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.

*There are people on this board that don't realise the damage they are doing to the feminist movement. They are incapable of discussing an issue without resorting to personal insults, aimed at other women as well as men. If you don't share their view then - in their opinion - you can't be a feminist. And apparently it's only their opinion that counts.

I hope the more aggressive posters take this on board as constructive feedback, and understand that their current behaviour does far more harm than it does good.*

Too right.
Personally, I enjoy the discussion, but you have to be very thick skinned to come on here and even dare to have a view that isn't staunchly radical feminist.

"As far as can see it's mostly one section of the population railing about how another section of the population telling you how to think dress speak etc.... whilst doing the exact same thing themselves."
Which is why this occurs repeatedly as an attempted derail, cos it misses the point of the whole thing entirely.
It's the difference between thinking feminism is all about letting women have as many free choices as possible, and instead asking why women's choices are different to mens and why they are different in the way they are.......

As regards history, at one time insisting on calling it herstory emphasized the fact that so often history wasn't about women/girls. So, I always write my exams papers in an STEM subject using she for a student, because as long as it still causes surprise (and as long as the proportion of females in the lecture seats in front of me remains so low), then the point still needs to be made.

I've never understood quite why it is so acceptable to come out with the 'nasty mean feminists put me off feminism' (sorry, is it a club you don't want to join, or a way of understanding the current structure of society?) line, whereas the 'nasty mean men put me right off men' line is instead always swiftly countered with the NAMALT knee-jerk. Except of course, the nastiness of men being referred to (sexual and other violence for starters) is a teeny bit more serious than the 'nastiness' of feminists that puts people off.

Perhaps this means something????? I dunno, I'm just an old-style man-hating, dungaree wearing radical feminist lesbian .....although finding dungarees aren't as easy as it used to be and my 80s-issue feminist uniform wore out :-)

But some things are fundamental to feminism, in that if you don't believe them then you're not a feminist

This 100%.

If feminism is how it's presented on the feminism boards. I am absolutely not a feminist.

But this means I am not welcome on the feminism boards.

Which means no dissenting opinion is welcome on the feminism boards?

Therein lies the problem with the way the feminism boards has chosen to go

Now, whilst realising it was only a novel, surely you can see the correlation between language and control.

Well exactly, which is why it would be both polite and accurate to say 'firefighter' rather than 'fireman'

BertrandRussell

Bertand, Sparrowhawk did it on page 3 with MarthaMcMartha. Literally on this thread, in front of your eyes.

"MarthaMcMartha literally says she's a feminist; That she believes in feminism; States she has actively challenged stereotypes and raised sons to be feminist; But because she thinks that your approach is hostile and aggressive, you condescend to her, misrepresent her position and count her as separate from the movement."

She has said that the thread before her post was aggressive. Do you agree? Can you show me?

We are talking about Sparrowhawk's deeply infantiling statement that stated that MarthaMcMartha wasn't a feminist when nothing in her post suggested anything but an abiding commitment to feminism.

I'll be happy to address your point when you have addressed mine.

"Bertand, Sparrowhawk did it on page 3 with MarthaMcMartha. Literally on this thread, in front of your eyes."

No she didn't! She didn't say Martha wasn't a feminist! She said that if Martha herself decided she wasn't one she would still benefit from the work of women who are.
The point was perhaps couched in slightly patronizing terms, but it is a valid one.

The feminist boards haven't chosen anything, they're boards. They are however, used by feminists who have feminist opinions. If you don't agree with feminism then you're probably not a feminist, that seems pretty obvious. Would you go on the religion board and say 'I'm a Christian but I don't believe in Jesus' and expect anybody to agree with you?? 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.

brazen
I hope you don't stop posting on the feminist board, because I want to hear what you have to say.
It's very important to hear both sides of a debate.
I will not belittle you or judge you.

BertrandRussell

TheSparrowhawk does it here

But some things are fundamental to feminism, in that if you don't believe them then you're not a feminist

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.

"But some things are fundamental to feminism, in that if you don't believe them then you're not a feminist"

Well, 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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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."

"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."

Which ones are nit picking? Firefighter? Police officer? Actor for women? Nurse for men and women, not nurse and male nurse?

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.

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

'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.

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).

Man: women drivers!

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

Man: whoa, why are you being so defensive!

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!)