Why are feminists so aggressive?

I will happily discuss any robustly defended point. I will not entertain random unsubstantiated assertions - that's a total waste of my time.

Any differing opinion has to be backed up by shit loads of reasearch and proof and I just don't have the time or the interest.

Well yes, that is one of the feminist bug bears. Not because feminists can't have an opinion without backup, but because they are constantly being asked to back up their assertions. With evidence, statistics, studies and science.

People are forever telling feminists they're wrong, and 'citation please'. It goes hand-in-hand. You have to know what you're talking about in order to counteract criticism.

Yes I can say whatever I like horrid, I'm not going to censor myself because some people don't understand some jokes. You are also welcome to post as much as you like, start your own threads etc.

'Any differing opinion has to be backed up by shit loads of reasearch and proof and I just don't have the time or the interest.' I can't really understand the issue here. If someone comes on and says women commit just as much sexual crime as men, for example, you can be damn sure people will expect research and proof. What's wrong with that? When discussing issues that affect women's lives, it's necessary to back what you're saying up, you can't just come on and state a completely unsubstantiated fact about the world and expect everyone to just believe you. What would be the point of that???

Look I am a stay at home (single) father, and I wasn't personally offended at all. So for all the ever so kind women rushing to the defense of men against the mean feminists, thanks but if I had felt a genuine hostility here I'd a) defend myself or b) bugger off elsewhere.

So if all the fwr regulars are really that bad how come I haven't felt particularly unwelcome here?

I can't be arsed anymore.

I've answered the question. I personally think fwr is seen as aggressive because it's a bit of a clique that talks only to its self.

Others come on, misinterpret posts and come away thinking the worst.

You point out this could be an issue some take it on board (yetanothers irony flag sounds good).
But others believe that they can say what they like about whoever because a lot of women are treated appallingly.

Like I said, can't be bothered anymore. Honestly I started the day thinking "maybe I should look at fwr more often" but I actually can't be arsed.
Any differing opinion has to be backed up by shit loads of reasearch and proof and I just don't have the time or the interest.

'Why should sahds get it in the neck because other men do appalling things to women?'

No one was getting it in the neck. It was a flippant comment on a thread, about nobody in particular in response to a ridiculous article that implied that women were causing men to die young by having the audacity to earn more.

Why should sahds get it in the neck because other men do appalling things to women?

Stay at home dads weren't getting in the neck! Feminists love stay-at-home dads.

Blaming women for men getting stressed out because they don't the power they think they should have, was getting it in the neck.

Exactly Derval, One poster thought that offing her husband now with a frying pan to the head, would save a lot of incremental stress over decades.

No one takes it seriously. It's a light-hearted poke. But the philosophy behind that poke is very serious. Sometimes it's a relief to send it up, to be honest.

As Datun said, horrid, it's one post on one thread

I'm not trawling through fwr to find more examples for you. I had a quick look at one thread with less than 50 posts. I suspect that's not the only unpleasant joke on here but I could be wrong.

When you're faced with a report of another woman being mutilated by a man, commenting that man with poor health might die young seems mild

Why should sahds get it in the neck because other men do appalling things to women?

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid

Did you read the article that thread was referring to?

It was a shallow, superficial, one-sided look at why men who are not the breadwinner suffer stress. It was thought that losing the position of power stressed them out.

Something, which no feminist is going to agree with. Or if they do, it's because of gender stereotyping, ...which they disagree with.

There was no analysis of toxic masculinity and how it damages both men and women, and how, in fact, feminists are trying to combat it.

It was a one-sided piece that seemed to blame women for wanting to take their place in the power structure, with no solution offered.

The comment

"But from the woman's point of view, at least their misogynist husband is going to die earlier"

was in the context of the mind set of the author of the article.

Re: that Telegraph article was nothing but nonsensical sophistry. It juxtaposed two "facts" 1. Sahd's are dying earlier 2. More women are taking on the primary breadwinner role. However it failed to establish anything in the way of causation. Correlation does not prove causation. Fact is that article is specifically designed to stir the pot and increase resentment between men and women. To do that without a cogent argument is really shoddy journalism (and I am a conservative so I often like the telegraph).

Personally I a lot of the humor on that thread didn't land for me, although one comment where a woman insinuated that it was all part of her grand plan to off her dh, and the police wouldn't be able to touch her! That one did raise a wry smile, but my god if a joke doesn't land for me I don't laugh and move on.

I think feminists are always going to be attacked and held to an impossibly high standard, because their message is so unwelcome

This ^

As Datun said, horrid, it's one post on one thread. We're not all collectively responsible for what each individual writes. I wouldn't write something like that personally but I can see why that person did and I understand the sentiment behind it. It is a bit vicious yes but really in the face of what women have to suck up on a continual basis a slightly vicious comment on a thread is small beans. When you're faced with a report of another woman being mutilated by a man, commenting that man with poor health might die young seems mild.

I have to admit I'd am very surprised that anybody would read that as being anything other than a joke horrid

I know but it is a bit vicious. But if a man wrote on dads net that there's an article about high earning women. And another man wrote "good at least those bitches will be dead sooner"
I would struggle to see the humour in it.

It's possible others feel the same way about the quip regarding sahds dying earlier.

That's just one example looking at one small thread. I could be wrong on this. But fwr isn't seen as a welcoming place quite a number of posters maybe this is one of the reasons?

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid

But from the woman's point of view, at least their misogynist husband is going to die earlier

"If a person read that seriously you can see how they might come away with the impression there's a few man haters on fwr."

Yes, of course. If they're only going to read that one paragraph, then they can be forgiven for thinking feminists are sexist. But if I read something on a thread that shocked me, I'd keep going, to find out what was going on.

You really can't do anything about people who read one paragraph (or even just one thread) and judge an entire board on that alone.

The other bastion of denial is the term 'point-scoring' - it's generally used by men more than women IME, and it's used when the woman brings up a point that the man can't possibly disagree with without looking like a misogynistic monster. A straightforward example is when a man says that women have nothing to worry about and I reply that I worry about being one of the 85,000 women raped in the UK every year. Suddenly they're stumped because yes it is awful that so many thousands of women are raped every year and they can't deny it. But instead of saying yes it's awful and it is a terrible worry they just accuse me of 'point scoring' because I'm only supposed to stick to nice easy topics like wages and not refer to icky things like sexual violence that are undeniably shit.

YetAnotherSpartacus

To be fair, it doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. My point is that it's not what we say, it's the fact that we say it.

Because most of what feminists say is completely verifiable. Which feeds into what TheSparrowhawk said.

If feminists talk about male sexual violence, for instance, you will always get people, quite genuinely saying it's not just men, it's not all men, etc. Until you point out that it is 98% men.

Things like oppression, wage gap, violence, male behaviour, entitlement, etc, are all gimmees on FWR, but if you're not familiar with all that, it can look like man bashing.

I think feminists are always going to be attacked and held to an impossibly high standard, because their message is so unwelcome.

You need a very thick skin and I'm enormously grateful to the women brave enough to speak out.

I have to admit I'd am very surprised that anybody would read that as being anything other than a joke horrid. And if the person did mean it, you could probably safely write them off as having very extreme views. For someone to honestly believe that all feminists would agree with that sentiment I think they'd have to have a very skewed idea of what feminism is - I mean, it's a completely meaningless statement anyway.

And of course I get totally fucked off with the whole 'feminists are man haters' utter bullshit

It is bullshit. But a problem could be that people read posts like this about sahds and don't see them as a joke.

But from the woman's point of view, at least their misogynist husband is going to die earlier

If a person read that seriously you can see how they might come away with the impression there's a few man haters on fwr.

Yy sparrow

can't be trusted

And of course I get totally fucked off with the whole 'feminists are man haters' utter bullshit. On any given thread about male behaviour you will see poster after poster going on about how 'that's what men are like' and implying that men can't control themselves etc etc - ie stating that men are some sort of subhuman incompetent species who can't be trust. It will be feminists who say that men are civilised human beings who are perfectly capable of controlling themselves and being competent parents and partners. What's more 'man-hating' than stating that men are basically hopeless????

Also, I can't help but get a bit snippy when a poster implies things that are patently not true in order not to agree with a blatantly obvious point I'm making. For example, one poster implied that stating that the suffragettes secured the vote for women was 'simplifying the situation.' When I asked him/her to clarify what was meant by that, they obfuscated some more. I can't be doing with that sort of nonsense.

I think that FWR is perceived badly by some because they think feminists are a bit, well embarrassing and icky.

Like the term 'The patriarchy'. I freely admit that I dislike the term and that I feel that it is not useful and in fact off-putting. But it IS essential to explain the concepts in feminism and so needs to be used sometimes. I think some women absolutely agree with those concepts but wish we would all shut up about it because they find the whole thing uncomfortable. Which I get. But I won't shut up because that never achieved anything