The reason I don't like radical feminists

[Pekka]

Kid, ok. I think it's fair to say I'm not talking about ... radical lesbians, I mean the topic would... they could be lesbians at the same time, but if they don't use that feminism like terrorists use religion as a justification... I guess they don't count. They would be other kind of man haters .

Also about radicalism, I think it's fair to assume that the term applies in different ways. Like... you might be a radical communist, saying that you want radical changes.

However, I think radicalism also applies as the tools and means you use to get your goals. To be radical, you might use means that are out of the normal tool set. Like violence for example, but that's just one example. I think we can use radical as a prefix in that as well, because radical is an adjective. But it can also be used as a noun.

So while the more correct way to use it would be radical ideas etc, it can be used as in a radical difference in way of action.

So anyway, by radical feminists, it doesn't mean they need to take action. I haven't said they have taken action or beat up men or what ever. The ideas they use as justification to hate men is simply weird, they're trying to have it both ways by saying we aren't taking these roles you've given us, but instead we reject teh whole role thing as oppressive. So far OK. My point was, that if I'm then in some role in their minds and not an individual as well, well it is already defeating their own basic premise.

It's like saying that the UN sucks and has no authority, and then use UN as an excuse to do something . You can't have it both ways and be consistent.

Radical femmies act like other haters and hate groups. The people they hate the most actively are the ones who don't comply with their ideology even though in their eyes they should. SO the traitors, that is other women who aren't like them, well... that's like some racist calling someone a race traitor for not conforming to their radical ways and because they are race traitors, they're the same as the enemy of even worse. This kind of mentality is very usual within any hate group, that you start hating completely other people than the original target, and at some point you're just hating everyone. And that's because the motivation and everytihng is fueled by hate and wasn't very logical to begin with so it crumbles down, the rational part of it goes away completely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
What are we going to argue about? Do you think I want women barefoot and pregnant? I think my posts should make it clear I am quite comfortable with women in power positions in society. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Ok, then let's start with the reason why you think that they are not equal to men in power and money. You've just said that they are, and I know you are smarter than that.

Yes, that is the theory. Modern realities are throwing a wrench into this however. Females (in this country) are now the majority in postsecondary education.

That only shows that men aren't living up to their expectations. It only shows that men are not superior. It doesn't throw a wrench in feminist theory. If anything it supports it. The sad fact is that these women, in greater numbers, will still make less money as men, and still not reach the top positions where they will work, if they even work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
So anyway, by radical feminists, it doesn't mean they need to take action. I haven't said they have taken action or beat up men or what ever. The ideas they use as justification to hate men is simply weird, they're trying to have it both ways by saying we aren't taking these roles you've given us, but instead we reject teh whole role thing as oppressive. So far OK. My point was, that if I'm then in some role in their minds and not an individual as well, well it is already defeating their own basic premise.

They aren't taking the roles assigned to them because they see them as oppressive. Also, they don't want other women to choose to be oppressed either. I don't see a problem with that.

[SlowwHand]

"Oppressed" by the radicals instead is fine?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ok, then let's start with the reason why you think that they are not equal to men in power and money. You've just said that they are, and I know you are smarter than that.

Time is a factor. While most younger people share opinions re woman similar to mine, there are a lot of older folks in top echelon positions that still think like dinosaurs.

There is a client I/we have been trying to land but they refuse to use us b/c they don't think woman should have any role in their industry (trucking). It's their loss b/c I can safely say my immediate superior (female) is one of the best in her field. She is an absolute shark in court and anyone would be well served by her representation.

We could also get into the issues of time away from the job (maternity being the big one). Interupted experience causing a slower advancement in rank and pay.

Or the issue of "pink collar" jobs paying less than "blue collar". Why do we pay people more money to look after our money than we pay to look after our children? I know where I'd go with this issue time permitting...

That only shows that men aren't living up to their expectations. It only shows that men are not superior. It doesn't throw a wrench in feminist theory. If anything it supports it. The sad fact is that these women, in greater numbers, will still make less money as men, and still not reach the top positions where they will work, if they even work.

Fair enough, but it also shows woman aren't being excluded. As you know high female enrollment is not something that has been historically true. Times are a changing.

The "glass ceiling" issue relates to my earlier points I think.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Sorry Imran, but Pekka is not the one being delusional here. My GF has a master's degree in Gender Studies. Her class was full of Rad Femmes - those who believed that the problem with society was men. That's in one class, in one university, in one city, in one country. Extrapolation would strongly suggest that their ranks are not restricted to a few hundred, world-wide.

1) As pointed out by BeBro, how many people actually take gender studies?

2) Believing the problem with society is men is a bit different from being man-hating. I guarantee you that there are tons of women out there that'd say the problem with society are men, but are in no way "radical feminists".

3) It's college! Even if all the women were manhating radical fems, it is quite obvious that in 5 years they wouldn't be. I mean if we're extrapolating from college, the US should have tens of millions of communists based on my university's political makeup.

[Pekka]

1) how many people take gender studies? In here? Thousands a year. Tens of thousands in range of 5 years, guaranteed.

In fact they are often mandatory studies in certain fields.

2) If you believe the problem is men in society... well I guess I could say the problem is blacks and jews. Right? Especially when I'm not basing it on any kind of measured fact. But no, this doesn't alone cut it. There needs to be more active man hating than that.

3) How is that obvious?

The remark of few hundred is simply not realistic. I can have ANY group that is bigger than that. I bet there are more gay albinos than few hundred. Let's ptu it like this.... put your money on the table, mission, we're dropped into random western location, I have to find a man hater that fits the description and those terms are agreed upon earlier so we both agree that this person counts as one. So I have to find one faster than you can find a gay albino. Who do you think has more chance of success within the first 24h?

Your scope is simply just too narrow. We woudl never even hear if it was only few hundred people, guaranteed.

Hey, there are almost 200 people in Fred Phelps' group.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering that Sloww thinks Gloria Steinhem is a man hating radical feminist, I think the problem is that its become some sort of ridiculous bugaboo, a bogeyman of sorts, that the numbers of those people are VASTLY overstated.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They aren't taking the roles assigned to them because they see them as oppressive. Also, they don't want other women to choose to be oppressed either. I don't see a problem with that.

Again, you're just repeating what I have said couple of times here, including the OP.

And you're not getting my point since that was the exact thing I held on to. I said that they don't want to take the roles that are oppressive, and those roles are oppressive even if they don't have a negative association per se, but because you are assumed to take that role, that in itself is oppressive.

That was the first part of my first argument, at this stage I said nothing wrong in this. In fact I have pointed out more than once that I believe this is one feminist issue, an important one to more moderate feminists as well and they have a point there. That's the whole "society is oppressive towards women" thing. What else is there? Outside glass ceiling and smaller salaries, that's pretty much about it.

The problem is when someone says I'm not taking the role, I'm not subjectifying myself to this thing here, I'm being myself, not who you want me to be, that would often be servant for a man. Now, that's OK, but when you refuse the role, you can't then impose the roles for men you have in your head, or you're doing the exact same thing that you say is causing all the oppression in the society.

Strong woman in this case isn't a role. It is a feature. A role would be mother, housewife, employee, friend, lover and so forth. Strong isn't a role. It a feature. It merely implies to your personality or the way you do your things. It's not a role in this sense.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
Time is a factor. While most younger people share opinions re woman similar to mine, there are a lot of older folks in top echelon positions that still think like dinosaurs.

I'm not sure what your opinion is. I'm under the impression that most young people don't have much different opinions. Like I said, people can talk one way, and live a different way. For example, a man and his wife my say they are all for equal treatment for men and women, but if you look how they live, the women is actually not treated as an equal.

We could also get into the issues of time away from the job (maternity being the big one). Interupted experience causing a slower advancement in rank and pay.

What like 2 weeks for having a child? That's suppose to make it harder for a women to advance?

Or the issue of "pink collar" jobs paying less than "blue collar". Why do we pay people more money to look after our money than we pay to look after our children? I know where I'd go with this issue time permitting...

It's got nothing to do with that. Nurses are paid less than they should be, for example, because women aren't offered as much as men, and they don't ask for as much. It's because they don't think they deserve as much.

Fair enough, but it also shows woman aren't being excluded. As you know high female enrollment is not something that has been historically true. Times are a changing.

Times are changing because of the feminist movement, not because mainstream society wants change. For the most part people still want women to be servants. But teh evil capitalists are now exploiting them in the workplace more now. Hell, it's much easier to exploit a women than a man.

[Pekka]

Imran, yeah, except no one is saying anything about that there's millions of these amazon soldiers out there. No one brought it up. It wasn't relevant. The quantity of these radical feminists is not so important, the only reason we're discussing about it because you said there's few hundred of them or less, an estimation that simply blows my mind.

[Kidlicious]

Pekka, I don't understand what you are saying.

[Pekka]

Well I'm sensing that you aren't

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
I said that they don't want to take the roles that are oppressive, and those roles are oppressive even if they don't have a negative association per se, but because you are assumed to take that role, that in itself is oppressive.

I don't see a problem with this or I don't understand you.

[General Ludd]

You can replace "radical feminist" in this thread with "jews" "blacks" or "anglo-saxons" and the meaning of the thread wouldn't really change.


I know people who would identify themselves as radical feminists who don't hate men, and I imagine that some people who hate men (I've never encountered anyone like this) wouldn't identify themselves as radical feminists. So instead of invoking the boogeyman, how about citing a real argument, by an actual person?


EDIT: Hey, fancy that. Imran's already said something along these lines.

Originally posted by aneeshm


Man, you're one messed up sicko.

Rape was probably the last thing on my mind when I wrote that joke. It was just a way of saying that even though I know the women are radical fems, I'd rather have sex with them than bash them. It was a good thing.

And you have to come in and completely ruin it with your perversion.

Yeah, a "good thing" . That's exactly what I'm talking about. Your fantasy that you wanting to have sex with someone is a compliment to them. That they should be priveledged to have sex with you (while pekka later - or coincidedly? - "bashes" them, I may add). This is the mentality of a rapist. Seriously, just do the world a favour and castrate yourself.