What do Anti-Feminists Really Want?

Originally posted by Aeons
I clearly remember men being interviewed on news stations, fighting the criminalization of forcible sex with wives.

Their point was that was wives were for. That it was impossible to rape your wife - she's supposed to give you sex when you want it. That's what marriage was to them.

All that says, is that there are some men that are still knuckle-draggers !

It's easy for a news channel to do a vox-pop, and just air the views that are the most controversial or contentious.
I very much doubt that the majority of men supported the idea of raping their wives.


It is my opinion that the idea behind legal rape in marriage was the naïve philosophical concept, that non-consentual sex was impossible between two people who had lovingly pledged their lives to each other.
I don't believe the idea was inherently sexist.

You interpret it as oppression of women, but you'll always find oppression if you are looking for it.

Originally posted by Aeons
Prior to this specific criminalization, men were not charged for raping their wives. You could go to jail for raping someone else - yes. But even if the two were legally separated, and the male broke into her residence and forced her to have sex with him - screaming, crying, begging that he not wake up the children and not do this.....he was never charged with it.

She was married to him. It was not illegal.

Which further adds support to what I was saying, that it was the idea that rape was impossible in a marriage.

An unmarried man could still be charged with the rape of his partner, so it's clearly the fact that he was married which people thought negated the possibility of rape occurring within the marriage.

Originally posted by Aeons
In case you are wondering - I am hardly the only woman who knows this. I'm also not the only person - as I promise there are men on this very board who know this used to happen, and probably even know men who did things just like this.

I have to say that I was unaware that rape within marriage was legal until relatively recently, until I saw the subject brought up on ATS.

Then again, I wasn't aware that there is still a discrepancy in how female rapists of men are treated, as opposed to male rapists of women.

I don't see any feminists campaigning to equalise this discriminatory legislation. I guess they only notice it when it negatively affects their own gender.

Originally posted by Aeons
Then, "men" stood up and tried to make it so that it was not a crime when someone finally tried to specifically bring this behaviour into the criminal code.

I think it would be better if you qualified your comments with the word ''some'' before ''men''.

Originally posted by Aeons
I want you to know, that the men who stood up in public and defended that these laws should never be made and that it was impossible to rape a wife.....those men ASSURED my teenage self that I was a feminist. I don't think I could possibly explain to you how horrified I was by these "men."

But you are a feminist, aren't you ?

Or are you saying that they were trying to cast everybody in opposition to this law as ''feminists'', in an attempt to delegitimise the protestations ? Tarring any dissenting voices as ''bar-burning, man-hating feminists'' ?


Are you standing up to the discriminatory rape legislation, whereby female rapists get treated less harshly than men ?

Or are you only bothered when it's people of your own gender getting unfair treatment ?

What would your reaction be if only female rapsits could get charged with rape and sentenced to life in prison, while male rapists got charged with a lesser crime with a lesser maximum tariff ?

You, and just about every other feminist, would be justifiably outraged at such discriminatory legislation, and would no doubt claim that it was symptomatic of an oppressive legal system of a patriarchal society.


This is why I think feminism is akin to racism, in the attitudes of those who hold such beliefs.

Defending one's own ''kind'', while ignoring the negative treatment of anybody else, is the common denominator in both feminism and racism.

Originally posted by Aeons
Thankfully, I know that there are better men in the World and in my nation. Better than those idiots, and better than you.

Ouch !

And what have I done to offend your sensibilities ?

I know I may have offended you with some ''home truths'' on this issue, but that was uncalled for !

Originally posted by Aeons
I do not believe that a rapist should be put in jail for the rest of their lives.

I do believe that repeat violent or heinous offenders of all types should not be released.

I believe in rehabilitation, but who's to say that today's freed rapist won't be tomorrow's repeat violent offender ?

All in all, if there's the slighest doubt that someone will reoffend, then I'd err on the side of caution, and protect the public.

Originally posted by Aeons
A grave error in judgement is not the same as a terrorizing bully who cannot be trusted.

I wouldn't call any rape a ''grave error in judgement'' on the rapist's part. All rapists, by definition, are bullies, and I wouldn't trust a ''rehabilitated'' one as far as I could fling 'em !

Originally posted by tiger5
Feminism is still defined as a movement to end sexist oppression. The oppression could be against men or women. It is a simple concept that they REFUSE to understand.

LOL.

It's not quite as simple as the concept that a movement for gender equality should not be named ''feminism''.

I'll say it again;

It's exactly the same as a group of white people claiming that their movement supports equal rights for races, naming their movement ''caucasianism'', and only protesting when white people were at the wrong end of inequality.

Everybody would know that this group would only be paying lip-service to equality, while having ulterior motives.


This is why feminism is a con, and women who align themselves to the movement are only interested in female superiority, getting the best deal for their gender ( regardless of whether it's correct ), and attempting to have an easy-ride while whipping out the ''gender card'' on every occassion it suits them.

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
PLEASE people look at the term's definition.

According to wiki, anti-feminists are NOT ONLY against 'feminism' but also EQUALITY.

Don't identify with the word anti-feminist if you're not against EQUALITY.

Thanks for the clarification.

I was unaware that the term ''anti-feminism'' had a diiferent meaning. I assumed that it just meant someone that was against feminism.

In that case, I'll retract my statement that I'm a ''anti-feminist'', and state that I'm against feminism, and pro-equality.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Well I cannot disagree strongly enough with this. Speaking AS A FEMINIST, I can tell you that I am interesting in EQUAL rights for men and women, NOT foremost for women, so I think you should be careful what you state as FACT.

I'm afraid what I'm saying is true.

Anybody that's truly interested in gender equality would not define themselves by a term that favoured one of the two genders.

I don't know how many other ways I can put this; it's simple logic.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
It is impossible for a political movement to keep changing its name in accordance with the development and evolution of its politics.

Firstly, it shouldn't have been named that in the first-place, then, and secondly, of course it can change its name - or more appropriately - those that identify with equal rights between genders should never, ever refer to themselves by such a divisive term !

I'm afraid one can't hide behind that excuse.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
That isn't even taking into consideration that there are many different branches of politics that come under the umbrella term of Feminism. Of course there are some individuals who's version of Feminist ideology may well conform with the description which you have ascribed to the term 'Feminist', but please do not paint everyone with the same simplistic brush!

Sorry, but when the fundamental tenet of all branches of feminism is to look out for one gender's rights, rather than both in equal measure, then I'll most definitely tar them all with the same brush, just as I tar all racial supremacists in the same way.

reply to post by Indigogirl


I'm taking feminism for what it is; looking out for women's interests, regardless of whether it's fair or not.

I don't have a starting point of Conservatism; I come from the starting point of seeking equality for both genders.

If feminism has such a wide range of branches, from the comparitively mild to the extreme, then why on earth would you describe yourself in this way ?

You then go on to say that beliefs are more important than labels, yet, by your own argument, dexribing yourself as ''feminist'' doesn't describe what your beliefs on the issue are.

You could be at the extreme end of the spectrum, for all anyone knows, if you're just using that broad term to describe your views.

I fail to see why a feminist movement is necessary these days. This isn't the 19th century, women enjoy every single right and privilege any man does. In the West, at least. I won't speak for other cultures.

Also, to be perfectly frank, most men find feminism annoying. Like any 'activist', they're constantly looking for confrontation. Case in point, this thread.

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

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

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
On a sidenote.... Why are all feminists ugly

I think you've just answered one of the reasons as to why feminism even exists.

It's not always a lack of attractiveness that leads a woman to become an embittered feminist; it could be a more serious reason like an abusive father or boyfriend etc.

Either way, it's pretty obvious to me that feminists all have a deep-lying distrust or disliking of men, that no doubt stems from negative experiences in their younger years.

Having given the whole history of gender roles in recent decades more thought, I have recently come to the conclusion that supposed female oppression did not actually exist anytime after women got the vote.

The idea that females were oppressed at the hands of a patriarchal society is a myth promoted and perpetuated by some women ( feminists ) who want to hang on to the coat-tails of those who suffered genuinely in the past, in an attempt to get a free-ride and preferential treatment.

To put it more correctly: women were oppressed at times in the past, but men were equally as oppressed.

The problem in the past was that both men and women had to operate in narrowly defined gender roles.

Yes, promoting the idea that women were oppressed in the past, while ignoring the fact that men were equally as oppressed, is one of the biggest cons in the modern era, and I'm ashamed to admit that I fell for this revisionist take on social history until reasonably recently.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Sorry, but when the fundamental tenet of all branches of feminism is to look out for one gender's rights, rather than both in equal measure, then I'll most definitely tar them all with the same brush, just as I tar all racial supremacists in the same way.

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

There's liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, anarcha-feminism, cultural feminism, separatist feminism, womanism, Chicana feminism, standpoint feminism, postcolonial feminism, conservative feminism, individualist feminism (sometimes also grouped with libertarian feminism), post-modern feminism, and eco-feminism. That's just the one's listed in wiki's feminism article and doesn't include links to the three different 'waves' of feminism. The first was to get women the right to vote, the second was to end legal discrimination in the workplace, and the third (current) doesn't really have a defined goal from what I can find.

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.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
On a sidenote.... Why are all feminists ugly

I think you've just answered one of the reasons as to why feminism even exists.

It's not always a lack of attractiveness that leads a woman to become an embittered feminist; it could be a more serious reason like an abusive father or boyfriend etc.

Either way, it's pretty obvious to me that feminists all have a deep-lying distrust or disliking of men, that no doubt stems from negative experiences in their younger years.

I would also add inability to find a male who will put up with their insanity to the list, but you stated it very well sir.

Jenna

I`ve read a few of your posts recently and I`ve said in the past that I deeply admire women who are fair on these issues,because they are few and far between.

I`ve also noticed the women who frequently post in these topics who only see it from their (womens) perspective or wants,who get many stars for sounding the womens trumpet,yet yours are seriously lacking,not surprisingly.

Anyway I tip my hat in your direction

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Look, the fact is, that over 90% of feminists, ( i should know my sister is one of them ) spend most of their natural adult life on college campuses pushing their belief/propaganda. And when play time is over, ( college campus time ) they go out into the "real" world and realize everything they've been preaching is now questionable to say the least. They think the women's right movement of the 1960's ( and earlier ) is something they need to continue to fight for. Problem is, in this day and age, we just don't have the issues we once did.

While modern day Feminism may have stemmed from the second wave of the 70s, that doesn't mean that Feminist politics haven't evolved greatly since then. While the issues may not be the same now as they were then, that doesn't mean that they do not exist. Also, wouldn't you agree that most things learnt at university have their metal tested when one graduated and goes on into the real world as you put it?

However, I can understand why a woman might be lured towards the movement in those days, but there is no excuse for such an outdated ideology in 2010.

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!

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by tiger5
Feminism is still defined as a movement to end sexist oppression. The oppression could be against men or women. It is a simple concept that they REFUSE to understand.

LOL.

It's not quite as simple as the concept that a movement for gender equality should not be named ''feminism''.

I'll say it again;

It's exactly the same as a group of white people claiming that their movement supports equal rights for races, naming their movement ''caucasianism'', and only protesting when white people were at the wrong end of inequality.

Everybody would know that this group would only be paying lip-service to equality, while having ulterior motives.


This is why feminism is a con, and women who align themselves to the movement are only interested in female superiority, getting the best deal for their gender ( regardless of whether it's correct ), and attempting to have an easy-ride while whipping out the ''gender card'' on every occassion it suits them.

edit on 2-11-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

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? 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'. 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.
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.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Indigogirl
It is impossible for a political movement to keep changing its name in accordance with the development and evolution of its politics.

Firstly, it shouldn't have been named that in the first-place, then, and secondly, of course it can change its name - or more appropriately - those that identify with equal rights between genders should never, ever refer to themselves by such a divisive term !

I'm afraid one can't hide behind that excuse.

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. 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. 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(?!).

Sorry, but when the fundamental tenet of all branches of feminism is to look out for one gender's rights, rather than both in equal measure, then I'll most definitely tar them all with the same brush, just as I tar all racial supremacists in the same way.

But I take it you're using that as an example and not linking the two ideologies there! :s
Yes, I think that some Feminists do approach equal rights from the perspective of their own gender, because that is the gender they can most relate to, BUT, I also believe, from first hand experience, that time IS ALSO spent contemplating the implications of whatever is up for discussion from the opposite gender perspective too to try and reach a place of balance. In fact the Feminists groups which I have attended have always had male members too, so you can't say that this is a one way street. I really do think care is taken to try and keep things as level and equal as is humanly possibly from a subjective human being trying to be as objective as possible.

reply to post by Indigogirl

I'm taking feminism for what it is; looking out for women's interests, regardless of whether it's fair or not.

I don't have a starting point of Conservatism; I come from the starting point of seeking equality for both genders.

Please don't think that I was implying you were a Conservative, I was just using it as an example. I don't presume to know your political inclinations.

If feminism has such a wide range of branches, from the comparitively mild to the extreme, then why on earth would you describe yourself in this way ?

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.

You then go on to say that beliefs are more important than labels, yet, by your own argument, dexribing yourself as ''feminist'' doesn't describe what your beliefs on the issue are.

You could be at the extreme end of the spectrum, for all anyone knows, if you're just using that broad term to describe your views.

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

Originally posted by Monger
I fail to see why a feminist movement is necessary these days. This isn't the 19th century, women enjoy every single right and privilege any man does. In the West, at least. I won't speak for other cultures.

Whilst, no, we may not still be in the days of the nineteenth century (thank god!), women DO NOT enjoy 'every single' right and privilege any man does in the West.

Also, to be perfectly frank, most men find feminism annoying. Like any 'activist', they're constantly looking for confrontation. Case in point, this thread.

I disagree, there are plenty of people out there who are more than happy to discuss differences in opinion or politics quite happily with no intentions of being hostile or confrontational. I don't think this thread was started to ignite 'confrontation', rather a healthy discussion of opinions that may well differ from person to person

Originally posted by Monger

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

Ok, that really is a load of crap. This is based on...? I thought you weren't into mindless confrontation?!

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Having given the whole history of gender roles in recent decades more thought, I have recently come to the conclusion that supposed female oppression did not actually exist anytime after women got the vote.

The idea that females were oppressed at the hands of a patriarchal society is a myth promoted and perpetuated by some women ( feminists ) who want to hang on to the coat-tails of those who suffered genuinely in the past, in an attempt to get a free-ride and preferential treatment.

To put it more correctly: women were oppressed at times in the past, but men were equally as oppressed.

The problem in the past was that both men and women had to operate in narrowly defined gender roles.

Yes, promoting the idea that women were oppressed in the past, while ignoring the fact that men were equally as oppressed, is one of the biggest cons in the modern era, and I'm ashamed to admit that I fell for this revisionist take on social history until reasonably recently.

*tears hair out and shakes head sadly*

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

Originally posted by Indigogirl


Whilst, no, we may not still be in the days of the nineteenth century (thank god!), women DO NOT enjoy 'every single' right and privilege any man does in the West.

Seriously?

Fine, women can pee standing up. Happy now?

What rights do you think women lack?