this is standard anti-male shaming language. it ALWAYS shows up in gender discussions because it's a great way to instantly discredit anyone without actually using an argument.
notice how there isn't any actual content in the rebuttal and how it is completely infalsifiable and indefensible. it's the equivalent of dropping the c-word in an argument against a woman.
shaming language against males:
* grow up, be a man, man up
* you're a virgin / inexperienced
* "issues with women"
* you're bitter
* you're scary
* you're a rapist
* you must be gay (not sure why people use this one)
* you hate women
* you have psychological issues
you must be gay (not sure why people use this one)
People use that because they think a man acting like a woman (by having sex with men, by being the receptive partner in sex, by being penetrated, etc.) is a terrible thing for a man to do. Some homophobia is a form of misogyny, hating men who act woman-like.
Or it could be seen as hating women who don't act feminine?
"misandry" as an institutualised hatred against men for being men and hatred and degeration of masculine things and activity doesn't really exist in the same was people view feminine as weak & not as good exists.
There is also a lot of gender roles that people break, which feminism is attempting to break down.
I've seen men publicly accuse feminists of being lesbians to explain "an otherwise inexplicable hatred of men."
You're not going to get very far towards any kind of understanding by taking the least worthwhile arguments made by a group of people and projecting that belief on everyone else. That dog won't hunt and it just looks silly.
What's the purpose of this comment? I obviously don't think all feminists walk around saying that. I was simply explaining why that particular shaming tactic was included in the list above.
Really? Got a citation? That sort of homophobia is very uncommon and very unacceptable in many feminist and social justice circles.
(e.g. the large reddit subcommunity dedicated to feminism & social justice "ShitRedditSay"/"SRS"/"the Fempire" has a large discussion (SRSDiscussion) with Rule #1 being: "SRSD is a progressive, feminist, antiracist, GSRM-positive, antiableist community", GSRM = gender, sexual & relationship minorities, i.e. anyone not a cis straight monoagomous person. Homophobic language would fall afoul of that)
Sentence 1) I'm a victim. I'm oppressed by women who won't allow me to express my opinion because it differs from theirs. I believe in equality so I guess I'm implying they don't. Sentence 2) I'm uncomfortable talking about this so I'll try and say let's not talk about it at all and just focus on some abstract technology discussion.
3) We're doomed. You can't solve the problem. It's just the way it is so leave it the way it is. (I kind of like the status quo even though I was just objecting to a status quo mentality)
Sentence 1 speaks only about the "women in tech" movement. The fact that "women in tech" self selects a mostly women population does not mean that commenting on it is commenting on women.
Sentence 2 is again speaking specifically about "women in tech" event, not about talking about the subject.
Sentence 3, is admittedly a defeatist attitude. However if there is nothing we can do about it, then why should we waste our time talking about it. In this case it is more of, if the people who are heavilly invested in this have not come up with something we can do about it yet, why should I waste my time unless I want to be a major activist. And, based on point 1, the movement is already hostile to what I have to say, so forget about it.
Admitadly, I am probably projecting my own thoughts on sentence 3.
Your projections are completely accurate. The only thing I would add is that my own fiancee is a woman in tech (she's a frontend developer), so it isn't like I'm hostile to women in tech or anything.
Sentence 1: If you disagree with something you get nothing but ridicule and insults. You just proved that point. Sorry, some people are just not worth arguing with, for example people with that discussion style, like you and most feminist. Or most fans of homeopathy. Or most jehovah's witnesses. Or other esoteric world views, preferably with a very strong in-group/out-group mentality. Case closed.
If we accept that there's such a thing as feminism, it would make sense that it would have a current status quo. The argument would be if you agree with their definition of the status quo or not.
> If we accept that there's such a thing as feminism, it would make sense that it would have a current status quo.
This doesn't make sense. Most movements that are composed of many different groups with different interests never reach a status quo. Mass movements are rare and usually are not as mass as they are made out to be. Acting like feminism is a monolith and that all feminists act or think a certain way is one of the most common stereotype out there.
Modern western feminism certainly has widely accepted dogma, but there are exist bitter battles between competing factions.
That being said, the largest factions don't exactly cover all sides of an issue, to put it mildly, so the existence of factions doesn't make anything better.
For example, the argument over transsexuals (mentioned by @rmc) has two main factions within modern western feminism:
1. "Transsexual women aren't real women; they're just men who are co-opting the brutal oppression real western women face, drowning out real women's voices."
2. "If you feel that you are a woman, then you are a woman. You do not need to present yourself as a woman, you do not need to be a woman every day, and you do not need to chose between being a man and being a woman at any given moment—you can be both. Anyone who questions your womanhood is a misogynist, because they are oppressively forcing their definition of womanhood onto a woman."
Absolutely not. People are totally free to write and talk however they want to. Your conceptions about profanity are subjective and personal, don't try and impose them on others. If people are using hate speech, or being discriminatory, that's different, but colourful language harms no-one except those intent on being offended for no good reason. A more rewarding path would be to respond to the content of what is written, rather than the tone.
It's a typical stance taken by people ignorant of the grievances of a minority or oppressed group. It's like saying, "I believe all the problems here are simple and solved except for trivial exceptions". "I believe in equality" is an easy stance to take without doing any research.
Edit: My fault for not explaining further: Pasted just below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6045814