'Feminazi' is sadly one of the most common examples of Godwin in our society.

[requisitename]

I don't care for the comments on the video but T.J. makes a very valid point about feminism.

Isn't that the guy who recently told a rape victim to drown in semen?
Yeah, lets ask him about feminism.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/02/08/horrible-people-dont-realize-theyre-horrible/
Yep thats him.

It's not often I'm actually shocked by the shit people will say to other people anymore, but.. wow. I kind of feel like someone suckerpunched me. Also, like I need a shower.

And, I totally disagree with the title of that post. There is no way that he doesn't know he's horrible. No one is that self-deluded, are they?

Edit: I've watched his video now and I wanted to add that I really don't understand why men bring up the Selective Service registration stuff when they're talking about sexism toward men. The U.S. hasn't drafted anyone since 1973 (that's nearly 40 years.. a pretty good chunk of time) and I honestly can't see any way the draft would ever be re-instated with current political climate (and that of the foreseeable future). At this point, it's a thing guys have to do when they turn 18. It takes a couple of minutes. Then they never have to think about it again. It seems silly to me, but not because it's sexist.. because it creates unnecessary paperwork for the government to have to pay for.

And yeah, I know I'm probably going to get flack for this.. but, it just seems like such a complete non-issue that I have a hard time taking someone who wants to wave *that* around as "sexism toward men" seriously.

 

[Phasmal]

I believe woman when they tell me they were abused, it happens, I know it happens. But it also happens to men, and many feminists will not accept that. For example, how may womans shelters are there? how many Men's shelters?

Its hard enough to convince goverments to keep the womens shelters open, and they generally have a dismissive view of domestic violence in general, as does society.
I should also point out that women are more in danger of being murdered by their partners than men are, especially when they are trying to leave, thats why we have shelters.

It's not often I'm actually shocked by the shit people will say to other people anymore, but.. wow. I kind of feel like someone suckerpunched me. Also, like I need a shower.

And, I totally disagree with the title of that post. There is no way that he doesn't know he's horrible. No one is that self-deluded, are they?

The post is about him not by him.

 

[requisitename]

It's not often I'm actually shocked by the shit people will say to other people anymore, but.. wow. I kind of feel like someone suckerpunched me. Also, like I need a shower.

And, I totally disagree with the title of that post. There is no way that he doesn't know he's horrible. No one is that self-deluded, are they?

The post is about him not by him.

I realize that. But my reading of the post implies that the author thinks that "The Amazing Atheist" is a horrible person who doesn't know he's horrible. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. *shrug*

 

[Phasmal]

It's not often I'm actually shocked by the shit people will say to other people anymore, but.. wow. I kind of feel like someone suckerpunched me. Also, like I need a shower.

And, I totally disagree with the title of that post. There is no way that he doesn't know he's horrible. No one is that self-deluded, are they?

The post is about him not by him.

I realize that. But my reading of the post implies that the author thinks that "The Amazing Atheist" is a horrible person who doesn't know he's horrible. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. *shrug*

Oh now I get what you mean.

Well, people like that are in a complete black-hole of denial. They honestly believe they are in the right, even when spewing hateful shit like that.

 

[LilithSlave]

because this particular subset of feminists happen to be incredibly bigoted transphobes...

No group is filled with perfect people.

It's true that there are some feminists who could be more understanding towards transsexuals.

As a whole, though, I find the biggest contention between the two, is that transsexuals insist that they are mentally biologically female, and often subscribe to notions that female behavior is innate and that they were born with it. While most feminists see this as more of a stereotype they have subscribed to.

Of course, there are all sorts of takes on transgender or topics playing with gender among feminists. But I find that the mainstream opinion is making a big deal out of culture as the cause of most gender roles.

This leads feminists to often approaching essentialist claims about gender roles by some transsexuals to saying, "are you sure that's a female thing and not just something you've been led to believe by society", a notion that some, if not many, transsexuals who believe strongly they were born in the wrong body, don't appreciate.

Usually that's the extent of disagreement, though. Not to say there aren't feminists out there who are transphobes, homophobes, racists, sexists, or the like. But in my experience, the majority opinion among feminists is a highly skeptical position on gender roles completely.

Again, this sometimes leads to a bit of conflict of belief on the nature of gender between feminists and transsexuals. But nothing too extreme, usually.

 

[Westaway]

Possibly it's because nobody (much) seriously is drawing the connection, it's just done to mock them.

Aaaaand we have a winner. The term is making fun of stuck women.

 

[LilithSlave]

I hold a lot of agreement and respect with TJ on a variety of issues. He doesn't necessarily handle all the issues perfectly. But on things relating to subjects like religion he holds a variety of refreshing stances and interpretations.

But on the subject of feminism, he's really closed minded and does not understand it. He does show an interest in learning a degree about feminism, that's more than I can say about some people. But he completely misses the point and misunderstands what "patriarchy" in the feminist sense is supposed to mean. And completely outright dismisses the claim that a lot of sexism towards men comes from patriarchy without giving it much thought or study.

It's very frustrating considering I share so much in common with him on various issues, only to see him drop the ball like this on gender issues.

Patriarchy, is essentially another word for "male privilege", or at least very, very similar. Just like white privilege, male privilege also exists. It's not men actively working against women and blatantly claiming them as inferior, though that does happen too. Privilege goes by with a lot of people not noticing it. Saying that patriarchy or male privilege exists is not demonizing men. It describes a social construction that millions of men and women often contribute to, unknowingly. Good people, contribute to male privilege and white privilege. Again, it's not demonizing men or saying that men have it out for women that patriarchy exists.

Women aren't part of the military draft because honestly, not much has been done with it. And also, it's been part of a long standing tradition of "male honor" that women haven't been allowed to be a part of. A lot of people today don't want to die for country. But for centuries, this was a part of a man's pride to make war and fight. Just because it's stupid to send men to war but not women, doesn't mean it has origins in anything other than male supremacist thought. Saying this isn't patriarchy is like saying that medieval chivalry isn't sexist towards women, it's sexist towards men. When the whole thing implies women are inferior and unworthy of such "manly" greatness, and far too petite and lovely(see: sexual objectification) to possibly be "sullied" by glorious man-war.

And the part about giving preference to child care for women, that's because women have been stereotyped for centuries and being useless for anything other than looking good, cooking, cleaning, and raising children. This so called "non-patriarchal aspect", comes from the idea that women should be pregnant and in the kitchen.

It's irritating how obviously these things have origins in patriarchy. But yet how many men seem to go out of their way to ignore all obvious evidence that it is. That really shows the pervasiveness of privilege. And to be honest, a mean lack of empathy to understanding groups that have been oppressed that one hasn't been a part of. It doesn't take much putting yourself in someone's shoes and expressing empathy to understand how someone would understand that these things come from patriarchy. Not that people who do this are horrible people or anything, but it shows otherment towards women and their plight.

At least, his position is a little more tolerable, and less abrasive towards feminists in this video. And is perfectly willing to agree that gender roles can be very, very harmful to both genders. In the end, he ends off his argument with a semantics argument.

-Domestic violence against men is percieved with less reaction because there is less of a precedent for it. There is a long history of women who have been beaten or killed by husbands, it envokes a greater response. Additionally, bigoted machismo culture belittles men who have let a woman dominate them physically. I suppose it is possible that this culture may bias legal proceedings to some extent, but I really doubt justice is ever denied. Blame patriarchal cave-man culture when the cops snicker at your shiner, not feminism.

-Female circumcision is WAY more damgaging than male circumcision. Both forms of mutilation are enforced under male-dominated religions. Blame patriarchal religious culture for mutilated genitals, not feminism.

-The military elite have actively fought women from entering the armed forces for decades. It stems from old conservative thinking that women are not emotionally fit for combat, I disagree (see: Lyudmila Pavlichenko, WW2 Soviet sniper who bagged 309 Nazis). Physical ability should be judged on an individual basis, not by gender. If the draft was enforced, I would probably meet the criteria for service, however, there are a lot of women out there who are in far better physical shape than I could ever become. The military and police forces are probably the most sexist organisations within our society, a great big "good ole' boy's club" at heart. Can you think of a female officer who has achieved a top position within the general staff? Any nationality? I find it hard to believe that no female candidates have ever met the criteria for promotion. Blame patriarchal military culture when you are drafted as an able-bodied man, not feminism.

Well-put.

 

[drisky]

because this particular subset of feminists happen to be incredibly bigoted transphobes...

No group is filled with perfect people.

It's true that there are some feminists who could be more understanding towards transsexuals.

As a whole, though, I find the biggest contention between the two, is that transsexuals insist that they are mentally biologically female, and often subscribe to notions that female behavior is innate and that they were born with it. While most feminists see this as more of a stereotype they have subscribed to.

Of course, there are all sorts of takes on transgender or topics playing with gender among feminists. But I find that the mainstream opinion is making a big deal out of culture as the cause of most gender roles.

This leads feminists to often approaching essentialist claims about gender roles by some transsexuals to saying, "are you that's a female thing and not just something you've been led to believe by society", a notion that some, if not many, transsexuals who believe strongly they were born in the wrong body, don't appreciate.

Usually that's the extent of disagreement, though. Not to say there aren't feminists out there who are transphobes, homophobes, racists, sexists, or the like. But in my experience, the majority opinion among gender roles is a highly skeptical position on gender roles completely.

Again, this sometimes leads to a bit of conflict of belief on the nature of gender between feminists and transsexuals. But nothing too extreme, usually.

When you look at the groups of people who are for and against the rights of trans people the group that is most opposed to it is men. I can't find the chart that at least pertains to those in Massachusetts, as it may have been taken down since discrimination laws were past here, but men were the most opposed to it with about a third against it verses a fifth of women who did. There are feminists who argue that they make gender relations worse, but they seem to be a minority and it just seems to be a case of the loudest voices being heard. Feminists that hate transpeople are more vocal about it then other groups that do (ones that hate gay people too in particular, they don't tend to write books specifically about transgender people) so opinoions like that of Janice Raymond come of as common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Raymond

"All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive."

Yeah, that is not the common opinion but it wis there and it is published, so a few people start to think views like this are common among feminists just like they think, "all heterosexual sex is rape" is a view that most hold. It really isn't and it. It is just the fact that it is the only group that makes complaints about transexuals that separate form gay people. Again it is not what feminism is about and feminism shouldn't be reduced because of it.

 

[drisky]

I hate using debating terms but it does seem most opposers of feminism use strawman for everything and to ludicrous extremes. Seriously, most of the time it's not even like you can find one single woman in history who expressed the version of feminism they are trying to project on every single man and woman who thinks men and women should be treated equally.

Mind you, I do know one person at least who thought women were empirically better than men. Genghis Khan. I have to admit, he did have a point and his methods worked. In any case, I'd be totally OK with the brand of matriarchal society Genghis Khan was aiming for and I really can't see how anbody could not be OK with it.

I've noticed it too and it really hurts their arguments. I still men should still fight double standards and such, but doing research on the topic lead me to believe that a lot of people that talk about it falsely blame feminism. I say a women on youtube claim that feminism was a conspiracy created in order to make America in to a socialist country and it had 95% likes, with the top comment being "This women is really smart, other ladies should listen to her." That seems to be the general tone of the internet that makes pointing out unfairness towards men popular yet stupid, because many don't know how to talk about it and can't even see the harm in using the word feminazi.

 

[Viridian]

Damn. Nice to see everyone keeping it civil. /sarcasm

I know personal experiences don't mean a whole lot in discussing this subject. But most of the time that I've ever heard someone described as a feminazi, it was actually just some lady in a position of authority, like a professor or manager. Usually that means it's synonymous with "*****", but for someone with power. It's like calling your boss an asshole. The person doesn't even have to be a feminist to get called a feminazi, so long as they have the necessary reproductive organs.

As for its being used in the description of "extreme" feminists? Yeah, it's derogatory, but it's not really about Nazis. Just replace the term with femibitch, and it'll pretty much mean the same thing. It doesn't invoke Godwin's Law because, to the person declaring feminazi, they're really just saying, "She's a *****," not, "You have very Hitler-esque qualities about you, ma'am." I don't think I've ever seen any woman (not just feminists) being called a feminazi with the latter meaning.

 

[rekabdarb]

How about Fascist?

Is that better than feminazi?

Although Feminism actually isn't about making females better than everyone. It's making everyone equal in everything... i think. Been a while since I took my feminism class. Was interesting being the one of three guys in that class.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

-Domestic violence against men is percieved with less reaction because there is less of a precedent for it.

Which is caused by... Yes, exactly, feminism putting domestic violence against women on the agenda, but conveniently ignoring men who fall victim to the same.
And that's why feminism is being blamed; for saying they'll campaign against domestic violence, and then not doing that consistently, so they are blamed for that hypocrisy..

No, it is an emergent phenomena that was previously unknown to the general public in past decades. In the past, physical violence towards wives was far more accepted (a running joke on the Honeymooners). In most circumstances, any sort of abuse directed towards the male would have been met with physical force/intimidation as was expected by patriarchal culture. Our views on physical violence have changed, but our views on masculinity have not. Without force, husbands on the recieving end of abuse are now powerless (much like most female victims have been for centuries). That said, patriarchal culture dictates that these men have been emasculated by their wives. This sentiment is commonly taught to children, "Haha, you got beaten up by a girl." The stigma frequently prevents husbands from reporting such crimes. Male abuse is not ignored due to feminist conspiracy, it is under-reported due to male shame. Why should feminist groups specifically champion male abuse any more than acknowledging that it exists? I really doubt anyone's statistics are reliable, particularily when stigma is involved.

Additionally, bigoted machismo culture belittles men who have let a woman dominate them physically.

Most domestic abuse by women is psychological in nature.

No matter. Physical or psychological, the cave-man culture would see a man who has let a woman take control in such a confrontational manner as a lesser male.

-Female circumcision is WAY more damgaging than male circumcision. Both forms of mutilation are enforced under male-dominated religions. Blame patriarchal religious culture for mutilated genitals, not feminism.

But why is female genital mutilation a serious criminal offense, and male genital mutilation not only allowed, but in some countries even encouraged?
That's what he's on about. Feminists claim to campaign against it, but only if the victims are women.

The double standard exists in the West because of the unfounded medical benefits made in previous decades as well as widespread cultural acceptance of religious traditions involving male circumcision. Religious traditions involving female circumcision were nowhere near as prevalent in the West and so they were banned without protest. Additionally, the primary purpose of female circumcision is sexual control/oppression...some say male circumcision was an attempt to control masturbation, but it is simply not on the same level.

Why should women specifically campaign againt the mutilation of genitals they do not own?
Our entire society holds a hypocritical position on this issue. Why are feminists specifically at fault?

-The military elite have actively fought women from entering the armed forces for decades. It stems from old conservative thinking that women are not emotionally fit for combat

And by and large, this is true. The only thing debatable about that is how big of a biological factor there is in that. But whatever the case, violence and combat are pretty much male things.

Women have only recently been allowed to serve in any capacity resembling an official combat role. A bit early to make assumptions, isn't it? The women conscripts of the IDF seem to perform with the same skill and courage as their male comrades. The same can be said of the Soviet women who saw combat during WW2.

I don't care why that is, neither do I generalise about all women based on that, but saying their underrepresentation in violent professions is a sign of patriarchy is bullshit.

Got a better explanation? If you are told all you life that certain professions are for men and others for women..it is more difficult to go against the grain. The vast majority of physicians were men until parents stopped telling their little girls that it was more acceptable for them to become nurses. These days a typical medical school class has a slight majority of women.

Can you think of a female officer who has achieved a top position within the general staff?

For the Dutch military Brigadier-general Van den Hoek and Commodore Madeleine Spit. And five years have passed since then. And that's in a country with only 98 flag officers, of which pretty much all are older than 50. The Belgian chief-of-staff regarding the medical branch of the army is brigadier-general Danielle Levillez

Unfortunately their careers were stained with discrimination because they were promoted sooner because of being women, as a part of affirmative action-type discrimination policies. Van den Hoek was almost promoted to the highest possible rank of general in 2007, not two years after becoming brigadier, which is unheard of. A budget-cut intended to bring down the number of generals stopped it though.

For that same policy, it was forbidden for over five years to promote a man to chief of police or regional commander anywhere. They only shot that down in 2010, after a series of publications that showed that white men of command rank were resigning from the police in droves because the racist policies had terminated any career perspectives they had.

You got me here. However, as you said, they were promoted due to affirmative action. Do you honestly think that female candidates would have been considered at all if the top-brass was not forced to do so by a gov't with a progressive agenda. I personally doubt it, left to their own devices, I would bet those crusty old buggers would choose a man of lesser skill over a woman.

For many decades, the Canadian military leadership greatly preferred anglophone officers over francophone officers. French speakers joined the force knowing full well they would only rise to a certain level. It was not until the government forced the military elite to change tradition (prejudices) that all candidates were given an honest opportunity (there was a subsequent period of unfair francophone preference as well, but things are balancing out over time).

 

[LilithSlave]

Good lord. I knew TJ had said some pretty misogynistic crap.

But what in the ever living.. that was just plain sick.