Why are feminists so aggressive?

Silly to rely on a google search.

I did the same search. Lots of those examples aren't even on the FWR board. For example, "I hate men, sorry" is a thread on the Lone Parents board about a woman having relationship difficulties, and just venting about her partner. And it's from 2007.

The idea that we're all rabidly typing "I hate men" all day is ridiculous.

I'm just wondering what search terms were used to bring up that list

"Man hating mumsnet" into Google.

Nooo, not the sarcasm when disagreed with! Whatever next, the cushions and the comfy chair?

Funny you should bring up uncompromising and dogmatic. We were just talking about the unrelenting pressure on women and Feminists to compromise with Ideologues.

Heck, I understand offering a biscuit can get you deleted in FWR

But I do think there is a tendency on this board to be sarcastic and nasty to people

Isn't that just the Internet.

We)(the posters) don't generally issue death threats, rape threats, use slurs, post sexist memes and the various other things that posters generally complain about elsewhere.

To answer the OP question all the way back on page one: I don't know that I think that feminists are particularly agressive. Ideologues in general can be and perhaps they are the ones who most often present themselves with labels attached.

But I do think there is a tendency on this board to be sarcastic and nasty to people who don't agree about certain things. It pretty closely mirrors the type of shutting down that people here complain about when it goes on elsewhere. It tends to be the same people generally but it's not like anyone else tells them to back off.

I'm just wondering what search terms were used to bring up that list because I can't reproduce it. Was it an advanced search option?

I suspect the Feminists might be angry over all the rape torture and abuse.
Just a thought.

🤣

Not all all feminists are aggressive, just like not all men are violent, but there are definitely a fair few on here who will malign anyone who dares question the modus operandi.

It's like how everyone on here vehemently denies man hating but a quick search will evidence the following threads:

I bloody hate men
I'm starting to hate men
Are men in general just awful?
I hate men...sorry.
To wonder why quality of men is SO dire?
I HATE men
Please help me not to hate men
I absolutely categorically unequivocally hate men
Are all men useless?
Are MOST men horrible?
To wonder what’s effing wrong with men?
ALL men are bastards

🤷‍♀️

I didn't realise it was an old thread. Thought it had just been posted as it was near the top of the pile and Bertrand was soliciting up to date opinions.

Mind you I guess you illustrate the point I was making.

@GrapefriutAreNotTheOnlyFruit
Why have you chosen to post on a two year old thread.
Start your own thread about the awful posters on here, I'm sure it will be very interesting

I mainly lurk on FWR and and agree with the majority about trans issues, prostitution and surrogacy.

That said the one time I really got involved with a thread it was about a young woman with learning disabilities who was being forced by a court to have a very late abortion against her wishes.

I was against the opinion of the FWR 'regulars' in that I felt this was very wrong. I felt there was a lot of hostility on that thread to those that shared my opinion. And a lack of willingness to accept that there were other women who genuinely did not share the view point that this was ok.

In fact I believe at one point Betrand warned everyone that the dissenters on the thread were not all that they seemed to be. I guess implying that we were trolls or had some kind of hidden agenda.

So really I haven't felt the same way about this board since then. I do now understand why people make the comments they do about it.

Badbilly. No- there is nothing in the links you give that are not perfectly standard inclusive language. Firefighter instead of fireman and so on. You would have to be extraordinarily reactionary to object to any of them.

Not everyone agrees with you :

Dr Joanna Williams, an academic freedom advocate and University of Kent lecturer, told The Telegraph the ban was “unnecessary”.

“The idea that in a university people need to be dictated to in this way is really insulting to students and academics, we should be able to cope with words.

“These words have evolved over a long period of time and they don’t have sexist associations.”

The poster concerned talked about a campaign to ban the word "history". Whuch is on a par with "Christmas banned so as not to offend Muslims"

I didn't read it like that at all. My perception was that she had just quoted an incorrect word (History), and was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (that she had mis-remembered it) You, on the other hand, immediately pounced on her, and ridiculed her.

How do you think she would have perceived your actions?

It's that word "perception" again isn't it.

I believe a lot of what modern people take offence at occurs entirely in the mind of the reader/listener. I also believe that some times it isn't, but it's makes for a better world when we ascribe to ignorance what could be malice (until proven otherwise).

What would that include though? If you were a woman MP, like Diane Abbot, and subjected to racist and sexist comments wouldyou be entirely justified in being aggressively opposed to it?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40586335/labour-s-diane-abbott-tells-of-racist-and-sexist-abuse

I think the overall concept is "perception".

How do other people perceive this board, or in a wider scale, Feminists.

If you have to actually ask the question "why are feminists aggressive" then there must be a reason why that question needs to be asked.

If you believe it is all the "other peoples" perception ( which it might well be), then I feel there is little you can do.

On the other hand, however, if you are treating it like a focus group, or similar, and come to the conclusion that they are perceived to be aggressive because of something they do or say, or the way they say it, then it is in your hands to subtlety alter your language to still get the same point across with out being perceived as aggressive.

I think it totally depends on what your aims are.

BertrandRussell

I believe a lot of what modern people take offence at occurs entirely in the mind of the reader/listener. I also believe that some times it isn't, but it's makes for a better world when we ascribe to ignorance what could be malice (until proven otherwise).

You could have name changed MA, but choose not to.

Your choice of course.

It's not ad hominem to point this out. This is, after all, a discussion on feminists and aggression.

Mephistopheles- that really s a cheap post. You picked my post out by name as an example of feminist aggression. And you are now refusing to accept that a bit of extremely mild sarcasm was a response acceptable under abt circumstances to the posting of a damaging urban myth as fact. You are now suggesting that I responded as I did "because my ideology was threatened" not because someone posted a lie. Cheap, unfair and , I have to say, beneath you.

Is that the "Urban Myth" concerning Cardiff Metropolitan University banning certain words perceived as sexist?

www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-cardiff-metropolitan-bans-phrases-mankind-gentlemans-agreement-gender-neutral-terms-free-a7609521.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-39153731

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/phrases-been-banned-university-because-12690545

Forgive me if it isn't, but that was the only point I could find that actually resembled anything like an "Urban Myth".

I think the only mistake the original poster made was getting one of the words wrong.

I believe Hull University are also doing a similar thing, I will try and find a link.