the official definition of antifeminism

[hansside]

The official definition of antifeminism is this:

Noun   1.   antifeminism - activity indicative of belief in the superiority of men over women
male chauvinism, chauvinism
sexism - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex

This only goes to show that feminists have the power, because it is those who get to define who have the power.

We have a long, long way to go.

For me feminism is not about equality, so how can antifeminism be about being against equality?

[gwallan]

The official definition of antifeminism is this:

Noun   1.   antifeminism - activity indicative of belief in the superiority of men over women
male chauvinism, chauvinism
sexism - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex

This only goes to show that feminists have the power, because it is those who get to define who have the power.

We have a long, long way to go.

For me feminism is not about equality, so how can antifeminism be about being against equality?

Where is this definition from? I would dispute it quite strongly. My opposition to feminism is firmly based on a strong belief in fairness which, in part, derives from my involvement with feminism over thirty years.
I helped swing the pendulum(and it was necessary in a number of areas) and now have a responsibility to help shift it back where it has overswung.

[dr e]

This is why we need to frame our efforts in terms that make sense to the average person on the street.  If we adopt names like anti-feminist then we risk being very misunderstood.  Just go to any dictionary and look up feminism.  What do you find?  You find a simple definition about wanting equality.  This is what most people think of when they think of feminism.  EQUALITY.  If you are anti-feminist then these same normal folks will assume automatically that you are against equality.  They have no idea of the lies and distortions of feminism.  They have no idea of the extent that feminism now is anti-equality. You know this but they don't.   What they know is what their dictionary tells them and what they have read in the news, that feminism is about wanting equal rights for women.  If you say you are anti-feminist then you must be some nutjob badguy who hates women and equality.  They are coasting on their name.

We really need to frame our efforts in terms that focus on the need for equality and fairness.  We could frame what we do in terms of human rights, civil rights or humanism.  All of those would fit very well.  I have yet to meet an anti-feminist who didn't want fairness for all and was interested in civil rights for both men and women.  

We could say, "We are for all people to be treated with dignity and respect and think that all folks need to be treated fairly.  Are you with us?  Is that what you want too?  If yes then let's look at the way domestic violence treatment centers don't treat everyone fairly.  Let's look at how family courts don't treat everyone fairly."  etc etc.

[bluedye]

If you are anti-feminist then these same normal folks will assume automatically that you are against equality.  They have no idea of the lies and distortions of feminism.  They have no idea of the extent that feminism now is anti-equality. You know this but they don't.

This is exactly the problem.   This coupled with articles & broadcasts that keep feeding the same myths to the public make the MRAs out to seem like a group with no real issues.  "What are they complaining about?  Maybe when THEY earn 76 cents for every dollar a woman does, THEN they'll have something to complain about!"

There's a total lack of compassion for our issues.  

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the term "whiner" used when MRAs bring issues to light.   Some people really have a hard time seeing men in the victim role.    This won't change easily.   For every article that's fair to men & discusses men's issues with integrity, there's probably 10 that throw men under the bus for the usual reasons.  

The good news is that the media likes juicy little tidbits.  Controversy sells papers as we all know.   Things like the Roe vs. Wade for men is stirring up some decent ink which is a great start in my opinion.  The public started to talk about the fairness of the situation & that's a huge step.   I was pleased to see that many folks thought the current system was unfair to men.

Public opinion will shift if enough court cases make the "media rounds" & if the right journalists pick up on any given issue.   If Katie Couric in her new CBS post, had a story exposing the wage gap myth that would be UNBELIEVABLE for our cause.  It will never happen due to her devoted allegiance to "the sisterhood", but a guy can dream, can't he?

[hansside]

Where is this definition from? I would dispute it quite strongly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antifeminism

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/antifeminism

http://www.answers.com/topic/antifeminism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antifeminism

[Darth Sidious]

This is why we need to frame our efforts in terms that make sense to the average person on the street. If we adopt names like anti-feminist then we risk being very misunderstood. Just go to any dictionary and look up feminism. What do you find? You find a simple definition about wanting equality. This is what most people think of when they think of feminism. EQUALITY. If you are anti-feminist then these same normal folks will assume automatically that you are against equality.

When we do this, we concede the power to define to our opponents, a losing strategy.

Besides, not everyone buys into the "equality" bullshit.  By what standard does one prove Person A is equal to Person B?  In observable experience, one finds people differ in their abilities and in the relative potency of their abilities.  Why do we still believe people are so different and yet still maintain they are "equal?"

If "equality" does exist, then what makes it "good?"

[dr e]

When we do this, we concede the power to define to our opponents, a losing strategy.

Quite the contrary.  By accepting a term like anti-feminist you are already submitting to be defined within the framework of your opponent.  

Besides, not everyone buys into the "equality" bullshit. By what standard does one prove Person A is equal to Person B? In observable experience, one finds people differ in their abilities and in the relative potency of their abilities. Why do we still believe people are so different and yet still maintain they are "equal?"

If "equality" does exist, then what makes it "good?"

Equality is far from the "be all and end all."  Sometimes fairness is a better way to look at things and I think in my post that is how I termed things.

[Darth Sidious]

Quite the contrary.  By accepting a term like anti-feminist you are already submitting to be defined within the framework of your opponent.

How so?  Correct me if I err, but the reason you advocate us not identifying ourselves as anti-feminists is because of how feminists have defined the word.  Undoubtedly, you understand the general public has been largely indoctrinated by feminism and its attitudes.  

Despite what feminists and their cheerleaders may say, I will not shy away from the label of anti-feminist; I will not let them intimidate me.  By doing so, I will not concede any ground and will challenge their ability to define the terms of the debate.  I will champion the cause they claim is "evil" and expose them for what they are by force of argument.  In such circumstances, the audience is likely to take at least some notice; they might even begin to question the wisdom of allowing harpies control over the dictionary.  As a matter of fact, they may even look upon anti-feminism more favourably and feminism less favourably.

Equality is far from the "be all and end all."  Sometimes fairness is a better way to look at things and I think in my post that is how I termed things.

Many MRA sites and those who contribute to them seem to think of equality as the "be all and end all."  Just about every post or article I see trumpets the cause of "equality."

I agree that fairness is a preferable point of view, but that is an island I rarely see in the sea of "equality."  Most seem to think of themselves as opposed to feminists as the "true advocates of equality between men and women."  I advocate fair treatment, not equality.

My points about equality were not prompted by any aversion to what you wrote; it is more my argument against "equality" and the cherished place it seems to have in the hearts of many in the Men's Movement.

Since my point of view differs from the majority to such an extent, I cannot really consider myself to be part of the movement.  I consider myself to be an ally (I make no claim as to my effectiveness in that capacity), but my views are simply too far from the mainstream of modern thought.  In light of this, I will spend the great majority of my time here and on other forums dedicated to these issues lurking.

[angryharry]

Go to it Darth!

I can see Dr Evil's point of view and agree wholeheartedly with the 'humanist' label. But I disagree completely with the view that calling oneself an anti-feminist does the cause any harm.

I think that it probably depends on who you are, and on how strong an impact you can make when dissussing the matter.

I, myself, have a 'big mouth', and when I identify myself as an anti-feminist I do, of course, raise an eyebrow or two - sometimes hostile ones - but **********I******** know that I can lead the conversation to a point where it is ****they**** who are looking stupid - not me.

I *******STRONGLY********* recommend that MRAs read, mark, inwardly digest and LEARN my short piece ....

http://www.angryharry.com/nobenefitsoffeminism.htm

... because, if they do this, and if they can see the **simple** connections between my list of 'benefits' and feminism, they will be able to flatten within a few minutes[/i] even the very loftiest of professors.

I do not recall myself ever in the past begging MRAs to do something, but I do beg them to do this. Read that short piece over and over again until you can rattle off a few of the items and make the relevant connections, and you have in your possession the most ***enormous*** cluster bomb.

[devia]

If by being antifeminist you'd deny women the right to vote or the ability to have an even playing field regarding work, expect to be dominant not because of worth but because of "what's between the legs", then yes you are pretty much a sex bigot and well deserving of the title of chauvinist.

There is a huge gap between those that say firefighters for instance should be employed because of merit alone and those that say women can never be firefighters. I would dare to say that the majority of our posters would vote in favor of not lowering standards, and would have no problem allowing those women that meet those standard to be employed.

I would assume that the dictionary definition of feminism is classic feminism, equal opportunity and individual worth. Hence an anti feminist would naturally be someone who wishes to block equal opportunity and individual choice. I've read enough online to see that there are a few of those out there.

[Sir Percy]

This is why we need to frame our efforts in terms that make sense to the average person on the street. If we adopt names like anti-feminist then we risk being very misunderstood. Just go to any dictionary and look up feminism. What do you find? You find a simple definition about wanting equality. This is what most people think of when they think of feminism. EQUALITY.

These are the same people, perhaps, who are taken in by the old Communist theft of concepts such as 'Democracy' and 'Of the People'. The Democratic People's Republics of this and that fool only the gullible but fool nonetheless. Misunderstanding? Being misunderstood?

Bugger what Feminist SAY they want, look at what they FORCE. Look at what they TAKE. Look at the enslavement they bring. Take back the word Equality and restore its meaning. Feminists have no love or regard for equality. There was a stage in human affairs when discussion and trying to make nonsense sense to the people was tried over and over but eventually a certain President, ex-actor, shocked the world by speaking the truth instead of euphemisms and diplomatic shite. The 'EVIL EMPIRE' he said.  What a script writer. Clear. Simple. Brief. Concise. Articulate. Truth. He threatened to obliterate communism. He backed up his threats with arms. Only then did Communism collapse.

Feminism is for LIARS and THIEVES. It is for those that live off the sweat of others. It is the Principality of the Princess of Lies.

[gwallan]

If by being antifeminist you'd deny women the right to vote or the ability to have an even playing field regarding work, expect to be dominant not because of worth but because of "what's between the legs", then yes you are pretty much a sex bigot and well deserving of the title of chauvinist.

There is a huge gap between those that say firefighters for instance should be employed because of merit alone and those that say women can never be firefighters. I would dare to say that the majority of our posters would vote in favor of not lowering standards, and would have no problem allowing those women that meet those standard to be employed.

I would assume that the dictionary definition of feminism is classic feminism, equal opportunity and individual worth. Hence an anti feminist would naturally be someone who wishes to block equal opportunity and individual choice. I've read enough online to see that there are a few of those out there.

Being an anti-feminist in 2006 is a little different to being one in 1966.

Women can vote and, furthermore, their vote doesn't depend on their willingness to fight and die for their country. Women are not denied the right to work or an even playing field. In fact the rules, via twenty year old affirmative action, are often tilted in their favour.

If I am an "anti-feminist" it is because feminism tells me I am a rapist, and violent, by virtue of "whats between my legs" and that even if I'm not I "benefit" because a few men are. My opposition is to the feminism that wants the world to think that children are not safe in my vicinity.

If feminism is still only about "equal opportunity and individual choice" then hasn't it reached it's use by date. In my country those things were achieved thirty years ago. So what are the feminists fighting for? Is it the removal of the presumption of innocence for men? Is it for women to have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? Maybe it's the reintroduction of poor houses for unemployed fathers.

No devia, if I am an anti-feminist it is because I oppose the likes of NOW and similar organisations who are the true "sexist bigots and chauvinists" in our societies.

[hansside]

There is a huge gap between those that say firefighters for instance should be employed because of merit alone and those that say women can never be firefighters. I would dare to say that the majority of our posters would vote in favor of not lowering standards, and would have no problem allowing those women that meet those standard to be employed.

Devia, I agree that Merit matters, not was is between the legs, but even this simple principle will actually bring me into collision with feminists.

Why? Have you ever heard of Affirmative Action, Mainstreaming, Gendermainstreaming etc?

Feminists are not happy until at least 50 percent of important positions in any important field are held be women, whether this *political ideal* is in correspondence with actual distributions of merit, ability, want, and need.

This is exactly why feminism is not one inch better than the system it critisises - namely the traditional one.

In fact feminism and patriarchy are very similar in that respect oppposing a true individualist system.

For example natural ability might give a 90 % men 10 % women distribution in firefighters. Then saying no women is wrong and stupi, but saying 50 % women is moreso.

Another example feminists regularly complain that only 30 % are females at physics departments when some women are turned down. What they "forget" to say is that ten times as many men apply, so in fact the relative and absolute number of men turned down is much greater. So in fact it is men who are disriminated against when taking into account the number of applicants.

Feminist wants the whole world to fit into its nasty narrow and very stupid political ideal.

[gwallan]

Why? Have you ever heard of Affirmative Action, Mainstreaming, Gendermainstreaming etc?

Every time these principles are applied, every time gender is the determining factor in appointment or promotion our overall standards are lowered.

Feminists are not happy until at least 50 percent of important positions in any important field are held be women, whether this *political ideal* is in correspondence with actual distributions of merit, ability, want, and need.

Of course where women hold more than fifty percent this is OK. Ref university enrolments.

[dr e]

Quite the contrary.  By accepting a term like anti-feminist you are already submitting to be defined within the framework of your opponent.

How so?  Correct me if I err, but the reason you advocate us not identifying ourselves as anti-feminists is because of how feminists have defined the word.  Undoubtedly, you understand the general public has been largely indoctrinated by feminism and its attitudes.  

No.  The reason I advocate avoiding the term anti-feminist is because of the population we are trying to persuade.  Almost all of this group (the majority of the United States population today) has swallowed the feminist perspective and now spout it and even defend it like automatons.  If you present yourself as an "anti-feminist" to them you become someone who is against them.  This leaves one in a position that is less than effective in gaining ground.  It is much more efficient to simply frame the conversation in a way that people can agree with you before you start.  Any time you sell things you look for little "yes'es."  You want people to say "yes" lots of times and in so doing you build a link between you that prepares them for the bigger yes that you need to make the sale.  Starting out in a lobbying situation as an "anti-feminist" in today's world is starting with a big "NO" and considering our numbers and power that is a killer.

We need all kinds of approaches in the work we are doing. Perhaps there are places where using the term anti-feminist would be in our favor.  We certainly need to get the point across that feminism is a hateful ideology and not what the dictionary claims.  Once that is done and people understand the misandry in feminism it will be more effective to use the name anti-feminist.  

What sorts of lobbying situations have you used it?  Is it just your acquaintances and family or do you speak publically on these issues?  If you speak publically what sorts of reactions have you gotten.  What sorts of changes have you helped facilitate?