What do Anti-Feminists Really Want?

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


The right to be loud mouths.. no wait.

The right to be internet activists.. no wait.

The right to wear pants.. no wait.

The right to drive, the right to vote, the right to freedom of expression.... no wait.

I'm stumped.

Originally posted by vaevictis
...they cant think... nuts cant do anything except lay around and get rotten...

Originally posted by Monger
This proves my long-held belief that 'feminist' is little more than a fancy way to say 'I HATE MEN.'

...ooopsies!... you quoted wrong... new at this?...

...i made the nut crack and it was obviously HUMOR... maybe you dont have a sense of humor and, if thats the case, then, well, jeez, thats just gotta suck... was my nut crack sexist?... yep, shore was... was it intentional?... oh, yeah, absolutely... so what?...

...you're not gonna pretend that you've never made a sexist remark - are ya?... oh, wait, you cant...

reply to post by Indigogirl


That's just it! The question of all questions. You stated that the " metal gets tested once graduated" only problem is most of whom stay on a college campus their entire adult life because they know only the blind will buy into their crap. Once they get out into the "real" world, ( those who actually have no choice but too ) end up facing a cold reality where there are actual knowledgeable fellows out there that can debate and debunk most of the arguments presented.
The feminists of today, have one major problem, the lack of companionship, in result has made them bitter to society. Fuels there desire to make everyone else miserable with their constant preaching, and spreading of propaganda. The degree they acquire under " womens studies " isn't worth the paper its printed on, I mean come on? Like what can one do besides be a " hate all men " and " men are evil " professor, poisoning the minds of innocent freshman that unknowingly sign up for the class. Its not like the degree is something useful like a Dr.'s Degree or something like that~

Originally posted by Jenna
Not exactly.. There are so many different versions that all fall under the 'feminism' umbrella it's almost ridiculous.

Which makes it even more ridiculous for a woman to describe herself as a ''feminist'', without stating which branch she adheres to.

Defining herself as a ''feminist'' doesn't tell anybody whether she's a more moderate liberal feminist, or a more extreme separatist feminist.

Describing one's self as a ''feminist'' is a statement. It's stating that the woman holding the beliefs looks out for her own gender, first and foremost, and has a one-eyed view on gender issues, and defines herself along gender lines, rather than equality lines.

Originally posted by Jenna
I started to give a description of each with the link but it made my post into a novel. After giving each of them a brief read-through, there were at least two that seem to focus more on equality than they do women's rights specifically. You're correct that most focus more on women's rights than they do on equality though.

I had a look at the different versions of feminism in the links that you provided, and I believe that the ones that profess to support equality, are just paying lip-service to the notion, to hide their true sexism.

Nobody who is genuinely interested in gender equality would call themselves a feminist. The term is contradictory and divisive.

I believe in full social and legal equality between men and women, but the thought of describing myself as a ''feminist'' is completely laughable !

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Are you implying that Feminist politics are exactly the same now as they were in the 70s? Of course Feminism has evolved over the past 40 years!

There is no need for feminism nowadays.

There is full legal and social equality. There is nothing that I am able to do, that a woman is permitted from also doing.

Feminism is redundant. While I am sympathetic towards feminists in the older days, who were campaigning for legal equality ( although I believe that the desire for equality was spurred on more by the ''I want, I want'' mentality, rather than a genuine social conscience ).

I have absolutely no sympathy with modern-day feminists.

These people are just women who have ''issues'' with men, and want to get an easy ride and preferential treatment by whipping out the ''gender card'' at any opportune moment.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
I couldn't disagree with this more strongly, and would like to know what facts you are basing this on? Have you actually attended a Feminist group's meeting?

The facts of the matter are that there are demonstrably unequal laws that favour women.

In the UK, there's the rape law, where a woman that rapes a man is treated more leniently than the other way around, for exactly the same crime.

I've also seen mentioned that a man accused of domestic abuse will be automatically arrested, while a woman accused of the same crime will not.

Those are just two example I can think of.

These laws and procedures are patently unfair to men. This isn't even up for debate.


Now, I'm well aware that not all feminists will agree with this discriminatory legislation, but I don't hear an awful lot of protests from a movement that claims to be interested in gender equality.


And, no I've never attended a feminists meeting, as I fear that I'd be persona non grata in that environment.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Sure, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule, and Feminism is just as much an umbrella term for a political movement as Conservative or Liberal, but there are many different factions under the label 'Feminism'.

Apart from the illogical doublespeak of naming a gender equality movement as ''feminism'', it is also illogical to describe one's self in this way, because you are not specifying which branch of feminism you belong to.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
My first hand experiences have always been that careful considertion has been made from the persepctive of both genders, and that most Feminist groups contain male members too who are free to speak up at any point should they take issue with anything supposedly being skewed towards 'female superiority' as you put it.

My first-hand experience has always been that feminists are out to get what they can for themselves and their gender, regardless of whether it's fair or not.


I'm assuming you are using the term ''male'' in the loosest possible way, to describe a ''man'' that would join a feminist group.

I'm sure these ''men'' are probably the same ones who have a fetish for a dominatrix.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
If you have first hand experience of groups you have taken the time to attend where this is not the case, I would be very much interested to hear what transpired, but otherwise I don't really think you have the right to be pinning motives to individuals in such a poltically offensive way.

I have never attended any feminist groups, and nor am I ever going to.

The idea is akin to a black man attending a KKK meeting.

The motivations for feminists are clear, when their whole movement has a name that infers tackling the gender issue in a one-sided way.

The fact that there are demonstrably preferential laws to women in some cases, proves that they are not interested in equality, but getting the best deal for their gender.

As I previously mentioned, feminists are the same as defence lawyers, who are only interested in achieving the best outcome for their client, regardless of the ethics and fairness of such a position.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
I'm not trying to hide behind anything here. Feminism in the first instance was about the furthering, specifically, of women's rights in a time when the gender gap was positively cavernous.

Feminism in its original version was a complete con.

However, I believe that women who attached themselves to that movement in those days, did so more honestly or out of naïvety.

Those excuses don't ring true, nowadays.

As you say, they were only interested in women's rights in a time where gender inequality affected men as equally as it affected women.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
I do agree that the name is not now ideal, but it's where modern day Feminism originally sprang from, so I think that is why the namesake has remained.

So, you're saying that modern-day feminism sprang from a movement that was only interested in women's rights, rather than gender equality ?

That is what I've been pretty much saying that modern-day feminism is about.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
I did say in my post (i'm sure it was in a post to you, if not let me know and i'll quote it from whoever I did post it to!), that I would just as happily define my politics as being 'Equalist', to coin a term(?!).

Well, maybe you'd have been better off doing that in the first place.

I seem to remember that your first post in this thread, you described yourself as a feminist...

Originally posted by Indigogirl
But I take it you're using that as an example and not linking the two ideologies there! :s

I am linking the two ideologies.

White supremacists are largely concerned with their own race, and what benefits it.

Feminists are largely concerned with their own gender, and what benefits it.


As nobody has control over their race or gender, both viewpoints are illogical and discriminatory.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Yes, I do describe myself as a Feminist because I strongly believe in the principles that I have learnt in my path through Feminist politics - this being that of an emphasis on gender equality, not supremacy. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with this interpretation, but it is my truth and definition of the term Feminist. Hell, there's even Feminists out there who wouldn't agree with me on that, but as I said, there are many variations in the politics of any political party.

The only way someone would describe themselves as feminist, while claiming to support gender equality, would be if they were ignorant of the contradictory and divisive connotations of the term.

I doubt that you are ignorant of this, so I have to wonder why you choose to do so.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Yes, I suppose you're right, I could be at either end of the spectrum, but I'm hoping you've got some idea of where I'm coming from from what I've already explained to you. If there is a specific issue you want to know where I stand on, just ask

I do have an idea of your position, but only after I delved into it.

If I'd just you hadn't gone into detail on this thread, then all I would have known was that you were a feminist.

You might have been one of ''those'' kind of feminists, for all I knew.

This is why I find it bamboozling that someone with your professed views on the matter, would knowingly describe herself in such an ambiguous, and easily misinterpreted manner.

By the way, Indigogirl, I didn't reply to all of your points in this thread - not because I didn't deem them worthy - but because most of the answers I would have given, would have already been expressed by me on this thread, and I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
*tears hair out and shakes head sadly*

I think this is one we're going to have to agree to disagree on!

Would you care to elaborate ?

Men and women were equally oppressed by having to live their lives within narrowly-defined gender roles. Anybody who fall outside these lines weren't treated very fairly by society.

The problem lies with the revisionist myth ( promoted by feminists who want to play gender politics ) that women had the monopoly on societal oppression.

This is a complete falsehood, and a con knowingly perpetuated by many women with an agenda.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Once they get out into the "real" world, ( those who actually have no choice but too ) end up facing a cold reality where there are actual knowledgeable fellows out there that can debate and debunk most of the arguments presented.

...knowledgeable fellows?... no... as is clearly evidence in this thread (and others along the same vein) they parrot factless rhetoric they heard from other male supremacists...

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
The feminists of today, have one major problem, the lack of companionship, in result has made them bitter to society.

...your statement is a valid example of factless parroting...

...i suspect that people who parrot lies about feminists were raised in a home where their father was abusive to their mother - or - it could be that their mother already had low self-esteem because her father was a misogynist... whatever the reasons are, they're based in misogyny and that antiquated concept of superiority has never been good for anyone...

...all the feminists i know have a very uncomplicated gender-neutral stance - and that is - if someone (male or female) wants to focus on child rearing rather than working outside of the home (or vice versa), thats their biz... when working outside of the home, pay scale and work standards should be based upon ability - not gender...

...thats not an anti-male stance... thats pro-equality for everyone... how can you be against that?...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I had a look at the different versions of feminism in the links that you provided, and I believe that the ones that profess to support equality, are just paying lip-service to the notion, to hide their true sexism.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you otherwise?

Well after reading all 10 pages, I've concluded that I would much rather hang with Jenna & wyn, even though we have our ideological differences, than a bunch of crybaby men looking to place blame on women for their inadequacies or petty resentments because they got dumped.

reply to post by vaevictis


Reply to thread title:

"Attention"

That is all.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
In the UK, there's the rape law

...i'm betting that "the rape law" is a colloquialism parroted by those who dont know the law...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
a woman that rapes a man is treated more leniently than the other way around, for exactly the same crime.

...in the uk, rape is legally defined as non-consentual penetration of any oriface via a penis...

...using something other than a penis is sexual assault, not rape - and - the laws regarding sexual assault are as equally enforced on female offenders as they are on males offenders...

...if you have factual evidence to the contrary, post it...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I've also seen mentioned that a man accused of domestic abuse will be automatically arrested, while a woman accused of the same crime will not.

...there are posts that point out the contrary...

...ie: in the usofa, it is becoming very common for cops to arrest both parties in a domestic violence call, unless it is obviously clear who was NOT fighting back...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
These laws and procedures are patently unfair to men. This isn't even up for debate.

...everything is up for debate...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Now, I'm well aware that not all feminists will agree with this discriminatory legislation, but I don't hear an awful lot of protests from a movement that claims to be interested in gender equality.

...how could you hear any protests when you dont know any feminists?...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
And, no I've never attended a feminists meeting

...exactly...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Apart from the illogical doublespeak of naming a gender equality movement as ''feminism'', it is also illogical to describe one's self in this way, because you are not specifying which branch of feminism you belong to.

...no one is required to label themselves to suit you...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
My first-hand experience has always been that feminists are out to get what they can for themselves and their gender, regardless of whether it's fair or not.

...and where did you get that first-hand experience?... from tv?...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I have never attended any feminist groups, and nor am I ever going to.

...and theres confirmation AGAIN...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The idea is akin to a black man attending a KKK meeting.

...thats nonsense, as are your other denigrating remarks about men who support feminism...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The fact that there are demonstrably preferential laws to women in some cases

...if you've got facts that prove your point, cough em up and lets take a look at em...

Originally posted by Jenna
Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you otherwise?

Well, for a start, they could stop calling their ideology ''feminism''.

There are two genders. To claim that one believes in gender equality, while at the same time defining one's self by a term that implicitly states gender bias or partiality, is patently dishonest.

If a woman, or anyone else, believes in full gender equality, then logic dictates that she wouldn't define herself as a ''feminist''. This is completely contradictory to the ethos that is supposedly being professed.


I believe in full legal and social equality between genders.

Hang on a minute...

I must be a ''feminist''.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


So your entire objection to the forms of feminism that put more emphasis on equality than women's rights is that they call themselves feminists?

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...i'm betting that "the rape law" is a colloquialism parroted by those who dont know the law...

You bet wrong.

The law in the UK specifically defines rape as the vaginal, anal or oral violation of someone against their will, by penetration of the penis.

There is no ''rape'' law, that regards the violation of a man by a woman, as an equal crime.

There is no charge of ''rape'' that can be levied against a woman rapist of a man.

A female rapist can only be charged under the ''lesser'' offence of ''sexual assault'', and can only be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison for that crime.

A male rapist who has committed exactly the same crime, can be charged with rape, and legally serve an indefinite jail term.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...in the uk, rape is legally defined as non-consentual penetration of any oriface via a penis...

Er, yeah.

This is exactly the same law that I'm railing against.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...using something other than a penis is sexual assault, not rape - and - the laws regarding sexual assault are as equally enforced on female offenders as they are on males offenders...

As I've already explained, stating the law does not really constitute a valid argument in it's defence.

Selectively using the law as an arbitrator to justify one's perverse ideology, just doesn't work.

The only way that that could work is if: legal=correct.

This is clearly not the case, so why are you hiding behind this ?

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...if you have factual evidence to the contrary, post it...

I've already provided factual evidence.

A man rapes a woman, and gets charged with the offence, and can face an indefinite sentence.

A woman rapes a man, and gets charged with ''sexual assault'', with a maximum of 10 years in prison !

How can it be legally possible in a fair society, for someone to be charged differently for committing exactly the same crime, purely because of their gender ?

I don't see too many feminists complaining about this obvious discriminatory legislation !

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...there are posts that point out the contrary...

...ie: in the usofa, it is becoming very common for cops to arrest both parties in a domestic violence call, unless it is obviously clear who was NOT fighting back...

Well, I'm not absolutely sure on this one.

I'm from Britain, and we don't have this kind of police procedure.

The only way I've heard about this supposed practice in the USA, is through posters on ATS.

I tried searching the validity of these claims, but it's very hard to find definitive, unambiguous rules surrounding this procedure.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...everything is up for debate...

On this issue:

Technically: yes. Logically: no.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...how could you hear any protests when you dont know any feminists?...

Please enlighten me, as to where I said that I don't know any feminists ?

Unless you can provide any quotes on this thread where I intimated or implied this, then I would expect an apology, although I've learnt that this is not generally your forté.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...no one is required to label themselves to suit you...

And, of course, I never said that they did.

All that I'm commenting on, is that feminists are weak, embittered women that have deep-lying ''issues'' with men.

This may be down to being physically unattractive, having bad experiences with a boyfriend, or witnessing/being abused by an abusive father etc.

Either way, women that adopt this ideology all have some psychological problems surrounding men, and they should be corrected on their illogical stance.

Emotional bitterness isn't going to do the world any favours.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...and where did you get that first-hand experience?... from tv?...

LOL.

My ''first-hand experience'' is strangely enough, garnished from personal experiences and interactions with feminists.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...thats nonsense, as are your other denigrating remarks about men who support feminism...

It's not nonsense.

Any ''man'' that would align himself to the ''feminist cause'', is clearly a ''man'' that is of a disposition that entails a ''cat'' being whipped, so to speak !

Or else, he's in to submissive fetishes, such as a dominatrix.

I'm surprised that this psycho-analytical observation is even up for debate.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...if you've got facts that prove your point, cough em up and lets take a look at em...

I've already proved them.

The rape laws in the UK are demonstrably unfair and discriminatory towards men.

Originally posted by Jenna
So your entire objection to the forms of feminism that put more emphasis on equality than women's rights is that they call themselves feminists?

No. The only way that someone could have come to the superficial ''conclusion'' that you have done, is if you hadn't read my posts correctly, or you have an agenda that twists and contorts my posts on this subject in an attempt to suit the points that you wanted me to make.


My objections to feminism and feminists are well documented on this thread.

If you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental point of my posts about feminism, and the naming of the movement, then you don't ''get'' my argument and my point of view.


If you don't understand my points, then that is fair enough, but please don't misrepresent my arguments.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I asked what it would take to convince you otherwise, and your response was if they stopped calling themselves feminists. I wasn't being simplistic, that was what you said and that has been your chief complaint in most of your posts. If someone is working for equality and not focusing solely on women's rights, it shouldn't matter what they call themselves. It's their goals and actions that are important. I could call myself satan, but if my goal is true equality and I'm actively working on bringing that about it would be kind of silly to oppose me just over what term I choose to call myself.

Originally posted by Jenna
I asked what it would take to convince you otherwise, and your response was if they stopped calling themselves feminists. I wasn't being simplistic, that was what you said and that has been your chief complaint in most of your posts.

I will never be convinced that they aren't a women's interests group while they continue to refer to themselves as feminists.

It is not just simply the naming of the movement and it's followers that I dislike, but it's the message that that name conveys.

The term feminism is patently illogical and contradictory, for a group that claims to be interested in gender equality.

As I've said before, if a group of white people started up a group called ''caucasianism'', and claimed that this group was interested in racial equality, then it would beg a couple of questions:

Firstly, why would a group supporting racial equality identify itself with one particular race ?

Secondly, is there an ulterior motive of racial bias in this group, and are they just paying lip-service to the equality mantra ?


This is the same with feminism; feminists are interested in getting the best deal for women, and are just paying lip-service to the idea of gender equality, so they have more of a mainstream foothold and reputation.

I actually have more respect for the ''man-hating'' radical feminists. Even so I think they're pathetic, at least they are honest and open about their beliefs.


The term ''feminism'' is more than just a term that I happen to disagree with; it's the connotations that go along with it.

I am not concerned about the word from an etymological perspective !

Originally posted by Jenna
If someone is working for equality and not focusing solely on women's rights, it shouldn't matter what they call themselves. It's their goals and actions that are important.

I don't think that feminists are interested in gender equality, and they are just interested in the best treatment for women ( regardless of whether it's fair or correct ).

They wouldn't identify themselves as ''feminists'' if they weren't biased towards females.

The naming of a group is important. Feminism is a perfect example of doublespeak.

If I named an organisation the ''Heil Hitler group'' and claimed that it's intention was to help Anglo-Israeli relations, then don't you think that name would cause a few problems ?!

That's an extreme example, but it still doesn't alter the fact that the naming of a group can be divisive.


As I've previously said, it's not simply the name that is objectionable, it's the fact that so many women will knowingly adopt this term and all that it stands for.

The name clearly implies a gender bias, and women are willingly defining themselves in this way.

Forgive me if I don't buy the equality claims.

Originally posted by Jenna
I could call myself satan, but if my goal is true equality and I'm actively working on bringing that about it would be kind of silly to oppose me just over what term I choose to call myself.

And if you called yourself satan , would it not be reasonable for me to be suspicious and weary of your true motivations ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
And if you called yourself satan , would it not be reasonable for me to be suspicious and weary of your true motivations ?

At first? Yes. Once my actions and words showed that I was working in the interest of equality, however, it should no longer matter what I call myself. Actions are more important than titles.