Why are so many people anti-feminist?

Why do people think that feminists are diabolical man-haters? I'm talking about people who aren't obvious misogynists. You can accuse me of selection bias, but, it seems that a lot of people, common people, think that feminism is a dangerous thing.

What did the feminist movements ever do wrong? I'm suffering from ignorance, and requesting that the knowledgeable On-Topic community enlighten me for the sake of charity, as well as to begin an interesting discussion. I'm aware of fringe feminists who say things like "All men are rapists and that's all they are." But, the fringe is just the fringe, right?

edited 2nd Jan '11 10:05:41 AM by Grain

I've seen the belief that feminism has already made things equal enough, and any remaining feminists must be female supremacists of sorts.

Vocal Minority.

Because they tend to say things like "Men don't face sexism" and bullshit like that. Not all of them, but a lot. That 'Fringe' is less fringe then you think.

So Commando, you're saying that the fringe isn't a fringe, but actually a sizable portion, perhaps 40%? Your claim about feminists' bullshit seems to coincide with Tzetze observation that the world is perceived as being already equal enough. Is this correct?

And Firestarter sort of said the opposite; the fringe is just a fringe, but it's still powerful.

edited 2nd Jan '11 10:22:44 AM by Grain

I don't have any statistics on it but most of the people in my area of knowledge are sexist anyway, so it paints me as more pro-feminist because I still see a large degree of discrimination in the high-end jobs and corporate management areas.

"I don't have any statistics on it but most of the people in my area of knowledge are sexist anyway" - breadloaf

I'd say most people PERIOD are sexist anyway, since it's kind of human nature. Unless you have a very specific way of interpreting "sexist."

EDIT: As for the topic at hand, any ideology label is going to be a mess of varying interpretations, and "feminism" is no exception to this. Frankly I say it's just best to just give up on that and other such ideology labels to begin with.

edited 2nd Jan '11 11:45:52 AM by neoYTPism

"Feminism" is kind of an empty term anymore. IMO.

To expand a bit, maybe enough wasn't the right word. It's more like, any disparities are either not real (the fault of improperly gathered statistics, that sort of thing) and/or due to old guard (for example, wage disparities are just a remnant of sexism, and will equalize out naturally).

^ There's also the disparities in wages that are not going away because women aren't doing the things that would do away with them. For example few women want to be steelworkers and thus women who are already one are not likely to be paid as much as men. In the same vein (even in safer jobs) men are like three times as likely to willingly take on overtime hours for either greater pay or as a chance to advance their careers than women are.

You can't legislate equal pay when one side is willing to work twice as hard for twice as long in much more dangerous jobs. In order to bring about equal wages and complete equality, women themselves have to step up and do these things. Work the 60-80 hour weeks, put their necks on the line to advance their career sacrificing their families and social livelihoods like men do.

edited 2nd Jan '11 12:25:50 PM by MajorTom

Its because if you set yourself up solely for one group you are partially excluding another. If you are setting yourself up solely for women it means that men are going to be worried why they are not allowed (or at least not invited) to join.

Tom, it might be because society expects women to stop working and make babies that means that they are unable to work "dangerous" (and steelworking isn't fucking dangerous, its sterenous but its not actually going to kill you) jobs. There is also the fact that women are judged more on appearance and "working late" will get commented on by people. Also, saying that people "doing some overtime" deserve 3 times as much money and then saying that its a good thing is really REALLY weird to me.

I'm all for gender equality, but there's some instances where it's not worth it.

For instance, spec ops and other combat arms jobs are male only, and only have facilities for men. It's not that there aren't any women who are willing to do the job and can actually perform it, it's that there are so few women who want to do those jobs, and a portion of them won't make it. That's not worth changing everything up and building new facilities to accommodate having females in the program when it isn't worth the cost.

I've known some badass women who can totally hack it, but there's so few of them that it really isn't worth it. I think this will change eventually, and I'll be happy to see that change come, but it isn't a problem with the program as much as the way our society works at the moment. In the few Combat Arms career fields that do allow women(such as mine), there aren't many, but compared to 10 years ago, the number of women performing these jobs has gone up drastically. I think part of this is because the frame of mind of women is still changing, if you looked back 50 years and brought forth the idea of women being combat infantry, men and women alike would scoff at you. Now it's not that women can't, it's just that most of them don't find that sort of job appealing.

Like I said though, I can't wait until that starts to change, I'd to be in a unit that isn't a total sausage fest.. Of around 90 people in my unit we only have 4 females and the rest are male.

Society has come on in leaps and bounds (and whilst I don't approve of militaries in general it is good to see it at least trying to be gender equal) the problem is that socially women are still often expected to settle down and become house keepers, and until that changes (whilst also accepting that women can do that if they want to) there are going to be feminists.

True, and like I said, part of the problem in those issues is women themselves. When most women don't want to work a certain type of job, and thus it isn't very accomodating to women, the ones who do want to do that job feel left out.

'tis a problem, and a tricky one, large scale societal shifts have traditionally only come about through mass devestation, it'll be good if we can manage this without a Black Death or World War One.

Josef, Barkey basically saying the same thing I was. The opportunities are frequently there to prove that women are equal in the workforce, they just aren't taking it. They aren't choosing to do these things.

Societal pressures or not, we can't really change anything further without that part of society rising up to claim what should be theirs to want to do. In essence, if women aren't going to want to do the same things men can and often do in the workforce there will never be true equality. Instead of setting one expectation where women are to only be homemakers, they are setting themselves up for a lower expectation in that they will never really strive for career advancement or commitment in the workplace.

There are many instances where women should earn less, based on the fact that there are certain complications-ala, maternity leave, risky jobs, yadda yadda yadad. HOWEVER-

-even after accounting for all those circumstances, women still earn significantly less than men. The problem is that when feminists use the non-adjusted figures to prove their point, it looks deceitful and then people just try and excuse the REAL disparity by pointing to all the things that haven't been accounted for.

And these opinions about income inequality are examples of the thought process behind an anti-feminist position?

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:54:33 PM by Grain

The difference is Tom, and one that you will learn is an important differential in discussions of this nature, is that Barkey made a point of not singleing out women as the cause of their disadvantage. You on the other hand complained about how women are "unwilling themselves" to do extra time.

Its is an important thing to note, because people are not raised in a vacuum. The way you stated it makes it sound as if you want women to try twice as hard, for little direct benefit, in order to make themselves get to the exact same level as men. To me that seems sexist.

^ I want the same level of everyone because I abhor the Double Standard evident in society. Don't set one level for women and equate it to that of men if the men's level is much harder or the bar raised much higher.

Want an example? Fitness tests everywhere. From fitness guidelines for a healthy body to military physical fitness tests. They set double standards on everything such as significantly lower expectations of women for the same task as men.

I know better than to think that all women are incapable of performing at the same level as men in the fitness department yet all the guidelines are built with that Double Standard in mind.

If you want true equality, you only set one standard.

So you don't see a problem with the fact that women are encouraged to stop working at some points. And if a women does want to have a family and takes some maternity leave that is penalised by setting her back (in work) by a good (oh) 5 years or so in most office environments.

Women can basically possess a different skill set to men, especially within the armed forces and whilst minimum standards are important within such organisations, some leeway can be granted. There is a difference between "double standards for people with the same skillset" and "a standard that everyone has to hold to unless there is a firm reason for it" its like saying that the asthmatic kid should run just as far as everyone else without his inhaler.

So you think that in fitness tests, men and women should be held to exactly the same standard concerning, for example, body fat percentage?

If women expect paid maternity leave, they have to be okay with the idea that employers know "Crap, this is a woman-we're potentially going to have to pay maternity leave at some point" and as thus consider that as a point against her (which, in the aggregate, correlates to net lower wage).

The only way to get around that is to have employers not have to cover any of the expenses involved with maternity leave, meaning that you're basically treating women unequally well because you're covering some of their extra expenses.

^I would guess that any fitness test applied equally towards men and women would be objective based, rather than physical measurements oriented.

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:06:27 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

^^^ All external societal pressures notwithstanding, there's no excuse for demanding the same level as men when you won't put up the same level yourself. For example if a woman wants to become CEO and put in all the hours and sacrifices needed to do so, more power to her. But if she thinks it's right to work less than half the time and do none of the sacrifices that a man will do and still expect to reach CEO level in the same timeframe, she's got another thing coming.

Also are we even on the same page regarding women in the workforce? I don't know about your area, but where I live the "pressure to settle down and be a homemaker even if temporarily" doesn't really exist. Almost every girl in my area is taught to strive for what they want, not what somebody else wants. Sure there are the occasional old-timey families where girls are expected to go get married, but that's everywhere. None of the girls I grew up around ever were pressured into that. I'm thinking we may have a severe geographic disconnect here, I see the world around me and it's not what you are describing.

^^ Yes. The biological differences aren't so great between men and women that a common standard can't be built that challenges both genders.

edited 2nd Jan '11 2:12:58 PM by MajorTom

The problem with maternity is a densly packed minefield, and if this conversation keeps going that way I am bailing because I have no intention of blowing my own foot off.