Feminism - why is it so despised?

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

I do think the term "feminism" is unnecessary. It seems, like most other terms that apply to groups such as gay rights and the like, to only divide further. The more people make a deal out of it, the more "unusual" it comes off as to society. "There must be something 'different' about it if it's this big of a deal."

The term "feminist" is also a terrible word choice. I don't really know of a better one, but the very term "feminist" implies female superiority, which is not the aim of the group. It's incredibly misleading.

It's not necessarily that indicative of the belief in female superiority. The "-ism" just means they support whatever it is that is before it, not necessarily that they hold it as ultimate, so here the argument could be made that they simply support the upward movement of the female in society and to be brought to the same level. This is as I already argued misleading since it implies that men actually are above women right now and that women do need to be moved up in order to equalise the situation.

Anti-abortion in itself is not sexist, since those who are against it are against it because they believe that it's a conflict between the rights of two people, the "right to live" of one person and the "right to not have to go through pregnancy" of the other, so they feel that the right to live is the more important one. The Catholic Church's views, though, certainly have a lot of problems in that regard, since when the woman is going to die from the childbirth the situation changes entirely.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I despise the 80-90% far more than the 10-20% who actually care about what happens to themselves and others.

Caring about what happens to you is entirely different from treating politics like a football game in which you pick a side and that side must win absolutely every argument.

Carefully deciding by yourself which decision you should support does not place you in the fanatics group - being the "oppose the other team no matter what" type does, because that's largely the reason that people make stupid decisions like condoning torture.

Lord Zero, I think you're misunderstanding. The rapist is basicaly being punished the same way as the girl by the church. The only difference is that it's rape, ya, obviously a sin, you did it, repent or go to hell. The girl has to do the same thing, repent or go to hell (assuming she had the abortion), but they know she's thinking about it in advance, so they're basicaly just warning her.

I see the argument of it being her body to do with as she pelases. However the church does not condem this because she's a woman. It's because she's tkaing a life in their eyes, it would be the same if men could give birth. The rapist is being punished for his sin, and the girl will be punished if she sins.

Originally Posted by Cody

Abortion in itself is not sexist, since those who are against it are against it because they believe that it's a a conflict between the rights of two people, the "right to live" of one person and the "right to not have to go through pregnancy" of the other, so they feel that the right to live is the more important one. The Catholic Church's views, though, certainly have a lot of problems in that regard, since when the woman is going to die from the childbirth the situation changes entirely.

I assume you mean "the opposition to abortion in itself is not sexist", but either way, I would agree in theory - it is a concern about the right to life which I dispute for reasons not relevant to this thread. Someone who opposes abortion apart from in cases of rape is clearly a sexist however, since they believe that the child no longer has the right to life if the woman didn't consent to the sex that produced it, which demonstrates that they're using the argument of "life" to simply punish women for the consequences of their consent to sex.

Those more orthodox Catholics do not do this, thus they are at least consistent. However what I'm claiming is sexist isn't the opposition to abortion, but the active opposition to abortion in light of the lack of active opposition to other, far more heinous crimes that the church should see as far more immoral. That a crime committed by a woman that would not need to be committed had she not been impregnated is condemned, yet a crime committed by a man, the one that caused her to commit her crime, is not condemned, reeks of sexism to me. If they excommunicated rapists just like they excommunicated those victims of rape who abort, I would not call the institution sexist.

Caring about what happens to you is entirely different from treating politics like a football game in which you pick a side and that side must win absolutely every argument.

Carefully deciding by yourself which decision you should support does not place you in the fanatics group - being the "oppose the other team no matter what" type does, because that's largely the reason that people make stupid decisions like condoning torture.

This is certainly true - just because you pick a political party to side with doesn't mean you care all that much about politics at all, it just means that there's something about one side you like, so you'll back those against all the rest despite whatever else they'll do. I find this is common in people who proclaim themselves either left or right, since they associate the stance on certain issues with the other virtues their party stands for, and consider these virtues as well. Then again, this is a flaw in the political system - you can't have support for individual issues because people insist on turning politics into such a football game by creating "teams" who incorporate various issues, thus you will always get a "package" that has some stuff you want and some you don't. Although those people who support parties that condone torture are different to those people who actually do condone torture because their parties support it and will come up with any arguments to support such a policy.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

Lord Zero, I think you're misunderstanding. The rapist is basicaly being punished the same way as the girl by the church. The only difference is that it's rape, ya, obviously a sin, you did it, repent or go to hell. The girl has to do the same thing, repent or go to hell (assuming she had the abortion), but they know she's thinking about it in advance, so they're basicaly just warning her.

I see the argument of it being her body to do with as she pelases. However the church does not condem this because she's a woman. It's because she's tkaing a life in their eyes, it would be the same if men could give birth. The rapist is being punished for his sin, and the girl will be punished if she sins.

The church takes action against someone who aborts, but not the person who raped her and thus created the situation that led her to abort to begin with. The only thing I'm misunderstanding is how you do not see anything wrong with this - there is an official declaration that the church does not approve and an official exclusion from certain church activities on the one hand, but not on the other, when both have committed crimes, and the one who IS punished is the one who is the victim of the crime that ISN'T punished.

The rapist impregnated her, she aborted the baby. She would not have been able to abort that baby, nor I doubt would she have wanted to, had she not been raped. Yet the rapist does indeed get off Scot-free because the Church says "meh, we'll leave him to God", yet does not do the same to the girl who chose to have an abortion. They see her as such a pressing issue that they can't simply wait for God to step in, but they don't see the rapist in the same light. I don't see how you don't think this is sexist - they don't excommunicate a man for raping a girl, yet they excommunicate that girl for aborting the baby that, were it not for that man, she would not be pregnant with.

That man is at fault in two ways - one for raping her, and two for creating the situation that led her to abort to begin with. Yet he suffers no ramifications from the church for either.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

The rapist impregnated her, she aborted the baby. She would not have been able to abort that baby, nor I doubt would she have wanted to, had she not been raped. Yet the rapist does indeed get off Scot-free because the Church says "meh, we'll leave him to God", yet does not do the same to the girl who chose to have an abortion. They see her as such a pressing issue that they can't simply wait for God to step in, but they don't see the rapist in the same light. I don't see how you don't think this is sexist - they don't excommunicate a man for raping a girl, yet they excommunicate that girl for aborting the baby that, were it not for that man, she would not be pregnant with.

That man is at fault in two ways - one for raping her, and two for creating the situation that led her to abort to begin with. Yet he suffers no ramifications from the church for either.

They're essentialy saying the same thing to both though. Excommunication is pretty much the same as saying you're going to hell unless you repent. They never said the rapist isn't, it's just assumed that rape is a sin and you're going to hell unless you repent. Niether of them really carries any physical punishment, it all depends on how much one cares about the afterlife. If the rapist doesn't then no, it's not a punishment, but at the same time if the girl doesn't, then it's not a punishment either. It's an equal punishment for both sides as far as the church is concerned though.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

They're essentialy saying the same thing to both though. Excommunication is pretty much the same as saying you're going to hell unless you repent. They never said the rapist isn't, it's just assumed that rape is a sin and you're going to hell unless you repent. Niether of them really carries any physical punishment, it all depends on how much one cares about the afterlife. If the rapist doesn't then no, it's not a punishment, but at the same time if the girl doesn't, then it's not a punishment either. It's an equal punishment for both sides as far as the church is concerned though.

But it's not an equal punishment because the church is actively speaking out and saying one is no longer with the community even though it's already known that abortion is a sin, and yet the other one it feels it right to say "oh it's assumed, we don't have to say anything" without excluding them from certain activities or condemning them. They overshadow one with the other.

Okay, I can see the inequality, but I still don't think it's based on gender. Like I said, they'd probably have the exactly same reaction to it if men could give birth. I see it more stemming from the fact that there aren't a whole lot of people who would argue that rape deserves to be a sin, but obviously there are many people who'd say abortion shouldn't be. They're more or less making sure people know it's a sin.

Take the forums for example. In the NMB, I put out an announcement about the quality of posts in intorduction/welcome threads. If I have to delete or warn any posts about it, I always remind people that they need to have more to the posts, no one liners blah blah blah. However if somone posts a straight up stupid message that has no relevance to the thread what so ever I'll usualy just delete it and warn/infract them unless I have other reason to comment as well.. It isn't because of who posted it or anything. It's just because I'm trying to get it through people'sa head to make better quality postds in the NMB and that everyone knows stupid irrelevant posts are spam, they shouldn't need to be reminded.

I think a lot of what the Roman Catholic Church does in terms of speaking out against abortion and not speaking out against rape is public perception of this concept. The vast majority of the population in developed nations pretty much all agree that rape is bad. It doesn't bear repeating, because that's what everyone believes, and that's what the laws dictate as well. Abortion, however, is met with much more variety, and there are people on both sides of the fence. There are just as many pro-lifers as there are pro-choice. I don't necessarily see it as sexism per se (although I wouldn't be surprised if it did factor in somewhere in there) as much as I see it as "oh, by the way, the Roman Catholic Church would like to remind everyone - everyone who is pro-choice and not pro-life, anyways - that abortion is a sin". The Vatican is, I think, merely taking a chance to assert its opinion on a divided issue; it certainly doesn't need to do so on a bygone popular opinion.

women do have legal equal rights but alot of women get paid less than men,and many times we've heard stories about when a woman would be more qualified than a man she was competing for a job with, yet she doesnt get the job.

Originally Posted by Cody

People don't hate feminists as a whole - pretty much every western child is raised as a feminist to some extent now, it's the extreme feminists that peopel don't like. The ones that start fights over stupid things all the time and sue everyone and claim that all men are rapists (e.g this kind). Obviously it's a very small minority of feminists, but those are the ones that always get media attention.

It's the same with a lot of things. For example, 80-90% of Americans don't actually treat politics like their religion and scream and cry and protest over every minor political act, but those people just aren't interesting to talk about, so the media focuses on the two extremes, and to the world trying to figure out what's happening from the news it seems like America is full of nothing but crazy people running around getting into the verge of civil war every time a politician sneezes.

It's probably also the reason that atheists are considered the least trustworthy group in America (according to polls). People have had bad experiences with the vocal minority who are constantly smug and laugh at/harass religious people for their beliefs, so they assume that all atheists must be like that, even though most of them just mind their own business. Ditto for Muslims and their 0.00001% terrorist minority.

Loud fringe minorities in groups get most of the attention, so people assume the whole group is like that. Unfortunately that's just the way it works.

plus one

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I do not see how this does not apply to rape. Excommunication means putting one out of communion, it means excluding someone from being a member of the church for their actions. What it means then, if they do not choose to excommunicate someone such as a rapist, but do excommunicate someone who aborts, is that they don't really mind having a rapist among their ranks. They are permitting a rapist to remain a part of their church.

They really DO mind having a rapist. If he doesn't repent of his sin, then he is, strictly speaking, not supposed to be allowed communion either. And even if he DOES receive communion while in a state of mortal sin, whether officially excommunicated or no, he may as well be eating a regular wafer as far as salvation goes. Your focus should be on the repentance; should anyone repent of a sin, they are forgiven.

If the leader of a country is excommunicated, from a religious perspective this basically means that leader no longer has authority. Excommunication is a lot more than a simple declaration of disapproval. It is a punishment to someone who actually wants to be a member of the church and cares about the church, so the fact that they don't do this to those who commit a variety of other serious crimes, yet do so for people who have abortions whether or not it is also considered a serious crime, or for people who dare to undermine the church's authority, is rather manifestly unjust and highly indicative of what kind of mentality operates behind the institution.

Understand that the church does NOT have the power to "revoke" salvation. According to the church's belief, the person's actions have themselves done that automatically, unless and until they repent. The church merely makes the declaration as a way of saying "don't do what this person did; it's bad" to people who might be inclined to think that what the person did "wasn't that bad", and that God would "let it slide" even without repentance. They don't do this with rape because it doesn't NEED to be underlined - that "rape is bad" should be a no-brainer.

Though admittedly, if you honestly believe that they don't mind rape, then perhaps they SHOULD make a point of officially excommunicating unrepentant rapists.

I generally agree with some of Lord Zero's points in regards to this question. I also believe that John is correct that women still have yet to reach a properly equal treatment. I agree Astariel that much of feminism has been miss-portrayed as attempting to reverse the roles of the sexes rather than equalize them.

Since I didn't quote any of them, this post will probably go unnoticed. However I believe that one of the reason behind a negative reaction to feminism is because there hasn't been a complimentary movement.

There are still many issues that need to be addressed before we can say that women have rights as men, but at least there is a significant interest in resolving them. The problem, however, is that while the oppressive perception of women has been greatly corroded, the tradition perception of men is barely changed.

I am not suggesting that men have oppressed in the same way as women or that feminism is oppressing men. I am saying that both sexes are in someway victims of archaic notions of gender.

Boys are still being raised with the idea that men should dominate. There is an emphasis that masculinity means competing to the point of bloodshed. "Man is always on the top, a man should always want sex." That the value of being male lies in how much wealth he has and how many women he's slept with. Thus men live under the pressure that they must be dominant if they want to be worth anything.

When you look at it from that perspective, it's no wonder why many people feel threatened by feminism. The traditional male perspective says that men must be dominant, and if women can now have dominant roles, then there are more opponents to compete against. So many men meet the idea of strong women with reprehension because they were raised with idea that they should be strong. If a man is not at the top, then where is he?

It seldom occurs to men raised with this gender role that maybe they don't always have to be dominant. So while many girls are being raised with the idea that they don't have to be submissive if they don't want to, many more boys are being raised with the idea that they do not have an option. It's all or nothing for them. Thus this result's in chauvinism, overcompensatory behavior, depression, or social anxiety.

While feminism has made great strides gaining equal rights for women, it has failed to approach this imbalance. It would be unfair for anyone to fault the movement for this, however. At its conception, the oppression of women was the most pertinent need for reform. Today, it still is very pertinent, but I have a feeling that addressing the pressures that men face and reevaluating what it means to be male will help dissolve the backlash that reasonably minded feminists face.

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

I generally agree with some of Lord Zero's points in regards to this question. I also believe that John is correct that women still have yet to reach a properly equal treatment. I agree Astariel that much of feminism has been miss-portrayed as attempting to reverse the roles of the sexes rather than equalize them.

Since I didn't quote any of them, this post will probably go unnoticed. However I believe that one of the reason behind a negative reaction to feminism is because there hasn't been a complimentary movement.

There are still many issues that need to be addressed before we can say that women have rights as men, but at least there is a significant interest in resolving them. The problem, however, is that while the oppressive perception of women has been greatly corroded, the tradition perception of men is barely changed.

I am not suggesting that men have oppressed in the same way as women or that feminism is oppressing men. I am saying that both sexes are in someway victims of archaic notions of gender.

Boys are still being raised with the idea that men should dominate. There is an emphasis that masculinity means competing to the point of bloodshed. "Man is always on the top, a man should always want sex." That the value of being male lies in how much wealth he has and how many women he's slept with. Thus men live under the pressure that they must be dominant if they want to be worth anything.

When you look at it from that perspective, it's no wonder why many people feel threatened by feminism. The traditional male perspective says that men must be dominant, and if women can now have dominant roles, then there are more opponents to compete against. So many men meet the idea of strong women with reprehension because they were raised with idea that they should be strong. If a man is not at the top, then where is he?

It seldom occurs to men raised with this gender role that maybe they don't always have to be dominant. So while many girls are being raised with the idea that they don't have to be submissive if they don't want to, many more boys are being raised with the idea that they do not have an option. It's all or nothing for them. Thus this result's in chauvinism, overcompensatory behavior, depression, or social anxiety.

While feminism has made great strides gaining equal rights for women, it has failed to approach this imbalance. It would be unfair for anyone to fault the movement for this, however. At its conception, the oppression of women was the most pertinent need for reform. Today, it still is very pertinent, but I have a feeling that addressing the pressures that men face and reevaluating what it means to be male will help dissolve the backlash that reasonably minded feminists face.

I agree that society's view of both gender roles has been somewhat responsible for the repression of women. The factor of the men's gender role being viewed as rigidly dominating makes it harder for women to be accepted as more dominant as well. Men are pressured as well to fit a certain mold, and they are threatened by women gaining more freedom in their role, so they sometimes seek to oppress them to keep their "manly image". Society must one day realize that men do not need to be this dominating force, and when they realize this, we can accept both dominant women and submissive men, and hopefully get rid of the rigid gender roles.

I would have made a very long essay on this topic, but almost every single one of my points have been made by other people already, so I won't. I'm just going to say that the term "feminism" does indeed need to be changed, as it implies that only women are at a disadvantage in every single thing in society. Also, I agree with Red Dingo that gender roles are the main problem here. People always say that their are many sterotypes against women in society, and there certainly are, but what many people fail to realize it that there is just as many stereotypes against men in society as well. To say that all women need to be sumbmissive and not be in charge is indeed a sexist statement, but to say that all men need to be tough and in charge is also sexist, and the sooner people realize this, the sooner society can rid of both generalizations and achieve true equality.

And what Cody said explains my thoughts on exactly why feminism seems to be hated.

Originally Posted by Cody

Caring about what happens to you is entirely different from treating politics like a football game in which you pick a side and that side must win absolutely every argument.

Oh yeah, definitely. I misinterpreted what you were saying, then. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, about throwing a fit about every little political shift, so long as you're not just throwing a fit because the other guy did it.

Originally Posted by John

No they don't. Women still, on average, get paid less than men at the same jobs

Not quite. If this is true, then wouldn't a capitalist make massive profits by hiring only women?

Women tend to be more interested in part-time jobs and different work settings which is why statistically they are underpaid when they actually receive the same (or about the same) amount of money for the same work. In some professional fields, the pay is even more.

Originally Posted by Captain Ivan

Not quite. If this is true, then wouldn't a capitalist make massive profits by hiring only women?

Who's to say they don't often hire women for this reason?

Women tend to be more interested in part-time jobs and different work settings which is why statistically they are underpaid when they actually receive the same (or about the same) amount of money for the same work. In some professional fields, the pay is even more.

Not quite. Look at the graph from this report:



While the pay disparity is smaller today, the disparity due to occupation, experience, and education are now very small, where as the unexplained disparity now makes up a majority of the difference. Furthermore, the unexplained gap hasn't changed much at all.

That link is broken, my man. Care to supply us with a substitute?

Originally Posted by Captain Ivan

Not quite. If this is true, then wouldn't a capitalist make massive profits by hiring only women?

Women tend to be more interested in part-time jobs and different work settings which is why statistically they are underpaid when they actually receive the same (or about the same) amount of money for the same work. In some professional fields, the pay is even more.

Partially true, but the reason why women seem to be more interested in part-time jobs and is 'paid less' is usually because of children and childcare. Women usually (not always, but more often) deal with the issues of children in relationships, while men are free to continue working. This doesn't always have to be the case, especially now where both partners have to work to be able to pay the bills and the mortgage, but when a partner has to stay home to look after children, it's usually the woman doing it. Working mothers often have to take time off work to deal with sick children, and this affects their earnings when they're unable to work. Funnily enough, when I worked at a hospital laboratory, one of my fellow workmates was a Muslim woman, who worked while her husband stayed home with their son as she was more qualified than he was.

And I do believe that when the Catholic Church excommunicates a rape victim for daring to abort, but doesn't excommunicate the rapist who forced her into such a position, is sexist.

Hear me out; while some priests will stick to the guidelines of "one must be truly repentant before one may receive absolution," far more of them will either assign a few "Hail Marys" etc. and be done with it, OR, they'll come down like a ton of bricks on "sins" that contain acts against the faith, but be far more permissive of sins that the Church condones by its own actions. Such as rape and abortion in this case.

The child molesting rapist (he molested and raped the little girl for three years before getting caught) likely only has to say he's sorry, perform the required penance, and he's forgiven and allowed to stay in the Church. It doesn't matter a jot to them that any therapist or psychologist can tell you that child molestation is one of the most difficult behaviors to truly break... and most churches/priests/etc. won't lift a finger to see that the man goes into therapy, and/or that he's not placed in the care of children, etc. They simply prefer not to deal with the issue, as apparent when Catholic priests who committed sexual abuse were simply shuffled to another Parish.

But the doctors and mother, all of whom made a very difficult decision in favor of saving one life versus the nearly absolute certainty that all THREE lives would be lost, are, in the Church's eyes, BEYOND forgiveness, and thus excommunicated, damned and publicly spat upon. Despite the fact that the little girl would have died if she weren't given an abortion didn't matter to these people. She is still excommunicated for circumstances beyond her control.

There's something wrong in this equation---but the more people argue it, the more the Church is adamant that they are in the right, and that they've done no wrong.

And that's another thing. The Church, in theory, requires admission of sin and an attitude of repentance, on the part of a sinner, before absolution is granted... yet they themselves *refuse* to admit that the Church, via the actions of the Vatican and clergy, is also fallible, has committed sins, etc.---and certainly, the first act of repentance is to admit that one has sinned in the first place.

They are too concerned about preserving their power, to follow the heart of the very tenets they espouse.

And here's another thought:

If there is no difference, in the eyes of the Church, between rape and murder... why is the rapist not being punished with excommunication, while the child, her mother and the doctors who helped her are? Is every person within the Church who commits a murder automatically excommunicated? Nope. The Church forgives murderers every day.

So if they condemn abortion as murder, why aren't they extending the same standard to those who have, or who perform, abortions, as they do to those who beat their wives to death, or those who pick up a gun and shoot someone? No, they reserve their venom for women who have abortions, or women who use birth control, deeming these the most unforgivable sins and ranking them crimes above 'regular' murder.

So the answer is obvious: it's to make an example, to frighten other congregants into not doing said behavior. At its core, Excommunication isn't about crimes against God and humanity---it's about crimes/sins against the Church... which basically means, "Crimes that Threaten Church Power." They don't give a spit about women, rape victims or woman's rights, which is evident when a child who is raped is condemned while her rapist suffers no such backlash.

Originally Posted by Radek

That link is broken, my man. Care to supply us with a substitute?

What link?

Originally Posted by 8bit

What link?

The pic from Google Docs isn't working. Not even when you paste it into the address bar.