Why are feminists so aggressive?

I should say, I have seen very obvious trolling and understandably angry/silly responses to that, but I haven't seen anyone arguing things in good faith being called names.

'Yet all these things over the last many years of occasional forays into the feminism board have resulted in mass deletions (yet never my posts) calls of troll and being called a handmaiden.'

Ok, I've not seen that (despite being on this board pretty much every day) but I'll take your word for it. Is it your view that feminists just get angry for nothing?

Buddy hell, I think ice cream and prosecco are in order and a weepie

^The shaving thing is neither here not there, shave if you like, no one cares.

The gender neutral bathrooms thing and the banning porn thing could be difficult to justify from a feminist point of view but it very much depends on why you hold those views (it's not clear from what you've said).^

Yet all these things over the last many years of occasional forays into the feminism board have resulted in mass deletions (yet never my posts) calls of troll and being called a handmaiden.

Yep, all feminists are vile horrible creatures.

It's absolutely true.

'I also shave all over, believe strongly in gender neutral bathrooms and think that the movement to ban pornography is almightily problematic.'

The shaving thing is neither here not there, shave if you like, no one cares.

The gender neutral bathrooms thing and the banning porn thing could be difficult to justify from a feminist point of view but it very much depends on why you hold those views (it's not clear from what you've said).

"Why has FWR boards got a bad name?"

"Because we've had the following bad experiences....."

"Your wrong and what do you expect if you're not really a feminist"

Yes it is

This board isn't about us all happily supporting each other, it's about discussing sometimes difficult and contentious topics and sometimes it gets close to the bone. If someone pisses you off, say 'you're pissing me off' and carry on talking, don't run away. It's not necessary for other people to mind your feelings (the exception being of course when someone is discussing something difficult/personal and does need support).

Martha, I don't control the board. You are welcome to go wherever you want. I'm not duty bound to agree with you in order to make you feel ok. If you have views you'd like to express, discuss and defend, go ahead. You can completely ignore me if you want.

BertrandRussell You asked the question People say that the FWR board on here is scary and hounds out people whose faces don't fit. That women are always being told they can't be feminists if.......And so on. And so on.

I saw it because it came up in Active. I seldom venture on FWR because I find it intimidating and have been snarled at before (I NC regularly).
I tried to explain my feeling in my post upthread and guess what?

If you don't agree with feminism there's nothing wrong with that. Be assured that feminists will continue to fight to gain and protect every right you have regardless of how you feel.
A perfect example of patronising passive aggression, designed to put me in my place and make it clear that my views are wrong and I'm not welcome here.

Perhaps I sometimes confuse anger with aggression. That is why I said the tone of the thread was aggressive.
I also said the anti male vitriol was on MN not specifically this thread.

I'll persevere with my own stance on feminism and trying to teach my sons to challenge inequality and sexism, but I no longer call it feminism because the very word now has such negative connotations.

Bloody hell. Don't people see that the very concept of legal protection was established 'under the patriarchy' let alone all the systems and traditions that mean it has any weight. . All the methods by which economic social and political change can happen without force are both patriarchal.. At least created/dominated by men, and feminist in that they allow structures by which any movement can be protected whilst it gains assent, feminism included.

(that's enough Jacob Rees Nigg ing for a while!)

Man: women drivers!

Woman: if you look at the statistics, women are actually safe drivers

Man: whoa, why are you being so defensive!

Meant to say be forthright, say what you actually think, don't apologise for your opinions.
But don't speak to me like I'm a silly little woman who should just shut up.
( actually not directed at you sparrow, because I think your posts are usually very respectful to other women).

'But surely it has to be a natural progression, and not an outright "Ban". That just comes across as some people trying to control how other people express themselves. I must admit I am probably guilty of using many of those words on the "banned" list, but like to think I am intelligent enough to realise that words like "Mankind" refer to the whole human population as a whole, and not just the males of the species, and am fully aware of it's etymology.'

And, many of those words are perceived sexism, not actual sexism, and I think that is part of the problem, as banning them was perceived as a good thing by the people that banned them, but was perceived as petty nit-picking by others.

I think perception is the real crux of the whole argument in the context of the original premise of "Why are feminists so aggressive".

I do understand what you're saying. I think I'm at the point where I think 'actually you know what it won't fucking kill you to change a few words.' Given that men kill 2 women a week and rape 85,000 women in the uk every year, asking for a change of language seems a pathetically small thing and having people complain about it and make women feel unreasonable for it seems like a big fuck you to be frank. Yes we could wait for change - that's what men said to women when they turned around in the early 1900s when they suddenly said women weren't getting the vote after being strung along with promises of it for over 50 years. Because that's how it always happens - women ask for something totally reasonable (like being included in the words that describe our world) and everyone is shocked and says 'don't ask for too much, just wait' because that's what we're supposed to do, just wait and hope. It's never worked before and I don't see it ever working. The only thing that ever works is forcing the change. When the change is forced everyone is up in arms but give it a few years and it's just normal (how many women would accept not being able to vote now?). That's how every single change has been secured. It's bloody exhausting having to justify it over and over.

And women are always patronised to. By men.
That's why I think we should avoi it towards each other.
Be forthright,

do you think that you can be a feminist and believe in forced marriage, no education for girls, lower pay for women, the right for men to rape their wives, no votes for women,.......to bane a few?

Oh I agree with those. Does that make me a feminist?

However

I also shave all over, believe strongly in gender neutral bathrooms and think that the movement to ban pornography is almightily problematic.

If I'm a feminist I'm clearly a very confused one.

Bertrand

Thank you for addressing my point. I'm afraid I must disagree. Her actual words implicitly separated Martha from feminism, from a semantic point of view, as well as misrepresenting her (deliberately?) as stating she didn't believe in feminism. Martha clearly stated she did believe in feminism and regarded herself as a feminist, but that the dominant voices on the feminist board would NOT consider her feminist simply because she regarded those dominant voices as aggressive. She was proved right.

In answer to your question, here is my personal interpretation of the more acerbic tone she might have been reacting to.

"It's cos we hate all the menz so much. We can't go groping them, harrassing them in the street, assaulting them, attacking their spaces and such like so it makes us furious... ... - Sarcastic Contempt (I personally don't take offence, but a woman with sons might have).

"Men are very very fragile, we can't in any way imply that they're not fantastic because we can't possibly hurt their feelings, ever." - Sarcastic contempt same as above.

"If you are proud of your ignorance, well, you have to expect to be mocked for it." - Sarcastic contempt

"but it's not for me or anyone else to say whether you're a feminist or not." - This isn't actually particularly aggressive, but it's quite amusing considering what this particular poster said later.

"It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you!" - Sarcastic contempt.

"There's no need to run away Martha. If you don't agree with feminism there's nothing wrong with that. Be assured that feminists will continue to fight to gain and protect every right you have regardless of how you feel." - Misrepresentation, gatekeeping, sarcastic contempt. "but it's not for me or anyone else to say whether you're a feminist or not."

Yes my tone is patronising at times. I don't give a fuck about that. Women are always told that their tone isn't right, no matter how they speak so I'm just not giving any headspace at all to it, especially not on a feminist board. We're all grownups, I think we can cope with some patronising words.

Yes of course I can see the correlation between language and control formerly. Language has been used for centuries to control women and to belittle them - 'girl' as an insult being a prime example.

I agree-but...

Tipping the balance the other way in a very small fashion serves to right that situation somewhat.

But surely it has to be a natural progression, and not an outright "Ban". That just comes across as some people trying to control how other people express themselves. I must admit I am probably guilty of using many of those words on the "banned" list, but like to think I am intelligent enough to realise that words like "Mankind" refer to the whole human population as a whole, and not just the males of the species, and am fully aware of it's etymology.

And, many of those words are perceived sexism, not actual sexism, and I think that is part of the problem, as banning them was perceived as a good thing by the people that banned them, but was perceived as petty nit-picking by others.

I think perception is the real crux of the whole argument in the context of the original premise of "Why are feminists so aggressive".

I can't see why what I'm saying would be controversial. I'm not saying that all feminists have to exactly believe a very precise list of things in order to be feminists - there are for example huge areas of disagreement around sex work. But there are basic things that are part of feminism such as a belief that there is fundamental societal inequality between women and men. If you don't believe that then feminism is going to seem a bit pointless to you.

The point was perhaps couched in slightly patronizing terms, but it is a valid one
Yes, patronising, that's it. It seems to be very acceptable on here to take a patronising tone with anyone who isn't a staunch radical feminist.
It's not just directed to non-feminists.

Saying you have a certain set of beliefs implies that you believe those things. If you don't believe them then you don't believe them, that's fine but claiming that you are still part of that group despite not believing (when belief is the defining factor) is odd.

And here.