Misogyny: Ruining the Female Male Relationship(esp. in the digital age)

There's one thing that has always baffled me about feminism, and that is the name of the movement.

If feminism was genuinely interested in gender equality, then why on earth would you name it ''feminism'' ?! - a name that implicitly suggests that one gender's interests are of more concern than the other.


Black people who believe in racial equality, don't form a movement named ''ebonism'', nor do white people that believe in racial equality, form a movement called ''caucasianism'' LOL.

The very title of the above hypothetical movements would completely contradict their supposed wish for racial equality, by favouring one particular race's name in their movement. Yet, this is precisely what feminism does.


Feminists, in reality, just pay lip-service to gender equality, and they are generally just a group of sexists that advocate rules and regulations that favour women, and preferential treatment for their gender.

They are as far removed from gender equality as any male chauvinist is.


Ask yourself this: if feminists were genuinely interesting in gender equality, then why aren't they up in arms about various jobs where there are less stringent physical tests for female applicants, such as fire fighters ?

The policy of dumbing down physical tests for women is demonstrably unequal, and goes completely against the ethos of meritocratic treatment of everyone in society.

The message is clear: openly favouring someone because of their gender is acceptable to feminists ( as long as it's women that are being favoured ) - but put out a burger advert insinuating a woman looking aghast at a phallic shaped burger, and then watch them get up in arms !


We all know the true agenda of feminists, and they should stop cowering behind this ''equality'' banner, that they purport to follow.

reply to post by mayertuck


G`day mayertuck

I clicked the link not long after you posted it,I was a bit confused because it play a vid with the title "Step into 'A Lounge' swag room"

I thought I`d better let others comment on it.

Having read the comments I clicked again hoping to see the vid and clear the confusion,this time the vid was "Are strikes hurting brand France? "

Now,I do not need to see the vid you guys are able to see,your comments have explained it well,also I would rather not see it and be angered by its content,that such blatent double standards can and does get shown on MSM unabated.

I did not name it, and it is just a word.

You may have missed it, but I can describe to you what feminism is to me, and how I liv it. It means fighting the oppression of females. That is how I see feminism.

I have several pt causes, I can't do them all, so I support the causes that mean something to me. If everyone did so, the world would be a better plac.

MT, I could not see the video but I assume it is from that mtv show teen mom where the girl beat her giant boyfriend?

If so, she deserves to go to jail, I felt very sorry for the poor guy. They got the footage and played it on tv so there is the proof. At the minumum the teen mom needs to lose her kid until she completes counseling.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater


If so, she deserves to go to jail, I felt very sorry for the poor guy. They got the footage and played it on tv so there is the proof. At the minumum the teen mom needs to lose her kid until she completes counseling.

Though from what MT has said,both are under investigation,through no fault of his own,doesn`t matter how big the guy is etc,this only further educates women to the double standards where they can do wrong and allow males to be incriminated and under suspicion for nothing,even if its caught on camera who the aggressor really is.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well actually most names do not really reflect the essence of what they are trying to name. 95% of white people are not white they range from pinkish to a very deep brown and all points between. Most black people are not black but run between a reddish brown to a very dark brown.

What matters is what the underlying definition thatlies behind the name . Which is the reason why a working definition of feminism is a "a movement to end sexist oppression". It also encompases women and men in aspects of a broad and differing movement.

When we look at those who see themselves as "democrats" again it is a wide movement ranging from those who believe in our public political institutions to those who would destroy as not being democratic in the truest sense.

Don't get me started on patriotism.

Feminists seem to range between those who wish to remain with men to those who view all men as the enemy. Some are heterosexual, some celibate and some lesbian.

It becomes a straw man argument to issue blanket damnations regarding an entire movement.

Originally posted by tiger5
What matters is what the underlying definition thatlies behind the name . Which is the reason why a working definition of feminism is a "a movement to end sexist oppression". It also encompases women and men in aspects of a broad and differing movement.

Which is exactly my point.

If the movement was genuinely interested about ''ending sexist oppression'' ( that works both ways ), then they would define themselves with a gender-neutral name.

The fact that they don't, shows the underlying agenda of feminists, which is an attempt to get the best deal for their gender, regardless of the ethics or fairness of how this will be obtained.

As previously posted, situations such as fire services providing easier physical tests for women, is something that flies in the face of equality, yet you don't get feminists complaining about it, because it's beneficial to their gender.

Originally posted by tiger5
Feminists seem to range between those who wish to remain with men to those who view all men as the enemy. Some are heterosexual, some celibate and some lesbian.

Feminists are all united in one thing: a deep, underlying bitterness towards men ( for one reason or another ).

Which is fine, they are entitled to hold that view, it doesn't really bother me if they do so, and it's them that have to suffer by holding such an unhappy outlook on the subject.

However, I personally don't care for intellectual dishonesty, and I would prefer them to be truthful about it.

Originally posted by tiger5
It becomes a straw man argument to issue blanket damnations regarding an entire movement.

Not when that movement's self-definition is favouring one particular group, while at it's least extreme end, claiming to want equality.

The entire movement of white supremacism will range from those that are only a little in favour of it, all the way to the KKK, but I'm happy enough to issue blanket criticising the entire movement, regardless of the extremity of views of those within it.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Feminists are all united in one thing: a deep, underlying bitterness towards men ( for one reason or another ).

That is one giant load of mysoginistic crap.

This feminist wants to end oppression of females, and I am raising two sons. I have a deep underlying love for those two men in my life, and quite a few more men in my life.

How can you justify such a statement? Where is the proof of such a statement?

You did not even quantify the statement with IMO. You really think that all women who would label themselves feminists, all have deep underlying bitterness towards men?

Maybe we have a deep underlying ache for justice towards oppressed females.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Which is exactly my point.

If the movement was genuinely interested about ''ending sexist oppression'' ( that works both ways ), then they would define themselves with a gender-neutral name.

The fact that they don't, shows the underlying agenda of feminists, which is an attempt to get the best deal for their gender, regardless of the ethics or fairness of how this will be obtained.

No sorry, i agree that the name is outdated (which is why i consider myself an equalist because it covers everyone), however it's wrong to think that all feminists are about getting the best deal for their gender. Technically i am a feminist as i support equal rights for women, but i'm a man so i dont' think i'll be ignoring mens rights. I just think your statement here was unfair. You are confusing the genuine feminists with the extremists within their ranks.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
As previously posted, situations such as fire services providing easier physical tests for women, is something that flies in the face of equality, yet you don't get feminists complaining about it, because it's beneficial to their gender.

Again this is more to do with leading lights of the movement using the label of feminism to disguise their unequal attitudes. You are right they should abolish the "equalising measures" that are used in various jobs, from the fire service, to the police and the army and real feminists agree with that.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Feminists are all united in one thing: a deep, underlying bitterness towards men ( for one reason or another ).

Sorry but that's rubbish because men can be feminists and therefore would need to hate themselves. You know i've liked a lot of what you have posted but this to me is over stepping the mark.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Which is fine, they are entitled to hold that view, it doesn't really bother me if they do so, and it's them that have to suffer by holding such an unhappy outlook on the subject.

However, I personally don't care for intellectual dishonesty, and I would prefer them to be truthful about it.

If you don't care for intellectual dishonesty then you shouldn't say all feminists are united by a deep underlying bitterness aimed at men.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
That is one giant load of mysoginistic crap.

There's that label again... Although I don't agree that feminism seeks to destroy men, I wouldn't exactly call it Misogyny; he is not attacking women because they have vaginas, he is attacking a group of women that he feels have been founded on unjust causes. Again, I don't agree, it may be "crap", but labeling it misogyny is just silly.

This feminist wants to end oppression of females, and I am raising two sons. I have a deep underlying love for those two men in my life, and quite a few more men in my life.

So, if one of your sons were to get married and be attacked by his wife -- be it with her brute force, weapons, etc, would you not want society to be able to offer him the same help that women are offered to get through these traumatic situations? Here's the reality: society does NOT offer help to your sons because when you pushed them out of your uterus, they noticed he had a penis. This body part deems them less sympathy for abuse, less support, less media coverage, less shelters, and lots of ridicule from other men who deem them "unmanly" for being abused by their wives. Do I blame women? No. Do I blame feminism? Partially, but not because it was not a good idea, but because it managed to convince all the stupid people that inhabit our society that women deserve more support for their abuse cases than men do, which is absolutely gender discrimination and very wrong. Actually, I blame everyone who is not the victim, because nobody really seems to care about this huge growing issue.

Maybe we have a deep underlying ache for justice towards oppressed females.

Maybe it's a healthier attitude to have an underlying ache for justice towards oppressed people instead of just the ones with a vagina and boobs? Surely the sexual reproductive organ police should not exist in our developed world?

I support the causes that mean something to me. If everyone did so, the world would be a better place.

I strongly disagree. This form of fighting for your rights does not protect the minorities. There are more people that advocate hate for homosexuals out of ignorance than there are homosexuals... they fight for their ignorant "causes that mean something to them" all of the time, and all of the time they make a mockery of humanity by pretending they know what they're talking about and fighting for it. People who fight for something because it "means something to them" are usually very strongly sunk in bias, and it blinds them from seeing what's on both sides of the curtain.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
No sorry, i agree that the name is outdated (which is why i consider myself an equalist because it covers everyone), however it's wrong to think that all feminists are about getting the best deal for their gender.

The fact that the name is outdated, is exactly my point.

It's 2010; women are still declaring themselves ''feminists'', despite years of social and legal equality, and - as has been touched on already in this thread - women are actually getting preferential treatment throughout many aspects of society, in society's over-zealous attempt at ''evening out the balance'' and making up for years gone by, when women regularly got the short end of the stick in society.

I can just about understand the term ''feminism'' in the context of the 1950s, 60s or 70s, but anyone that declares themselves as a ''feminist'' these days ( it is the 21st century ) - nails their colours to the mast, and show exactly what their agenda is.

I like your term ''equalist'' - you see, that is exactly the sort of term that implies a belief in equality and fairness, yet, why won't modern-day feminists adopt such a rational and self-explantory term ?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Technically i am a feminist as i support equal rights for women, but i'm a man so i dont' think i'll be ignoring mens rights. I just think your statement here was unfair. You are confusing the genuine feminists with the extremists within their ranks.

Technically, I'm a ''feminist'' too.

I believe in absolute social equality across the board, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality, disability, nationality etc.

I believe that everyone should be treated equally by the law and by the society that the creates the laws, and I would hope that more tolerant societal attitudes will follow on from laws safeguarding the fundamental notion of equality.


My statement was not unfair, because I am talking about people that self-define themselves as ''feminists''.

There are no genuine feminists in 2010, because anyone that actually supported the attainment of social equality for women, throughout the decades, would acknowledge that the term ''feminism'' is redundant, and divisive in the modern world.

Therefore, still defining themselves as such, means that they are supporting a version of ''equality'', that is largely supporting getting the best deal for women as they can, regardless of the ethics nad fairness.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Again this is more to do with leading lights of the movement using the label of feminism to disguise their unequal attitudes. You are right they should abolish the "equalising measures" that are used in various jobs, from the fire service, to the police and the army and real feminists agree with that.

I haven't heard or seen too many feminists campaigning about the dumbing down of physical tests, to include more women.

That is my point. If feminists were genuinely interested in gender equality, then they would be campaigning against these tests.

If you can't pass the physical test, then you shouldn't apply for the job, or accept that you will be failed if you can't pass the test.

That is equality.


It's the same with this ludicrous attempt to have equal prize money in sport !

Can you believe that the winner of the ladies tournament at Wimbledon ''earns'' the same amount of money as Rafa Nadal or Roger Federer, despite the fact that she:

1. Plays 3-sets matches, instead of 5.
2. Has rallies that last, on average, about 3 shots; whereas the men regularly tend to have rallies with about 10-20+ shots in them.
3. Would get absolutely slaughtered by Rafa or Fed, if they actually played a tennis match !

In fact, I'd seriously fancy my chances in a tennis match against Serena Williams... And I'm not joking there.


If you are not a tennis fan, or can't see the inequality of ''equal pay'' in tennis, and sports in general, then please ignore my above points, and do not reply to them !

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Sorry but that's rubbish because men can be feminists and therefore would need to hate themselves.

No, it's not rubbish.

Any self-respecting man would not label themselves a feminist ( other than in the technical, definitional
sense ), because the term clearly suggests that someone who claims to believe in gender equality is more involved and interested in one particular gender; ergo, hypocrisy and double standards.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You know i've liked a lot of what you have posted but this to me is over stepping the mark.

LOL.

How have I crossed the line ?

The support of the feminist movement ( in 2010 ) is largely garnished by those that have a deep-seated, fundamental bitterness against men ( for a number of reasons ).

This is blatantly apparent, if you meet a self-declared feminist, in this day and age.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
If you don't care for intellectual dishonesty then you shouldn't say all feminists are united by a deep underlying bitterness aimed at men.

How is it intellectually dishonest to assert that all self-declared feminists have a deep-seated, underlying bitterness against men ?!

reply to post by hotbakedtater


"“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.” - Andrea Dworkin.

In other words: if you do not support Feminism in its endeavour to give more rights and privileges to WOMEN at the expense of MEN then you are a Misogynist. If you do not believe that women should receive special treatment by stripping men of opportunities in fields they tend to excel in then you are a Misogynist.

Feminism is hated because as an Ideology it is brainwashing girls and young women to feel resentment and bitterness towards men simply for being men. It is promoting anti-male sentiment in society as a whole. Male Oppression of Women is being used as an excuse to explain why women have been unable to achieve to the same extent as men in most professional and social fields.

Misogyny does exist, but to link it with anti-Feminism directly is misleading and intellectually dishonest. People advocating equal rights and freedoms for both sexes have sufficient reason to be opposed to Feminism.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Thats not feminism, what you describe. Feminism is not about man hating it is about female helping.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Dark Ghost

 

Thats not feminism, what you describe. Feminism is not about man hating it is about female helping.

And that has nothing to do with equality when men cannot receive the same support for the exact same circumstances because Men's Rights are instantly labeled misogyny and demonized by society.

reply to post by Brood


I never claimed feminism is about equality. I believe it is about freeing women from oppression. If men want equality fight for it, who is stopping them? Not me. I dont know what unequality men have to fight, though.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Brood

 

If men want equality fight for it, who is stopping them?

Answer: feminist enthusiasts!

I believe it is about freeing women from oppression

And, evidently, its about ignoring anyone else who suffers in the exact same circumstances based solely on their reproductive organs.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Brood

 

I never claimed feminism is about equality. I believe it is about freeing women from oppression. If men want equality fight for it, who is stopping them? Not me. I dont know what unequality men have to fight, though.

Erm feminism was about achieving equal rights for women who didn't have them, it seems you are working from some twisted version of feminism which is more about dominance. Why exactly would men have to fight for equality if feminism was merely about freeing women from oppression? The only reason men need to fight for equality is because feminism has been usurped by extremists.

Also if men have to fight for equality on certain issues and women then fight back don't we just end up with each side hating the other and perpetuating the problems that exist between the genders? Surely working together on the issues and listening to each others arguments is the best way forward. Ignoring genuine problems which can be shown with good factual evidence (as has been done here) shows the mind of an extremist and i'm sorry tater but that's all you are.

People have taken a great deal of time to give you exact circunstances that prove men are treated badly in some very specific areas surrounding domestic violence, divorce and custody law. There are some other extra bits but these are the three issues that have been thoroughly covered and yet you don't see any inequality? Blinded by your ideology is the only genuine reason for this.

I'll make it really simple tater.

If a woman in the UK calls the police and says her husband is hitting her then he'll be automatically arrested, that's the policy.

If a man calls the police and says his wife is beating him then she won't be automatically arrested.

Do you not see how that's a completely unequal set of circunstances based on gender alone.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


There is nothing twisted about wanting to end oppresion of females. It has nothing to do with dominating men or anyone. It has all to do with helping women.

Causes evolve, and change, equality may be some women's definition of feminism but not mine, as all humans are equal.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


There is nothing twisted about wanting to end oppresion of females. It has nothing to do with dominating men or anyone. It has all to do with helping women.

Causes evolve, and change, equality may be some women's definition of feminism but not mine, as all humans are equal.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

There is nothing twisted about wanting to end oppresion of females. It has nothing to do with dominating men or anyone. It has all to do with helping women.

Causes evolve, and change, equality may be some women's definition of feminism but not mine, as all humans are equal.

There is no oppression of females in the western world, they are protected by laws and have all the rights of men, it's interesting how you didn't bother to answer the direct example i gave you of feminism being used to dominate men using the law.

As for how you define feminism, well sorry but you don't get to do that, well you can but it's not what feminism is. The definition of feminism is to bring about equality for women, if you believe something else then you are not a feminist. As for all humans being equal, why do you not simply devote your time to a cause that defends equality for everyone then? Why is it you single out women? That is quite sexist.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Look, you can believe whatever you want about what feminism fights for, all I am trying to say is that there is blood at the end of your sword and you are refusing to question who it came from and whether or not they deserved it.