, to this day. To question any of that equals being a misogynist."

But it is misogynist because women have, even if only considering recent eras, been oppressed. Glass Ceiling, Sex Trafficking, Media and Advertisement, Sexualization, Social Gender Roles denoting that women are doomed to be beneath men, etc.

That's like saying "Calling the Holocaust a lie isn't antisemetic!", the fuck? Yes it is! You could say the same of Exxon and it's killing of those chiefs 30 years ago or it's track record of incredible pollution across the South American continent while settling in court for pennies on the dollar.

"The genders have historically always worked together. Feminism introduced gender warfare, whereas before there was a gender collective of responsibilities. Men and women were already equal but different, and the rise of feminism upset that balance."

Women were fucking property. Like, literally, not figuratively, property. PROPERTY. They weren't "people", they were property.

Oh for fuck sakes! Take a fucking history class and for the most part in most of the world women were held in harems with leaders sometimes having hundreds of concubines, a few dozen wives, and then randomly fucking whomever they liked meanwhile they were traded like cattle in marriages to build economic worth!

The entire dowry system is a testament to women as economic tools!

I need a table to turn over in rage.

[Fugue]

Similarly, poor/low class men were also property.

[Entity]

And what's worse, and totally funny, is that among the poor/low class men they still traded women like cattle. So women were still lower than those who were considered property.

Read: Indentured Servitude and Serfdom.

[Fugue]

Are we talking about Africa, or some such place? I don't remember anything in the history of the US about men hot branding women, putting bells around their necks, or corralling them in groups. Unless you're defining the word 'cattle' as something else.

As far as being property, there was only one group of people in US history that was considered property. White women was not one of them. It's closer to say that women were considered children.

*reads indentured servitude and serfdom. Seems to be independent from gender.

[Entity]

( www.gilderlehrman.org/.../legal-status-women-1776%E2%80%931830 )

"Coverture was based on the assumption that a family functioned best if the male head of a household controlled all of its assets. As a result, a married woman could not own property independently of her husband unless they had signed a special contract called a marriage settlement. Such contracts were rare and even illegal in some parts of the country. In the absence of a separate estate, all personalty a woman brought to her marriage or earned during marriage, including wages, became her husband’s. He could manage it or give it away, as he chose, without consulting her."

Yeah, Marriage... in America.

You don't care about American History. Or about the actual state of personhood. Or the amount of opportunities barred women in the past including the ability to do things that women do majorly now including technical nursing (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/.../women.aspx) which wasn't even pioneered in America or until the early 1800s. Education? Not a thing.

Oh the list goes on and on... And on.

Nevermind. Goodday.

[Fugue]

A petulantly presented cherrypick of US history doesn't prove anything other than that you cherrypicked. So many women couldn't own property? Neither could a lot of people, for a long time. Along with voting rights, certain rights gradually shifted from being purely for wealthy white males, to black people all the way to the 1960s. Women also weren't expected to financially provide for anyone, to do any back breaking work, nor to get conscripted into wars. Not to mention the de-facto rules, such as the notion of women being protected above all (e. g. "women and children first"), and the expectation of men being the providers, along with the general principle of violence upon men being far more tolerable, if not acceptable. That is/was all layed upon men, as opposed to women. Does that mean men are/were oppressed? Are you really going to define which gender was oppressed by who can come up with the longest list of gender-biased cultural policies? Seems absurd, to me

[Entity]

I take it you didn't actually read the piece since one does not cherrypick 80 fucking years of common law.

[Fugue]

It doesn't matter if I read your dead links or not. I replied to your comments. It's clear you have no interest in discussion, only in lecturing.

[Entity]

This isn't a discussion because you completely made up and ignored a huge chunk of American history on purpose to back your completely false claims that are inherently in denial of the world's misogynistic stance against women for well over half of the duration of even American history.

I mean let me guess, women's voting rights in 1920 is totally like not a sign of oppression prior to 1920 where holding political power was pretty much taboo and being admitted to a college in America as a woman in 1862 isn't a sign of oppression either.

Let me guess, the "discussion" involves you using big words to say nothing because you've got nothing.

Let us leave it be. You're completely wrong, know nothing of history, don't care and just need someone to lick your wounds and wet your dry philosophical penis with lies about how oppressed you really aren't.

[Fugue]

Men without property also couldn't vote just a few decades previous to women's suffrage. That's just one example of what could be said against your arguments, not to mention all I've already replied to you, which you ignored. But it is a fool's errand to attempt any real discussion with your disingenuous BS.

[BruceJender]

No True Scotsman Fallacy... Black and White fallacy...

This is the black and white fallacy: "A) Women have always been oppressed, and continue to be oppressed, even in the developed world. Men have traditionally been patriarchs lording over women, with women having to fight for equality, to this day. To question any of that equals being a misogynist." ... Basically either you're with us or not.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy: "That woman stands out for various reasons. Feminists like that are a tiny minority within feminism. A larger percent might believe similar things, but they will not articulate them like that". No true Feminist is like that. Only a small minority are...

Congratulations.

[Fugue]

So you disagree that the majority of those that call themselves feminists do not conduct themselves in that way?

[BruceJender]

No, I agree. But the only Feminists who have a voice are the radicals. At least in the West.

[Fugue]

Even if that were the case, it's not the point I was making for or against. The point is their tone is more well thought out than the typical anti-feminist. Or at worst (or best) it's about even, but there is a grading curve in favor of feminism.

[Anonymous]

You lost me on the first sentence. Almost everybody is or has been at some time 'oppressed' by any definition which would include most women in the West today.

Nobody gets everything they want and usually it's because somebody else is stopping them from getting it. That's life. Women in the West have a more difficult time in life because of a conjunction of natural, cultural and technological factors which have almost nothing to do with deliberate actions by men.

[SilenRose]

Thanks for this take. The funniest thing I here from anti-feminist or MRA's is that feminist don't support equality and the proof is in the "fem" but the MRM does support equality. Umm... where in Men Rights Movement? Such a dumb argument.

Also when you point out only a small percentage of radical feminist are part of the feminist movement they ignore it and say all feminist are this way. This is like me calling all MRA's misogynist because of gamer gate and people like Elliot Rogers.

[DBAOracle]

"Also when you point out only a small percentage of radical feminist are part of the feminist movement they ignore it and say all feminist are this way." That's also not so great of an argument because it doesn't matter what the percentages are. Feminism is a type of activism and in activism the point is to get your voice heard. The radical feminists are the loudest and they're the ones that get their voices heard and they end up influencing society negatively impacting the image of feminists as a whole. If feminists want to send a different image than the one they have now, they should go against those within their own camp rather than go against those who stereotype them for the radicals.

[SilenRose]

@DBAOracle Same can be said for Equalitarians, and MRA's. I read where an MRM leader said he would not go after the radicals in the movement because the radicals make the other members look more sensible.

[dudeman]

it would be a dumb argument if men didn't have less rights than women in the western world

[Anonymous]

1. Women have always been oppressed, and continue to be oppressed, even in the developed world. FALSE! Women in the west are the most privileged group in the history of humans. Questioning false statistics, false victimization, and misandry is not misogyny. That is a shaming tactic.

2. Feminist like big red are not the minority. They are the runners of organizations like NOW and WAR. They are the ones who get laws made and enforced about bullshit like men sitting with their knees open on buses. These are the feminist who shut down talks about males issues. They are the ones who make shit happen (never for good)... the silent ones do not make change for good or bad, but they do benefit from the loud ones, they don't speak up against their hatred and bigotry. They essentially sit in the side lines and reap the rewards but avoid having to take credit for the negative their ideology creates.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Support for feminism is at its lowest point in decades largely because of those anti-feminist voices you're talking about here. The fight against feminism is an important one that requires that passion and those loud voices. Men (and good women) need to speak out loudly against feminism.

[Fugue]

How are you gauging this support? I can't remember a single anti-feminist piece of material coming from any significant media group, mainstream or alternative. Anita Sarkeesian (a charlatan more than a feminist) has had several favorable news stories in the media. Even Comedy Central disabled comments to her interview videos. Then, of course, there was gamergate. The narrative does seem to be that "feminist voices" are being attacked by misogynist barbarians.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm gauging support based on the percentage of people who say they are a feminist or they support feminism. Most polls show the vast majority of both men and women do not support feminism. Most men I talk to hate feminism and most women I talk to seem to fall into the "women against feminism" category.

[Fugue]

I would like to see concrete polls. But more importantly, most people also realize the government is bought by wall street, upwards of 1/4 of people, but that doesn't mean wall street fraud isn't dominant. As I said, feminism is consistently portrayed favorably by the media, and the people that write and enforce policies still ostensibly lean in favor of what feminism espouses.

[Fugue]

*upwards of 3/4 of people

[Opinion Owner]

Do you trust the media to tell you what people believe? LOL

I'm talking about public opinion. There are plenty of polls like this out there.

www.vox.com/.../feminist-gender-equality-poll

[Fugue]

No, I don't trust the media, but the media is one of the main things that affects policy. I refer back to my statement about wall street and government.

[Anonymous]

My personal experience has been that people who have, in real life self identified to me as feminists tend to be in what you'd consider the extreme minority. there's a much larger pool who probably would say 'i guess' when asked if they are feminists.

Interestingly, most women I see -here- on Gag who call themselves feminists are pre-college age and fairly moderate in their views.

[Anonymous]

Women like her may be the minority but the only people who identify as feminists that are actually out there doing anything ARE THESE MINORITIES HATE GROUPS. (Yes there are people like Emma Watson but she's just ONE person versus these thousands of man hating college students) So whether they make up the majority of feminists or the minority they make up the majority of those that actually are doing anything so just scoffing at them is not a solution.

[Fugue]

Who said anything about scoffing? If anything, I arguably said the opposite.

[Jayded1]

Do you really think the idiot anti-feminist greatly outnumber the idiot feminists? My friend let me assure you moron extreme feminists are just as common. More and more of the population wouldn't be turning against feminism if it wasn't true.

[Anonymous]

I agree, but the ironic thing is... even some women are anti-feminists... that's kinda lame. I always support feminism... but not feminazis.

[dudeman]

western women are the most privileged class to have ever walked the face of the earth.

[Anonymous]

"Even in the developed world"

I stopped reading right there. Western middle-class white women are NOT oppressed. In fact, much more priveleged than women in developing worlds.

If they want to face real oppression, they can go and look at how women are treated in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. But yet again, they do not bother to look into it because they will continue to demand more priveleges and scream "oppression" while their Mexican maid is bringing her juice over.

[Fugue]

If you stopped there then you don't know what this is about, at all.

[Opinion Owner]

Well, then, first of all, make sure you realise next time Western white women are not oppressed.

[gotc147]

You're not too bright are you?

[OrdinaryGentleman]

She reminds me of my high school principle... fuuuuuuuuuuuck

[Anonymous]

Rubbish!!

Sexism only goes one way in the west, and it's against men. There is ZERO sexism against women but a MOUNTAIN of sexism against men. Men ARE OPPRESSED thanks to women's liberation

[hellionthesage]

What is your stance, if I may ask on the subject?

[chuppachup]

Yeah I'm also confused about that.

[Fugue]

My stance is that it's far more nuanced than what people make it out to be, when they get into shouting matches, and spouting one liner buzzwords and talking points.

[hellionthesage]

So what is your stance then because that wasn't really much of an answer. All things are nuanced its to what degree.

[Stephen10]

fuck all feminists