Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Losty]

I prefer literary porn or home DD videos (doesn't even need sex), but if I am going to watch porn it's going to be gay porn unless someone else asks me to watch something else.
The plastic Barbie doll faking her orgasm is a major turn off for me.

When I said "gay," I meant male gay: i.e. that most men will get off on watching lesbians have sex, but I don't think most women will get off on watching gay men have sex. Nor will they (I think) much enjoy watching even a handsome, buff guy masturbating.

I totally agree about the Barbie doll and the obvious faking. I happen to like Japanese videos to look at, but I have to turn off the sound-- Japanese porn sounds like a chipmunk getting pushed through a wood chipper.

When I said I like to watch gay porn...I meant male on male. I'm not particularly into watching anyone masturbate but if I were I'd want it to be a man...not too buff though.

---

You are right in general though. I've read a study that showed both males and females regardless of sexual orientation are more aroused by women than men.

[psychoslice]

Who really cares if you like women or men, its ridiculers to argue about it, for me if it feels good do it, simple, why make a big song and dance about it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Show me any culture in which women are not raped.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...s=341x5029

The Ashanti as well seem to be remarkably free of the scourge of rape.

What's interesting about both those examples is that women are given at least equal status in society, and in the first, they were the avenues of inheritance.

If no men in a culture had the predisposed inclination toward rape, then there would not have been any mechanism by which rape could become part of any culture.

You're begging the question here. I can think of several other means by which rape becomes a cultural artifact. One is war; rape is used as a weapon to defeat the home front of a conquered enemy, and then those soldiers return home. Another is simple gender politics: because men literally have muscle, they could sometimes physically assume power in a society, and force unwilling women to have sex in order to secure resources or shelter.

I could go on, but you get my point: you're assuming what you want to demonstrate.

Therefore, "at least some men are genetically inclined to commit rape," and rape cannot be an exclusively cultural artifact.

The fallacy pointed out above renders this conclusion unsupported. You need to demonstrate a positive link between genetics and rape behavior in order to support your claim.

You've yet to do so.

The reason why I am arguing this point is because assigning a genetic component to rape would seem to me to at least partially absolve (some) rapists of the responsibility for their crime(s).

[MJ the Skeptical]

1 - Just because the law says so, it doesn't mean in happens like it says on the law

Okay, then name some areas where women are disenfranchised in the western world instead of just saying sometimes bad shit happens. Bad shit happens to every race, gender and creed, so what the fuck is your point when it comes to the western world. Then conversely, name some areas where men are oppressed and that just because the law says so doesn't mean that their rights are upheld as much as women, especially when it comes to criminal offenses where it's been prove that women will get less time for similar crimes than men.

2 - Men don't suffer oppression and if you think you're being oppressed when we hold the majority of public office, CEO's jobs, media outlets and means of production then you've just created a new definition of oppressed, give me a break...

Men don't suffer oppression? you're brainwashed, sorry. And I thought we got along at one point but until you resend this stupid comment, I no longer take you seriously on this topic. There is no oppression on women from getting CEO jobs, they are less driven to get to that point, there are plenty of studies on that indicate that. For the most part, men have traditionally been the ones aspiring for the highest careers and taking less time off from work. If you look at the statistics and you include things like paternity leave and what careers the genders tend to choose, it shows why there is this wage gap. It's only recently that women have been aspiring for higher positions, and it has everything to do with 1st wave feminism and nothing to do with 3rd wave whiny bullshit.

That becomes completely irrelevant since it's based on the sexist assumption that women are meant to be child bearers and raisers - In case you don't know (probably don't) rational feminists are against gender biases in court.

So you're going to just deny the fact that women have a leg up in those areas of alimony and child support and child custody (which are things they usually want) and chalk it up to a disadvantage? you really are a brainwashed feminazi and/or white knight. Also, you are admitting that the male can be the better parent, so why not fight against the women getting alimony and child support and child custody more often than men? oh, right, feminists enjoy advantages while claiming they are a bad thing, gotcha.

Not to mention it's completely idiotic to claim women are benefited when problems like slut-shaming, higher probability of suffering sexual assault and other problems are much more damaging and important than simply being granted child custody.

So stud-shaming doesn't exist? just like male oppression doesn't exist? I swear feminists are so blithely hypocritical and dogmatic in your assertions of oppression in the western world. Higher probability of sexual assault? uh no, it's about the same..And yes I am including prison sexual assault since men are statistically more likely to go to jail than woman are and more likely to get assaulted in prison than women. Oh look, another area where women are favored over men, but I guess you'll again chalk that up to society thinking women are too weak to do crime or some other stupid shit.

And why is that a good thing? Some might argue raising kids sucks and it's hardworking, some might even say it's a benefit for men.

Why is alimony and child support a benefit for men?....(sigh)

Ask the women who get it, they get to live off the men's paychecks scott free and can even take their house and half their shit. But you're going to complain about how getting the custody and free money is somehow not a benefit, shut the fuck up.

And you must be one of those young male that believes in the conspiracy theory that feminism is ruining your life and that women want to impose a new world order. Speaking about tumblr as if that was feminist literature is completely idiotic. And have you actually read any significant work of literature or study done by feminist authors on the matter?

Oh look, a feminist reducing someone down to their gender like that fucking matters if feminism was truly about gender equality (when it's not, it's about female supremacy) just like a true sexist would do. I wouldn't reduce a woman down to the sum of her reproductive parts like you would with me. Nice straw man there after that as well, when did I say or imply Feminism was ruining my life? that's just an ignorant assumption from a white knight who can't think critically about this issue. If you had any intellectual capacity whatsoever, you'd recognize that Egalitarianism is the only real label for gender equality, not focusing in on one fucking gender in a part of the world where they are equal.

If you really think women aren't equal yet in the western world, you haven't been paying attention very closely or are trying to get in the pants of some feminist you like perhaps. Also, how did this rambling of yours prove where is this campaign for actually oppressed women instead of these whiny 1st world problem hipster feminists? and how well is it doing for those women over there?

[bennyboy]

If no men in a culture had the predisposed inclination toward rape, then there would not have been any mechanism by which rape could become part of any culture.

You're begging the question here. I can think of several other means by which rape becomes a cultural artifact. One is war; rape is used as a weapon to defeat the home front of a conquered enemy, and then those soldiers return home. Another is simple gender politics: because men literally have muscle, they could sometimes physically assume power in a society, and force unwilling women to have sex in order to secure resources or shelter.

And are these men not genetically predisposed toward war, toward the need to defeat others, to conquer? You don't have to identify a rape-specific gene to see that the strong emotional motivations of the male human organism are going to lead to behaviors which are counterproductive to modern societies, and the happiness of the members of those societies.

I could go on, but you get my point: you're assuming what you want to demonstrate.

The fallacy pointed out above renders this conclusion unsupported. You need to demonstrate a positive link between genetics and rape behavior in order to support your claim.

http://everything2.com/title/Rape+and+ev...psychology

The second poster in this article has already done some research. After about 2 more minutes with google, I think there's enough research out there to justify starting a science thread about the issue of genetics and rape. I'm not sure there's really much more to be said in the context of atheism and anti-feminism that hasn't been said yet?

[Dystopia]

Okay, then name some areas where women are disenfranchised in the western world instead of just saying sometimes bad shit happens. Bad shit happens to every race, gender and creed, so what the fuck is your point when it comes to the western world. Then conversely, name some areas where men are oppressed and that just because the law says so doesn't mean that their rights are upheld as much as women, especially when it comes to criminal offenses where it's been prove that women will get less time for similar crimes than men.

Yes lighter sentences for women, something any equity feminist is against, but obviously your vast knowledge on the subject says otherwise.

Men don't suffer oppression? you're brainwashed, sorry. And I thought we got along at one point but until you resend this stupid comment, I no longer take you seriously on this topic. There is no oppression on women from getting CEO jobs, they are less driven to get to that point, there are plenty of studies on that indicate that. For the most part, men have traditionally been the ones aspiring for the highest careers and taking less time off from work. If you look at the statistics and you include things like paternity leave and what careers the genders tend to choose, it shows why there is this wage gap. It's only recently that women have been aspiring for higher positions, and it has everything to do with 1st wave feminism and nothing to do with 3rd wave whiny bullshit.

Really? Pulling out a personal insult and saying you no longer consider my position doesn't give you any credit.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_me...search.pdf

Also, it's hard to be oppressed, to be oppressed you need to have control over something, at least politics, social institutions, means of production, media, etc - The vast majority are controlled by men, even if all women hated me or you, they wouldn't be able to oppress us, because the government wouldn't allow it (obviously), and because they don't control political institutions to suppress an entire group

So you're going to just deny the fact that women have a leg up in those areas of alimony and child support and child custody (which are things they usually want) and chalk it up to a disadvantage? you really are a brainwashed feminazi and/or white knight. Also, you are admitting that the male can be the better parent, so why not fight against the women getting alimony and child support and child custody more often than men? oh, right, feminists enjoy advantages while claiming they are a bad thing, gotcha.

Again your ignorance on the subject and your insults to me are of no use. Feminists don't want benefits, they are against female privilege such as, but not only, child custody advantages, lighter sentences and better treatment for just being women. Obviously you're read so many blogs and literature that you can already claim feminists want all the benefits, if someone's brainwashed it must a certain typical male that spends too much time reading 9gag and tumblr posts insulting feminists that forget the benefits the movement has brought to everyone including men.

So stud-shaming doesn't exist? just like male oppression doesn't exist? I swear feminists are so blithely hypocritical and dogmatic in your assertions of oppression in the western world. Higher probability of sexual assault? uh no, it's about the same..And yes I am including prison sexual assault since men are statistically more likely to go to jail than woman are and more likely to get assaulted in prison than women. Oh look, another area where women are favored over men, but I guess you'll again chalk that up to society thinking women are too weak to do crime or some other stupid shit.

No, because feminists are against and repeal, criticize, not only male sexual assault in prison but also how society doesn't take male rape seriously. Dogmatic? No I'm critical, I stopped reading posts in 9gag insulting feminists and actually read a few articles by men and women who explain the problems, provide evidence and discuss topics without insulting the other part.

Why is alimony and child support a benefit for men?....(sigh)

This doesn't matter, what matters is that both can raise kids and there's no reason to not be equal on child support or custody laws - Just think about gay men, they can adopt right now in some countries like Holland and studies show kids grow up fine - This proves it's not women's exclusive feature to raise kids properly. And as I have already said, feminists are against those laws that benefit them - Simply because they're based on assumptions that women are weaker, or on very old fashioned values (i.e. Like the value that women are supposed to be providers people and the law still have)

Ask the women who get it, they get to live off the men's paychecks scott free and can even take their house and half their shit. But you're going to complain about how getting the custody and free money is somehow not a benefit, shut the fuck up.

Again being rude to me is not evidence for anything, nor your lack of knowledge on feminism is, you're part of the reason feminists get no credit - Because as soon as one of them gives good arguments why something can be sexist a guy like you spits out something like "Oh shut up just enjoy it don't be a prick" and dismiss what people have to say.

Also seemingly throwing out a typical prejudiced statement of how women live with men's money doesn't aid your cause either. Just because something brings benefits it doesn't make it good, for example I have immigrants living with welfare money and it's a benefit, but I'm still against it because it's unfair, the same goes for child custody laws.

Oh look, a feminist reducing someone down to their gender like that fucking matters if feminism was truly about gender equality (when it's not, it's about female supremacy) just like a true sexist would do. I wouldn't reduce a woman down to the sum of her reproductive parts like you would with me. Nice straw man there after that as well, when did I say or imply Feminism was ruining my life? that's just an ignorant assumption from a white knight who can't think critically about this issue. If you had any intellectual capacity whatsoever, you'd recognize that Egalitarianism is the only real label for gender equality, not focusing in on one fucking gender in a part of the world where they are equal.

If you had any intelligence, you'd know feminism is about equality for females, males, trans, people without gender and everyone. Your ignorance or disagreement doesn't change the definition, the fact you don't like it doesn't change the concept either.

If you really think women aren't equal yet in the western world, you haven't been paying attention very closely or are trying to get in the pants of some feminist you like perhaps. Also, how did this rambling of yours prove where is this campaign for actually oppressed women instead of these whiny 1st world problem hipster feminists? and how well is it doing for those women over there?

Actually unlike some people I'm not dictated by my sexual desires. Give me a break, if you are so worried about 3rd world why don't you do something about it? If we could all dump our trash the world would be better, improving first world problems helps third world because we influence those countries if we are better. On the other hand, I don't think any of the main problems are hipster as you put it, but of course you have so vast knowledge on the subject that you don't even know which are. The fact some people have it worse doesn't justify not solving the issue, i.e. We don't stop prosecuting assault because there's murder rights? The fact I've been paying too much attention is what drove me to this position
On the other hand, feminism benefited men: http://mic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-fe...ce-for-men

But obviously your opinion is that feminists want to rule the world - It's also funny that I've also provided some facts that can be freely discussed and you are yet to refute them, instead you just throw out bullshit about "women having advantages here and there" that feminists don't even like and dis-considering that the negatives are far worse than those small advantages. You also point out obvious problems we men have and forget that feminists fight against them and any feminist blog or forum will confirm you that. Do some research before. Your dunning-Kruger effect is strong on this one, you sound like those people who talk to me (law student) and claim to know everything about law and when they start talking it's noticeable that they never studied and made their own conventional conceptions with little to no value

[bennyboy]

Feminists don't want benefits, they are against female privilege such as, but not only, child custody advantages, lighter sentences and better treatment for just being women.
[. . .]
No, because feminists are against and repeal, criticize, not only male sexual assault in prison but also how society doesn't take male rape seriously.
[. . .]
And as I have already said, feminists are against those laws that benefit them
[. . .]
Again being rude to me is not evidence for anything, nor your lack of knowledge on feminism is, you're part of the reason feminists get no credit - Because as soon as one of them gives good arguments why something can be sexist a guy like you spits out something like "Oh shut up just enjoy it don't be a prick" and dismiss what people have to say.
[. . .]
If you had any intelligence, you'd know feminism is about equality for females, males, trans, people without gender and everyone. Your ignorance or disagreement doesn't change the definition, the fact you don't like it doesn't change the concept either.

Blackout, you may consider yourself a feminist. However, I don't think the way you define "feminism" is intrinsically more correct than other definitions, and even as a feminist, I don't think you get to define a specific kind of feminist to be representative of all. The truth is that anyone is a feminist whose ideal world view includes an improved position for females relative to the current social reality. This may include just basic liberties around the world, or full legally-enforced equality in the developed countries, or a global matriarchy that will survive for a thousand years.

The problem here is that the liberal moderates you are talking about are probably not the kind of feminists that the "anti-feminists" in the OP are positioning themselves against. You are trying to make it look like any anti-feminist must be anti-women, or even anti-common-sense, but that's both insulting and a little hypocritical. As I pointed out earlier, I think both atheists and anti-feminists are fighting against the imposition of "right" thinking by those who feel entitled to make that imposition. It's about the degree to which any "-ism" has the right to dictate what we are supposed to think, feel or believe.

[Dystopia]

global matriarchy that will survive for a thousand years.

[bold mine] - Your proposal doesn't change the fact that a global matriarchy doesn't fit into the idea of feminism, but rather misandry - It's the same thing as saying because I'm a capitalist I favour exploiting workers - I don't because I accept and feel the need of labour laws. You are proposing that but haven't provided any evidence that the majority of feminists think like that, simply reading an article of feminists defending men's problems like male rape will prove what I'm saying. The so called feminazis don't make up significant parts of the population and don't have power to impose their ideas to people, no one likes them really, who does after all?

Other problem is that you're defining feminism yourself conveniently. The fact feminism is fighting for equal rights doesn't change if you don't agree with the definition, your opinion on the definition is as irrelevant as mine on behalf of all authors and people with knowledge who've worked on it. Asking any feminist, any dictionary, a sociology book and all of that will answer you with the definition of equal rights... It's true that there's more focus on women, just like LGBT have more focus on gays and trans, but that's the whole idea behind the movement, it doesn't mean they'll oppress the other group ( men, straight, cisgender, etc) - Its important to say feminism is not the same as years ago and nowadays it's much more inclusive, i.e. When feminism started it was still racist and only for white straight women's rights and so on, nowadays it is for all races and focuses on men's problems (evidence of that is Betty Friedan who was a racist and homophobe)

In your case you claim to be agnostic, but imagine you were an atheist, and because of a minority of atheists bashing religious people everyone thought being an atheist meant being a bigot - Would you like that? It happens with atheism as well, the reason many people simply identify as agnostic is because they think there's a stigma associated with the word atheist as dogmatic.

[bennyboy]

Other problem is that you're defining feminism yourself conveniently.

No I'm not. I'm defining it in the most general possible terms, to include all those who consider themselves feminist. As I said, just because you are a feminist, or know feminists, doesn't mean that your more narrow definition must be accepted, and that those who fall outside that definition are not also feminists.

The atheists here have dealt with this semantic issue. That's why the "official" line, such as it is, is that the only requirement of atheism is that someone lack an active belief in a God/gods. Of course, there are many here that have an active disbelief that God can exist, or even a few who believe that religious institutions should be forcibly removed from the face of the Earth, or whatever. But they're all atheist, and nobody gets to say they represent THE atheism.

If you really wanted to push it, and demand that when I'm talking to you, I accept your definition of feminism, I'd say two things: 1) the feminists you are talking about are okay by me-- I have positive feelings toward them; 2) your insistence on getting to define the word narrowly, and on coercing me to use that definition in the context of this thread, would represent the kind of dogma that would probably get me to declare as anti-feminist, at least in the current context.

[Dystopia]

But do you think it is fair for people to be afraid to label themselves as atheists because of some unpopular worldviews on society/politics?

If feminism is gender equality, it's counterproductive to define it as misandry... I's quite simple - Feminism -/- Misandry, different concepts, just like being pro-men's rights is not the same as being misogynist don't you think? Would you be anti-LGBT if some people thought straight people should be oppressed?

BTW, I'm not coercing you, for that I'd have to threaten you with force (definition of coercion) - I'm just stating how definitions work. Like atheism just requires lack of belief, feminism requires "belief" in equality.