Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Why are feminists so aggressive?

736 replies

BertrandRussell · 07/09/2017 14:11

This, or something like it, it always being asked. 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.

In my experiences, you are much more likely to get an aggressive response if you express a feminist point of view than the other way round. Is it just me? Or am I missing something?

There have been plenty of interesting feminists threads recently, where everyone seems to be holding their own- but the same old accusations keep coming up.

OP posts:
Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:43

Bertrand Re your snippyness.

Are you at that time of the month?

Mid cycle?
Pre or post menopausal?

Sarcasm of course!

MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 12:42

Bertrand

I'm certainly not being proscriptive about language people use, or how they react. Every point has simply been in answer to the implicit question: "why do people think feminists are aggressive?"

The question was answered, and largely by feminists. It's entirely up to you how you want to behave and therefore be regarded.

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 12:39

"You refuse to even consider any views that do not align with yours. Just try for once considering the very valid points made by many different posters."
Blimey! Where did that come from????

OP posts:
Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:39

I was merely acknowledging that the thread could cause distress, or a sense of active misandry, not whether or not this was acceptable.

You should have said that in the first place then. Keep posting!

MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 12:39

Elendon

I'm unsure whether criticising a constructed username could be considered an ad-hominem attack, but it's certainly an attempt to discredit my points via an irrelevance.

NoLoveofMine · 14/09/2017 12:37

Much of the internet is awash with boys and men mocking and generally deriding girls and women. I've seen many hugely misogynist comments from teenage boys on various platforms, as well as hearing and hearing of many in person. There are whole forums and accounts devoted to posting photographs of girls and women taken from social media sites to be mocked and have sexually violent languaged used about them, done anonymously by what is clearly a huge number of boys and men.

Also, male violence is more what I'd describe as "aggressive" than feminists: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ellen-higginbottom-murder-sentence-live-13618167

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 12:37

"But the context is invisible to most"

So we now have to post assuming that people won't read the opening post? Right. Shall I make a list? Not even the mildest of sarcasm in response to damaging urban myths posted as truth. No assuming that people will read the opening post, so each post to be treated as a a discrete comment. Definitely no attempt at humour. What else?

OP posts:
Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:35

But the context is invisible to most.

Are you suggesting most men are stupid? I have a 16 year old son like Bertrand, and he would get it immediately.

MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 12:35

Elendon

After re-reading Twibble's post with which I was agreeing, I cannot discern the inconsistency in my positions. I was merely acknowledging that the thread could cause distress, or a sense of active misandry, not whether or not this was acceptable.

I am very far from libertarian - I think the internet should remain a place of unrestrained speech for philosophical reasons irrelevant to this thread.

Bertrand as Twibble says, if you were unaware of the context around the thread, how would you react?

mrsmuddlepies · 14/09/2017 12:34

Bertrand,
i have replied to you on a number of threads. You refuse to even consider any views that do not align with yours. Just try for once considering the very valid points made by many different posters.
i think you are so dismissive of other people. You do not do feminism any favours by scaring off any one who does not fit your narrow view of feminism.

Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:33

you think that men should be able to say whatever they want about women and not worry about whether or not it damages women emotionally?

Don't twist it sister! That's not what I think. And you know it.

Men often say what they think about women, out loud and in public. Everyday Sexism is a great place to go for examples of this.

Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:30

And your user name MA is particularly insensitive in a feminist forum.

Mephistopheles helps Faust seduce a beautiful and innocent girl, usually named Gretchen, whose life is ultimately destroyed when she gives birth to Faust's bastard son. Realizing this unholy act, she drowns the child, and is held for murder. However, Gretchen's innocence saves her in the end, and she enters Heaven after execution.

The above quote was taken from this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust

Twibble · 14/09/2017 12:21

Bertrand

i though the rest of your post was reasonable, as you usually are :) But the context is invisible to most. They will go onto the Feminism board, see a 20 page thread mocking men, and think that is what feminism is about. Intended irony (and frankly I'm damn sure a lot of posts weren't ironic) means nothing to them.

Elendon

So to be consistent you think that men should be able to say whatever they want about women and not worry about whether or not it damages women emotionally? That's an interesting viewpoint but not one I agree with.

Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:20

But MA you agreed with everything Twibble posted. And are now contradicting yourself.

Also, I cannot stand self serving libertarians like yourself. Hope I'm making myself clear. Take your 'wild west' approach to your shed.

Datun · 14/09/2017 12:19

Most people hold strongly to their ideologies because they believe, in their hearts, that the reasons for it are identifiable and verifiable.

I daresay they do. But as statistics do not require my belief, only my reading ability, feminism isn't one of them.

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 12:18

"But imagine for a second that you found a 'light hearted' thread like Tribble imagined about men pretending to be the worst stereotypes of women. How would you react? And if one of the posters defended it by saying "I imagine if my 16 year old daughter saw it, she'd be fine!" would you believe them?"

In the particular circumstances surrounding that thread, then yes I would. But maybe this is not the thread to discuss trans issues?

OP posts:
MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 12:16

Datun

Most people hold strongly to their ideologies because they believe, in their hearts, that the reasons for it are identifiable and verifiable.

MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 12:15

Elendon

I have said nothing about online discussions taking into account the emotions of others. I am very much of the 'wild west' approach to the internet, and entirely against 'thought policing' or censorship of any kind. I have nothing but utter contempt for those who believe in online 'safe spaces' or who react with shudders at imagined offence.

But imagine for a second that you found a 'light hearted' thread like Tribble imagined about men pretending to be the worst stereotypes of women. How would you react? And if one of the posters defended it by saying "I imagine if my 16 year old daughter saw it, she'd be fine!" would you believe them?

Datun · 14/09/2017 12:15

Ah sorry MephistophelesApprentice

I thought the ideology in question was feminism, not transactivism. I completely agree that transgenderism is now ideology based. But not feminism. The reasons for feminism are identifiable and verifiable.

Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:09

People like twibble and MephistophelesApprentice expect that an online discussion, entirely ironic, should take into account the emotional responses of others?

Thought police is a phrase that comes to mind.

Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:05

Cross post slightly with Bertrand but yes, my son would definitely see the irony intended.

Elendon · 14/09/2017 12:03

Twibble you show an open contempt for women though. There are many websites that openly show contempt for women in the manner in which you demonstrate.

My son would read that thread and take it for the sarcasm it was intended. It simply highlights the obvious differences within. He doesn't believe in gender either. Perhaps he ought to be rescued?

MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 12:00

I agree entirely, Twibble.

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 11:59

Twibble- I notice that you only responded to part of my post- do you have any thoughts on the rest?

Incidentally, I have a 16 year old son. I am pretty sure he would recognize and be amused by the stereotypes on that thread. Particularly if he had read the opening post and understood the context. And particularly if he was aware of the "Modest Proposal" element of the thread. That it is risible for women to claim male privilege- but not vice versa.

OP posts:
MephistophelesApprentice · 14/09/2017 11:58

BertrandRussell

I haven't made any statements as to the acceptability or otherwise of your response, merely that - as you yourself have admitted - it was sarcastic (and as a result, perhaps contemptuous). I certainly wasn't singling you out, or assessing your response for anything but the emotional impact it may have had on others.

As you say, your response may have been entirely justified; But it wasn't informative, corrective or analytical. How should it be characterised if not as an emotional response, and how should it be framed if not as a response to a (probably bad, unfactual) opposing argument to your ideology?

I apologise if you feel I have been antagonistic towards you, or deliberately insulting, and I'll endeavour towards greater clarity of my language.