The #FeministsAreUgly hashtag on Twitter confuses and frustrates some of the internet's most dedicated feminist-haters

I’ve read that the ‘evil witch’ imagery (nose and chin meeting, toothless, etc) dates from pre-modern Europe. People tended to lose teeth as long as they lived, but if you have a beard and mustache it’s less obvious. Also, there were fewer old women than old men, since multiple pregnancies were more dangerous than being in a war. So very old women were uncommon and unfamiliar looking. An old woman who’d outlived her husband and had no family to take her in tended to be poor. Viola! Scary witch woman.

Plus, according to my mom, there’s a German saying from olden days: “Every child costs you a tooth.” Probably due to the fact that pregnancy leaches calcium from the bones if you’re not getting enough of it to compensate, and if the jaw is very vulnerable to that (and other factors such as periodontal disease, poor nutrition, etc.), then I can see that happening. Of course, with modern medicine and sanitation came better nutrition, dental care, birth control, etc….so of course, there are fewer women having dozens of children in short succession, and losing lots of teeth in the process.

If these guys think the “good old days” before modern medicine (and feminism) were a golden era of feminine beauty, have I got bad news for them.

I’m not sure I agree with the hashtag. I think if one uses this type of hashtag, one is playing into the strategy of the opponent. Using it provides the opposing side with an aura of credibility – why would you use the hashtag if you didn’t think the opposing argument had some merit that you needed to address?

And given that the accuracy of feminism is not based on whatever cultural definition of beauty one wishes to use, the whole hashtag is irrelevant. Every feminist, female and male, could be exceedingly unattractive and it wouldn’t damage the merits of feminism one iota.

Can we stay away from internet psychologising? It is scientifically and ethically flawed to put psychological diagnoses on people in this way.

Greta Christina’s writes about Richard Dawkins’ apologizing for Dear Muslima: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/08/07/richard-dawkins-apologizes-for-dear-muslima/

The reddit /r/skeptic thread I found it in is wonderful. We’re arguing over Elevatorgate, and whether wearing a boot on my head in public is a form of harassment.

I’ll say that I don’t particularly care all that much about his apology. I’ve already written him off, but hopefully people will see this and realize that this brand of debate isn’t acceptable, any more.

The reddit /r/skeptic thread I found it in is wonderful. We’re arguing over Elevatorgate

/headdesk still not seeing why what Rebecca said is such an issue: “guys, don’t do that”. There is no discussion to be had here.

???

Policy of Madness,

Nevertheless I am not sexy. I don’t feel sexy and don’t feel a need to be or feel sexy. Implying that I must be sexy, or that the standards of “sexy” need to be changed so that I qualify, is alienating to me. Maybe I am oversensitive on this point. I don’t know. I just know that that tweet rubs me the wrong way.

I think this harkens back to the earlier discussion of sexy vs. sexual. If you are a person who sometimes has sexual times (or even ‘sexy-times’), then you can be sexy/sexual. I think it is important to remember that we don’t have to be sexy or sexual for anyone but ourselves, and in the best-faith, charitable reading of the hashtag I think that is what they are trying to promote. I totally respect your viewpoint.
–
Note: re-reading my comment, and what I am trying to parse, I’m not sure it is necessary. I think you get it, and I get it, and there are definite problematic issues with the hashtag. I appreciate your comment.

@Mnemosyne: internet psychologising is really bad. We don’t have all the facts ahead of us, and it is really influenced by confirmation bias. Also, MRAs use any psychological disorder as an ad hominem attack, which throws people with mental illnesses under the bus. I’m not keen on feminists diagnosing people either, because then it can look like *we* are also throwing people with mental illnesses under the bus.

That said, it’s open season on their nasty, vile comments. There’s a world of difference between attacking the comment, and the “logic” and “facts” used to support a comment, and attacking the person. 🙂

…because it can look like *we* are also throwing people with mental illness under the bus.

Oh no! I don’t want that! I would never dream of doing that to them. save the psychopath label until I’m trained in the use of the PCL-R (Psychopath Checklist-Revised), in the scenario that that some future version of myself is called to testify at a parole hearing. If I overuse it, the term might lose it’s meaning…

@LBT:

I’ve been told I have an expressive face. I don’t have anything on those women. Wow. Impressed.

Re: Hashtag

I… think the hashtag could work, if only literally any and all feminists posted no matter what they looked like. I share the concern about the foundation, putting the emphasis on sexy, when it really should be emphasizing “who gives a shit?”

It’s tough though. If you respond, maybe it makes people think that the question of looks is a valid one. If you don’t, the anti-feminists have the floor to make it the issue.

I can say that it’s better as a hashtag then an actual campaign, though.

whether wearing a boot on my head in public is a form of harassment.

Dare I ask?

@blahlistic If liking different body types makes a person weird, then I’m weird, too. I’ve never had a type. About the only thing that they’ve all had in common is that they’re human. So, yay, no bestiality!