Why are feminists so aggressive?

[BertrandRussell]

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

"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?

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

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.

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!

"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????

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.

Bertrand Re your snippyness.

Are you at that time of the month?

Mid cycle?
Pre or post menopausal?

Sarcasm of course!

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.

Mephistopheles- I am glad that you have acknowledged that "feminist aggression" is in the mind of the reader/listener rather than an objective reality. Phew..

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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)'

Why would the idea of banning the word history be in her mind at all? It has been a persistent urban myth that feminists want to ban the word for years. In some versions to replace it with herstory. And the poster concerned had already shown herself to be pretty anti feminist. And she did not correct herself. Which she could easily have done. But, obviously if I am wrong I will ask for my horrendously aggressive "it's political correctness gone mad!" Post to be deleted. The poster concerned is a very robust regular- I don't think she will have lost any sleep.

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.

@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 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.