Confused Dudes Confused by Confused Cats Against Feminism

Falconer. If you’d like to debate like an adult, I’m here. Indeed there is even more irony to be found in abundance in the title “confused dudes confused by confused cats”.

Most of the confusion is coming from some of its regular contributors. Now that’s irony.

@niall

Sorry if I don’t feel the need to waste my time critiquing the poorly formulated anti-feminist messages scrawled on signs women who may or may not be trolling or fake.

The fear for pseudo feminists, but not true feminists, is the inevitability of a mens movement becoming truly mainstream, and eventually carrying political clout as a result. That too is inevitable. It’s just a question of time.

Care to be more specific? A men’s movement based on what principles? What new political clout will men gain that they currently lack? In which countries? Western anti-feminism has existed in opposition of Western feminist from the start and in the US the fathers movement has existed since at least the 1970s. Back in the day Phyllis Schlafly was way more influential and famous than any of the current MRM internet yahoos. There is no functional MRM and every social issue they pretend to care about is being addressed by actual activists who would put your money and support to good use, unlike Paul Elam.

Those women, who dress the wrong way, have the wrong kind of sex, work the wrong job, etc. are often condescendingly treated like victims who didn’t really make a choice, no matter what they believe, or how happy they are with their lives. Is it any wonder that some women oppose that kind of infantilisation?

If you think feminism, of all things, infantilizes women than you don’t know a fucking thing about feminism other than what you read in anti-feminist screeds on MRA sites.

Arguing that women can’t criticise feminism today because feminists won them the vote a century ago, is like saying that black Americans can’t reject the modern Republican party because Abraham Lincoln ended slavery.

This analogy is so offensive and broken that I hope you aren’t an American adult, because if you are than your ignorance about US history, politics and race is impossibly vast. Pro tip: Be very careful making analogies using the Black Civil Rights movement or just don’t do it.

Misogynistic ideas? What misogynistic ideas?

Niall, you and Wooody should shut the fuck up. You’re not bringing anything new to the table.

Some women don’t like feminism, big fucking deal. It’s not quite the death knell your tiny mind seems to think it is.

Ignoring most of the actual arguments those women are making, is silly.

We’re ignoring them because most of their “arguments” are silly. I mean, how the hell are you supposed to respond to this? “I’m not a feminist because I don’t whine until buy me stuff?” That has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. They’re not arguments, there non sequiturs. It’s like saying, “I’m against feminism because Charles Dickens is an example of a well-known Victorian author.” It makes no goddamnned sense.

There’s an irony involved in the fact many of the more childish online ‘feminist’ sites couldn’t respond to the criticisms made by the WAF site, likely because they couldn’t blame men or the patriarchy. To me their responses were not convincing at all.

Of course they didn’t convince you. Nothing is going to convince you.

For a start, this disingenuously misinterprets what most of those women mean when they talk about feminism “turning them into victims”. This WAF site isn’t a denial that women are never victimised or discriminated against; this is generally referring to the way feminists dismiss women who make “wrong” choices as “brainwashed by the patriarchy”, or suffering from “false consciousness”.

You shouldn’t use words you don’t the meanings of. This “argument” that feminists “turn women into victims” is pure straw feminism. Feminist don’t dismiss women for making “wrong” choices. You obviously have absolutely no understanding of feminist thought on power and victimization.

Those women, who dress the wrong way, have the wrong kind of sex, work the wrong job, etc. are often condescendingly treated like victims who didn’t really make a choice, no matter what they believe, or how happy they are with their lives. Is it any wonder that some women oppose that kind of infantilisation?

o_O Are you serious? Are you a Poe? “Is it any wonder that some women oppose that kind of Infantilisation?” No. No, it’s not. That’s why those women became feminists. I mean, seriously, feminists are absolutely not the ones who are judging women for the choices they make in dress, career, and sex lives.

No, really. I feel like I got sucked through a wormhole into Bizarro Oppositeland here.

It’s also a criticism of feminist exaggerations and manipulation of statistics to makes things look worse for women than they really are. Ironically, I’ve seen a series of feminists respond to “women against feminism” with some of the most blatant examples of that, e.g. presenting the average wage gap across all jobs as the difference in pay for equal work, or quoting absurd scare statistics about rape and sex trafficking to prove how victimised women are. They think they’re fighting back for feminism, but in reality they’re just providing evidence that this criticism of feminism is valid.

Haha! Citation needed. No seriously. What statistics are talking about, and what proves those statistics false?

Yeah. Wow. That’s a lot of wrong there, buddy.

@niall

But it is a watershed moment. Up to now, little or no anti feminist movement would have been entertained on US TV in such a way. Feminism has been the only game in town for a long time. There is no harm at all in a healthy democracy to have divergent views. It is imperative for good debate. Despite the fact I have great reservations about elements of Judgybitch and the MRA, I also have equally grave reservations about elements of feminism.

1)Are you suggesting that JudgyB and the rest of the AVfM are taking part in some larger significant cultural debate about anti-feminism? That’s hilarious, the other posters here are really underestimating your droll sense of humor.

2) Last time I checkedFox News is on US television and not only do they deny the existence of a conservative “War on Women” 24/7, they also have plenty of anti-feminists like Suzanne Venker on all the time.

3)”Feminism is the only game in town for a long time” is so broad and ahistorical a statement that it’s meaningless. I’m going to assume that you are very young and have no real understanding of modern US political history.

EXPLAINING WOMEN’S RIGHTS REALIGNMENT: Convention Delegates, 1972–1992

INTRODUCTION
At its 1980 convention, the Republican Party removed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) from its platform, reversing a pattern of nearly 40 years of official party support. Democrats, on the other hand, not only retained a pro-ERA plank but pledged to provide financial support only to candidates who backed the amendment. Yet the Democratic Party had traditionally been ambivalent, if not hostile, to the ERA. The parties’ platform choices on the ERA, the central feminist issue of the time, signaled significant interparty dissension on women’s rights more generally, in sharp contrast to earlier consensus. Since 1980, polarization over a spectrum of women’s rights issues has been a central characteristic of party competition in the United States.
Why did the parties move apart on women’s rights? This question is particu- larly puzzling as previous alignments anticipate the opposite outcome. In the 1950s and early 1960s, Republicans were relatively more favorable to women’s rights than were Democrats. By the early 1970s, the parties were not particularly distinguished in their positions on women’s rights issues, but by 1980, they had polarized again, both sharply and in the opposite direction. This article seeks to explain the parties’ realignment on women’s rights issues across the 1970s and into the 1980s and 1990s.

http://web.posc.jmu.edu/seminar/readings/3b-issue%20evolution/wolbrecht.pdf

I’m still goggling over the whole, “feminists infantilized women by judging how they dress” thesis.

Now I kinda wanna see Carrie remade with cats in all of the roles. That would be amazing.

Love how it would have taken Jarred about two clicks to discover that what he thought was a non-ideological Tumblr is actually run by one of his chief ideological “rivals.” I understand how a casual observer who missed the more pointed submissions might think it’s all just cat jokes, but this guy’s presented himself as having a better understanding of the blog’s motivation than… you know… a news site that actually kind of knows what “research” is. I mean, it doesn’t exactly take a lot of digging… every single CCAF post comes with a Mammoth link.

And Jarred’s already made a name for himself here by decrying the violent, ball-crushing misandry inherent in anyone recognizing that a woman did a thing on D-Day once.

katz: elizabeth barrett runs one which I hear decent things about. Ping me, and I’ll send you a link.

Word has it that http://kajones-writing.dreamwidth.org/ might have some info

Altered Fluids is an online writers group, I don’t know if they are presently taking members.

Niall: Falconer. If you’d like to debate like an adult, I’m here.

Prove it bucko. Explain how the “arguments” of the anti-feminists are valid. Cite the sources for the laundry list of accusations you made about feminists.

If you want to talk the talk adult debate, start walking the walk.

That, or be relegated to the ranks of Woody.

Niall’s IP address isn’t showing other names, though that proves nothing about socking. I can turf his comments for the time if anyone wants.