Women Are Hated

Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.

~ Andrea Dworkin

I would like to know how members of this group feel about Anti-Feminism and what causes it.

Vivagalore Vivagalore
31-35, F
24 Responses Apr 3, 2012

we still need to support the right to have the rights, we have fought for!

there are many political hot beds through out the country, those groups of hot political anti feminist, would love to get rid of our rights women have fought long and hard for.

pay attention to what is going on in Texas and the abortion rights !

So very true. Anti-feminists often claim that women\'s rights diminish or remove men\'s rights and hurt them in some way. That is absolutely absurd. Do they really think that men have the right to rape women and that passing a law that makes rape illegal hurts them in some way? If they do they obviously have some very serious view on women and some pretty bad hang ups.

That\'s a bizarre example to choose -- rape was illegal way before feminism showed up. (How well it was enforced is a different matter, of course.) The answer to your rhetorical question is, no, nobody believes that anyone has that right.

be it rape, or any other political issue, that feminist have fought for in the last100 years, feminist still need to fight to keep them.

The congress we have presently, would love to get rid of women\'s rights. we cant just say \"oh well we have our rights now\" and be done!!

we have to take a stand to keep those rights, more than ever since we have a congress who would love to take them away

I agree. I just used rape law as a serious example, but the truth of the matter is that anti-feminists continuously claim that feminists hate men, want to destroy families, and have caused the government to pass laws that diminish or destroy men\'s rights while entitling women to things they should not be entitled too. For instance, some MRAs constantly complain about child support laws and claim that a man who gets a woman pregnant should not have to contribute to the child\'s upbringing if they don\'t want to. So a man who has sex with a woman and the condom breaks and she gets pregnant as a result, or a man who rapes a woman and who gets her pregnant as a result, or a man who claims he wants the woman to have his child, but then after she is pregnant changes his mind, should not have to pay child support to contribute to the upbringing of the child that he has also created? And if he has also created a child and has to help support it, that somehow destroys or diminishes his rights? These are the kinds of things anti-feminists ***** about. I have asked repeatedly for them to provide examples of women\'s rights which have diminished or destroyed men\'s rights and so far rape and child support are the only ones they have come up with. They have bitched about VAWA claiming it is biased against men and in favor of women, however, I have pointed out repeatedly that VAWA (regardless of its name) is gender neutral and helps both men and women.

1 More Response

The reasons for certain individuals neing anti-feminism are many and varied. I don't think one can pin-point a particular reason as it really does depend on the individual and their experiences with feminism.

It's somewhat extreme to assume that everyone who is anti-feminism is a misogynst. It may just well mean that they have a different opinion and perspective on something. As a female, I certainly don't feel hated either. I do think that Andrea consistently tried to victimize women. Realistically speaking, I am no more hated than any male out there.


Being anti-feminist can only mean misogyny. Being a non-feminist is a different matter. But, I don't feel hated either

I'm not sure, I don't think it's that simple or that straightforward. I think it also depends on how one defines "misogyny".

Misogyny would be 'woman-hating.' And an anti-feminist is someone who is against what feminists have achieved, from the first suffragettes to the present day campaigners (in the west) for equal pay, equal education and equal representation under the law; and in the east, the right to not be raped, beaten and treated as sub-human. Anti-feminists have nothing to offer except hate

Not sure I agree with that; "anti-feminism" would be any ideology actively opposed to another ideology identified as "feminism", which is a large range to begin with.

"Misogyny would be 'woman-hating.' And an anti-feminist is someone who is against what feminists have achieved, from the first suffragettes"
Mysogyny is about hating women, just as misandry is about hating men. We agree there, I think. The idea being, a general hatred of women or men, or femininity or masculinity as traits, or taking a set of pathological traits and assigning them to a single gender, while excusing those same traits when exhibited by the other gender.

Feminism is a certain set of beliefs - a politic - subject to debate about what those beliefs entail, and subjective, depending on where one sits with respect to subscribing to those beliefs.

For example, a white supremist or a Nazi believes as fervently in their movement as a feminist does in hers. Both feel that they are redressing a social wrong or protecting something fundamental to their identity from a threat. So, simply the belief that one is doing Good Work is not sufficient proof that a political movement is benign, beyond reproach, and is actually representing the thing it claims to represent. In the late 70's 80's, for example, when feminism became entwined with sexual conservatism again, it ended up REVERSING philosophical gains of the Liberationists and early Women's Rights advocates, who worked hard to pose that women could be sexual beings themselves. NOW! found itself in bed with Jerry Fallwell's crowd in the anti-**** crusade.

There is a tendency within feminist circles to assume credit for the achievements of the Women's Liberationists, the suffragettes, and all manner of women's advocacy which predated the term "feminism", regardless of the general political bent or focus of the women who were involved in those movements. Those issue based movements which truly were about equality within redressable circumstances (ie equal pay for doing the same job, equal vote), were different, fundamentally, at a base philosophical level from what commonly is passed as "feminism" today - which is more of a neo-Victorian throwback to chivalric constructions of masculinity as base, corrupt, brutish, and women as infantile, special, pure, non-sexual. Those who stand against such fictions, and certainly anyone who stands for equality, would stand against "feminism" in such cases, while standing up for women.

So, yes. There's ample room to be critical of "feminism" while also being active, politically for freedom from gender imposed rules.

3 More Responses

I don't know, I think some of it may have to do with genetics. Back when humans weren't living much different than animals. Maybe many men don't even realize it but subconsciously maybe they are afraid of being powerless or not in control. Humans have "evolved" to the point where they (we) have created an economy that requires the women to do the same thing as a man (i.e. work), perhaps the "animal" instincts just haven't been bred out yet.

No it's purely cultural.


But that's got nothing to do with genetics. You're talking about cultural evolution. Even if the original gender roles were biologically encoded (I don't think it's at all clear to what extent that's the case), the ways our culture has changed over the past two million years aren't down to genetic evolution, but to memetics.

That's because most people don't know their history. There was a time that women couldn't vote, couldn't get divorced, had little economic opportunities outside of domestic work and prostitution. There was a time women in America were little better off then the women in the middle east.

Yes, and the movements to redress those wrongs predated the word "feminism".

thank you hollwway64

That's convenient, isn't it. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a misogynist!"

I don't know, maybe Dworkin's using a different definition of anti-feminism, to me it means "someone who disagrees with feminism". You can't cover everyone to whom that applies with a blanket accusation like that, it's ridiculous and it makes the speaker look bad for stooping that low. The people who disagree with your politics are real people, with real beliefs, and the only way to change their minds is to accept that. Yes, there are people who hate feminism because it challenges their misogyny, there are also people who hate feminism because they have an unrealistic idea of what feminism means, or because they've only met rabid misandrists calling themselves feminists, or because they've met some of those, and mentally painted any other feminists as being one of those in disguise. Then there are people who don't "hate" feminism at all, they just disagree with it for any one of a myriad reasons.

oopsie... someone pushed the coaster train to the top of the first hill again....

*shrug* What can I say, generalised demonisation is a pet peeve of mine.

@ Winston I agree Dworkin alienated a lot of people with her extremist rhetoric.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen her quoted by someone who wasn't trying to discredit feminism :P

Sometimes, it's worth having a discussion of a topic not due to ideology, but simply based on its merit.


Fabulous Winston. :)

Yes. Because most of the time, is simply prefer to talk about sex.

*dons latex gloves* why yes. yes I did.

Will you two behave yourselves for two minutes, for goodness sake!

*low growl*


@winston - People who don't agree with feminism are non-feminists.

I\'d say (based on the way the \"non-\" prefix is generally used) that a non-feminist was anyone who\'s not explicitly a feminist (they could not care about feminism, or not have heard of it, or simply not like the label). But this is the problem with labels. If they call themselves an anti-feminist and you think of them as a non-feminist, what use is either term? You\'re right back to clarifying what actual beliefs you each have on specific subjects (which is how it should be, really).

11 More Responses

I live women, just not the hairy ones.

Love! I love women!

Damn you live as a hairy woman Joey?? Just... damn!

I'm not as hairy on the top of my head as I used to be... but I'm making up for it on my back.

We ladies love the hairy back. Apes are where it's at for winter 2012...

why do I now have an image of a woman's naked back.... bent over in front of me... ahhh... I must be ovulating.

or human ;-P

Or that. Lol

*laugh-snort* <<< that is all. :)

5 More Responses

It's Friday night. Why aren't people *******?????

Is that why I smell like that?

Hey! I cooked a fine dinner!

If you want me to be honest, I am new to becoming a feminist. But now that I have joined it, I feel like this is were I kind of belong. To fight for our rights :). But anyway. To the point. I think its because feminist are always shone in a negative light. By many people. It seems to be the people, that disagree with women liberation. The 'traditional' people. I have asked knighrunner several times were he believes women belong in society. Each time he avoided my question, or simply didn't answer. His ludicrous behavior is really driving him insane.

He used to say he wanted a return to pure patriarchy but he has gone nuts so who knows now!


"I have asked knighrunner several times were he believes women belong in society." I think he is not capable of answering this because he hasn't actually known or interacted with many women. I think he is a loner who believes the rhetoric the extreme anti-feminist, misogynists spew and blames his lack of ability to connect with women on feminism when its probably his own fault.

aahh, so many theories on this knightrunner weirdo. Aaaww! I'm so glad, to share the same views as you wonderful, intelligent, strong minded women! :D

Knight has been quite the tool for feminism recruitment LMAO

Yes, he and others are helping us to show doubters why feminism is still important.

3 More Responses

My observations are as follows: feminism appears to get the blame for a lot of personal issues individuals have. I suspect a lot of the hate towards feminism is not actually towards feminists but towards women in general; “feminism” just gives negativity a cloak and a word to focus on.<br />
<br />
I’ve seen both men and women blame feminism for life happenings, when in fact it has nothing to do with what they are complaining about. (Ex: I came across a story recently in my feed that focused on a woman throwing a fit in an airport; she was treating the workers badly. Her bad behaviour was blamed on her “feminist ways!” rather than individual responsibility. It would be comical if the story comments that followed were not so genuinely sad.<br />
<br />
I have seen disdain towards women from both men and women on EP. I believe in many cases, it’s women’s envy towards other women (probably long term) who have perhaps had more choices, success or happiness in life. It’s really too bad but the irony is that due to feminism, every woman has options to improve her lot in life. Most people don’t choose to look inwardly though; it’s easier to blame everyone else.<br />
<br />
For men, well… there is rational discussion about aspects of feminism that might affect them negatively and there is plain hate. It is generally clear which is which. I must say, I have never seen the amount of vitriol against women as I have here on EP.

I totally agree!

Thank you! I knew the hatred was bad but just having a look at some of the stories under this category I see how much feminism is actually needed and how quickly and easily life could change for women if this hateful attitude were to prevail. There is so much animosity towards women I am rather dumbfounded at the moment.

We do have to be careful as most men are not like these hateful men... most men love women and care for them... and don't begrudge us the right to better our lives and the lives of others.... it is always best to remember that these men are not most men!

"I have never seen the amount of vitriol against women as I have here on EP" Apparently you've never been to a website called spearhead and taken a look at their comments section... (hint: Unless you feel like having your brain implode from an overdose of sheer stupid at an alarming magnitude, stay far away from that awful place.)

Also manwomanmyth and girlsayswhat.... all hateful nonsense!

LOL Forgotten Muse... I am too scared to check out "spearhead"; fortunately I don't personally know or associate with any men like the ones mentioned in these comments. The men in my life are great guys; they would pretty much shoot down any of the aforementioned garbage in person. I must say, this particular EP group has been an eye opener.

Likely "beta" males who think of themselves as "alphas" problem is the "alpha" females know these guys are "betas" and want nothing to do with them... so these men get bitter because of constant rejection...they can't accept the fact that self improvment would be much more productive/effective in changing their situation but their delusional nature causes them to blame others who are simply judging them on their merits!

That is an EXCELLENT point Dente....I agree completely. Again it comes back to looking within yourself rather than blaming others for not liking/wanting you.

I think you forget who the haters are. That would be the feminists.

Guys that really go to town on hating feminists are invariably the ones who have a huge sense of entitlement where it comes to women - but the women happen not to agree with them. It's a lot easier to blame feminism rather than their own unattractiveness and ineptitude. Oops - Dente just said pretty much the same thing...

Yes, it's very true!! ;-)

You women are really hitting the nails on the head here. I agree with everything you are saying and many other people do too. These extreme, misogynistic, narrow-minded, judgmental anti-feminists want to think their views are expanding and becoming more accepted. They really need a reality check, but will never get one because they live in their little "we are big, bad MRAs who will rule the world one day" cocoon.

yes i never seen woman hated as much as i have on e/p ...

10 More Responses

I guess I'm not as philosophical on this particular issue as others who have posted here...i just think, like with other issues such as global warming for example, it is just popular to be 'against' something. Really, that is all I see...perhaps in some rare cases (the leaders of the sheeple who think they are being so cool by being against whatever it is perhaps) really do have some ulterior motive (such as oil companies or politicians or idk who). I don't think they really know what they are talking about or are really interested in knowing, they just want that ego boost of standing up for (or as is MUCH more often the case, against) something...even if that means they take it to levels of insane disillusionment...the ego is a strong beast. I don't think that it is that they care particularly strongly about the issues they proclaim to, I think they are pretty hypocritical in that respect...but there is some kind of psychological boost they get from portraying that they really have an opinion about something and it is different from yours, and that anyone with common sense would agree with them. Oh...common sense...it has become one of the most popular things to talk about today, and to accuse other people of lacking...there's that nasty ego again. Oh...but popular opinion and ego and mis/disinformation can unfortunately have very real consequences...even if it just means that it fosters an atmosphere of insecurity and unsureness and of unwillingness to talk about divisive issues...and that is usually what it does do.

I think that's a really good point. Relatedly (is that a word?), if people think a group they're in is being attacked, they go on the defensive, and some people see feminism as attacking their way of life, either because they're men who think their sex is being demonised, or because they're women who are happy with traditional gender roles and see their lifestyle as being belittled. So they lash out.

yep, right on the mark, winston

Feminism, Marxism, Buddhism, capitalism, etc *yawn* give me something without an ism at the end of it and I might arch my brow.

Mmmm... indeed.

Point of your comment?

If you don't get my point you clearly weren't meant to. No harm no foul :)

You misunderstand, if you aren't interested, fine...but leaving a comment that does nothing to expand on the subject in anyway is just wasting everyone's time.

I've got plenty of sense in the humor department. I just have little tolerance for witless quips that are irrelevant...

Ahh but my love you err towards the self centered side of the spectrum once again. Next time you might try next time saying, "I just have little tolerance for witless quips that I find to be irrelevant." Now consider for a moment i just have a obscure sense of self expression and i am mearly looking for those capable of seeing things in a similar way as myself, how else might i find those folks if not to expose myself? Clearly we are not of like mind in this capacity, yet i do find your prideful and myopic nature endearing. Furthermore the hugs and kisses do not go unappreciated or duly reciprocated.

Its nice to be apperciated. You seem to think I don't understand that your first statement was regarding the provocative nature of the qoute.. and that you weren't provoked... you then made a small statement about discussing issues from a "group think" free angle. I wrote a story with a clear message... extremism causes conflict, your post didn't add to that discussion.

No it did not in the way 'you' wished it too. You think I belittle the seriousness of your post, yes I am guilty of that. I'm no fan of ideologies and I make no attempt to conceal such feeling. However, you asked how other people felt about the topic of anti-feminism and I let you know how I felt about *isms* in general, though inclusive of the topic set forth, not specifically as clearly requested by this post. You run a tight ship madam. Might want to toss me over wholesale as I am a rabble rouser and have been known to cause a mutiny or two. So the question begs, how loyal is your crew?

I didn't just ask about how you felt about anti feminism I also asked what people believe causes it...
I fancy a demagogue a bit more than a rouser, appealing to emotion is an effective rally cry however, I feel it a bit misguided to do so with the intent on insipiring violence and hate... metaphorically speaking are you insipred by jack sparrow or ernest hemingway? I have to politely decline any participation in your figure of speech... as for throwing you overboard, you're free to stay or to jump as is the "crew"... I wonder what the point of a mutiny would be? Have you no ship or crew of your own?

Because I may be inspired by hemingway may have little impact on the fact that i may have more in common with jack sparrow. I do like your character comparisons though. No I do not have a crew of my own. I am much more a parasite than a host organism. Oh sheet I just ismed. Anyway, to cut to the core of the I initial emotional impetus of my questionable comment. I see feminism as a antiquated, and at least in the western world, a largely vestigial remnant of a once much needed social movement. Is that anti-feminism? Cause if it is I have no hate for women, or really any group of individuals unlike myself as related to gender, sexual orientation, race or religious affiliation. Now in the wider world where women are widely seen as second class citizens, I can see people truly being anti-feminist as they (primarily men) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quot of power and people (men and woman alike) tend to hate those who would wrest power away from their hands. Ultimately I see anti-feminism not as a hatred of woman as a hatred of those who would dare to take power and control from them.

Nevertheless if you see feminism as something antiquated and vestigial, when there is so much more glaringly obvious to be addressed, then I would say you are definitely part of the problem. Weak-spirited WOMEN label themselves as anti-feminist against the interests of their own sex in order that they appear more attractive (gettable) and reassuring to men further down life's pecking order. What is YOUR excuse?

8 More Responses

<p>lady said...>nature, while doing so with perfect hair and makeup, lovely dresses on with stockings and high heels. <br />
<br />
gypsy said..> iv been watching the old George burn /Gracie shows from the 1950's, lady is right, Gracie and the other women are depicted with wearing dresses with pearls, wearing heels with restrained looking hair dos....as they walk around tidying the house up. looking like they are going out to a formal dinner.</p>

I actually LIKE career womem you know the powerful types. There are some who are plain nasty though, nothing more than man haters. It is these types that give femenists a bad name. I had the misfortune of getting sucked in by one of these types (not on here) it has not clouded my judgement though. I still like women and always will but the individual concerned I genually hope she gets breast cancer and dies. Wish I didn't feel like that but I do.............absolutely hate the ***** :( I think its important NOT to put all women in the same catergory though. Just coz of a few bad apples doen't mean the whole basket is rotten and the same goes for us blokes. It would be wrong to say ALL blokes are rotten because of a few bad experiences.

Stereotypes do often come from a source but they are more hurtful than helpful, both to the one doing the stereotyping and the ones being stereotyped! Thanks for your post.

"It is these types that give femenists a bad name." But the problem is they often aren't feminists, but for some reason some men like to believe they are, or believe they behave the way they do because of feminism. Just like some men are a$$holes, some women are ******* whether they are feminists or not. I have met anti-feminist women who were absolutely wretched.

I don't feel hated, but I don't look for it everywhere. And when I earned my own living my pay was up there with the men's pay because I used to haggle for increases ba<x>sed on my worth to the firm - like men do

Did you read all the other comments on this post?

I did - although it is the 'story' itself I am responding to, not the other comments so much

Okay, just wanted to make the purpose of the story clear. I'm glad you were able to "haggle" your pay up, it would be nice though if women didn't have to work harder and do more for something that is usually handed to men.... I do think things are progressing on the gender pay gap, as in many other aspects of womens rights!

I don't - women tend not to haggle for pay rises. They should learn to

It has been shown over and over again that women who break through the glass ceilings and begin working in professions that were dominated by men until they came along had to work harder, and do a far better job than their male counterparts in order for them to attain the success that they did.

2 More Responses

It's refreshing to see so much sense being talked. Ladyblue's comment about her grandmother sums it all up: we have come a long way and understanding where we have come from is essential if we are to understand extreme feminism. That term sounds pejorative but it's not intended that way. I think the extremism of Dworkin and her ilk may well have been necessary but I'm not sure. It was certainly inevitable.<br />
<br />
I didn't mean to deny that there are men who hate women. Of course there are. What I meant was that the inequalities of the past were not borne out of men's hatred of women as Dworkin would have us believe. <br />
<br />
In this part of the world we have come a long way but we have a bit further to go and I hate the idea that some people are now turning back, without really understanding where we started from. And I look at other cultures with curiosity and, sometimes, a little sadness. Whether we have a right to interfere is truly a vexed question.

Garcia! In the morning haze of my wine-induced hangover, I do still believe that what you've written here is brilliant.

You know I too question how to best help promote equal rights in foreign cultures. I think its incredibly hard for someone not intimately aware of a culture to fully understand the dynamics of it. I think the best we can do is support others in their struggle while remaining sensitive to the fact that it is THEIR struggle.

Thank you. I have a bottle Ripasso Valpolicella with my name on tonight. I shall drink a silent toast to you. Now there's real civilisation.

*sigh*<br />
<br />
Once again, attempts at discourse are prevented by the extremists. Many of you are familiar with my positions at this point, and while they have changed a little, I still believe that the most important aspect - the most important detail - is a lack of civil discourse. Yes, there are plenty of mysoginists out there. In fact, I feel like I see them all the time. What I was blind to, unwilling to accept, was the innumerable "feminists" who abuse the term to the detriment of true equality.<br />
<br />
I used to drink the kool aid. I used to think like Dworkin. But now I understand that her statements, her positions - as GM so eloquently put - are a hinderance, not a help. One cannot battle hate with hate.<br />
<br />
There is always someone who can say things better, so I choose this - "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty." - M. Ghandi<br />
<br />
I mean that about both sides . . . I continue to have faith in humainty.

Any discussion that ends with drinking wine is civil in my book.

I do agree that the more radical views of the minority often over shadow the more tolerant views of the majority.
But I do have to say I don't believe dworkin was just saying what she said to be "radical" or to be sexist. I do believe that she truely believed what she stood for, I think she also realized that her more provacative statements got more press... I am grateful she and others started doing studies that were gender specific, I believe it was good to show the world how specifically women felt or believed by way of gender based polls and surveys and while I don't always agree with her analysis or her approach I do have respect for some of her work.

I am sure she did. After commenting, I remembered a scene in Malcom X - one of my favorites - that seemed to fit here (sort of). Malcom X had just given a speech at a prominent university. A (white) girl comes up to him afterwards and tells him how much she liked his speech and asks him what she can do to help. He looks at her, and in all seriousness, says "nothing." That scene . . . it gives me chills to this day. I'm sure that moment is based on a real exchange, and I think what it must have been like to be told that. As a male who spent the majority of his life arguing Dworkin's viewpoint, I got a little tired of being told "nothing" all the time.

I'm sorry you were told "nothing" ... I actually do remember that same scene in the movie, it was powerful for me as well but in a different way. I appreciate your contributions to this group and I find your posts informative and helpful. I guess if you were to ask me or most members of this group how you could help, we would say "anything" or "everything" ...

"What I was blind to, unwilling to accept, was the innumerable "feminists" who abuse the term to the detriment of true equality." I am finding more and more that the same is true of innumerable anti-feminists as well.

Agreed completely. And much of this lies in our perception of the world around us and what we are exposed to.

3 More Responses

Can we at least agree that, in fact, women are NOT hated?

This is tricky. I believe some people do hate women, and some hate men. What I can say though is at this time in our society hatred of women is the exception not the rule.

Agreed! Now, let's drink some wine!

Its a milestone! Let's drink a lot of wine! Cheers.

I sense a theme here . . .

1 More Response

I think a lot of anti-feminist men look on the 50s and 60s as the "good old days" because it was a time when women were becoming more sexual thanks to the acceptance of birth control so they were enjoying the advantage of that, but men were still able to run the show because women were still very dependent on them. When a woman grew up she was expected to get married, and become a housewife and mother, and nothing more. <br />
<br />
The media during that time also made it seem as if the Cleavers (Leave it to Beaver), the Harriets (Ozzie and Harriet), the Reeds (The Donna Reed Show), and the Andersons (Father Knows Best) were the norm. Those shows depicted the perfect home life that many men (even today) would want. The women took care of the children, cooked, cleaned, shopped, and things of that nature, while doing so with perfect hair and makeup, lovely dresses on with stockings and high heels, and pearl necklaces. Because they were dependent on the husband, they were expected to be submissive, and follow the rules he laid down, whether they were reasonable or not, and follow his demands for things like dinner being on the table at 6:00 pm every night when he came home from work, the house being spotlessly clean, the kids being well behaved and cared for by the wife, and his home life being pretty much stress free for him so all he ever really had to worry about was what went on at his job, and everything else was expected to be the way HE wanted it. We women have never enjoyed such beneficial circumstances once we entered the work force. <br />
There was that famous saying that children were meant to be seen and not heard. That was never something a woman would expect since we know that kids will be kids and they are going to talk, scream, cry, run around, play, and just be kids, and its rarely ever quiet. <br />
<br />
The life that those shows portrayed often was not how family life really was back then for many people, but some men would watch those shows and believe that it was, and as a result would feel that the life they had which was different, and not as structured and easy for them, was abnormal and should be made to be more like what they believed a real family life should be ba<x>sed on what they saw on television. As a result, some men became abusive toward their wives who found it virtually impossible to function like Donna Reed. <br />
<br />
I really think this is one of the things that sparked women's desires to be less dependent on men, and as a result less controlled, dominated, manipulated, and sometimes abused by them. It made women want to become educated and have good jobs so that if a man treated them badly it would be easier to say "hasta la vista baby". It think this pissed off, and still ****** off, some men.

Doris Day in Pillow Talk in 1959 was an excellent example of how women were portrayed as independent, capable and successful. She played a number of those types of roles as did other actresses. The media has given equal time to women in business, but have also pointed out that men and women tend to be miserable without each other. These movies played it out both ways. But, what you're saying above is that the reason women should be independent is so that they can easily get a divorce? WTF? THAT'S your rationale? Talk about divisive. I am out. I can't accomplish anything here.

She played an interior decorator in that movie which was one of the professions, like secretaries, nurses, and school teachers, that only women were expected to have. But those portrayals of women as being independent, career women, were rare prior to the 60s, as was the ability of women to actually be independent, successful, well paid, career women even when they had a career. If they had jobs like Doris Day did in "Pillow Talk", they still often earned far less than men did in equally as difficult professions, and were still expected to get married, give up the career, and become a housewife and mother one day. Doris Day ended up getting romantically schmoozed by Rock Hudson, who portrayed a player in that movie who manipulated women to get them to sleep with him. Its quite ironic that he turned out to be gay after playing that sort of playboy. I always loved Katharine Hepburn movies. She usually played truly independent, career, women (lawyers, newspaper reporters, etc.), who stood up to her male counterparts, but her portrayals were often looked down on, and were considered far from the norm of what most women expected in life.

The basic issue I see is, just like religion, feminism tends to divide. It focuses on one half of the population. Loud feminists, radical or other-wise, get into arguments with loud anti-feminists and the result is little rational discourse. <br />
<br />
We also end up in go nowhere conversations of "equality". Whereas the reality is that men and women are different, thankfully so. <br />
<br />
"Women Are From Mars, Men Are From Venus" is a book I never read, but I've enjoyed the title because it effectively illustrates that in order to communicate with one another, we must first acknowledge our differences. <br />
<br />
People who are loud or who have radical opinions rarely represent the majority.

Concise :)

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. The fact that men and women are different has nothing to do with the kind of equality that feminists strive for as I mentioned in my response to your story on this subject. Loud feminists often do not get into arguments with loud anti-feminists unless they are extreme anti-feminists that have very misogynist women controlling views. The fact that someone is loud usually does not prompt someone else to argue with them. What prompts the argument is usually disagreement on a particular subject, whether it is expressed loudly or quietly.

So, you will use the opinions of a bombastic windbag for what purpose exactly? He's an entertainer. I am neither a leftist nutcase nor a right wing bible-thumping idiot. I'm a centrist. I lean right on certain things and left on the other. And, as a matter of fact, loud people are usually looking for an argument, at least that's my experience. Rush is a perfect example.

I agree. My comment about Rush Limbaugh was meant to be more of a joke. I should have added LOL at the end. I am also more of a moderate centrist, than a radical left winger or feminist. I believe in human equality, and not just female equality. I don't use his opinions for any purpose except to point out the folly of people who follow what he says to the letter, and defend some of the outrageous, ridiculous, critical, and completely false and inaccurate things he says as if they were being said by an intelligent, fair, and open minded person. I know some very loud people who are just about enjoying life and having a good time. The fact that they speak louder than others and often shout and yell "woohoo", and "yeah baby", doesn't mean they are looking for an argument to me. The volume of their voice is just higher than others.

I don't think feminism divides. I think some feminists do. I also don't think MRA's divide, I think some members do.

I have been guilty of over generalizing and getting wrapped up in proving my point, with certain people. But as I've always said most feminists, most women, most men, most MRA MEMBERS, are not radical in their beliefs.

It is hard not to become defensive and at times vicious when you feel someone or some group is misrepesenting and maligning beliefs you hold dear. What's even more difficult is to have people present false information or even intentionly lie about your beliefs and then doesn't give you the respect to respond to, correct or defend your beliefs.

I agree, I don't see loudness as being a characteristic of just radical thought. I think some people are mosre passionate than others on certain issues and beliefs. There is nothing wrong with passion or conviction, there is nothing wrong with sharing that passion or convictions with others at any volume.

You will rarely meet a man as passionate as I. But I have learned to be more selective. I choose when to be loud. Most people respond to loud by avoiding or pushing back harder. Neither is effective for discourse. There's nothing inherently wrong with passion, but sometimes, it's just noise... and nothing more.

For me speaking with passion is completely different from being loud. Loud just means excessive volume to me, but passion means intensity, fervor and emotion, regardless of the volume level it is expressed with. Mahatma Gandhi's use of civil disobedience to express what he was passionate about is a perfect example.

I agree like I said passion can be done at any volume.

Sometimes it is noise, sometimes it is noise to some and music to others. I don't mind noise if it has a point. But the same noise over the same issues can cause people to tune out all together. Its very hard to let arguements and debates end when your heavily invested in one side.

Tis why I suggested the wine. :)

Funny that - when I'm passionate about something I don't get loud, I get snide and sarky...

9 More Responses

Andrea Dworkin has achieved more for the male supremacist, anti-feminist lobby that any self confessed anti-feminist could ever have achieved. Women are not hated. They never have been. Oppressed, yes, patronised, yes, excluded from opportunities, yes, resented for having the audacity to challenge that oppression and demand parity of esteem, yes. But hated, no. Feminism is about fundamental human rights, not about setting one section of society against another. Dworkin makes it about hatred and a few misguided souls think that she is a feminist and that all feminists are like her and those same individuals are unable to respond to hate with anything but bile and anger. And, of course, hate.

Why do you think there were so many extreme or radical feminists during this time period? I mean truely Dworkin was not the lone voice in her extremism.

It's interesting that you speak in past tense here.

The number of extremists and radicals is always proportionate to the injustice or perceived injustice about which they agitate. The problem is that they scare away or turn off the moderates and, ultimately, (though the radicals will dispute this) it is the moderates who bring about real and lasting change.

"Women are not hated." Well, I'm not so sure about that. If you read what is written in some of the male dominated groups here on EP it seems that some men really do hate women. Like stories and comments in the "I See Marriage as a Trap for Men" group. Some of the stuff the men in that group write there, and in other groups they belong to, seem to suggest that there are men who hate women.

I agree with Ladyblue. Misogyny as well as misandry can very easily be found on ep. I am more sensitive to misogyny as I am a woman, but sadly hate for both sexes is alive and well on ep.

Spot on, Annikin. Ladyblue and Gumshoe, Andrea Dworkin didn't mean some women are hated by some men: she meant all women are hated by all men. When I said women are not hated, that is what I was addressing.

3 More Responses

well now, there's anti-feminist, and then there's just NOT feminist. I'm no more against feminism than I am for it. Doesn't seem like in general my feminist acquaintances make a lot of room for a neutral view. <br />
<br />
As to gsjane's remark about idealising the past... i don't think romanticising makes the past different. It may change your attitude for the day, but it doesn't actually alter history, not one whit. So there's really no point in flogging the greasy spot in the driveway that used to be a horse if someone feels like they'd like to stay home and cook for their husband. <br />
<br />
Sonnet tells me that where she is, the idea of women receiving unfair pay is a thing of near-fiction. In the place that I live, it's still a real issue. But I don't see anything gained by attacking her worldview. Rather, I'd like to import it, because, much like economic crises and mad cow disease, the level of fear, drama, and reaction is directly proportional to the media attention it gets.<br />
<br />
In any case, I rather suspect that the future of " equality " lies in individual actions, not broadscale attempts at political and social reprogramming.

Wise words. Things have improved hugely. Romanticising the past may mean pretending that things were not bad before, pretending that there were no battles which had to be fought. It is often the way that those who secure freedoms grow old finding what they struggled for taken for granted and finding themselves portrayed as intemperate and humourless zealots

I do think those in charge of "educating" people on what history "was" and what it meant can alter how we view it, not how it actually was but, how we view it to have been.

Very well put Garcia

"In the place that I live, it's still a real issue." In the place where I grew up (a small Southern Baptist town in Texas) it was a real issue too. Men ran the show and ensured that most women could not get the jobs they didn't want them too, and if they did they were NEVER paid the same as the men doing the same job. They came up with a variety of excuses, but the truth was the men did it so they could control the women. My grandmother is a doctor. It was extremely difficult for her to get into medical school, and then once she was in, be treated fairly. Then once she graduated it was difficult for her to get a job, much less a good paying on that paid the same as the male doctors she worked with. Those were the kinds of things that spurned the feminist movement, and not man hating as some men seem to believe.

ladyblue, if it was just men believing it was man hating, it would probably be marginalize-able.

2 More Responses

Andrea Dworkin is a radical. If most feminists do not identify with this view, I'm interested if you see merit in the above quote despite what I would call sexist undertones.<br />
Do you see them too I mean?

Yes, they are seen. That is exactly the point of using this qoute, so others will see most feminists are not radical...

I don't believe that that was made clear.

I didn't post the purpose because I wanted to see what peoples responses would be with as little influence as possible, I wanted people to respond how they saw fit, not respond in the way I wanted or directed them to. Of course it was a calculated move as I was fairly certain most people would respond in a much less radical way.

Oh. Right. Yes. Silly me.

1 More Response

I'm curious. Where do I fall here Jane, perplexing or naive? :)

You are certainly not naive Sonnet, in fact I find you very intelligent. You are complex and perplexing and I do feel you have a genuine concern regarding feminism, however I believe your concern to be with the heavily radical and angry "feminists" of the past.

Andrea Dworkin, to use her as an example, only passed away in 2005. That cannot be described as distant past surely.

That is fair Sonnet, but she certainly would be in the radical, extreme camp. I don't think she is at all representative of most 3rd wave feminists.

If this is the case what is being done to distance yourselves from these radicals? Where is the dividing line?

There is no dividing line. Dworkin was a leader of what is 2nd wave feminism. In the 80's many feminists felt the direction of the movement was not in keeping with their views from the response of 2nd wave feminism came 3rd wave feminism. While we recognize all waves and womens sufferage as a part of feminism we also recognize that as time and circumstances change the needs of people change, the views of people change. Feminism evolves as a reaction to all of those things.

Another problem I find is that with a lot of the 2nd wave feminists the context of their beliefs and their full message is not well understood.
Because of our current culture we forget that the lives and rights of women during 2nd wave feminism were very different than now. And people tend to forget that a lot of the "radical" leaders messages have been so selectively edited that their meaning, true meaning is lost and misunderstood.

3 More Responses

I think most male anti feminists fear the loss of male privilege while others truly believe that feminism is an anti male hate group. I find female anti feminists perplexing and at times exhaustingly naive. I think as a group they tend to idealize " the white picket fence 1950's lifestyle", whilst choosing to ignore many of the very real and legitimate criticisms of that era. <br />
Very good question! I look forward to hearing others' thoughts.

Yes people tend to look on the past as "the good old days" but they don't have a realistic view of the past they claim to long for.

Do you really think they actually believe feminism is just about hating men?

There is likely more to it like a underlying, pervasive lack of trust for women

Do you think extreme or radical feminism fuels this mistrust? Or do you think the mistrust is with all women?

I think that there are men who have been terribly wounded by women, just as there are women who have been hurt by men. These wounded men likely have trust issues with women to begin with, then throw in some extreme, radical feminist rantings and now we have the fuel that feeds the fire. This is very likely oversimplified but I think it does bare some merit.

It has been my experience that many men who have encountered a woman who played them, and took advantage of them, or presented herself as something she really wasn't and hurt them and exploited them, often tend to then mistrust all women and put them in the same category as the one who screwed them over. Women are less likely to do this. While they are often hurt and exploited by men, more than men are hurt and exploited by women, they tend to be more forgiving and they don't heap all men into the same category as the one who hurt them, and believe that all men use and abuse them the way one of them did. If they did I think most women would end up being mistrusting man haters, and even lesbians who want nothing to do with men, because as I said, women are often used and abused by men more than the reverse. I have also seen that that often a man who has been used, abused, and exploited by a woman blames it on feminism. I think this may be because they do not want to admit that they behaved in a naive and trusting way, and perhaps acted somewhat foolishly and like a sucker which allowed them to be taken advantage of. So instead they blame feminists and attribute some women's ability to be conniving and exploitive to feminism because this can make the man claim he was not foolish or naive and the woman who did this to him was a conniving, man hating feminist, instead of merely a woman who knew how to play him and take him to the cleaners. I also think that men who are often abusive, controlling, dominating, who take advantage of women, and then end up eventually losing the woman they love when she can't take it anymore, blame feminism for the woman for the woman running away instead of taking responsibility for their bad behavior and trying to change it so they can keep a relationship intact in the future.

What I don't understand is why they don't blame the individuals that hurt them or even just the opposite sex, why is it they blame feminism and feminists. Why do they correlate "bad women" to all feminists? I just don't understand why they prevert feminism into something that as a whole it is not, I don't understand blaming all feminism as the sole or primary reason for all the evils of the world.

I don't know that men handle bad experiences with the opposite sex any worse or better than women. I do recognize that in general they deal with that rejection differently. It is always dangerous to blame a group for the actions of a few... I agree though self reflection and taking personal responsibility would help greatly in the relationships between women and men.

@gumshoe, I really don't think that female anti-feminists think that feminism is a male hate group. They have more self-centred sexual reasons for it. These are women who don't need to be won over, or 'conquered' (I'm talking about that in a sexual sense, of course) and are therefore more attractive to men who have less oomph, less alpha-ness about them.

6 More Responses